Vanderwell Contractors (1971) Ltd. v. Chartrand, (2001) 294 A.R. 71 (QB)

• Judge: L.J. Smith, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 26, 2001
• Citations: (2001), 294 A.R. 71 (QB)

Vanderwell Contractors v. Chartrand (2001), 294 A.R. 71 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. JN.088

In The Matter of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H-11.7 (as amended)

And In The Matter of a complaint before the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission Complaint No. 9806077

Vanderwell Contractors (1971) Ltd. (applicant) v. Jean Chartrand (respondent)

(Action No. 0103 06544)

Indexed As: Vanderwell Contractors (1971) Ltd. v. Chartrand

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

L.J. Smith, J.

June 13, 2001.

Summary:

A one person panel appointed under the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, concluded that Chartrand had been sexually harassed at her workplace by her supervisor, that she had reported the behaviour to her employer, and that she had quit her employment due in part to the sexual harassment. The panel found the supervisor and the employer jointly and severally liable and awarded Chartrand damages for lost wages, general damages, expenses incurred in pursuing the case and solicitor and client costs. The employer appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 2145

Natural justice - Administrative decisions or findings - Failure to consider evidence -[See Civil Rights - Topic 7061 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2602

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Burden of proof - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 7110 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9052

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Provincial Human Rights Commission - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7061 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7061

Federal or provincial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - General - Chartrand quit her employment in 1998 alleging that her supervisor subjected her to gender/sexual harassment, contrary to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, ss. 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b) - A one person human rights panel allowed the complaint - The employer appealed arguing, inter alia, that the panel mistakenly refused to consider evidence which arose out of an alleged rape which occurred at the supervisor's lake cabin - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench agreed that the panel erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the incident - "Conduct which may constitute criminal activity may also be considered a human rights violation or give rise to civil liability" - Nonetheless, the panel did not err in refusing to consider the evidence as it did not form part of Chartrand's complaint - Moreover, the evidence's prejudicial value outweighed any probative value it had as similar fact evidence - See paragraphs 1 to 13.

Civil Rights - Topic 7110

Federal or provincial legislation - Practice - Evidence and proof - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7061 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7110

Federal or provincial legislation - Practice - Evidence and proof - Chartrand quit her in 1998 alleging that her supervisor subjected her to gender/sexual harassment, contrary to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, ss. 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b) - A one person human rights panel allowed the application - The employer appealed arguing, inter alia, that the panel erred in applying the ordinary civil standard of proof - Particularly, the employer asserted that the panel should have required proof on a preponderance of probabilities where, as here, the acts complained of included acts which, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, could constitute Criminal Code offences or a carry a high stigma - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the panel did not err by applying the ordinary civil standard of proof - See paragraphs 19 to 35.

Cases Noticed:

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 658; 13 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 9].

Co-operators General Insurance Co. v. Human Rights Commission (Alta.) et al. (1993), 145 A.R. 132; 55 W.A.C. 132 (C.A.), application for leave to appeal dismissed (1994), 176 N.R. 317; 162 A.R. 318; 83 W.A.C. 318 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 9].

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 - see Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al.

Calgary (City) Electric System v. Weitmann (2001), 292 A.R. 295 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Borys (L.) Professional Corp. v. Joshi (1998), 235 A.R. 82 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 9].

Mehta v. MacKay and Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (1990), 100 N.S.R.(2d) 319; 272 A.P.R. 319; 47 Admin. L.R. 254 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. M.H.C., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 763; 123 N.R. 63; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 12].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271; 4 Admin. L.R.(2d) 121; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 17].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.), Dunlop, Hall and Gray v. Borough of Etobicoke, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202; 40 N.R. 159; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 14, refd to. [para. 20].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and O'Malley v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 9 C.C.E.L. 185; 17 Admin. L.R. 89; 86 C.L.L.C. 17,002, refd to. [para. 20].

Berry v. Farm Meats Canada Ltd. (2000), 274 A.R. 186 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Continental Insurance Co. v. Dalton Cartage Co. et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 164; 40 N.R. 135; 131 D.L.R.(3d) 559, refd to. [para. 24].

Smith v. Smith and Smedman, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 312, refd to. [para. 26].

Nand v. Board of Education of Edmonton Public School District No. 7 (1994), 157 A.R. 123; 77 W.A.C. 123 (C.A.), application for leave to appeal dismissed (1995), 189 N.R. 398; 178 A.R. 78; 110 W.A.C. 78 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 23 Admin. L.R.(3d) 175, refd to. [para. 28].

Leach v. Canadian Blood Services (2001), 284 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37].

Counsel:

Colleen Verville (Parlee McLaws), for the complainant;

Craig D. Boyer (Bryan & Company), for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 26, 2001, before L.J. Smith, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on June 13, 2001.