Allison v. Krazy Cherry Fruit Company and others, 2026 BCHRT 182
Date Issued: August 13, 2026
File: CS-008456
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:
Tishanna Tashna Allison
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Krazy Cherry Fruit Company and Gary Bahniwal and Harman Bahniwal
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member: Devyn Cousineau
On their own behalf: Tishanna Tashna Allison
For the respondents: No one appearing
Date of Hearing: August 5, 2026
Location of Hearing: Via Videoconference
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Tishanna Allison is from Jamaica. In the summer of 2022, she was in BC as a temporary foreign worker, picking cherries for Krazy Cherry Fruit Company. Krazy Cherry is owned by Gary Bahniwal. Harman Bahniwal is Gary’s son and involved in the management of the company. For ease of reference, I refer to these two individual respondents by their first names in this decision. By doing so, I mean no disrespect.
[2] During Ms. Allison’s employment, Gary made disparaging comments about workers from Jamaica, calling them ugly and saying they did not want to work. In July 2022, Ms. Allison injured her back at work. Gary was angry that she could not work and accused her of coming to Canada for free medical treatment. Against her wishes, he ended her employment contract and bought her a ticket back to Jamaica.
[3] In this human rights complaint, Ms. Allison alleges that the Respondents discriminated against her in her employment based on her place of origin and physical disability, in violation of s. 13 of the Human Rights Code.
[4] The Respondents have had notice of the complaint and the hearing. They did not file a response or participate in the Tribunal’s process. As a result, Ms. Allison was the only witness in this hearing, and her evidence was uncontested.
[5] For the reasons that follow, I find that Krazy Cherry and Gary Bahniwal discriminated against Ms. Allison in her employment, based on her place of origin and physical disability. I make orders against them, including to compensate Ms. Allison for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self-respect. I dismiss the complaint against Harman Bahniwal.
II PRELIMINARY ISSUE: NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENTS
[6] I am satisfied that the Respondents had notice of the complaint and the hearing.
[7] The Tribunal gave the Respondents notice of this complaint on July 23, 2024. By email dated September 15, 2024, Harman confirmed that they had received the notice. In the months following, the Tribunal’s case manager spoke to Harman on the phone and sent information about how to file a response to the complaint: email dated September 16, 2024. After several communications about a possible extension to file the response, the Respondents did not file a response. Harman told the case manager that he understood the case had been dismissed after the mediation was cancelled. The case manager confirmed that the case had not been dismissed and sent information about how to file a late response: emails dated March 31, 2025, April 3 and 4, 2025 (following a telephone call on April 1), and May 9, 2025 (following attempts by the case manager to contact the Respondents by phone on April 8 and 9). The Respondents did not file a late response or otherwise participate in the process. The case manager again tried to reach the Respondents when the hearing was being scheduled, with no response.
[8] On April 2, 2026, the Tribunal copied the Respondents on the Notice of Hearing, advising that the complaint would be heard by videoconference on August 5, 2026. On July 30, 2026, the Tribunal sent the Respondents the login information for the hearing by email. The Respondents did not respond and did not attend the hearing.
[9] The Respondents were warned that the consequences of not participating in this process were that the Tribunal would make a decision without their input and may make orders against them: Notice of Complaint Proceeding dated July 23, 2024, and emails dated March 31, April 4, and May 9, 2025. That is what has happened here.
III DECISION
[10] The burden is on Ms. Allison to prove that she was adversely impacted in her employment with Krazy Cherry, and her physical disability and/or place of origin was a factor in that adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.
[11] Ms. Allison gave oral evidence and submitted documents from her WorkSafeBC claim. Because the Respondents did not participate, her evidence was unchallenged. I noted some discrepancies between Ms. Allison’s oral testimony and the allegations she presented in her complaint form. However, the discrepancies were minor and related primarily to the timing of certain events. It is understandable that Ms. Allison’s recollection about the timing of events from four years ago is imperfect. I did not find these discrepancies undermined Ms. Allison’s credibility. I am satisfied that Ms. Allison testified honestly, to the best of her ability. Her evidence was consistent on the most important points. I have accepted her evidence.
A. Background
[12] Ms. Allison came to BC on June 27, 2022, as a temporary foreign worker. She worked for Krazy Cherry, picking cherries and sorting them in a factory. Her contract with Krazy Cherry was for four months of work. Under the terms of her work permit, she was only allowed to work for Krazy Cherry. Her work permit was valid until December 15, 2022.
[13] Gary was the owner of Krazy Cherry. He did not interact much with the workers, and Ms. Allison understood that she was not supposed to talk to him. Harman, Gary’s son, was in a supervisory role. Ms. Allison did not have much contact with Harman either.
[14] Despite their limited contact, Ms. Allison did have some interactions with each of Gary and Harman where they spoke negatively about Jamaican workers. For example, Gary told Ms. Allison and some of her co-workers that he would recognize them downtown because Jamaican women are ugly. Another time, Ms. Allison and other Jamaican workers were taking a break when Harman made a speech about how Jamaican workers are lazy, compared to the Mexican and Guatemalan workers. Combined with the events that I describe next, this created a work environment for Ms. Allison where she felt denigrated as a person from Jamaica.
[15] On July 9 or 10, 2022, Ms. Allison was picking cherries on a ladder when the ladder slipped, and she fell to the ground. She sustained an injury to her back, from which she has still not recovered.
[16] Gary took Ms. Allison to the hospital. There were some discrepancies in Ms. Allison’s evidence about what happened during this car ride to the hospital. She initially testified that the car ride was quiet because there was another worker in the car. However, in her complaint form she alleged that Gary was angry and berating her. When I asked her about this, she said that her complaint form was accurate and it was possible the quiet car ride was another time. Given the timeline, and that her complaint form was drafted closer to the events, I find that Gary was angry and yelling at Ms. Allison during this ride.
[17] The theme of many of Gary’s comments to Ms. Allison was his accusation that she did not want to work and just wanted to get money and free health care. For example, he said things like “You Jamaican girls don’t want to work!”. He threatened to send her back to Jamaica. Ms. Allison was crying and insisting that she wanted to work but could not control getting injured. Gary accused her of being stupid for falling off the ladder, when no one else did. He told her to shut up.
[18] The doctor directed that Ms. Allison be off work for 14 days. She took the time off and then attempted to return.
[19] On July 29, Ms. Allison was working when she felt a sharp pain and loss of bladder control. She stepped off the factory line, and Gary saw her. He asked what was happening and she tried to explain. He started yelling at her and accusing her of wanting to get paid for doing no work. Ms. Allison said she wanted to work. Gary told her to take the day off.
[20] Ms. Allison contacted her Jamaican liaison officer, who arranged for Gary to take her back to the hospital.
[21] During this car ride, Gary was angry again. He told her that he had paid $1,000 for her ticket to Canada and she had not even worked enough to make the money back for the ticket. He accused her of coming from Jamaica just to get money and not work. Ms. Allison was crying and saying that she wanted to work. Gary said that Jamaicans only come to Canada to receive free medical treatment. Ms. Allison reminded him that Jamaicans undergo a medical examination before coming to Canada. She was scared to go back home without money, because she felt she would be failing her family. Gary told her that if she ever went back to the hospital, he would buy her a ticket home the next day.
[22] Gary dropped Ms. Allison at the hospital and left her with no way to get home. Eventually, in the early hours of the following morning, she was able to contact a driver for Krazy Cherry who came to get her.
[23] The doctor told Ms. Allison she needed more time off work. She took some time off and then tried to return again. Again, it was very painful. She could not stand up straight.
[24] At some point – it is not clear when – Gary asked Ms. Allison for her passport so he could book her a flight home. He again accused her of not wanting to work. Ms. Allison was crying and did not want to give him the passport, though she eventually did. He copied down her information. Ms. Allison told him that she could not go back to Jamaica because she was supposed to go back to the hospital and start physio-therapy treatments.
[25] Gary bought Ms. Allison a ticket back to Jamaica for departure on August 17, 2022. She got on the flight but got off in Toronto. She has been in Ontario as a visitor ever since.
[26] Ms. Allison made a claim to WorkSafeBC, which was accepted. She received wage loss benefits relating to the injury from July 10, 2022, until July 3, 2023. After this, it appears that WorkSafeBC determined she had a permanent partial disability (chronic back pain) and awarded loss of earnings benefits.
B. Analysis
[27] Ms. Allison is protected from discrimination based on her place of origin – Jamaica. She is also protected from discrimination based on physical disability. I am satisfied that Ms. Allison’s back injury constituted a physical disability during the period of the complaint.
[28] The Code does not define “physical disability”. The Tribunal interprets the term liberally to achieve the purposes of the Code: British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk, 2017 SCC 62 at para. 31. To decide whether a condition is a “disability”, the Tribunal generally considers the degree of impairment and any functional limitations, and any social construction of disability: Morris v. BC Rail, 2003 BCHRT 14 at para. 214. It considers factors like “whether the condition entails a certain measure of severity, permanence and persistence”: Viswanathapuram v. Canadian Alliance of Physiotherapy Regulators, 2017 BCHRT 29 at para. 40. The Tribunal has accepted that an injury that results in the receipt of WorkSafeBC benefits may be a physical disability under the Code, including a back injury: Singh v. Dodd’s Furniture (No. 2), 2021 BCHRT 85, upheld 2023 BCSC 2030, at paras. 49-50.
[29] In this case, Ms. Allison has experienced chronic, debilitating back pain since her injury in July 2022. From the outset of her injury, it impaired her ability to carry out the normal functions of life, and particularly her ability to work. It continues to affect her functioning. She still cannot sit or stand for extended periods and cannot stand straight. She has pain and loss of bladder control. WorkSafeBC accepted her claim and paid her wage loss benefits for one year. The claim was initially accepted for “sprains, strains, tears” and then, by 2023, was recognized as chronic back pain. She was awarded compensation for a permanent partial disability. I am satisfied that Ms. Allison’s condition is severe and persistent and has resulted in ongoing functional impairments. Further, during the relevant time, I am satisfied that Gary considered Ms. Allison disabled from working for the remainder of her contract.
[30] I find that Ms. Allison was adversely impacted in her employment by the statements that Gary made to her, denigrating her as a worker from Jamaica and communicating that she had no value when she could not work because of her disability. These statements were inherently connected to her protected characteristics. They were discriminatory.
[31] I further find that Gary terminated Ms. Allison’s employment because of her disability and his perception that she was no longer of any value to the company because of her disability. He made no attempts to consider whether there was other work that Ms. Allison could do while she was recovering, or how she may otherwise be accommodated. In the absence of any response from the Respondents, this is sufficient to prove that Krazy Cherry and Gary discriminated against Ms. Allison in her employment, in violation of s. 13 of the Code.
[32] I reach a different conclusion about Harman. In her complaint, Ms. Allison did not identify anything that Harman did or omitted to do that amounted to discrimination. When I asked her about Harman during the hearing, Ms. Allison said that she did not have much contact with him. She described the single incident I have set out above, where Harman called Jamaican workers “lazy”. There is no evidence that Harman was involved in the termination of Ms. Allison’s employment, or the interactions with Gary where he berated her for being unable to work and requiring medical treatment. These are the incidents at the heart of Ms. Allison’s complaint. In my view, it would not be fair to find Harman liable for this seemingly unrelated comment in circumstances where he had no notice of the allegation in Ms. Allison’s complaint. I dismiss the complaint against Harman.
C. Remedy
[33] I have found that Gary and Krazy Cherry discriminated against Ms. Allison, in violation of s. 13 of the Code. I declare that Gary Bahniwal and Krazy Cherry’s conduct contravened s. 13 of the Code: Code, s. 37(2)(b). I order them to cease the contraventions and refrain from committing the same or similar contraventions: Code, s. 37(2)(a).
[34] Ms. Allison asked for compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self-respect. I agree that this award is appropriate.
[35] A violation of a person’s human rights is a violation of their dignity. That is why s. 37(2)(d)(iii) of the Code confers discretion on this Tribunal to award damages to compensate a complainant for injury to their dignity, feelings, and self-respect. The purpose of these awards is compensatory, and not punitive. In exercising this discretion, the Tribunal generally considers three broad factors: the nature of the discrimination, the complainant’s social context or vulnerability, and the effect on the complainant: Torres v. Royalty Kitchenware Ltd., 1982 CanLII 4886 (ON HRT); Gichuru v. Law Society of British Columbia (No. 9), 2011 BCHRT 185, upheld in 2014 BCCA 396 at para. 260. The quantum is “highly contextual and fact-specific”, and the Tribunal has considerable discretion to award an amount it deems necessary to compensate a person who has been discriminated against: Gichuru at para. 256; University of British Columbia v. Kelly, 2016 BCCA 271 at paras. 59-64.
[36] I begin with the nature of the discrimination. It took place over a relatively short time frame of about seven weeks, in the context of a short-term employment contract. However, during that period Gary directly denigrated Ms. Allison on several occasions as a person from Jamaica. He communicated to her that she was stupid for getting injured and of no value if she could not work. These comments were direct, overt, and callous. They were egregious. The discrimination culminated in the ultimate job-related consequence: the early termination of Ms. Allison’s employment contract.
[37] Next, I consider that the power imbalance between the parties was significant and exacerbated the effects of the discrimination on Ms. Allison. Temporary foreign workers are “a uniquely vulnerable group”: Logan v Ontario (Solicitor General), 2022 HRTO 1004 at para. 69. In Bayongan v. Shimmura and another, 2023 BCHRT 27, the Tribunal explained:
The nature of temporary foreign worker programs creates a starker power imbalance between employer and an employee than a regular employment relationship. Under a temporary foreign worker program, the employer can impact that employee’s status in Canada; their ability to support themselves; and access to benefits. These conditions meant that temporary foreign workers face unique barriers, disadvantages, and inequities in employment… [para. 77, citations omitted]
[38] This was true for Ms. Allison. She had come to Canada to work and earn money to support her family in Jamaica. People were counting on her, including her kids, her sister’s family, and her mother. While she was here, she was reliant on Krazy Cherry and Gary for her employment and housing, in a context where her immigration status in Canada was tied to her employment status. She described the power imbalance this way:
[Gary is] the one who take me here, who take me from Jamaica to Canada to work. I think he used that as an advantage … He used it like to let me feel less of a person. Even when he mentioned like how much he paid the ticket, I feel that he have power over me. I did feel like that. And that’s one of the main reasons why I get scared.
[39] In this context, I accept that the impact on Ms. Allison has been very serious. She testified that she has been “traumatized” by this experience. She was visibly emotional in the hearing, recounting the events four years later.
[40] Ms. Allison testified, and I accept, that she didn’t feel safe or free in her employment with Krazy Cherry. She felt “scared and worthless”. She explained:
… I know everybody’s not going to be nice to you at all times. But I did not expect somebody that you go to work for…
Remember, you take me from my country to work for you. I come to work willingly. I come to work hungry. So I come to do my best. And then I got injured and then you treat me so bad. You talk all these things about my country. The same people who is coming to serve you. The same people is coming to make you make money. You don’t treat – you know you don’t treat me good. You make me feel less of a person.
[41] Ms. Allison’s self esteem was impacted and continues to suffer. For various reasons, she has not been able to work since she left Krazy Cherry. She is worried about what will happen when she tries to return to work, explaining:
I just don’t know how I’m gonna move forward working with persons that I don’t know if they gonna discriminate me, they gonna discriminate my country. I don’t know if they’re gonna accept me for me, for the country that I’m from …
[42] Perhaps the most profound and lasting impact on Ms. Allison is her perception that she failed people that were counting on her. She testified, emotionally, that “I didn’t plan to come here to fail [Gary]. I didn’t plan to come here to fail my family. And I think I failed everybody. That’s how I feel.”
[43] Ms. Allison did not fail. She was injured at work and discriminated against. She should not have been treated in the way that Krazy Cherry and Gray treated her. In my view, this impact on Ms. Allison is a serious consequence of discrimination and warrants compensation.
[44] Ms. Allison did not specify an amount of compensation she was seeking or refer me to any Tribunal cases to use for comparison. To decide on the quantum, I have considered four recent Tribunal decisions.
[45] First, in Singh, the complainant was demoted after he injured his back at work. The Tribunal awarded the complainant what he asked for – $10,000. The Tribunal noted that this “was not a case of especially egregious conduct”, and the parties otherwise had good rapport. There were no aggravating factors related to the complainant’s vulnerability.
[46] Second, in Young Worker v. Heirloom and another, 2023 BCHRT 137, the Tribunal awarded $25,000 to a 13-year-old Black girl who was singled out and wrongly accused of theft in her first job. This led her to resign. Though the discrimination took place over only 11 days, the Tribunal considered that there was a large power imbalance between the parties, and the discrimination made the complainant feel scared.
[47] Third, in Employee v. Company and others (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 157, the Tribunal awarded $35,000 to a complainant whose supervisor made a derogatory comment about Iran and then pressured him for two months to sign a document agreeing that he was oversensitive and committing to better tolerate other people’s views. The Tribunal considered it significant that the Employee was on a closed work permit, which made him vulnerable to the employer.
[48] Finally, in Ens v. 0704121 BC Ltd. dba Gandy HVAC and others (No.2), 2025 BCHRT 277, the Tribunal awarded $30,000 to a woman whose work environment was poisoned by persistent racist, sexist, and Islamophobic comments by managers over four years. The employer failed to properly address her report of sexual assault by a co-worker and then terminated the complainant for her behaviour that was related to the stress of discrimination.
[49] Unsurprisingly, none of these cases are exactly like this one. On the low end, in Singh, the discrimination was not as egregious, and the complainant did not have the aggravating vulnerabilities that Ms. Allison had. On the higher end, in Employee, the parties were in a longer-term employment relationship and the complainant submitted more evidence and argument about the impact of discrimination than I have here. In my view, the closest analogous case is Young Worker, which involved a short-term employment relationship marked by significant power imbalance. However, in that case the complainant also submitted more evidence and argument about impact than Ms. Allison has here.
[50] Considering all the above, I exercise my discretion to award Ms. Allison $20,000. I order Gary Bahniwal and Krazy Cherry to pay this amount to Ms. Allison as compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self respect. Liability between them is joint and several.
IV CONCLUSION
[51] I find that the complaint against Harman Bahniwal is not justified. It is dismissed: Code, s. 37(1).
[52] I find that the complaint against Gary Bahniwal and Krazy Cherry is justified. I make the following orders:
a. I declare that Gary Bahniwal and Krazy Cherry’s conduct contravened s. 13 of the Code: Code, s. 37(2)(b).
b. I order Gary Bahniwal and Krazy Cherry to cease the contraventions and refrain from committing the same or similar contraventions: Code, s. 37(2)(a).
c. I order Gary Bahniwal and Krazy Cherry to pay Ms. Allison $20,000 as compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self-respect: Code, s. 37(2)(d)(iii).
d. I order Gary Bahniwal and Krazy Cherry to pay Ms. Allison post-judgement interest on the damage award until paid in full, based on the rates set out in the Court Order Interest Act.
Devyn Cousineau
Vice Chair