Wilson and another v. Pagalis Sales Ltd. DBA: Canadian Tire Store 608 and others, 2025 BCHRT 241
Date Issued: September 25, 2025
File: CS-003916
Indexed as: Wilson and another v. Pagalis Sales Ltd. DBA: Canadian Tire Store 608 and others, 2025 BCHRT 241
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:
Dawn Wilson and Richard Wilson (by Dawn Wilson)
COMPLAINANTS
AND:
Pagalis Sales Ltd. DBA: Canadian Tire Store 608 and Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited and Blackbird Security Inc.
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION FOR IN-PERSON HEARING
Tribunal Member: Amber Prince
Counsel for the Complainants: Lisa Fong, KC., Ruben Tillman, and Victor Chan
Counsel for the Respondent Canadian Tire Corporation, Ltd.: Marcia McNeil
Counsel for Respondent Pagalis Sales Ltd.: Nikta Shirazian
Respondent Blackbird Security Inc.: Alicia Catalano
I INTRODUCTION
[1] The Tribunal’s hearings, by default, are held by video conference.
[2] The Complainants are Indigenous and citizens of the Heiltsuk Nation. The Nation’s home community is Bella Bella, but the Complainants and numerous Heiltsuk citizens live in the Lower Mainland. The Complainants apply for an in-person hearing on the basis that it promotes Heiltsuk legal traditions, cultural safety, and a trauma-informed process. The Complainants also request a hearing link, so that Heiltsuk citizens may observe the hearing from Bella Bella.
[3] Having considered the application materials before me, I grant the Complainants’ application.
II Preliminary note
[4] In their application, the Complainants point out that the Tribunal’s guidance on requesting an in-person hearing is limited. As a result, they rely on the Tribunal’s power to make an order to facilitate the just and timely resolution of complaints: Human Rights Code, s. 27.3.
[5] I acknowledge that the Tribunal guidance on in-person hearing requests is limited. These requests do not necessarily require an application; however, parties may choose to file one if specific issues arise or if directed by the Tribunal. In assessing a request for an in-person hearing, factors the Tribunal will consider include prejudice to the parties and the impact on the integrity of the process. Tribunal may also consider operational feasibility in the context of Tribunal resources.
[6] Here, the Complainants address the issue of prejudice if the hearing proceeds in-person. They also argue that an in-person hearing is “just” in the circumstances because it promotes Indigenous law, cultural safety, and a trauma-informed process. I take from their submission that an in-person hearing upholds the integrity of the Tribunal’s process. The Tribunal’s ability to hold the hearing in person is not at issue.
III DECISION
A. Positions of the Parties
[7] Each Respondent had an opportunity to response to the Complainants’ application, but only Canadian Tire responded.
[8] In its response, Canadian Tire takes no position with respect to the Complainants, the other Respondents, or their witnesses appearing in person in front of the Tribunal Member as long as Canadian Tire’s participation remains virtual and “all other fair hearing requirements are observed.” Canadian Tire explained that its offices are based in Toronto, Ontario and each of its witnesses live and work in Ontario.
[9] Canadian Tire does not object to the observance of Heiltsuk protocols during the hearing.
[10] With respect to the Complainants’ request for a hearing link, Canadian Tire points out that the Tribunal provides hearing access to members of the public, in the absence of an order to the contrary.
[11] The Complainants do not object to Canadian Tire participating in the hearing virtually. The Complainants do not object to the other Respondents participating in the hearing virtually if appearing in-person creates prejudice. As noted above, the other Respondents did not respond to the application despite having an opportunity to do so.
[12] The Complainants also request that if their expert witnesses are required to attend the hearing to testify that they do so virtually because they also work and reside in Ontario. None of the Respondents oppose the Complainants’ experts appearing virtually, if the experts are required to attend the hearing.
[13] The Complainants say that in considering their application, and exercising its powers, the Tribunal must account for Indigenous laws, and allow for a trauma-informed, culturally safe hearing process. Canadian Tire did not contest this.
B. Evidence
[14] In support of their application, the Complainants rely on the affidavit evidence of Yím̓ás (hereditary Chief) Dúqva̓ísḷa William Housty, who explains Heiltsuk legal concepts, including the concept of witnessing.
[15] Heiltsuk law is called ǦviỈás and that ǦviỈás traditions include in-person witnessing and protocols for legal events. For Heiltsuk, a central element of the Nation’s legal and cultural traditions is the potlatch, and feasting. Heiltsuk feasts are held in Bella Bella, in the Gvúkva’áus Haíɫzaqv (the “House of the Haíłzaqv” or the “Big House”). They are public, legally significant events and witnessing is integral to the legality of certain ceremonies that take place during them: Housty Affidavit, paras. 7, 9 and 10.
[16] Yím̓ás Dúqva̓ísḷa explains that the concept of witnessing, under Heiltsuk law, is based on the physical presence of the witness at the event they’re witnessing:
There is no substitute for witnessing live, in person. Our Nation does not hold “virtual” feasts (although we can livestream ceremonies to allow people who cannot come in person to watch, but we do not hold purely virtual ceremonies). The whole concept of witnessing is based on the physical presence of the witness at the event they’re witnessing. It is part of Haíɫzaqv cultural and legal tradition for witnesses to see, in person, how others are carrying themselves, how they’re feeling. It is only in person that someone can feel how others feel. If someone is carrying something heavy – like trauma – others being physically present, listening to what they’re saying, watching what they’re doing, can help. They help by sharing that feeling, lightening the load, connecting with and validating the other person’s truth: Housty affidavit, para. 11.
[17] The Complainants explain that the Heiltsuk Nation has an oral tradition, and witnessing plays an important legal function in documenting and validating significant legal events. The hearing of their complaint before the Tribunal is one such legal event. Heiltsuk people will testify under oath. The Complainants, and the Nation, would like the ability for Heiltsuk citizens to witness in person, thereby fulfilling a legal function under Heiltsuk law. Yím̓ás Dúqva̓ísḷa further explains:
The hearing of the human rights complaint of Dawn Wilson and Richard Wilson, both Haíɫzaqv citizens, will involve testimony under oath from Haíɫzaqv witnesses, including myself. When Haíɫzaqv citizens go in public to tell their truths, it promotes Ǧvi̓ḷás to have community members there, in-person, to witness and validate what has happened: Housty affidavit, para. 12.
[18] The Complainants also cite the BC Government’s Aboriginal Policy and Practice Framework in British Columbia (2015) as further evidence about the role of witnessing as a widely recognized and important legal concept for many Indigenous peoples.
[19] To the extent that Heiltsuk citizens are unable to travel to Vancouver for an in-person hearing, the Complainants request a public video broadcast of the hearing, in Bella Bella so that Heiltsuk citizens can observe the hearing from their home community.
[20] The Complainants also say that an in-person hearing will allow for Heiltsuk protocols to take place during the hearing. Specifically, Haíɫzaqv will seek formal permission from the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations for the hearing to take place on their Territories and invite their representatives to open the proceedings. Or, at a minimum, they say, those host Nations will need to be acknowledged at the start of the hearing: Housty Affidavit, para. 18.
[21] Further, the Complainants say that at the close of the hearing, if it is in-person, a Yím̓ás or appointed Haíɫzaqv citizen will be able to make yáq̓aɫ:
Yáq̓aɫ is the word in our language (Haíɫzaqvḷa) for what happens at the end of a feast or a potlatch, when the Yím̓ ás stand up and validate what has happened. By standing up and speaking, they verify that the protocols of the feast or potlatch were carried out correctly, and they support what they’ve seen and heard. Similarly, at the end of an in-person hearing, a Yím̓ ás or appointed Haíɫzaqv citizen should stand up and validate all that has been heard, to close the proceedings in good way, pursuant to Ǧvi̓ḷás: Housty Affidavit, para. 19.
[22] I thank the Complainants and Yím̓ás Dúqva̓ísḷa for their evidence. It is uncontested, and I accept it.
C. Submissions
[23] The Complainants also made submissions in support of their application for an in-person hearing. They argue that an in-person hearing promotes ǦviỈás and enhances cultural safety, consistent with a trauma-informed hearing. They point to the recommendations made by Ardith Walpetko We’dalx Walkem, KC (now Justice Walkem) in Expanding Our Vision: Cultural Equality & Indigenous Peoples Human Rights (2020). In the report, Justice Walkem recommended that the Tribunal:
· incorporate Indigenous laws into a renewed human rights process which reflects Indigenous approaches for protecting human rights: Recommendation 3.1;
· adopt a trauma-informed practice: Recommendation 10.1; and
· hold hearings in “spaces that are culturally safe for Indigenous complainants”: Recommendation 16.1.
[24] The Complainants further argue that the Tribunal, in considering their application, must exercise its powers under the Human Rights Code and its rules consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [UNDRIP]. They rely on the Interpretation Act, s. 8.1(3) which requires every act to be construed as being consistent with UNDRIP.
[25] The Complainants also rely on Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2023 BCSC 1680. In that case, Justice Ross determined that he was required to construe the act in question, the Mineral Tenure Act, in a manner that upholds (as opposed to abrogating) the Indigenous rights of the petitioners: “In other words, if there are two (or more) possibly valid interpretations of the [Act], then I am to construe the Act in a manner that is consistent with UNDRIP (i.e., that protects Indigenous rights)”: para. 416.
[26] The Complainants point to Articles 1, 2, 5, 9, 11(1), 15(2) and 34 in UNDRIP as affirming Indigenous rights to promote Indigenous law. They also say that UNDRIP is “especially pertinent” to the work of this Tribunal because it is an international human rights instrument and “Indigenous rights are human rights”: Application, para. 23.
[27] The Complainants cite Pastion v. Dene Tha’ First Nation, [2018] 4 FCR 467, in which Justice Grammond observed that: “Indigenous legal traditions are among Canada’s legal traditions. They form part of the law of the land”: para. 8.
[28] The Complainants also rely on Woodgate et al v. RCMP, 2023 CHRT 42. In that case, the complainants, members of the Lake Babine First Nation, requested an in-person hearing, based in part on their Indigenous traditions to “transmit knowledge orally and in person”: para. 25. Tribunal Member Harrington granted the request, with the consent of all parties, and having considered the complainants’ request, which stated in part:
Traditions for Indigenous people mean that when we talk, we meet in circles, and we do certain ceremonies that honour why telling the truth is so important, and why listening to others is also so important. The “justice system” and Canada have not listened. We have tried for many decades to tell these stories.
We don’t want the person making decisions about whether what we are saying is true or not be outside of our circle. Most people do not have a computer – we cannot “zoom” in. We will tell our stories and we expect the person listening to them to also be there in person.
[…] we ask that Member Harrington respect our traditional culture and see and talk to us in person: para. 25.
[29] The Complainants point to the similarities in the traditions of the Heiltsuk and Lake Babine First Nation, and argue that an in-person hearing, in their case, promotes and respects Heiltsuk legal traditions.
[30] The Complainants’ submissions are uncontested, and I accept them as setting out appropriate legal principles the Tribunal ought to consider in these circumstances. Based on the evidence and submissions before me, I grant the complainants’ application for an in-person hearing, and hearing link, as set out in the order below.
IV Order
[31] The Complainants may incorporate Heiltsuk protocols for opening and closing the hearing process, in person.
[32] The Complainants may present some or all of their case in person, and I will hear their case in person. If their experts are required to attend the hearing, they may do so virtually.
[33] Canadian Tire may present some or all of its case virtually. The other Respondents may present some or all of their cases virtually if attending the hearing in person prejudices them or their witnesses. They must be prepared to address this at a pre-hearing case conference scheduled for the hearing of this complaint.
[34] Subject to appropriate conditions, and consistent with 3.2 of the Tribunal’s Public Access and Media Policy, the Tribunal will provide a hearing link to the Complainants for Heiltsuk citizens in Bella Bella.
Amber Prince
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal