Kc v. City of Vancouver, 2025 BCHRT 262
Date Issued: October 21, 2025
File: CS-005568
Indexed as: Kc v. City of Vancouver, 2025 BCHRT 262
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:
Mahesh Kc
COMPLAINANT
AND:
City of Vancouver
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Ijeamaka Anika
For Mahesh Kc: No submissions
Counsel for the Respondent: Valerie Dixon
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Mahesh KC alleges that the City of Vancouver [the City] discriminated against him in employment on the basis of race and place of origin contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code. He alleges that the City did not screen him through the first step of its recruitment process for a position in the Vancouver Parks Board [Parks Board] even though he was an ideal candidate. He says the City did so because of his place of origin (Nepal) and race, and instead it hired someone it already knew who was less qualified than him.
[2] The City denies discriminating and applies to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. It says that it reviewed Mr. Kc’s application as part of its initial screening process and determined that Mr. Kc did not have the key experience, knowledge, skills, or experience required for the position. The City says that it hired another external applicant who was more qualified.
[3] Mr. Kc has not submitted a response to this dismissal application which was due on August 1, 2024. On June 25, 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the parties, informing the parties that the dismissal application would be proceeding without a response and informing Mr. Kc of the process for filing a late response to the dismissal application, including an explanation of the reason for the delay. On July 10, 2025, Mr. Kc emailed the Tribunal and asked if he could still file a response to the complaint. Mr. Kc did not file a response to the dismissal application. I am satisfied, on the materials before me, that Mr. Kc had notice of the dismissal application and information about how to file a late response.
[4] For the following reasons, I allow the application to dismiss the complaint. 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 make no findings of fact.
II BACKGROUND
[5] On January 13, 2021, the City put out a job posting for a regular full-time Planner II – Environment and Sustainability position [the position]. The position was located within the Planning, Policy, and Environment division of the Parks Board.
[6] The job posting set out the required qualifications for the position including the following:
a. A degree in biology, ecology, planning or a related field and a recommended minimum of five years of professional experience in environmental or municipal/parks planning, supplemented by extensive project management supervisory experience at a professional level or an equivalent combination.
b. Eligibility for membership in the BC College of Applied Biology or the Canadian Institute of Planners.
c. Knowledge, both professional and lived, of urban parks and the ecosystem in busy urban areas including urban wildlife.
d. Experience balancing traditional urban environmental management issues such as fish and wildlife habitat with social and community values around access to nature and stewardship.
e. Familiarity with Vancouver’s park system, land use, First Nations interests, environmental regulation, physical environment and existing naturally managed areas, and the important urban ecosystem values and issues, whether gained through lived or professional experience.
f. Familiarity with principles of reconciliation and decolonization.
[7] The City received 74 applications for the position. The first stage of the competition process involved screening candidates’ resumes. This process was conducted by the hiring manager for the position and a member of the City’s recruitment team. The City says that in accordance with Union rules for the position, at this stage of the competition, only resumes were reviewed. On January 18, 2021, the recruitment officer sent the hiring manager an email attaching eight resumes including Mr. Kc’s resume. The hiring manager reviewed the resumes and identified three resumes he was interested in. Mr. Kc’s resume was not one of them. The City says that Mr. Kc’s experience appeared to be mainly as an agronomist on large rural landscapes in small BC municipalities and his application was screened out.
[8] On January 25, 2021, the hiring manager received the resume of the person who ultimately became the successful applicant. On February 26, 2021, Mr. Kc was notified by email that he was unsuccessful in the competition, and that the position had been filled.
III DECISION
[9] In this application, the burden is on the City to show that the complaint should be dismissed because there is no reasonable prospect that it would succeed after a full hearing: s. 27(1)(c).
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Kc will have to show that his race and/or place of origin were a factor in the City’s decision not to move him past the screening stage or offer him the position: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. Mr. Kc is not required to prove the complaint at this time but need only point to some evidence capable of taking the complaint “out of the realm of conjecture”: Berezoutskaia at para. 24. In most cases, there will be no direct evidence that the failure to hire an applicant was tainted by discrimination, and so this connection can be proven by inference: Kalyn v. Vancouver Island Health Authority, 2022 BCHRT 41, at para 8. Mr. Kc may prove that inference by showing that Mr. Kc was qualified for the position and that the City hired someone no better qualified but who did not have his protected characteristics: Oxley v. British Columbia Institute of Technology, 2002 BCHRT 33 at paras. 67-73. If he does that, the burden will shift to the City to justify the impact. If the City justifies the impact, there is no discrimination.
[14] The City does not dispute that Mr. Kc has the protected characteristics of race or place of origin. In reference to his race and place of origin, Mr. Kc says that he is from a different background and culture, and his place of origin is Nepal. The City does not also dispute that not being hired was an adverse impact. The City’s argument is that there was no connection between Mr. Kc’s race or place of origin and its hiring decision with regards to the position.
[15] As noted above, Mr. Kc has not submitted a response to this dismissal application, and I am satisfied that he had notice of the application. Nonetheless, I have considered the whole of the evidence before me, and I am satisfied that Mr. Kc has no reasonable prosect of proving his allegation that there is a connection between his protected characteristic and any adverse impact he experienced. My reasons are next.
[16] In his complaint form, Mr. Kc argues that the City offered the position to “someone [the City] already had in their mind.” He does not say who, if anyone, told him this, or the basis of his belief that the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
[17] On the other hand, the City argues that it hired a more qualified candidate with relevant experience. The City filed two affidavits from the hiring manager and recruitment team lead who reviewed the applications for the position. The hiring manager explained that he wanted to make the posting to emphasize that the position required someone with an environmental background and knowledge of Vancouver municipal parks and familiarity with principles of decolonization and Indigenous reconciliation. Eight candidates, including Mr. Kc, were shortlisted based on their resumes alone. Regarding whether the City knew the successful candidate prior to recruitment, the hiring manager’s evidence is that at the time he received the resume of the applicant who became the successful candidate, he had never met or spoken to that candidate and knew nothing about them until he reviewed their resume.
[18] Regarding Mr. Kc’s qualifications, the hiring manager says that he did not believe that Mr. Kc would be a competitive candidate for the position. He says Mr. Kc’s resume did not include reference to the experience, knowledge, skills, and abilities that the position required. Mr. Kc’s resume did not indicate that he had education or experience with urban parks and ecosystem, any connection to Vancouver, familiarity with Vancouver’s parks system, or familiarity with the principles of decolonization or Indigenous reconciliation. All of these were key to the position. The hiring manager explained in his affidavit that, from Mr. Kc’s resume, his professional experience appeared to be mainly as an agrologist on large rural landscapes based in small BC municipalities. His resume did not focus on skills and experience which were referenced in the job posting, including environmental considerations at the scale of urban parks systems. Mr. Kc’s resume did not also reference his eligibility for membership of the BC College of Applied Biology, or the Canadian Institute of Planners, which was part of the minimum qualification requirements listed for the position.
[19] On the other hand, the City says that the successful candidate met the job qualifications and had more relevant experience for the position than Mr. Kc. The successful candidate was a registered professional biologist, had broad experience in the environmental sector, had studied urban wildlife in urban open green spaces, and had experience with First Nations collaboration.
[20] On the materials before me, there is no reasonable prospect that Mr. Kc could prove that race or place of origin was a factor in the City’s decision not to hire him. While Mr. Kc undoubtedly possessed some relevant education and experience for the position, the successful candidate was more qualified and had additional experience desirable for the position. The role of the Tribunal is not to decide whether the City should have shortlisted or hired Mr. Kc based on his level of experience. The issue at a hearing is whether Mr. Kc’s race or place of origin was a factor in the decision not to shortlist or hire him: Shrigley v. Vancouver Drydock Company, 2020 BCHRT 112, at para 36. Although Mr. Kc disagrees with the City’s decision not to screen him into the next stage of the competition or offer him the position, and sincerely believe that he was not hired because of his race and/or place of origin, he provides no evidence capable of substantiating that his protected characteristics were a factor in the City’s decision: Batson-Dottin v. Forensic Psychiatric Hospital (No. 2), 2018 BCHRT 246, at para 37. His mere belief about why he was not hired is not enough to take his allegation of discrimination out of the realm of conjecture: Low v. British Columbia Nurses’ Union, 2004 BCHRT 358 at para. 25. Without any evidence from which such an inference could be made, Mr. Kc’s complaint does not rise above conjecture.
[21] On the materials before me, I am satisfied that Mr. Kc has no reasonable prospect of proving that the successful applicant had lower qualifications than him, as alleged. This would be necessary to support an inference of discrimination and so, without it, the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success.
[22] Accordingly, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect the complaint would succeed at a hearing.
IV CONCLUSION
[23] The complaint is dismissed under s. 27(1)(c).
Ijeamaka Anika
Tribunal Member