Following a request for a leg wax in preparation for a ceremony honouring her work in her community, A.B. (anonymized for her safety) an Indigenous trans woman found herself pulled into a trial by media leaving her traumatized and fearing for her safety. In her human rights application filed with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”). A.B. alleged a string of discriminatory and retaliatory behaviour by Mad Wax Windsor Inc. and its owner Jason Caruthers, which included a press release, comments to the media and the circulation of A.B.’s HRTO complaint that followed the salon’s initial refusal to A.B.’s request for a leg wax.

Under cross examination, the HRTO heard that Caruthers repeatedly misgendered A.B. by referring to her as male or having male body parts, despite the fact that she never told him she had male genitalia. Caruthers also admitted to mischaracterizing the request for a leg wax as a Brazilian wax in his comments to media about his interaction with A.B.

A.B.’s encounter with Mad Wax began in 2018, when she initially contacted the salon by phone hoping to book an appointment. The HRTO, which adjudicated the case of A.B. v. Mad Wax Windsor Inc., 2024 HRTO 721, heard that in her phone conversation with Caruthers, A.B. was misgendered and Caruthers refused to provide service to “someone like you.”

Following this interaction, A.B. filed a human rights application at the HRTO. Caruthers subsequently issued a press release and comments to several media outlets which again misgendered A.B., misrepresented her waxing request and disclosed her name and contact information.

“Since 2012, gender identity and expression have been recognized as grounds protected from discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code,” says Megan Evans Maxwell, A.B.’s legal counsel from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre. “The Code makes it clear that businesses cannot rely on the prejudicial preferences of customers or staff to make choices about who they serve.”

Under cross examination, the HRTO heard that Caruthers repeatedly misgendered A.B. by referring to her as male or having male body parts, despite the fact that she never told him she had male genitalia. Caruthers also admitted to mischaracterizing the request for a leg wax as a Brazilian wax in his comments to media about his interaction with A.B.

“It is extremely concerning to see attempts to name and shame an Indigenous trans woman for trying to stand up for her rights” says Quinn Read-Baxter a member of the HRLSC’s Indigenous Services and Outreach Committee who also worked on A.B.’s case. “Respondents must exercise caution to avoid publicizing an applicant’s information, as the HRTO may see this kind of pre-emptive media blitz as a deliberate form of human rights reprisal.”

The respondents’ efforts to publicize A.B.’s private information, including her name and contact coordinates and details of the complaint, caused A.B. significant distress. The HRTO noted that the respondents’ overtures to media outlets “opened up a non-consensual public conversation as to the status of [A.B.’s] physical transition,” which very traumatizing. The impact of the reprisal also caused the applicant to relapse into substance use, which led to the loss of her job and the breakup of her marriage. Ultimately, the applicant felt she could no longer stay in her community.

“Historically, elements of our society that seek to exclude 2SLGBTQ+ communities have been quick to accuse them of being provocative and burdensome,” says Evans Maxwell, “simply for seeking safe, dignified access to everyday life. We can see clearly in this case how one-sided the damage of harassing and discriminatory expression truly can be.”

In its decision, the HRTO found that respondent’s press release and media interactions were intended to portray the applicant as threatening and dangerous and further undermine her human rights claim.

After hearing the evidence provided by the applicant and finding that the respondent could not refute the damages she suffered, the HRTO found that the respondents’ actions “struck at the core of the applicant’s identity and in a very public way.” The HRTO ordered the respondents to pay $35,000 mental distress damages to A.B. and both Caruthers and salon staff undertake online human rights training. 

“In the end this decision brings me some peace,” says A.B. “No press release can silence me or the facts found in this decision. It helps tell the story of the discrimination I faced and the steps taken to escalate that discrimination and harassment against me.”

Update: The respondent in this case filed a judicial review application of the applicant’s successful HRTO application. The judicial review application was heard on April 24, 2026.  

The Divisional Court dismissed the judicial review application and upheld the HRTO’s decision in Mad Wax Windsor Inc. et al v. A.B, 2026 ONSC 2451, ruling the HRTO reasonably found there was discrimination and reprisal under the Human Rights Code. The Court held that the evidence before the HRTO supported the findings made by the HRTO and that it was open to the HRTO to prefer the evidence of the applicant and to make findings of credibility of the witnesses’ evidence.  There were no grounds to disturb the HRTO’s treatment of the evidence.

The Court also ruled that the remedy awarded by the HRTO was reasonable. The Court reinforced the principle that the HRTO has a broad remedial jurisdiction under the Code to order remedies that are fair, effective, and tailored to the circumstances of each case.

For more coverage of this story, see: CTV News Windsor – “Windsor business fined $35,000 for ‘discrimination and reprisal’ of Indigenous transgender woman