Maclnnes v. BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (North Fraser Pretrial Centre), 2025 BCHRT 228
Date Issued: September 11, 2025
File: CS-008449
Indexed as: Maclnnes v. BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (North Fraser Pretrial Centre), 2025 BCHRT 228
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:
Shane MacInnes
COMPLAINANT
AND:
His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (North Fraser Pretrial Centre)
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
Section 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On his own behalf: Shane MacInnes
Counsel for North Fraser: Jaclyn Salter
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] On November 22, 2022, Shane MacInnes filed a complaint of discrimination in Services based on Indigenous identity and mental disability contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code [Code], against His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (North Fraser Pretrial Centre) [North Fraser].
[2] The Tribunal’s July 17, 2024, notice of complaint proceeding gave the parties an opportunity to make time limits submissions. While North Fraser provided Form 4 – Time Limit Response submissions, to date Mr. MacInnes has not provided any Form 5 – Time Limit Reply submissions. Tribunal staff provided Mr. MacInnes with multiple opportunities to file a reply submission, with the last deadline being March 21, 2025. I, therefore, proceed to make this time limits decision based on the information found in Mr. MacInnes’ complaint form information, including his August 4, 2024, additional time limit information, and the Respondent’s Form 4 – Time Limit Response.
[3] The issue before me is whether to accept the Complaint against North Fraser. I make no findings of fact regarding the merits of this complaint.
[4] For the reasons that follow, it is not in the public interest to allow the Complaint to proceed late filed: s. 22(3).
II. BACKGROUND
[5] Mr. MacInnes identifies as Metis and has a history of mental disabilities, including depression, addiction, PTSD and ADHD.
[6] From October 7 to 15, 2021, Mr. MacInnes was incarcerated at North Fraser pending release on bail.
[7] Mr. MacInnes alleges he was held in segregation during his time at North Fraser, which resulted in a forced “detox”. He alleges suffering from an uncontrolled withdrawal from longstanding substance use in segregation and a worsening of his mental health conditions. Mr. MacInnes alleges North Fraser ignored and disregarded his suffering while segregating him. He describes being left in a small box 23.5 hours a day as being a “scary thing”. Following this experience, he reports ongoing sleep issues, night terrors and the development of major obsessive compulsive disorder tendencies. Mr. MacInnes alleges these mental health issues are due to his overwhelming worry about being placed back in segregation.
[8] The Respondent argues Mr. MacInnes was isolated for reasons related to having been exposed to COVID-19 and states he did not seek any accommodations during his incarceration related to his Indigenous identity or mental disabilities.
III. ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[9] 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
[10] The Complaint was filed on November 22, 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 November 22, 2021.
[11] Mr. MacInnes’ latest allegations appear to have occurred up to October 15, 2021, when he was released from custody. As such, the Complaint was late filed.
[12] Having found all of allegations in this case were late filed, I proceed 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
[13] 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.
[14] I have first considered the length of the delay in filing. The delay associated with Mr. MacInnes’ allegations, is approximately six weeks, which is considered brief: Worrell v. Brinkman & Associates and another, 2010 BCHRT 89 at para. 16; Iya-Songa v. Fraser Region Aboriginal Friendship Centre, 2017 BCHRT 44 at para. 18. Notwithstanding, the Tribunal must determine whether it is in the public interest to accept all late-filed complaints regardless of the length of delay.
[15] Mr. MacInnes provided several reasons for late filing. First, he straightforwardly admits that he was unaware of the Code and the Tribunal’s process until just before he filed the Complaint on November 22, 2022. Mr. MacInnes submits that he did not know the Tribunal process existed until learning about it from another inmate. He states that he would have filed in time if he learned about the Tribunal sooner. Mr. MacInnes recalls that while incarcerated he did not have much communication with others apart from occasional telephone calls.
[16] Ignorance of the Code, or the time required to become aware of one’s rights, is generally not an acceptable reason, on its own, for the delay in filing: Rashead v. Vereschagin (No. 2), 2006 BCHRT 74 at para. 12; Ferrier v. BCAA, 2009 BCHRT 412at para. 31. In this case, Mr. MacInnes admits he was ignorant of the Code and timeline for filing a complaint until another inmate discussed the matter with him. While appreciating Mr. MacInnes spent some, or all, of the one year timeline for filing a complaint incarcerated with little access to the outside world, he has not provided any evidence indicating an inability to access information about his rights under the Code and the Tribunal’s process should he have decided to pursue his grievance with being incarcerated in segregation at North Fraser during the timeframe for filing. Mr. MacInnes has not said that he was prevented from accessing prison advocacy assistance or access to prisoner’s human rights information during the one-year timeframe for filing and beyond. If being incarcerated negatively affected Mr. MacInnes’ ability to inform himself about the Code and the Tribunal’s process sufficient to attract the public interest, in my view it was necessary for him to provide more information than stating that his contact with the outside world was limited to occasional phone calls. Without more information from Mr. MacInnes as to how being incarcerated affected his ignorance of his rights under the Code, I do not find this reason attracts the public interest in allowing his late filed complaint to proceed.
[17] Mr. McInnes also appears to submit that his various mental disabilities affected his ability to file a complaint in time. He states that he was battling a number of mental health issues and the aftermath of traumas experienced while at North Fraser during the timeframe for filing. For him the experience of segregation at North Fraser was so inhumane that even the strongest of people could not go through it without being damaged mentally.
[18] 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, at para. 21.
[19] There is no reason to doubt Mr. MacInnes’ ongoing mental disabilities and the terrible effects of being placed in a segregated environment had on him as he went through detox from years of substance use while at North Fraser. From the information provided, however, Mr. MacInnes has not indicated that his mental disabilities precluded him from filing his complaint in a timely manner. In fact, when Mr. MacInnes learned about his rights under the Code, he acted almost immediately to file a complaint with the Tribunal. In this case, Mr. MacInnes has not submitted any evidence that his mental disabilities prior to the time when he filed precluded him from reaching out for assistance and learning about the Tribunal’s process if he had chosen to seek justice for the experience of being segregated while incarcerated at North Fraser. Without more information about Mr. MacInnes’ level of mental disability during the relevant time, it would be speculative to conclude from the information provided that he was sufficiently disabled from filing a complaint to attract the public interest in allowing his late filed complaint to now proceed.
[20] 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.
[21] Mr. McInnes is seeking justice for the trauma related to being held in segregation at North Fraser. He says that this experience left him feeling neglected such that his mental and physical health was completely ignored. Mr. MacInnes believes the scale of the harms he endured would be enough to convince members the public to allow his briefly late filed complaint to proceed. While acknowledging Mr. McInnes’ belief that his experience at North Fraser involved significant harms, I am not satisfied that his complaint raises a novel issue that should be heard by the Tribunal to advance the purposes of the Code. Complaints involving disability in services are common and the jurisprudence is fairly settled. The Tribunal has also specifically dealt with the issue of accommodating mental disabilities of inmates and the use of segregation in a prison setting: Fetterly v. B.C. (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General), 2012 BCHRT 111.
[22] 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
[23] For these reasons, the complaint is not accepted for filing.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member