Gonzales Burnside v. Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia, 2026 BCHRT 206
Date Issued: September 24, 2026
File(s): CS-010987
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:
Ashleigh Rhea Gonzales Burnside
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
Section 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On their own behalf: Ashleigh Rhea Gonzales Burnside
Counsel for OCABC: Nazeer T. Mitha, K.C.
I INTRODUCTION
[1] The Complainant, Ashleigh Rhea Gonzales Burnside, filed this human rights complaint on December 3, 2023. The Complainant uses they pronouns. They allege that their former employer, the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia [OCABC], discriminated in employment based on mental and physical disability, gender identity or expression and family status contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code [Code].
[2] The Tribunal invited the parties to make submissions about whether to accept the complaint under s. 22 of the Code and they provided submissions, and I considered them in making this decision.
[3] The OCABC admits timely allegations from December 8, 2022, until January 20, 2023, in employment based on mental and physical disability. However, the OCABC argues the Complainant’s untimely allegations do not form part of a continuing contravention of the Code, and it is not in the public interest to allow them to proceed late filed.
[4] The Complainant argues the complaint is timely because their allegations from July 2020 onwards form part of a continuing contravention. In the alternative, they argue that it is in the public interest to allow any late filed allegations to proceed.
[5] The issues I must, therefore, decide are whether the allegations against the OCABC prior to filing (December 3, 2022), form part of a continuing contravention: s. 22(2) or whether any late filed allegations should proceed for reasons related to the public interest: s. 22(3).
[6] For the following reasons the complaint will proceed. I have determined that the Complainant’s allegations from July 2, 2020, to January 20, 2023 allege a timely continuing contravention of the Code: s. 22(2).
II DECISION
[7] 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).
[8] The Complainant filed this complaint on December 3, 2023. Any allegations of discrimination before December 3, 2022, will be untimely unless they are part of a continuing contravention.
A. Arguable contraventions within one year of complaint and earlier
[9] 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 with respect to the Respondents. I will also determine whether any earlier filed allegations are also arguable contraventions of the Code.
[10] 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.
[11] The Complainant was previously employed as a project manager by the OCABC. They have various mental and physical disabilities, are female non-binary, and act as a caregiver for their spouse who has mental disabilities.
[12] On July 2, 2020, the Complainant alleges that their director discouraged them from applying for a promotion because they had too many other non-work responsibilities associated with taking care of their family. The Complainant alleges that they decided not to apply because it would be pointless to do so since their director was the hiring manager for the position [the Lost Promotion Allegation].
[13] On November 2, 2020, the Complainant alleges the OCABC stripped them of their supervisory duties without justification and assigned them to the new person who got the promotion they wanted for reasons related to their mental and physical disabilities, gender identity and family status. The Complainant alleges the new reporting arrangements caused a lot of frustration and toxicity within their team. They further allege that the new arrangement caused their mental health to deteriorate over time [the Demotion Allegation].
[14] From August to December 2021, the Complainant worked in a temporary assignment in another organization. They arranged this move as a self-accommodation and report that the change immediately improved their health and confidence.
[15] On January 3, 2022, the Complainant returned to work in their unit at the OCABC. Over time, they allege that the combination of the employer’s failure to provide effective management and support resulted in a severe decline in their health, work performance and daily function. Throughout 2022, the Complainant alleges that they sought transfers to other departments within the OCABC and at the BC RCMP as a medical accommodation. They allege that the OCABC denied their requests to work elsewhere as a suitable medical accommodation each time they identified an opportunity. They further allege taking steps on their own to mitigate the negative work situation by reducing their hours. The Complainant also notes being off work sick for the majority of 2022 [the Denied Work Elsewhere Allegations].
[16] On December 8, 2022, the Complainant alleges that the OCABC denied their request to work in a six-month position at BC RCMP as a civilian criminal investigator. The Complainant alleges the OCABC refused the transfer because they had fallen behind in their work while being off on sick leave and would get further behind if permitted to take this temporary position [BC RCMP Job Denied Allegation].
[17] In a letter received December 13, 2022, the Complainant alleges the OCABC wrote them a disciplinary letter linking their history of medical absences to deficiencies in their work. The employer also allegedly denied the Complainant’s request to take the temporary position at the BC RCMP [Reprimanded for Sick Leave Allegation].
[18] In a letter received January 20, 2023, the Complainant alleges the OCABC terminated their employment, effective March 15, 2023, with sick leave benefits extending to March 30, 2023. The Complainant alleges they were terminated for reasons related to their disabilities and family status because the OCABC referenced their sick leave absences and perceived poor work performance in the letter [Termination Allegation].
[19] The OCABC takes issue with the November 2, 2020, Demotion Allegation, being an arguable contravention of the Code.
[20] The OCABC argues the change in management and removal of the Complainant’s supervisory duties was not connected to their personal characteristics, including disability and family status. As recognized by the Complainant, other staff in similar roles were also feeling the same frustration with the restructuring that was equally affected them. In circumstances where project managers at the Complainant’s level were all experiencing the same issues, OCABC argues there was nothing to relate the Complainant’s personal characteristics to these harms.
[21] The Complainant alleges the Demotion Allegation was part of a sustained and compounding pattern of adverse treatment tied directly to their mental and physical disabilities, gender identity and family status. This included receiving a demotion in status and function without justification.
[22] While appreciating the OCABC has evidence the brings into question the connection between the November 2, 2020, Demotion Allegation and the Complainant’s personal characteristics, I am satisfied that the Complainant has set out an arguable contravention in relation to this allegation. The Complainant’s allegations link the demotion harms to their disability and family status sufficiently in my view to overcome the low threshold of their protected characteristics being a factor in the adverse impact. The Complainant alleges they lost their supervisory role as part of a pattern of mistreatment related to their disability, gender identity or expression and family status. My conclusion about this allegation being an arguable contravention has no bearing on any later findings of discrimination that consider how all the project managers were being treated at that time in the restructuring.
[23] I am further satisfied that all the other allegations described above in detail are arguable contraventions of the Code, including:
· July 2, 2020, Lost Promotion
· January 3, 2022, Denied Work Elsewhere Allegations
· December 8, 2022, BC RCMP Job Denied Allegation
· December 13, 2022, Reprimanded for Sick Leave Allegation
· January 20, 2023, Termination Allegation
After reviewing the Complainant’s allegations, I have determined that they all contain harms in the workplace setting related to the Complainant’s disabilities and family status.
As such, there are three timely allegations that are arguable contraventions from December 8, 2022, to January 20, 2023.
[24] The next issue is whether the three allegations arising before December 3, 2022, namely the July 2, 2020, Lost Promotion, November 2, 2020, Demotion Allegation and the 2022, Denied Work Elsewhere Allegations form part of a continuing contravention of the Code. If so, they are timely: s. 22(2).
B. Alleged continuing contravention
[25] A continuing contravention is “a succession or repetition of separate acts of discrimination of the same character” that could be considered separate contraventions of the Code, and “not merely one act of discrimination which may have continuing effects or consequences”: Chen v. Surrey (City), 2015 BCCA 57at para. 23, citing Re The Queen in Right of Manitoba and Manitoba Human Rights Commission 1983 CanLII 2967 (MB CA); School District at para. 50. The assessment is a “fact specific one which will depend very much on the individual circumstances of each case”: Dickson v. Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition, 2005 BCHRT 209 at para. 17.
[26] A relevant consideration is whether there are gaps between the allegations: Dickson at para. 16. A significant, unexplained, gap in time will militate against finding a continuing contravention: Bjorklund v. BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, 2018 BCHRT 204 at para. 14. Whether or not a gap is significant will be assessed contextually, considering the length itself and any explanations for the gap: Reynolds v Overwaitea Food Group, 2013 BCHRT 67, at para. 28. The concept of continuing contravention must not be used “to improperly sweep in allegations which would otherwise be far outside the Code’s time limits”: Van Baranaigien v BC Ferry Services Inc., 2016 BCHRT 33 at para. 44.
[27] The OCABC argues the July 2, 2020, Lost Promotion Allegation is of a different nature than the other allegations because it specifically involves the Complainant’s family status. Here, the Complainant alleges being held back from applying for a promotion because their caregiving responsibilities at home were considerable. In contrast, the OCABC argues the remainder of the allegations involve the Complainant’s mental and physical disabilities.
[28] The Complainant submits that all their allegations are of a similar nature because they all involve negative treatment at work that is related to their disability and family status. They argue these events were cumulative and interconnected by a persistent neglect of their disclosed medical conditions and caregiving responsibilities.
[29] After reviewing the nature of the allegations, I do not share the OCABC’s view that the Lost Promotion Allegation is of a different nature than the Complainant’s other allegations. In my view the OCABC’s alleged negative treatment of the Complainant stems from its belief that their work absences were excessive for reasons related to disability and family caregiving obligations. In this case, I see a pattern of alleged poor performance rooted in the Complainant’s absences related to both disability and caregiving negatively impacting their career development opportunities. Here, all the allegations are of a similar nature because they involve the Complainant being held back from thriving in the workplace for reasons related to the OCABC blaming them for the negative consequences of legitimate absences. In these circumstances there is little distinction between an allegation rooted in the personal characteristic of family status with others that are rooted in disability.
[30] The OCABC further submits that the allegations are not in succession given the lengthy unexplained gaps between allegations. For the OCABC, the Lost Promotion Allegation should not form part of any succession since it is not of a similar nature to the other allegations. The OCABC further argues that the Demotion Allegation should not be considered because it is not an arguable contravention. As such, the OCABC focused its succession analysis on the gap between the January 3, 2022, Denied Work Elsewhere Allegations and the December 8, 2022, BC RCMP Job Denied Allegation. The OCABC argues that an 11-month gap exists between these allegations that is large and unexplained. While acknowledging that the Complainant was off work sick from March to July 2022, the OCABC notes that they were at work from July to November 2022. For the OCABC, this period at work without any allegations occurring indicates that the January 2022 and December 2022 allegations are discrete issues.
[31] As noted above, the Complainant submits that they were subjected to persistent neglect by the OCABC concerning accommodating their disabilities and family caregiving responsibilities.
[32] After reviewing the complaint information and the parties’ submissions I am satisfied the allegations from mid 2020 to the end of 2022 are in succession for the purposes of forming a continuing contravention under s. 22(2). In my view, the four-month gap between the Lost Promotion Allegation in July 2020 and the Demotion Allegation in November 2020 is not significant. Further, any gap between these allegations is explained by the time it took for the OCABC to conduct the hiring competition and effect structural changes once the job was filled.
[33] While the gap between the November 2020 Demotion Allegation and the January 2022 Denied Work Elsewhere Allegations appears to be significant at just over one year, I am satisfied that this gap is explainable because the Complaint worked elsewhere on a secondment during this period from August to December 2021. I am also satisfied this gap is explained because the Complainant notes in the complaint form that they went to OCABC’s human resources on several occasions and after disclosing their need for accommodations related to disability and family status and reports being told to bite their tongue and manage the situation on their own. In these circumstances the Complainant appears to have taken the matter into their own hands and secured the secondment to remove themselves from the negative work environment as of August 2021. As such, I am satisfied that this gap in the allegations is explained by the Complainant’s conduct in preparing to move elsewhere and leaving for a significant period.
[34] Finally, I have next considered the existence of a gap between the January 3, 2022, Denied Work Elsewhere Allegations and the December 8, 2022, BC RCMP Job Denied Allegation. I do not share the OCABC’s characterization of the gap between these two allegations as being unexplained. The Complainant alleges making multiple requests to transfer out from the department during that timeframe without providing exact dates. Additionally, they report being absent from work for the majority of 2022. Taking into consideration the Complainant’s evidence regarding being denied multiple requests to transfer out of the department along with being off for much of this period, I am satisfied that the gap between these allegations is adequately explained for the purposes of this application.
[35] Having considered the evidence and the parties’ submissions, I have determined that the Complainant has set out a series of allegations related to their disability and family status from July 2, 2020, until the first timely allegation, dated December 8, 2022, and beyond, that are of a similar character. I am also satisfied that the allegations are in succession without any significant unexplained gaps.
[36] As such, I am satisfied that the complaint for allegations from July 2, 2020, to January 20, 2023, alleges a timely continuing contravention of the Code: s. 22(2). It may now proceed.
III CONCLUSION
[37] The complaint is accepted for allegations for the period July 2, 2020, to January 20, 2023, may now proceed. The Tribunal’s case manager will contact the parties about their next steps.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member