Sexual Harassment (HRTO)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-26
CLNP Page ID:	1064
Page Categories:	Human Rights
Citation:	Sexual Harassment (HRTO), CLNP 1064, <5R>, retrieved on 2024-11-26
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2022/01/03

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Tulul v. King Travel Can, 2011 HRTO 438 (CanLII)

[106] Having said that, the actions of the respondent may be relevant in determining the harm done to the applicant and consequently the amount of compensation required to restore an applicant in the position he or she would have been in, but for the discrimination. For example, in Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations, 2009 HRTO 273 (CanLII), at para. 54 the Tribunal made a “substantial” award of monetary compensation to the applicant, in part because of the retaliatory and callous nature of the respondent’s discriminatory actions and their impact on the applicant. In Torrejon v. 1147335 Ontario, 2010 HRTO 1513 (CanLII), a decision only on remedy, the Tribunal awarded $20,000 as monetary compensation taking into the account the vulnerability of the applicant.

Tonn v. The Curtis Goddard Team, 2020 HRTO 804 (CanLII)

[272] Recent Tribunal decisions that have considered sexual harassment and related issues in the context of employment have generally made awards ranging from $10,000 to $200,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. See, for example, Chuvalo v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 2037 ($12,000); Newton v. Toronto (City), 2010 HRTO 1023 ($15,000); S.S. v. Taylor, 2012 HRTO 1839 ($15,000); Panucci v. Seller’s Choice Stockdale Realty Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1579 ($15,000); Chard v. Newton, 2007 HRTO 36 ($16,000); Payette v. Alarm Guard Security Service, 2011 HRTO 109 ($18,000); G.G. v. […] Ontario Limited, 2012 HRTO 1197 ($18,000); Vipond v. Ben Wicks Pub and Bistro, 2013 HRTO 695 ($18,000); Lu v. Markham Marble, 2012 HRTO 65 ($20,000); De Los Santos Sands v. Moneta Marketing Solutions Inc., 2016 HRTO 271 ($20,000); Granes v. 2389193 Ontario Inc., ($20,000); Harriott v. National Money Mart, 2010 HRTO 353 ($22,500); Hughes v. 1308581 Ontario, 2009 HRTO 341 ($25,000); Ratneiya v. Daniel & Krumeh, 2009 HRTO 1824 ($25,000); Garofalo v. Cavalier Hair Stylists Shop Inc., 2013 HRTO 170 ($27,000); Horner v. Peelle Company Ltd., 2014 HRTO 1211 ($28,000); Birchall v. Andres, 2013 HRTO 1469 ($30,000); C.U. v. Blencowe, 2013 HRTO 1667 ($30,000); Sanford v. Koop, 2005 HRTO 53 ($35,000); Smith v. The Rover’s Rest, 2013 HRTO 700 ($35,000); S.H. v. M [...] Painting, 2009 HRTO 595 ($40,000); M.K. v. [...] Ontario, 2011 HRTO 705 ($40,000); J.D. v. The Ultimate Cut Unisex, 2014 HRTO 956 (three applicants - $40,000, $40,000, and $25,000); C.K. v. H.S., 2014 HRTO 1652 ($45,000); and Smith v. Menzies Chrysler, 2009 HRTO 1936 ($50,000.); G.M. v. X Tattoo Parlour 2018 HRTO 201 ($75,000); O.P.T. v. Presteve 2015 HRTO 675 ($150,000 and $50,000 award for two workers); NK v. Botuik, 2020 HRTO 345 ($170,000) and A.B. v. Joe Singer Shoes 2018 HRTO 107 ($200,000).

AM v. Kellock, 2019 HRTO 414 (CanLII)

[111] A determination of whether a respondent ought to have known conduct to be unwelcome is an objective test. What is reasonable should take into account both perspectives – that of the individual initiating the action, and that of the individual who is on the receiving end. See de los Santos Sands v. Moneta Marketing Solutions Inc., 2016 HRTO 271 (“de los Santos Sands”) at paragraph 34. This would also mean that what is reasonable should take into account the relationship between the two individuals. Whether conduct is unwelcome must also factor in any power imbalance that may exist, as such an imbalance will affect what a person may assume is welcome.

[112] A power imbalance is a fundamental factor to consider in determining whether particular conduct amounts to unwelcome harassment, solicitation or advances. See, de los Santos Sands at paragraph 36. The greater the power imbalance, the greater the onus on the individual with the power advantage to ensure their actions are not unwelcome.