Matthews v. Victory Baptist Church and another, 2026 BCHRT 208
Date Issued: October 6, 2026
File: CS-008125
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:
Margaret (Margo) Matthews
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Wendy Lunn and Victory Baptist Church
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi
On their own behalf: Margaret Matthews
Agent for the Respondents: Dan Searle
Date of Hearing: August 27, 2026
Location of Hearing: Via Videoconference
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Margaret (Margo) Matthews attended a potluck dinner event hosted by Victory Baptist Church. Ms. Matthews was given a ride to the church by one of its volunteers, Wendy Lunn. Ms. Matthews alleges Ms. Lunn and Victory Baptist Church [together the “Respondents”] discriminated against her in the area of services based on several protected characteristics under the Human Rights Code. She says that when she was attending the event and accessing its services, Ms. Lunn made derogatory and hostile remarks to her and bullied, harassed, and tormented her based on her race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, physical disability, family status, and martial status.
[2] The Respondents deny discriminating and dispute they engaged in any of the alleged conduct.
[3] In this decision, I must decide whether Ms. Matthews has proven the facts she alleges and if so, whether those facts establish discrimination. For the reasons that follow I find she has not proven the facts alleged and I dismiss the complaint.
[4] The parties called witnesses and introduced evidence over the course of a one-day hearing. While I do not refer to it all in my decision, I have considered all the evidence and submissions of the parties. This is not a complete recitation of that information, but only what is necessary to come to a decision.
II BACKGROUND
[5] Victory Baptist Church hosts a monthly potluck dinner for seniors. Dan Searle is the senior pastor of the church who oversees its activities. Wendy Lunn is a member of the church who volunteered for the church by providing rides to seniors who needed transportation to church activities.
[6] On one occasion Ms. Lunn gave Ms. Matthews rides to and from her home to attend a potluck dinner at the church.
[7] Ms. Matthews’ evidence is that this encounter occurred on July 12, 2022. She says this was the first and only time she met Ms. Lunn. She says Ms. Lunn threw the food she was bringing to the potluck into the car and physically assaulted her, asked her where she was from, made disparaging comments about her skin colour, and generally insulted her during the ride. She says these comments, bullying and harassment amounted to adverse impacts.
[8] Ms. Matthews says that after they arrived at the church Ms. Lunn spoke to her in a hostile manner throughout the event, knocked on the door to the prayer room where Ms. Matthews was resting, and used the washroom when Ms. Matthews was also using the facilities. Ms. Matthews says she was approached by another church member, Greg Samchak, who said he witnessed Ms. Lunn’s behaviour and advised her to report the conduct to Mr. Searle.
[9] Ms. Matthews says that on the ride home, Ms. Lunn accused her of taking the leftover potluck food. She says Ms. Lunn said she was tired of giving Ms. Matthews rides and told her to stop asking her for rides. Ms. Matthews says that several days after this encounter Ms. Lunn came to her house and dumped excrement on her front door mat.
[10] The Respondents deny Ms. Matthews’ allegations. They agree Ms. Lunn gave Ms. Matthews rides to and from a potluck, but say it occurred on a different date, deny Ms. Lunn made any negative comments or assaulted Ms. Matthews, deny Ms. Lunn harassed Ms. Matthews at the event, deny Ms. Lunn accused Ms. Matthews of taking leftovers, and deny Ms. Lunn dumped excrement on Ms. Matthews’ door mat.
III ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[11] For the purposes of this decision, I assume without deciding that Ms. Matthews’ complaint engages the provision of a service under s. 8 of the Code.
[12] A complainant bears the burden of proving their allegations on a balance of probabilities. To succeed in her claim of discrimination under s. 8 of the Code, Ms. Matthews must show that it is more likely than not, that: (1) she has a characteristic protected by the Code; (2) she was adversely impacted in services; and (3) her protected characteristics were a factor in that adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.
[13] The Respondents do not dispute that Ms. Matthews has the protected characteristics. Therefore, the first element is not in issue. The issues I must determine is whether Ms. Matthews experienced an adverse impact in services and if so, whether her race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, physical disability, family status or marital status were a factor in that adverse treatment.
[14] The central allegations in this complaint are disputed. Ms. Matthews says that during the ride to the event Ms. Lunn physically attacked her, asked her, “where are you from”, made negative comments about her skin colour, and threw her food onto the floor of the car. She says that at the event Ms. Lunn spoke to her in a hostile manner, knocked on the door to the prayer room, and used the bathroom when she was also using it. She says that after the event Ms. Lunn accused her of being greedy and taking the leftover food from the potluck and told her not to ask her for rides. The Respondents deny the allegations and say Ms. Lunn did not assault Ms. Matthews, make any negative comments, knock on the prayer room door, use the bathroom when Ms. Matthews was using it, accuse Ms. Matthews of taking leftovers or tell her not to ask for rides. Ms. Lunn says she has volunteered for the church for several years and gave Ms. Matthews rides to other church events. She denies Ms. Matthews’ allegations of physically or verbally assaulting her and generally treating her poorly. The Respondents deny any of the events Ms. Matthews alleges occurred at all.
[15] Because the parties fundamentally disagree on what happened, I must assess the credibility and reliability of the witnesses’ evidence to make findings of fact. Credibility and reliability are distinct concepts. Credibility considers the truthfulness of a witness’s testimony while reliability considers its accuracy: Christensen v. Save-a-Lot Holdings Corp. (No. 3), 2023 BCHRT 125 at para. 13. In some cases, a witnesses’ evidence may not be trustworthy because they have “made a conscious decision not to tell the truth”: Youyi Group Holdings (Canada) Ltd. v. Brentwood Lanes Canada Ltd., 2019 BCSC 739 at para. 89. I do not find that to be the case for any of the witnesses here.
[16] Rather, I find any differences in the evidence can be explained as a matter of reliability, based on the ability of a witness to accurately observe, recall, and recount what occurred. The witnesses testified about events that occurred over four years ago. I appreciate that over this length of time, memories may fade or calcify around a particular version of events.
[17] In assessing reliability, I have considered the witnesses’ ability and opportunity to observe events, whether the evidence is plausible, whether supporting or contradictory evidence exists, and whether their evidence is internally or externally consistent: Harder v. Tupas-Singh and another, 2022 BCHRT 50 at para. 6. I have also considered whether the evidence of the witness is in “harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions”: Faryna v. Chorny, 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA) at para. 11.
[18] For the following reasons I prefer the evidence of the Respondents about what occurred on the evening of the potluck. I find that Ms. Matthews has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Lunn did any of the alleged actions.
[19] First, Ms. Matthews’ evidence was inconsistent, both internally and with other materials including her own pleadings. For instance, Ms. Matthews initially testified that the potluck dinner was the sole instance she attended an event held by the church other than its services. She later testified that she had attended other events including a tailgating event in the church parking lot, and a birthday celebration for a child at the church. She also claimed that she had not attended the church for a decade prior to the alleged events but later stated that she had been attending the church for many years before the events.
[20] Ms. Matthews also testified at first that the potluck dinner and ride occurred in April 2022, the date she provided in her complaint form. She subsequently said the interaction occurred on July 12, 2022. When asked about this, Ms. Matthews asserted that the event occurred on July 12, 2022, and was unable to explain why she provided the April 2022 date in her initial complaint.
[21] Further, Ms. Matthews was presented emails she had written to the church in April and May 2022, demanding apologies for the events of the potluck. Ms. Matthews was unable to explain why she wrote emails prior to the date she says the alleged events occurred and asserted that the interaction occurred on July 12, 2022. The evidence contradicts Ms. Matthews’ assertion that she only attended one church event. The inconsistencies in Ms. Matthews’ evidence that was not explained leads me to have concerns generally about the accuracy of her recollections.
[22] Second, Ms. Matthews’ evidence is disputed by the Respondents. Ms. Lunn denies she assaulted or insulted Ms. Matthews during the drive to or from or during the potluck. Mr. Searle says he did not see Ms. Lunn speak in a hostile manner to Ms. Matthews during any potluck event. The evidence of the Respondents is consistent with one another and contradicts Ms. Matthews’ version of events.
[23] The Respondents called Greg Samchak, a member of the church, as a witness. Mr. Samchak attended the potluck and testified about what he observed. He testified that he knew both Ms. Lunn and Ms. Matthews as members of the church and did not see them interacting during the potluck event. Mr. Samchak disputes Ms. Matthews’ evidence that he went up to Ms. Matthews at the event and told her he witnessed Ms. Lunn abusing her and that she should speak to the Pastor about it. I place significant weight on Mr. Samchak’s evidence as he is a non-party disinterested witness.
[24] Finally, I have considered whether Ms. Matthews’ evidence is in harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities that are reasonable under the circumstances. I find it is not. Ms. Matthews’ version of events is that the first, and only, encounter she had with Ms. Lunn was on the day of the potluck when Ms. Lunn gave her a ride to and from the event where Ms. Lunn, unprovoked, physically assaulted, verbally insulted, and bullied and harassed her throughout the evening. While accepting that unprovoked stranger attacks may occur, I find Ms. Matthews’ allegations about Ms. Lunn strains credulity.
[25] In my view it is not within the probabilities that a practical and informed person would find reasonable that Ms. Lunn met Ms. Matthews for the first time when giving her a ride to a church event, and physically assaulted, verbally insulted, and bullied and harassed her throughout that evening. Notably, Ms. Matthews says that Ms. Lunn said she was sick of giving rides to Ms. Matthews. In my view, Ms. Matthews’ allegation is inconsistent with her assertion that she had never met Ms. Lunn prior to the event, and this was the only instance when she received a ride.
[26] I accept that Ms. Matthews sincerely believes her version of events. However, the sincerity of her belief is insufficient to find her evidence reliable when viewed in light of its internal inconsistencies and the other contradictory evidence. I find Ms. Matthews evidence to be unreliable and prefer the evidence of the Respondents about what happened on the day of the potluck event. Therefore, I find Ms. Matthews has not established her allegations on a balance of probabilities, so she has not proven the respondents discriminated.
[27] I briefly address Ms. Matthews’ allegation that Ms. Lunn came to her home days after the potluck to put excrement on her front door mat. I am unable to find that an allegation of something that occurred days after the event, outside of the church, and not done on its behalf, falls within the scope of, even the largest, most liberal and purposive, interpretation of s.8 of the Code. This is not an allegation regarding a service customarily available to the public and therefore is outside the scope of the Code.
IV CONCLUSION
[28] Based on the evidence, I find the Respondents did not violate the Code. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed in its entirety under s. 37(1) of the Code.
Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member