The Ontario Code also has a general related provision entitled “infringement” which prevents an employer from doing anything which may infringe a right under the Code.

At one time, the sole exception to this principle was the law in B.C., which had mandated that there be an actual complaint filed. Oddly enough, the threat to do so did not then suffice. It has since been revised. It now reads as follows:

Protection

43  A person must not evict, discharge, suspend, expel, intimidate, coerce, impose any pecuniary or other penalty on, deny a right or benefit to or otherwise discriminate against a person because that person complains or is named in a complaint, might complain or be named in a complaint, gives evidence, might give evidence or otherwise assists or might assist in a complaint or other proceeding under this Code.

The Alberta legislation allows for a reprisal claim in response to an actual complaint or an attempted complaint. Such a reprisal claim can be made on a behalf of a person who had given evidence in a hearing, or otherwise participated in a hearing, or has made disclosure in a proceeding under the statute or has in any way assisted a person in the making of a complaint.

This wording is typical of many other Canadian human rights statutes.

Section 45 of the Saskatchewan Code forbids a reprisal due to the filing or threatened filing of a complaint, due to disclosure of evidence, testifying or likely testifying or participation in any other way in a proceeding under the Act.

Manitoba also has a very broad reprisal provision which covers the same grounds as that of Saskatchewan. In addition, it provides protection to any person who has complied with a Code obligation or has refused to contravene the Code.

For example, a manager who has refused to terminate an employee based on gender, and in turn is terminated for this reason, would have a remedy under the Manitoba statute.

The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has a very broad protective provision which prohibits unlawful interference with any Charter right. If the action in question is intentional, punitive damages may be awarded, otherwise the offended party may claim “compensation for the moral or material prejudice”.

Nova Scotia’s reprisal provision provides protection to a person who has threatened a complaint or filed a complaint. It also allows a remedy for adverse treatment afforded to a person who has given evidence or assistance given in the proceeding.

New Brunswick’s statute is similar. It prohibits adverse treatment due to the making of a complaint, giving evidence, or assisting in any way the initiation of the complaint.

The legislation of Newfoundland and Labrador is to the same effect. It prohibits reprisal due to the making of a complaint, the giving of evidence or helping in respect of the initiation or furtherance of a complaint.

Similar to the above is that of Prince Edward Island which prevents adverse treatment due to the making of a complaint, giving evidence or assisting with respect to the initiation of the case.

The federal statute allows for a reprisal remedy on behalf of a person who has filed a complaint or for the alleged victim where there has been retaliation or threatened retaliation.

The Human Rights Act of the Yukon is simple, effective and to the point. It prohibits retaliatory action or a threat of same against any person who has done or proposes to do anything permitted by the Act.

The North West Territories statute forbids reprisal against a person who has made or has threatened to make a complaint, or given evidence or otherwise participated in a proceeding or has intended to so.

The Act of Nunavut allows for a remedy in favour of any person who has been treated adversely due to notifying the Tribunal of a complaint or attempting to do so, given evidence or indicated an intent to do so, or otherwise participated or assisted in a hearing under the Act.