A recent ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal offers new clarity on how to interpret the statutory cap on damages under federal human rights legislation (CHRA).
The decision stems from a complaint filed by a former United Parcel Service (UPS) Canada worker who alleged sexual harassment against an employee and disability-related discrimination by the employer.
The tribunal concluded that each distinct “discriminatory practice” — as defined in sections 5–14.1 of the CHRA — may attract separate awards for general and special damages, each capped at $20,000. However, it also held that multiple incidents of the same discriminatory practice cannot be split to exceed the legislated maximum.
Significance for HR, employment lawyers
This case is particularly significant for HR professionals and employment lawyers, as it provides detailed guidance on how damages can be calculated when a single complaint involves multiple forms of discrimination and multiple respondents.
It underscores that even within one complaint, distinct discriminatory practices (such as harassment under section 14 and adverse differentiation under section 7) may each warrant separate awards, so long as each practice meets the CHRA’s definition.
‘Per practice’ not ‘per complaint’
The tribunal emphasized that the statutory cap applies “per discriminatory practice,” rather than “per complaint.” This distinction matters because a single complaint often contains more than one alleged breach of the CHRA.
Where more than one practice is substantiated, the tribunal can make multiple awards — each up to $20,000 in general damages and another $20,000 in special damages if the respondent’s conduct was deemed “wilful or reckless.” As the tribunal wrote, “If Parliament had intended that the statutory cap apply globally to the complaint, it could have easily made this clear … instead, the remedial provisions refer to ‘the discriminatory practice.’”
At the same time, the tribunal rejected the worker’s request to subdivide one discriminatory practice —sexual harassment — into multiple practices based on different incidents. The worker, T.P., had argued she was entitled to five separate damage awards of $20,000 for harassment because she experienced five distinct incidents (ranging from a “dinner date” invitation to alleged sexual assault).
The tribunal declined to define each incident as its own practice, stating there is “no legislative authority to subdivide a discriminatory practice into segments” for the sole purpose of securing multiple capped awards.
“Where more than one legally separate respondent is responsible for engaging in a discriminatory practice,” the tribunal held, “the Tribunal may also award multiple capped amounts for pain and suffering or special damages.”
For instance, if an individual supervisor and the corporate employer each committed different discriminatory practices, each might face its own $20,000 limit on general damages and its own $20,000 limit on special damages.
However, the ruling underlined that damages must still be tied to distinct practices set out in sections 5–14.1 of the CHRA. Repetitive or continuous conduct that all falls under one heading, such as section 14 harassment, should not be artificially divided.
Double recovery
The tribunal also warned against “double recovery,” acknowledging that in situations where separate practices overlap, adjudicators must ensure that complainants do not receive multiple payouts for the very same harm. Quoting its earlier jurisprudence, the tribunal noted that “the usual considerations when awarding damages still apply,” including the principle that overlapping injuries or remedies require careful scrutiny.
In T.P.’s case, the tribunal found two discriminatory practices as placeholders for potential damages. First, it held that the employee (M.G.) had engaged in sexual harassment under section 14 of the CHRA. Second, it concluded that UPS had discriminated against T.P. in her employment by adversely differentiating based on disability, contrary to paragraph 7(b).
The tribunal left open the question of whether UPS itself had also committed the separate practice of harassment. Depending on that outcome, UPS could face an additional award of up to $20,000 for general damages (and $20,000 more in special damages if it is found to have acted wilfully or recklessly with respect to any proven harassment).
Statutory limits
Regarding the statutory limits, the tribunal stated plainly: “Each award of general and special damages is subject to the statutory cap and cannot exceed $20,000.” While T.P. had argued that this approach allows respondents to avoid liability for multiple harassing acts that happen to fall under the same practice, the tribunal replied that it must follow the law as written: “The CHRA was passed … with a statutory cap … The Latin phrase from ancient Roman civil law comes to mind: ‘Dura lex, sed lex’ or ‘The law is hard, but it is the law.’”
Human rights laws in other jurisdictions
Although the tribunal acknowledged that human rights damages in other jurisdictions can exceed these caps, it made clear that its authority is strictly derived from the CHRA and cannot be broadened by judicial means.
For HR leaders and legal counsel, this ruling highlights the importance of identifying precisely which provisions of the CHRA have been breached in any dispute. Separate legal violations — such as harassment, retaliation, or adverse differentiation — can each attract their own capped damages award, but the same type of practice, however often it recurs, does not multiply an employer’s liability beyond $20,000 (or $40,000 total if special damages are also granted).
The ruling
Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed T.P.’s motion to categorize each alleged incident of sexual harassment as its own discriminatory practice. It did affirm, however, that damages can be stacked in a single complaint when it involves multiple, distinctly defined practices under the CHRA or multiple distinct respondents each responsible for different practices. The exact amounts, and whether UPS also engaged in a separate harassment practice, remained to be decided in subsequent rulings.
In an environment where employers can face several kinds of human rights allegations — from harassment to discrimination based on disability — the tribunal’s ruling offers a detailed road map for determining liability and quantifying potential damages.
By articulating how the statutory cap should be applied, it clarifies what to expect when multiple types of discrimination surface in a single file. Complainants seeking redress and employers planning defence strategies should keep this approach in mind, particularly where more than one provision of the CHRA is engaged or where multiple respondents may each be found liable.
For more information, see Peters v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. and Gordon, 2024 CHRT 140 (CanLII).
