Manuel v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., 2026 BCHRT 32
Date Issued: January 27, 2026
File: CS-006339
Indexed as: Manuel v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., 2026 BCHRT 32
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:
Allan Roy Craig Manuel
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Canadian Forest Products Ltd.
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Andrew Robb
On his own behalf: Allan Roy Craig Manuel
Counsel for the Respondent: Maggie Campbell and Talia Behrmann
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Allan Roy Craig Manuel filed a human rights complaint against his former employer, Canadian Forest Products Ltd. [CFPL]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, CFPL had a policy requiring employees to wear masks at work. Mr. Manuel says he could not wear a mask due to his disability. He says CFPL discriminated against him by refusing to exempt him from the mask policy.
[2] CFPL denies discriminating and applies to dismiss the complaint. CFPL says Mr. Manuel has no reasonable prospect of proving he faced disability-related barriers to wearing a mask, and in the alternative, CFPL is reasonably certain to prove it discharged its duty to accommodate him. CFPL also applies to dismiss the complaint on the basis that proceeding would not further the purposes of the Human Rights Code, because the Tribunal’s delay in processing the complaint has compromised CFPL’s ability to defend itself, due to the death of a crucial witness.
[3] For the following reasons, I allow the application, and I dismiss Mr. Manuel’s complaint. On the evidence before me, I find Mr. Manuel has no reasonable prospect of proving he has a disability that interfered with his ability to wear a mask at work. Even if he did have a disability that interfered with his ability to wear a mask, I am satisfied that CFPL is reasonably certain to prove it discharged its duty to accommodate him.
[4] 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
[5] Mr. Manuel started working for CFPL in or around 2007. In 2020, he was employed as a janitor. His position was unionised.
[6] CFPL says that in November 2020, in response to guidance from the provincial Public Health Officer, it required all employees to wear a mask while working within six feet of other employees.
[7] On November 23, 2020, CFPL says Mr. Manuel refused to wear a mask. CFPL says his supervisor told him he was required to wear one while working in indoor spaces accessible to other employees, but Mr. Manuel refused to comply. CFPL says Mr. Manuel then attended a meeting with his other managers, in which he said he was unable to wear a mask for health reasons. CFPL says it requested medical documentation to substantiate this claim. Mr. Manuel’s complaint confirms he was “sent to see [his] doctor” on November 23, 2020. Mr. Manuel’s response to the application to dismiss includes what appear to be his contemporaneous notes from the meeting on November 23, 2020. The notes say he said the mask requirement was not consistent with human rights, and he would not provide any health information.
[8] On December 1, 2020, Mr. Manuel gave CFPL a note from his doctor. The note said:
I spoke with Craig Manuel today. He made mention of the discomfort he faced wearing a facemask and as a result he was not able to cope with it. He mentioned that he has a chronic breathing problem. He is being assessed for it right now. He said he will not be able to work for now due to his anxiety situation. He will be followed up in clinic with his breathing test as soon as it is available.
[9] Based on this note, CFPL says it allowed Mr. Manuel to go on medical leave. Mr. Manuel says he was placed on leave because he could not access the medical tests required to substantiate his disability until March 2021.
[10] CFPL says that on or around March 4, 2021, Mr. Manuel gave CFPL medical information showing he was found to have symptoms consistent with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]. CFPL says Mr. Manuel wanted to return to work, but continued to refuse to wear a mask, so CFPL asked for his doctor to fill out a medical questionnaire about his restrictions.
[11] Mr. Manuel’s doctor completed the questionnaire on March 16, 2021. The doctor said he had COPD and an anxiety disorder that affected his ability to wear a mask, and noted that he had shortness of breath relating to the use of a mask on November 27, 2020. There is no other information in the questionnaire, or in any materials before me, about what happened on that date.
[12] In response to a question about whether Mr. Manuel had a medical condition that prevented him from attending work on a regular, full-time basis, the doctor said no. In response to a question about whether there was objective medical evidence that prevents him from wearing a mask, the doctor wrote that this would depend on the level of physical activity required by his job: if there was “increased physical demand,” Mr. Manuel would be “impeded” by wearing a mask.
[13] CFPL says Mr. Manuel attended a meeting with CFPL managers on March 19, 2021, to discuss the information provided by his doctor. CFPL says Mr. Manuel said he could not wear a mask at all because it caused him anxiety, but he eventually agreed to wear a mask in the workplace when he was within six feet of others. CFPL says he returned to work on March 22, 2021.
[14] CFPL says that on March 24, 2021, Mr. Manuel again refused to wear a mask, and he was sent home from work. CFPL says he then went on vacation until April 16, 2021. While he was on vacation, CFPL says it searched for alternative positions for him, which would not require him to work in close proximity with others. When he returned from vacation, CFPL assigned him to work as a yard/utility worker. This meant he would work outside, with minimal proximity to others, so he would not have to wear a mask often, if at all. But CFPL says that within a few hours of starting this role, Mr. Manuel said he could not work outside because it was too dusty, and this caused difficulties with his breathing. Mr. Manuel’s complaint confirms that he said he could not work outside in a dusty environment, due to his COPD.
[15] CFPL says management told Mr. Manuel that if he could not work outside, and he refused to wear a mask, then CFPL had no work for him, so he would be put on leave as a form of accommodation.
[16] CFPL says that in April and June of 2021, it attempted to contact Mr. Manuel to offer him outdoor work in other, less dusty locations, but he did not respond. Mr. Manuel does not deny this.
[17] CFPL says that in July 2021, after the provincial Public Health Officer revised their guidance so that only unvaccinated employees would be required to wear masks at work, CFPL’s human resources manager attempted to contact Mr. Manuel to discuss his return to work, but he did not respond.
[18] By letter dated August 3, 2021, CFPL notified Mr. Manuel that his failure to contact CFPL may result in termination of his employment. He did not respond and, on September 10, 2021, CFPL terminated his employment. CFPL says he abandoned his position. Mr. Manuel says he found a new job because CFPL refused to accommodate him.
[19] CFPL says Mr. Manuel’s union filed a grievance on his behalf, but the grievance was later withdrawn.
III DECISION
[20] I find I can address CFPL’s application most efficiently under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code, on the basis that the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. Section 27(1)(c) is part of the Tribunal’s gate-keeping function. It allows the Tribunal to dismiss complaints which do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing. The onus is on CFPL to establish the basis for dismissal.
[21] 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. 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.
[22] 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 beyond conjecture: Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49 at para. 27.
[23] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Manuel would have to prove he had a disability, he was adversely impacted in his employment, and his disability 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 CFPL to justify the impact as a bona fide occupational requirement. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.
[24] In its application under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code, CFPL argues that Mr. Manuel has no reasonable prospect of proving his disability interferes with his ability to wear a mask, and in any event CFPL is reasonably certain to prove its conduct was justified under the Code. To justify its conduct at a hearing, CFPL would have to prove that conduct was based on a standard or practice adopted in good faith, for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of Mr. Manuel’s job, and the standard or practice is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that legitimate purpose. This includes CFPL’s duty to accommodate Mr. Manuel to the point of undue hardship: British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union (Meiorin Grievance), [1999] 3 SCR 3 at para. 54.
[25] For the following reasons, I find Mr. Manuel has no reasonable prospect of proving his disability interferes with his ability to wear a mask, and in any event CFPL is reasonably certain to prove its conduct was justified under the Code.
[26] Any claim of disability discrimination arising from a requirement to wear a mask must begin by establishing that the complainant has a disability that interferes with their ability to wear a mask: The Customer v. The Store, 2021 BCHRT 39 at para. 14. At a hearing, if a complainant does not prove their disability interfered with their ability to wear a mask, they cannot establish discrimination based on a failure to accommodate them.
[27] CFPL says Mr. Manuel has not provided any evidence that he was unable to wear a mask during his work at CFPL. While his doctor says that wearing a mask would have impeded him “if there was increased physical demand”, CFPL says his job did not involve any increased physical demand or strenuous activity. CFPL says his duties as a janitor included cleaning and sanitizing spaces, and this required minimal exertion.
[28] In his response to the application to dismiss, Mr. Manuel does not deny CFPL’s claim about the nature of his duties. He does not suggest that in any of the incidents where he did not wear a mask at work, it was due to increased physical demands on him. He says he has an anxiety disorder that affected his ability to wear a mask, but he does not provide any further explanation. Much of his response to the application to dismiss consists of arguments and evidence about the efficacy of masks in reducing transmission of COVID-19.
[29] On the evidence before me, I find Mr. Manuel has not taken the connection between his disability and his ability to wear a mask beyond conjecture. He has not explained how his COPD prevented him from wearing a mask while working as a janitor, considering the undisputed evidence that his duties required minimal physical exertion. Nor has he explained how his anxiety disorder prevented him from wearing a mask at work. His statement that wearing a mask causes him anxiety, on its own, is not enough to trigger the protection of the Code: The Customer at para. 15. The medical evidence he provided said his anxiety disorder affected his ability to wear a mask, but it also said he could wear a mask at work except when there was increased physical demand. His doctor said he had shortness of breath relating to the use of a mask on November 27, 2020, but without more information about what happened on that occasion, I find this is insufficient to take the connection to his disability beyond conjecture.
[30] Even if Mr. Manuel did have a disability that interfered with his ability to wear a mask, I would still find the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success because CFPL is reasonably certain to prove its conduct was justified under the Code. Despite Mr. Manuel’s arguments about the efficacy of masks, I accept that CFPL is reasonably certain to establish that its requirement for Mr. Manuel to wear a mask in areas where he could come within six feet of others was established in good faith, in response to guidance from the provincial Public Health Officer, and was rationally connected to its obligation to ensure the health and safety of its employees, in the context of a global pandemic: Forrest v. Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. and another, 2024 BCHRT 138 at paras. 30-31.
[31] I also accept that CFPL is reasonably certain to prove it discharged its duty to accommodate Mr. Manuel. The duty to accommodate requires employees and employers to cooperate in finding an appropriate accommodation, and requires an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation, not necessarily an employee’s preferred one:: Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970. On the evidence before me, CFPL is reasonably certain to prove Mr. Manuel rejected all forms of accommodation other than continuing in his normal duties without being required to wear a mask, and he did not cooperate with CFPL’s attempts to find an appropriate accommodation.
[32] Mr. Manuel says CFPL refused to consider accommodations other than assigning him to work in dusty, outdoor locations, but he does not address CFPL’s evidence that it offered him work in less dusty locations. He does not deny that CFPL contacted him about returning to work after the Provincial Health Officer changed their guidance, so that employees who were vaccinated against COVID-19 would not be required to wear masks in the workplace. Considering the undisputed evidence about Mr. Manuel’s failure to respond to CFPL’s attempts to work with him during the accommodation process, I am satisfied that CFPL is reasonably certain to prove it offered reasonable alternatives for accommodating Mr. Manuel, and it attempted to discuss these alternatives with him, but he did not respond.
[33] In summary, I am satisfied that Mr. Manual has no reasonable prospect of proving he faced disability-related barriers to wearing a mask at work, and that even if he did face such barriers, CFPL is reasonably certain to prove its conduct was justified. For these reasons, I find the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success.
IV CONCLUSION
[34] The complaint is dismissed under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.
Andrew Robb
Tribunal Member