Fontaine v. Métis Provincial Council of British Columbia (dba Métis Nation British Columbia), 2025 BCHRT 263
Date Issued: October 21, 2025
Files: CS-008862
Indexed as: Fontaine v. Métis Provincial Council of British Columbia (dba Métis Nation British Columbia), 2025 BCHRT 263
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:
Daniel Fontaine
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Métis Provincial Council of British Columbia (dba Métis Nation British Columbia)
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
SECTION 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On his own behalf: Daniel Fontaine
Counsel for the Respondent: David E. Turner
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] On February 12, 2023, Daniel Fontaine filed a complaint of discrimination in employment based on Indigenous identity and colour, contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code [Code], against the Métis Provincial Council of British Columbia (dba Métis Nation British Columbia) [MNBC].
[2] Since the complaint may have been filed outside the one-year limitation period under s. 22 of the Code, the Tribunal sought submissions from the parties concerning the complaint’s timeliness and I have considered all of their submissions. This includes accepting Mr. Fontaine’s Form 5 – Time Limit Reply, after an extension for him to provide it was granted by the Tribunal in its January 2, 2025, decision.
[3] The issue before me with respect to timeliness is whether there is a continuing contravention or whether any late-filed allegations should proceed. I make no findings of fact regarding the merits of the complaint.
[4] For the reasons that follow, I find that the complaint is a continuing contravention of the Code.
II. BACKGROUND
[5] Mr. Fontaine is Métis. He describes himself as “white presenting” because of the colour of his eyes and skin. Mr. Fontaine says he dressed in business suits while at work when attending formal meetings.
[6] Mr. Fontaine became a registered citizen of the province’s Métis Nation in the summer of 2020. It appears that he did not grow up in a Métis community or learn about Métis culture until recently.
[7] In the spring of 2020, Mr. Fontaine started working for the MNBC in an executive capacity. He was terminated almost two years later on March 9, 2022.
[8] Below I set out Mr. Fontaine’s allegations in some detail as I will later determine whether they are arguable contraventions of the Code capable of forming a continuing contravention of the Code.
[9] Mr. Fontaine alleges his Indigenous identity was flagged as problematic by the MNBC’s board members [the Board] throughout his employment. He alleges that the Board repeatedly criticized his performance as not being sufficiently attuned to Métis culture because he had not grown up in same way as other Métis. Mr. Fontaine alleges that being thought of as less competent in doing his job because of his background and history was deeply hurtful.
[10] In November 2020, at a MNBC retreat Mr. Fontaine alleges Board members restated their previously communicated position that because of his personal heritage and upbringing he did not understand Métis culture. He alleges Board members described him as one of the “late commers” to the culture. Mr. Fontaine alleges Board members also made comments about his nontraditional dress openly and in front of others as part of their impugning of his Indigenous identity [the November 2020 Allegation].
[11] Some time in early 2021, Mr. Fontaine alleges the Board chair criticized him for not attending a smudging ceremony at the official opening of the MNBC’s newly refurbished headquarters in Surrey. Mr. Fontaine alleges that despite telling the Board chair that he was highly allergic to smoke, the chair advised not attending would not be well received as smudging was a very much a part of “what being Métis was all about”. Mr. Fontaine says this encounter left him felling that the chair was not pleased with him for not attending [the 2021 Smudging Allegation].
[12] In the summer of 2021, while away on a work assignment, Mr. Fontaine alleges a Métis citizen entered a waiting room and asked him who he was and why her was hosting a Métis television program. He alleges the person then attacked him in a hostile fashion for not being Métis enough. Mr. Fontaine alleges bringing this incident to the attention of the Board; however, nothing was done by the MNBC to address his concerns [the Summer 2021 Allegation].
[13] On January 4, 2022, Mr. Fontaine alleges the while attending a meeting Board members drew participants’ attention to him wearing a suit and joked about him not having enough “Métis drag” in his closet [the January 2022 Allegation]. In other instances, he alleges Board members described his physical appearance as “not Métis” or worse, “colonial” because of his eyes and skin colour.
[14] Mr. Fontaine alleges that he constantly had to defend his “Métisness” and that comments in the workplace left him feeling ashamed and humiliated.
[15] Mr. Fontaine further alleges that references to him wearing a suit, instead of more traditional Métis clothing, occurred on numerous occasions during the last year of his employment. He says that while he cannot recall each and every occurrence, they primarily happened before and after Board meetings, in more casual settings, and during interactions with select Board members [the Suit Wearing Allegations].
[16] Mr. Fontaine alleges he was subjected to a clear and distinct pattern of systemic mistreatment by MNBC where his experience of growing up was expressly cited as a reason for why he was less qualified to perform his job. He alleges this ultimately culminated in his termination on March 9, 2022, in favour of hiring someone who was more proactively and openly engaging in traditional Métis cultural practices [the Termination Allegation].
III. ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[17] The time limit set out in s. 22 of the Code is a substantive provision which is intended to ensure that complainants pursue their human rights remedies diligently: Chartier v. School District No. 62, 2003 BCHRT 39.
[18] The Complaint was filed on February 2, 2023. To comply with the one-year time limit under s. 22(1) of the Code, the alleged act of discrimination had to occur on or after February 2, 2022.
[19] A complaint is filed in time if the last allegation of discrimination happened within one year, and older allegations are part of a “continuing contravention”: Code, s. 22(2); School District v. Parent obo the Child, 2018 BCCA 136 at para. 68. A continuing contravention is “a succession or repetition of separate acts of discrimination of the same character” that could be considered separate contraventions of the Code, and “not merely one act of discrimination which may have continuing effects or consequences”: Chen v. Surrey (City), 2015 BCCA 57at para. 23; School District at para. 50.
[20] The MNBC argues that there are no timely allegations of discrimination in this case as Mr. Fontaine has not made out any timely arguable contraventions of the Code. The MNBC states that while Mr. Fontaine has set out allegations in 2020 and 2021, he has not provided any arguable contraventions of the Code with respect to the March 9, 2022, termination. It appears that the MNBC further argues that even if Mr. Fontaine’s Termination Allegation is an arguable contravention of the Code, the out of time allegations are too dissimilar to form a continuing contravention. Finally, the MNBC argues there is no explanation for the gap between the March 9, 2022, termination and Fontaine’s out of time allegations.
[21] As noted above, Mr. Fontaine argues the allegations were ongoing throughout his employment at the MNBC. He claims that they mostly operated at the micro-aggressions level. As a white presenting Métis citizen who self-identified later in life, he alleges the MNBC made him feel “second class” and not truly Métis enough. Mr. Fontaine argues all his allegations were about him not being Métis enough and the discrimination occurred in an unbroken fashion throughout his employment. He alleges that his termination was the MNBC’s way of resolving the majority of its Board having an issue with him not being Métis enough.
[22] After reviewing the Complaint evidence, I am satisfied that the March 9, 2022, termination is an allegation of discrimination: Moore v. British Columbia (Education) [Moore], 2012 SCC 61 at para 33. Mr. Fontaine has shown that, if proven, he can establish that he is Métis, experienced an adverse impact with respect to the employment by the MNBC; and that his Indigenous identity and colour were factors in the alleged adverse impact of being terminated. In reaching this conclusion I note Mr. Fontaine alleges that he was replaced by someone who was more proactively and openly engaging in traditional Métis cultural practices. This followed Mr. Fontaine being given negative feedback about his dress, inability to smudge and lack of connections with the Métis culture. For the purposes of this time limits application, it is important to note that the bar is low for determining whether allegations of discrimination exist. Given Mr. Fontaine’s allegations that he was criticized by Board members for not being Métis enough and replaced by someone in the role who was more proactively and openly engaging in the Métis culture, I am satisfied that this allegation contains the necessary relatedness between Mr. Fontaine being fired and his Indigenous identity and colour.
[23] I have next considered whether the Mr. Fontaine has alleged further arguable contraventions of the Code for the period prior to the one-year timeframe for filing.
[24] From my review of the Complaint evidence, Mr. Fontaine has set out allegations that are arguable contraventions of the Code with respect to the January 4, 2022, Allegation and the Suit Wearing Allegations. In my view, Mr. Fontaine has set out the necessary details of discrimination for both these allegations by claiming that some Board members made these comments and they mostly occurred around the time of Board meetings he attended. For the purposes of this time limits application, I am satisfied that Mr. Fontaine has set out these allegations in sufficient detail as the MNBC should have a record as to when the meetings took place and who attended them. Through the disclosure of evidence and hearing process I am confident that Mr. Fontaine will be able to recall more particulars of these allegations such that they are sufficiently particularized to be arguable contraventions of the Code.
[25] I am also satisfied that the 2021 Smudging Allegation, Summer 2021 Allegation and the November 2020 Allegation are all arguable contraventions of the Code. In my view, each allegation contains the necessary relatedness of the harms alleged to Mr. Fontaine’s Indigenous identity and colour. Being told that he would not be well perceived for opting out of a smudging ceremony for health reasons, not being supported after reporting a hostile attack by a Métis citizen because he was not Métis enough and being informed that he did not understand Métis culture because of his personal heritage and upbringing are all harms in the workplace related to Mr. Fontaine’s Indigenous identity and colour.
[26] Having found multiple arguable contraventions of the Code, that are both timely and out of time, it is necessary to next consider whether the late-filed allegations form part of a continuing contravention.
[27] I first considered whether the allegations are of a similar character for the purposes of determining the existence of a continuing contravention of the Code. MNBC argues the termination allegation is dissimilar from the out of time allegations. If I understand the former employer’s argument correctly, it states that the termination is distinguishable as it does not contain any indication as to how Mr. Fontaine’s termination was related to his Indigenous identity or colour.
[28] By contrast, Mr. Fontaine argues all the allegations are of a similar nature since MNBC perceived him to be ineffective in the role because he presented as a white man that lacked sufficient connectedness to Métis culture. In his view, all the negative treatment experienced during his employment culminated in his termination.
[29] From my review of the allegations in their entirely, I agree with Mr. Fontaine that his allegations are all similar in nature. In this case, Board members allegedly criticized his connection to the Métis culture, as evidenced by their dissatisfaction with his method of dress and lack of participation in a smudging ceremony, which ultimately led to him being replaced by someone seen as having the necessary connectedness. In my view, the similar character of these allegations is not affected in any material way because the earlier allegations appear to be of a minor nature while the termination the ended the employment relationship was major. What matters for the purposes of similarity of the allegations is that they all involve MNBC, through the actions of its Board members, treating Mr. Fontaine badly in an employment setting because he was not Métis enough for them.
[30] In determining all the allegations are similar for the purposes of determine whether a continuing contravention exits, I appreciate that the Summer 2021 Allegation involved Mr. Fontaine reporting a harmful incident perpetrated by a Métis citizen. However, I concluded that this allegation is similar to the others because the harm, while not an act of the MNBC, was related to Mr. Fontaine being subjected to hostility for not being Métis enough because of the way he looked and dressed, which was perpetuated by MNBC because it ignored his report of the incident and failed to take any actions to address it.
[31] I have next considered the existence of gaps between allegations. I have determined that there are no significant gaps for the purposes of s. 22(2) of the Code in this case. I disagree with MNBC’s approach to this question by looking at the gap between the January 2022 Allegation and the date the complaint was filed. I also reject MNBC’s apparent request for the Tribunal to conclude that the January 2022 Allegation must have occurred in January 2021 because Mr. Fontaine appears to have referred to an event that happened at the start of that year and not 2022. As discussed above, I am satisfied for the purposes of this application that Mr. Fontaine has set out a series of allegations related to criticisms leveled against him by Board members related his dress at work – the Suit Wearing Allegations. These allegations occurred at various times, particularly around Board meetings, with the most recent occurrence being the January 2022 Allegation. In my view, the approximately two-month gap between the January 2022 Allegation and the Termination Allegation is brief and is likely explained by the meeting schedule for when contact with Board members and Mr. Fontaine occurred. Similarly, the Suit Wearing allegations likely stretch back throughout Mr. Fontaine’s approximately two-year employment at MNBC and any gaps between these allegations are explainable in terms of these meetings being the formal occasions when he was in contact with Board members.
[32] Overall, I am satisfied Mr. Fontaine’s allegations as currently particularized from the November 2020 Allegation to the January 2022 Allegation, including the other allegations listed above, are of a similar nature in succession to the timely March 9, 2022, Termination Allegation. As such, the Complaint is a timely continuing contravention of the Code and it is, therefore, unnecessary for me to determine whether it is in the public interest to allow any late filed allegations to proceed.
V CONCLUSION
[33] For these reasons, the complaint is accepted for filing as a continuing contravention of the Code.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member