Pooni v. Board of Education of School District No. 38 (Richmond), 2025 BCHRT 147
Date Issued: June 20, 2025
File: CS-004271
Indexed as: Pooni v. Board of Education of School District No. 38 (Richmond), 2025 BCHRT 147
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:
Sagar Pooni
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Board of Education of School District No. 38 (Richmond)
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c) and 27(1)(g)
Tribunal Member: Andrew Robb
On his own behalf: Sagar Pooni
Counsel for the Respondent: David Penner
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Sagar Pooni is a teacher employed by the Board of Education of School District No. 38 (Richmond) [the School District]. He taught at an elementary school in the School District until 2021 [the School], when the School District transferred him to a different school. Mr. Pooni identifies as Indo-Canadian, of Punjabi descent, and he says he experienced incidents of racism at the School. But he wanted to continue teaching there, and he says the decisions that led to his transfer reflected racist stereotypes and double-standards.
[2] The School District denies discriminating. It says the racist incidents alleged by Mr. Pooni did not happen at all, or did not happen as he alleges. The School District says Mr. Pooni’s transfer was a disciplinary measure arising from his communications with members of the school community about an investigation into his conduct, as these communications violated the School District’s rules about confidentiality.
[3] The School District applies to dismiss the complaint. It says some of Mr. Pooni’s allegations are untimely, and the Tribunal should not accept these allegations. In addition, the School District says Mr. Pooni has no reasonable prospect of proving any of the incidents alleged in the complaint, including his transfer out of the School, were connected to his race.
[4] For the following reasons, I allow the School District’s application, and I dismiss the complaint. I find Mr. Pooni’s allegations from before 2020 are untimely, and I am not persuaded that I should exercise my discretion to accept the untimely allegations. Regarding the allegations from 2020 and later, I find Mr. Pooni has no reasonable prospect of proving the incidents described in these allegations, including the decisions that led to him being transferred, had any connection to his race.
[5] 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.
II BACKGROUND
[6] The allegations in Mr. Pooni’s complaint, as amended, occurred between 2017 and 2021. Many of the allegations involve BC, the principal of the School at the time Mr. Pooni filed his complaint, and SP, who was principal before BC.
[7] Mr. Pooni says that during a staff meeting in December 2017, SP asked for volunteers to play Santa Claus at an annual event. When Mr. Pooni volunteered, another teacher suggested Santa Claus should be white. Mr. Pooni says SP failed to address this comment. Mr. Pooni says the same teacher later complained about having to work with Mr. Pooni on a project. He says SP heard this complaint and again failed to address it. Mr. Pooni does not give any further context for the latter incident.
[8] In January 2018, Mr. Pooni says a different teacher claimed that Mr. Pooni and another School staff member of Punjabi descent were “changing the school”, and encouraging students to wear their hats backwards and use terms like “yo” and “what’s up”. Mr. Pooni says the teacher mocked “African-American hip hop culture”. Mr. Pooni says he reported this to SP, but SP did nothing to address it.
[9] In June 2018, Mr. Pooni says SP told him that SP should never have hired a different School staff member, who was also of Punjabi descent.
[10] SP made a sworn statement in support of the application to dismiss. He says he cannot recall the specifics of what occurred in the incidents described in Mr. Pooni’s complaint, but he says Mr. Pooni’s race was never an issue in his interactions with Mr. Pooni. Regarding the June 2018 incident, SP says he did not hire the staff member in question, so the alleged comment makes no sense.
[11] By 2019, BC was principal of the School. On June 25, 2019, Mr. Pooni says another School employee gossiped about him, in BC’s presence, but BC did not address this and discouraged Mr. Pooni from addressing it. Mr. Pooni does not give any further context for this incident.
[12] BC made a sworn statement in support of the application to dismiss, and provided his notes about incidents related to Mr. Pooni. BC says the notes were taken on or around the dates of those incidents. BC says he was not aware of anyone gossiping about Mr. Pooni. His notes from June 25 to 27, 2019, refer to a number of interpersonal disputes between Mr. Pooni and other School staff. The notes from June 25 do not indicate anyone gossiped about Mr. Pooni, but the notes from June 27 refer to a staff meeting in which Mr. Pooni objected to unspecified rumours about himself.
[13] On November 1, 2019, Mr. Pooni says BC treated him unfairly, and Mr. Pooni told BC he planned to call his union about this. In response, Mr. Pooni says, BC claimed that Mr. Pooni had threatened him, and that other staff also find him threatening. On the same day, Mr. Pooni says BC prevented him from being in the same room with another employee who would support Mr. Pooni’s claims, because BC said Mr. Pooni would intimidate the other employee. Mr. Pooni does not give any further context for the events of November 1, 2019. BC’s notes say that on November 1, 2019, Mr. Pooni arrived late for work, and was not prepared for work. They do not give any further context. BC denies claiming that Mr. Pooni threatened him.
[14] BC denies Mr. Pooni’s claim that BC prevented another employee from being in the same room as Mr. Pooni. BC says he would have allowed the other employee to be present in the same room with Mr. Pooni, but “some employees requested” that Mr. Pooni not be there, and BC respected their requests. BC does not give any further context.
[15] Later in November 2019, Mr. Pooni says BC told him that two other School staff members of Punjabi descent should “shut the fuck up”. Mr. Pooni does not give any further context for this incident. BC denies saying this.
[16] On November 1, 2020, Mr. Pooni says another employee insulted and attacked his religion, and falsely accused him of assault, and BC did not address this. Mr. Pooni does not give any further context for this incident. The evidence provided by both parties indicates the other employee involved in this incident was another teacher, SJ. BC’s notes from November 1, 2020, say Mr. Pooni reported a conversation with SJ, about sexual orientation and gender identity and religion. The notes say Mr. Pooni expressed concern that SJ would not respect his religious beliefs, and BC said it may be best to avoid discussing religion at school. BC says he advised both Mr. Pooni and SJ to avoid religious discussions at work. He says SJ apologised to Mr. Pooni, and Mr. Pooni did not bring up this incident again.
[17] In May 2021, SJ accused Mr. Pooni of harassing her, between October 2020 and May 2021. In a letter to Mr. Pooni dated May 20, 2021, the School District notified him about SJ’s allegation, and said there would be an investigation. The letter said Mr. Pooni was expected to keep the situation confidential. It appears that he was put on leave pending the investigation.
[18] In a letter dated May 28, 2021, the School District notified Mr. Pooni that it had initiated another investigation into his conduct. The second investigation arose because he had allegedly communicated with a student’s parent about the investigation into SJ’s allegations against him, despite being told to keep the situation confidential.
[19] In June 2021, Mr. Pooni complained to the School District that SJ had sexually harassed him. The School District hired an external lawyer to investigate the complaint.
[20] In a letter dated June 9, 2021, the School District advised Mr. Pooni that the School District’s investigation found SJ’s allegations against him were unsubstantiated, but the allegation that he had communicated with a parent about the investigation into SJ’s allegation was substantiated. The letter said Mr. Pooni told the parent, during the investigation, that he was absent from the School for work-related reasons, and that he had done nothing wrong and his union was representing him. The letter said Mr. Pooni acknowledged that his communications with the parent should not have occurred. Mr. Pooni does not deny this, in the materials before me.
[21] The letter went on to say Mr. Pooni’s communications with the parent implied that he was under investigation, and this disclosure caused distress and disruption to the School community. Consequently, the School District decided to discipline Mr. Pooni, by reassigning him to an on-call teaching position for the rest of the 2020-2021 school year, and then transferring him to a different school for the 2021-2022 school year.
[22] All three letters (dated May 20, May 28, and June 9, 2021) were signed by SH, the School District’s Director of Employee Relations. SH made a sworn statement in support of the School District’s application to dismiss. She says the decision to discipline Mr. Pooni, and the nature of that discipline, were determined by the School District’s human resources department, and BC was not involved in those decisions.
[23] Mr. Pooni says the decision to transfer him to a different school violated a provision of the collective agreement, which says that when harassment allegations result in the transfer of an employee, the harasser should be transferred, not the complainant. The School District says he was not transferred because of the harassment allegations but because he communicated with a parent about the investigation into those allegations, after being told to keep the situation confidential.
[24] The external lawyer hired by the School District to investigate Mr. Pooni’s complaint against SJ completed their investigation in July 2021, although Mr. Pooni says the School District did not share the report with him or his union until September 2021. The investigation report found a pattern of inappropriate comments by SJ to Mr. Pooni, of a sexual nature, which SJ knew or ought to have known were unwelcome. The report found that Mr. Pooni’s complaint against SJ was not in retaliation for SJ’s complaint against him, as Mr. Pooni had previously considered submitting a harassment complaint against SJ, and was acting on the advice of his union when he submitted his complaint in June 2021.
[25] Mr. Pooni later filed an amendment to his human rights complaint in which he claimed that SJ was not disciplined by the School District, despite the lawyer’s finding that she harassed Mr. Pooni. The School District does not deny this, in the materials before me. Mr. Pooni says this was unfair, considering that he was transferred to a different school, against his will, for a less serious offence.
III DECISION
A. Section 27(1)(g) – Timeliness of allegations
[26] Under s. 22 of the Human Rights Code, there is a one-year time limit for filing a human rights complaint. Section 22 is meant to ensure that complainants pursue their human rights remedies promptly so that respondents can go ahead with their activities without the possibility of a dated complaint: Chartier v. School District No. 62, 2003 BCHRT 39 at para. 12.
[27] Mr. Pooni’s complaint was filed June 13, 2021. The School District argues that all the allegations from more than one year before that date are late filed and should be dismissed under s. 27(1)(g) of the Code. This includes all the allegations involving SP, and the allegations involving BC from November 2019 and June 2019 [the Pre-2020 Allegations].
[28] I must decide two issues: (1) whether the Pre-2020 Allegations are late filed, and (2) if so, whether to exercise my discretion to accept the Pre-2020 Allegations, because it is in the public interest to do so and there is no substantial prejudice to any person because of the delay: Code, s. 22(3), School District v. Parent obo the Child, 2018 BCCA 136 at para. 68.
[29] A complaint is filed in time if the last allegation of discrimination happened within one year, and older allegations are part of a “continuing contravention”: Code, s. 22(2); School District at para. 68. A continuing contravention is “a succession or repetition of separate acts of discrimination of the same character” that could be considered separate contraventions of the Code, and “not merely one act of discrimination which may have continuing effects or consequences”: Chen v. Surrey (City), 2015 BCCA 57 at para. 23; School District at para. 50.
[30] The assessment of whether discrete allegations are a continuing contravention is a “fact specific one which will depend very much on the individual circumstances of each case”: Dickson v. Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition, 2005 BCHRT 209 at para. 17. A relevant consideration is whether there are significant gaps between the allegations: Dickson at paras. 16-17. Whether or not a gap is significant will be assessed contextually, considering the length of the gap and any explanations for the gap: Reynolds v. Overwaitea Food Group, 2013 BCHRT 67, at para. 28. A significant, unexplained, gap in time will weigh against finding a continuing contravention: Bjorklund v. BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, 2018 BCHRT 204 at para. 14.
[31] Mr. Pooni says all the allegations in his complaint are related because they involved “allowing denigration of myself and allowing it since I am Indo-Canadian.” I understand this to mean that all his allegations involved School District staff allowing him to be subjected to poor treatment because he is Indo-Canadian. The School District disputes this; it says his allegations from 2020 and later have no relation to his race.
[32] I find the Pre-2020 Allegations are not part of a continuing contravention. All the allegations from 2020 and later involve SJ, or the School District’s investigations about the complaints between SJ and Mr. Pooni, or Mr. Pooni’s transfer out of the School. None of the Pre-2020 Allegations involve SJ, or any investigations into Mr. Pooni’s conduct, or any suggestion that he could be transferred. Unlike the Pre-2020 Allegations, Mr. Pooni’s allegations from 2020 and later do not refer to race. In my view, the Pre-2020 Allegations are not of the same character as the later allegations, and there is no apparent connection between these two sets of allegations.
[33] There is a gap in time of 12 months between November 2019, the date of the most recent of the Pre-2020 Allegations, and November 2020, the date of the earliest allegation involving SJ. This is a significant gap. Mr. Pooni does not offer any arguments about how the Tribunal could find a continuing contravention, in light of this gap.
[34] For these reasons, I find the Pre-2020 Allegations are late filed.
[35] I now consider whether to accept the Pre-2020 Allegations under s. 22(3). The burden is on Mr. Pooni to persuade the Tribunal to accept these allegations, considering whether it is in the public interest to do so, and whether doing so would cause substantial prejudice to any person.
[36] The Tribunal assesses the public interest in a late filed complaint in light of the purposes of the Code. These include identifying and eliminating persistent patterns of inequality, and providing a remedy for persons who are discriminated against. The Tribunal may consider factors like the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the complainant’s interest in accessing the Tribunal, the respondent’s interest in being able to continue its activities without worrying about stale complaints, whether the complainant got legal advice, and the public interest in the complaint itself: British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite, 2014 BCCA 220 at para. 53 and 63; Hoang v. Warnaco and Johns, 2007 BCHRT 24; Complainant v. The Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria), 2022 BCHRT 44 at para. 18. These are important factors, but they are not necessarily determinative and not every factor will be relevant in every case: Goddard v. Dixon, 2012 BCSC 161 at para. 152. The inquiry is always fact and context specific.
[37] Mr. Pooni’s response to the application to dismiss does not address the timeliness issue at all. Mr. Pooni’s only argument that could go to the s. 22(3) analysis is in his complaint, which says he did not file a complaint based on the Pre-2020 Allegations earlier because he did not feel he needed to report the discrimination until the “accumulation of racist behaviour” led to his removal from the School. He also says accepting his complaint will benefit other Indo-Canadian employees of the School District.
[38] I am not satisfied that the public interest favours accepting the Pre-2020 Allegations. The length of the delay in filing the complaint about these allegations is significant: some of the Pre-2020 Allegations date back to December 2017, approximately three and a half years before the complaint was filed. The most recent of the Pre-2020 Allegations is from November 2019, which is still over 18 months before the complaint was filed.
[39] It is clear from Mr. Pooni’s argument that he was motivated to file the complaint because he was transferred. This suggests that he chose not to file a human rights complaint sooner because, although he believed he faced discrimination all along, he did not believe the effects of the discrimination were serious enough to warrant filing a complaint. Mr. Pooni could have filed the complaint sooner, but chose not to because he did not think it was necessary until he faced discipline.
[40] Mr. Pooni does not explain his assertion that accepting his complaint will benefit other Indo-Canadian employees of the School District. In the absence of any explanation, I am not persuaded that accepting the complaint would benefit anyone other than Mr. Pooni.
[41] In my view, Mr. Pooni’s explanation for the delay in filing, and his bare assertion that accepting the complaint will benefit others, are insufficient to justify the length of the delay. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the public interest favours accepting the Pre-2020 Allegations. It is therefore unnecessary for me to consider whether doing so would give rise to substantial prejudice to any person.
[42] I dismiss the Pre-2020 Allegations under s. 27(1)(g) of the Code.
B. Section 27(1)(c) – No reasonable prospect of success
[43] The remaining allegations, from 2020 and later, relate to SJ, the complaints filed by Mr. Pooni and SJ about each other, and the School District’s decision to transfer Mr. Pooni out of the School. The School District applies to dismiss these allegations under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code, on the basis that they have no reasonable prospect of success.
[44] 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. The onus is on the School District to establish the basis for dismissal.
[45] 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. 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.
[46] 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.
[47] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Pooni will have to prove he has a characteristic protected by the Code, he was adversely impacted in his 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 School District to justify the impact as a bona fide occupational requirement. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.
[48] The School District does not deny that Mr. Pooni is Indo-Canadian, of Punjabi descent, or that he is entitled to the protection of the Code based on his race. Nor does the School District deny that Mr. Pooni’s transfer out of the School amounts to an adverse impact on his employment. But the School District says he has no reasonable prospect of proving a connection between his race and the decision to transfer him.
[49] When determining the likelihood of Mr. Pooni proving this connection, I consider that complainants often face difficulty in proving discrimination based on race because people seldom express biases, prejudices, and unconscious beliefs openly: Ochebiri v. Corrpro Canada, 2019 BCHRT 99 at para. 66; Batson-Dottin v. Forensic Psychiatric Hospital (No. 2), 2018 BCHRT 246 at para. 4. Typically, whether these characteristics are a factor in the adverse impact a complainant experienced “is gleaned from reasonable inferences drawn from all of the circumstances”: Ochebiri at para. 66. But there is no presumption of discrimination: Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), 2015 SCC 39 at para. 88. Despite the undeniable existence of racism, and the subtlety of racial prejudice, any inference of discrimination must be rooted in the evidence of a particular case: Campbell v. Vancouver Police Board (No. 4), 2019 BCHRT 275 at para. 104.
[50] In his human rights complaint, Mr. Pooni says BC initiated an unfounded investigation against him, which led to his removal from the School. He suggests this was based on stereotypes about Indo-Canadian men being threatening and aggressive. His arguments in response to the application to dismiss suggest he was subject to a double-standard, as he faced serious consequences for what he considered a minor infraction (by communicating with a parent about the School District’s investigation into SJ’s complaint against him), while SJ was not disciplined for sexually harassing him.
[51] Based on the materials before me, I am satisfied Mr. Pooni has no reasonable prospect of proving a connection between his race and the process that led to him being transferred out of the School.
[52] Despite Mr. Pooni’s allegation, there is nothing in the materials before me that could connect BC to the initiation of the investigations against Mr. Pooni. The first investigation into Mr. Pooni’s conduct was initiated because of SJ’s complaint. The second investigation was based on Mr. Pooni’s communications with a parent about the first investigation. There is no evidence before me about who initiated the second investigation, and no evidence that BC had anything to do with it.
[53] Even if BC had previously engaged in stereotyping about Indo-Canadians, on the evidence before me this would not be relevant to the investigations, because it appears both investigations were initiated and carried out by the School District’s human resources department, not by BC or anyone at the School. Mr. Pooni does not dispute SH’s evidence that BC played no part in the School District’s disciplinary decisions about Mr. Pooni.
[54] There is no evidence before me that could support a finding that Mr. Pooni’s race was a factor in the School District’s investigation into SJ’s complaint against him. He does not explain any basis on which the Tribunal could find the investigation process was racist, and the investigation concluded that the complaint was not substantiated, so there is no reasonable prospect that he will prove it was influenced by stereotypes about Indo-Canadian men being threatening or aggressive.
[55] There is some evidence that supports Mr. Pooni’s claim of a double standard, in terms of the discipline faced by Mr. Pooni and SJ, respectively. Mr. Pooni was transferred to a different school, against his will, because he communicated to a parent about the investigation into SJ’s complaint. On the evidence before me it appears SJ faced no discipline, despite the external investigator’s finding that she sexually harassed Mr. Pooni. It is understandable that Mr. Pooni found this unfair.
[56] To the extent this was unfair to Mr. Pooni, however, there is nothing in the evidence before me that could support an inference that Mr. Pooni’s race was a factor in the unfairness. He does not explain how the School District’s finding that led to his transfer—that is, the finding that he communicated with parents about the School District’s investigation into SJ’s complaint about him—engages stereotypes about Indo-Canadian men. I have reviewed all of Mr. Pooni’s materials, and I cannot discern any basis on which this finding, or the decision to transfer him, could be connected to his race.
[57] Mr. Pooni says the School District acted in a way that violated the collective agreement, by taking too long to investigate his complaint about SJ, and by ultimately transferring him, instead of the person who harassed him. But even if the School District violated the collective agreement, there is nothing in the materials before me that could connect the violation to his race.
[58] For these reasons, I find Mr. Pooni has no reasonable prospect of proving his race was a factor in the adverse impacts alleged in his complaint. I dismiss his allegations from 2020 and later under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.
IV CONCLUSION
[59] The complaint is dismissed.
Andrew Robb
Tribunal Member