Credibility Still Makes A Difference: Jilted Employee’s Harassment Complaint is Dismissed
The Shocking Story in Pujji v 1819010 Alberta Ltd. o/a Liquor King Spruce Grove (2025 AHRC 15)
When Kiranjit Kaur Pujji made allegations of workplace sexual harassment against her former employer, she likely never imagined her case would become a textbook example of how credibility assessments can completely unravel a human rights complaint.
The Complainant/employee, Kiranjit Kaur Pujji, was dismissed from her job due to declining sales, customer complaints, and her on the job cell phone use. After her dismissal, Pujji alleged that a) two years earlier, one of her bosses sexually assaulted her; b) during her employment, the same boss made inappropriate sexual comments to her and touched her in a sexual manner; and c) she was fired because she missed work due to absenteeism as a result of her child’s illness. In a stunning decision, the tribunal dismissed both her sexual harassment and family status discrimination claims, exposing critical lessons for employees and employers alike.
The Explosive Allegations
Pujji worked as a Liquor Store Supervisor at Liquor King Spruce Grove from 2015 to 2018. She made serious allegations against one of the store’s owner, Balwinder Jassal, including:
Drugging her coffee at work
Forcing her to dinner while she was in a "blackout state"
Sexually assaulting her in her car afterward
Ongoing workplace harassment
The Respondent/store owners – Balwinder Jassal and his then-wife Parvinder Kaur Jassal – told a completely different story. They claimed Pujji and Balwinder were involved in a consensual sexual relationship that had been ongoing for months.
The Video That Changed Everything
In a dramatic twist, video evidence captured by a private investigator (hired by Pujji's own sister-in-law) directly contradicted Pujji's testimony. The sister-in-law had hired the PI because she suspected that Pujii was having an affair.
The tribunal found the video showed:
Pujji was alert and engaged at the restaurant, not in a "blackout state"
She displayed affectionate behavior toward Jassal
Her actions matched Jassal's account of events, not her own.
Why the Complainant’s Credibility Collapsed
The tribunal's credibility assessment was devastating to Pujji's case. Here's why her testimony fell apart:
Logical impossibilities: The tribunal found it "wholly unbelievable" that Jassal would drug her but then allow her to drive her own car, and "inconceivable" that she could follow directions to a restaurant while in a "blackout state."
Contradictory statements: Pujji testified both that there was "nothing wrong" with going to dinner with Jassal but also that it would be a "disgrace to her family."
Exaggeration of grievances: When asked to specify how she was "badly tortured" at work, she cited cleaning windows and shoveling snow.
Demeanor during testimony: The tribunal observed the complainant was "evasive when answering questions about the alleged affair". In contrast, the Individual Respondents' evidence was described as "clear, detailed and consistent.
A Framework for Assessing Credibility
The tribunal relied on established legal principles for assessing credibility, specifically citing:
1. Faryna v Chorney, 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA)- Which establishes that credibility cannot be assessed solely on demeanor but must be measured against "the preponderance of probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions."
2. Mandziak v Taste of Tuscany Ltd., 2017 AHRC 7 (CanLII), which outlines specific factors for credibility assessment including:
o Internal consistency/inconsistency of evidence
o Ability to recollect
o Opportunity to tailor or embellish evidence
o Corroborative evidence
o Witness motives and relationships
o Failure to produce material evidence
The Termination Question
Pujji also claimed she was fired for taking time off to care for her sick child – a potential case of family status discrimination.
The store owners countered that her termination was due to:
Business issues and declining sales
Customer complaints
Excessive personal phone use at work
The tribunal sided with the employers, finding no connection between her childcare responsibilities and the termination decision.
Key Takeaways for Employers and Employees
This case offers valuable lessons for workplace sexual harassment claims:
For Employers:
Document performance issues contemporaneously
Maintain clear policies about acceptable workplace conduct
Consider how objective evidence might support your position
Advancing a defence in a methodical and prepared manner improves the prospect of getting to the truth of the case.
For Employees:
Consistency in your account is critical
Exaggerating claims can damage your entire case
Be aware that objective evidence (like videos) can make or break your testimony
The Takeaways
The Pujji case is a reminder that: a) having an affair with an employee is a bad idea; b) a dismissed employee can be vindictive and may weaponize the legal system against you. This case demonstrates that the law doesn’t simply take allegations at face value – it requires credible, consistent testimony that aligns with objective evidence. When credibility crumbles, even the most serious allegations may be dismissed.