She was the only woman on the crew but had performance issues
A hotel worker said she was the only woman on an all-male maintenance team, subjected to crude remarks and colleagues who undressed in front of her. Her harassment complaint was dismissed anyway, and Ontario's courts have now confirmed that ruling stands.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice's Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on June 29, 2026, in a decision by Justice Faieta, with Justices D.L. Corbett and Emery concurring. The panel upheld a decision by HRTO Adjudicator Lavinia Inbar, who had dismissed a sex discrimination and harassment complaint that a maintenance technician filed against One King West Hotel and Residence, a Toronto hotel, over her termination during a probationary period. The applicant, who represented herself, was ordered to pay the hotel $1,500 in partial indemnity costs.
A new hire on an all-male crew
The employee, hired as a maintenance technician in March 2019, joined a previously all-male crew and struggled at times to work independently during her probationary period. She testified that colleagues called her the first female in the department and that some initially refused to work with her because of her sex, alongside remarks like one colleague telling another it was “Lucky you get to work with a woman.”
When she reported that a male colleague had undressed in front of her, management posted notices within an hour restricting changing to designated change rooms. The next day, the employee said she found a colleague in a tool area wearing only his underwear and testified that she then swore repeatedly at two co-workers.
At a May 1, 2019, meeting called to review her productivity, supervisors said the employee needed considerable help with basic tasks and struggled to work independently. She objected and, by her own account, used the word “stupid” while yelling at her supervisors, though she denied directing the word at them specifically.
A termination not linked to her sex
The hotel terminated the employee on May 3, 2019, within her probationary period. Adjudicator Lavinia Inbar of the HRTO found that although the termination was an adverse impact, the employee's own evidence supported the hotel's position that colleagues had grown reluctant to work with her because of performance concerns, not her sex.
She also alleged the workplace had become a poisoned environment and that her termination amounted to reprisal for complaining about colleagues changing in the maintenance area. Inbar found the hotel's director of human resources and her supervisor had taken her complaints seriously and acted swiftly, and that her own insubordination was a legitimate, permissible factor in the decision to terminate.
Reviewing that decision, Justice Faieta wrote that “the applicant's colleagues acted inappropriately on several occasions,” but found this did not diminish the hotel's legitimate concerns about her incivility, insubordination and difficulty working independently, calling the termination a good faith decision within management's rights during the probationary period.
No unfairness in the process, said the court
On judicial review, the Divisional Court applied a standard of reasonableness, noting HRTO decisions are otherwise final and not subject to appeal. The court found the Adjudicator applied the correct test for discrimination and was entitled to conclude that the poisoned work environment claim rested primarily on the employee's subjective feelings rather than an objectively hostile workplace.
The applicant, representing herself, submitted that the hearing had been procedurally unfair because the tribunal allowed oral evidence, granted a second hearing day and accepted hearsay evidence. She also alleged the Adjudicator was biased against her as a self-represented litigant. The court rejected both arguments, finding the process fair and that she had not met the high threshold required to establish bias.
The court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the HRTO's decision and reconsideration decision were reasonable. It ordered the employee to pay $1,500 in partial indemnity costs to the hotel, with no costs owed to or by the tribunal.
See Bankuti v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al., 2026 ONSC 3624
