Teacher v. School District and others, 2025 BCHRT 179
Date Issued: July 31, 2025
File: CS-005473
Indexed as: Teacher v. School District and others, 2025 BCHRT 179
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:
Teacher
COMPLAINANT
AND:
School District and Superintendent and Union
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
Section 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On her own behalf: Teacher
Counsel for School District and Superintendent:
Counsel for the Union: Karen Orr and Annie Olson, Stefanie Quelch
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] On November 4, 2021, the Teacher filed a complaint of discrimination in employment, and unions and associations, based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, mental and physical disability, family and marital status, political belief, religion and sex contrary to ss. 13 and 14 of the Human Rights Code [Code], against the School District, Superintendent and Union [together the Respondents].
[2] On August 27, 2024, the Tribunal reconsidered a decision allowing the complaint to proceed as timely after concluding it was mistaken as to when the Teacher ended her employment with the School District. The parties were then given an opportunity to provide late filing submissions, which I have considered in making this decision on timeliness.
[3] The Teacher provided further evidence and argument in her Form 5 – Time Limit Reply, which I decided to consider because she is self-represented and should be given some latitude in raising new allegations and arguments in reply. In fairness to the Respondents, I considered their further submissions responding to the Teacher’s reply. Finally, I considered the Teacher’s reply to the Respondent’s further submissions as a matter of fairness.
[4] 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.
[5] 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. Order limiting publication
[6] In rendering this decision, it is necessary to discuss the Teacher’s mental disability in some detail as it relates to her ability to file the Complaint in a timely manner. As such, I have decided to order a limitation on the publication of the names of the parties to protect the Teacher’s privacy regarding this sensitive information.
[7] In making this order, I recognize there is a strong public interest in the Tribunal maintaining open and public processes to promote the awareness of the Code, education about its application, and access to its processes. However, there are exceptions to an open process where strong grounds for limiting publication of personal information exist: A v. University and others, 2014 BCHRT 235, at para. 5. In this case, I am persuaded that public knowledge of the parties’ names, when the decision must identify the
Teacher’s mental disabilities could negatively affect her employment prospects and possibly stigmatize her within the community where she resides. These are compelling grounds for limiting publication for the purposes of preliminary decisions on this complaint.
III. BACKGROUND
[8] Determining the nature and timing of any arguable contraventions of the Code in this case requires me to set out the Teacher’s allegations in some detail below.
[9] The Teacher is a Hong Kong Chinese Canadian. She is a single mother who is a survivor of domestic violence.
[10] The Teacher reports some of her disabilities as follows:
a. High functioning depression – diagnosed in 2006;
b. Chronic pain / Fibromyalgia – involved in a car accident in 2009 and diagnosed with these conditions in 2010. Cannabis is prescribed to treat these conditions; and
c. Neurodiverse (Autism), anxiety and complex post-traumatic stress disorder [CPTSD].
[11] In May 2015 the Teacher alleges going off work on medical leave because she was in a high-risk pregnancy. She further alleges that her maternity leave started when her son was born in September 2015.
[12] On December 5, 2015, the Teacher alleges first experiencing domestic violence resulting in a broken right wrist following an assault.
[13] In October 2016, the Teacher alleges returning to work part-time following her maternity leave. She alleges returning without having paid a small fee to renew her teaching certificate of qualification [Certificate] because she did not know that she was responsible for paying for it while on maternity leave.
[14] On November 1, 2016, the Teacher alleges the Teacher Regulation Branch [TRB] notified her about the expired Certificate. As instructed by the TRB, she told her site supervisor, Ms. K, about the lapse. The Teacher alleges Ms. K permitted her to continue working during the recertification process.
[15] From May to September 2017, the Teacher alleges being off work due to a violent domestic assault.
[16] Despite returning to work in October 2017, the Teacher alleges Ms. K placed her on unpaid leave for not having a Certificate. She alleges Ms. K refused to do the necessary paperwork to reinstate her Certificate for reasons related to her ethnicity and because she was a domestic violence survivor. The Teacher alleges Ms. K treated her like a criminal and blamed her for being the cause of the abuse at home.
[17] In April 2018, the Teacher alleges being violently assaulted again by her former spouse and being admitted to hospital for psychiatric treatment.
[18] Shortly after her April 2018 hospitalization, the Teacher alleges that her Union’s local president, Mr. C, spoke to her about the School District trying to make contact. When the Teacher disclosed what had happened at home, she alleges Mr. C asked, “why aren’t you more upset?”. In response to Mr. C being shocked about her not being more emotional about what was happening, the Teacher alleges informing him that she had been hospitalized and was quite medicated. She also claims telling Mr. C that she had lost custody of her son for six months after being assaulted. Despite assuring the Teacher that he would let the School District know about her extraordinary circumstances, she alleges he did not communicate this and chose instead to misrepresent her to the union and her employers. The Teacher alleges Mr. C perceived her to be mentally unstable because of her CPTSD and being a domestic violence survivor. She alleges Mr. C merely informed her that the School District was going to fire her for not having her Certificate because Ms. K refused to complete the paperwork. The Teacher alleges the Union did not provide her the same protections other members would have received in this situation for reasons related to her being a domestic violence survivor and a visible minority.
[19] On June 30, 2018, the Teacher alleges the School District terminated her employment for not renewing her Certificate. She alleges the School District deliberately did this to humiliate her and injure her dignity.
[20] On April 27, 2019, the Teacher alleges Mr. C told several Union representatives, who knew her from a time when they mentored other teachers together, to stop advocating on her behalf.
[21] In August 2019, the Teacher alleges the TRB reinstated her Certificate only after the Union’s lawyer got a previous site supervisor to complete the necessary paperwork.
[22] On August 27, 2019, the Teacher alleges Mr. C made light of her financial troubles during a conference call about reinstating her employment. She alleges Mr. C responded to her questions about the School District accommodating her disabilities with “I’m surprised they reinstated you at all”. In an atmosphere of duress without adequate representation, the Teacher allegedly agreed to return to work in a temporary job on contract without any accommodations to see if she could teach.
[23] On September 3, 2019, the Teacher alleges being called in to take a Grade 9 English class. She alleges emailing the Union president, Mr. C, at the end of the month to notify him that her pain specialist was concerned about her pushing herself too hard to work full time after previously being accommodated for her disability.
[24] In September 2019, the Teacher alleges teaching students about the Hong Kong protests as part of their report writing learning. The teacher identifies as a supporter of democracy and freedom in Hong Kong. After noting the school’s relationship with the Confucius Institute funded by the Chinese government, she alleges the Superintendent is a supporter of the Chinese Communist Party and did not like the manner in which she was teaching at the school. The Teacher alleges the Superintendent’s negative impression of her is related to subsequent mistreatment of her by the administrators.
[25] In mid October 2019, the Teacher alleges that she had to speak to the education assistant [EA] assigned to her classroom about making inappropriate comments about children in the class being “snotty” and because she made a racist slur about a federal politician.
[26] On October 17, 2019, the Teacher alleges that her classroom EA complained to the school principal about the smell of “weed” in her desk. She further alleges that the EA informed management that the Teacher told her class that she used a bong. The Teacher denies smoking cannabis at work and telling students that she used a bong. The Teacher alleges two School District administration officials then investigated the “smell” in her classroom. She alleges that they stormed into the classroom to go through her desk as if she was a criminal. The Teacher further alleges the School District interviewed her students about the smell associated with medical treatment for her chronic pain disability. She alleges the School District’s decision to conduct a criminal style investigation left her feeling publicly humiliated and undignified.
[27] The Teacher alleges that the Cannabis investigation ended her working relationship with the School District. The Teacher alleges the officials had also told her to keep her stories of domestic violence to herself. She further alleges being confronted by them about the frequency of bathroom breaks that were related to her irritable bowel syndrome.
[28] In the days that followed the School District’s cannabis investigation, the Teacher alleges that she exchanged emails with Mr. C. She alleges both the Union, and the School District knew she was prescribed medical cannabis for her chronic pain condition. She says Mr. C did not represent her properly or in a favourable light due to his negative attitude towards her disability.
[29] In October 2019, the Teacher alleges going off work on medical leave for reasons related to her CPTSD being triggered by the cannabis investigation. The Teacher alleges having to go on leave without pay from early 2020 until the end of 2021 because her sick days ran out.
[30] In May 2020, the Teacher alleges developing a left breast tumour, which developed into a rare autoimmune disease. She reports informing the Union of this disability and being in and out of hospital for the remainder of 2020.
[31] In August 2021, the Teacher alleges Mr. C made comments to her in texts and emails to the effect that she was mentally unstable. She states, “He made inappropriate statements and assumptions about the state of my mental health and cognitive abilities”. These communications were allegedly made by Mr. C in response to the Teacher speaking at a public rally where she advocated for safer working conditions for teachers to prevent a mass disabling event during the COVID-19 pandemic [Rally Comments Allegations].
[32] On December 29, 2021, the Teacher reports being accepted onto long term disability [LTD] benefits. She appears to allege that a delay occurred in accessing LTD benefits because the local Union had not informed its provincial organization of her situation. The Teacher alleges that she had to bypass the Union to contact a field supervisor at the organization directly to ask what was happening. That person had no idea that she had no income through most of 2020 and 2021, along with no access to extended health benefits [LTD Delay Allegation].
[33] In February 2022, the Teacher alleges having to undergo a drug test at the request of the LTD provider and the provincial level of the union. She perceived the request as being treated like a drug addict because of the Union’s perception of her as mentally unstable. This includes the Union’s belief that she is a drug user because she uses medical cannabis [Drug Test Allegation].
IV. ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[34] 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
[35] The Complaint was filed on November 4, 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 4, 2020.
[36] 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 57at para. 23; School District at para. 50.
[37] I start with a consideration as to whether any timely allegations exist for each of the Respondents. I have determined that none exist in relation to the School District and the Superintendent. From my review of the Teacher’s allegations, I conclude that she has not argued any allegations concerning the School District and Superintendent’s after she went off work in October 2019. As such, the complaint related to the School District and Superintendent Respondents is late-filed and must, therefore, be considered under s. 22(3) of the Code.
[38] I have next considered whether the complaint contains any timely allegations capable of proceeding against the Union. The complaint does contain several allegations against the Union after the November 4, 2020, deadline. Each allegation must be considered to determine whether it contains any arguable contraventions of the Code. In particular, the Tribunal must be satisfied after reviewing the complaint evidence, that if proven, the Teacher can establish that she has personal characteristics related to her race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, mental and physical disability, family and marital status, political belief, religion and sex; experienced an adverse impact with respect to her Union membership; and that her race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, mental and physical disability, family and marital status, political belief, religion and sex were factors in the alleged adverse impacts during this timeframe: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para 33.
[39] None of the Teacher’s timely allegations contain arguable contraventions of the Code. Starting with the August 2021 Rally Comments Allegations, it is clear the Teacher has mental health disabilities, which include CPTSD, and it appears that she continued to be a member of the Union at the time while she awaited acceptance onto LTD benefits. In my view, however, the Teacher’s statements about what Mr. C said in various communications being inappropriate statements and assumptions about the state of the Teacher’s mental health and cognitive abilities are not sufficiently particularized to constitute arguable contraventions of the Code. Despite having numerous opportunities to set out her allegations, the Teacher’s Rally Comments Allegations are vague as they do not set out in any detail what Mr. C said and how the adverse impact is related to her mental disabilities or other personal characteristics.
[40] Turning to the December 29, 2021, LTD Delay Allegation, I similarly conclude that the Teacher has not sufficiently particularized this allegation to allow it to proceed as an arguable contravention of the Code. While the Teacher appears to suggest the Union had a role in preventing the provincial level union organization from properly administering her LTD benefits, she has not provided any details related to such a role, or how this relates to her various personal characteristics.
[41] Finally, concerning the February 2022, Drug Test Allegation, the Teacher has once again not provided any details regarding the Union’s role in her being required to undergo a drug test as part of her LTD benefits obligations. While she believes that the need for the test resulted from the Union’s perception of her as being mentally unstable, she has not provided any details regarding how the Union was involved in administering the test and how its perceptions of her disabilities were connected to the requirement that she take the test.
[42] Having found no timely allegations of discrimination in the complaint capable of tethering the out of time allegations in a continuing contravention of the Code, I have concluded that the complaint is late filed. It is, therefore, 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. I begin with the public interest determination.
B. Public Interest
[43] 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.
[44] I have first considered the length of the delay in filing. The Teacher agrees that the complaint is late filed for allegations up to October 2019, which is a delay of approximately 13 months. A delay of one year or more is considered by the Tribunal to be excessive and militates strongly against the public interest: Naziel-Wilson v. Providence Health Care and another, 2014 BCHRT 170 [Naziel-Wilson]at para. 13.
[45] The Teacher provided several reasons for her delay. Her reasons focus primarily on her mental and physical disabilities. The Teacher submits her CPTSD, which was triggered with the cannabis investigation in October 2019, explains her delay. The Teacher also attached medical evidence confirming her hospitalization for mental illness in May 2018. She further attached medical information for a recruitment report from early 2019 that diagnosed her with a major depressive disorder. As of that time, I note that the doctor filling out the form concluded the Teacher had a good prognosis while treatment with anti-depressant prescription medication continued. The Teacher also attached other medical reports confirming her chronic pain and fibromyalgia conditions. The Teacher further submits that as of June 2020 she developed an autoimmune disease that mimics breast cancer. She reports being in and out of hospital for the remainder of 2020 as it took some time to diagnose and treat her condition.
[46] Where the delay is due to a disabling condition, the Tribunal has observed that it may be in the public interest to accept a late-filed complaint: MacAlpine v. Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, 2011 BCHRT 29 at para. 42. Disabling conditions can include physical and mental ailments resulting in great difficulty coping with even the basic daily tasks of life: Naziel-Wilson, at para. 21.
[47] I accept the Teacher’s evidence that she suffered from multiple mental and physical conditions during the two-year period from late 2019 when she stopped working until late 2021 when she filed the complaint. I further accept that these conditions resulted in her disability from working as a teacher, which is supported by her leaving work and ultimately being accepted onto LTD benefits a few weeks after filing her complaint. However, based on the information provided by the Teacher, she has not convinced me that her various conditions precluded her from filing a complaint within the allotted timeframe. In reaching this conclusion, I draw the distinction between being able to work and having the ability to file a complaint, each requiring its own level of ability. While accepting the Teacher was unable to work during the timeframe for filing, in my view this level of disability does not support the conclusion that she was also unable to file a complaint. I appreciate the Teacher was focused on diagnosis and treatment of her autoimmune disease in the first half of 2020. However, her information appears to indicate that by the end of 2020, her autoimmune condition was being addressed, and she has not explained how her disabilities precluded her from filing throughout 2021. My determination that the Teacher’s disabilities did not preclude her from filing a complaint should not be taken as disbelief in their existence or a lack of appreciation that life was challenging for the Teacher during this period of time. In the end, I am just not satisfied that the Teacher’s disabilities precluded her from filing a timely complaint with the Tribunal.
[48] For the two-year period between late 2019 and late 2021, the Teacher describes herself as being in crisis and in shock. She submits that it took her a long time to find her voice and the strength to advocate for herself and address the injustice she experienced. The Teacher describes ongoing intimate partner violence in the form of “gangstalking, adult bullying, cyber harassment and intimidation from [her] ex-spouse’s supporters” as a reason for her delay. I note the medical evidence submitted by the Teacher indicates she was no longer with her ex-spouse as of May 2019 and they were divorced. While acknowledging the negative effect activities of her former spouse’s supporters had on the Teacher, without further details, I am unable to conclude this negative activity precluded her from filing a timely complaint.
[49] The Teacher also appears to indicate an October 5, 2021, an RCMP wellness check prompted her to file a complaint. That day police attended at her home with the result of her being taken to hospital for an assessment. The Teacher reports it taking many hours for a psychiatrist to assesses her in hospital, but once seen she was released. The Teacher believed that the wellness check was the result of someone contacting to sound the alarm about her mental health for the purposes of making her suffer only. With this in mind, it appears that she decided to start a process with the RCMP to investigate a malicious call and file a complaint with the Tribunal to put an end to such activities.
[50] While recognizing the Teacher’s concerns about further harms occurring if she failed to do anything about the October 5, 2021, wellness check, perceived as an act designed to make the Teacher suffer, this reason does not attract the public interest in allowing the complaint to proceed late filed. Without more information, there is nothing to indicate, apart from the Teacher’s speculation, that the Respondents sent the RCMP to the Teacher’s home as an act of vengeance or retaliation capable of attracting the public interest. The Teacher’s decision to pursue avenues of redress against the Respondents as a deterrence against possible future negative treatment against her is not a reason for allowing the complaint to proceed late.
[51] 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.
[52] The Teacher submits that her complaint should proceed as she belongs to several vulnerable groups, including workers generally, racialized single mothers who experience intimate partner violence, and women with disabilities. I agree with her that she belongs to several groups with vulnerabilities and is experiencing alleged discrimination with some complexity and intersectionality. However, in my view this matter involves a fairly routine workplace complaint related to disability and race which is not particularly novel or unique, which the Tribunal considers often and about which the law is fairly settled.
[53] Ultimately, the late filing delay in this case is excessive, which outweighs the reasons the Teacher provided for being late. Finally, the Teacher’s complaint is not so novel and unique as to warrant an extension of the Tribunal’s time limit for filing a complaint.
[54] 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.
V. CONCLUSION
[55] For these reasons, the complaint against the Respondents will not proceed.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member