Both sides of a Yukon sexual harassment case are asking for compensation.

Earlier this year, the Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication found that Whitehorse businessman Mark Hureau did harass a young employee.

Devon Hanson filed the complaint in 2010 claiming Hureau, her boss and basketball coach at the time, was sending her unwanted texts. He was 43 and she was 18.

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

In its decision, the board said it "believes the formal finding of discrimination is the necessary and sufficient act to serve not only as a punitive consequence to Mr. Hureau, but also as a censure and cautionary example to other Yukon community organizations and businesses.”

However, it also allowed for time to apply for compensation.

In this case, Hanson is asking for $30,000 in total damages.

In an application filed in October, Hanson's lawyer, Richard Buchan, argues that the statement by the board in its decision "is of grave concern that this statement appears to reflect an apparent prejudgment on the part of the board before it received full evidence and submissions relative to the question of damages.”

Buchan says his client is entitled to compensation because Hanson was a vulnerable adolescent and Hureau was in a position of power and authority over her on multiple fronts, both as her employer and her basketball coach.

He was in a position of trust, and the "harassing conduct is very likely to have lasting detrimental effects upon Ms. Hanson for years into the future,” he says in documents submitted to the board.

Along with Hanson's application, Hureau has also taken the unusual step of applying for compensation of his own.

Hureau wants Hanson and the Human Rights Commission to compensate him for damage to his reputation and his legal costs.

Under the Yukon Human Rights act, the board can order the commission to pay damages to someone's reputation "if it concludes that the complaint was frivolous or vexatious or that the proceedings were frivolously or vexatiously prolonged,” lawyer Jim Tucker argues in documents.

Hureau says Hanson filed her complaint based on lies. He also claims the commission advised him early on to settle the case and says he felt the director was not an objective mediator.

The commission denies it should cover any of Hureau's costs.

"The allegations made by the respondents about the commission are simply an attempt to distract the board from the real issue it is considering in this application for costs,” commission lawyer Colleen Harrington says in her written arguments.

"The respondents are attempting to re-try certain issues already decided by the board by introducing evidence not presented at hearing, under the guise of an application for costs.”

Hanson's lawyer also objects strongly to Hureau's application for compensation.

The only way Hanson could be responsible for paying Hureau is if the board found the complaint was based on information she knew to be false, he argues.

"Since the board found in the complainant's favour following the hearing, thus validating the complaint, it is both perverse and illogical that the respondents are now seeking to effectively refute the board's decision on the grounds that are at odds with the outcome of the hearing and the findings that are implicit in the decision.”

Human rights official have said they hope to have a decision in about two weeks.

Meanwhile, Hureau has also applied to the Yukon Supreme Court to have a judge review the case.