The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ordered a former chef at a Toronto pizzeria to pay $250 in compensation to a Black former colleague for using the word “slave” in a comment directed at her1. Adjudicator Mario Silva, in a decision dated March 5, 2025, found that the personal respondent, Kevin Brozyna, breached the Human Rights Code with the isolated remark. However, the adjudicator dismissed the applicant’s broader allegations of a poisoned work environment and discriminatory task assignments against the restaurant, La Farfalla Inc., which operated Lambretta Pizzeria & Wine Bar. The application against the corporate respondent was dismissed entirely.
The applicant, Randell Cooper, filed the application alleging discrimination based on race and ethnic origin. Ms. Cooper, who identifies as a Black woman, was hired on January 14, 2019, as a dishwasher at Lambretta Pizzeria & Wine Bar. She worked approximately 20 hours per week, typically covering evening shifts from Friday to Sunday. The central incident of her complaint occurred several months into her employment.
Ms. Cooper alleged that on June 22, 2019, she was speaking with Mr. Brozyna, a white male chef at the restaurant, near the bar. During this conversation, she claimed Mr. Brozyna told her to “Go back to work, slave.” Ms. Cooper testified that she was shocked by the comment and did not immediately know how to react. She reported the comment straight away to her manager, Alan Henry, who was present at the restaurant.
In her written submissions to the Tribunal, Ms. Cooper’s allegations went beyond the single comment. She claimed that the “slave” remark was part of a wider pattern of discriminatory treatment. She asserted that as the only Black employee at the restaurant, Mr. Brozyna consistently assigned her the dirtiest and most undesirable tasks. She claimed he would often delay assigning these duties until her shifts, even when other employees were available earlier in the week. Her written submission stated the incident made her feel degraded and devalued, leading her to decide not to return to work because she felt unsupported.
The respondents denied these allegations. Mr. Brozyna, representing himself at the hearing, categorically denied making the “slave” comment in the manner Ms. Cooper alleged. The corporate respondent, represented by owner Celina Blanchard, denied any breaches of the Code, stated it was unaware of any other discriminatory behavior by Mr. Brozyna, and denied the existence of a poisoned work environment.
The matter proceeded to a one-day merit hearing via videoconference on February 18, 2025. The Tribunal heard testimony from four individuals: the applicant, Ms. Cooper; the personal respondent, Mr. Brozyna; the manager, Alan Henry; and the owner, Celina Blanchard. The adjudicator’s analysis relied heavily on assessing the credibility of these witnesses and the significant discrepancies that emerged during the hearing.
When Ms. Cooper provided her oral testimony, the adjudicator noted significant contradictions with her written pleadings. While she remained consistent about the June 22, 2019, incident and the “slave” comment, her testimony faltered regarding the broader claims. The decision notes that when questioned, Ms. Cooper “did not provide any examples of a poisoned work environment, or any actions taken by Mr. Brozyna that breached her Code, other than the one-off remark.” Furthermore, during her oral testimony, she acknowledged that she never heard Mr. Brozyna make any other racial remarks toward her or anyone else, contradicting the narrative of a persistent pattern of discrimination detailed in her written submission. The adjudicator specifically questioned her about these discrepancies, but the decision states she “failed to provide any explanation.”
Mr. Brozyna provided a different version of events. He admitted the word “slave” was used but insisted it was in an entirely different context. He testified that he was referring to himself while joking about attending a Pride parade, specifically mentioning being “on a leash” as part of the event. He also argued that his own sexual orientation made it unlikely he would engage in discriminatory behavior. Mr. Brozyna also disputed the factual basis of Ms. Cooper’s other claims. He stated she was not directly supervised by him, but by another employee. He contradicted her claim that she was the only Black employee.
Mr. Brozyna further testified that all tasks assigned to Ms. Cooper were part of her normal job description and there was no discriminatory pattern. He denied she was singled out for dirty tasks. Instead, he claimed Ms. Cooper willingly accepted additional cleaning tasks, such as scrubbing the restaurant’s walls, in exchange for extra pay. He recalled one occasion where he asked her to clean the basement floor, but explained it was because she had spilled chips, not due to discriminatory intent. He testified that all employees, including himself and the owner, participated in cleaning duties, especially after recent construction had caused excessive dust. He also claimed he had a friendly relationship with Ms. Cooper, discussing personal topics like Tinder and her son.
Alan Henry, the manager who received the initial complaint, also testified. He stated that he did not personally hear the comment made by Mr. Brozyna. He confirmed that Ms. Cooper reported it to him, and he immediately relayed the complaint to the owner, Celina Blanchard. Mr. Henry testified that he had never observed any discriminatory behavior toward Ms. Cooper and that she was never treated differently from other employees. He described the restaurant as having a “family-like” work environment and noted that Ms. Cooper had expressed interest in training as a prep cook before the incident occurred.
Celina Blanchard, the owner of La Farfalla Inc., detailed the steps she took upon learning of the complaint. She testified she took the matter very seriously. She immediately called Mr. Brozyna after hearing from Mr. Henry. In that call, Mr. Brozyna admitted using the word “slave” but claimed he was referring to himself in the context of the Pride parade. Despite his explanation, Ms. Blanchard issued a formal disciplinary letter to Mr. Brozyna the very next day, June 23, 2019. Mr. Brozyna’s employment with the restaurant ended a few months later in September 2019.
Ms. Blanchard also testified about her attempts to follow up with Ms. Cooper. She stated she apologized to the applicant by phone immediately after the incident. Mr. Brozyna was instructed to apologize to Ms. Cooper personally, but he was unable to do so because she never returned to work after June 22. Ms. Blanchard also testified that she sent an email to Ms. Cooper on July 3, 2019, offering to discuss the matter further. Ms. Cooper never responded to this email. The adjudicator noted that Ms. Cooper claimed she never received the email, despite the email address being the same one she provided to the Tribunal. Ms. Blanchard also affirmed that the restaurant had an employee handbook with anti-discrimination policies, which Mr. Brozyna himself had helped update.
In his analysis, Adjudicator Silva weighed the conflicting testimonies. He found that Ms. Cooper’s allegations of a pattern of discriminatory treatment and a poisoned work environment were not proven. The decision states her claims about dirty tasks and being the only Black employee were “refuted by the witnesses” and that “during her testimony the applicant did not elaborate or reference any issues related to poisoned work environment.” He also found her assertion that management failed to take meaningful action was “not substantiated.” The evidence showed the employer did attempt to investigate and follow up, but Ms. Cooper “did not respond to these communications or afford the employer an opportunity to conduct a proper investigation, as she resigned the following day.”
While the adjudicator found against Ms. Cooper on the broader claims, he found Mr. Brozyna’s testimony was also problematic. The adjudicator found Mr. Brozyna’s credibility was “undermined by his failure to disclose the ‘slave’ comment in the context of the Pride parade and to provide an explanation in his initial response.” The decision highlights that this explanation “was not mentioned in his original response and was only raised for the first time during the hearing.” This failure to provide the explanation earlier damaged his trustworthiness on that specific point.
Ultimately, the adjudicator had to decide what happened. He noted there was no dispute that the word “slave” was used; the only dispute was the context. Given the credibility issues with Mr. Brozyna’s late-stage explanation and Ms. Cooper’s consistent testimony on this single point, the adjudicator proceeded on the basis that the comment was made as she alleged. The Tribunal found “that the respondent’s use of the term ‘slave’ toward the applicant, a Black employee, was inappropriate and contrary to the Code.” However, because the wider claims of discrimination were not proven, the adjudicator concluded that “the evidence does not demonstrate that this isolated remark had a lasting or significant impact on the applicant’s overall workplace experience.”
Having found a breach of the Code by Mr. Brozyna, the Tribunal considered the remedy. Ms. Cooper’s counsel had requested $7,000 in damages, citing cases involving single-instance racial comments. The corporate respondent argued it had acted diligently and that the company, La Farfalla Inc., no longer existed, having closed in January 2023 due to pandemic-related financial difficulties. Adjudicator Silva rejected the $7,000 request, basing his decision on the finding of a single, isolated comment. He cited precedent cases where general damages for such single comments ranged from $100 to $300. The Tribunal granted the application against Mr. Brozyna personally and ordered him to pay Ms. Cooper the sum of $250 as compensation. The application against the corporate respondent, La Farfalla Inc., was dismissed.
Read about other human rights cases here.
