When can you get Stress Leave at Work – Lawyer

M.P. v. R.A., 2010 ONCA 384

In this case, the worker filed a lawsuit against her company for the deliberate infliction of mental distress following verbal abuse and harassment from her supervisor. The employee, M.P., claimed that the sustained abusive conduct from her supervisor, R.A., had caused her significant psychological harm.

This case was significant in its examination of the boundaries of employer liability for the intentional infliction of mental suffering in the workplace. The Court clarified the requirements for proving such claims. To succeed in a claim for the deliberate infliction of mental distress, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct was “flagrant and outrageous,” that the conduct was intended to cause harm or was reckless as to whether harm would ensue, and that the conduct indeed caused the plaintiff to suffer a visible and verifiable disorder.

While acknowledging the potential validity of claims for deliberate infliction of mental anguish, the Court emphasized the substantial challenges in proving these claims. The court highlighted that the behaviour in question must be extreme and exceed all possible bounds of decency, which sets a high threshold for plaintiffs. The ruling underscored the necessity for clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s actions were not only intentional or reckless but also directly caused a serious and identifiable psychological injury to the plaintiff.

This case sets a framework for both employees and employers in addressing issues of workplace harassment and the legal ramifications of such conduct. The decision illustrates the Court’s careful balancing of recognizing legitimate claims of workplace abuse while ensuring that the threshold for proving such claims remains firm to prevent frivolous or vexatious lawsuits.

Honda Canada Inc. v. K.K. [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362

After taking a stress leave, K.K., an employee with chronic fatigue syndrome, was terminated by Honda Canada Inc. Afterwards, K.K. filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination and sought additional damages for the manner in which he was dismissed, alleging that the employer’s actions caused him undue emotional distress. This case demonstrates important principles regarding the awarding of damages for wrongful dismissal, particularly when emotional suffering is involved.

The Court emphasized that if damages for mental anguish resulting from the dismissal process are predictable and reasonably flow from the breach of the employment contract, they must be compensable. This means that employers must take care in how they handle dismissals, as mistreatment during the process can lead to additional liability for mental distress.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the framework for determining the appropriate amount of punitive damages in wrongful dismissal cases that involve emotional suffering. The Court ruled that punitive damages, which are awarded to punish and deter particularly egregious conduct, should be awarded only in exceptional cases where the employer’s behaviour is harsh, vindictive, reprehensible, and an abuse of power. In K.K.’s case, the Court found that Honda’s conduct did not warrant punitive damages because it did not meet the high threshold of being sufficiently malicious or outrageous. This decision had significant implications for employment law in Canada.

It established that while employees could receive compensation for mental anguish or distress caused by the manner of their dismissal, the bar for awarding punitive damages remains high. Employers must ensure they handle dismissals with care and fairness to avoid additional liability for mental anguish. The case also serves as a cautionary tale for employers about the importance of treating employees with respect and dignity, especially during termination processes, to prevent potential legal repercussions.

Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board v. S.F., 2016 ONCA 421

This case involved an employee, S.F., who filed a discrimination claim after being terminated by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board due to mental health-related absenteeism.

S.F., who suffered from an anxiety disorder as well as depression, asserted that her dismissal was discriminatory and that the school board had failed to accommodate her mental health conditions. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which found in favor of S.F. The Court emphasized the necessity of accommodating employees with mental health disorders and reinforced the obligation of employers to provide a compelling and evidence-based justification for terminations that are claimed to result from undue hardship.

The decision highlighted that the standard for proving undue hardship is stringent and requires employers to demonstrate that accommodating the employee’s mental health needs would cause significant difficulty or expense, beyond mere inconvenience. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principles of accommodation, stressing that employers must take proactive measures to manage occupational stress and mental health issues.

This includes creating a supportive work environment, making necessary adjustments to the employee’s job duties or work conditions, and engaging in a meaningful and interactive process to find reasonable accommodations. The ruling shows us that generally speaking, employers are not allowed to dismiss employees based solely on mental health-related absenteeism without first exploring all possible, reasonable accommodations. The Court also noted that employers must document their efforts to accommodate and must be able to show that they have exhausted all reasonable options before concluding that accommodation is not feasible.

This case shows how important it is to implement the duty to accommodate in the workplace. It reinforces the legal and ethical obligations of employers to address mental health issues with sensitivity and diligence, and it ensures that employees are protected from discrimination based on mental health conditions.