$200,000 civil lawsuit by Royal Military College cook alleged harassment, discrimination and flawed police investigation
A civilian cook who reported being physically attacked by a coworker at the Royal Military College lost his entire lawsuit after an Ontario court ruled his claims must go through the federal grievance process instead.
Justice Sylvia Corthorn struck Saket Mittal's statement of claim against the Attorney General of Canada without allowing him to amend it, concluding that his workplace harassment and negligence claims were barred by federal labour law.
Mittal had sought $200,000 in damages over allegations of discrimination, harassment, and what he characterized as a failed investigation that resulted in him being charged with public mischief after reporting the incident to Military Police.
Allegations of verbal, physical attack
Mittal worked as a cook in the Cadet Dining Hall at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont., beginning in 2017 or 2018. He alleged years of discriminatory and harassing conduct from three coworkers, including issues related to his religious-based vegetarianism, failure to provide mandatory food safety training, and inadequate sanitary facilities.
The situation escalated in March 2021 when Mittal said the harassment intensified. The following month, he alleged one of his coworkers launched a verbal and physical attack against him.
After Mittal reported the incident to Military Police, he alleged that "rather than perform a fulsome investigation, Saket was charged by the Military Police wing of DND with public mischief." Saket was charged on or about May 28, 2021. The charges were withdrawn completely for no reasonable prospect of conviction on or about February 10, 2022.
Claims related to conditions of employment
The Attorney General of Canada argued that Section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act created a jurisdictional bar preventing Mittal from pursuing his claims in civil court. The provision states that "the right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute."
Justice Corthorn agreed, citing appellate authority that the statute "provide employees with a very broad right to grieve any occurrence or matter affecting the terms or conditions of their employment."
The court found that Mittal's allegations of harassment, discrimination, and the employer's failure to prevent or address coworker conduct all related to conditions of his employment. Even his claim about unfair treatment and inadequate fact-finding before serious actions were taken fell within grievable territory.
Claims struck, no second chance
Mittal conceded during the proceedings that his workplace harassment claims were barred by the federal labour law. He attempted to reframe his case as one of malicious prosecution, but the court found his pleading failed to establish essential elements of that claim.
Justice Corthorn concluded "it would not be just, in the circumstances, to grant the plaintiff leave to attempt to recast his original claims – in workplace harassment and negligence, against all the defendants – as a claim in malicious prosecution against the AGC."
The court ordered Mittal to pay $8,500 in legal costs to the defendants. Given that Mittal's income had decreased by approximately $8,000 per year after leaving his position at the Cadet Dining Hall, the court provided that if the parties are unable to agree upon a payment plan, the costs shall be payable within 120 days of the ruling. The parties may consent to a payment plan extending beyond 120 days.
