A Band councillor and manager was found to have repeatedly sexually harassed three female colleagues, prompting the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to order both monetary compensation and mandatory training for the offender. The tribunal concluded that the councillor’s actions, which included unwelcome comments, physical contact and explicit gestures, poisoned the women’s work environment and significantly harmed their mental health, careers and personal lives.
In its ruling, the tribunal upheld complaints from three employees, identified as A.B., M.S. (the complainant) and F.S., all of whom worked at a Band Council office. The respondent, referred to here as M.S. (the respondent), held an elected councillor position and a management role.
The trio brought forward evidence demonstrating persistent sexual harassment, ranging from offensive comments about their appearance to multiple instances of touching without consent. All three told the tribunal they felt unsafe and anxious at work, and that they altered their clothing choices, makeup, and daily routines in an attempt to shield themselves from the respondent’s behaviour.
“He made her feel humiliated, ridiculed, and belittled her, and made her feel as though she did not matter as a person,” the tribunal wrote in describing the impact of the harassment on A.B. “She could not move freely at work…knowing [M.S. (the respondent)] was leering at her.”
Cornering the workers
The evidence showed the respondent would corner the complainants in doorways, snap their bra straps, simulate sexual acts, make sexualized comments about their bodies and impede them from moving around the workplace. In one instance, A.B. testified that he “put his hands on her shoulders and started to massage her without her consent,” moving towards her breast. Another time, M.S. (the complainant) told the tribunal he pinned her down from behind at her desk until she felt his pelvis pressed against her back.
Despite the complainants’ reporting of this harassment, the tribunal heard that the respondent remained in the office for several weeks and continued the behaviour. Witness K.M., who served as the Band Manager, testified that he noticed A.B., M.S. (the complainant), and F.S. appearing uneasy and upset before he eventually learned of the harassment. Once council became aware, an investigation was launched, concluding the respondent had sexually harassed multiple women. As a result, the Band terminated him from his managerial role and indefinitely suspended him from council.
Yet for the complainants, the effects endured. All three suffered mental health crises, with diagnoses ranging from PTSD to major depressive disorder, according to the decision. They reported ongoing anxiety, difficulties returning to any form of employment, and the necessity of medical leaves. Some turned to substance use to cope, and one complainant was hospitalized with suicidal thoughts.
“[M.S. (the respondent)]’s behaviour was repeated, persistent and serious, and poisoned the Complainants’ work environment,” the tribunal wrote. “It has caused the Complainants significant and ongoing harm.”
Position of authority
The tribunal emphasized that the respondent’s position of authority, both as a manager and an elected representative, heightened the gravity of his misconduct, noting the power imbalance made it difficult for the complainants to confront him directly.
“They feared the power that [M.S. (the respondent)] could yield given his status in the community,” the ruling stated. In one instance, M.S. (the complainant) recounted the respondent telling her no one would believe her if she complained to her husband—who is the respondent’s brother.
Remedies: Money and training
After finding clear evidence that the harassment was sexual in nature, the tribunal then turned to remedies. It ordered the respondent to “cease harassing and desist from similar acts of harassing women,” to complete comprehensive training aimed at addressing sexist attitudes, and to pay each of the three complainants $20,000 in general damages for pain and suffering plus $20,000 in special compensation. The decision notes the maximum available amount was warranted due to “ongoing, repeated and escalating sexual harassment.”
F.S. also sought lost wages after being unable to work. Accepting her evidence and compensation calculations, the tribunal awarded her $44,973 under its authority to award wage-related damages in discrimination matters. Interest will accrue on these amounts from designated dates until the respondent pays them. All together, that amounted to nearly $165,000.
“All three Complainants also witnessed [M.S. (the respondent)]…become increasingly aggressive and physical, which only added to their fear of what he might do,” the tribunal added, highlighting how the broader workplace culture deteriorated.
Although the respondent declined to participate in the proceedings despite receiving notice, the tribunal proceeded to hear testimony from the complainants and other witnesses, including K.M. The tribunal was satisfied the respondent had been properly notified and that his absence was a deliberate choice.
Confidentiality order
During the hearing, A.B. also asked for a confidentiality order to protect her identity and medical history, citing an elevated risk of retraumatization. The tribunal granted that request, anonymizing A.B. in its official records, “to ensure the confidentiality of the inquiry” given the “real and substantial risk that the disclosure of matters will cause undue hardship.”
In concluding, the tribunal recognized the courage of the complainants in coming forward, stating they “successfully established that [M.S. (the respondent)] sexually harassed them in the workplace.” Each woman, the ruling noted, continues to recover from the emotional, psychological and professional fallout of the harassment. They remain on various forms of leave or limited work assignments, in some cases still receiving treatment.
For more information, see Starr et al. v. Stevens, 2024 CHRT 127 (CanLII).
