CAUTION: We have been advised that fraudulent emails with a modified domain name have been sent by a source purporting to be from Aird & Berlis LLP. These communications are not legitimate and are not from Aird & Berlis LLP. Disregard any such emails and do not engage with the sender or the email in any way. Please report the attempted fraud by contacting the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre and by emailing Aird & Berlis LLP at help@airdberlis.com.

Back to all publications
Apr 10, 2018

Recent Human Rights Tribunal Decision: Record Damage Award

By Meghan A. Cowan

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “HRTO”) recently awarded one of its highest damage awards to date. In A.B. v. Joe Singer Shoes Limited, the HRTO awarded $200,000 (plus pre-judgment interest dating back to 2008) to a former retail worker who alleged that she was sexually harassed and assaulted by her landlord and employer. 

The worker in question was a single mother who had immigrated to Canada from Thailand in 1979. She sold shoes for Joe Singer Shoes Limited, and eventually moved into an apartment above the store (both of which were operated by the individually-named respondent, Mr. Singer). The worker alleged that Mr. Singer had sexually harassed and assaulted her over a period of many years, both in the store and in her apartment. In addition, the worker also alleged that Mr. Singer had made fun of her body, accent, English language skills and had made derogatory comments about her place of origin.

In reviewing the evidence, the HRTO acknowledged that the case was essentially a “he said, she said” case and therefore weighted the credibility of the worker and Mr. Singer in assessing their evidence. On the evidence before it, and despite the worker having an imperfect memory of events, the HRTO concluded that the worker had been sexually harassed and solicited both at work and in her apartment and awarded $200,000 in monetary damages for the worker’s injury to dignity, feeling and self-respect. In making such a large award, the HRTO was particularly sensitive to the fact that the worker was objectively vulnerable and unable to escape the harassment which had occurred both in her place of work and her home.

While such a large damage award is still an outlier, the case serves as a reminder to employers that harassment, especially sexual harassment, will be treated very seriously by the courts and administrative tribunals. Employers need to ensure that they have strong anti-harassment policies in place which contain provisions concerning investigations as well as training to remind employees of possible employment-related repercussions if policies are breached.

Related Publications

Publications Article
Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal of Condominium Class Action Based on a Limitation of Liability Clause By Brian Chung and Steve J. Tenai Apr 08, 2021 This is an update to our July 3, 2020 bulletin summarizing Justice Perell’s decision in Ritchie e... This is an update to our July 3, 2020 bulletin summarizing Justice Perell’s decision in Ritchie et al. v. Castlepoint Greybrook Sterling Inc., 2020 ONSC 3840.
Publications Article
To Vaccinate or Not To Vaccinate: The Employer’s Dilemma By Alex Kagan and Daria (Dasha) Peregoudova Mar 11, 2021 One of the topics that generated the most feedback in our last Workplace Law webinar was vaccinat... One of the topics that generated the most feedback in our last Workplace Law webinar was vaccinations in the workplace. As such, this article summarizes our insight on the topic.
Publications Article
Ontario Proposes Significant Changes to the Expropriations Act in Bill 245 By Ajay Gajaria and Matthew Helfand Mar 05, 2021 The Province of Ontario has proposed new legislation which will introduce amendments to the Expro... The Province of Ontario has proposed new legislation which will introduce amendments to the Expropriations Act respecting hearings of necessity, the board of negotiation and statutory interest rates. The changes represent some of the most significant changes to the Ontario Expropria...