The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint by a woman against her former employer, the District of Taylor, regarding their response to her allegations of workplace sexual harassment.
The tribunal also ordered her to pay $500 in costs to the District for improper conduct during the complaint process.
Case background
L.P., who served as the Director of Community Services for the District of Taylor from September 2013 to July 2018, filed a human rights complaint against the District and her former co-worker, R.N.. She alleged that he sexually harassed her and that the District failed to respond adequately when she reported the incident. She also claimed that R.N. influenced the District’s decision to terminate her employment.
In an earlier decision, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations of sexual harassment and wrongful termination against R.N., focusing the hearing solely on whether the District’s response to L.P.’s complaint constituted discrimination based on sex, contrary to Section 13 of the Human Rights Code.
The ‘cougar’ comment incident
The key incident involved a comment made by R.N. during a senior management meeting in September 2017, where he referred to L.P. as a “cougar.” The Tribunal previously took judicial notice that the term “cougar” in this context refers to a middle-aged woman who dates significantly younger men.
She reported her concern about the comment to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the District. The District argued that the CAO encouraged her to address the issue directly with R.N., which aligned with the first step of the District’s Harassment Policy. R.N. testified that he subsequently met with L.P. to discuss their working relationship, although the cougar comment was not specifically addressed at that time.
Evidence and credibility
The Tribunal heard testimonies from four witnesses, including L.P. and three representatives from the District: the Directors of Corporate Services and Operations, and the former Mayor. The Tribunal found that the District’s witnesses provided consistent evidence supported by documentation, whereas L.P.’s testimony lacked specificity and reliability due to her poor memory of events.
In December 2017, L.P. sent an email to the District’s Corporate Officer, expressing her discomfort with the cougar comment. That officer testified that she met with L.P. immediately, acknowledged the comment was inappropriate, and suggested that L.P. discuss her concerns with R.N. The officer also offered to assist L.P. in filing a formal complaint, which L.P. declined.
Tribunal’s analysis and decision making
The Tribunal concluded that the District’s response to L.P.’s complaint was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. The decision emphasized that she was aware of the District’s Harassment Policy, having been involved in its development, and chose not to follow the formal complaint process outlined in the policy.
The Tribunal noted, “I do not accept (L.P.’s) s assertion that (the officer) failed to follow the District’s Harassment Policy. (THe officer) acted reasonably and appropriately by presenting options and offering support.”
The Tribunal also addressed L.P.’s meeting with Mayor Robert Fraser in June 2018, where she again raised the cougar comment. Sills found that the Mayor responded appropriately by bringing the issue to the officer, who confirmed that the matter had been addressed.
Costs awarded
Following the hearing, the District applied for costs against L.P., alleging improper conduct during the complaint process. The Tribunal found that L.P. repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal deadlines, introduced irrelevant evidence, and made baseless attacks on the District’s witnesses.
It ordered Prosko to pay $500 to the District, stating that her conduct “had a significant impact on the integrity of the Tribunal’s processes.”
For more information, see Prosko v. District of Taylor (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 207 (CanLII).
