Badohal v. WorkSafeBC (No. 3), 2025 BCHRT 266
Date Issued: October 21, 2025
File: CS-001249
Indexed as: Badohal v. WorkSafeBC (No. 3), 2025 BCHRT 266
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:
Harpreet Singh Badohal
COMPLAINANT
AND:
WorkSafeBC
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO LIMIT PUBLICATION
Rule 5(6)
Tribunal Member: Jessica Derynck
On his own behalf: Harpreet Singh Badohal
Counsel for the Respondent: Andrea L. Zwack
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Harpreet Singh Badohal applies for an order limiting publication of his name in the decision dismissing his complaint after a hearing, Badohal v. WorkSafe BC, 2025 BCHRT 213 [Decision]. WorkSafe BC opposes the application.
[2] For the following reasons, I find Harpreet has not established that his privacy interests outweigh the public interest in full access to the Tribunal’s proceedings in this case, and I deny the application.
[3] I referred to Harpreet by his first name in the Decision because that was his preference at the hearing of his complaint, and I do so again here.
II DECISION
[4] Complaints at Tribunal are presumptively public: Mother A obo Child B v. School District C, 2015 BCHRT 64 at para. 7. This openness serves four main goals: maintaining an effective evidentiary process, ensuring that Tribunal members act fairly, promoting public confidence in the Tribunal, and educating the public about the Tribunal’s process and development of the law: Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 SCR 1326 at para. 61; JY v. Various Waxing Salons, 2019 BCHRT 106 at para. 25. These goals align with the purposes of the Code, which include fostering a more equitable society and identifying and eliminating persistent patterns of inequality: Code, s. 3. The main way that the Tribunal furthers these purposes is through its public decisions: A. v. Famous Players Inc., 2005 BCHRT 432 at para. 14.
[5] The Tribunal has discretion to limit publication of identifying information where a person can show their privacy interests outweigh the public interest in full access to the Tribunal’s proceedings: Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure [Rules], Rule 5(6); Stein v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2020 BCSC 70 at para. 64(a). The Tribunal may consider factors like the stage of the proceedings, the nature of the allegations, private details in the complaint, harm to reputation, or any other potential harm: JY at para. 30. It may also consider whether the proposed limitation relates to only a “sliver” of information that minimally impairs the openness of the proceeding: CS v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2019 BCCA 406 at para. 37. It is not enough to just assert that a person’s reputation may be tarnished: Stein at para. 64(c).
[6] The Tribunal summarized the principles governing applications to limit publication in Azote v. Absolute Software and Another, 2023 BCHRT 28, referring to and relying on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25.
[7] In Sherman Estates the Court said that the type of information that may warrant protection of privacy contrary to the open court principle is that which would result not just in discomfort or embarrassment, but in an affront to the affected person’s dignity: paras. 33-35. The court went on to say that dignity is eroded when someone loses control over core information about a highly sensitive aspect of themselves that they did not consciously decide to share with others and may shape how they are seen in public: para. 71. The Court also said it is not debatable that a serious risk of physical harm would also justify an order limiting publication: paras. 36, 72.
[8] Harpreet says he was an MLA and MP candidate of a political party in elections in 2024 and 2025. He submits that credibility findings in the Decision that are adverse to him could impact his political image for future elections. He also says his family, including his children, could be bullied if they are associated with him by his surname.
[9] Harpreet raised further issues and submitted evidence in reply to WorkSafe BC’s response to his application. His submissions and evidence are not within the proper scope of a reply submission. The scope of a reply submission is very narrow, and the purpose is to allow a party to respond to arguments they did not address in their initial submission: Tuson v. Board of Education of School District No. 5, 2020 BCHRT 195 at para. 24.
[10] This is Harpreet’s application, and it was up to him to include all of the arguments and evidence he wanted the Tribunal to consider with his application. However, I have decided to address his new arguments and his evidence because he is self-represented on this application, and I prefer that he know his position and arguments were heard in this process. His reply submissions and evidence do not make a difference to the outcome of his application, so I may address them with no unfairness to WorkSafe BC.
[11] In his reply submission, Harpreet adds an argument that anonymization is necessary in his case because of risks to his personal safety when travelling. He says Canadian Sikhs face increased risks from foreign interference.
[12] I am not persuaded that Harpreet’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest in full access to the Tribunal’s proceedings.
[13] I first address Harpreet’s reply submission that denying his application would result in heightened risks of harassment and to his physical safety when travelling. He says that Canadian Sikhs face threats of harassment and surveillance abroad, and publication of his full name, “in connection with high-profile turban-rights advocacy supported by Sikh organizations and temples” heightens his risk of harassment or detention at airports.
[14] Evidence that a risk of physical harm from publication would weigh strongly in favour of a finding that a person’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest in full access to the proceedings. However, I am not persuaded that publication of Harpreet’s name in the Decision creates a safety risk.
[15] Harpreet submitted letters from Sikh organizations that he received before the hearing of his complaint, which are supportive to him. These letters were not in evidence at the hearing and are not about the issues in his case. They do not suggest that the Decision, which is about his specific complaint alleging that specific conduct breached the Human Rights Code, creates any risk for him because of any association with the organizations or people who sent him the letters.
[16] Harpreet also submitted articles about threats of violence in Canada from foreign government agents, including one about potential threats to Sikh politicians in Canada, another about threats to a person involved with a Sikh advocacy group, and another about a Sikh advocate with a healthcare charity being detained at a foreign airport.
[17] None of Harpreet’s materials suggest that publication of the Decision creates any increased risk for him.
[18] Harpreet did not raise this concern at any time before his reply submission on this application, after WorkSafe BC referred to Sherman Estates in its response. Harpreet cites Sherman Estates in his reply to say that discretion to limit courtroom openness may be warranted where there is a serious risk to dignity or safety. He submits that circumstances have changed in the eight years since he filed his complaint, with risks for Sikhs abroad escalating over time. However, he did not raise any concern about the possibility of a decision on his complaint creating risks of physical harm or increased harassment at any time during the hearing in 2023 and 2024, or when he filed this application on September 9, 2025.
[19] None of the evidence or information before me persuades me that publication of his name in the Decision creates risks to Harpreet’s safety. I decline to order limitation of publication on this basis.
[20] I also find that Harpreet’s concerns that the credibility findings in the Decision could negatively impact his political image, or result in his family members being bullied, are not privacy interests outweighing the public interest in this case.
[21] Harpreet has not explained why or how findings about his credibility in the Decision may result in others treating his family members negatively. He says his surname is rare so his children would easily be associated with him and the Decision. In his reply submission he submits that children’s privacy is deserving of special attention without concrete proof of harm, and publication of his name would expose his children to “foreseeable bullying and stigma”. However, he has not explained how any of the credibility findings in the Decision would expose his children to stigma or negative treatment.
[22] Finally, I find that Harpreet’s concern about potential impacts on his political image in future elections is not a privacy interest outweighing the public interest.
[23] Harpreet submits that credibility assessments in the Decision could be taken out of context by political propaganda artists to create misinformation and impact his political image for future elections. This is speculative and is not a concern about the nature of his complaint, private aspects of his identity, or how the Decision itself could potentially impact his reputation. This factor weighs against anonymization: JY at para. 30.
[24] The Tribunal considers the information in the complaint, including whether there are sensitive details about an individual that they ordinarily would have chosen to keep private – not speculation about how others might misrepresent the information or use it out of context. There is no sensitive information in the Decision that Harpreet was concerned about making public pending the outcome of his complaint, and there is always a risk of adverse credibility findings in adjudication of a complaint where there are different accounts of relevant events. His concern is about the Tribunal’s findings, not private information that he introduced into evidence or came out in the course of the hearing.
[25] Harpreet submits that if he were anonymized, the public would still have access to the relevant factual matrix and applicable principles of human rights law in the Decision. I understand his position to be that there would be minimal impact on the public interest if he were anonymized.
[26] I disagree. I find that there is a public interest in the outcome of Harpreet’s specific complaint, and the stage of the proceedings weighs against a finding that Harpreet’s privacy interests outweigh that public interest. There is less scope for limiting public access to a final decision after a hearing of a complaint: JY at para. 30. I accept WorkSafe BC’s submission that it is important for all stakeholders who were aware of Harpreet’s allegations, which were available to the public from the time of the Tribunal’s decision denying an application to dismiss the complaint in April 2020[1], are able to determine what became of those allegations. Harpreet’s concern about any impact of the findings in the Decision on his reputation is not a privacy interest outweighing the public interest in this case.
III CONCLUSION
[27] The application to limit publication is denied.
Jessica Derynck
Tribunal Member
[1] Gill v. British Columbia (Ministry of Labour), 2020 BCHRT 103. Harpreet changed his surname following this decision, and the Tribunal dismissed the complaint against the Ministry in this decision.