Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252 (1989)

Supreme Court of Canada

Linked as:


Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252 (1989)

Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1

S.C.R. 1252

Dianna Janzen and Tracy Govereau Appellants v.

Platy Enterprises Ltd., and Platy

Enterprises Ltd., carrying on business under the firm name and style of

Pharos Restaurant, and Tommy Grammas Respondents and

Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) Intervener indexed as: janzen v. platy enterprises ltd.

File No.: 20241.

1988: June 15; 1989: May 4.

Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Wilson, Le Dain*, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for manitoba

Civil rights -- Employment -- Sex discrimination -- Sexual harassment -- Whether sexual harassment in the workplace is discrimination on the basis of sex -- Whether employer liable for employee's actions -- Quantum of damages -- The Human Rights Act, S.M. 1974, c. 65, s. 6(1).

Costs -- Manitoba Human Rights Commission -- Costs should only be ordered against the Commission in exceptional circumstances.

The appellants were employed as waitresses at Pharos Restaurant during the fall of 1982. The restaurant was owned and operated by Platy Enterprises Ltd. and the president of the corporation was the manager of the restaurant. J, during the course of her employment, was sexually harassed by another employee who touched various part of her body and made sexual advances towards her. The offending employee was in charge of the cooking during the evening shift and had no actual disciplinary authority over the waitresses. He nevertheless was represented by himself and by the manager as having control over firing employees. Despite J's objections, this course of conduct persisted for over a month. When the overtly sexual conduct ceased, the employee continued to make the work environment difficult for J by a pattern of uncooperative and threatening behaviour. He was unjustifiably critical of her work and generally treated her in an unpleasant manner. The manager, when informed of the situation, did nothing to put an end to the harassment and J terminated her employment shortly thereafter.

G was the victim of similar behaviour by the same employee. Following a conversation with the manager, the physical harassment ended but it was replaced by a general pattern of verbal abuse by both the manager and the employee who would unjustly criticize her in front of the staff. The harassment culminated with the manager terminating G's employment.

The appellants filed a complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission against Platy Enterprises Ltd., its owners, agents and servants, Pharos Restaurant. The adjudicator found that the appellants had been subjected to persistent and abusive sexual harassment and had been the victims of sex discrimination contrary to s. 6(1) of the Human Rights Act. He awarded exemplary damages and damages for loss of wages and found the employee and the employer, Platy Enterprises Ltd., jointly and severally liable. With the exception of the quantum of damages, the Court of Queen's Bench upheld the adjudicator's decision. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. The Court held that sexual harassment of the type to which the appellants were subjected was not discrimination on the basis of sex and that the employer could not be held liable for the sexual harassment perpetrated by its employee.

Held: The appeal should be allowed.

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. Sexual harassment in the workplace is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that detrimentally affects the work environment or leads to adverse job-related consequences for the victims of the harassment. By requiring an employee, male or female, to contend with unwelcome sexual actions or explicit sexual demands, sexual harassment in the workplace attacks the dignity and self-respect of the victim both as an employee and as a human being. Here, the sexual harassment suffered by the appellants constituted sex discrimination for it was a practice or attitude which had the effect of limiting the conditions of employment of, or the employment opportunities available to, employees on the basis of a characteristic related to gender.

The fact that only some, and not all, female employees at the restaurant were subject to sexual harassment is not a valid reason to conclude that sexual harassment could not amount to discrimination on the basis of sex. Sex discrimination does not exist only where gender is the sole ingredient in the discriminatory acti...

See the full content of this document

ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

© Copyright 2014, vLex. All Rights Reserved.

Contents in vLex Canada

Explore vLex

For Professionals

For Partners