BC Human Rights Tribunal

Kingston v. Fairmont Hotel Vancouver and others (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 259

Date Issued: October 21, 2025
File: CS – 000770

Indexed as: Kingston v. Fairmont Hotel Vancouver and others (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 259

IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)

AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

BETWEEN:

Clara Kingston
COMPLAINANT

AND:

Fairmont Hotel Vancouver and Rory Hide and Tom Houston and Rebecca Clark
RESPONDENTS

REASONS FOR DECISION

Tribunal Member: Laila Said Alam

On their own behalf: Clara Kingston

Counsel for the Respondents: Stephanie A. Vellins, Ellen Ferguson, Kirsten M. Samson (Articling student)

Date of Hearing: October 28-November 1, 2024

Location of Hearing: Virtual

I          INTRODUCTION

[1]               Clara Kingston worked as an Assistant Banquet Manager for the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver from April 10 to July 5, 2018. She says the Fairmont, Mr. Houston, Mr. Hide, and Ms. Clark [the Respondents] discriminated against her in employment in connection to her sex, contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code.

[2]               Specifically, Ms. Kingston says in late April, her colleagues, Rory Hide and Rebecca Clark, repeatedly used certain sexualized language about women, some of which were directed at her. She says she was adversely impacted by a work environment that required her to endure the discomfort of being subjected to sexualized language. She alleges that when she reported this language to the Fairmont and Tom Houston, the Director of Food and Beverage at the time, management displayed a tolerate attitude and did not take any action to address it. She further alleges that after her report, the Respondents ceased supporting her development in the role, terminated her, and blacklisted her from obtaining employment with Fairmont properties, affiliate hotels, and the hospitality industry generally, because she complained about the sexualized language. Separate from the allegations that stem from the sexualized language, she also says the Respondents adversely impacted her in connection to her sex when they assigned her to nonmanagerial tasks, admonished her publicly, and forwarded a complaint from a Fairmont client about her performance to her supervisors without investigating the veracity of the complaint first.

[3]               The Respondents deny they discriminated. Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark admit that they used certain terms, which they viewed as innocuous. They deny making discriminatory comments to Ms. Kingston about her sex. The Fairmont says it decided to terminate Ms. Kingston before she raised her concerns, and their decision to terminate her employment was based solely on her unsatisfactory performance. Further, the Fairmont says it immediately and appropriately addressed Ms. Kingston’s reports, and she was not blacklisted for making a report. Lastly, they say there is no connection between Ms. Kingston’s sex and the allegations she makes apart from the sexualized language.

[4]               I heard the matter over five days. Ms. Kingston represented herself and testified on her own behalf. She also called Greg Hazelwood, Director of Conferences and Catering, and Katie Stargardter, Assistant Director of Talent and Culture, as witnesses. The Respondents were represented by legal counsel and called five witnesses: Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark, both Assistant Banquet Managers; Mr. Houston, Director of Food and Beverage; Haley Carter, Assistant Director of Banquets; and Katheryn Lee, Director of Talent and Culture. At the time of the hearing, only Mr. Houston and Ms. Lee remained employed by the Fairmont hotel franchise. I reviewed all the evidence and the parties’ written submissions. I recite only what is necessary to make my decision.

[5]               For the reasons that follow, I conclude Ms. Kingston has not met the burden of establishing the elements of her case, namely that she experienced employment-related adverse impacts related to her sex. As such, the Respondents did not violate s. 13 of the Code. The complaint is dismissed.

II       PRELIMINARY ISSUE

[6]               After the close of submissions, the Respondents applied to file a further submission per Rule 28(5) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Tribunal will not consider submissions other than those permitted in a schedule unless it allows an application to file further submissions: Rule 28(4).

[7]               It is within my discretion to permit or consider additional submissions, but an application to file further submissions is an unusual procedure and should be limited to replying to new information or submissions contained in the reply: Kruger v. Xerox Canada Ltd. (No. 2), 2005 BCHRT 24 at para. 22. An overriding consideration is whether fairness requires an opportunity for further submissions: Gichuru v. The Law Society of British Columbia (No. 2), 2006 BCHRT 201 at para. 201; Simpkin v. Stl’atl’imx Tribal Police Board, 2014 BCHRT 255 at para. 21. Additional submissions are not the norm, and caution must be exercised in granting applications for further submissions so as not to result in endless submission processes: Murphy v. VIHA and others (No. 2), 2014 BCHRT 102 at para. 9.

[8]               The Respondents say that Ms. Kingston’s reply includes new allegations and information, significantly misstates and mischaracterizes evidence called at the hearing, and makes new arguments. The Respondents say fairness requires they be given the opportunity to respond. Ms. Kingston opposes the application.

[9]               I agree with the Respondents that Ms. Kingston’s reply includes reargument of matters previously addressed in her original closing submission, and at times mischaracterizes the evidence that was elicited at the hearing or improperly asserts new evidence that was not raised at the hearing. For example, her reply includes new allegations, including “Ms. Clark…often said ‘I love you’ to all staff”, and an incident where Mr. Hide called another person a derogatory term. Further, the reply includes unsolicited documentary evidence, which appears to be evidence on remedy. She says she does so at the request of the Tribunal to rectify evidentiary issues and make additional submissions on “mitigation”.

[10]           Reply is not an opportunity for a participant to ameliorate gaps in the evidence they put forward at the hearing or reargue their case by repeating arguments or making new ones. Reply arguments should be limited to new issues or evidence raised by the other party in their response. Generally, submissions should contain an accurate representation of what was said at the hearing and should not mischaracterize or expand on the evidence that was entered at the hearing. The evidence a participant relies on in closing arguments must be evidence that was called and entered at the hearing.

[11]           Contrary to her submission, the Tribunal did not request that Ms. Kingston supplement her evidence regarding remedy and mitigation in closing arguments. Rather, I gave her an opportunity during the hearing to introduce evidence to support the remedy she seeks. She did not seek an adjournment to allow her the time to review her evidence or gather additional evidence. She elected to omit the evidence she now seeks to submit in reply. It would be contrary to the principles of procedural fairness for the Tribunal to now allow or consider new, untested evidence after a hearing has closed when parties were given full opportunity to bring their evidence during a five-day hearing of which parties had ample notice.

[12]            It follows from the above that I agree with the Respondents that Ms. Kingston has submitted new information and made new allegations that were not raised at the hearing, and that fairness requires that I allow the Respondents’ application to file further submissions. I do not consider the new, untested, improperly inserted evidence or allegations that were filed after the close of the hearing, mischaracterized evidence, or arguments on matters previously addressed in Ms. Kingston’s original closing submission. To do so would be unfair to the Respondents for the reasons above.

III     EVIDENCE

[13]           I base my findings on the evidence given at the hearing by the eight witnesses. In giving their evidence, the witnesses testified and relied on various documents and an audiovisual recording, which were entered as exhibits during the hearing. I do not refer to all the evidence of every witness. However, I have carefully considered all their evidence in reaching my conclusions in this decision.

[14]           There were instances where two or more witnesses provided conflicting evidence on significant issues. As such, I have considered the credibility and reliability of each witness’ evidence to make findings of fact. 

[15]           Credibility and reliability require different considerations. Credibility involves the veracity or truthfulness of a witness. It is about whether a witness is telling the truth. Reliability involves the accuracy of a witness’ testimony, including their ability to accurately observe, recall, and recount what happened: Bradshaw v. Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398, affirmed in 2012 BCCA 296, leave to appeal refused, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 392, at para. 186; Hardychuk v. Johnstone, 2012 BCSC 1359 at para. 10; R. v. S.A.S., 2021 BCPC 69 at paras. 21-27.

[16]           I have applied the test in Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BCCA) at 357, in assessing the witnesses’ credibility. It states that the test of the credibility of interested witnesses “must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions”. A witness’ evidence must be assessed for its “harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions”: Faryna, at p. 357; Jahanian v Jahanian, 2021 BCSC 1890 at para. 8; Gichuru v. Smith, 2013 BCSC 895 at para. 130, aff’d 2014 BCCA 414.

[17]           The witnesses were testifying about events that happened in a short period of time, nearly six years earlier. I consider that over this length of time, memories have understandably faded, shifted, or hardened around a particular version of events: Clarke v. City of Vancouver and another, 2024 BCHRT 298 at para. 24. On some issues, I have found that the most reliable evidence is contained in documents created at the time of the events, including emails, notes, and the Fairmont’s business records. I have used these documents as a “reliable yardstick against which to compare and assess the reliability of the witness’ testimony”: Boschoff v. Inspired Retreats, 2014 BCHRT 6 at para. 8; Clarke at para. 24.

[18]           Before analysing the evidence given at the hearing, I set out the background to Ms. Kingston’s complaint.

IV    BACKGROUND

[19]           The Fairmont is part of a group of luxury hotels and resorts across the world.

[20]           The Fairmont hired Ms. Kingston as an Assistant Banquet Manager in the Banquet Department. Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark were the other two Assistant Banquet Managers. Mr. Hide commenced his employment in January 2018; Ms. Clark commenced her employment in March 2018; and Ms. Kingston commenced her employment on April 10, 2018.

[21]           Ms. Kingston’s orientation and training period was from April 10 to May 17. In April, she was trained by Mr. KS, the Director of Banquets. After Mr. KS left that role, Haley Carter assumed his duties, including Ms. Kingston’s orientation.

[22]           Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark also onboarded Ms. Kingston. Ms. Kingston says when she, Mr. Hide, and Ms. Clark were all working in the office, they would sometimes call her “slut”, “slut face”, “cunt”, “little whore”, “twat” and “wanker” [together, sexualized language]. She says they would yell the sexualized language at her randomly and for no apparent reason. She says this happened during the period when Mr. KS went on medical leave, around April 24, and lasted until Ms. Carter joined the team on or around April 30. Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark deny calling Ms. Kingston these things. Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark do not dispute that they would call each other “twat”, “wanker” and “bellend” in the staff room, out of earshot of their supervisors. In this decision I will refer to these three words as the “admitted derogatory terms”. I will refer to the s-word, c-word, w-word, and their variants, as the “slurs”. Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark agree that sometimes Ms. Kingston was in the room when they used the admitted derogatory terms.

[23]           Ms. Kingston met with Ms. Carter on May 17, which was her last day of orientation and training. Ms. Kingston was expected to start working independently the following day. It is disputed whether she reported the sexualized language at this meeting. It is not disputed that she told Ms. Carter that she did not feel Mr. KS had adequately trained her on the administrative functions of the job. Ms. Carter gave Ms. Kingston more training shifts before scheduling Ms. Kingston to manage banquet events on her own. The additional training took place between May 25-31.

[24]           It is not in dispute that in the week following the additional training, Ms. Kingston continued to struggle with administrative tasks, such as accurately billing accounts after an event. Around this time, Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark shared with Ms. Carter that they were frustrated working alongside Ms. Kingston because she was struggling with core competencies such as billings and event signs. Ms. Kingston felt the frustration from her colleagues, and Mr. Hide in particular.

[25]           On June 1, Ms. Kingston and Mr. Hide argued publicly at an event they were both managing.

[26]           On June 5, Ms. Carter met with Ms. Kingston and gave her feedback on her performance. Ms. Carter’s concerns about Ms. Kingston’s work included billing mistakes and completing tasks inefficiently. She was also concerned with the impact Ms. Kingston’s performance was having on her colleagues.

[27]           Ms. Carter spoke to Ms. Lee, the Director of Talent and Culture. They discussed the possibility of issuing Ms. Kingston a letter of expectation. Ms. Lee suggested Ms. Carter first email Ms. Kingston recapping the concerns she discussed with Ms. Kingston on June 5. Ms. Carter followed Ms. Lee’s suggestion. Her email to Ms. Kingston on June 7 says, in part:

• Basic tasks are taking too long to complete […]

• Billing training is complete but you still havenot taken the initiative to complete any bills

• Colleagues have voiced their frustrations with you not taking the initiative with dealing with guest issues.

In this conversation you explained that you feel have not been given the opportunity to show myself and the team that you are capable of completing these tasks. We have come to an agreement that tonight (Thursday June 7th) that you will be given the opportunity to complete the management closing routine on your own. After this is complete I will be personally following up with you tomorrow morning to go over the close. After identifying which areas are missing you will be given another opportunity to train with Rebecca on Saturday evening to go over the areas which need focus. [as written]

We also discussed how you are feeling uncomfortable on the team and that you feel a level of frustration coming from the other managers. I wanted to let you know that I have taken the initiative to personally follow up with the other managers to ensure that they are creating a positive work environment.

[Ms. Kingston], I want to remind you of the importance of completing these tasks in a timely fashion. The Banquet Department at Hotel Vancouver is one of the most demanding operations in the city and it requires quick learning and multitasking in order to be successful. Please be aware that a letter of expectation will come to follow.

[28]           Ms. Kingston was given another training day with Ms. Clark on June 9, to focus specifically on billing. Ms. Kingston was then given three shifts on her own to independently complete the administrative tasks assigned to her. Ms. Kingston testified that she could not complete the billing as required, and her colleagues had to redo her work and correct her mistakes. During this time, other staff complained to Ms. Carter that Ms. Kingston made them uncomfortable with her overfamiliarity and hugging.

[29]           Ms. Lee’s evidence was that Ms. Kingston’s performance did not improve. She drafted a letter of expectation with Ms. Carter’s assistance. On June 19, Ms. Carter gave Ms. Kingston the letter of expectation. The expectations included performing tasks to a certain standard and within a reasonable amount of time, arriving to work on time, and maintaining boundaries with staff. Ms. Kingston testified that she understood from the letter that her employment was in jeopardy if her performance did not immediately improve. She viewed the letter of expectation as a paper trail that would justify her inevitable termination.

[30]           On June 29, Ms. Carter and Mr. Houston met with Ms. Kingston. At the meeting, Ms. Carter and Mr. Houston told Ms. Kingston her performance continued to fail to meet the standards set out in the letter of expectation.

[31]           Ms. Kingston attempted to rebut the concerns listed in the letter of expectation. For example, she said other people were to blame for rooms not being set up or taken down properly; while she was late, it was never significant; and, while she did not initiate hugs with staff, nevertheless, staff hugged her. She also told them that Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark used the slurs in the staff office and asked Mr. Houston his thoughts on leaders using those terms in the office. Mr. Houston said something to the effect of, it depends on the context or audience. Ms. Carter and Mr. Houston told Ms. Kingston that they would have a follow-up meeting on July 5. They suggested that she use the intervening days to consider whether the position was a good fit for her. Ms. Kingston testified that she understood from the conversation that her employment was terminated effective immediately.

[32]           On July 3, Ms. Kingston returned to the Fairmont to see Ms. Stargardter. She says she went to return her keys, because she understood she had been terminated. Ms. Kingston told Ms. Stargardter about the meeting she had with Ms. Carter and Mr. Houston and that she was given a few days to decide if she was a good fit for the role. She was upset about the termination. She said she was not given any time between June 19 and 29 to correct her performance. She told Ms. Stargardter that the leaders were using the slurs in the office, and that when she reported it to Mr. Houston and asked him whether the conduct was offensive, he responded, “that depends on your audience.” Ms. Kingston reported two other concerns to Ms. Stargardter. First, a staff member argued with another coworker at an event. She classified this as one coworker bullying and harassing another coworker. She reported that when she told the Banquet Manager, the Banquet Manager responded, “I’m not getting involved”. The other concern she raised was that when she told the Banquet Manager that a staff member was inebriated during working hours, the Banquet Manager did not follow up. According to Ms. Kingston, Ms. Stargardter refused to take the keys. Ms. Stargardter said she would follow up on what Ms. Kingston had told her.

[33]           Ms. Stargardter relayed Ms. Kingston’s reports to Ms. Lee. From July 3 and up to the July 5 meeting, Ms. Lee investigated Ms. Kingston’s reports. As part of her investigation, she interviewed Mr. Hide, Ms. Clark, Mr. Houston, Ms. Carter, and other leaders. She concluded that Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark did not use the terms alleged by Ms. Kingston, but did use the admitted derogatory terms, which they identified as “British slang”, when speaking to each other. Ms. Lee found Ms. Kingston’s two other concerns to be unsubstantiated.

[34]            Ms. Lee, Mr. Houston, and Ms. Carter met with Ms. Kingston on July 5 and terminated her employment. Ms. Lee and Mr. Houston informed Ms. Kingston that because of her ongoing performance issues, and despite the efforts to retrain her on the job, her employment would be terminated effective immediately. They provided her with a termination letter. They did not discuss Ms. Lee’s investigation of the complaint.

V       ANALYSIS AND DECISION

A.     Legal principles

[35]            Section 13 of the Code protects employees from adverse treatment or impacts in their employment that is connected to their sex: Moore v. BC (Education),2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. 

[36]           To prove discrimination, Ms. Kingston must establish that:

a.    Her sex is protected by the Code;

b.    The Respondents’ conduct adversely impacted her in her employment; and

c.     Her sex was a factor in adverse impacts she experienced in her employment: Moore v. BC (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.

[37]           Sexual harassment allegations also require establishment of “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that detrimentally affects the work environment or leads to adverse job-related consequences”: Janzen v. Platy Enterprises,1989 CanLII 97 (SCC) at p. 1253. In this case, while Ms. Kingston sometimes described her factual allegations as sexual harassment, she also classifies the allegations as evidence of a toxic or poisoned work environment. I do not find it helpful to assess the Respondents’ conduct through a lens of sexual harassment. In substance, Ms. Kingston’s complaint is that she was subjected to sexist name-calling and sexualized language, set up to fail for complaining about the language, and the respondents did not adequately respond to her complaint. This conduct is more akin to creating a work environment hostile toward her as a woman than being sexually harassed. For that reason, I have considered the evidence through the Moore test without applying the principles set out in Janzen.

[38]           Employees are entitled to work in a respectful environment that is free from discrimination: Robichaud v. Canada (Treasury Board) 1987 CanLII 73. A toxic or poisoned work environment is not a stand-alone allegation: Francis v. BC Ministry of Justice (No. 3), 2019 BCHRT 136 at para. 373. The Tribunal has said that when someone claims discrimination or retaliation at work created a toxic environment, it must decide whether each incident happened as alleged, and whether the incidents contravened the Code: Francis at para. 373. The Tribunal has identified several factors that might constitute a poisoned or toxic work environment, including:

•  Even a single statement or incident, if sufficiently serious or substantial, can have an impact on a member of a protected group by creating a poisoned environment.

• A poisoned environment is based on the nature of the comments or conduct and the impact of these on an individual rather than on the number of times the behaviour occurs. As mentioned earlier, even a single egregious incident can be sufficient to create a poisoned environment.

• A poisoned environment can be created by the comments or actions of any person, regardless of his or her position of authority or status in a given environment.

•  Behaviour need not be directed at any one individual in order to create a poisoned environment. Moreover, a person can experience a poisoned environment even if he or she is not a member of the protected group that is the target.

Brar and others v. B.C. Veterinary Medical Association and Osborne, 2015 BCHRT 151,at para. 741.

[39]           Ms. Kingston’s protected characteristic is not in dispute. I accept that she is a woman, and her sex is a protected under the Code. This decision turns on whether Ms. Kingston has proven that she was adversely impacted in employment and that the adverse impacts she alleges were related to her sex.

[40]           I understand Ms. Kingston alleges that she was adversely impacted by a work environment that required her to endure the discomfort of being subjected to sexualized language; that when she reported this language, management displayed a tolerant attitude toward the issue and, instead of addressing it, ceased supporting her development in the role, terminated her, and blacklisted her from obtaining employment with Fairmont properties, affiliate hotels, and the hospitality industry generally.

[41]           Because the adverse impacts arise from sexualized language, the alleged nexus is implicit in the adverse impacts I have outlined above.

[42]           Separate from the allegations arising from the sexualized language, she also alleges there was discrimination with regards to her sex separate and apart from the sexualized language. She says these allegations are part of a pattern of discriminatory behaviour connected to her sex and support an inference that her work environment was toxic.

B.     Evidence and findings of fact

[43]           I begin my analysis with Ms. Kingston’s allegation that Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark repeatedly used sexualized language and sometimes directed them at her. To do so, I first make findings of fact about what sexualized language she was, in fact, exposed to, the dates she was exposed to the sexualized language in the workplace, and the dates she reported Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark’s use of sexualized language in the office. These findings of fact will also assist me in addressing the remaining interconnecting adverse impacts alleged and the appropriateness of the Fairmont and Mr. Houston’s response to her reporting the sexualized language.

[44]           I will then consider whether Ms. Kingston was discriminated against with regards to her sex, separate and apart from the sexualized language.

[45]           Finally, I will consider whether, as a whole, Ms. Kingston’s proven allegations support an inference of discrimination in employment based on her sex.

1.      Was the workplace infused with sexualized language?

[46]           It is not in dispute that Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark used the admitted derogatory terms in Ms. Kingston’s presence. Their evidence on this was forthright, even though this evidence may not have shown them in a positive light. This evidence was also corroborated by documentary evidence admitted at the hearing.

[47]           Further, it is not in dispute that the parties stopped using sexualized language once Ms. Carter joined the Banquets Team. Ms. Kingston gave evidence that the sexualized language was used during the period Mr. KP was in the hospital and stopped once Ms. Carter joined the Banquet’s team in May. I understand from her evidence that Mr. KP left the Fairmont shortly after the April 23 Daffodil Charity Gala Ball, and that Ms. Carter joined the team on May 1, after two weeks of onboarding and training. Accepting Ms. Kingston’s evidence, I find that Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark used the admitted derogatory terms in the office from April 24 to April 30.

[48]           The parties dispute whether Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark used the slurs, at all, or if so, directed them toward Ms. Kingston.

[49]           On this matter, I prefer the evidence of Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark. They were forthright about using the admitted derogatory terms – both during Ms. Lee’s investigation and under oath at the hearing. They explained that they used the admitted derogatory words between themselves in jest and the terms are common slang in the United Kingdom, where they had a shared cultural connection.

[50]            Both Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark independently denied using the slurs. Their denial was consistent throughout both the human resource investigation and the hearing. On the other hand, Ms. Kingston’s testimony was inconsistent. At times she was firm in her testimony that she was called the admitted derogatory terms. Other times she was insistent that she was called the slurs, and yet other times she was insistent that they called her all the sexualized terms. Ms. Kingston’s evidence was shaken on cross-examination, and she admitted that she was not, in fact, certain that the sexualized language was directed at her. She said it did not matter whether the words were directed at her if Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark knew it was not acceptable to use the language in front of their supervisors, they should have known it was not acceptable to use that language at all. Because of these inconsistencies, I prefer the evidence of Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark and find that only the admitted derogatory words were used, and the comments were not directed at Ms. Kingston.

[51]           Ms. Kingston also alleges that sometime in May, Mr. Hide called her a bitch. Ms. Kingston says Mr. Hide was playing darts in the office, and when she expressed that she wanted to play, he allegedly told her she could not. Another colleague allegedly advocated for her to play. Mr. Hide acquiesced, shouting, “bring it on, bitch”. Ms. Kingston said she felt powerless and did not say anything in response. She said no one said anything in her defense, and she returned to her work. Mr. Hide testified he did not recall this interaction, and that “bitch” was not in his vocabulary. The colleague who allegedly witnessed the event and advocated for her to play did not testify in these proceedings.

[52]           I accept Ms. Kingston’s account of Mr. Hide saying, “bring it on, bitch.” Mr. Hide’s evidence that the word is not in his vocabulary is not believable, considering his evidence that he used other similar words, such as the admitted derogatory terms, jokingly in the office. It seems consistent with the circumstances – a dart game –and his admitted workplace conduct, that he would use the impugned phrase as alleged.

[53]           I am satisfied that the evidence establishes that the admitted derogatory words were used in the office from April 24-30 and Mr. Hide made the above comment during a game of darts.

[54]           I still must decide whether reporting sexualized language to her supervisors created adverse impacts in her employment and whether they appropriately responded to the report. I will then consider whether her sex otherwise played a part in allegedly being assigned nonmanagerial tasks, admonished publicly, or having a complaint from a Fairmont client forwarded to her supervisors without having first investigating the veracity of the complaint. After making these findings of facts, I will consider the admitted derogatory terms and darts comment together with any other proven allegations and whether, directly or by inference, Ms. Kingston has established the second and third prongs of the Moore criteria.

2.      When did Ms. Kingston report the sexualized language to her supervisors?

[55]           Ms. Kingston gave evidence that she reported her concerns to her supervisors four times: on May 17, in early June, on June 29, and on July 3.

[56]           The Respondents dispute that Ms. Kingston reported her concerns on May 17 or in early June. The Respondents say Ms. Kingston first raised her concerns at a meeting on June 29, once she knew she was going to be terminated for poor performance, as a final attempt to save her employment.

[57]           To establish the timeline of what Ms. Kingston reported and the Respondents’ response to her reports, I first rely on available corroborating documents in evidence, followed by oral testimony. Where Ms. Kingston’s oral testimony was internally inconsistent, or inconsistent with corroborating evidence, I prefer the testimony of other witnesses and rely on the external evidence in the record to make findings of fact.

[58]           For the following reasons, Ms. Kingston has not proven that she reported her complaint about Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark’s language in the staff room to her superiors prior to her meeting with Mr. Houston and Ms. Carter on June 29. I find prior to June 29, Ms. Kingston’s reports to her superiors about the other Assistant Banquet Managers were about their demeanor toward her and feeling like she was not fitting in on the team.

                    i.            May 17 report

[59]           Ms. Kingston’s first day as Assistant Banquet Manager was April 10, 2018. She reported to Mr. KP, then-Director of Banquets, until Ms. Carter unofficially assumed the role sometime around May 1. Ms. Carter scheduled check-ins with the Assistant Banquet Managers after her own training, and once she had settled into her new position.

[60]           It is not in dispute that Ms. Carter and Ms. Kingston met on May 17. Ms. Kingston initially testified that she told Ms. Carter about the sexualized language at this meeting. Ms. Carter’s evidence was that Ms. Kingston did not raise that issue until their June 29 meeting. Ms. Kingston’s evidence was shaken on cross, and she admitted the entire meeting was about her training and development. I find Ms. Kingston did not raise concerns about Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark’s language at the May 17 meeting.

                  ii.            Early June report

[61]           There is no dispute that on June 3, Ms. Kingston reported to Ms. Stargardter, Assistant Director or Talent and Culture, that Mr. Hide publicly admonished and embarrassed her at a banquet event on June 1, because he assumed she was not managing the expectations of a demanding guest. The parties do not dispute that Ms. Stargardter committed to following up with Ms. Carter about Ms. Kingston’s experience ,and did so. What is in dispute is whether Ms. Kingston reported the sexualized language to Ms. Stargardter on this day.

[62]           Ms. Stargardter testified that she had no independent recollection of the meeting. However, there is email correspondence from Ms. Carter, Ms. Stargardter, and Ms. Kingston which flowed shortly after the June 1 incident that assist me in determining what Ms. Kingston told Ms. Stargardter on June 3. Ms. Stargardter’s notes of the meeting, if there were any, are not before me.

[63]           On June 5, Ms. Carter met with Ms. Kingston to debrief on her development after the March 25-31 retraining. They also spoke about her colleagues’ frustration toward her. Ms. Carter encapsulated the meeting in an email on June 7, which reads in relevant part:

Colleagues have voiced their frustrations with you not taking the initiative with dealing with guest issues.

[…]

We also discussed how you are feeling uncomfortable on the team and that you feel a level of frustration coming from the other managers. I wanted to let you know that I have taken the initiative to personally follow up with the other managers to ensure that they are creating a positive work environment.

[64]           Several hours later, Ms. Kingston replied to Ms. Carter and copied Ms. Stargardter and Mr. Houston. It reads in relevant part:

As far as the team is concerned, I enjoy working with them and greatful for their support. Certain times I have felt frustration when asking for support that promotes productivity, personal goals and self-esteem. Either my colleagues may have felt it was not the right time to learn or either it was too complicated to learn. Rest assured, I am open to communication that promotes a good relationship that is built on mutual trust and respect and one that creates a positive work environment.

[as written]

[65]           Later that evening, Ms. Stargardter wrote a follow up email to Ms. Kingston about their June 3 meeting: “Please know that I have escalated your concerns and have received confirmation from [Ms. Carter] that she will be addressing [Mr. Hide’s] disposition toward you.” Ms. Kingston replied,

Thank you for the follow up. [Ms. Carter] and I spoke the other day. She said she was doing to follow up with [Mr. Hide]. She also brought up concerns about my performance and expectations and said a follow up letter would follow. I asked for support in certain areas as I am having challenges with such as billing.

Furthermore, I discussed working in a team environment that promotes respect, trust, integrity, which is supportive of productivity, personal goals and self esteem. My biggest challenge is billing at the moment and hope to practice everyday and learn in a week.

[as written]

[66]           At the hearing Ms. Kingston argued that Ms. Carter’s June 5 email showed that she reported the sexualized language. She said the email stating she was feeling uncomfortable was a reference to her report that she felt intimidated and uncomfortable with Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark using sexualized language; the language was impacting her, she needed to address it and did so at this meeting. In consideration of the above contemporaneous communications from Ms. Kingston, I do not accept her testimony that she reported the sexualized language or any impact on her in early June because it does not harmonize with the preponderance of evidence – including Ms. Kingston’s own email. Ms. Kingston testified that she did not mean it when she wrote that she enjoyed working on the team and was grateful for Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark’s support. I have no basis to reject her contemporaneous evidence and accept her self-serving testimony. I find that Ms. Kingston complained about Mr. Hide’s disposition toward her and how, at times, she felt frustration from her teammates when she asked for their support – particularly in billing – and that the matter regarding Mr. Hide’s conduct on June 1, was resolved.

                iii.            June 29 report

[67]           It is not in dispute that Ms. Kingston met with Ms. Carter and Mr. Houston on June 29 to follow up on her performance after issuing the letter of expectation. Both Ms. Kingston and Ms. Carter testified that, at this meeting, Ms. Kingston told Ms. Carter and Mr. Houston that Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark used sexualized language in the office. Mr. Houston testified that he had no recollection of Ms. Kingston raising concerns about sexualized language in the workplace, however he did not contradict Ms. Kingston’s or Ms. Carter’s evidence.

[68]           I find that Ms. Kingston first reported Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark’s use of sexualized language in the workplace to her employers on June 29. I find that she only reported their use of the slurs, and not the admitted derogatory terms. This is consistent with her complaint form, what Ms. Stargardter documented, and what Ms. Lee investigated. While I find that she reported the slurs, I restate my finding that Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark did not use the slurs.

[69]           It is not in dispute that Ms. Carter and Ms. Houston were dismissive of her report. When Ms. Kingston was not satisfied with their response, she reported her concerns to the human resource department on July 3. I will return to the adequacy of the Respondents’ response after considering the interconnected adverse impacts she alleges flowed from reporting the slurs to management.

[70]           I now turn to Ms. Kingston’s allegation that the Respondents set her up to fail because she complained about the slurs. Again, I consider whether each incident occurred, as alleged, and whether on its own it breached the Code.

3.      Did the Respondents set Ms. Kingston up to fail because she complained about the workplace culture?

[71]           Ms. Kingston says the Respondents ceased supporting her development in the role. Instead, she was intentionally set up to fail as a pretext to terminate her when the real reason was that she had complained about the toxic work environment.

[72]           Ms. Kingston has not provided any direct evidence that could support a finding that the Respondents seized supporting her in her role, even in part, because she complained about the work environment. Instead, I understand her argument to be that I can draw an inference based on the timing of events. With respect, I do not agree that the evidence supports such an inference. Given the determination that Ms. Kingston reported the use of slurs on June 29 and July 3, any findings related to incidents that happened before June 29 could not have been acts of retaliation for those complaints, as they predate her reports to her supervisors.

[73]           As previously noted, I will return to Ms. Kingston’s allegation that these incidents before June 29 support an inference that she was discriminated against on account of her sex, separate and apart from the sexualized language.

4.      Was reporting the slurs to the Respondents on June 29 a factor in Ms. Kingston’s termination?

[74]           It is not in dispute that Ms. Kingston faced the same challenges with her work, including billing, over the duration of her employment with the Fairmont. Concerns about her performance were identified early on, and Ms. Kingston was offered retraining multiple times. Despite retraining opportunities, she still had difficulty in performing key functions of the role independently. Ms. Carter, in conjunction with Ms. Lee, began formalizing their concerns over her performance and outlining their expectation in early and mid-June. As indicated in Ms. Carter’s June 7 email, the Banquet Department is a demanding operation that requires quick learning and multitasking to be successful. Ms. Kingston’s own assessment of the Banquet Department’s team was that it was understaffed and busy. After the letter of expectation was issued, Ms. Kingston’s performance did not improve at the rate required by the Fairmont.

[75]           Ms. Lee said she had a conversation with Mr. Houston based on the continuing concerns. They decided it would be appropriate to end the relationship with Ms. Kingston because they felt the employer had exhausted training options.

[76]           Ms. Lee and Mr. Houston decided it would be best to first have a conversation with Ms. Kingston about the suitability of the employment and give her the opportunity to realize herself that the employment relationship was not working. That meeting was scheduled for June 29. Ms. Lee explained that the hope was that Ms. Kingston would realize for herself that she was not suitable for the role and resign. Mr. Houston’s evidence echoed the same; they had intended to terminate her employment before June 29 and wanted to give Ms. Kingston the opportunity to leave the property on good terms with a clean employment record. Both Ms. Lee and Mr. Houston said that the intention was if she did not resign at or after that meeting, the Fairmont would terminate the employment relationship on July 5.

[77]           I also place significant weight to Ms. Kingston’s claim that she felt ambushed by the July 29 meeting. She argues that the sudden and unexpected nature of the meeting supports her belief that her employer had already decided to terminate her employment beforehand – what she describes a “premeditated decision” to let her go. At the hearing she referred to the letter of expectations as her employer establishing a “paper trail” to validate her termination, and she knew that if her performance did not show immediate signs of improvement after receiving the letter of expectations, her employment was in jeopardy. I accept her honest assessment and find it more likely than not that her employer intended to end her employment before the meeting, due to ongoing performance issues following the letter of expectation.

[78]           In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Respondents have established a non-discriminatory explanation for terminating Ms. Kingston’s employment. Ms. Kingston’s report of sexualized language in the office was not a factor in her termination. This part of Ms. Kingston’s complaint is dismissed.

5.      Did the Respondents blacklist Ms. Kingston from obtaining future employment with Fairmont properties including affiliate hotels?

[79]           On July 4, Ms. Kingston applied to several Fairmont locations seeking to transfer her employment. She alleges that Ms. Lee denied the transfers. She says her inability to find work in the hospitality industry for six years is evidence that she was not only blacklisted from Fairmont properties, including affiliate hotels, but the entire hospitality industry.

[80]           The Fairmont terminated Ms. Kingston’s employment effective July 5. On July 31, Ms. Kingston emailed Ms. Stargardter to say she had used the employer’s internal application portal, Pathfinder, to apply for positions on or around July 4, but later found a restriction was placed on her ability to do so. She asked Ms. Stargardter if she had been blacklisted from working at Fairmont Hotels. Ms. Stargardter replied confirming that Pathfinder is for use by internal candidates to apply for jobs at the Fairmont. Ms. Stargardter’s email explained that it is the employer’s standard practice to restrict access to the portal and any previous applications submitted to the portal when a person is no longer employed by the Fairmont. She provided Ms. Kingston with the link for external candidates to view and apply for the same opportunities. Ms. Stargardter’s evidence at the hearing was consistent with the email explanation she provided to Ms. Kingston in 2018.

[81]           Ms. Lee refutes Ms. Kingston’s allegation that she denied any transfer request. She gave evidence that when an employee applies internally, she receives an autogenerated notification, as does the other hotel that the employee is applying to. She said as an internal portal, once an employee’s employment ends, Pathfinder automatically closes that employee’s access to Fairmont’s email and the portal. Former employees can still apply for any position posted externally.

[82]           Contrary to Ms. Kingston’s sworn testimony, Ms. Kingston put into evidence an email from another Fairmont hotel’s Assistant Director, Talent & Culture, dated January 9, 2019, nearly six months after she was terminated from the Fairmont. The Assistant Director acknowledged receipt of Ms. Kingston’s online application and requested to have a phone call with Ms. Kingston to discuss the opportunity. Ms. Kingston submits a draft response email where she thanks the Assistant Director for inviting her to interview, however, there is no evidence that Ms. Kingston followed up on the opportunity.

[83]           On cross-examination Ms. Kingston said she understood, in hindsight, that an employee with a failed probation would not be transferred to another position or hotel. She also said she understood from Ms. Stargardter’s explanation that she would have the same employment opportunities as any external candidate.

[84]           On the balance of probabilities, I am not persuaded that the Respondents blacklisted Ms. Kingston from future employment at the Fairmont or its affiliate hotels.

[85]           Further, I am not persuaded that the Respondents blacklisted Ms. Kingston from the hospitality industry. There is no evidence that the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver has the type of reach Ms. Kingston is suggesting. The allegation is unproven and is not consistent with Ms. Kingston’s own evidence of her experience and leadership in the hospitality industry for five years prior to working at the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver. Further, in direct contradiction to this allegation, as noted above, Ms. Kingston applied for a job at a Fairmont hotel and the hotel contacted her expressing their interest in her for the position. In light of this evidence, I cannot reasonably conclude that her brief employment with the Fairmont Hotel Vancouver overshadowed her prior five years’ experience in hospitality such that she was blacklisted from the industry entirely.

[86]           Ms. Kingston’s allegation that she was blacklisted from the Fairmont, its affiliate hotels, or the entire hospitality industry is dismissed.

C.     Allegations about the Fairmont and Mr. Houston’s response

[87]           I must decide whether the Respondents discriminated against Ms. Kingston in how it responded to her report that Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark used the slurs in the office.

1.      Legal principles

[88]           Employers have obligations under the Code to respond reasonably and appropriately to complaints of discrimination: Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30 at paras. 52-53; Beharrell v. EVL Nursery Ltd., 2018 BCHRT 62 at para. 24. An unreasonable or inadequate response may amount to discrimination “regardless of whether the underlying conduct subject to the investigation is found to be discriminatory”: Employee v. The University and another (No. 2), 2020 BCHRT 12 at para. 272. In assessing whether an employer has met its duty to respond, the Tribunal may consider whether the employer has a proper understanding of discrimination, whether the employer treated the allegations seriously and responded sensitively, and whether the complainant was restored to a discrimination-free work environment: Laskowska at para. 59, cited in Beharrell at para. 21. These considerations are not rigid criteria that must be met in every case: Hale v. University of British Columbia Okanagan (No. 5), 2023 BCHRT 121, at para 27. An employer’s response is viewed holistically: Laskowska, at para. 60. As stated in Hale, context is critical, and perfection is not the standard.

[89]           When an employee alleges that the employer’s response to discrimination at work was itself discriminatory, there are two initial requirements. First, the employer must know there is a complaint or concern, usually because the complainant has communicated it. Second, the complaint must be about a potential violation of the Code: Clarke v. City of Vancouver and another, 2024 BCHRT 298 at para. 112. On the second requirement, the Code is concerned with an employer’s response to possible discrimination rather than any type of workplace complaint: Fletcher v. Lifestyle Hearing Corporation, 2025 BCHRT 93 at para. 111.

[90]           For reasons that follow I find that the Fairmont adequately investigated Ms. Kingston’s report that Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark used the slurs in the office.

2.      Did the Respondents adequately respond to Ms. Kingston’s report about the use of slurs in the workplace?

[91]           The first criteria of Laskowska considers whether the employer has a proper understanding of discrimination. In evidence is the Fairmont’s 2018 Colleague Handbook which includes situations in which discrimination and harassment should be reported, and the infrastructure in place to facilitate the report. The handbook provides for employees to report incidents of discrimination or harassment to the human resources department or anonymously through a designated ethics hotline. It outlines the procedures by which management and supervisors will respond to known incidents of discrimination and harassment. The procedures include communicating the incidents immediately to human resources, which may include the Director, Talent & Culture, who was Ms. Lee at the time. The Handbook sets out that a manager or supervisor’s “[f]ailure to take such action amounts to condonation of the behaviour.” I am satisfied that the Respondents had a proper understanding of discrimination.

[92]           I now turn to whether the employer treated the allegations seriously and responded sensitively, and whether the complainant was restored to a discrimination-free work environment.

[93]           The Respondents’ duty to respond was triggered on June 29 when Ms. Kingston reported to Mr. Houston and Ms. Carter that the slurs were being used in the workplace.

[94]           There is no dispute that on June 29, Ms. Kingston told Ms. Carter and Mr. Houston that Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark used the slurs in the office. She asked Mr. Houston what he thought of leadership using language like that in the workplace, and Mr. Houston responded, “it depends on who the audience is.” Ms. Kingston says Mr. Houston’s response condoned sexual harassment in the workplace.

[95]           Ms. Carter testified that when she and Mr. Houston raised her ongoing performance issues as stated in the letter of expectations, Ms. Kingston did not take accountability for her performance. Instead, she tried to defend herself and raise excuses for her poor performance. She viewed Ms. Kingston telling her and Mr. Houston that Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark used inappropriate language in the office between themselves as an attempt to deflect from her performance issues. In any event, Ms. Carter said she did not document Ms. Kingston’s allegation of sexist language because the allegation was not serious; Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark were very close and often teased and bantered with each other, and Ms. Kingston never said that the language was directed at her. Ms. Carter says had Ms. Kingston alleged that she was the target of the language, she would have escalated Ms. Kingston’s report to her superiors.

[96]           Though Mr. Houston had no recollection of Ms. Kingston raising concerns about inappropriate language in the workplace, he testified that if she had, he would have recorded it immediately in writing and escalated it immediately to the human resource department. In this instance, I do not rely on Mr. Houston’s self-serving evidence of what he would have done had Ms. Kingston reported inappropriate language. Instead, I prefer Ms. Kingston’s evidence, which is corroborated by Ms. Carter, that she did, in fact, report the use of slurs in the workplace.

[97]           On what Mr. Houston said at the meeting, I accept the following evidence of Ms. Carter over Mr. Houston’s. She gave her evidence in a straightforward manner and remained consistent on cross examination. Additionally, at the time she gave her evidence, Ms. Carter was not a named respondent and was no longer employed at the Fairmont; she simply had no motivation to alter the evidence. At the hearing Ms. Carter was able to recall the conversation in some detail and her recollection is consistent, in part, with Ms. Kingston’s evidence.

[98]           Ms. Carter recalled Mr. Houston saying in response to Ms. Kingston’s allegation that inappropriate language was used in the workplace that, “the office is a safe space”, the managers “fool around and let off steam behind closed doors”, and suggesting perhaps that was the reason Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark used that language with each other. When the Respondents’ counsel put to Ms. Carter whether Mr. Houston said, “it depends on who the audience is”, Ms. Carter was consistent in her recollection that Mr. Houston had not said that but had said something to the effect of what she had previously testified to. Regardless of Mr. Houston’s exact wording, it is not in dispute that neither Ms. Carter nor Mr. Houston took any action in response to Ms. Kingston’s report.

[99]           The Respondents ask me to consider the context in which Ms. Kingston made the report. By her own evidence, she had stopped hearing the language in the office by May 1. The Respondents say, and I agree, the fact that any inappropriate language stopped indicates that the matter had already been resolved before she raised it as a concern on June 29. On the evidence before me, I accept that she raised the issue at a meeting where she clearly understood her employment to be terminated either effective that day or imminently. Regardless, an employer’s responsibility to respond reasonably is not absolved if they correctly assume that the complaint is untrue or being raised as a distraction from performance issues; they are still obligated to respond to the report fairly and reasonably. There is no evidence that Ms. Carter or Mr. Houston explored the matter further such that they knew that the language had stopped; rather, they decided she was raising the issue as a deflection tactic and that it was not serious. Further, the reason Ms. Carter said she did nothing was not because the language had stopped, but because the language was not directed at Ms. Kingston.

[100]       After this meeting, Ms. Kingston reported her complaint to human resources on July 3. She alleges that their response was deficient.

[101]       On July 3, Ms. Kingston spoke to Ms. Stargardter about her previous meeting with Ms. Carter and Mr. Houston. Is in not in dispute that she informed Ms. Stargardter that the slurs were used in the office and when she reported this to Ms. Carter and Mr. Houston, Mr. Houston responded, “it depends on who your audience is”. She also raised concerns about the Banquet Manager’s response to two separate reports she made concerning staff: first, the Banquet Manager allegedly said she did not want to get involved after Ms. Kingston told her that a staff member bullied and harassed a colleague and, second, that the Banquet Manager did not take any action after being told that a staff member was inebriated during work hours. Ms. Kingston says Ms. Stargardter did not investigate or resolve her July 3 complaint.

[102]       I do not agree with Ms. Kingston that Ms. Stargardter’s response was deficient. Ms. Stargardter immediately reported the complaint to Ms. Lee, who then took steps to investigate the allegations.

[103]       Ms. Kingston says Ms. Lee’s response was inadequate because Ms. Lee did not interview her directly, the people she complained about were interviewed, and she was never told the outcome of the investigation.

[104]       Ms. Lee explained that she took Ms. Stargardter’s report at face value. Ms. Lee took immediate steps to interview leadership. Ms. Lee made notes of her separate interviews with staff, including Ms. Stargardter, Mr. Houston, Ms. Carter, the Banquet Manager, Mr. Hide, and Ms. Clark. Ms. Lee’s interview notes are consistent with the testimony given at the hearing. She also investigated the other two report made by Ms. Kingston and found those incidents to have been appropriately resolved.

[105]       The issue for me to decide is whether, on the whole, the employer’s response constitutes a reasonable and adequate response to Ms. Kingston’s concerns in accordance with the employer’s obligations under the Code.

[106]       I note that if the employer’s response had ended with Ms. Kingston’s report to Mr. Houston and Ms. Carter, as a result of the deficiencies in their response to her concerns, I would have no trouble finding that the employer’s response fell sufficiently below the standard of a reasonable and adequate response and would justify a finding that the response failed to satisfy the employer’s obligation under the Code. If an employer simply refuses a report of possible sex discrimination or harassment out of hand, without giving the matter adequate thought and attention, including a thorough exploration of the possibility that previous complaints about her work performance may have been influenced by discrimination or harassment, it can hardly be said to have adequately responded. However, an employer’s response is viewed as a whole, and I find, in the circumstances of this complaint, that Ms. Stargardter and Ms. Lee’s subsequent steps ensured the response was adequate.

[107]       Returning to the alleged deficiencies in Ms. Lee’s response, in these circumstances, I am satisfied Ms. Lee had enough information from Ms. Stargardter to understand Ms. Kingston’s report and initiate a proper investigation of Ms. Kingston’s allegations, even though she did not interview Ms. Kingston herself. Further, it was reasonable for Ms. Lee to interview the people Ms. Kingston complained about. Generally, not providing a complainant with next steps in an investigation or telling them the outcome of an investigation would be a serious abdication of an employer’s duty to investigate. However, I only need to decide whether the employer’s response created adverse job-related consequences for Ms. Kingston that are connected to her sex. On the whole, I cannot find that the employer’s response created adverse job-related consequences for Ms. Kingston. As I have found that the admitted derogatory words had ceased nearly two months prior, there was no ongoing discrimination for the employer to remedy. Further, as Ms. Kingston was terminated for non-discriminatory reasons, it is not fatal in this instance that the Respondents did not provide her with the outcome of the investigation.

[108]       Ms. Lee’s response might not have been perfect, but it was a reasonable, proportionate and effective response in the circumstances. I find that Ms. Kingston was not adversely impacted in employment by the employer’s response to her complaint. In summary, Ms. Kingston has not established that she experienced an adverse job-related consequence from reporting the derogatory language or from the Respondents’ response to her complaint.

D.    Other allegations of discriminatory conduct

[109]       Ms. Kingston says the following separate allegations support an inference that her work environment was toxic because they are part of a pattern of discriminatory behaviour connected to her sex. As such, I consider the following allegations as part of this allegation. I reiterate here that all the following allegations occurred before she reported the sexualized language.

1.      Was Ms. Kingston assigned non-managerial tasks during her employment because of her sex?

[110]       Ms. Kingston says the Respondents ceased supporting her development in her role and instead set her up to fail as a pretext to fire her. Ms. Kingston points to an assignment of tasks during orientation and training, as well as during several retraining periods between May 25 and June 22 as evidence of a toxic work environment and sex discrimination. Next, I go through her employment chronologically to set the context around each retraining period.

[111]       Ms. Kingston alleges that being assigned houseman and server duties was a step down from her role and a deliberate move to prevent her from performing well, since those tasks were not part of management training.

[112]       Ms. Kingston’s onboarding and training plan was scheduled from April 10 to May 17. Ms. Kingston said Mr. KS primarily trained her on houseman orders from late April to early May. She was trained in operational aspects, including job shadowing in the position of the people she would be training and overseeing, such as housemen and servers. She was also trained in the administrative aspects of the role, such as completing orders and billings. Ms. Kingston also trained with the other Assistant Banquet Managers, Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark.

[113]       At the hearing, Ms. Kingston argued that shadowing housemen and servers during the training period was essentially a demotion and deliberate attempt to deny her management training. I do not accept her portrayal of this part of her training. Both Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark testified that shadowing housemen and servers was part of their orientation training as Assistant Banquet Managers, and Ms. Carter also testified that shadowing was an essential part of training for Assistant Banquet Managers. There is no basis to find that her training during orientation was a demotion or deliberate denial of management training based on her sex.

[114]       Ms. Kingston’s next allegation concerns the Daffodil Charity Gala Ball that the Fairmont hosted on April 23. She alleges that the tasks that day were divided in a discriminatory way because she was assigned physical labour on account of her sex, rather than managerial duties.

[115]       Mr. Hide, Ms. Clark, and Ms. Kingston were running the event. As previously noted, Ms. Kingston was onboarding and training during this time and was less than 2 weeks into her employment. She said Mr. Hide briefed Ms. Clark but did not brief her. Ms. Kingston said she was “clueless” and, when she asked to be briefed, they told her not to worry about it. She said she was assigned to manage the small meeting rooms and prepare the upstairs floor for the next day’s events.

[116]       Ms. Kingston has not provided any evidentiary basis for this allegation. Her subjective belief alone that she as assigned tasks, and specifically physical labour, based on her sex is insufficient to substantiate a claim. To establish discrimination, there must be objective evidence demonstrating a connection between the adverse treatment and her sex. Here, Ms. Kingston has not proven that the assignment was connected to her sex, in whole or in part. This allegation is dismissed.

[117]       On May 17, the day before Ms. Kingston was expected to start managing events independently, she met with Ms. Carter and discussed her development over the previous five weeks of training. Ms. Kingston reported that she had not received adequate training in the department by Mr. KS. She told Ms. Carter that she had mostly worked in operations and recognized that to be successful in her role, she needed focused training on administrative tasks. Ms. Kingston testified that she found billing the hardest part of her job. Ms. Kingston started working independently on May 18.

[118]       Ms. Carter testified that Ms. Kingston continued to struggle with consistently performing administrative tasks at the level expected of her role. Ms. Carter met with Ms. Kingston on May 22 to discuss her concerns about Ms. Kingston’s work. She told Ms. Kingston that she was causing her colleagues frustration because they were required to do their jobs independently while also completing many of Ms. Kingston’s tasks, too. That day, Ms. Carter observed that it took seven hours for Ms. Kingston to complete a job order and labels, when the two tasks should cumulatively take no longer than an hour. Ms. Lee testified Ms. Carter reported her concerns to her about Ms. Kingston’s performance around this time. Ms. Lee explained the reason for being brought into the conversation about Ms. Kingston’s performance was because Ms. Kingston had completed her training but was not meeting expectations, and her supervisors were unsure of how to proceed. Ms. Lee recognized that everyone has different learning curves, so when she was consulted, she suggested Ms. Kingston be retrained.

[119]       At Ms. Lee’s suggestion, Ms. Carter put Ms. Kingston through another week of training and shadowing in operations so that she could perform her role independently and successfully.

[120]       Ms. Kingston was retrained from May 25-31. Ms. Clark retrained Ms. Kingston on billing and other aspects of operations. Ms. Clark gave evidence that Ms. Kingston recorded their training sessions, such as when she was doing the billing or other administrative task. Ms. Kingston would then ask for Ms. Clark to record her while she attempted the task. At the hearing, Ms. Kingston acknowledged that she needed to catch up on her learning. She testified that she recorded the training so she could review the video and learn the steps on her own time. She did not give further evidence of whether she reviewed the videos at any point during her employment.

[121]       At the end of the retraining period, Ms. Clark testified that she went to Ms. Carter in tears. Ms. Clark said that despite training Ms. Kingston on the same thing multiple times, Ms. Kingston repeatedly asked her the same questions, causing Ms. Clark concern that Ms. Kingston was not grasping basic operational concepts and would not be able to work independently. She was frustrated over the additional amount of work Ms. Kingston was creating for her by not learning the basic tasks required of the role.

[122]       Ms. Kingston acknowledged that she made the same errors during her employment. As an example, she testified that over the course of her employment she consistently made errors on billing and event signs and labels. Ms. Kingston testified Ms. Clark had to recreate her event signs and labels often, and toward the end of Ms. Kingston’s employment, Ms. Clark was doing it “all the time”. At the hearing, Ms. Kingston critiqued Ms. Clark, asking rhetorically, “what are we achieving in training if she’s not showing me the errors and she’s just redoing it?” I understand from Ms. Kingston’s evidence that she felt her errors should have been approached as a learning opportunity, such that Ms. Clark should have pointed out the errors and allowed Ms. Kingston to correct the mistakes.

[123]       In summary, Ms. Kingston took issue that she had been trained on signs and labels, she regularly made errors, and Ms. Clark corrected the errors before an event instead of asking Ms. Kingston to do it herself. My understanding from the evidence is that Ms. Clark recreated the labels without telling Ms. Kingston on occasions where Ms. Clark was scheduled to manage an event Ms. Kingston had set up the shift before, or during events they were managing together. It also stands to reason from Ms. Clark’s testimony that she had trained and retrained Ms. Kingston on multiple occasions and had cried tears of frustration to Ms. Carter about working with Ms. Kingston, such that by the end of Ms. Kingston’s employment she found it more expeditious to redo the work herself without involving Ms. Kingston.

[124]       After the retraining, Ms. Kingston was again assigned to independently work shifts beginning on June 1. She continued to have the same challenges with operations and billing.

[125]       On June 5, Ms. Carter met with Ms. Kingston to provide feedback on her performance after a week of working independently. Ms. Carter’s concerns about Ms. Kingston’s work remained the same, including billing mistakes, completing tasks inefficiently, and the impact her performance was having on her colleagues. On cross-examination, Ms. Kingston conceded that her performance was an issue at this time. As noted previously, at Ms. Lee’s direction, Ms. Carter summarized the June 5 meeting with Ms. Kingston.

[126]       Ms. Carter and Ms. Kingston agreed that Ms. Kingston would be given an opportunity to prove to Ms. Carter and the team that she could independently and successfully complete operational tasks. On the night of June 7, Ms. Kingston independently completed the management closing routine. Ms. Carter reviewed her work and identified the areas where Ms. Kingston needed to improve. Ms. Carter arranged for Ms. Clark to retrain Ms. Kingston in those areas. The training took place on June 9. Ms. Kingston says this training was not adequate because, as the Banquets Department is a busy operation, Ms. Clark was frequently interrupted by other demands, and Ms. Kingston’s training did not get Ms. Clark’s undivided attention. In my view, her complaint that this retraining was frequently interrupted underscores the high volume of commitments an Assistant Banquet Manager has in a typical day. At the hearing, she said while she does not dispute she received multiple trainings in billing, she expressed her wish to have been trained exclusively on billing for one week, uninterrupted. There is no evidence that she made a similar request to the Respondents, or that such a request was feasible considering the high volume of commitments an Assistant Banquet Manager has in a day.

[127]       The Respondents did not see a marked improvement in Ms. Kingston’s performance. Ms. Lee drafted a letter of expectation with Ms. Carter’s assistance. Ms. Carter met with Ms. Kingston on or around June 19 to discuss her concerns about Ms. Kingston’s work. She told Ms. Kingston that she was causing her colleagues frustration because they were required to do their jobs independently while also completing many of Ms. Kingston’s tasks, too. The June 19^th letter of expectation listed 6 performance issues, with examples. The categories were:

1. Executing basic tasks properly and in a timely manner

2. Taking the initiative to deal with guest issues

3. Properly closing bills

4. Arriving to work on time

5. Professionalism with colleagues

6. Guest complaints

[128]       During the hearing, Ms. Kingston’s initial testimony generally disputed these critiques of her work. This testimony was followed by denying the deficiency, acknowledging then explaining or minimizing the deficiency, or pointing to others who allegedly had the same deficiencies, or worse. However, of the six performance issues listed, Ms. Kingston consistently acknowledged in her testimony that she was still struggling with billing at the end of her employment.

[129]       Ms. Kingston points to deficiencies in her retraining experience on or around June 22. Ms. Kingston testified that she left her June 22 billing on Mr. Hide’s desk with a note for him to review it, but found it placed back on her desk without edits. She complained at the hearing that instead of putting the billing back on her desk, he should have helped her.

[130]       Regarding what happened with retraining and billing on or around June 22, I prefer Ms. Carter’s evidence because it is consistent with corroborating evidence. Ms. Carter emailed Ms. Lee on July 3, to summarize Ms. Kingston’s performance since the letter of expectation was issued. In the email, she writes that Mr. Hide retrained Ms. Kingston in all billing on June 22. When Ms. Kingston completed the billing on her own on June 23, there were several issues with billing including attaching bills to a copy of orders and not the original orders, billing for approximately half of the events that required billing, billing the key client (who had previously complained to Mr. Hazelwood) separately for drinks that were already included in their events package, and leaving two bills not posted on Mr. Hide’s desk. The following morning Mr. Hide spent over two hours correcting her billing mistakes.

[131]       In summary, I find there is no reasonable basis to conclude that Ms. Kingston was assigned the tasks during her retraining periods because she is a woman. I find that the evidence points to Ms. Kingston’s underperformance as the sole reason she was in training for much of her employment with the Fairmont, and why she was not assigned the same tasks she would have had she been tasked to work independently. She testified that she struggled with key performance outputs for the length of her employment. Further, it is her evidence that she invited the retraining opportunities during her probationary period, which naturally would mean she would train under someone else for those periods and not work independently; it does not hold that she now complains that the assignment of these tasks is evidence of a toxic work environment or a pattern of sex discrimination. Ms. Kingston has not successfully established the required nexus, or connection, between her sex and the allegedly menial tasks she was assigned. This allegation is dismissed.

2.      Was Mr. Hide’s conduct toward Ms. Kingston on June 1 related to her sex?

[132]       I now consider Ms. Kingston’s allegation that Mr. Hide’s conduct on June 1 constitutes sex-based discrimination. On June 1, Ms. Kingston worked operations with Mr. Hide on a high-volume business day. An error caused delays in service at an event, and Mr. Hide blamed Ms. Kingston. Whether the incident involved Mr. Hide correcting Ms. Kingston face to face or over the radio is in dispute, however nothing turns on this. Ms. Kingston described Mr. Hide’s conduct as aggressive. She says he raised his voice and said she should have been responsible for ensuring a smooth event and mitigating any potential for error. She said he did not swear at her during the interaction.

[133]       Mr. Hide does not deny that the altercation happened. He agrees that he never swore at her. He said a required task was not done in time. From his view, working in a high-pressure environment means that there may be conflict with a coworker from time to time. He said Ms. Carter intervened and spoke to him one on one. She told him to control his emotions and address issues with coworkers calmly and in private.

[134]       Ms. Carter gave evidence about what she observed on June 1, and I find it helpful. Her testimony reflected parts of Ms. Kingston’s evidence and expanded upon the interaction from the view of a disinterested third-party to this complaint. Ms. Carter testified that she found Ms. Kingston and Mr. Hide arguing in a public area. She said she would not describe Mr. Hide as aggressive; instead, she said she saw “two people about to burst into tears.” Ms. Carter said she intervened and spoke to both Ms. Kingston and Mr. Hide individually. She says Mr. Hide expressed his frustration at having to “pick up the pieces” of Ms. Kingston’s poor performance. Ms. Carter recalls advising him that it was not appropriate to give Ms. Kingston public feedback on her performance.

[135]       I also take into consideration that around this time Mr. Hide had come to Ms. Carter previously to share his frustrations about working with Ms. Kingston. In that context, I accept that Mr. Hide was quick to lose his patience with Ms. Kingston on June 1, raised his voice, and publicly corrected her. I accept that the interaction was unpleasant and unprofessional, and that Ms. Kingston found Mr. Hide’s communication style aggressive. It is reasonable that she did not appreciate being publicly rebuked. When viewed on its own, this allegation does not provide direct evidence that Mr. Hide raised his voice to blame Ms. Kingston because of her sex. I will return to whether this incident, viewed with the other incidents Ms. Kingston has proven, supports an inference of a toxic work environment. 

3.      Was Greg Hazelwood’s response to a client complaint about Ms. Kingston part of a pattern of a toxic workplace?

[136]       Ms. Kingston alleges it was discriminatory for Mr. Hazelwood to forward a complaint from a Fairmont client about her performance to her supervisors without investigating the complaint first. I note that she did not put to Mr. Hazelwood, or any other witness, that his failure to investigate the incident was related to her sex. Nevertheless, I will explain my finding that this incident is not evidence that could support an inference of a toxic work environment.

[137]       On June 15, the point person for a key account and frequent client of the Fairmont emailed Mr. Hazelwood. The email said the client did not want to work with Ms. Kingston in the future.

[138]       Mr. Hazelwood emailed the following to Ms. Carter and Mr. Houston, which Mr. Houston subsequently forwarded to Ms. Lee:

We have had a request made by [the point person] with the [key account] to have no interaction with Clara Kingston for their events during [the program] this coming Sun-Fri. Her last experience working with Clara was not good. If you have any questions please contact me directly.

[139]       Mr. Hazelwood testified that he did not investigate the client’s complaint and instead forwarded it to Ms. Kingston’s superiors. Mr. Hazelwood explained, and I accept, that Ms. Kingston did not report to him, so that the appropriate action was to forward the information to the individuals she reported to.

[140]       On direct, Ms. Kingston alleged that the point person fabricated the complaint, and Mr. Hazelwood should have investigated it before forwarding it on. On cross-examination, Ms. Kingston conceded that the point person was not falsifying the complaint against her.

[141]       Ms. Kingston concedes that the client’s complaint was genuine. Since the complaint was real, the Respondents were justified at accepting it at face value and did not need to investigate the veracity of the complaint. I have accepted that Ms. Kingston had difficulties performing her job effectively; it does not seem unusual that a client would notice these struggles and report it to her employer. In the context where the Respondents are working on Ms. Kingston’s ongoing performance improvement, the client’s complaint fits within that broader effort. Because Ms. Kingston admitted that the complaint was not falsified, her claim that Mr. Hazelwood’s actions were discriminatory cannot succeed.

E.     Has Ms. Kingston established that she was adversely impacted in her employment on account of her sex?

[142]       In summary, based on all the evidence and my findings of fact, the strongest evidence for the possibility of discrimination is Ms. Kingston’s exposure to the admitted derogatory terms, a profane comment during a recreational activity, and a public confrontation.

[143]       The Moore test requires Ms. Kingston to establish that the conduct resulted in sex-related adverse impacts in her employment.

[144]       Ms. Kingston says in her closing submissions that she was adversely impacted in employment when she was called degrading names, undermined and excluded, and her concerns were dismissed. She says this stripped her of her dignity, feelings, and self respect and it undermined her ability to do her job. She says every day, she walked into an environment where she knew she would be belittled, and nothing was done to stop it. She says she reported her harassment but instead of being supported, she was retaliated against, and her employers did not investigate her report.

[145]       Regarding adverse impact, the Respondents, relying on Mahmoodi v. UBC and Dutton, 1999 BCHRT 56, say there was no objective indication that Ms. Kingston found Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark’s language to be unwelcome. They also submit that the Tribunal cannot find that Ms. Kingston’s exposure to the admitted derogatory terms amounts to discrimination because the language was not directed at her. Finally, they say there can be no suggestion that any of the language complained about adversely affected Ms. Kingston in her ability to perform her job, and that such a claim is beyond the scope of the complaint.

[146]       I am not persuaded by the Respondents’ arguments. As stated previously, I do not analyse Ms. Kingston’s complaint as sexual harassment and so I do not address the Respondents’ unwelcomeness argument under Mahmoodi. Instead, I consider whether the conduct had adverse job-related consequences for Ms. Kingston, and whether there is a connection between her sex and those adverse job-related consequences. Again, the focus of the analysis is on the effect of the conduct on Ms. Kingston.

[147]       Ms. Kingston admits she is not certain that the words were directed at her. Therefore, any adverse impact she alleges resulted as being the target of the admitted derogatory terms does not logically follow. Still, I agree with her argument that whether the words were directed at her does not matter. The Tribunal has found that complainants do not necessarily have to be the targets of offensive language for a workplace to be toxic or poisoned based on a protected characteristic Brar at para. 741; Francis at para. 373; Kwan v. Shaw Sabey and Associates Ltd. and others, 2022 BCHRT 53 at para.109. Regardless of whether those words were directed at Ms. Kingston or not, she should not have to endure an environment where gendered slurs are used in order to access employment.

[148]       I disagree with the Respondents’ position that Ms. Kingston is expanding the scope of her complaint by saying the language in the office impacted her performance. She said in her initial complaint that Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark’s use of the slurs “almost daily…created a hostile work environment and interrupted in ensuring my success”. It is trite law that crude language, which is degrading to women, is not suitable for use in the workplace: Haight v. W.W.G. Management Inc., 1989 CanLII 9030 (BC HRT), at para 13. Mere exposure to language of a sexual nature may, on its own, detrimentally affect the work environment, even if the employee keeps their job, is not demoted, or suffers no financial loss. The reason for this is embedded in the Code itself, which is designed to protect dignity, respect, and equal treatment. The Code does not only address economic loss, it also addresses psychological and emotional harm, damage to a person’s sense of belonging or safety, and the undermining of equal participation in the workplace. For that reason, the exposure to sexist slurs and degrading comments itself may be enough to violate the Code if it interferes with a person’s right to a discrimination-free workplace. At the same time, not all vulgar or crude terms are automatically discriminatory under the law: Endacott v. 0880984 B.C. Ltd dba MCL Motor Cars and others, 2020 BCHRT 164 at para. 35.

[149]       I have considered that even though Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark considered the admitted derogatory terms innocuous and not sexual in nature, and banter rooted in a shared cultural heritage, the focus of a discrimination analysis is on the effect of the conduct on Ms. Kingston rather than on Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark’s intentions: Kwan, at para. 109.

[150]       I have also considered that Ms. Kingston was a captive audience to the admitted derogatory terms, and a vulnerable employee in the sense that she was new to her employment and on probation. I have also considered that Mr. Hide and Ms. Clark clearly knew the language was inappropriate because they knew to censor themselves around their supervisors. In my view, these factors could militate in favour of finding the admitted derogatory terms created a discriminatory environment.

[151]       Ms. Kingston contends in her closing submissions that she suffered significant adverse impacts in her employment, alleging that she was the target of degrading language, exclusion, and dismissal of her concerns. She asserts that these experiences eroded her dignity, self-respect, and emotional well-being, ultimately impairing her ability to perform her duties. She describes a workplace environment marked by daily belittlement and claims that her reports of harassment were met with retaliation rather than support, and that her employer failed to investigate her complaints.

[152]       However, these assertions are not supported by the evidence. As previously found, the derogatory language in question was not directed at Ms. Kingston personally, and her exposure to such language was limited to a brief period between April 24 and April 30—after which it ceased entirely. There is no evidence that she was retaliated against or terminated, in whole or in part, for reporting the use of slurs. On the contrary, the employer responded reasonably to her concerns once they were formally raised on July 29.

[153]       Further, I have found that Ms. Kingston’s documented performance issues were found to be unrelated to her sex or her report of workplace slurs. Importantly, in correspondence dated June 7, she expressed appreciation for her team and gratitude for the support she received—including from individuals who had used the admitted derogatory language. This directly contradicts her later claims and undermines the credibility of her narrative.

[154]       In this context, I am not persuaded that Ms. Kingston was adversely impacted in her employment or dignity, feelings, and self respect as a result of hearing the admitted derogatory words. While I acknowledge the seriousness of her allegations and the importance of addressing workplace discrimination, the evidence does not support her claim that she endured a daily environment of targeted belittlement based on her sex, nor that her employer failed to take appropriate steps to address the conduct.

[155]       This conclusion is informed by the fact that Ms. Kingston’s assertions in her closing submissions appear to overstate the nature and duration of the alleged harm. Notably, these claims are inconsistent with her own testimony at the hearing and contradict her contemporaneous written communication, in which she expressed appreciation for working with the very individuals who had used the admitted derogatory terms.

[156]       On balance, Ms. Kingston has not met the burden of establishing that her exposure to the admitted language had a detrimental effect on her employment. Accordingly, I am unable to find that this limited exposure, in and of itself, created a toxic work environment.

[157]       I will now address the darts game. The Tribunal has said the term “bitch” is often used as a gender-specific pejorative expression and, in some circumstances, could be an indicator of a sexualized working environment: Andersen v. Angell and another, 2006 BCHRT 25, at para 24. However, even in the context of an office where the admitted derogatory words had been used, I am not convinced that the comment was discriminatory. Though crude, I do not find it rises to the level of egregiousness or virulence necessary to ground a breach of the Code. Mr. Hide and Ms. Kingston were peers; he was not her supervisor. He said it once in the context of a game, and it is an expression commonly used to invite a friendly challenge. On balance, I am not persuaded that this comment, viewed in context with her other allegations, breaches the Code.  

[158]       Lastly, even considering the admitted derogatory terms and the comment made during darts there is no basis to infer that the public admonishment was related in whole, or in part, to Ms. Kingston’s sex, rather than the non-discriminatory explanation that Mr. Hide lost his patience and composure when there was a setback at an event.

[159]       Considering the evidence as a whole, Ms. Kingston has not persuaded me, on a balance of probabilities, that I can infer that these incidents created a toxic work environment. On the contrary, both before and after these incidents occurred the Respondents took proactive steps to support Ms. Kingston’s success in the role, including multiple efforts to retrain her. Shortly after these three events culminated, she expressed her enjoyment in working with Mr. Hide and Ms. Terry. These actions are inconsistent with a workplace culture of discrimination. The employer’s efforts and Ms. Kingston’s contemporaneous expression of job satisfaction in this instance weigh heavily against a conclusion that the workplace was toxic or discriminatory. I am not persuaded Ms. Kingston has established, on a balance of probabilities, either directly or by inference, that she was discriminated in her employment based on sex.  

VI    CONCLUSION

[160]       I have concluded that the complaint is not justified and therefore dismiss it under s. 37(1) of the Code.

Laila Said Alam

Tribunal Member