When a “False Complaint” Isn’t the Point: What Workplace Policies Miss About Power and IPV

A recent Alberta Human Rights Tribunal decision involved an egregious case in which a respondent brought a knowingly false sexual harassment complaint. The facts were extreme.

After the complainant ended a personal relationship, the respondent engaged in a sustained campaign of retaliation and punishment, including:

• forging an employment contract to falsely portray himself as her employee rather than a contractor, and using it to support complaints to CRA and Employment Standards;

• filing two false police reports against her;

• applying for government loans in her and her business’s names, misappropriating the funds, and contributing to both personal and corporate bankruptcy; and

• filing a false sexual harassment complaint alleging she forced him to have sex as a condition of employment and later terminated him when he refused to continue.

The Tribunal appropriately condemned the respondent’s conduct and awarded damages. But in my view, the decision missed an important opportunity to name what this campaign actually was: a disturbing example of intimate partner violence (IPV).

IPV Isn’t Always Physical

There is a persistent tendency—inside and outside the workplace—to equate “violence” with physical harm. But research and case law are clear that IPV frequently takes other forms: financial abuse, coercive control, reputational sabotage, and escalating punishment following a breakup.

This case fits that pattern precisely. The false sexual harassment complaint was not an isolated act; it was part of a broader campaign of control and retaliation. When viewed through that lens, the complaint itself becomes a tool of abuse.

Failing to name IPV in cases like this matters. When legal and workplace systems treat these behaviours as disconnected incidents, they risk obscuring the underlying dynamics and missing opportunities for better prevention and support.

The Policy Problem With “False Complaint” Warnings

Cases involving false allegations of sexual harassment are sometimes seized upon as justification for doubting sexual harassment complaints more broadly. In the workplace context, this often shows up in harassment policies that explicitly warn employees that false complaints will be punished.

This is understandable but misguided. Knowingly false sexual harassment complaints are exceedingly rare. By contrast, many individuals already hesitate to bring forward legitimate complaints out of fear of being judged, disbelieved, blamed, or accused of fabrication. Prominent warnings about “false complaints” risk further suppressing reporting, particularly for people who are already vulnerable or who lack positional power.

It’s also unnecessary. Employers already have the legal authority to discipline employees for knowingly making false complaints of harassment, even if their policies don’t explicitly say so. Including this language adds little protection for employers while creating a very real risk of chilling legitimate disclosures.

A More Nuanced, Safer Approach

This case highlights a broader issue with how workplace policies are often drafted: they focus on hypothetical bad actors rather than real-world power dynamics.

Trauma-informed, inclusive policy design asks different questions.

How might workplace processes be misused by someone seeking control or retaliation?

How do intersecting dynamics—like intimate relationships, financial dependence, or subordinate-on-superior power—shape risk?

And how can policies support reporting without unintentionally increasing harm?

Policies that meaningfully address sexual harassment and violence, particularly in contexts involving IPV,require more than boilerplate language. They require careful attention to how harm actually shows up, and how employees experience risk when deciding whether to come forward.

Moving Forward

False complaints make headlines because they are unusual. But policies should not be built around outliers. They should be designed for the far more common reality: people navigating fear, power, and uncertainty when something has gone wrong at work.

Employers who want safer, more responsive workplaces need to move beyond reflexive warnings and toward policies and training that reflect how harassment, violence, and abuse actually operate.

A Thoughtful Approach to Training and Policy Design

I work with organizations to design sexual harassment training and workplace policies that go beyond compliance and headline-driven reactions. My approach is grounded in case law, trauma-informed principles, and a realistic understanding of power, particularly where intimate partner violence intersects with work.

That includes bystander-focused sexual harassment training, as well as policy development and review that supports reporting, reduces unintended harm, and addresses complex risks like IPV without reinforcing stigma or silence.

If you’re interested in training or policy design that is practical, legally sound, and genuinely inclusive, I welcome you to reach out.