Saini v. City of Victoria Police Department and another, 2025 BCHRT 223
Date Issued: September 9, 2025
File: CS-004640
Indexed as: Saini v. City of Victoria Police Department and another, 2025 BCHRT 223
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:
Karendeep Saini
COMPLAINANT
AND:
City of Victoria Police Department and Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(g)
Tribunal Member: Kathleen Smith
For the Complainant: Karendeep Saini
Counsel for the Respondents: Anila Srivastava
I INTRODUCTION
[1] In this decision, I explain why I decline to dismiss parts of the complaint for being late filed.
[2] Karendeep Saini identifies as South Asian and a person of colour. She brought a human rights complaint against her former employer, Victoria Police Department [VicPD] alleging discrimination in employment based on race and colour contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code. Ms. Saini alleges that while working for VicPD she was subjected to repeat and ongoing racist and discriminatory comments that made her workplace unsafe. She further alleges that VicPD leadership failed to address her complaints, and instead, treated her as the problem. The complaint contains eleven alleged incidents of discrimination between January 2018 and September 2021.
[3] Ms. Saini also named the Victoria and Esquimalt Police Board [the Board] as a respondent, alleging that she asked for the Board’s assistance with respect to racism at the VicPD and they failed to act. The alleged lack of support from the Board occurred in May and June 2021.
[4] VicPD and the Board filed a single response to the complaint denying discrimination.
[5] VicPD subsequently filed an application to dismiss those allegations against it that fall outside the Tribunal’s one-year time limit. The Board accepts that the allegations against it are timely and appears to take no position on this application.
[6] Ms. Saini opposes the application. She asserts that the allegations are timely because they form a continuing contravention. She also argues that it is in the public’s interest to allow all of her allegations against VicPD to proceed to a hearing.
[7] For the following reasons, I am persuaded that the allegations form a continuing contravention and are therefore timely. I deny the application on this basis.
[8] To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision. I make no findings of fact on the merits of the complaint.
II BACKGROUND
[9] Between 2017 and 2021, Ms. Saini worked for VicPD as a Research, Policy, and Audit Analyst.
[10] Ms. Saini filed her human rights complaint on August 8, 2021, after she resigned from VicPD. Ms. Saini amended her complaint on March 16, 2023, to add another alleged incident of discrimination against VicPD in the fall of 2021.
[11] To put this decision in context, I summarize the eleven alleged incidents of discrimination as they relate to VicPD.
Incident #1 (January 12, 2018)
[12] Ms. Saini went to the office of the Community Engagement Division where she says an officer asked her how she felt about Black Lives Matter and Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem. When she expressed her support, Ms. Saini claims that the officer aggressively yelled at her and stated that BLM is made up of terrorists and gang members. Ms. Saini says she told her supervisor about the incident, but nothing was done.
Incident #2 (December 6, 2018)
[13] During a Christmas lunch, Ms. Saini says an officer with the Professional Services Division asked her about a recently released study that addressed racial profiling and anti-Black discrimination by the Toronto Police Service. She says she responded by stating that the findings made her sick to her stomach. According to Ms. Saini, the officer then told her that he had skimmed the report and stated in front of everyone at the table that Black people always complain even if it is just a police stop; BLM protestors are liars; and the study was garbage because it was conducted by a sociologist. Ms. Saini says she told her supervisor about the incident who agreed the comments were appalling but nothing was done.
Incident #3 (September 19, 2019)
[14] Ms. Saini says she overheard two constables and a staff sergeant discussing the Justin Trudeau brown face photo when it came out. She says the individuals expressed not understanding why it was such a big deal and one of them remarked how she had once dressed up as a Chinese person. Ms. Saini says she was offended by the remarks and subsequently emailed the persons involved to explain the problem with brown and black face, and reported the incident to her unnamed supervisor, and again nothing was done.
Incident #4 (November 12, 2019)
[15] Ms. Saini says she wanted to make an internal report about an incident she was involved with outside of work where a member of the VicPD threatened her employment and to arrest her family members. She says that rather than deal with her concerns about discriminatory conduct on the part of the member, Human Resources [HR] and her supervisor launched a one-sided investigation and accepted the officer’s version of events, without asking for her side of the story. She says that she felt she was being disciplined.
Incident #5 (February 13, 2020)
[16] Ms. Saini met with the Chief and two Deputies about incident #4. She says that ahead of the meeting she provided them with background information, including a list of racist and discriminatory comments she had been subjected to over the past years where no progress had been made. Based on a January 31, 2020, email from Ms. Saini to the Chief and two Deputies, her list included incidents #1 to #3. According to Ms. Saini, they did not ask her about who had made the comments or identify any actions that they would be taking in response. Instead, she claims they told her that these were “opinions” and people were allowed to have them.
Incident #6 (September 9, 2020)
[17] Ms. Saini was involved with interviewing candidates for a research position. She says there was a candidate everyone liked except a constable who felt the candidate made “anti-police” remarks when she spoke about policing being rooted in violence for some specific demographics. In response, Ms. Saini emailed the constable and provided them with information, including about the experiences of Indigenous women. Ms. Saini says that the constable subsequently complained about Ms. Saini’ email to a Deputy. Ms. Saini says this resulted in the Deputy asking Ms. Saini to his office where he asked if she liked working at the department. Ms. Saini says this remark could easily be taken as a threat, although she was not personally threatened by it. Ms. Saini alleges that this is another example of selective accountability where she was reprimanded for speaking against ignorance and discrimination and no issue was taken with the other person involved.
Incident #7 (November 18, 2020)
[18] Ms. Saini’s workspace was moved from the first floor to the third floor, next to HR and on the same floor as the Chief and Deputies. She says that the same day, the HR Inspector, HR Manager, and a retired HR Inspector started monitoring her social media. She says she felt targeted by them and viewed their actions as an attempt to intimidate and harass her.
Incident #8 (January 19, 2021)
[19] Ms. Saini was invited to speak to the Chief about some diversity and inclusion initiatives. She says that she took it as an opportunity to bring her list of concerns once again to leadership, including past racist remarks and HR monitoring her social media. Based on a January 18, 2021, email from Ms. Saini to the Chief’s secretary, it is apparent that Ms. Saini included the same list that was attached to her January 31, 2020, email, together with other more recent information. Ms. Saini says that she was told that VicPD would take her concerns seriously and the Deputy would follow up with HR. Ms. Saini says the Deputy took months to follow up and there was no formal accountability and none of her recommendations were implemented.
Incident #9 (April 23, 2021)
[20] Ms. Saini removed herself from VicPD’s Diversity and Inclusion Committee. She says that rather than acknowledge and address her concerns about the committee being unsafe and non-inclusive, the Deputy simply expressed hope that she would rejoin the committee one day.
Incident #10 (May 26, 2021)
[21] Ms. Saini attended a management meeting regarding a survey about the experiences of BIPOC people in Greater Victoria. She says that members of the leadership team suggested that the survey results should essentially be discarded because there were methodological issues with the survey and the survey was conducted by PhD students who did not know what they were talking about. Following the meeting, Ms. Saini sent an email to thirty members of the leadership team including the Chief, Deputies, and Inspectors, with copy to the Mayor. She says she echoed the sentiments expressed in the survey and asked leadership to understand the value of the lived experiences brought forward and issues of white privilege that are prominent in VicPD’s leadership. Several members of the leadership team responded to her and the Chief tasked a Deputy to meet with her. She says the Deputy essentially reminded her how much stress officers are under; told her that she is expecting too much too soon; then offered to check (censor) her emails before she hits send. Ms. Saini says she was made out to be the problem and was left feeling alone and othered.
Incident #11 (September/October 2021)
[22] After resigning from VicPD, Ms. Saini applied to join a police diversity advisory committee co-Chaired by a VicPD constable. She says that VicPD impeded her ability to represent her new employer on the committee. She describes the committee interview process as involving inappropriate interview questions and being told that there was no systemic racism at VicPD, and that it was problematic for her to bring her VicPD experiences forward. Ms. Saini says she withdrew her application to the committee based on what she perceived as a defamatory portrayal of her character.
[23] VicPD disputes all of the allegations against it. For the purpose of this application, it is not necessary to set out the details of its position. The only issue before me on this application is whether the Tribunal ought to dismiss parts of the complaint based on the timing of the alleged incidents.
III Analysis and DECISION
[24] Allegations of discrimination must be filed within one year of the alleged contravention: Code, s. 22(1). Allegations are timely if they occurred within one year of filing the complaint, or if they form part of a timely continuing contravention of the Code. The purpose of this time limit is “to require allegations of discrimination to be brought forward in a timely way so that remedial steps can be taken if appropriate”: School District v. Parent obo the Child, 2018 BCCA 136 at para. 79. Section 22 is also meant to ensure that complainants pursue their human rights remedies promptly so that respondents can go ahead with their activities without the possibility of a dated complaint: Chartier v. School District No. 62, 2003 BCHRT 39 at para. 12.
[25] The Tribunal has discretion to accept untimely allegations of discrimination if 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).
[26] Here, VicPD asks the Tribunal to dismiss the allegations set out in Incidents #1 to #5 under s. 27(1)(g) of the Code on the basis that they are late filed and do not form a continuing contravention. In the alternative, VicPD argues that there is no public interest in proceeding with the late allegations.
[27] As set out above, Ms. Saini opposes the application.
[28] I begin with the question of timeliness.
A. Timeliness of the allegations
[29] Ms. Saini filed her complaint on August 8, 2021. This means that any allegations before August 8, 2020, are untimely unless they form part of a continuing contravention with a timely contravention: s. 22(2).
[30] There is no dispute that Incidents #1 to #5 are alleged to have occurred outside the Tribunal’s one year time limit, and the remainer of the allegations against VicPD are filed on time. Therefore, the question before me under this part of the analysis is whether Incidents #1 to #5 constitute a continuing contravention with the timely allegations.
[31] To allege a continuing contravention under the Code is to allege discrimination that is ongoing, successive, or repetitive: see generally School District v. Parent obo the Child, 2018 BCCA 136. The burden is on the complainant to establish that their complaint alleges a continuing contravention.
[32] 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.
[33] The assessment of whether discrete allegations are a continuing contravention is a “fact specific one which will depend very much on the individual circumstances of each case”: Dickson v. Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition, 2005 BCHRT 209 [Dickson] at para. 17. A relevant consideration is whether there are significant gaps between the allegations: Dickson at paras. 16-17. Whether or not a gap is significant will be assessed contextually, considering the length itself and any explanations for the gap: Reynolds v Overwaitea Food Group, 2013 BCHRT 67, at para. 28. A significant, unexplained, gap in time will weigh against finding a continuing contravention: Bjorklund v. BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, 2018 BCHRT 204 at para. 14.
B. Is there a continuing contravention?
[34] With the exception of Incident #5, VicPD argues that none of the late allegations are sufficiently connected in character or time to the timely allegations to constitute a continuing contravention.
[35] Although Ms. Saini does not directly address the issue of continuing contravention in her response to the dismissal application, her submission does contain relevant information. Ms. Saini’s response refers to being “repeatedly” subjected to discriminatory and racist remarks and “consistently” treated as the problem when she brought her concerns forward. Ms. Saini also asserts that VicPD’s response to her reports of racism and discrimination was consistently externally focused despite the attitudes being internal to is members and leadership.
[36] I also observe that, in the complaint, Ms. Saini asserts that her allegations are part of an alleged continuing contravention. She says that all of the conduct is similar or related. Specifically, she says that all of the conduct concerns race-related issues, selective accountability, and a failure by leadership to act.
[37] For the following reasons, I am persuaded that Incidents #1 to #5 form a continuing contravention.
[38] First, I disagree with VicPD that the allegations set out in Incidents #1 to #4 bear no resemblance to the timely allegations. For each Incident, Ms. Saini alleges that she reported a race-related issue to the attention of VicPD leadership, and no action was taken. In my view, this common allegation is of the same character as Incidents #5, #8, and #10 where Ms. Saini alleges that she raised unresolved past and ongoing race-related issues within the department, expressed that they were impacting her, and VicPD leadership did not act. In fact, Ms. Saini alleges that she raised the lack of action regarding Incidents #1 to #4, as well as more recent issues, during a meeting with the Chief in January 2021. Another common thread through Ms. Saini’s allegations is that there was no accountability for the involved persons, and instead, she was treated as the problem for bringing concerns about racism and discrimination to the attention of VicPD leadership. This issue arises in Incident #4 as well as #6, and #10.
[39] Second, while I acknowledge that some of the gaps in time between the alleged incidents are significant, I am satisfied that Ms. Saini has sufficiently explained them. Ms. Saini says that she wanted to give VicPD every opportunity to rectify the issues internally before filing a complaint. She provides examples of bringing her concerns to different levels at the department over the course of her employment, including a meeting with the Chief in 2021. Ms. Saini also says that she had substantial family obligations and feared that filing a complaint could negatively impact her employment in her first career job. In addition, Ms. Saini asserts that some gaps in time are related to her feeling hopeless and not continuing to press the issues because nobody was taking her seriously or acting in response to her complaints.
[40] In summary, I am satisfied that:
a. the complaint alleges discrimination that is ongoing, successive, or repetitive;
b. the late-filed allegations are of a similar character to the timely allegations; and
c. the gaps in time between the allegations are sufficiently explained to support a finding of a continuing contravention.
[41] In circumstances where I am satisfied that there is an alleged continuing contravention, it was not necessary for me to address the parties’ submissions under s. 22(3) of the Code.
IV CONCLUSION
[42] I deny the application. The allegations set out in Incidents #1 to #5 form part of a continuing contravention.
[43] The next step is to schedule a hearing.
Kathleen Smith
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal