Harris on Canadian Employment Law
Contents
The principles governing compensatory damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect in Alberta are similar to those applied in Ontario human rights jurisprudence, as reviewed above.
Historically, Alberta awards were modest.
An award of $5,000 was made in Noel v. 375850 Alberta Ltd. to a complainant who was living at a job site in northwestern Alberta. After exiting the shower, she discovered a male camp maintenance worker watching her. A few days later, she awoke to find the same man standing beside her bed.
A similar award of $4,500 was made in Hamm v. WWDI Wireless. The complainant had been subjected to conduct which included shoulder rubbing, being blown a kiss and retaliatory behaviour consisting of a dismissal letter containing false allegations.
For many years, awards in the range of $10,000 represented the upper end of Alberta human rights compensation.
That began to change with the decision subsequently upheld in Walsh v. Mobil Oil Canada, 2013 ABCA 238. There were two general damages awards of $10,000 and $25,000.
Although Walsh was not a sexual harassment case, the Court of Appeal made an important observation concerning the historical level of Alberta awards. It noted that general damages awards had “been low, arguably nominal”.
The decision signalled that the traditional range of Alberta human rights awards should not be regarded as a fixed ceiling.
The sum of $125,000 was subsequently awarded in the City of Calgary case.
That decision was unusual because the arbitrator had been empowered by agreement of the parties to consider the full range of available remedies, including arbitral, human rights and tort remedies.
It is therefore not a conventional Human Rights Tribunal damages award. It does, however, illustrate the substantial compensation which may result from serious workplace misconduct and also demonstrates the difference between remedies available under human rights legislation and those available through common law causes of action.
A significant further development occurred in Oliva, Pascoe, and Strong v. Gursoy, 2024 AHRC 45.
The first complainant was awarded $75,000 for injury to dignity.
The proven conduct included unwanted touching, verbal abuse and demands for medical information.
A second complainant was awarded $30,000 following similar conduct during approximately one month of employment.
A third complainant, who was pregnant at the time, was awarded $50,000. The conduct included similar harassment together with propositions for sexual intercourse.
The Tribunal also made separate awards for retaliation.
The first complainant received two awards of $25,000 for separate acts of reprisal. The second complainant similarly received $25,000 for reprisal.
The corporate employer was bankrupt by the time of the hearing. The awards were made against the principal of the company, who represented himself.
These awards demonstrated a significant departure from the relatively modest amounts historically awarded in Alberta.
A further important development followed in Complainant v. Menhem Painting Ltd. et al., 2026 AHRC 92.
The complainant had been employed as a painter for only a short period.
The owner of the company, who was also her supervisor, asked her to attend a work site alone. He then proposed that she engage in a sexual relationship with him in return for an immediate increase in her hourly wage.
The complainant did not accept the proposition.
The conduct continued.
The owner subsequently offered to pay her rent in exchange for sex and later offered to pay her daughter’s daycare expenses as part of the proposed arrangement.
On a further occasion, he asked the complainant to attend a work site alone, gestured toward unzipping his pants and suggested that they should “try it out”.
When the complainant again refused, she was told that the only work available that day was sex and that she should go home.
She received no further work and was shortly thereafter dismissed by text message.
The Tribunal found that the conduct constituted sexual harassment and that the complainant’s rejection of the sexual advances was directly connected to the termination of her employment.
The conduct was objectively serious. The Tribunal also accepted evidence of a significant subjective impact upon the complainant, including anxiety and depression.
An award of $50,000 was made for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
The complainant was also awarded $24,121.77 for six months of lost income, after allowing for mitigation earnings.
The corporate respondent and its owner were held jointly and severally liable.
One particularly significant feature of Menhem Painting is that the $50,000 general damages award did not depend upon physical sexual contact.
There was no finding of unwanted touching comparable to the conduct in Oliva.
The seriousness arose instead from the circumstances in which the harassment occurred.
The person engaging in the conduct was both the owner and supervisor.
He attempted to make increased wages, rent assistance and daycare expenses conditional upon a sexual relationship.
The propositions were repeated after the complainant had rejected them.
Her ability to earn a living was directly placed in issue.
When she ultimately refused the sexual demand, she was denied work and then dismissed.
The case therefore demonstrates that the seriousness of sexual harassment cannot be measured simply by asking whether physical contact occurred.
The abuse of economic and supervisory power may itself substantially increase the seriousness of the misconduct.
Menhem Painting is also a particularly clear example of quid pro quo sexual harassment.
The proposed employment benefit was explicit.
Sex was sought in exchange for increased compensation.
The subsequent offers to pay rent and daycare costs increased the economic pressure being exerted upon the complainant.
The ultimate adverse consequence was equally direct. Once she rejected the sexual propositions, she lost her work and was dismissed.
This distinguishes the case from conduct consisting principally of inappropriate comments, jokes or isolated gestures.
The harassment was directly connected to the complainant’s economic security and continuation of employment.
That feature was an important aspect of the seriousness of the violation.
The progression of Alberta decisions is significant.
Early awards such as $4,500 in Hamm and $5,000 in Noel reflected a period in which compensation for injury to dignity was generally modest.
Walsh expressly recognized that Alberta awards had historically been low.
The more recent decisions demonstrate a materially different approach.
Oliva produced awards of $30,000, $50,000 and $75,000 for sexual harassment, together with substantial independent reprisal awards.
Menhem Painting has now produced a $50,000 award even though the harassment did not involve physical touching.
It would therefore be unsafe to regard the older Alberta awards as meaningful indicators of the present range.
There is no statutory ceiling on general damages under the Alberta Human Rights Act. Recent decisions demonstrate an increasing willingness to make substantial awards where the objective seriousness of the discriminatory conduct and its subjective effect upon the complainant justify doing so.
The developing jurisprudence suggests that relevant considerations may include:
the seriousness and nature of the conduct;
whether the harassment was repeated;
whether there was unwanted physical contact;
the relative positions of power of the parties;
whether a supervisor or owner abused authority over the complainant;
whether employment benefits were made conditional upon sexual conduct;
whether refusal resulted in retaliation or termination;
the duration of the harassment;
the vulnerability of the complainant; and
the actual emotional and psychological impact of the conduct.
No single factor is determinative.
Menhem Painting demonstrates particularly well that conduct may justify a substantial award even in the absence of physical touching where there is a serious abuse of workplace and economic power.
Alberta human rights compensation for sexual harassment has evolved significantly.
The historical awards of $5,000 or $10,000 no longer represent the likely upper range of compensation.
Recent decisions demonstrate awards of $30,000, $50,000 and $75,000 for injury to dignity arising from sexual harassment, with separate compensation potentially available for lost income and retaliation.
Menhem Painting is particularly instructive.
The complainant had worked for the employer for only a short period and there was no physical sexual contact. Nonetheless, the repeated demand that sexual access be exchanged for economic benefits, followed by the loss of work and termination when the advances were rejected, justified an award of $50,000 for injury to dignity.
The case confirms that the value placed upon sexual harassment claims in Alberta is no longer determined by the modest historical awards.
The focus is upon the seriousness of the conduct, the abuse of workplace power and the actual impact upon the complainant.
👤 About the Author • 📚 Index of Contents • ⬆️ Back to Top
🎥 Watch More: Canadian Employment Law on YouTube
