Friedmann v. MacGarvie

Friedmann v. MacGarvie

The Court held that sexual harassment of the type found in this case constitutes sex discrimination under s.10(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code; Janzen applies by analogy to tenancy because sexual harassment adversely affects a tenant's right to quiet enjoyment, and the tribunal's award was reinstated.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 BCCA 445
Parties
Appellant (respondent): Noemi MacGarvie; Respondent (petitioner): John Friedmann; Respondent (respondent): The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal; Intervenor: West Coast Women's Legal Education and Action Fund
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (judicial Review of Human Rights Tribunal Decision) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Chambers Judge
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of chambers judge set aside; tribunal award reinstated.
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Sex Discrimination, Judicial Review, Interpretation of Janzen V. Platy, Quiet Enjoyment
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Tenancy Law Administrative Law Sexual Harassment Sex Discrimination Judicial Review Interpretation of Janzen V. Platy Quiet Enjoyment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Noemi MacGarvie

Appellant (respondent)

John Friedmann

Respondent (petitioner)

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

Respondent (respondent)

West Coast Women's Legal Education and Action Fund

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Appeal (judicial Review of Human Rights Tribunal Decision) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Chambers Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sexual harassment constitutes sexual discrimination under s.10(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code in a tenancy context
  2. 2 Whether proof of differential treatment of members of the opposite sex is required to establish sexual discrimination in sexual harassment cases

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that sexual harassment of the type found in this case constitutes sex discrimination under s.10(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code; Janzen applies by analogy to tenancy because sexual harassment adversely affects a tenant's right to quiet enjoyment, and the tribunal's award was reinstated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of chambers judge set aside; tribunal award reinstated.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Order of the chambers judge (2011 BCSC 1147) set aside