Rights tribunal awards $75,000 to teen after guilty plea in sex assault case

TORONTO — Ontario’s human rights tribunal says a man who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 15-year-old intern at his tattoo parlour must now pay her $75,000 in compensation.

The incident took place in 2014, when the teen was working her first job at the man’s now-shuttered Toronto business.

The tribunal said the teen was the daughter of the man’s wife’s best friend and was taking what she hoped would be the first steps toward a career as a tattoo artist.

The teen pursued compensation through the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after the man pleaded guilty to three criminal charges, including sexual assault. The names of the teen and the man are protected by a publication ban.

In a decision dated Feb. 26 but released on Monday, tribunal adjudicator Maureen Doyle ordered the man to pay the teen $75,000 as compensation for “injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.”

Raiders AGM

Raiders impact on Prince Albert local economy continues to go up: AGM report

16h ago

Court proceedings

'The impact of this trauma will echo for generations': court case surrounding La Ronge woman's death reaches conclusion

Dec 11, 2024

Going Global

P.A.'s Zablocki named to Team Canada for U18 Women's World Championships

Dec 11, 2024

The teen says the tribunal’s decision sets a precedent that bodes well for future survivors of sexual assault.

“This changes everything for not just myself, but potentially for future victims,” the teen, known in the ruling as G.M., said in a telephone interview.

In awarding the compensation, the tribunal decision relied on many of the facts presented during the criminal proceeding against the tattoo parlour owner, referred to in all documents as F.G.

Court heard F.G. and his wife lived steps away from G.M. and her family and that a close friendship had evolved over several years.

G.M., who said she had long aspired to a career as a tattoo artist, approached F.G. on her own to inquire about receiving some job training at the tattoo parlour he had opened in part through a loan provided by her parents.

Court heard that F.G. promised to take her on as an unpaid intern if she succeeded in improving her school grades, a commitment he honoured in the summer of 2014 after the teen successfully completed grade nine.

G.M. said sexual conversations began towards the end of the summer and intensified over roughly a two-week period, culminating in an encounter that formed the basis of the guilty plea.

Court heard that after other staff had gone home one evening, F.G. briefly inserted a finger into G.M.’s vagina, touched her breasts with his mouth and asked her to touch his penis. He also told court he offered her money and a free tattoo in exchange for sex.

The incident came to light days later when her mother found messages G.M. had sent to a friend on Facebook in which she detailed what happened.

In May 2016, F.G. pleaded guilty to sexual assault, sexual touching and sexual interference. The sexual assault charge was stayed after the plea and he was sentenced to nine months in jail.

G.M. said the criminal proceeding left her feeling as though justice had not fully been served, adding she looked to the tribunal to fill that perceived void.

“It didn’t feel like it impacted him nearly as much as he had impacted me,” she said, noting that the incident and ensuing court proceedings triggered a period of mental health struggles.

G.M. said the incident impacted her trust levels with men and limited her capacity to keep up her artistic pursuits for years.

While G.M. sought $75,000 in compensation, F.G.’s lawyer argued that the amount should be much lower. He argued anything more than $35,000 would be punitive and inappropriate. The lawyer declined a request for comment on the decision.

Doyle ultimately rejected those arguments, citing the trusting relationship between the parties as well as the power imbalance at play between an employer and a teen working her first job.

“The applicant was 15 years old at the time of these events, the individual respondent was an adult in a position of authority over her, and the criminal conviction underscores the inappropriateness of any consideration of any degree of ‘consent’ in the circumstances of this case,” Doyle wrote.

“The respondent’s actions toward the applicant constituted serious violations of her rights.”

Michelle McQuigge , The Canadian Press