Nova Scotia
The awards in Nova Scotia are low. The cases are few and show damage awards in the range of $3,000.
Prince Edward Island
An award of $50,000 1 was made by the PEI Human Rights Commission in a complaint which was based on gender discrimination and sexual harassment. The complainant had lost her livelihood as her licence to practice her profession was withheld. The events of adverse treatment took place over an extended time period and her reputation was also damaged by the conduct in question. 2This is certainly an award at the high end of the scale. 3
New Brunswick
Care should be taken in examining the date line of decided cases in New Brunswick.
The law in New Brunswick at one time distinguished between an award of general damages and an award of damages for mental anguish. The latter required a finding of conduct which was reckless or wilful. The tribunal had used as support for this distinction the older Ontario cases which were based on the particular wording of the Ontario statute prior to the amendments in June of 2008.
The award of general damages was described as being undecided as to whether this award also requires a finding of reckless or wilful conduct.
A good example of this reasoning is found in the 2006 decision of Hooper v Dante’s Dance Club in which the applicant demonstrated that she was the victim of sexually offensive language and conduct, which was found not be to be reckless or wilful. An award of general damages was allowed at $5,000 as this case was one which “cried out for remedial action”, as the tribunal referenced the debate as to whether such an award required the reckless finding conclusion.
This very reasoning was considered and rejected in the August 2007 case of S.W.E. v B.K. in which an award of $15,000 was made to the complainant on grounds of sexual harassment. The male applicant woke in the middle of the night to find the respondent performing fellatio upon him. There was no need for the finding of reckless or wilful conduct and indeed no distinction made between general damages and mental anguish as had been the apparent law previously.
An obiter award of $17,500 of general damages was made in a case 4in which the tribunal noted factors such as the age of the applicant, that the position was the employee’s dream job, the financial and emotional vulnerability and a thirteen year work history. The claim was dismissed on the merits. 5
Similar hypothetical awards were made in A.B. v Brunswick News. The claim was dismissed due to a limitation issue. Presuming proof of liability, based on a mental disability, damage sums were set for various alleged offences of adverse treatment from $2,500 to $15,000.
The sum of $2,000 was awarded in a decision based on marital status, where the applicant provided no evidence of the loss of self-respect. The Board noted the importance of employment in society. 6
The sum of $3,000 was awarded in a case based on adverse treatment due to age in the administration of a pension plan.7
$2,000 was award to the complainant proving sexual harassment which was based on offensive words and one incident of inappropriate touching. The decision was influenced by the fact that the employer took immediate remedial action once it was aware of the issue. 8
Newfoundland & Labrador
In 2018, the tribunal in this jurisdiction made an award of $30,000 for injured feelings to a pastor adversely treated due to his sexual orientation. 9 A further sum, parenthetically, was also ordered for a prospective lost income claim of $2,430 and a claim for lost pension benefits of $1,750. A 10% contingent risk discount was applied. He also allowed a claim for the loss of an unpaid leave of $15,000. A further sum was awarded for mitigation expenses which included legal fees, meals, witness fees, cannabis prescriptions, use of vacation to attend hearings and contributions to pension and long term disability benefits in the sum of $6,300. A further sum of $15,000 was allowed for future psychological counseling.
See the summary of awards here.