** Note: This document contains details about sexual violence that may be upsetting to some readers. Ms. L and Ms. D (“the Complainants”) were both young women who worked at a daycare. During this time, Ms. H (“the Respondent”) was the director and Mr. G was a co-director, as well as a cook, janitor and…
**Note: This summarizes the Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudications’ decision on remedies, damages and costs for the Hanson v Hureau Intersport case. In response to the Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication’s (“the Board”) decision on Hanson v Hureau Intersport, both Mr. H and the Complainant submitted applications regarding remedies, costs and damages. Subsequently,…
** Note: This document contains details about sexual violence that may be upsetting to some readers. The Complainant was a high school basketball player. She was coached by Mr. H. At the same time, Mr. H was the majority owner of a sporting goods and apparel store. At one point, the Complainant emailed Mr. H,…
The Complainants were two mature students at Yukon College. Both began their program in their 50s. Early in the program, the Complainants faced challenges with their assignments. For example, the instructors found that their assignments were similar. As a result, their instructors at the Yukon College (“the Respondents”) set up meetings with them. During this…
The Malcom & Baker and YHRC v Yukon College case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Yukon (“the Court”). The facts relevant to the appeal are as follows. Ms. E was the Chief Adjudicator with the Yukon Board of Adjudication (“the Board”) for this case. She heard the parties’ final arguments in September 2010.…
Following the Supreme Court of Yukon’s decision regarding Molloy v Property Management, Yukon Government, the Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication (“the Board”) decided to revisit the complaint. The Board considered the following issues: Was the Complainant engaged in employment when the alleged discrimination occurred? If so, did the Respondent interfere with the Complainant’s employment,…
Following the Supreme Court of Yukon’s (“the Court”) decision regarding Molloy v Property Management, Yukon Government, the complaint was sent back to the Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication (“the Board”). The Complainant submitted a request to present new evidence based on the Court’s decision. In October 2010, the Board held a pre-hearing conference, in…
The Complainant filed a complaint with the Yukon Human Rights Commission (“the Commission”). The Commission decided that the complaint should be referred for settlement discussions. If unsuccessful, then it should be referred to the Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication (“the Board”). Then, the Commission sent a letter to the Board advising that the Respondent…
During the cross-examination of one of the Respondents, she was provided with a document that was not officially entered into evidence. The Respondent’s lawyer immediately objected and told the Chief Adjudicator of the Board of Adjudication (“the Board”) that the document was a transcript of a tape recording made by one of the Complainants during…
The Complainant raised a conflict of interest issue in the hearing of her complaint. A member of the Board of Adjudication (“the Board”) – Ms. E – had an administrative role with a mental health organization the Complainant had worked with. The Complainant’s lawyers initially stated that this was not an issue of bias. Rather,…