Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al., (1989) 95 N.R. 81 (SCC)

JudgeDickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dube, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court of Canada
Case DateJune 15, 1988
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1989), 95 N.R. 81 (SCC);59 DLR (4th) 352;[1989] CarswellMan 158;[1989] SCJ No 41 (QL);[1989] 4 WWR 39;95 NR 81;47 CRR 274;1989 CanLII 97 (SCC);58 Man R (2d) 1;EYB 1989-67166;[1989] 1 SCR 1252;10 CHRR 6205;25 CCEL 1

Janzen v. Pharos Restaurant (1989), 95 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Dianna Janzen and Tracy Govereau v. Platy Enterprises Ltd. and Platy Enterprises Ltd., carrying on business under the firm name and style of Pharos Restaurant and Tommy Grammas and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF)

(20241)

Indexed As: Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dube, JJ.

May 4, 1989.

Summary:

A one person board of adjudication appointed under the Manitoba Human Rights Act, S.M. 1974, c. 65, found that a male employee of a restaurant was guilty of sexually harassing two female co-workers and thereby breaching s. 6(1) of the Human Rights Act by discriminating on the basis of sex. The adjudicator also found the restaurant liable for its employee's acts. Both the employee and the employer were found jointly and severally liable for the complainants' damages. The adjudicator awarded damages for lost wages plus exemplary damages to both complainants. The adjudicator also ordered the restaurant to undertake a program to ensure that the restaurant premises remained free from sexual harassment. See (1985), 6 C.H.R.R. D/ 2735. The male employee and the restaurant appealed on a number of grounds.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported in [1986] 2 W.W.R. 273; 38 Man.R.(2d) 20; 24 D.L. R.(4th) 31; 86 C.L.L.C. 16,009; 7 C.H. R.R. D/3309, dismissed the appeal, except to the extent that the court varied (reduced) the quantum of damages and held that the adjudicator lacked power to order the restaurant to give the undertaking respecting sexual harassment. The male employee and the restaurant appealed. The complainants cross-appealed to restore the original damage awards.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in [1987] 1 W.W.R. 385; 43 Man.R.(2d) 293; 33 D.L.R. (4th) 32; 87 C.L.L.C. 17,014; 8 C.H.R. R. D/3831, allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal. The complainants appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 902

Discrimination defined - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "while the concept of discrimination is rooted in the notion of treating an individual as part of a group rather than on the basis of the individual's personal characteristics, discrimination does not require uniform treatment of all members of a particular group" - See paragraphs 62 to 65.

Civil Rights - Topic 987

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of sex - Sexual harassment - The Human Rights Act, S.M. 1974, c. 65, s. 6(1), inter alia, prohibited discrimination in employment on the basis of sex - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the concept of sexual harassment in the work place - The Supreme Court held that sexual harassment in the work place constituted discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, contrary to s. 6(1) - The court specifically rejected the argument that sexual harassment did not constitute sexual discrimination because harassers select their targets on the basis of a personal characteristic (physical attractiveness), rather than on the basis of a group characteristic (gender) - See paragraphs 49 to 67.

Civil Rights - Topic 993

Discrimination - Employment - Liability of employer for acts of employee - A board of adjudication appointed under the Human Rights Act (Man.) found a male employee guilty of sexually harassing two female co-workers - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the employee was guilty of sexual discrimination contrary to the Act and that the Act required that the employer be liable for the discriminatory acts of its employees, where those actions were work- related - The court held that the male employee's actions fell within the meaning of the "course of his employment" in the sense that the actions were work-related - The court noted the employer failed to ensure that the male employee's power over female employees was not abused, after the women made specific complaints about the harassment - See paragraphs 68 to 72.

Civil Rights - Topic 7108

Provincial legislation - Practice - Costs - The Supreme Court of Canada held that courts should award costs against the Manitoba Human Rights Commission only in exceptional circumstances - See paragraph 74.

Damage Awards - Topic 2023

Exemplary or punitive damages - Discrimination - Employment - On basis of sex - Sexual harassment - A board of adjudication appointed under the Human Rights Act (Man.) found that two female employees who were sexually harassed by a male co-worker were sexually discriminated against - The board awarded punitive damages of $3,000.00 to one employee and $3,500.00 to the other - The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $1,500.00 and $1,000.00 respectively, and the Manitoba Court of Appeal concurred - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge should not have reduced the damages - See paragraph 73.

Words and Phrases

Sex discrimination - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the term "sex discrimination" in the work place - See paragraph 48.

Words and Phrases

Sexual harassment - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the term "sexual harassment" in the work place - See paragraphs 49 to 57.

Cases Noticed:

Hufnagel v. Osama Enterprises Ltd. (1982), 3 C.H.R.R. D/922, refd to. [para. 14].

Torres v. Royalty Kitchenware Ltd. and Guerico (1982), 3 C.H.R.R. D/858, refd to. [para. 14].

Olarte v. De Filippis (1983), 4 C.H. R.R. D/1705, refd to. [para. 14].

Giouvanoudis v. Golden Fleece Restaurant (1984), 5 C.H.R.R. D/1967, refd to. [para. 14].

Robichaud v. Brennan (1982), 3 C.H.R. R. D/977, revsd. (1983), 4 C.H.R.R. D/1272, refd to. [para. 14].

Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud, [1984] 2 F.C. 799; 57 N.R. 116; 6 C.H.R.R. D/1695 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84; 75 N.R. 303, appld. [para. 18].

Bell v. Ladas (1980), 1 C.H.R.R. D/155, folld. [para. 22].

Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council v. Bewza (1985), 37 Man.R.(2d) 207; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 374 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Kotyk v. Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission (1983), 4 C.H.R. R. D/1416, refd to. [para. 45].

Phillips v. Hermiz (1984), 5 C.H.R.R. D/2450, refd to. [para. 45].

Doherty v. Lodger's International Ltd. (1981), 38 N.B.R.(2d) 217; 100 A.P.R. 217; 3 C.H.R.R. D/628, refd to. [para. 45].

Coutroubis v. Sklavos Printing (1981), 2 C.H.R.R. D/457, refd to. [para. 45].

Hughes v. Dollar Snack Bar (1981), 3 C.H.R.R. D/1014, refd to. [para. 45].

Cox v. Jagbritte Inc. (1981), 3 C.H. R.R. D/609, refd to. [para. 45].

Mitchell v. Traveller Inn (Sudbury) Ltd. (1981), 2 C.H.R.R. D/590, refd to. [para. 45].

Deisting v. Dollar Pizza (1978) Ltd. (1982), 3 C.H.R.R. D/898, refd to. [para. 45].

McPherson v. Mary's Donuts (1982), 3 C.H.R.R. D/961, refd to. [para. 45].

Johnstone v. Zarankin (1985), 6 C.H. R.R. D/2651, refd to. [para. 46].

Foisy v. Bell Canada (1984), 6 C.H.R. R. D/2817, refd to. [para. 46].

Commodore Business Machines Ltd. v. Ontario Minister of Labour (1984), 6 C.H.R.R. D/2833, refd to. [para. 46].

Mehta v. MacKinnon, Jeganathan, Sterling and Human Rights Commission (1985), 67 N.S.R.(2d) 429; 155 A.P. R. 429; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 198, refd to. [para. 46].

Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Company et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 48].

Barnes v. Costle (1977), 561 F.2d 983, refd to. [para. 54].

Bundy v. Jackson (1981), 641 F.2d 934, refd to. [para. 54].

Henson v. Dundee (1982), 682 F.2d 897, refd to. [para. 54].

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), 106 S. Ct. 2399, refd to. [para. 54].

Zarankin v. Johnstone (1984), 5 C.H. R.R. D/2274, affd. (1985), 6 C.H.R. R. D/2651, refd to. [para. 61].

Brooks, Allen and Dixon et al. v. Can ada Safeway Ltd. (1989), 94 N.R. 373 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 63].

Porcelli v. Strathclyde Regional Council, [1985] I.C.R. 177, affd. [1986] I.C.R. 564, refd to. [para. 66].

Statutes Noticed:

Human Rights Act, S.M. 1974, c. 65; C.C.S.M., c. H-175, sect. 6(1) [paras. 3, 9, 11, 15, 22, 33, 37, 40, 59]; sect. 19(4), sect. 20 [para. 74]; sect. 28(1) [para. 11]; sect. 28(2)(b) [para. 11]; sect. 28(2)(c) [para. 11].

Human Rights Code, S.M. 1987-88, c. 45, sect. 19 [para. 12].

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (U.S.A.), Title VII [paras. 50, 53].

Labour Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. L-1, sect. 61.7 [para. 50].

Canada Labour Code - see Labour Code.

Human Rights Code, S.O. 1981, c. 53, sect. 6 [para. 51].

Human Rights Code, R.S.N. 1970, c. 262, sect. 10.1 [para. 51].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Ed.) [para. 30].

Abella, Equality in Employment: Royal Commission Report (1984), p. 2 [para. 48].

MacKinnon, Catharine, Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination (1979), p. 1 [para. 49].

Aggarwal, Arjun P., Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (1987), pp. 1 [para. 49]; 5-6 [para. 57].

Backhouse, Constance and Cohen, Leah, The Secret Oppression: Sexual Harassment of Working Women (1978), p. 38 [para. 49].

American Legal Employment Opportunity Commission, Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex (1985), 29 C.F. R. 1604.11(a) [para. 50].

Hickling, Employer's Liability for Sexual Harassment (1988), 17 Man. L.J. 124, p. 127 [para. 57].

Counsel:

Aaron L. Berg and G. Hannon, for the appellants;

No one appeared for the respondents;

Louise Lamb, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Tanner Elton, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellants;

Fillmore & Riley, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on June 15, 1988. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered on May 4, 1989, by Dickson, C.J.C., in both official languages.

Le Dain, J., took no part in the judgment.

To continue reading

Request your trial
170 practice notes
  • R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 13, 1990
    ...and Educational Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985); Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; Felderer v. Sweden (1986), 8 E.H.R.R. 91; X. v. Federal Republic of Germany, Eur. Comm. H. R., Application No. 9235/81, July 16, 1982, D.R......
  • Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • October 16, 2020
    ...E.L.R. 102; R. v. Turpin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; Miron v. Trudel, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; Lavoie v.......
  • A. v. B., (2013) 439 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • January 18, 2012
    ...v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 336]. Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; 95 N.R. 81; 58 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217......
  • Boulter et al. v. Nova Scotia Power Inc. et al., (2009) 275 N.S.R.(2d) 214 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • December 1, 2008
    ...1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 76]. Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; 95 N.R. 81; 58 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd. - see Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
122 cases
  • Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, (1993) 161 N.R. 243 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • December 16, 1993
    ...933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 117]. Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; 95 N.R. 81; 58 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 144]. Schachtschneider v. Minister of National Revenue (1993), 154 N.R. 321 (F.C.A.), refd ......
  • R. v. Keegstra, (1990) 117 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • December 13, 1990
    ...N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536, refd to. [para. 56]. Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; 95 N.R. 81; 58 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1, refd to. [......
  • British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk, 2017 SCC 62
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 15, 2017
    ...Board), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84 ; University of British Columbia v. Berg, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 353 ; Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61 ; Gravel v. City of St‑Léonard, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 660 ; R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., 2001 SC......
  • Boulter et al. v. Nova Scotia Power Inc. et al., (2009) 275 N.S.R.(2d) 214 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • December 1, 2008
    ...1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 76]. Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; 95 N.R. 81; 58 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd. - see Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (October 12-15, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 19, 2021
    ...& Insurance Board) (2004), 246 D.L.R. (4th) 65 (Ont. C.A.), McKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 161, Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252, Bannister v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. (1998), 40 O.R. (3d) 577 (C.A.), Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, 3rd ed. (Toronto: Butt......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (October 12-15, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 19, 2021
    ...& Insurance Board) (2004), 246 D.L.R. (4th) 65 (Ont. C.A.), McKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 161, Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252, Bannister v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. (1998), 40 O.R. (3d) 577 (C.A.), Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, 3rd ed. (Toronto: Butt......
  • Sexual Harassment In The Workplace: What Canadian: Quebec Companies Need To Know
    • Canada
    • JD Supra Canada
    • June 5, 2019
    ...of pride in oneself and self-respect, the Supreme Court of Canada, in two seminal cases, Janzen [Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252] and Robichaud [Robichaud v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1987] 2 SCR 84] held that “sexual harassment in the workplace attacks the dignity and s......
  • Is A Complainant No Longer Required To Show That Conduct Was "Objectively Unwelcome" To Substantiate A Claim Of Sexual Harassment?
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 6, 2022
    ...harassment did indeed occur, the Tribunal applied the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, which sets out the definition of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is defined broadly as "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that detrim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
42 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Torts. Sixth Edition
    • June 25, 2020
    ...Janiak v Ippolito, [1985] 1 SCR 146, 16 DLR (4th) 1 ..........................................127 Janzen v Platy Enterprises Ltd, [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 59 DLR (4th) 352 ....... 296–97 JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust, [2005] 2 AC 373, [2005] UKHL 23 ....................................
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Law of Torts. Third Edition
    • September 2, 2007
    ...241, 31 C.C.L.T. 113........................................................................ 117 Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252, 59 D.L.R. (4th) 352, [1989] 4 W.W.R. 39, (sub nom. Janzen v. Pharos Restaurant) 95 N.R. 81 .....................................................
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Individual Employment Law. Second Edition
    • June 16, 2008
    ...LAW 460 Jackson v. Horizon Holidays Ltd., [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1468 (C.A.) ........................ 401 Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252, 59 D.L.R. (4th) 352, [1989] 4 W.W.R. 39, 25 C.C.E.L. 1, rev’g (1986), 33 D.L.R. (4th) 32, [1987] 1 W.W.R. 385, 43 Man. R. (2d) 293, 87 C.......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Law of Torts. Fifth Edition
    • August 30, 2015
    ...Janiak v. Ippolito, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 146, 16 D.L.R. (4th) 1................................... 126 Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252, 59 D.L.R. (4th) 352 ...................................................................................... 293 Jetz v. Calgary Olympic De......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT