Boyce v. City of Maple Ridge, 2026 BCHRT 201

Date Issued: September 22, 2026
File: CS-003679

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:

Jeffrey Boyce
COMPLAINANT

AND:

City of Maple Ridge
RESPONDENT

REASONS FOR DECISION

Tribunal Member: Beverly Froese
On his own behalf: Jeffrey Boyce
Counsel for the Respondent: David Penner and Lauren McClanaghan

Date of Hearing: November 10 and 12-14, 2025
Location of Hearing: By videoconference
Written closing arguments: December 19, 2025

I        INTRODUCTION

[1]             In March 2021, Jeffrey Boyce (who also goes by Burt Boyce) made a complaint alleging that the City of Maple Ridge discriminated against him regarding his employment based on mental disability contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code. Specifically, Mr. Boyce alleged that the City failed to accommodate his stress and anxiety and then terminated his employment.

[2]             The City denies discriminating against Mr. Boyce. The City says that Mr. Boyce did not have a mental disability at the relevant time, that it was not aware Mr. Boyce might have a mental disability that was affecting his job performance, and that Mr. Boyce’s employment was terminated solely because of his own misconduct.

[3]             I heard this complaint over four days. Mr. Boyce testified on his own behalf and did not call any other witnesses. The City called the following witnesses:

a.   Aaron Billard – the City’s Parks Operations Supervisor and Mr. Boyce’s direct supervisor;

b.   Robert Dorrell – the City’s Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor and vice-president of Mr. Boyce’s union;

c.   Erin Gorby – the City’s Manager of Parks and Open Space and Mr. Boyce’s manager between 2018 and March 2020; and

d.   Anita Bhandari – the City’s Manager of Talent Acquisition and Development in its Human Resources Department [HR Department] at the relevant time.

[4]             I have considered all the evidence presented by the parties and their closing submissions. This decision does not include a complete recitation of the evidence and submissions, only those necessary to come to my decision.

[5]             It was evident at the hearing that Mr. Boyce loved his job as the City’s field arborist and that he took his responsibilities seriously. I accept without question that Mr. Boyce experienced work-related stress and anxiety due to his increasing workload and interpersonal conflicts with others that led to complaints against him, investigations, and grievances. I also accept that from Mr. Boyce’s perspective, he felt unsupported and unfairly targeted by management.

[6]             Having said that, for the reasons that follow, I find that the City did not discriminate against Mr. Boyce because he did not have a disability protected under the Code at the relevant time.

[7]             To arrive at my conclusion, it is not necessary for me to make factual findings with respect to the majority of conflicting evidence before me regarding incidents involving Mr. Boyce that contributed to the termination of his employment. In other words, for the most part I do not need to decide whether to prefer Mr. Boyce’s evidence about a particular incident over the evidence of other witnesses to be able to determine if he proved the elements of his case.

II      EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THE COMPLAINT

A.    Mr. Boyce’s employment with the City

[8]             From 1995 to 2011, Mr. Boyce operated his own tree service business where he provided tree removal, pruning, stump grinding, sod installation, and garden bed renovation services. Mr. Boyce is a certified arborist and tree risk assessor and has years of experience operating a variety of power and manual equipment such as chainsaws, stump grinders, hedge trimmers, chippers, trucks, and backhoes.

[9]             In 2011, Mr. Boyce started working for the City on a temporary basis as a labourer. About six months later, Mr. Boyce was hired as a full-time parks maintenance worker.

[10]         In June 2016, Mr. Boyce became the City’s field arborist. His job duties included planting, pruning, tree removal, and investigating tree-related complaints. Mr. Boyce testified that as the City’s only field arborist, he was responsible for the tens of thousands of trees in Maple Ridge, including trees on streets, sidewalks, parks, trails, and playgrounds. One of Mr. Boyce’s most important duties was prioritizing and responding to action requests to deal with potentially hazardous and unsafe situations, such as broken tree branches after a winter storm that could cause severe injury or property damage.

[11]         It was evident from Mr. Boyce’s testimony that he is passionate about trees, loved being the City’s field arborist, and took his duties seriously. By all accounts Mr. Boyce was a hard worker and did his job well. However, I accept the evidence of both Mr. Billard and Ms. Gorby that at times Mr. Boyce had difficulty regulating his emotions. Specifically, Mr. Billard testified that in general he and Mr. Boyce had a good working relationship, but because Mr. Boyce “wore his emotions on his sleeve”, “you can tell when things are going great” and “you can tell when things aren’t going great”. Ms. Gorby characterized her working relationship with Mr. Boyce as “up and down”. She said it was a positive relationship at first because she and Mr. Boyce shared a background in arborist culture and tree-related topics. At the same time, she felt as though she had to “walk on eggshells” around him when he was in a bad mood.

[12]         The evidence established that Mr. Boyce had a history of being involved in interpersonal conflicts with co-workers, supervisors, and managers going back to shortly after he started working for the City. Specifically, in February 2012, there was a dispute between Mr. Boyce and a co-worker that resulted in Mr. Boyce, and possibly the co-worker as well, being issued a letter of expectation that said the main issues between Mr. Boyce and the co-worker were poor communication and lack of teamwork. The letter also said that Mr. Boyce needed to demonstrate improvement in his job performance, for instance by openly sharing information, listening carefully to others, and accepting personal responsibility in two-way communications.

[13]         Mr. Boyce testified that sometime in 2017, he began to have issues with the City’s General Manager, Parks, Recreation and Culture [General Manager]. Mr. Boyce recalled in particular an incident when he says he tried to tell the General Manager that a field crew had safety concerns about a piece of equipment. Mr. Boyce said the General Manager yelled and swore at him and told him to just do what he was told. Mr. Boyce recalled another incident when he asked the General Manager about overflowing garbage containers in City parks. He said the General Manager became very defensive because he did not like to be called out in front of other people. Mr. Boyce said that for the duration of his employment, there was “bad blood” between him and the General Manager.

B.    The October 2018 meeting

[14]         In mid-October 2018, an incident occurred that had lasting impacts on Mr. Boyce’s employment.

[15]         Mr. Boyce had just returned from holidays that day when Ms. Gorby came into his office and told him he had to attend a meeting with her and the City’s HR Director [October 2018 Meeting]. Mr. Boyce asked Ms. Gorby what the meeting was about and she said she could not tell him. Mr. Boyce told Ms. Gorby he did not think he should attend a meeting with the HR Director without union representation. Ms. Gorby told Mr. Boyce she would arrange for Robert Dorrell, the union’s vice-president, to be there as his representative. Mr. Boyce did not think that Mr. Dorrell knew what the meeting was about either.

[16]         The purpose of the October 2018 Meeting was to discuss a complaint made against Mr. Boyce by a co-worker I refer to as Co-Worker A that Mr. Boyce said negative things about her job performance to another co-worker I refer to as Co-Worker B. Mr. Boyce’s evidence was that he was caught off guard and did not know anything about Co-Worker A’s complaint. He testified that the HR Director asked him vague questions that he did not understand and that were impossible for him to answer. Mr. Boyce said the HR Director told him that Mr. Dorrell overheard him spreading rumours about Co-Worker A to Co-Worker B. Mr. Boyce denied Co-Worker A’s allegations and said that Mr. Dorrell was lying about overhearing his conversation with Co-Worker B. Mr. Boyce said that from his perspective, the meeting was over because Mr. Dorrell was not there as a union representative representing his best interests. He testified that he also felt like Ms. Gorby had misled him when she said that Mr. Dorrell would attend as his union representative.

[17]         I note here that Mr. Dorrell had an entirely different recollection of the purpose of the October 2018 Meeting. Mr. Dorrell testified that he and Mr. Boyce had met previously to discuss Mr. Boyce’s allegations of harassment by the City’s Environmental Department related to alleged changes that Mr. Boyce made to his property. Mr. Dorrell testified that Mr. Boyce demanded that he set up a meeting with Ms. Gorby and the HR Director to discuss Mr. Boyce’s allegations of harassment. He also testified that at the meeting, Mr. Boyce made serious allegations about Co-Worker A’s personal life and job performance. Mr. Dorrell’s evidence was inconsistent with the testimony of Mr. Boyce and Ms. Gorby and the contemporaneous documentary evidence. For this reason, I prefer that evidence over his.

[18]         Mr. Boyce testified that after the October 2018 Meeting, he went back to his office. He said he could not grasp what had just happened because it “came out of nowhere”. Mr. Boyce then went to Mr. Dorrell’s office to ask who he could get from the union to represent him since Mr. Dorrell was a witness for the HR Department. Mr. Boyce and Mr. Dorrell gave conflicting evidence on what happened next. Mr. Boyce testified that Mr. Dorrell screamed at him, used profanity, and told him to get out. Mr. Boyce said he just stood there and did not say anything before he returned to his office. Mr. Dorrell testified that Mr. Boyce came into his office “yelling and screaming” and accused Mr. Dorrell of not representing him at the meeting. Mr. Dorrell acknowledged that he told Mr. Boyce to “get the hell out of my office” and Mr. Boyce left.

[19]         The next day, Ms. Gorby went into Mr. Boyce’s office to ask him how he was doing. Mr. Boyce’s evidence was that he told Ms. Gorby he did not appreciate being set up with a union representative who was actually a witness against him. His evidence was that he told Ms. Gorby about his interaction with Mr. Dorrell after the meeting and repeated the profanity that Mr. Dorrell yelled at him. Mr. Boyce denied yelling at Ms. Gorby and said he apologized to her afterwards for offending her by using the exact words that Mr. Dorrell said to him.

[20]         Ms. Gorby’s evidence was that when she asked Mr. Boyce how he was doing, he unexpectedly yelled at her and said she lied to him and stabbed him in the back by intentionally bringing a union representative that did not properly represent him. Ms. Gorby’s evidence was that Mr. Boyce’s face was red and he was speaking in a loud and angry voice.

[21]         Near the end of October, Mr. Boyce met with the HR Director and Ms. Gorby. The union’s shop steward was also present at the meeting as Mr. Boyce’s representative. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss additional details relating to Co-Worker A’s complaint that Mr. Boyce was speaking negatively about her to internal employees and external contractors. It was also to discuss concerns raised by other co-workers about their interactions with Mr. Boyce after the October 2018 Meeting. In particular, the contemporaneous notes of this meeting state that Mr. Boyce declined to assist the gardening crew and said he did not know how much longer he would be working for the City. The notes also say that Mr. Boyce pointed his finger at other employees and said someone was going to get him fired.

[22]         At the end of October, Mr. Boyce was given a two-day suspension that was subsequently reduced to one day after Mr. Boyce filed a grievance. The suspension letter given to Mr. Boyce says:

… we hope that you will take this opportunity to change the course of your actions in the workplace. Your future employment with the City is within your control. Should you choose to disregard our expectations, your employment with the City will end. We hope this will not be the case but if it does, it will be as a result of your decision to not comply with direction.

[23]         After the investigation into Co-Worker A’s complaint against Mr. Boyce, the HR Director asked Anita Bhandari, the City’s Manager of Talent Acquisition and Development in its HR Department, to look into possible training options for Mr. Boyce, including anger management. It is not entirely clear from the evidence, but it appears that Mr. Boyce did attend some training, for instance on the City’s Respectful Workplace Policy [RW Policy]. He did not attend anger management because he did not believe he needed it.

[24]         In early March 2019, Mr. Boyce filed an Incident/Violence Report against Mr. Dorrell regarding his conduct during and after the October 2018 Meeting. Ms. Bhandari testified that because the complaint related to the RW Policy, she submitted it to the HR Director. There was evidence before me that both the union and WorkSafe also investigated Mr. Boyce’s allegations against Mr. Dorrell.

[25]         Ms. Bhandari did not recall the outcome of any investigation. The documentary evidence indicates that at some point the investigator closed the file and Mr. Boyce was not interested in participating in a facilitated conversation or mediation with Mr. Dorrell. Mr. Boyce’s evidence was that no one properly investigated his complaint by interviewing Co-Worker B, who would have corroborated Mr. Boyce’s assertion that Mr. Dorrell lied at the October 2018 Meeting about overhearing their conversation.

C.    Mr. Boyce’s medical leave

[26]         In late August 2019, Mr. Boyce went to see his family doctor. Mr. Boyce testified that when he told his doctor what was going on at work, his doctor suggested that he quit his job because it was too much for one person. Mr. Boyce said he did not want to quit because he loved his job. After his appointment, Mr. Boyce emailed Mr. Billard and said:

just left my doctors. I sat down with him had just started to explain some of the work pressures I have and he stopped me, checked my blood pressure and heart and said “you are not to even to think about work until the day you go back” ordered me off work from today until sept 4th.

[27]         Mr. Boyce attached a doctor’s note to his email that said he was unfit for work for the next 10 days due to medical reasons. Mr. Billard forwarded Mr. Boyce’s email and doctor’s note to the HR Department and Ms. Gorby.

[28]         In early September 2019, Mr. Boyce emailed Mr. Billard again and said that he saw a doctor he had been referred to for a follow up. Mr. Boyce said that doctor told him it was not in his best interests to return to work until mid-September. He also said he had upcoming appointments with his family doctor and for counselling. Mr. Boyce attached a doctor’s note to his email that said he was unfit to return to work for the next 10 days. Mr. Billard forwarded Mr. Boyce’s email and the doctor’s note to Ms. Gorby.

[29]         A couple of days later, Ms. Gorby emailed the HR Department and said:

Burt has been off since Aug 22″ – his first sick note stated that he wouldn’t be in for 2 weeks. The next note, which came yesterday stated he would not be in until at least Sept 13, so another 2 weeks. Based on his conversations with his supervisor, Aaron, it sounds like it is stress related. I wanted to touch base with you about whether we need to have him submit a more detailed doctor’s note, and whether there is the need for someone to contact him to see if there is any way we can support him. Usually I would do that, but I know Burt is not feeling very supported by me right now and this was further confirmed by Aaron.

[30]         In her reply to Ms. Gorby, Ms. Bhandari asked Ms. Gorby if she knew how long Mr. Boyce would be on leave. Ms. Bhandari said that if Mr. Boyce was going to be on an extended absence, “we should get proper medical in place”.

[31]         Around this time, Mr. Boyce provided a third doctor’s note that said he would be unfit to return to work until the end of September. Although it is not entirely clear from the evidence, it appears that around this time Mr. Boyce also made a claim for benefits with WorkSafe “for a mental disorder as a result of stress and anxiety from multiple incidents”.

[32]         While Mr. Boyce was on leave, Ms. Bhandari and Ms. Gorby met to discuss his return to work. During this meeting, Ms. Gorby said Mr. Billard told her that she was part of the reason why Mr. Boyce was not returning to work and that Mr. Boyce said he was unable to work collaboratively with her. In his direct examination, Mr. Boyce denied ever telling Mr. Billard that Ms. Gorby was the reason he was not returning to work or that he could not work collaboratively with her. In cross-examination, however, Mr. Boyce said he did not recall whether he said those things to Mr. Billard.

[33]         Ms. Gorby and Ms. Bhandari agreed that in the circumstances, it would be best if Ms. Bhandari contacted Mr. Boyce about his concerns. Both Ms. Bhandari and Ms. Gorby believed that the barrier to Mr. Boyce returning to work was not a medical condition, but rather a personality conflict between him and Ms. Gorby.

[34]         Ms. Bhandari subsequently called Mr. Boyce to discuss his concerns. Mr. Boyce told Ms. Bhandari that his concerns related to his unrealistic workload, lack of support, feeling “set up” to lose his job, feeling attacked, and not being kept in the loop. Ms. Bhandari testified that in an attempt to remove the personality conflict barrier so Mr. Boyce could return to work, she contacted an outside consultant [Facilitator] to arrange a facilitated conversation between him and Ms. Gorby for early October. Ms. Bhandari testified that both Ms. Gorby and Mr. Boyce agreed to participate in a facilitated conversation.

[35]         In late September, Ms. Bhandari submitted a report to WorkSafe in response to Mr. Boyce’s claim. In her report, Ms. Bhandari said the City had not been aware of Mr. Boyce’s WorkSafe claim until she recently spoke to him. Ms. Bhandari said that Mr. Boyce told her that he was upset with Ms. Gorby and the union, that he did not want to meet with Ms. Gorby, and that his stress was attributable to workplace situations. She said that Mr. Boyce had only provided general doctor’s notes and they would work with him to get additional medical information to support his continued absence. Lastly, Ms. Bhandari said that HR wanted to meet with Mr. Boyce to remove the barriers to his return to work.

[36]         In early October, the Facilitator emailed Ms. Bhandari to say that Mr. Boyce told her it was not the right time for him to participate in a facilitated conversation with Ms. Gorby. The Facilitator said that Mr. Boyce just wanted to return to work and “let past situations go”. The Facilitator told Ms. Bhandari that Mr. Boyce was open to participating in a facilitated conversation or mediation in the future but that in the meantime he would continue to communicate professionally with Ms. Gorby about work-related matters. Mr. Boyce testified that even though the Facilitator had assured him that participating in the facilitated conversation was voluntary, he was concerned that not participating at this time would be used against him.

[37]         Sometime after that, Mr. Boyce returned to work. Around mid-November, Ms. Bhandari arranged for a mediation between Mr. Boyce and Ms. Gorby. Ms. Gorby’s evidence was that she requested a mediation after she and Mr. Boyce had very different interpretations of her role as manager at his recent performance evaluation.

[38]         Ms. Gorby testified that while Mr. Boyce’s performance evaluation was largely positive, there was one area that she told him needed improvement. Specifically, Ms. Gorby told Mr. Boyce that when he comes to work in a bad mood, it shows. Ms. Gorby told Mr. Boyce that his bad moods impact his colleagues, who often feel like they have to “walk on eggshells” around him. Ms. Gorby talked to Mr. Boyce about regulating his moods, for instance by telling his colleagues if he is having a bad day and that he needs some alone time rather than creating a tense atmosphere around him.

[39]         Ms. Gorby’s evidence was that after the performance evaluation, Mr. Boyce complained to the General Manager that he felt as though Ms. Gorby had “diagnosed” and judged him. In his direct examination, Mr. Boyce said that Ms. Gorby told him during the performance evaluation that he had a “volatile” personality, but he did not recall complaining about her to the General Manager. In cross-examination, Mr. Boyce acknowledged expressing concerns about Ms. Gorby telling him he had a “volatile” personality and feeling like Ms. Gorby was “diagnosing” him and “medicalizing” his personality.

[40]         In late November 2019, there was a mediation between Mr. Boyce and Ms. Gorby. Minutes of the facilitated agreement state that the purpose of the mediation was to establish guidelines and protocols “for ensuring acceptable workplace communications and conduct going forward”. It is evident from those minutes that the mediation addressed Mr. Boyce’s concerns about Ms. Gorby “diagnosing” and “medicalizing” him at his performance evaluation. According to the minutes:

a.   Ms. Gorby and Mr. Boyce recognized that “the normal exercise of management rights and union rights … shall not be construed as harassment or discrimination” under the RW Policy, including the proper discharge of supervisory responsibilities and/or disciplinary action taken by the City;

b.   Mr. Boyce understands and agrees that when he receives his annual performance evaluation or check-in, management “may inquire as to his physical or mental health to ensure his safety, the safety of his team or examine any factors supporting or detracting from employee morale”;

c.   Mr. Boyce understands and agrees that when making such inquiries, management is discharging their managerial responsibilities and “has not and will not offer diagnosis or treatment respecting his mental health”;

d.   Mr. Boyce “recognizes that it is incumbent upon him to regulate his emotions when encountering any work stressors and take a pause before reacting to the same when making verbal or written communications with other workers or contractors … or members of the Public”;

e.   If Mr. Boyce is concerned, confused, or upset by management’s words or conduct, “he agrees to address them promptly, directly and respectfully with the perceived offender and will not broadcast these matters to third parties” except if required to in certain circumstances; and

f.    Mr. Boyce is committed to adhering to the terms of the agreement and understands that the City might investigate evidence of his non-compliance “and if proven, can result in disciplinary consequences up to and including termination”.

[41]         Mr. Boyce testified that after the mediation, he felt as though he and Ms. Gorby had put their disagreements aside. He said that “everything was put to bed, and everything was good and we were on good terms”. He also testified that after the mediation, he did not need any further work-related accommodation. Ms. Gorby testified that from her perspective, the mediation was a positive experience and both she and Mr. Boyce had a chance to communicate their sides of the story. Ms. Gorby said that her interactions with Mr. Boyce after the mediation were much more positive and he seemed happier at work.

D.   The January 2020 incident

[42]         Unfortunately, the positive working relationship between Mr. Boyce and Ms. Gorby did not last long. In late January 2020, an incident occurred after the morning dispatch meeting involving Mr. Boyce, Mr. Billard, and Ms. Gorby that ultimately led to the termination of Mr. Boyce’s employment. Mr. Boyce described this incident as a “six-minute loss of control meltdown” that had been building after years of dealing with the stress and pressure of trying to manage his unrealistic workload without any assistance.

[43]         Mr. Boyce’s evidence was that when he came into work that morning, Mr. Billard told him he would not be getting the help he needed with a stump grinder that Mr. Billard had promised him the day before. Mr. Boyce said that Mr. Billard then came into his office and asked if he was okay. Mr. Boyce asked how he could be okay when he could not do the job by himself. Mr. Boyce said that Mr. Billard went back to his own office and slammed his door so loudly that it startled everyone around.

[44]         Mr. Billard’s evidence was that he was in his office that morning and heard Mr. Boyce speaking to other staff in an elevated voice. Mr. Billard said he could tell immediately from Mr. Boyce’s body language that he was not happy. Mr. Billard said he went to Mr. Boyce’s office to find out what was going on and to ask Mr. Boyce if there was anything bothering him that he wanted to talk about. Mr. Billard’s evidence was that Mr. Boyce said he was not given enough time to do his work and he accused Mr. Billard of catering to other staff and taking sides against him. Mr. Billard testified that he was shocked at how quickly Mr. Boyce’s “monologue” against him escalated. Mr. Billard said that usually he is a fairly calm person and tries to keep an even keel and he was trying to do his best because the situation escalated. Mr. Billard described the volume and tone of Mr. Boyce’s voice as “between a scream and a yell”. Mr. Billard said he immediately tried to diffuse the situation and tell Mr. Boyce he was misguided because he would never mandate that the task Mr. Boyce was working on be done in such a short period of time. Mr. Billard said he was trying to explain why Mr. Boyce could not get help that day but it got personal for Mr. Boyce. Mr. Billard said that Mr. Boyce’s outburst in front of other employees was embarrassing and insulting to him as a supervisor. Mr. Billard said he was in “fight or flight” at this point, and he decided to go back to his office. Mr. Billard acknowledged that he slammed his office door “as hard as someone could slam a door”. Mr. Billard said he had never been so embarrassed in his work life, and he sat in his office “stewing and simmering”.

[45]         Ms. Gorby’s evidence was that shortly after the morning dispatch meeting, she heard an “elevated conversation” coming from Mr. Boyce’s workspace. She said that after a minute or two she realized it was a verbal altercation between Mr. Boyce and Mr. Billard. Ms. Gorby thought that was very unusual because Mr. Billard is usually very calm and never raises his voice with staff. Ms. Gorby testified that Mr. Boyce was upset because he felt that Mr. Billard had unrealistic expectations about the time it took to complete work he had been assigned to do. She said that Mr. Billard kept trying to interject and explain the situation to Mr. Boyce, but it was not productive because Mr. Boyce kept interrupting him and shutting down the conversation. Mr. Gorby testified that Mr. Billard was getting increasingly frustrated with Mr. Boyce and left the room.

[46]         After the interaction between Mr. Boyce and Mr. Billard, Ms. Gorby went to Mr. Boyce’s office and asked if he was okay. Mr. Boyce’s evidence was that he told Ms. Gorby that Mr. Billard did not give him the help that had finally been promised to him and that he was just trying to do his job. Mr. Boyce said that Ms. Gorby could see that he was stressed and overwhelmed, and she suggested he take a walk on a trail in the forest. Mr. Boyce’s evidence was that he told Ms. Gorby he appreciated her suggestions, but he had too much work hanging over his head and he just wanted to get back to his duties. He said that Ms. Gorby told him that she had made her decision and she wanted him to go home, which he did. Mr. Boyce testified that he was embarrassed by the situation and just wanted to get back to doing his job. He admitted that he lost control of his emotions and his voice was loud, but denied yelling, being aggressive, or using profanity.

[47]         Ms. Gorby’s evidence was that she stood in the doorway of Mr. Boyce’s office and asked him what was going on. She testified that Mr. Boyce was angry and she was taken by surprise when instead of talking about his workload, he accused her and Mr. Billard of protecting and covering up for another employee who was not working efficiently. Ms. Gorby described Mr. Boyce as being “very elevated” and said he was standing up and talking in an angry, loud voice. Ms. Gorby said other employees were listening and she felt very uncomfortable because her attempts to deescalate the situation were not working. She testified that she suggested to Mr. Boyce that he try different ways to calm down, for instance by going for a walk or sitting in his car. She said that because Mr. Boyce continued to escalate the situation, she told him to go home for the rest of the day and that they could have a more productive conversation about what happened after he had calmed down.

[48]         After her interaction with Mr. Boyce, Ms. Gorby asked to meet with HR because she was not sure what the next steps would be when he returned to work. Ms. Gorby told HR she felt that Mr. Boyce’s behaviour was contrary to the mediation agreement. She testified that given the level of disrespect, escalation, and anger that Mr. Boyce showed, there would likely be an investigation and discipline.

[49]         Later that day, Ms. Gorby texted Mr. Boyce and told him that he was suspended and to not return to work until he heard from her. In his reply, Mr. Boyce apologized for the incident. He said that things at work had been “building and building” and that Mr. Billard’s expectations of him were unreasonable. Ms. Gorby responded and said:

… your outburst today was shocking given that it was the first I’ve heard of these complaints and it was difficult for your colleagues in the room who had no choice but to listen to it.

[50]         Mr. Boyce returned to work at the end of January 2020 and was on holidays from around mid- to late February. Mr. Boyce testified that after he returned to work, he tried to make amends for his behaviour. He said that from his perspective, the January 2020 incident was “water under the bridge”.

[51]         The City retained an outside investigator to conduct an investigation of the January 2020 incident. During the investigation, the investigator interviewed 12 witnesses, including Mr. Boyce, Mr. Billard, and Ms. Gorby. The investigator also reviewed the RW Policy, Mr. Boyce’s personnel file, and the terms of the facilitated mediation agreement.

[52]         In early March 2020, the investigator issued his report and found that Mr. Boyce had breached the RW Policy by creating a hostile and intimidating work environment. Some of the key findings the investigator made were that:

a.   instead of privately, discretely, and respectfully voicing his concern about not getting the resources he hoped to use to complete a project, Mr. Boyce “resorted to making a spectacle” by losing control of his emotions, yelling, and using aggressive body language to call out some of his co-workers for being “useless” and “stealing time”;

b.   Mr. Boyce publicly accused management of being complicit and covering up for those co-workers;

c.   Mr. Boyce’s behaviour left Ms. Gorby shaken and several co-workers feeling uncomfortable, stressed, and threatened;

d.   Mr. Boyce had previously been cautioned about publicly airing critical views of co-workers and had promised to regulate his emotions when dealing with workplace stress;

e.   Mr. Boyce’s apology for his behaviour “came late and did not demonstrate recognition of or take accountability for the impact of his actions”; and

f.    Mr. Boyce did not “recognize the serious nature of his conduct or the steps required by the City to meet its obligations to maintain a respectful and harassment free workplace”.

E.    The end of Mr. Boyce’s employment

[53]         Around mid-March 2020, Mr. Boyce met with the General Manager, a HR representative, and a union representative to talk about the investigator’s report. At the meeting, Mr. Boyce disagreed with the report’s findings and characterized the January 2020 incident as a “simple misunderstanding”. Mr. Boyce said the entire situation was caused by the lack of resources he needed to do his job and that he felt as though Ms. Gorby had been targeted him for the last two years. Mr. Boyce was given a letter of suspension and was escorted from the premises.

[54]         At the end of March 2020, Mr. Boyce met with the General Manager and was told that his employment was terminated for cause, specifically gross insubordination. The termination letter sets out the reasons for Mr. Boyce’s dismissal, including the October 2018 and January 2020 incidents, the investigator’s findings that Mr. Boyce had engaged in public criticism and accusations against co-workers, displayed aggressive body language and loud and disrespectful communication, and refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing.

[55]         In late April 2020, Mr. Boyce’s union filed a Step 3 grievance on the basis that the termination of Mr. Boyce’s employment was excessively punitive. The grievance was denied on the basis that there was “sufficient justification for the City’s ultimate decision to terminate Mr. Boyce’s employment”.

III    ANALYSIS

A.    Legal test to prove discrimination

[56]         To succeed in his complaint, Mr. Boyce must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he experienced an employment-related adverse impact in which his disability was a factor: Moore v. BC (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33; Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30 at para. 24. If Mr. Boyce proves his case, then the burden shifts to the City to justify its conduct based on a bona fide occupational requirement [BFOR]. If the City’s conduct cannot be justified, then discrimination will have occurred: Moore at para. 33.

[57]         There is no dispute that Mr. Boyce experienced an employment-related adverse impact. The Tribunal recognizes that, in and of itself, termination of employment constitutes an adverse impact under s. 13 of the Code: Rabinovich v. Chemainus Inn Management Services Inc. (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 302 at para. 34; Eva obo others v. Spruce Hill Resort and another, 2018 BCHRT 238 at para. 92; Suen v. Envirocon Environmental Services (No. 2), 2017 BCHRT 226 at para. 35.

[58]         The issues in this case are whether Mr. Boyce had a disability protected under the Code and, if so, whether that disability was a factor in the termination of his employment.

B.    Did Mr. Boyce have a disability protected under the Code?

[59]         The term “disability” is not defined in the Code. The Tribunal interprets the term broadly to achieve the Code’s purposes, in particular to remove barriers to participating in the economic, social, political, and culture life in British Columbia faced everyday by persons with disabilities: Code, s. 3; Stevenson v. Marcon Construction, 2020 BCHRT 80 at para. 7. Those barriers can come from the person’s actual functional limitations associated with their disability, or from how society perceives or reacts to the person’s disability: Stevenson at para. 7; Sharma v. Best Buy Canada (No. 2), 2026 BCHRT 173 at para. 49.

[60]         To decide whether a medical condition is a “disability”, the Tribunal looks at a number of factors, including the degree of impairment and functional limitations associated with the condition; the degree of severity, permanence, and persistence of the condition; and the social perception and response to that condition, such as stigma, negative stereotypes, exclusion, and marginalization: Stevenson at para. 7; Sharma at para. 49; Rabiei v. Freshslice Holdings Ltd. and another, 2026 BCHRT 180 at para. 37.

[61]         The Tribunal has said that a medical condition does not have to be permanent to qualify as a disability: Wali v. Jace Holdings Ltd., 2012 BCHRT 389 at para. 82. However, being absent from work on a sick leave due to a temporary illness does not automatically mean the person has a disability under the Code: Christensen v. Caretenders’ Financial Services Inc., and others (No. 3), 2025 BCHRT 212 at para. 43. The Tribunal must assess each case individually to determine if the medical condition necessitating the temporary leave constitutes a disability under the Code: Goode v. Interior Health Authority, 2010 BCHRT 95 at para. 105.

[62]         For two reasons, I find that Mr. Boyce has not proven that at the relevant time he had a disability protected under the Code.

[63]         First, the evidence related to Mr. Boyce’s medical condition is not sufficient to establish the degree of impairment, functional limitations, severity, permanence, or persistence required to constitute a disability for the Code’s purposes.

[64]         I accept Mr. Boyce’s evidence about the stress and anxiety he experienced as the City’s only field arborist. I accept that Mr. Boyce felt overwhelmed, desperate, frustrated, stressed, and anxious about his increasing workload. In addition to the myriad of regular duties associated with maintaining the City’s trees, the field arborist position is important in terms of public safety. I accept Mr. Boyce’s evidence that his responsibilities as field arborist weighed heavily on him, and he repeatedly asked Mr. Billard for assistance that he could not provide. Mr. Billard’s evidence was that the City had limited staff and resources. Mr. Billard acknowledged Mr. Boyce’s frustration at not having the assistance of a full-time labourer and being able to always access the machinery and equipment he needed. Mr. Billard testified that he himself was stressed by not being able to allocate sufficient resources to assist Mr. Boyce.

[65]         I also accept Mr. Boyce’s evidence that the stress of trying to do his job properly and the burden of his responsibility for public safety kept him up at night and he would often wake up in a pool of sweat. For instance, Mr. Boyce testified that the stress from his workload was “eating away” at him and he did not think anything would ever change. Mr. Boyce also testified that the night before the January 2020 incident, he “had my regular night of no sleep and sweats” and had a panic attack when he arrived at work.

[66]         In addition to evidence about his workload, I also accept Mr. Boyce’s evidence about the stress and anxiety he experienced from what he believed was unfair treatment and targeting by management since the October 2018 Meeting. For instance, I accept that Mr. Boyce believed the October 2018 Meeting would “haunt” his career and he felt as though nothing he said in his defence was ever going to matter. I also accept that Mr. Boyce felt targeted by management and subject to what he believed were false accusations against him that required to participate in various internal processes, in particular the mediation, investigation, and grievances. From Mr. Boyce’s perspective, every time he tried to express his concerns, management “kept jabbing me with a stick saying that you did this, you did this, you did this”.

[67]         The medical evidence Mr. Boyce relies on to establish that he had a disability at the relevant time consists of medical records spanning the period between March 2018 and March 2021. Those records indicate that between August and September 2019, Mr. Boyce reported to his doctor that he was experiencing anxiety, burn out, and workplace stress from working in a toxic environment, was being bullied and harassed by supervisors and his union, and was concerned about losing his job. When he was on medical leave, Mr. Boyce reported to his doctor that he was feeling anxious about returning to work and that counselling was helping. The medical evidence also indicates that in late May 2019, Mr. Boyce went to an emergency room and reported increased stress at work, tightness in his neck, tooth pain, and earache. Mr. Boyce also told the doctor he had moved a large tree that morning, but he did not think that was the cause of his symptoms. Mr. Boyce was discharged with a diagnosis of muscle strain.

[68]         Based on the evidence as a whole, I find the evidence established that the symptoms of stress and anxiety that Mr. Boyce experienced were entirely work-related, either because of his heavy workload or ongoing interpersonal conflicts with co-workers, supervisors, and management.

[69]         In Vandale v. Town of Golden and others, 2009 BCHRT 219, the Tribunal affirmed that stress, anxiety, personality conflicts at work, and panic attacks are not sufficient to establish a mental disability: at para. 38. The Tribunal recognized that “anxiety is a commonly experienced emotion, which may be a symptoms of a mental disability, such as an anxiety disorder, but it not itself a mental disability”: at para. 38. In Matheson v. School District No. 53 (Okanagan Similkameen) and Collis, 2009 BCHRT 112, the Tribunal said at para. 14:

Stress, in itself, is not a disability for the purposes of the Code. In particular, workplace stress resulting from an employer investigating alleged performance problems, or from a problematic relationship with a supervisor, is not alone sufficient to constitute a disability for Code purposes.

[70]         My conclusion that Mr. Boyce did not have a Code-protected disability is consistent with cases such as Vandale and Rabiei v. Freshslice Holdings Ltd. and another, 2026 BCHRT 180. In Vandale, the complainant alleged that her supervisor and a co-worker discriminated against her based on mental disability by deliberately harassing her to cause her stress and anxiety. The complainant alleged the harassment was “an ongoing effort to make and keep her working environment so stressful that she would have no choice but to resign”: at para. 3. The Tribunal dismissed the complaint before a hearing on the basis that it did not allege facts or omissions that could constitute discrimination under the Code. Specifically, the Tribunal concluded that the complainant’s allegations of stress, anxiety, panic attacks, and personality conflicts were not sufficient to establish a disability for the purposes of the Code.

[71]         In Rabiei, the Tribunal dismissed the part of the complaint that alleged disability-related employment discrimination after a hearing because the complainant did not prove he had a disability protected under the Code. In that case, the complainant experienced stress and anxiety. The complainant took a medical leave of about one month that was supported by three brief, non-descript doctor’s notes. The complainant’s evidence was that his symptoms included tightness in his chest, heart palpitations, nausea, and weight loss. The medical evidence indicated that the complainant’s symptoms were due to workplace stress and improved after he left his job. The Tribunal found that the complainant’s anxiety and stress did not amount to a disability under the Code, because they were transient, did not require treatment, were not particularly severe, and, other than the brief medical leave, did not prevent the complainant from being able to meaningfully participate in the everyday activities of his life: at para. 42.

[72]         The second reason why I find that Mr. Boyce has not proven this part of his case is because it is clear from the evidence that his anxiety and stress flowed solely from his workload and ongoing interpersonal conflicts with others. The Tribunal has held that the Code does not apply when an employer causes the disability, as in that situation the employer is not discriminating against the employee because of or in relation to a disability: Rabiei at para. 43; Vandale at para. 43. The rationale underlying this principle is “rooted in the fundamental purposes of the Code, which are focussed on removing barriers to full and equal participation in areas of life protected by the Code, by people who have Code-protected characteristics”: Tyler v. City of Powell River, 2025 BCHRT 316 at para. 62.

[73]         Similar to the complainant in Vandale, the essence of Mr. Boyce’s complaint is that the City caused him to suffer stress and anxiety, not that the City discriminated against him because of or in relation to a pre-existing condition. Put another way, Mr. Boyce does not allege that the symptoms of work-related stress and anxiety he experienced were connected in any way to, or exacerbated by, a pre-existing medical condition. As the Tribunal noted at para. 63 of Tyler:

The Code is not meant to protect against all bad treatment, only bad treatment that is connected to a protected characteristic. If a person did not have (or was not perceived to have) a Code protected characteristic at the time they experienced the adverse treatment, then there was no protected characteristic that was acting as a barrier to their ability to fully and with dignity access an area of life protected by the Code.

[74]         Given my finding that Mr. Boyce did not have a disability for the purposes of the Code, it is not necessary for me to consider the remaining elements of his case.

IV    CONCLUSION

[75]         For the reasons set out above, the complaint is dismissed.

Beverly Froese
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal