A Verdict Making Waves In A Hair Salon: Gender Diversity Requirements For Administrative Forms

A recent decision by the Québec Human Rights Tribunal has garnered the attention of several companies. ¹

At first glance, the case seems trivial: when booking a haircut online, customers at a hair salon had to choose between "service for men" or "service for women."

However, the hair salon was ordered to pay $500 in moral damages to a non-binary person who refused to complete the form. Why? Because the online form provided no neutral option, forcing customers to select one of the two categories in order to book an appointment. A non-binary person, unable to choose between the two options without renouncing their identity, was therefore unable to use the service. The Tribunal found that this constituted a discriminatory barrier that did not affect binary individuals seeking to access the same service.

What the Tribunal Took Issue With — the Barrier, Not the Intention

In the Tribunal's view, even though the hair salon showed no malicious intent and had proposed an improvised solution, this was not sufficient.

The salon advised the non‑binary person to simply "choose any of the options" and assured them that the stylist would adjust the service on site as required, since the online form served only as a formality for booking the appointment. Furthermore, after the complaint was filed with the province's human rights commission (Commission des droits de la personne et de la jeunesse), the salon offered the individual three free haircuts to settle the dispute.

However, the Tribunal did not find that these responses were acceptable accommodation. Why? Because the person was still required to provide false information about their identity in order to book an online appointment.

The salon could not circumvent the barrier simply by asking a person to check a box that did not represent them. By refusing to select one of the two gendered categories, the non-binary person was no longer able to book an appointment online. Individuals who did not book an appointment online could drop in at the salon; however, service was subject to availability and they were charged a higher price than those with online appointments.

A Decision that Prompts Employers to Rethink Their Website

This decision has direct implications for employers across all industries, not just the hairdressing sector. The Tribunal identified three factors of particular relevance for Canadian employers:

1. An intention to discriminate is not required to contravene the law.
   • A neutral policy may be discriminatory if it creates a genuine barrier for a protected group, even if this effect is unintentional.
2. The service or treatment must be genuinely equivalent.
   • If a non-binary person must get around the system to obtain a benefit, wait longer or provide information they do not wish to disclose, they are not receiving equivalent treatment, which may constitute discrimination.
3. Instructing someone to "choose any option" is not an accomodation
   • An accommodation must remove the barrier — not circumvent it by forcing a person to select an option that is false or causes them discomfort. The Court stated that, in this case, a proper accommodation would have been to make an exception by allowing the non-binary person to book in person or by telephone, or to charge the online rate even though they did not have an appointment.

Practical Recommendations for Avoiding Unintentional Discrimination in Your Forms

HR forms — such as those used for job applications, hiring, payroll, health and safety, or internal requests — often still require choosing between the binary gender categories of "man" or "woman." A practice that was once widespread may now be considered discriminatory against certain individuals.

To reduce risk, employers can immediately take the following steps:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of administrative documents and forms.
• Pay particular attention to hiring materials — in many Canadian provinces, references to sex or gender should be entirely excluded from the recruitment process, unless sex or gender constitutes a bona fide occupational requirement.
• Remove any non-essential questions relating to sex or gender in employee-facing documents and forms — in most cases, employers do not need this information, though it may occasionally be justified.
• Where a request for sex or gender is justified, we recommended that employers provide options beyond "male" and "female." Instead, consider including one of the following options:
  • "I prefer not to say"
  • a more inclusive option, such as "X"

The salon owners have indicated their intention to seek judicial review of the decision. We will closely monitor developments regarding this matter.

Footnote

1. Migneault c Station10 inc., 2026 QCTDP 5. The hair salon owners have announced their intention to contest the decision.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.