Whitehorse Daily Star

Object of harassment complaint denied compensation

A Whitehorse businessman found to have sexually harassed his employee has been denied compensation from the Yukon Human Rights Commission for himself and ordered to pay the young woman.

By Ashley Joannou on January 23, 2013

A Whitehorse businessman found to have sexually harassed his employee has been denied compensation from the Yukon Human Rights Commission for himself and ordered to pay the young woman.

Last year, the Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication found Mark Hureau had sexually harassed basketball player Devon Hanson.

Hanson filed the complaint in 2010, claiming Hureau, her boss and coach, had sent her unwanted texts.

He was 43 years old and she was 18.

The board called the level of harassment the "most mild end of the spectrum” of sexual harassment.

In November 2012, Hanson applied for $30,000 in total damages while Hureau took the unusual step of applying for compensation for himself as well.

The owner of Intersport wanted Hanson and the human rights commission to compensate him for damage to his reputation and his legal costs.

In a decision signed Monday, the board of adjudication found that no one on the board acted inappropriately during the case, so Hureau is not entitled to compensation.

It also ruled that Hanson was not entitled to the damages she wanted.

Instead, it ordered Hureau to pay her the equivalent of three months' salary for the income she lost.

Hureau will also have to pay her legal costs.

Hanson had originally sought the $30,000 damages for injury to her self-esteem, dignity and feelings. She had also cited her poor outcomes in the most recent university year because of those things.

"Although sexual harassment of any kind is serious, in this case, the mild nature of the harassment, combined with the very limited timeframe during which the harassing behaviour occurred, constitutes the ‘special circumstances' that lead the board to order no award for injury to the complainant's dignity, feelings or self-respect,” the decision says.

The board says it "recognizes that not awarding damages for injury to the complainant's self-esteem, feelings and dignity may be a disincentive to people having the courage to make a human rights complaint,” but says in the case, the decision is warranted.

As for Hureau's argument that he should be compensated, the board found that there was nothing in the case that made it "frivolous or vexatious” or that the proceedings have been "frivolously or vexatiously prolonged.”

Hureau's lawyer also argued that the complainant was based on "information the complaint knew to be false.”

In the decision, the board acknowledge that some of the evidence presented was inconclusive or contradictory, but said it gave little weight to that particular information when coming to a final decision.

The board has ordered Hureau to implement a sexual harassment policy for Intersport within two months.

"Workplace policies and education are the best ways to to reduce the risks and major social costs of harassment on the job,” Fia Jampolsky, the chair of the human rights commission, said in a statement.

"The commission believes it is better for everyone if employers prevent harassment from occurring rather than just stopping it once it happens.”

Comments (1)

Up 1 Down 2

stan rogers on Jan 23, 2013 at 8:40 am

"Although sexual harassment of any kind is serious, in this case, the mild nature of the harassment, combined with the very limited timeframe during which the harassing behaviour occurred, constitutes the ‘special circumstances' that lead the board to order no award for injury to the complainant's dignity, feelings or self-respect,” the decision says.

The board says it "recognizes that not awarding damages for injury to the complainant's self-esteem, feelings and dignity may be a disincentive to people having the courage to make a human rights complaint,” but says in the case, the decision is warranted.

As for Hureau's argument that he should be compensated, the board found that there was nothing in the case that made it "frivolous or vexatious” or that the proceedings have been "frivolously or vexatiously prolonged.”

I really question this board's decision and objectiveness. The board should have seriously considered dropping the case entirely and awarding nothing.

It looks like the board felt compelled to make a ruling based on the perception of a power imbalance. Hureau is likely the victim in this situation. And the board suggested something to the effect that it would be less expensive to accept responsibility and pay a little rather than formally challenge the complaint and pay a lot in legal fees etc- is that correct? It's like a judge saying pay the fine because if you fight for your personal reputation, self-esteem and business reputation- it is going to cost way more. Personally I hope this firm keeps fighting and seeks compensation.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.