Human Rights Damage Awards

Ontario Tribunal

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 2018JR 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