Gongora v. Vancity Community Foundation, 2025 BCHRT 165
Date Issued: July 16, 2025
File: CS-000075
Indexed as: Gongora v. Vancity Community Foundation, 2025 BCHRT 165
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:
Layda Gongora
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Vancity Community Foundation
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
Section 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On her own behalf: Layda Gongora
Counsel for the Respondent: James D. Kondopulos, Andrew Peng
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] On October 25, 2019, Layda Gongora filed a complaint of discrimination in employment based on race, colour, ancestry, family status and sex contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code [Code], against Vancity Community Foundation [VCF].
[2] In its January 31, 2024, screening decision, the Tribunal decided it was appropriate to seek time limits submissions from the parties after concluding all or part of the complaint may have been late filed. In particular, the Tribunal found that it could not be certain whether any of the allegations were timely because Ms. Gongora had not provided the date when her contract with VCF was terminated in October 2018.
[3] While Ms. Gongora initially named several individual respondents in the complaint, she withdrew against them, and the complaint is proceeding against VCF only.
[4] Ms. Gongora’s reply submissions included new information. In circumstances where Ms. Gongora is self-represented and the further information provided was relevant to making my decision, I have accepted it for consideration. In these circumstances, I also accepted and considered VCF’s further submissions in response to Ms. Gongora’s reply.
[5] VCF raises the issue of a stay or dismissal related to the delay in this case. Apart from my consideration of delay under s. 22(3), that issue can be raised as a separate application later in the process after the VCF has fully exhausted its efforts to locate witnesses and relevant records.
[6] The issue before me with respect to timeliness is whether there is a continuing contravention or whether any late-filed allegations should proceed. I make no findings of fact regarding the merits of the complaint.
[7] For the reasons that follow, I find that the complaint is a continuing contravention of the Code.
II. BACKGROUND
[8] Below I set out Ms. Gongora’s allegations in some detail as I will later determine whether they are capable of forming a continuing contravention of the Code.
[9] Ms. Gongora is Latina and originally from Mexico. She is as a woman of colour and a single mother.
[10] In June 2018, Ms. Gongora alleges suffering harms during the hiring process for the position of community manager at VCF. First, she alleges the hiring committee, made up of the then executive director, AP, and director of culture, IY, required her to provide additional references to secure the position because she was a single mother who might not be able to handle the job due her child rearing responsibilities. Second, Ms. Gongora alleges AP informed a contractor at VCF, VR, during the hiring process that she was considering Ms. Gongora for the position based on her race. Ms. Gongora alleges learning about this made her feel like she was getting the job because of her skin colour rather than her qualifications.
[11] On June 7, 2018, Ms. Gongora alleges VR, who was now a co-worker, accused her of getting the position because of her race.
[12] From June 2018 onwards, Ms. Gongora alleges VR continually imposed cleaning duties on her at work, along with other menial duties such as watering plants, making coffee and delivering mail. None of these duties were in her job description. Added to this, Ms. Gongora alleges VR questioned her competency and cleanliness during staff meetings. Ms. Gongora alleges VR also tried to get her to ring a bell indicating it was lunchtime, which she refused to do. Further, Ms. Gongora alleges VR often went through her personal belongings in her filing cabinet and put them in a locked office without her consent. She reports this moving of her things by VR continued throughout her time at VCF despite her numerous requests to desist.
[13] From June 2018 until the end of October 2018, Ms. Gongora alleges reporting VR’s inappropriate and discriminatory behavior to AP. Ms. Gongora felt she was being made accountable for cleaning duties and other menial tasks because she was a woman of colour. Ms. Gongora alleges that she went to AP to find an appropriate channel for resolution. While AP allegedly told Ms. Gongora that if VR persisted, she would send VR on a forced leave of absence, AP was let go by the VCF before she could take any actions. Ms. Gongora further alleges requesting her supervisor, IY, to do something about VR’s behaviour without the matter ever being addressed. In September 2018, for example, Ms. Gongora alleges requesting IY contact the new acting executive director, KC, to set up a meeting to discuss the issue with VR, but no meeting was scheduled.
[14] From June to October 2018, Ms. Gongora alleges her other supervisor specialising in technology support, JS, refused to provide technical support to the 180 members using the co‑working space she managed. In the summer of 2018, Ms. Gongora alleges JS threatened her to provide the technical support to the members without his assistance or he would get someone else to do it. She further alleges JS put administrative restrictions on her computer to prevent her from installing software necessary for her role. In September 2018, Ms. Gongora alleges JS refused to provide basic cables for meeting rooms, which she ended up paying for with her own money. Ms. Gongora alleges the mistreatment by JS was focused only on her and one other woman of colour working at VCF. Ms. Gongora alleges requesting a meeting with JS and IY to discuss her software requirements, but her requests were ignored. Ms. Gongora alleges that despite sharing her concerns about JS with the executive director, she did nothing about it.
[15] From June to October 2018, Ms. Gongora alleges IY also reprimanded her for reporting the mistreatment she was experiencing. She alleges IY would constantly pull her aside to tell her “there is a target on your back” or “you better watch out” rather than providing her with the proper channels of communication to complain about the issues with the employer. In August 2018, Ms. Gongora alleges IY told her that it was a contest in the organization of “us and them, the brown folks versus the white folks”. She alleges IY also told her that “you should be afraid of losing your job as a result of speaking out about the discrimination you are experiencing”.
[16] In mid August 2018, Ms. Gongora alleges IY told a co-worker that Ms. Gongora was not entitled to special treatment just because she was a single mom.
[17] In September 2018, Ms. Gongora alleges the acting executive director, KC, attempted to get a co-worker to make a statement that Ms. Gongora was harassing her. When the co‑worker refused, KC allegedly told her “Don’t worry. That ship is sailed. It is only time before we fire her”.
[18] At the start of October 2018, Ms. Gongora states she went off work due to a death in the family. She alleges KC told her that she had to use unpaid vacation time for this leave. Further, Ms. Gongora alleges KC told her that she must urgently return to work after being away only one week, despite Ms. Gongora needing more time to wind up the deceased family member’s affairs.
[19] On October 29, 2018, Ms. Gongora alleges she was fired from her position with seven months remaining in her contract for reasons related to her race, colour, ancestry, family status and sex. While other staff members were called in to sign permanent job contracts for their positions, she was put in a room and fired by KC without any reasons being provided. Given the prior events at work, in addition to not receiving any negative performance evaluation or reason for being let go, Ms. Gongora alleges that her termination was the culmination of the mistreatment she was subjected to at work for reasons related to being a Latina woman and single mother [the Termination Allegation].
III. ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[20] 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.
[21] The complaint was filed on October 25, 2019. 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 October 25, 2018.
[22] 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. 69. 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.
[23] VCF accepts the Termination Allegation is a timely allegation that was filed within the one-year time limit under the Code. With the benefit of VCF providing the date Ms. Gongora was terminated, that being October 29, 2018, I agree this allegation is timely.
[24] VCF characterizes Ms. Gongora’s other allegations as:
(a) being stereotyped and humiliated by stereotypes of Mexican culture, including a view that she was a cleaning lady;
(b) being targeted as a person of colour and told that she would be considered a traitor to other minorities and risk losing her job if she spoke out;
(c) being denied tools, software and resources necessary to do her job; and
(d) KC and JS attempting to have another co-worker file a false complaint against her.
[25] VCF argues that Ms. Gongora’s other allegations are late filed because they ended prior to the October 25, 2018, deadline. Further, VCF submits that these allegations are not sufficiently of a similar character so as to constitute a continuing contravention of the Code. Properly characterized, VCF argues these allegations concern allegedly improper conduct or comments by fellow employees and independent contractors at the location where Ms. Gongora worked. As such, VCF argues the other allegations are not sufficiently connected to the Termination Allegation and Ms. Gongora has not explained how these allegations caused or contributed to the termination.
[26] I agree with VCF that Ms. Gongora’s other allegations from June to October 2018 are likely late filed as they appear to involve events at work before mid October when she was away dealing with a death in the family. I disagree, however that these late filed allegations do not form part of a continuing contravention of the Code. In my view, Ms. Gongora’s late filed allegations are a succession or repetition of separate acts of discrimination of the same character for the purposes of determining the existence of a continuing contravention. While appreciating that various individuals at the workplace appear to be responsible for some of the harms identified by Ms. Gongora, many of the late allegations contain the additional element of Ms. Gongora reporting mistreatment to management staff without receiving an appropriate response. Further, Ms. Gongora alleges this reporting created a negative impression of her with management staff such that she was targeted with termination, which came about on October 29, 2018. In this case, the Termination Allegation tethers Ms. Gongora’s other allegations in a timely complaint because many of the allegations contain the same thread of management failing to appropriately respond to Ms. Gongora’s requests for assistance in resolving alleged discrimination issues with various individuals, while at the same time making her a target for dismissal because of her resistance to perform inappropriate tasks and insistence on reporting them to management.
[27] In reaching this conclusion, I have considered VCF’s submission that individuals linked to Ms. Gongora’s late filed allegations, apart from KC, were not VCF employees and did not have any say in VCF’s human resources decisions. In my view, this distinction is not significant where Ms. Gongora alleges AP and IY acted as gatekeepers preventing her from lodging discrimination complaints with those in the organisation capable of making human resources decisions. I accept that reports to management staff about possible discrimination that should have been passed on to those with human resources responsibilities are allegations of a similar character to the Termination Allegation for the purposes of this decision. According to Ms. Gongora, her complaints about discrimination to management were ignored and rendered her a target for dismissal. I find such allegations are of a similar nature despite the fact that some of those involved in these supervisory or management roles were not actual VCF employees.
[28] Although the parties have not commented on whether the allegations were in succession, for completeness sake I do not find any gaps of significance where all the allegations occurred over a five-month period from June to October 2018.
[29] Overall, I am satisfied that Ms. Gongora’s allegations from the June to October 2018 are of a similar nature in succession to the timely October 29, 2018, Termination Allegation. As such, the complaint is a timely continuing contravention of the Code and it is, therefore, unnecessary for me to determine whether it is in the public interest to allow any late filed allegations to proceed.
IV. CONCLUSION
[30] For these reasons, the complaint is accepted for filing as a continuing contravention of the Code.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member