Bushey v. Arvind Sharma

Bushey v. Arvind Sharma

On the facts the Tribunal found the respondent sexually harassed the complainant contrary to s.14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act: his conduct was sexual in nature, was shown to be unwelcome, and was persistent and/or severe enough (including a physical contact incident) to create a hostile environment; jurisdiction proper because conduct arose from union activity connected to federally-regulated employment; remedies awarded to compensate foreseeable losses, pain and suffering, and wilful/reckless conduct, with orders for training and interest; apology order denied as outside Tribunal power per subsequent judicial authority.

Citation
2003 CHRT 21
Parties
Complainant: Connie Bushey; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Arvind Sharma
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (s.14 Canadian Human Rights Act) / Final Decision (tribunal)
Outcome
Respondent found to have sexually harassed the complainant in breach of s.14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act; remedies awarded in favour of the complainant including monetary compensation, training requirement and interest; request for letter of apology denied.
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Remedies and Damages, Wilful and Reckless Conduct, Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Sexual Harassment Hostile Work Environment Remedies and Damages Wilful and Reckless Conduct Jurisdiction

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 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Connie Bushey

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Arvind Sharma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (s.14 Canadian Human Rights Act) / Final Decision (tribunal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Jurisdiction to hear harassment arising from union activity connected to federal employment
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct was sexual in nature
  3. 3 Whether the conduct was unwelcome

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts the Tribunal found the respondent sexually harassed the complainant contrary to s.14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act: his conduct was sexual in nature, was shown to be unwelcome, and was persistent and/or severe enough (including a physical contact incident) to create a hostile environment; jurisdiction proper because conduct arose from union activity connected to federally-regulated employment; remedies awarded to compensate foreseeable losses, pain and suffering, and wilful/reckless conduct, with orders for training and interest; apology order denied as outside Tribunal power per subsequent judicial authority.

Court Disposition

Respondent found to have sexually harassed the complainant in breach of s.14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act; remedies awarded in favour of the complainant including monetary compensation, training requirement and interest; request for letter of apology denied.

Orders

  • Respondent ordered to pay $6,656.50 to the Complainant for reasonable expenses related to her change of residence (moving, parking, utilities, cell phone and additional commute costs).
  • Respondent ordered to pay $12,000 to the Complainant for pain and suffering (s.53(2)(e)).