How to move from ‘Boys will be boys’ to real accountability

When Fiona McFarlane saw recent headlines about allegations against a radio co-host at Toronto radio station Q107, her reaction was blunt: “Really, we're still arguing that ‘Boys will be boys?’”

The case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal reminds her of the Jian Ghomeshi saga years ago — involving a former CBC co-host — “where there was a culture of impunity, partly because of a celebrity,” says the senior associate and workplace investigator at KSW Lawyers in Surrey, B.C.

“Regrettably, we're still a bit in that place.”

Many workplaces have not changed with the times, says McFarlane, reflecting on the post‑#MeToo backlash and recent developments in the U.S.

“[It] has created a bit of a culture of impunity in some of these workplaces,” she says, despite differences in Canadian law.

“Regrettably, I've seen that kind of approach from employers as well, like, deflect and blame the victim.”

Campaign of sexual harassment

Rika Sawatsky, principal lawyer at Clausework in Toronto, says the allegations of gender-based discrimination at Q107 reflect familiar patterns, particularly for women in male‑dominated settings. She points to on‑air comments described by the CBC — such as co-host John Derringer calling a breast reduction “the cruelest surgery that a woman could have” because of “what it denies a man.”

“On top of that, there is this non‑consensual discussion of the woman's body and objectifying it without her permission on air for everybody, which again is taking away that consent and power,” says Sawatsky.

In response to the complaints at the tribunal, Derringer said: “Nobody was hired or nobody participated thinking this was a religious retreat, it was a male-dominated radio show in a very competitive market,” according to the CBC.

But the fact that you may have male clientele does not therefore make harassment part of the job, says Sawatsky. “There are still many layers to ensuring a respectful workplace amongst the individuals there.”

“If you see that this is a bunch of incidents that are actually connected by a goal of subordinating her relative to the male co-workers in the workplace, then it is a campaign of sexual harassment.”

Why ‘guys being guys’ no defence

And employers cannot look the other way.

“Legally, employers really shouldn't be letting shop talk continue on the basis that it's just a bunch of guys being guys or it's just locker room talk,” she says.

And tribunals and courts have recognized that just because you're a man doesn't mean you have to put up with locker room talk, says Sawatsky — but the changes needed are slow to happen: “We have this ingrained, societal expectation that this is what men should be putting up with.”

On the human rights side, she says, there is a common law obligation that if an employer becomes aware of a poisoned work environment, they have a duty to investigate.

“The law is clear that you don't need a formal complaint in order to start or trigger the duty to investigate on the OHSA side.”

Sawatsky also warns against assuming that if no one is complaining, there is no problem.

“We have lots of evidence now about why it's a very understandable and justifiable result [that] a survivor would mask their concerns and go along with the concerning behaviour as a matter of survival in the workplace.”

From ‘Don’t do this’ to meaningful training

To combat the ongoing challenges of gender-based discrimination and harassment, training is key. But what kind of training will truly resonate?

Traditional harassment training that focuses on lists of prohibited behaviours — “Don't touch each other,” “Don't talk about your sexual escapades,” “Don't make jokes even if you think that they're lighthearted” — often falls flat in male‑dominated settings, according to Sawatsky.

This “forbidden behaviour training” tends to backfire, particularly where it triggers a sense of “group threat” among men being told “You are the problem.” Given that most men aren't the problem, she says, it is understandable they may resent being “painted with the same brush.”

Instead, Sawatsky recommends bystander — or “upstander” — training as one piece of a broader approach, by acknowledging, “Hey, actually, you have a very powerful role to play here. And you can be profoundly more effective as a [male] bystander than… a woman bystander… because you’ve been stereotyped as being the problem but, in fact, you’re the champion.”

Bystander intervention also has to account for safety, she notes: “What we have to do is stand up for each other and make respect the norm.”

Beyond the ‘typical’ harassment script

However, Sawatsky cautions against seeing male‑dominated industries as entirely distinct from “typical” workplaces — or assuming harassment always fits a familiar script.

She notes that many practitioners still treat “run-of-the-mill” sexual harassment as a man using some kind of overt sexual behaviour toward a woman in the workplace, often with the male being higher in the hierarchy.

“That is almost like a trope now that you see repeated in a lot of training programs, policies and programs,” Sawatsky says.

“That is such a small fraction of what's going on in workplaces, even ones that are not male-dominated,” she says, and when policies and training are built around that narrow scenario, they lay the groundwork for missing a lot of sexual harassment “because it’s the wrong hypothesis.”

Upwards harassment and policing women in authority

In male‑dominated workplaces, Sawatsky says academic research on the “group threat” helps explain why women in authority face particular risks.

“If a woman is filling a role that is higher up and also coded male in a workplace that is supposed to have men as a matter of course occupying these higher positions, that entry of the woman is considered or viewed by some men… as a threat.”

In response, there is social policing behaviour happening from either co-workers or subordinates.

“The upwards harassment is a very common thing that happens in male-dominated workplaces where women dare to occupy positions of management,” she says, referring to a recent case involving a police force.

The situation is further compounded because many female managers hesitate to report harassment from subordinates because it might be perceived as a sign of weakness and they might face further retaliation.

Anti‑reprisal protections must be front and centre

In male‑dominated workplaces where fear of backlash runs high, both experts say anti‑reprisal protections must be clearly spelled out and actively enforced.

Anti‑reprisal messages should be part of a training in explaining that that kind of retaliatory culture — the “tall poppy syndrome” where people who stick their head up above the clouds risk being chopped down — is not allowed, says McFarlane.

Sawatsky, however, warns employers to be cautious about policy language that threatens severe consequences.

“I’ve noticed a lot of, for example, policies that say, ‘We will not tolerate bad faith complaints against somebody,’” she says. “If you threaten pre‑emptively to come down hard on anybody who brings up a false complaint in a context where you know men will close ranks in a male‑dominated workplace, you're going to be suppressing a lot of legitimate complaints there.”

Policy, process and early legal advice

McFarlane says strong policies and early action are essential, particularly in sectors with a history of problems.

“I always recommend to employers: ‘Regularly review your policies, make sure you've updated your policies.’ The law doesn't change a lot in this area, but it can,” she says, along with doing yearly reminders with employees on what’s considered harassment and how to make a complaint.

Anonymous tip lines can be effective; however, they can also be tricky if a complaint is vague on details, says McFarlane. To ensure people feel heard, she recommends several points of contact, such as a direct supervisor or HR professional, in-person or in writing, or a dedicated email address.

The policy should also outline the consequences if an investigation finds there was harassment, and that discipline could lead to termination, says McFarlane.

And she urges employers to invest in early legal advice when they hear something “bubbling up.”

“If you hear something, start off by getting even just a bit of advice because it'll save you money in the long run.”

McFarlane also points to the reputational risk of public proceedings.

“Q107 is in a public forum at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and it's all over the news, so by nipping things in the bud, you really can avoid some of that public knowledge about it,” she says.

“It’s not a question of like NDAs and sweeping things under the rug, it’s very much if you truly believe in your company's reputation, you’ll want to maintain it.”

Getting discipline right

Disciplinary decisions — after harassment is confirmed through a proper investigation — carry high stakes, particularly when they involve high‑profile or high‑performing employees. McFarlane says employers must remember their duty is “to everybody in your workplace,” not only to one individual’s performance metrics.

She points to parallels with celebrity‑driven cases such as Jian Ghomeshi, where “if you've got that celebrity who's untouchable, it’s a huge problem… there’s still this protection of… that star performer” who doesn’t get disciplined.

“You have to decide… as an employer, between profit — that high-sales performer is bringing in money — but is it at the cost of your reputation?”

Communicating the outcomes of these investigations to staff can also be effective in showing your commitment to enforcing policies and a supportive culture. But McFarlane stresses privacy constraints.

“We have, throughout the country, pretty robust protections for employee personal information, and that would include everything up to and including the reasons for the ending of employment,” whether someone quits ahead of a likely finding or is terminated, she says.

Sawatsky recommends transparency, particulary if there is a clearcut case where somebody did engage in harassment and was let go.

"You can absolutely talk about that because… the fallout from that isn’t just the one complainant and that person. There was definitely a full workplace that was impacted by it," she says.

“Talking about it and trying to grow together from it is going to be way more effective than, ‘hush hush’ and NDA it away."

In some senior‑level cases, it makes more sense to have somebody “retire gracefully and take all their benefits,” which may not be possible if there’s a termination, McFarlane notes. But the employee’s personal information would be protected under the various privacy laws.

At the same time, as in a recent Vancouver symphony matter where an NDA was alleged, non‑disclosure agreements are “a definite issue… when they're designed to shut somebody up and muzzle them,” she says.

Even without an NDA, McFarlane cautions both sides to be careful about disparaging statements that could support defamation claims — especially if they lead to lost jobs or lost clients.

Changing norms from the inside out

Ultimately, Sawatsky says, combating harassment in male‑dominated workplaces requires sustained efforts to shift underlying societal and gender norms “that are driving these power-based differentials in the workplace,” including the entitlement that allegedly saw three male co‑hosts in the Q107 case feel they could "police" their female colleague’s participation.

That kind of change is going to take a lot longer, she says.

“A combination between the bystander training and then slowly trying to find champions for norm changing behaviour, making respect the norm combined together, I think, is ultimately going to have a much longer-term and successful result,” she says — far more than simply repeating lists of prohibitions.

“We are never going to ‘Don't do this’ our way out of sexual harassment in the workplace. It's just not going to happen.”