The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ordered The Ivy Social Club Inc. and its owner to pay $35,000 to a former employee after finding that she was subjected to sexual harassment, unwelcome sexual advances, and reprisal in violation of the Human Rights Code.
Adjudicator Caroline Sand concluded that the owner’s actions breached multiple sections of the Code, including discrimination with respect to employment because of sex, sexual harassment, sexual solicitation or advances, and reprisal.
Background: ‘Pretty girl’ and ‘man-eater’
I.K. began working as a bartender at The Ivy Social Club in the summer of 2015. Starting in October 2018, she was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances by the owner — E.G. These advances escalated on Nov. 11, 2018, when he publicly referred to her as a “pretty girl” and a “man-eater,” and invited her to his house for a drink. Later that evening, he pointed to her while she was working and loudly told patrons, “See this girl? I’m going to f**** her tonight.” He repeated similar statements directly to her.
Feeling threatened, I.K. avoided him after her shift. Although she had previously given him rides home when he was intoxicated, she refused to do so that night. He waited by her car and texted her, but she did not respond and waited until he left before departing herself.
The situation culminated on Dec. 24, 2018, when he saw I.K. at the bar and aggressively stated in front of staff and patrons, “You wouldn’t f*** me, so you can get the f***out of here!” Interpreting this as her termination, I.K. sought payment from the manager. When she questioned the amount, E.G. became enraged and lunged at her, requiring two people to hold him back. She called 911 and later reported the incident to the York Regional Police.
Bartender’s testimony credible: Tribunal
Adjudicator Sand found I.K.’s testimony credible and consistent. “I found the applicant’s testimony and her description of the impact it had on her to be honest and credible,” she stated. The tribunal noted that E.G. did not attend the hearing, and thus the allegations were uncontradicted.
In her findings, Adjudicator Sand determined that the owner’s conduct constituted a violation of sections 5(1), 5(2), 7(2), 7(3)(a), and 7(3)(b) of the Code. Specifically, she found that his comments and actions amounted to sexual harassment and unwelcome sexual advances, and that terminating I.K.’s employment was an act of reprisal for her refusal of those advances.
“I find the respondent’s November 11, 2018, comment… to be unwanted sexual ‘advances,’ in breach of s. 7(3) of the Code,” Adjudicator Sand wrote. “It is clear from the evidence I heard that the action taken against the applicant, namely, firing her, was a consequence of her refusal of the sexual advances, which contravenes s.7(3)(b) of the Code.”
Remedy
I.K. requested $250,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, self-respect, and mental anguish. The tribunal awarded her $35,000, taking into account similar cases and the specifics of her situation.
“I have considered the Tribunal’s case law and the applicant’s circumstances, including the impact of the discrimination on her,” Adjudicator Sand noted. “I find that it is appropriate to order the respondents to pay $35,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect in this matter.”
The tribunal also ordered pre-judgment interest at 2% from the date of filing the application on April 7, 2020, to the date of the decision, and post-judgment interest at 6% on any unpaid amounts beyond 60 days from the decision date.
For more information, see Kochkina v. The Ivy Social Club Inc., 2024 HRTO 1557 (CanLII).
