Emily Garland v Scott Tackaberry operating as Grape and Grain

Recommendations

Info

Garland v. Tackaberry Instead, I was offered anecdotes, which I do not accept as a sufficient foundation to supplement the award of damages for injury to dignity, feelings, or self‐respect. Exemplary damages [31] No party alleged malice or recklessness to be involved in the contravention, so, pursuant to s. 43(2)(d) of the Code, I make no award for exemplary damages. Public interest remedies [32] Pursuant to s. 43(2)(a) and (e), the Commission requested that I order the respondent to attend and satisfactorily complete a workshop on harassment in the workplace within one year of the date of this decision. [33] The Commission also sought an order that the respondent provide to every new and future employee the business’ policy on harassment in the workplace. In addition, those employees should receive training to ensure that they understand the meaning and implementation of that policy. [34] Finally, to the extent that the respondent’s harassment policy designates a person independent of the business as the contact person for reporting instances of harassment, the Commission requested that I direct the respondent to provide all then‐current employees with contact information for that designated person. [35] In the circumstances of this complaint, all of these requested remedies are just and appropriate, and I make all of these requested orders. Decision and order [36] For the reasons set out above, the complaint is allowed, and I order as follows: 1. The respondent shall pay the complainant within 45 days of the date of this decision the sum of $7,750.00 as damages for injury to dignity, feelings, or self‐respect; 2. The respondent shall attend and satisfactorily complete a workshop on harassment in the workplace within one year of the date of this decision; 3. The respondent shall provide to every new and future employee the business’ policy on harassment in the workplace. In addition, the 10
Garland v. Tackaberry respondent shall ensure that all employees, present and future, receive training so that they understand the meaning and implementation of the policy; 4. Whenever the respondent’s harassment policy designates a person independent of the business as the contact person to whom employees are to report harassment, the respondent shall provide to all then‐current employees contact information for that designated person; and, 5. Respecting Commission Exhibit I, which is the sheet of paper on which the complainant signed and printed her current name immediately before giving evidence in these proceedings, the exhibit shall be sealed and not unsealed without a further order from me. [37] I retain jurisdiction for the purpose of resolving any issues that may arise out of the implementation or interpretation of this order. [38] Finally, I draw to the parties’ attention s. 50(2) of the Code, which proposes a 30‐ day limitation for the bringing of any application for judicial review of this decision. 23 April 2013 [Original signed by] Robert Dawson 11
Page 1 and 2: MANITOBA HUMAN RIGHTS BOARD OF ADJU
Page 3 and 4: Garland v. Tackaberry from the mere
Page 5 and 6: Garland v. Tackaberry Berg made a l
Page 7 and 8: Garland v. Tackaberry with Mr Berg
Page 9: Garland v. Tackaberry Employment St

Emily Garland v Scott Tackaberry operating as Grape and Grain

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?