HRTO Dismisses Request for Reconsideration in Sexual Harassment Case

Share This Post

Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on twitter
Share on email

KPA Lawyers - May 12, 2017

On June 16, 2014, Safari Anderson filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, which alleged that Giuseppe Alessandro, who owned Law Help Ltd., subjected her to sexual harassment, sexual advances and solicitations, and reprisal in the workplace, which resulted in her resigning from her job.

On August 18, 2014, the respondents filed a Response, which denied the applicant’s allegations. The respondents stated that they terminated the applicant’s services because of her poor work performance, and that she was making false allegations of sexual impropriety in order to extort money from the individual respondent.

The hearing took place on June 15 and 16, 2015. After Ms. Anderson presented her evidence, Mr. Alessandro decided not to call any evidence. The applicant and the individual respondent filed closing submissions/ arguments in writing in August and September 2015.

On December 28, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2016 HRTO 1683 (CanLII), which upheld the Application. The Tribunal decided that the applicant had proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the individual respondent subjected her to several unwanted sexual advances and solicitations in the workplace, which also amounted to sexual harassment, and then subjected her to a reprisal for rejecting his sexual advances and solicitations, which forced her to quit her job. The Tribunal also found that the respondents were jointly and severally liable for the breaches of the Code, and ordered them to pay the applicant monetary compensation as a remedy.

On January 4, 2017, Mr. Alessandro filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. On May 8th, 2017, an adjudicator for the tribunal held, “In essence, the individual respondent is rearguing the case. Reconsideration is not available simply because a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s Decision, and it is not an opportunity for a party to reargue the case. The Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.”

Anderson v. Law Help Ltd., 2017 HRTO 511 (CanLII)

#SafariAnderson #GiuseppeAlessandro #humanrightscode #humanrightstribunal #sexualharassment

More To Explore

Sharing Intimate Photos Without Consent Can Get You in A LOT of Trouble

KPA Lawyers – February 18, 2015 Information in today’s digital age travels at unprecedented speed, connecting us through digital devices across time and space. Digital technologies and their practices have become so ubiquitous that we often take for granted how intimately immersed we are in this information landscape. We never have to miss a beat: checking last night’s hockey scores; staying up to date

Ontario Human Rights Tribunal orders record award of $150,000 for injury to dignity to temporary for

KPA Lawyers – May 22, 2015 O.P.T. v. Presteve Foods Ltd., 2015 HRTO 675 (CanLII) [Re-posted from CanLii Connects.] Jose Pratas (pictured), the former owner of Presteve Foods, pleaded guilty to assault in 2009 and was given a conditional sentence and three years probation. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the owner of a fish processing plant in southern Ontario subjected two temporary

Do You Want To meet the team behind KPA?

Contact a lawyer in a matter of seconds!