The board found all three elements of reprisal and awarded over $5,800
She told her boss she was assaulted at work. The response was to tell her to quit.
When a worker at an Ontario pet spa reported being assaulted by a client and subjected to sexualized remarks from a colleague, her employer's response was not an investigation. It was a suggestion to leave. In a March 11, 2026, decision, Ontario Labour Relations Board Vice-Chair Peigi Ross found that Bark Avenue Pet Spa violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act by retaliating against Penka Trendafilova for raising workplace safety concerns, and ordered the company to pay more than $5,800 in damages.
In late February 2025, Trendafilova reported to Bark Avenue that she had been assaulted by a client. She also reported that a colleague had made sexualized remarks to the effect that she was a “good fit” and that she might start dating him. The employer held two meetings but did not investigate the complaint of workplace violence or harassment as required under section 32.0.7(1)(a) of the Act. Discussions instead focused on clients being unhappy with last-minute cancellations, the cold in the salon, and Trendafilova's own concerns about cleanliness.
After Trendafilova reported the assault, the owner told her that if she was unhappy in her employment, she could leave.
On or about February 24, 2025, her schedule was cut from five days a week to two, and she was reassigned to a related business, TLC spa, owned by the same owners. Despite her inquiries, no explanation was provided. She worked the reduced schedule until April 14, 2025, when she went off sick as a result of the workplace events.
Employer denied loss of employment or harassment
When Trendafilova applied for Employment Insurance benefits, the employer reported to Service Canada that there was no involuntary loss of employment, no threats, harassment, or safety concerns, that the client incident was a misunderstanding and not an attack, that Trendafilova had not contacted police or filed a police report and that the police report number she provided may not be legitimate, and that the employer had not threatened her. Service Canada denied her application, finding she had not established just cause for resigning from her employment.
The Board found all three elements of a reprisal under section 50 of the Act were present: Trendafilova had engaged in a protected activity, suffered an adverse consequence, and the two were causally connected.
Under section 50(5), the burden of proof lies with the employer. "An employer must show that its decision was not tainted by consideration of the employee's exercise of his rights." Bark Avenue neither filed a response nor attended the hearing and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.
The cost of a cut schedule
The Board awarded Trendafilova $3,192.00 in lost wages, calculated at three days per week, eight hours per day, over seven weeks, at $19.00 per hour, plus $127.68 in vacation pay. An additional $2,500 in damages was awarded for the employer's violation of the Act.
Claims for damages relating to the assault itself were denied, as the Board has no jurisdiction to determine whether an assault, harassment, or bullying occurred. The Board was not presented with evidence that the sick leave was caused by the reprisal. Medical expenses related to the sick leave were not awarded. The request to correct the Record of Employment was declined, as the Board found it unclear that it has authority to order such a correction. The claim for Employment Insurance reimbursement was also declined, with the Board noting the appropriate route was to have appealed that decision. Application costs were denied, as the Board has no authority to award them.
Vice-Chair Ross wrote: "The suggestion that Ms. Trendafilova could leave her employment after reporting a health and safety concern is particularly egregious."
