Ms. F v. Translink Security Management Ltd. (No.2), 2026 BCHRT 124
Date Issued: May 21, 2026
File: CS-002257
Indexed as: Ms. F v. Translink Security Management Ltd. (No.2), 2026 BCHRT 124
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:
Ms. F
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Translink Security Management Ltd.
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO INTERVENE
Section 22.1(2)
Tribunal Member: Devyn Cousineau
For the Complainant: No submissions
Counsel for the Respondent: Donald J Jordan, KC, Leah Singer and Aleksandra Živković
Counsel for West Coast LEAF: Humera Jabir, Afifa Hashimi, Cherlene Eloria, Kate Feeney, and Idaresit Thompson
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This complaint raises novel issues relating to an employer’s obligations under the Human Rights Code toward an employee who is experiencing, or has experienced, intimate partner violence. West Coast LEAF applies to intervene in the complaint under s. 22.1(2) of the Code. It says that it can assist the Tribunal to situate this complaint within the gendered social and legal context of intimate partner violence, and to consider how that context should inform the discrimination analysis and an employer’s duty to accommodate the impacts of intimate partner violence on employment. Ms. F supports the application, but did not make submissions. Translink Security Management LTD [TSML] opposes the intervention, on the bases that the intervention is unnecessary and would expand the scope of the complaint.
[2] For the reasons that follow, I grant the application. In doing so, I place limits on West Coast LEAF’s intervention to ensure that its participation does not unduly lengthen the hearing or take the litigation away from the parties.
II DECISION
[3] The background to the complaint is set out in the Tribunal’s decision denying TSML’s application to dismiss it: The Worker v. Translink Security Management Ltd., 2025 BCHRT 122 [Dismissal Decision]. In brief, Ms. F alleges that TSML discriminated against her in employment when it demoted her for failing to obtain her driver’s licence, despite knowing that she was participating in legal proceedings related to an abusive relationship and was experiencing mental and physical health challenges. She says this was discrimination based on her sex, gender identity, marital status, mental disability and physical disability, in violation of s. 13 of the Code.
[4] TSML denies discriminating. Among other things, it argues that “past experiences of domestic violence is not a protected ground” under the Code. It argues that Ms. F’s protected characteristics were not a factor in her failure to obtain a driver’s license within the employer’s timeline and so the consequences that flowed from that failure could not be discriminatory. Alternatively, it argues that the requirement for a driver’s license was a bona fide occupational requirement.
[5] West Coast LEAF is a non-profit society with a mandate to “use the law to create an equal and just society for all women and people who experience gender-based discrimination in BC and Canada”. It uses litigation, law reform, public legal education, and community outreach to achieve those objectives. Its areas of focus include the “intersections of gender-based violence, access to justice, and economic security”. It seeks to intervene in the complaint to make submissions about the “gendered social and legal context” of intimate partner violence and how that context should inform the discrimination analysis.
[6] This Tribunal has a broad discretion to allow a person or group to intervene in a complaint, and to specify the terms of that intervention: Hall v. BC (Ministry of Environment (No. 4), 2008 BCHRT 437 at para. 5. This discretion is conferred by 22.1(2) of the Code, which provides:
A member or panel may, at any time after the complaint is filed and on the terms specified by the member or panel, allow any person or group of persons to intervene in the complaint, whether or not that person or group would be affected by an order made by the member or panel under section 37.
[7] The Tribunal has recognized that intervenors may assist it in a number of ways, “including understanding the context in which a complaint arises, the perspectives of individuals and groups other than the parties to the complaint, the factual and legal issues raised by a complaint, and the impact the Tribunal’s decision may have on affected individuals and groups”: Hall at para. 6.
[8] In considering an application to intervene, the Tribunal will determine “how likely it is that the intervenor will make a useful contribution” to the resolution of the complaint: Hughson v. Town of Oliver, 2000 BCHRT 11 at para. 4. This is balanced against the risk of prejudice to any of the parties, and in particular the risk that the intervenor will “take the litigation away” from the parties: Hughson at para. 4. The participation of an intervenor should not unduly lengthen the Tribunal’s proceedings: Elmasry and Habib v. Roger’s Publishing and MacQueen, 2008 BCHRT 199 at para. 17.
[9] West Coast LEAF proposes to make submissions about:
a. The gendered social and legal context of intimate partner violence, including: its forms, prevalence and harms; its connection to gender; its intersectional impacts on multiple areas of life including employment; its connection to a social construct of disability; barriers to disclosure and the effects of legal proceedings; and relevant gendered myths and stereotypes.
b. How this context should inform the discrimination analysis and an employer’s duty to accommodate the impacts of intimate partner violence on employment.
[10] TSML opposes the application on several, overlapping, grounds. Here I group them into two broad categories, relating to West Coast LEAF’s perceived alignment with Ms. F and the impact of an intervention on the hearing.
[11] First, TSML argues that West Coast LEAF’s intervention is unnecessary, given that Ms. F is represented by counsel who can make the same submissions. It points to West Coast LEAF’s proposed submission about “the relevance of contextual considerations to (a) interpreting and applying s. 13 of the Code” and “(c) assessing whether an employer has provided reasonable accommodation adapted to the unique barriers, needs, and circumstances, of [intimate partner violence] survivors with intersectional identities”. TSML argues that these are arguments that could be made by the Complainant’s counsel and essentially advocate on the Complainant’s behalf. To the extent West Coast LEAF’s expertise may be relevant, TSML argues that Ms. F could call someone from the organization as an expert witness. TSML cites the Ontario Court of Appeal’s admonition that “submissions that are duplicative of the submissions of others are not useful, and can in fact imperil the fairness of the hearing”: Fair Voting BC v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 ONCA 619 at para. 13; see also Ishaq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FCA 151 at paras. 9-10.
[12] I agree that if the submissions of a proposed intervenor would simply duplicate the evidence or submissions of another party, it is not necessary or helpful to the process. However, in this case, I am satisfied that West Coast LEAF’s proposed intervention offers a distinct perspective that may assist the Tribunal.
[13] West Coast LEAF does not propose to make submissions about whether TSML discriminated against Ms. F; I agree with TSML that it would be improper for an intervenor to do so. Rather, its perspective is broader than the parties. Its proposed submissions relate to contextual, systemic, considerations that should inform the Tribunal’s legal analysis – not what facts the Tribunal should find in this case and how the law should apply to those facts.
[14] I appreciate that Ms. F is represented by counsel and could make some of the submissions that West Coast LEAF proposes to make. However, that is not a bar to an intervention. The Tribunal, and courts, frequently grant applications to intervene in circumstances where parties are represented by counsel: Campbell v. Vancouver Police Board, 2019 BCHRT 12; RR v. Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society (No. 4), 2020 BCHRT 22 [RR (No. 4)]. Similarly, it is not inappropriate for the interests of intervenors to align with one party over the other: Fair Voting at para. 14; Supreme Court of Canada Notice to Profession – Interventions (November 2021). That is not itself a bar, though a decision maker may need to consider whether a perceived imbalance in the litigation could imperil its fairness: Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area v. Canada (Employment, Workforce and Labour), 2022 FCA 67 at para. 15. In this case, granting a single intervenor leave to intervene will not create an imbalance or unfairness to TSML. TSML’s concerns about duplication can be dealt with in other ways, as discussed further below.
[15] West Coast LEAF has considerable experience intervening at all levels of court, as well as before this Tribunal, on matters related to equality and human rights law. It has a demonstrated and unique expertise in the social context of the complaint. It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court of Canada has granted it leave to intervene to make submissions about the social and legal context of intimate partner violence: Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22 and Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24. And in Single Mothers Alliance of BC v BC, West Coast LEAF represented the plaintiff at the BC Supreme Court, where it argued that BC’s legal aid scheme violated ss. 7, 15, and 28 of the Charter by not providing adequate legal aid representation to mothers requiring protection against family violence. In light of this expertise, I am satisfied its contribution may help inform the Tribunal’s legal analysis and interpretation of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint: Campbell at para. 18.
[16] Second, TSML argues that granting the application will take the litigation away from the parties. It argues that the complaint turns on questions of fact relating to Ms. F’s employment and that the issues that West Cost LEAF proposes to address are not in dispute. It argues thatthe proposed intervention “would take away from the parties the power to define the issues and would compel the parties to deal with issues raised solely by [the intervenor]”: Cook and Warren v. Ministry of Education, 2003 BCHRT 25at para. 18. It argues that granting the intervention will unduly lengthen the hearing.
[17] Respectfully, I am not persuaded by these submissions. I am only granting West Coast LEAF leave to make brief oral arguments at the opening of the hearing, and written submissions at the close of the hearing. This will not lengthen the hearing. I distinguish Cook, where the proposed intervenor sought to make submissions about the “causes, effects, consequences and ‘cures’ of homosexuality”, which the Tribunal found was “a long reach away from the scope of the Complaint”: para. 19. In this case, West Coast LEAF’s proposed submissions arise directly out of the issues identified by the Tribunal in its Dismissal Decision, and do not expand the complaint. Specifically, and contrary to TSML’s arguments, it appears that there is a dispute about whether or how experiences of intimate partner violence may relate to personal characteristics protected by s. 13 of the Code and how those experiences may manifest – and require accommodation – in employment: Dismissal Decision at para. 43 and paras. 72-83. West Coast LEAF proposes to bring a broader perspective to this issue than the one Ms. F will bring, which necessarily relates to her particular experience. I am satisfied may assist the Tribunal as it navigates this relatively novel issue.
[18] In my view, TSML’s concerns can be adequately addressed by placing limits on West Coast LEAF’s participation, similar to what the Tribunal has done in other cases: RR (No. 4) at para. 27; Klassen obo White Rock Pride Society v. Star of the Sea Parish (No. 2), 2021 BCHRT 18 at para. 28. Its participation should focus on legal submissions distinct from those of Ms. F, as set out in my order. It is the Tribunal’s expectation that West Coast LEAF ensure its submissions are not duplicative. It may only participate in procedural or case management decisions to the extent necessary to facilitate its participation.
III CONCLUSION
[19] I grant the application of West Coast LEAF to intervene in this complaint as follows:
a. The Tribunal will provide West Coast LEAF with a copy of the Complaint Form, Response Form, and any amendments. The parties must provide West Coast LEAF with a copy of any of their hearing-related material, including books of documents and legal arguments.
b. West Coast LEAF may make an oral opening statement at the hearing, of up to five minutes.
c. West Coast LEAF may file written submissions at close of the hearing, ensuring that it does not duplicate submissions of other parties. The Tribunal will set page limits, and a schedule for submissions, during the hearing or pre-hearing process.
d. If the parties seek to make oral closing submissions as well, then West Coast LEAF may make oral submissions within a time limit to be set by the Tribunal during the hearing.
e. West Coast LEAF may attend the Tribunal’s hearing readiness case conference to facilitate its participation in the proceeding.
f. West Coast LEAF does not have standing to take part in any other procedural matters without leave of the Tribunal.
Devyn Cousineau
Vice Chair