The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has denied an application by BC Hydro and one of its employees to further defer a sexual harassment complaint filed by a former employee, ruling that a parallel civil claim would not appropriately address the core human rights issues at stake.
The decision clears the way for the complaint, initially filed in December 2021 by E.L., to proceed. The case involves allegations of prolonged sexual harassment by a senior colleague, P.G., while the complainant was employed by BC Hydro. The Tribunal found that the civil proceedings in the B.C. Supreme Court do not adequately mirror the substance of the complaint and would not provide a sufficient or equivalent remedy.
“I find that the Civil Claim is not capable of appropriately dealing with the substance of the complaint,” the Tribunal stated. “I decline to defer the complaint on this basis.”
Allegations include unwanted contact, harassment
E.L. began working at BC Hydro in September 2019 and alleges that P.G., a senior employee, began bullying and harassing her early in her employment. According to the Tribunal’s summary, the behaviour escalated in July 2020 to include multiple incidents of sexual harassment and non-consensual physical contact. These include allegations that P.G. kissed her without consent, removed his and her clothing while pressing his body against hers during a work trip, and showed up uninvited at her home.
The complaint further alleges that E.L. raised concerns about P.G.’s conduct with her manager, both regarding his volatility and the sexual harassment, in February 2021. She began a medical leave days later and eventually considered her employment terminated by August of that year.
In her human rights complaint, E.L. claims that the harassment amounts to discrimination based on sex, and seeks compensation for lost income, expenses, and injury to dignity, among other remedies. She argues that BC Hydro is directly or vicariously responsible for P.G.’s actions.
Overlap between civil claim and complaint
BC Hydro and P.G. sought to defer the Tribunal proceedings a second time, arguing that a civil claim filed by E.L. in the B.C. Supreme Court in March 2023 covers substantially the same allegations. That suit alleges constructive dismissal and seeks damages for breach of contract, including aggravated damages for the employer’s failure to respond adequately to the harassment.
BC Hydro contended that the civil court was well-positioned to assess the facts and award appropriate remedies, and that continuing both actions simultaneously could result in duplicated proceedings and potentially inconsistent findings.
However, the Tribunal found that while there is some overlap in facts, the legal and remedial frameworks differ substantially. For example, the civil claim does not name P.G. as a defendant, whereas the human rights complaint does.
“Orders against BC Hydro in Court for breach of contract would not adequately remedy this conduct,” the Tribunal ruled.
“While there is factual overlap between the proceedings, the complaint encompasses issues related to [P.G.]’s alleged sexually harassing conduct, and BC Hydro’s potential liability for that conduct, that the Civil Claim does not.”
The Tribunal also noted that E.L. has indicated she does not intend to pursue the civil action further, though she has yet to formally discontinue it. Her counsel communicated that the only reason for not filing a notice of discontinuance is the potential cost consequences, and she has no intention of taking the matter further in court.
Fairness and adequacy of remedies considered
The Tribunal’s decision turned in part on its assessment of whether the civil claim could offer comparable remedies. While BC Hydro argued that aggravated damages for mental distress could be functionally equivalent to compensation for injury to dignity, the Tribunal disagreed.
Notably, the Tribunal found that any court award would not extend to P.G., as he is not a party to the civil case. This is particularly significant given the seriousness of the allegations against him.
“Remedies would not be ordered against [P.G.] personally in Court,” the ruling stated, highlighting a gap in potential accountability.
The Tribunal also weighed the procedural status of both proceedings. It found that the human rights complaint could now proceed more quickly than the civil action, particularly in light of E.L.’s stated intent to abandon the latter. BC Hydro’s pending application with the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) could also limit the scope of the civil claim further, depending on the outcome.
Deferral not “fair and reasonable”
In addition to assessing the adequacy of the civil claim, the Tribunal examined whether a deferral would nevertheless be “fair and reasonable” in the circumstances. It concluded it would not.
“It would be unfair to [E.L.] to prevent her from pursuing her complaint in a timely manner when it is not clear which parts of the Civil Claim would ultimately proceed.”
Even if both proceedings were active, the Tribunal noted that overlap between legal fora is not unusual, particularly when different jurisdictions apply, such as common law versus human rights law.
BC Hydro had argued that being required to respond in two forums would create duplication and strain resources. But the Tribunal rejected this, pointing out that BC Hydro itself initiated the WCAT application, which could narrow the civil proceedings.
“I cannot find that it would be unfair to require BC Hydro to respond to the complaint in circumstances where [E.L.] has indicated that she does not intend to pursue the Civil Claim.”
Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled that deferral was not justified on either statutory or discretionary grounds and instructed that BC Hydro and P.G. be given a deadline to file their responses.
For more information, see Lewynsky v. BC Hydro and another, 2025 BCHRT 56 (CanLII).
