Conchie v. Vancouver Christian School, 2026 BCHRT 221

Date Issued: October 21, 2026
File: CS-008109

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:

Daniel Conchie
COMPLAINANT

AND:

Vancouver Christian School
RESPONDENT

REASONS FOR DECISION

APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)

Tribunal Member: Ijeamaka Anika

On their own behalf: Daniel Conchie

Counsel for the Respondent: Elizabeth Cunningham

I        INTRODUCTION

[1]             This decision is about whether to dismiss Daniel Conchie’s complaint without a hearing.

[2]             Mr. Conchie’s child attended Vancouver Christian School [VCS] from September 2016 until he graduated in 2025. In November 2022, Mr. Conchie filed a human rights complaint alleging that VCS discriminated against him in services, on the ground of family status, contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code. He says that, as a parent, he was told in a harsh manner that he was not allowed on VCS’s property, or in the adjoining neighbourhood, to drop off his son, and that he was later told the same thing by email. He says he was treated this way because he “had the nerve to be a High School parent and drop off [his] child contrary to traffic policy.”

[3]             VCS denies discriminating. It says that it enacted the VCS Traffic Policy to govern where all parents and guardians may drop off and pick up students during peak traffic hours [the traffic policy], that the traffic policy applies to every family, and that it did not single Mr. Conchie out. It denies that anyone spoke to him harshly during pickup and dropoff. VCS applies to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success.

[4]             Under the Case Path Pilot, the Tribunal permitted VCS to apply to dismiss under s. 27(1)(c). In its application, VCS also argued under s. 27(1)(d)(ii) that proceeding with the complaint would not further the purposes of the Code.

[5]             The Tribunal will generally not consider dismissal on grounds other than those it permitted under the Case Path Pilot. There may be a narrow exception if the Tribunal decides it promotes the fair and timely resolution of the complaint to do so. The Tribunal exercises this discretion sparingly: Ibrahim v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1222 and another, 2024 BCHRT 183 at para. 5. I decline to exercise that discretion here because VCS has not applied for permission to make submissions under a different part of s. 27(1), nor has it provided arguments to support why it should be allowed to make arguments under sections not set out in the Tribunal’s instructions. Accordingly, I have only considered VCS’s submissions under s. 27(1)(c).

[6]             For the following reasons, I grant the application. Even if Mr. Conchie could establish that he experienced an adverse impact, I am persuaded that there is no reasonable prospect he could prove that his family status was a factor in any adverse impact he experienced. To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.

II      BACKGROUND

[7]             VCS is an independent school for students from Kindergarten to Grade 12. Mr. Conchie’s child attended VCS between September 2016 and June 2025. The events at the centre of this complaint occurred between October and November 2022.

[8]             VCS has had the traffic policy in place since September 2018, when it opened its new building. The traffic policy is the result of a traffic management study which the City of Vancouver approved. VCS says the City also requires it to communicate the traffic policy to, and enforce it with, all VCS families.

[9]             The traffic policy is intended to keep students and families safe during pickup and dropoff, and to reduce congestion in the neighbourhood. It defines a “traffic grid” around the school within which driving is regulated, identifies the times and places where students in particular grades can be picked up and dropped off, and sets speed limits within the grid.

[10]         Under the traffic policy, families receive a windshield decal. A red decal is issued to families whose youngest child at VCS is in Kindergarten to Grade 7. A blue decal is issued to families whose youngest child is in Grades 8 to 12. During peak hours:

a.   Families with a red decal may drop off and pick up students at the school’s front roundabout.

b.   Families with a blue decal must drop off students outside the traffic grid, from which students walk to the school (approximately 10 minutes away). The traffic policy recommends drop-off locations on a nearby road and in two nearby retail parking lots, connected to the school by a controlled crosswalk and park pathway.

c.   Parents visiting the office or meeting a teacher may enter the traffic grid and park in the neighbourhood.

[11]         Outside peak hours, all cars with a school decal may enter the traffic grid and use the roundabout. A traffic supervisor, who is a VCS staff member, monitors traffic during peak hours and ensures that everyone understands and follows the traffic policy.

[12]         In August and September 2022, VCS emailed its Back-to-School Information Package, which included the traffic policy, to all parents and guardians for the 2022/2023 school year.

[13]         Mr. Conchie’s child started Grade 10 at VCS in September 2022.

[14]         Mr. Conchie says that on October 3, 2022, he was told in a harsh manner that, as the parent of a high school student, he was not allowed on the school’s property or in the adjoining neighbourhood to drop off his son. In his response to this application, he identifies a traffic supervisor, who he says approached him on several occasions in a “very aggressive and unpleasant manner,” at one point “verging on hysteria because [he] had the nerve to be a High School parent and drop off [his] child contrary to traffic policy.” He says her conduct caused him significant emotional distress.

[15]         VCS disputes Mr. Conchie’s account. It did not file evidence from the traffic supervisor. It argues that the traffic supervisor would have reminded Mr. Conchie that he could not drive onto the property during peak hours, as the traffic policy states. It also says that Mr. Conchie continued to enter the traffic grid during peak hours after October 3, 2022.

[16]         On November 17, 2022, VCS sent a notice to all parents. Among other reminders about speed, courtesy, and decals, it stated: “High School students must be dropped off OUTSIDE the school TRAFFIC GRID and WALK to school.” Mr. Conchie says he was informed by email that, as a high school parent, he was not allowed within the traffic grid to drop off his child. He does not say whether the email was sent to him individually, and he does not identify the email. VCS says it did not send any such email to Mr. Conchie individually and that the November 17 notice went to all parents and guardians.

III    DECISION

[17]         VCS applies to dismiss Mr. Conchie’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c). The onus is on VCS to establish the basis for dismissal.

[18]         Section 27(1)(c) is part of the Tribunal’s gate-keeping function. It allows the Tribunal to remove complaints which do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing.

[19]         The Tribunal does not make findings of fact under s. 27(1)(c). Instead, the Tribunal looks at the evidence to decide whether “there is no reasonable prospect that findings of fact that would support the complaint could be made on a balance of probabilities after a full hearing of the evidence”: Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2006 BCCA 95 at para. 22, leave to appeal ref’d [2006] SCCA No. 171. The Tribunal must base its decision on the materials filed by the parties, and not on speculation about what evidence may be filed at the hearing: University of British Columbia v. Chan,2013 BCSC 942 at para. 77.

[20]         A dismissal application is not the same as a hearing: Lord v. Fraser Health Authority,2021 BCSC 2176 at para. 20; SEPQA v. Canadian Human Rights Commission,[1989] 2 SCR 879 at 899. The threshold to advance a complaint to a hearing is low. In a dismissal application, a complainant does not have to prove their complaint or show the Tribunal all the evidence they may introduce at a hearing. They only have to show that the evidence takes their complaint out of the realm of conjecture: Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49 [Hill] at para. 27.

[21]         Many human rights complaints raise issues of credibility. This is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to deny an application to dismiss: Evans v. University of British Columbia, 2008 BCSC 1026 at para. 34. However, if there are foundational or key issues of credibility, the complaint must go to a hearing: Francescutti v. Vancouver (City), 2017 BCCA 242 at para. 67.

[22]         To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Conchie will have to prove that he has a characteristic protected by the Code, he was adversely impacted in services, and his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. If he did that, the burden would shift to VCS to justify the impact as a bona fide reasonable justification. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.

[23]         In this application, VCS does not dispute that Mr. Conchie has the protected characteristic of family status based on his relationship with his child. Its argument is that there is no reasonable prospect Mr. Conchie could establish a connection between any adverse impact he experienced and his family status.

[24]         Mr. Conchie identifies three ways he was adversely impacted in services. He says he was not allowed to drop off his child at the front of the school; he received an email about the traffic policy; and a traffic supervisor spoke to him in an aggressive manner.

[25]         VCS does not argue that Mr. Conchie did not experience an adverse impact. For the purposes of this application, I assume without deciding that Mr. Conchie could establish that the traffic policy, the November 17 notice, and the traffic supervisor’s conduct each adversely impacted him.

[26]         Regarding nexus, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect Mr. Conchie could establish a connection between any of the issues he identifies and his family status.

[27]         Regarding the traffic policy, Mr. Conchie does not explain how it adversely affected him because of his family status. Instead, his submissions challenge the rationale and effectiveness of the traffic policy, including whether it reduced congestion and improved safety. He says that it has not reduced congestion, that parents of younger students misuse the roundabout, that his own drop-offs were quick and did not impede traffic, and that a commercial parking lot is not safer than school property. These may be sincere criticisms of how VCS manages traffic. However, Mr. Conchie does not point to anything about his relationship with his son, or his family circumstances that made the policy affect him differently.

[28]         Regarding the email, VCS argues that Mr. Conchie is referring to the November 17, 2022, notice, and Mr. Conchie does not dispute this. The materials indicate that the notice was sent to all parents and included a reminder that high school students were to be dropped off outside the traffic grid. The notice does not mention Mr. Conchie or otherwise appear directed at him personally. In Mr. Conchie’s response to the dismissal application, he does not point to any other communication he received informing him that he was prohibited from attending the school to drop off his son. He also does not make any submissions about a connection between this notice and his family status. In these circumstances, there is no reasonable prospect he could establish that the notice was connected to his family status.

[29]         Regarding the traffic supervisor, I accept for the purposes of this application that she may have spoken to Mr. Conchie in an unpleasant or aggressive manner. Even if that were the case, there is no evidence capable of connecting that conduct to his family status. On Mr. Conchie’s own account, the traffic supervisor approached him about dropping off his child inside the traffic grid. His words tie her reaction to his dropping off his child “contrary to traffic policy.” As with the traffic policy itself, he does not point to anything about his relationship with his child, or his family circumstances, that made its enforcement affect him differently from any other parent of a high school student. He says he was singled out because he was an “easy target,” but he does not explain what he means by that or identify any evidence linking the traffic supervisor’s conduct to his family status. On that basis, there is no reasonable prospect he could establish that his family status was a factor in the interaction.

[30]         On the materials before me, I am persuaded that there is no reasonable prospect Mr. Conchie will establish that his family status was a factor in any adverse impact he experienced.

IV    CONCLUSION

[31]         I grant VCS’s application to dismiss under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.

Ijeamaka Anika
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal