The Sphere of Control: considerations for employers hosting workplace events following De Sousa

Here’s the scenario: You, the employer, host your annual holiday party. At this party, drink tickets are not closely regulated and employees get quite intoxicated. Then, one employee proceeds to leave with another with no checks at the door for safe transport home. Employee A proceeds to sexually assault Employee B. Are you as the employer liable?

De Sousa and Eidos Interactive Corporation, 2026 QCTAT 4

In De Sousa, the employer hosted an event to celebrate a recent project launch. De Sousa attended.  Also in attendance were consultants that worked with the company. At the event, the employer gave each employee five drink tickets and a welcome drink. De Sousa recalled using four of her tickets, however testified that the Communications Director herself became intoxicated and freely handed out extra drink tickets, so she was unsure of how much she drank.  She was, however, heavily intoxicated. The employer had also sent Uber vouchers out to attendees before the event.

De Sousa recalled feeling unwell and telling colleagues she wanted to go home but was afraid to go alone. A consultant offered to walk her home. The two ended up Ubering back to the De Sousa’s home. The consultant then proceeded to sexually assault her. De Sousa was traumatized and developed an acute anxiety disorder.  She subsequently filed a complaint against her employer for psychological harassment and workplace injury.

The question the Tribunal Administratif du Travail had to grapple with was whether the assault occurred in the personal or professional sphere and if professional, if the employer fulfilled its obligation to prevent and stop the harassment. The Tribunal held that De Sousa had suffered from serious misconduct that resulted in lasting harm to her integrity and dignity and was a victim of psychological harassment.

Employer liability: The Tribunal discussed the concept of “connectedness” when determining if the assault occurred in the personal or professional sphere. The employer claimed it was disconnected from the assault when the employee left the party. The Tribunal disagreed, citing the event being organized by the employer, the providing of drink tickets, and the lack of oversight of employee departures. The Tribunal held that a connection to the employer, and thus the employer’s obligations, will remain so long as there is no break in the continuum of events in relation to the assault. The Tribunal wrote:

“There is no break in the continuum of events. This explains everything. The employer's lack of control over alcohol, coupled with the complete failure to manage Ms. De Sousa's safe departure, are directly responsible for what ensued.” [para 85]

The Tribunal concluded that De Sousa experienced psychological harassment that the employer failed to prevent and she suffered a work-related injury.

The Employer’s Response

On March 21, the employee informed the employer, anonymously, that a serious incident had occurred. The employer’s response in De Sousa was more acceptable than its preventative measures. The employer had a harassment prevention policy and a whistleblower system in place, including anonymous reporting, and confirmed that the harassment policy applied to consultants, however they were unable to confirm that consultants actually received it. On March 24 or 25 the employer became fully aware of the events. On March 30, the consultant’s contract was terminated. The Tribunal held that this response was adequate, writing: “Not only did the employer not take the situation lightly, but both Human Resources and management were proactive and unequivocally demonstrated their support and their intention to provide Ms. De Sousa with a safe working environment.” [para 117] While the Tribunal in De Sousa has reserved its powers to determine appropriate remedial orders, employer responses have historically been important considerations for decision makers.

Takeaways for Employers

In De Sousa, the Tribunal noted that an employer does not have control over everything that happens in an employee’s home, however in this case, the lack of sufficient action to prevent the assault directly linked the event to the employer’s sphere of control.

Biggest takeaway: be proactive, not reactive. We are entering holiday party season where drink tickets will be plentiful, and employees are prepared to mingle. As the employer, you have an obligation to provide a safe, harassment free environment. When planning your next work event, consider the following:

• Provide Uber or taxi vouchers but then go further – have a person(s) designated to be sober and ensure that employees have a safe way home when leaving. In De Sousa, the Tribunal opined that with no one conducting checks that employees had a safe plan to get home, Uber codes alone were insufficient to fulfill the employer’s obligations.
• Monitor employee alcohol intake – perhaps reconsider that open bar and ensure that the person responsible for drink tickets remains responsible.
• Policies should be practices – ensure that your workplace has violence and harassment policies that are up to date and distributed to all employees or affiliates of the company and refreshers are sent out each year. If an incident is reported, take it seriously and respond accordingly.

While mitigation can never be perfect to prevent these situations, it is your response that then matters. If an incident, particularly sexual assault or harassment, is reported, the decision makers care how you as an employer respond. Believe and protect the victim from interacting with the accused, conduct an investigation as required, and react quickly. If the facts warrant it, terminate the accused.

Concerned about your sphere of control and how to manage the risks? Our Labour & Employment Group would be pleased to assist.