Real Cases. Real Compensation.

What Happened

A Band councillor and manager repeatedly sexually harassed three female employees over an extended period, creating a poisoned work environment that caused severe mental health impacts to all three complainants.

Key Violation

Sexual harassment under the Canadian Human Rights Act; failure to provide a safe workplace

Compensation Breakdown

• $20,000 pain and suffering per complainant (x3)
• $20,000 special compensation per complainant (x3)
• $44,973 lost wages for one complainant
• Mandatory anti-harassment training ordered

What Happened

An employee requested accommodation as the primary caregiver for her cancer-stricken mother. The employer refused the accommodation request and terminated her employment. The Tribunal found this constituted both discrimination based on family status and reprisal for seeking accommodation.

Key Violation

Discrimination based on family status; failure to accommodate caregiving responsibilities; reprisal for seeking accommodation

Compensation Breakdown

• $105,000 in total compensation
• One of the highest awards for family status discrimination in Ontario
• Included compensation for injury to dignity and lost wages

What Happened

An employee endured over a year of sexual harassment by a co-worker, including sexual innuendos, inappropriate touching, and derogatory language. Despite repeatedly reporting the conduct to supervisors, the employer failed to take effective steps to address it. The employee no longer felt safe and quit, becoming homeless for six months as a result.

Key Violation

Discrimination in employment based on sex (BC Human Rights Code s.13); employer failed to respond reasonably to complaints of sexual harassment

Compensation Breakdown

• $29,591.51 in lost wages over five years
• $39.16 in medication expenses
• $35,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect
• Plus tax gross-up and pre/post judgment interest

What Happened

Three women experienced sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination by a CEO, including sexualized comments, inappropriate touching, and sexual solicitation. When two of them filed complaints, they faced further reprisal from their employer.

Key Violation

Sexual harassment; gender-based discrimination; retaliation against complainants

Compensation Breakdown

• Woman 1: $75,000 general damages + $50,000 retaliation + $26,800 wage loss = $151,800
• Woman 2: $30,000 general damages + $25,000 retaliation + $11,200 wage loss = $66,200
• Woman 3: $50,000 general damages + lost wages

What Happened

A federal procurement supervisor with 4.5 years of service was dismissed without cause and offered a 6-month severance package. He refused to sign the release and filed an unjust dismissal complaint. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which established the legal principle that federally regulated employers cannot dismiss without just cause.

Key Violation

Dismissal without just cause of a federally regulated employee with 12+ months service

Compensation Breakdown

• Supreme Court ruled: federally regulated employers CANNOT fire without just cause
• Adjudicators may order reinstatement with or without back pay, or compensation in damages
• Employer cannot substitute severance pay for just cause
• Landmark decision protecting all non-unionized federal workers

What Happened

A receptionist faced discrimination based on pregnancy and family status. After returning from parental leave, she encountered a hostile work environment with increased hours, reassigned duties, and was effectively replaced by another employee.

Key Violation

Discrimination based on pregnancy and family status

Compensation Breakdown

• Compensation for discrimination based on pregnancy
• Compensation for discrimination based on family status
• Lost wages and related damages
• Total: $43,359

What Happened

A former executive was terminated in what the court found was, at least in part, a reprisal for raising concerns about potential breaches of securities laws. The court applied the statutory remedy and awarded double the income lost.

Key Violation

Reprisal for whistleblowing; termination motivated by employee raising compliance concerns

Compensation Breakdown

• $5.37 million in damages
• Double the income from termination to judgment date
• No obligation to mitigate (court found reprisal was the motive)
• One of the largest reprisal awards in Canadian history

What Happened

An employee filed an unjust dismissal complaint under the Canada Labour Code. The adjudicator awarded full indemnity costs (all legal fees paid by the employer). The Federal Court of Appeal upheld this award.

Key Violation

Unjust dismissal; employer ordered to pay full legal costs of the employee

Compensation Breakdown

• Full indemnity costs (100% of employee's legal fees)
• Court rejected argument that full costs require 'outrageous' employer conduct
• Established that adjudicators have broad discretion to award costs
• Employer cannot recover costs even if they win

What Happened

A customer of a major Canadian telecommunications company alleged she was improperly enrolled in a voiceprint-based biometric authentication program without her knowledge or consent. Despite declining and opting out, she was re-enrolled. The Privacy Commissioner investigated and found the company violated PIPEDA by failing to obtain meaningful consent for its biometric data collection practices.

Key Violation

Violation of PIPEDA Principle 4.3 and Section 6.1 (Consent), Principle 4.3.8 (Withdrawal of Consent), and Principle 4.5.3 (Retention/Destruction) regarding biometric voiceprint collection

Compensation Breakdown

• Complaint found well-founded and conditionally resolved by the Privacy Commissioner
• Company required to obtain express consent before creating voiceprints
• Must clearly communicate opt-out options and delete voiceprints upon request
• Required to reconfirm consent with all previously enrolled customers

What Happened

Tim Hortons' mobile app was found to be tracking users' location data continuously, even when the app was not in use. The investigation revealed the app collected vast amounts of granular location data far beyond what was needed. The company failed to obtain valid, meaningful consent for this surveillance.

Key Violation

Violation of PIPEDA Subsection 5(3) (Inappropriate Purpose), Principle 4.3/Section 6.1 (Invalid Consent), and Principle 4.1.3 (Inadequate Third-Party Protections)

Compensation Breakdown

• Complaint found well-founded and conditionally resolved by Privacy Commissioners of Canada, Alberta, and Quebec
• Tim Hortons required to delete all improperly collected location data
• Company must implement a privacy management program with impact assessments
• Required to submit compliance reports and quarterly progress updates

What Happened

A rogue employee at Desjardins accessed and leaked personal information of 9.7 million members, including names, SINs, dates of birth, addresses, and transaction histories. Desjardins was found to have inadequate safeguards. The class-action settlement, approved in June 2022, was one of the largest privacy settlements in Canadian history.

Key Violation

Failure to protect personal information under PIPEDA Principle 4.7 (Safeguards); inadequate employee access controls

Compensation Breakdown

• $201M CAD class-action settlement fund
• Up to $90 for general loss of time; up to $1,000 for identity theft claims
• Free credit monitoring for all 9.7 million affected individuals
• Desjardins required to overhaul data security practices

What Happened

Bell Canada launched a "Relevant Ads" program that tracked customers' web browsing, TV watching, calling patterns, and app usage to serve targeted advertisements. Bell used an opt-out model rather than obtaining explicit consent for this detailed behavioral tracking of millions of customers.

Key Violation

Violation of PIPEDA Principle 4.3 (Inadequate Consent), Principle 4.3.8 (Withdrawal of Consent), and Subsection 5(3) (Inappropriate Purpose for credit score data)

Compensation Breakdown

• Complaint found well-founded by the Privacy Commissioner
• Bell ordered to shut down the Relevant Ads program entirely
• Required to obtain express opt-in consent for any future behavioral tracking
• Set major precedent: opt-out is insufficient for sensitive data tracking

What Happened

Home Depot was found to be sharing customer purchase and personal information with Meta (Facebook) through its electronic receipts program without obtaining adequate consent. Since 2018, customers who provided their email for e-receipts had their hashed email and purchase details sent to Meta via its "Offline Conversions" tool for advertising measurement.

Key Violation

Violation of PIPEDA Principle 4.3 (Consent); relying on implied consent for unexpected third-party data sharing with a social media company

Compensation Breakdown

• Complaint found well-founded and resolved by the Privacy Commissioner
• Home Depot discontinued the Offline Conversions tool in October 2022
• Committed to obtaining express opt-in consent if resuming the practice
• Must clearly disclose any third-party data sharing before collecting information

What Happened

Bell TV conducted a hard-pull credit check on a customer without consent when the customer ordered satellite TV service. The customer's signature was transposed to a contract without a copy being provided. The Federal Court found Bell's conduct reprehensible and a clear violation of PIPEDA.

Key Violation

Unauthorized credit check without consent in violation of PIPEDA Principle 4.3 (Consent)

Compensation Breakdown

• $10,000 in general damages for privacy violation
• $10,000 in exemplary damages for Bell's reprehensible conduct
• $1,000 in costs
• One of the earlier significant PIPEDA damages awards by a Federal Court