K2 Martial Arts Kickboxing and its instructor, A.K., were found liable for sexual harassment against a fellow student at the gym in a recent ruling by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded the victim $10,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, stemming from an incident in November 2018.
The ruling detailed the events leading to the decision. The student, S.A., alleged that A.K., a part-time instructor at K2 Martial Arts, sexually harassed her after a class on Nov. 19, 2018. According to her testimony, A.K. began massaging her back before attempting to remove her clothing, despite her repeated objections. The Tribunal found her account credible, stating that although S.A. initially consented to some physical contact, she clearly communicated her discomfort when he tried to remove her shirt and pants.
“I accept the applicant’s evidence that they began indicating to the individual respondent that the behaviour was unwelcome, but the individual respondent continued the behaviour,” the ruling states.
The Tribunal also found that while K2 Martial Arts had taken some steps to address the situation, including limiting A.K.’s involvement at the gym, these actions were insufficient to absolve the gym of liability under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. The gym, now closed, was deemed vicariously liable for his actions, despite not having a formal harassment policy in place at the time of the incident. The ruling emphasized that even small businesses must comply with the Code’s requirements.
The case, which was filed in 2019, encountered procedural delays, particularly concerning A.K.’s participation. A.K., who represented himself, failed to attend several case management conferences and did not submit required documents until the hearing in June 2024. As a result, the Tribunal barred him from presenting evidence but allowed him to make opening and closing statements. He denied the allegations, stating in his response that he “deny[ed] any allegation of sexually assaultive behaviour.”
Despite these denials, the Tribunal found in favour of S.A. Adjudicator Inbar noted that A.K. had failed to provide an adequate explanation for his absence from earlier proceedings and had not participated meaningfully until the hearing. The ruling cited past decisions, including Haykin v. Roth and Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., to assert that sexual harassment, even in the provision of services, constitutes sex discrimination under the Code.
The Tribunal also addressed the gym’s response to S.A.’s complaint. According to the decision, after initially reporting the incident to the gym’s site manager in December 2018, S.A. was assured that he would not be allowed back at the facility. However, A.K. continued to attend classes, and she was later informed he would be working at the front desk during one of her sessions. The Tribunal found this response inadequate, although it acknowledged that the gym had eventually terminated A.K.’s employment.
The ruling states: “While the organizational respondent perhaps could have done more, the standard is not perfection.”
S.A. also sought compensation for additional tuition fees, claiming that the emotional distress from the incident caused her to fail a year’s worth of university classes, which she would now have to pay for. However, the Tribunal declined to award monetary compensation for these claims, citing a lack of evidence.
The ruling concluded with an order for A.K. and K2 Martial Arts to jointly pay Abdi $10,000 in damages, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest. The Tribunal did not order the non-monetary remedies S.A. requested, such as a formal apology from the gym’s owners, as K2 Martial Arts is no longer operational.
The respondents have 30 days to comply with the financial orders set by the Tribunal.
For more information, see Abdi v. K2 Martial Arts Kickboxing, 2024 HRTO 1282 (CanLII).
