Knos v. Options Community Services, 2025 BCHRT 148
Date Issued: June 24, 2025
File: CS-001308
Indexed as: Knos v. Options Community Services, 2025 BCHRT 148
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:
Claudia Knos
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Options Community Services
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Sections 27(1)(c) and (g)
Tribunal Member: Theressa Etmanski
On their own behalf: Claudia Knos
Counsel for the Respondent: Christopher McHardy and Laura DeVries
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Claudia Knos has filed a complaint against her employer, Options Community Services [Options] alleging discrimination in employment based on her physical and mental disabilities. She says she experienced workplace conditions and treatment by a manager in 2016 and 2017 that Options knew or ought to have known would exacerbate her disabilities. When she filed a bullying and harassment complaint [B&H Complaint] against her manager, she alleges that Options further discriminated against her through the way they investigated her complaint.
[2] Options denies the allegations and applies to dismiss the complaint under sections 27(1)(g) and 27(1)(c) of the Human Rights Code, because it says the allegations are out of time and have no reasonable prospect of success.
[3] To determine the timeliness of this complaint, the issues I must decide are:
a. Are there any arguable contraventions in the complaint that were filed within the Code’s one year time limit?
b. Do any of the older allegations form part of a continuing contravention with any timely allegations? And,
c. Are there compelling public interest reasons to accept any late filed allegations, and would any party experience substantial prejudice if the late allegations were allowed to proceed?
[4] I must also consider whether, with respect to any timely allegations, Ms. Knos has a reasonable prospect of successfully establishing that her disabilities were a factor in any adverse impact she may have experienced.
[5] For the following reasons, I grant the application and 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.
II BACKGROUND
[6] Options is a non-profit registered charity that provides social services in Surrey, Delta, White Rock and Langley. Ms. Knos became an employee of Options in November 1999 and has held a variety of positions over the years.
[7] In 2010, Options installed new carpeting in the workplace, and Ms. Knos says she was exposed to toxic fumes. She says that she developed various mental and physical disabilities, in part, from this exposure. These include diagnoses of Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD], and other conditions. Options disputes any causation between Ms. Knos’ alleged disabilities and the carpet installation and says that WorkSafeBC repeatedly rejected her claim for compensation on this basis.
[8] In or around 2015, Ms. Knos worked full-time as Counselling Services Coordinator [Counselling Role]. In August 2015, she applied for and was awarded a part-time position assisting with Options’ clinical data software platform, Nucleus [Nucleus Role]. From that time, she worked part-time in the Nucleus Role and part-time in her Counselling Role. She also performed some responsibilities for the Core Services group. Ms. Knos reported to a different manager for each of these three roles.
[9] In April 2016, Options hired a new manager responsible for Nucleus, to whom Ms. Knos reported for the Nucleus Role [Nucleus Manager]. Ms. Knos alleges that the Nucleus Manager did not have the training or ability to supervise an employee who required disability-related accommodations. She states that the Nucleus Manager placed unrealistic work expectations on her which aggravated her disabilities and created a toxic workplace. She further says the Nucleus Manager asked her intrusive and uninvited questions about her medical conditions, exploited her “weakened condition” to achieve the employer’s objective of saving money by forcing her into medical leave, and retaliated against her.
[10] Ms. Knos further alleges that starting in April 2016,
a. She was required to perform tasks that were unrealistic and which Options knew or ought to have known would cause or contribute to the deterioration of her disabilities;
b. She was forced to perform work without pay or additional time allocation;
c. Her work location was changed three times in six months;
d. She was required to work in locations which caused or contributed to her health issues;
e. Her request to work from a different location was denied; and
f. Her electromagnetic sensitivities were mocked, challenged, and not accommodated.
[11] Ms. Knos does not specify who was responsible for the above conduct and decisions, however, the timing appears to coincide with the start date of the Nucleus Manager.
[12] In or around December 2016, the parties agree that Ms. Knos requested that she return to her full-time Counselling Role and give up her Nucleus Role. Ms. Knos alleges that this was a request for accommodation based on her disabilities, as she had previously been able to work in the Counselling Role without aggravation of health conditions and her health could no longer tolerate the job-sharing arrangement. Options says it was unable to facilitate Ms. Knos’ request because of budget constraints in Counselling Services. Ms. Knos alleges that Options deliberately manipulated the budget to prevent her from returning to the Counselling Role. The parties agree that Ms. Knos and her managers engaged in some discussion regarding alternative arrangements, however they did not reach an agreement.
[13] On or around January 11, 2017, Ms. Knos commenced the process of filing the internal B&H Complaint against the Nucleus Manager.
[14] A few days later, Ms. Knos requested a medical leave. She commenced her leave on January 19, 2017, and has not returned to work since that day.
[15] Options says it did not immediately investigate the B&H Complaint because Ms. Knos was on medical leave and it was concerned about her well-being and were waiting for her to return to work. Ms. Knos says this was not discussed with her and she assumed that the investigation was proceeding in her absence.
[16] Options says that in or around December 2017, Ms. Knos also filed a complaint with WorkSafeBC claiming compensation for a mental disorder arising from alleged bullying and harassment in the workplace. WorkSafeBC later denied her claim.
[17] In April 2018, Options contacted Ms. Knos to inform her that they had appointed an internal investigator to investigate her B&H Complaint. However, further delays occurred because the internal investigator took various leaves over the subsequent months. In or around November 2018, the internal investigator began reporting to the Nucleus Manger who was the subject of the B&H Complaint. At that point Options says it became concerned about a potential or perceived conflict of interest. Accordingly, in early December 2018, Options suggested that it would seek an outside investigator to perform the investigation and Ms. Knos agreed.
[18] Options engaged the services of a third-party investigator [Investigator] in December 2018. Options says the Investigator had no prior knowledge of any circumstances related to the B&H Complaint and was not Options’ legal counsel. The investigation was conducted between December 2018 and February 2019.
[19] The Investigator interviewed witnesses, including Ms. Knos. At the end of her interview, Ms. Knos disclosed to the Investigator that she had been diagnosed with “PTSD as well as Target of Perceived Adverse Discrimination or Persecution.”
[20] The Investigator provided Ms. Knos with a copy of her preliminary findings and invited her feedback. In response, Ms. Knos accused Options of conducting the investigation to harass her and advised that she wished to file further bullying and harassment complaints against two of the witnesses in the Investigation, the Counselling Services manager and the CEO. Ms. Knos did not provide comments on the preliminary findings, although she was granted an extension to do so.
[21] The investigation concluded that Ms. Knos’ B&H Complaint was not substantiated. A report dated February 25, 2019, was provided to Ms. Knos [Investigation Report]. Options accepted the Investigator’s conclusions.
[22] Ms. Knos alleges that the two-year delay in commencing the investigation was discriminatory. She further says the investigation was one-sided and that Options used the investigation process to aggravate her disabilities, including by providing the Investigator with a limited mandate to prevent a fair and balanced finding. Finally, Ms. Knos alleges that Options continues to discriminate against her by providing her with false or misleading information.
III DECISION
A. Section 27(1)(g) – Timeliness of the complaint
[23] There is a one-year time limit for filing a human rights complaint: Code, s. 22. 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.
[24] 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 v. Parent obo the Child, 2018 BCCA 136 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.
[25] Ms. Knos filed her complaint with the Tribunal on February 25, 2020. Accordingly, only conduct alleged to have occurred on or after February 25, 2019, would meet the Code’s one year time limit for filing complaints, unless earlier conduct formed part of a continuing contravention with a timely allegation which would mean the allegations forming the continuing contravention are timely.
[26] Section 27(1)(g) permits the Tribunal to dismiss a late-filed complaint. Options says the majority of Ms. Knos’ allegations are said to have occurred between April 2016 and January 2017, more than three years before the complaint was filed. Options says the only alleged discriminatory conduct that could fall within the time limit are: first, the investigation which concluded with the Investigation Report issued on February 25, 2019; and second, Ms. Knos’ allegation that Options “continues to discriminate against [her/her] disability by providing [her] and/or [her] counsel with false or misleading information (gaslighting).” Options says these latest allegations do not constitute arguable contraventions of the Code, and therefore all the allegations should be dismissed. In the alternative, Options argues that if any of the allegations are arguable contraventions falling within the time limit, the allegations from 2016 and 2017 do not constitute continuing contraventions with the more recent allegations, and the Tribunal should not exercise its discretion to accept the late-filed portions of the complaint.
[27] Ms. Knos says the entire complaint is timely because the allegations all constitute continuing contraventions ending with the Investigation Report, which was issued within one-year of her complaint. In the alternative, she says that the Tribunal should accept her complaint because it is in the public interest and no substantial prejudice would result to any person because of the delay.
[28] The Tribunal applies the “arguable contravention test” to determine whether separate allegations, if proven, contravene the Code: see Chen at para. 23; Oram v. South Okanagan Similkameen Mental Wellness Society, 2025 BCHRT 63 at para. 24. The threshold for passing the “arguable contravention test” is low: Gichuru v. Vancouver Swing Society, 2021 BCCA 103 at para. 56. Ms. Knos must only allege facts that could establish a disability-based adverse impact in the context of her employment relationship with Options.
[29] Ms. Knos argues that the investigation itself, including the Investigation Report, was discriminatory. Ms. Knos says the Investigator was given a limited mandate, which prevented them from conducting the investigation in a fair and balanced manner, resulting in a one-sided conclusion that contributed to her mental and physical deterioration. In her response to this application, she further cites adverse impacts to her health flowing from being interviewed by the Investigator and receiving the Nucleus Manager’s response to her B&H Complaint, which contained statements she believed to be false. She also describes issues she had with how the investigation was conducted, such as not including an additional party as a respondent and not interviewing certain witnesses she identified. She says she felt that at various points through the investigation, Options and the Investigator had “taken advantage of [her] cognitive impairments” and influenced her “to make decisions which were to [her] disadvantage.” She describes specific impacts on her health following receipt of, first the Investigator’s preliminary findings, and then the Investigation Report, in which she says the Investigator used her PTSD diagnosis against her to find that she was “paranoid” or caught up in “conspiracies”.
[30] While the respondent’s explanation and evidence are not part of the “arguable contravention” test, I note that Options says that some of these allegations related to the investigation are raised for the first time in response to this application, and the Tribunal should decline to consider them. I disagree and find that Ms. Knos’ complaint contained a broad allegation regarding the unfairness of the investigation and how it was used to aggravate her disabilities, and the further information she has provided in her response to this application are particulars such that an application to amend her complaint is not necessary.
[31] It is well established law that an employer’s investigation can, on its own, amount to discrimination, “regardless of whether the underlying conduct subject to the investigation is found to be discriminatory”: The Employee v. The University and another (No. 2), 2020 BCHRT 12 at para. 272. Ms. Knos alleges that the B&H Complaint involved allegations of disability-related adverse impacts. While Options disputes that the underlying complaint related to discrimination, their information is not considered in this portion of my analysis. Considering the low threshold at this stage of assessment, I am satisfied that the allegations regarding the investigation described by the complainant, if proven, could amount to a contravention of the Code. In other words, I find that Ms. Knos has alleged a disability-related adverse impact in the context of employment, noting in particular the allegation that her PTSD diagnosis biased the investigation and caused the Investigator to conclude that she was “paranoid” or caught up in “conspiracies”. While some of the conduct related to the investigation, such as the decision with respect to its mandate, dates further back than the one-year time limit, I am satisfied that the investigative process from December 2018 to February 2019 forms part of a continuing contravention which concluded within the time limit for filing allowed by the Code. These allegations are of the same character: Option’s response to the B&H Complaint.
[32] I reach a different conclusion with respect to the somewhat vague allegation that Options continued to “gaslight” Ms. Knos by providing her or her counsel with false or misleading information. I find Ms. Knos has provided insufficient particulars to explain what specific conduct the respondent has engaged in or when it occurred, and how this could be connected to her disabilities. This allegation does not pass the arguable contravention test, and accordingly, it is dismissed.
[33] Having found that the investigation allegation is an arguable contravention filed within the one-year time limit, I next consider whether any of the older allegations form part of a continuing contravention.
[34] 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 itself 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.
[35] The complaint contains a wide range of older allegations, which can be summarized into the following two categories:
a. The two-year delay in commencing the investigation from January 2017 until December 2018; and
b. Discriminatory conduct between April 2016 and January 19, 2017, including: placing unrealistic work expectations on Ms. Knos and ignoring her complaints about her excessive work load, requiring her to perform unpaid work and tasks that the employer knew would contribute to the deterioration of her disabilities, forcing her to work in work locations unsuitable for her disabilities and frequently requiring her to change work locations, failing to accommodate her disabilities, asking her intrusive questions about her medical conditions, and mocking or challenging her medical conditions.
[36] I accept that the allegation of investigative delay is similar in nature to the investigation allegation, namely, it is about how Options responded to Ms. Knos’ B&H Complaint. However, I am not persuaded that this allegation passes the arguable contravention test. Specifically, while Ms. Knos alleges the delayed timing of the investigation contributed to the exacerbation of her disabilities, she has not alleged facts to support this. For example, she cites the Investigator’s reference to her PTSD diagnosis, which she says would not have been available to the Investigator had the investigation been conducted earlier, before she received the diagnosis. However, I understand this to, in essence, be an allegation about the investigation’s conclusions, rather than the delay. The allegation related to the Investigator’s reference to her PTSD diagnosis will be considered as part of her timely allegations below.
[37] In contrast, I accept that the alleged discriminatory conduct between April 2016 and January 2017, could be arguable contraventions, as they include alleged failure to accommodate Ms. Knos’ disabilities. As I understand it, Ms. Knos argues that these allegations form part of a continuing contravention with the investigation because she says the investigation was flawed in how it handled one of the same workplace issues contained in those allegations (the assignment of a particular task), and she says all the allegations relate to her disabilities. I do not agree that this makes the allegations of the same character.
[38] Options says, and I agree, that the 2016-2017 allegations constitute a discrete set of allegations, separated both in substance and in time from all subsequent allegations. They pertain to the Nucleus Manager’s alleged conduct and to Ms. Knos’ workload, work location, and role, as well as Options’ decision not to return her to her previous role in Counselling Services. In contrast, the investigation allegations are largely attributed to the third-party Investigator, as well as decisions made by the CEO about the scope of the investigation. These are of a very different nature than the allegations related to Ms. Knos’ day-to-day workplace conditions or the conduct of the Nucleus Manger. Accordingly, I find they do not form part of a continuing contravention and were filed out of time.
[39] Because the allegations from April 2016 to January 2017 are late filed, I now consider whether to exercise my discretion to nevertheless accept them under s. 22(3) of the Code. The burden is on the complainant to persuade the Tribunal to accept the late-filed portion of the complaint. I must consider two things: public interest and substantial prejudice.
[40] 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: s. 3. It 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; Mzite at para. 55. The inquiry is always fact and context specific.
[41] As a starting point, I note that the delay in filing a complaint with respect to the 2016 and 2017 allegations is more than two years. The most recent of the allegations from this time period occurred, at the latest, in early January 2017. Ms. Knos filed her complaint with the Tribunal in February 2020. I find this delay to be significant in the circumstances.
[42] In her complaint form, Ms. Knos provides two reasons for the late filing of her complaint. First, she says she waited for Options’ internal investigation processes to conclude before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. I am not persuaded by this explanation. The Tribunal has repeatedly said that pursuing another process does not suspend the time limit under the Code, and it is not enough, on its own, to relieve against the time limit: McNeill v. Compass Group Canada and another, 2024 BCHRT 89 at para. 41, Sones v. District of Squamish, 2016 BCHRT 99 at para. 44 and Devitt and Hargrove obo others v. School District No. 43 and another, 2011 BCHRT 218 at para. 20.
[43] Second, Ms. Knos says she was physically and mentally dealing with serious health conditions which prevented her from focusing on these matters. I accept that Ms. Knos was on medical leave from work at the relevant time and dealing with various health conditions. In particular, she says that in 2019 when the employer and WorkSafeBC investigated her complaints simultaneously, she experienced a severe impact on her health. However, her aggravated health condition in 2019 would not explain why she did not file her complaint on time, for example, by January 2018. I note that waiting to file a complaint about the 2016-2017 allegations until 2019, would have still rendered the allegations late-filed according to the Code. While I accept that she was experiencing issues with her health at the time, Ms. Knos has not provided evidence to support that her health condition throughout 2017 and 2018 prevented her from filing a complaint with the Tribunal. Rather, her medical evidence discusses her reported symptoms and various diagnoses, without providing a medical opinion on her capacity or limitations during that time. Further, the evidence indicates that she initiated and was involved in WorkSafeBC’s process regarding these same or similar issues at various points in 2017 and 2018, which indicates that she had the capacity to engage in legal proceedings during that time.
[44] I further note that Ms. Knos retained legal representation to assist with her employment issues at some point during this period. She does not specify when this occurred, or why she did not seek legal advice sooner. Ms. Knos’ ability to retain and instruct legal counsel further suggests she had capacity to advance her legal interests during the relevant time: McNeill at para. 36.
[45] Finally, I am not persuaded that there are any other compelling public interest reasons to accept the late-filed allegations. In her response to this application, Ms. Knos makes various submissions regarding the public interest which I do not find persuasive. Some of her submissions advocate in favour of legislative amendments to the Code, or for the Tribunal to establish broad regulations for employers, both of which are beyond the powers of the Tribunal in the context of an individual complaint or at all. Other aspects of her submissions generally call for the Code’s protection in circumstances where it already applies. I am not persuaded that these submissions indicate there is anything particularly unique, novel, or unusual about this complaint; rather, it relates only to specific issues regarding Ms. Knos’ personal situation. The Tribunal regularly addresses complaints related to the grounds of mental and physical disability in the employment context. This weighs against allowing her complaint to proceed.
[46] For these reasons, I am not persuaded that it is in the public interest to accept the 2016-2017 allegations. It is therefore unnecessary for me to consider whether accepting the late-filed aspect of the complaint would give rise to substantial prejudice for any party.
[47] Accordingly, only Ms. Knos’ allegations regarding the investigation between December 2018 and February 2019 were filed on time. The remaining workplace allegations dated from April 2016 to January 2017, and the alleged delay in commencing the investigation between January 2017 and December 2018, are all dismissed.
B. Section 27(1)(c) – No reasonable prospect of success
[48] Options further applies to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c) The onus is on Options to establish the basis for dismissal.
[49] 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.
[50] 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.
[51] 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.
[52] To prove her complaint at a hearing, Ms. Knos will have to prove that she has a characteristic protected by the Code, she was adversely impacted in employment, and her protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. If she did that, the burden would shift to Options to justify the impact as a bona fide occupational requirement. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.
[53] Options says the investigation allegations have no reasonable prospect of success because Ms. Knos will not be able to establish that she experienced an adverse impact, or if she did, that her disabilities were a factor in any adverse impact. Options further argues that the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success because it is reasonably certain to prove a defence at the hearing: Purdy v. Douglas College and others, 2016 BCHRT 117 at para. 50.
[54] For the reasons that follow, I agree with Options that Ms. Knos has no reasonable prospect of successfully proving her complaint at a hearing.
[55] Ms. Knos alleges that the investigation was carried out in a discriminatory manner. She says Options used the internal investigation process to aggravate her mental and physical disabilities so that she would remain disabled. Specifically, she says Options provided a limited mandate for the Investigator to be able to properly conclude their findings in a fair and balanced manner, resulting in one-sided results which contributed to her mental and physical deterioration. In her response to this application, Ms. Knos further explains that her “health temporarily declined” after being interviewed by the Investigator, and her “disability got aggravated” after receiving the response provided by the Nucleus Manager which she believed to contain false information. She also describes issues she had with how the investigation was conducted, such as the Investigator not including an additional party as a respondent and not interviewing certain witnesses she identified. She says she felt that at various points through the investigation, Options and the Investigator took “advantage of [her] cognitive impairments” and influenced her “to make decisions which were to [her] disadvantage.” She also describes specific impacts on her health following receipt of first the Investigator’s preliminary findings, and then the Investigation Report, in which she says the Investigator used her PTSD diagnosis against her to find that she was “paranoid” or caught up in “conspiracies”.
[56] Options denies the allegations and says it tasked the Investigator with fully investigating the B&H Complaint filed by the complainant against the Nucleus Manager. The Investigator considered the complainant’s allegations both individually and cumulatively and interviewed Ms. Knos, the Nucleus Manager, and three other witnesses. One additional witness refused to speak to the Investigator. The Investigator decided not to interview three other witnesses suggested by Ms. Knos because they were either duplicative or irrelevant to the subject of the complaint.
[57] Options says the Investigator treated Ms. Knos respectfully throughout the investigation, including by interviewing her at her home on her request, by providing her with ample time to explain her allegations and provide supporting documentation, and by providing her with the opportunity to respond to the preliminary factual findings and submit additional documents well into the investigation process. Options asserts that all her allegations were carefully reviewed, investigated and assessed. It asserts that the fact that the Investigator ultimately found that the B&H Complaint was not substantiated, and Options accepted this conclusion, does not mean that the investigation was limited in mandate or one-sided. Further, Options says it undertook the investigation because Ms. Knos wanted it done. While she may have found it stressful to participate in the process, there was no intention on Options’ part to aggravate her disabilities.
[58] Discrimination does not have to be intentional: Code, s. 2. Human rights law is about impact, not intention: Fenech v. PNI Media Inc. and another, 2023 BCHRT 120 at para. 61. Nevertheless, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that Ms. Knos has taken out of the realm of conjecture that Options used the investigation process to aggravate her disabilities so that she would remain disabled or took advantage of her “cognitive impairments” and influenced her to make decisions which were to her disadvantage. She has not provided any evidence to support these allegations beyond her bald assertions and speculation.
[59] I am also not persuaded that Ms. Knos has established beyond the realm of conjecture that there is any connection between Options’ actions in investigating her complaint and the alleged impact on her disability. I accept that Ms. Knos found the Investigation to be stressful and stress can trigger a worsening of her disability-related symptoms. However, the Tribunal has found that even if a complainant establishes that a respondent’s conduct has caused a disability, or exacerbated an existing one, this does not establish discrimination contrary to the Code: Jardine v. Interior Health Authority (No. 2), 2022 BCHRT 7 at para. 86. To establish discrimination, Ms. Knos must establish that she experienced an adverse impact in which her disabilities were a factor. In other words, that Options treated her adversely, at lease in part, because of her disabilities: Ryhal v. Save-On-Foods and others, 2019 BCHRT 202 at paras. 4, 28‑29; Rutherford v. BC Pension Corporation, 2024 BCHRT 278 at para. 50. The distinction between assessing whether Ms. Knos has taken beyond the realm of conjecture that Options exacerbated her disability by investigating her B&H Complaint, and assessing whether it is beyond conjecture that her disability was a factor in how Option’s managed and conducted the Investigation process, is subtle but important: Jardine at para. 87. The former is not a breach of the Code, while if the latter is proven, would trigger Options’ duty to accommodate.
[60] Although Ms. Knos has provided voluminous documents for the purpose of this application, I do not see any evidence in the materials before me to support that Ms. Knos’ disabilities were a factor in how her complaint was investigated. This includes the Investigator’s reference to her PTSD diagnosis and the use of the terms “conspiracy” and “paranoia” in the Investigation Report, which Ms. Knos says indicates that her PTSD diagnosis was “used against her” in the Investigation. The Investigation Report addresses this issue explicitly in its conclusion:
Another factor which supported my findings is that at the close of our interview, Ms. Knos advised me that she has a form of [PTSD] which causes her to be suspicious and/or paranoid. Although Ms. Knos disclosed this in good faith to help me understand her situation, she did not appear to appreciate that this tendency to paranoia could well explain her view of [the Nucleus Manager] and her conspiracy theories. To be clear, I made the Preliminary Findings and the findings above, without regard to her disclosure in this regard. In other words, I made my findings based on the Complaint, the interviews, and the materials and documents that were provided to me, without considering Ms. Knos’ disclosure regarding her tendency to paranoia. Nonetheless, I do note, in support of my findings, that Ms. Knos’ admissions regarding her [PTSD] are clearly related to, and support, the findings and conclusion of this Report.
[61] I am not persuaded, based on a plain reading of the Investigation Report and the explanation provided, that Ms. Knos’ allegation is anything more than speculation.
[62] Similarly, I am not persuaded that the evidence of Ms. Knos’ co-worker, who acted as a witness in the investigation, [Witness] supports her allegation that her disabilities were a factor in how her B&H Complaint was investigated. In her sworn statement provided in support of this application, the Witness describes issues she personally had with the Nucleus Manager’s leadership style. She also describes an incident she witnessed where the Nucleus Manger “tried to push unreasonable demands” on another employee, which she says she shared with the Investigator. However, Ms. Knos says the Investigator did not include this, or other examples mentioned by the Witness that were unfavourable to the Nucleus Manager, in the Investigation Report. The Witness concludes with the following statement about her impression of the Investigator: “The lawyer didn’t seem to have a neutral objective position in the way she was formulating her questions. I felt more like she was trying to lead me on a discreditation path towards Miss Knos.”
[63] Ms. Knos says this raises concerns about the ways witness testimony was obtained and utilized. She says it also demonstrates that the investigation was conducted “in bad faith, without anticipation of accountability; for the purpose of aggravating [her] disabilities so [she] would remain disabled; and quite possibly in retaliation of the PTSD diagnoses itself.”
[64] I do not agree that this evidence supports the conclusion Ms. Knos wishes to establish beyond speculation. The role of the Tribunal on this application is not to sit in judicial review of the investigation or its conclusions. In other words, even if there were flaws in how the investigation was conducted or how the evidence was analysed and reported, that alone would not take the complainant’s case out of the realm of conjecture. As previously stated, the question before me is whether Ms. Knos’ disabilities were a factor in the purported flaws in the investigation. There is no evidence before me to support such a connection.
[65] For these reasons, I dismiss the remaining allegations in the complaint.
IV CONCLUSION
[66] I dismiss the complaint in its entirety pursuant to ss. 27(1)(c) and 27(1)(g) of the Code.
[67] I apologise to the parties for the Tribunal’s delay in issuing this decision.
Theressa Etmanski
Tribunal Member