29:
201:. Tommy Grammas, a cook at the restaurant, began making sexual advances to Janzen. She repeatedly made it clear that the advances were not welcome, nonetheless they continued. When Janzen approached Eleftherois Anastasiadis, the manager of the restaurant, he said, "if it's about Tommy, I can't do anything about it." Eventually, the advances were replaced with uncooperative and threatening behaviour. When Anastasiadis was approached about it he refused to act on it and instead fired the women.
230:
Chief
Justice Dickson, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the restaurant's conduct did constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. Dickson rejected the Court of Appeal's ruling that the harassment was not based on sex because not all female employees were targeted. He stated that
231:
discrimination on the basis of sex is where there is a "practice or attitude which had the effect of limiting the conditions of employment of, or the employment opportunities available to, employees on the basis of a characteristic related to gender."
213:
The
Manitoba Human Rights Tribunal held that the women had been subject to sexual harassment on the basis of sex and so the restaurant owners were in violation of section 6(1) of the Act. The Court of Queen's Bench upheld the decision.
221:
overturned the Court of Queen's Bench. The court found that sexual harassment was not considered discrimination on the basis of sex and that the employer could not be held vicariously liable of the conduct of the employee.
54:
Dianna Janzen and Tracy
Govereau v Platy Enterprises Limited, and Platy Enterprises Limited, carrying on business under the firm name and style of Pharos Restaurant, and Tommy Grammas
206:
240:
185:
decision on discrimination. The Court found that sexual harassment was as a form of discrimination based on sex and so was prohibited by the
317:
292:
297:
302:
160:
307:
204:
The women sued Platy
Enterprises Ltd., the owner of Phraos restaurant, as well as Tommy, under section 6(1) of the
197:
During the fall of 1982, Dianna Janzen and Tracy
Govereau were both employed as waitresses at Pharos restaurant in
312:
261:
166:
274:
125:
257:
218:
105:
253:
182:
34:
8:
121:
198:
210:, for violating their right to equal opportunity by firing them because of their sex.
60:
28:
149:
Le Dain and
Sopinka J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
117:
286:
113:
109:
94:
129:
101:
241:
List of
Supreme Court of Canada cases (Dickson Court)
284:
285:
225:
275:SCC Case Information - Docket 20241
161:Robichaud v Canada (Treasury Board)
81:Janzen and Govereau appeal allowed.
13:
14:
329:
246:
27:
318:Gender discrimination lawsuits
293:Canadian civil rights case law
268:
178:Janzen v Platy Enterprises Ltd
22:Janzen v Platy Enterprises Ltd
1:
298:Supreme Court of Canada cases
192:
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
7:
234:
181:1 S.C.R. 1252 is a leading
167:Brooks v Canada Safeway Ltd
10:
334:
303:Labour relations in Canada
308:1989 in Canadian case law
207:Manitoba Human Rights Act
187:Manitoba Human Rights Act
158:
153:
148:
140:
135:
90:
85:
77:
69:
59:
49:
42:
26:
21:
219:Manitoba Court of Appeal
277:Supreme Court of Canada
254:Supreme Court of Canada
183:Supreme Court of Canada
43:Hearing: June 15, 1988
35:Supreme Court of Canada
126:Claire L'Heureux-Dubé
45:Judgment: May 4, 1989
141:Unanimous reasons by
313:Harassment case law
226:Ruling of the Court
199:Winnipeg, Manitoba
174:
173:
325:
278:
272:
164:, 2 S.C.R. 84,
122:GĂ©rard La Forest
106:William McIntyre
99:Puisne Justices:
86:Court membership
31:
19:
18:
333:
332:
328:
327:
326:
324:
323:
322:
283:
282:
281:
273:
269:
249:
237:
228:
195:
97:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
331:
321:
320:
315:
310:
305:
300:
295:
280:
279:
266:
265:
264:
248:
247:External links
245:
244:
243:
236:
233:
227:
224:
194:
191:
172:
171:
156:
155:
151:
150:
146:
145:
142:
138:
137:
133:
132:
118:Gerald Le Dain
92:Chief Justice:
88:
87:
83:
82:
79:
75:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
330:
319:
316:
314:
311:
309:
306:
304:
301:
299:
296:
294:
291:
290:
288:
276:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
252:Full text of
251:
250:
242:
239:
238:
232:
223:
220:
215:
211:
209:
208:
202:
200:
190:
188:
184:
180:
179:
169:
168:
163:
162:
157:
152:
147:
143:
139:
136:Reasons given
134:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:Bertha Wilson
111:
110:Antonio Lamer
107:
103:
100:
96:
95:Brian Dickson
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
65:1 S.C.R. 1252
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
270:
256:decision at
229:
216:
212:
205:
203:
196:
186:
177:
176:
175:
165:
159:
154:Laws applied
144:Dickson C.J.
130:John Sopinka
98:
91:
53:
33:
170:, 1 S.C.R.
287:Categories
260: and
193:Background
102:Jean Beetz
70:Docket No.
61:Citations
235:See also
262:CanLII
78:Ruling
73:20241
258:LexUM
217:The
189:.
289::
128:,
124:,
120:,
116:,
112:,
108:,
104:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
