MPP removed from NDP caucus after sexually harassing staffer: report

MPP Michael Mantha 'pressured grievor to engage in non-consensual sexual interactions with him'

MPP removed from NDP caucus after sexually harassing staffer: report

The allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace which led to the removal of one northeastern Ontario member of provincial parliament are founded, according to an arbitrator.

MPP Michael Mantha was removed from the New Democratic Party (NDP) caucus in August 2023 due to allegations of workplace misconduct that were substantiated by multiple witness interviews and video evidence, reported CBC.

The Ontario NDP retained Mireille Mortimer, of Mortimer Khoraych Workplace Investigations, to do an investigation into the allegations of workplace misconduct back in January 2023.

Jasbir Parmar, the arbitrator, had "not been asked to make any factual findings regarding the harassment allegations” but was looking into the case of a former employee who lost their job when Mantha was removed from the NDP caucus.

“However, the Mortimer Investigation's conclusions are relevant to the issues raised in the termination grievance,” Parmar said, according to the CBC report.

A January 18, 2024 B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (HRT) decision raised the bar on awards to claimants who have suffered injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, with an award of $100,000 being the second highest ever such award in B.C.

The Mortimer investigations concluded that “allegations of workplace harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination on the basis of sex, abuse of authority and creation of a toxic workplace, had all been sustained,” Parmar said in her report posted on social media platform X by Ahmad Elbayoumi, author of the newsletter policorner.

Specifically: 

  • MPP Mantha pressured the grievor to engage in non-consensual sexual interactions with him
  • MPP Mantha required to grievor to submit to his hugs on a regular basis
  • MPP Mantha sexually harassed the grievor on a regular basis in the office, engaging in several incidents of unwanted physical and sexual contact, notwithstanding the grievor's protests that he stop such conduct
  • MPP Mantha requested that the grievor send him sexually explicit photos of herself, advise him of any sexual dreams about him, and made comments about her appearance, including her makeup, hair and clothes
  • MPP Mantha pressured the grievor to work from the office more often so that he could physically have access to her and continue his practice of sexually touching her.

Nearly half (47%) of women and 31% of men report experiencing inappropriate sexualized behaviours in a workplace setting, according to a previous Statistics Canada (StatCan) report.

Mantha refused to delve into the findings of the report.

"The last two years have been very challenging, but it is time to move past this matter. While I disagree with some of the characterizations made, on the advice of my legal counsel I will not be commenting further at this time," he said in the CBC article.

"It is my honour to represent the people of Algoma-Mantioulin. I will fulfil my role as member of provincial parliament for the remainder of this term and leave the decision on my future in the hands of voters in Algoma-Manitoulin."

Employee ‘not terminated for just cause’

Meanwhile, Parmar found that the worker was indeed wrongfully terminated.

The arbitrator concluded that the grievor's employment "was not terminated for just cause." 

The grievor's "employment with the ONDP Caucus was frustrated, through no fault of her own, following the removal of MPP Mantha from the NDP Caucus based on the substantiated findings that he engaged with sexual harassment, workplace harassment, discrimination on the basis of sex, abuse of authority and the creation of a toxic workplace," she said.

Parmar then sent the matter back to the parties involved.

Previously, a group of eight migrant workers from Mexico was awarded a total of more than $23,000 in lost compensation after they won a wrongful termination case they filed against their employer.