In a recent decision, Geopro Consulting Ltd v. Nyland1, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down an employer’s lawsuit against a former employee who had reported the company to its professional regulator, triggering an investigation. The case serves as a powerful reminder of the robust protections afforded to individuals who share information with professional regulators, and highlights the risks of pursuing frivolous claims against former employees.
Background
The employer, GeoPro Consulting Ltd. (“GeoPro“), sued its former employee, Damien Nyland, alleging that Nyland made false and malicious statements to the Professional Geoscientists Association of Ontario (“PGO“) in retaliation for his termination. GeoPro claimed Nyland breached his employment contract and engaged in malicious conduct based on multiple statements, most of which related to what he revealed to the PGO.
Nyland brought a motion to strike GeoPro’s claim on several grounds, including that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because it relied on representations made to a quasi-judicial body that are protected by absolute privilege or immunity.
Decision
Absolute Privilege
The court agreed that Nyland’s communications with the PGO were protected by absolute privilege. The court confirmed that the PGO is a quasi-judicial body with the ability to investigate professional misconduct and initiate disciplinary proceedings. Most of the statements made by Nyland which were the basis for GeoPro’s claim were made to PGO as part of its investigative process. The court further noted that the protection of absolute privilege applies even if the statements are alleged to be malicious or false, as the privilege is meant to protect the integrity of the regulatory process and shield participants from the “vexation of defending action”.
Abuse of Process
The court also determined that GeoPro’s lawsuit was an abuse of process. Nyland raised the issue of absolute privilege in his Statement of Defence, but GeoPro did not file a Reply. At the motion, GeoPro made arguments devoid of legal support, including that the PGO was not a quasi-judicial body. Finally, an affidavit from GeoPro’s president appeared to support the conclusion that the basis of the lawsuit against Nyland was retaliatory for his communications with PGO. The judge found that the employer was attempting to “weaponize a person’s legally protected communications” against the former employee.
Defendant Awarded Costs
As a result, the court determined that to preserve the administration of justice, the claim must be struck in its entirety and GeoPro could not be permitted to amend their pleadings. Nyland was awarded his costs of $7,916.78.
Key Takeaways
The decision provides reassurance for employees that their communications with quasi-judicial bodies are protected and that they cannot be sued by their employer (or former employer) for providing information to such bodies, whether as a complainant or a witness.
For employers, this decision is an important reminder of the consequences of pursuing baseless claims against a former employee. In this case, not only did GeoPro have to pay its own costs, it was responsible for Nyland’s costs as well.
If you are an employee facing a claim from their former employer, or an employer considering pursuing a claim against a former employee, we can help – contact us today.
Endnote
- Geopro Consulting Ltd v. Nyland, 2026 ONSC 1517 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kjrw3>, retrieved on 2026-03-17
