Does Marineland have a statutory obligation to reasonably respond to a complaint of workplace harassment?

The Adjudicator nonetheless recognized that Marineland was statutorily liable for the brother’s conduct and their response to it. The Adjudicator reviewed a well-established body of law, including Nixon v. Greensides, that have recognized an employer’s obligation to reasonably and adequately respond to a complaint of workplace harassment. This duty applies where the harasser is guest or visitor of the employer. He concluded at para. 57: The right in subsection 5(1) is owed by the employer to its employee. It does not matter if the alleged discriminator/harasser works for the employer or not. This principle — that the employer's obligation is triggered if its employee is discriminated/harassed by a non-employee third party (e.g., visitor or guest) — has been recognized and applied in other jurisdictions. [Citations omitted and emphasis added.]

The decision in Laskowska v. Marineland sets outs criteria for determining whether harassment gives rise to a Code violation and identifies aggravating or mitigate factors. The case has been cited frequently.