March 25, 2021
A Ontario Tribunal Awards
| Case | Tribunal Year | Summary | Compensatory Damages & Lost Income and other Awards |
| General Comment | The reader should review the narrative section of the text dealing with compensatory damages and “mental anguish” awards prior to the amendments to the Ontario Code effective in June 30, 2008. See Chapter 6.3. | ||
| Sandford v Koop | 2005 | Two year period of provocative sexual harassment | $25,000. There was also an award of $10,000 for mental anguish as was then allowed by the statute. The complaint against the employer was settled independently. |
| Lost income $18,570, moving expenses $666, medical reports $375 | |||
| This award was against the personal respondent, Dr. Koop. He made no submissions on the remedy issue. | |||
| Arias v Desai | 2003 | Student sexually harassed and terminated as a reprisal. | $25,000 plus $5,000 for mental anguish damages. |
| Lost income award of $1,920 | |||
| Liability was joint and several due to personal respondent as “directing mind” | |||
| Desousa v Gauthier | 2002 | Sexual harassment and general reprisal. | $25,000 inclusive of mental anguish damages and reprisal damages. |
| Liability was joint and several due to personal respondent as “directing mind” | |||
| Lost income award of $8,470 | |||
| Baylis-Flannery v DeWilde | 2003 | Verbal and physical abuse and racial. Manager was told to find a pretext to fire the applicant. | $35,000 plus $10,000 for mental anguish. |
| Lost income award of $3,384 | |||
| Farris v Staubach | 2011 | Sexually poisoned work environment due to disparaging comments by co-workers and the perpetuation of a sexual rumour about her; Respondents failed to address this. Poisoned environment was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment. | $30,000 of which $15,000 was allocated to poisoned work environment. |
| Farris – Divisional Court set aside | Div Ct 2011 | Div Ct set aside decision not to find personal respondents liable as “directing mind”. | |
| Reconsideration motion | Personal respondents liable for $15,000 of the initial total $30,000 award and 50% of the poisoned work environment. | ||
| Metcalfe v Papa Joe’s Pizza | 2005 | Verbal sexual abuse accompanied by some touching | $12,000, $8,000 for mental anguish |
| $5,000 lost income | |||
| Complainant’s father (apparently) was also awarded damages based on family status as he was a co-worker and supported the complaint. This award was $8,000 plus $4,000 for mental anguish and a wage loss of $1,800. | |||
| All awards were joint and several against the corporate and personal respondents. | |||
| Cugliara v Clubine | 2006 | Sexual solicitations. Kissing. | $17,500 inclusive of damages for mental anguish |
| Medical report not required for mental anguish damage award. | |||
| Murchie v JB’s Mongolian Grill | 2006 | Touching of the applicant’s nipple; general damage award was influenced by the flawed investigation and the finding of reprisal for an incident which was serious, but isolated. | $16,000, of which $15,000 was against corporate employer and $1,000 against personal respondent. |
| Lost income award of $4,329 | |||
| Chard v Newton | 2007 | Sexual jokes and comments, touching of buttocks and breast on two distinct occasions. | Cumulative award of $16,000 inclusive of mental anguish |
| Payotte v Alarm Guard Services | 2011 | Sexual solicitations | $18,000 plus $5,000 for failure to investigate |
| Iu v Markham Marble | Sexual advances, touched on buttocks on one occasion, and on another occasion standing in front of her desk with his fly unzipped. | $20,000 | |
| Hughes v 1308581 and Hussein | 2009 | Physical assaults, touching of breasts on one occasion and buttocks frequently and criminal conviction | $25,000 |
| Joint and several liability | |||
| Ratneiya v Daniel Krumeh | 2009 | Verbal sexual abuse and spanked on buttocks | $25,000 |
| Lost income award of $1,536 | |||
| Joint and several liability | |||
| Birchall v. Andres | 2013 | Unwanted kissing and hugging and touching. The respondent kissed the applicant while holding her neck, kissed her chest and tried to force his tongue in her mouth. | $30,000 |
| C.U. v. Blencowe Reconsideration motion dismissed | 2012 | Repeated sexual comments, texting of images including one of his erect penis, repeatedly exposing himself to the applicant at work, and ultimately waving his penis side to side as he said goodbye. | $30,000 |
| Smith v Rover’s Rest | 2013 | Sexual comments to the applicant, touching her buttocks, making sexual advances toward her, and reprisal, as employment was terminated for refusing his sexual advances. | $35,000 |
| S.H. v M Painting | 2009 | Conduct was “persistent, unrelenting” and one act of sexual aggression which resulted in a criminal charge. The respondent ran his hand along her inner thigh, put his hand across her chest while driving, and also assaulted her by slamming her up against a car, kissed and bit her, undid her bra and attempted to undo her pants. | $40,000 |
| Lost income claim from May to November 2004 | |||
| M.K 1217991 operating a Wimpy’s Diner | 2010 | Verbally abusive and threat of force to have sex and physical abuse, exposing his penis while masturbating, trying to insert his finger into the applicant’s vagina. | $40,000 |
| J.D. v The Ultimate Cut Unisex | First applicant was based on sexual comments and advances, touching her shoulders, back and leg and slapping her buttocks, asking her to sleep with a friend of his. In the second case, the respondent was found to have rubbed her upper thigh, asking about how her boyfriend touched her, offering her gifts, and ultimately hugging her and pulling her onto his lap. | Each of two applicants awarded $40,000. | |
| C.K. v H.S. | 2014 | The male forced the applicant to touch his genitalia and ejaculated on her. He also touched her breast and tried to pull her pants down. | $45,000 |
| Lost income award of $6,760 | |||
| Smith v Menzies Chrysler | HRTO 2009 | Sexual harassment and reprisal and poisoned work environment. Colleague removed his pants in the complainant’s presence. Same person exposed his penis to the complainant, asked complaint to suck it. | A total award of $50,000 was made to a male applicant which was apportioned as a total of $10,000 against two respondents individually, $25,000 against the employer, and $15,000 for reprisal. |
| Escobar v WCL Capital | May 2020 | Numerous suggestive comments over a period of 2.5 months, including touching of shoulders and legs, conduct which was not “egregious”. | $50,ooo including reprisal damages. Case was not defended. |
| G.M. v X Tattoo Parlour & F.G. | HRTO 2018 | Unpaid 15 year old teenage intern, abused by close family friend. FG touched her buttocks and minimally, (for two seconds), inserted his finger in her vagina. He showed her his penis and invited her to touch it. She did so to appease him. He touched and put his mouth to her breasts. | $75,000 |
| joint and several liability due to controlling mind | |||
| McWilliam v Toronto Police Services Board |
HRTO 2020 |
Series of harassing behaviours over an extended time period and one forced kiss | $75,000 of which $10,000 was joint and several with personal respondent |
| O.P.T. and M.P.T v Presteve Foods Ltd. and Pratas | HRTO 2015 | Both complainants were migrant workers from Mexico in Canada on temporary work permits and threatened with termination and hence deportation, failing each one’s willingness to comply with the owner’s demand for sexual favours. The second victim, 22 years old, was required to leave Canada and return to Mexico. | $150,000 and $50,000 respectively. No lost income claim was advanced. |
| Joint and several liability due to poisoned work environment by deeming statutory provision and also “directing mind”. | |||
| A.M. v Kellock | HRTO 2019 |
“unwanted” acts of sexual solicitation by General Manager of hotel to probationary housekeeper | $75,000. The case was not defended. |
| N.K. v Botuik | HRTO 2020 |
persistent and severe sexual harassment; unwanted sexual intercourse | $170,000, an award which was in excess of the sum which was requested; The case was undefended. The employer settled independently, the details of which were not disclosed. The claim against the personal respondent was not defended. |
|
A.B. v Joe Singer Shoes & Paul Singer
|
HRTO 2018 JR dismissed by Div Ct |
Applicant was required to submit to various forms of sexual demands, including sexual intercourse, over a period of 18 years. | $200,000 |
| joint and several liability by controlling mind |
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.