Chen v. Casa Health, 2025 BCHRT 251
Date Issued: October 15, 2025
File: CS-007135
Indexed as: Chen v. Casa Health, 2025 BCHRT 251
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:
Cindy Chen
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Casa Health
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member: Kylie Buday
Counsel for the Complainant: Kirstn E. Mase
For the Respondent: No appearance
Date of Hearing: July 10, 2025
Location of Hearing: By videoconference
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Casa Health hired Cindy Chen as a Clinical Community Pharmacist in 2019. Ms. Chen went on maternity leave in April 2021. Casa Health terminated her employment on February 23, 2022, while she was still on leave, saying it had eliminated her position. Ms. Chen says Casa Health did not eliminate her position. Rather, Casa Health terminated her for discriminatory reasons related to her sex because it preferred the pharmacist covering her leave and decided to keep him on rather than have her return. Ms. Chen alleges this is discrimination in employment based on sex, contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code.
[2] The Respondents have not participated in the proceedings at any point despite having been given notice of the complaint: Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure [Rules], Rules 8 and 13. I am satisfied that they had notice because of the following. Ms. Chen’s counsel provided the Tribunal with a business summary listing Casa Health as an active business. The Tribunal served Casa Health by registered mail to the address listed on the business summary on October 18, 2024. A Canada Post document on file confirms delivery on October 23, 2024, with a signature of BM as recipient. The Tribunal sent Casa Health a notice of hearing by registered mail on January 29, 2025 and a hearing readiness letter to Casa Health by registered mail on May 8, 2025.The Respondents did not appear at the hearing despite having been given notice. As I was satisfied that they had notice of the complaint and hearing for the reasons outlined above, the hearing proceeded without them: Rule 32.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I find the complaint justified. Ms. Chen’s maternity leave, and therefore her sex, factored into her termination and is discrimination under s. 13 of the Code. As a result, Ms. Chen is entitled to compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings and self respect, and lost wages under s. 37 of the Code.
II WITNESSES AND CREDIBILITY
[4] I heard this matter over one day. Ms. Chen testified at the hearing. She did not call any witnesses. I found Ms. Chen to be a credible witness. She testified in a forthright manner, and she did not answer questions in a way that suggested she was only giving the Tribunal information that would suit her case.
III BACKGROUND
[5] Ms. Chen worked as Casa Health’s Director of Clinical Pharmacy Services. In this role, she worked as a community pharmacist under Casa Health’s HealthLink Outreach Program. The Program provides in-home community nursing care and pharmacy services to individuals who are too sick for independent living but not quite ready, or not yet in, long term care. Ms. Chen’s daily tasks included overseeing the Program and signing off on prescriptions. She was the only pharmacist working in the Program and testified the Program could not run without a pharmacist.
[6] Ms. Chen would fill prescriptions for patients through a dispensing pharmacy located in the same physical space where she worked called Pharmacity. She would also occasionally use another dispensary called Pocketpills, located across the street from Casa Health and Pharmacity. Pocketpills would package medication into blister packs. Ms. Chen testified that Casa Health, Pharmacity and Pocketpills are owned by the same people.
[7] In January 2021, Ms. Chen provided Casa Health with verbal and written notice that she would be going on maternity leave. She provided Casa Health a medical note stating her expected date of delivery was April 28, 2021. She also advised Casa Health she planned to return in February 2022.
[8] In March 2021, prior to going on leave, Ms. Chen prepared for her leave by training two employees from Pharmacity, who would cover her role together. One employee worked as Pharmacity’s manager, and the other was a pharmacist. When Ms. Chen left, these two individuals split her job duties: each working part-time for Pharmacity and part-time performing Ms. Chen’s duties for the Program. At some point, the pharmacist left his job. Ms. Chen testified that Pharmacity hired a new pharmacist who eventually took over all of Ms. Chen’s responsibilities in the Program. She explained that this allowed Pharmacity’s manager to return to her job full time.
[9] When asked how she knew this, Ms. Chen testified that she visited her former workplace around six months into her leave and spoke with Pharmacity’s manager who told her they had hired a new pharmacist who was running the Program. The manager also told Ms. Chen the new pharmacist was a recent graduate and less expensive than her.
[10] On January 7, 2022, a Human Resources generalist working for Pocketpills wrote to inquire about Ms. Chen’s return to work, asking whether February 1, 2022, the date listed on the maternity leave note for Ms. Chen, “is accurate.” Ms. Chen replied, “thanks for checking in. We’re having some trouble finding appropriate childcare, so I am intending to delay my return to work until April 4th.
[11] In response, on January 13, 2022, Human Resources asked if she could book a meeting with Ms. Chen to “catch up” on April 1, 2022. Ms. Chen responded yes. On January 28, 2022, Human Resources contacted Ms. Chen to change the date of that meeting. Human Resources wrote: “Hi Cindy, Always better to connect sooner than later. What day and time works best for you in the month of February?” The two then wrote back and forth trying to find a time for a meeting in February.
[12] On or around February 23, 2022, before Human Resources could confirm a meeting date with Ms. Chen, Casa Health Director Reza Etminan phoned Ms. Chen. During this phone call, Mr. Etminan terminated Ms. Chen’s employment. Ms. Chen testified that she asked Mr. Etminan if there was any reason for the termination. She says he replied: “no.” She then asked him “what would happen with the Program – would it shut down?” Ms. Chen testified that he told her they hired someone else to do the Program.
[13] On February 23, 2022, Mr. Etminan sent Ms. Chen a termination letter. It reads in part: “this letter is to confirm your employment with Casa Health as a Clinical Pharmacist is being terminated without cause effective on February 23, 2022. The reason behind the decision is elimination of the position.”
[14] Ms. Chen also testified that during her phone call with Mr. Etminan she asked him if he had any other work she could do, and he replied that he would “look into it.” She said he never contacted her again. However, on February 25, 2022 she received a notice through an online job search company, Glassdoor, that Pocketpills was hiring a clinical pharmacist. She entered a copy of the February 25, 2022 email from Glassdoor listing the clinical pharmacist position at Pocketpills into evidence.
[15] Ms. Chen says she did not apply for the position at Pocketpills because she felt the trust between her and the owners of Casa Health, Pharmacity and Pocketpills had been broken. Ms. Chen also testified the Program continued to run after her termination.
IV DECISION
[16] Section 13 of the Code prohibits employers from discriminating against a person regarding their employment because of their sex. Sex discrimination includes discrimination in connection with pregnancy and maternity leave: Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1219 and LaFleche v. NLFD Auto dba Prince George Ford (No. 2), 2022 BCHRT 88 [LaFleche] at para. 1.
[17] The issue before me is whether Ms. Chen has proven on a balance of probabilities that her sex factored into Casa Health’s decision to end her employment: Moore v. BC (Education), 2021 SCC 61 at para. 33. It is not necessary that it be the sole or even primary factor in the termination: Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30 at para. 46. Nor is it necessary for the protected characteristic to be a “significant” factor in the adverse treatment, so long as it is a factor.
[18] Ms. Chen has proven the first two elements of the test for discrimination set out in Moore. First, as a woman on maternity leave at the time of the alleged discrimination, Ms. Chen has the protected characteristic of sex. Second, Casa Health terminated Ms. Chen’s employment. Termination is considered an adverse impact in employment under the Code: Carney v. Pro-Can Construction Group, 2020 BCHRT 62 at para. 22.
[19] The key issue before me is nexus. I must decide if Ms. Chen has proven on balance that the evidence shows, or gives rise to a reasonable inference, that her maternity leave, and therefore her sex, was a factor in her termination, satisfying the third element of the test for discrimination. I find that she has.
[20] Employers rarely announce that they are dismissing an employee in connection with their sex. Rather, such a connection is often established by reasonable inferences draw from surrounding circumstances. Human rights jurisprudence has consistently recognized that a decision that the Code has been contravened may be based on circumstantial evidence, and the inferences that are reasonable to draw from that evidence: Hill v. Best Western and another, 2016 BCHRT 92. An employer may lead evidence to rebut an inferred connection between a person’s protected characteristics and termination. I have already noted that Casa Health did not participate in the hearing.
[21] In Ms. Chen’s case, an inferred connection between her sex and the termination arises when one considers the timing of the termination, the reasons provided for the termination, and the undisputed fact that the Program continued to run with the pharmacist covering for Ms. Chen together.
[22] Human resources scheduled a meeting with Ms. Chen to discuss her return to work in April. Soon after, human resources asked to reschedule that meeting because meeting sooner “was better than later.” However, before that meeting occurred, Mr. Etminam contacted Ms. Chen by phone to terminate her employment. He followed up with a termination letter dated February 23, 2022.
[23] Ms. Chen gave evidence that prior to receiving this letter, Mr. Etminan told her on the phone the Program did not need her anymore and in the termination letter, Casa Health explains it terminated Ms. Chen because her position had been “eliminated.” Yet I also heard evidence from Ms. Chen that the pharmacist who replaced her was cheaper, that he appeared to have stayed on, and that the Program continued to run. As it is uncontested and internally consistent, I accept Ms. Chen’s evidence.
[24] The termination of Ms. Chen’s employment while she was on maternity leave, close in time to when she sought to extend her maternity leave, while the Respondent continued to run the Program with a less experienced, less expensive pharmacist is sufficient evidence of a nexus between her sex and the termination of her employment to prove discrimination under the Code.
[25] For these reasons, I find Ms. Chen’s complaint justified.
V REMEDIES
[26] As I have found Ms. Chen’s complaint of discrimination justified, I award the following remedies.
[27] I declare Casa Health’s conduct, as set out in this decision, was discrimination contrary to s. 13 of the Code. I order Casa Health to cease the contravention and refrain from committing the same or similar contraventions: Code, s. 37(2)(a) and (b).
A. Wage loss
[28] Section 37(2)(d)(ii) of the Code gives the Tribunal discretion to compensate the person discriminated against for “all, or a part … of any wages or salary lost … by the contravention”. This is a statutory remedy intended to further the Code’s purposes, which include providing a means of redress for people who have been discriminated against, as well as fostering a society where such discrimination does not occur: Code, s. 3. The object of an award for wage loss is to put the person in the position they would have been in had the discrimination not occurred: Gichuru v. Law Society of British Columbia (No. 9), 2011 BCHRT 185 [Gichuru] at para. 300, upheld in 2014 BCCA 396.
[29] To support her claim for wage loss, Ms. Chen must establish a causal connection between the discrimination and the lost wages: Gichuru at para. 302. Once that connection is established, then the Tribunal has discretion to award full or partial compensation, taking into account the remedial purposes of the Code: Gichuru at para. 303.
[30] Ms. Chen seeks an award to compensate her for wage loss from February 23, 2022 until September 15, 2024 in the amount of $88,166.53. To calculate this amount, Ms. Chen factored in the severance she received from Casa Health, plus amounts she earned working as a part-time employee between July 22, 2022 and September 15, 2024.
[31] When Casa Health terminated Ms. Chen, she earned an annual salary of $100,000.00 or a weekly salary of $1,923.07 less withholdings and deductions.
[32] After her termination, Ms. Chen searched for similar work. She testified, and I accept, that it was difficult to find work because she had been off work for eleven months on maternity leave and because the industry had changed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. She eventually found a part-time job as a staff pharmacist and began working on July 12, 2022. From July 12, 2022 to August 1, 2022, she earned a weekly salary of $864.00 less withholdings and deductions. This increased to $1,323.00 per week from August 1, 2022 to September 15 2024.
[33] While employed as a part-time staff pharmacist, Ms. Chen continued to search for work that was more comparable to her role at Casa Health. She succeeded in her search and on September 15, 2024, she began to work full-time as a clinical pharmacist, with an annual income of approximately $102,760.00.
[34] I find Ms. Chen took meaningful steps to mitigate her wage loss throughout this period. I am also satisfied there is a causal connection between the discrimination and the wage loss she seeks, and I award the full amount of $88,166.53.
[35] To address any tax consequences for Ms. Chen of receiving this amount in a single tax year, I also order Casa Health to compensate Ms. Chen for any additional income tax liability she may incur (commonly called a “tax gross up”): Morriss v. BC Railway Co., 2003 BCHRT 14 at para. 262. Tax gross-up is appropriate in this instance to ensure that the Code’s remedial purposes are satisfied. Ms. Chen must advise Casa Health of this amount and supply any supporting tax documentation.
B. Injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect
[36] A violation of a person’s human rights is a violation of their dignity. The purpose of an award for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect is to compensate a person for that violation. It is not punitive. To determine an appropriate amount, the Tribunal generally considers three broad factors: the nature of the discrimination, the complainant’s social context or vulnerability, and the effect on the complainant. The quantum is “highly contextual and fact-specific”, and the Tribunal has considerable discretion to award an amount it deems necessary to compensate a person who has been discriminated against: Gichuru at para. 256; University of British Columbia v. Kelly, 2016 BCCA 271 at paras. 59-64. In this case, Ms. Chen seeks an award of $12,000.
[37] The nature of the discrimination is termination, which is considered one of the more egregious acts of discrimination. Because of the significance of employment to a person’s dignity, cases which involve the loss of employment have often attracted the top end of this Tribunal’s awards: see e.g. Senyk v. WFG Agency Network (No. 2), 2008 BCHRT 376 at paras. 463-470.
[38] Regarding the social context of the discrimination, as an employee on maternity leave, Ms. Chen was vulnerable in the context of her work, and her employer was in a position of power. The workplace changed in her absence, and she did not have a voice in the workplace or an advocate to help protect her livelihood while those changes took place.
[39] Lastly, I consider the impact of the discrimination on Ms. Chen. Ms. Chen says she experienced significant stress over her job loss, impacting her mental health and professional confidence. She said the timing impacted her ability to enjoy the remaining months of her maternity leave. She also believes the stress contributed to other serious health matters, which I have considered but do not recount here for privacy reasons.
[40] Considering the above factors, I find it appropriate to award Ms. Chen the full amount sought. I note $12,000 is not the high watermark for awards in cases involving termination: Champagne v. Synergy Day Spa and another (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 174 at para. 73.
VI CONCLUSION
[41] I declare the Respondent’s conduct contravened s. 13 of the Code: s. 37(2)(b).
[42] I order Casa Health to cease and refrain from committing the same or similar contraventions of the Code: s. 37(2)(a).
[43] I order Casa Health to pay Ms. Chen:
a. $88,166.53 as compensation for wages or salary lost as a result of the discrimination: Code, s. 37(2)(d)(ii).
b. an amount, to be verified by Ms. Chen based on her tax records, to compensate her for the tax consequences of receiving a lump sum payment of wages: Code, s. 37(2)(d)(ii).
c. $12,000 as compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self-respect: Code, s. 37(2)(d)(iii).
d. Prejudgment interest on the wage loss, based on the rates set out in the Court Order Interest Act.
e. Post judgement interest on the amounts awarded until paid in full, based on rates set out in the Court Order Interest Act.
Kylie Buday
Tribunal Member