Complainant v. Menhem Painting Ltd. et al., 2026 AHRC 92 is a recent decision from the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal considering the merits of a complaint against the Respondents, Menhem Painting Ltd. (“MP”) and its owner, Mr. M (collectively, the “Respondents”) for discrimination on the grounds of gender and family status in the area of employment practices.
Specifically, the case related to allegations of sexual harassment, toxic work environment, and termination of employment after the Complainant refused sexual propositioning by Mr. M.
The Tribunal found that the complaint was substantiated and awarded the Complainant $50,000.00 in general damages for injury to dignity and $24,121.77 in damages arising from lost wages.
Facts
The relevant facts described in the Tribunal’s decision are as follows:
- The Complainant responded to a job posting in early January 2023 indicating that MP was hiring for a painting position. She met with Mr. M on January 10, 2023 and he informed her that she and her partner could begin work immediately at the rate of $20 per hour for the first month and $35 per hour thereafter.
- The Complainant and her partner began work on January 12, 2023.
- On January 18, 2023, Mr. M asked the Complainant to attend the work site alone at 8:00 a.m. the next morning, stating there was not enough painting work for her partner. When she arrived at the work site Mr. M asked her to join him in his van. He advised that he was relying on escorts for his sexual needs but wanted to satisfy those needs with someone he trusted. He proposed that he and the Complainant would begin a sexual relationship immediately and, in exchange, the Complainant’s hourly rate would be increased to $35 per hour immediately.
- The Complainant responded that she would need time to think about the offer in order to escape the van safely and protect her employment.
- On January 20, 2023 Mr. M asked the complainant whether she had decided about his offer. He also offered to pay her rent if she would agree to engage in sex with him, which she declined. Later that day Mr. M said he would pay the Complainant’s daycare fees as part of the offer. The Complainant responded she was happy to continue working but did not want to discuss any further requests for sex.
- On January 23, 2023 Mr. M again requested the Complainant come to work alone. When she arrived, he gestured towards unzipping his pants and said they should “try it out.” When the Complainant rejected his advances, Mr. M said the only work for the day was sex and if she rejected his offer she should go home, which she did.
- On January 23 and 26, 2023 Mr. M texted the Complainant stating there was no work ready. Following an exchange discussing when the Complainant and her partner would be paid for the work they completed, Mr. M sent a text message stating: “[a]nd it will be your last payment because you’re fired, you’re annoying.”
- The Complainant received a payment from MP on Jan. 31, 2023 in the amount of $750.00 reflecting 37.5 hours of work.
- The Complainant worked a series of casual and part time positions before finding full time work 6 months later.
- The Respondents did not attend the hearing and did not advance any evidence.
Analysis / Conclusion
The Tribunal found that the evidence of the Complainant and supporting witnesses were credible.
The evidence produced at the hearing supported a prima facie case of discrimination, namely:
- The Complainant had a protected characteristic under the Alberta Human Rights Act (the “Act”), being her gender;
- The Complainant had suffered an adverse impact. M repeatedly propositioned the Complainant for sex at work, his behaviour was unwelcome, and caused the Complainant significant distress;
- The Complainant’s protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact. The unwelcome conduct, of a sexual nature, affected the work environment during the Complainant’s employment and her employment was terminated as a direct result of rejecting the sexually harassing advances.
After concluding a violation of the Act occurred, the Tribunal noted that sexual harassment was not subject to any defence of “reasonable justification” as there would not be any circumstance in which being subjected to sexual harassment is a genuine occupational requirement.
The Tribunal found that the evidence did not support a claim that the Complainant experienced any negative impact as a result of her family status.
In assessing the damages to award the Tribunal noted that the discrimination was objectively serious and the subjective impact on the Complainant was significant. Furthermore, the patronizing and demeaning way the Respondents treated the Complainant was worthy of strong sanction.
Based on the proven facts, the Tribunal concluded that a damage award of $50,000.00 for injury to dignity was appropriate.
The Tribunal also concluded that the Complainant had made reasonable efforts to find alternative employment following the termination of her employment with MP, and awarded lost wages for the six months following termination of her employment (less amounts earned from other sources during that period).
The Tribunal declined to award any costs in the circumstances. It also declined to require the Respondents to complete a course of training in human rights as there was no evidence to indicate that could reasonably be expected to reduce potential future harm.
My Take
Unlike some other jurisdictions, Alberta does not have a legislated upper limit on the amount of general damages that can be awarded in human rights cases.
However, in practice, for several years there had been a rough upper limit of $35,000.00 for general damages awards, with rare decisions exceeding that figure.
This is the second decision from the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal to award a general damages amount of more than $35,000.00 in the last month (the other being Volpi v. Lifemark Health Corp.) which suggests that, going forward, there may be a trend towards increased general damages awards in Alberta.
Bow River Law provides these regular legal blog articles for the purposes of legal news, education and research for the public and the legal profession. These articles should be considered general information and not legal advice. If you have a legal problem, you should speak to a lawyer directly.
