Bouziane v. Backcountry Brewing, 2025 BCHRT 232
Date Issued: September 16, 2025
File: CS-003066
Indexed as: Bouziane v. Backcountry Brewing, 2025 BCHRT 232
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:
Fadwa Bouziane
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Backcountry Brewing
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c) and (d)(ii)
Tribunal Member: Devyn Cousineau
Counsel for the Complainant: Menachem Freedman
Counsel for the Respondent: Gradin D. Tyler
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Fadwa Bouziane is a Black woman. She worked for Backcountry Brewing as a server. During her employment, she says she complained about discriminatory treatment by her co-workers, and a toxic work environment. She says that the employer’s failure to respond appropriately to her concerns led her to quit her job. In her human rights complaint, she alleges that her treatment at work, and the employer’s response, was discrimination in employment based on her race, in violation of s. 13 of the Human Rights Code.
[2] Backcountry asks the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint. It says that Ms. Bouziane’s allegation of racial discrimination are vague and have no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c). In any event, it says that it has responded appropriately and remedied the issues raised by the complaint, such that it does not further the purposes of the Code to continue: Code, s. 27(1)(d)(ii).
[3] For the following reasons, the application is denied. The complaint will proceed to a hearing. I begin with Backcountry’s preliminary objections to Ms. Bouziane’s response materials.
II Preliminary objections
[4] Backcountry makes two objections to the materials Ms. Bouziane has filed in her response to the application: (1) an evidentiary objection to hearsay and her unsworn statement, and (2) an objection that she has improperly added new allegations to her complaint. I consider each in turn.
A. Evidentiary objections
[5] In support of Ms. Bouziane’s response to the dismissal application, she has submitted an unsworn statement and an affidavit from a legal administrator in her counsel’s office. Backcountry objects to this evidence and argues that the Tribunal should disregard it in its entirety.
[6] First, Backcountry objects to the fact that Ms. Bouziane’s statement is unsworn. Respectfully, this is not a basis on which I would disregard it.
[7] While an affidavit is the best kind of evidence in a preliminary application, it is not required and is not always preferred: Edgewater Casino v. Chubb-Kennedy, 2014 BCSC 416, at paras. 44-53; affirmed 2015 BCCA 9. In considering an application to dismiss a complaint without a hearing, the Tribunal’s task is not to strictly apply rules of evidence and weigh that evidence to make findings of fact. Rather, its task is to assess whether there is a basis for the complaint to proceed: Edgewater Casino at para. 52. The Tribunal has consistently said that it will look past “differences in presentation to assess the real merits of the application”: Becker v. Cariboo Chevrolet Oldsmobile Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd (No. 2), 2004 BCHRT 80 at para. 57.
[8] In this case, Ms. Bouziane explains that, at the time that she was preparing her statement, she was in Morocco. She says that she saw a notary and was told that they could not notarize a document unless it was in French. In the context of this application, I accept this explanation. It would be patently unfair to disregard her statement in a context where I am being asked to dismiss her human rights complaint on a preliminary basis, simply because it is unsworn. I decline to do so.
[9] Second, Backcountry objects to hearsay in Ms. Bouziane’s statement and the affidavit of the legal administrator. It has not specifically identified the hearsay it objects to or explained how it is prejudicial in the context of this application. Again, this is not a basis on which I am prepared to disregard any or all of Ms. Bouziane’s materials. The Tribunal has discretion to admit and consider hearsay: Code, s. 27.2. In any event, I understand that most of this objection relates to evidence about Ms. Bouziane’s late response and the parties’ disputes about disclosure. I have not relied on that evidence to make this decision.
B. Adding new allegations to complaint
[10] In its dismissal application, Backcountry argued that Ms. Bouziane’s complaint should be dismissed because it was insufficiently particularized. In her response, Ms. Bouziane added new information not contained in her original complaint. Backcountry argues that this is an improper expansion of her complaint, which is not permitted without an application: Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 24(4)(b). It argues that it is prejudiced by having to face a “moving target”: Pausch v. School District No. 34 and others, 2008 BCHRT 154 at paras. 28-29. It asks the Tribunal to disregard most (if not all) of Ms. Bouziane’s materials on this basis. Respectfully, I decline to do so.
[11] I acknowledge, and agree, that some of the allegations in Ms. Bouziane’s complaint form were vague. For example, some of them do not identify dates, people involved, or specific words spoken. However, the Tribunal’s complaint forms are not the equivalent of pleadings in a civil litigation process: White v. Nanaimo Daily News Group Inc. and Klaholz, 2004 BCHRT 350 at para. 23. Complaints frequently appear in “ragged form”, particularly where – as here – they are filed by a self represented person: Lord v. Fraser Health Authority, 2021 BCSC 2176 at para. 38. In Lord, Justice Walkem cautioned against winnowing out “complaints that are imperfectly brought, but that likely contain valid complaints of human rights violations”: para. 38.
[12] In that context, it is not uncommon, or a violation of the Rules, for a complainant to add new particulars of their complaint in response to an application to dismiss. The distinction between particulars and new allegations (which require an application) was set out in Powell v. Morton, 2005 BCHRT 282 at para. 20:
… I must consider whether the amendment contains, on the one hand, further details of the facts on which the complainant intends to rely, or whether, on the other, it constitutes an expansion of the allegations made against the respondents. If the former, it will constitute particulars; if the latter, an amendment. This determination is not to be made in a narrow or technical way, but in a manner which will ensure that the parties are accorded procedural fairness, and that particulars are not used to expand a complaint beyond what can reasonably be said to have been alleged in it. Another way of looking at the questions is to ask whether the materials in issue come within the scope of the complaint filed with the Tribunal, or whether they seek to expand the scope of the complaint.
[13] In my view, Ms. Bouziane’s response adds details and particulars to her complaint, not new allegations. In her complaint, she alleges that she felt forced to quit her job due to the “inaction of the business” in response to “racist comments” and “unprofessional communications”. She alleges that she had to work with “two racist problematic individuals”, in an “unsafe environment of racism/bullying”, and was exposed to “racist joke” and “racist slur”, including “racist jokes about my hair”, “racist joke on ‘don’t use the racist card on me’”. She says that a white woman who was “part of the problem” complained about the diversity, equity, and inclusion committee, claiming she was not included. In her response to the dismissal application, she adds details about who the people were that she is referencing in her complaint. She also adds details about what some of the racist jokes were, and how she says her environment was made unsafe by “racism/bullying”. Properly understood, these are not new allegations of discrimination. They are particulars, which add important details to the allegations that Ms. Bouziane made in her complaint.
[14] I appreciate that Backcountry wanted the Tribunal to dismiss Ms. Bouziane’s complaint because she failed to include important details in it. This was a basis on which it chose to bring its dismissal application: Purdy v. Douglas College and others, 2016 BCHT 117 at paras. 35-37. However, I am not persuaded that, by providing those details, Ms. Bouziane has expanded the scope of her complaint or made the process unfair to Backcountry. As she points out, it was open to Backcountry to request these particulars before it filed its dismissal application. Further, the parties dispute whether Backcountry already knew these details in circumstances where there is some evidence that Ms. Bouziane raised her allegations during her employment. Finally, Backcountry has had the opportunity to address any new details in its reply.
[15] In addition to objecting to the new details of Ms. Bouziane’s allegations, it appears that Backcountry is arguing that Ms. Bouziane’s reliance on documents she obtained in disclosure constitutes an unfair expansion of her complaint (referring to paras. 1-12 on pp. 4-7 of her argument). I reject this argument. These submissions were responsive to Backcountry’s argument that the complaint should be dismissed because it has been appropriately remedied. They do not add new allegations of discrimination. Likewise, Ms. Bouziane’s arguments at paras. 28-31 on p. 12 and paras. 35-39 at pp. 13-14 respond to Backcountry’s dismissal application and do not expand her complaint.
[16] In sum, I am not persuaded that Ms. Bouziane has added new allegations to her complaint, or that it is unfair to Backcountry for me to consider all her materials in this application. I have considered all of the materials to make my decision.
III Does the complaint have no reasonable prospect of success?
[17] Backcountry applies to dismiss Ms. Bouziane’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c) The onus is on Backcountry to establish the basis for dismissal.
[18] The Tribunal does not make findings of fact under s. 27(1)(c). Instead, the Tribunal looks at the evidence to decide whether “there is no reasonable prospect that findings of fact that would support the complaint could be made on a balance of probabilities after a full hearing of the evidence”: Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2006 BCCA 95 at para. 22, leave to appeal ref’d [2006] SCCA No. 171. The Tribunal must base its decision on the materials filed by the parties, and not on speculation about what evidence may be filed at the hearing: University of British Columbia v. Chan,2013 BCSC 942 at para. 77.
[19] A dismissal application is not the same as a hearing: Lord v. Fraser Health Authority,2021 BCSC 2176 at para. 20; SEPQA v. Canadian Human Rights Commission,[1989] 2 SCR 879 at 899. The threshold to advance a complaint to a hearing is low. In a dismissal application, a complainant does not have to prove their complaint or show the Tribunal all the evidence they may introduce at a hearing. They only have to show that the evidence takes their complaint out of the realm of conjecture: Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49 at para. 27.
[20] Many human rights complaints raise issues of credibility. This is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to deny an application to dismiss: Evans v. University of British Columbia, 2008 BCSC 1026 at para. 34. However, if there are foundational or key issues of credibility, the complaint must go to a hearing: Francescutti v. Vancouver (City), 2017 BCCA 242 at para 67.
[21] To prove her complaint at a hearing, Ms. Bouziane will have to prove that she was adversely impacted in her employment, and her race was a factor in that adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. In this application, Backcountry argues that Ms. Bouziane has no reasonable prospect of proving these elements of her complaint. Respectfully, I disagree.
[22] There are two main elements to Ms. Bouziane’s complaint: (1) discriminatory treatment during her employment, and (2) management’s response. I consider each in turn.
A. Discriminatory treatment
[23] Ms. Bouziane says that, during her employment, she was one of two Black employees at Backcountry. She alleges that, during her employment, a white Kitchen Manager would frequently make racist and sexist comments to her and other staff, including:
a. using the “n-word” and, in response to Ms. Bouziane telling him not to say that, accusing her of playing the “race card”;
b. joking about Black peoples’ hair;
c. joking about her skin colour;
d. referring to female employees as “bitch” and “slut”; and
e. on one occasion, asking her Black co-worker, “when are you going to be my fucking slave”.
[24] Ms. Bouziane says that she reported this behaviour to a Backcountry manager in September 2019, but the manager failed to take her complaint seriously, reasoning that the Kitchen Manager was “just like that”.
[25] Ms. Bouziane also says that, throughout her employment, she experienced racist treatment from Backcountry customers. She says that, initially, Backcountry management would help her by allowing her to switch tables if a customer was mistreating her (for example, being overly aggressive or disrespectful to her). However, she says this changed around September or October 2019, when a new manager, a white woman, took over. I will call her the Manager.
[26] Ms. Bouziane alleges that the Manager treated her differently than white staff, including being overly critical and scrutinizing of her performance, including in front of customers and other staff. Ms. Bouziane also says that the Manager criticized her for playing R&B music instead of the more white-coded music that was usually playing, and criticized her clothing for being “too bold”. Finally, she says that the Manager and other managers no longer supported her when she complained about the customers. On one occasion, Ms. Bouziane says she complained about a white customer and was told by a manager to “smile more”.
B. Management’s response
[27] In January 2020, Ms. Bouziane reached out and met with a Sales Coordinator (who Backcountry says also provided human resources assistance) to discuss her concerns. There is some dispute about what was said during their meeting. Backcountry relies on the Sales Coordinator’s notes of the meeting, which Ms. Bouziane says are incomplete or inaccurate. I cannot resolve this dispute in this application.
[28] It is undisputed that, during their meeting, Ms. Bouziane raised concerns about racial discrimination at work. These included:
a. Ms. Bouziane did not feel supported by the employer when customers were mistreating her, including based on her race;
b. staff were using the n-word while performing karaoke at a staff party; and
c. the white Head Chef questioned a Black co-worker why only Black people could use the n-word, and asked “when am I going to be able to call you my n-word?”.
[29] Ms. Bouziane says that she also told the Sales Coordinator that the Manager was treating her badly because of her race, and that the Kitchen Manager was making racist and sexist comments. She says she told the Sales Coordinator that she did not want to work with the Manager anymore. This appears to be disputed. In its application, Backcountry says that Ms. Bouziane never raised concerns about, or named, the Kitchen Manager or Manager during her employment. In their affidavits, two of the owners (John Folinsbee and Marc Roberts) say they do not know who Ms. Bouziane was referring to in her human rights complaint as two “racist problematic individuals” in the workplace, or what they are alleged to have done.
[30] The Sales Coordinator raised Ms. Bouziane’s concerns with management and recommended that the company take steps to address them.
[31] On February 4, 2020, Ms. Bouziane met with the Sales Coordinator and two of Backcountry’s owners: Mr. Folinsbee and Mr. Roberts. Ms. Bouziane agrees that during this meeting they did not discuss her specific allegations about the Manager and Kitchen Manager. She says she understood the Sales Coordinator had already shared those with the owners. The parties agree that Ms. Bouziane expressed that she felt unsupported and asked Backcountry to take action to support diversity and inclusion in the workplace. At this point, there were no policies in place regarding discrimination in the workplace. The parties also agree that the owners were responsive to Ms. Bouziane’s concerns and committed to addressing them.
[32] Following the meeting, Ms. Bouziane provided Backcountry with a list of people who could support its efforts to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion [EDI] in the workplace. Backcountry says that it reached out to one of these people, a consultant, and started to work on a proposal for training Backcountry staff.
[33] Progress was interrupted in March 2020 by the COVID-19 pandemic. At the outset of the pandemic, the company laid off its staff, including Ms. Bouziane. Ms. Bouziane returned to work in June 2020.
[34] After she returned in June, Ms. Bouziane says that she met with another owner of Backcountry, Adam Steinberg, and told him that the Kitchen Manager and Manager were the “main sources of racism at the workplace”. She says that Mr. Steinberg referred her to a human resources consultant. However, she says that when she relayed these same concerns to the Human Resources Consultant, they were dismissive and suggested that she confront the Kitchen Manager and Manager directly.
[35] In the meantime, Backcountry returned to the topic of EDI. It says that it delayed the reopening of the tasting room to work with Ms. Bouziane and others to strike an EDI Committee and develop appropriate policies.
[36] Ms. Bouziane and another employee prepared an EDI policy for the company, which proposed that Backcountry adopt a “zero tolerance stance toward discrimination and harassment”. It appears undisputed that there was management pushback to the policy. Backcountry says that management was frustrated that they had not been involved, or asked for input, in the policy. Ms. Bouziane says that they were reluctant to impose rules. On June 19, Ms. Bouziane says that Mr. Steinberg told her that Backcountry would be “taking a break” from developing the policy. She says that Mr. Steinberg told her that the work was “mentally taxing” and that the Manager was upset that she hadn’t been included. Ms. Bouziane says that Mr. Steinberg suggested she apologize to the Manager.
[37] Ms. Bouziane says this was the “last straw”. She resigned on June 22. In her resignation letter, she wrote: “I have reached out for help many times concerning racist comments and unprofessional communications from peers in high position and have been dismissed multiple times”. She expressed that she no longer felt that Backcountry was a safe space to work, and that she no longer believed in the company. In her covering email, she wrote:
I’m exhausted
I’m exhausted mentally and physically.
You are not listening.
[38] On June 24, Backcountry’s four owners wrote to Ms. Bouziane, acknowledging “we have a lot to learn and a lot of work to do”. They asked whether Ms. Bouziane would be willing to conduct an exit interview, allowing them to hear her “in a way that you feel you haven’t been heard to date”. In response, Ms. Bouziane said that her trust in Backcountry had been broken and that she had already given everything she could. They did not meet again.
[39] On January 19, 2021, Ms. Bouziane filed this human rights complaint.
C. Decision
[40] Ms. Bouziane has now particularized the allegations in her complaint and presented evidence capable of supporting them at a hearing. There are significant disputes about what Ms. Bouziane reported to management and when, and what happened in the process of developing an EDI policy in June 2020. I cannot resolve those disputes in this application and, in my view, they are foundational and warrant a hearing: Francescutti at para. 67.
[41] I do not agree with Backcountry’s characterization of the complaint as one that falls below the threshold to trigger the protections of the Code. In that regard, they cite Tribunal case law holding that isolated or minor incidents may not constitute ‘discrimination’ even in circumstances where they engage a person’s protected characteristics: e.g. Pardo v. School District No. 43, 2003 BCHRT 71 at paras. 12-13. While I appreciate that Backcountry presented this argument before Ms. Bouziane particularized her allegations, those allegations are not akin to the type of single incident that the Tribunal has dismissed following Pardo. She alleges ongoing racial discrimination in her employment, including through frequent comments, and an insufficient management response which culminated in the loss of her employment. If proven, it will be open to the Tribunal to find that these allegations violate the Code.
IV Has the complaint been remedied?
[42] Backcountry argues that it does not further the purposes of the Code to proceed with the complaint because it reacted promptly and appropriately to address Ms. Bouziane’s concerns.
[43] In Tambour v. Teamsters Union Local 155, 2024 BCHRT 20, the Tribunal summarized the factors that a respondent must prove to support a dismissal on the basis that it has appropriately addressed the alleged discrimination:
a. The respondent took the complainant’s discrimination claim seriously;
b. The respondent appropriately addressed the impact on the complainant; and
c. Where necessary, the respondent took appropriate steps to ensure the discrimination would not happen again… [at para. 23, citations omitted]
[44] The Tribunal went on to explain:
The Tribunal’s analysis under s. 27(1)(d)(ii) is contextual and case-specific. Alongside the above requirements for dismissing a complaint on the basis that the alleged discrimination has been addressed, the Tribunal may also consider relevant contextual factors, such as: the seriousness of the alleged discrimination; the timeliness of the respondent’s response to the allegation; the nature of its response (e.g., whether the respondent investigated the allegation); whether the respondent acknowledged the discrimination; whether the complainant was compensated for their losses; whether the respondent has a discrimination policy; and the importance of encouraging parties to address allegations of discrimination in a timely and constructive manner… [para. 24].
See also Williamson v. Mount Seymour Housing Co-operative, 2005 BCHRT 334 at para. 13; Horner v. Concord Security Corp, 2003 BCHRT 86 at para. 31; and Wilkie v. ICBC, 2005 BCHRT 318 at para. 5.
[45] The employer’s response does not have to be perfect: Iacobellis v. University of British Columbia Alma Mater Society, 2024 BCHRT 234 at para 57. The underlying principle is that, where a complaint has already been appropriately resolved, any discrimination has been remedied, and it is not necessary to incur the time and expense of a hearing to ensure the Code’s purposes are fulfilled: Williamson at para. 13.
[46] At the outset I acknowledge the evidence that Backcountry took Ms. Bouziane’s complaints seriously after she resigned, and took steps to ensure the discrimination would not happen again. After Ms. Bouziane resigned, Backcountry hired a consultant and EDI strategist to support EDI initiatives at work. In August 2020, it says that its ownership met regularly with external consultants for “ongoing self-reflection and to plan for short-term and longer-term outcomes relating to EDI”. It developed an “EDI Audit & Social Sustainability Strategy”, comprised of a workplace audit, training, and policy development and implementation. It says that it implemented this strategy over the following six months. I accept that these initiatives were important and appropriate responses to Ms. Bouziane’s concerns that she was unsupported and unsafe in her workplace. They are forward looking, and further the Code’s purposes of preventing and addressing discrimination.
[47] However, I am not persuaded at this stage that Backcountry took Ms. Bouziane’s complaints seriously during her employment or has appropriately addressed the impact on Ms. Bouziane, such that it does not further the purposes of the Code to allow her complaint to proceed.
[48] To begin, Backcountry says it did not understand or know about all of Ms. Bouziane’s allegations until she detailed them in response to this application. In this application, it denies that Ms. Bouziane’s allegations could violate the Code. It does not address Ms. Bouziane’s claim that she had been reporting concerns since September 2019, but continued to have to work alongside the Kitchen Manager and Manager. It does not identify any steps it took to directly investigate or address behaviour that she alleges was racist from these two individuals or customers. There is no evidence before me that it investigated Ms. Bouziane’s allegations. If it did, she was not involved. These are factors that weigh against dismissal: see eg. Davis v. Teck Coal, 2018 BCHRT 285 at para. 84.
[49] Next, Backcountry has publicly acknowledged that it “failed” in its response to Ms. Bouziane. Here I am referring to a message on Backcountry’s blog from April 2021. This message discussed the circumstances of Ms. Bouziane’s departure. Without naming Ms. Bouziane, it set out some of the circumstances by which she had raised concerns “about a lack of anti-discrimination and anti-racist specific policies”, and explained that she had left, “citing an unsafe environment”. The message stated:
The truth is clear: we failed. We failed to protect our employees, and we failed to uphold Backcountry’s values as an inclusive workplace.
It went on to outline the steps the company was taking to “push forward a long-term Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) strategy to educate ourselves, create policy, and transform the culture at Backcountry Brewing to one that we can confidently call anti-racist”. I cannot reconcile this admission that it failed in its response to Ms. Bouziane, with its current submission that it promptly and appropriately addressed her concerns such that her human rights complaint should be dismissed without a hearing.
[50] Finally, there has been no remedy for Ms. Bouziane. Internal emails suggest that, in January 2021, Backcountry was considering sending a formal apology to Ms. Bouziane. Ultimately, it did not and there is no evidence of any steps it has taken to address the impact of alleged discrimination on her. If Ms. Bouziane proves her complaint at a hearing, she would be entitled to personal remedies. Dismissing the complaint would leave a significant purpose of the Code unfulfilled: the purpose of providing a means of redress for persons who have been discriminated against: s. 3(e); Spina v. Kamloops (City), 2019 BCHRT 107 at para. 79.
[51] In these circumstances, I am not persuaded to dismiss Ms. Bouziane’s complaint because Backcountry has already remedied any discrimination. To the contrary, it furthers the Code’s purposes to allow the complaint to proceed to a hearing, where each party can present their case and the Tribunal can decide the complaint on its merits. I deny the application to dismiss the complaint.
V Conclusion
[52] The application to dismiss the complaint is denied. The case manager will contact the parties to schedule a hearing.
Devyn Cousineau
Vice Chair