At a Glance
When an employee raises workplace harassment in BC, the employer's response is the whole case. Two BC Human Rights Tribunal decisions, Nelson v. Goodberry and Gardner v. Geldenhuys, show that a quiet conversation with the offender, an apology with no follow-through, or treating the person who complained as the problem are all read as condoning the conduct. The cost is rarely just the award. It is the legal fees, the leadership time, the public ruling, the strain on the team, and the reputation that follows. In one case a manager was ordered to pay personally. The lesson is not complicated: once you are on notice, you investigate, protect the person, and act decisively.
The Mistake Is Almost Never the Harassment
The costly mistake is almost never the original harassment. It is what the employer does after the complaint. A manager who looks into it with a friendly chat, or who decides the person complaining is the real troublemaker, turns someone else's misconduct into the organization's liability. That is the part worth sitting with: inaction is not neutral. In law, and in the eyes of everyone watching how you respond, it reads as agreement.
Setting the Scene: The Quiet Word That Was Supposed to Fix It
In a small or mid-sized organization, a harassment complaint usually lands on one already-stretched person: a founder, an executive director, or a people manager who also has a day job. The pressure is to keep it small and keep the peace. So the complaint gets handled informally, often by someone who knows the person being complained about. The hope is that a quiet word will make it go away.It rarely does.
Nelson v. Goodberry: the gentle chat that backfired
Jessie Nelson, a trans employee, asked a manager to use their correct pronouns and to stop using gendered terms like “sweetheart.” When Nelson escalated the issue to ownership, they were told to wait. Management then had a “gentle conversation” with the manager and considered the matter handled. It was not. The manager's behaviour got worse, moving from misgendering to becoming uncooperative and undermining Nelson's work. The employer's response was to fire Nelson, describing them as “too militant” and as “coming on too strong, too fast.”The BC Human Rights Tribunal found the employer had discriminated against Nelson, ordered damages, and required the company to build human rights policies and run training.
Where it went wrong
The employer treated a human rights complaint as a personality clash, chose a performative chat over a real process, let a manager who was too close to the situation handle it, and then punished the person who complained.
Gardner v. Geldenhuys: when the manager pays personally
At a care home, a manager made repeated comments targeting two Filipina care workers, including remarks such as “What is wrong with you Filipinos?” and “Filipinos are gossipers.” One worker was singled out for not wearing a uniform, even though others were not wearing one and no policy required it. A worker complained to senior leadership and received an apology, but the behaviour did not change. The Tribunal ordered the manager to pay damages personally.
Where it went wrong
Leadership apologized but changed nothing, no investigation or corrective action followed, and the manager assumed, wrongly, that the company would absorb the consequences. Employment does not shield an individual from a human rights finding.
Same Failure, Two Different Grounds
Gender identity in one case, national origin in the other, but the failure is identical. In each, the employer knew and did not act effectively. A complaint was raised, the response was soft, and the conduct continued. We think that is the line BC leaders should underline: the liability attached to the inaction, not only to the original behaviour. The harassment opened the door. The employer's response is what walked them through it.
What's Actually at Risk
The risk sits in the response, and it runs in four directions:Personal exposure. Managers and owners can be named in a complaint and ordered to pay from their own pocket, as the manager in Gardner was. The organization is not a shield.Condonation. A weak or delayed response is treated in law as endorsing the conduct.Retaliation. Treating the person who complained as the problem is its own violation, on top of the original one.A reluctant complainant is not a waiver. Even when someone raises a concern informally and does not want a formal process, the duty to look into it can still apply. In Ontario, a court held in Metrolinx v. ATU that an employee's hesitation to file a complaint was no reason for the employer to do nothing. Once you know, you are on notice.
Aurora's Perspective
From the practice
Here's how we interpret these cases: the complaint is the test, not the harassment. Most employers want to do the right thing but often fail because good intentions alone aren't enough under pressure. Protect yourself and others with two measures: a clear, respectful workplace policy that empowers action, and an unbiased process where the investigator isn't the respondent's close contact. This isn't bureaucracy — it's a way for small teams to respond calmly and correctly during crises. Get these right, and most harm can be avoided before tribunals.
Key Actions
Take it seriously the moment you hear it. Respond with empathy and a trauma-informed approach, acknowledge the complaint, and tell the person they did the right thing by raising it.Make the person safe first. Consider interim steps such as adjusting shifts or reporting lines while you look into it.Use someone neutral. The respondent's friend or direct manager should not run the review.Run a fair, documented process. This is procedural fairness in practice: gather the facts, tell the respondent what is alleged, hear both sides, and record what you did and why.Act in proportion to what you find. The outcome must be strong enough to actually stop the conduct.Follow up. Check back to confirm the behaviour has stopped and the person feels safe.Never treat the complainant as the problem. Punishing the person who raised the concern is how a fixable situation becomes a finding against you.
This article is for general information and reflects HR practice, not legal advice. Case details are summarized for illustration; confirm current specifics before relying on them. © 2026 Aurora HR Consulting.
