Employment disputes frequently arise from deeply personal and emotionally charged workplace experiences. Employees who believe they have been mistreated often look to the civil courts for redress, particularly where allegations include harassment, reputational harm, or involvement with the criminal justice system. However, not all workplace disputes can be pursued through civil litigation. For federally regulated employees, Parliament has created a comprehensive labour relations framework that significantly restricts access to the courts.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision in Mittal v. Department of National Defence provides a detailed and cautionary illustration of these limits. The case addresses the intersection of employment law, labour relations legislation, negligence claims, and malicious prosecution, ultimately reinforcing the breadth of statutory grievance regimes and the high pleading threshold for tort claims arising out of employment relationships.
This decision is particularly relevant to employees working in the federal public service and to employers navigating the jurisdictional boundaries between labour law and civil liability. It also offers broader lessons about how courts characterize claims based on their “essential character,” regardless of how they are framed in pleadings.
Dispute Arose From Allegations of Workplace Harassment in Department of National Defence
The plaintiff, a civilian employee of the Department of National Defence (DND), worked as a cook at the Cadet Dining Hall at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario. During his employment, he alleged that he experienced ongoing workplace harassment and discrimination from colleagues and supervisors. These allegations included concerns related to religious accommodation, training deficiencies, workplace safety, sanitation, and interpersonal conflict.
The situation escalated in April 2021, when the plaintiff reported a physical and verbal altercation to the Military Police. Instead of resulting in charges against others, criminal charges were laid against the plaintiff himself. Those charges were ultimately withdrawn in February 2022 for lack of a reasonable prospect of conviction.
In November 2022, the plaintiff commenced a civil action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking $200,000 in damages. His claim alleged workplace harassment, negligence by his employer, and reputational harm flowing from the criminal prosecution. The defendants did not deliver a statement of defence but instead brought a motion to strike the claim at the pleadings stage.
The Statutory Framework Governing Federal Employees
Central to the court’s analysis was the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA), which governs labour relations for federal public servants. The statute provides a broad grievance process intended to resolve disputes related to the terms and conditions of employment.
Section 236 of the FPSLRA is particularly significant. It states that an employee’s right to seek redress through the grievance process is “in lieu of any right of action” the employee might otherwise have in relation to the same dispute. This language creates what courts have consistently described as a strong jurisdictional bar to civil litigation where the dispute falls within the scope of employment-related matters.
Importantly, this bar applies whether or not the employee actually files a grievance. The availability of the grievance mechanism itself is sufficient to oust the court’s jurisdiction.
Framing the Legal Issues Before the Court
The court was required to determine four principal issues. First, whether the plaintiff’s claims were statute-barred by the FPSLRA. Second, whether the statement of claim disclosed any reasonable cause of action. Third, whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his pleadings. Finally, whether discovery-related relief was available if the claims against individual defendants were struck.
Although the plaintiff initially advanced claims for workplace harassment and negligence, he ultimately conceded that the harassment allegations fell squarely within the FPSLRA grievance regime. The court therefore focused on whether the negligence claim, and a later-articulated claim for malicious prosecution, could survive.
Determining the “Essential Character” of the Negligence Claim
A key principle in employment litigation is that courts look beyond the labels applied to causes of action and instead examine the essential character of the dispute. If the substance of the claim arises from the employment relationship, statutory labour regimes will generally apply.
In this case, the plaintiff argued that his negligence claim extended beyond ordinary workplace issues because it involved allegedly careless conduct leading to criminal charges. He asserted that his employer failed to act fairly, failed to investigate properly, and made statements that resulted in serious reputational and professional harm.
The court rejected this framing. It held that allegations concerning fairness, supervision, workplace investigations, and internal communications all relate to the terms and conditions of employment. Even where the alleged consequences are severe, including criminal prosecution, the originating conduct remained rooted in the employment relationship.
The court emphasized that federal labour legislation provides employees with an exceptionally broad right to grieve “almost any workplace issue.” As a result, the negligence claim was barred in its entirety by section 236 of the FPSLRA.
Why Criminal Consequences Did Not Change the Analysis
One of the more striking aspects of the decision is the court’s treatment of the criminal proceedings. The plaintiff argued that once criminal charges entered the picture, the matter ceased to be a purely employment-related dispute.
The court disagreed. It held that the mere involvement of law enforcement does not automatically transform an employment dispute into a justiciable civil tort. What matters is the origin of the alleged wrongdoing. Where the allegedly negligent acts consist of workplace reporting, internal communications, or supervisory conduct, they remain subject to the grievance regime, even if they ultimately lead to criminal charges.
This aspect of the decision underscores how far-reaching statutory labour bars can be, and how limited the civil courts’ role becomes when Parliament has created a comprehensive alternative dispute resolution framework.
The Attempted Malicious Prosecution Claim
After conceding that his harassment and negligence claims were barred, the plaintiff sought to rely on the same factual allegations to advance a claim for malicious prosecution. This tort, unlike negligence, can, in some circumstances, fall outside labour relations legislation, particularly where it involves improper use of the criminal justice system.
However, malicious prosecution is notoriously difficult to plead and prove. The Supreme Court of Canada has established four essential elements: the defendant must have initiated the proceedings, the proceedings must have terminated in the plaintiff’s favour, there must have been an absence of reasonable and probable cause, and the defendant must have acted with malice or an improper purpose.
The court accepted that the criminal charges had been withdrawn, satisfying the second element. It also accepted, on a generous reading, that the Military Police (part of the same federal institutional structure) could arguably be treated as having initiated the proceedings.
The claim failed, however, on the third and fourth elements.
The High Threshold for Pleading Malicious Prosecution
To establish a lack of reasonable and probable cause, a plaintiff must plead facts showing both that the prosecutor lacked an honest belief in the accused’s guilt and that such a belief would have been objectively unreasonable. The plaintiff’s statement of claim alleged only that the investigation was not “fulsome.”
The court held that this allegation was insufficient. An inadequate investigation may support a negligence claim, but it does not, without more, establish that charges were laid without reasonable and probable cause. The gap between a flawed investigation and malicious prosecution is substantial, and the pleadings did not bridge it.
Similarly, the allegation that co-workers provided false information could not, without specific particulars, establish malice on the part of the Military Police. Courts require clear, particularized allegations when malice is pleaded, especially given the serious nature of the accusation.
Pleading Deficiencies and the Rules of Civil Procedure
The defendants also relied on Rule 25.06(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires full particulars where malice is alleged. The court agreed that the statement of claim failed to meet this standard.
Notably, the claim did not even expressly identify malicious prosecution as a cause of action. Instead, the plaintiff attempted to retrofit the claim through argument and affidavit evidence, which is not permitted on a motion to strike. Pleadings must stand or fall on their own content.
Why Leave to Amend Was Denied
Courts are generally generous in granting leave to amend pleadings, particularly at early stages of litigation. However, leave will be denied where amendment would be futile or unjust.
In this case, the court concluded that the deficiencies were not merely technical. The statement of claim lacked factual foundations for two of the four elements of malicious prosecution, including the most difficult elements to prove. Allowing amendment would effectively permit the plaintiff to recast a barred employment dispute into a fundamentally different tort without a proper factual basis.
As a result, the malicious prosecution claim was struck without leave to amend, and the entire action was dismissed.
Understanding When Employment Disputes Can Go Before the Courts – And When They Can’t
For federally regulated employees, this decision highlights the importance of understanding the limits of civil litigation. Even serious allegations involving reputational harm and criminal consequences may fall within statutory grievance regimes if they arise from workplace conduct.
Employees should seek legal advice early to determine whether their claims must be pursued through labour processes rather than the courts. Attempting to circumvent statutory frameworks by recharacterizing claims can lead to dismissal and adverse cost consequences.
Key Takeaways for Employers
For employers, particularly federal institutions, the decision reinforces the protective scope of labour relations legislation. Properly structured grievance regimes provide not only dispute resolution mechanisms but also jurisdictional shields against civil liability.
At the same time, employers should not view statutory bars as a substitute for fair and lawful workplace practices. Grievance processes remain binding and enforceable, and failures at that level can carry significant consequences.
Remember: Jurisdiction Matters
Mittal v. Department of National Defence serves as a clear reminder that jurisdiction is often the decisive issue in employment disputes. No matter how compelling the narrative, courts will not entertain civil claims that Parliament has assigned to specialized labour regimes. Nor will they permit underdeveloped tort claims to proceed without proper factual foundations.
For both employees and employers, the decision underscores the importance of choosing the correct legal forum and crafting pleadings with precision. In employment law, how and where a claim is brought can be just as important as the merits of the claim itself.
Contact Haynes Law Firm for Knowledgeable Employment Law Services in Toronto
Employment disputes involving federally regulated employers raise complex jurisdictional issues that can significantly affect your legal rights and available remedies. If you are facing workplace harassment, disciplinary action, or related legal consequences, obtaining timely legal advice is essential.
Paulette Haynes of Haynes Law Firm is a leading employment lawyer and can assess whether your claim must proceed through a statutory grievance process or whether court action may be available. Her extensive experience in employment litigation can help avoid costly errors caused by choosing the wrong forum. Contact the firm online or call (416) 593-2731 to discuss your situation and ensure your rights are protected.
