Green v. Thomas

Green v. Thomas

On the balance of probabilities the respondent sexually harassed the complainant during the April 2008 work trip: his sexual words and actions were of a sexual nature, persistent in context, unwelcome and detrimentally affected the complainant; the conduct was not found wilful but was reckless, and awards were made for pain and suffering, reckless conduct and three months wage loss with interest from April 4, 2008.

Citation
2016 CHRT 13
Parties
Complainant: Christina Green; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Trevor Thomas
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Hearing Decision (final)
Outcome
Complaint substantiated; respondent found to have sexually harassed complainant contrary to s.14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Harassment, Remedies Damages and Interest, Credibility and Evidence
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Sexual Harassment Harassment Remedies Damages and Interest Credibility and Evidence

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

Parties

Christina Green

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Trevor Thomas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Hearing Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent sexually harassed the complainant on a prohibited ground
  2. 2 Whether the conduct was sexual in nature and unwelcome
  3. 3 Whether the conduct was wilful or reckless

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the respondent sexually harassed the complainant during the April 2008 work trip: his sexual words and actions were of a sexual nature, persistent in context, unwelcome and detrimentally affected the complainant; the conduct was not found wilful but was reckless, and awards were made for pain and suffering, reckless conduct and three months wage loss with interest from April 4, 2008.

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated; respondent found to have sexually harassed complainant contrary to s.14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

Orders

  • Awarded $5,000 for pain and suffering pursuant to s.53(2)(e) of the Act
  • Awarded $2,500 for conduct found to be reckless pursuant to s.53(3) of the Act