Doran v. Coastal Dental Centre and another (No.2), 2025 BCHRT 208
Date Issued: August 20, 2025
File: CS-003188
Indexed as: Doran v. Coastal Dental Centre and another (No.2), 2025 BCHRT 208
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:
Deborah Doran
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Coast Dental Centre and Ranjit Brar
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member: Devyn Cousineau
On their own behalf: Deborah Doran
On behalf of the Respondents: Ranjit Brar
Date of Hearing: July 7, 2025
Location of Hearing: Via videoconference
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Deborah Doran is a person with disabilities, who receives disability assistance through the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction [Ministry]. She went to the Coast Dental Centre for dental care. She alleges that, during her visit, Dr. Ranjit Brar was rude and dismissive, and refused to treat her without payment. She alleges that this was discrimination based on her disabilities, in violation of s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.
[2] Dr. Brar denies treating Ms. Doran poorly. He says that he needed an x-ray to properly diagnose and treat Ms. Doran, and that her Ministry benefits would not pay for it. He says that Ms. Doran left because she did not want to pay out of pocket for an x-ray.
[3] I heard this complaint over one day. Ms. Doran testified and called her friend Robert Mallinson to testify. Dr. Brar testified and called Judy Vanderwood, the dental assistant who spoke to Ms. Doran. I am grateful to the parties and witnesses for their work in the hearing.
[4] For the following reasons, I accept that the parties had a negative encounter that deeply upset Ms. Doran. However, I am not persuaded that Dr. Brar’s conduct amounted to discrimination in violation of the Code. The complaint is dismissed.
II Issues and credibility
[5] There is no dispute that Ms. Doran receives social assistance as a person with disabilities. This complaint turns on whether Ms. Doran has proven that she was adversely impacted in the Respondents’ services, within the meaning of human rights law, and her disabilities were a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. BC (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.
[6] This complaint arises from a single interaction between Ms. Doran and Dr. Brar. I accept that the interaction had a significant negative impact on Ms. Doran. However, Ms. Doran’s subjective experience is not enough to support a finding that the Respondents violated the Code. The Tribunal has consistently held that there is some conduct which falls below the threshold of discrimination: Brito v. Affordable Housing Societies and another, 2017 BCHRT 270 at para. 41. The Tribunal examines the full context to determine the impact of the incident on the dignity and equality of the complainant: Hawknes v. Vancouver Public Library (No. 2), 2017 BCHRT 250 at para. 122. Relevant factors include the egregiousness of the conduct, the relationship between the parties, whether an apology was offered, and whether the complainant is a member of a group historically discriminated against: Pardo v. School District No. 43, 2003 BCHRT 71 at para. 12.
[7] My first step is to decide what happened, based on the testimony given by the three witnesses who were there: Ms. Doran, Dr. Brar, and Ms. Vanderwood. While much of their testimony was consistent, there were some important differences. This is not surprising. They were each testifying about an incident that happened nearly 4.5 years ago. Memories have understandably faded, shifted, or hardened around a particular version of events. To resolve the differences, I have to decide which evidence to prefer.
[8] I start from the presumption that all of the witnesses are telling the truth: Hardychuk v. Johnstone, 2012 BCSC 1359 at para. 10. Where a witness’s testimony conflicts with other evidence, I must assess the trustworthiness of their testimony “based on the veracity or sincerity of a witness and the accuracy of the evidence that the witness provides”: Bradshaw v. Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398, aff’d 2012 BCCA 296, leave to appeal refused, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 392 (QL) at para. 186. In some cases, a witness’s evidence may not be trustworthy because they have “made a conscious decision not to tell the truth”: Youyi Group Holdings (Canada) Ltd. v. Brentwood Lanes Canada Ltd., 2019 BCSC 739 at para. 89. I do not find this was the case for any of the witnesses here. Rather, any differences in their testimony is explained as a matter of reliability, based on their ability to accurately observe, recall, or recount the event: R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56 at para. 42; Youyi at paras. 89-90.
[9] I have mostly accepted Ms. Doran’s testimony. She testified sincerely and gave evidence that I am satisfied she believed was true. I have fully accepted her evidence about the impact that this event had on her. This was corroborated by her friend Mr. Mallinson, and apparent throughout the proceeding. To the extent I have not accepted all of Ms. Doran’s evidence, it is because of my view that it was not “consistent with the probabilities affecting the case as a whole”: Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA) at para. 356. The most likely explanation is that Dr. Brar was not communicating effectively with Ms. Doran and she misinterpreted or misunderstood him on some issues. On those issues, her evidence was not the most accurate. I explain my specific findings below.
[10] I have accepted Dr. Brar’s evidence about his usual practice in seeing a patient, and his professional assessment that he needed an x-ray to treat Ms. Doran. However, his testimony was coloured by his frustration with this complaint and Ms. Doran. He consistently tried to paint Ms. Doran in a negative light, more so than the circumstances deserved. For example, he referred to her as belligerent, aggressive, and “hollering”. In my view, these were insensitive and inaccurate overstatements. They have compromised the reliability of some of his evidence.
[11] I have fully accepted Ms. Vanderwood’s evidence. Ms. Vanderwood has been a certified dental assistant at Coast Dental Centre for 28 years. She was the most measured witness, able to acknowledge that Ms. Doran was uncomfortable without demonizing her. Her evidence was consistent with the probabilities of the case, including evidence about Ms. Doran’s dental coverage and the need for an x-ray.
[12] I acknowledge Ms. Doran’s argument that certain issues with the Respondents’ documents undermine the reliability of all their evidence. For example, they appear to have lost a form that she started to fill out during her visit and then submitted a version of the form with her name misspelled. They submitted one document which listed her wrong address. I have not found these issues to be significant or to reflect on the reliability of the Respondents’ evidence on the important issues in this case. The Respondents did not attempt to rely on any of the information that Ms. Doran takes issues with, and nothing turns on discrepancies in some of the documents.
[13] I turn now to my findings of fact.
III The event
[14] In 2021, Ms. Doran was experiencing pain and swelling in her mouth. She did not want to go to her regular dentist. I accept that the reason for this was that her regular dentist had recommended and charged her for treatments beyond what was covered through the Ministry. On the recommendation of her friend, Mr. Mallinson, she made an appointment at the Coast Dental Centre. When she made the appointment, Ms. Doran specifically confirmed that they accepted patients on social assistance. She explains that she did this because some dentists will not accept people on social assistance. In his evidence, Dr. Brar confirmed that the Ministry fee rates are significantly lower than regular rates. I accept that this creates a profit motive for dentists not to treat patients receiving social assistance. However, in this case, Coast Dental Centre does treat patients on social assistance and confirmed that with Ms. Doran when she made her appointment.
[15] There is a dispute about whether, during this call, Ms. Doran asked the receptionist to retrieve her file from her regular dentist. This is important because her regular dentist had a recent x-ray on file. While it’s possible that the issue came up, I am not satisfied that the receptionist would have suggested or agreed that Coast Dental Centre would be able to obtain the file before Ms. Doran’s visit. I accept Dr. Brar’s evidence that a patient must directly request or sign a consent form to transfer their files, given that those files contain private medical information that requires patient consent to disclose. Further, I accept Ms. Vanderwood’s evidence below that Ms. Doran did not want them to contact her regular dentist. Ultimately, Coast Dental Centre did not have Ms. Doran’s previous dental file when she visited.
[16] Before Ms. Doran’s appointment, Coast Dental Centre reviewed her Ministry coverage for dental services. This information was then placed in her chart. In February 2021, Ms. Doran was eligible for basic dental services up to a $1,000 limit. On this basis, she understood that she was entitled to “full coverage” for whatever she needed, up to a $1,000 limit. However, I accept the Respondents’ evidence that specific services are subject to different coverage. At issue on this visit was whether Ms. Doran was eligible for a panoramic x-ray. I am satisfied that she was not.
[17] The Ministry’s Schedule of Fee Allowances- Dentist lists “panoramic film” as fee No. 02601, and includes this note:
Fee item 02601 is limited to once in a three-year period. Not included in the two year radiograph limit for children under 19 years of age.
There is no dispute that Ms. Doran’s last panoramic x-ray was in 2019, making her ineligible for another one until 2022. For that reason, Coast Dental Centre noted on Ms. Doran’s chart that the Ministry would not pay for a panoramic x-ray.
[18] Ms. Doran’s appointment was on February 3, 2021. When she arrived, the receptionist handed her a clipboard with a form to fill out. Before Ms. Doran could finish filling out the form, Ms. Vanderwood – the dental assistant – arrived to take her back to a dentist chair. They briefly discussed Ms. Doran’s concerns on their way to the chair. Ms. Vanderwood sat Ms. Doran in the chair, put a bib on her, and told her the dentist would be with her shortly.
[19] Ms. Vanderwood’s impression, which I accept, was that Ms. Doran seemed very anxious and stressed. She was having issues in more than one area of her mouth. Ms. Vanderwood says that she knew this would mean that Ms. Doran needed an x-ray. She asked Ms. Doran about whether she’d had a recent x-ray, and whether they could contact her dentist’s office to get it. Ms. Doran did not want them to contact the office. Though Ms. Doran disputes this, I prefer Ms. Vanderwood’s evidence. If Ms. Doran had agreed to allow Coast Dental Centre to access recent x-rays from her previous dentist, then there would have been no need for what came next. I find it likely that Ms. Doran was explaining to Ms. Vanderwood what she explained to me in the hearing: that her regular dentist had pulled a tooth but did not completely resolve an infection in another tooth, and that infection had spread until the pain became intolerable. She did not want to return to her regular dentist because she thought they would overcharge her again.
[20] At this point, Dr. Brar was in his office. Dr. Brar testified that he could hear Ms. Doran as she was led to the dentist’s chair. He described her as acrimonious and belligerent, pointing out “various problems” and acting “huffy puffy”. He says that she was “disgruntled” with treatment she’d received from her previous dentist and was pointing out various issues with her teeth. As I said earlier, I do not accept these derogatory descriptions of Ms. Doran’s behaviour. They are exaggerated. Rather, I prefer Ms. Vanderwood’s impression, that Ms. Doran seemed anxious and had pain throughout her mouth.
[21] Dr. Brar and Ms. Vanderwood testified, and I accept, that their usual practice is for Ms. Vanderwood to brief Dr. Brar before he sees the patient. Dr. Brar explains that he doesn’t like to “go in cold”. Most of the time this happens in Dr. Brar’s office. However, this time they conferred in the hallway, about three feet behind Ms. Doran, who was sitting in the dentist’s chair. Ms. Vanderwood told Dr. Brar that Ms. Doran was having issues in multiple areas of her mouth, that she was not covered for an x-ray, and that she didn’t want them to contact her previous dental office.
[22] Ms. Doran could hear Dr. Brar and Ms. Vanderwood talking about three feet behind her. She says that she heard Dr. Brar say “What does she want and what is she doing here?”. She says this made her feel unwanted. Dr. Brar denies saying “What does she want?”. He says it’s his usual practice to ask Ms. Vanderwood something like “what’s this about?”. In my view, the exact words are not important. I accept that Dr. Brar asked Ms. Vanderwood what Ms. Doran was there about, and that Ms. Doran interpreted this negatively.
[23] All the witnesses agree that Ms. Doran turned her head around and said “I’m right here”. Dr. Brar describes her as panicked and “hollering”, demanding his attention “this minute”. Again, I find this is an exaggeration. Ms. Doran felt ignored and uncomfortable, as Ms. Vanderwood and Dr. Brar talked about her within earshot, behind her back. It’s likely that her tone reflected that she was upset, but not to the degree that Dr. Brar has described.
[24] At this point, Dr. Brar and Ms. Doran had a conversation. There is a dispute about how exactly this occurred. Ms. Doran says that Dr. Brar stayed behind her the whole time, so she was having to crane her neck. Dr. Brar and Ms. Vanderwood says they came beside her, so that Dr. Brar could show Ms. Doran her chart. In my view, this evidence can be reconciled. I accept that the conversation began while Dr. Brar and Ms. Vanderwood were behind Ms. Doran, and that they moved beside her as it continued. There is no dispute that Dr. Brar stood over Ms. Doran and never came down to eye level.
[25] Still standing behind her, Dr. Brar asked Ms. Doran about the reason for her visit. Again, the exact wording is disputed. Ms. Doran says that Dr. Brar asked – “What is it you want?”. Dr. Brar says his usual practice is to say something like “so what’s up? What brings you in?”. I accept that, whatever his exact words were, Dr. Brar was somewhat brusque in asking about the reason for Ms. Doran’s visit. This is consistent with his annoyance at her behaviour. His manner did not help to calm Ms. Doran or put her at ease. Ms. Doran says she explained she was in pain. Dr. Brar denies she mentioned pain, but I find this implausible given that this was the reason for the visit.
[26] At this point, I accept Dr. Brar’s assessment that he needed a current x-ray to diagnose the issue and recommend treatment. Given that Ms. Doran was complaining about pain and issues in multiple areas, the panoramic x-ray was the best option. This was consistent with Ms. Vanderwood’s assessment, and is corroborated by Ms. Doran’s evidence that, when she subsequently saw a different dentist in April 2021, they also required an x-ray before beginning treatment. The conversation turned to the need for an x-ray.
[27] Ms. Doran says that Dr. Brar told her that her “disability” wouldn’t even cover his fees, and that she should go back to her original dentist. She says that it was the mention of “disability” that really upset her. She says that, at first, she did not understand that Dr. Brar was talking about coverage but thought he was directly attacking her disability. This triggered memories of other people in her life who did not accept her disabilities, which are invisible and poorly understood by some people close to her. She had been shamed in her life for receiving social assistance as a person with disability, with people accusing her of taking advantage of the system. She is scared of being treated differently because she is poor, and takes care in how she presents herself to convey that she is worthy of respect. It is easy for negative treatment to trigger her negative self-talk and feelings of worthlessness, which is how she experienced her interaction with Dr. Brar.
[28] In my view, what most likely happened is that Dr. Brar told Ms. Doran that she was not covered by the Ministry for an x-ray. I am not satisfied that he said her “disability” wouldn’t cover it. He denies this, and so does Ms. Vanderwood. Rather, it is possible that when he referred to “Ministry coverage”, Ms. Doran interpreted this through the lens of her person with disability status. For her, the two are deeply intertwined. Regardless of the words used, the implication was the same: Ms. Doran’s benefits would not cover the x-ray she needed. This was very upsetting.
[29] I accept that Dr. Brar suggested that Ms. Doran should go back to her regular dentist. Everyone agrees they discussed this, because of the likelihood that the dentist had current x-rays they could consult. I do not find that Dr. Brar was suggesting this because he did not want to treat Ms. Doran because of her disabilities. He would have been willing to treat her, if he had a current x-ray.
[30] Dr. Brar gave Ms. Doran the option of paying $75 out of pocket for an x-ray. Ms. Doran felt this wasn’t necessary. She understood that she was “fully covered” for dental treatment and should not have to pay out of pocket for an x-ray. She couldn’t afford it.
[31] There is no dispute that Dr. Brar was unwilling to treat Ms. Doran without first obtaining an x-ray. He did not ask her further questions about her pain, explore the reasons for the visit, or look in her mouth. At the same time, there is no evidence that, if he had, he could have offered Ms. Doran any treatment. Ms. Doran was adamant that she did not want an x-ray. Within several minutes, Ms. Doran stood up and left. The parties agree that she was very upset and left as quickly as she could.
[32] Dr. Brar’s chart notes from this visit reflect my findings about what happened:
No Pan [panoramic x-ray] coverage
Pt has a lot of issues, complaints previous DDS [doctor of dental surgery]
Adv to see dentist of record
Didn’t want to pay for x-ray left
N/C [no charge]
[33] I accept that Ms. Doran was deeply upset by her interaction with Dr. Brar. Her evidence on this was corroborated by Mr. Mallinson, who has known her well for ten years. To protect her privacy, I do not find it necessary to go into the full extent of this impact. I simply accept that Ms. Doran experienced Dr. Brar’s demeanour as dismissive and condescending. It triggered her feelings of shame and hopelessness about her disabilities, and reliance on social assistance. It made her weary to seek dental or other medical treatment. She eventually dealt with her dental pain in April 2021, and then after that did not see a dentist for three years.
[34] I turn now to explain my decision that Dr. Brar’s conduct in this interaction did not violate the Code.
IV Decision
[35] Considering the full context of this interaction, I am not satisfied that Dr. Brar’s conduct rose to the level of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. In Brito, the Tribunal explained that not all negative interactions will trigger the protection of the Code, even where they may be connected to a person’s protected characteristic:
… not every negative comment that is connected to a protected characteristic will be discriminatory harassment contrary to the Code. It is certainly undesirable for people to treat each other rudely, disrespectfully, or inappropriately. However, it is not the Tribunal’s purpose to adjudicate disputes other than where a person’s protected characteristic has presented as a barrier in their ability to fully, and with dignity, access an area of life protected by the Code. In performing this function, the Tribunal is cognizant that the disputes brought to it arise between human beings, with all the imperfection that entails. Not every failure to be kind or professional requires state intervention. This includes failures with discriminatory overtones – and therefore highlights a distinction between comments that may be “discriminatory” in the everyday sense of that word, and comments that amount to discrimination, within the meaning and scope of human rights legislation. [para. 41]
[36] In this case, I accept that, in their meeting, Dr. Brar was not warm and did not try to put Ms. Doran at ease. He spoke about her within earshot behind her back and did not take time to understand what she was going through or explain why they needed an x-ray. Ms. Doran was already feeling anxious about the visit, and having pain, and Dr. Brar’s conduct made her feel dismissed and devalued.
[37] However, I am not satisfied that Dr. Brar’s conduct rose to a level of discrimination that violates the Code. I appreciate there was a power imbalance, as Dr. Brar is a medical professional who stood behind and then over Ms. Doran throughout their interaction. I also appreciate the context of the interaction as one in which, as a person with disabilities receiving social assistance, Ms. Doran faced barriers to dental care. However, Dr. Brar did not say anything egregious or virulent to Ms. Doran. His comment about Ministry (or disability) coverage was true and relevant. His suggestion that she return to her original dentist was also responsive to the issue they were facing: the dentist would have access to x-rays to properly diagnose and treat the issue. The evidence does not support an inference that Dr. Brar was refusing Ms. Doran services because of her disability, or because she received social assistance as a person with disability. In my view, this is a circumstance where Dr. Brar likely failed to be kind, patient, or to demonstrate empathy towards Ms. Doran. But his conduct did not impose disability-related barriers on her ability to access his dental services. It does not require state intervention.
[38] Before I conclude, I must emphatically reject Dr. Brar’s arguments that Ms. Doran has pursued this complaint in bad faith. To the contrary – I am satisfied that Ms. Doran has pursued the complaint, in good faith, because of the significant impact the event had on her and out of a desire to restore her dignity. Throughout the process, Dr. Brar has denigrated her and questioned her motives. There was no basis for that. Although her complaint has been unsuccessful, Ms. Doran was entitled to file it and has acted diligently and professionally throughout.
[39] I am not persuaded that the Respondents violated the Code. The complaint is dismissed.
Devyn Cousineau
Vice Chair