OLRB says company 'did not satisfy the burden' to prove that employee 'could reasonably have avoided some of the loss she claims'
The Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) has ordered Randstad Canada to pay a former employee $195,833 after finding her termination was a reprisal for filing a workplace harassment complaint.
The latest Vanessa Braganza v Randstad Canada decision follows an earlier finding of liability under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
In the Oct. 17, 2025 decision, the board said Randstad “had engaged in a reprisal against the applicant, Vanessa Braganza, contrary to section 50 of the Act, by terminating her employment in response to her having filed a workplace harassment complaint.”
Braganza – a seasoned manager recruited by Randstad in 2021 – filed a complaint after witnessing, on three occasions, “a juvenile and vulgar party game” at corporate events. Her employment ended on March 31, 2023.
The worker – who represented herself – did not seek reinstatement but asked for monetary remedies. Randstad agreed that her total annual compensation, including benefits, was $106,000, or $8,833 per month. The combined liability and remedy hearings ran for 17 days, concluding on Jan. 7, 2026, with the decision released May 1.
“The very integrity of the Employment Standards Act (ESA) is under assault in the case of an employee seeking its enforcement, and if left unaddressed by the state, such reprisal would eventually reduce the statute to an enactment ‘writ on water,” said the board, citing the 2019 decision L & L McCaw Holdings Ltd.
Scope of remedies and wage‑loss calculation
In Braganza , the OLRB said that in reprisal cases, it commonly considers three heads of compensation:
- for direct wage loss
- for loss of reasonable expectation of continued employment
- for emotional pain and suffering.
In this case, it ultimately awarded damages for direct income loss and for injury to dignity and mental distress.
The board restated that its prima facie remedy for wage loss in a reprisal dismissal is to award “an applicant’s wages from the date of loss of employment to the final hearing day, less any income earned from alternative employment.” It relied on subsection 50(3) of the OHSA and the remedial powers in section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which allow it to “compensate … for loss of earnings or other employment benefits in an amount that may be assessed by the Board.”
Randstad argued that a subsequent restructuring in its RIS division meant Braganza would not have remained employed until the end of the hearing. It filed evidence about revenue, full‑time equivalent staffing levels and employment terminations between August 2021 and October 2024, and submitted that she would have been included in layoffs regardless of the reprisal finding.
However, the board said it was unable to determine if, without the reprisal, Braganza would have been laid off in one of the earlier waves of layoffs. It concluded “it is more probable than not that Ms. Braganza would have been laid off when RIS was disbanded in October 2024,” and that she should have received a further three months’ pay in lieu of notice, to January 2025.
Previously, the OLRB dismissed an attempt by a former Triple M Metal worker to revive a withdrawn Occupational Health and Safety Act reprisal complaint.
Mitigation, causation and final award
On mitigation, Braganza testified she had no employment income after her termination and produced tax assessments and a spreadsheet listing about 700 job applications, mainly via LinkedIn. Randstad criticised the quality and targeting of her search. Citing the 1975 Red Deer College v. Michaels, the OLRB held that “if it is the defendant’s position that the plaintiff could reasonably have avoided some part of the loss claimed, it is for the defendant to carry the burden of that issue” and found “Randstad did not satisfy the burden … to prove that Ms. Braganza could reasonably have avoided some of the loss she claims.”
As for a delay in filing, Randstad pointed to the period between the March 31, 2023 termination and the Nov. 6, 2023 filing. But the board noted both parties had initially retained counsel to pursue settlement, stating it “strongly encourages parties’ attempts to resolve disputes by means of negotiation” and refused to reduce compensation on that basis.
The board awarded 22 months’ pay at $8,833 per month, totalling $194,333, and no additional amount for loss of reasonable expectation of continued employment.
Also, the board awarded $1,500 “for injury to the dignity of the employee and mental distress,” for a total of $195,833 in damages.
Previously, a long-tenured Toronto Transit Commission engineering technologist’s claim of unlawful reprisal after his termination was overruled by the ORLB. The individual had filed a harassment complaint against his manager, then forwarded a superseded version of the investigator's findings to the TTC chair and to his manager's professional regulator. He was later dismissed.
