Green v. Vancouver Police Board and others, 2025 BCHRT 216
Date Issued: September 4, 2025
File: CS-008286
Indexed as: Green v. Vancouver Police Board and others, 2025 BCHRT 216
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:
Marrett Green
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Vancouver Police Board and His Majesty the King in right of the Province of BC as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General (BC Prosecution Service) and (Court Services Branch) and (BC Sheriff Service) and Autumn Netting
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
Section 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On his own behalf: Marrett Green
Counsel for Vancouver Police Board: David McKnight
Counsel for Ministry of the Attorney General: Jaclyn Salter
I. INRODUCTION
[1] On July 23, 2024, the Tribunal decided six complaints made by Marrett Green could proceed to a decision on timeliness joined together as one complaint, case number CS-008286, filed on October 26, 2022. In reaching this decision, the Tribunal recognized that these complaints arose out of an incident at the Vancouver courthouse on January 26, 2021. That day Mr. Green alleges VPB police officers and courthouse sheriffs attacked and assaulted him. The combined complaint was also found to include allegations that the above referenced Respondents colluded to edit or delete exculpatory video evidence and did not respond to Mr. Green’s requests for the matter to be investigated internally by them . Finally, the combined complaint includes allegations that the VPB defamed Mr. Green by making comments in the media about the courthouse incident after the fact, including by saying that he was “known to police” and painting a picture that he was a “Black thug” such that he was racially profiled by the VPB.
[2] Mr. Green’s single complaint derived from six complaint forms is brought in services and publication based on race and colour against the Vancouver Police Board [VPB] and the Province of BC as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General (BC Prosecution Service) and (Court Services Branch) and (BC Sheriff Service) and Crown Prosecutor, Autumn Netting [together the Respondents].
[3] 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.
[4] The Tribunal’s September 19, 2024, notice of complaint proceeding gave the parties an opportunity to make time limits submissions. While the VPB and Ministry of the Attorney General Respondents provided Form 4 – Time Limit Response submissions, to date Mr. Green has not provided any Form 5 – Time Limit Reply submissions. I, therefore, proceed to make this time limits decision based on the information found in Mr. Green’s complaint form information and the Respondents’ Form 4 – Time Limit Responses.
[5] 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
[6] Mr. Green is a Black man. He has a post-graduate education and many years of community service. Mr. Green describes himself as having lived an exemplary life without any record of criminal convictions.
[7] I have set out Mr. Green’s allegations in some detail below as it will be necessary in my later analysis to determine which allegations are arguable contraventions of the Code, and whether they are capable of forming a continuing contravention of the Code.
[8] In 2016, Mr. Green alleges the VPB did nothing to help him when police officers arrived at the scene following his report of a neighbour’s racial slur and threats [the Neighbour Allegation].
[9] In 2019, Mr. Green alleges the VPB refused to respond to and investigate his report of a hit and run near the Cambie Street Bridge [the Bridge Allegation].
[10] On January 26, 2021, Mr. Green alleges the Respondents’ sheriffs and police officers racially profiled him inside the Vancouver courthouse and proceeded to attack and assault him as a “Black thug”. He alleges the assault occurred despite him agreeing to leave the building because he was not wearing a mask during the COVID-19. Mr. Green states there are no words to describe the hurt he experienced that day. He says that the situation was made worse by the Respondents falsely charging him with assaulting the offices involved, along with other offences. Mr. Green describes the experience of being assaulted by law enforcement officers as draining and damaging mentally, physically, emotionally, psychologically and financially [the January 26, 2021, Allegations].
[11] On January 27, 2021, Mr. Green alleges that crown prosecutor, Ms. Netting, sought a $1500 cash bail at a hearing related to his assault charges against the law enforcement officers the previous day. He says that bail was denied as he had no prior criminal record. Mr. Green appears to allege Ms. Netting’s unnecessary request for bail was related to his race and colour [the Bail Request Allegation].
[12] On March 21, 2021, Mr. Green alleges calling the VPB to report its failure to investigate the January 26, 2021, Allegations for reasons related to his race and colour. On October 28, 2022, Mr. Green alleges calling VPB again to follow up on his report. He claims no response was made to the voice message he left with the officer assigned to the complaint [the VPB Investigation Refusal Allegation].
[13] On April 12, 2021, Mr. Green made a formal complaint to the Court Services Branch [the Branch] about the January 26, 2021, Allegations and that organization’s alleged failure to secure the video surveillance footage of the incident. Mr. Green alleges the Branch last contacted him on April 23, 2021, to say they were investigating, and he had not heard from them since complaint [the Branch Investigation Refusal Allegation].
[14] In the spring of 2021, Mr. Green alleges that the Branch and other Respondents were withholding, or had destroyed, video surveillance evidence from events on January 26, 2021, for reasons related to his race and colour. Mr. Green alleges the Respondents’ tampering with or destruction of video evidence was carried out in an attempt to frame him as a “cop-killer” [the Video Evidence Allegations].
[15] In December 2021, Mr. Green alleges that his lawyer in the criminal matter requested further video footage related to the event on January 26, 2021, as part of disclosure in the criminal trial, including from cameras not previously identified in the initial gathering of evidence. He notes that this further video evidence later became available despite his prior attempts to obtain all the video evidence [Defence Counsel Obtains Evidence Allegation].
[16] In 2021, following the events on January 26, 2021, Mr. Green alleges the VPB made statements to the media indicating he was “known to police” and a “regular” at the courthouse. While Mr. Green admits often being at the courthouse during the prior four years, he alleges the purpose for attending was related to civil matters necessary to clear his name. He alleges these comments labelled him as a “Black thug capable of killing police” solely because of his skin colour. Mr. Green did not provide any details of where the media comments were published or who said them, while maintaining that they continue be re-published after the complaint was filed resulting in threats to him being made by strangers on social media. He does, however, include a January 20, 2023, screen shot of a Facebook conversation where another person talks about coming to find him and hoping he enjoys his time in jail. This conversation does not include any reference to media comments about him made by the Respondents however [the Media Comment Allegations].
[17] Mr. Green further alleges the above allegations in 2021 concerning the VPB also include retaliation allegations. He claims VPB allegedly treated him negatively for reasons related to him filing an Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner complaint, making a prior compliant with the Tribunal, and because he made threats to engage in litigation against the VPB related to the Neighbour Allegation and Bridge Allegation [the Retaliation Allegations].
III. ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[18] 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
[19] The Complaint was filed on October 26, 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 October 26, 2021.
[20] 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.
[21] Turning then to the first question identified above, I have considered when the last instance of this alleged contravention of the Code occurred. From my review of the complaint information, Mr. Green has set out allegations of discrimination during a relatively brief period of time from January 26, 2021, until April 23, 2021, all of which are late filed. Mr. Green argues a number of his allegations are ongoing such that his complaint is not late filed. In particular, he submits that his VPB Investigation Refusal Allegation and Branch Investigation Refusal Allegation, both went unanswered and are, therefore, continuing and timely allegations. Mr. Green further appears to argue that his Media Comment Allegations are timely as he continues to suffer threats on social media from strangers.
[22] I disagree with Mr. Green that the ongoing failure to respond to his complaints about the actions of VPB police and various Ministry of the Attorney General persons are arguable contraventions of the Code that up until the time his complaint was filed in October 2022. In my view, the Respondents’ continuing failure to act in response to Mr. Green’s complaints about their conduct lacks the kind of specific acts of discrimination that could be considered as separate contraventions of the Code. As such, I have determined that the VPB Investigation Refusal Allegation and Branch Investigation Refusal Allegation, along with the other allegations arising out of the January 26, 2021, assault, are all late filed with the Tribunal.
[23] In reaching this conclusion, I have considered whether Mr. Green’s lawyer’s December 2021 successful receipt of further video evidence disclosure in the criminal action, is a timely allegation of discrimination. In my view, the Defence Counsel Obtains Evidence Allegation is not an arguable contravention of the Code, but rather evidence supporting Mr. Green’s allegation that video surveillance footage existed and was not provided to him.
[24] Before leaving the subject of possible ongoing states of affairs allegations existing in this complaint, I have considered whether Mr. Green’s Media Comment Allegations contain any timely allegations. First, I am not convinced that Mr. Green has set out any allegations of discrimination concerning the VPB’s statements picked up in the media about him being “known to police” and a “regular” at the courthouse. These allegations are vague and insufficiently particularized. Further, they are not supported by any copy of a published article referencing statements by the VPB that are harmful to Mr. Green. Without any dates linked to these allegations, I am not prepared to find they are timely allegations of discrimination. Even if the necessary sufficiently particularized allegations exist, Mr. Green’s example of online hatred aimed at him in January 2023, is more appropriately seen as a consequence of the Media Comment Allegations and not a separate allegation capable of standing alone as an arguable contravention of the Code.
[25] Having concluded the Complaint does not contain any continuing contravention of the Code and was late filed for the early 2021 allegations, it is 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.
B. Public Interest
[26] 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.
[27] I have first considered the length of the delay in filing. The delay associated with Mr. Green’s allegations, with the latest being in mid-April 2021, is approximately six months, which is significant and weighs against accepting the complaint for filing: Paneswar v. Future Shop and others, 2012 BCRHT 297, at para 27.
[28] Mr. Green provided several reasons for late filing. First, he claims that he actually filed a complaint regarding these allegations some time in 2021. However, he submits that when he followed up on his complaint, he learned that it was not received because he may have not used the correct website browser to file the complaint form online. Mr. Green submitted an email, dated June 30, 2022, from a Tribunal staff person notifying him that no complaints were received as of that date with a possible explanation that he may have used of an incorrect website browser in his attempt to file. In my view, these circumstances attract some public interest in allowing the complaint to proceed as Mr. Green demonstrated an intention to file a complaint, at least against VPB, in a timely manner, but he may have run into technical issues related to filing a complaint using an online form. I have determined, however, that the extent of the public interest that attracts is limited where Mr. Green did not act with any haste in filing a complaint after learning his online complaint form had not been received. Where he did not take immediate action to file from the end of June 2022 until filing on October 26, 2022, I do not find this reason for late filing attracts a significant amount of the public interest in allowing the complaint to proceed late filed.
[29] Mr. Green also reports dealing with psychological and physical trauma associated with the January 26, 2021, assault and its aftermath as reason for his delay. Where 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 trouble coping with even the basic daily tasks of life: Naziel-Wilson v. Providence Health Care and another, 2014 BCHRT 170, at para. 21.
[30] Without doubting Mr. Green’s suffering as a result of the alleged assault on January 26, 2021, and other harms associated with the event, the evidence provided does no indicate he had the level of disability precluding him from filing a complaint necessary to attract the public interest. Mr. Green was clearly drained and damaged from these negative experiences, but he has not provided any information suggesting his physical and mental state precluded him from filing.
[31] Mr. Green 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. He claims it was difficult to find a lawyer “who was willing to go against the obvious fabricated narrative perpetuated by crown and VPD”. Mr. Green claims he contacted 269 lawyers before he could find one that would represent him. Without doubting Mr. Green took time to seek legal assistance, the evidence indicates that he ultimately decided to file the complaint on his own without the assistance of counsel. Further, by his own admission, he attempted to file online some time in 2021 but was unsuccessful for technical reasons. He then waited to file until October 26, 2022, but has not any detailed evidence indicating how searching for a lawyer to represent him at the Tribunal during that timeframe was a reason for his delay. In the circumstances of this complaint, it is unclear to me as to how seeking legal assistance interfered with Mr. Green filing in a timely manner sufficiently to attract the public interest.
[32] 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.
[33] Mr. Green is seeking justice for the way he was treated at the courthouse by the Respondents on January 26, 2021, and afterwards with them withholding evidence and failing to respond to his requests for an investigation into how he was treated. Mr. Green’s complaint is focused on anti-Black racism allegations, which in my view attracts some public interest apart from cases dealing with other forms of race discrimination: Umolo v. Shoppers Drug Mart, 2021 BCHRT 166 at para. 29.
[34] After weighing length of delay, reasons for delay and nature of the complaint, I have ultimately decided Mr. Green’s complaint does not attract the public interest to proceed late filed. While some of the delay is explained by Mr. Green experiencing an online filing barrier, there is a significant period of delay after he found out his complaint was not received that remains unexplained. Further, without doubting the existence of Mr. Green’s traumas related to his alleged assault, he has not included any evidence they precluded him from filing. Finally, I am not satisfied that the nature of the case involving anti-Black racism is enough to tip the balance in favour of allowing the complaint to proceed late filed.
[35] 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.
IV. CONCLUSION
[36] 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.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member