Not every uncomfortable workplace interaction is harassment. But when does conduct cross the line?
It is one of the questions we hear most often in workplace investigations and training:
“Is that actually harassment?”
A manager gives blunt feedback. A co-worker repeatedly makes sarcastic comments. An employee feels a supervisor is “picking on them.” A joke lands badly. Two employees simply do not get along.
These situations are rarely as straightforward as the examples found in a workplace policy. That is why understanding how harassment is assessed matters.
What Does Workplace Harassment Mean?
Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act defines workplace harassment as:
“Engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace, including virtually through the use of information and communications technology, that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.”
The legislation also makes clear that reasonable action relating to the management and direction of workers or the workplace is not workplace harassment.
In plain language, a “course” generally means a pattern of behaviour. Harassment commonly involves repeated comments or conduct, although certain conduct, such as an unwelcome sexual solicitation or advance by someone in a position of authority, may constitute workplace sexual harassment even where it occurs once.
Harassment can involve words or actions, including behaviour, gestures, messages, and online communications.
“Vexatious” generally refers to conduct that causes humiliation, annoyance, frustration, worry, or distress.
And importantly, the person engaging in the behaviour does not necessarily have to intend to harass someone. The question is also whether they ought reasonably to have known the behaviour was unwelcome.
Intent Is Not the Whole Test
“I was only joking.”
“That wasn’t what I meant.”
“They are too sensitive.”
These explanations frequently arise when workplace concerns are raised. Intent can provide context, but it does not end the analysis.
The conduct also has to be considered objectively. Would a reasonable person, looking at the circumstances, recognize that the comments or behaviour were unwelcome?
This is where context matters.
A supervisor repeatedly tells an employee to “toughen up” when questioning their work. Is that firm performance management, poor communication, or a pattern of harassment?
Two employees regularly disagree and both use sarcastic language. One eventually complains of bullying. Is it harassment or a mutual workplace conflict that has deteriorated?
These are the grey areas that can make workplace harassment difficult to assess.
Workplace Conflict Is Not Automatically Harassment
A 2026 Ontario arbitration involving the LCBO illustrates this distinction. An employee alleged bullying and harassment by a co-worker, but the arbitrator concluded that the interactions amounted to a mutual personality conflict rather than workplace harassment.
The employer nevertheless faced consequences because it had not properly fulfilled all its investigation obligations.
The lesson is important: an allegation may ultimately not meet the definition of harassment, while the employer may still have an obligation to take the concern seriously and respond appropriately.
Look at the Pattern
In another recent arbitration, Arbitrator Mark Hart, a former Vice-Chair of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and former legal counsel with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, considered allegations involving an Executive Director who repeatedly made derogatory comments about employees and others, including comments questioning their competence and mental stability and spreading damaging rumours.
The conduct was considered in its broader context and, where appropriate, as an overall pattern. Arbitrator Hart concluded that the behaviour met the applicable harassment standard. The individual’s senior position was particularly relevant to whether she ought reasonably to have known the comments were unwelcome.
A single comment may appear relatively minor. A pattern of similar comments over several months may tell a very different story.
Why Training Matters
Workplace investigator, lawyer, and trainer Christine Thomlinson recently highlighted a 2026 Alberta arbitration that provides another useful lesson.
In Canadian Energy Workers Association v. ATCO Electric Inc., an arbitration panel upheld the termination of an employee for abusive and hostile behaviour toward colleagues.
The employee had repeatedly received information about the employer’s harassment expectations and had participated in training. That evidence made it difficult for him to credibly maintain that he did not understand the organization’s standards.
Training cannot guarantee that inappropriate behaviour will never occur. But meaningful training helps establish expectations before there is a complaint.
Turning Experience Into Prevention
At HR Proactive, almost 30 years of workplace investigation experience informs how we approach prevention.
Our Respect in Action™ online training takes employees and supervisors beyond definitions by placing them in realistic workplace scenarios and asking them to make choices about conduct, impact, and where the line may be.
Available through the HR Proactive Hosted LMS or as a SCORM file for upload to your organization’s LMS or HRIS platform.
