Peters v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. and Gordon

Peters v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. and Gordon

The Tribunal held that s.53(2)(e) and s.53(3) of the CHRA impose a $20,000 statutory cap on general and special damages for each separately defined discriminatory practice under ss.5-14.1 and for each legally separate respondent who engaged in such a practice; the Tribunal may not award $20,000 per incident within a single discriminatory practice, and s.33(2) of the Interpretation Act does not require reading "discriminatory practice" as plural so as to limit awards to one global cap per complaint; the Tribunal must guard against double recovery and apply usual remedial discretions.

Citation
2024 CHRT 140
Parties
Complainant: Tesha Peters; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent (corporate): United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.; Respondent (individual): Linden Gordon
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Tribunal Statutory Cap Ruling / Remedies Stage (statutory Cap Ruling After Liability Decision)
Outcome
Motion dismissed in part; interim declaratory ruling granted that statutory caps apply per discriminatory practice and per legally separate respondent but not per incident
Legal Topics
Discriminatory Practice, Statutory Damages Cap, Sexual Harassment, Disability Discrimination, Statutory Interpretation, Section 53 CHRA, Section 65 CHRA, Double Recovery
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Remedies Discriminatory Practice Statutory Damages Cap Sexual Harassment Disability Discrimination +4 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 6 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tesha Peters

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.

Respondent (corporate)

Linden Gordon

Respondent (individual)

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Tribunal Statutory Cap Ruling / Remedies Stage (statutory Cap Ruling After Liability Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages under s.53(2)(e) and s.53(3) of the CHRA are awarded per complaint, per discriminatory practice, or per incident
  2. 2 How to define "discriminatory practice" for purposes of s.53
  3. 3 Whether each incident of the same type of discriminatory conduct can be treated as a separate discriminatory practice for damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that s.53(2)(e) and s.53(3) of the CHRA impose a $20,000 statutory cap on general and special damages for each separately defined discriminatory practice under ss.5-14.1 and for each legally separate respondent who engaged in such a practice; the Tribunal may not award $20,000 per incident within a single discriminatory practice, and s.33(2) of the Interpretation Act does not require reading "discriminatory practice" as plural so as to limit awards to one global cap per complaint; the Tribunal must guard against double recovery and apply usual remedial discretions.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed in part; interim declaratory ruling granted that statutory caps apply per discriminatory practice and per legally separate respondent but not per incident

Orders

  • Maximum general damages payable by Linden Gordon for the discriminatory practice of sexual harassment under s.14 in this complaint: CAD 20000
  • Maximum special damages payable by Linden Gordon for the discriminatory practice of sexual harassment under s.14 in this complaint: CAD 20000