The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently addressed a legal dispute involving a civilian employee of the Department of National Defence who sought to sue the federal government and his former colleagues for workplace harassment, negligence, and malicious prosecution1. The case of Mittal v. Department of National Defence provides a look into the jurisdictional boundaries between civil courts and the federal labor relations framework, ultimately resulting in the total dismissal of the employee’s claims. Saket Mittal, who served as a cook in the Cadet Dining Hall at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, initiated the legal action in November 2022 after a series of events led to his departure from his position.
The narrative of the case began in 2017 or 2018 when Mr. Mittal alleged that he started experiencing a pattern of discriminatory and harassing actions in his workplace. As a civilian employee of the Department of National Defence, Mr. Mittal worked in an environment governed by federal employment standards and a collective bargaining agreement. According to his statement of claim, the friction in the workplace touched on several sensitive issues, including his religious-based vegetarianism and a perceived failure by his employer to provide mandatory food safety training. The situation further deteriorated during the COVID-19 pandemic, where Mr. Mittal alleged that there was a failure to adhere to necessary public health measures and a lack of sanitary bathroom facilities.
The conflict reached a critical point in April 2021 when a verbal and physical confrontation allegedly occurred between Mr. Mittal and one of his colleagues. Following this incident, Mr. Mittal reported the matter to the Military Police. However, the situation took an unexpected turn for the cook. Instead of the investigation resulting in charges against his colleague, the Military Police charged Mr. Mittal himself with public mischief on May 28, 2021. These criminal charges remained over him for several months until they were eventually withdrawn by the prosecution in February 2022 on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Following the resolution of the criminal proceedings, Mr. Mittal filed a civil lawsuit claiming $200,000 in general damages. He alleged that he suffered personal and special damages to his reputation as a result of workplace harassment and negligence by the Department of National Defence and three individual colleagues. He claimed that the environment had become so caustic that he was forced to leave his position at the Cadet Dining Hall. Although he remained a civilian employee of the Department of National Defence, he moved to a different role that paid approximately $8,000 less per year than his previous position.
The defendants, represented by the Attorney General of Canada, did not initially file a statement of defence. Instead, they moved to have the action dismissed entirely through a series of legal arguments regarding the court’s jurisdiction and the legal sufficiency of Mr. Mittal’s claims. The primary argument raised by the government was that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case because the dispute was governed by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. The government contended that the issues raised by Mr. Mittal were employment-related matters that should have been handled through the mandatory grievance procedures set out in federal law.
Madam Justice Sylvia Corthorn presided over the motion and focused on two main legal hurdles for Mr. Mittal. The first was whether the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act acted as a statutory bar to the civil action. Section 236 of that Act stipulates that the right of an employee to seek redress through a grievance for any dispute relating to their terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action in a court of law. This provision applies regardless of whether the employee actually files a grievance or whether the grievance is even capable of being referred to adjudication.
During the proceedings, Mr. Mittal admitted that he was a member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and was bound by a collective bargaining agreement. He also conceded that his claims regarding workplace harassment fell within the scope of the grievance procedure and were therefore barred from being pursued in court. However, he maintained that his claims for negligence and malicious prosecution should be allowed to proceed. He argued that the government owed him a duty of care to deal with him fairly and that they should have ensured their facts were straight before the Military Police laid charges against him.
Justice Corthorn carefully analyzed the claim of negligence. She noted that the law regarding federal employees provides a very broad right to grieve almost any workplace issue. The allegations regarding the duty of care in the workplace and the failure to prevent harassment were found to be squarely within the definition of terms and conditions of employment. Consequently, the court ruled that the negligence claim was also barred by the federal statute. The court found that the essential character of these complaints related to events occurring within the course of employment, which the legislature intended to be resolved through labor relations channels rather than civil litigation.
The court then turned its attention to the claim of malicious prosecution, which requires a different legal analysis because it involves the criminal justice system. To succeed in a claim for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove four specific elements. First, the proceedings must have been initiated by the defendant. Second, the proceedings must have terminated in favor of the plaintiff. Third, there must have been an absence of reasonable and probable cause for the charges. Fourth, the defendant must have acted with malice or a primary purpose other than carrying the law into effect.
While the court accepted that the criminal proceedings were initiated by a division of the Department of National Defence and that they ended in Mr. Mittal’s favor when charges were withdrawn, the claim faltered on the final two elements. Mr. Mittal’s lawsuit alleged that the Military Police failed to perform a fulsome investigation and that his colleagues provided false information. Justice Corthorn found that simply alleging an investigation was not fulsome did not meet the high legal threshold of showing an absence of reasonable and probable cause. The court noted that a lack of professional thoroughness is a concept rooted in negligence, which is a different and lower standard than what is required for malicious prosecution.
Furthermore, the court found that Mr. Mittal failed to adequately plead facts that showed malice on the part of the Military Police. While he alleged that his colleagues were motivated by a pattern of harassment, the court ruled that he could not legally transfer the alleged malice of his co-workers to the police officers who laid the charges. The statement of claim lacked specific details or particulars that would suggest the Military Police themselves acted with an improper motive or a purpose other than law enforcement. The judge observed that even when reading the claim generously to account for any drafting deficiencies, it was plain and obvious that the malicious prosecution claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
A final point of contention was whether Mr. Mittal should be granted leave to amend his statement of claim to fix the deficiencies. The court decided that this was one of the clearest cases where leave to amend should be denied. Justice Corthorn noted that Mr. Mittal was essentially trying to recast his barred employment claims as a malicious prosecution claim against the Attorney General. She concluded that it would not be just to allow the case to continue when the fundamental elements of the remaining legal theory were not supported by the facts presented.
As a result of these findings, the court struck the statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend. This decision effectively ended Mr. Mittal’s pursuit of damages in the civil court system. Regarding the costs of the legal battle, the court noted that the defendants were entirely successful and were entitled to be reimbursed for their legal expenses. While the government requested over $9,000, Justice Corthorn fixed the costs at $8,500. In a nod to the financial reality of the plaintiff, who had seen a reduction in his income, the judge extended the typical 30-day payment window. She ruled that if the parties could not agree on a payment plan, the costs would be payable within 120 days, providing Mr. Mittal more time to manage the financial burden of the unsuccessful litigation.
Read about more employment law cases here.
