Record Sexual Harassment Award from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”)

By Catherine Milne

Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal awarded $200,000 on account of an Applicant’s injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect on account of repeated sexual assault and harassment at the hands of her manager, who was also her landlord.  This award represents a high-water mark from the Tribunal for awards of sexual harassment.

 

In AB v. Joe Singer Shoes Limited, the Applicant immigrated to Canada from Thailand in 1979. She began working for Joe Singer Shoes and ultimately moved in to the apartment above the shoe store with her young son.  According to the Tribunal, the Personal Respondent, son of Joe Singer, engaged in years of sexual harassment and assault, both in the workplace and in the Applicant’s apartment.  The Tribunal relied on the following factors when making its order of $200,000:

  • The humiliation and hurt feelings experienced by the Applicant;
  • The Applicant’s loss of self-respect, dignity, self-esteem and confidence;
  • The experience of victimization;
  • The vulnerability of the Applicant; and
  • The seriousness, frequency and duration of the offensive treatment.

Additionally, the HRTO found that the Personal Respondent had created a poisoned work environment for the Applicant through his repeated comments about her skin, body, accent, country of origin as well as the sexually harassment and assaults.

In justifying its record order for general damages, the Tribunal wrote:

“The applicant’s ordeal lasted far longer and involved many more assaults and harassment than experienced by the applicants in Presteve.  For those reasons, and because of the objective nature of the discrimination involving someone who was vulnerable and virtually unable to leave, as well as the lasting effect on the applicant, I find an award of $200,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect is appropriate”.

Lastly, the Tribunal made its awards jointly and severally against the Personal and Corporate Respondents on the basis that the Personal Respondent was the directing mind, owner and principal of both the shoe store and the landlord of the Applicant’s apartment.