'WestJet's approach to document production to date has been dilatory and, at times, potentially adversarial in nature'
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has directed WestJet Airlines Ltd. to produce additional harassment complaint files related to flight attendants, rejecting the airline’s attempt to limit document production.
The case, a certified class-action lawsuit, centers on allegations that WestJet breached flight attendants' employment contracts by failing to implement a promised anti-harassment program.
The court’s order, issued by Justice Jacqueline Hughes on Dec. 11, 2024, requires WestJet to produce all harassment complaints made by flight attendants between April 4, 2014, and Feb. 28, 2021, including those from class members who opted out of the lawsuit.
“The record before me suggests that WestJet's approach to document production to date has been dilatory and, at times, potentially adversarial in nature. It is unclear why all complaint files were not produced in accordance with the timeline required by Document Production #1. If WestJet was unable to produce within the time required, then it was incumbent on WestJet to seek an extension of the court‑ordered timeline for production,” says Hughes in the court order.
“WestJet's dilatory approach to document production was also a factor that contributed to the trial being adjourned by consent from October 2024 to October 2025.”
A previous study found a “variety of myths around sexual harassment” cause employers not to comply.
Class action lawsuit
The lead plaintiff, Mandalena Lewis, alleges that WestJet systematically failed to maintain a harassment-free workplace, violating the “Anti-Harassment Promise” that the airline allegedly incorporated into flight attendants’ employment contracts.
According to court documents, the plaintiff claims WestJet financially benefited from not upholding this promise, saving costs by neglecting to enforce anti-harassment policies.
The case was certified as a class action by the B.C. Court of Appeal in April 2022, covering all current and former female flight attendants employed during the class period.
Hughes rejected WestJet’s argument that it was only required to produce complaints made by female flight attendants against male pilots. Instead, she found that all harassment complaints by flight attendants during the class period must be disclosed, regardless of whether pilots were involved.
“While the power imbalance allegedly created by that particular relationship clearly plays a central role in the plaintiff's claim, I find that it is not limited to only those complaints. Consistent with the conception of the claim as set out above, WestJet is required to produce all harassment complaints made by class members during the class period,” says Hughes. “The scope of production is not limited to harassment complaints involving a pilot or a pilot who is the respondent, irrespective of the pilot's gender.”
The court, however, denied the plaintiff’s request for harassment complaint files from WestJet’s entire workforce. Justice Hughes emphasized that the case is specific to alleged breaches of flight attendants’ contracts and does not encompass complaints from employees in other roles, such as mechanics or call center staff.
“It remains unclear how the plaintiff says WestJet's alleged failure to provide a harassment‑free workplace for e.g. mechanics, is relevant to whether WestJet breached the Anti-Harassment Promise in class members' employment contracts,” says Hughes.
“Breach of the Anti-Harassment Promise contained allegedly in other categories of employees' employment contracts does not amount to a breach of the Anti-Harassment Promise in the class members' contracts, and no pleading of systemic breaches of employment contracts for any other group of employees at WestJet is made on the pleadings.”
Hughes also noted that ordering the production of harassment files for non-class members without notice could infringe on their privacy rights.
Court documents highlighted that WestJet reported 16 harassment complaints in the last quarter of 2018 and 19 in the first quarter of 2022, though it remains unclear how many involve class members.
WestJet was given 45 days to comply with the order to produce additional documents, accounting for the holiday season.
Even without a formal complaint, sexual harassment must be investigated, a court previously ruled.
