Naistus v. Chief

Naistus v. Chief

The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that Mr. Chief engaged in persistent unwelcome sexual conduct toward Ms. Naistus while both were OLFN employees; OLFN was aware by July 26, 2004 and took insufficient steps (mere relocation) that failed to prevent recurrence and did not exercise all due diligence under s.65(2); accordingly both the individual wrongdoer and the employer are liable and remedies under s.53 were ordered.

Citation
2009 CHRT 4
Parties
Complainant: Roxanne Naistus; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Philip L. Chief; Respondent: Onion Lake First Nation
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Sexual Harassment (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Inquiry and Tribunal Decision (hearing Concluded)
Outcome
Complaint substantiated. Tribunal finds sexual harassment by Philip L. Chief (2003–2005) while employed by Onion Lake First Nation; Onion Lake First Nation failed to exercise all due diligence under s.65(2) CHRA and is liable for compensation.
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Workplace Discrimination, Employer Vicarious Liability and Due Diligence, Remedies and Compensation
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Sexual Harassment Workplace Discrimination Employer Vicarious Liability and Due Diligence Remedies and Compensation

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roxanne Naistus

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Philip L. Chief

Respondent

Onion Lake First Nation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Sexual Harassment (canadian Human Rights Tribunal) / Inquiry and Tribunal Decision (hearing Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Philip L. Chief sexually harass Roxanne Naistus while both employed by Onion Lake First Nation?
  2. 2 Did Onion Lake First Nation consent to the conduct or exercise all due diligence under s.65(2) CHRA to prevent/mitigate it?
  3. 3 What remedies and quantum of compensation are appropriate under s.53 CHRA?

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that Mr. Chief engaged in persistent unwelcome sexual conduct toward Ms. Naistus while both were OLFN employees; OLFN was aware by July 26, 2004 and took insufficient steps (mere relocation) that failed to prevent recurrence and did not exercise all due diligence under s.65(2); accordingly both the individual wrongdoer and the employer are liable and remedies under s.53 were ordered.

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated. Tribunal finds sexual harassment by Philip L. Chief (2003–2005) while employed by Onion Lake First Nation; Onion Lake First Nation failed to exercise all due diligence under s.65(2) CHRA and is liable for compensation.

Orders

  • Onion Lake First Nation to pay Roxanne Naistus $14,813.94 for lost wages (s.53(2)(c))
  • Philip L. Chief to pay Roxanne Naistus $18,000 as special compensation for wilful or reckless discriminatory practice (s.53(3))