Peters v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. and Gordon

Peters v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. and Gordon

On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found that Linden Gordon sexually harassed and assaulted Tesha Peters (recorded voicemails, corroborating witnesses and medical notes, and credibility findings). Under s.65(1) UPS is vicariously liable for acts of its employee. UPS could not establish the conjunctive...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2022 CHRT 25
Parties
Complainant: Tesha Peters; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.; Respondent: Linden Gordon
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Human Rights Employment/discrimination / Liability Decision (remedies Bifurcated to Separate Decision)
Outcome
Tribunal finds Linden Gordon sexually harassed and assaulted Tesha Peters and is personally liable; United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. is vicariously liable under s.65(1) and fails on its s.65(2) defence; UPS also liable for discrimination based on disability and for failure to accommodate; remedies to be decided in...
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Vicarious Liability (employer Liability), Disability Discrimination and Accommodation, Section 65(1) (2) Canadian Human Rights Act Defence, Reporting Obligations (franke), Investigation and Procedural Fairness, Spoliation of Evidence
Source Language
english
Employment Law Human Rights Labour Law Administrative Law Criminal Law (assault Allegations) Sexual Harassment Vicarious Liability (employer Liability) Disability Discrimination and Accommodation +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 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tesha Peters

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.

Respondent

Linden Gordon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Human Rights Employment/discrimination / Liability Decision (remedies Bifurcated to Separate Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did supervisor Linden Gordon sexually harass and assault the complainant?
  2. 2 Is United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. vicariously liable for Gordon’s conduct under s.65(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act?
  3. 3 Can UPS successfully invoke the statutory defence in s.65(2) by proving non-consent and all due diligence to prevent and mitigate?

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found that Linden Gordon sexually harassed and assaulted Tesha Peters (recorded voicemails, corroborating witnesses and medical notes, and credibility findings). Under s.65(1) UPS is vicariously liable for acts of its employee. UPS could not establish the conjunctive requirements of s.65(2): it failed to show it did not consent (policy and communications were inadequate and not effectively applied to the harasser), it failed to exercise all due diligence to prevent harassment (training and policy deficiencies), and it failed to exercise due diligence to mitigate or avoid effects (investigations were delayed, procedurally flawed and did not...

Court Disposition

Tribunal finds Linden Gordon sexually harassed and assaulted Tesha Peters and is personally liable; United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. is vicariously liable under s.65(1) and fails on its s.65(2) defence; UPS also liable for discrimination based on disability and for failure to accommodate; remedies to be decided in...

Orders

  • Liability established for sexual harassment by Linden Gordon and employer liability for UPS Canada Ltd.;
  • Findings of discrimination based on disability against UPS Canada Ltd.;