I. Introduction: Changing Criminal Law and Workplace Relations
At Stevenson Luchies & Legh, we are increasingly seeing workplace issues arise from a source that, until recently, was considered largely private: social media.
Bill C-9 received Royal Assent on June 18, 2026. It is a federal criminal law reform concerning hate-related conduct, Bill C-9 reflects a broader shift in how expression, public visibility, and workplace obligations intersect. The bill targets serious misconduct by creating and expanding offences related to the wilful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups. Bill C-9 will have immediate implications for employers and workplaces in British Columbia.
Essentially, Bill C-9 makes hate-related offences easier to initiate and more difficult to defend. This shift in the criminal law is already influencing workplace practices as employers seek to ensure that employee conduct, whether on or off duty, does not negatively affect the workplace. For employers, the key issue is how workplace management, mainly termination decisions, legal obligations, employee relations, and risk management, will be impacted as courts increasingly consider social media conduct.
II. Bill C-9, Offending Behaviour, and the Definition of “Hate”
Bill C-9 introduces a standalone offence for acts driven by hatred along with new offences for the public display of hate symbols, intimidating or obstructing individuals from accessing places like schools, places of worship, and community centres. Previously, such conduct would typically have been prosecuted under general offences like mischief or intimidation, which do not specifically address hate-based motivations.
The legislation builds on the approach in Canadian law to “hate”. For example, in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 (“Whatcott”), the Court defined hatred as expression involving: “detestation and vilification… going beyond mere dislike or disdain”. Bill C-9 reflects this framework by targeting conduct that is extreme, deeply hostile, directed at identifiable groups, dehumanizing or delegitimizing, and connected to harm or its promotion. The threshold is intended to remain high and not capture ordinary disagreement or criticism, though the definition of hatred continues to attract criticism.
III. Social Media and the End of Clear “Off-Duty” Boundaries
Social media has significantly narrowed the distinction between personal and professional life. Content shared outside of work can be viewed by coworkers or clients, circulated internally through screenshots, generate workplace complaints, and affect working relationships.
Canadian law has long recognized that an employee’s off-duty conduct may justify workplace discipline where there is a sufficient connection to the workplace: Millhaven Fibres Ltd v OCAW, Local 9-670, 1967 CarswellOnt 789 (“Millhaven”). According to Millhaven, an employee’s off-duty conduct may justify discipline where it:
- criticizes or undermines the employer;
- refers to the employee or another employee in a derogatory or abusive way;
- is exceptionally harmful to the employer; or
- violates a workplace policy.
Millhaven has been more recently applied to instances of online behaviour. In YUSA and York University (Balaskas), Re, 2018 CarswellOnt 7618, a laboratory technician was dismissed for antisemitic posts on Facebook. The arbitrator held that the employer’s discipline was justified because the employee’s online actions were connected to the employer’s reputation.
As a result, employers face increased reputational risk from online behaviour, and there is a corresponding rise in employee discipline for such conduct.
IV. Employer Obligations Under BC Law
Employers in British Columbia must comply with section 13 the British Columbia Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 which prohibits discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed in Robichaud v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1987] 2 SCR 84 that these prohibitions impose a positive obligation on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent instances arising in the workplace.
This obligation can be triggered even where the underlying conduct originates outside the workplace. As a result, Bill C-9 may heighten the obligation on employers to take reasonable steps to vet employees’ online activity where it bears a sufficient connection to the workplace.
V. Workplace Policies and Professional Standards: Tools for Managing Risk
The key for employers is how to adjust their workplace policies and risk management to account for changes brought by Bill C-9 in light of how courts approach off-duty conduct.
Workplace policies have been a key tool for employers in managing employee discipline. Courts and arbitrators have consistently upheld the enforceability of workplace policies where they are reasonable, consistently applied, and proportionate in connection to the employer’s legitimate business interests.
Importantly, courts and arbitrators are now reinforcing employee discipline for conduct that occurs off-duty, including online behaviour and direct messaging on social media platforms.
In the context of an employee’s Facebook posts criticizing their employer, the court of appeal confirmed that online statements can have a real reputational impact, employers are entitled to respond where harm occurs, and context and proportionality remain important (Lougheed Imports Ltd. (c.o.b. West Coast Mazda) v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518, 2013 BCCA 153).
In Complainant v. British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (No. 1), 2026 BCHPRB 38, the court reviewed a tribunal decision where an anesthesiologist sent Facebook Messenger direct messages to a former coworker, registered nurse, accusing them of being unfit to practise and a risk to public safety. The anesthesiologist’s complaint to the College of Physicians was dismissed after its investigation which concluded that the matter should be addressed through the workplace’s internal policies because the interaction took place on social media. On review, the Court held that Facebook messaging alleged material complaints concerning the nurse’s professional conduct and ordered the College of Physicians to reconsider the complaint.
Although these case does not involve an instance of “hate” under the new Bill C-9, it demonstrates the willingness of Canadian tribunals and courts to extend an employer’s ability to discipline its staff based on online behaviour and direct messaging where it causes harm to a workplace. See also:
- British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives v Hamm, 2025 BCCNM 1; and
- Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 10), 2026 BCHRT 49.
Employers must adapt their workplace policies to account for the risk of employees exhibited “hatred” or other Bill C-9 offending behaviour while off duty and online.
VI. Practical Implications for BC Employers and Workplaces
Across British Columbia workplaces, there is likely to be a shift toward more cautious off-duty conduct and online behaviour. This trend is driven by the interaction between social media, workplace policy enforcement, and human rights obligations.
Employees are increasingly limiting public commentary on sensitive issues and taking greater care to separate personal and professional identities. Employers, in turn, are acting more conservatively to protect workplace reputation and maintain positive working relationships.
VII. Implications for BC Employers
Taken together, the legal framework and current trends suggest several practical implications:
- Off-duty conduct is increasingly relevant. The Millhaven framework continues to apply, but social media makes the connection to the workplace easier to establish.
- Human rights obligations are engaged more quickly. Employers must respond once a complaint is raised, even where the conduct occurred outside work.
- Policies must be clear and enforceable. Courts will support employers who define expectations clearly, apply policies consistently, and act proportionately.
- Risk management is becoming more proactive. Employers are increasingly addressing and documenting issues earlier and training employees on acceptable conduct.
VIII. Summary and Conclusion
For employers in British Columbia, Bill C-9 is best understood as part of an evolving legal and social landscape. The key drivers of change are:
- the visibility and permanence of social media;
- established legal principles governing off-duty conduct; and
- expanding expectations around workplace safety and respect.
Existing case law already supports employer action where off-duty conduct affects the workplace. Bill C-9 does not create that principle, but it may influence how risk is assessed and how seriously certain issues are treated. The challenge for employers is not determining what is unlawful in the abstract but responding appropriately when lawful or unlawful conduct creates real workplace consequences.
At Stevenson Luchies & Legh, we continue to advise employers on navigating these issues with a focus on clarity, consistency, and legally defensible decision-making. If you are an employee who has been wrongfully dismissed, or an employer who needs to safeguard the workplace environment or your business’s reputation, give us a call. We may be able to help: 250-381-4040.
