The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed a discrimination complaint against GoodLife Fitness after finding the applicant failed to establish a connection between alleged mistreatment and protected human rights grounds.
N.P. filed the application alleging discrimination and harassment based on age, sex and sexual solicitation after a male employee at the fitness centre spoke to her twice while she exercised, asked her to work out with him, and later called her personal cellphone to invite her to “kick it” outside the gym.
The tribunal noted that N.P. had not provided her phone number to the employee, who accessed it through the company’s membership database. She alleged this constituted sexual solicitation and a privacy breach, and claimed the company failed to take her concerns seriously partly due to her young age.
Company response and investigation
GoodLife acknowledged N.P.’s complaint and conducted an internal investigation. The employee claimed N.P. had agreed to exercise with him and he needed her phone number to cancel those plans. Despite the conflicting accounts, the company determined the employee had misused member personal information.
The company took corrective action including retraining on privacy and integrity policies and implementing a written performance improvement plan. The employee was also “advised to stay away from the Applicant and warned that if he contacted her again for non-work-related items, he would be terminated from GoodLife.”
Tribunal’s jurisdictional analysis
The tribunal emphasized that its jurisdiction is limited to enforcing the Human Rights Code, which “only prohibits actions that discriminate against people based on their enumerated grounds in a protected social area.”
The tribunal noted that “everyone will identify with at least one Code-enumerated ground, and, over the course of their lifetime, most people will suffer some form of adverse treatment which may or may not be connected to the Code. Because of this, the Code does not assume that all adverse treatment is discriminatory.”
To fall within the tribunal’s jurisdiction, applicants must “provide some factual basis beyond a bald assertion which links their grounds to the respondent’s actions and explains why they think that these actions are discriminatory in nature.”
Sexual harassment claims rejected
The tribunal found N.P.’s sexual harassment allegations lacked substance. While she “did not appreciate being talked to by the male employee and asked to workout or to meet outside the gym, such an action does not rise to the level of the definition of harassment with the Code.”
Harassment under the Code requires a “course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known, or ought reasonably to be known, to be unwelcome or unwanted.”
Regarding sexual solicitation claims, the tribunal determined that as a “non-management associate, the employee in question was not in a position to confer or deny benefits to the applicant as in sexual solicitation.”
The tribunal found no breach of the Code for sexual solicitation or sexual harassment, particularly given the company’s response once informed of N.P.’s discomfort.
Age and gender discrimination claims fail
N.P.’s allegations of discrimination based on gender and age were dismissed as “simply speculation as to the reason that she perceived the respondent did not appropriately respond to the concerns she raised.”
The tribunal found this “cannot reasonably be considered to constitute adverse treatment under the Code” and concluded N.P. “failed to provide a factual basis beyond a bald assertion which links their grounds to the respondent’s actions.”
Privacy breach outside tribunal scope
GoodLife argued that privacy breaches fall outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The tribunal agreed, citing a previous case stating “the Tribunal jurisdiction is limited to adjudicating disputes under the Code and does not have jurisdiction to investigate a breach of privacy.”
The tribunal noted that “the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario investigates privacy breaches” and found the tribunal was “not the appropriate forum to address an alleged breach of privacy.”
Broader implications for employers
The case highlights the importance of proper complaint handling procedures and the distinction between general workplace issues and human rights violations. While GoodLife faced criticism for its initial response, the company’s investigation and corrective measures demonstrated appropriate action once the complaint was raised.
The ruling reinforces that not all adverse treatment in the workplace constitutes discrimination under human rights legislation. Applicants must establish a clear connection between their protected characteristics and the alleged discriminatory treatment.
The decision also clarifies that privacy breaches, while serious workplace issues, fall under different regulatory frameworks and are not within the human rights tribunal’s mandate.
Employee conduct and database access
The case underscores the risks associated with employee access to customer databases and the need for clear policies regarding appropriate use of personal information. The employee’s admission to accessing N.P.’s phone number through company systems without authorization led to disciplinary action regardless of the human rights complaint outcome.
The company’s response — including retraining, performance improvement plans and clear warnings about future contact — demonstrates appropriate escalation when employees misuse customer information or create uncomfortable situations for members.
For more information, see Patterson v. GoodLife Fitness Centres Inc., 2025 HRTO 1197 (CanLII).
