Johnson v. District of Saanich, 2025 BCHRT 169
Date Issued: July 17, 2025
File: CS-005389
Indexed as: Johnson v. District of Saanich, 2025 BCHRT 169
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:
Greg Johnson
COMPLAINANT
AND:
District of Saanich
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: Greg Johnson
Counsel for the Respondent: Kacey A. Krenn and Elias Jimenez Gonzalez
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Greg Johnson filed a human rights complaint against his former employer, the District of Saanich [the District]. Mr. Johnson was employed as a labourer and a waste collector, until the District terminated his employment in September 2021. He says that during his employment he faced derision by colleagues regarding his mental health, including an incident where he was told, during a conversation on his work radio, to “go and hang yourself” [the Radio Allegation]. He also says he was bullied by the District to provide access to his medical records, and the District terminated his employment for reasons related to his mental health issues.
[2] The District denies discriminating. The District says the incidents described in Mr. Johnson’s complaint, including his termination, were not connected to his mental disability. The District says Mr. Johnson was terminated because he operated a District-owned vehicle in an unsafe manner dangerously, and because he breached confidentiality and was dishonest during an investigation into his driving. The District also says the Radio Allegation is untimely, in that it occurred more than one year before the complaint was filed, and the Tribunal should not consider this aspect of the complaint.
[3] For the following reasons, I allow the application, and I dismiss the complaint. I find the Radio Allegation is untimely, and I am not persuaded that I should exercise my discretion to accept it. I find the remainder of Mr. Johnson’s allegations have no reasonable prospect of success, as he has not offered any evidence, beyond speculation, that the incidents described in his complaint, including his termination, were connected to his mental disability.
[4] 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
[5] Mr. Johnson’s complaint is brief. It says he had Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD], and on September 1, 2021, he was “fired for mental health issues.” It also says the Radio Allegation occurred on June 1, 2020, and on October 25, 2021, he was bullied to provide access to his doctor’s records. The complaint refers to “derision” and being “put down” about his mental health, but does not include any further information or context for his allegations.
[6] In its application to dismiss, the District says that the complaint fails to provide sufficient details or particulars of the alleged discrimination, leaving the District to guess about the details of the allegations.
[7] Regarding the allegation that Mr. Johnson was bullied to provide access to medical records, the District says it did not request medical records from him in October 2021, but it reasonably requested medical information from him on various occasions, including twice in the year before he filed his complaint. One occasion was in October 2020, when he was absent for what he claimed were medical reasons, one day before a scheduled vacation, and the District requested medical information to substantiate his absence. The District says Mr. Johnson then provided a forged medical note. The District says it suspended him for 10 days for dishonesty. It says Mr. Johnson’s union initially grieved the suspension but later withdrew the grievance.
[8] The District says it also requested medical information from Mr. Johnson in June 2021, when he requested to go on medical leave during the District’s investigation into the allegation that Mr. Johnson had been driving dangerously. In response, Mr. Johnson provided a doctor’s note saying he “has been, or will be, off work for medical reasons”, without any further information. The District says it determined this was not sufficient to justify a medical leave, and asked Mr. Johnson to have his doctor fill out a medical form so the District could assess if he required accommodations, but the District never received the medical form.
[9] On the issue of requests for medical information, in response to the application to dismiss, Mr. Johnson says that during a meeting in 2019, to discuss his mental health, the District requested full access to all his medical records, and an opportunity to talk to his mental health counselor, but Mr. Johnson refused this request. Mr. Johnson says the request led to a toxic work environment, and people said inappropriate things about his job and his mental health. But he does not say who said these things, or what they said. Nor does he provide any further details about the 2019 request for his medical records, or explain whether it was connected to the allegation in his complaint about being bullied to provide medical records.
[10] The District does not deny the Radio Allegation. The District says this incident happened in May 2020, when Mr. Johnson received a call from his dispatcher, via radio, saying he and a co-worker had missed pick-ups along their waste collection route. The District says Mr. Johnson apparently believed this was a joke, and said to his co-worker, “I guess someone is playing pranks again, how about I just punch myself in the face for you instead”, and the co-worker responded, “Better yet, why don’t you go and hang yourself.”
[11] The District says it investigated this incident and found the co-worker breached the District’s Respectful Workplace Policy. The District provided documentation showing it issued a formal disciplinary warning to the co-worker. Mr. Johnson does not deny the District’s account of this incident, in his response to the application to dismiss.
[12] Regarding Mr. Johnson’s allegation that he was fired for mental health issues, the District acknowledges that his employment was terminated, but denies any connection to a mental disability. The District provided evidence that it promoted him, in 2019, not long after he disclosed to the District that he had a mental disability.
[13] The District says it terminated Mr. Johnson’s employment after the incident where he was alleged to have been driving dangerously, in June 2021. The District says it investigated the allegation, and found it was substantiated. The District provided documentation showing he had previously been disciplined for an earlier incident of dangerous driving.
[14] During the investigation in June 2021, the District says it interviewed Mr. Johnson and told him to keep the investigation confidential, but the District later concluded that he had spoken to co-workers about the investigation, and had been dishonest with the District during the investigation process. As a result of all these findings, the District says it decided to terminate his employment, in September 2021. The District says the union did not grieve the termination.
[15] In his response to the application to dismiss, Mr. Johnson says the allegations that led to his termination are false, he was not allowed to defend himself during the District’s investigation, and his union did not represent him. He says the District had a police escort for him when he was terminated, and this was not necessary.
[16] Mr. Johnson’s response to the application to dismiss includes additional allegations. He says that in 2019 the District refused to let him take time off to attend appointments for mental health counseling. He also says a District human resources officer made him feel like he needed to apologise for his mental health. He says that when he raised this with the human resources officer, they said Mr. Johnson was being negative and should just let it go. Mr. Johnson does not say when this interaction with the human resources officer happened, or provide any further context.
[17] Mr. Johnson’s response to the application to dismiss also includes messages sent to the District by residents, saying positive things about Mr. Johnson’s work, and messages from former employees of the District, describing concerns about the District’s employment practices, but none of these messages refer to the events described in Mr. Johnson’s complaint.
III DECISION
A. Adding new allegations to the complaint
[18] There is an issue about the scope of the complaint. In the District’s reply submission, the District argues that Mr. Johnson improperly added new allegations in his response to the application to dismiss. Specifically, the District says the following allegations are new, and not within the scope of the complaint:
a. The District prevented Mr. Johnson from attending counseling appointments;
b. A human resources officer told Mr. Johnson he was being negative, in response to his concerns about his mental health;
c. Mr. Johnson was not allowed to defend himself during the investigation that led to his termination;
d. The District had a police escort for Mr. Johnson when he was terminated; and
e. Mr. Johnson’s union did not represent him.
[19] A complainant who wants to amend their complaint during an application to dismiss must apply to do so: Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 24(4)(b). The purpose of this rule is to ensure that a respondent who files an application to dismiss a complaint does not face a moving target: Pausch v. School District No. 34 and others, 2008 BCHRT 154 at paras. 28-29. Respondents are entitled to know the allegations against them, to assess whether to apply to dismiss the complaint: Purdy v. Douglas College and others, 2016 BCHRT 117 at paras. 35-37.
[20] At the same time, the Tribunal’s complaint forms are not the equivalent of pleadings in a civil litigation process: White v. Nanaimo Daily News Group Inc. and Klaholz, 2004 BCHRT 350 at para. 23. It is not uncommon, or a violation of the rules, for a complainant to add new particulars of their complaint in response to an application to dismiss.
[21] I turn now to whether the impugned allegations are properly characterized as further particulars or an amendment to the complaint. As noted above, the complaint itself was brief, and referred to only three incidents: the Radio Allegation, being bullied by the District to provide access to medical records, and the termination of his employment. I find the scope of the complaint includes these three incidents, and whether they amount to discrimination based on mental disability. The complaint also referred generally to “derision” about Mr. Johnson’s mental health, but without any further detail, I find this is insufficient to broaden the scope of the complaint beyond the specific incidents described in the complaint.
[22] I find the first two allegations that the District says are new—about preventing Mr. Johnson from attending mental health counseling, and the human resources officer’s response to his mental health concerns—are not within the scope of the complaint. Mr. Johnson says these allegations illustrate the toxic environment he faced at the District, but he does not explain how they are connected to the incidents described in his complaint.
[23] Mr. Johnson did not apply to amend his complaint. Nevertheless, the Tribunal may allow an amendment under Rule 24(4)(b) if it would be procedurally fair, and further the purposes of the Human Rights Code: Hawknes v. Vancouver Public Library (No. 2), 2017 BCHRT 250 at para. 86. However, the allegations about preventing Mr. Johnson from attending counseling and about the human resources officer’s response to his mental health concerns lack details such as the dates when these incidents happened, the names of the people who prevented him from attending counseling, or the context of his discussion with the human resources officer. It does not appear that the District had any prior notice that Mr. Johnson was alleging discrimination based on these incidents. Considering the vagueness of the allegations and the lack of prior notice about them, I find it would not be fair to the District if I allowed the amendment at this stage.
[24] Although I decline to amend the complaint so as to include these allegations, I still consider them below, in assessing whether Mr. Johnson has no reasonable prospect of proving a connection between his termination and his mental disability. Evidence about incidents outside the scope of the complaint may still be relevant to the complaint if, for example, it supports an inference that an incident within the scope of the complaint was connected to Mr. Johnson’s mental disability: Clarke v. City of Vancouver and another (No. 3), 2023 BCHRT 126 at para. 36.
[25] The other allegations that the District says are new are all about the process that led to Mr. Johnson’s termination. If they were relevant to Mr. Johnson’s allegation that he faced discrimination on the ground of mental disability, I would consider them to be within the scope of the complaint. But Mr. Johnson does not explain—and it is not clear to me—how they are connected to his mental disability, or how they could support a finding that his termination was connected to his mental disability. Although these allegations are related to his termination, which is within the scope of the complaint, I do not consider them in this decision because I do not find them relevant to his allegations of discrimination.
[26] I now turn to the District’s application to dismiss the complaint.
B. Section 27(1)(g) – Timeliness of the Radio Allegation
[27] The District seeks to dismiss the Radio Allegation under s. 27(1)(g) of the Code, on the basis that it is untimely. Under s. 22 of the 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.
[28] Section 27(1)(g) of the Code permits the Tribunal to dismiss a late filed complaint. The District argues that the Radio Allegation is late filed and should be dismissed under s. 27(1)(g). I must decide two issues: (1) whether the Radio Allegation is late filed, and (2) if so, whether to exercise my discretion to accept it 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 57at para. 23; School District at para. 50. 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.
[30] There is no dispute that the most recent allegation of discrimination in the complaint happened within one year before the complaint was filed, or that the Radio Allegation happened more than one year before the complaint was filed. This means the Radio Allegation is late filed, unless it is part of an alleged continuing contravention with the timely allegations.
[31] I am not satisfied that the Radio Allegation is related or similar to the other allegations in Mr. Johnson’s complaint. Mr. Johnson’s complaint was about three specific incidents, and he does not explain how the Radio Allegation is connected to the other two. I find the allegations are different in character based on the contextual information provided by the District, and not disputed by Mr. Johnson, which suggests that the comment at issue in the Radio Allegation was made by a co-worker, whereas Mr. Johnson’s other allegations are about discrimination by District management. I do not accept that the vague and general allegation that Mr. Johnson faced “derision” about his mental health issues is enough to allege a continuing contravention that includes the Radio Allegation.
[32] For these reasons, I find the Radio Allegation was not part of a continuing contravention of the Code, along with Mr. Johnson’s timely allegations. This means it is late filed.
[33] Because the Radio Allegation is late filed, I now consider whether to accept it under s. 22(3) of the Code. The burden is on Mr. Johnson to persuade the Tribunal to accept the late filed part of the complaint, considering whether it is in the public interest to accept it, and whether doing so would cause substantial prejudice to any person.
[34] The Tribunal assesses the public interest in a late filed complaint in light of the purposes of the Code. The Tribunal may consider factors like the length of the delay in filing the complaint, 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.
[35] Mr. Johnson does not offer any arguments about why it is in the public interest to accept the Radio Allegation. His response to the application to dismiss says the Radio Allegation was “egregious” but does not otherwise address it.
[36] Mr. Johnson’s complaint says the Radio Allegation happened in June 2020, while the District says it was May 2020. Even if it was June 2020, that was still approximately 17 months before the complaint was filed. This means the Radio Allegation was late filed by approximately five months. In the absence of any explanation for Mr. Johnson’s delay in filing a complaint about this incident, and considering the undisputed evidence that the District took the incident seriously and disciplined Mr. Johnson’s co-worker as a result of the Radio Allegation, I am not satisfied that the public interest favours accepting this allegation. It is therefore unnecessary for me to consider whether accepting the allegation would give rise to substantial prejudice to any person.
[37] I dismiss the Radio Allegation under s. 27(1)(g) of the Code.
C. Section 27(1)(c) – No reasonable prospect of success
[38] The District applies to dismiss the remaining allegations in the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code, on the basis that they have no reasonable prospect of success. Section 27(1)(c) is part of the Tribunal’s gate-keeping function. It allows the Tribunal to dismiss complaints which do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing. The onus is on the District to establish the basis for dismissal.
[39] 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.
[40] 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. Bare allegations with no supporting facts are usually insufficient to do so: Goddard at para. 117; Conceicao v. Quilchena Golf and Country Club and others (No. 2), 2021 BCHRT 144 at para. 51.
[41] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Johnson would 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.
[42] In this application, the District does not deny that Mr. Johnson had a mental disability, or that his employment was terminated, but it says he has no reasonable prospect of proving his mental disability was a factor in the termination. The District says the allegation about Mr. Johnson being bullied to provide medical records has no reasonable prospect of success because it is vague and unparticularised.
[43] For the following reasons, I find Mr. Johnson has no reasonable prospect of proving discrimination.
[44] Regarding the allegation that he was bullied to provide access to his medical records. I find Mr. Johnson has not provided sufficient details or information to bring this allegation beyond conjecture. It is not clear when he says this incident happened. His complaint says it was on October 25, 2021, the same day the complaint was filed, but this appears to be an error, since his employment was terminated in September 2021.
[45] Mr. Johnson’s response to the application to dismiss says he was asked to provide full access to all his medical records in 2019, but he does not say whether this was related to the bullying alleged in his complaint. Without more information about the facts that could support this allegation, I find the claim that he was bullied to provide access to medical records is speculative, and there is no reasonable prospect that Mr. Johnson will bring it beyond conjecture.
[46] Turning to the termination of Mr. Johnson’s employment, the District says it decided to terminate him for non-discriminatory reasons, related to its investigation into accusations that he was driving dangerously. I am satisfied that Mr. Johnson has no reasonable prospect of proving his mental disability was a factor in this decision.
[47] The District’s investigation report says the District interviewed Mr. Johnson and other witnesses, and concluded that he had operated a District-owned vehicle unsafely, he was dishonest with the District in the interviews, and he attempted to contact another witness about the investigation, despite being told to keep it confidential. The report says one of the witnesses said Mr. Johnson told her he was under investigation, and he had PTSD, and Mr. Johnson later acknowledged that he had spoken to her about the investigation, but denied telling her that he had PTSD, and denied that he was using PTSD as an excuse for the alleged dangerous driving. The report did not otherwise refer to any mental disability.
[48] Mr. Johnson says the accusations that led to his termination were false, but he does not specifically deny any of the facts of those accusations. Even if the accusations were false, or the process that led to his termination was unfair, he does not explain how this was connected to his mental disability.
[49] Taking Mr. Johnson’s argument at its strongest, he appears to be suggesting that there is evidence that District staff were insensitive towards his mental health, and this could support an inference that his mental disability was a factor in the decision to terminate his employment. He argues that District staff were insensitive towards his mental health based on the Radio Allegation, and by demanding access to his medical records and preventing him from attending mental health counseling, and when the human resources officer dismissed his mental health concerns. However, considering the undisputed evidence that the District took the Radio Allegation seriously, and the vague and general nature of Mr. Johnson’s other allegations, I find there is no reasonable prospect that Mr. Johnson will prove facts that could support this inference. In particular, without any information about the dates when the District demanded his medical records, prevented him from attending counseling, or dismissed his mental health concerns, I find he has no reasonable prospect of proving a temporal connection between the alleged insensitivity towards his mental health and the termination of his employment.
[50] In any event, I find the District is reasonably certain to rebut any inference of a connection between Mr. Johnson’s mental disability and his termination, which could arise on the evidence before me. The evidence in the District’s investigation report supports a non-discriminatory reason for the termination, as does the undisputed fact that the District promoted Mr. Johnson after he disclosed his mental disability.
[51] For these reasons, and considering the limited information provided by Mr. Johnson about his allegations, there is no reasonable prospect that he will prove his mental disability was a factor in his termination.
IV CONCLUSION
[52] The complaint is dismissed.
Andrew Robb
Tribunal Member