Ontario’s courts have once again proven that serious consequences ensue for employers who do not protect their employees from harassment. In Stride v. Syra Group Holdings, 2024 ONSC 2169 (unreported), a recent Ontario Superior Court decision, the court issued an award of $125,000 in human rights damages and $50,000 in moral damages for the abusive and harsh treatment the plaintiff endured while working as a property administrator at one of Syra’s properties, where she also lived. This was in excess of the eight months’ notice she was awarded as a result of her dismissal.
Between 2016 and 2017, two tenants, Dwayne and Jamie Jetty, each initiated their own campaign of harassment against the plaintiff, Ms. Stride. Jamie threatened to beat her with a hammer and kicked her dog, whereas one year later, Dwayne made sexual comments about Ms. Stride, described how he would sexually assault her, and touched her inappropriately. When she complained of this harassment to her superiors, they ignored her complaints and told her to contact the police if she felt unsafe.
The police readily recognized the seriousness of the harassment and attacks Ms. Stride had faced. Jamie entered into a peace bond, the terms of which included a prohibition on contacting Ms. Stride that was time limited. Dwayne was convicted of assault and sentenced to one year of probation. After these conditions elapsed, Jamie and Dwayne returned to live at the property where Ms. Stride worked. She testified that, as a result, she only left her apartment when necessary.
Syra did not regard Ms. Stride’s complaints with any degree of gravity, and took no action to stop her mistreatment, aside from enforcing the conditions of Dwayne’s probation and Jamie’s peace bond. Ms. Stride dealt with a plethora of mental health issues resulting from her abuse, including self-harm and homicidal ideation. She went on a medical leave in August 2018.
When she did not return after four months of medical leave, Syra deemed her employment frustrated, even after her treating physician provided a letter with an update as to her condition and stated that she could not return to work at that time. Syra took the view that, if Ms. Stride was unable to return to work four months into her leave, even with accommodation, then she would never be able to return. There was no evidence to support this position. In fact, the evidence suggested that there had been no need to dismiss and replace Ms. Stride, as her position remained unfilled up to the point of trial five years later.
On top of the substantial extraordinary damage awards, the court also awarded Ms. Stride substantial indemnity costs, primarily on account of the seriousness of the issues at hand and Syra’s conduct. It had caused an adjournment of the trial three times, and it retained five different lawyers throughout, the most recent lawyer was retained within a month of the trial. This confirms that the court does not take lightly unreasonable conduct on a defendant’s part that results in delay or that is designed to cause delay.
While it seemed that Syra was aware of the seriousness of the criminal charges against the Jettys, it took no action to protect Ms. Stride or support her in any way, instead allowing both Dwayne and Jamie to return to the building where she worked. Furthermore, Syra had no policy on workplace violence and/or harassment, and Stride’s harassment did not cue Syra to change that fact. No investigation was conducted, and no intervention was engaged in to stop the harassment. The trauma she lived with after the events made it exceedingly difficult for Ms. Stride to find work. When she was able to look for work, she felt uncomfortable in rooms alone with men. She was not obliged to accept Syra’s offer to return to work to an environment where her superiors would not protect her.
The main message is that employers cannot fall asleep at the switch. This is especially true for employers with employees who interact with members of the public daily. It can be difficult to monitor the workplace consistently for workplace harassment, so it is important for employers to listen to their employees when they are trying to tell them about mistreatment they have experienced at work. In situations where no framework exists to handle harassment and discrimination complaints, receiving and processing such complaints appropriately can be a challenge, which makes such frameworks all the more important.
The judge also noted that, while Ms. Stride gave straightforward testimony, Syra’s representatives tended to obfuscate. This is not unusual for cases in which employers do not have a clear protocol for addressing harassment, which can make it difficult for other employees to recall the events at issue or any actions that were taken to address them.
A final takeaway is that there is no limit on the amount of general damages a court can award with respect to violations of the Human Rights Code. This means that, as in this case, judges can award colossal sums for serious breaches.
About the author
Carson Healey is an associate and member of Gowling WLG’s Employment, Labour and Equalities Group based in the Toronto office.
Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.