Gregory v. Parkbridge Lifestyle Communities Inc., 2011 HRTO 1535

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Laurie Gregory Applicant

-and-

Parkbridge Lifestyle Communities Inc., Frank Briand, Sharon Briand, and Brad Hammett Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laverne Jacobs Date: August 17, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1535 Indexed as: Gregory v. Parkbridge Lifestyle Communities Inc.

APPEARANCES

Laurie Gregory, Applicant (Self-Represented)

Parkbridge Lifestyle Communities Inc., Frank Briand, Sharon Briand, and Brad Hammett, Respondents (Kristen Ley, Counsel)

INTRODUCTION

1This Application was filed on June 9, 2009, at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“Tribunal”) under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.19, as amended (“Code”). The underlying human rights complaint was filed at the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) on November 14, 2007, and was abandoned on the filing of this Application with the Tribunal.

2In her Application, the applicant alleges that she has been subject to discrimination on the grounds of disability with respect to employment contrary to ss. 5 and 9 of the Code and that she has been subject to sexual harassment and sexual solicitation contrary to ss.7 and 9 of the Code. The respondents refute these allegations.

3The hearing took place in Windsor over the course of two days, April 9, 2010, and May 13, 2010. The applicant was self-represented. The respondents were represented by counsel. The following individuals testified on behalf of the applicant: the applicant herself, Mike Wilkinson and Judy Shearon. The following witnesses for the respondents also testified: Susan Irvine, Frank Briand, Brad Hammett, Sharon Briand and Glenn Gresham. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Transitional Rules and on consent of all parties, I participated in questioning witnesses. The parties provided oral argument after all testimony had been received.

BACKGROUND

4Leisure Lake Resort is a trailer campground. Occupants purchase licenses to occupy lots and bring their own trailers onto their licensed lots. The applicant, Laurie Gregory, worked for Leisure Lake Resort from 1994 to 2007. In 1994, she started volunteering with children's activities at Leisure Lake Resort. In 1995, she was asked to work at Leisure Lake Resort during the camping season as a store clerk. Ms. Gregory was re-hired during the camping season (“the season of operation” or “seasonally”) each year until 2007 when the alleged incidents leading to this Application occurred.

5Ms. Gregory was also a resident of the campground. She first moved to Leisure Lake Resort in 1981 and lived on the campground for more than 21 years. Each year, she would move in for its season of operation, which usually runs from March or April to approximately mid-October. At Leisure Lake Resort, she lived in a trailer that she owned on a lot that she occupied pursuant to a licence with the owner, Leisure Lake Enterprises Ltd., or Parkbridge Lifestyle Communities Inc. (“Parkbridge”), after Parkbridge purchased the campground from Leisure Lake Enterprises Ltd. in May 2007. Licensees were required to pay a lot fee to the owner. At the time of the events, the applicant had paid $2,120 for her site licence for the 2007 season of operation.

6The corporate respondent, Parkbridge, purchased Leisure Lake Resort from Leisure Lake Enterprises on May 18, 2007. Ms. Gregory received a record of employment on May 15, 2007, indicating that the last day for which she was paid and the end date of her final pay period were both May 15, 2007. Ms. Gregory was one of three former employees of Leisure Lake Resort who did not subsequently work for Parkbridge following its purchase of the campground.

7On August 2, 2002, Ms. Gregory was hit by a drunk driver. This accident caused the health issues that she experienced with her knee and which are at the centre of her claim for discrimination in employment on the ground of disability. Ms. Gregory was scheduled for knee surgery on May 28, 2007.

8Ms. Gregory alleges that Parkbridge discriminated against her because of her disability when it did not allow her to take up her usual seasonal job in the summer of 2007, following her operation. The respondents argue that they were not in a relationship of employment with Ms. Gregory at the time that she sought to work after her surgery. The corporate respondent argued further that it had no knowledge of the applicant’s scheduled knee surgery when it purchased the park and made its hiring decisions for the 2007 summer season.

9The applicant alleges further that she was subjected to sexual harassment in June of 2007 by Frank Briand, who was employed by Parkbridge as the Outside Manager of the campground. She submits that the alleged sexual harassment made her afraid of Mr. Briand and so she consequently did not participate in many of the activities of the campground that took place during the remainder of the summer of 2007. The respondents argue that the alleged sexual harassment did not take place and, alternatively, that if it did, Mr. Briand was not made aware that it was unwelcome.

10Finally, the applicant submits that the reason that her site licence was not renewed in September of 2007 relates to the alleged sexual harassment by Frank Briand. In this way, she alleges sexual solicitation. The respondents respond that the reason that the applicant’s licence was not renewed does not have to do with the alleged sexual harassment. They submit that the applicant’s licence was not renewed because of an incident on August 12, 2007, in which the applicant’s boyfriend, Mike Wilkinson, and the teenaged guest of another camper were involved in an altercation. In the incident, the teenager was allegedly grabbed by the neck and dragged to the road by Mr. Wilkinson, who was drunk, after he was found hiding on Ms. Gregory’s lot. The incident occurred late at night. It was alleged that Mr. Wilkinson also went to the lot where the teenager was staying and threatened the husband and children of the family shortly after the incident.

THE CODE

11The Code states:

5(1). Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.

7(1). Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment because of sex by the landlord or agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building. […]

7(3). Every person has a right to be free from,

(a) a sexual solicitation or advance made by a person in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the person where the person making the solicitation or advance knows or ought reasonably to know that it is unwelcome; [...]

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.

ISSUES

12These are the issues to be determined:

1. Did the corporate respondent and/or any of the individual respondents discriminate against the applicant on the ground of disability in the course of employment contrary to section 5(1) of the Code?
2. Is the individual respondent, Frank Briand and/or the corporate respondent responsible for infringing the applicant’s right to be free from sexual harassment in accommodation, contrary to section 7(1) of the Code?
3. Is the individual respondent, Frank Briand, and/or the corporate respondent responsible for infringing the applicant’s right to be free from sexual solicitation contrary to section 7(3) of the Code?

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

13In this section, I will summarize the relevant evidence that was given through testimony. In determining issues of credibility, I am guided by the following test set out in Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA), [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354, at 356-57 (B.C.C.A.):

Opportunities for knowledge, powers of observation, judgment and memory, ability to describe clearly what he has seen and heard, as well as other factors, combine to produce what is called credibility ...The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanour of the particular witness carried conviction of the truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of the witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions ... Again a witness may testify to what he sincerely believes to be true, but he may be quite honestly mistaken.

EVIDENCE

Nature of the Applicant’s Employment at Campground

14Although not represented by counsel, Ms. Gregory provided a sworn statement under oath. Ms. Gregory testified that she first moved to Leisure Lake in 1981 and that she lived on the campground for more than 21 years, each year moving in for its season of operation. She stated that her neighbours at Leisure Lake were like family to her.

15As described above, Ms. Gregory worked for Leisure Lake Resort from 1994 to 2007. Initially, she volunteered with children's activities at Leisure Lake Resort. In 1995, she began to work at Leisure Lake Resort during the camping season as a store clerk. Ms. Gregory was re-hired seasonally each year until 2007 when the alleged incidents leading to this Application occurred.

Knee Surgery and Doctor’s Note

Applicant’s Evidence

16Ms. Gregory testified that on August 2, 2002, she was hit by a drunk driver. This accident caused the health issues that she experiences with her knee. Ms. Gregory underwent three surgeries on her knee between 2003 and 2007. She stated that in December 2002 she saw a specialist and in the winter of 2003 she had her first surgery. She stated that she did not miss any work because of her knee during this time. This was in part because of the seasonal nature of the work which ran from only the spring to the fall of each calendar year. This is also because she did rehabilitation in the wintertime.

17Ms. Gregory stated that she had her second surgery in 2004. She testified that in the summer of 2006, she was having a lot of difficulty at work due to her knee. In particular, she found that she was falling down a lot. Her job entailed constantly doing different tasks such as organizing children, some cleaning of rental trailers, and work in the office that required her to stand part of the time on a small pedestal stool. Ms. Gregory stated that she believed her supervisor, Sonya Sartori, who was also a co-owner of Leisure Lake Resort, knew that she was having a problem with her knee because Ms. Sartori worked with her in the office. Ms. Gregory testified that she attempted to see her specialist in September 2006 and received an appointment for May 17, 2007. During that appointment, Ms. Gregory received a doctor's note stating that she would need to remain off of work until her surgery, which was scheduled for May 28, 2007. The doctor’s note, which was undated and was entered into evidence, also indicated that she would need to remain off of work for four weeks post-operatively and that she would be followed post-operatively by the doctor who would discuss a return date pending her healing progress.

18The applicant’s third knee surgery took place as scheduled on May 28, 2007.

Ms. Gregory’s Termination of Employment from Leisure Lake

Applicant’s Evidence

19Ms. Gregory testified that she was given termination papers, namely, her Record of Employment, on May 15, 2007, but that Gary Sartori, the prior co-owner of Leisure Lake, had pulled all the employees aside as a group and assured them that their jobs would not be affected by the sale. Mike Wilkinson, Ms. Gregory’s boyfriend, testified that he was a friend of Mr. Sartori and that Mr. Sartori told him that he had received an offer on the park but that Ms. Gregory would continue to be employed. Judy Shearon, a friend of Ms. Gregory, also testified that she had been told by Mr. Sartori that all employees would keep their jobs after the sale.

20Ms. Gregory stated that she went to work on May 16, 2007, the day after she received her Record of Employment which stated that her employment had ended on May 15, 2007. This was corroborated by Mr. Wilkinson, who testified that he saw Ms. Gregory go to work on May 16, 2007. Mr. Wilkinson also indicated that he had a practice of hanging out at the office where Ms Gregory worked and bringing her lunch, which he testified he did on May 16, 2007.

21Ms. Gregory sought to introduce into evidence a list she prepared showing the employees she saw working at the campground after it changed owners from Leisure Lake to Parkbridge. Counsel for the respondents objected to the introduction of this list in evidence on the grounds that the applicant did not have access to the employment records of Parkbridge and therefore could not note definitively who was working there, or whether those she saw were volunteers, as opposed to employees. I admitted the list into evidence on the basis that it is proof of which individuals, who were previously at Leisure Lake, Ms. Gregory saw working in some capacity at the Parkbridge campground. However, I have noted the respondents’ objection in determining the weight to be attributed to this list which was entered as an exhibit.

22Ms. Gregory also submitted a copy of the calendar from the office in Leisure Lake. She stated that this calendar indicated the hours that she was scheduled to work during the month of May 2007. The hours were written by hand. Ms. Gregory said that they were in her handwriting. She wanted to show that hours were slotted in for May 18, 19 and 20. She relies on this calendar to indicate that she was under the understanding that her employment would continue past the date that she received the notice of termination.

23Ms. Gregory testified that she submitted her doctor's note to Ms. Sartori when she returned to work from her appointment on May 17, 2007. Mr. Wilkinson, Ms. Gregory’s boyfriend, testified that he saw Ms. Sartori follow her out of the store at the end of that day and asked Ms. Gregory if that meant that she was not going to be working. Mr. Wilkinson said that Ms. Gregory replied that she could not work because the doctor had pulled her off work for surgery. On cross-examination, Ms. Gregory stated that she had no pay stubs for May 16, 2007, or any date thereafter and that she did not collect any employment insurance or sick benefits after the changeover to Parkbridge. Ms. Gregory also stated on cross-examination that she did not apply for a job at Parkbridge. No evidence was entered to suggest that, during the period of time between May 17, 2007, and the date of her surgery, anyone in a position of management at Parkbridge indicated that Ms. Gregory would be re-hired after her surgery.

24Ms. Gregory also stated that on May 18, 2007, she went to see Sharon Briand, the campground office manager at the time and the wife of Frank Briand. She stated that Ms. Briand was concerned because she had been looking forward to working with her and due to the sick leave, would not work with her.

25Ms. Gregory testified that approximately one week after her surgery, she was told that Brad Hammett, the Regional Manager with Parkbridge, wanted to meet with her. Mr. Hammett came to her with Frank Briand, who introduced them. She stated that Mr. Hammett told her that he would find her a job on the campground. She said that she asked for her job back, but that Mr. Hammett replied that her job was filled and that he would find her another.

26Ms. Gregory stated that two weeks after the surgery, she went to the recreation hall with Mr. Wilkinson. There, Frank Briand said loudly and publicly how much she owed in lot fees. She stated that lot fees were never required for seasonal employees but that Frank explained that she was not working. She stated that she understood this as not working because she was sick. Mr. Wilkinson wrote a cheque to cover the lot fees and they were paid on June 10, 2007.

27Ms. Gregory testified that after seeking legal advice on August 4, 2007, or August 7, 2007, she then went to ask for her job immediately. Ms. Gregory said she was told that she had quit her job. After obtaining further legal advice from another lawyer, Ms. Gregory sent David Wells, a manager at Parkbridge senior to Mr. Hammett, a letter. This letter, which is undated but written sometime between the August long weekend of 2007 and October 13, 2007, is written in lengthy detail. It outlines various incidents, including Ms. Gregory’s understanding of the circumstances surrounding her knee surgery and loss of employment, non-payment of her lot fees, the sexual harassment allegation, her removal from the park, and various issues that happened at the park which are unrelated to her application. In her letter, she asked Mr. Wells to look into all of these incidents before she saw her lawyer again in seven days. This letter formed part of her Tribunal Application record.

Respondents’ Evidence

28Susan Irvine testified on behalf of the respondents. Ms. Irvine was an employee involved in leasing and acquisitions and a legal assistant at Parkbridge head office at the relevant time. She gave an overview of the nature of the company and how things operated during the time period in question.

29Ms. Irvine testified that Parkbridge has two offices, with its head office in Calgary and its Eastern division in Wasaga Beach, Ontario. Her office is at the Wasaga Beach office. She testified that Parkbridge runs approximately 800 resorts which are lifestyle communities or campgrounds, such as Leisure Lake Resort.

30On May 15, 2007, a share purchase took place at Leisure Lake Resort. Ms. Irvine testified that in this case, the share purchase meant that all employees were terminated. She testified all employees of Leisure Lake Enterprises were terminated at that time. There was an application process put in place for former employees of the Resort to be considered for employment with Parkbridge. Ascertaining whether former campground employees were interested in jobs and whether there were jobs available was done verbally and one-on-one. A determination as to what an employee’s skills were and whether there are any available positions was made on a one-on-one basis with former employees and the process was extended to allow new employees to come in as well. At the time that of the changeover of the park, those who wanted to work had to apply but there was not a formal application. Ms. Irvine submitted into evidence payroll records from the company indicating the employees who were employed by Parkbridge for the period of May 11, 2007, to October 23, 2009. The payroll records do not have Ms. Gregory as an employee of Parkbridge during this time period. The document was entered as an exhibit.

31Ms. Irvine testified that the hiring of employees does not go through her but through the Senior Vice President of Operations. She also testified that Brad Hammett was the Regional Manager and that Sharon and Frank Briand ran the day-to-day operation of the campground. Ms. Irvine testified that the licensees own their trailers and that the licence is to occupy the land.

32Mr. Brad Hammett also testified on behalf of the respondents. At the relevant time, he had held the position of Regional Resort Manager for four years. His responsibilities include overseeing the general operations -- from attendance to employee relations -- for the workers at the property. Mr. Hammett testified that his position also involved overseeing the employees and in that capacity would be in a position to receive any complaints about employees.

33Mr. Hammett testified the campground purchase was a “typical share purchase” in which the employees were not transferred. He stated that Parkbridge got possession on the Friday of the long weekend in May 2007. He testified that he did not know the circumstances or details about Ms. Gregory's health issues. He testified that did not speak with Sonya Sartori about Ms. Gregory and did not see the doctor's note.

34Mr. Hammett explained the park continued to run between the 15th and the 18th of May, despite the employees’ termination on the 15th, because there were three transitional employees left. These three employees were hired because the Sartoris let him know which positions, such as groundskeepers, would be needed.

35Mr. Hammett indicated that the first time he spoke to Ms. Gregory was on the long weekend in August 2007 was when he went to her lot regarding an electrical issue. During that meeting, Ms. Gregory raised the issue that she had been promised a job. Mr. Hammett testified that he told Ms. Gregory that hiring her at Parkbridge would depend on whether there was something available when she got better. Mr. Hammett testified that Ms. Gregory responded that she was entitled to her old job.

36Sharon Briand was the office manager at the campground at the time of the alleged incidents and the wife of Frank Briand. As office manager she was responsible for leasing the lots, handling customer complaints, keeping within the budget, purchasing. She testified that she did not have involvement in hiring. Ms. Briand stated that the process for hiring was that one went in for an interview but did not find out which park would take you on until several weeks later.

37She stated that she was feeling overwhelmed after the changeover in hands which took place on the Friday of the long weekend in May 2007. Ms. Briand said that she felt overwhelmed because she had to learn how Parkbridge ran Leisure Lake. She testified that she went to Ms. Gregory's trailer to ask her if she could help out. Ms. Briand testified that she was not aware that Ms. Gregory was not on the payroll and had assumed that she would be paid if she did help out. Ms. Briand said that Ms. Gregory told her that she could not help because she had to have surgery on her knee.

38Ms. Briand stated that Ms. Gregory later asked her for her job back but that she told Ms. Gregory that there was not a position available. Ms. Briand testified that Ms. Gregory delivered fliers all summer.

39Glenn Gresham also testified on behalf of the respondents. He worked as a recreational director for 20 years at the campground. In 2000, he was hired to do patrols of the grounds from the hours of 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. During the relevant time, he resolved various issues things such as insults, disagreements, etc., in that capacity. Mr. Gresham testified that on May 14, 2007, Mr. Sartori told him that he had sold the campground and that he could not guarantee how many would get jobs with the next employer. Mr. Gresham indicated that he was dismissed of his duties and given discharge papers. He understood the sale of the business to be an asset purchase. Mr. Gresham testified that five to six days after being dismissed from his job, he made an application for a new job at Parkbridge using the employee package process and was subsequently re-hired to do patrols of grounds.

40Mr. Gresham testified that he overheard a conversation between Ms. Gregory and Sonya Sartori in May 2007. He thinks he heard Ms. Gregory tell her that she could not work for six weeks.

Allegation of Sexually Harassing Comments by Frank Briand

Applicant’s Evidence

41Ms. Gregory testified that around mid-to-late June 2007, she and Mr. Wilkinson were at a friend and co-worker's trailer— that of Randy Young. She stated that Frank Briand arrived, and asked if they were drinking alone. She testified that shortly after that Mr. Briand said to her, “Nice tits, Laurie, you always had nice tits”. She testified that Mr. Briand then said, “How's your sex life?”. Ms. Gregory said she was very upset at the time and she was visibly upset while testifying about the incident. Ms. Gregory testified that Mr. Wilkinson was angry and tried to push or attack Mr. Briand and that she had to restrain Mr. Wilkinson. Ms. Gregory testified that she left the campground and went to her permanent home in Tecumseh that same day.

42Mr. Wilkinson testified that on the day in question, he and Ms. Gregory were at Randy Young's place and Frank Briand came by. Present at Randy Young's place were Laurie Gregory, Mike Wilkinson, Randy Young and Randy Young's girlfriend. All of a sudden, Mr. Briand made the comments. Upon questioning, Mr. Wilkinson testified that he was angry but could not remember what he did immediately following Mr. Briand’s alleged comment. It is unclear what exactly Mike Wilkinson did at this stage.

43Ms. Gregory testified that the summer was very bleak after she left. In testifying at this point, Ms. Gregory appeared very upset in giving her testimony. She had left her trailer but went back for the start of the annual billiards league around the beginning of July – she stated that she thought the exact date was July 4, 2007. Ms. Gregory testified that people were “giving a hard time to me”, saying they did not want to play pool with her because she was too skilled but that she knows that she is not very skilled. She said that the entire neighbourhood and her co-workers (who were like brothers to her) knew of the incident with Mr. Briand because she had told them. The applicant did not tell anyone at Parkbridge about the sexually harassing comments until August of 2007 when she informed Mr. Hammett.

44Ms. Gregory said that she and Mr. Wilkinson did not stay at the campground for the rest of the summer. She indicated that this was an unusual summer because she had never missed an event or party at Leisure Lake and that 2007 was a “really difficult year at Leisure Lake”.

45Ms. Gregory also stated that she did not seek the assistance of any medical professionals after the alleged sexual harassment incident.

46With respect to the allegation of the sexually harassing comment by Mr. Briand, Ms. Gregory testified that on the Saturday of the August long weekend of 2007, Frank and Sharon Briand drove by on their golf cart and said that Brad Hammett said that she would be kicked out of the park. Ms. Gregory testified that she was crying because the incident had gotten around the park through her friends, although friends had told her that they would back her up with respect being kicked out of the park. On the Sunday of the August long weekend, Brad Hammett came to see her at her trailer. She said that many people were watching and that they all came to her trailer. She testified that there were so many people that Brad Hammett suggested the group go to the recreation hall. She testified that there, many issues were raised about Frank Briand. These issues ranged from swearing at children, issues relating to dogs, and other allegations of sexual harassment. Ms. Gregory testified that people were upset because nothing had been done about these things. In response to my question as to whether or not the incident of alleged sexual harassment regarding her personally was raised at this meeting, she said that it was and that nothing happened. Ms. Gregory testified that, at the meeting, she asked what she had done to be removed from the park, and Mr. Hammett replied that he was not kicking her out of the park.

47Ms. Gregory testified that after receiving the letter in September advising her that she was being removed from the park, she removed all of her things and took many things to the nearby dump. She said that whenever Mr. Wilkinson left to take a load to the dump, Frank Briand would drive by. This continued for three days. She said that she was scared whenever this happened and was very upset. She stated that a friend came to sit with her.

48Mr. Wilkinson testified that Ms. Gregory was upset about the sexually harassing comments Mr. Briand made in June and that the two of them kept to themselves after that day, except for going to one dance during that summer. Mr. Wilkinson said that he still helped Mr. Briand with tasks at the park on a volunteer basis when asked and described assisting him to break up a domestic argument. In response to my question of whether they never went back that summer, Mr. Wilkinson said that they went back occasionally to cut the lawn on the weekends but decided to stay there only one weekend. He said they were not committed to the park as they had been before.

49Ms. Shearon testified that she did not see Mr. Briand make the alleged comments but Ms. Gregory was very upset after the incident. She stated that she knows Ms. Gregory very well and no one could be that upset and crying for nothing. She also testified that the expression about breasts that Mr. Briand allegedly made was a comment he made often. The comment “nice tits” was Mr. Briand’s “famous expression”, she said, and she testified that she heard him make this comment on other occasions.

Respondents’ Evidence

50Mr. Briand testified that he was familiar with Ms. Gregory and that he knew her for several years as a seasonal camper. They were both campers and strictly friends. His position at Leisure Lake at the relevant time was that of Outside Manager. His responsibilities included making sure that the outside employees were doing their jobs. He testified that it was necessary to use a golf cart in his job to make sure that everything was working smoothly. He would patrol approximately every 20 minutes, looking for problems with campers. He would help with unplugging sewers and do things at specific campsites. Mr. Briand testified that after work hours he stopped often to get a drink. These were social calls. He testified that in 2007 he was called several times to Ms. Gregory's site in order to fix hydro problems. On cross-examination, Mr. Briand stated that by an “after hours” social visit, he was referring to the hours outside of his work hours which were 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

51Mr. Briand testified that he did not recall the alleged incident of sexual harassment in 2007 where it was said that he made sexual comments to Ms. Gregory. Mr. Briand stated that he did not recall making the two comments. Mr. Briand testified that it was not unusual for him to stop by Randy Young's site.

52Mr. Briand testified that he first learned about the alleged comments through the grapevine or “gossip” in the park in August 2007. He stated that he felt hurt, insulted and surprised. He testified that he did not approach Ms. Gregory about the “gossip” because he did not want to aggravate the situation. Mr. Briand said that there was no change in the relationship between him and Ms. Gregory after the alleged incident. He indicated that Ms. Gregory would still voluntarily deliver newspaper flyers around the campground. He stated that he did not see her as often, though.

53Mr. Hammett testified that during his initial meeting with Ms. Gregory on the August 2007 long weekend she raised the alleged sexual harassment comments by Mr. Briand. Mr. Hammett noted that Ms. Gregory seemed angry when she told him about the comments but not upset. Mr. Hammett testified that he then spoke to Mr. Briand, who was shocked and denied making the comments. Mr. Hammett indicated that this was in keeping with his practice to speak with the person allegedly in trouble. He stated that tenants do bring matters of that nature to his attention.

54Mr. Hammett said that many tenants, including Ms. Gregory, came together for a previously unplanned meeting at the recreation hall on the August long weekend. Many topics were discussed that were of a less serious matter, such as potholes in the road.

55Ms. Briand testified that she was present during the meeting with Mr. Hammett and Mr. Briand to discuss Ms. Gregory’s allegations of sexual harassment, but that she was not there when Ms. Gregory spoke to Mr. Hammett. Ms. Briand testified that at the meeting, Mr. Hammett asked her husband what had happened. She said that she felt insulted and she had never had anyone come to her and say that her husband had made such comments. Ms. Briand testified that her relationship with Ms. Gregory did not change after this incident, however, because Ms. Briand was so busy she could not get out of the office and did not see Ms. Gregory often.

56Mr. Gresham testified that he first learned of the sexual harassment allegations in April of 2008. He denied hearing previously from Ms. Gregory or her friends that Ms. Gregory had been harassed. He said that he saw Ms. Gregory often playing pool after she had been subjected to the alleged comments.

Non-Renewal of Ms. Gregory’s Licence and Continued Alleged Harassment by Frank Briand

Applicant’s Evidence

57As discussed above, Ms. Gregory testified that on the Saturday of the August long weekend of 2007, Frank and Sharon Briand informed her that Mr. Hammett said that she would be kicked out of the park, but Mr. Hammett told her during the meeting on the Sunday that she was not being evicted. Ms. Gregory testified that just before Labour Day weekend, her friend Joanne Johnstone told her that a double lot at the lake on Maple Street was coming up available.

58Ms. Gregory testified that Parkbridge sent her a letter dated September 30, 2007, which was filed as an exhibit, stating that by October 31, 2007, she had to be out of the park. Ms. Gregory said that she called Brad Hammett who told her that she was being asked to leave because the neighbours said she was a “belligerent drunk”.

59Mr. Wilkinson testified that Ms. Gregory told him that she would be kicked out and that, to his knowledge, no reason was ever given. As for the alleged August 12, 2007 incident involving a teenager, which formed the respondents’ explanation for why Ms. Gregory’s licence was terminated, Mr. Wilkinson stated in cross-examination that he simply walked the teenager to the road, placing his hand on his back.

Respondents’ Evidence

60The respondents submit that the termination of Ms. Gregory’s lot licence had nothing to do with her allegation of sexual harassment but was the result of an incident involving Mr. Wilkinson and the teenaged guest of another campground resident that took place on August 12, 2007. The teenager was allegedly grabbed by the neck and dragged to the road by Mr. Wilkinson, who was drunk. When allegedly grabbed by Mr. Wilkinson, the teen had been hiding from security on Ms. Gregory’s lot because he and his friends were out after their curfew. The respondents alleged that the incident occurred around 1 a.m. It was alleged that Mr. Wilkinson also went to the lot where the teenager was staying and threatened the husband and children of the family shortly after the incident. Counsel for the respondents entered into evidence a copy of an email from the parents of the family who had hosted the teenager which outlined their description of what had happened that night and their desire to not take the matter further. This email had been sent to the campground management office at Leisure Lake. Counsel for the respondents asked that the document be entered as an exhibit but that the names not be revealed. The applicant did not object to this request. I accepted the document as an exhibit and agreed that the names did not need to be revealed.

61Mr. Briand testified that on the night of August 12, 2007, Glenn Gresham was called to the site. Mr. Briand subsequently talked to the family hosting the teenager and they said that they did not want to take it further. Mr. Briand indicated that the family hosting the teenager was too scared to do anything because of repercussions by Ms. Gregory. On a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of the seriousness of incidents, with 1 ranked as most serious, Mr. Briand saw this incident as a 3 out of 10 and not a common occurrence. The types of disturbances that Mr. Briand usually encountered included loud music, drunkenness and domestic fighting. As for the site non-renewal, Mr. Briand said that he was not aware of why her site license was not renewed.

62Mr. Hammett testified that he had been called by either Frank or Sharon Briand at the time of the incident and he considered it to be a severe issue, “like an 8 out of 10”. Mr. Hammett testified that he also received a letter of complaint from the family hosting the teenager describing the alleged incident. The managers called him and they ultimately sent out the letter to Ms. Gregory dated September 30, 2007, which stated that her licence would not be renewed. Mr. Hammett said that what happened was grounds for making someone leave the park.

63Mr. Hammett testified that after he received the complaint from the family hosting the teenager, he scheduled a meeting with Sharon Briand, Frank Briand and Glenn Gresham and decided not to renew Ms. Gregory's lease. Ms. Gregory was notified by the September 30th letter of the termination of licence but the letter did not indicate the reason for the termination. Mr. Hammett stated that there was no specific policy requiring that the termination letter indicate why a site license has not been renewed. Mr. Hammett testified that Ms. Gregory called and asked why she was being removed. He testified that he did not mention the family's name to her in this conversation as the family did not want to be mentioned, and that he was later surprised by Ms. Gregory’s decision to commence legal proceedings.

64Brad Hammett acknowledged that letters are not necessarily given right away when someone is to be removed because of an incident at the park. He said that it is at the discretion of the owner of the park. He said that this means that what the Sartoris had done may not be the same as what Parkbridge might do.

65In response to the question of why Ms. Gregory was not notified about the August incident involving Mr. Wilkinson and the teenager, Mr. Hammett indicated that Laurie Gregory was notified in September through the letter she received saying that her licence would not be renewed. In cross-examination, Brad Hammett responded to the question of why Ms. Gregory was not called when the August incident occurred, by saying that such a decision was at the discretion of Glenn Gresham, Frank Briand and Sharon Briand. He denied in cross-examination that he had told Ms. Gregory that she was a “belligerent drunk”.

66In response to the question of why Ms. Gregory did not receive a letter advising her of the complaints made by the family hosting the teenager who was allegedly in the August incident with Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Briand testified that he believed that there was no need for a letter to be generated from management because the family did not want to pursue the matter any further.

67Mr. Gresham testified that following the August 12, 2007 incident between Mr. Wilkinson and the teenager he wrote a memo to Brad Hammett in which he urged management to rescind the lease of Ms. Gregory because he thought that she had an “agenda” that discredited Parkbridge. He also sent an email on August 13, 2007, to Parkbridge management about the incident, in which he indicated that he had convinced Mr. Wilkinson to release the teenager on the night of the incident.

68Mr. Gresham acknowledged on cross-examination that while the incident with the teenager happened on the street in front of Ms. Gregory's lot, it was Ms. Gregory's resident at her trailer who caused the disturbance. Mr. Gresham also admitted that he was not sure if management would send a letter to lot owner whose resident had caused an incident such as the incident of August 12, 2007.

69Ms. Briand testified that Ms. Gregory knew that the incident between the teenager and Mr. Wilkinson took place because Ms. Gregory picked up Mr. Wilkinson and brought him home on a golf cart after the incident. Ms. Briand indicated that in her position as office manager, she received many complaints about Mr. Wilkinson’s drinking and rowdiness.

70Ms. Briand stated that she signed the letter indicating that Ms. Gregory's license would not be renewed, but that it was Mr. Hammett’s decision. Ms. Briand indicated that the general practice was that if there was a violent incident then she would write a letter to the individuals involved asking them to leave the campground within weeks. On cross-examination, Ms. Briand testified that individuals are never told why their licence was terminated.

71Ms. Irvine testified that she was not involved in the decision to terminate the applicant’s licence. In cross-examination, she stated that Brad Hammett would have made the decision about non-renewal of Ms. Gregory's licence.

Summary of Findings

72As I will elaborate in my analysis below, I find that the applicant was not in an employment relationship with any of the respondents during the relevant time. I also find that the applicant has not established a prima facie case that she was not hired by Parkbridge as a result of disability discrimination.

73I find that there is evidence on a balance of probabilities that Frank Briand made sexually harassing comments to the applicant on one occasion in June of 2007. As he and the corporate respondent have an obligation to ensure that residents of the campground are in an environment free of sexual harassment, they are jointly and severally responsible for infringing the applicant's right to be free of sexual harassment under the Code.

74I do not find, on a balance of probabilities, that the sexually harassing comments led to the revocation of Ms. Gregory’s site licence. I do not find, therefore, that there has been sexual solicitation in this case. As detailed below, the application is allowed against Frank Briand and Parkbridge and dismissed against Brad Hammett and Sharon Briand.

ANALYSIS

Did the corporate respondent or any of the individual respondents discriminate against the applicant on the ground of disability in the course of employment contrary to section 5 (1) of the Code?

75The applicant alleges that the respondents have discriminated against her in employment on the basis of disability in two respects. The first allegation is that she had been promised by Gary Sartori, one of the co-owners prior to the purchase by Parkbridge, that her position would continue with Parkbridge after the sale of the business, and the fact that it did not continue is due to discrimination against her on the ground of disability. The evidence does not support this argument, however. Ms. Gregory’s Record of Employment shows clearly that her last date of employment at Leisure Lake was on May 15, 2007, and that she received termination pay of $2,546.67 on that date. Although she may have been told by the former co-owner that her job would remain, the evidence of Susan Irvine and Brad Hammett was that the purchase by Parkbridge did not include the employees of the former owner. Moreover, Parkbridge had put in place a process by which former employees could apply to become employed by Parkbridge. The evidence of Ms. Irvine and Mr. Hammett about the existence of this process was corroborated by Glenn Gresham and Sharon Briand, who testified about the interview and hiring process created by Parkbridge for those who wanted employment after the sale, including former employees of Leisure Lake. Finally, as counsel for the respondent has submitted, there is no obligation under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, for a successor employer to take over the employees of the company. Therefore, there is overwhelming evidence that Ms. Gregory was not employed by Parkbridge at the time that it purchased the campground. There is also no evidence that Parkbridge intended to take over Ms. Gregory as an employee even if that was her understanding from speaking with her former employer and even if this understanding may have led her to the workplace on May 16, 2007.

76Ms. Gregory’s second disability discrimination allegation is that she asked “for her job back” but did not receive it due to the health issues she was suffering because of knee surgery. I understand her to be arguing that she suffered disability discrimination in her attempt to secure with Parkbridge the job that she had held prior to its purchase of the campground. However, with respect to this argument, Ms. Gregory has not established on a balance of probabilities a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of disability.

77In Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Simpsons Sears Ltd., 1985 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536 (“O’Malley”), a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada clarified the burden of proof in discrimination cases. The onus is on the applicant to show a prima facie case of discrimination, that is, “one which covers the allegations made and which, if they are believed, is complete and sufficient to justify a verdict in the complainant's favour in the absence of an answer from the respondent.” See O’Malley at para. 28. Once a prima facie case has been set out, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide a reasonable explanation for the otherwise discriminatory behaviour. If the respondent is successful in providing a reasonable explanation, the applicant must demonstrate that the explanation is pretexual and that one factor for the impugned action was a protected ground. (See O’Malley, ibid.; Jagit v. IN TECH Risk Management, 2009 HRTO 770). The onus of proving discrimination on a balance of probabilities remains on the applicant throughout.

78In this case, is not clear that the applicant made an attempt to pursue or apply for her job within a timeframe that would have allowed her to occupy the position during the 2007 season. Ms. Gregory gave evidence that she advised Mr. Hammett that she would like her job back one week after her surgery. As her surgery was scheduled for May 28, 2007, this would have been somewhere in early June. By contrast, Mr. Briand did not make any statement about the alleged meeting. Mr. Hammett gave evidence that the first time he encountered Ms. Gregory was during the long weekend in August 2007 and that this is when she spoke of wanting her old job. On this interpretation, the applicant would not have brought her interest in working during the 2007 camping season to the attention of the new owners until early August 2007. There is no documentary or other evidence to support either assertion of the date when Ms. Gregory expressed her desire to work for the season after her surgery and recuperation. The camping season runs from May to October of each year. Hiring for the 2007 season was completed in May 2007. Therefore, regardless of when the conversation between Mr. Hammett and Ms. Gregory occurred regarding her job, the hiring for the 2007 season had been completed by the time Ms. Gregory sought work at the campground. In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in hiring, one would have to establish a reasonable and timely attempt to express interest in holding the job in question. In this case, the applicant failed to make a reasonable and timely attempt to apply for the job in question.

79Moreover, there is no evidence, to indicate that the reason Ms. Gregory was not hired by Parkbridge was based on disability as opposed to timing of the request for employment. Finally, in light of my findings above, it is not necessary for me to enter into an analysis of whether or not Ms. Gregory did indeed suffer from a disability within the meaning of disability under the Code.

80In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the applicant has suffered disability discrimination in employment. Accordingly, the allegations of discrimination in employment against the corporate respondent and the personal respondents, Frank Briand, Sharon Briand and Brad Hammett, are dismissed.

Is the individual respondent, Frank Briand and/or the corporate respondent responsible for infringing the applicant’s right to be free from sexual harassment in accommodation, contrary to ss. 7(1) of the Code?

81Subsection 10(1) of the Code defines “harassment” as follows:

“harassment” means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome;

Furthermore, subsection 7(1) of the Code states:

Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment because of sex by the landlord or agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building….

(See also generally Boehm v. National System of Baking Ltd. (1987), 1987 CanLII 8515 (ON HRT), 8 C.H.R.R. D/4110 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) at para. 32565).

82In appropriate circumstances, a single incident, if serious, will meet the definition of harassment. Repeated conduct is not essential to a finding that the Code has been violated. A sexually explicit remark that is clearly demeaning and attacks the dignity and self-respect of a woman based on her gender will violate the Code (See Romano v. 1577118 Ontario Inc., 2008 HRTO 9, at paras. 64 to 69). It has long been recognized that sexual harassment is characterized by power imbalance (Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd. (1989), 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC), 10 C.H.R.R. D/6205 (S.C.C.); Sanford v. Koop, 2005 HRTO 53). In the context of accommodation, the jurisprudence indicates that power imbalances between owner and occupant are to be taken into account in cases in which sexual harassment is raised (see Kertesz v. Bellair Property Management, 2007 HRTO 38, and Hill-LeClair v. Booth, 2009 HRTO 1629).

Is Mr. Briand responsible for infringing the applicant’s right to be free from sexual harassment in accommodation, contrary to ss. 7(1) of the Code?

83The evidence indicates, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Briand made sexually harassing comments to Ms. Gregory in June 2007. I accept Ms. Gregory’s testimony that Mr. Briand made an offensive comment about her breasts and an inappropriate inquiry about her personal life in June 2007. I also accept that Ms. Gregory was afraid of Mr. Briand after the harassing comments were made and that even the sight of him driving by in his golf cart when her boyfriend was away at the dump significantly upset her.

84Ms. Gregory testified in a straightforward manner and was visibly upset in giving her testimony. Her statement was supported by the testimony of Mr. Wilkinson who testified to having been present and having heard the comments. Ms. Shearon testified that while she was not present at the time of the comments being made, she saw Ms. Gregory after the comments had been made and testified that Ms. Gregory was very upset about it. Ms. Shearon also testified that she had heard Mr. Briand make similar, inappropriate comments about women's breasts to other women on many occasions. She had termed this his “famous expression”. Finally, Mr. Briand testified that it was not unusual for him to stop by for drinks at Randy Young’s place and that he did not see Ms. Gregory as often as he usually did during the summer, after the time of the sexual harassment.

85The respondents have submitted as an alternative argument that if Mr. Briand did make the sexually harassing comments of which Ms. Gregory complains, he was not aware that they were unwelcome. To establish that a harassing respondent’s behaviour was unwelcome, it is not a necessary condition for the complainant to object. (Cuff v. Gypsy Restaurant (1987), 1987 CanLII 8550 (ON HRT), 8 C.H.R.R. D/3972 (Ont. Bd. Inq.), at para. 31531). In Cuff, it was held that there is a level of an understanding based on public awareness of the unacceptable nature of certain behaviour:

In general, the legislative enunciation of the right to be free from sexual harassment and advances indicates a public awareness of the unacceptable nature of this behaviour and carries with it an expectation that this understanding is shared by the members of the community.

(see also Strauss v. Canadian Property Investment Corp. (No. 2) (1995), 1995 CanLII 18191 (ON HRT), 24 C.H.R.R. D/43 (Ont. Bd. of Inquiry), at para. 46).

86Whether a harasser ought to have known that their behaviour was unwelcome depends upon whether a reasonable person in the applicant’s position would find such conduct to be unwelcome and, if so, whether reasonable people in the respondents' position would know that to be the case (see Ghosh v. Domglas Inc. (No. 2) (1992), 1992 CanLII 14247 (ON HRT), 17 C.H.R.R. D/216 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) at paras. 43 to 48; see also Dhanjal v. Air Canada (1996), 1996 CanLII 2385 (CHRT), 28 C.H.R.R. D/367 (C.H.R.T.)).

87From the evidence, it is clear that Ms. Gregory did not expressly inform Mr. Briand that his behaviour was not welcome. However, the comment itself is one that both a reasonable person in the applicant’s position and a reasonable person in the respondent’s position would recognize as unwelcome. It is clearly offensive. The comment is a sexually explicit remark that is clearly demeaning and attacks the dignity and self-respect of a woman based on her gender. This is sufficient for finding that Mr. Briand ought to have known that his comments were unwelcome.

Is Parkbridge responsible for infringing the applicant’s right to be free from sexual harassment in accommodation, contrary to ss. 7(1) of the Code?

88The corporate respondent, Parkbridge, has an obligation to ensure that its tenants are free from sexual harassment on the part of their employees. (see generally Wall v. University of Waterloo (1990), 1995 CanLII 18161 (ON HRT), 27 C.H.R.R. D/44 (Ont. Bd. of Inquiry), B.L. v. Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30, and Kertesz, supra). In the workplace context, employers are generally required to promptly and seriously deal with a harassment complaint, have a complaint mechanism in place and communicate its actions to the complainant. The Tribunal has recognized this duty also applies in the housing context. Persons in positions of power within organizations providing accommodation, such as landlords, have a duty, once aware of allegations of discrimination against its representatives, to ensure that credible allegations that their representatives have acted in a discriminatory manner are taken seriously (Bekele v. Cierpich, 2008 HRTO 7, at para. 76).

89While Parkbridge took a step toward investigating the complaint– namely, Mr. Hammett asked Mr. Briand about the incident, shortly after hearing about it from Ms. Gregory– Parkbridge failed to set out a complete process of complaint and investigation.

90The Tribunal has set out a broad series of factors to be considered in determining whether a corporate respondent has responded reasonably to incidents of discrimination or harassment (Marineland, supra). The factors can be regrouped under three general elements– namely, those relating to the corporate respondent’s awareness of issues, post-complaint investigation and action, and resolution of complaints including communication to the complainant. As held in Marineland at para. 60:

While the … three elements are of a general nature, their application must retain some flexibility to take into account the unique facts of each case. The standard is one of reasonableness, not correctness or perfection…. One must look at each element individually and then in the aggregate before passing judgment on whether the employer acted reasonably.

91With respect to the first of these elements, awareness of the issues, the jurisprudence indicates that the Tribunal must consider whether the respondent had in place a suitable anti-discrimination/harassment policy, a proper complaint mechanism for those who suffered discrimination/harassment and whether adequate training was given to management to deal with discrimination and harassment (Marineland at para. 59). Although Mr. Hammett testified that he had a practice of speaking with employees who were allegedly in trouble, there was no evidence that management had received any training about dealing with harassment matters, or that any formal complaint mechanism had been established by management so that a tenant in a situation similar to that of Ms. Gregory could make a formal complaint.

92Similarly, as regards the second element, post-complaint investigation and action, I find that Parkbridge did not conduct a reasonable investigation into Ms. Gregory’s complaint. This factor requires that the complaint be taken seriously, treated promptly and sensitively and that a reasonable investigation be conducted. As noted above, Mr. Hammett spoke to Mr. Briand shortly after receiving Ms. Gregory’s complaint of sexual harassment. Present at the meeting were Mr. Hammett, Mr. Briand and his wife, Ms. Briand. However, the investigation stopped there. No one else was contacted who may have had relevant information such as Mr. Wilkinson. Moreover, Ms. Gregory had written a letter to a senior manager, Mr. Wells, at Parkbridge outlining the incidents and her concerns. No action was taken by Parkbridge to investigate the matter in response to the letter. In summary, I find that Ms. Gregory’s complaint of sexual harassment was not treated seriously by the corporate respondent. Parkbridge did not reasonably investigate once it had been informed of Ms. Gregory's allegation of sexual harassment by Mr. Briand.

93By not properly investigating complaints, Parkbridge did not reach the stage of being able to provide a reasonable resolution. In particular, there was no follow-up with Ms. Gregory.

94In conclusion, I find that Mr. Briand and the corporate respondent were responsible for infringing the applicant’s right to be free from sexual harassment in accommodation, contrary to ss. 7(1) of the Code.

Is the individual respondent, Frank Briand, and/or the corporate respondent responsible for infringing the applicant’s right to be free from sexual solicitation contrary to ss. 7(3) of the Code?

95The applicant alleges that the reason that her site licence was not renewed in September of 2007 relates to the alleged sexual harassment by Frank Briand, and that this constitutes sexual solicitation.

96I find that with regard to the allegation of sexual solicitation, the evidence does not lead me to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that the sexual harassment (namely, the applicant’s rejection of Frank Briand’s advances) was the underlying cause or even a contributing factor to management’s decision not to renew her occupant’s licence. A significant, independent and negative incident happened on August 12, 2007, involving the applicant’s boyfriend and a teenager, as witnesses on both sides have acknowledged. I accept Mr. Hammett’s testimony that he considered the incident to be a severe issue, “like an 8 out of 10,” and that what happened was grounds for making someone leave the park. Mr. Hammett’s testimony that something serious involving Mike Wilkinson had occurred that night was corroborated by Glenn Gresham’s account of convincing Mr. Wilkinson to release the teenager that night. Moreover, I find that the respondents’ version that the licence non-renewal stemmed from the violent incident involving the teen to be a more cogent interpretation of the facts. The applicant has been very unclear in putting forward her argument of sexual solicitation. No evidence at all has been presented to suggest that if the applicant had warmed to Mr. Briand’s advances, the fate of her lot licence would have been different. I therefore dismiss the applicant’s claim for redress due to sexual solicitation under ss. 7(3).

REMEDY

97The applicant seeks $100,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect due to sexual harassment.

98I accept Ms. Gregory’s testimony that she missed part of her usual stay at the trailer campground during the summer of 2007 because she did not feel comfortable when Mr. Briand was around due to the sexually harassing comments that he made to her in June 2007. I also accept that the harassment greatly upset her as was evident from the manner in which Ms. Gregory testified and supported by the testimony of Mr. Wilkinson and Ms. Shearon. It would appear from the collective testimony that Ms. Gregory came and went to her trailer after the incident because of her discomfort instead of staying there consistently as she normally did and that this was due to her discomfort after the sexual harassing comments made by Mr. Briand. The evidence conflicts, however, as to how much time Ms. Gregory missed that summer and I am not convinced that Ms. Gregory missed as much of her summer at the campground as she asserts.

99The focus of the analysis in determining appropriate remedies is the impact of the breach on the victim and future compliance with the Code (Hill-LeClair v. Booth, supra). Remedies under the Code are intended to make victims of discrimination and harassment whole, not to punish perpetrators. The impact of sexual harassment by a landlord and its agents can be debilitating, and the effects can be long-term and profound. Remedies for sexual harassment in accommodation should aim to compensate for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect caused by the harassment (Hill-LeClair v. Booth, supra). Such an award includes recognition of the inherent value of the right to be free from discrimination and the experience of victimization. The effect on the victim, while important, is not the only factor relevant to compensation for intangible loss. It is also appropriate to apply a degree of objectivity in evaluating the circumstances surrounding the violation of the Code; see Seguin v. Great Blue Heron Charity Casino, 2009 HRTO 940.

100An order for compensation for injury to dignity, feeling, and self-respect is a discretionary award. In order to determine the appropriate monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, the Tribunal is required to make a general evaluation of the circumstances of the Code violation, and the resultant effects that treating a person as less worthy through discrimination based on a personal characteristic has had on that individual’s psychological well-being. The Tribunal’s jurisprudence places emphasis on two criteria in assessing damages. The first is the objective seriousness of the conduct and the effect on the particular applicant who experienced discrimination: see, in particular, Seguin v. Great Blue Heron Charity Casino, supra, at para. 16. Generally speaking, the more prolonged, hurtful, and serious violation of the Code, the greater the injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect the victim suffers. Secondly, when an applicant suffers particular emotional difficulties as a result of the Code’s violation, and when his or her particular circumstances make the effects particularly serious, damages may be greater (see, generally, Sanford v. Koop, supra, at paras. 34-38.)

101Despite the fact that the applicant did not adduce any medical evidence or expert testimony concerning the short and long-term impact of the harassment on her health, I am satisfied, based on the evidence, that Mr. Briand's comments caused the applicant emotional distress, which was apparent during the hearing, and had a negative impact on the applicant’s ability to enjoy her licensed lot. Furthermore, the applicant’s sexual harassment allegations were not properly investigated. At the same time, the sexual comments constituted a single incident as opposed to a pattern of harassment against the applicant, therefore justifying a lower remedy.

102The applicant requests $100,000 for sexual harassment. However, this is beyond what is reasonable in this specific case (see Kertesz, supra; Hill-LeClair, supra; and Romano v. 1577118 Ontario Inc., 2008 HRTO 9). In the circumstances, it is my view that an award of general damages in the amount of $1,000 is appropriate.

ORDER

103For all of the foregoing reasons, I make the following order:

a. that the respondents, Parkbridge Lifestyles Communities Inc. and Frank Briand, were responsible for infringing the applicant’s right to be free from sexual harassment in accommodation, contrary to ss. 7(1) of the Code;

b. that all other allegations in the application are dismissed; and,

c. that the respondents, Parkbridge Lifestyles Communities Inc. and Frank Briand, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicant the sum of $1,000 as general damages within 30 days of the date of this Decision.