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?”
Sometimes the answer is obvious. Often, it is not.
A manager gives blunt feedback. A co-worker repeatedly makes sarcastic comments. Someone is excluded from conversations. An employee complains that 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 it clear that reasonable action taken by an employer or supervisor relating to the management and direction of workers or the workplace is not workplace harassment.
In plain language, there are several important parts to the definition.
A “course” generally means a pattern of behaviour. Harassment commonly involves repeated comments or conduct occurring over time. However, context and the seriousness of the conduct matter, and certain conduct, such as an unwelcome sexual solicitation or advance by someone in a position of authority, can constitute workplace sexual harassment even where it occurs once.
Harassment can involve words or actions. It is not limited to what someone says. Behaviour, gestures, messages, exclusionary conduct, and online communications may all form part of the analysis.
“Vexatious” generally refers to conduct that causes humiliation, annoyance, frustration, worry, or distress.
And perhaps most 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 Matters, But It Is Not the Whole Test
“I was only joking.”
“That wasn’t what I meant.”
“I treat everyone that way.”
“They are too sensitive.”
These explanations frequently arise when workplace concerns are raised.
Intent can provide important context, but it does not end the analysis.
The conduct also has to be considered from an objective standpoint. Would a reasonable person, looking at the circumstances, recognize that the comments or behaviour were unwelcome?
This is where context becomes critical.
The relationship between the individuals, their positions in the organization, previous interactions, the frequency of the conduct, the language used and the impact of the behaviour can all matter.
The Grey Area Is Where Workplace Harassment Gets Complicated
Consider these situations.
A supervisor regularly tells one employee, “You need to toughen up,” when questioning their work. The supervisor believes they are motivating the employee. The employee experiences the comments as belittling. Is it firm performance management, an inappropriate communication style or a pattern of harassment?
Two employees frequently disagree and both use sarcastic language with each other. One eventually complains that they are being bullied. Is this harassment, or has a mutual workplace conflict deteriorated?
A manager repeatedly jokes that an employee is “always confused” and needs things explained several times. Everyone laughs, including the employee on occasion. Does that mean the comments are welcome? What if the employee feels uncomfortable challenging their manager?
A senior leader criticizes an employee’s work to other members of the team and repeatedly describes the employee as incapable of handling their position. Is the leader expressing legitimate performance concerns, or has the manner and frequency of those discussions crossed a line?
And there is an important distinction:
Workplace conflict is not automatically workplace harassment.
A 2026 Ontario arbitration involving the LCBO illustrates the point. The 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 of its investigation obligations.
In other words, 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, Not Just Individual Incidents
Another recent arbitration provides an important lesson.
Arbitrator Mark Hart, a former Vice-Chair of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and former legal counsel with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, recently considered allegations involving an Executive Director who made repeated derogatory comments about employees and others in the workplace, including comments questioning people’s competence and mental stability and spreading damaging rumours.
Rather than examining every comment entirely in isolation, 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 that the comments were unwelcome.
That is an important lesson for employers, investigators and managers.
Sometimes a single comment may appear relatively minor. Ten similar comments over several months may tell a very different story.
Why Workplace Harassment Training Matters
Workplace investigator, lawyer and trainer Christine Thomlinson recently highlighted another 2026 arbitration that makes an important point about training.
In Canadian Energy Workers Association v. ATCO Electric Inc., an Alberta arbitration panel upheld the termination of an employee for abusive and hostile behaviour toward colleagues.
One factor considered was that the employee had repeatedly received information about the employer’s harassment expectations and had previously participated in training. The 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 does something important: it helps establish expectations before there is a complaint.
It gives employees and supervisors an opportunity to recognize behaviour, consider its impact and understand where the line may be before they find themselves participating in an investigation.
Moving Beyond Definitions
At HR Proactive, almost 30 years of workplace investigation and training experience has taught us that simply giving employees the legal definition of harassment is not enough.
People need an opportunity to apply it.
That is why our Respect in Action™ online training program walks employees and supervisors through a series of interactive workplace scenarios based on the types of situations we have encountered through years of workplace investigation practice.
Learners are asked to make choices.
What would you do?
Has the conduct crossed a line?
Would your answer change if the person involved were a supervisor?
Does intent change the impact?
Could this be inappropriate behaviour without yet meeting the definition of harassment?
Those are the conversations that build understanding.
Because preventing workplace harassment is not simply about teaching people to recognize the obvious cases.
It is about helping them recognize the grey areas before they become complaints.
Respect in Action™ is interactive online workplace harassment and respectful workplace training for employees and supervisors.
Available through the HR Proactive Hosted LMS or as a SCORM file for upload to your organization’s LMS or HRIS platform.
