Yukon ordered to pay highways worker $44,000 over workplace harassment

The Yukon government must pay a former highways worker $44,000 after a human-rights board found that a supervisor subjected her to harassment based on ancestry and sex, and that the employer failed to prevent or adequately address it.

In Christine Grant v Government of Yukon, Department of Highways and Public Works, YHRPA File 2025-03, the Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication awarded $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect and $24,000 for lost wages. The decision was signed August 27, 2026, and the panel's official index records its release on August 28.

The ruling was not a finding that every allegation was proved. The board found insufficient evidence to substantiate a separate allegation of inappropriate staring by another employee. It expressly distinguished that conclusion from a finding that the alleged conduct did not happen.

Repeated remarks after objections

Grant, an experienced Indigenous heavy-equipment operator, had worked with several highways crews in a positive atmosphere before the disputed conduct began at the Teslin maintenance camp. She said a supervisor repeatedly made remarks about Indigenous people and women, and that the conduct changed a job she enjoyed into a workplace she wanted to leave.

The supervisor denied making derogatory remarks or disputed their meaning. He maintained that his nickname for a subdivision was merely a geographical reference and denied being told to stop using it.

The board accepted Grant's evidence that she had explained why the references were offensive and had asked him to stop. It also accepted that he continued making derogatory remarks about beavers after she explained their cultural significance, and that he made a discriminatory comment about an Indigenous elder's driveway.

A remark dismissing women's opinions during a crew meeting was also harassment based on sex. The board found a person would reasonably have known that such a comment was unwelcome even though Grant did not object aloud at the time.

Under the Yukon Human Rights Act, the issue was whether there was a course of unwelcome, vexatious conduct linked to a protected ground in employment. Grant had to prove her case on a balance of probabilities. The protected characteristic needed to be a factor in the adverse impact, not its only cause.

The board found that the proven conduct adversely affected Grant and contributed to her absences from work. But it made no finding on allegations of yelling and menial assignments because the evidence did not sufficiently explain their circumstances, frequency or comparison with other workers' duties.

A policy was not enough

Section 35 of the Act makes employers responsible for employees' discriminatory conduct unless the statutory conditions concerning prevention or correction are met. The government relied on its respectful-workplace policy and steps taken after concerns arose.

The board found the policy ineffective in this case. The supervisor appeared unaware of it, and the evidence did not establish training sufficient to prevent the conduct. Although the complaint prompted broader efforts to change workplace culture, the board found the government had not adequately rectified Grant's situation.

Her transfer was not an employer-initiated remedy: she had sought it to escape the workplace. The supervisor's separate assignment was unrelated to her allegations. He was not told to stay away from camps where she worked; instead, Grant was told she need not interact with him if he attended. A letter of expectation was complimentary rather than disciplinary and did not resolve the allegations.

Compensation, not punishment

The board assessed dignity damages by considering the seriousness of the proven conduct and Grant's experience of it, including its repeated nature, workplace setting and impact on her. It stressed that human-rights compensation is not punishment, while also warning against awards so low that they trivialize the legislation.

The wage award was calculated using six months at $6,000 per month, less $2,000 per month in earnings from other work, producing $24,000. The two monetary awards therefore total $44,000 payable by the government respondent.

The board refused compensation for attending the hearing and rejected the commission's request for costs. It also declined to order a half-day of human-rights training for the former supervisor because he had retired and training would no longer affect his work as a highways foreman.