The Impact of Psychological Harassment on Mental Health: A Ruling Reflecting an Emerging Jurisprudential Trend

A recent case highlights the critical importance of addressing workplace harassment and its profound impact on mental health, reflecting a growing legal trend in psychological injury claims. 

In recent years, there has been an increased focus on mental health issues within the workplace. Changes to the labour laws^[1] underscore the need for proactive measures to prevent harassment, identify and manage psychosocial risks, and recognize and address workplace-related psychological injuries^[2]. The decision in Levesque et Municipalité régionale de comté des Collines-de-l’Outaouais^[3] illustrates the significant impact that prolonged exposure to harassing behaviours can have on an employee’s mental health and demonstrates how such incidents can lead to a toxic work environment. Additionally, this decision clarifies the application of the “thin skull” doctrine in this context.

In 2021, Mr. André Levesque, an inspector with the police service of Collines-de-l’Outaouais, filed a claim with Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST), alleging that psychological harassment led to him suffering major depression and a recurrence of post-traumatic stress. Initially, the Commission rejected his claim in May 2022, but Levesque persisted, asserting that the police service’s director’s behaviour was the cause of his psychological injury. On February 2, 2024, the Tribunal accepted his claim, recognizing that the director’s conduct was not part of the normal course of work and was the cause of Mr. Levesque’s psychological injury. While the existence of an employment injury within the meaning of the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases is based on a finding of an “unforeseen and sudden event”—rather than psychological harassment as defined under the LNT—, this decision reflects a recent trend in jurisprudence regarding psychological injuries in the context of workplace harassment and a toxic work environment^[4].

The Tribunal’s ruling echoes the growing recognition of the impact that toxic workplace culture has on employee well-being. In this case, the director’s behavior contributed to a hostile and unhealthy work environment that negatively affected employees. Levesque’s claim outlined several instances of aggressive and unprofessional conduct by the director. The director frequently displayed temper tantrums, shouting, swearing, and slamming objects, creating a tense atmosphere. He also humiliated employees publicly, offering vague, demeaning criticisms without constructive feedback. These actions not only disrupted the workplace but also fostered an environment of distrust and division among staff members. Further compounding the issue, the director ignored employees’ attempts to address the situation and failed to alter his behavior despite repeated requests. When the worker sought help from the Municipal Director, the response was to avoid direct communication, further isolating Levesque. In addition, the director’s disregard for the well-being of his employees was evident when Levesque’s doctor sent a letter in August 2020, warning the Municipality about the worker’s deteriorating health. Despite the clear concerns, the employer failed to take any action.

The case also sheds light on how pre-existing psychological conditions are weighted in employment injury claims. The Tribunal recognized that while Levesque had a pre-existing psychological condition, this did not bar him from claiming a work-related psychological injury. The key factor was whether the work environment had contributed to the worsening of his condition. Applying the « thin skull » doctrine, an individual’s mental health history must be considered when determining whether a workplace injury occurred, taking the worker as he is at the time of the event and analyzing the situation in light of his traits and personality. In this case, the Tribunal concluded that the director’s abusive behavior played a decisive role in triggering Levesque’s psychological injury. Prior to the director’s arrival, Levesque had been a highly competent employee for many years, and his condition had not prevented him from performing his job.

The Tribunal determined that on February 2, 2021, Levesque suffered a work-related psychological injury due to the sustained harassment. The cumulative effect of these events, which occurred over a period of three years, was objectively traumatic. Levesque’s psychological condition deteriorated significantly. He became socially isolated, avoiding colleagues and feeling anxious about returning to the office. His anxiety led him to work from home, checking emails late into the night to avoid being caught off guard. In some instances, he was so overwhelmed by stress that he turned back home after attempting to go to the office. The Tribunal concluded that the director’s management style was unreasonable and malicious, violating the principles of good faith and disrupting the staff. These actions were not only unrelated to the proper functioning of the police service but also caused severe harm to the worker’s mental health.

A Turning Point for Mental Health in the Workplace

This case serves as a reminder that we are at a turning point in how we view workplace harassment and its impact on mental health. It recognizes that psychological injuries caused by harassment can be just as damaging as physical injuries. The Tribunal’s decision affirms the importance of addressing toxic workplace cultures and that the employer’s failure to act despite its knowledge of a problematic situation experienced by its employees constitutes negligence.

As we continue to evolve our understanding of workplace well-being, this case highlights the need for a greater attention to mental health and a shift toward more supportive, respectful, and empathetic workplace cultures. Recognizing the importance of addressing both the physical and psychological safety of employees can help organizations foster a healthier, more productive work environment for all.

---

[1] Act respecting labour standards, CQLR c N-1.1, Act respecting occupational health and safety, CQLR c S-2.1, Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases, CQLR c A-3.001

[2] See our cheat sheets for more information : Adapting to changes brought about by Bill 42 and Understanding and preventing psychosocial risks in the workplace

[3] 2024 QCTAT 2323

[4] Pétrin et CSSS de Gatineau, 2019 QCTAT 1936, Smith et Centre de services scolaire des Affluents, 2023 QCTAT 2907, Poirier et Andritz Hydro Canada inc., 2025 QCTAT 963