Adriana Greenblatt

The applicant alleged she was sexually assaulted and harassed by a firm principal and a client during a hot tub incident at a firm retreat, and that the firm failed to investigate her subsequent complaint.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was an independent contractor, the relationship had a sufficient nexus to employment to fall under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the sexual harassment and assault allegations, finding the applicant's evidence unreliable and the conduct not unwelcome.

However, the Tribunal found the corporate respondent breached its duty to investigate by failing to provide the applicant an opportunity to formally raise her concerns, ordering the firm to develop a human rights policy and undergo training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment against the respondents.

She subsequently requested an order to add Loblaws Inc. as a respondent, arguing that Loblaws was responsible for the selection process for a training program from which she was rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to allege facts that, if proven, could support a finding that Loblaws violated her rights under the Code, as there was no allegation that Loblaws' refusal to select her was based on her sex.