Opheim v. Gagan Gill & Gillco Inc

Opheim v. Gagan Gill & Gillco Inc

On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal preferred the complainant's credible, consistent and detailed evidence and found repeated unwelcome sexual comments, requests and physical assaults by the individual respondent in the course of employment; respondent failed to rebut or produce promised evidence or call available witness; sexual harassment upheld under s.14 and adverse differentiation based on sex under s.7(b); age discrimination was not established due to lack of connection to conduct; corporate respondent held liable under s.65; remedies awarded limited to substantiated losses and compensatory and aggravated damages totalling $21,288.00.

Citation
2016 CHRT 12
Parties
Complainant: Shelby Anne Opheim; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Gagan Gill; Respondent: Gillco Inc.
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Human Rights CHRA (employment Discrimination) / Decision (final)
Outcome
Complaint substantiated in part: sexual harassment (s.14 CHRA) and sex discrimination (s.7(b) CHRA) proven; age discrimination dismissed; compensation awarded.
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Sex Discrimination, Age Discrimination, Remedies Under CHRA, Vicarious Liability, Compensation for Pain and Suffering
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Sexual Harassment Sex Discrimination Age Discrimination Remedies Under CHRA Vicarious Liability +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 7 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shelby Anne Opheim

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Gagan Gill

Respondent

Gillco Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights CHRA (employment Discrimination) / Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent sexually harassed the complainant in employment (s.14 CHRA)
  2. 2 Whether the respondent adversely differentiated the complainant on ground of sex (s.7(b) CHRA)
  3. 3 Whether the respondent discriminated on the ground of age (s.7(b) CHRA)

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal preferred the complainant's credible, consistent and detailed evidence and found repeated unwelcome sexual comments, requests and physical assaults by the individual respondent in the course of employment; respondent failed to rebut or produce promised evidence or call available witness; sexual harassment upheld under s.14 and adverse differentiation based on sex under s.7(b); age discrimination was not established due to lack of connection to conduct; corporate respondent held liable under s.65; remedies awarded limited to substantiated losses and compensatory and aggravated damages totalling $21,288.00.

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated in part: sexual harassment (s.14 CHRA) and sex discrimination (s.7(b) CHRA) proven; age discrimination dismissed; compensation awarded.

Orders

  • Respondents shall pay to the Complainant $1,788.00 as compensation for lost wages.
  • Respondents shall pay to the Complainant $7,500.00 as compensation for pain and suffering.