Sexual Harassment

The B.C. Council of Human Rights finds that Glennis Bailey was not sexually harassed by her supervisor, Don Brown, when she was employed by the Village of Anmore. Though the Council finds that Mr. Brown subjected Glennis Bailey to degrading, rude, and puerile behaviour and comments, some of which were sexual in their content, it rules that this did not constitute sexual harassment within the meaning of s. 8 of the B.C. Human Rights Act because Mr. Brown was equally rude and demeaning in his treatment of male employees.

However, the Council finds that one reason for the termination of Ms. Bailey's employment was the fact that she had filed, or intended to file, a complaint alleging sexual harassment. Her termination thus violates s. 20 of the Act which prohibits retaliation against any person for filing a complaint.

The Council rejects the argument of the respondent that because there was no contravention of s. 8 of the Act, any...

The Board of Inquiry finds that Carol Shaw was sexually harassed by a co-worker and that her employer is liable for the harassment.

Carol Shaw was harassed over a period of fourteen years by a co-worker who constantly criticized her work, denigrated her sexuality and degraded her as a woman. The Board of Inquiry finds that the most common understanding of sexual harassment is conduct such as making passes, soliciting sexual favours, sexual touching and the like. However, it finds that conduct which denigrates a woman's sexuality or vexatious conduct which is directed at a woman because of her sex also constitutes sexual harassment.

In this case, Carol Shaw was subjected to constant negative comment on her person and her performance by a co-worker. Herb Robertson made fun of the way Ms. Shaw walked and of her figure by saying "waddle, waddle" when she walked by, or "swish, swish" to imitate the sound of her nylons rubbing against each other. He called her a "fat...

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada rules that sexual harassment is sex discrimination, thereby overturning a decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal which found that sexual harassment was not sex discrimination within the meaning of s. 6(1) of the 1974 Manitoba Human Rights Act.

Dianna Janzen and Tracy Govereau were employed as waitresses by Pharos Restaurant in 1982. The Board of Adjudication appointed to hear and decide their complaints found that they were sexually harassed by Tommy Grammas, the cook in the restaurant, and that this constituted sex discrimination. The Board of Adjudication also found that Platy Enterprises Ltd., the owners of the restaurant, were liable for the discrimination and awarded compensation to the two women. On appeal the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench upheld the decision of the Board of Adjudication but reduced the amounts of the awards.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by Platy...

The Board of Inquiry finds that Rosanna Torres was discriminated against because of her sex when she was sexually harassed and summarily dismissed because she refused her employer's advances.

The Board awards Rosanna Torres $500 in compensation for lost wages and $1000 in general damages for being subjected to a hostile and intimidating work environment.

The Board of Inquiry reviews the law and previous decisions with respect to special and general damages and finds that both special and general damages are provided for in Canadian human rights legislation. A presumption in favour of making awards of both kinds should be made by Boards of Inquiry where a complaint has been made out.