Mvongo and others v. Michels Canada and another, 2025 BCHRT 240
Date Issued: September 25, 2025
File: CS-008409
Indexed as: Mvongo and others v. Michels Canada and another, 2025 BCHRT 240
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:
Roger Mvongo on his own behalf and obo Falir Ismael, Mohammed Farrah, Abdel Nazir,
and Anwar Issa
COMPLAINANTS
AND:
Michels Canada and Trans Mountain Pipeline
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
Section 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On behalf of the Complainants: Roger Mvongo
Counsel for Trans Mountain Pipeline: Emily MacKinnon
No submissions: Michels Canada
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] On December 5, 2022, Roger Mvongo filed a complaint of discrimination for himself, and others listed above in employment based on race, colour, place of origin, (and later disability), contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code [Code], against Michels Canada [Michels].
[2] On December 2, 2024, Mr. Mvongo filed a complaint amendment seeking to add Trans Mountain Pipeline [Trans Mountain] as a respondent in this group complaint.
[3] The issue before me is whether to accept the Complaint against Trans Mountain. 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 against Trans Mountain late filed: s. 22(3).
II. BACKGROUND
[5] The Complaints are Black individuals of African descent. It appears that they worked for Michels as labourers on a section of Trans Mountain’s pipeline expansion project in the Lower Mainland.
[6] As of January 20, 2022, the Complainants allege Michels refused to pay them for benefits they were entitled to receive, told them there was no room for them to work in certain areas of employment on job site, and exposed them to dangerous work for reasons related to them being Black individuals of African origin. The Complainants also report the occurrence of racial slurs and the use of inappropriate language in the workplace because they are Black.
[7] A September 9, 2022, statement of complaint [the Internal Complaint] sets out Mr. Mvongo’s individual complaint to Michels concerning its failure to compensate him for working two consecutive Sundays in a row at the start of January 2022. It further alleges that Mr. Mvongo was told that he would lose his job by a person in payroll if he pursued his claim because Michels would not allow a foreman to put workers on two consecutive Sundays in a row. Mr. Mvongo says that he then told the union shop steward about his conversation with payroll the following day and was told that the only way he was going to be able to keep his job was to stop asking to be compensated for the consecutive Sunday benefit. Under the threat of dismissal, Mr. Mvongo alleges telling the shop steward to inform Michels that he would not pursue the matter further. He further alleges that he sent a text message to payroll to apologize for asking for the missing hours.
[8] Mr. Mvongo alleges the incident with payroll caused him a great deal of emotional distress resulting in various mental disability symptoms.
[9] An August 2022 medical note from a registered clinical counselor reports that Mr. Mvongo was treated by her on two occasions that month for trauma and stress related issues associated with a workplace incident. The counsellor indicates that she planned to continue providing counselling services to Mr. Mvongo.
[10] On November 24, 2022, Mr. Mvongo wrote to Michels, with a copy to various individuals at Trans Mountain, seeking a follow up on the investigation of his Internal Complaint. It appears Mr. Mvongo was no longer working as of that time. He alleges this absence was due to mental disability related to the abuses and racism suffered at work. Mr. Mvongo states that he would not be silenced, ignored, blacklisted or lose his job because he took a stand to defend his rights, along with the rights of others who are also visible minorities.
[11] On November 24, 2022, Trans Mountain replied to Mr. Mvongo stating it must respect the Internal Complaint process underway with Michels as they are the employer accountable for the investigation and would implement any corrective actions with their employees. Trans Mountain told Mr. Mvongo to direct all future communications related to this matter directly to Michels or the investigator reviewing his Internal Complaint.
[12] On November 25, 2022, Mr. Mvongo emailed Trans Mountain to state that while recognizing that the pipeline company did not think it was directly responsibility for what was occurring at Michels, it was his belief that Trans Mountain should not be a passive actor while racism and discrimination was occurring at its project work site. He noted further that Trans Mountain should intervene because Michels was covering up the matter with a biased investigation undertaken in secret.
[13] The December 2, 2022, Trans Mountain harassment and violence contractor compliance checklist sent from Michels to Trans Mountain references Mr. Mvongo’s September 9, 2022, Internal Complaint and indicates Michels had complied in all respects to the health and safety management plan.
[14] The December 2, 2022, email from Michels field HR coordinator to Trans Mountain provided an update on Mr. Mvongo’s Internal Complaint. It states that Michels had completed appropriate corrective action with him, and the case was considered closed. The Michels employee also noted that Mr. Mvongo’s WorkSafeBC claim was denied after it was determined that Michels had taken reasonable steps to investigate and address the employee’s allegations.
III. ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[15] 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
[16] The application to amend the Complaint to add Trans Mountain as a respondent was filed on December 2, 2024. 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 December 2, 2023: Rule 25(2)(c).
[17] The Complainants make several statements about their allegations being ongoing from 2022 to 2024 and refer to the availability of documents particularizing these allegations. However, from review of the complaint information, the latest arguable allegation against Trans Mountain occurred at start of December 2022 when Trans Mountain appears to have accepted Michels’ report that it had done all that was necessary in response to Mr. Mvongo’s Internal Complaint. The Complainants had multiple opportunities to provide such further particulars for any later allegations and did not do so.
[18] In determining that the latest arguable contravention occurred in December 2022 when Trans Mountain failed to act, I am in no way concluding that Trans Mountain owed any duty to intervene in discrimination complaints raised by workers at Michels. The Complainants have only raised an arguable contravention the Code, that is sufficient for my purposes in deciding a preliminary application related to timeliness.
[19] 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
[20] 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.
[21] I have first considered the length of the delay in filing. As noted above, the latest allegations concerning Trans Mountain are from early December 2022. As such, the complaint is approximately one year late filed, which is which is considered by the Tribunal to be excessive and militates strongly against the public interest: Naziel-Wilson v. Providence Health Care and another 2014 BCHRT 170 [Naziel-Wilson]at para. 13.
[22] Mr. Mvongo provided several reasons for the delay in filing a complaint against Trans Mountain. First, he states the Complainants acted in good faith and were unaware of the proper complaint mechanisms.
[23] 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. Mvongo has not elaborated as to what he means by the Complainants not being aware of the proper complaint mechanisms. The evidence indicates that they knew how to initiate a complaint with the Tribunal as of late 2022 when they did so against Michels. Perhaps this reason is related to there being some confusion regarding who to name as a respondent because Trans Mountain was the project owner and Michels was a contractor working on site. However, the evidence from late 2022 indicates the Complainants were aware of Trans Mountain’s potential liability and were keenly pursing their involvement in the matter as of that time. With this in mind, there is nothing to indicate that the circumstances of this case should be taken out of general presumption that a complainant not knowing their rights does not attract the public interest in allowing a late filed complaint to proceed.
[24] Mr. Mvongo further submits that the delay was caused by health issues. In appears that this reason is focused on the mental health disabilities experienced by him as the group’s representative as a result of the alleged discrimination he suffered at work.
[25] 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.
[26] I accept the Mr. Mvongo was suffering mental health disabilities at the relevant time for filing a complaint against Trans Mountain. This is supported by evidence indicating he was off work as of late 2022 and was seeing a counsellor as treatment for his mental disabilities. While recognizing the existence of Mr. Mvongo’s disabilities, the evidence on file indicates he was able to file complaints both internally at Michels and with the Tribunal against Michels in late 2022. Added this to this, Mr. Mvongo appears to have also been able to make a WorkSafeBC claim regarding the events in question. Without doubting Mr. Mvongo was suffering some level of disability at the relevant time for filing, he has not persuaded me that his disabilities precluded him from filing a timely complaint against Trans Mountain.
[27] Mr. Mvongo also appears to argue that the delay in filing is related to the Complainants not being successful in their attempts to seek redress by other means. He states that given the lack of resolution or access to justice at the time, there is a clear justification for an extension.
[28] 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.
[29] While Mr. Mvongo may have decided to pursue other avenues before filing a complaint against Trans Mountain, his choice of this strategy without more does not attract the public interest in the circumstances of this case. The evidence indicates Mr. Mvongo thought Trans Mountain should share in the blame for what was happening to Black men working at Michels on the pipeline jobsite as of late 2022 and his decision not to file a complaint with the Tribunal against Trans Mountain while he pursued an Internal Complaint and a complaint at the Tribunal against Michels does not attract any public interest in allowing the late filed complaint proceed.
[30] 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.
[31] The Complainants are seeking justice for Trans Mountain’s alleged failure to intervene in their dispute with Michels regarding alleged discrimination concerning race, colour, place of origin and disability. For them, this case raises serious public interest because it involves systemic discrimination in a major federally regulated project. While acknowledging the Complainant’s concerns about the existence of systemic discrimination related to racism and disability on a large construction project, I am not satisfied that this complaint raises a novel issue that should be heard by the Tribunal to advance the purposes of the Code. Complaints involving racism and disability in employment are unfortunately common and the jurisprudence is fairly settled. Further, the Complainants are now free to advance this complaint in pursuit of justice against Michaels.
[32] For these reasons, I do not find that it is in the public interest to accept the late-filed complaint against Trans Mountain, and I need not address the issue of whether substantial prejudice would result.
IV. CONCLUSION
[33] For these reasons, the complaint against Trans Mountain is not accepted for filing.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member