Employees' Use of Personal Social Media

Psst!  We know that you know, but Blue Fox is not a law firm and does not have the expertise to provide legal advice. This is rather the result of research on a thorny topic of the day.
Happy reading! 🦊

In a professional world where Facebook, Instagram, X (Twitter), and other social media are ubiquitous, employers wonder what they can require of their employees regarding the use of their personal social media. Can employers regulate or restrict what employees post on their private accounts? What are the rights at stake and the legal guidelines in Quebec and Canada? This in-depth article takes stock for managers of Quebec SMBs and non-profit organizations.

We will first address the legal issues (right to privacy, freedom of expression, duty of loyalty, recent case law, limits of an HR policy, etc.), then the human issues (workplace climate, conflicts, individual freedom vs. loyalty, hyperconnectivity, organizational culture). Then, we will look at the organizational issues (reputation, internal cohesion, control of external communications, crisis management). Concrete examples and recent cases will illustrate the discussion. N.B.: This article is not legal advice, but rather an informative analysis for educational purposes.

Legal Issues: Between Fundamental Rights and Loyalty Obligations

Right to Privacy and Freedom of Expression: Fundamental Rights to Respect. In Quebec, the law enshrines every person’s right to respect for their privacy and reputation (art. 3 and 35 of the Civil Code of Québec; art. 5 of the Quebec Charter). Everyone also enjoys freedom of expression (Quebec Charter, art. 3), as in Canada generally.

These fundamental rights apply to employees as to any citizen. In principle, what an employee does or says on their personal profile falls within their private life. An employer must therefore exercise restraint before intervening, or risk infringing on the privacy or freedom of expression of their staff.

The Duty of Loyalty Limits Employment-Related Freedom of Expression. However, these rights are not absolute, especially when they conflict with obligations arising from the employment relationship. By accepting a job, an employee accepts a duty of loyalty and discretion toward their employer (set out in article 2088 of the Civil Code of Québec). This means they must avoid actions or statements that harm the employer’s legitimate interests. As a tribunal summarized, “an employee’s freedom of expression ends where the duty of loyalty to the employer begins”, and in case of conflict, the courts give precedence to the obligation of loyalty. In short, an employee cannot invoke freedom of expression to justify defamatory or crude remarks targeting their company or colleagues: that would be a serious breach of their duty of loyalty.

Public vs. Private: A Personal Account Is Not a Lawless Zone. Many workers think their personal profile is part of their private sphere and that they are shielded from disciplinary action if they post outside working hours. However, the courts consider that social media, even personal, are part of the public space as soon as a certain number of people have access to the posts. For example, Facebook is considered a public forum, since posts can be shared widely. An employee “at fault” therefore cannot defend themselves by claiming their employer violated their privacy by viewing their profile: especially if it is public or accessible through colleagues. Beware of false impressions of confidentiality : even a “private” group or a pseudonymous account can lose its private character if screenshots circulate within the company.

Can the Expression of Employees Online Be Regulated or Limited? An employer cannot broadly prohibit an employee from expressing themselves on social media, including about their work or personal opinions. Any policy that would completely gag employee speech outside of work would be deemed unreasonable and possibly illegal (infringement of freedom of expression). However, it is permitted: and even necessary: to set guidelines. For example, it is legitimate to prohibit the dissemination of confidential company information, personal data of clients or colleagues, or abusive, discriminatory, or harassing remarks. Clearly disrespectful, defamatory, or harmful remarks toward the company, its clients, or its staff may be subject to sanctions, despite the general protection of freedom of expression. In other words, the HR policy can prohibit abuses (insults, disclosure of secrets, hate speech, etc.) while respecting fundamental rights. The key is that restrictions must be reasonable, justified by the company’s legitimate interests, and known to employees.

Can the Employer Monitor Employees’ Social Media? Here again, it is a question of balance. If the employer happens upon a harmful public post (or if one is reported to them), the employer can obviously take it into account. However, proactively searching an employee’s online life can be perceived as an unjustified intrusion into their privacy. In Quebec, authorities recommend that employers refrain from viewing a candidate’s profile without their consent, as this may reveal protected personal information. By analogy, for a current employee, the employer should exercise caution and have a serious reason before inspecting what the employee posts on their personal accounts (for example, an allegation of serious misconduct). Asking an employee for their passwords or to add a supervisor as a friend to monitor their profile is strongly discouraged: this would violate the right to privacy and dignity. In short, monitoring must be minimal and targeted at proven problematic situations, much like you do not install a camera at an employee’s home without serious reason (excessive workplace surveillance can moreover be deemed abusive and an infringement of rights and freedoms).

Case Law: Concrete Cases to Guide Practices. Numerous cases in Quebec and Canada have clarified how far an employer can go. The general rule is that an employee’s off-duty behaviour can justify sanctions if it has a real adverse effect on the company or the workplace. Here are some instructive examples:

• Publicly Criticizing One’s Employer. An employee of a Quebec bookstore was dismissed after denouncing on Facebook his employer’s policy (which banned wearing a political symbol at work) and making defamatory statements about the employer. The arbitrator confirmed that these writings exceeded the bounds of freedom of expression and constituted a breach of loyalty.
• Insults Toward Colleagues or Superiors. An employee of a mining company had posted crude insults on social media targeting a female executive, calling her a “fat cow” and questioning her competence. The employer dismissed him. The arbitrator, while recognizing the severity of the misconduct, took mitigating factors into account (seniority, absence of prior sanctions, remorse) and converted the dismissal into an unpaid suspension of several months. The employee was reinstated, but after a lengthy suspension: a sign that such remarks are judged very seriously.
• Harassment and Offensive Remarks Online. A Bombardier employee had exchanged vulgar sexually-charged comments on Facebook with a colleague. Although the colleague did not formally file a complaint, the employer took action. The initial dismissal was reduced to a one-year suspension by the arbitrator, who emphasized that the language was unacceptable, even though the “victim” had not realized at the time that it constituted harassment. This case shows that context and the perception of the targeted person matter: the absence of a complaint and the clumsy intent were considered, but the behaviour was still heavily sanctioned.
• Disparagement of an Institution by a Government Employee. Recently, a correctional services officer in Quebec was dismissed for Facebook posts violently criticizing her employer’s (the government’s) pandemic management and for participating in an anti-health-measures event while publicly defying directives. Despite her 23 years of service, the arbitrator ruled that her duty of loyalty and restraint as a public servant took precedence and upheld the dismissal. He reminded that the employee’s freedom of opinion was not at issue, but rather the offensive and public manner in which she expressed it, incompatible with her professional obligations. Airing one’s disputes with one’s employer on social media by insulting or ridiculing them is condemnable the tribunal ruled.
• Off-Duty Conduct Harming the Employer’s Image. A case outside Quebec attracted national attention: in 2015, a Hydro One (Ontario) employee was filmed publicly supporting obscene and sexist remarks made to a journalist at a sporting event. The video went viral, and Hydro One dismissed him immediately to protect its brand image. A few months later, an arbitrator ordered his reinstatement, finding the dismissal too severe given his sincere apologies, his otherwise exemplary record, and the support of many colleagues. The lesson : yes, an employer can sanction off-duty misconduct that tarnishes its reputation, but the disciplinary response must be proportional. Public pressure must not overshadow the employee’s right to an objective evaluation of their conduct. Disgraceful off-duty behaviour does not always warrant immediate dismissal for cause: often, a less drastic measure or severance pay will be appropriate if the misconduct does not reach an extreme level.

In summary, the legal framework allows the employer to intervene when an employee’s online behaviour causes serious harm to the company or the people who work there. But this must be done while respecting fundamental rights, proportioning the response to the severity of the case. A well-drafted internal policy can set these guidelines (see action items further below), but its limits end where the rights guaranteed by charters and labour laws begin. The objective is to protect the company and the workplace without unduly encroaching on privacy and individual freedoms.

Human Issues: Workplace Climate, Conflicts, and Psychological Health

Beyond the legal framework, employees’ personal use of social media raises significant human issues within the organization. How do these uses affect team climate, dynamics between colleagues, or even workers’ mental health? How can individual freedom be reconciled with expectations of loyalty and civility within the group? Here are the main points to consider.

Workplace Climate and Conflicts Between Employees. Social media can spill over into the workplace and poison relationships. Sharp or mocking comments posted online about a colleague or supervisor risk poisoning the office atmosphere. For example, if an employee criticizes their manager on Facebook and a colleague adds a “Like” or an approving emoji, both individuals expose themselves to tensions with the targeted manager: and potentially to disciplinary action, because clicking “Like” is equivalent to endorsing disrespectful remarks. This type of incident can create cliques or break trust within a team. The employer moreover has the legal obligation to maintain a harassment-free workplace; they must intervene if online exchanges between employees degenerate into bullying or prolonged conflict. The risk of psychological harassment via digital platforms is very real: repeated insults or mockery on Facebook, malicious private messages, or excluding a colleague from discussion groups can constitute harassment within the meaning of the law (vexatious conduct affecting dignity and making the workplace harmful). It follows that the employer must remain vigilant about these relational issues and promote mutual respect at all times, including online.

Individual Freedom vs. Expectations of Loyalty and Civility. From the employee’s perspective, posting content, opinions, or photos on their own time is a matter of personal freedom. Nobody likes feeling that their employer is monitoring or censoring their private life. Excessive control can lead to frustration, a feeling of distrust, and decreased engagement. Conversely, from the employer’s and colleagues’ perspective, individual freedom does not permit everything. Everyone expects that members of the organization act with a minimum of loyalty, decency, and respect, even outside working hours. This implicit social contract is essential to cohesion. A balance must therefore be found: preserving employees’ freedom of expression and personal life, while reminding them of the responsibilities that come with their role within the company. For example, an employee has every right to express political opinions or share hobbies on their personal pages: the employer has no business interfering. However, if an employee uses social media to constantly disparage the company or reveal sensitive information, their colleagues and superiors will (rightly) perceive a breach of professional ethics. This can provoke anger, a feeling of betrayal, and undermine team spirit. Dialogue and education are key here so that everyone understands where acceptable limits lie.

Hyperconnectivity and Mental Load. Another major human issue related to social media (and digital technologies in general) is the difficulty of disconnecting. In the age of smartphones, the boundaries between professional and personal life are becoming blurred. Many employees stay permanently connected, juggling emails, messaging, and professional or personal social media. This hyperconnectivity can lead to technostress and cognitive overload. Studies show that in the long run, being always connected harms workers’ health: mental fatigue, sleep disorders, difficulty balancing work and personal life, or even professional burnout. In Quebec, a 2025 survey indicates that nearly 44% of employees feel an insidious pressure to remain reachable outside working hours, even though only 19% officially have this obligation in their contract. Social media contributes to this pressure: for example, an executive may feel obligated to respond to LinkedIn messages at 10 p.m., or an employee may spend their evening monitoring a team Facebook group. This extension of work time erodes rest and increases mental load. Young workers (18–34 years old) are even more likely to feel this pressure (51% of them). The consequence? A decline in job satisfaction, and sometimes demotivation or anxiety. It is therefore crucial that employers take seriously the right to disconnect : encouraging employees to unplug in the evening and on weekends, not glorifying those who respond at midnight, and establishing healthy practices (see action items in the conclusion). This human aspect is directly linked to social media, as these platforms can be both a work tool and a leisure activity: hence the temptation to stay on them permanently.

Organizational Culture and Shared Values. Finally, the use of personal social media often reflects the culture of the organization. In a company where trust prevails and transparency is valued, employees will be more inclined to self-regulate and act responsibly online to protect the collective reputation. A positive culture may encourage employees to become ambassadors for the organization on their networks (by proudly sharing good news, for example), while respecting certain red lines. Conversely, a culture of distrust or very authoritarian—where every deviation is monitored and punished—risks pushing employees toward digital secrecy, using pseudonyms, or developing resentment. In short, the way an organization approaches social media says a lot about its values. It can be beneficial to involve employees in developing usage rules (internal social media charter), so that they understand that these rules aim to protect the group and not to restrict them individually. This promotes buy-in and reduces the risk of deviations, as everyone knows what is expected of them and why.

Organizational Issues: Brand Image, Cohesion, and Communications Management

Beyond the human aspects, social media raises strategic organizational issues. Leaders of SMBs or non-profits must consider the potential impact of their employees’ online behaviour on the company’s reputation, internal cohesion, control of external communications, and crisis management.

Reputation and Brand Image. In the digital world, the boundary between the company and its employees is porous in terms of image. A single clumsy tweet or a viral video involving an employee can quickly associate the company’s name with a scandal or controversy. The employer’s reputation can suffer serious damage from a personal post by an employee, even if it officially only reflects the author’s views. Clients, partners, or donors (for a non-profit) may lose trust if they see an employee making statements contrary to the organization’s values. For example, imagine an employee of an environmental non-profit who, on their personal account, shares climate-skeptic content or mocks ecological initiatives: this casts doubt on the organization’s credibility. Similarly, disparaging comments by an employee about their company’s practices can spread. We saw this with the Hydro One case: public outrage pushed the employer to react drastically to preserve its image. Every organization must therefore assess this reputational risk and find how to mitigate without muzzling its employees. Often, the solution lies in awareness: reminding employees that if they identify themselves as working for the company on their profiles (e.g. on LinkedIn or Facebook), the public will make the connection, and their positions may reflect on the employer. Several companies actually encourage their employees who are active online to add a statement such as “My opinions are my own and do not represent my employer” on their profile. This does not guarantee the absence of consequences, but shows a willingness to distinguish private speech from the company’s official voice.

Internal Cohesion and Trust Toward the Organization. Social media can also affect cohesion within the company. If some employees publicly criticize company decisions or disclose internal disagreements, this can create or amplify internal divisions. Colleagues may feel compelled to “pick sides” in the comments, which weakens the group’s unity. Moreover, when employees see the company involuntarily airing its problems publicly (through the posts of a disgruntled colleague, for example), overall morale can suffer. Employees who remain loyal may feel betrayed by their peer, while others may secretly approve of the rebel: in both cases, mutual trust is eroded. On the management side, such a situation can push toward more control (for fear of seeing the image tarnished), which risks being interpreted as surveillance or repression. This creates a vicious trust/distrust cycle. Maintaining strong internal cohesion in the social media era therefore requires internal transparency and active listening. An employee considering venting online about a work issue should ideally have internal channels to express their grievances (manager, HR, committee, union) to avoid reaching that point. For the employer, encouraging this internal communication (rather than seeing it explode publicly) is far more productive.

Control and Governance of External Communications. In most organizations, it is established that only certain people (spokespersons, management, communications department) are authorized to speak publicly on behalf of the company. Employees, however, are not official spokespersons: however, their public remarks may be perceived as those of the company regardless. Hence the importance of good governance of external communications in the social media era. Concretely, this means:

• Clear policy on who can speak publicly on behalf of the organization (e.g. responding to media or posting on the company’s official accounts), and what is reserved for the private sphere. A rank-and-file employee who receives a media inquiry through social media should be trained to redirect it to the appropriate department rather than responding impulsively.
• Guidelines for employees on their personal profiles: for example, recommending not to use the company logo without authorization, not to reveal financial information, and to avoid presenting oneself as a company representative when expressing sensitive personal opinions.
• Digital ethics training : raising awareness about the pitfalls of online communication (written tone that can be misinterpreted, permanence of digital traces, etc.). Employees must understand that even if they delete a post, it may have been archived or shared elsewhere.

The objective is not to control everything—mission impossible—but to guide and regulate to prevent excesses. Good governance of external communications ensures that the company’s image disseminated on social networks remains coherent and controlled, without stifling each person’s authenticity. This can involve internal campaigns reminding staff of the company’s values and how they wish these to be embodied on social media. Some organizations go so far as to provide their employees with shareable content (e.g. positive announcements, recent successes) in order to occupy the media space favourably, thereby reducing the desire or need to express themselves in an uncontrolled manner.

Crisis Management Related to Social Media. Despite all precautions, zero risk does not exist. A controversial post by an employee can occur at any time and trigger a sudden crisis. Managers must be prepared. What if, tomorrow, one of your employees goes viral for the wrong reasons? It could be an offensive comment they made that is circulating, an embarrassing video showing them behaving badly in public, or an unfortunate tweet that outrages clients. The company’s response in the hours that follow is crucial. Here are some elements of good crisis management in the social media era:

• Rapid Monitoring and Alerts. Staying alert to what is being said about the company online (via monitoring tools or simply by paying attention to trends) makes it possible to quickly detect a controversy involving an employee. The sooner the company reacts, the better its chances of controlling the narrative.
• Objective Assessment Before Acting. Even under media or social media pressure, the facts must be gathered: what did the employee actually do? Are there explanations or mitigating context? What is their history within the company? A hasty reaction (e.g. immediate public dismissal) can sometimes be unfair or disproportionate and lead to subsequent legal complications. A balance must be found between meeting public expectations and respecting the employee’s right to fair treatment.
• Official Statement. Depending on the severity of the matter, the company should consider communicating publicly. This may be a press release or a message on corporate social media stating, for example, that the company is aware of the situation, disapproves of the remarks/actions in question, that an internal investigation is underway, and that appropriate measures will be taken. Dissociating the company from the employee’s actions is often necessary to protect the brand. However, be careful with tone: you must show seriousness and compassion if people have been offended, without giving the impression of already condemning the employee without giving them the chance to explain.
• Consistent Internal Actions. Behind the scenes, mobilize the relevant resources—HR, legal, communications, and direct management of the employee—to manage the follow-up. If the employee’s misconduct is proven and serious, a suspension during the investigation may be appropriate. Involve the employee in question in the process (hear their version). Document each step to justify the final decision, whether it is a disciplinary sanction, a dismissal, or conversely an educational measure if the misconduct is minor. Keep in mind that any decision could be challenged; it is therefore better to follow the principle of graduated sanctions and be able to demonstrate the fairness of the response.
• Post-Crisis Learning. Once the dust has settled, gather your management team to draw lessons from the incident. Perhaps the internal policy was insufficiently known or understandable? Perhaps training needs to be strengthened or certain rules adjusted? Crises, while painful, can be an opportunity to improve practices and raise awareness among all staff about the issues discussed in this article.

In short, employees’ personal social media can have very real repercussions on the organization. By anticipating these issues—through clear rules, a healthy corporate culture, and preparation for potential crises—managers will be better able to navigate this digital reality without stifling individual initiative. In the next section, we propose some concrete action items.

Action Items for Managers

To help decision-makers, managers, and HR leaders act proactively, here are some concrete measures to consider. These action items aim to find a fair balance between protecting the company and respecting employees, in the context of personal social media use:

• Develop an internal social media policy: Draft (in collaboration with HR and if necessary a legal advisor) a clear policy that defines expectations and limits regarding online posts. For example, specify that employees must respect the confidentiality of company information, refrain from abusive or discriminatory remarks toward colleagues, clients, or the organization, and reiterate the duty of loyalty and civility. Ensure that this policy respects fundamental rights : avoid overly broad clauses such as “prohibition of speaking about the company under penalty of dismissal”. Have the policy validated if possible, and distribute it widely (including during the onboarding of new employees).
• Train and Raise Awareness Among Staff: A policy is useless if nobody reads it! Organize training sessions or workshops to explain to employees the risks related to social media and best practices. Using concrete examples (drawn from case law or your industry context), show the possible consequences of certain posts. Emphasize that freedom of expression exists, but that it must be exercised with respect and prudence in the workplace. Also cover topics such as privacy settings (so everyone knows how to configure their accounts if they want to limit exposure) anddigital footprint (what you put online potentially stays there forever). This awareness training can be integrated into the continuing education program or done in an engaging way (online quizzes, video capsules, etc.). The Ordre des conseillers en ressources humaines agréés (CRHA) also suggests that employers train their teams in “healthy technological habits”, an investment that pays off for both individual well-being and organizational performance.
• Encourage a Culture of Dialogue and Trust: Rather than monitoring or censoring, focus on social dialogue. Encourage front-line managers to openly discuss social media use with their teams. For example, if an employee disagrees with a company decision, they should know they can discuss it internally without fear of retaliation, rather than venting their frustration online. Create feedback channels (suggestion boxes, team meetings, internal surveys) so employees can express their views. If the company is going through a sensitive period (restructuring, policy change), communicate with staff in advance to avoid surprises that lead to public discontent. Plus les employés se sentent écoutés et respectés, moins ils auront tendance à “laver le linge sale” en public. Such a culture naturally reduces the risks of online excesses and strengthens cohesion.
• Lead by Example at the Management Level: Managers and executives must themselves adopt exemplary behaviour on social media. If they advocate courtesy and moderation, they must apply these principles themselves. A senior executive posting sharp criticisms or inappropriate comments online would send a very bad message. Conversely, exemplary leadership (respectful, transparent) will set the tone. Additionally, managers can highlight good practices: acknowledging when an employee positively promotes the company on LinkedIn, or thanking those who resolve their differences through direct dialogue rather than in public. Management by example and recognition will always have more impact than police-style surveillance.
• Prevent Hyperconnectivity and Protect Mental Health: Integrate into your HR policies measures aimed at preserving work-life balance in the digital age. For example, consider a disconnect policy (inspired by the right to disconnect European model): specify that nothing requires an employee to respond to professional messages outside of normal hours, discourage sending emails late at night, etc. According to the Ordre des CRHA, only 1 in 5 companies in Quebec had adopted such a policy in 2025, but this proportion is increasing. You can use existing tools, such as the right-to-disconnect policy template proposed by the Ordre, adapting it to your reality. Another aspect: raise awareness about the risks of technostress. Possibly offer training on screen time management, encourage screen-free breaks, and don’t forget to consider the psychosocial burden in your health and safety obligations (new OHS provisions in Quebec include psychological health). A less stressed and less overloaded employee will be less likely to crack and post something out of frustration or fatigue.
• Seek Legal Advice When Needed: Finally, do not hesitate to consult a labour law attorney or a legal advisor when you face a delicate situation. For example, if an employee posts a message that borders on the intolerable and you are unsure about the course of action, legal advice can clarify your rights and risks. Similarly, have your social media policy reviewed by an expert to ensure it complies with current Quebec and Canadian laws. This one-time expense can avoid much higher costs related to litigation later. Also remember that each case is unique: case law examples provide guidelines, but applying the right disciplinary measure requires weighing the specific circumstances (employee’s seniority, nature of the remarks, actual impact, etc.). When doubt remains, the guidance of a professional is a wise precaution.

By applying these action items, managers of SMBs and non-profits will be better equipped to navigate the delicate question of employees’ personal social media use. Ultimately, it is about setting a clear and balanced framework where everyone’s rights are respected, expectations are well communicated, and problems are prevented without falling into abusive surveillance. Within this framework, employees remain free in their opinions and personal activities, while understanding that they are part of a work community with values and a reputation to uphold. With leadership, pedagogy, and consistency, it is entirely possible to leverage social media (in terms of employer branding, communication, engagement) while avoiding most of the legal and human pitfalls they can present.

Psst!  We know that you know, but Blue Fox is not a law firm and does not have the expertise to provide legal advice. This is rather the result of research on a thorny topic of the day.

Sources and Bibliography

• Civil Code of Québec, art. 2087 and 2088 (respective obligations of the employer and the employee).
• Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (Québec), art. 3, 4, 5, and 9.1 (freedom of expression, right to dignity, to privacy, reasonable limits).
• France Rivard, “Let’s Stop Criticizing Our Employer and Colleagues on Social Media!”: SOQUIJ Blog, January 24, 2018.
• Édith Demers, “Loyalty to One’s Employer, Even on Social Media?”: APTS News, February 19, 2019.
• Mathilde Chouinard, “Defamation in the Social Media Era”: Gauthier Bédard Avocats Blog, December 9, 2020.
• RBD Avocats, Legal Watch: case Synd. des agents de la paix v. Québec (2022), February 16, 2022.
• Steve Morales, “Rehired Hydro One staffer ‘made amends’ for FHRITP incident, union says”: Global News, November 2, 2015.
• Ordre des CRHA, “Hyperconnectivity: the Ordre Advises Employers to Adopt a Policy”: press release, December 17, 2025.
• CNESST: “Psychological or Sexual Harassment in the Workplace” page (definition and employer obligations).