The Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta has dismissed a complaint from a liquor store worker who alleged sexual harassment and assault, along with family status discrimination in the workplace, finding that she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
The case involved K.K.P., who was employed as a liquor store supervisor at Liquor King Spruce Grove. Her employment was terminated on Jan. 2, 2018. She alleged that she was sexually harassed, including an incident of sexual assault on March 11-12, 2016, by one of the store’s owners, B.J., and that her termination constituted discrimination based on family status after she took time off to care for her sick child.
The respondents, including the corporate entity and individual owners B.J. and P.J., denied the allegations, asserting that K.K.P. was engaged in a consensual relationship with B.J. and that her termination was due to business concerns and inappropriate workplace behaviour.
Findings on sexual harassment allegations
The tribunal reviewed extensive witness testimony, documentary evidence, and a key video recording from the night of March 11-12, 2016, which was taken by a private investigator engaged by K.K.P.’s sister-in-law.
The video depicted K.K.P. and B.J. at a restaurant and in a parked vehicle. K.K.P. testified that she was drugged and later sexually assaulted by B.J.; however, after reviewing the video, the tribunal found that her account was inconsistent with the footage, which showed her appearing lucid and engaged in conversation.
“Having watched the video, it was in my view clear that the complainant was not in a blackout state while she was in the restaurant. She appeared lucid and was chatting with B. Jassal,” the tribunal stated in its ruling.
B.J. denied the allegations and maintained that the two were engaged in a consensual relationship. The tribunal found B.J.’s testimony to be more credible, consistent with corroborating evidence from his then-wife, P.J., and other witnesses. The tribunal concluded that the relationship was consensual and that no sexual harassment occurred within the workplace.
“I find that the complainant and (B.J.) had a consensual sexual relationship,” the tribunal ruled. “As a result, I do not consider that the events of March 11-12, 2016, constituted a sexual assault or sexual harassment.”
Findings on family status discrimination allegation
K.K.P. also alleged that her employment was terminated in retaliation for taking time off on January 1, 2018, to care for her sick child. The respondents contended that the decision to terminate her employment was based on declining business performance and her workplace conduct.
The tribunal examined whether the complainant’s family status was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment, applying the test established in Moore v British Columbia (Education), which requires showing that a protected ground was a factor in the adverse impact experienced by the complainant.
“While the proximity of the termination to the complainant’s absence to look after her daughter gave her a valid basis for alleging family status discrimination, I find as a matter of fact that there was no link between the decision to terminate the complainant’s employment and her absence from work on January 1, 2018,” the tribunal stated.
The tribunal preferred the testimony of P.J., who testified that K.K.P. was permitted time off as requested. Additionally, the tribunal noted that alternative childcare options were available to K.K.P. through her family. Ultimately, the tribunal found that the termination was not related to the complainant’s family status and dismissed this aspect of the complaint.
Conclusion
The tribunal ruled in favour of the respondents, determining that the complainant had failed to establish prima facie discrimination under the Alberta Human Rights Act. The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.
For more information, see Pujji v 1819010 Alberta Ltd. o/a Liquor King Spruce Grove, 2025 AHRC 15 (CanLII).
