The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that a former chief of the Alexander First Nation sexually harassed an employee over a nine-year span. Kurt Burnstick, who served as chief of the First Nation located approximately 55 kilometres northwest of Edmonton, was previously cleared of criminal charges in 2017 related to his interactions with the complainant.
In a decision made public on July 31, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal determined that Burnstick’s actions constituted the discriminatory practice of sexual harassment. The tribunal’s ruling stemmed from two complaints filed by the former employee with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2016. The complaints, one against Alexander First Nation and the other against Burnstick personally, were later combined into a single inquiry in September 2018.
The complaint against Alexander First Nation was resolved with the commission’s approval of the terms in January 2021. However, the complaint against Burnstick proceeded to a hearing. The woman, who had worked for Alexander First Nation from 2000 to 2016, alleged that Burnstick, a former band councillor and later chief, sexually harassed her during her tenure.
The woman detailed various incidents of alleged harassment, including unsolicited physical contact, inappropriate inquiries about her personal life, and offers of financial assistance or additional work that would lead to private encounters. The tribunal’s decision outlined a pattern of behavior that escalated after Burnstick assumed the role of chief in 2014.
The culmination of the alleged harassment, as described by the woman, occurred during an incident at the First Nation’s office in October 2015. Following this incident, the woman reported the matter to her supervisor out of fear of jeopardizing her employment.
The tribunal, led by member Kathryn Raymond, found the woman’s testimony to be credible and ultimately sided with her account of the events. Raymond highlighted the significant power imbalance between Burnstick, a political leader in the First Nation, and the woman, whose livelihood and security were tied to her working relationship with him.
Despite substantiating the complaint, the tribunal did not order Burnstick to provide additional compensation to the complainant. This decision was based on the legal framework stipulating that acts committed by an employee in the course of employment are considered acts of the employer. As the First Nation had already settled with the woman, the tribunal concluded that it lacked the authority to mandate personal compensation from Burnstick.
The woman had previously reached a settlement with Alexander First Nation, receiving compensation, although the settlement did not imply an admission of liability on the part of the First Nation.
