Watts v. Newcrest Red Chris Mining Ltd and others, 2025 BCHRT 245
Date Issued: October 15, 2025
File: CS-009328
Indexed as: Watts v. Newcrest Red Chris Mining Ltd and others, 2025 BCHRT 245
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:
Chad Watts
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Newcrest Red Chris Mining Limited and Nathan L’Heureux and Grant Ethier and Rick Mills
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
Section 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On his own behalf: Chad Watts
Counsel for Newcrest and Nathan L’Heureux: Stephanie Guiterrez
For Grant Ethier and Rick Mills: No submissions
I INTRODUCTION
[1] On April 13, 2023, Chad Watts [the Complainant] filed a complaint of discrimination in employment based on Indigenous identity and race contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code, against Newcrest Red Chris Mining Limited [Newcrest] and its human resources director, Nathan L’Heureux, and two former supervisors at the Red Chris Mine [the Mine], Grant Ethier and Rick Mills [together the Respondents].
[2] On July 18, 2024, the Tribunal’s screening decision allowed the complaint to proceed against Newcrest and Mr. L’Heureux for a continuing contravention of the Code. However, the Tribunal opened it up to the Respondents to challenge its initial decision in that regard. The Tribunal also referred the complaint against Mr. Ethier and Mr. Mills to time limit submissions.
[3] Notice of the complaint for all respondents was sent to Newcrest. However, Newcrest informed that Mr. Ethier and Mr. Mills were no longer employed at the Mine and had not likely been served. I note Mr. Watts filed an application to order Newcrest to provide contact information for Mr. Ethier and Mr. Mills. In light of my findings below I did not see it necessary to consider this application.
[4] For the reasons that follow, the untimely portion of the Complaint does not form part of a continuing contravention of the Code: s. 22(2), and it is not in the public interest to allow that portion to proceed late filed: s. 22(3).
II BACKGROUND
[5] Mr. Watt is Indigenous and grew up in Tahltan Territory located in the northwest part of the province.
[6] In 2016, Mr. Watt alleges being tormented and harassed by his former bosses, Mr. Ethier and Mr. Mills, while working at the Mine located close to his home in Tahltan Territory. At that time, the Mine was owned and operated by an Imperial Metals entity [the Previous Owner]. Mr. Watts alleges his former bosses made his work intolerable by constantly yelling at him and threatening him. In one instance, he alleges Mr. Mills told him that “a effing monkey can do your job”. Mr. Watt alleges that he grew tired of the harassment and quit his job one day. After quitting that day, Mr. Watt alleges waiting two hours for Mr. Mills to pick him up from working on a crusher before walking down the haul road to a conveyer where another employee drove him to the mill. Mr. Watt alleges his mistreatment by the former bosses was related to his Indigeneity. He claims that such harmful conduct was commonly experienced by the Native population in the northwest part of the province while working in this type of job. He says that some members of the local Indigenous workforce then become blacklisted and cannot then find work in any of the mines near their homes [the 2016 Allegations].
[7] Without providing any specific dates and jobs, Mr. Watts alleges making numerous unsuccessful applications for work at the Mine since 2016. He alleges that his failure to secure employment at the Mine was related to his Indigeneity.
[8] In 2023, Mr. Watts alleges getting his class 3 drivers licence and working towards his heavy equipment operating certificate.
[9] On April 8, 2023, Mr. Watts alleges Newcrest and Mr. L’Heureux refused to employ him in a haul truck driving position at the Mine for reasons related to his Indigenenity. In particular, Mr. Watts alleges Mr. L’Heureux inappropriately labeled him as being badly behaved and aggressive as reasons for not hiring him [the April 2023 allegations].
[10] In an email, dated April 8, 2023, Mr. L’Heureux wrote in part as follows to Mr. Watt concerning Newcrest rescinding its job offer if he did not get his drug and alcohol test in before the scheduled start date:
The recruitment process has not gone very well so far Chad. We have had multiple comments that you have been very rude to the recruiter, have refused to work with many of our leaders, denied accepting the haul truck offer because you are interested in another position, and now missing your drug and alcohol test. This is not giving us confidence that there has been a change in your behaviours and attitudes that you demonstrated previously while employed with us, which resulted in a very serious incident.
III ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[11] 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 and Continuing Contravention
[12] The Complaint was filed on April 11, 2023. 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 April 11, 2022.
[13] A complaint is filed in time if the last allegation of discrimination happened within one year, and older allegations are part of a “continuing contravention”: Code, s. 22(2); School District v. Parent obo the Child, 2018 BCCA 136 at para. 68 [School District]. A continuing contravention is “a succession or repetition of separate acts of discrimination of the same character” that could be considered separate contraventions of the Code, and “not merely one act of discrimination which may have continuing effects or consequences”: Chen v. Surrey (City), 2015 BCCA 57at para. 23; School District at para. 50.
[14] The assessment of whether discrete allegations are a continuing contravention is a “fact specific one which will depend very much on the individual circumstances of each case”: Dickson v. Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition, 2005 BCHRT 209 at para. 17. A relevant consideration is whether there are significant gaps between the allegations: Dickson at paras. 16-17. Whether or not a gap is significant will be assessed contextually, considering the length itself and any explanations for the gap: Reynolds v Overwaitea Food Group, 2013 BCHRT 67, at para. 28. A significant, unexplained, gap in time will weigh against finding a continuing contravention: Bjorklund v. BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, 2018 BCHRT 204 at para. 14.
[15] I start by considering whether the Complainant set out any timely allegations against each of the Respondents. Mr. Watts’ April 2023 Allegations against Newcrest and Mr. L’Heureux concerning him not getting the haul truck driving position at the Mine occurred a few days before the Complaint was filed. I agree with the Tribunal’s July 18, 2024, screening decision that the April 2023 Allegations are timely against Newcrest and Mr. L’Heureux. In confirming this decision, I disagree with Newcrest that these allegations do not disclose any acts of discrimination on the basis of Indigenous identity or race. Mr. Watts is Indigenous and was ultimately not hired to work was a haul driver in April 2023 by Newcrest. While Newcrest argues its decision not to hire him is unrelated to his Indigenous identity and race, Mr. Watts alleges Newcrest and Mr. L’Heureux formed a negative opinion of him as a someone with behavioural and attitude issues for reasons related to his Indigeneity. He alleges that it was common for mine employers to harass Indigenous employees and then blacklist them from working in the industry for their resulting behaviour. For the purposes of this preliminary screening decision, I am satisfied that Mr. Watts has set out an arguable contravention of the Code with respect to the April 2023 Allegations.
[16] I have next considered whether Mr. Watts has set out any other allegations concerning job applications at the Mine from 2016 to 2023 apart from the April 2023 haul truck driving position. While recognizing Mr. Watts’ claim that he made numerous applications for work at the Mine since 2016, and his statement that he has email evidence to support these applications, to date he has not provided the necessary information to establish any further allegations related to hiring practices at the Mine. Mr. Watts has not provided the necessary specific details of jobs that he applied for unsuccessfully at the Mine between 2016 and early 2023. Further, he has not provided any information about how not getting these jobs is related to his Indigenous identity and race apart from making a broad claim that some Indigenous people get blacklisted from employment in mines for reasons related to their Indigeneity.
[17] Mr. Watts reports that he did work at the Mine in 2019, 2020 and 2021 for a drilling company that appears to have done contract work on the site. He reports attempting to start his own diamond drilling business to do work at the Mine which did not proceed because the Tahltan Central Government was unwilling to support him. Mr. Watts further reports a specific allegation of discrimination in 2022 against another mine he was trying to initiate a business partnership with, but that entity was not named as a respondent in this complaint. He also alleges generally that many of the jobs he worked in after 2016 ended negatively for reasons related to his Indigenous identity and race.
[18] After considering the complaint information, I have determined that the arguable allegations of discrimination in this case are limited to the 2016 Allegations and the April 2023 Allegations. Mr. Watts’ other allegations are too vague or unrelated to the respondents named in this complaint to proceed as arguable contraventions of the Code. The 2016 Allegations are out of time.
[19] Having found arguable timely allegations in 2023 and out of time allegations in 2016 in this case concerning Newcrest, it is now necessary to determine whether the Complaint is a continuing contravention of the Code based on the timely allegations in 2023, tethering in the 2016 allegations as timely. Put another way, I must now consider whether a continuing contravention exists here. This analysis starts with a consideration as to whether the allegations are of a similar nature.
[20] Mr. Watts recognizes the allegations from 2016 and 2023 are different in that the earlier allegations involve workplace bullying while the latter involve a refusal to hire him. However, he argues both sets of allegations concern employment and a pattern of mistreatment of him related to his Indigeneity. Mr. Watts also sees similarity in both sets of allegations as he believes the Respondents misrepresented him as being rude and uncooperative because he is Indigenous.
[21] Newcrest argues the allegations in 2016 and 2023 are of a different character because they involve different owners of the Mine. For the purposes of determining whether the allegations area of a similar character, I reject this argument. In my view the change in ownership at the Mine is not critical to conclusions about the allegations being of the same character. These allegations occurred at the Mine and a change in ownership should not automatically render the allegations to be of a different character where it concerns Newcrest.
[22] After reviewing the nature of the 2016 Allegations and the April 2023 Allegations I have determined that they are of the same character as they involve issues related to Mr. Watts’ employment at the Mine and mistreatment related to his Indigeneity. Whether the allegations concern him being harassed to the point where he made a poor decision about walking on a haul road or not getting a job because of behavioural issues, these allegations are similar in nature because Mr. Watts alleges New Crest and the Previous Owner thought he was of unsound character and not fit to work at the Mine for reasons related to his Indigeneity.
[23] The more difficult question in this case related to the existence of a continue contravention of the Code is the large gap of many years between the 2016 Allegations and the April 2023 Allegations. A gap of this magnitude does not indicate a succession of allegations necessary under s. 22(2). Further, Mr. Watts has not adequately explained why such a gap exists. While acknowledging Mr. Watts’ statements about continuing to apply for positions at the Mine without success for reasons related to his Indigeneity, as noted above he has not particularized these events or explained that the gaps only occurred between him applying for jobs at the Mine as they became available. Mr. Watts states he was working in all kinds of different jobs after 2016, which appears to indicate that he turned his attention to employment elsewhere, but this explanation in my view falls short of explaining such a large gap between two allegations separated by so many years. In this case, the evidence fails to indicate a succession of allegations necessary to form a continuing contravention.
[24] The 2016 Allegations of discrimination do not form part of a continuing contravention of the Code. I now move on to an analysis of whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to accept the 2016 Allegations 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
[25] 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.
[26] I have first considered the length of the delay in filing. The delay associated with the 2016 allegations is more than five years, which is excessive, and militates strongly against the public interest: Naziel-Wilson v. Providence Health Care and another, 2014 BCHRT 170, at para. 13; Mzite at para. 59.
[27] Mr. Watts provided several reasons for the delay in filing a complaint. First, he states that he was previously unaware of his rights as an Indigenous worker but has now learned about them.
[28] 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. Watts has not provided anything more than a candid admission that he was unaware of his ability to file a compliant and the timeline for doing so until recently. Mr. Watts has not suggested that he had any barriers in researching his rights under the Code and filing a timely complaint that might distinguish his case from the general presumption that a complainant not knowing their rights does not attract the public interest in allowing a late filed complaint to proceed.
[29] Mr. Watts also references the negative impact that Indigenous racism had on his mental health. He reports the negative effects of being considered “Subhuman Savages” and a “conquered” people by mining companies, the healthcare system and the broader society in this province. He submits that he has lost his trust with “systems in place here in BC as a native man”, and this negatively affected his ability to file sooner. He states that there was something bigger to discover in terms of how First Nations people are being treated in the Tahltan Territory.
[30] Mr. 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.
[31] I accept the Mr. Watts suffered negative mental health effects because of systemic Indigenous racism in the years since he left the Mine in 2016. However, the evidence on file indicates he was able to continue on his career and education path during those years such that he had the ability to research and file a complaint with the Tribunal if he had turned his mind to doing so earlier. In this case, the evidence does not indicate that any mental disability sufficient to attract the public interest precluded Mr. Watts from filing a timely complaint.
[32] Mr. Watts also straightforwardly reports that he had decided to put the 2016 events behind him and move on with his life as a reason for not filing a complaint about these allegations sooner. However, the negative experience he had with the Mine in early 2023 brought all the negative treatment he experienced there from 2016 back to the forefront. Having again experienced similar harms, Mr. Watts submits that he then decided to file a complaint about the 2016 Allegations.
[33] While appreciating why Mr. Watts was motivated to file a complaint about the 2016 Allegations after experiencing similar harms years later in April 2023, in my view this is not a reason for late filing that attracts the public interest. Just because more recent harms remind a complainant about previous out of time harms, the public interest does not sweep in to allow the older harms to proceed. To allow that to happen would defeat the purpose of the time limit for filing under Code s. 22.
[34] 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.
[35] Mr. Watts is seeking justice for the 2016 Allegations because they shaped the April 2023 Allegations that are proceeding. With reference to the Tribunal’s Expanding Our Vision: Cultural Equality & Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights, he submits that there is a compelling public interest reason to ensure Indigenous people like himself who face systemic barriers have accessible avenues to the Tribunal. Mr. Watts further highlights that Indigenous people have been disproportionately underrepresented in complaint brought to the Tribunal, notwithstanding a long history of colonization that continues to prejudice them.
[36] While the nature of Mr. Watts’ complaint in employment based on racism is one commonly heard by the Tribunal, I agree with him that the issue of Indigenous racism in employment raises a novel issue on behalf of a vulnerable group, which advances the purposes of the Code, and this factor weighs in favour of finding some public interest in accepting the complaint. This case is not simply about discrimination in the workplace involving Indigenous identity allegations. Mr. Watts is raising allegations of systemic discrimination involving resource companies operating on remote Indigenous territories provoking and blacklisting Indigenous workers, which in my view is novel. Here, the nature of the Complaint attracts the public interest in allowing it to proceed late.
[37] After weighing the factors, I have decided it is not in the public interest to allow the late filed portions of this complaint to proceed. While appreciating that the nature of the Complaint attracts the public interest to some extent, the Complaint is extremely late filed, and Mr. Watts has not provided any compelling reasons for the delay.
[38] For these reasons, I do not find that it is in the public interest to accept the late filed for the 2016 Allegations, and I need not address the issue of whether substantial prejudice would result.
IV CONCLUSION
[39] The complaint for the 2016 Allegations does not form part of a continuing contravention of the Code, and it is not in the public interest to allow it to proceed late filed.
[40] As such, the Complaint proceeds against Newcrest and Nathan L’Heureux as the only Respondents regarding the April 2023 Allegations.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member