The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ordered the estate of a deceased Toronto landlord, Tony De Melo, to pay $7,500 in compensation to a former building superintendent for sexual harassment related to her pregnancy1. In the same decision, the Tribunal dismissed the superintendent’s related claim that the landlord and his spouse had failed to accommodate her pregnancy related needs, finding that her request amounted to removing the essential duties of her job.
The decision was issued on February 3, 2025, by Adjudicator Marinus Lamers. The applicant, Candy Perez, and her counsel attended the videoconference hearing. The respondents, the Estate of Tony De Melo and Lucia Mera, did not attend, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The applicant, Candy Perez, began residing in a 39-unit apartment building at 2960 Keele Street, Toronto, in December 2016 with her spouse and child. At that time, she made an arrangement with the building’s owner, Tony De Melo, to perform superintendent duties. Her responsibilities included cleaning and maintaining all common areas, shovelling and salting entrances in winter, cutting grass in summer, collecting rent, and managing tenant complaints. In exchange for these services, Ms. Perez and her family received a rent-free apartment, which she valued at $1,300 per month. The Tribunal found this arrangement constituted an employment relationship under the Human Rights Code.
In January 2018, Ms. Perez became pregnant and subsequently informed Mr. De Melo and Ms. Mera of her pregnancy. The core of her application related to two distinct issues: a specific incident of sexual harassment and a subsequent dispute over accommodation.
According to Ms. Perez’s uncontradicted testimony, which the adjudicator found credible and reliable, the harassment incident occurred in early March 2018. She was meeting with Mr. De Melo in his office when he made several comments about her pregnancy. Ms. Perez, who was approximately two months pregnant, testified that Mr. De Melo said, “Oh my gosh, your belly grew quite a lot.” He followed this with, “People say that when a women’s belly grows, her vagina also grows.” Ms. Perez characterized these comments as vulgar and offensive.
Mr. De Melo then asked her, “Can you let me see?”. When Ms. Perez denied his request, she testified that he responded, “Why not? I just want to see, not touch.” Following this exchange, Ms. Perez left the office. She also testified that Mr. De Melo continued to make comments about the size of her belly throughout her pregnancy, though no specific details of these later comments were provided in evidence. She acknowledged that Mr. De Melo never initiated any physical contact with her.
The second part of Ms. Perez’s application concerned her requests for accommodation. Approximately one week after the March 2018 incident, Ms. Perez approached Mr. De Melo to discuss her duties after the birth of her child. She informed him that she would still be able to collect rent and manage tenant complaints, but she would require accommodation for the physical demands of the job and would not be able to carry out her cleaning or maintenance duties.
Ms. Perez alleged that Mr. De Melo denied her request. She testified that he took the position that completing these tasks was her responsibility. He suggested that if she needed assistance, she could seek it from her spouse or “find someone else to do the work for her.” Ms. Mera, who was also present, gave the same advice.
Ms. Perez approached Mr. De Melo a second time on September 19, 2018, advising him that she was due to give birth in two weeks and would be unable to perform any of her cleaning or maintenance duties. She testified that Mr. De Melo again informed her this was her responsibility and repeated his suggestion that she should seek assistance from her spouse or find another person to do the work. At that time, Mr. De Melo also told her, “if you can’t do the job you have to leave.” On October 4, 2018, Ms. Perez provided Mr. De Melo with a letter of resignation, effective November 7, 2018.
During the course of the Tribunal proceeding, it was revealed that Tony De Melo had passed away on or about June 25, 2022. Ms. Perez successfully requested an order to continue the proceeding against the Estate of Tony De Melo. The Tribunal noted that the respondents had been properly notified of the January 28, 2025 hearing by email but did not attend or communicate with the Tribunal regarding their absence. As a result, the hearing proceeded based solely on the evidence and submissions from Ms. Perez.
In his analysis, Adjudicator Lamers first addressed the sexual harassment allegation against the Estate of Tony De Melo. He found that Mr. De Melo was Ms. Perez’s employer and that his comments occurred in the workplace. The adjudicator found that Mr. De Melo’s comments relating to Ms. Perez’s pregnancy, specifically the relationship between her belly and vagina, along with his request to see her belly, fell “within the gamut of harassment relating to her sex and pregnancy.”
The adjudicator noted that the Human Rights Code defines harassment as a “course of vexatious conduct or comment” but that the Tribunal has recognized a single incident can be sufficient. In this case, the adjudicator found that while the comments about her belly size alone might not have met the definition, “De Melo’s reference to the relationship of the applicant’s belly to her vagina went beyond the use of offensive language and more objectively had the effect of demeaning and objectifying the applicant and an affront to her dignity.” Consequently, the Tribunal found that Mr. De Melo’s comments constituted discrimination under the Code.
However, the Tribunal reached a different conclusion on the second issue: the alleged failure to accommodate Ms. Perez’s pregnancy. While the adjudicator assumed for the purpose of the decision that Ms. Perez’s pregnancy would limit her ability to perform her cleaning and maintenance duties, he found that the respondents did not breach their duty to accommodate.
The adjudicator focused on the nature of Ms. Perez’s job and her request. He noted that the duty to accommodate is not unlimited and an employer is not required to fundamentally change working conditions or assign the essential duties of a position to other employees. Adjudicator Lamers found that Ms. Perez’s position was “essentially a part-time position” and that the rent collection and tenant complaint management were “minor components.” The “primary focus and essential daily duties,” he found, “involved the cleaning and maintenance duties.”
Because Ms. Perez’s request was to be relieved of all her essential duties, the adjudicator determined that “the respondent’s had no duty to accommodate.”
Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the respondents did not breach their procedural obligation to engage in the accommodation process. The adjudicator found that Mr. De Melo did engage in discussions with Ms. Perez in both March and September 2018. The Tribunal characterized the respondents’ suggestions that her spouse, who also resided in the rent-free unit, could assist or that she was free to seek assistance elsewhere, as “reasonable options for her to consider and constituted an accommodation offer which the applicant rejected.” For these reasons, the Tribunal found that the respondents did not violate either the substantive or procedural component of the duty to accommodate.
Having found that sexual harassment occurred, the Tribunal turned to the issue of remedy. Ms. Perez had requested $25,000 as compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self-respect. The adjudicator, however, found that the case “falls at the very lowest end of the spectrum of sexual harassment cases.”
In justifying a lower award, the adjudicator stated there was “only one limited interaction” where offensive comments were made, and he found that “only one of those comments crossed the line to satisfy the definition of harassment.” He also noted there were “no incidents of unwanted physical touching” and “no evidence of or even a suggestion of sexual proposition.” The adjudicator also pointed out that Ms. Perez “adduced no medical evidence to suggest that she sought any medical assistance to address the emotional impact of the incident on her.”
After reviewing case law, the adjudicator concluded that an award of $7,500 was appropriate for compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
The Tribunal’s final order directs the Estate of Tony De Melo to pay Ms. Perez $7,500 within 60 days. The order also includes pre-judgment interest at a rate of 2 percent, calculated from the date the application was filed on June 19, 2019, to the date of the decision. Post-judgment interest at a rate of 5 percent is payable on any amount not paid within the 60-day timeframe. The application as against the respondent Lucia Mera was dismissed entirely.
Read about other human rights cases here.
