Skinner v. Canadian Tire (North Saanich), 2025 BCHRT 206
Date Issued: August 20, 2025
File:CS-004016
Indexed as: Skinner v. Canadian Tire (North Saanich), 2025 BCHRT 206
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:
Herbert Skinner
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Canadian Tire (North Saanich)
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO ADD A RESPONDENT
Section 25(2)
Tribunal Member: Kathleen Smith
Counsel for the Complainant: Sheldon Parathundyil (Articling Student)
Counsel for the Respondent, Canadian Tire (North Saanich): John Adams
Representative for the Proposed Respondent, Blackbird Security Inc.: Ruby Parmar
I INTRODUCTION
[1] In this decision, I explain why I add Blackbird Security Inc. as a respondent to the complaint.
[2] Herbert Skinner filed a complaint alleging racial profiling based on his identity as a visibly Indigenous man while shopping at Canadian Tire (North Saanich). The complaint alleges that the discrimination started with being watched and escalated to being harassed by loss prevention employees, as well as a security guard hired by Canadian Tire. In addition, the complaint alleges that Canadian Tire did not return Mr. Skinners calls when he wanted to speak further about the incident.
[3] Mr. Skinner filed his complaint against Canadian Tire in May 2021. Unfortunately, due to a rapid spike in complaints and a subsequent backlog, the Tribunal did not notify Canadian Tire about the complaint until June 2024.
[4] In its response to the complaint, Canadian Tire denies discriminating and asserts that it is not the appropriate respondent. According to Canadian Tire, the loss prevention officer and/or security guard with whom Mr. Skinner would have interacted with on the date of the incident were employees of Blackbird Security Inc. The response suggests that Mr. Skinner ought to bring an application to add Blackbird as a respondent. Canadian Tire provided the official company address for Blackbird.
[5] Based on Canadian Tire’s response to the complaint, Mr. Skinner filed an application to add Blackbird to the complaint in September 2024. The Tribunal forwarded all of the relevant documents to Blackbird in November 2024. Unfortunately, however, due to a postal strike in late 2024, Blackbird did not receive the materials, including the application, until January 2025.
[6] Blackbird objects to being added as respondent. It’s primary objection is based on fairness given the significant delay in it becoming aware of the complaint.
[7] Canadian Tire takes no position on the application.
II Analysis and DECISION
[8] Mr. Skinner seeks to add Blackbird to the complaint.
[9] A person seeking to add a respondent to a complaint must establish that there are facts alleged against the proposed respondent that, if proven, could establish a contravention of the Code, and that adding the proposed respondent will further the just and timely resolution of the complaint: Rule 25(2).
[10] If the application is brought after the one-year time limit for filing a complaint, they must also explain why it is in the public interest to accept the complaint and why no substantial prejudice would result to any person because of the delay: Rule 25(2); Code, s. 22(3).
1. Does the complaint allege facts that, if proven, could establish a contravention of the Code by Blackbird?
[11] For the following reasons, I am satisfied that Mr. Skinner alleges an arguable contravention of the Code by Blackbird.
[12] The Tribunal already screened the complaint and determined that the allegation of racial profiling would proceed as an alleged contravention of s. 8 of the Code based on race, colour, and Indigenous identity. At the time, Canadian Tire was named as the only respondent.
[13] Mr. Skinner’s complaint refers to the conduct of loss prevention employees and/or a security guard while he was shopping at Canadian Tire on April 25, 2021. He alleges that he was racially profiled, “watched” and “harassed” while he was making a purchase.
[14] In its response to the complaint, Canadian Tire states that at the time of the allegations, it had retained Blackbird to provide loss prevention and security services for the store. Specifically, Canadian Tire says that on April 25, 2021, there would have been a Blackbird loss prevention officer and a Blackbird uniformed security guard on duty at the store.
[15] In response to the application, Blackbird agrees that one of its security guards would have been present at the store on April 25, 2021. However, based on its records, it says there were no loss prevention officer services provide by Blackbird to Canadian Tire for the month of April 2021.
[16] In circumstances where Canadian Tire and Blackbird agree that, at a minimum, there was a Blackbird security guard on site the day of the alleged incident, I am satisfied that, if proven, the allegation of racial profiling by a security guard could establish a contravention of the Code by Blackbird.
[17] In reaching this conclusion, I acknowledge Blackbird’s concern that the complaint allegations are quite brief. Mr. Skinner’s reply submission contains significantly more details than what is contained in his original complaint. However, for the purposes of this application, it was not necessary to consider the additional details provided by Mr. Skinner in his reply submission given that the Tribunal already screened the original allegations and determined that they could proceed.
[18] Both Canadian Tire and Blackbird now have those additional details regarding the events of April 25, 2021. However, if Mr. Skinner wants to formally amend his complaint to add those details, he should do so using a Form 3.
2. Does adding Blackbird support the just and timely resolution of the complaint?
[19] I am satisfied that adding Blackbird would further the just and timely resolution of the complaint where it likely employed at least one of the individuals that Mr. Skinner says racially profiled him on April 25, 2021. In general, an employer is responsible for their employee’s conduct when they are acting as employee, and the employer can fulfill any remedies that the Tribunal might order if there is a finding of liability.
[20] On this application, I am not deciding whether a Blackbird loss prevention officer and/or security guard discriminated against Mr. Skinner or, if they did, whether Blackbird is jointly responsible with Canadian Tire. I also do not consider Mr. Skinner’s likelihood of success in proving discrimination against either respondent. It will be up to the Tribunal to determine at a later stage whether Mr. Skinner has proven his allegations and, if so, which respondent is liable for which discriminatory conduct.
[21] On this application, I consider that, if Mr. Skinner proves his allegation of racial profiling against Blackbird, he may be entitled to a remedy for that discrimination. That outcome would uphold the purpose set out in s.3(e) of the Code to provide a means of redress for those persons who are discriminated against contrary to the Code. A just determination, and the possibility of a remedy if any part of the complaint against Blackbird is successful, requires participation by Blackbird. Therefore, I am satisfied that adding Blackbird as a respondent will further the just resolution of the complaint.
[22] I also consider the effect that adding Blackbird will have on the timeliness of the Tribunal’s process. A timely resolution of a complaint is not simply a rapid process but one where the process used is as quick as possible without jeopardizing the integrity of the process: Pike v. Ooh La La Café and others, 2022 BCHRT 72 at para. 36.
[23] If I grant the application, Blackbird would be entitled to file a response to the complaint which would add additional time to the Tribunal’s process which has already been protracted (not through the fault of any party). However, where this complaint remains at the very early stages of the Tribunal’s process, and the Tribunal will need to decide the allegation of racial profiling whether or not Blackbird is added a respondent, I am satisfied that the potential of further delay is outweighed by the furtherance of a just resolution of the complaint.
3. Is the complaint against Blackbird out of time?
[24] To be timely, Mr. Skinner would need to bring his application to add Blackbird within one year of the alleged discriminatory conduct. Here, the alleged racial profiling incident occurred on April 25, 2021, and Mr. Skinner brought his application almost 3.5 years later, on September 5, 2024. This means that the application is late filed by almost 2.5 years.
[25] Next, I decide whether to allow the late-filed application considering the issues of public interest and substantial prejudice.
4. Is it in the public interest to accept the complaint against Blackbird?
[26] Under s. 22(3) of the Code, the Tribunal may accept a complaint filed more than one year after the alleged contravention where it determines that it is in the public interest to do so, and no substantial prejudice would result to any person because of the delay. The same considerations apply to an application to add a respondent outside of the one-year time limit.
[27] When considering whether it is in the public interest to add a respondent outside of the time limit, the Tribunal will consider a non-exhaustive list of factors, including the length of the delay, reasons for the delay, and the public interest in the complaint itself: British Columbia (Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite, 2014 BCCA 220 at para. 53. These factors are important, but not necessarily determinative. The inquiry is fact and context specific and assessed in accordance with the purposes of the Code: Brelecic v. Mike’s No Frills, 2021 BCHRT 168 at para. 13.
[28] In considering the length of the delay, the starting point is that the purpose of the time limit is to ensure that complainants pursue their human rights remedies with some diligence, and that it is in the public interest for them to identify appropriate respondents to a complaint within the time limit: Buchanan v. Providence Health Care (c.o.b. St. Paul’s Hospital), 2023 BCHRT 50 at para. 33. This is so respondents can take remedial steps if appropriate, and to protect respondents from having to address dated complaints: School District v. Child (Litigation guardian of), 2018 BCCA 136 at para. 79; Kamloops (City) v. Spina, 2021 BCSC 723 at para. 80.
[29] Mr. Skinner did not address the issues of delay or public interest in his application. In fact, he did not include any arguments or evidence with the application. I acknowledge that he was self-represented at the time, relied on Canadian Tire’s statement that Blackbird was the more appropriate respondent, and filed the application approximately seven weeks later.
[30] Blackbird also did not address the issue of public interest. Rather, it focused on the significant delay in being informed about the complaint and application. There is no dispute that Blackbird only learned about the complaint in January 2025. I address Blackbird concerns about fairness and prejudice in the next section.
[31] In his reply, filed with the assistance of legal counsel, Mr. Skinner argues that he filed the complaint promptly after the incident, was not responsible for the significant delay in the Tribunal screening the complaint, and he filed the application promptly after Canadian Tire attributed responsibility for the incident to Blackbird. In short, Mr. Skinner argues that he acted diligently, pursued his complaint in a timely manner, and ought not be penalized for delays out of his control.
[32] In addition, Mr. Skinner highlights the importance of addressing the well-documented phenomenon of Indigenous persons being followed and/or harassed by security personnel in retail establishments.
[33] In all the circumstances, I am persuaded that it is in the public interest to allow the late-filed application to proceed. In reaching this conclusion, I considered the fact that the significant length of the delay to date is attributable to the delay in the Tribunal’s process, not the parties. I also note that Blackbird does not dispute the public interest in allowing a complaint of racial profiling in the retail service industry to proceed where Mr. Skinner asserts that this is common form of racial aggression experienced by Indigenous persons in their daily lives.
[34] Where I find that the public interest weighs in favour of allowing the late application, I must next consider whether it will result in substantial prejudice.
5. Will substantial prejudice result to any person because of the delay?
[35] Blackbird asserts in its response to the application that the significant delay in learning about the complaint, almost four years, impacts fairness and causes it real harm. Blackbird refers to the inability to gather evidence, accounts, witnesses or records of the alleged incident; however, it does not provide any details.
[36] In reply, Mr. Skinner acknowledges that the several years delay associated with the Tribunal’s backlog is unfortunate. He argues, however, that the Tribunal’s delay harms him just as much, if not more, than Blackbird. Moreover, Mr. Skinner asserts that it is still possible for him to receive redress for the alleged impacts associated with racial profiling. On these points, I note that the issue under s. 22(3)(b) is only focused on prejudice to the respondent.
[37] I begin by acknowledging that hearing fairness may be compromised where delay impacts a party’s ability to answer the complaint against them, such as when memories have faded, essential witnesses are unavailable, or evidence has been lost: Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307at paras. 122 and 132; Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29at para. 41; Chow v. Save-On-Foods, 2024 BCHRT 95 at para. 33.
[38] However, based on the materials before me on this application, Blackbird has not identified substantial prejudice that will result to it because of the delay. It is apparent from Blackbird’s response to the application that it has at least some records dating back to April 2021, and based on those materials, it knows the identity of the guard it says was working on the day in question. However, it is not clear whether Blackbird has attempted to locate the guard, or any other witnesses, or whether it was otherwise impeded in its ability to gather evidence. In these circumstances, it is premature to determine that the future hearing of this complaint will be unfair.
[39] It is open to the respondents to raise the issue of actual prejudice based on delay later in the Tribunal’s process. If either respondent seeks to apply to dismiss the complaint on this basis, I direct them to notify the Case Manager of their intention to so, within two weeks of the information forming the basis for the application.
III CONCLUSION
[40] I allow the application and add Blackbird Security Inc. as a respondent.
[41] Blackbird Security Inc. must respond to the complaint within five weeks of receiving this decision by filing a Form 2- Complaint Response and delivering a copy to the other parties.
Kathleen Smith
Tribunal Member