Gouldsborough v. Irwood Holdings Ltd. and another, 2025 BCHRT 116
Date Issued: May 9, 2025
File: CS-007446
Indexed as: Gouldsborough v. Irwood Holdings Ltd. and another, 2025 BCHRT 116
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:
Jennalee Gouldsborough
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Irwood Holdings Ltd. and Hugh MacInnes
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO ADD A RESPONDENT
Rule 25(2)
APPLICATION TO AMEND A COMPLAINT
Rule 24(3) and (4)(a)
Tribunal Member: Jessica Derynck
On their own behalf: Jennalee Gouldsborough
Counsel for Irwood Holdings Ltd. and Irwood Medical Services Corp.: Daniel McNamee
Counsel for the Respondent Hugh MacInnes: Casper Holloway
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Jennalee Gouldsborough filed a complaint against Irwood Holdings and Hugh MacInnes [ Respondents ] on August 23, 2022, alleging that they discriminated against her in employment based on a mental disability. On February 21, 2024, the Tribunal notified the parties that the complaint will proceed. Mr. MacInnes filed a response to the complaint on April 17, 2024. Irwood Holdings filed its response on July 8, 2024, and filed an amendment to its response on July 17, 2024.
[2] On July 26, 2024, Ms. Gouldsborough filed a Form 3 to correct the name of the respondent Irwood Holdings’ name to Irwood Holdings Ltd., and to add a three-page amendment to her complaint. On the same date Ms. Gouldsborough also filed an application to add Irwood Medical Services Corp. as a respondent.
[3] The Respondents say Ms. Gouldsborough’s proposed amendment does not set out an arguable contravention of the Human Rights Code .
[4] Irwood Holdings does not oppose the amendment of its name to Irwood Holdings Ltd. but says there is no basis on which to add Irwood Medical Services Corp. as a respondent, and that Ms. Gouldsborough applies to do so outside of the time limit for filing a complaint.
[5] For the following reasons:
a. I accept the proposed amendment to correct Irwood Holdings’ name to Irwood Holdings Ltd.
b. I allow the application to add Irwood Medical Services Corp. as a respondent.
c. I accept Ms. Gouldsborough’s three-page amendment.
II Decision
A. Amendment process and application to add a respondent to the complaint
[6] Under the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure a complainant may amend a complaint to add details to allegations any time: Rule 24(1). Subject to Rule 24(4), which sets out the circumstances where a complainant must apply to amend a complaint, a complainant may add a new allegation to a complaint, which must allege facts that, if proven, could establish a contravention of the Code : Rule 24(2) and (3).
[7] Under Rule 25(2), in an application to add a respondent to a complaint, a complainant must state why adding the proposed respondent will further the just and timely resolution of the complaint, and the facts that, if proven, could establish a contravention of the Code by the proposed respondent. The complainant must also address timeliness if the application is filed after the time limit for filing a complaint under s. 22 of the Code .
B. Irwood Holdings Ltd. and Irwood Medical Services Corp. are added as respondents to the complaint
[8] Ms. Gouldsborough is a self-represented complainant. When she originally filed her complaint, she named “Irwood Holdings” as a respondent. She alleged that “Irwood Holdings” was her employer, and that it discriminated against her in various ways, including by disciplining her for failing to attend a meeting that she was unable to attend because of a mental disability.
[9] Ms. Gouldsborough now seeks to amend the style of proceeding to correct the legal name of “Irwood Holdings” to “Irwood Holdings Ltd.”. As Irwood Holdings does not oppose this aspect of Ms. Gouldsborough’s application, I have no difficulty granting it.
[10] Ms. Gouldsborough also applied to add Irwood Medical Services Corp. as a respondent. She applied after she received Mr. MacInnes’ response to the complaint, which describes Irwood Holdings as “Irwood Medical Services Corp., formerly known as Irwood Holdings Ltd. (“Irwood”)”, and says that Ms. Gouldsborough is a former employee of “Irwood”.
[11] In support of her application, Ms. Gouldsborough submitted BC Company Summaries for Irwood Holdings Ltd. and Irwood Medical Services Corp. The summaries show that both companies have the same five directors and the same registered office address for delivery.
[12] Irwood Holdings Ltd. and Irwood Medical Services Corp. both oppose the application to add Irwood Medical Services Corp. as a respondent. They submit that the application is outside of the time limit for filing a complaint, and that no allegations appear to directly relate to Irwood Medical Services Corp. They also submit that Ms. Gouldsborough did not explain her application to add Irwood Medical Services Corp. as a respondent.
[13] In reply, Ms. Gouldsborough explains that she learned about the existence of Irwood Medical Services Corp. through Mr. MacInnes’ response, and that she reviewed her past pay stubs and tax forms and found that some of them listed Irwood Medical Services Corp. as her employer while the others listed Irwood Holdings Ltd.
[14] I find that it will further the just and timely resolution of the complaint to add Irwood Medical Services Corp. as a respondent. The Respondents have not explained the relationship between the two companies, which company owned the medical clinic where Ms. Gouldsborough worked, or, if there has been any change in ownership, which company would be liable for and responsible for remedying the complaint if it is allowed. Irwood says that only Irwood Holdings Ltd. was a party to previous employment standards voluntary agreements and a WorkSafe BC decision, and encloses a copy of a termination letter to Ms. Gouldsborough from Irwood Holdings Ltd., but does not say that Irwood Holdings Ltd. will acknowledge liability and remedy any alleged discrimination if the complaint is successful.
[15] I would not expect a self-represented complainant to explain an application as clearly as a complainant represented by counsel, but in any case, the basis for this application is clear. Ms. Gouldsborough applies to add Irwood Medical Services Corp. as a respondent because she does not know which corporate entity should be held responsible for any finding of discrimination in her employment, and if her complaint is allowed, she does not want to be denied a remedy because she was not privy to the Respondents’ information that may have allowed her to discern this.
[16] One of the purposes of the Code is to provide a means of redress for persons who are discriminated against contrary to the Code : s. 3. It is consistent with this purpose of the Code , and it will further the just and timely resolution of the complaint, to add Irwood Medical Services Corp. as a respondent. Both corporate entities will have opportunities later in the process to introduce evidence and make submissions about which of them is liable for and responsible for remedying any discrimination if the complaint is successful.
[17] Ms. Gouldsborough applied to add Irwood Medical Services Corp. as a respondent after the timeline for filing a complaint. I must consider whether it is in the public interest to accept the complaint against the proposed respondent after the time limit, and if so, whether substantial prejudice would result to any person because of the delay: Code , s. 22(3).
[18] I find it is in the public interest to accept the complaint against Irwood Medical Services Corp. Irwood has not acknowledged that Irwood Holdings Ltd. is potentially liable for and responsible for remedying any discrimination. Ms. Gouldsborough did not know that Irwood Medical Services Corp. may be potentially liable and responsible for any remedy until she received Mr. MacInnes’ response to the complaint. It is in the public interest to add the proposed respondent in the circumstances, in case the medical corp. is the only entity that would be responsible for remedying any breach of the Code . It would not be in the public interest for a complainant to be denied a remedy for discrimination because she was not aware of the relationship between the corporate respondents, and which would be liable for and responsible for remedying any discrimination, at the time she filed her complaint.
[19] I also find that no substantial prejudice will result from the delay. Both corporate entities have the same directors and the same legal counsel representing them on this application.
[20] I allow the application to add Irwood Medical Services Corp. as a respondent to the complaint.
C. The complaint is amended to add details and new allegations up to November 7, 2022
[21] Ms. Gouldsborough’s proposed amendment includes details dated between July 6, 2021, and December 4, 2023. My task with the proposed amendment is to decide whether any of the “details” Ms. Gouldsborough proposes to add are in fact new allegations, and if so, whether they allege facts that, if proven, could establish a contravention of the Code .
[22] In her complaint form Ms. Gouldsborough broadly alleges that she has anxiety, and the Respondents punished her for her anxiety because they viewed her as exhibiting unacceptable behaviour. She lists some alleged conduct she says happened on specific dates:
a. June 14, 2021 – employer told her that her “unmanageable anxiety” was unacceptable behaviour and that it would be written in her personnel file;
b. July 6, 2021 – she left work after one hour to attend an emergency department for anxiety, and the Respondents lied about why she left work on this occasion;
c. October 13, 2021 – her manager denied her work, assaulted her, and chased her out of the building, then she was suspended;
d. October 28, 2021 – the Respondents conducted an unfair investigation because they lied about why she left work on July 6, 2021;
e. November 1, 2021 – she was put on an unpaid suspension after the investigation;
f. March 1, 2022 – she requested pay owed to her, and the Respondents denied her what she was owed and denied her request for information from her personnel file;
g. March 1, 2022 – she sent the employer documents from a physician with a diagnosis and prognosis with an expected recovery time of over six months after the employer said they would fire her for a “frustrated contract” but would not pursue a complaint against her if she accepted a sum of money and quit; and
h. June 1, 2022 – the Respondents asked her for more medical information on short notice, and said she must be “well enough” because she was able to make complaints against the employer.
[23] The Respondents deny that they discriminated and deny all of Ms. Gouldsborough’s allegations. In their responses to the complaint, the Respondents say that managers met with Ms. Gouldsborough on June 21, 2021, about her refusal to communicate about her absences. They also say that a patient of the employer alleged that Ms. Gouldsborough breached the patient’s confidentiality, and employer representatives met with her about this allegation on July 6, 2021. The Respondents also say that in October 2021 Ms. Gouldsborough was absent from work and failed to notify her employer.
[24] Mr. MacInnes also says he owed Irwood professional and ethical duties as their legal counsel, and he does not have a sufficient connection to Ms. Gouldsborough’s employment to be found to discriminate against her under s. 13 of the Code . He says there is no reasonable prospect of the complaint succeeding against him.
[25] The Respondents submit that the proposed amendment consists of new allegations that, if proven, could not establish a contravention of the Code .
[26] To decide whether to allow Ms. Gouldsborough’s proposed amendment I do not consider the merit of her allegations at this time, including the Respondents’ potential responses to the complaint, or whether there is a reasonable prospect of success for the complaint or certain allegations against each respondent. I must simply decide whether the content of the amendment is details or new allegations, and if the latter, whether they allege a breach of the Code : Tyler v. Commissionaires BC , 2017 BCHRT 224 at para. 28.
[27] In her proposed amendment to the complaint Ms. Gouldsborough addresses the patient’s complaint against her and sets out her version of events related to it, and the outcome of a related complaint about her to Sonography Canada, an association of which Ms. Gouldsborough is a member. These are details of her complaint that are related to her initial allegations of adverse impacts in her employment. The Respondents raised the issue of complaints against Ms. Gouldsborough in the first place and this part of her amendment consists of more details about her allegations in the context of the Respondents’ version of the events underlying the complaint. I accept these proposed amendments to the complaint as details under Rule 24(1).
[28] In her amendment Ms. Gouldsborough also alleges that discrimination continued after she filed her complaint and proposes to add new allegations from October and November 2022.
[29] Ms. Gouldsborough says that on October 27, 2022, the Respondents did not allow her to return to work, and that on November 7, 2022, they fired her. She alleges that, “From the date I was written up with ‘unacceptable behaviour’ for missing work due to my unmanageable anxiety, the respondents have discriminated against me, denied me work, made up lies about me, assaulted me, called me a liar, denied me pay, breached my privacy rights, and harassed me.” She alleges that they created “false patient allegation narrative” against her as a cover in order to get rid of her while she was suffering from her medical condition.
[30] I find that the new allegations from October and November 2022 are allegations that the Respondents continued to breach the Code by treating Ms. Gouldsborough adversely because of a mental disability. Ms. Gouldsborough alleges that she had “unmanageable anxiety” that was a factor in the Respondents mistreating her starting in June 2021. Here she alleges that her anxiety was a factor in the Respondents’ treatment of her in October and November 2022, including the termination of her employment.
[31] The Respondents do not make any submissions about the timeliness of the new allegations. In any case, the Tribunal has said that it will “almost always” be in the public interest to allow amendments to include all aspects of a complaint that occur in the same time frame and where the evidence at a hearing would cover much of the same ground: Kruger v. Xerox Canada (No. 3), 2005 BCHRT 284 at para. 31.
[32] I accept the proposed amendments to the complaint to add the allegations from October and November 2022, up to and including the alleged termination of employment on November 7, 2022.
[33] Ms. Gouldsborough’s proposed amendment also lists events dated between January 5, 2023, and December 4, 2023, related to wages owed after her termination and alleged breaches of her privacy. The dates of these events relate to the Respondents’ alleged conduct after the termination, including positions they took in privacy complaint and employment standards matters that Ms. Gouldsborough pursued.
[34] The proposed amendment does not allege any breaches of the Code after Ms. Gouldsborough’s alleged termination of her employment on November 7, 2022. Ms. Gouldsborough’s allegations about the Respondents’ positions in other proceedings are not, themselves, allegations of further breaches of the Code . However, her explanations of these matters in the proposed amendment include details about allegations of mistreatment during her employment prior to November 7, 2022. For example, she says she was suspended from work in October 2021, but Irwood documented that she was on vacation, and that Irwood recorded conversations with her at work without her knowledge in October 2021. As I understand, these are details about the alleged mistreatment she says she experienced in which her anxiety was a factor, and as such these details form part of the complaint. I accept this part of the proposed amendment as details about existing allegations in the complaint under Rule 24(1).
[35] In summary, I accept Ms. Gouldsborough’s proposed amendment to her complaint, which now includes allegations up to the alleged termination of her employment on November 7, 2022.
III Conclusion
[36] The style of proceeding is amended to remove the respondent Irwood Holdings and add the respondent Irwood Holdings Ltd.
[37] Irwood Medical Services Corp. is added as a respondent to the Complaint.
[38] The Tribunal accepts Ms. Gouldsborough’s three-page amendment to her complaint, including new allegations up to and including November 7, 2022.
[39] The case manager will set deadlines for Irwood Medical Services Corp. to file a respondent to the complaint and for the other Respondents to file amended responses to the complaint.
[40] The Tribunal will decide the case path for this complaint, including whether any of the Respondents may make preliminary applications to dismiss the complaint against them, in due course.
[41] In the Irwood entities’ response to the application they seek an order for costs of responding. I would have denied their application for costs even if I had denied Ms. Gouldsborough’s application. The Tribunal only orders costs for improper conduct: Code , s. 37(4). Making an application that is ultimately denied is not improper conduct.
Jessica Derynck
Tribunal Member