Sones v. District of Squamish, 2016 BCHRT 99 (CanLil)

This document provides a summary of the Sones v. District of Squamish case, which involves allegations of discrimination in employment based on sex. The complainant, Rosannes Sones, alleges repeated sexual harassment while employed by the District's fire department. The District denies the allegations and seeks dismissal of the complaint.

Sones v. District of Squamish, 2016 BCHRT 99 (CanLil)
Student Names:
Name of Institution:
Course title and section:
Name of the Course Instructor:
Date:

Table of Contents
Background (by: Student Name)...................................... 1
Complainant’s Arguments (Student Name)...................... 1
Respondent’s Argument (Student Name)..........................1
Evidence (Student Name).................................................. 2
Conclusion......................................................................... 2

Sones v. District of Squamish, 2016 BCHRT 99 (CanLil)
Background
The complainant of the case goes by the name Rosannes Sones and the District of
Squamish (“the District”) is the respondent. The complainant alleged that she was
discriminated in employment on the basis of her sex which is contrary to the law (Human
Rights Code, s. 13). The District on the other hand denies such discrimination and seeks to
apply for the dismissal of the complaint by applying ss. 27(1) (c), (d) (ii), (f) and (g) of the
Code.
Complainant’s Arguments
The complainant says that while she was employed by the District’s fire department,
she became a victim of repeated sexual harassment which included actual or unwelcome
physical contact, sexual innuendo, name calling, personal questions and comments and jokes
concerning other women. She adds that despite her continuous efforts to report the
harassment instances, the District did not seem to condone it.
Ms. Sones further claims to have experienced several forms of retaliation and biased
treatment due to her complaint concerning the harassment which even resulted for her
requesting for an extended medical leave in December 2013. After writing an internal report
in January 2014, whose subject was an investigation, she did not receive any response
regarding the same.
Respondent’s Arguments
The District argues that the complainant was not terminated. Instead, she is the one
who abandoned her employment by refusing to go back to work three times. Further, it is
only on 23rd of September 2014 that she filed a timely complaint.
Ms. Sones allegations were dealt with whereupon an independent investigator mutually
agreed upon deemed them unfounded. The complainant also makes false allegations of
reporting the numerous occasions of sexual harassment which she acknowledges not to have
made before 27th January, prompting the investigation. After making her first allegations in
27th January, after which she went for her leave, her retaliation allegations are false.
On her assertion that there was a flaw in the investigation, a Consultant reviewed it, after
which she did not file any grievance. She was offered the Report on certain conditions, an

offer she declined. It is therefore false for the complainant to claim that the District has not
done anything to address her allegations.
Evidence
Complainant. Ms. Sones submitted a letter whose intentions are to vehemently
respond to some of the allegations which are more serious. The letter dismisses the District’s
claims of factual inaccuracies in the complainant’s evidence about her credibility.
The tribunal member assigned to the case, Catherine McCreary, asserted that she had
the discretion to allow or permit further submissions as per the case of Kruger, 2005.
Respondent. The District on the other hand, produces a lengthy affidavit and
exhibits of the Chief Administrative Officer of the District which emphasise the District’s
response to the complaint. This also includes its comprehensive report regarding the
harassment investigation, the findings and subsequent actions in detail.
Conclusion
The complainant’s extra submissions were not considered in the case. The application
which was made to dismiss under s 27(1) (g) of the Tribunal’s Rules and Regulations were
granted. The complaint was dismissed due to the fact that it makes allegations against events
which took place before August 24, 2014. The granting for the application for dismissal after
the determination that the complainant could not prove that her employment was terminated
as a result of the District’s discrimination based on her sex.

References
Human Rights Code (1996) RSBC c 210 Retrieved from
http://canlii.ca/t/53j4j
Kruger v. Xerox (2005) Canada Ltd (No. 2) BCRT 24 (CanLII)
Lessey v. School District (2011) No. 36 and others BCHRT 243
(CanLII)
Wickham and Wickham v. Mesa Contemporary Fork Art and others
(2004) BCHRT 134 (CanLil)