Hunt v. Transport One Ltd.

Hunt v. Transport One Ltd.

The Tribunal accepted the complainant's credible evidence that she was subjected to two incidents of sexual touching by a dispatcher and a coercive sexual proposition and embrace by the general manager; these acts were severe and unwelcome and thus constituted sexual harassment. Transport One Ltd. had no anti-harassment policies or adequate prevention/mitigation measures and did not exercise all due diligence under s.65; therefore the employer is liable. An award of $6,000 for pain and suffering and orders requiring development/submission/display of policies and provision of employee sensitization training are appropriate remedies under s.53.

Citation
2008 CHRT 23
Parties
Complainant: Nanette Hunt; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Transport One Ltd.
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (sexual Harassment) / Final Decision Following Hearing (tribunal)
Outcome
Complaint upheld; respondent found liable for sexual harassment by employees/agent and ordered to provide remedies.
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Employer Vicarious Liability, Remedies Under Human Rights Statute, Workplace Anti Harassment Policy
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Sexual Harassment Employer Vicarious Liability Remedies Under Human Rights Statute Workplace Anti Harassment Policy

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

Parties

Nanette Hunt

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Transport One Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (sexual Harassment) / Final Decision Following Hearing (tribunal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of co-worker and manager amounted to sexual harassment
  2. 2 Whether the employer is vicariously liable under s.65 of the Canadian Human Rights Act
  3. 3 Whether tribunal may proceed in absence of respondent after proper notice

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal accepted the complainant's credible evidence that she was subjected to two incidents of sexual touching by a dispatcher and a coercive sexual proposition and embrace by the general manager; these acts were severe and unwelcome and thus constituted sexual harassment. Transport One Ltd. had no anti-harassment policies or adequate prevention/mitigation measures and did not exercise all due diligence under s.65; therefore the employer is liable. An award of $6,000 for pain and suffering and orders requiring development/submission/display of policies and provision of employee sensitization training are appropriate remedies under s.53.

Court Disposition

Complaint upheld; respondent found liable for sexual harassment by employees/agent and ordered to provide remedies.

Orders

  • Respondent shall provide any existing sexual harassment policies and procedures to the Canadian Human Rights Commission for review or, if none exist, develop such policies and procedures in consultation with the Commission and, once finalized, display a copy accessible to all employees
  • Respondent shall provide, at its own cost, a program to sensitize employees, officers and directors to sexual harassment in consultation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission regarding content and providers