When a construction firm in Ontario faced a workplace misconduct claim, it tried to build what it apparently thought was a solid defence — the notion that conduct between two men simply doesn’t qualify as sexual harassment under human rights law.
The company, Iron Forming, argued that such protection is reserved for situations in which women are repeatedly subjected to such language. Men? Meh.
The arbitrator’s response, though, was unambiguous. Not only did he reject this argument entirely, he awarded the male construction worker $10,000 in damages and held the company liable for creating a poisoned work environment.
What, exactly, happened? Well, for six weeks, the foreman greeted his subordinate each morning with “Good morning, bitch.” During the same period, the supervisor asked the worker if he had ever performed a specific sexual act, laughing at his response. On another occasion, the supervisor ordered him to lick grease off his finger while working.
When the worker finally objected to being called “bitch” on Sept. 1, 2023, the supervisor responded: “Oh yeah, bitch? You’re not going to be here much longer.”
Three days later, the worker was fired.
The company thought the supervisor’s gender provided a shield against harassment claims. You know, workplace banter gone wrong or perhaps just misunderstood locker room culture. Even if you think that’s OK, the supervisor’s behaviour was beyond this — systematic degradation designed to establish dominance through sexual humiliation.
The fact that both parties were men made it no less harmful and — in the eyes of the arbitrator — illegal.
The arbitrator’s analysis cut through decades of misguided thinking about sexual harassment. Calling a man “bitch” suggests subordination and weakness, he found. Combined with sexually explicit comments and demands, it constitutes harassment based on sex.
Sexual harassment involves using sex and sexuality to leverage power to control, intimidate and embarrass victims, regardless of anyone’s gender.
The evolving law
This understanding reflects how harassment law has evolved. The arbitrator cited Supreme Court of Canada precedent recognizing that “perpetrators of sexual harassment and victims of the conduct may be either male or female.”
The Iron Forming case suggests many employers remain trapped in an older mindset that views harassment as fundamentally about men victimizing women.
That thinking creates blind spots. Male victims often face additional barriers to reporting harassment, precisely because of assumptions that they should be able to handle it. When organizations signal through their defences or culture that male-on-male harassment doesn’t count, they create environments where such behaviour could flourish unchecked.
Business risks
The business risks extend far beyond individual damage awards. Under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, for example, employers face liability for poisoned work environments — regardless of whether management knew about the harassment or took steps to address it.
Unlike specific harassment provisions that include exceptions for employer knowledge, the general discrimination protections offer no such escape hatch.
This means companies can’t simply claim ignorance when harassment creates a toxic workplace. They’re on the hook for damages whether the perpetrator was part of senior management or a front-line supervisor, whether the victim reported the behaviour or suffered in silence. The arbitrator noted that the company was deemed liable under the Code without regard to whether management knew about or addressed the supervisor’s conduct.
The workplace culture lag
The legal landscape has shifted, but workplace cultures often lag behind. The arbitrator found that the supervisor in this case admitted to frequently using profanity including “bitch” and acknowledged making sexually crude jokes.
When questioned about this behaviour, the supervisor offered a telling defence: If he made crude comments to his brother that others overheard, those bystanders shouldn’t take offense because the remarks weren’t directed at them.
As he put it: “If I say to my girlfriend, ‘Babe, you look like shit’ and people overhear, it’s not said to them.” It’s a mindset that treats workplace conduct as acceptable as long as it’s not explicitly targeted — ignoring how such behaviour poisons the environment for everyone within earshot.
The construction industry, with its traditionally masculine culture, faces particular challenges in this evolution. And it comes at a time when the sector is trying to make itself more appealing to women, and as legislators are passing laws to stamp out gender-related problems.
The arbitrator found the supervisor fabricated the grounds for termination, noting company records showed sufficient work continued well into November 2023 despite claims the project was winding down. No performance issues had been documented despite the supervisor’s claims about the worker’s abilities.
The arbitrator’s award sent a message about the cost of clinging to outdated thinking about workplace harassment. But perhaps more importantly, it demolished the myth that harassment between men somehow doesn’t count.
The company’s failed defence strategy reveals how dangerous such assumptions can be — both legally and financially.
For employers still operating under old assumptions, the lesson is clear: harassment is harassment, regardless of the genders involved. The law has moved on. The question is whether workplace cultures will follow — or whether more companies will learn this lesson the expensive way.