Sexual harassment at work is a form of discrimination under human rights laws, and recent significant awards from the Alberta Human Rights Commission should encourage employers to address this behaviour in the workplace.
The Alberta Human Rights Act (the Act) protects Albertans from discrimination in the workplace based on certain grounds, including gender.
Sexual harassment as a form of discrimination
Although the Act does not reference sexual harassment explicitly, the Supreme Court of Canada has said it is a form of discrimination based on gender. In the 1989 Supreme Court of Canada case of Janzen v Platy Enterprises Ltd, the Court defined “sexual harassment in the workplace” 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.”
Sexual harassment can be non-verbal, verbal or physical. Obvious cases of sexual harassment involve unwelcome contact, like touching, patting, rubbing and kissing. Sexual harassment can also be sexual talk, suggestive remarks or jokes about sex, comments about one’s physical appearance (attractiveness), questions or discussions about sexual activities, provocative messages, inappropriate invitations, demands for sexual favours, sexual looks (ogling), and displaying pornographic or sexual images.
In Alberta, an individual who believes they have been sexually harassed in their workplace can make a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission (the Commission). There is no fee to make a complaint but there is a time limit. A complaint must be made within one year of the alleged sexual harassment. The complaint form and instructions on how to complete it are available on the Commission’s website.
The Commission can resolve a successful sexual harassment complaint in significant ways, including ordering the respondent to pay the complainant considerable financial compensation. The 2024 Alberta case of Oliva, Pascoe, and Strong v Gursoy illustrates this.
The case of Oliva, Pascoe and Strong v Gursoy
The three complainants – Alanalia Oliva, Lindsey Pascoe, and Janessa Strong – were former employees of TJ Construction Management Ltd., a construction company. The respondent, John Gursoy, was the company’s director and CEO. He was also the complainants’ boss when they worked for the company.
Oliva worked for the company for just over a year before she quit because of Gursoy’s conduct. She started in an administrative role, reporting to Gursoy and helping him with the day-to-day operation of the company. During her employment, Oliva’s title changed to General Manager and then to General Manager and VP. Oliva continued to work closely with Gursoy after her promotions.
Pascoe worked for the company for just over a month. She was a receptionist and administrative assistant. Pascoe quit work because of Gursoy’s conduct the same day Oliva did. She followed Oliva out of the office.
Strong started working for the company as a receptionist and administrative assistant but was promoted to the role of Gursoy’s executive assistant after a short time. She worked for the company for just over eight months before starting a maternity leave. Strong did not return to work after her leave because of Gursoy’s conduct.
Each complainant made a human rights complaint against Gursoy alleging he sexually harassed them during their employment. All three complaints succeeded. The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (Tribunal) concluded that:
- Gursoy subjected each complainant to inappropriate sexual comments, sexual advances, and sexual touching, and
- Gursoy’s sexual harassment was a factor in each complainant’s decision to leave their employment with the company.
In other words, the Tribunal concluded that the sexual harassment the complainants endured had negative workplace consequences and met the legal test for discrimination.
Gursoy used sexually explicit nicknames, like “baby girl” and “sugar baby”, to refer to Oliva. He also commented on her body and physical appearance and suggested that she wear sexy clothing. Gursoy inappropriately touched Oliva, including slapping her backside, and he made sexual advances to her. And Gursoy directed Oliva to correspond with women online to arrange sex on his behalf.
Pascoe and Strong experienced many of the same behaviors as Oliva. Gursoy also demoted Strong after he found out she was pregnant.
When considering the appropriate resolution (or remedy) for the discrimination, the Tribunal noted that:
- general damages can be awarded to compensate a complainant for injuries to their dignity, feelings, and self-respect caused by discriminatory conduct, and
- damages can also be awarded for quantifiable financial losses, like lost wages, resulting from discrimination.
After considering the seriousness, frequency and duration of Gursoy’s discriminatory conduct and the effect it had on each complainant, the Tribunal held that:
- Oliva was entitled to $75,000 in general damages, plus damages for lost wages of $26,800.
- Pascoe was entitled to $30,000 in general damages, plus damages for lost wages of $11,200.
- Strong was entitled to $50,000 in general damages. Strong did not seek any damages for lost wages.
Oliva’s general damages award was highest because she successfully claimed that Gursoy had discriminated against her based on a physical disability as well.
A trend in compensation
Other Alberta human rights complainants have received significant damages awards for sexual harassment in the workplace too.
The complainant in the 2022 case of McCharles v Jaco Line Contractors Ltd was awarded $50,000 in general damages, plus damages for lost wages of $13,150, for the workplace sexual harassment she endured. Her supervisor referred to her using an offensive sexual term and gossiped about wanting to sleep with her. He also touched her breast and hip while she was sleeping during a work trip and then terminated her employment.
A $50,000 general damages award (plus damages for lost wages and special damages) was also made in the 2025 case of Complainant v 1957753 Alberta Ltd. o/a 4 Seasons Transport. The complainant experienced serious and repeated workplace sexual harassment and discrimination based on a physical disability – including coerced oral sex, sexual comments, gender-based insults, and grabbing – that eventually led her to resign.
Key takeaways for employees and employers
There are several key takeaways from these recent Tribunal decisions.
For employees, it is important to know your rights under the Act, including how to make a complaint to the Commission if you believe you have been sexually harassed in the workplace. For more information, see the resources on the Commission’s website or call the Commission’s confidential inquiry line at 780-427-7661.
For employers, the significant damages awards that the Tribunal has awarded sexual harassment complainants should motivate you to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. You should know your responsibilities under the Actand take steps to ensure you provide employees with safe and healthy workplaces, free from sexual harassment.
Employers should develop effective policies against sexual harassment and make employees aware of the policy. Implementing and enforcing the policy though is key. Employers should create a workplace culture where employees feel safe coming forward with sexual harassment allegations. And, when sexual harassment allegations are made, employers must take them seriously and investigate them promptly, thoroughly, fairly, and sensitively. For recommendations on how to develop a sexual harassment policy, see the resources available on the Commission’s website.
Looking for more information?
Looking for articles like this one to be delivered right to your inbox? SUBSCRIBE NOW!
DISCLAIMER The information in this article was correct at time of publishing. The law may have changed since then. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawNow or the Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta.
About Jennifer Taylor
