James Hendry

The appellant, a cleaner at a military base, was sexually harassed by her supervisor.

She filed a complaint against the supervisor and her employer under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Act contemplates the imposition of liability on employers for all acts of their employees in the course of employment.

The Court reasoned that the Act is remedial, not punitive, and its objectives would be stultified if remedies were not available against the employer, who alone can provide a healthy work environment.

The appellant, a Sikh employee, was dismissed for refusing to wear a hard hat as required by a company safety rule, because his religion forbade wearing anything other than a turban.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found the employer engaged in a discriminatory practice and ordered reinstatement.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside that decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the hard hat rule was a bona fide occupational requirement under s. 14(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Court found that where a bona fide occupational requirement is established, there is no duty to accommodate the individual employee.

The appellant filed complaints of discrimination with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

An investigator recommended the complaints be rejected, but the appellant was not provided with the investigator's report or the substance of the case against her before the Commission dismissed her complaints.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that procedural fairness requires the Commission to disclose the substance of the case to the complainant and afford them an opportunity to make informed submissions before a decision is made.