2076831 Ontario Ltd. v. Qiu, 2018 ONSC 7295
Ms. Qiu worked for a used car dealership as a bookkeeper for about 4.5 years. She filed an HRTO application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on her race, ancestry, ethnic origin and sex, and reprisal contrary to sections 5 and 8 of the Code.
The HRTO found 2076831 Ontario Ltd liable for breaching Ms. Qui’s right to be free from discrimination in employment because of her sex. The HRTO also found 2076831 Ontario Ltd liable for retaliating against Ms. Qiu, as they terminated her employment after she complained about her exposure to the workplace sexualized comments and conduct.
The HRTO awarded Ms. Qiu $30,000 as compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect. The HRTO later denied a request by 2076831 Ontario Limited for a reconsideration of the HRTO decision. 2076831 Ontario Limited sought judicial review at the Ontario Divisional Court of both HRTO decisions.
2076831 Ontario Limited argued the HRTO made several legal errors, including awarding the $30,000 without an explicit finding of sexual harassment; relying on colour as a discrimination factor without giving notice to the parties to make submissions; making improper findings of fact and concluding that there was a poisoned work environment; and was biased because the HRTO’s reasons simply contained a total reproduction of Ms. Qiu’s written closing submissions.
The Court dismissed all these arguments as meritless. The Court applied a standard of review of reasonableness to the HRTO decision and found the HRTO’s decisions were reasonable on the facts and law. The Court was satisfied that HRTO properly assessed all the evidence, including the credibility and reliability of the witnesses and applied the relevant legal principles to the facts of the case. There were no legal errors made by the HRTO.
The Court found:
- the HRTO properly exercised its remedial discretion, canvassed the range of damages in the case law, and applied the relevant legal principles in awarding $30,000;
- the HRTO reasonably applied the case law in finding the sexualized comments and conduct created a poisoned work environment;
- the HRTO reasonably found Ms. Qiu suffered reprisal for objecting to the toxic environment by being fired; and
- the HRTO’s analysis, credibility assessments and factual findings were made independently and impartially and there was no bias
The Court ordered:
- the application for judicial review be dismissed; and
- legal costs of $7,000 to be payable to Ms. Qiu.
To read the full decision, visit Canlii.