The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that a former chief of the Alexander First Nation subjected an employee to sexual harassment over a span of nine years. Kurt Burnstick, who was acquitted of criminal charges in 2017, was found by the Tribunal to have engaged in discriminatory sexual harassment practices. The Tribunal’s decision, released on July 31, stated that Burnstick’s actions constituted sexual harassment.
The case originated from two complaints filed by the former employee with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2016, ultimately consolidated into a single inquiry in September 2018. One complaint targeted Alexander First Nation, while the other specifically named Burnstick. The complaint against the First Nation was settled in January 2021, with the terms approved by the Commission, while the complaint against Burnstick proceeded to a hearing.
The woman, who had worked for Alexander First Nation from 2000 to 2016, alleged that Burnstick, who served as a band councillor and later as chief, sexually harassed her. The incidents began in 2006, with the woman describing flirtatious and unwanted sexual advances from Burnstick, including unsolicited physical contact, persistent inquiries about her personal life, and offers of financial assistance or extra work to create opportunities for private interactions.
The Tribunal found that the alleged harassment escalated after Burnstick became chief in 2014, with the woman reporting between 50 and 100 incidents of unwanted touching and inappropriate behavior. The culmination of the harassment, as per the woman’s account, occurred in an incident at the band office in October 2015, where Burnstick allegedly made unwanted advances towards her.
Despite Burnstick’s denial of the incident, the Tribunal sided with the woman, citing her credibility as a key factor in the decision. The Tribunal noted that Burnstick’s conduct created a significant power imbalance due to his position of authority within the First Nation, impacting the woman’s work environment and leading to adverse job-related consequences.
While the complaint against Burnstick was found substantiated, the Tribunal did not order him to pay additional compensation to the complainant. This was based on the interpretation that acts committed by an employee in the course of employment are considered acts of the employer, and as Alexander First Nation had already settled with the woman, ordering Burnstick to pay further compensation was deemed beyond statutory authority.
