T-698-95
BETWEEN:
BOBBI STADNYK
Applicant
- and -
CANADA EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION COMMISSION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
[Delivered from the Bench in Regina, Saskatchewan,
Friday, November 15, 1996, as edited.]
ROTHSTEIN J.:
APPLICATIONS TO INTERVENE
The Regina Women's Community Centre, Sexual Assault Line, Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry and Saskatchewan Coalition Against Racism all have applied to intervene in these proceedings. I have considered their submissions and in particular, note their support of the applicant and their concern is sexual harassment in the workplace be taken seriously. Their concerns are valid and this Court agrees that sexual harassment must be taken seriously. However, these potential intervenors do not add anything relevant that could not be advanced by the applicant in this particular judicial review. The Court is in a position to hear and decide the case without these interventions. All applications to intervene are, therefore, dismissed.
THE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION
I commend the applicant who appeared on her own behalf, for her obvious hard work in preparing for these proceedings. The issue here is whether the Review Tribunal erred in deciding that the applicant was not sexually harassed when interviewed by Susan Hogarth on January 25, 1989 for the position of Information Officer with the local Regina Canada Employment and Immigration office. However, in her arguments the applicant is challenging the credibility findings of the original Human Rights Tribunal and the findings of fact by that Tribunal. The reasons of that Tribunal indicate that there was evidence upon which to base its findings of fact and that its credibility findings were not unreasonable. The inferences which it drew from its findings were not disturbed by the Review Tribunal.
It is clear from the decision of the Review Tribunal that the Tribunal applied the correct standard of review, dealt directly with the issue before it, and made extensive reference to the facts in assessing the original Tribunal's decision. In Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252 at page 1284, Dickson C.J.C. provides a broad definition of sexual harassment in the workplace:
| |
Without seeking to provide an exhaustive definition of the term, I am of the view that sexual harassment in the workplace may be broadly defined as 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. It is, as Adjudicator Shime observed in Bell v. Ladas, supra, and as has been widely accepted by other adjudicators and academic commentators, an abuse of power. When sexual harassment occurs in the workplace, it is an abuse of both economic and sexual power. Sexual harassment is a demeaning practice, one that constitutes a profound affront to the dignity of the employees forced to endure it. By requiring an employee 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. |
|
While one might question the necessity of the two hypothetical questions asked by Ms. Hogarth that seemed to be at the root of the applicant's complaint, having regard to the dicta of Dickson C.J.C. in Janzen, (supra), and the facts of this case, I am not persuaded there was any error by the Review Tribunal in finding that these questions and the interview as a whole did not amount to sexual harassment of the applicant.
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
Marshall Rothstein
J U D G E
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
JANUARY 6, 1997
v.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ROTHSTEIN, J.
MS. BOBBI STADNYK FOR APPLICANT
MS. MYRA YUZAK FOR RESPONDENT AND
MR. J. KLAASSEN (STUDENT AT LAW)
Email this Content