The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that a former chief of the Alexander First Nation subjected an employee to sexual harassment over a span of nine years. Kurt Burnstick, the ex-chief of the First Nation located approximately 55 kilometers northwest of Edmonton, had previously been acquitted in 2017 of criminal charges related to his interactions with the complainant.
In a decision announced on July 31, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal determined that Burnstick had committed actions that amounted to the discriminatory practice of sexual harassment. The former employee lodged two separate complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2016, which were later merged and referred to the tribunal as a single inquiry in September 2018.
One complaint was directed against the Alexander First Nation, while the other specifically named Burnstick as the individual respondent. The complaint against the First Nation was resolved with the terms sanctioned by the commission in January 2021, while the complaint against Burnstick proceeded to a hearing.
According to the decision, the woman alleged that Burnstick, who served as a band councillor and later as chief during the period under scrutiny, sexually harassed her. The woman had been employed by Alexander First Nation from 2000 to 2016, initially working as a contract employee conducting research on land claims before transitioning to a permanent position as an assistant to the Treaty Land Entitlement administrator.
The woman’s allegations dated back to 2006, claiming that Burnstick engaged in flirtatious and sexual behavior that she perceived as an attempt to initiate a sexual relationship with her. The alleged behavior included unwelcome physical contact, such as a non-consensual kiss at a Calgary pub and repeated instances of Burnstick intentionally bumping her with his belly.
Further allegations included persistent inquiries about her personal availability outside of work, including text messages during off-hours, along with unsettling conduct such as downplaying his recent marriage as a hindrance to spending time with her. The former employee also claimed that Burnstick offered financial aid or additional work in circumstances that could lead to isolated encounters.
She stated that he frequently invited her to out-of-town meetings, suggesting they could socialize and relax together. On certain occasions, Burnstick implied that she would not need to repay money he had given her in advance if she agreed to travel with him. The decision noted that the woman also alleged she was required to collect paychecks directly from Burnstick on multiple occasions, often in private settings.
The harassment allegedly intensified after Burnstick assumed the role of chief in 2014. The woman estimated between 50 and 100 incidents of unwanted physical contact and bumping occurred between 2006 and 2015. The alleged harassment culminated in an incident at the First Nation’s office on October 28, 2015.
During this incident, the woman brought food to the office for a meeting, which was later changed to a management meeting. She claimed that Burnstick assisted her with the food before asking her to come to his office. Once inside, she alleged that Burnstick hugged her, sat down with legs apart, pulled her towards him, and grabbed her buttocks with both hands.
Following the incident, she promptly left the office and reported the matter to her supervisor, requesting not to confront the chief out of fear of jeopardizing her job. Burnstick disputed her account, stating that the interaction was limited to a consensual hug, but the tribunal ultimately sided with the woman’s version.
Tribunal member Kathryn Raymond highlighted the woman’s credibility as a key factor in the case. Raymond pointed out that the decision was based on a preponderance of evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which applies to criminal cases.
Raymond criticized Burnstick’s dismissive attitude during the hearing but emphasized that her assessment of his credibility focused on his testimonies concerning the incidents. She found his explanations unconvincing and inconsistent, with text messages and testimony from other witnesses supporting parts of the woman’s claims.
The decision concluded that Burnstick’s conduct was unwelcome, persistent, and of a sexual or gender-based nature, negatively impacting the former employee’s work environment and resulting in adverse job-related consequences. It also noted the significant power imbalance between Burnstick, a political leader within the First Nation, and the woman, whose livelihood and community ties were tied to maintaining a working relationship with him.
Despite the substantiated complaint, Raymond did not order Burnstick to provide additional compensation to the complainant. She cited the Canadian Human Rights Act, which treats acts committed by an employee in the course of employment as acts of the employer. As Alexander First Nation had already settled with the woman, Raymond concluded that the tribunal lacked statutory authority to demand personal compensation from Burnstick.
Although the woman had received compensation through the settlement with Alexander First Nation, Raymond clarified that the settlement did not imply an admission of liability or misconduct.