Aquilina v. Pokoj, 1991 CanLII 13174

Aquilina v. Pokoj

1991-01-08

Ontario Board of Inquiry

Karen Aquilina Complainant

v.

Stephanie Pokoj Respondent

Date of Decision: January 8, 1991

Before: Ontario Board of Inquiry, Berend Hovius

Comm. Decision No.: 406

Appearances by: M. Ginsberg and C. Bickley, Counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission C. Criminisi, Counsel for the Respondent

PHYSICAL DISABILITY — HOUSING ACCOMMODATION — tenant harassed on basis of cerebral palsy — landlord engaged in a course of vexatious conduct amounting to harassment contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, 1981.

Summary: The Board of Inquiry rules that Stephanie Pokoj harassed Karen Aquilina because of her handicap.Karen Aquilina is a twenty-three year old woman who has cerebral palsy. Her cerebral palsy causes some cognitive deficiency, ataxia and some lack of coordination.

In 1986 Ms. Aquilina, supported by her mother and by a social worker, decided to live on her own. She found and moved into a basement suite owned by Stephanie Pokoj.

At first, relations between the two women were amicable, but soon Ms. Pokoj found that Ms. Aquilina intended to be independent and not follow her "orders." Ms. Pokoj began to complain about Ms. Aquilina's use of heat and light, about noise, and about her having a boyfriend who came to visit her. On more than one occasion Ms. Pokoj called Ms. Aquilina a "retard." She also wrote Ms. Aquilina a letter in which she called her "miserable crap." In addition, she harassed Ms. Aquilina by entering her apartment when she was not there, turning off the hallway light when Ms. Aquilina was part way down the stairs, banging on the ceiling, and issuing an illegal eviction notice. In response to this conduct, Ms. Aquilina decided to move out of the apartment.

The Board of Inquiry accepts the evidence of Ms. Aquilina where there is a conflict between her testimony and that of Ms. Pokoj. The Board finds that Ms. Pokoj harassed Ms. Aquilina because of her handicap. Ms. Pokoj believed that because of her handicap Ms. Aquilina ought not to wear makeup or have a boyfriend and ought to accept direction from her. When Ms. Pokoj's desire to control Ms. Aquilina's life was frustrated she engaged in a course of vexatious conduct which amounted to harassment contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Board orders Ms. Pokoj to pay Ms. Aquilina $661.55 in compensation for expenses she incurred because of being forced to move. The Board also orders Ms. Pokoj to pay $2,000 in general damages for the loss of self-respect and dignity Ms. Aquilina experienced, as well as interest on the award in the amount of $902.68.

CASES CITED

Boehm v. National System of Baking Ltd. (1987), 1987 CanLII 8515 (ON HRT), 8 C.H.R.R. D/4110 (Ont. Bd.Inq.): 27

Booker v. Floriri Village Investments Inc. (1989), 1989 CanLII 9077 (ON HRT), 11 C.H.R.R. D/44 (Ont. Bd.Inq.): 35

Cameron v. Nel-Gor Castle Nursing Home (1984), 1984 CanLII 5045 (ON HRT), 5 C.H.R.R. D/2170 (Ont. Bd.Inq.): 35

Commodore Business Machines Ltd. v. Olarte (No. 2) (sub nom. Olarte v. DeFilippis and Commodore Business Machines Ltd.) (1983), 1983 CanLII 4716 (ON HRT), 4 C.H.R.R. D/1705 (Ont. Bd.Inq.): 35

Hendry v. Ontario (Liquor Control Board) (1980), 1980 CanLII 3901 (ON HRT), 1 C.H.R.R. D/160 (Ont. Bd.Inq.): 27

LEGISLATION CITED

Ontario

Courts of Justice Act, S.O. 1984, c. 11: 35

Human Rights Code, 1981, S.O. 1981, c. 53

s. 2(1): 1

s. 2(2): 1, 23

s. 9: 24

s. 40(1)(b): 31

INTRODUCTION

1These proceedings arose out of a complaint filed by Ms. Karen Aquilina alleging that her right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation without discrimination because of handicap and her right to freedom from harassment by the landlord because of handicap had been infringed by Mrs. Stephanie Pokoj, contrary to ss. 2(1) and 2(2) of the Human Rights Code, 1981, S.O. 1981, c. 53. On June 18, 1990, I was appointed by the then Minister of Citizenship, the Hon. Bob Wong, to act as a Board of Inquiry to hear and decide the matter.

2On June 27, the hearing was commenced by conference call and the dates of August 15, 16 and 17 were set as the days on which I would hear evidence and arguments. On August 15, Mrs. Pokoj appeared without counsel. It soon became apparent that Mrs. Pokoj had changed her mind and wished to be represented by counsel. I therefore adjourned the hearing and gave her two weeks in which to secure legal representation. On August 30, the hearing was reconvened by conference call and December 6 was eventually selected as the date on which I would begin to hear evidence. The parties presented their evidence and arguments on December 6 and 7.

THE FACTS

3Ms. Karen Aquilina is a courageous young woman, now aged 23, who has cerebral palsy involving some cognitive deficiency as well as ataxia or lack of muscle coordination. She also has bilateral cataracts which impair her vision considerably.

4In 1986, Ms. Aquilina, her mother and her social worker decided that it would be best for Ms. Aquilina to live in an apartment on her own. On December 1, she began to rent a basement apartment from Mrs. Stephanie Pokoj for $220 a month, including heat and utilities. This unit was directly below that of Mrs. Pokoj, a widow now aged 68.

5When rental arrangements were made Mrs. Pokoj was not informed of the nature of Ms. Aquilina's handicap because the social worker, Ms. Debbie Shannelly, had concluded that it was not relevant to Ms. Aquilina's capacity as a tenant. However, Ms. Shannelly did mention to Mrs. Pokoj that Ms. Aquilina suffered from a lack of physical coordination which resulted in an awkward gait that might be mistakenly attributed to a drunken condition. As a result of this information and her own observations of Ms. Aquilina, Mrs. Pokoj knew that Ms. Aquilina had some form of handicap. However, all concerned believed that it would not affect Ms. Aquilina's ability to fend for herself in the apartment. As Ms. Aquilina has lived on her own since December 1986, she has more than proved the accuracy of this belief.

6Initially Mrs. Pokoj and Ms. Aquilina got along well. At times Ms. Aquilina went upstairs to watch television with Mrs. Pokoj and share a coffee break. Mrs. Pokoj testified that things were "great" until sometime in January. She believed she had found companionship. She also clearly saw Ms. Aquilina as someone whom she could help, guide, protect and direct.

7During January, however, it became apparent that Ms. Aquilina wanted to lead a far more independent life than Mrs. Pokoj had anticipated. She acquired her own television set and stereo and no longer visited upstairs. Much to Mrs. Pokoj's dismay she began to skip school and eventually stopped going altogether. She was also visited by a male friend on a fairly frequent basis.

8At about this time, Mrs. Pokoj began to complain about Ms. Aquilina's behaviour as a tenant. The items of complaint included: late visits by the male friend, using far too much heat, using too much water, leaving lights on when she was out, tracking snow and water onto the stairs, and playing the stereo too loudly. Although I heard a good deal of evidence regarding these complaints, I will not attempt to assess each one independently or fully. Whether or not Ms. Aquilina was an ideal tenant is not the issue in this case.

9Certainly, the setting was one in which conflict was almost inevitable. The two units shared the same side entrance and stairway to the basement. Any noise from the apartment could be readily heard upstairs. The apartment was dark and damp, requiring the occupant to use lights and heat extensively. The heat was provided by electric space heaters, a notoriously expensive method of heating. Given Mrs. Pokoj's parsimonious nature and her growing frustration at her inability to direct Ms. Aquilina's life, it is unlikely that anything short of perfection on the latter's part in her role as tenant could have prevented conflict. On the other hand, there was evidence to indicate that Ms. Aquilina played the stereo loudly and that she unnecessarily left the heat on while she was out.

10Early in February, Ms. Aquilina found the screen door at the side of the house locked from the inside and so she had to ask Mrs. Pokoj to open the door for her. According to Ms. Aquilina, Mrs. Pokoj did so only after retorting: "Why should I?" This led Ms. Aquilina to believe that Mrs. Pokoj had deliberately locked her out to show her she was no longer a welcome tenant. Ms. Aquilina informed her new social worker, Ms. MacKinnon, about the incident and the latter arranged a meeting with Mrs. Pokoj on February 10 in an attempt to work things out. Ms. MacKinnon and Ms. Aquilina met with Mrs. Pokoj on that date.

11At the meeting, Mrs. Pokoj insisted on discussing certain aspects of Ms. Aquilina's private life: her use of make-up, the visits by the male friend, her withdrawal from school, and the need for a more active social life. Ms. MacKinnon testified that it was at this meeting that Mrs. Pokoj asked Ms. Aquilina bluntly: "What's a retarded girl like you doing having a boyfriend?" Mrs. Pokoj acknowledged in her testimony that she had once made this comment to Ms. Aquilina but that it was made during a heated argument over water on the stairs. Although little turns on the timing of this comment, I find that it was made during the meeting as indicated by Ms. MacKinnon and as stated by Ms. Aquilina in her complaint.

12Although Ms. Aquilina was naturally upset by this meeting and Mrs. Pokoj's comments about her personal life, she resolved that she would try to meet some of the concerns raised by Mrs. Pokoj abut her behaviour as a tenant by using less water, turning off her stereo when she wasn't there, leaving her boots at the top of the stairs and so on. She was not entirely successful. For example, she soon decided that it was too difficult for her to take her boots off on the narrow landing at the top of the stairs. She also discovered that the apartment got extremely cold if she turned off the heat while she was out and she soon reverted to her habit of leaving the heat on. It is clear that the relationship between Mrs. Pokoj and Ms. Aquilina improved only temporarily following the meeting and that the conflict continued to escalate. Eventually, Mrs. Pokoj determined that Ms. Aquilina would have to leave.

13On April 29, 1987, Mrs. Pokoj informed Ms. Aquilina by letter that she would have to terminate the tenancy by the end of June. The reason given was that Mrs. Pokoj intended to remodel the apartment. There is little question that the remodelling plan was little more than an excuse to get rid of an unwanted tenant. As Mrs. Pokoj acknowledged in her testimony, she had simply decided that Ms. Aquilina had to go because "things weren't going too well" and she didn't follow "orders." When Ms. Aquilina eventually moved out, the only work done in the apartment was the replacement of the bathroom ceiling.

14When she received the notice to vacate, Ms. Aquilina informed Ms. MacKinnon and the two of them sought advice from a tenant advisory bureau where they were informed that the notice was not effective. They returned to Mrs. Pokoj's house and informed a rather angry Mrs. Pokoj of this.

15Shortly after this, Ms. Aquilina found an undated, unsigned handwritten note attached to the door of her apartment. She was so upset by the nasty salutation that she could read no further on her own. She called Ms. MacKinnon and they read the note together. The complete note reads as follows:

Listen Retarded

• listen good

you are ruining me for good if you behaved yourself you could stay for unlimited time. but you don't listen to me I have asked you very nicely to put the heat down, but you do turn it up just to spite me. WHY? I have a terrible job to meet paying my bills. I work around the house today and I heard your Radio all day why do you leave it on when there's no one there. you are extremely dirty person you have been here 5 months and you washed your floor only once you plaster your face with makeup but you live very dirty and untidy for a young strong woman that is a shame to be so dirty. From now on you turn your Radio off + heat off it's too hot outside + you admitted to Police you had your heat on they just laughed at you + said who would have the heat on in this beautiful weather only Retarded like you and I will make you pay the extra heat you think you can do as you please I am the owner of this property not you The sooner you leave the happy I will be I cant stand the site of you. you are very miserable crap. your mother threw you out because you interfered with her love life I took you like a good samaritan + you make my life hell.

16This letter shocked Ms. Aquilina and made her very angry and upset. She decided that she would have to leave the apartment. She and Ms. MacKinnon went to the Brant County Community Legal Clinic. Peter D. Rollings, a barrister and solicitor, prepared a letter indicating that, even though Ms. Aquilina had not been given proper notice to vacate the premises, she would leave the apartment on June 1. This letter also indicated that Mrs. Pokoj was to refrain from entering the premises without Ms. Aquilina's consent.

17At the hearing Ms. Aquilina repeated her suspicion that Mrs. Pokoj frequently entered her apartment while she was out. Although Mrs. Pokoj denied ever doing so, I believe that Ms. Aquilina's suspicion was well-founded.

18Mrs. Pokoj admitted in her testimony that she had written the letter reproduced above but she insisted that it had been written much earlier than May 1987. She said that she had written it "out of rage" and in an attempt to "attack back": "She hurt me many times and I figure I want to hurt her back, give her her own kind of medicine back." In particular, Mrs. Pokoj insisted that she had written it after Ms. Aquilina threatened her with a kitchen knife when she had gone to talk to Ms. Aquilina about the decision to quit school. Ms. Aquilina categorically denied ever threatening Mrs. Pokoj with a knife or in any other way.

19I believe that the letter was written and received in early May, as indicated by Ms. MacKinnon and Ms. Aquilina. In the letter itself, Mrs. Pokoj referred to the fact that Ms. Aquilina had been in the apartment for five months and to the beautiful warm weather. Moreover, Ms. Aquilina's explanation that it was this letter which caused her to visit Mr. Rollings and request him to write Mrs. Pokoj informing her of the decision to leave the apartment makes imminent sense.

20More generally, I found Ms. Aquilina to be a more credible witness that Mrs. Pokoj. Although Ms. Aquilina occasionally had difficulty recalling specific details of the events which occurred over three years ago and would sometimes be confused by a question, she presented her evidence forthrightly and attempted to be as accurate as possible. Mrs. Pokoj also naturally had some difficulty in recalling specific events which happened so long ago. In addition, however, she had a tendency to exaggerate and reconstruct events to suit her. At this point, I wish to state that I do not believe that Ms. Aquilina ever threatened Mrs. Pokoj or called her names as the latter claimed. Nor do I believe Mrs. Pokoj's story that Ms. MacKinnon slapped her face when the discussion regarding the April 29 notice to vacate took place. Ms. Aquilina, who was present during this discussion, denied that this incident ever took place. One would also have expected Mrs. Pokoj to report such unprofessional conduct forthwith to Ms. MacKinnon's supervisor, if it had occurred. Yet, she did not mention it even to the investigating officer of the Human Rights Commission.

21The relationship between the parties did not improve even after Ms. Aquilina indicated that she was leaving on June 1. Mrs. Pokoj continued to pound her floor whenever she felt Ms. Aquilina's stereo was too loud. Ms. Aquilina also testified that Mrs. Pokoj would occasionally deliberately turn off the light in the stairwell while Ms. Aquilina was still descending. Whether this occurred before or after the events of early May is not clear, but I accept that it happened.

22Despite Mrs. Pokoj's denials, I also accept Ms. Aquilina's version of the events of the night before the June 1 move. Ms. Aquilina testified that she decided to leave her bathroom light on that night because she was afraid. Shortly after she retired, Ms. Aquilina received a call from Mrs. Pokoj ordering her to turn the light off. Ms. Aquilina decided not to and was then too frightened to go to bed. She spent the night sitting in a chair facing the door, certain that Mrs. Pokoj would come down. This she eventually did, banged on the door and shouted,: "OK, It is June the 1st now. I want you out." She then returned to her apartment leaving Ms. Aquilina in a terrified state. In the morning Ms. Aquilina told Ms. MacKinnon about these events and the latter decided to phone the police who came to talk to Mrs. Pokoj.

When Ms. Aquilina's mother came to help her move, she was subjected to a tirade from Mrs. Pokoj who was standing on her verandah. According to Mrs. Aquilina, Mrs. Pokoj called her "a fucking retard" and stated, among other things, "All your family is retarded." Mrs. Pokoj denied even speaking to Mrs. Aquilina on that morning but Ms. Aquilina testified that she could hear the shouting outside just before her mother came into the apartment.

THE LAW

23The relevant portions of s. 2(2) of the Code provide:

Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment by the landlord . . . because of . . . handicap . . .

It is obvious that Ms. Aquilina was occupying accommodation owned by Mrs. Pokoj as landlord. Did the latter harass Ms. Aquilina because of her handicap?

24The definitions that are relevant are contained in s. 9. Section 9(f) defines "harassment" as "engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome." There is little question but that the behaviour of Mrs. Pokoj qualifies as harassment. Following an initial period during which the two of them got along well, Mrs. Pokoj began to do and say things which were clearly vexatious, that is, irritating, annoying and distressing to Ms. Aquilina. Without reviewing the facts in detail, I would highlight the following:

(a) stamping on the floor on numerous occasions;

(b) shutting the light off as Ms. Aquilina descended the stairs;

(c) opening the screen door only reluctantly when Ms. Aquilina discovered it locked;

(d) the comment during the February 10th meeting: "What's a retarded girl like you doing having a boyfriend?"; and

(e) the undated letter beginning "Listen Retarded and listen good."

Moreover, I believe that this course of conduct and comment was known by Mrs. Pokoj to be unwelcome. In fact, to a considerable extent she intended her behaviour to be annoying either to force Ms. Aquilina to move out or, at the very least, to force her to become a compliant tenant who followed "orders." At times, there was an element of petty meanness in Mrs. Pokoj's behaviour. For example, the letter referring to the complainant as "retarded" and "miserable crap" was obviously intended to hurt deeply.

25To constitute a violation of s. 2(2) of the Code, the harassment must also be "because of handicap." The relevant portions of s. 9(b) provide:

"because of handicap" means for the reason that the person has or has had, or is believed to have had,

(i) any degree of physical disability . . . that is caused by . . . birth defect or illness . . ., [or]

(ii) a condition of mental retardation or impairment, . . .

There is no dispute that Ms. Aquilina has a handicap as defined in s. 9(b) and that Mrs. Pokoj was aware of the handicap. What remains to be determined is whether Mrs. Pokoj harassed Ms. Aquilina "for the reason that" she had a handicap.

26This aspect of the case presents some difficulty. Mrs. Pokoj rented the apartment to Ms. Aquilina without regard to the handicap and the two of them got along well initially. Indeed, I believe that Mrs. Pokoj set out to be kind to Ms. Aquilina partly because of the handicap. Problems then developed for two main reasons. First, Mrs. Pokoj discovered that Ms. Aquilina wanted to lead an independent life without undue influence and direction from her. Second, Mrs. Pokoj began to view Ms. Aquilina as an undesirable tenant who made too much noise and used excessive amounts of heat, water, and light. To some extent, therefore, Mrs. Pokoj's harassment was motivated simply by a desire to get rid of a tenant who, in her mind, was causing problems.

27It is, however, well established that it is sufficient to constitute unlawful discrimination if handicap (or any other prohibited ground) is part of the motivation for the prohibited activity even if other reasons are also present. In Hendry v. Ontario (Liquor Control Bd.) (1980), 1980 CanLII 3901 (ON HRT), 1 C.H.R.R. D/160 (Ont. Bd.Inq., D. Soberman) the Board noted that a refusal to hire was because of a prohibited ground where that ground was "a material cause, that is, a proximate cause, one that played a part even if subconsciously and even if present with other causes" (at D/162). Similarly, mixed motives may be present in harassment cases and it is sufficient if the harassment is caused in part by the handicap: Boehm v. National System of Baking Ltd. (1987), 1987 CanLII 8515 (ON HRT), 8 C.H.R.R. D/4110, at D/4123 (Ont. Bd.Inq., P. Cumming).

28I find that Ms. Aquilina's handicap was a proximate cause of the harassment. The handicap affected both the intensity and the nature of the harassment. Mrs. Pokoj associated the perceived shortcomings of Ms. Aquilina as a tenant with her handicap. In her letter, for example, she indicated that "only Retarded like you" would keep the heat on in "beautiful weather." Ms. Aquilina's use of heat was not attributed to the cold and damp nature of a basement apartment or even to an unusual susceptibility to chills on the part of Ms. Aquilina, but it was explained by reference to her mental capacity. Also, Mrs. Pokoj's desire to control Ms. Aquilina's personal life and her intense frustration when this desire was thwarted were, at least in part, caused by Mrs. Pokoj's conception of how someone with Ms. Aquilina's handicap should behave. Mrs. Pokoj believed that Ms. Aquilina needed guidance in such matters as the use of makeup and that she should not get involved with men because she was handicapped. Mrs. Pokoj reacted insensitively and even cruelly when she realized that Ms. Aquilina would not conform to her wishes in these matters.

29The nature of the harassment was also clearly influenced by the handicap. Mrs. Pokoj referred to Ms. Aquilina as "retarded" on at least two occasions. Mrs. Pokoj resorted to turning the light off while Ms. Aquilina was on the stairs leading to the basement apartment precisely because she knew this would present problems for someone who lacked physical coordination.

30In summary, I find that Mrs. Pokoj's conduct and comments constituted harassment because of handicap and that Ms. Aquilina's right under s. 2(2) was infringed. Because harassment is specifically covered by s. 2(2) of the Code, it is unnecessary to determine whether the harassment could constitute discrimination contrary to s. 2(1).

REMEDY

31Section 40(1)(b) of the Code permits a board of inquiry to order a party who has infringed the right of a complainant "to make restitution, including monetary compensation, for loss arising out of the infringement." This paragraph also stipulates that "where the infringement has been engaged in wilfully or recklessly, monetary compensation may include an award, not exceeding $10,000 for mental anguish."

32As a result of Mrs. Pokoj's infringement of Ms. Aquilina's right to be free from harassment in accommodation because of handicap, the complainant was forced to move out of the apartment. She moved into Participation House for two months and then took up residence in the West Centre Apartments where she still lives. The rent for Ms. Aquilina's current accommodation is fixed in accordance with a tenant's income and is, in fact, lower than that which she paid to Mrs. Pokoj. However, the charge for a room at Participation House was $400 per month. The difference in rent for the two months was, therefore $800-$440 = $360. She was also required to store her furnishings for two months at a cost of $126. Once Ms. Aquilina moved to the West Centre Apartments she had to pay $37.75 for the installation of a new telephone and $37.80 for a cable hook-up. In addition, I award $100 for moving expenses so that Ms. Aquilina can compensate her friend who provided a truck for the move. Special damages, therefore, total $661.55.

33Turning to general damages, I find that Mrs. Pokoj knew her behaviour was unwelcome and hurtful. Yet she persisted in it, even on the day of the move. In this case there was accordingly an infringement of the Code "engaged in wilfully or recklessly." The infringement caused considerable emotional upset or mental anguish within the meaning of para. 40(1)(b).

34Awards of general damages for infringement of the Code reflect not only the mental anguish which wilful or reckless conduct may cause, but the injury to the complainant's dignity and self-respect. In this case a vulnerable, young woman was attempting to live independently in the community for the first time. The treatment she received was a significant blow, although fortunately Ms. Aquilina proved sufficiently strong to overcome it relatively quickly. In the circumstances of this case, an award of $2,000 as general damages seems appropriate in light of the decided cases.

35The Commission requested that pre-judgment interest be payable in respect of any monetary award. Although there is no express provision in the Code regarding payment of interest, a board of inquiry's jurisdiction to order such payment appears clearly established: Olarte v. DeFilippis and Commodore Business Machines Ltd. (1983), 1983 CanLII 4716 (ON HRT), 4 C.H.R.R. D/1705 (Ont. Bd.Inq., P. Cumming); Cameron v. Nel-Gor Castle Nursing Home (1984), 1984 CanLII 5045 (ON HRT), 5 C.H.R.R. D/2170 (Ont. Bd.Inq., P. Cumming); and Booker v. Floriri Village Investments Inc. (1989), 1989 CanLII 9077 (ON HRT), 11 C.H.R.R. D/44 (Ont. Bd.Inq., W. Plaut). Using the Courts of Justice Act, S.O. 1984, c. 11 as a guide, I fix the rate at 11 percent per annum, not compounded. The commencement date for interest will be December 9, 1987, as requested by the Commission.

36The Commission further asked that the Board order Mrs. Pokoj to write a letter of apology to Ms. Aquilina and that she provide a letter of assurance to the Human Rights Commission stating that she now understands the Human Rights Code, 1981, and will not violate it in the future. I decline to make such orders. While a sincere apology from Mrs. Pokoj is entirely appropriate, an ordered apology is unlikely to be sincere and strikes me as more punitive than either educational or compensatory. Regarding the suggested letter of assurance, I believe that the hearing had a sufficient impact on Mrs. Pokoj to ensure that she will comply with the Code in the future.

ORDER

37This Board of Inquiry, having found that Ms. Aquilina's right to freedom from harassment in accommodation because of handicap was infringed by Mrs. Stephanie Pokoj contrary to s. 2(2) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, 1981, S.O. 1981, c. 53, orders the following:

1. Mrs. Stephanie Pokoj must forthwith pay to Ms. Karen Aquilina a total of $3,564.23, made up as follows:

(a) $661.55 as special damages;

(b) $2,000 as general damages; and

(c) $902.68 as pre-judgment interest.