Peters v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. and Linden Gordon

Peters v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. and Linden Gordon

Section 65(1) of the CHRA operates as a mandatory deeming provision that transfers liability for acts or omissions of employees in the course of employment to the employer for the purposes of the Act; accordingly, when s.65(1) applies and s.65(2) does not, the Tribunal must treat the employer as the person against...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2025 CHRT 106
Parties
Complainant: Tesha Peters; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent Employer: United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.; Respondent Employee: Linden Gordon
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (chra) / Ruling on Remedial Responsibility and Allocation of Compensation (remedies Stage)
Outcome
Ruling: Section 65(1) of the CHRA deems employer liable for employee discriminatory acts in the course of employment such that United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. is responsible for any compensation ordered under the CHRA in this complaint; the Tribunal lacks statutory authority to award compensatory remedies jointly...
Legal Topics
Remedies, Section 65 CHRA Deeming Provision, Vicarious/statutory Liability, Joint and Several Liability, Compensation Caps, Sexual Harassment, Disability Discrimination, Impecuniosity
Source Language
english
Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Remedies Section 65 CHRA Deeming Provision Vicarious/statutory Liability Joint and Several Liability +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tesha Peters

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.

Respondent Employer

Linden Gordon

Respondent Employee

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (chra) / Ruling on Remedial Responsibility and Allocation of Compensation (remedies Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.65(1) CHRA permits awarding remedies against the employer 'instead of' or 'in addition to' the employee when both are named respondents
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal may order joint and several liability against related respondents when s.65(1) applies
  3. 3 What legal effect the deeming word in s.65(1) has on application of s.53 remedial provisions

Ratio Decidendi

Section 65(1) of the CHRA operates as a mandatory deeming provision that transfers liability for acts or omissions of employees in the course of employment to the employer for the purposes of the Act; accordingly, when s.65(1) applies and s.65(2) does not, the Tribunal must treat the employer as the person against whom remedies under s.53 are to be ordered and lacks statutory authority to impose joint and several compensatory liability against both the employer and the individual employee; remedies may be ordered against an individual employee only where s.65(2) applies to exculpate the employer or in narrowly distinct circumstances recognized outside s.65 (e.g. owner/operator insolvency...

Court Disposition

Ruling: Section 65(1) of the CHRA deems employer liable for employee discriminatory acts in the course of employment such that United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. is responsible for any compensation ordered under the CHRA in this complaint; the Tribunal lacks statutory authority to award compensatory remedies jointly...

Orders

  • United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. is responsible for payment of any compensation ordered to the Complainant pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Act and s.65(1) (subject to final quantum determination).
  • The Tribunal will not order compensatory awards (s.53(2)(c)-(e), s.53(3)) jointly and severally against both United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. and Linden Gordon where s.65(1) applies; remedies for employee conduct are to be ordered against the employer instead of the employee when s.65(1) applies.