Pearson v. Global News and others, 2025 BCHRT 162
Date Issued: July 10, 2025
File: CS-005704
Indexed as: Pearson v. Global News and others, 2025 BCHRT 162
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:
Mitchell Pearson
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Global News and Nelson Daily and Asian Journal
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
Section 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On his own behalf: Mitchell Pearson
Counsel for Global News: Daniel H. Coles
On behalf of Nelson Daily: Bruce Fuhr
No submissions: Asian Journal
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] On November 15, 2021, Mitchell Pearson filed a complaint of discrimination in publication based on race and Indigenous identity contrary to s. 7 of the Human Rights Code [Code], against Global News, Nelson Daily and Asian Journal [together the Respondents].
[2] On July 25, 2023, the Tribunal allowed the complaint to proceed to a timeliness decision after concluding it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint against Global News and being satisfied that the complaint contained allegations of discrimination under s. 7 of the Code.
[3] I note that Global News raised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this complaint as it is a federally regulated entity. While agreeing with the July 25, 2023, decision that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over online news publications in this case, given the outcome of my decision below, I decided it was unnecessary to provide any detailed analysis concerning that question in my decision.
[4] I also note the Tribunal received a late filed submission from Nelson Daily in this application. The Tribunal also did not receive any submission from Asian Journal despite it being invited to provide one. Given the outcome of my decision, I decided it was unnecessary to consider the Nelson Daily’s late submission or consider the need to make any further attempts to invite the Asian Journal’s participation.
[5] The issue before me is whether to accept the Complaint against the Respondents. I make no findings of fact regarding the merits of this complaint.
[6] For the reasons that follow, I find that the Complaint against the Respondents is not a continuing contravention of the Code: s. 22(2), and it is not in the public interest to allow it to proceed late filed: s. 22(3).
II. BACKGROUND
[7] Mr. Pearson is First Nations.
[8] In early 2014, each Respondent published a single online news article stating Mr. Pearson was wanted by the RCMP on assault charges and for uttering threats. The articles noted Mr. Pearson was Caucasian in error and warned the public not to confront him as he was considered to be violent.
[9] Mr. Pearson was arrested shortly after the warrant was issued and plead guilty to assault. He was sentenced to one day in jail, 18 months of probation, and was required to pay a $100 victim surcharge.
[10] Mr. Pearson takes no issue with the posting of news articles by the Respondents during the timeframe when the warrant for his arrest was outstanding. However, his complaint is focused on the Respondents continuing to post the articles on their websites for many years afterwards, despite the warrant no longer being of any relevance after his arrest and sentencing for the crime.
[11] In the years following the posting of the warrant for arrest news articles, Mr. Pearson alleges prospective employers googled his name and found the news articles. He alleges the searches resulted in him missing out on potential jobs. Mr. Pearson further alleges that his private life was also negatively affected over the years by the online news articles because women do not want to date him when they searched his name online to discover the warrant for his arrest in 2014.
[12] As of the time Mr. Pearson filed his complaint in November 2021, he alleges reaching out to the Respondents over the years to request them to remove the warrant news articles from their websites without success. However, in 2023 he reports that the Nelson Daily removed the story from its website. Global News reports that it recently updated its version of the news article in question to include information that Mr. Pearson was no longer wanted for arrest. Mr. Pearson has not commented on the status of the Asian Journal’s version of the news article.
III. ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[13] The time limit set out in s. 22 of the Code is a substantive provision which is intended to ensure that complainants pursue their human rights remedies diligently: Chartier v. School District No. 62, 2003 BCHRT 39.
A. Time Limit and Continuing Contravention
[14] The Complaint was filed on November 15, 2021. To comply with the one-year time limit under s. 22(1) of the Code, the alleged act of discrimination had to occur on or after November 15, 2020.
[15] 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 [School District]. 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 57at para. 23; School District at para. 50.
[16] This complaint contains a complex issue related to whether an arguable allegation of discrimination under s. 7 of the Code based on Indigenous identity exists in circumstances where the publication does not refer to his Indigeneity. Mr. Pearson appears to argue that s. 7 of the Code applies since he experiences further harms related to a publication about his criminality as an Indigenous male. For the purposes of this decision, I am satisfied that Mr. Pearson has set out an arguable contravention of the Code under s. 7 and I am not inclined to interfere with the Tribunal’s July 25, 2023, screening decision allowing the complaint to proceed to this timeliness decision.
[17] The focus of Mr. Pearson’s timeliness submission relates to whether the allegations against the Respondents were ongoing. He argues that his complaint was not late filed because up to the time the complaint was filed, anyone could enter his name into an internet search engine and retrieve a copy of the Respondents’ online news articles from 2014 that included a picture of his face, a description about the warrant for his arrest for assault and uttering threats, and a warning to the public that he was potentially violent. If I understand his argument correctly, Mr. Pearson alleges that every time a search brought back results with the 2014 articles in them a further publication discrimination allegation occurred contrary to s. 7 of the Code based on his Indigenous identity. Mr. Pearson noted the devastating effects such search results had on his employment and personal life.
[18] While appreciating that Mr. Pearson continued to suffer harms while the news articles about the warrant for his arrest in 2014 continued to be posted online long after the warrant was issued by the RCMP, I am not convinced that continuing access to the articles created a continuing contravention of the Code. In my view, ongoing public access to news articles that were clearly dated 2014 are more appropriately characterized as containing consequence of single allegations of discrimination by each Respondent from single incidents in early 2014. No doubt the negative effects in this case were magnified by the indexing of Mr. Pearson’s name to the articles in question in search engine results. However, this is not a case of a series of allegedly discriminatory news articles being published about Mr. Pearson that can be viewed together as continuing contravention because they are of similar character without any significant gaps in time occurring between them.
[19] The complaint for a single allegation against each Respondent related to publishing an online news article in early 2014 with lasting effects is late filed with the Tribunal in November 2021. Having concluded the Complaint does not contain any continuing contravention of the Code and was late filed for a single publication allegation for each Respondent in early 2014, it is necessary to determine whether it is in the public interest to accept the late-filed complaint against the Respondents and whether there would be any substantial prejudice.
B. Public Interest
[20] Whether it is in the public interest to accept the late-filed complaint is a multi-faceted analysis. The enquiry is fact and context specific and assessed in accordance with the purposes of the Code: Hoang v. Warnaco and Johns, 2007 BCHRT 24 at para. 26. The Tribunal considers a non-exhaustive list of factors, including the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, and the public interest in the complaint itself: British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite, 2014 BCCA 220 [Mzite] at para. 53. These are important factors, but they are not necessarily determinative: Goddard v. Dixon, 2012 BCSC 161 at para. 152; Mzite at para. 55.
[21] I have first considered the length of the delay in filing. The delay associated with the early 2014 allegation for each Respondent is more than seven years, which is an extreme delay, and absent truly extraordinary circumstances, a respondent should not be expected to answer allegations of discrimination so long after the fact: Prasad v. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, 2004 BCHRT 21, at para. 15.
[22] Apart from asserting his complaint is timely, Mr. Pearson provided a reason for the delay associated with not learning about the Tribunal’s process until he attempted to start a civil action against Global News prior to filing this complaint in November 2021.
[23] While appreciating Mr. Pearson’s honesty as to why he late filed the complaint, ignorance of the Code, or the time required to become aware of one’s rights, is generally not an acceptable reason, on its own, for the delay in filing: Rashead v. Vereschagin (No. 2), 2006 BCHRT 74 at para. 12; Ferrier v. BCAA, 2009 BCHRT 412at para. 31. In my view, Mr. Pearson’s written submissions indicate he has sufficient ability to research his rights under the Code and file a timely complaint with the Tribunal. Given these abilities I fail to see how his not knowing about the Tribunal’s process attracts the public interest in allowing the late-filed complaint to proceed.
[24] In determining whether acceptance of a late-filed complaint is in the public interest, the Tribunal also considers whether there is anything particularly unique, novel, or unusual about the complaint that has not been addressed in other complaints: Hau v. SFU Student Services and others, 2014 BCHRT 10 at para. 22; Bains v. Advanced Air Supply and others, 2013 BCHRT 74 at para. 22; Mathieu v. Victoria Shipyards and others, 2010 BCHRT 224 at para. 60. Where a complaint raises a novel issue on behalf of a vulnerable group, which advances the purposes of the Code, this factor may weigh in favour of finding a public interest in accepting the complaint: Mzite at paras. 65-66. The Tribunal has considered gaps in its jurisprudence, on the one hand, and the existence of good precedents, on the other hand, in determining whether to permit a complaint to proceed: Mzite at para. 67.
[25] Mr. Pearson is seeking justice to prevent online news outlets from leaving damaging news articles related to criminality involving Indigenous persons online when they are no longer relevant. He also raises the issue whether an online news story about criminality that does not mention the Indigeneity of the accused can be found to be publication discrimination under s. 7 of the Code. In my view, this issue appears to be somewhat novel and unique such that it attracts some public interest in allowing it to proceed late filed.
[26] Ultimately, the filing delay in this case is extreme, and that strongly weighs against the public interest: Mohammed v. BC Ministry of Children and Family Development (No. 2), 2017 BCHRT 159, at para. 33. The reason Mr. Pearson provided for the delay is not sufficient to overcome the strong weight against such a dated complaint. Finally, Mr. Pearson’s complaint is not so novel and unique as to warrant an extraordinary extension of the Tribunal’s time limit for filing a complaint: LeMoine v. B. C. (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General), 2009 BCHRT 163, at para. 32.
[27] For these reasons, I do not find that it is in the public interest to accept the late-filed complaint, and I need not address the issue of whether substantial prejudice would result. However, in the circumstances of this case, where the delay is extreme, I am prepared to presume there would be substantial prejudice to the Respondents: LeMoine, at para. 34.
IV. CONCLUSION
[28] For these reasons, the complaint against the Respondents will not proceed.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member