Ratnam v. Board of Education of School District No. 36 (Surrey) and another, 2025 BCHRT 276
Date Issued: October 29, 2025
File: CS-009083
Indexed as: Ratnam v. Board of Education of School District No. 36 (Surrey) and another, 2025 BCHRT 276
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:
Hannah Ratnam
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Board of Education of School District No. 36 (Surrey) and WorkSafeBC
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
Section 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On her own behalf: Hannah Ratnam
Counsel for School District No. 36: Devon Peck
No submissions: WorkSafeBC
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] On March 9, 2022, Hannah Ratnam filed a complaint of discrimination in services and employment based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, physical disability, sex and age contrary to s. 8 and s. 13 of the Human Rights Code [Code], against WorkSafeBC [WSBC] and her employer, Board of Education of School District No. 36 (Surrey) [the School District].
[2] The issue before me is whether to accept the late filed Complaint against WSBC and the School District. I make no findings of fact regarding the merits of this complaint.
[3] For the reasons that follow, it is not in the public interest to allow the Complaint to proceed late filed: s. 22(3).
II. BACKGROUND
[4] Ms. Ratnam is originally from Pakistan. She identifies as a brown skinned female over 50 years of age.
[5] On October 8, 2020, Ms. Ratnam suffered a back and leg injury while working in a caretaking job with the School District. It appears that her injury has since resulted in a permanent disability recognized by WSBC. Ms. Ratnam describes her injuries as preventing her from walking straight, standing for long hours on her feet, or doing any physical work for long periods of time.
[6] Ms. Ratnam alleges the School District disputed her WSBC claim, which was initially denied. However, she reports successfully challenging multiple WSBC decisions and eventually receiving wage loss and rehabilitation benefits.
[7] Since October 2020 when the injury occurred, Ms. Ratnam alleges the School District failed to accommodate her disabilities on an ongoing and continuous basis. She specially refers to an unsuccessful graduated return to work attempt in April 2021. Ms. Ratnam further alleges that she took a clerical test at the School District twice and failed both times for reasons related to her disability. Without this qualification the employer concluded no suitable jobs were available.
[8] Since October 2020, Ms. Ratnam alleges that she has had to fight for WSBC to provide treatments recommended by her medical treatment providers. Ms. Ratman alleges WSBC sponsored treatment has been irregular and she claims that she is still in pain accompanied by stiffness, numbness, tingling and cramping. Ms. Ratnam reports her dissatisfaction with WSBC staff always changing and alleges that she found it difficult to communicate with case managers who simply deny all of the possible benefits related her injury. She alleges applying for many jobs following her injury until her vocational rehabilitation file was closed in April 2023. Ms. Ratnam alleges WSBC has neglected her claim file and treated her badly since day one. She alleges that WSBC took advantage of her as an immigrant to Canada and did not take her disability seriously. Ms. Ratnam alleges WSBC’s adverse and differential treatment of her was due to her race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, age and sex.
[9] On an unspecified date, Ms. Ratnam alleges her WSBC case manager implied her age indicated that she would never go back to her caretaker job.
[10] Overall, Ms. Ratnam alleges the harms caused by both respondents left her feeling frustrated, anxious, depressed, sleep deprived and in pain right up until she filed her complaint in March 2023.
III. ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[11] 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.
A. Time Limit
[12] The Complaint was filed on March 9, 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 March 9, 2022.
[13] Ms. Ratnam’s complaint allegations are mostly vague and undated with respect to the poor claim treatment by WSBC and the School District’s failure to accommodate her disabilities. In fact, she only provided the October 8, 2020, date of injury for the dates of the allegations with respect to both respondents on her initial complaint form. When Tribunal sought clarification from Ms. Ratnam on the dates of her allegations, she referenced a failed graduated return to work in April 2021 and clarified that her reference to the latest events occurring in October 2022 on the initial complaint for was an error. I note that despite claiming the discrimination was ongoing Ms. Ratnam admits in her reply submission that she late filed the complaint due to illness during the first two years following her injury in October 2020. As such, I am willing to conclude for the purposes of this application that Ms. Ratnam’s allegations were sufficiently particularized and late filed.
[14] Having found the allegation in this case was late filed, I proceed to an analysis of whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to accept the complaint outside the one-year time limit because 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). I begin with the public interest determination.
B. Public Interest
[15] Whether it is in the public interest to accept the late-filed complaint is a multi-faceted analysis. The enquiry is fact and context specific and assessed in accordance with the purposes of the Code: Hoang v. Warnaco and Johns, 2007 BCHRT 24 at para. 26. The Tribunal considers a non-exhaustive list of factors, including the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, and the public interest in the complaint itself: British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite, 2014 BCCA 220 [Mzite] at para. 53. These are important factors, but they are not necessarily determinative: Goddard v. Dixon, 2012 BCSC 161 at para. 152; Mzite at para. 55.
[16] I have first considered the length of the delay in filing. Apart from Ms. Ratnam’s reference to the allegations occurring on the date of injury in October 2020 and being ongoing, she identified a failed return to work attempt in April 2021. As the only date provided after the date of injury referencing particular allegations, it seems appropriate to use this date to assess how late the complaint was filed. As such, the delay in this case is approximately 11 months, which is considered by the Tribunal to be excessive and militates strongly against the public interest: Naziel-Wilson v. Providence Health Care and another, 2014 BCHRT 170 [Naziel-Wilson]at para. 13.
[17] Ms. Ratnam provided several reasons for her delay in filing. She submits that during the first two or more years since the injury occurred in October 2020 the resulting disabilities made it very challenging for her to file a complaint. She further reports that it took her a lot of time to understand, learn and fight for her rights in a new country. While Ms. Ratnam has given up on receiving justice from the School District or WSBC, she trusts that the Tribunal will stand with her to stop the discrimination, bullying, harassment and biased behaviour both respondents inflicted on her as a newcomer to Canada.
[18] I have first considered whether Ms. Ratnam’s disability is a reason for late filing that attracts the public interest in allowing her complaint to proceed. Where delay is due to a disabling condition, the Tribunal has observed that it may be in the public interest to accept a late-filed complaint: MacAlpine v. Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, 2011 BCHRT 29 at para. 42. Disabling conditions can include physical and mental ailments resulting in great trouble coping with even the basic daily tasks of life: Naziel-Wilson at para. 21.
[19] Without doubting the existence of Ms. Ratnam’s various disabilities, the evidence on file indicates that she did not have a level of disability precluding her from filing sufficient to attract the public interest. Ms. Ratnam’s evidence clearly indicates that she had disabilities, however, the evidence demonstrates that she was able to find assistance to successfully dispute WSBC’s negative decisions in order to secure benefits rightfully owed to her under her claim. In circumstances where Ms. Ratnam was able to reach out and be successfully supported in multiple legal proceedings associated with the WSBC claim, it follows that she was not precluded from doing the same at the Tribunal in a timely manner.
[20] I have next considered Ms. Ratnam’s explanation for her delay associated with being a newcomer to Canada ignorant of her rights under the Code. Ignorance of the Code, or the time required to become aware of one’s rights, is generally not an acceptable reason, on its own, for the delay in filing: Rashead v. Vereschagin (No. 2), 2006 BCHRT 74 at para. 12; Ferrier v. BCAA,2009 BCHRT 412at para. 31. In this case, the Complainant has not provided any evidence that would take this case out of the general rule that ignorance of the Code is not an acceptable reason for a delay in filing. While appreciating that Ms. Ratnam is a newcomer to Canada, her actions in disputing WSBC decisions she did not agree with demonstrate that she could have similarly got assistance to research the Tribunal’s processes and file a complaint in a timely manner.
[21] In determining whether acceptance of a late-filed complaint is in the public interest, the Tribunal also considers whether there is anything particularly unique, novel, or unusual about the complaint that has not been addressed in other complaints: Hau v. SFU Student Services and others, 2014 BCHRT 10 at para. 22; Bains v. Advanced Air Supply and others, 2013 BCHRT 74 at para. 22; Mathieu v. Victoria Shipyards and others, 2010 BCHRT 224 at para. 60. Where a complaint raises a novel issue on behalf of a vulnerable group, which advances the purposes of the Code, this factor may weigh in favour of finding a public interest in accepting the complaint: Mzite at paras. 65-66. The Tribunal has considered gaps in its jurisprudence, on the one hand, and the existence of good precedents, on the other hand, in determining whether to permit a complaint to proceed: Mzite at para. 67.
[22] Ms. Ratnam is seeking justice for alleged mistreatment by the School District and WSBC. She argues that allowing this case to proceed will stop other newcomers from experiencing the same type of alleged discrimination she experienced. While acknowledging Ms. Ratnam’s wish to have her case move forward to protect vulnerable newcomers from discrimination at work following an injury, I am not satisfied that her complaint raises a novel issue that should be heard by the Tribunal to advance the purposes of the Code. Complaints involving race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, disability, sex, and age in services and employment are common and the jurisprudence is fairly settled.
[23] For these reasons, I do not find that it is in the public interest to accept the late-filed complaint, and I need not address the issue of whether substantial prejudice would result.
IV. CONCLUSION
[24] For these reasons, the complaint is not accepted for filing.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member