Alulaimi v. Buns Master Bakery and another, 2026 BCHRT 153
Date Issued: July 15, 2026
File(s): CS-010571
Indexed as: Alulaimi v. Buns Master Bakery and another, 2026 BCHRT 153
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:
Mamoun Alulaimi
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Buns Master Bakery and Bal Immigration Services
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
Section 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On their own behalf: Mamoun Alulaimi
Counsel for Bal Immigration Services: Harry Virk
No submissions: Buns Master Bakery
I INTRODUCTION
[1] The Complainant, Mamoun Alulaimi, filed this human rights complaint on October 2, 2023. He alleges his employer, Buns Master Bakery [the Bakery] and an immigration consulting firm, Bal Immigration Services [BIS] [together the Respondents] discriminated in employment based on family status contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code [Code].
[2] The Tribunal identified that some or all of the allegations in the complaint appear to fall outside the one-year time limit for filing a complaint. The Tribunal invited the parties to make submissions about whether to accept the complaint under s. 22 of the Human Rights Code. The Complainant and BIS provided submissions, and I considered them in making this decision. The Bakery did not provide any submissions despite being provided the opportunity to do so.
[3] Mr. Alulaimi acknowledges the complaint against both Respondents is late filed for all his allegations. In September and November 2020, Mr. Alulaimi alleges the Respondents held back his application to sponsor his family’s move to Canada until he paid the Bakery a large sum of money, which appears to have been associated with the cost of setting up his visa to work in Canada. As such, the only issue I must decide is whether to exercise my discretion to accept the complaint because it is in the public interest to do so, and no substantial prejudice will result to any person because of the delay: s. 22(3).
[4] For the following reasons, I do not accept the late-filed complaint because I am not persuaded that it is in the public interest to do so. The complaint will not proceed.
II DECISION
[5] There is a one-year time limit for filing a human rights complaint: Code, s. 22. Allegations are timely if they occurred within one year of filing the complaint, or if they form part of a timely continuing contravention of the Code: s. 22(1) and (2). The time limit set out in s. 22 of the Code is a substantive provision that is intended to ensure that complainants pursue their human rights remedies diligently: British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite, 2014 BCCA 220 at para. 59. Its purposes are “to require allegations of discrimination to be brought forward in a timely way so that remedial steps can be taken if appropriate” and to protect respondents from having to address dated complaints: School District v. Parent obo the Child, 2018 BCCA 136 at para. 79; Kamloops (City) v Spina, 2021 BCSC 723 at para. 80. The Tribunal has discretion to accept untimely allegations of discrimination if 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).
[6] Mr. Alulaimi filed this complaint on October 3, 2023. Any allegations of discrimination after before October 3, 2022, will be untimely unless they are part of a continuing contravention.
A. Allegation of discrimination within one year of complaint
[7] The first issue I must decide is whether the complaint sets out any allegations of discrimination within the one year before the complaint was filed. An allegation of discrimination must set out facts that could, if proven, establish that the complainant had characteristics protected by the Code, experienced an adverse impact in a protected area, and the protected characteristics were a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. BC (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33; Chen v. Surrey (City), 2015 BCCA 57 at para. 32; School District at para. 68. This is often referred to as an “arguable contravention” of the Code.
[8] As noted above, Mr. Alulaimi acknowledges that his complaint was late filed for all the allegations. As such, the issue I must decide is whether to accept the late-filed complaint under s. 22(3) of the Code.
B. Discretion to accept late filed complaint
[9] The Tribunal has discretion to accept a late-filed complaint where it is in the public interest to do so and there is no substantial prejudice to any person because of the delay: Code, s. 22(3). The burden is on Mr. Alulaimi to persuade the Tribunal to accept the complaint.
1. Public interest
[10] I begin with the public interest. This factor is assessed in light of the purposes of the Code, which include identifying and eliminating persistent patterns of inequality, and providing a means of redress for persons who are discriminated against: s. 3. The Tribunal may consider factors including the length and reason for the delay in filing, and the public interest in the complaint itself: British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite, 2014 BCCA 220 at paras. 53-81. 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.
[11] In this case, the delay in filing is almost two years for the September and November 2020 allegations. Multiple years is an excessive delay, which weighs strongly against the public interest: Mzite at para. 59.
[12] Before leaving this question, I considered whether Mr. Alulaimi has established any earlier allegations capable of proceeding such that his delay might actually be shorter. Mr. Alulaimi’s complaint form indicates the most recent conduct dates were December 16, 2021, for the Bakery and April 1, 2022, for BIS.
[13] Concerning the December 16, 2021, date, I was not able to find any reference to conduct occurring on this date. As such, there are no allegations capable of proceeding on December 16, 2021.
[14] Concerning the April 1, 2022, date, this appears to be when Mr. Alulaimi learned his family reunification visa applications were rejected by Canada’s immigration department. While acknowledging the significance of this event, I do not see how BIS’s failure to secure visas for Mr. Alulaimi’s family to come to Canada is an allegation of discrimination in employment based on family status that is capable of proceeding. Mr. Alulaimi states the family sponsorship application was rejected because his family members did not apply from their country of origin. While he may be arguing this result reflects poor service on the part of BIS for letting the applications fail because the family had to apply from their country of origin, Mr. Alulaimi has not stated how the negative decision is related to his family status. While Mr. Alulaimi accuses BIS of withholding his family sponsorship applications, he has not stated they deliberately sabotaged, or otherwise prevented them from being accepted, for reasons related to his family status. Even if I am wrong about this allegation not being capable of proceeding, Mr. Alulaimi’s complaint against BIS would still be six months late, which is significant and other factors must be found to militate in favour of acceptance; Robertson v. ContainerWest Manufacturing, 2015 BCHRT 173, at para 27 and Ferrier v. BCAA, 2009 BCHRT 412, at para. 28. A delay of approximately six months weighs against accepting the complaint for filing: Paneswar v. Future Shop and others, 2012 BCHRT 297, at para 27.
[15] I turn next to Mr. Alulaimi’s reasons for the delay. He straightforwardly admits not knowing where to file a complaint as a newcomer to Canada was the reason for his delay. Mr. Alulaimi alleges receiving advice from Service Canada to file a complaint with BC’s Employment Standards Branch [ESB], which he thought would handle all of the issues related to his problems with the Bakery and BIS. He submits, however, that he recently learned through discussions with MOSAIC, an organization that provides advocacy services to immigrants, that the ESB does not have jurisdiction over human rights issues and it was, therefore, necessary to make a separate complaint to the Tribunal. Mr. Alulaimi states he is grateful to MOSAIC for providing guidance to him as to where his various complaints about the Respondents should be reported.
[16] BIS argues Mr. Alulaimi received advice from lawyers at MOSAIC since the start of his troubles with the Respondents. They note that MOSAIC was involved in Mr. Alulaimi’s ESB complaint filed on January 6, 2022. As such, BIS appears to question why MOSAIC was not able to similarly assist him in filing a timely complaint with the Tribunal. BIS further notes that Mr. Alulaimi was able to file a complaint about them with the College of Citizenship Immigration Consultants of Canada [CICC] on March 12, 2024. Finally, BIS notes Mr. Alulaimi was capable of retaining a lawyer with the intention of filing a civil claim against them as of mid April 2024.
[17] Ignorance of the Code, or the time required to become aware of one’s rights, is generally not an acceptable reason, on its own, for the delay in filing: Rashead v. Vereschagin (No. 2), 2006 BCHRT 74 at para. 12; Ferrier v. BCAA, 2009 BCHRT 412at para. 31. In this case, Mr. Alulaimi has not provided any evidence that would take this case out of the general rule that ignorance of the Code is not an acceptable reason for a delay in filing. In making this determination I appreciate the Mr. Alulaimi is a new arrival in Canada, however, the evidence on file indicates he was quite capable in accessing various advocacy services that could lead him to the Tribunal in order to address his human rights issues in a timely manner. In this case, Mr. Alulaimi demonstrated that he could start complaints with ESB and CICC after receiving some input from advocates. He also showed that he had the ability to hire a lawyer to consider a civil action against BIS. As such, I am not convinced that Mr. Alulaimi’s ignorance of the Code attracts any significant public interest in allowing his late filed complaint to proceed.
[18] Finally, I consider the public interest in the complaint itself. Where a complaint raises a unique or novel issue, it may further the Code’s purposes for the Tribunal to allow it to proceed: Mzite at paras. 65-66. The Tribunal may consider, for example, whether the complaint raises issues that have already been addressed in its jurisprudence, and/or whether the complaint seeks to advance a systemic or understudied issue on behalf of a vulnerable group: Mzite at paras. 66-67.
[19] Mr. Alulaimi is seeking justice for alleged wrongs by the Respondents. Additionally, wants his complaint to advance as a precedent to help others avoid a similar experience with the Bakery and BIS.
[20] While appreciating Mr. Alulaimi’s vulnerabilities as a foreign worker trying to sponsor his family to reunite with him in Canada, I do not find this case is unique for the purposes of attracting the public interest in allowing the complaint to proceed late. The case involves allegations of discrimination in employment based on family status, which has been heard by the Tribunal in previous cases and the law in this area is fairly settled.
[21] I am not persuaded it is in the public interest to accept this late-filed complaint. It is therefore unnecessary for me to consider whether accepting the complaint would cause substantial prejudice. The complaint is not accepted for filing.
III CONCLUSION
[22] The complaint is not accepted. The file is now closed.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member