Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: lessons from Hrto
On April 24, 2020, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (the “OHRT”) released its decision in NK v. Botuik, 2020 HRTO 345. The Tribunal ordered the applicant’s former supervisor, Mr. Botuik, to pay $170,000 in general damages. This is the second-highest general damages award the OHRT has made in a sexual-harassment matter, underscoring how seriously the Tribunal treats workplace harassment and reprisals.
Background
The applicant worked in two group homes operated by Alan Stewart Homes Ltd. Mr. Botuik supervised her, controlled her shift scheduling, and made it clear he had full discretion over her hours.
Soon after her employment began, he engaged in ongoing sexual harassment that escalated over time—from comments, to unwanted touching, to coerced sexual acts—leveraging his authority over scheduling to pressure her into non-consensual encounters. The applicant ultimately felt trapped in what appeared outwardly to be a relationship, but which she did not freely choose.
When she tried to end it, the conduct culminated in a violent sexual assault at her home. Mr. Botuik then cancelled her shifts and had her arrested. After she complained to the employer about the harassment and assault, both she and Mr. Botuik were terminated.
The Tribunal’s Findings
The OHRT described the case as among the most serious to come before it and noted that the behavior spanned virtually the full spectrum of workplace sexual harassment. Crucially, the Tribunal emphasized that “fearful compliance” is not consent. Because the applicant submitted out of fear of reprisal and loss of income, the Tribunal found there was no genuine consent.
The assault at her home was treated as a continuation of the workplace harassment, bringing it within the protection of the Ontario Human Rights Code. In setting damages at $170,000, the Tribunal highlighted:
the applicant’s particular vulnerability as a survivor of prior sexual abuse,
the severe and lasting impact of the misconduct, and
significant reprisals by a person in power—loss of work, involvement of police, and violence.
Key Takeaways for Employers
Investigate even “consensual-seeming” situations. Power imbalances can invalidate true consent. A relationship that appears voluntary may not be, once fear of reprisal or economic pressure is considered.
Assess power dynamics. Who controls scheduling, discipline, promotions, or pay? Authority over these levers can coerce compliance.
Act promptly and fairly on complaints. Failure to take complaints seriously—or punishing the complainant—can lead to significant human rights damages.
Prevent reprisals. Any negative action tied to a complaint (e.g., cutting shifts, termination) can dramatically increase exposure.
Use a trauma-informed process. Consider the complainant’s state of mind and vulnerabilities when planning and conducting investigations.
Get legal guidance. Properly scoped, impartial investigations and appropriate remedial steps are essential to meeting your Code obligations.
Guidance for Employees
If you experience harassment at work:
Document what happens. Keep dates, times, locations, what was said/done, witnesses, and any communications.
Report the conduct through the employer’s policy or to HR/management, if safe to do so.
Seek support. Consider medical care, counselling, and legal advice to understand your options and protections.
How Vanguard Law Can Help
Whether you’re an employer looking to design or conduct a defensible workplace investigation, or an employee experiencing sexual harassment, our employment and human rights lawyers can help you navigate next steps with discretion and care.
Contact us to speak with our team of experienced workplace lawyers.