In A.B. v. Mad Wax Windsor Inc., 2024 HRTO 721, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) upheld the application of an HRLSC client, an Indigenous transgender woman, who alleged the respondent salon denied her leg waxing services because of her gender identity. In addition to finding that the denial of service was discriminatory, the HRTO also found that the owner of the salon, named as a personal respondent in the HRTO application, had violated the Human Rights Code through his subsequent attempts to contact the media about his interaction with the applicant. In comments made to media as well as a press release he issued, the personal respondent misgendered the applicant, made disparaging comments related to her gender identity and disclosed both the applicant’s full name and contact information as well as the name of her employer. The HRTO found that these actions constituted reprisal, as they were intentional acts of retaliation against the applicant for attempting to assert her rights under the Code.
Given the serious impact that the respondents’ conduct had on the applicant, the HRTO awarded the applicant $35,000 in general damages. The HRTO also ordered that the personal respondent and all his employees must complete the OHRC’s Human Rights 101 eLearning module.
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.