Searwar v. Vancouver Police Board, 2025 BCHRT 261
Date Issued: October 21, 2025
Files: CS-006352
Indexed as: Searwar v. Vancouver Police Board, 2025 BCHRT 261
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:
Damian Searwar
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Vancouver Police Board
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(g)
Tribunal Member: Ijeamaka Anika
Counsel for the Complainant: Jennifer S. Kwok
Counsel for the Respondent: David T. McKnight and Naomi J. Krueger
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Damian Searwar is a South Asian police officer at the Staff Seargent rank. On July 20, 2021, S.Sgt. Searwar filed a complaint against the Vancouver Police Board [VPB] alleging individual and systemic discrimination in employment on the basis of race contrary to section 8 of the Human Rights Code. S.Sgt. Searwar alleges that VPB discriminated against him on four separate occasions when he applied for promotions to the Inspector rank of the Vancouver Police Department [VPD]. He also alleges that VPB’s promotion processes led to systemic racism barriers against South Asian police officers being promoted to the officers’ rank of VPD. On September 16, 2022, S.Sgt. Searwar filed an amendment to the initial complaint. The amendment provided further particulars regarding his complaint, alleged further acts of discrimination by VPB, and alleged that VPB retaliated against him as a result of his initial complaint contrary to s. 43 of the Code. On June 22, 2023, S.Sgt. Searwar filed a second amendment to his initial complaint and amendment alleging additional acts of retaliation by VPB. In this decision, I refer to S.Sgt. Searwar’s initial complaints and amendments collectively as the complaint.
[2] Although S.Sgt. Searwar initially filed his complaint under s. 8 of the Code,on November 7, 2022, the Tribunal accepted the complaint under s. 13 of the Code rather than s. 8 because the complaint indicated allegations of discrimination in employment rather than in services
[3] On January 12, 2023, VPB filed its response to the complaint. It denies discriminating or retaliating against S.Sgt. Searwar. It applies under s. 27(1)(g) of the Code to dismiss parts of the complaint as late-filed.
[4] The only issue before me in this application is whether to dismiss S.Sgt. Searwar’s allegations of discrimination arising from the Inspector Promotion competitions in 2017, 2019, and January 2020, because they fall outside the one-year time limit for filing a complaint. There is no dispute that the remainder of his allegations are timely, and those allegations are not at issue in this application.
[5] For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the application and allow the complaint to proceed to a hearing. To make this decision, I have considered all the materials filed by the parties. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.
II BACKGROUND
[6] VPB is the governing body of VPD under the Police Act. S.Sgt. Searwar has been a member of VPD since 1991. He was promoted to Seargent in 2005. In 2016, he was promoted to Staff Seargent which is his current rank. The next rank above Staff Seargent is Inspector.
A. Inspector Promotions (2017-2020)
[7] S.Sgt. Searwar says he applied for an Inspector position four times and was unsuccessful despite his being qualified for the promotion: in October 2017, January 2019, January 2020, and September 2020. VPB withdrew S.Sgt. Searwar’s 2019 application due to an ongoing Police Act investigation against him. S.Sgt. Searwar says he withdrew the January 2020 application due to a second ongoing Police Act investigation after the Deputy Chief Constable in charge of the promotions processtold him that he would not be competitive because of the active Police Act complaint.
[8] S.Sgt. Searwar alleges that after his unsuccessful Inspector Promotion application in 2017 and every Inspector Promotion competition since, he has been told by Inspectors, Deputy Chief Constables, and Superintendents to “just wait” and that “there will be many opportunities coming up” while watching his white colleagues be promoted ahead of him, despite being less qualified and having less experience than him. He says the VPB has used subjective promotion criteria in the interview and selection processes to discount his (and his South Asian colleagues’) higher-level qualifications. He alleges that the subjective rules have enabled his white colleagues to advance and be promoted ahead of him with much less measurable and objective qualifications.
B. Promotion practices and career-development opportunities
[9] S.Sgt. Searwar says that VPB’s practices created systemic barriers for South Asian police officers to access Inspector “pipeline” roles at VPD as follows:
a. Access to specialized units: S.Sgt. Searwar says he was told that promotion to Inspector required a police officer to attain Critical Incident or Team Commander status; he does not say by whom. He also says that no officer can achieve Commander status without first serving in VPD’s “higher status” units like the Emergency Response Team and Major Crimes unit, and entry to those units was based on subjective criteria. He says South Asians and other visible minorities remain unsuccessful in competitions for positions in the Emergency Response Team even when they perform very well in the Emergency Response Team training courses.
b. Selectivity in offering secondments, “acting” and “aide to Deputy Chief” roles to police officers:
i. In November 2021, VPB announced the secondment of a white Staff Sergeant to the Justice Institute of BC. S.Sgt. Searwar says the opportunity is usually an indication of future promotion. He says that he was told the white Staff Sergent was selected for the position due to his experience with secondments. He does not say by whom. S.Sgt. Searwar says that the same white Staff Sergeant had taken over the same secondment position in Human Resources that he (S.Sgt. Searwar) had been assigned to for over four years and had less time as an Acting Inspector in comparison to S.Sgt. Searwar. He says he was not aware of the Justice Institute secondment and was not given the opportunity to apply. The white Staff Sergeant was promoted to the Inspector rank in March 2022.
ii. In January 2022, S.Sgt. Searwar learned that another white Staff Sergent had become Acting Inspector in a secondment to Surrey on a joint RCMP team. He says the member did not compete for the assignment and the position was not advertised. He says VPD Executive (which includes Superintendents, Deputy Chief Constables, and the Chief Constable) selected the Staff Sergent for the position, and the Staff Sergeant was promoted to the Inspector rank in March 2022.
iii. In April 2022, S.Sgt. Searwar says he learned that a white Inspector was selected to a Global Studies Program where one person from VPD was chosen each year. He says there is no application process, and the individual had also been selected as aide to the Chief Constable.
c. In July 2022, the Chief Constable nominated three members of VPD to the Order of Merit of the Police Forces. S.Sgt. Searwar says that one nominee was recognized for his qualifications as a member of the Emergency Response Team.
d. Lack of equitable mentorship and visibility through appointment to VPD panels and committee.
e. VPD Executives were influential in selection of panels that entrench a “patronage” or “sponsorship” culture which mostly benefited white candidates.
C. Police Act complaints and their impact on Inspector Promotion competitions
[10] VPB initiated two Police Act complaints against S.Sgt. Searwar. He says that in December 2018, he received notice that the Professional Standards Section of the VPD was investigating both Police Act complaints.
[11] S.Sgt. Searwar says that VPB relied on the Police Act complaints to hinder his promotions. In January 2019, S.Sgt. Searwar applied to the Inspector Promotion competition. He says in the same month, the Executive advised him that he was being withdrawn from the competition because of the Police Act complaints, despite the ongoing attempts at informally resolving the first Police Act complaint and the fact that investigation of the second complaint had not commenced. S.Sgt. Searwar says that the first Police Act complaint against him was resolved a few days after he was withdrawn from the competition.
[12] In December 2019, the January 2020 Inspector Promotion competition was announced and S.Sgt. Searwar applied for the promotion. S.Sgt. Searwar says he was told by the Inspector of the Professional Standards Section (investigating the second complaint against him) that “the rule is that you cannot compete if there is an ongoing internal” investigation. S.Sgt. Searwar contacted the Vancouver Police Union, and he was told he could apply to the competition because it was not a strict rule. In January 2020, on the day before his promotion materials were due, S.Sgt. Searwar received the final investigation report for the first complaint finding that he had breached VPD Respectful Workplace Policy. He says he was not advised that the Constable who filed the complaint had decided to proceed formally with his complaint. He says there was no indication of whether he would be permitted to continue in the competition. In February 2020, the Discipline Authority upheld the first complaint. Later in the same month, S.Sgt. Searwar withdrew from the competition after, he says, a VPD Executive told him the confirmation of the complaint would negatively impact his chances of promotion.
[13] In September 2020, S.Sgt. Searwar applied to the Inspector Promotion competition for a fourth time. In December 2020, VPB notified him that he was unsuccessful. At the time, there was no decision on the second Police Act complaint against him. S.Sgt. Searwar says he did not apply to the January 2021 Inspector Promotion competition because not enough time had passed since the last competition and nothing in his profile had changed. The second complaint was substantiated in October 2021 (confirmed by the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner [OPCC]in January 2022).
D. Treatment after filing the human rights complaint
[14] S.Sgt. Searwar says that after the Tribunal notified VPB of his complaint in July 2021, he began to experience bullying and harassment in the following ways:
a. In October 2021, a Vancouver media publication published an article regarding his complaint of systemic racism and the Police Act complaints against him. S.Sgt. Searwar says someone in the VPB leaked the Police Act complaint against him to a reporter because the article identified him by name and included confidential information that could only be known to individuals within VPB.
b. From September 2021, he experienced workplace micromanagement and harassment including exacting time-keeping, short-notice demands, emails criticizing his work, social isolation from colleague, and limitations on direct access to colleagues.
c. Further Police Act complaints against him including a complaint of “time theft” in November 2022.
d. He was reassigned to a different unit despite expressing his desire to remain in his current unit.
[15] As I have said, these allegations are not at issue in the application before me.
E. Service medal issue
[16] S.Sgt. Searwar says that in June 2020, he was not awarded the 30-year exemplary service medal. The medal is awarded nationally to recognize law enforcement officers dedicated to preserving Canada’s public safety through long and outstanding service. S.Sgt. Searwar previously received a 20-year medal at that milestone. He says that each additional ten-year period of full-time service may qualify for another bar to the medal. S.Sgt. Searwar says that in June 2022, he was told he would not be receiving the 30-year medal and advised to wait five years for his discipline to be “expunged.” He says the criteria for the medal did not include the consideration of an officer’s discipline status.
[17] This allegation is also not at issue in the application before me.
F. Allegation of systemic racism
[18] S.Sgt. Searwar says that as of December 2020, he remained the only Staff Seargent of South Asian descent among approximately 30 members in that rank. He says that since VPD was formed, only five South Asians have been promoted to the Inspector rank, and between May 2015 and December 2020, 31 members were promoted to Inspector over six competitions with all but four being white.
[19] S.Sgt. Searwar argues that there is an attitude held by VPD Executive that South Asian police officers are less capable, less trustworthy, and less skilled than white police officers. He says he has overheard statements such as “you just can’t trust the Brown guys” and “Brown guys can’t shoot.” He says he has been called a coward, and in 2015, a white Inspector told him that “he should be grateful for making it to Sergeant.”
III DECISION
A. Threshold issue
[20] Before I decide the timeliness of the allegations in this complaint, I must first define the allegations of discrimination at issue in this application.
[21] VPB argues that S.Sgt. Searwar improperly recharacterized the thrust of his allegations in the amendments to his complaint to add new allegations of discrimination and allegations of retaliation. It says it is procedurally unfair to allow S.Sgt. Searwar to reframe his complaint and raise new issues beyond the scope of the original complaint as it existed when VPB filed its complaint response. VPB also argues that some of S.Sgt. Searwar’s allegations in the complaint were unparticularized and impacts its ability to make submissions on the timeliness issue.
[22] S.Sgt. Searwar disputes that the information in his complaint amendments are all new allegations. He argues that the submissions in the amendments provide additional information to give further context regarding the types of racially discriminatory systems in place at VPB which affected his promotion and career advancement opportunities. He argues that in accordance with the Tribunals Rules of Practice and Procedure particulars can be added at any time and are not subject to time limits, as they merely provide additional context and details to support existing allegations: Rule 24(1). S.Sgt. Searwar says he considers the details regarding which discriminatory systems and processes impacted his promotion to be further particulars rather than allegations of discrimination.
[23] I acknowledge, and agree, that some of the allegations in S.Sgt. Searwar’s complaint form were vague. For example, some of them do not identify dates, people involved, or specific words spoken. 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. At the same time, complainants are allowed to amend their complaint to add details or allegations: Rule 24(1) and (2). Where they do so, a respondent has the right to amend their complaint response to address new allegations: Rule 24(6). Any prejudice to VPB from new allegations in S.Sgt. Searwar’s amendments is addressed by confirming that VPB had the opportunity to correspondingly amend its response.
[24] For the purpose of this dismissal application, I consider the following to be particulars regarding the broader context of discrimination rather than allegations in the complaint:
a. The Police Act Complaints: S.Sgt. Searwar argues that the details of the 2018 Police Act complaints, their investigation timeline, and handling constitute particulars supporting the timely allegation of differential treatment that became apparent in 2021-2022. He states in his response to the dismissal application that he is not alleging that the Police Act complaints themselves were discriminatory, rather that their differential application to the Inspector Promotion competitions supports his allegations of discrimination in the Promotion competitions.
b. Promotion practices: S.Sgt. Searwar argues that information about how VPB weighs various factors including education, being a member of a specialized unit, and civic event attendance (which he says is based on race), performance evaluations, the type of leadership skills needed for promotion, seniority, experience, and the data regarding representation at VPD constitutes particulars supporting the systemic discrimination allegation, not separate allegations of discrimination. S.Sgt. Searwar argues that there are also institutionalized and historical practices that continue to disadvantage racialized officers who apply for promotion such as the embedded culture of “patronage” or “sponsorship” that give white officers a significant advantage over South Asian officers.
[25] For clarity, therefore, I find that the out of time allegations at issue in this application are the 2017, 2019, and January 2020 Inspector Promotion allegations. However, given that some of the particulars S.Sgt. Searwar says he is providing for context is contested by VPB at this stage, I am not making any findings about these contextual factors.
B. Application to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(g)
[26] VPB applies to dismiss any allegation of discrimination that occurred prior to July 20, 2020, because they are out of time.
[27] Allegations are timely if they occurred within one year of filing the complaint, or if they form part of a timely continuing contravention of the Code: Code, s. 22(1). The purpose of this time limit is “to require allegations of discrimination to be brought forward in a timely way so that remedial steps can be taken if appropriate”: School District v. Parent obo the Child, 2018 BCCA 136 at para. 79. Section 22 is also meant to ensure that complainants pursue their human rights remedies promptly so that respondents can go ahead with their activities without the possibility of a dated complaint: Chartier v. School District No. 62, 2003 BCHRT 39 at para. 12. The Tribunal has discretion to accept untimely allegations of discrimination if 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).
[28] I begin with VPB’s argument that any allegation of discrimination that occurred prior to July 20, 2020, should be dismissed under s. 27(1)(g) because they do not form a continuing contravention with the timely allegations.
C. Allegations filed out of time
[29] S.Sgt. Searwar filed his complaint on July 20, 2021. As such, any allegations of discrimination before July 20, 2020, will be untimely unless they are part of a continuing contravention.
[30] For ease of reference, I summarise S.Sgt. Searwar’s allegations of discrimination and retaliation as follows:
a. October 2017: first Inspector application (denied).
b. January 2019: second Inspector application withdrawn by VPD due to ongoing Police Act investigation.
c. January 2020: third Inspector application withdrawn by S.Sgt. Searwar after he was told by the Police Act complaint investigator that confirmation of thecomplaint would impact his promotion chances.
d. September/December 2020: fourth Inspector application denied.
e. September 2021: confidential Police Act information leaked to reporter. S.Sgt. Searwar alleges this amounts to retaliation.
f. November 2021 – July 2022: opportunities for career advancement provided to white officers but not South Asian officers.
g. 2021-2023: ongoing retaliation including the workplace harassment, reassignment of duties, and filing OPCC complaints against S.Sgt. Searwar.
[31] VPB argues that the allegations pre-dating July 20, 2020, are of a different character and separated by sufficiently large gaps of time that they cannot form a continuing contravention with the timely allegations. VPB takes no issue with the allegations in the amendments to the complaint that S.Sgt. Searwar says occurred after he filed his complaint on July 20, 2021.
[32] A continuing contravention of the Code requires a “succession of separate acts of discrimination of the same character or kind”: Chen v. City of Surrey, 2014 BCSC 539, aff’d 2015 BCCA 57; School District at para. 50. The assessment of whether discrete allegations will constitute 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. The concept of continuing contravention must not be used “to improperly sweep in allegations which would otherwise be far outside the Code’s time limits”: Van Baranaigien v BC Ferry Services Inc., 2016 BCHRT 33 at para. 44. In determining whether there is a continuing contravention, the Tribunal considers all relevant circumstances and endeavours to “draw the line” in a fair and principled way which ensures not only that individuals who claim discrimination are provided access to the remedial provisions of the Code, but also that respondents are treated fairly: Dove v. GVRD and others (No. 3), 2006 BCHRT 374 [Dove (No. 3)] at para. 20. A relevant consideration is whether there are gaps between the allegations: Dickson at para. 16. A significant, unexplained, gap in time will militate against finding a continuing contravention. These are the principles I apply in this case.
[33] I begin my analysis by finding that S.Sgt. Searwar made allegations of discrimination that fall within the one-year time limit. This is necessary to ground a continuing contravention of the Code: School District at para. 73. To reach this conclusion, I first determine whether the complaint alleges facts which could, if proven, contravene the Code. My assessment is made based only on S.Sgt. Searwar’s allegations, without regard to any justification or explanation put forward by VPB: Francescutti v Vancouver (City), 2017 BCCA 242 at para. 49.
[34] S.Sgt. Searwar’s only timely allegation is that he is a South Asian police officer who was denied promotion to Inspector following the September 2020 Inspector Promotion competition because he was not evaluated on measurable or objective criteria based on experience, training, or qualifications. He argues that the promotions were based on subjective and systemic factors (described above) that discriminated against South Asian officers. These facts, if proven, would satisfy the burden on S.Sgt. Searwar in a hearing to prove that: he has a protected characteristic of race, he was adversely impacted in employment (he was not promoted), and his race was a factor in that adverse impact: Moore v BC (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para 33. In the absence of a justification, these allegations could, if proven, violate the Code.
[35] Next, I must decide whether allegations arising before July 20, 2020, are sufficiently connected to the timely allegations to form part of a “succession of separate acts of discrimination of the same character or kind”: Chen. The burden is on S.Sgt. Searwar to establish that his allegations constitute a continuing contravention: Dove (No. 3) at para. 11. S.Sgt. Searwar argues that all the discriminatory conduct that falls outside the statutory time limit for filing constitutes a continuing contravention.
[36] I begin with the issue of whether S.Sgt. Searwar’s allegations regarding the four Inspector Promotions competitions are of the same character or kind. I am satisfied that they are for the reasons that follow.
[37] VPB argues that the Inspector Promotion allegations are not of the same character because the 2019 and January 2020 applications were withdrawn, and S.Sgt. Searwar did not compete against other applicants. VPB also argues that S.Sgt. Searwar is attempting to link untimely allegations to the timely allegation by making overly broad generalizations about the application of policies and processes which impact South Asian officers’ promotion opportunities.
[38] The crux of S.Sgt. Searwar’s allegations is that in all four Inspector Promotion competitions, there is an inference of discrimination for the following reasons: (1) VPB applied subjective promotion criteria that discounted his higher-level qualifications, education, and experience, compared to less qualified white colleagues who were promoted ahead of him; (2) VPB unequally distributed career advancement opportunities such as access to specialized units, secondments, acting roles and mentorship, all of which created an Inspector “pipeline” favouring white officers; (3) VPB applied its policy regarding Police Act complaints differently: he was withdrawn in 2019 and withdrew himself in January 2020 due to the Police Act complaints, and that the implication of those complaints applied differentially to him because he is South Asian and a visible minority while white officers were permitted to compete in the Inspector Promotion competitions with ongoing Police Act investigations. S.Sgt. Searwar also stereotypes among VPB leadership that that South Asians are less capable, less trustworthy, and less skilled points to a culture of anti-South Asian discrimination and influenced promotion decisions.
[39] Taken together, S.Sgt. Searwar argues that these facts support an inference of discrimination in each of the four promotion competitions in which he was more qualified that the successful white candidates yet was consistently passed over due to the same racially biased promotion criteria, VPD leadership influence, and lack of objective criteria. While each application had unique elements, they all involve the core allegation of racial discrimination in the Inspector Promotion competitions using the same allegedly biased criteria.
[40] I now turn to whether the time gaps between the Inspector Promotion allegations is too long to connect S.Sgt. Searwar’s October 2017, January 2019, and January 2020 allegations to the September 2020 allegation.
[41] S.Sgt. Searwar acknowledges that there are gaps in time in the Inspector Promotions allegations. However, he argues that the gaps are explained by the timeline of VPB Inspector Promotion competitions, which are held approximately annually and that he applied to all four competitions. He argues that it was only possible to recognize the pattern of discrimination and the systemic barriers inherent in VPB’s promotion process after he was denied promotion to Inspector following the September 2020 competition.
[42] There is no question, as VPB argues, that “significant gaps in time between allegations can be a factor that can interrupt or interfere with a finding of a continuing contravention”: Van Baronaigien at para. 40. For example, in Dickson, the Tribunal found that a nine-month gap was too long to connect two sets of allegations which related to “different sets of interactions between the complainant and the respondent”: para. 17. In Low v Registered Nurses’ Association of British Columbia, 2004 BCHRT 70, the complainant alleged discrimination arising from a performance appraisal in 2001, and then later from the conduct of her regulatory body in response to a complaint in 2003. The Tribunal found that “two discrete sets of allegations, separated by 15 months, do not give rise to a continuing contravention”: para. 15. Finally, in Van Baronaigien, the Tribunal declined to find a continuing contravention arising from allegations that the employer had failed to hire the complainant for particular job postings, when those allegations were separated by 16 months. As these cases establish, the gaps between the allegations – between 2.9 years and 9 months in this case – is significant and may weigh against finding a continuing contravention.
[43] However, it is not enough to say that there is a gap in time and therefore there is no continuing contravention. As the Tribunal recognized in Van Baroneigien, “this is a case-by-case analysis and depends on the reasons for the gap”: para. 44 (emphasis added). In Van Baroneigien, the Tribunal found it significant that the complainant had not made any submissions “about the reasons for the gap or that would otherwise persuade me that the significantly dated allegations could form part of a continuing contravention”: para. 45.
[44] In this case, S.Sgt. Searwar explains that the reason for the gaps is that the timing of the Inspector Promotion competition is within VPB’s control and the competitions are held approximately annually. S.Sgt. Searwar applied to every competition announced during this time period.
[45] While S.Sgt. Searwar could have filed his human rights complaint much sooner than he did, I accept that the allegations of discrimination crystallized when white officers were permitted to continue in the Inspector Promotion competition despite substantiated Police Act complaints or ongoing investigations into complaints against them. The Tribunal has accepted that the fact that a complainant could have filed a complaint and chose not to is not determinative of whether their allegations of discrimination continued over the whole period: Tuson v. The Board of Education of School District No. 5 (No. 4), 2020 BCHRT 195, at para 151.
[46] While I acknowledge this decision requires VPB to answer to allegations dating back four years before the filing of the complaint, the “continuing contravention” provisions of the Code contemplates that complaints may encompass allegations beyond one year when those allegations are part of an ongoing discrimination pattern. Provided allegations are of the same character and significant gaps are explained, there is no hard limit for continuing contraventions. In Dove (No. 3), for instance, the Tribunal accepted allegations that spanned seven years as a continuing contravention.
[47] On this basis, I find that S.Sgt. Searwar’s allegations of discrimination in the 2017, 2019, and January 2020 Inspector Promotion competitions are sufficiently connected to the September 2020 Inspector Promotion allegation to form an alleged continuing contravention of the Code. I deny VPB’s application to dismiss the allegations regarding the Inspection Promotion competitions under s. 27(1)(g).
IV CONCLUSION
[48] For the reasons given, I deny VPB’s dismissal application.
Ijeamaka Anika
Tribunal Member