Rennie v. BC Ambulance Service, 2025 BCHRT 104
Date Issued: May 6, 2025
File: CS-004094
Indexed as: Rennie v. BC Ambulance Service, 2025 BCHRT 104
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Clinton Rennie
COMPLAINANT
AND:
BC Emergency Health Services operating as BC Ambulance Service
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi
Counsel for the Complainant: Paul Roxburgh
Counsel for the Respondent: Emma Abdjalieva
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Clinton Rennie was a paramedic working for BC Emergency Health Services operating as BC Ambulance Service. He alleges BC Ambulance discriminated against him in employment on the basis of physical and mental disability contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code . He says BC Ambulance fired him when he was on a medical leave of absence.
[2] BC Ambulance denies discriminating and applies to dismiss Mr. Rennie’s complaint under s. 27(1)(c) and (g) of the Code . It says Mr. Rennie’s complaint has no reasonable prospect of success because it is reasonably certain to establish that it fired him for wholly non-discriminatory reasons: his failure to communicate with them. BC Ambulance also says allegations of events preceding the termination occurred more than one-year before the complaint was filed and are untimely.
[3] I find this application can most efficiently be resolved under s. 27(1)(c). For the reasons that follow, I am persuaded that BC Ambulance is reasonably certain to justify any adverse impact as a bona fide occupational requirement. BC Ambulance is reasonably certain to prove Mr. Rennie did not participate in the accommodation process and therefore its obligation came to an end.
[4] To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision. I make no findings of fact.
II BACKGROUND
[5] Mr. Rennie was a paramedic employed by BC Ambulance from 2002. His duties included attending accident sites and providing emergency medical care.
[6] On February 19, 2014, Mr. Rennie went on stress leave. He provided to BC Ambulance a note from his doctor stating “I recommend Clinton begin stress leave immediately for the following 3 months for medical reasons.”
[7] On or about March 6, 2014, an employee of BC Ambulance’s Workplace Health Department phoned Mr. Rennie to discuss his leave. Mr. Rennie said he was not sure when or if he would return to work. Mr. Rennie did not provide additional information about his health or prognosis.
[8] In or around May 2014, BC Ambulance advised Mr. Rennie that if he was unable to return to work, he should apply for long-term disability (LTD) benefits and provided him the necessary paperwork. BC Ambulance completed their portion of the paperwork and submitted it to the third-party benefits provider. Mr. Rennie did not submit any paperwork to the benefits provider, nor did he provide to BC Ambulance any additional medical information or indicate his intention to return to work.
[9] On January 8, 2015, BC Ambulance sent Mr. Rennie a letter stating that they had not received any information to support his ongoing leave due to illness. They also noted that the LTD provider reported they had not received any information from Mr. Rennie. BC Ambulance requested Mr. Rennie contact them and advise them of his intentions by January 22, 2015.
[10] On January 21, 2015, Mr. Rennie sent BC Ambulance a letter stating, “under the direction of a psychologist and psychotherapist, it has been determined that my return to work may not be an appropriate course of action at this time.” Mr. Rennie did not provide any additional medical information with his letter.
[11] BC Ambulance understood Mr. Rennie was requesting to remain on leave. They sent Mr. Rennie a letter on January 30, 2015, asking him to confirm that he was requesting a medical leave and advising him he needed to submit his application forms to the LTD provider. Mr. Rennie did not respond to BC Ambulance’s letter or apply for LTD benefits.
[12] On March 16, 2015, BC Ambulance wrote Mr. Rennie advising him that since he did not apply for LTD benefits, he was placed on unpaid personal leave effective March 10, 2015. It advised him that if he wished to maintain his extended health benefits while on leave, he needed to complete and submit the necessary benefits agreement. Mr. Rennie did not respond to this letter.
[13] On December 22, 2015, the Emergency Medical Assistants Licensing Board, which licenses paramedics, suspended Mr. Rennie’s license and he was no longer allowed to work as a paramedic.
[14] BC Ambulance learned of Mr. Rennie’s suspended license in or about May 2020 and sent him a letter on May 5, 2020. BC Ambulance advised Mr. Rennie he had been on unpaid leave since August 20, 2014, and asked him to advise it of his intentions. BC Ambulance gave Mr. Rennie the options of returning to work (fully or gradually), contacting the Workplace Health Department if he wanted to continue his leave, or resigning his employment. BC Ambulance requested Mr. Rennie respond by May 19, 2020, and stated that if he did not respond his employment may be terminated due to lack of communication.
[15] Mr. Rennie did not respond to BC Ambulance by May 19, 2020, or at all.
[16] On May 21, 2020, BC Ambulance sent Mr. Rennie a letter stating his employment was terminated as of May 20, 2020, because of a lack of communication.
III DECISION
[17] BC Ambulance applies to dismiss Mr. Rennie’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success. The onus is on BC Ambulance to establish the basis for dismissal.
[18] Section 27(1)(c) is part of the Tribunal’s gate-keeping function. It allows the Tribunal to remove complaints which do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing.
[19] The Tribunal does not make findings of fact under s. 27(1)(c). Instead, the Tribunal looks at the evidence to decide whether “there is no reasonable prospect that findings of fact that would support the complaint could be made on a balance of probabilities after a full hearing of the evidence ” : Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) , 2006 BCCA 95 at para. 22, leave to appeal ref’d [2006] SCCA No. 171. The Tribunal must base its decision on the materials filed by the parties, and not on speculation about what evidence may be filed at the hearing: University of British Columbia v. Chan , 2013 BCSC 942 at para. 77.
[20] A dismissal application is not the same as a hearing: Lord v. Fraser Health Authority , 2021 BCSC 2176 at para. 20; SEPQA v. Canadian Human Rights Commission , [1989] 2 SCR 879 at 899. The threshold to advance a complaint to a hearing is low. In a dismissal application, a complainant does not have to prove their complaint or show the Tribunal all the evidence they may introduce at a hearing. They only have to show that the evidence takes their complaint out of the realm of conjecture: Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49 at para. 27.
[21] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Rennie will have to prove that he has a characteristic protected by the Code (in this case his physical or mental disability), he was adversely impacted in employment, and his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education) , 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.
[22] BC Ambulance argues that the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success because it is reasonably certain to prove a defense at the hearing: Purdy v. Douglas College and others , 2016 BCHRT 117 at para. 50. It says it is reasonably certain to prove Mr. Rennie failed to participate in his accommodation process and therefore its obligations came to an end.
[23] To justify the firing at a hearing, BC Ambulance would have to prove that: (1) they adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job, (2) they adopted the standard in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfillment of that legitimate purpose; and (3) the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that legitimate purpose. This third element encompasses their duty to accommodate Mr. Rennie to the point of undue hardship: British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union (Meiorin Grievance) , [1999] 3 SCR 3 [ Meiorin ] at para. 54.
[24] On the evidence before me, I am persuaded that BC Ambulance is reasonably certain to establish they met its duty to accommodate Mr. Rennie.
[25] The undisputed evidence is that after January 21, 2015, Mr. Rennie did not communicate with BC Ambulance about his employment despite being asked about his intentions by BC Ambulance. The evidence before me is that Mr. Rennie took no steps to follow up with BC Ambulance about his employment or to submit medical information to support his leave. On May 5, 2020, BC Ambulance requested Mr. Rennie provide some indication about his intentions and Mr. Rennie did not respond. In response BC Ambulance advised him that his employment was terminated for lack of response. In these circumstances, I am persuaded that BC Ambulance is reasonably certain to prove Mr. Rennie failed to participate in the accommodation process.
[26] Mr. Rennie did not provide an explanation for not responding to BC Ambulance. He says in 2015 his psychologist said he had elevated “defensive avoidance.” Mr. Rennie provided no information about what defensive avoidance is or how it impacted his ability to respond to BC Ambulance.
[27] An employer may have a duty to inquire when they are aware or ought to be aware of a possible relationship between a disability and, for example, work performance: Lewis v. Hour of Power Canada and another , 2018 BCHRT 251 at para. 88. This is specifically the case before an employer takes a step that will adversely impact the employee (such as terminating them). That said employees also have obligations such as disclosing information that is relevant and necessary for an employer to determine what accommodation may be possible: Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud , [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970 at para. 994; K.B. v. S.S. , 2016 BCHRT 61 at para. 136.
[28] Here, the evidence is that after Mr. Rennie went on leave on February 19, 2014, BC Ambulance requested on multiple instances that he advise it of his intentions and provide medical information if he intended to go on medical leave. BC Ambulance wrote or phoned Mr. Rennie requesting additional information on March 6, 2014, in May 2014, January 8, 2015, January 30, 2015, and May 5, 2020.
[29] Further, Mr. Rennie obtained a medical letter dated April 13, 2015, from a psychologist. There is no evidence that this letter was provided to BC Ambulance prior to the present complaint proceeding.
[30] In these circumstances, I am persuaded that BC Ambulance is reasonably certain to prove at a hearing that Mr. Rennie failed to participate in his accommodation process by not communicating with BC Ambulance, and its obligation to accommodate came to an end. Therefore, Mr. Rennie’s complaint has no reasonable prospect of succeeding.
IV CONCLUSION
[31] I dismiss Mr. Rennie’s complaint under s. 27(1)(c).
Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member