The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ordered a Toronto Canadian Tire franchise and one of its managers to pay a former employee more than $49,000 in compensation after finding she was subjected to sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, a poisoned work environment, and reprisal1. The Tribunal also found that her subsequent termination from the store was discriminatory.
The applicant, Amanda Picanco, filed the application on May 17, 2019, against Timothy J. Tallon Sales Inc., the organizational respondent, and Willzen Bonagua, the personal respondent. The decision, dated July 9, 2025, was issued by Adjudicator Anthony Michael Tamburro after the respondents failed to participate in the proceedings. The respondents did not respond to the Tribunal’s correspondence or attend a Case Management Conference Call in February 2024. As a result, they were noted in default and the hearing proceeded based on the evidence presented by Ms. Picanco.
Ms. Picanco was hired by the Canadian Tire franchise, which is independently owned and operated by Timothy J. Tallon, on October 17, 2017, as a Sales Floor Associate. Mr. Bonagua was employed as the Promotions Manager and was responsible for coordinating Ms. Picanco’s day-to-day routine.
In her testimony, Ms. Picanco stated that Mr. Bonagua began sexually harassing her almost immediately after she was hired and that the behavior continued regularly. She testified that he would “ogle” her buttocks and breasts, make “gross” faces at her, talk about her breasts, make lewd gestures directed at her, and ask intrusive questions about her personal and romantic life. Ms. Picanco stated that this behavior made her uncomfortable and she consistently told Mr. Bonagua that his actions and comments were unwelcome, but he did not stop.
Between November 2017 and June 2018, Ms. Picanco testified that Mr. Bonagua repeatedly asked her to go out on dates with him. She stated she was not interested and knew he was dating another woman, so she consistently declined his invitations.
Ms. Picanco recounted a specific incident that occurred near the store’s skate-sharpening counter while a customer was present. She testified that Mr. Bonagua asked her, “You girls get itchy when you shave down there? I shaved, and my balls are very itchy.” She stated that she was “mortified” by the comment and sensed the customer was also embarrassed. She again asked Mr. Bonagua to stop making such comments.
In addition to soliciting her for dates, Ms. Picanco testified that Mr. Bonagua tried to get her to go out with other men and made lewd comments about the potential of her having sexual intercourse with them. On one occasion, he tried to convince her to date a fellow employee she had not met. When she said she was not interested, he sent her a text message with a photo of the man while she was on her lunch break. Referring to the man’s beard, Mr. Bonagua wrote, “He can use it to tickle your butt hole.”
On another occasion, Mr. Bonagua sent Ms. Picanco a text message containing a cartoon depiction of male genitalia. In another text, he sent two emojis, a “point right” and an “okay hand sign,” which the Tribunal noted, when used together, refer to sexual intercourse.
Ms. Picanco also described an incident where Mr. Bonagua told her he had informed his girlfriend that Ms. Picanco had offered to lend him $500, which she had not. Ms. Picanco worried this was an attempt to make his girlfriend believe they had an intimate relationship, and she feared the girlfriend might come to the store to confront her.
The situation escalated in May 2018, when Mr. Bonagua asked Ms. Picanco if she wanted to go to a hotel room, adding, “what happens there, stays there.” Ms. Picanco again told Mr. Bonagua that she was not interested in a sexual relationship with him.
According to Ms. Picanco’s testimony, it was after this rejection that Mr. Bonagua’s attitude toward her changed and the reprisals began. She stated he began to “nitpick” about her taking too much time on breaks, even though other employees were not similarly criticized for the same behavior. She explained that the store’s timeclock was at the front, while the break area was at the back, and employees often assisted customers on their way to clock back in, making them a few minutes late. She testified this was common practice, but she was singled out. On June 26, 2018, she was issued a “verbal warning,” in writing, for returning late from breaks.
Ms. Picanco also testified that Mr. Bonagua began refusing her requests for time off, which she sometimes needed for childcare, after she had rejected his hotel proposition. Previously, he had accommodated such requests, and he continued to approve similar requests from other employees. Furthermore, she said Mr. Bonagua told her to refrain from speaking with other employees or asking them for assistance.
In August 2018, Ms. Picanco testified that she met with Terry Schwarzentruber, the store’s General Manager, to report Mr. Bonagua’s behavior. She stated that Mr. Schwarzentruber responded by saying that nobody else had complained about Mr. Bonagua. According to her testimony, the meeting was then turned into a discussion about her own alleged poor performance. She said she received similar treatment when she tried to bring her complaint to Mr. Tallon and to Marlene Couto, the Human Resources/Payroll Manager.
Approximately two weeks after complaining to management, Ms. Picanco’s employment was terminated on August 27, 2018.
In his analysis, Adjudicator Tamburro found Ms. Picanco’s testimony to be both credible and reliable, with one exception. He did not accept her evidence that her hours had been reduced, as this was contradicted by her Record of Employment.
The Tribunal found that Mr. Bonagua’s conduct, including the ogling, vulgar comments, lewd gestures, and inappropriate enquiries, violated Ms. Picanco’s right to freedom from harassment in the workplace because of sex, contrary to section 7(2) of the Human Rights Code.
Furthermore, the Tribunal found that Mr. Bonagua, who was in a position to “confer, grant, or deny benefits” to Ms. Picanco, also violated section 7(3)(a) of the Code by repeatedly soliciting her for dates and suggesting they go to a hotel for sexual purposes, knowing his advances were unwelcome.
The adjudicator determined that the evidence supported the conclusion that a poisoned workplace environment had been created. The behavior was found to be “persistent and repeated” and constituted “serious wrongful behaviour sufficient to create a hostile or intolerable work environment.” This was a violation of Ms. Picanco’s right to equal treatment with respect to employment because of sex under section 5(1) of the Code. Under section 46.3(1) of the Code, the organizational respondent, Timothy J. Tallon Sales Inc., was deemed liable for this violation.
The Tribunal also found that Mr. Bonagua had engaged in reprisal. It accepted Ms. Picanco’s evidence that he began treating her differently after she rejected his hotel proposition. The “nitpicking” and the written warning for being late from breaks were found to be intentional retaliation for her refusal of his sexual solicitation. This conduct violated both section 7(3)(b) (reprisal for rejecting a sexual advance) and section 8 (reprisal for enforcing rights under the Code). The company was also deemed liable for this reprisal.
Finally, the Tribunal addressed the termination of Ms. Picanco’s employment. While noting that an applicant’s belief they were fired for discriminatory reasons is not, by itself, evidence, the Tribunal looked at the facts. The only evidence before the Tribunal that could explain the termination was the “verbal warning” for returning late from breaks. Because the Tribunal had already found that this warning was itself a discriminatory reprisal, and it was probable that this warning was a factor in the termination, the termination itself was found to be discriminatory and a violation of section 5(1) of the Code.
For these violations, the Tribunal ordered the respondents, jointly and severally, to pay Ms. Picanco monetary compensation. This included $29,120 for lost wages, calculated as one year’s salary based on $14 per hour and a 40-hour work week.
The Tribunal also awarded $20,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. Ms. Picanco had requested $110,000. In assessing the amount, the Tribunal considered Ms. Picanco’s vulnerability as a 22-year-old single mother of a toddler who was reliant on her income. She testified the experience negatively affected her self-esteem, made her reclusive, and exacerbated pre-existing mental health issues, leading to anxiety attacks and insomnia. However, the adjudicator found the $110,000 request “excessive,” comparing it to other cases involving physical sexual assault or stalking, which were not factors in this case. The Tribunal determined $20,000 was appropriate. The respondents must also pay pre-judgment interest on both amounts.
To promote future compliance with the Code, the Tribunal ordered that Mr. Bonagua, Mr. Tallon, and all members of the store’s management team, including the General Manager and HR/Payroll Manager, must complete the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s “Human Rights 101” e-learning module within six months. The company must then provide the names, job titles, and completion dates of these individuals to Ms. Picanco’s counsel.
Read about other human rights cases here.
