Bilozaze v. Board of Education of School District No. 72(Campbell River), 2025 BCHRT 293
Date Issued: November 26, 2025
File: CS-006457
Indexed as: Bilozaze v. Board of Education of School District No. 72 (Campbell River), 2025 BCHRT 293
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:
Danita Bilozaze
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Board of Education of School District No. 72(Campbell River)
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(g)
Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi
Counsel for the Complainant: Laura Track, Sohrab Rezaei
Counsel for the Respondent: Sara Grujin
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Danita Bilozaze filed a complaint against the Board of Education for School District No. 72 (Campbell River) on March 11, 2022, alleging discrimination in employment based on her Indigenous identity, race, ancestry, and place of origin contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code. She says that she experienced racial discrimination throughout her employment from 2011 to 2021, and the District’s response to her complaints about racist incidents she experienced was inadequate.
[2] The District says some of Ms. Bilozaze’s allegations are untimely. It applies to dismiss the allegations of events occurring more than one year before the complaint was filed under s. 27(1)(g) of the Code.
[3] For the following reasons, I allow the application. I find the allegations of incidents occurring more than one year before the complaint was filed are untimely, and I am not persuaded that I should exercise my discretion to accept them.
[4] 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.
II BACKGROUND
[5] Ms. Bilozaze is an Indigenous woman. She began her employment as a teacher with the District in 2011. She worked in the Indigenous Education Department providing support to various elementary and middle schools in the District.
[6] Ms. Bilozaze says she experienced anti-Indigenous racism and discrimination throughout her employment with the District from 2011 to 2021. Specifically, she alleges the following incidents.
a. During her first year of employment in 2011, Ms. Bilozaze’s Indigenous guest speakers were required to sign a document upon receiving an honorarium when other guests were not required to sign.
b. In 2015, Ms. Bilozaze participated in a “Button Blanket Project” at a middle school where she led students in creating a button blanket to present to an Indigenous guest. The school did not choose to give the blanket to a person Ms. Bilozaze suggested. The school did not inform Ms. Bilozaze the height of the guest, which was necessary to know the size of the button blanket to create, for several months.
c. In 2015, Ms. Bilozaze’s supervisor, the District Principal of Indigenous Education, yelled at her and threatened to fire her.
d. In 2018, Ms. Bilozaze was not one of the teachers selected to attend a professional development session.
e. On November 7, 2019, during a staff meeting at an elementary school a school administrator cut Ms. Bilozaze off while she was speaking and yelled at her.
f. On November 28, 2019, after giving a presentation to an elementary school class, the teacher for that class gave unsolicited feedback on how to improve the presentation to engage students.
g. On November 5, 2020, Ms. Bilozaze heard that a teacher at a middle school had made discriminatory remarks to two educational assistants. Ms. Bilozaze reported that she heard about the incident to the principal of the school who took no action.
h. On May 21, 2021, a student at a middle school reported to Ms. Bilozaze that other students were making racist remarks and acting inappropriately. Ms. Bilozaze reported the incident to the principal of the school who took no action.
i. On September 22, 2021, a school librarian emailed only the Indigenous staff asking if anyone had borrowed the “Orange Shirt Day” educational kit.
[7] Ms. Bilozaze filed her human rights complaint on March 11, 2022.
III DECISION
[8] There is a one-year time limit for filing a human rights complaint: Code, s. 22. Section 22 is a substantive provision which is intended to ensure that complainants pursue their human rights remedies promptly so that respondents can go ahead with their activities without the possibility of a dated complaint: Chartier v. School District No. 62, 2003 BCHRT 39 at para. 12.
[9] The complaint was filed on March 11, 2022. Therefore, two of Ms. Bilozaze’s allegations were filed within the one-year time limit: (1) On May 21, 2021, she reported that students were making racist comments to the school principal who took no action; and (2) on September 22, 2021, a school librarian only emailed Indigenous staff asking if they borrowed materials.
[10] Alleged incidents that occurred before March 11, 2021, more than one year before the complaint was filed, would be out of time unless they are part of a continuing contravention with a timely allegation of an incident of discrimination.
[11] 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 Districtat para. 50.
[12] The assessment of whether discrete allegations are a continuing contravention is a “fact specific one which will depend very much on the individual circumstances of each case”: Dickson v. Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition, 2005 BCHRT 209 at para. 17. A relevant consideration is whether there are significant gaps between the allegations: Dickson at paras. 16-17. Whether or not a gap is significant will be assessed contextually, considering the length itself and any explanations for the gap: Reynolds v Overwaitea Food Group, 2013 BCHRT 67, at para. 28. A significant, unexplained, gap in time will weigh against finding a continuing contravention: Bjorklund v. BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, 2018 BCHRT 204 at para. 14.
[13] Ms. Bilozaze says all of her allegations represent a pattern of institutional racism she experienced in the course of her employment. She says that all of her allegations demonstrate the institutional failure on the part of the District to prevent racism and provide a safe working environment.
[14] In this case, I find the allegations of events before March 11, 2021, are not part of a continuing contravention with the incidents of May 21, 2021 and September 22, 2021. First, the allegations occurred over the span of a decade and are separated from each other by weeks or years. Ms. Bilozaze provides some explanation for the gaps and says she did not work continuously. She says she initially worked part-time, did not work over school breaks, and took some leaves for several months over the course of her employment. She also says that during the COVID-19 pandemic, she worked remotely from spring of 2020 to the end of the academic year. In my view, Ms. Bilozaze’s explanation does not adequately explain the span of months and years between her timely allegations and the incidents before March 11, 2021.
[15] Second, in my view the allegations of incidents before March 11, 2021, are not of the same character as the timely allegations. They involve different people, occurred at different schools, and involve different circumstances. The allegations are not similar in character as some are allegations of incidents directly involving Ms. Bilozaze, such as being yelled at, while other allegations are about preferential treatment, and other allegations are about Ms. Bilozaze hearing about discriminatory incidents that she was not involved in.
[16] I am unable to reasonably see that the allegations of incidents before March 11, 2021, are sufficiently connected to the two timely allegations in either character or time of occurrence. Therefore, I find that the allegations of incidents before March 11, 2021, are not part of a continuing contravention and untimely.
[17] I next proceed to an analysis of whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to accept Ms. Bilozaze’s late-filed allegations 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).
[18] Whether it is in the public interest to accept late-filed allegations is a multi-faceted analysis. When considering whether it is in the public interest to accept a late-filed complaint or allegation, the Tribunal considers 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 Solictior General) v. Mzite, 2014 BCCA 220 [Mzite] at para. 53.
[19] The factors are not exhaustive and no one factor is determinative. The Tribunal assesses the totality of factors within the specific facts and context of the case and in accordance with the purposes of the Code.
[20] Ms. Bilozaze’s complaint spans the time from the start of her employment in 2011 to 2020. The delay in filing, therefore, is between one to 10 years, which is excessive, and militates strongly against the public interest: Naziel-Wilson v. Providence Health care and another, 2014 BCHRT 170, at para. 13; Mzite at para. 59.
[21] Ms. Bilozaze says she did not file a complaint sooner because she hoped she could resolve her concerns directly with the District and its employees. The fact that a complainant attempted to resolve their issues outside the Tribunal’s process does not, on its own, relieve them from the consequences of missing a filing deadline: Eldor v. UBC, 2009 BCHRT 204 at para. 67. Based on the materials I have before me, Ms. Bilozaze’s reason for an up to 10-year delay in filing the complaint is not compelling.
[22] 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: Hilger v. Dr. Terry Abel Dentistry and another, 2023 BCHRT 32 at paras. 64 to 65.
[23] Ms. Bilozaze argues her allegations should proceed because she alleges systemic anti-Indigenous discrimination. She says Indigenous people have been disproportionately underrepresented in complaints before the Tribunal and it is in the public interest to accept complaints about Indigenous-specific discrimination to address persistent patterns of inequality and discrimination.
[24] The District submits this case does not raise novel legal issues. It says the Tribunal receives many complaints about employment discrimination in schools as well as complaints about Indigenous identity.
[25] I agree with the District that Ms. Bilozaze’s complaint does not raise unique, novel, or unusual issues. The Tribunal has a large body of jurisprudence dealing with discrimination in employment, both overt discrimination and allegations of toxic workplaces. I appreciate that the Tribunal has recognized that Indigenous people are disproportionately underrepresented in complaints to the Tribunal: Campbell v. Vancouver Police Board (No. 4), 2019 BCHRT 275 at para. 5. However, this alone is not a reason to allow the late-filed complaint as the determination of whether the instances alleged by Ms. Bilozaze are discrimination would be a fact-specific and individual assessment. There is nothing before me that suggests that there is anything unique, novel or unusual about Ms. Bilozaze’s allegations of incidents before March 11, 2021.
[26] I am not persuaded that it is in the public interest to accept the late-filed portions of the complaint.
[27] Having not found that it is in the public interest to accept the late-filed allegations, I need not address the issue of whether substantial prejudice would result.
IV CONCLUSION
[28] I allow the application to dismiss in part. I dismiss the allegations of events prior to March 11, 2021, under s. 27(1)(g). Ms. Bilozaze’s other allegations of events in May 2021, and September 2021, will proceed.
Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member