Redmond v. Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and others, 2025 BCHRT 33
Date Issued: February 12, 2025 File: CS-007466
Indexed as: Redmond v. Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and others, 2025 BCHRT 33
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Gordon Redmond
COMPLAINANT
AND:
His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and the Company and the Employee
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
Section 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On his own behalf: Gordon Redmond
Counsel for the Ministry: Jaclyn Salter
Counsel for the Company and the Employee: Sarah Hentschel
I Introduction
[1] On July 11, 2022, Mr. Redmond filed a complaint alleging that His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction [the Ministry ], the Company and the Company’s employee, the Employee, discriminated in services based on mental and physical disability, contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code [ Code ].
[2] On August 21, 2023, the Tribunal rejected Mr. Redmond’s complaint against the several other individual respondents and allowed it to proceed to a decision on timeliness under s. 22 of the Code . The parties provided written submissions on timeliness which I have considered in rendering this decision.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I find that the Complaint is late filed, and it is in the public interest to accept it for filing .
II Background
[4] Mr. Redmond has an output disorder learning disability. He also has a spinal cord and back injuries. Mr. Redmond identifies as an elderly Mohawk man.
[5] In 2011, Mr. Redmond reports receiving appropriate assistive technology that enabled him to express himself.
[6] In 2014, he notes that the Ministry upgraded his assistive technology and provided him with additional software that targeted his work activities. This enabled him to fully participate and complete a Master’s Degree Program at UBC and to work successfully as an emergency management consultant.
[7] Over time, Mr. Redmond alleges the technology provided by the Ministry aged and stopped functioning.
[8] At the time Mr. Redmond filed this complaint, he reports working as an emergency planner and Geographic Information Systems consultant. He alleges that this work uses software with specific high performance hardware requirements.
[9] In November 2019, Mr. Redmond reports being referred by the Ministry to work with the Company to obtain an upgrade to his assistive technology.
[10] On February 19, 2020, Mr. Redmond alleges the Company’s occupational therapist [ OT ] agreed to provide him with the necessary technology after a lot of back and forth about what was needed.
[11] Sometime between February 19 and 25, 2020, Mr. Redmond alleges the Employee reviewed the OT’s proposal and refused to proceed with it. Mr. Redmond alleges the Employee unreasonably and arbitrarily decided to provide him with a less capable solution that did not accommodate his needs. He says the new computer did not even have the capacity to install the necessary software and left him unable to transfer his existing files.
[12] In the days that followed, Mr. Redmond says that he tried to follow up with the Employee about changing the Company’s decision. However, he alleges that the Employee told him that he was bound by policy which prevented him from providing Mr. Redmond with what he needed. Mr. Redmond alleges that he later confirmed with the Ministry that no such regulation or policies existed.
[13] Mr. Redmond further alleges that the Employee told him that the Ministry had a separate fund to provide the computer he needed. He alleges that he agreed to close his file with the Company to get that other process started.
[14] On September 23, 2020, in a telephone conversation with the Employee, Mr. Redmond alleges the Employee defended the Company’s decision to provide him with an equipment downgrade based on the OT’s assessment and accused him of delaying the process.
[15] Sometime later, in their final telephone conversation, Mr. Redmond alleges that the Employee approached him in an angry, aggressive and bullying tone while refusing to speak to a third person Mr. Redmond had arranged to be on the call to assist him with his communication.
[16] On October 9, 2020, Mr. Redmond alleges receiving a freedom of information request document disclosure from the Ministry and the Company. At the Ministry case manager’s suggestion, he alleges that he contacted a deputy minister at the Ministry to request a review of the Company’s assistive technology decision. Mr. Redmond alleges the Ministry responded by informing him it could not review the decision and there was nothing it could do to resolve his concerns.
[17] In December 2020, Mr. Redmond alleges the Company provided him with an inadequate assistive technology system that did not address his needs.
III ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[18] Section 22 of the Code provides:
(1) A complaint must be filed within one year of the alleged contravention.
(2) If a continuing contravention is alleged in a complaint, the complaint must be filed within one year of the last alleged instance of the contravention.
(3) If a complaint is filed after the expiration of the time limit referred to in subsection (1) or (2), a member or panel may accept all or part of the complaint if the member or panel determines that:
(a) it is in the public interest to accept the complaint, and
(b) no substantial prejudice will result to any person because of the delay.
[19] 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
[20] The Complaint was filed on July 11, 2022. 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 July 11, 2021.
[21] Mr. Redmond’s complaint form indicates the most recent conduct listed as discrimination for the Company was December 14, 2020, which confirms that his complaint against this respondent is late filed.
[22] Mr. Redmond’s complaint form indicates the latest allegation made against the Ministry was on May 26, 2022. Allegations from this timeframe would obviously be timely. However, from my review of Mr. Redmond’s allegations there are no specific allegations beyond those outlined in 2020 which were related to the Ministry refusing to overturn the Company’s decision about his assistive technology entitlements based on inaccuracies found in the document disclosure he was provided on October 7, 2020. In deciding that Mr. Redmond has not set out any timely allegations of discrimination regarding the Ministry I recognize the Ministry’s written submission refers to interactions with him about the Company’s decision from July 2020 until May 2022. The Ministry’s statements about its interactions with Mr. Redmond, however, were not confirmed by him and were not accompanied by any documentary evidence confirming their existence. As such, in defining Mr. Redmond’s allegations it would not be appropriate for me to adopt the information provided by the Ministry and enter an analysis as to whether these are arguable contraventions of the Code capable of forming a continuing contravention of the Code .
[23] In the end, I have determined that Mr. Redmond’s allegations against both the Company and the Ministry were late filed and I now proceed to an analysis of whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to accept them 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
[24] Whether it is in the public interest to accept late-filed allegations 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.
[25] I have first considered the length of delay in filing. As noted above, the latest allegations in this case occurred in December 2020, which makes the Complaint more than six months late filed, which is significant: Benedict v. Rutland Dental Centre and others , 2008 BCHRT 39 at para. 19.
[26] Mr. Redmond provided several reasons for his delay in filing. First, he reports a delay related to his disabilities. As of October 7, 2020, when he received the disclosure information from the Respondents, Mr. Redmond states he wanted to file a complaint but knew that he needed help to do so because of his disabilities. In particular, he notes that barriers related to his cognitive and physical disabilities make it extremely difficult for him to communicate in writing. Mr. Redmond submits that his difficulty with communicating in writing is confirmed by his request to communicate by phone with the Ministry.
[27] Mr. Redmond further submits that he was disabled from filing a complaint in time because of an assault injury that occurred while working in January 2021 with a resulting surgery. He reports that from January to August 2021, he was bed-ridden, requiring continuous care, and unable to communicate by email. On August 17, 2021, he reports being flown overseas to Germany for a specialized low back surgery, after which he continued to be bed-ridden until December 2021.
[28] Mr. Redmond submits that it took him from December 2021 until May 26, 2022, to seek out and obtain the assistance of the Disability Alliance in filing a complaint form in mid July 2022. He says that when he was finally able to sit and concentrate for a few hours a day, he made a lot of calls where almost everyone said they could not help him. Mr. Redmond submits that a lack of legal representation contributed to his inability to file a complaint in a timely manner. By contrast he notes being able to pursue a WorkSafeBC claim for his injury in January 2021 because he had the assistance of a Workers Advisor.
[29] The Company argues that it could not speak to the issue of how Mr. Redmond’s January 2021 work injury and subsequent treatment may have affected his ability to file a complaint as no documentary medical evidence of disability was provided by him to support this conclusion. From the Company’s perspective, Mr. Redmond’s ability to participate in the WorkSafeBC claim, albeit with the assistance of a Workers Advisor, indicates a significant level of functioning, however.
[30] The Ministry’s submission regarding Mr. Redmond’s January 2021 work injury disability focuses on the late filing timeframes not affected by the work injury period of disability. The Ministry asks why Mr. Redmond did not initiate the Complaint soon after the Company’s decision to deny his requested assistive technology solution in the second half of 2020 or during the first half of 2022 when disability related to the January 2021 work injury was not at play. Where these periods of delay cannot be explained by Mr. Redmond’s January 2021 work injury disability, the Ministry argues the overall delay does not attract the public interest in allowing the late filed complaint to proceed.
[31] 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 v. Providence Health Care and another , 2014 BCHRT 170 at para. 21.
[32] I accept that Mr. Redmond’s evidence that his output disorder, an accommodation for which with assistive technology is the subject of this complaint, has a major negative impact on his ability to communicate in writing. The delay associated with Mr. Redmond’s output disorder applies to both the periods before and after his work injury in 2021. While appreciating that Mr. Redmond demonstrated his ability to pursue an avenue of redress when assisted by an advocate in the WorkSafeBC setting, the evidence indicates for the period after his recovery from the 2021 work injury it took a considerable amount of time to obtain the assistance needed to pursue a complaint before the Tribunal. This accords with the fact that free advocacy resources are scarce in pursuing human rights complaints. As such, I find the public interest attracts in allowing his late filed complaint to proceed for reasons related to Mr. Redmond’s output disorder.
[33] In addition, for most of the period of delay in question in this case, I am satisfied that Mr. Redmond was disabled from filing a complaint for reasons related to his January 2021 work injury. While recognizing that he has not provided documentary medical evidence of a disability from filing a complaint, I am satisfied based on his own evidence that he was disabled from filing by a significant back injury that required a specialized surgery overseas. I have no reason to doubt Mr. Redmond’s evidence that his work injury disability left him unable to focus his efforts on finding someone to assist him with filing this complaint, let alone take the time he would need to file a complaint form on his own given the additional disability associated with his output disorder.
[34] 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 , 2012 BCHRT 74 at para. 22; Mathieu v. Victoria Shipyards and others , 2010 BCHRT 244 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.
[35] Mr. Redmond submits that hearing this case is in the public interest because the administration of the assistive technology program has implications for people with disabilities in the Province. He also claims his Indigenous heritage and history, and the work he does with Indigenous communities, was ignored during his attempt to secure the necessary assistive technology.
[36] The Company submits that Mr. Redmond’s complaint does not raise a novel issue on behalf of a vulnerable group. It argues that the Tribunal has dealt with a substantial number of cases touching on the issue raised in these proceedings.
[37] The Ministry agrees with the Company regarding this case not being significantly unique, novel or unusual. Further, while the Ministry acknowledges that Mr. Redmond is from a vulnerable group which has historically faced discrimination this does not mean that every issue faced by a member of this group becomes systemic discrimination.
[38] While I agree with the Respondents regarding a lack of novelty associated with the nature of this complaint, I have also considered more generally whether Mr. Redmond’s Indigeneity attracts the public interest in relation to his ability to bring forward his case. In PL v. BC Ministry of Children and Family Development and others , 2023 BCHRT 58, the Tribunal has recognized that it is in the public interest to ensure that people who face barriers have access to the Tribunal and the barriers faced by Indigenous people(s) accessing the Tribunal have been documented in Expanding our Vision .
[39] In this case, Mr. Redmond has not provided any specific submissions related to his Indigeneity acting as a barrier to filing in time. As noted above, his reasons mainly focus on his disabilities and an inability to find representation. He also appears to have been aware of the Tribunal process such that education about it was not a barrier to access. In the end, I do not conclude that Mr. Redmond’s Indigeneity, on its own, attracts the public interest in allowing the compliant to proceed late filed.
[40] After weighing all the factors, I have decided it is in the public interest to accept this late-filed complaint. While appreciating a significant delay in filing occurred and a lack of novelty in the Complaint, these factors are outweighed by the reasons for delay in filing associated with Mr. Redmond’s output disorder and work injury disabilities.
[41] It is now necessary to address the issue of whether any substantial prejudice would result.
C. Substantial Prejudice
[42] Mr. Redmond submits the Respondents have failed to demonstrate that the Complaint will result in substantial prejudice. He argues that while the Ministry argues prejudice, it has not provided any specific details of its concerns. In his view, the Complaint is more than a single conversation as suggested by the Ministry and there were no specific arguments about issues with witnesses’ recollection.
[43] The Ministry submits that given the length of the delay involved it will be difficult for witnesses to accurately recall any details. It does not appear that the Company provided any specific submissions on substantial prejudice.
[44] In my view, no substantial prejudice would result to the Respondents in this case because of the delay. The Respondents have not raised any significant prejudice concerns and the information on file suggests the existence of documentary evidence, as noted by Mr. Redmond’s freedom of information request. While appreciating that a good deal of time has passed since the events in question occurred, I am satisfied witnesses can be identified and called up to provide testimony without substantially prejudicing the Respondents. For the most part, I am satisfied that any concerns about fading memories can be addressed where the incidents in question appear to be documented by the parties. As such, I have determined Mr. Redmond has satisfied the burden of establishing both elements under s. 22(3) of the Code and I cannot conclude that the Respondents would suffer substantial prejudice.
IV Conclusion
[45] For these reasons, the complaint will proceed.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member