Curling v. TorimiroOntario Superior Court dated February 28, 2001| Curling v. TorimiroBoard of Inquiry decision dated October 03, 2000| Curling v. Torimiro Board of Inquiry decision dated May 19, 2000 | Curling v. TorimiroBoard of Inquiry decision dated September 30, 1999| Curling v. Torimiro Board of Inquiry decision dated December 22, 1999 |
by S. Pieters, B.A.
February 16, 2000
The complainant, Nicole Curling, filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission against Victoria Tea Company Ltd and Alexander Torimiro on April 15, 1994. The complaint alleged that Torimiro had sexually harassed Curling and subject her to sexual solicitation and advances, contrary to s. 7 (2) and s. 7 (3) (a) and s. 9 of the Human Rights Code. On August 28, 1998, the complaint was amended to add an allegation that the respondents had discriminated against Curling by treating her unequally in employment on the basis of sex, contrary to s. 5 (1) of the Code. (Decision No. 99-016, p. 1)
Curling, age 29, was employed in 1993 as an Executive Assistant with responsibility for working with Torimiro in “developing and marketing his business, Victoria Tea.”
The Respondent launched a civil action against Curling seeking $1.5 million, for damage to reputation arising out of her complaint. The statement of claim was served on Curling in the Board’s hearing room and in a manner which was described by the Commission as abrupt and threatening. (Decision No. 99-013, p. 3)
The Respondent also sent a letter to the Commission, to the attention of its Executive Director stating “I am sending a direct warning to the commission and to all persons involved in this matter on behalf of the complainant. If the commission continues on this reckless path, I promise you a fight that will live in the annals of history and make every front page from Johannesburg to Oslo, from New York to Melbourne.” (Decision No. 99-013, p. 3)
In a 27 page decision dated December 22, 1999, Katherine Laird, sitting as a Board of Inquiry, under the Human Rights Code, found “that Torimiro engaged in a course of conduct in respect to the complainant which included sexual touching and kissing and the persistent pursuit of a sexual relationship.”
The Board found that “Torimiro created a workplace atmosphere which was uncomfortable for the complainant by, for example, commenting frequently on her clothing and body; by making excessive demands on her to spend time with him at work and outside the office; by repeatedly discussing his own sexual relationships and those of Curling’s co-workers; and by asking her personal questions, including whether or not she was dating. (Decision No. 99-016, p. 18 - 19)
The Board also found that “Torimiro served Curling with a Statement of Claim seeking $1.5 million for damages to reputation arising out of this complaint and did so in a manner that was intended to intimidate her.” Further the Board found that Torimiro “made threatening statements in correspondence, which statements were intended to discourage Curling, and her witnesses, from participating in this hearing.” (Decision No. 99-016, p. 19)
The Board found that:
It would be against the public policy expressed in the preamble of the Code for a complainant to be vulnerable to a civil proceeding on the basis of his or her filing of a human rights complaint.Counsel for the Commission is seeking the consent of the Attorney General of Ontario to institute criminal proceedings under s. 44 of the Code. Section 44 (1) of the Code provides that “every person who contravenes section 9, subsection 33 (11), or an order of a board of inquiry, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $25, 000.”
In an order dated October 03, 2000, the Board of Inquiry awarded over $50, 000 to Ms. Curling and made several orders against Mr. Torimiro as follows:
ORDER¶ 80 Alexander Torimiro and The Victoria Tea Company Limited and The Torimiro Corporation are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay to Nicole Curling the following amounts:
(1) $10,000 as compensation for her humiliation and loss of dignity resulting from the infringement of her rights under s. 5(1), s. 7(2) and s. 7(3)(a) to be free from sex discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual solicitation;¶ 81 Further, Alexander Torimiro is ordered and directed to take the following actions to achieve compliance with the Human Rights Code in respect of his future conduct and the future practices of the corporate respondents and of any other current or future corporate entities or businesses which the personal respondent may own or operate, on his own or in conjunction with others:
(2) $10,000 as compensation for her mental anguish caused by the infringement of her rights under s. 5(1), s. 7(2) and s. 7(3)(a);
(3) $4,000 as compensation for her humiliation and loss of dignity resulting from the infringement of her right under s. 7(3)(b) to be free from retalitory treatment for the rejection of sexual solicitations and advances;
(4) $7,000 as compensation for the loss of the right under s. 8 to be free from reprisals for having filed and pursued a human rights complaint, and for the humiliation and loss of dignity associated with the infringement;
(5) $10,000 as compensation for her mental anguish caused by the infringement of her right under s. 8 to be free from reprisals for having filed and pursued a human rights complaint;
(6) $2,000 as compensation for her loss of earings after terminating her employment with the Victoria Tea Company Limited.
(7) $7,600 as compensation for her legal expenses arising out of the infringement of her right under s.8 to be free from reprisals;
(8) prejudgment interest on all of the above at the applicable rate under the Courts of Justice Act April 15, 1994;
(9) post judgment interest on all of the above at the applicable rate under the Courts of Justice Act from the date of this Order.(10) implement, at any present or future place of business, a comprehensive workplace harassment and discrimination policy, approved by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, including a definition of harassing behaviours and an internal complaints process and specific notification that complaints arising under the policy can be taken to the Commission;
(11) provide to all future employees, at any present or future place of business, a copy of the policy of the Commission entitled Gender Harassment and Inappropriate Gender-Related Comments and Conduct;
(12) attend a training program, approved by the Commission, designed to assist employers and managers in identifying and addressing instances of sexual harassment and solicitation in the workplace;
(13) provide a copy of the December 22, 2000 decision, and this decision, to any office of Human Resources Development Canada at which any of the respondents recruit or have recruited employees during a five year commencing January 1, 2000;
(14) post a copy of this decision, forthwith and for a period of one year, in a place accessible to employees, at any current place of business owned or operated by any of the respondents;
(15) provide the Commission with the names and addresses of any female employees who leave positions of employment with any of the respondents, for a period of five years commencing from January 1, 2000;
(16) identify for the Commission, on a semiannual basis, the current financial institution used by each of the respondents.¶ 82 The Board of Inquiry will remain seized of this matter for a period of 18 months from the date of this Order to deal with any issues with respect to implementation of the Order.
Alexander Torimiro Response
In an email dated May 24, 2000, Alexander Torimiro writes:
I will persue my innocence in the complaint against myself...I have provided employment to over 125 employees in my 8 years in business of which better than 100 of them were blacks and females... It is very, very sad that Alvin Curling entrusted his daughter to my employment and had all kinds of opportunities to notice if there were any wrong doing on my part fails to acknowledge that this complaint is frivolous and without merit. This matter is still in the judicial process....
Editorial Note
Any decisions or updates on the Board of Inquiry matter involving Curling and Torimiro will be posted on this page since they are publicly accessible legal information, which can also be accessed through the Board of Inquiry Office, Public libraries, Quicklaw and the Human Rights Reporter.
Rights group toothless: Woman Toronto Star News Story on Torimiro v. Curling
This page was created on February 16/2000.
Last updated August 29, 2001.
© 2000 All rights reserved.