A former property administrator in Ontario who was harassed and assaulted by tenants at her apartment building has been awarded $175,000 for sexual harassment and mental distress on top of eight months’ notice for wrongful dismissal.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that Syra Group Holdings, along with two of its executives, failed to protect the woman from ongoing harassment — leading to severe mental health struggles. The ruling underscores the employer’s failure to address workplace harassment and its obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Employment Standards Act, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Sexual harassment and assault by tenants
J.S. was employed by Syra Group as a superintendent before being promoted to property administrator at 34 Dixington Ave. in Toronto, a property owned by Syra. During her employment, J.S. was subjected to harassment and threats from tenants — D.J. and J.J. — who had resided at the property prior to J.S.’s tenure.
According to the agreed facts, D.J. was convicted of assault in December 2018, following an arrest for harassing and physically attacking J.S. His conviction included a probationary period prohibiting contact with J.S. However, after his probation ended, D.J. returned to live at 34 Dixington in 2019. During his time at the property, D.J. subjected J.S. to sexual harassment, including explicit comments and unwanted physical contact, which was witnessed by tenants.
J.J. similarly harassed J.S., at one point threatening her with a hammer and physically harming her dog. J.S. reported these incidents to Syra Group’s property manager and the CFO, but received minimal support beyond instructions to contact the police if she felt unsafe.
Employer’s failure to act
The court heard that both of Syra’s executives were aware of the harassment and assaults that J.S. had suffered but failed to implement sufficient protective measures. Despite being informed of the threats, Syra Group did not create a violence or harassment policy at the time nor did they provide J.S. with adequate training or accommodations. Furthermore, the tenants responsible for the harassment were allowed to return to the building after completing probationary conditions.
Justice C.J. Brown noted that Syra’s failure to act placed J.S. in an unsafe work environment, which significantly contributed to her declining mental health. By not relocating J.S. or evicting the harassers, Syra failed to meet its obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Mental health struggles and wrongful dismissal
J.S. began experiencing severe mental health challenges as a result of the harassment, including depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. In August 2018, J.S. took a medical leave, supported by medical documentation from her psychiatrist. Despite her ongoing treatment, Syra Group terminated J.S.’s employment in December 2018, citing “frustration of contract” due to her inability to return to work at that time.
The court found that her termination was without cause, stating that her medical leave did not meet the threshold for frustration of contract. Syra Group’s failure to seek additional clarification from J.S.’s physician regarding her expected return date or possible accommodations was a critical oversight, according to the decision.
Damages awarded
Justice Brown awarded her eight months’ salary in lieu of reasonable notice, along with $125,000 in general damages for violations of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Additionally, J.S. was awarded $50,000 in moral damages for the employer’s bad faith handling of her termination, which exacerbated her mental distress.
“The defendants knew that (J.S.) was receiving psychiatric assistance for her mental health issues,” wrote Brown. “Their failure to follow up and obtain further information before terminating her employment caused additional mental distress.”
The decision in Stride v. Syra Group Holdings sends a clear message about the obligations of employers to protect employees from harassment, particularly in environments where third parties, such as tenants, may pose a threat.
For more information, see Stride v. Syra Group et al, 2024 ONSC 2169.
