Mom of slain nurse Lori Dupont says bill falls short

By Doug Schmidt, The Windsor Star

Proposed legislation targeting workplace violence falls short of tackling the types of harassment and other psychological abuse that can turn violent, says the mother of slain Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital nurse Lori Dupont.

In the months leading up to her daughter’s Nov. 12, 2005, murder, Barb Dupont said “many a blind eye was turned” at Hotel-Dieu to the mounting incidents of disturbing behaviour and harassment by her eventual killer, Dr. Marc Daniel.

Bill 168, an act introduced by the government in April to amend Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, stems from jury recommendations that followed a coroner’s inquest into Dupont’s murder by Daniel, a co-worker who then took his own life.

Expected to become law by next summer, Bill 168’s definition of workplace violence deals only with physical harm.

“It usually doesn’t begin with physical violence,” said Carol Libby of Windsor’s Inquest Action Group. “It’s a prevention issue — you don’t want to wait until it becomes a criminal act,” she added.

The group, which began as the “women in white” who supported the Dupont family during the 2007 inquest, was formed to push for implementation of the Windsor coroner jury’s 26 recommendations.

Libby and several other members of the group joined Dupont on a train trip Tuesday to Queen’s Park, where Dupont was scheduled as a witness before the Standing Committee on Social Policy conducting hearings on Bill 168.

“It’s been a difficult four years,” said Dupont. “Events like these … bring all of the past to the surface again, all of the pain and all of the heartache,” she added.

A “well-defined” description of psychological harassment, as part of Bill 168, “will make it easier for an employer to take action,” said Dupont.

Bill 168 will require employers to design workplace harassment programs which must include procedures for reporting and investigating incidents of workplace harassment. While not defining what constitutes “domestic violence,” the new legislation requires employers to “take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances” to prevent it from exposing workers to acts likely to cause physical injury in the workplace. This obligation on the employer arises only if the employer is aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, of the situation.

The Dupont/Daniel inquest heard of repeated instances when the employer was made aware of harassment targeting Lori Dupont by Daniel, her former boyfriend.

Other jurisdictions, such as Quebec, already have strong labour legislation dealing with psychological harassment at the workplace, said Pat Cunningham, another member of the Inquest Action Group and the CAW union’s national employment equity co-ordinator at Chrysler Canada. Libby said the group is seeking a “modest change” to Bill 168 incorporating “pretty simple language.”

Among the jury’s key recommendations was to review the Occupational Health and Safety Act to examine the feasibility of including domestic violence, abuse and harassment as matters subject to Ministry of Labour investigation and action. Another was to require all workplaces to design and implement policies to address domestic violence.

Joy Hamilton of the Windsor Occupational Health Information Service, who also accompanied Dupont Tuesday, said there’s been a “shocking” increase in the number of reported instances of workplace harassment her office is fielding.

BILL 168 DEFINITIONS:
- “Workplace harassment” — engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.

- “Workplace violence” — (a) the exercise of physical force by a person against a worker in a workplace that causes, or could cause, physical injury to the worker; and/or (b) an attempt to exercise physical force against a worker in a workplace that could cause physical injury to the worker.