Draaisma v. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Corrections Branch), 2025 BCHRT 252
Date Issued: October 15, 2025
File: CS-005921
Indexed as: Draaisma v. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Corrections Branch), 2025 BCHRT 252
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:
Harry Draaisma
COMPLAINANT
AND:
His Majesty the King in right of the Province of British Columbia
as represented by the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Corrections Branch)
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Beverly Froese
On their own behalf: Harry Draaisma
Counsel for the Respondent: Stephanie Vellins and Madeline Lusk
I INTRODUCTION
[1] In April 2021, Harry Draaisma made a complaint against His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Corrections Branch) [Corrections] alleging discrimination regarding his employment based on age and family status contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code. Specifically, Mr. Draaisma alleges that he was harassed, intimidated, and discriminated against at work because he is getting older and because he stood up for his daughter, who also works for Corrections, after she experienced workplace bullying and harassment. Mr. Draaisma alleges that the discriminatory conduct was intended to either get him to quit or lay the groundwork to terminate his employment.
[2] The complaint spans the period between March 2016 and March 2021. It includes allegations that Mr. Draaisma was discriminated against when he was abruptly transferred from the correctional centre where he had worked for many years, ridiculed and insulted by colleagues, given poor job performance reviews, suspended after he was falsely accused of misconduct, demoted to a position below his rank after his suspension was lifted, and denied pay increases to which he was entitled. Mr. Draaisma says that Corrections’ actions and decisions negatively affected his physical health and made him feel isolated, targeted, humiliated, and demeaned.
[3] Corrections denies discriminating. Corrections says that all its decisions and actions were justified and done for non-discriminatory reasons. It says that at all relevant times, it was exercising its right to manage the workplace and that there is no connection between any of the adverse impacts that Mr. Draaisma alleges he experienced and his age or family status.
[4] Under the Tribunal’s Case Path Pilot, Corrections was permitted to apply to dismiss all or part of the complaint under ss. 27(1)(c) and (g) of the Code. In my view, this application is most appropriately decided under s. 27(1)(c) on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success.
[5] For the reasons set out below, Corrections’ application under s. 27(1)(c) is granted. Based on the totality of the evidence before me, I find that Mr. Draaisma has no reasonable prospect of proving that either his age or his family status were factors in any employment-related adverse impacts he alleges he experienced. In my view, there is insufficient evidence or information before me to take the allegations in the complaint out of the realm of speculation or conjecture.
[6] To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision. I apologize to the parties for the length of time it has taken to issue this decision.
II PRELIMINARY ISSUES
A. Application to file a further submission
[7] Generally speaking, the Tribunal’s application process involves three submissions: the application, the response, and the reply. The Tribunal may accept further submissions where fairness requires that a party be given an opportunity to address new information not available to the party when they filed their submission: Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 28. The overriding consideration is whether fairness requires an opportunity for further submissions: Gichuru v. The Law Society of British Columbia (No. 2), 2006 BCHRT 201, para. 21.
[8] Mr. Draaisma applies to file a further submission in the form of a decision by WorkSafeBC’s Review Division dated February 16, 2024 on his claim for benefits due to a mental disorder caused by workplace stress [WorkSafe Decision].
[9] Corrections opposes the application and says Mr. Draaisma did not comply with the requirements in Rule 28(6) to immediately notify the Tribunal and other participants of his intent to file a further submission and apply within one week of receiving the new information.
[10] Mr. Draaisma says he received the WorkSafe Decision on February 21, 2024. My review of the file indicates that Mr. Draaisma notified the Tribunal and Corrections on February 23, 2024 that he wanted to add the WorkSafe Decision to the materials he already submitted. It also indicates that on February 29, 2024, the Tribunal responded to Mr. Draaisma’s email and told him he needed to make an application to file a further submission. Mr. Draaisma made such an application on March 6, 2024. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that Mr. Draaisma met the requirement to notify the Tribunal and Corrections about his intent to file a further submission. I am also satisfied that because Mr. Draaisma filed his application within one week of receiving the Tribunal’s direction, it is appropriate to exercise my discretion and lengthen the one-week deadline in Rule 28(6): Rule 2(2).
[11] Mr. Draaisma submits that he should be allowed to make a further submission for reasons of “justice and accountability”. Specifically, Mr. Draaisma says the WorkSafe Decision is an extension of evidence he has already submitted, and all the facts need to be presented. Corrections says it would be unfair to grant the application because the WorkSafe Decision cannot assist in the analysis of this application to dismiss because it is being appealed.
[12] Mr. Draaisma disclosed documents related to his WorkSafe claim as part of the Tribunal’s disclosure process but did not mention it in his complaint or in the materials he filed in support of his response to the application to dismiss. However, because there is overlap between the subject matter of Mr. Draaisma’s WorkSafe claim and his complaint, I am persuaded that granting the application is in the interests of fairness so I will have all potentially relevant information before me.
[13] While I have allowed the further submission, I agree with Corrections that the WorkSafe Decision is of limited assistance to my analysis because it is not a final decision and, more importantly, only relates to the question of whether Mr. Draaisma has a compensable mental disorder under the Workers Compensation Act. The Review Division did not consider or make any findings or conclusions about whether Mr. Draaisma’s age or family status were factors in any of Corrections’ conduct during the relevant time.
B. Scope of complaint
[14] As a preliminary matter, Corrections argues that Mr. Draaisma has improperly added new allegations in his response to the application to dismiss. Those allegations are in Mr. Draaisma’s response submission, his wife’s unsworn statement [Statement], and “will-say” statements from unnamed Corrections employees [Will-Say Statements].
[15] When an application to dismiss is outstanding, a complainant must apply to the Tribunal to amend their complaint if they want to add new allegations: Rule 24(4)(b). The purpose of Rule 24(4)(b) is to ensure that a respondent who files an application to dismiss a complaint does not face a moving target: Pausch v. School District No. 34 and others, 2008 BCHRT 154 at paras. 28-29. Respondents are entitled to know the allegations against them to assess whether, or on what basis, to bring their application to dismiss the complaint: Purdy v. Douglas College and others, 2016 BCHRT 117 at paras. 35-37.
[16] At the same time, 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. 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 regarding existing allegations and new allegations 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.
[17] I have carefully reviewed the alleged facts at issue in Mr. Draaisma’s response submission, the Statement, and the Will-Say Statements to determine if they are particulars that provide further details about existing allegations or are new allegations. I have considered whether the alleged facts at issue “come within the scope of the complaint filed with the Tribunal, or whether they seek to expand the scope of the complaint”: Powell at para. 20.
[18] Rather than go through each alleged fact individually, it is sufficient for me to say that I find the following alleged facts to be new allegations:
a. That Mr. Draaisma was subjected to a “second false accusation that was investigated and unsubstantiated in 2021”;
b. That in June 2023, Mr. Draaisma’s supervisor physically assaulted him;
c. Mr. Draaisma was the subject of an investigation relating to files he stored in his locker; and
d. the “baby Draaisma” incident in July 2018.
[19] As Mr. Draaisma did not apply under Rule 24(4)(b) to amend his complaint to add these new allegations, they are not accepted and do not form part of the complaint.
C. Evidentiary issues
[20] Mr. Draaisma did not submit his own statement or affidavit to support his response to the application to dismiss. Rather, he relies on the Statement and Will-Say Statements. Mr. Draaisma says he did not identify the names of the individuals in the Will-Say Statements “to protect them from retribution and retaliation as they are still employed”. He also says these individuals “are eager to be heard but not be subject to retaliation or retribution”.
[21] Corrections submits that the Statement contains inadmissible hearsay and character evidence, opinion, and baseless accusations against others. It says the Will-Say Statements contain inadmissible hearsay and character evidence, opinion, and legal arguments. Corrections submits that I should not admit the hearsay and character evidence, opinion, and argument contained in the Statement and Will-Say Statements. Corrections also says that to the extent there are any conflicts in the evidence, its evidence should be preferred.
[22] In support of its argument, Corrections cites Stein v. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, 2014 BCHRT 227, where the Tribunal discussed the admissibility of prior consistent statements in its decision after a hearing: at paras. 35-40. Corrections also cites R v. J.S.S., 2016 BCCA 411, where the British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed this evidentiary rule in the context of a criminal conviction appeal.
[23] I agree with Corrections that the Statement and Will-Say Statements contain hearsay, opinion, good and bad character evidence, opinion, and argument. However, the cases it relies on are of limited assistance because this is a preliminary application, and I make no factual findings on the merits of the complaint.
[24] In my view, the reasoning in Parsons v. A&B Tool Rentals and another, 2018 BCHRT 154 is applicable. In that case, the respondents submitted affidavits in support of their application to dismiss that not only mixed fact with hearsay and argument but also contained nearly identical language. At para. 32, the Tribunal stated:
This Tribunal may accept evidence that it considers necessary and appropriate, whether or not it would be admissible in a court of law: Code, s. 27.2. … Strict standards of evidence are even less useful in the context of the preliminary application before me, in which I am not empowered to make findings of fact. Rather, I am performing a gatekeeping function to determine whether the circumstances warrant a full hearing on the merits of Ms. Parsons’ complaint.
[25] I have taken the Statement and Will-Say Statements into consideration to the extent that is necessary and appropriate. With respect to the Statement, I have disregarded irrelevant evidence, primarily relating to Ms. Draaisma’s past experiences when she worked for Corrections. I have also disregarded Ms. Draaisma’s unsubstantiated accusations against senior Corrections managers of serious misconduct that go far beyond the scope of the complaint.
[26] I recognize that Mr. Draaisma may have concerns at this stage about identifying potential witnesses who are still employed with Corrections. However, for several reasons the Will-Say Statements are problematic and not particularly helpful to my assessment of whether Mr. Draaisma has no reasonable prospect of proving his complaint. First, the Will-Say Statements are brief point form notes that contain vague and broad assertions, often without identifying the source of the person’s knowledge. Second, the Will-Say Statements generally refer to “they” rather than identifying a particular person who was involved in any of the events described in the complaint. For example, several of the Will-Say Statements say that “delaying tactics are the norm” because “they hope you just go away rather than deal with things in a timely manner”. Third, many of the Will-Say Statements simply allege that Mr. Draaisma was discriminated against without explaining how his protected characteristics were factors in any alleged adverse impacts. Last, I agree with Corrections that because many of the Will-Say Statements contain identical language, I cannot take them as a “true representation of these individuals’ unique and personalized evidence”.
III BACKGROUND
[27] The background is taken from the materials filed by the parties. I make no findings of fact.
[28] Mr. Draaisma has been employed with Corrections since about 1992. In 2008, he was promoted to the rank of deputy warden.
[29] For over 20 years, Mr. Draaisma worked at the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre [FRCC]. In March 2016, he was temporarily assigned to a special project intended to reform Corrections’ practices surrounding the use of administrative segregation [Project]. Corrections says that based on operational needs, deputy wardens and other managers are regularly assigned temporary or permanent assignments. It says Mr. Draaisma was chosen for the Project because of his extensive experience and familiarity with its operations. It says Mr. Draaisma had valuable insight to offer and that working on the Project was an opportunity for professional development. Mr. Draaisma appears to agree that it is common for deputy wardens to be moved around, and the documentary evidence indicates that he was previously given several temporary assignments. Mr. Draaisma says, however, that unlike his assignment to the Project, transfers are always made with the person’s knowledge or at their request. He alleges that he was abruptly assigned to the Project without any advance notice and deliberately “set up to fail”.
[30] When Mr. Draaisma was assigned to the Project, he was relocated from FRCC to the Surrey Pretrial Services Centre [SPSC] and reported to the warden at the North Fraser Pretrial Centre [NFPC]. Corrections says that Mr. Draaisma was moved to SPSC because of issues the FRCC’s leadership team had with his communication and leadership style. Corrections also says that Mr. Draaisma was transferred to SPSC in the hopes that his performance would improve under the guidance of SPSC’s warden at the time, a longtime colleague and friend of his who is now a deputy director with Corrections [Deputy Director]. Mr. Draaisma denies there were any issues about his communication or leadership style at FRCC. He says there was no need for him to be transferred to SPSC, the correctional centre farthest from his home. Mr. Draaisma alleges that he was deliberately moved to SPSC because the long commute would cause him discomfort, disruption, and inconvenience.
[31] When he arrived at SPSC, Mr. Draaisma was assigned to work out of a small office. Corrections says this was a temporary arrangement because it was the only office space available. Mr. Draaisma disputes that and says he could have worked out of a larger office at FRCC, SPSC, or another correctional centre. Mr. Draaisma alleges that he was ridiculed by Corrections’ staff about the size of his office. He also alleges that he was ridiculed by staff and called the Deputy Director’s “chauffeur” because they carpooled together. The Deputy Director says that Mr. Draaisma never told him that anyone ridiculed him about the size of his office or called him the Deputy Director’s “chauffeur”.
[32] The parties do not appear to dispute that after a few months, Mr. Draaisma was transferred to a permanent, larger office. The Deputy Director says he assigned this office to Mr. Draaisma because it was near other SPSC administrators, and he wanted Mr. Draaisma to feel like part of the team.
[33] Sometime around June 2017, Mr. Draaisma underwent a biennial performance review known as a “360 Review”. Such a review consists of presenting feedback from an employee’s supervisors, peers, and subordinates in front of a panel of wardens. It also involves a written leadership review report that Corrections says is designed to only take into account feedback from other wardens. Mr. Draaisma’s 360 Review report [2017 360 Review] acknowledges his “high level of intelligence, a very strong work ethic and an impressive breadth of knowledge and experience”. It also states that “the Panel agrees that a great deal of development is required in order for you to successfully move forward in your current role”. Mr. Draaisma says the 2017 360 Review was based on comments from wardens that he never worked for and that no one ever met with him to explain how he was underperforming.
[34] Mr. Draaisma says that sometime after the 2017 360 Review, he went through his yearly physical and fitness calculations. Mr. Draaisma alleges that “someone on the team” told him he had the health and fitness of an 80-year-old man. The Deputy Director denies that he or anyone else at SPSC made such a comment to Mr. Draaisma. The Deputy Director recalls that Mr. Draaisma once said he felt as though he had the fitness of an 80-year man, and says he was surprised because Mr. Draaisma did not appear to be in poor health.
[35] In November 2017, Mr. Draaisma accepted a temporary position as a deputy warden at SPSC. The term of the position was December 2017 to June 2018.
[36] In December 2017, the Deputy Director completed Mr. Draaisma’s annual “MyPerformance Review”, which consists of feedback from the employee and their supervisor [2017 MyPerformance Review]. In his comments, the Deputy Director described the reasons why he considered Mr. Draaisma to be “a valuable member of the SPSC management team”. The Deputy Director encouraged Mr. Draaisma “to continue developing positive, collaborative relationships with both peers and subordinates” and that he was committed to supporting Mr. Draaisma to continue his development as a senior manager.
[37] Around mid-December 2017, Mr. Draaisma emailed an assistant deputy minister [ADM] to report that his daughter, who worked for Corrections at a different correctional facility, was being subjected to “possibly abusive and harassing behaviour”. In his email, Mr. Draaisma said the corrections officer who was harassing and bullying his daughter was doing so to retaliate against him because he had previously investigated and disciplined her when they both worked at FRCC. Mr. Draaisma also said he suspected the bullying and harassment was retaliation against his wife for making a complaint when she worked at that correctional facility. Last, Mr. Draaisma said it could be “implied” from the circumstances that the warden at the correctional centre where his daughter worked was also retaliating against him and his wife or not taking any action to stop the bullying and harassment. In her reply email, the ADM told Mr. Draaisma that she was troubled to hear about the situation and would follow up and get back to him.
[38] It does not appear to be in dispute that sometime after sending the email to the ADM, Mr. Draaisma told the Deputy Director about it. Mr. Draaisma alleges that the Deputy Director told him the email to the ADM was “career suicide” and that he would be fired for raising his concerns with the ADM. The Deputy Director disputes those allegations. He says that as part of his supervisory role, he reminded Mr. Draaisma to approach management through proper channels and follow the chain of command.
[39] In late-December 2017, Mr. Draaisma sent to the Deputy Director a draft email he prepared to send to the ADM. In his draft email, Mr. Draaisma apologized to the ADM for his previous email and said that as a parent, his “protectionism got the best of him”. Mr. Draaisma also said he regretted sending the email and did not want to call anyone’s integrity into question or accuse anyone of wrongdoing. Mr. Draaisma alleges that the Deputy Director told him he had to re-write the draft email or face termination and then the Deputy Director re-wrote the email for him. The Deputy Director disputes those allegation and the evidence before me indicates that at most, the Deputy Director made minor revisions to Mr. Draaisma’s draft email at his request. It is not clear on the materials before me whether Mr. Draaisma ever sent the email, whether revised or not, to the ADM. Nothing in the materials before me indicates that Mr. Draaisma and the ADM had any further communications.
[40] In March 2018, the Deputy Director left SPSC to assume what appears to be his current position. About a month later, Mr. Draaisma was permanently placed in his previously temporary position as a deputy warden at SPSC. Mr. Draaisma alleges that he was placed in this permanent position rather than returned to FRCC as a means of forcing him to quit or retire. Corrections denies that allegation.
[41] The new warden at SPSC who replaced the Deputy Director [SPSC Warden] says he was mindful that Mr. Draaisma might feel awkward about the situation because Mr. Draaisma had worked for Corrections longer than he had. The SPSC Warden says he spoke to Mr. Draaisma about the situation and Mr. Draaisma said he had no issues with it. In an email to staff notifying them about Mr. Draaisma’s permanent position, the SPSC Warden said that Mr. Draaisma was “doing a fabulous job as DW Operations and is a key member of our senior management team here”.
[42] In late May 2018, Mr. Draaisma reported that personnel files, keys, and several of his personal items had been stolen from the locker he used when he worked at FRCC. The documentary evidence indicates that Mr. Draaisma requested reimbursement for the cost of his personal items, but his request was ultimately denied.
[43] Corrections says that starting around June 2018, issues arose regarding Mr. Draaisma’s appearance. The SPSC Warden says Mr. Draaisma started coming to work with long and unkempt hair and his work boots and daily uniform pants appeared overly worn and shabby. The SPSC Warden says that after staff, including other deputy wardens, told him about Mr. Draaisma’s disheveled appearance, he told Mr. Draaisma to comply with Corrections’ Uniformed Staff – Dress Regulations and Staff Deportment policy and the Dress Uniform Protocol [Policies]. The SPSC Warden said he told Mr. Draaisma that his appearance and how he presented himself was important because he was in a managerial position. The parties do not dispute that on one occasion, the SPSC Warden told Mr. Draaisma that he “looked like shit” or “looked like a bag of shit”. The SPSC Warden says he made the comment to Mr. Draaisma in private and “in a direct, yet non-aggressive and compassionate fashion”. He says he was candid with Mr. Draaisma and only used that language because Mr. Draaisma had previously told him to speak to him frankly and “not beat around the bush”. The SPSC Warden says that he asked Mr. Draaisma what was going on, but Mr. Draaisma did not disclose any issues or request any support.
[44] In July 2018, Mr. Draaisma was the reviewing officer at a graduation ceremony for a new class of corrections officers. The SPSC Warden says that in breach of the Policies, Mr. Draaisma showed up at the ceremony with untidy hair and wearing daily uniform pants rather than dress uniform pants. The SPSC Warden says he allowed Mr. Draaisma to be the reviewing officer but told him he would not be allowed to at future graduation ceremonies if he did not dress in accordance with the Policies.
[45] Mr. Draaisma denies there were ever any issues with his appearance or uniform. He says that during this time, the SPSC Warden made several derogatory comments about his appearance, for instance that he was “too ugly” to participate in the graduation ceremony. Mr. Draaisma also says the SPSC Warden’s negative comments implied that he “looked like an old man” and was not “branch presentable”.
[46] Mr. Draaisma alleges that in addition to insulting comments about his appearance, the SPSC Warden repeatedly said he was “persona non grata” with Corrections and that Corrections had not been very good to his family. The SPSC Warden denies these allegations.
[47] Corrections says there were other significant issues with Mr. Draaisma’s job performance at SPSC, specifically related to an initiative the SPSC Warden implemented in the facility. The SPSC Warden says that Mr. Draaisma’s participation in the initiative was unacceptable, for instance because he ignored or minimized operational mistakes, did not encourage assistant deputy wardens under his supervision to stand behind the initiative, did not seem to be concerned about inmate welfare, and appeared to have limited leadership abilities. The SPSC Warden says that one of the reasons for Mr. Draaisma’s performance issues was that he had worked for many years at FRCC, which is a sentenced facility, and was now working at a remand facility where the pace and level of challenging inmate behaviour was very different.
[48] Corrections says that between May 2018 and February 2019, the SPSC Warden had several discussions with Mr. Draaisma about his performance issues. The SPSC Warden says he did not see any improvement in Mr. Draaisma’s job performance during that time. Mr. Draaisma disputes these allegations and says he never met with the SPSC Warden to discuss anything about his performance. Mr. Draaisma denies there were any issues with his job performance and says he only became aware of them when they were entered into his MyPerformance Review on December 31, 2018 [2018 MyPerformance Review]. He alleges that his request to discuss the performance issues was ignored.
[49] In February 2019, Corrections started an internal investigation into allegations that Mr. Draaisma had made insubordinate, inappropriate and highly disrespectful comments about the SPSC Warden and other staff in leadership roles [Investigation].
[50] As a result of the allegations against him, Mr. Draaisma was suspended with pay and he was blocked from using his employee email account pending the Investigation’s conclusion. The parties dispute whether it is Corrections’ usual and customary practice to suspend an employee during an internal investigation. I note here that the Terms of Reference of the Investigation state that an assistant deputy warden who worked with Mr. Draaisma was also being investigated for making undermining and negative comments about the SPSC Warden. Neither party provided any information or evidence as to whether that employee was also suspended during the Investigation.
[51] Mr. Draaisma says that within a week of his suspension, his office was cleared out and staff were told he would not be coming back. Corrections disputes that and says Mr. Draaisma’s office was cleared out to make room for another employee and staff were only told that Mr. Draaisma would not be attending work.
[52] The Investigation was assigned to the Deputy Director and an employee relations specialist from the BC Public Service Agency. The parties do not appear to dispute that Mr. Draaisma was given an opportunity to fully respond to the allegations against him. The Investigation was completed in April 2019 and concluded there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations against Mr. Draaisma.
[53] Mr. Draaisma was not informed about the outcome of the Investigation until October 2019. The parties do not appear to dispute that in July 2019, Mr. Draaisma was asked about his suspension by Corrections’ representative when he gave evidence at his daughter’s appeal before the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. Mr. Draaisma alleges that the representative raised his suspension during his cross-examination to discredit him even though she knew the Investigation had already cleared him of any wrongdoing.
[54] In November 2019, Mr. Draaisma’s suspension was lifted, and he returned to work. Corrections says the delay in returning Mr. Draaisma to work was because of the time it took to find him a suitable position. Corrections says the wardens at both SPSC and FRCC had concerns about Mr. Draaisma returning to work at those centres because of previous issues with his job performance. Mr. Draaisma disputes those allegations and says any difficulties Corrections had with finding him a new position had nothing to do with his abilities or personality. He alleges that Corrections’ failure to inform him about the results of the Investigation and delay his return to work was a continuation of the pattern of discriminatory conduct against him.
[55] In early November 2019, Mr. Draaisma returned to work with Corrections at the rank of deputy warden in the position of Disciplinary Hearing Chairperson, Adult Custody Division [Adjudicator Position] at the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women. In this role, Mr. Draaisma was responsible for adjudicating disciplinary hearings and rendering decisions. Corrections says the Adjudicator Position was appropriate for Mr. Draaisma because he would once again be supervised by the Deputy Director. Corrections also says the expectation was that Mr. Draaisma would be given additional supervisory responsibilities once he was comfortable in the Adjudicator Position. Mr. Draaisma says the Adjudicator Position was a demotion because it had always been filled by someone at a lower rank and he was never told he would be given additional supervisory responsibilities. Mr. Draaisma says he was intentionally placed in the Adjudicator Position to further isolate, humiliate, and demoralize him.
[56] Corrections says that in late November 2019, the Deputy Director noticed there was confusion among adjudication team members regarding their role, expectations, and responsibilities. At that time, the Deputy Director sent a letter of expectation to all adjudication team members that outlined their duties, responsibilities, training, hours of work, dress code, and workplace behaviour. Mr. Draaisma alleges that the other adjudicator team members held him responsible for receiving the letter of expectation because they had never received one before.
[57] Corrections says there were significant challenges regarding Mr. Draaisma’s job performance in the Adjudicator Position, including sending inappropriate and unprofessional emails to the adjudication team, demonstrating poor judgment, and using concerning language at a disciplinary hearing. Mr. Draaisma denies these allegations. He says the Deputy Director gave him a poor performance review after the first month because he had little training and “unwritten rules” only applied to him.
[58] In December 2019, Mr. Draaisma asked the Deputy Director to provide comments and sign off on his MyPerformance Review. The Deputy Director told Mr. Draaisma he was not comfortable doing that because Mr. Draaisma had only been in the Adjudicator Position for a month and he had not worked for a full year before that because of his suspension.
[59] Mr. Draaisma says he had very little contact with the Deputy Director throughout 2020. He also says the Deputy Director withheld information from him that he needed to do his job, engaged in “trivial fault finding”, and undermined his rank as deputy warden. The Deputy Director denies these allegations.
[60] Around mid-February 2021, Mr. Draaisma met with the Deputy Director and other senior managers to discuss the criteria for yearly salary increases. Mr. Draaisma had previously requested an explanation as to why he had not received the increases to which he was entitled to in 2019 and 2020. Mr. Draaisma says he was not satisfied with the explanation he was given because he had a lengthy history of positive performance reviews. Mr. Draaisma also says that in March 2021, he requested further clarification from the Deputy Director on the issue, but his request was ignored.
[61] Around mid-May 2021, Mr. Draaisma was transferred to a deputy warden position at NFPC.
[62] The essence of Mr. Draaisma’s complaint is that between March 2016 and March 2021, he was subjected to discriminatory treatment by his employer solely to discredit him, ruin his reputation, fatally damage his career, deny him opportunities for promotion, and negatively impact his present earning and future pensionable earnings. Mr. Draaisma alleges that the discriminatory treatment was because he is getting older and he stood up for his daughter after she made a complaint of workplace bullying and harassment.
[63] Corrections denies discriminating against Mr. Draaisma in any way. Corrections says it “has the fundamental right to manage its workplace, including the right to make decisions respecting the Complainant’s employment, location, duties, position and compensation”. Corrections also says its actions and decisions were reasonable and based on non-discriminatory reasons.
IV DECISION
[64] Corrections applies to dismiss all but one of the allegations in the complaint under s. 27(1)(g) of the Code on the basis they are untimely and should not be accepted under s. 22(3) of the Code. That provision allows the Tribunal to accept a late filed complaint if it would be in the public interest and no substantial prejudice would result because of the delay. Corrections also applies to dismiss the complaint in its entirety under s. 27(1)(c) on the basis it has no reasonable prospect of success. In my view, the most appropriate way to deal with this application is under s. 27(1)(c), as even if the allegations at issue are timely or meet the criteria under s. 22(3), I would still find the complaint as a whole has no reasonable prospect of success.
[65] Section 27(1)(c) is part of the Tribunal’s gate-keeping function. It allows the Tribunal to remove complaints which do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing. The onus is on the respondent to establish the basis for dismissal.
[66] 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.
[67] 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. When assessing whether a complainant has no reasonable prospect of proving their complaint, the Tribunal “looks for internal and external consistency, places the evidence in context, and considers the overall relationship of the parties and all the circumstances in which the alleged acts of discrimination occurred”: Ritchie v. Central Okanagan Search and Resue Society and others, 2016 BCHRT 110 at para. 120.
[68] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Draaisma will have to prove that he has a characteristic protected by the Code, he was adversely impacted in his employment, and his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. If he did that, the burden would shift to Corrections to justify the impact as a bona fide occupational requirement. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.
[69] Corrections submits that Mr. Draaisma has no reasonable prospect of proving a nexus between the alleged adverse impacts he experienced and his age or family status. Corrections says that just because Mr. Draaisma is older and has a family member who works for Corrections does not mean there is a connection. Corrections characterizes most of the allegations in the complaint as “bald assertions which, even if true, suggest no relationship to a prohibited ground of discrimination”.
[70] The Tribunal recognizes that discrimination is “often subtle rather than overt” and is “often proven by inference rather than direct evidence”: Durrani v. ICBC and others, 2022 BCHRT 100 at para. 106. To meet the low threshold under s. 27(1)(c), Mr. Draaisma must allege facts that are “capable of supporting a reasonable inference that the adverse treatment alleged is related, in whole or in part, to a prohibited ground of discrimination: Hales v. ICBC, 2012 BCHRT 197 at para. 38. It is not enough if Mr. Draaisma relies only on speculation or conjecture to establish a nexus between his protected characteristics and the alleged adverse impacts or treatment: Joan William v. City of Kelowna and another, 2012 BCHRT 8 at para. 23. There must be some evidence to support an inference that Mr. Draaisma’s age and family status were factors in how he was treated at work: Durrani at para. 106.
[71] For the purposes of my analysis, I accept that Mr. Draaisma would be able to prove that he experienced employment-related adverse impacts. In particular, I proceed on the basis that Mr. Draaisma would be able to prove that he experienced adverse impacts related to his abrupt transfer from FRCC in March 2016, treatment when he worked at the SPSC, suspension in February 2019, negative performance reviews, placement in the Adjudicator Position, and not getting pay increases to which he was entitled. In my view, this application turns on whether it is reasonably certain Mr. Draaisma would be able to prove there is a nexus between any of the alleged adverse impacts and his age and/or family status.
A. Discrimination based on age
[72] There are few allegations in the complaint that expressly refer to Mr. Draaisma’s age. The first is the allegation that Mr. Draaisma’s age was a factor in Corrections’ decision to abruptly transfer him from SPSC to work on the Project. The second is the allegation that sometime after the 2017 360 Review, Mr. Draaisma was “described by the team as having the health and fitness of an 80-year old man”. The third is the allegation that the SPSC Warden told Mr. Draaisma that he “looked like shit” and was “too ugly” to participate in the graduation ceremony. Last, Mr. Draaisma makes undated allegations that he was called an “old work horse” that Corrections wanted to “put out to pasture”. Nowhere in the complaint or in his supporting materials in response to this application does Mr. Draaisma allege a connection between his age and other discriminatory treatment, for instance being ridiculed by colleagues about the size of his office or being called the Deputy Director’s “chauffeur”, getting negative performance evaluations, being suspended after being falsely accused of misconduct, being “demoted” into the Adjudicator Position, and not getting pay increases to which he was entitled.
[73] After reviewing the entirety of the evidence before me, I am convinced that Mr. Draaisma has no reasonable prospect of proving any of the allegations in the complaint relating to his age. In my view, Mr. Draaisma has not alleged sufficient facts that are capable of supporting a reasonable inference that his age was a factor in any of the alleged adverse impacts. Nor has he provided sufficient evidence to take this part of his complaint out of the realm of conjecture.
[74] The allegations that Mr. Draaisma’s age was a factor in his transfer to SPSC and assignment of a small office are not supported by any evidence. Rather, they are based on general and broad assertions that deliberately assigning a manager “meaningless work” such as the Project is something Corrections does when they want to get rid of that manager due to their age. They are also based on Mr. Draaisma’s subjective interpretations of what he was allegedly told or heard from someone else. Specifically, Mr. Draaisma says that in June 2016, his replacement at FRCC told him there might be vacancies at his rank because of early retirement and he “took that to mean”he was being forced out because of his age. Mr. Draaisma says that when he was assigned to the Project, it “felt like” they were forcing him to quit or retire. Finally, Mr. Draaisma alleges that his age was a factor in his transfer because at a roundtable he once attended, someone described an assistant deputy warden as “set in his ways” and they discussed getting rid of him because of his age.
[75] The Statement does not provide further details to support an inference that Mr. Draaisma’s age was a factor in his transfer to SPSC and assignment to a small office. In the Statement, Mr. Draaisma’s wife explains why she believes Mr. Draaisma was abruptly transferred from FRCC. I will not repeat that reason here because it involves unsubstantiated allegations against an individual not named in the complaint. Suffice it to say that the reason Ms. Draaisma gives in the Statement is not related to Mr. Draaisma’s age. Further, Ms. Draaisma says there were correctional facilities other than SPSC at which Mr. Draaisma could have worked on the Project and that assigning him a small office was intended to cause him discomfort, disruption, and inconvenience. However, she does not provide any information that could support an inference that Mr. Draaisma’s age was a factor in Corrections’ decisions.
[76] Similarly, the Will-Say Statements do not assist in taking this part of Mr. Draaisma’s complaint out of the realm of speculation and conjecture. The Will-Say Statements indicate that two unnamed union stewards would testify at a hearing that a manager had to be transferred out of FRCC for reasons I will also not repeat here. Those Will-Say Statements say that Mr. Draaisma was chosen to be transferred out of FRCC “because he was old and most likely to land on his feet”. Although this is a reference to Mr. Draaisma’s age, it is not further particularized and there are no details about the source of the potential witnesses’ knowledge. In my view, on its own this vague reference is not sufficient to support a reasonable inference that Mr. Draaisma’s age was a factor in Corrections’ decision to assign him to the Project. Further, several of the Will-Say Statements state that there was suitable office space for Mr. Draaisma elsewhere but do not explain the link between the decision to assign that office and Mr. Draaisma’s age.
[77] The allegations related to the SPSC Warden’s comments about Mr. Draaisma’s appearance are also based on Mr. Draaisma’s subjective interpretation. Specifically, Mr. Draaisma says the SPSC Warden’s comments “implied” that he looked like an old man. He also says that after being told he was underperforming in his job, he was “made to feel that I am older and uglier compared to my peers”. Further, neither the Statement nor the Will-Say Statements allege any facts from which a reasonable inference could be made that the SPSC Warden’s comments were connected to Mr. Draaisma’s age. Both the Statement and the Will-Say Statements say that Mr. Draaisma never had any issues with his appearance or uniform, however they do not explain how the SPSC Warden’s comments were connected to Mr. Draaisma’s age.
[78] Last, I find the allegations that Mr. Draaisma was subjected to derogatory comments related to his age are too vague to meet the threshold under s. 27(1)(c). Mr. Draaisma does not identify the person who allegedly told him he had the “health and fitness of an 80-year old man” or provide any further particulars as to where and when this alleged incident occurred. Nor has Mr. Draaisma provided any details about when he was allegedly called “an old work horse” that Corrections wanted to “put out to pasture” or who made such comments to him.
B. Discrimination based on family status
[79] Mr. Draaisma does not expressly allege in his complaint or in the materials he submitted in response to this application that his family status was a factor in Corrections’ decision to move him from FRCC to SPSC in March 2016 to work on the Project. Mr. Draaisma also does not allege in his complaint or in his materials that his family status was a factor in any of the discriminatory treatment he was subjected to prior to accepting the temporary deputy warden position at SPSC in November 2017, for instance being ridiculed for the size of his office or being called the Deputy Director’s “chauffeur”.
[80] In one section of the complaint, Mr. Draaisma says that because he had a “stellar career” before then, the campaign of bullying and harassment against him “likely began” in retaliation for his daughter making her complaint of workplace bullying and harassment. The evidence before me indicates that Mr. Draaisma’s daughter started working for Corrections in January 2017 and made her complaint in November 2017. In another section of the complaint, Mr. Draaisma says the alleged conduct “all seemed to stem from one incident back when I contacted the ADM (Dec 2017) and all is retaliatory in nature”.
[81] Based on what Mr. Draaisma said in his complaint, I do not consider whether Mr. Draaisma has no reasonable prospect of proving that his family status was a factor in any of the employment-related adverse impacts he experienced between March 2016 and November 2017. I only consider whether Mr. Draaisma has no reasonable prospect of proving that at least one of the factors in the adverse impacts he experienced after November 2017 was that he “stood up” for his daughter after she made her complaint of workplace bullying and harassment. In his complaint, Mr. Draaisma alleges he “stood up” for his daughter when he sent the email to the ADM in December 2017 and when he gave evidence at his daughter’s WCAT appeal hearing. He does not allege that he “stood up” for his daughter on any other occasion, nor is there is there any evidence in the materials before me indicating that he did.
[82] Based on the evidence before me as a whole, I am persuaded that Mr. Draaisma has no reasonable prospect of proving this part of his case. In my view, Mr. Draaisma has not alleged facts that are capable of supporting a reasonable inference that there was a nexus between his family status and any alleged adverse impacts after November 2017. Nor is there sufficient evidence before me that takes this part of Mr. Draaisma’s complaint out of the realm of speculation and conjecture. I arrive at this conclusion for the following reasons.
[83] First, Mr. Draaisma describes some of the adverse impacts he experienced as common tactics or techniques that Corrections uses when they want to force someone out, for example isolating them and assigning them “meaningless work”. In his complaint and response materials, however, Mr. Draaisma does not go further and explain how his family status was a factor in Corrections’ decisions to use those tactics or techniques on him.
[84] Second, some of the statements Mr. Draaisma makes in the complaint are based solely on his own subjective interpretation rather than on any evidence. For instance, Mr. Draaisma says that when the SPSC Warden criticized his appearance, he was “made to feel” that his family status was a burden to Corrections. Mr. Draaisma also says that the Deputy Director “implied” that his family situation had something to do with being “persona non grata”. Mr. Draaisma says that when he received a negative performance review “for some prejudiced reason unexplained to me”, he “surmised” that it was in retaliation for contacting the ADM in December 2017 about his daughter.
[85] Further, the Statement is replete with allegations based purely on speculation and conjecture. In particular, Mr. Draaisma’s wife says she thinks the SPSC Warden manufactured performance concerns about Mr. Draaisma because he “likely” was not aware of the culture within Corrections’ leadership, which she “believes” is to punish those who challenge authority. She says she believes the SPSC Warden collaborated with senior Corrections leadership by making up job performance issues in an attempt to discredit her husband and negatively impact his career. She also says she “believes” that a very senior Corrections manager “directed” the Deputy Director to continue to harass Mr. Draaisma after he was transferred to the Adjudicator Position. Last, Ms. Draaisma says it is “conceivable” that her daughter was bullied and harassed as a form of retaliation against Mr. Draaisma for investigating her supervisor when he was at FRCC.
[86] Third, a majority of the Statement consists of sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations of a conspiracy among senior Corrections leadership against anyone they want to get rid of by forcing them to quit or retire. For example, in the Statement, Mr. Draaisma’s wife says that Corrections deliberately chooses wardens to participate in 360 Reviews who will “follow orders”, “hijack” the results, and lie about and harass others to protect themselves and the “people in power”. She says she “believes” that Corrections’ leadership has created an environment where it is apparent that to advance in one’s career, one must be willing to act unethically. She says she “believes” that supervisors are emboldened, and possibly encouraged, to make up allegations against someone else, brag about doing so, and then get rewarded by being promoted. Last, she alleges that a very senior Corrections manager led a conspiracy against Mr. Draaisma by “orchestrating” and “directing” an “unprecedented campaign” of discrimination, bullying, and harassment “for the simple reason that she could”.
[87] Fourth, a considerable amount of the Statement consists of complaints that Mr. Draaisma’s wife has about how she was treated when she worked for Corrections. Many of these allegations pre-date the events at issue in this complaint and are irrelevant to determining the likelihood of Mr. Draaisma proving his case at a hearing.
[88] Last, the Will-Say Statements consist primarily of bare assertions that do not provide sufficient details or explain the source of the witness’ knowledge. For example, one Will-Say Statement says that Mr. Draaisma was moved into the Adjudicator Position because of his “daughter’s issues”. Another says Mr. Draaisma was moved into the Adjudicator Position in “retaliation for what his daughter went through”. Several Will-Say Statements contain identical language, namely that “they” discriminated against Mr. Draaisma “to put pressure on his daughter who was being subjected to targeted harassment”. Finally, one Will-Say Statement says that Mr. Draaisma was suspended in February 2019 to “teach the daughter not to complain about her harassment”.
[89] The above does not culminate into a sufficient basis to bring Mr. Draaisma’s complaint that his protected characteristics factored into the alleged poor treatment of him out of the realm of conjecture. As a result, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect that this complaint could succeed at a hearing.
V CONCLUSION
[90] The Ministry’s application to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) is granted. The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
Beverly Froese
Tribunal Member