Peters v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. and Gordon

Peters v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. and Gordon

Section 65(2) is an exculpatory defence and not a statutorily recognized discriminatory practice; s.65(1) deems the employer to have committed the employee’s discriminatory acts but does not authorize a second, separate award of damages for the same discriminatory practice. The Tribunal therefore lacks statutory authority under the CHRA to award duplicate general or special damages against UPS in addition to awards for the harasser; awarding two sums for the same harm would constitute unlawful double recovery. UPS and the harasser are not legally separate respondents for purposes of awarding damages for the harasser’s sexual harassment once s.65(1) applies.

Citation
2025 CHRT 7
Parties
Complainant: Tesha Peters; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent Employer: United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.; Respondent Individual: Linden Gordon
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (sexual Harassment and Disability) / Ruling on Separate Damages (remedy Stage)
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Employer Liability (s.65 Chra), Damages Caps, Double Recovery, Wilful and Reckless Conduct
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Employment Law Remedies Statutory Interpretation Sexual Harassment Employer Liability (s.65 Chra) Damages Caps Double Recovery +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tesha Peters

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.

Respondent Employer

Linden Gordon

Respondent Individual

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (sexual Harassment and Disability) / Ruling on Separate Damages (remedy Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.65(2) CHRA authorizes a separate discriminatory practice and separate damages against the employer for failure to prevent or mitigate sexual harassment
  2. 2 Whether s.65(1) CHRA transforms employer into a separate ‘person’ permitting a second, duplicate award for same discriminatory practice
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal may award two awards (general and special) against both harasser and employer for the same discriminatory practice without creating double recovery

Ratio Decidendi

Section 65(2) is an exculpatory defence and not a statutorily recognized discriminatory practice; s.65(1) deems the employer to have committed the employee’s discriminatory acts but does not authorize a second, separate award of damages for the same discriminatory practice. The Tribunal therefore lacks statutory authority under the CHRA to award duplicate general or special damages against UPS in addition to awards for the harasser; awarding two sums for the same harm would constitute unlawful double recovery. UPS and the harasser are not legally separate respondents for purposes of awarding damages for the harasser’s sexual harassment once s.65(1) applies.