$32,500 awarded after employee forced to share bed with owner

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ordered a company and the estate of its late owner to pay a former young employee $32,500 after finding a pattern of sexual harassment, sexual solicitation and a poisoned work environment that drove the worker to resign.

Back Country Tours and the estate of Dudley Hookong must make the payment to Chelsey Cloutier for injury to dignity, feelings and self‑respect.

Adjudicator Marinus Lamers found that Cloutier — then in her early 20s — was subjected to a course of unwelcome sexualised comments and behaviour by Hookong, who was the sole owner, director and operator of Back Country Tours. The respondents did not participate in the proceeding and were noted in default, leaving Cloutier’s evidence uncontradicted.

Employee forced to share bed with owner

Cloutier worked for Back Country Tours from May 15 to June 16, 2017, under an agreement that labelled her an “independent contractor”. However, the Tribunal determined — relying in part on a Canada Revenue Agency determination — that she was in fact an employee and that the Human Rights Code’s employment protections applied.

Cloutier testified that from the outset, Hookong behaved in ways that made her feel “uncomfortable, manipulated, belittled, objectified, sexually harassed, anxious and unsafe.” His conduct included belittling her abilities, insisting she would never succeed in tourism without his training, and controlling her food and shelter by arranging situations where she had to share accommodation with him — including in an on‑site RV — and on business trips where only one room was booked.

Lamers accepted her submissions that “from the commencement of her employment, the individual respondent’s comments and actions collectively suggest an attempt to groom the applicant.” The Tribunal found he informed her when he felt “horny” and asked if she would help him “make an heir,” pressured her to disclose when her period started, discussed her past mental health issues under the pretext of needing to know everything about her, and spoke frequently about the bisexuality of other staff.

On two business trips, accommodations arranged by Hookong resulted in Cloutier being “forced to share a bed” with him. He also offered to buy her lingerie, spoke about his “past sexual encounters with prior staff members,” and used derogatory terms for women as passwords.

Nearly half (47%) of women and 31% of men report experiencing inappropriate sexualised behaviours in a workplace setting, according to a previous report from Statistics Canada.

Failure to respond to co‑worker harassment

According to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Cloutier also complained about a male co‑worker who commented on her clothing and tried to hug her. The Tribunal noted that Hookong “failed to take any action in response to her complaint” about the co‑worker’s conduct.

The Tribunal concluded that all of these incidents occurred in the workplace and were clearly tied to her sex. Citing prior case law, Lamers held that “the very nature of the sexual harassment can be sufficient to establish that the sex of the applicant was a factor in the adverse treatment."

Lamers also decided that Hookong “treated her as a sex object in the workplace, which, in effect was a devaluation of her status as a worker because she is a woman.”

Poisoned work environment and corporate liability

Having found sexual harassment and sexual solicitation, the Tribunal also found that Cloutier “experienced discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex” and that “a poisoned work environment was created.”

Back Country Tours was not automatically liable simply because harassment occurred, Lamers noted. However, because Hookong was the sole owner, director and operator of the company, he was a “directing mind.” On that basis, the adjudicator held that “the personal respondent, and the corporate respondent, are jointly and severally liable for subjecting the applicant to a poisoned work environment, sexual harassment, and sexual solicitation or advances.”

Cloutier sought $50,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self‑respect, an increase from the $25,000 originally claimed. Lamers surveyed recent Tribunal awards in sexual harassment cases, noting that they now generally range from $12,000 to $200,000, with the upper end reserved for extreme, long‑term abuse such as a 20‑year pattern of assaults in one case.

In Cloutier’s case, the Tribunal placed the harm “between” those decisions and the more severe cases cited by the applicant. While recognising the serious impact, Lamers also noted the absence of medical evidence and the relatively limited duration of the employment.

“I find that it is appropriate to order the respondents to pay $32,500 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect in this matter,” the decision states.

No lost wage damages were awarded. Although Cloutier argued she would have earned a further $19,890 over the remainder of the one‑year contract, there was no evidence about how that figure was calculated, no minimum guaranteed hours, and no information on mitigation efforts, according to the decision. In Lamers’ view, this left the Tribunal “unable to assess, what, if any, wage loss the applicant may be entitled to.”

Previously, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia dealt with a case involving vicarious liability where an organisation was sued for sexual abuse perpetrated by a volunteer against a young person in their care.