Olumide v. Elections BC, 2025 BCHRT 271
Date Issued: October 21, 2025
File: CS-008013
Indexed as: Olumide v. Elections BC, 2025 BCHRT 271
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:
Ade Olumide
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Elections BC
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(b)
Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi
On their own behalf: Ade Olumide
Counsel for the Respondent: Marcia McNeil
I INTRODUCTION
[1] In this decision, I explain why I dismiss Ade Olumide’s complaint under s. 27(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code, on the basis that his complaint does not allege a contravention of the Code.
[2] Mr. Olumide alleges that Elections BC discriminated in publication and employment advertisement on the basis of race, colour, and political belief contrary to sections 7 and 11 of the Code. He says forms and guidelines created by Elections BC can be used by political parties in British Columbia to perpetuate racism and discrimination.
[3] Elections BC applies to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(a) and (b) of the Code. It argues that the complaint does not contain facts capable of proving that Mr. Olumide was adversely impacted by the publication he complains about, and he does not have standing to bring the complaint.
[4] I find that I can most efficiently decide the application under s. 27(1)(b). I have considered whether the complaint alleges facts capable of establishing a contravention of s. 7 and/or 11 of the Code. For the reasons set out below I find it does not.
[5] To make this decision, I have considered all the information and materials filed by the parties. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.
II PRELIMINARY ISSUE – APPLICATION TO FILE A SUR-REPLY
[6] After submissions on the application to dismiss closed on August 28, 2024, Mr. Olumide made additional submissions in emails sent to the Tribunal and Elections BC on August 29, 2024, August 30, 2024, and September 5, 2024. I am treating these submissions as an application to file further submissions under Rule 28(5). Elections BC takes no position on the application to file a sur-reply.
[7] Under the circumstances, I find it is in the interest of fairness to allow Mr. Olumide’s application to file a sur-reply and have considered the submissions he made after August 28, 2024.
[8] Generally speaking, the Tribunal’s application process involves three submissions: the application, the response, and the reply: Rule 28(2). The Tribunal may accept further submissions where fairness requires that a party be permitted an opportunity for further submissions: Gichuru v. The Law Society of British Columbia (No. 2), 2006 BCHRT 201, paras. 21-22.
[9] Mr. Olumide is self-represented in this complaint. The Tribunal’s duty of fairness requires it to make efforts to understand the arguments that self-represented litigants are trying to advance: Hassan v. BFI Constructors and another, 2024 BCHRT 137 at para. 13. In these circumstances, where Elections BC has not objected to Mr. Olumide making sur-reply submissions, I am satisfied that the further submissions help me to understand his arguments and there is no unfairness to either party to consider Mr. Olumide’s submissions.
III BACKGROUND
[10] The following background is taken from the parties’ materials. I make no findings of fact.
[11] Elections BC is an office of the Legislature responsible for administering the electoral process in BC, in accordance with the Elections Act, RSBC 1996 c. 106. It prepares and makes forms and information sheets about the electoral process available on its website.
[12] Mr. Olumide alleges that Elections BC’s use of certain forms and information sheets is discriminatory. Mr. Olumide is not a resident of BC and does not allege that he has sought or been denied nomination or endorsement in BC. I understand Mr. Olumide to be arguing that because Election BC’s forms allow political parties to nominate and endorse their candidates without disclosing their reasons for selecting those candidates, political parties could choose their candidates for discriminatory reasons.
IV DECISION
[13] Section 27(1)(b) of the Code gives the Tribunal the discretion to dismiss all or part of a complaint if it does not allege facts that could, if proven, contravene the Code. Under s. 27(1)(b), the Tribunal only considers the allegations in the complaint and information provided by the complainant. It does not consider alternative scenarios or explanations provided by the respondent: Bailey v. BC (Attorney General) (No. 2), 2006 BCHRT 168 at para. 12; Goddard v. Dixon, 2012 BCSC 161 at para. 100; Francescutti v. Vancouver (City), 2017 BCCA 242 at para. 49. The threshold for a complainant to allege a possible contravention of the Code is low: Gichuru v. Vancouver Swing Society, 2021 BCCA 103 at para. 56.
[14] In this case, Mr. Olumide alleges discrimination under ss. 7 and 11 of the Code.
[15] Section 7(1) of the Code prohibits publications which indicate discrimination or an intention to discriminate or that are likely to expose a person or a group to hatred or contempt. For this part of his complaint, Mr. Olumide must allege facts that could support a finding that Elections BC published material which:
a. Disclosed an intention to generate some real-world, discriminatory effect, against a person or group of people, based on their race and colour, beyond merely being offensive”: Oger v. Whatcott (No.7), 2019 BCHRT 58 at para. 103; or
b. In the view of a reasonable person aware of the context and circumstances, exposes or tends to expose a person or class of persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of their race or colour: Saskatchewan (Human Rights Comm.) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 at para. 95.
“Political belief” is not a protected characteristic under this section.
[16] Section 11 of the Code prohibits publishing an advertisement in connection with employment that expresses a limitation, specification or preference as to a candidate’s protected characteristics.
[17] For this part of his complaint, Mr. Olumide must set out facts that, if proved, could establish that Elections BC published an advertisement for employment or prospective employment that expressed a limitation, specification or preference as to the race, colour and/or political belief of the candidate.
[18] Mr. Olumide says there are three forms and six pages on the Elections BC website that contravene the Code. The impugned documents are nomination forms for candidates, instructions, and information sheets and guidelines for how candidates in provincial elections are nominated. Mr. Olumide says these documents could allow political parties to choose their candidates for discriminatory reasons.
[19] I have reviewed all the materials and, in these circumstances, I find that Mr. Olumide has not alleged facts that, if proven, contravenes the Code. The documents do not disclose any intention to generate discriminatory effect. They do not expose a person or class of persons to hatred. They do not express any preference based on protected characteristics. Nor do they include reference to any protected characteristic. The documents are simply forms and information that guide the electoral process in BC.
[20] Mr. Olumide has not alleged facts in his materials which, even if proven, establish that he experienced an adverse impact under the Code. Therefore, I dismiss the complaint pursuant to s. 27(1)(b).
V CONCLUSION
[21] The complaint is dismissed.
Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member