In Ms. L v. Clear Pacific Holdings Ltd. and others, 2024 BCHRT 14, the complainant, Ms. L, received British Columbia’s second highest award for injury to dignity as a result of the conduct of her employer, Sydney Hayden.
What Happened in Brief
Ms. L began her employment as Hayden’s executive and personal assistant in January of 2018. Early in her employment, Ms. L disclosed to Hayden that she had a substance abuse disorder wherein she was dependent on cocaine and Hayden encouraged Ms. L to use his personal supply of cocaine. She also disclosed to him her financial troubles.
In the capacity of a personal assistant, Ms. L primarily worked in Hayden’s house and on his yacht. He did not provide her with a consistent paycheque, rather, her paid her with whatever cash he had on hand. The amount he paid her was well below what her contract stipulated.
During Ms. L’s employment of one and a half years, she was subject to repeated sexual harassment and sexual assault. Hayden pressured Ms. L deeper into alcohol and drug abuse and withheld her wages to the point she was unable to feed herself. Because of the physical, mental and emotional abuse she endured, she was hospitalized multiple times.
Ms. L’s situation culminated with Hayden stranding her in Mexico with no money, leaving her to rely on strangers’ donations to afford to get home.
What did the Tribunal Say?
In light of the circumstances, the Tribunal found that Hayden, in the capacity of the employer, had discriminated against Ms. L on the basis of sex and disability in violation of section 13 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code.
Sexual harassment and sexual assault are forms of discrimination on the basis of sex, rooted in an abuse of power (Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252). His other abuses were connected to Ms. L’s sex and disability in the form of a substance abuse disorder. Hayden leveraged gendered and economic control over Ms. L and exploited her dependency on cocaine to maintain control in their relationship and make sure she remained dependent on him.
Ms. L was awarded $61,541.90 for wages lost, and $8,699.84 for expenses she incurred as a result of Hayden’s conduct.
Damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect are given to compensate a person, rather than punish a respondent for their injury. A Court or Tribunal will consider the nature of the discrimination, the complainant’s social context and/or vulnerability, and the effect on the complainant.
The nature of the discrimination was extremely serious and went on over a 21-month period. She endured sexual and physical assault, sexual harassment, and social and economic abuse. Courts and tribunals recognize sexual assault as an extreme of sexual harassment and discrimination, and physical assault is in the same category (Ban v. MacMillan, 2021 BCHRT 74).
Ms. L was also extremely vulnerable in several ways. In addition to her substance abuse disorder, the Tribunal recognizes other vulnerabilities: her financial struggles, her history of sexual violence, that Hayden was 17 years older than her and positioned himself as her caretaker and mentor, that employees are inherently vulnerable to their employer, and that most of Ms. L’s work was performed in the isolation of Hayden’s house or boat.
The impact Hayden’s conduct had on Ms. L was immense. She was diagnosed with PTSD, had episodes of panic around three times a day, she returned to her cocaine habit where she overdosed and nearly died, and required constantly physical and psychological counselling. She could no longer work or engage in any daily activities and had to live full time with her parents. It took her four years of intense work to be able to leave her parents’ house to check the mail.
Accordingly, Ms. L received the second highest award for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect in British Columbia at $100,000. This is one of the highest injury to dignity awards in Canada to date.
Disclaimer: The materials above are for general information purposes only. This is not legal advice. This is not specific to any one company. This does not suggest any improper conduct on the part of a specific employer.
Authors: Jonquille Pak and Ava Clarke
Date: August 08, 2024
