Van Steinburg v. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Corrections Branch), 2025 BCHRT 96
Date Issued: April 30, 2025
File(s): CS-006793
Indexed as: Van Steinburg v. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Corrections Branch), 2025 BCHRT 96
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:
Dallis Van Steinburg
COMPLAINANT
AND:
His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Corrections Branch
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(g)
Tribunal Member: Laila Said Alam
Counsel for the Complainant: Larry Smeets
Counsel for the Respondent: Amanda Merritt
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Ms. Van Steinburg alleges that the Respondent, His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Corrections Branch [ Ministry ], discriminated against her in the area of employment on the grounds of physical and mental disability, contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code . More specifically, Ms. Van Steinburg alleges the Ministry failed to accommodate her disabilities after she sustained a workplace injury and created an unsafe work environment for her continued employment.
[2] The Ministry denies discriminating. In its response, the Ministry says it participated in the accommodation process and sought to accommodate Ms. Van Steinburg at all material times, and did so to the point of undue hardship. The Ministry applies to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(g) of the Code . They submit that because the complaint was filed on September 14, 2021, any allegations that occurred prior to September 14, 2020, should be dismissed as they are beyond the time limit for filing and do not constitute a continuing contravention with a timely allegation.
[3] I must decide whether the allegations that occurred prior to September 14, 2020 amount to a continuing contravention. I then turn to whether I should exercise my discretion to allow the out-of-time allegations to proceed pursuant to s. 22(3) of the Code .
[4] For the following reasons, I dismiss the allegations prior to September 14, 2020. 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. I make no findings of fact on the merits of the complaint.
II BACKGROUND
[5] Ms. Van Steinburg began work as a Correctional Officer [ CO ] in British Columbia in 2008. She began working as a CO at Alouette Correctional Centre for Women in 2012. In 2016, she was promoted to Correctional Supervisor. The following incidents are as alleged by Ms. Van Steinburg in her complaint.
A. 2019 Assault
[6] On March 1, 2019, Ms. Van Steinburg participated in a training as part of her bid to be on the Emergency Response Team. The ERT is called when inmates pose a threat to anyone’s physical safety. The training was facilitated by existing ERT members as coaches, including KH, a CO who co-commanded the ERT. The training included physical exercises, equipment tutorials, administrative procedure review, and simulated scenarios.
[7] For the last scenario, KH played the role of the inmate. KH laid on her stomach on the floor of the cell, her hands underneath her. The objective of the exercise was to get her hands out from underneath her and cuff her. One colleague pinned down KH’s legs. Ms. Van Steinburg and another colleague pinned KH’s arms. Ms. Van Steinburg braced herself with her right hand on the floor. KH bit Ms. Van Steinburg’s hand, and Ms. Van Steinburg sustained injuries including nerve damage to her hand, PTSD, Adjustment Disorder with anxiety, and Major Depressive Disorder [the Assault ].
B. The Ministry’s Response to the Assault
[8] Ms. Van Steinburg was off work for a week after the bite. When Ms. Van Steinburg returned to work, she met with Acting Deputy Warden [ ADW ] SG. ADW SG was angry Ms. Van Steinburg had taken time off work and told her “Stop being a pussy. People get hurt all the time.” Ms. Van Steinburg told ADW SG that no one had been bitten by a worker before. ADW SG responded, “what do you want me to do?” Ms. Van Steinburg answered, “manage it.” ADW SG yelled, “get the fuck out of my office” and kicked her out of the meeting.
[9] Ms. Van Steinburg filed a WorkSafe BC claim and a grievance against her employer via her union in March and April 2019, respectively. She said her supervisors and management treated her negatively after she filed the grievance.
[10] In May 2019, KH was promoted to a Correctional Officer.
[11] On June 27, 2019, Ms. Van Steinburg met with ADW SG and the Deputy Warden of Operations. She describes the meeting as follows: ADW SG started the meeting with, “what’s your problem?” Ms. Van Steinburg said, “you understand I was assaulted and you weren’t supportive.” Ms. Van Steinburg says she was not allowed to call the bite an assault, and when she asked about the investigation, she was treated with disdain. The Deputy Warden “taunted” Ms. Van Steinburg by telling her she could go to the police if she wanted to. Ms. Van Steinburg asked them to interview the two colleagues that witnessed the Assault. The Deputy Warden and ADW SG said they would, however they never did, and turned away the two colleagues when they tried to independently report the Assault.
C. Leave from June 28, 2019 to April 30, 2020
[12] On June 28, 2019, Ms. Van Steinburg took leave under the Short-Term Illness and Injury Plan [ STIIP ], followed by being accepted onto Long-Term Disability benefits. She received physiotherapy for the nerve damage to her hand, and psychological treatment for PTSD. She had a psychological assessment on April 21, 2020, recommending a gradual return to work [ GRTW ].
D. May 2020 return to work
[13] The employer agreed to a gradual return to work commencing on May 4, 2020. Ms. Van Steinburg learned from an unnamed colleague that a CO named AP was spreading the rumour that many COs and members of management would be fired as soon as she returned to work. She raised the issue with her supervisor in a private meeting, and alleges that a week later, Acting Warden JK, berated, cursed, and yelled at her for raising her concerns about the rumours.
[14] Ms. Van Steinburg says the remainder of the GRTW passed without incident, and she was back to full-time work on June 1, 2020.
E. June 2020 comments by superiors
[15] She says, generally, since she returned to work, she had heard “little comments” from her superiors, particularly from ADW TM and Acting Warden JK. She says since the May 2020 meeting with Acting Warden JK, she was treated coldly and heard remarks suggesting she was making too big a deal about the Assault. She does not particularize who she heard these remarks from.
[16] In June 2020, a male Correctional Supervisor broke protocol. Ms. Van Steinburg reported this to KH, who agreed with Ms. Van Steinburg that the Correctional Supervisor’s conduct had been inappropriate. Ms. Van Steinburg says after reporting the incident, B, another acting ADW, told her that KH complained about Ms. Van Steinburg’s report, calling her a “f[ing] idiot” and saying “I don’t want to f[ing] deal with her!” ADW B said Acting Warden JK called Ms. Van Steinburg a “tattle-tale” who “had issues with men.”
[17] Ms. Van Steinburg alleges she had asked for training for ADW relief work throughout her career as a Correctional Supervisor but had been repeatedly denied the opportunity. She says Acting Warden JK most recently denied her training and a promotion in June 2020, after she reported the male Correctional Supervisor’s misconduct.
F. January 28, 2021 meeting with KS
[18] ADW TM held semi-regular roundtable discussions with Correctional Supervisors to discuss work matters without higher members of management present. At one such meeting on January 28, 2021, Ms. Van Steinburg raised her concern about how staff bring forward problems involving management. She said “I’ve brought such an issue forward on several occasions” alluding to her issues with KH. ADW TM asked whether she was afraid of KH, to which she replied, “I am afraid of her.” [emphasis as written] ADW TM said they would talk about it another time.
[19] The next day, ADW TM called Ms. Van Steinburg into his office. She told him she had become increasingly uncomfortable around KS, and felt panic by simply discussing her. He asked why she would be uncomfortable. Ms. Van Steinburg said it was because KS had been saying things about her, and she had concerns that KH would try to hurt her. She said KH targeted several staff members, and she identified at least 6 other staff members who had quit due to KH’s harassment. ADW TM suggested that Ms. Van Steinburg was exacerbating the situation by putting herself in a position where staff vent to her, and in turn this was causing her to feel “burn out”. She disagreed with him that her discomfort with KH was due to burn out.
[20] ADW TM suggested that she meet with KH. She told him she was very uncomfortable with the idea. She said that KH was a loose cannon, and she feared for her safety. He suggested having a mediator present to make her feel more comfortable, but she disagreed that a mediator would mitigate her discomfort. He said he would give it more consideration and get back to her. That afternoon, ADW F told her that KH wanted to meet with her. Ms. Van Steinburg told ADW F that she was unprepared for the meeting. She says she attended the meeting anyway, and ADW F attended the meeting as the mediator.
[21] The meeting lasted 45 minutes. KH opened the meeting by saying she had heard that Ms. Van Steinburg was not happy with her. Ms. Van Steinburg explained her concerns about KH’s aggressiveness and disrespect with staff. KH asked if it had to do with the Assault, which she thought was an issue that was “dead and gone.” Ms. Van Steinburg submits that what she wanted to discuss that day and the Assault “were two separate issues: her biting me was never ‘dead and gone’ as no one had ever apologized” and told KH as such. She also told her, “I’m talking to you about staff issues that are credible” and asked her not to deflect. She says after this, they discussed the need for trust in corrections work, with KH saying she needed Ms. Van Steinburg to be 100% loyal to her. Ms. Van Steinburg told KH that anytime she needed her support, she would continue to do her best to ensure no one goes home hurt. She says KH asked her to come to her first if any issues arose in the future. Ms. Van Steinburg told KH that if she felt comfortable doing so, she would.
[22] Ms. Van Steinburg says the meeting left her “emotionally frayed” and she did not sleep that night. At 3 a.m. on January 31, 2021, she called in sick for work. Later that morning, she called WorkSafe BC to tell them she did not feel comfortable returning to work. The WorkSafe BC case manager returned her call on February 2, 2021 and told her that her claim was closed and she would have to file a new claim. She spoke to another ADW, RD, and told him she was having issues with her PTSD and anxiety, and would file a WorkSafe BC claim, and needed time off work.
[23] On February 2, 2021, Ms. Van Steinburg filed a new WorkSafe BC claim. She says when the Case Manager interviewed her on February 3, 2021, she told her that the injuries from the original claim (the Assault and resulting psychological injury) were completely resolved, and that the symptoms of PTSD she was suffering after the meeting with [KH] could not form any basis for a claim as she had no permanent or temporary disability.
G. The Ministry’s Response after Ms. Van Steinburg’s January 28, 2021 meeting with KS
[24] On February 17, 2021, Ms. Van Steinburg had an appointment with her doctor. The doctor gave Ms. Van Steinburg a note saying she needed a couple of weeks off due to symptoms of PTSD. Management requested additional information on a Doctor’s Certificate for STIIP. Ms. Van Steinburg’s doctor filled it out, writing as a permanent limitation, “She cannot be in the same room as the person who bit her” because of PTSD, panic attacks, anxiety, and depression.
[25] Ms. Van Steinburg alleges the Ministry’s occupational health nurse called her on April 13, 2021, and was dismissive and rude, indicating that the bite was not a major issue and asking Ms. Van Steinburg, “what do you expect us to do with you?” On April 22, 2021, the nurse called to say that the STIIP was denied because they did not find that she had a medical issue, and that the Ministry was creating a return to work plan.
[26] On April 23, 2021, ADW RD told her that she was not approved to return to work, and because the STIIP was not approved, she would not receive any pay. ADW said that because the doctor limited her from working with KH, she’d have to remain off work without pay. Her union representative said she could file a grievance, but felt that the doctor dictating staffing to management was inappropriate.
[27] On April 26, 2021, Ms. Van Steinburg was informed that her STIIP was temporarily approved while her employer revisited her PTSD claim. The union’s position was that she needed to remove the limitation of working with KH because the union does not deal with member-to-member grievances. The union suggested that she file a human rights complaint, or an internal complaint to the Warden.
[28] On May 3, 2021, the Ministry asked for further information in order to accommodate her. It gave her a customized questionnaire for her doctor to complete regarding her inability to work with KH. The questionnaire contained a background section, which she alleges had untrue and prejudicial statements.
[29] On July 6, 2021, ADW RD told her they would accommodate her by changing her schedule to nights and weekends. The Ministry also requested that she agree to conflict mediation. She told him that the arrangement was not suitable. The next day, he sent her a letter and gave her only one day to respond to a return to work plan that would begin on July 10, 2021. She asked for more time to discuss the matter with the psychologist, and the return to work date was extended to July 17, 2021. ADW RD told her that she had the right to refuse mediation, but he would have to speak with the disability case specialist to come up with another option.
[30] Ms. Van Steinburg refused mediation but accepted a transfer to a new facility. The return to work plan would start on July 17, 2021, with three weekends working at Alouette, followed by a transfer to another facility with a significant commute. The day before she was to return to work, ADM RD told Ms. Van Steinburg a “third party” involved themselves, and the return to work plan could not proceed before the Wardens discussed the transfers. ADM RD said it would take a long time, and as Ms. Van Steinburg’s STIIP was ending on July 29, 2021, she would need to apply for long term disability.
[31] On August 13, 2021, Ms. Van Steinburg resigned from Alouette.
III DECISION
A. Section 27(1)(g)
[32] There is a one-year time limit for filing a human rights complaint: Code, s. 22. Section 22 is meant 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.
[33] Section 27(1)(g) permits the Tribunal to dismiss a late-filed complaint. The Ministry argues that the allegations before September 14, 2020, are late-filed and should be dismissed. The Ministry further argues that the late-filed allegations do not allege a continuing contravention.
[34] The Ministry submits that the only timely allegation is Ms. Van Steinburg’s allegation that she was not accommodated after meeting with KS on January 28, 2021. I agree that this allegation is timely. For the purpose of this analysis, the nature of the timely allegations relates to Ms. Van Steinburg’s allegation that her colleague precipitated a mental disability and the Ministry failed to accommodate her.
[35] Accordingly, the first issue I need to decide is whether the allegations from March 2019 to June 2020 (beginning with the Assault and ending with comments by her supervisors) amount to a continuing contravention of the Code . For the reasons that follow, I find that these allegations are not part of a continuing contravention.
1. Continuing Contravention
[36] A complaint is filed in time if the last allegation of discrimination happened within one year of filing, 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 57 at para. 23 ; School District at para. 50 .
[37] 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 .
[38] Ms. Van Steinburg acknowledges that the initial Assault was an act that had continuing effects by way of mental and physical injury to her; this would not constitute a continuing contravention: Dove v. Dove v. GVRD and others (No. 3) , 2006 BCHRT 374 at para 19-20. However, she says that the acts following the Assault created a toxic work environment. In support of her argument, she says she was discriminated and harassed by management and coworkers, and passed over for training and promotion. She points to the derogatory language used by her superiors, her supervisors’ unwillingness to correct ill-treatment by her coworkers, and her superiors’ unwillingness to accommodate her. She says these are not contraventions that are dissimilar in character, but evidence of “a poisoned work environment as a result of recurring…harassment.”
[39] Ms. Van Steinburg’s allegations of repeated harassment and the denial of career advancement opportunities must be sufficiently similar in character and occur with sufficient frequency to establish a continuing contravention: Dove at para. 17. The discreet allegations Ms. Van Steinburg particularizes are her superiors’ statements in May 2020 (about workforce reduction rumours) and in June 2020 (in response to her reporting a male Correction Supervisor’s misconduct), and being passed up for training and a promotion in June 2020. The nature of the timely allegations concern her allegation that her colleague precipitated a mental disability and the Ministry failed to accommodate her. Ms. Van Steinburg has not demonstrated that the discreet acts she alleges are sufficiently related in character to the timely allegation. I do not find the late-filed allegations of harassment and the denial of career advancement opportunities sufficiently related in character to the timely allegations to support a finding of a continuing contravention.
[40] Additionally, notwithstanding Ms. Van Steinberg’s explanation that she was on disability leave from June 2019 to May 2020 and January 2021 onwards, she has not explained the significant amount of time between the May and June 2020 allegations and the January 2021 incident. She has also not explained the large gap between being passed over for a promotion, which she says last occurred in June 2020, and the timely allegations beginning January 28, 2021. These unexplained, large gaps of time weigh against finding a continuing contravention. As such, the allegations surrounding the May 2020 and June 2020 statements, and being passed up on promotions are not part of a continuing contravention.
[41] Though I have found Ms. Van Steinberg’s allegations pre-dating January 28, 2021, to be untimely, the analysis does not stop there. Below I turn to whether I should exercise my discretion to allow the out-of-time allegations to proceed pursuant to s. 22(3) of the Code .
2. Is it in the public interest to exercise my discretion to accept the untimely allegations?
[42] The burden is on the complainant to persuade the Tribunal to accept the complaint about the May 2020 comments, June 2020 comments, and denial of a promotion. I must consider two things: public interest and substantial prejudice.
[43] The Tribunal assesses the public interest in a late-filed complaint in light of the purposes of the Code . These include identifying and eliminating persistent patterns of inequality, and providing a remedy for persons who are discriminated against: s. 3. It may consider factors like the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the complainant’s interest in accessing the Tribunal, the respondent’s interest in being able to continue its activities without worrying about stale complaints, whether the complainant got legal advice, 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 and 63; Hoang v. Warnaco and Johns , 2007 BCHRT 24; Complainant v. The Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria) , 2022 BCHRT 44 at para. 18. These are important factors, but they are not necessarily determinative and not every factor will be relevant in every case: Goddard v. Dixon , 2012 BCSC 161 at para. 152 ; Mzite at para. 55 . The inquiry is always fact and context specific.
[44] Ms. Van Steinburg explains the length of the delay because she did not understand she was being discriminated against until the Ministry reneged on the transfer during the accommodation process. She says the culmination of the discrimination she experienced dating back to the Assault in March 2019 “crystallized only recently, in Spring of [2021].” She says it was then, when the Ministry reneged on a promised transfer, that she “believe[d] the discrimination reached a critical point;” she was “forced [to] resign, as she could no longer believe in the [Ministry’s] willingness to meet their duty to accommodate” her. Ms. Van Steinburg does not explain why her complaint could not have crystallized shortly after the Assault when, on June 27, 2019 she was allegedly dismissed and berated at a meeting with her superiors for allegedly asking about the status of the investigation, or when she returned to work and discovered that the Ministry allegedly condoned the Assault and refused to punish its perpetrator.
[45] I also consider that Ms. Van Steinburg was able to pursue various grievance processes through her union and WorkSafe BC, and that on or around April 26, 2021, her union representative suggested she may want to pursue a human rights complaint. I note that if she had done so, then the May 2020 and June 2020 allegations would have been timely. This weighs against finding that Ms. Van Steinburg faced any persistent pattern of inequality that would allow her to pursue a remedy to her complaint of discrimination in a timely manner.
[46] Lastly, I am not convinced by Ms. Van Steinburg’s position that this complaint is unique, novel, or unusual. She asks the Tribunal to view the complaint in the context of an all-women facility where the disability was caused by a co-worker. Of course, each complaint is going to be factually unique. However, I am not convinced that this factual matrix makes it novel. The Tribunal frequently hears cases where the factual matrix involves a disability arising from a workplace injury: Richards v. 7-Eleven (No. 2) , 2018 BCHRT 255; Gill v. B.C. (Ministry of Justice) and others (No. 2) , 2016 BCHRT 208 [ Gill (No. 2) ]. Perhaps even more frequently, the Tribunal hears cases involving employers’ failure to accommodate a disability, regardless of how it arose: McNeil v. Telus Employer Solutions (TES) (No. 2) , 2024 BCHRT 166; Klewchuk v. City of Burnaby (No. 6) , 2022 BCHRT 29; Gill (No. 2) . The Ministry’s alleged failure to accommodate is the allegation that is proceeding. Therefore, I cannot agree that this complaint raises unique issues that militate towards allowing it to proceed.
[47] I am not persuaded that the untimely allegations attract the public interest in allowing the allegations to proceed. Given this finding, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there is substantial prejudice due to the delay under s. 22(3) of the Code .
IV CONCLUSION
[48] I dismiss the allegations in the complaint that occurred prior to September 14, 2020, pursuant to s. 27(1)(g) of the Code . The complaint will proceed as it relates to the allegations related to the January 28, 2021 meeting and the Ministry’s duty to accommodate her disability.
Laila Said Alam
Tribunal Member