Ghukasyan v. University of Victoria and another, 2025 BCHRT 195
Date Issued: August 21, 2025
File: CS-008023
Indexed as: Ghukasyan v. University of Victoria and another, 2025 BCHRT 195
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:
Anush Ghukasyan
COMPLAINANT
AND:
University of Victoria and Vancouver Island University
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
Section 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On her own behalf: Anush Ghukasyan
Counsel for University of Victoria: Marcia McNeil
Counsel for Vancouver Island University: Annie Olson
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] On April 7, 2022, Anush Ghukasyan [the Complainant] filed a complaint of discrimination in employment based on race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code [Code], against the University of Victoria [UVic] and Vancouver Island University [VIU], [together the Respondents].
[2] The issue before me is whether to accept the late filed Complaint against the Respondents. I make no findings of fact regarding the merits of this complaint.
[3] For the reasons that follow, the complaint is not a continuing contravention of the Code: s. 22(2), and it is not in the public interest to allow them to proceed late filed: s. 22(3).
II. BACKGROUND
[4] The Complainant is Caucasian, light skinned and of Armenian ancestry and origin. She immigrated to Canada in 2015. The Complainant has a PhD in linguistics and pedagogical sciences. Before coming to Canada she taught, researched and lectured at Yerevan State University in Armenia for over 20 years.
[5] On June 3, 2016, the Complainant alleges VIU did not reply to her online application for a language instructor position.
[6] On February 23, 2017, the Complainant alleges her online application for a professor of pedagogy at VIU was rejected. The position was allegedly filled by an internal candidate.
[7] On March 17, 2017, the Complainant alleges UVic rejected her application to work in a post-doctoral studies program in the field of linguistics for reasons related to her place of origin. She alleges that UVic decided that she was not competitive with other applicants for the program, despite having the internationally recognized qualifications, because she did not have the necessary “Canadian credentials”.
[8] On August 26, 2017, the Complainant alleges applying for a curriculum teaching and learning specialist position at the VIU centre for innovation and excellence in learning. She says the first time she applied, the position was subsequently “closed” and the second time she applied the position was “cancelled”.
[9] Overall, the Complainant alleges that she applied for five jobs at VIU around this time without getting an interview. She alleges that the university’s human resources people did not return her calls to discuss the situation despite her leaving messages for them to do so.
[10] The Complainant also listed her unsuccessful attempts at securing positions in her field of expertise at other institutions in 2016 and 2017. These potential employers, mostly outside of BC, were not named as respondents in this complaint.
[11] In 2018, the Complainant alleges that she managed to meet with VIU to discuss her qualifications and the university’s reasons for not providing her with any interviews. She alleges the human resources department officials she met with felt bad for what had happened and offered her a clerical job at the university. The Complainant alleges that the notion of faculty positions following on from her work in the clerical role as she gained “Canadian experience” was discussed at the meeting. The Complainant says she took the position and used it to make contacts with faculty. She also says that she “Canadianized” her resume with the assistance of a co-worker.
[12] The Complainant’s Form 5 – Time Limits Reply, received May 12, 2025, attached evidence of her unsuccessful applications for employment in 2019 at various entities outside of BC. These potential employers were not named as respondents in this complaint.
[13] The Complainant’s Form 5 – Time Limits Reply also attached a copy of an email to her from VIU, dated September 16, 2024, concerning her application for a faculty position. In the email the VIU human resources person informed the Complainant that the fall recruitment had ended, and the posting would be used to fill positions that may become available throughout the academic year. She was further advised that shortlisting for positions in the spring of 2025 would begin at the end of November 2024. This evidence appears to indicate that the Complainant was unsuccessful in applying for faculty positions at VIU in the fall of 2024.
III. ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[14] 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
[15] The Complaint was filed on April 7, 2022. 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 April 7, 2021.
[16] 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.
[17] I start by considering whether the Complainant set out any timely allegations against each of the Respondents. The Complainant’s sole allegation against UVic occurred on March 17, 2017. As such, her complaint against UVic is late filed and cannot be tethered to any timely allegations of discrimination for the purposes of s. 22(2) of the Code.
[18] After reviewing the allegations against VIU, I have determined that they are also entirely late filed. The Complainant’s allegations against VIU are confined to being passed up for positions in her field of expertise in 2016 and 2017 for reasons related to her place of origin. While appreciating that in 2018 the Complainant reached out to VIU to understand why it failed to grant her any interviews, in my view these allegations are not separate allegations of discrimination but rather the continuing effects or consequences of the 2016 and 2017 allegations. Further, the Complainant’s ongoing efforts in 2018 and beyond to watch out for faculty positions, make connections with the faculty at VIU while working there in a clerical position, and make changes to her resume to make it more Canadian, do not contain any separate arguable contraventions the Code. The Complainant’s information indicates these actions occurred as part of preparing for further job applications only. She has not provided any specific evidence after 2017 of unsuccessful job applications related to her race or place of origin, or any other personal characteristic, capable of forming arguable contraventions. As such, the complaint against VIU does not contain any timely allegations of discrimination for the purposes of s. 22(2) of the Code.
[19] In reaching this conclusion, I appreciate that the Complainant recently introduced further possible evidence of her unsuccessfully applying for faculty positions at VIU in the autumn of 2024. It appears that she is alleging that VIU denied her applications without granting her an interview for faculty positions for reasons related to her place of origin. However, the Complainant did not use a Form 3 amendment to add any further 2024 allegations to her complaint and the VIU has not been given an opportunity to amend its Form 4 – Time Limit Response to address such further allegations. In my view, it would now be unfair to render a decision allowing the complaint to proceed on any new allegations from the autumn of 2024 without providing VIU with a chance to respond to them.
[20] If I am wrong, and the Complainant’s fall 2024 allegations against VIU should be added to this complaint and considered in the continuing contravention analysis, I would not find it capable of forming a continuing contravention because the gap between the 2024 allegations and those from 2016 and 2017 is too large and not explained by the Complainant. In these circumstances, I would not conclude any type of succession of allegations exist to form a continuing contravention of the Code. While appreciating that the Complainant applied elsewhere for positions in her field, those applications were made to other entities are not relevant to the issue of whether a continuing contravention exists with respect to the complaint against VIU.
[21] The Complainant is free to file a timely complaint for the autumn 2024 allegations against VIU using a new complaint form. Such a complaint will then be reviewed to determine whether it contains any allegation of discrimination capable of proceeding further in the Tribunal’s process.
[22] Having found all the allegations of discrimination capable of proceeding in this case were late filed, I now move on to an analysis of whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to accept the complaint outside the one-year time limit because it is in the public interest to do so, and no substantial prejudice will result to any person because of the delay: Code s. 22(3). I begin with the public interest determination.
B. Public Interest
[23] 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.
[24] I have first considered the length of the delay in filing. The delay associated with the 2016 and 2017 allegations is well over three years, which is excessive, and militates strongly against the public interest: Naziel-Wilson v. Providence Health Care and another, 2014 BCHRT 170, at para. 13; Mzite at para. 59.
[25] The Complainant provided several reasons for her delay in filing. First, she submits that she did not file a complaint because she recognized that immigrants with professional qualifications were commonly discriminated against in Canada and hoped she would get a break and secure employment despite the negative treatment she received. Added to this, the Complainant reported that her cultural experience from living in Armenia was to not challenge authority as negative repercussions would follow. In her case, she believed that challenging the decisions not to interview her for jobs in her field of expertise would effectively halt her academic career. She also submits that she is not a complainer by nature and remained hopeful until she realized the problems she faced with prejudicial hiring practices as a foreign trained academic were systemic.
[26] Section 43 of the Code protects individuals against retaliation for filing a complaint. With this protection in place, I find fear of potential retaliation generally does not militate towards accepting a late-filed complaint as being in the public interest: Mullholland v. City of Vancouver, 2015 BCHRT 170 at para 52; Fehr and another v. Alexander Laidlaw Housing Co-operative, 2012 BCHRT 232 at para 16; and Kafer v. Sleep Country Canada and another, 2013 BCHRT 137 at para 29.
[27] Given the Complainant’s fear that her academic career would be ruined if she filed a complaint with the Tribunal, it is necessary to look more deeply into whether this fear attracts the public interest in accepting the late filed complaint. I note the Complainant does not appear to have hesitated to explore the reasons why she did not get positions with UVic and VIU when her applications failed to open up any opportunities. This included corresponding with those in charge about why she was unsuccessful in her applications. I also note the Complainant secured an in-person meeting at VIU to discuss the unfairness of how she had been treated, which resulted in that university offering her a clerical position because of its alleged remorse for past conduct. In circumstances where the Complainant took actions in response to not getting academic positions at both Respondent universities, I do not see this fear of retaliation for subsequently filing with the Tribunal attracting any significant public interest in allowing her late filed complaint to proceed.
[28] The Complainant also appears to argue that difficulties in securing legal advice about filing a complaint is a reason for late filing that attracts the public interest. She submits that she “wandered from approaching my MLA and numerous websites only to find that no real help was available without spending considerable funds to hire a lawyer”. Without such funds, the Complainant appears to state that she and her husband decided to file on their own because free representation was unavailable and paid representation was unaffordable.
[29] In some cases, a lack of representation for someone unable to file a complaint on their own might attract the public interest in allowing a late filed complaint to proceed. In this case, however, the Complainant is a highly educated person with the ability to research the existence of the Tribunal and timeline for filing a complaint on her own. I note she states that she complained to her MLA about the situation and was referred to the executive director of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training. The executive director then wrote to her to suggest that she file a human rights complaint if she had concerns of discrimination. As such, the Complainant’s information indicates that she had the ability to reach out and learn about the Tribunal’s process on her own. Indeed, the Complainant sates she finally “threw caution to the wind” in October 2021, by setting up an Access Pro Brono free consultation with a lawyer who informed her that she had a discrimination case. Six months later she filed this complaint.
[30] 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.
[31] The Complainant is seeking justice for losing job opportunities in her field of expertise based on her race, place of origin, ancestry and colour. She sees the larger issue as being one where skilled immigrants “do not get a fair shake in Canada”. The Complainant argues that these people end up being a lost generation who press on in Canada so that their children will benefit. In the process, she believes that their self-esteem, physical and mental health are negatively affected.
[32] While acknowledging this complaint raises allegations of discrimination associated with the Respondents’ treatment of foreign trained academics seeking employment generally, I am not satisfied that the Complaint raises a novel issue that would advance the purposes of the Code, if heard. The Tribunal commonly hears race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin discrimination complaints against employers and the jurisprudence is fairly settled in this area. I also note the Tribunal has dealt with the issue of foreign trained professionals in a number of cases, including: Brar and others v. B.C. Veterinary Medical Association and Osborne, 2015 BCHRT 151 and Lalsinghani and another v. Ministry of Attorney General, 2024 BCHRT 303, Agduma-Silongan v. UBC, 2003 BCHRT 22.
[33] For these reasons, I do not find that it is in the public interest to accept the late-filed complaint against the Respondents, and I need not address the issue of whether substantial prejudice would result.
IV. CONCLUSION
[34] The complaint against the Respondents is not a continuing contravention of the Code, and it is not in the public interest to allow it to proceed late filed.
[35] The Complainant is free to file a new complaint regarding the autumn 2024 allegations.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member