The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed a complaint of sexual harassment and discrimination filed by a customer against Goodlife Fitness and one of its employees, ruling that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case under the Human Rights Code.
R.S., a former member of GoodLife Fitness, alleged that she was sexually harassed by P.M., an employee at the Vaughan Keele GoodLife location, between March 2018 and January 2019. She claimed that he regularly greeted her with kisses on both cheeks, made comments about his preference for older women, showed her a shirtless photograph of himself, and invited her to go clubbing and for drinks. She further alleged that these interactions created a hostile and uncomfortable gym environment.
Interactions misconstrued: GoodLife
GoodLife and P.M. denied the allegations, arguing that the interactions were misconstrued. P.M. testified that his greetings were consistent with a customary Spanish cultural practice of an “air kiss” and that R.S. never objected to the greetings or indicated discomfort. He also denied making any romantic or sexual advances.
The tribunal applied the legal test for discrimination under section 1 of the Code, which guarantees equal treatment in services without discrimination based on sex or age. While the tribunal acknowledged that sexual harassment in the provision of services can constitute discrimination under the Code, it found that R.S. did not provide credible or reliable evidence to support her claim.
Credibility issues
The ruling placed significant emphasis on credibility. The tribunal found inconsistencies in R.S.’s testimony, particularly regarding the feasibility of certain claims. For instance, R.S. alleged that P.M. kissed her while she was on an elliptical machine, but the tribunal found this claim “impractical if not impossible.” The tribunal also noted that despite claiming to feel harassed, R.S. continued to approach P.M. for assistance at the gym, including requesting free guest passes.
In contrast, the tribunal found the testimony of P.M. and two other GoodLife employees to be consistent and credible. Witnesses testified that R.S. referred to P.M. as “babe” on multiple occasions and that she voluntarily engaged in friendly conversations with him. The tribunal noted that P.M. had a long-term partner at the time and had never previously faced similar complaints.
Regarding GoodLife’s response, the tribunal found that the organization took appropriate steps once it became aware of R.S.’s complaint. GoodLife investigated the matter, gathered statements from employees, and required P.M. to undergo additional training on workplace harassment, even though the complaint was ultimately deemed unsubstantiated.
The tribunal concluded that R.S. failed to demonstrate that P.M.’s conduct constituted sexual harassment or discrimination based on sex or age. The application was dismissed in its entirety.
For more information, see Schiller v. Goodlife Fitness Centres Inc., 2025 HRTO 484 (CanLII).
