Satterthwaite v. Regional District of Central Okanagan and another, 2025 BCHRT 146
Date Issued: June 20, 2025
File: CS-005537
Indexed as: Satterthwaite v. Regional District of Central Okanagan and another, 2025 BCHRT 146
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:
Jason Satterthwaite
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Regional District of Central Okanagan and Ross Kotscherofski
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Laila Said Alam
On their own behalf: Jason Satterthwaite
Counsel for the Respondents: Robert K. Smithson
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Mr. Satterthwaite filed a complaint alleging discrimination in employment based on mental disability, in violation of s. 13 of the Human Rights Code. In brief, Mr. Satterthwaite alleges that his former employer and manager, the Regional District of Central Okanagan [the District] and Ross Kotscherofski, respectively [together, the Respondents], terminated his employment for his actions that were affected by his mental disability.
[2] The Respondents deny discriminating. They say Mr. Satterthwaite was suspended indefinitely from his employment in May 2020 for misconduct. He was then terminated in November 2020 for engaging in conduct that breached the terms of the suspension.
[3] The Respondents apply to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success because there is no connection between Mr. Satterthwaite’s mental disability and his termination. They also say that, even if Mr. Satterthwaite can prove a connection, they are reasonably certain to prove a justification defense. They also apply to dismiss the complaint against Mr. Kotscherofski under s. 27(1)(d)(ii), because it would not further the purposes of the Code to proceed against the individual where Mr. Satterthwaite has named the corporate employer.
[4] I find it most efficient to decide this application under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code. To resolve this application under s. 27(1)(c), the issue I need to decide is whether Mr. Satterthwaite has no reasonable prospect of success of proving a connection between his mental disability and the termination of his employment.
[5] For the following reasons, I dismiss the complaint. 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
[6] Mr. Satterthwaite worked full-time as a construction worker and ran his own business. From 2006 to 2020, he was also employed as an on-call firefighter with the District’s North Westside Fire Rescue organization [NWFR]. In 2015, he was employed by the District as the on-call fire chief for District B, a small rural community within the employer’s catchment. He remained in this position up until his suspension. During all material times, Mr. Satterthwaite reported to Mr. Kotscherofski, the District’s Regional Manager of Fire Services. Mr. Kotscherofski had direct managerial responsibility for NWFR.
[7] On May 21, 2020, the District suspended Mr. Satterthwaite because: he withheld pertinent information from the District about its operations; he intentionally disseminated false and misleading information about the employer’s operations to the news media, and to District B’s firefighters by email and social media posts, and; he failed to discipline a firefighter who disseminated false and misleading information about the District’s operations to the media. The suspension letter stipulated that, effective immediately, and until further notice, Mr. Satterthwaite was not to:
a. Engage in any Fire Chief’s or firefighting (or related) duties;
b. Attend any NWFR (or other) firefighting training sessions;
c. Attend any NWFR (or other) meetings or other employment-related activities;
d. Attend at the NWFR fire hall for any purpose (whether employment-related or social); or
e. Communicate with NWFR fire fighters using an RDCO email address or telephone number or to otherwise represent to them that he is acting in a capacity as NWFR Fire Chief.
[8] The suspension letter also said Mr. Satterthwaite would remain suspended until he demonstrated a willingness to “accept and embrace the [District’s] managerial authority, to comply with policies and procedures, and to abide by the established chain of command”. The letter went on to warn Mr. Satterthwaite twice about the consequences of violating the above instructions:
Please understand that any violations of the direction set out above will be viewed by the [District] as grounds for further disciplinary measures, up to and including summary dismissal for just cause.
…
As noted above, any further misconduct on your part will be viewed by the [District] as grounds for further disciplinary measures, up to and including summary dismissal for just cause.
[9] On May 26, 2020, Mr. Satterthwaite filed a Prohibited Action Complaint with WorkSafeBC against the District for issuing the suspension. The prohibited action complaint alleged the District suspended him for raising an occupational health and safety concern. A decision was issued January 6, 2023, finding that the District’s decision to suspend him “was not in any way related to, or tainted by, the worker’s participation in protected activities, but was solely due to [his] conduct and poor judgement, particularly in his capacity as fire chief”.
[10] On or around July 17, 2020, Mr. Satterthwaite filed a WorkSafeBC claim for a mental health disorder caused by his work as a fire fighter for the District. He reported that, since the suspension, he had been “flooded with flashback of traumatic incidents he attended and is struggling with his emotions”. Further, he:
confirmed that he felt the things he was dealing with now related to the incidents he attended as a firefighter, not the [Bullying and Harassment] situation that he had been dealing with over the past 2 years. Although he recognized the [Bullying and Harassment] situation as workplace stress, he confirmed his wish to pursue his claim for mental health disorder caused by traumatic incidents.
[11] On August 6, 2020, WorkSafeBC issued its decision. WorkSafeBC found Mr. Satterthwaite had experienced traumatic events at work and, as a result, it accepted Mr. Satterthwaite’s claim for post traumatic stress disorder [PTSD].
[12] On November 11, 2021, Mr. Satterthwaite attended and intervened at an accident scene involving a vehicle fire, in violation of the terms of his May 2020 suspension. The on-scene Incident Commander was the Captain and Acting Deputy Chief. He documented the incident, including Mr. Satterthwaite’s involvement in the emergency response.
[13] On November 20, 2020, the District terminated Mr. Satterthwaite’s employment for just cause; that is, for violating the restrictions set out in the May 2020 suspension letter.
III DECISION
[14] The Respondents apply to dismiss Mr. Satterthwaite’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c) The onus is on the Respondents to establish the basis for dismissal.
[15] 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.
[16] 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.
[17] 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.
[18] In Francescutti v. Vancouver (City), 2017 BCCA 242 [Francescutti] the Court of Appeal observed that part of the Tribunal’s gate-keeping function under s. 27(1)(c) involves assessing the evidence: at para. 67. When assessing the evidence to determine whether a complaint rises above conjecture, the Tribunal applies a content-based analysis, placing the evidence in context, looking for internal and external consistency, and considering the overall relationship of the parties and all of the circumstances: Ritchie v. Central Okanagan Search and Rescue Society, 2016 BCHRT 110 [Ritchie] at para. 120.
[19] Almost every human rights complaint involves credibility issues: Francescutti at para. 67. An application to dismiss under s. 27(1)(c) will not automatically be denied because a complaint raises issues of credibility: Evans v. University of British Columbia, 2008 BCSC 1026 at para. 34. The Tribunal must consider whether credibility issues can be resolved based on corroborative affidavit and contemporaneous documentary evidence: Smyth v. Loblaw and another, 2017 BCHRT 73 at para. 41. It will also consider whether the complainant’s own material contains inconsistencies raising concerns about its reliability or credibility: Horner v. Concord Security Corporation, 2003 BCHRT 86 [Horner] at paras. 20-25. If the assessment of the affidavit and documentary evidence reveals “foundational or key issues of credibility, then the matter must go to a hearing”: Francescutti at para. 67.
[20] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Satterthwaite will have to prove that he has a characteristic protected by the Code, 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. If he did that, the burden would shift to the Respondents to justify the impact as a bona fide occupational requirement. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.
[21] The Respondents do not dispute that Mr. Satterthwaite has PTSD. The Respondents also do not dispute that Mr. Satterthwaite experienced an adverse impact in employment when he was terminated in November 2020. The Respondents say Mr. Satterthwaite has no reasonable prospect of proving at a hearing that the conduct that led to his termination was connected to his PTSD.
[22] In response to this application, Mr. Satterthwaite says his complaint is also based on his “extended suspension in 2020”. He alleges in the complaint that on June 21, 2019, he reported to his employer he was “having mental health problems due to the work environment”.
[23] Mr. Satterthwaite’s task on this application is to point to some evidence that there is a connection between his disability and the adverse impacts he experienced. I first consider whether he has no reasonable prospect of proving a connection between his mental disability and the conduct that led to the suspension. I then consider whether he has no reasonable prospect of proving a connection between his mental disability and his termination. I conclude that in all of the circumstances, he has no reasonable prospect of successfully proving a connection between his disability and the suspension or his termination.
[24] Before explaining my reasons for concluding Mr. Satterthwaite has no reasonable prospect of proving a connection between his PTSD and his suspension and subsequent termination, I first set out the information in the materials related to his PTSD.
A. Mr. Satterthwaite’s Disability
[25] Mr. Satterthwaite provides scant submissions on how he says his PTSD was a factor in the suspension or termination or how he says the evidence before me takes that element of his case out of the realm of conjecture. Nonetheless, I have reviewed the evidence to see whether it is more than mere speculation and conjecture, that his mental disability was a factor in the suspension and termination. I set that evidence out next.
[26] First, there is no dispute that Mr. Satterthwaite had PTSD as of August 2020.
[27] Mr. Satterthwaite says that, since 2019, the Respondents knew that he had a mental disability. The documents he submits suggest he previously told the District he was experiencing workplace stress, not PTSD. For example, he reported to WorkSafeBC that the bullying and harassment events prior to the suspension were related to “workplace stress” and were distinct from the traumatic incidents he witnessed that ultimately caused his PTSD. He also told WorkSafeBC that, in 2019, he reported to the Respondents that he was “stressed at work because of the conflict between himself and managers”. During the WorkSafeBC intake, he described the ongoing conflict with the Respondents, in relevant part, as:
a. Over last two years he’s had a challenging time with [District’s] management.
b. In April 2019, he filed a bullying and harassment complaint through [WorkSafeBC].
c. While investigation underway, worker felt intimidated, 2 other firefighters have been falsely accused of something, unresolved tensions, worker felt under a huge amount of stress.
d. [WorkSafeBC] investigation found worker was treated professionally but some problems with employer not following proper process and ordered them to investigate.
e. May 21/2020 worker suspended by Regional Director – feels this is a retaliatory action for his complaint and is working with his lawyer.
[28] Regarding his PTSD, Mr. Satterthwaite says a few weeks after his suspension he was very angry and emotionally confused. He called a crisis line on June 27, 2020 to seek help.
[29] He submits the WorkSafeBC worker history intake memo from July 17, 2020 which provides background on the catalyst for him contacting the crisis line. During intake, he reported that incidents of PTSD had started three weeks prior, during a kayaking trip with his son. The PTSD presented in the form of a flashback to an incident in 2018, where he was unable to save a person who had drowned in that same water. He “broke down, crying”, and it was this incident that caused him to reach out to the crisis line and speak to a counsellor. He also reported that, since the May suspension, he had been flooded with flashbacks of traumatic incidents he attended as a firefighter, and was struggling with his emotions, saying, “Now I’m in limbo, I’m seeing things in my head, problems I’ve never dealt with”.
[30] Mr. Satterthwaite had further phone consultations with the crisis line on July 9 and July 20. He also had a phone consultation with his family doctor on July 13, 2020, where they discussed possible medication for his lack of sleep, emotional swings, and depressed mood.
[31] During intake, he advised WorkSafeBC that:
when he filed the claim that he was unaware of the cause, [and] just knew he was dealing with mental trauma as a result of his firefighting duties. He had explained his story and the claim was categorized under Bullying and Harassment but he wasn’t sure that was the route [sic] of his problem, he thought it was more related to the traumatic things he’d been involved in as these are what he has started having flashbacks to.
[32] Mr. Satterthwaite also reported that about a year earlier, he told the Respondents that he was “stressed at work because of the conflict between himself and managers”. During intake, he:
Confirmed that he felt the things he was dealing with now related to the incidents he attended as a firefighter, not the [Bullying and Harassment] situation that he had been dealing with over the past 2 years. Although he recognized the [Bullying and Harassment] situation as a workplace stress, he confirmed his wish to pursue his claim for mental health disorder caused by traumatic incidents.
[33] Between July 17, 2020 and August 6, 2020, Mr. Satterthwaite completed a psychological assessment and was diagnosed with PTSD. WorkSafeBC accepted his claim. The psychological assessment is not before me, nor is the exact date of Mr. Satterthwaite’s disability. However, he says he was diagnosed on August 6, 2020 and he describes his diagnosis as “delayed onset triggered by a major life event such as a death in the family, a traumatic event, or the loss of a job”. The WorkSafeBC decision approved health care benefits for Mr. Satterthwaite that was associated with the accepted PTSD claim:
I accept that following the psychological assessment you were diagnosed with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. This is a mental disorder that is consistent with exposure to traumatic events.
Based on the evidence and my findings noted above, I find that your claim meets the requirements [of the Act] and that you are entitled to compensation for a mental disorder that resulted from your employment.
This means that we can pay health care benefits. As you did not miss any time from work after the date of your injury in relation to the accepted injury, I have accepted your claim for health care benefits only. We will be advising any health care providers associated with your claim of this decision.
B. Has Mr. Satterthwaite taken a connection between his PTSD and his suspension out of the realm of conjecture?
[34] The Respondents say there is no reasonable prospect Mr. Satterthwaite will prove a connection between the conduct that led to his suspension and his PTSD. I agree. Mr. Satterthwaite has not explained how, if at all, his PTSD contributed to the conduct for which he was suspended.
[35] I am not persuaded that Mr. Satterthwaite has taken it out of the realm of conjecture that the Respondents knew that he had a mental disability since 2019. In Matheson v. School District No. 53 (Okanagan Similkameen) and Collis, 2009 BCHRT 112, the Tribunal stated:
Stress, in itself, is not a disability for the purposes of the Code. In particular, workplace stress resulting from an employer investigating alleged performance problems, or from a problematic relationship with a supervisor, is not alone sufficient to constitute a disability for Code purposes. (para. 14)
Vandale v. Town of Golden and others, 2009 BCHRT 219 [Vandale] at para. 38.
[36] Though the District may have known he was experiencing stress since 2019, as Vandale says, stress on its own is not a disability under the Code.
[37] Further, there is no evidence before me that suggests Mr. Satterthwaite had PTSD or another mental disability until August 2020. There is similarly no evidence on which the Tribunal could find Mr. Satterthwaite’s eventual PTSD was a factor that led to his suspension. Mr. Satterthwaite’s evidence is that his PTSD symptoms emerged after his suspension. Mr. Satterthwaite has not explained how or if his PTSD contributed to his comments to the media and other firefighters about the District’s operations. There is no reasonable prospect Mr. Satterthwaite will prove the conduct that resulted in his suspension was connected to his PTSD. I dismiss the allegation that his suspension was discriminatory.
C. Has Mr. Satterthwaite taken a connection between his PTSD and his termination out of the realm of conjecture?
[38] Mr. Satterthwaite says he was terminated for his behaviour when he discovered the vehicle accident on November 11. The parties dispute whether his mental disability was a factor in his behaviour that day. Below I summarize the parties’ positions and description of Mr. Satterthwaite’s behaviour at the emergency rescue scene, before assessing whether Mr. Satterthwaite has no reasonable prospect of proving a connection between his PTSD and his termination.
[39] In the complaint, Mr. Satterthwaite says the behaviour the Respondents cited to terminate him was inconsistent with his tenure as a firefighter, so the Respondents would have known the uncharacteristic and unexplained behaviour that day was a result of his PTSD. He says the Respondents knew he was mentally unfit for work and terminated him based on his “actions affected by [his] mental health”. In Reply, he says he felt anxious at the scene.
[40] The Respondents say there was no indication at the emergency rescue scene that Mr. Satterthwaite conducted himself in an uncharacteristic fashion or that he demonstrated any unusual amount of stress of anxiety, or that in any other fashion he was not “himself” at the emergency rescue scene. For their part, the Respondents say the on-scene Captain and Acting Deputy Chief’s follow-up note detailed Mr. Satterthwaite’s conduct at the accident scene, and it was this conduct that was a violation of his suspension and was grounds for his termination. The Captain reported that Mr. Satterthwaite arrived at the scene of the accident before the fire department. He took photos of the scene and told both the Captain and another firefighter how to conduct the emergency response.
[41] In reply, Mr. Satterthwaite submits that he came upon the vehicle fire and called 911 to report the incident but did not insert himself into fire operations in any way. Of his conduct after discovering the vehicle fire, he says:
I knew I had an obligation to do the right thing and report the incident. It was believed the burning car had a trapped victim inside. While it was tough to cope with the event, I managed to do what I felt was needed and required. I did not insert myself into fire operations in any way. Yes, I was anxious and troubled but that did not cause any confusion as the respondent falsely claims.
[42] This submission is internally inconsistent with the evidence he appends to his Reply. Mr. Satterthwaite includes his own written account of the events that took place on November 11, 2020, which corroborates, in part, the Captain’s report that Mr. Satterthwaite’ involved himself in the fire department’s emergency response effort.
[43] In Mr. Satterthwaite’s written account, he arrived at the scene and took photos of the accident. When the fire department showed up, he greeted a firefighter exiting a fire engine and said, “I think you may have a person inside the car”. He said he stood back and then another fire engine arrived. The Captain approached him, and Mr. Satterthwaite told the Captain he was “first on the scene, and they may have a person in the car, that no footprint tracks were exiting the vehicle”. He told the Captain that if he was going to send a crew to see if someone may have been ejected, they would see footprints from an earlier bystander who had walked below the vehicle. After the exchange, he stood back from the scene a second time. He then says a firefighter attempted to slide down an embankment and the Captain shouted to see if she needed a rope. Mr. Satterthwaite recounts: “I said quietly, ‘I think she needs a partner.’ [The Captain] asked me, ‘What was that?’ I apologized…and said ‘sorry [Captain] I just said I think she needs a partner’”. He said he then stood away from the scene for a third time. He said he also took photos of the Captain extinguishing the fire without personal protective equipment. He says, “I was full of anxiety from my PTSD and found it very difficult to stand back and say nothing. This was a traumatic event, and I was struggling with anxiety and to keeping it together while there”.
[44] With respect to Mr. Satterthwaite’s behaviour on November 11, issues exist concerning his credibility, particularly in light of the internally contradictory evidence he gives in his response to the application to dismiss. To connect his mental disability with his conduct that day, Mr. Satterthwaite points to his feelings of anxiety. He says both that he was anxious, so did not intervene except to call and report the incident, and that he was anxious, so was compelled to act, take photos, give instructions, and intervene. Mr. Satterthwaite has also not explained how his PTSD which, in the materials before me, manifests as flashbacks and crying, lack of sleep, emotional swings and depressed mood, is connected to his actions – or inactions – on November 11, 2020. There is no reasonable prospect Mr. Satterthwaite will prove a connection between his PTSD and his actions on November 11, 2020.
[45] Further, Mr. Satterthwaite has not explained how his behaviour on November 11 was, as he alleged, inconsistent with his previous behaviour as a firefighter. It is apparent, on the whole of the materials, that Mr. Satterthwaite and the Respondents had a long history (which I will not go into detail here, but which dates to at least 2018) whereby the Respondents and Mr. Satterthwaite had fundamentally different expectations for following chains of command, exercising his judgement appropriately, and the conduct expected of him as fire chief. In my view, his conduct on November 11, 2020, is consistent with the evidence in the materials about how he conducted himself prior to developing PTSD. Over the course of his employment there were multiple instances where he exercised his judgement in ways that conflicted with the Respondents’ expectations.
[46] In all of the circumstances, Mr. Satterthwaite has not taken a connection between the adverse experience he alleges and his PTSD out of the realm of conjecture. In making this finding, I am not assessing Mr. Satterthwaite’s credibility as the Tribunal would in the context of a full evidentiary hearing. Rather, my conclusion is based on my global assessment of all the evidence before me. I have taken into account the serious concerns which I have about his credibility in the context of the evidence as a whole to determine whether I believe the complaint has a reasonable prospect of success. I do not believe that it does.
IV CONCLUSION
[47] The complaint is dismissed in its entirety under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.
Laila Said Alam
Tribunal Member