On July 18, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada denied WestJet's application for leave to appeal the British Columbia Court of Appeal's ("BCCA") decision not to strike a notice of civil claim for a potential sexual harassment class action brought by a WestJet employee.
Background
The issue in this case was whether the Canadian Human Rights
Commission and Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear claims
for sexual harassment, in a non-unionized, federal company.
Ms. Lewis's notice of claim alleges that she was sexually
assaulted by a pilot while on a stopover with WestJet in
Hawaii.
The Plaintiff Ms. Lewis, a flight attendant for WestJet, filed a
notice of action for breach of contract against WestJet for failing
to fulfil an "Anti-Harassment" promise contained in her
and other employee's employment contracts. Ms. Lewis proposes
to bring a class action on behalf of present and former female
flight attendants employed by WestJet who were entitled to this
"Anti-Harassment" promise. The proposed class action has
not yet been certified.
Ms. Lewis claims that this "Anti-Harassment" promise
reflects WestJet's policies to provide a safe and respectful
work environment, to have zero tolerance for harassment or
discrimination, and WestJet's responsibility to ensure that
their workplace is free from discrimination and harassment.
WestJet brought an application to strike Ms. Lewis's notice of
civil claim on the basis that the courts lack jurisdiction to hear
the dispute because the claim is based on a breach of statutory
rights protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada
Labour Code, which are properly within the jurisdiction of the
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
The BCCA's Decision
The BCCA denied WestJet's application to strike stating that
it is not plain and obvious that the action does not disclose a
cause of action within the court's jurisdiction, namely because
an employment contract is a recognized source of legal rights
grounding remedies for a breach in the civil courts, and nothing in
the relevant statutes ousted the jurisdiction of the courts.
The BCCA anchored their decision in the fact that her claims for
damages for breach of contract for failure to prevent sexual
harassment, were rooted in a wrongful dismissal claim, and were not
her only cause of action claimed. Thus distinguishing Ms.
Lewis's case from the decision in Seneca College of Applied
Arts & Technology v Bhadauria, [1981] 2 SCR 181.
Take Home
The SCC's decision to deny leave to appeal, means that Ms. Lewis's claim can now proceed in the civil courts. The next step in her claim is class certification which is crucial in determining how this claim will proceed. Stay tuned, as this will be a case to watch!
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
