The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that Kurt Burnstick, former chief of Alexander First Nation, sexually harassed an employee over a nine-year period.
The written decision, released July 31, found his actions constituted the discriminatory practice of sexual harassment.
Burnstick was acquitted of related criminal charges in 2017. The woman filed two complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2016—one against the First Nation and one against Burnstick. They were consolidated and referred to the tribunal in 2018.
The victim worked for the First Nation from 2000 to 2016, initially on a contract and later as a permanent employee and assistant.
Allegations began in 2006, when Burnstick (then a band councillor, later chief) engaged in unwanted flirtatious and sexual behaviour. This included non-consensual physical contact such as a kiss and repeated “belly bumping,” personal texts outside work, invitations to out-of-town trips with implications of intimacy or financial incentives, and requiring her to collect paycheques from him in private settings.
She estimated 50 to 100 incidents of unwanted touching between 2006 and 2015.
The behavior intensified after he became chief in 2014.
It culminated on Oct. 28, 2015, when she alleged he hugged her in his office, pulled her toward him, and grabbed her buttocks.
She reported it to her supervisor but asked him not to confront Burnstick out of fear for her job. Burnstick testified it was only a consensual hug; the tribunal accepted her account.
Tribunal member Kathryn Raymond found the woman credible and Burnstick’s explanations unpersuasive and inconsistent.
Text messages and other evidence corroborated parts of her testimony. Raymond noted a significant power imbalance: the woman’s livelihood, ability to support her children, and community residency depended on her working relationship with Burnstick.
Although the complaint was substantiated, Raymond ordered no additional compensation from Burnstick.
Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, an employee’s acts in the course of employment are treated as the employer’s; because the First Nation had already settled with the complainant, the tribunal lacked authority to require further payment from him personally.
Comments