Luo v. City of Maple Ridge, 2025 BCHRT 230
Date Issued: September 18, 2025
File: CS-008119
Indexed as: Luo v. City of Maple Ridge, 2025 BCHRT 230
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:
Lizhi Luo
COMPLAINANT
AND:
City of Maple Ridge
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
Section 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On his own behalf: Lizhi Luo
Counsel for City of Maple Ridge: Jeremy Poole & Esher Madhur
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] On November 21, 2022, Lizhi Luo filed a complaint of discrimination in services based on race and place of origin contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code [Code], against the City of Maple Ridge [the City].
[2] The issue before me is whether to accept the Complaint against the City. I make no findings of fact regarding the merits of this complaint.
[3] 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
[4] Mr. Luo is Chinese and does not speak English fluently.
[5] Mr. Luo appears to have some proprietary involvement in a hotel located in the City. According to a Notice of Civil Claim [the Civil Claim], originally filed December 30, 2022, made by the company that owns the hotel, a fire occurred on December 31, 2020, resulting in damage to the property.
[6] According to the Civil Claim, soon after the fire a roof tent was erected to prevent water damage to the building and demolition work was undertaken. Problems associated with the remediation work ensued and various parties are now in a dispute about insurance coverage and damage caused by the actions taken after the fire.
[7] Mr. Luo alleges the City played a negative role in the fire remediation events by giving him false information about the necessary requirements for permits and failing to properly monitor the post fire remediation work. He alleges the City’s building department’s mistreatment of him was related to his race and English language barriers.
[8] The Civil Claim information indicates that erection of a roof tent with a scaffolding structure occurred in January 2021. The roof tent was then adjusted on June 22, 2021, and then removed in October 2021 because the required engineer’s confirmation letter could not be provided to the City. The Civil Claim further indicates that excessive and malicious demolition work occurred on the property from January 3 to 7, 2021.
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 21, 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 21, 2021.
[11] Mr. Luo states the latest allegations occurred on November 1, 2021, without providing any details about what happened at that time. In any event, accepting this date for the most recent allegations, 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. Mr. Luo’s alleges the City’s building department give him wrong information about permits required for work on the hotel property after the fire and did not provide sufficient supervision of the activities that occurred on site. While no specific dates for the misinformation alleged were provided, it appears that the work at the hotel site spanned most of 2021 until the scaffolding was removed some time in October 2021. With this in mind, the delay in this case spanned a period of approximately three weeks to nine months. Taken at it shortest, the delay in this case is relatively brief and not substantial. I am mindful, however, that even when the Tribunal is considering brief delays, it generally does not accept late-filed complaints in the absence of a compelling or convincing reason for the delay: Halpin obo Davidson v. MTI College, 2012 BCHRT 285, at para. 15.
[15] Mr. Luo’s explanation for late filing focuses on his pursuit of the Civil Action. He submits that pursuing this avenue for redress related to the aftermath of the fire at the hotel involved complex and overlapping issues, which should be considered when assessing whether the late filed complaint can proceed in the public interest. Mr. Luo also states that missing the deadline was not intentional.
[16] The Tribunal has repeatedly said that pursuing another process does not suspend the time limit under the Code, on its own, to relieve against the time limit: Sones v. District of Squamish, 2016 BCHRT 99 at para. 44. It also states that a complainant’s pursuit of other avenues of redress is not a sufficient reason to relieve against time limits and does not meet the public interest requirements: Devitt and Hargrove obo others v. School District No. 43 and another, 2011 BCHRT 218 at paras. 20-21.
[17] While accepting Mr. Luo had some involvement in the Civil Action brought by the corporation that owns the hotel, and this action involves some complexity, in my view he has not explained why he could not start this complaint within the one-year timeframe allotted for filing. Even if filing the Civil Action required Mr. Luo to work closely with the corporation’s lawyer in preparation of the other matter, he has not provided any information indicating that he was unable to find the time to learn about the Tribunal’s process and file a complaint in time. I have also considered whether pursing the Civil Action was a distraction which resulted in Mr. Luo unintentionally missing the deadline for filing. While sympathetic to Mr. Luo if this is what happened, his inability to organize himself as a businessperson to prevent missing the deadline when faced with such a distraction does not attract the public interest.
[18] 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.
[19] Mr. Luo is seeking justice for the City’s alleged mistreatment of him for reasons related to his race and place of origin. His argues that this complaint attracts the public interest because others who are Chinese with limited English language could be similarly negatively affected during their interactions with the City’s building department. While acknowledging Mr. Luo’s concerns about others experiencing similar harms to those alleged by him, 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 racism in services are common and the jurisprudence is fairly settled.
[20] 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
[21] For these reasons, the complaint is not accepted for filing.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member