The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has determined that a former chief of Alexander First Nation engaged in sexual harassment towards an employee over a nine-year duration. Kurt Burnstick, the ex-chief of the First Nation situated approximately 55 kilometers northwest of Edmonton, had been previously acquitted in 2017 of criminal charges related to his interactions with the complainant.
In a ruling issued on July 31, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal concluded that Burnstick’s actions constituted the discriminatory practice of sexual harassment. The tribunal’s decision stemmed from two separate complaints filed by the former employee with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2016. These complaints were later consolidated and referred to the tribunal as a single inquiry in September 2018.
One of the complaints was directed at Alexander First Nation, while the other specifically named Burnstick as the individual respondent. The complaint against the First Nation was resolved with the commission’s approval of the terms in January 2021. However, the complaint against Burnstick proceeded to a formal hearing.
According to the tribunal’s findings, the woman alleged that Burnstick, who served as a band councillor and later as chief during the relevant period, subjected her to sexual harassment. The incidents began in 2006 when the woman was employed by Alexander First Nation, initially as a contract worker conducting research on land claims before transitioning to a permanent role as an assistant to the Treaty Land Entitlement administrator.
The alleged behaviors included unwelcome physical contact, such as an unsolicited kiss at a Calgary pub and instances where Burnstick would bump into her with his stomach. The woman also reported repeated inquiries about her personal life outside of work, including texts during off-hours, as well as disturbing conduct where Burnstick disregarded his recent marriage as an obstacle to spending time with her.
Furthermore, the former employee claimed that Burnstick offered financial assistance or extra work in situations that could lead to private interactions. She mentioned instances where Burnstick suggested out-of-town meetings with implications of relaxation and fun, sometimes linking financial advances to her compliance.
The decision highlighted that the alleged harassment escalated after Burnstick assumed the position of chief in 2014. The woman estimated between 50 and 100 incidents of unwanted physical contact and belly bumping between 2006 and 2015. The culmination of the harassment, as per the woman’s account, occurred during an incident at the First Nation’s office on October 28, 2015.
During this incident, the woman alleged that Burnstick hugged her, pulled her towards him, and grabbed her buttocks after asking her to his office under false pretenses. Despite Burnstick’s assertion of a consensual hug, the tribunal sided with the woman’s version of events, citing her credibility as a pivotal factor.
Tribunal member Kathryn Raymond emphasized the importance of the woman’s testimony in reaching the decision. Raymond noted Burnstick’s dismissive attitude towards the seriousness of the allegations during the hearing, underlining instances where he abruptly left without permission. The decision also highlighted inconsistencies in Burnstick’s explanations for his behavior and the corroborative evidence from other witnesses and text messages.
Raymond concluded that Burnstick’s conduct was unwelcome, persistent, and had a detrimental impact on the former employee’s work environment and job-related consequences. The decision recognized the significant power imbalance between Burnstick, a political leader in the First Nation, and the woman, whose livelihood and community ties depended on their professional relationship.
Despite finding the complaint substantiated, Raymond did not mandate Burnstick to provide additional compensation to the complainant. This decision was based on the principle that acts committed by an employee in the course of employment are considered acts of the employer, as per the Canadian Human Rights Act. Since Alexander First Nation had already settled with the woman, Raymond concluded that the tribunal lacked the authority to order Burnstick personally to compensate further.
The woman had received compensation through her settlement with Alexander First Nation, although Raymond clarified that the settlement did not imply an admission of liability or wrongdoing.
