June 4, 2026 – Whitehorse YT – Yukon Human Rights Commission
Melissa Antony (“Antony”) filed a complaint with the Yukon Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) against Yukon University (the “University”) on April 20, 2023. Antony alleged she was discriminated against on the basis of sex and family or marital status, when she was terminated from her employment with the University, one day after returning from domestic violence leave.
Antony began her employment at the University in January 2021 eventually working in the First Nations Initiatives department on successive term contracts. During her employment, Antony experienced domestic abuse from her then-husband and eventually separated from him. Between February 6 to 10, 2023, Antony took domestic violence leave from her employment and returned to work on February 13, 2023. On February 14, 2023, she received a phone call from her new supervisor, John Reid (“Reid”), who advised her that the university was changing direction and that she should take the remainder of her leave under her contract, which was set to expire on March 31, 2023. Mr. Reid confirmed the conversation in an email the same day.
During the hearing, the University’s Human Resources Director gave evidence that when she discussed the email with Reid, Reid told her that he was aware that Antony had taken leave because of domestic violence and that he thought Antony would want the time off.
At the hearing, the University agreed with the Commission that the Complainant had protected characteristic of sex, on the basis that she was a victim of domestic violence.
The University also agreed with the Commission that Antony’s status as a victim of domestic violence was a factor in how her contract of employment was brought to an end. However, the University did not agree with the Commission that the University discriminated against Antony when it failed to renew her contract for another term.
The Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication (the “Board”) heard the complaint over four days from April 13 to 17, 2026. The Board, comprised of one member, issued a decision finding discrimination against Antony on the basis of sex. The Board found that:
- Antony had the protected characteristic of sex on the basis of her being a victim of domestic violence. The Board noted that “domestic violence” is not listed as a protected characteristic under the Human Rights Act, but cited evidence from Dr. Jaffe and case law that domestic violence mainly affects women.
- The University discriminated against Antony when it failed to renew her contract. The Board noted that the University offered no justification for the abrupt early termination of Antony’s employment and found that domestic violence was a factor in its failure to renew her contract. The Board noted that Antony’s contract had been renewed on five previous occasions, that she had “excelled” at her work, that there was work that could be done by her, and that there was funding for that work.
The Commission relied on expert evidence from domestic violence expert Dr. Peter Jaffe, the Director Emiritus at the Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women & Children. Dr. Jaffe provided evidence regarding the disproportionate impact of domestic violence on women, the importance of employment to victims of domestic violence, and the different ways in which domestic violence can impact the workplace, including the negative stereotypes faced by victims of domestic violence in the workplace. Dr. Jaffe also provided extensive evidence on workplace best practices for victims of domestic violence.
With respect to remedies, the Commission argued that Antony be awarded $40,000-45,000 in damages for injury to dignity and self-respect and three to six months of lost wages. The Board awarded $35,000 in damages for injury to dignity and self-respect, representing the second-highest award for general damages awarded in the jurisdiction. The Board further awarded $19,738.88 for three months of lost wages for Antony.
In assessing remedies, the Board emphasized the vulnerability of Antony, noting that through no fault of her own, she was abused by her spouse and then found herself discriminated against by the University because of that abuse. The Board noted that the cumulative effect of the abuse and discrimination on Antony was traumatic.
The decision is significant because it marks the first time in which being a victim of domestic abuse has been considered a potential ground for discrimination, through its connection to the protected characteristic of sex, under section 7(f) of the Human Rights Act.
Quick Facts
- Human rights law is designed to be remedial, not punitive. Remedies are designed to restore the complainant to a position as near as possible to the position they would have been in if the discrimination did not occur. They are not intended to punish the respondent. To learn more, visit the Commission’s FAQ on remedies.
- The Yukon Human Rights Panel of Adjudicators (“YHRPA”) — from which a Board of Adjudication is selected to hear complaints — is separate and independent of the Commission. To learn more, visit the Commission’s webpage on the YHRPA.
- The Commission is neutral until a complaint is before a Board of Adjudication, where they become a separate third party to the complaint. The Commission does not represent complainants or respondents at hearings, but rather the purposes of the Act.
- The Commission refers complaints to the YHRPA where there is a reasonable basis in the evidence to do so. To learn more, visit the Commission’s complaint process webpage, under “Commission Members’ Decision”.
- Pursuant to section 16(d) of the Act, Commission makes every effort to settle files during the complaint process before they are referred to a hearing.
- Section 39 of the Act says that if another Yukon law conflicts with the Act, the Act takes priority — meaning it applies instead of the conflicting law — unless the other law expressly says that it takes priority.