Reprisals are the worst. The government passes laws that give you rights, and they give you government agencies to help enforce those rights. But the enemies of those rights often act recklessly and aggressively towards those who simply demand their government granted rights.

Governments realized this and there are many laws that make reprisals illegal.

Reprisal: a retaliatory act

I’ll provide some examples.

Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6)

Retaliation

14.1 It is a discriminatory practice for a person against whom a complaint has been filed under Part III, or any person acting on their behalf, to retaliate or threaten retaliation against the individual who filed the complaint or the alleged victim.

Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19

Reprisals

(8) Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41

Reprisal prohibited

74 (1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall intimidate, dismiss or otherwise penalize an employee or threaten to do so, (a) because the employee, (i) asks the employer to comply with this Act and the regulations, (ii) makes inquiries about his or her rights under this Act, (iii) files a complaint with the Ministry under this Act, (iv) exercises or attempts to exercise a right under this Act, (v) gives information to an employment standards officer, (v.1) makes inquiries about the rate paid to another employee for the purpose of determining or assisting another person in determining whether an employer is complying with Part XII (Equal Pay for Equal Work), (v.2) discloses the employee’s rate of pay to another employee for the purpose of determining or assisting another person in determining whether an employer is complying with Part XII (Equal Pay for Equal Work), (vi) testifies or is required to testify or otherwise participates or is going to participate in a proceeding under this Act, (vii) participates in proceedings respecting a by-law or proposed by-law under section 4 of the Retail Business Holidays Act, (viii) is or will become eligible to take a leave, intends to take a leave or takes a leave under Part XIV, (ix) makes inquiries about whether a person holds a licence to operate as a temporary help agency or a licence to act as a recruiter as required under Part XVIII.1; or (b) because the employer is or may be required, because of a court order or garnishment, to pay to a third party an amount owing by the employer to the employee. 2000, c. 41, s. 74 (1); 2017, c. 22, Sched. 1, s. 41; 2021, c. 35, Sched. 2, s. 5.

Onus of proof

(2) Subject to subsection 122 (4), in any proceeding under this Act, the burden of proof that an employer did not contravene a provision set out in this section lies upon the employer. 2000, c. 41, s. 74 (2).

What happened to me

I’ve been the subject of many reprisals, many I can’t talk about but there is one in the public record.

  1. In my view, an ex-employee who tells her former employer that she wants her entitlements under the Act, and that failing that, she will pursue her claims with the Ministry of Labour (and the Human Rights Commission and the Courts) is acting within the law, even if she does so in an offensive manner. And of course, filing an application for review of a refusal to issue an order to pay is expressly sanctioned by the Act. Neither of Lozza’s actions constituted an unlawful threat. Tereszko’s reaction was extreme and punitive, particularly his reporting to the police of Lozza’s application for review. No person should have to face arrest and criminal charges for exercising the right to make an application for review before the Board. True, Tereszko did not directly impose those sanctions, but he set the process in motion.
  1. Lozza led no evidence about the effect on her of Tereszko’s reprisals. She appears to have dealt effectively with Sheridan College over the issue of her use of the College’s e-mail system to communicate with Tereszko, and nothing more came of that. The evidence further suggests that she was not intimidated much by Constable Trownson. However, Lozza was ultimately charged with an offence, and faced the possibility of a trial and the sanction of a court of law. That is a serious matter, and Tereszko’s unjustified complaint to the police contributed significantly to the situation. In my view, in all the circumstances, and particularly for reasons of deterrence, Tereszko should pay Lozza $2500 for pain and suffering on account of the reprisals.

During the case against Northern Nerds, he had accused me of extortion. Many people try and claim that legal threats are blackmail.

Extortion

346 (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.

BUT

(2) A threat to institute civil proceedings is not a threat for the purposes of this section.

Obstructing Justice

Some reprisals go so far that they criminally obstruct justice.

Obstructing justice

139 (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding, (a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or (b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,

is guilty of

(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or (d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Idem

(2) Every person who intentionally attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Idem

(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, (a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence; (b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or (c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.

The police SLAPPed me with an order not to communicate and a criminal charge, which prevented me from communicating with the Tribunal and giving evidence because ex-parte communications are not allowed.

Harassing communications

372(3) Everyone commits an offence who, without lawful excuse and with intent to harass a person, repeatedly communicates, or causes repeated communications to be made, with them by a means of telecommunication.

This was the charge, but one of the elements of this offense, “without lawful excuse” could not be proven because I had lawful excuse. Most courts and tribunals do not allow ex-parte communications. In order to file, you often have to give a copy to the other party.

Lawsuits, and communications pertaining to those lawsuits, are lawful excuse.

Conclusion

Reprisals - don’t do them. They’re usually illegal and you’ll just look like an asshole on the public record.

If you feel the urge to pretend to be harassed so you can call the police because you are being sued, it is not a smart idea.

But I’m not your lawyer or paralegal.

If someone demands their rights, you should get that free 30 minutes of advice before you act in a hostile manner.