Nastiuk v. Couchiching First Nation and Thomas Sinclair

Nastiuk v. Couchiching First Nation and Thomas Sinclair

Tribunal dismissed all complaints because the complainant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that sexual harassment or unlawful retaliation occurred; the adjudicator found the complainant not credible, the respondents’ explanations credible, and the employer had taken investigatory and remedial steps such that liability and causation were not proven.

Citation
2012 CHRT 12
Parties
Complainant: Marlo Nastiuk; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Couchiching First Nation; Respondent: Thomas Sinclair
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Inquiry Under the Canadian Human Rights Act (sexual Harassment and Retaliation) / Tribunal Inquiry and Final Decision After Hearing and Transcript Review
Outcome
All complaints dismissed; no finding of sexual harassment or retaliation
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Retaliation, Workplace Harassment, Employer Vicarious Liability, Standard of Proof and Credibility
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Sexual Harassment Retaliation Workplace Harassment Employer Vicarious Liability Standard of Proof and Credibility

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marlo Nastiuk

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Couchiching First Nation

Respondent

Thomas Sinclair

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Inquiry Under the Canadian Human Rights Act (sexual Harassment and Retaliation) / Tribunal Inquiry and Final Decision After Hearing and Transcript Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Thomas Sinclair sexually harass Marlo Nastiuk in breach of s.14 of the CHRA?
  2. 2 Did Couchiching First Nation retaliate against Nastiuk in breach of s.14.1 of the CHRA?
  3. 3 Was the employer liable under s.65 of the CHRA or did it exercise all due diligence?

Ratio Decidendi

Tribunal dismissed all complaints because the complainant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that sexual harassment or unlawful retaliation occurred; the adjudicator found the complainant not credible, the respondents’ explanations credible, and the employer had taken investigatory and remedial steps such that liability and causation were not proven.

Court Disposition

All complaints dismissed; no finding of sexual harassment or retaliation

Orders

  • All allegations dismissed; no remedies awarded by the Tribunal