Lawrence v. City of Nelson, 2026 BCHRT 102
Date Issued: April 15, 2026
File(s): CS-009368
Indexed as: Lawrence v. City of Nelson, 2026 BCHRT 102
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:
Jamie Lawrence
COMPLAINANT
AND:
City of Nelson
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
SECTION 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On his own behalf: Jamie Lawrence
Counsel for City of Nelson: Andrea Zwack
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] On April 18, 2023, Jamie Lawrence filed a complaint of discrimination in employment based on mental disability pursuant to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code [Code], against his former employer, City of Nelson [the City].
[2] The issue before me is whether to accept the Complaint against the City. I make no findings of fact regarding the merits of this complaint.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I find that the Complaint against the City is not a continuing contravention of the Code: s. 22(2), and it is not in the public interest to allow it to proceed late filed: s. 22(3).
II. BACKGROUND
[4] In October 2015, Mr. Lawrence started his powerline technician position with the City.
[5] In the months that followed, Mr. Lawrence alleges that his co-workers were engaged in unsafe work practices.
[6] By the spring of 2017, Mr. Lawrence had filed bullying and harassment complaints against some of his co-workers, and some of his co-workers had filed complaints against him.
[7] I now recount Mr. Lawrence’s WorkSafeBC [WSBC] related legal actions in some detail below as he alleges that his involvement with City in these matters involves ongoing allegations of discrimination relevant to whether his complaint is late filed with the Tribunal.
[8] In April 2017, Mr. Lawrence alleges going off work on paid leave while being engaged in WSBC crisis counselling.
[9] On April 24, 2027, Mr. Lawrence filed a prohibitive action complaint against the City with WSBC.
[10] Around this time, Mr. Lawrence also filed a mental disorder claim with WSBC.
[11] On May 19, 2017, Mr. Lawrence alleges the City terminated his employment in error after concluding he had abandoned his position. Mr. Lawrence alleges the City failed to accommodate his mental disabilities by denying him stress leave. He further alleges that the City sought to suppress his bullying and harassment claims by terminating his employment to avoid investigating. Mr. Lawrence alleges the City fabricated a list of allegations of professional misconduct and safety violations against him to shift the focus on his conduct rather than the City’s conduct.
[12] In June 2017, WSBC denied Mr. Lawrence’s mental disorder claim. That decision was upheld in a December 2017 WSBC Review Division decision.
[13] In March 2018, WSBC decided the City’s dismissal of Mr. Lawrence was a prohibited action.
[14] In March 2019, Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal [WCAT] denied Mr. Lawrence’s appeal the December 2017 Review Division negative mental disorder claim.
[15] In August and November 2019, WSBC issued prohibited action remedies decisions.
[16] The parties appealed the various WorkSafeBC prohibited action decisions WCAT.
[17] In a July 2020 decision, WCAT denied the City’s appeal of the March 2018 prohibited action decision on the merits.
[18] In a June 2021 decision, WCAT granted an overall award for lost wages to Mr. Lawrence but denied him reinstatement to his former position.
[19] In April 2022, WCAT denied Mr. Lawrence’s application for a reconsideration of its March 2019 decision upholding the prior WSBC decision denying his mental disorder claim.
[20] In September 2023, the BC Supreme Court dismissed Mr. Lawrence’s judicial review of the April 2022 WCAT decision.
[21] Overall, Mr. Lawrence alleges the City engaged in ongoing malicious litigation to suppress his bullying and harassment complaints.
III. ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[22] 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 and Continuing Contravention
[23] The Complaint was filed on April 18, 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 April 18, 2022.
[24] 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 District at para. 50.
[25] From my review of the complaint information, Mr. Lawrence has established allegations of discrimination in the area of employment based on his mental disability for events that occurred in the spring of 2017. At that time, he alleges that the City terminated his employment for reasons related to not accommodating his mental with the appropriate stress leave.
[26] Having found arguable contraventions of the Code related to the 2017 termination events, it is necessary to consider whether Mr. Lawrence’s ongoing interactions with the City related to WSBC legal proceedings contain any separate arguable contraventions of the Code. He believes that the City’s failure to properly investigate his bullying and harassment complaints was perpetuated by a multitude legal proceedings where he was unable to effectively represent himself. In his view, the investigation avoidance through litigation is ongoing discrimination which makes his complaint timely. Mr. Lawrence similarly believes the City’s various appeals were malicious, as indicated by the nature of its submissions and evidence, which also forms part of this ongoing discrimination. Further, Mr. Lawrence argues that the way he was treated in legal matters associated with his ability to contact his children in provincial court matters can also be traced to the City’s mistreatment of him such that these events form part of the alleged ongoing discrimination. He further argues that the City’s threats to sue him for defaming its employees, are all part of the ongoing discrimination. Finally, Mr. Lawrence provides a significant amount of evidence concerning the negative effects many years of litigation has had on him.
[27] The City argues its participation in various legal proceedings associated with Mr. Lawrence’s WSBC matters is not discrimination under the Code. The City submits that a party to a legal matter is entitled to respond to legal claims made against it without inviting allegations of discrimination. The City further argues that its correspondence with Mr. Lawrence to advise him to cease and desist from defaming and harassing City employees are not allegations arguable under the Code as there is no connection between his mental disabilities and the correspondence sent to him.
[28] After reviewing the parties submissions and evidence I conclude that Mr. Lawrence’s further interactions with the City after he left his job in 2017 do not contain any allegations of discrimination capable of tethering the job loss allegations earlier in 2017. As such, there are no ongoing timely allegations that could arguably contravene the Code necessary to form a continuing contravention of the Code. While recognizing that an extensive litigation process occurred after Mr. Lawrence left his job at the City in 2017, which was obviously very hard on him as the City defended its actions, such is often the case in our adversarial system of justice. In my view, the entirety of the ongoing interactions between the parties after the first half of 2017 are the continuing effects or consequences the City’s decision to terminate Mr. Lawrence in early 2017.
[29] Apart from distinguishing the post termination allegations as continuing effects or consequences incapable of forming arguable contravention of the Code, a review of their nature fails to indicate that they contain the necessary elements of arguable contraventions of the Code. For an allegation to arguably be discrimination under the Code, Mr. Lawrence must show, if proven, that he has a personal characteristic (mental disability), experienced an adverse impact with respect to employment with the City, and that his mental disability was a factor in the alleged adverse impact for the allegation: Moore v. British Columbia (Education) [Moore], 2012 SCC 61 at para 33.
[30] Mr. Lawrence has a mental disability, and his complaint alleges various harms related to his employment with the City. These harms might possibly extend to the period after Mr. Lawrence with terminated in circumstances where he alleges numerous instances of mistreatment by the City while engaged in multiple WSBC proceedings. As such, it appears that Mr. Lawrence has satisfied the first two elements of Moore. However, Mr. Lawrence has not provided any evidence connecting the way the City treated him after he was terminated to his mental disability apart from assertions that the conduct was discriminatory. While I have no doubt that Mr. Lawrence negatively experienced many of the events that occurred in the years after his termination, mostly related to participating in legal proceedings, there is nothing to indicate the harms alleged in any of them are related his mental disabilities.
[31] In reaching this conclusion, I acknowledge Mr. Lawrence’s view that the City’s vigorous pursuit of its rights in various legal proceedings included flawed prior decisions, fabricated evidence, character attacks, harms to his reputation, and violations of procedural fairness. However, as much as Mr. Lawrence feels that all these negative experiences contain the necessary elements of a human rights complaint, in my view they all lack the necessary connection between the harms alleged and his mental disability to be arguable contraventions of the Code.
[32] Having concluded the Complaint does not contain any continuing contravention of the Code and was late filed for events in early 2017, it is necessary to determine whether it is in the public interest to accept the late-filed complaint against the Respondents and whether there would be any substantial prejudice.
B. Public Interest
[33] 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.
[34] I have first considered the length of delay in filing. The delay associated with Mr. Lawrence’s termination by the City in early 2017 is approximately five 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.
[35] Apart from asserting his complaint is timely because the allegations are ongoing, Mr. Lawrence did not provide any significant reasons for his delay.
[36] I agree with the City that Mr. Lawrence’s conduct in filing and participating in multiple legal processes, as noted above in the background section of this decision, indicates there was no medical or other impediment to his filing a timely complaint with the Tribunal.
[37] 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.
[38] Mr. Lawrence is seeking justice for all the negative consequences flowing from the City’s decision to fire him as opposed to accommodating his mental disability. I have no doubt he continues to suffer from significant mental disability related to his experience of being terminated and navigating multiple legal proceedings associated with his WSBC discriminatory action and mental disorder claim. While acknowledging Mr. Lawrence’s need for justice and the long-term mental disability he faces, I am not satisfied that his complaint raises a novel issue that should be heard by the Tribunal to advance the purposes of the Code. Complaints involving mental disability in employment are common and the jurisprudence is fairly settled.
[39] 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
[40] For these reasons, the complaint against the City will not proceed.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member