Pattinson v. University of Northern British Columbia, 2026 BCHRT 46
Date Issued: February 10, 2026
File: CS-004510
Indexed as: Pattinson v. University of Northern British Columbia, 2026 BCHRT 46
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:
Richard Pattinson
COMPLAINANT
AND:
University of Northern British Columbia
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi
On their own behalf: Richard Pattinson
Counsel for the Respondent: Paige Ainslie
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Richard Pattinson filed five complaints against his former employer, the University of Northern British Columbia. In four complaints, Dr. Pattinson alleges the University retaliated against him for filing earlier human rights complaints by not providing him workplace accommodations, investigating him for complaints of misconduct, and terminating his employment contrary to s. 43 of the Human Rights Code. In the remaining complaint, Dr. Pattinson alleges his mental disability was also a factor in the University’s decision to terminate his employment contrary to s. 13 of the Code. The Tribunal joined the five complaints to be considered together as one complaint.
[2] The University denies retaliating or discriminating and seeks to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code because there is no reasonable prospect Dr. Pattinson could establish a nexus between any of the impugned conduct and the earlier complaints or his protected characteristic.
[3] For the reasons set out below, I allow the application and dismiss the complaint. I am persuaded that there is no reasonable prospect of Dr. Pattinson proving there is a sufficient connection between the University’s conduct and the earlier complaints to establish retaliation within the meaning of s. 43. I am also satisfied, on the evidence before me, that the University is reasonably certain to establish that it had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for terminating his employment. I find there is no reasonable prospect Dr. Pattinson would be able to establish that there is a connection between his mental disability and the termination.
[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] Dr. Pattinson was employed by the University in a number of roles.
[6] Dr. Pattinson filed two complaints in July 2018 and May 2019, alleging discrimination in employment by the University between April 6, 2018 and January 23, 2020. These complaints were resolved by a successful application to dismiss on the basis of a reasonable settlement offer: Pattinson v. University of Northern British Columbia (No.4), 2025 BCHRT 57.
[7] On March 9, 2020, Dr. Pattinson began work as a Facilities Membership Assistant at the University’s Northern Sports Centre.
[8] In February 2021, the University received complaints from four underage female guests of the Sports Centre about Dr. Pattinson’s conduct. The University hired an external investigator to investigate the complaints. During the course of the investigation staff members made additional complaints about Dr. Pattinson’s behaviour that were added to the investigation.
[9] While the investigation was ongoing, Dr. Pattinson submitted a note from his doctor to the University in or about May 2021, requesting accommodation for his mental disability. Specifically, Dr. Pattinson said he was permanently restricted from communicating verbally with his supervisor for any purpose and the supervisor must communicate exclusively in writing to Dr. Pattinson. Further, Dr. Pattinson said his ability to communicate verbally with colleagues was situational and he would “inform himself”. The University said it could not accommodate these restrictions in his current role without undue hardship. The University placed Dr. Pattinson on a leave of absence from his sports centre role on June 28, 2021. It said it would look for alternate positions that fit Dr. Pattinson’s restrictions and accommodations.
[10] On September 10, 2021, while he was on leave, Dr. Pattinson submitted a medical note saying he was unable to work at all due to medical reasons.
[11] In September 2021, the investigator concluded their investigation into Dr. Pattinson’s conduct. The investigator said Dr. Pattinson breached the University’s Harassment and Discrimination Policy with respect to all of the complaints and he had engaged in bullying and harassment.
[12] The University sought information on whether Dr. Pattinson’s misconduct was related to his disability. The University was unable to determine, on the medical information it received, that Dr. Pattinson’s disability had a connection with his behaviour.
[13] On November 1, 2022, the University terminated Dr. Pattinson’s employment.
III DECISION
A. General Legal Principles
[14] The University applies to dismiss Dr. Pattinson’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c) The onus is on the University to establish the basis for dismissal.
[15] 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.
[16] 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.
[17] 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 at para. 27.
[18] I consider first Dr. Pattinson’s allegations of retaliation.
B. Retaliation Allegations
[19] I understand from the materials that Dr. Pattinson alleges the following conduct by the University is retaliation for filing earlier human rights complaints.
a. In May 2021, the University refused Dr. Pattinson’s request for accommodation.
b. On June 28, 2021, the University placed Dr. Pattinson on a leave of absence.
c. Between February and September 2021, the University investigated complaints about Dr. Pattinson’s conduct.
d. On November 1, 2022, the University terminated Dr. Pattinson’s employment.
[20] Section 43 of the Code protects people from retaliatory conduct for participating in a human rights complaint process:
43 A person must not evict, discharge, suspend, expel, intimidate, coerce, impose any pecuniary or other penalty on, deny a right or benefit to or otherwise discriminate against a person because that person complains or is named in a complaint, might complain or be named in a complaint, gives evidence, might give evidence or otherwise assists or might assist in a complaint or other proceeding under this Code.
[21] To succeed in his complaint of retaliation at a hearing Dr. Pattinson would have to show: (1) the University was aware of the original complaint; (2) the University engaged in or threatened to engage in discriminatory conduct described in s. 43 of the Code; and (3) there is sufficient connection between the impugned conduct and the human rights complaint: Gichuru v. Pallai, 2018 BCCA 78 [Pallai], at para. 58.
[22] For the purposes of this application, the University does not dispute the first two elements. The University acknowledges it was aware of the earlier complaints and that the actions taken by the University could engage the protections of s. 43 of the Code. Therefore, my analysis turns on whether, on all the evidence, there is no reasonable prospect of Dr. Pattinson establishing the third element. For the reasons that follow, I find there is not.
[23] The Court of Appeal in Pallai explained that there are two ways that a “sufficient connection” between the conduct and the complaint can be established:
a. By proving the respondent intended to retaliate for the complaint; or
b. By inference, where the respondent can reasonably have been perceived to have engaged in the conduct as retaliation for the complaint (at para. 58).
[24] Because retaliation will rarely be acknowledged as such by a respondent, it often must be inferred from a review of all the evidence: C.S.W.U. Local 1611 v. SELI Canada (No. 3), 2007 BCHRT 423 at para. 17.
[25] A “reasonable perception” which can arise by inference, is assessed from the point of view of “a reasonable complainant, apprised of the facts, at the time of the impugned conduct”, and not from the point of view of the complainant who alleges retaliation: Pallai at paras. 58 and 66.
[26] While s. 43 does not contain a justification clause, meaning the Code does not set out a statutory defense for retaliation, a respondent’s evidence is important for assessing the context of the alleged retaliation. In particular, the respondent’s explanation for their conduct must be considered with all of the evidence to determine if the requisite connection has been established: Pallai at para. 59.
[27] The test is not whether the previous complaint was a factor in the conduct, but whether there is a “sufficient connection” to prove or infer retaliation: Brooks v. Skyacres Turkey Ranch Ltd. and others (No. 2), 2022 BCHRT 73 at para. 234.
[28] Dr. Pattinson says that because the University was aware of his earlier complaints, there is a prima facie nexus. I understand he is arguing that because the University’s conduct took place after he had filed his earlier complaints, this supports a reasonable inference that the impugned conduct is sufficiently connected to those earlier complaints. I do not agree.
[29] Based on the materials before me, I am persuaded that Dr. Pattinson has no reasonable prospect of proving a sufficient connection between the impugned conduct and the earlier complaints.
[30] I begin with the timing of the impugned conduct. The earlier complaints were filed in July 2018 and May 2019. Dr. Pattinson’s allegations of retaliation are about events between May 2021 and November 2022. Therefore, the gap in time is between two to three years. Dr. Pattinson does not say there was anything occurring in the earlier complaint proceedings around the time that he alleges retaliation. A gap of two years between the University becoming aware of the earlier complaints and the impugned conduct does not suggest a basis for a reasonable inference. The large gap in time is a factor that weighs against a reasonable inference of retaliation.
[31] Further, I am persuaded that the University is reasonably certain to rebut any inference that there is a connection. The University says there were genuine non-retaliatory reasons for its conduct. First, they say there are occupational reasons why Dr. Pattinson’s request that he be communicated to solely in writing could not be implemented. It has put before me the duties of the position, and copies of internal communication where the University discusses the feasibility of accommodating Dr. Pattinson. The materials support the University’s assertion that its determination that it could not accommodate Dr. Pattinson’s need for solely written communication and its decision to place Dr. Pattinson on leave were based on the requirements of his job.
[32] Next, the University says it had a non-retaliatory reason to investigate Dr. Pattinson’s conduct because it received complaints about his behaviour. The University submitted a complaint form it received from four underage female patrons of the sports centre who said Dr. Pattinson made them uncomfortable by approaching them, asking them their ages, and following them around. The University says the allegations set out a potential breach of its harassment and discrimination policy by Dr. Pattinson. Dr. Pattinson does not dispute that his behaviour was the subject of a complaint. He says he is a “victim of circumstance and misunderstood communication.” Based on the materials I am satisfied that the University is reasonably certain to rebut that investigating these complaints is connected to his earlier complaints. The evidence supports its assertion that it received complaints about Dr. Pattinson’s behaviour that breached its harassment policies.
[33] I am also persuaded that the University is reasonably certain to establish that the reason it terminated Dr. Pattinson’s employment is not connected to his earlier complaints. The University says the outcome of the investigation into Dr. Pattinson’s behaviour concluded that he breached the University’s harassment policies by making unwanted, sexualized comments to underage patrons, and other employees. It has put before me the University’s anti-harassment policy and the final investigation report. The report also found that Dr. Pattinson confirmed that he engaged in the impugned behaviour but demonstrated a failure to acknowledge any wrongdoing, willingness to learn, or remorse. The University says its decision to terminate the employment was because of Dr. Pattinson’s conduct and his failure to acknowledge wrongdoing. The materials support that the University’s decision was based on Dr. Pattinson’s harassment of staff and patrons.
[34] Dr. Pattinson disagrees with the allegations against him, the method of the investigation, and the ultimate conclusion of the investigation. He does not dispute his conduct but says all of his behaviour is being misinterpreted. I understand Dr. Pattinson’s argument to be that he believes the investigator was biased and the investigation was not conducted in a fair manner, therefore the investigation must have been retaliation for his earlier complaints. He argues that termination based on the results of an unfair investigation must also be retaliatory. He says the University has a history of retaliating against employees.
[35] In my view, Dr. Pattinson’s disagreement with the method or the results of the investigation does not raise the allegation that the University’s decision to terminate his employment is connected to his earlier complaints beyond the realm of speculation and conjecture. In light of the materials before me which support the University’s position that Dr. Pattinson breached its harassment policies and that breach was the reason for his termination, I can not say there is a reasonable prospect that Dr. Pattinson would be able to establish a sufficient connection between his earlier complaints and his termination.
[36] Each of these factors weight against an inference of retaliation, and taken together, these factors lead me to the conclusion that if this matter were to go to a hearing, Dr. Pattinson would have no reasonable prospect of proving that a reasonable complainant, apprised of the facts, would reasonably perceive the conduct of the University was retaliatory.
[37] I dismiss the allegations of retaliation under s. 27(1)(c).
C. Discrimination Allegation
[38] I next consider Dr. Pattinson’s allegation that the University discriminated against him based on his mental disability. Dr. Pattinson says his mental disability was a factor in the University’s decision to fire him. The University denies discriminating and repeats its assertion that Dr. Pattinson’s breach of its policies was the basis for terminating the employment.
[39] To prove his allegation at a hearing, Dr. Pattinson will have to prove that he has a characteristic protected by the Code, he was adversely impacted in employment, and his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.
[40] The University accepts that Dr. Pattinson has a mental disability and that termination of employment is an adverse impact. Therefore, the issue I must decide is whether there is no reasonable prospect that Dr. Pattinson could prove at a hearing that his mental disability was a factor in the termination of employment. I find he does not.
[41] First, for the reasons already stated, I am persuaded on the evidence that the University is reasonably certain to establish that Dr. Pattinson breached anti-harassment policies which is the stated ground for termination of the employment.
[42] Further, the timing of the termination does not support a reasonable inference that Dr. Pattinson’s mental disability was a factor in his termination. The evidence is that the University was aware of Dr. Pattinson’s disability as early as April 2018. The undisputed evidence that the University had previously offered Dr. Pattinson accommodations for his disability and placed him in different jobs does not support Dr. Pattinson’s assertion that he was terminated because the University did not want to accommodate him.
[43] The University further argues that there is no reasonable prospect that Dr. Pattinson could establish that his breach of the University’s policies has a nexus to his mental disability. It says that after receiving the investigation report confirming Dr. Pattinson breached anti-harassment policies, it spent the next eight months attempting to identify if any of the breaches could be attributable to Dr. Pattinson’s disability.
[44] The University received a note from Dr. Pattinson’s psychiatrist on June 24, 2022 stating “[Dr. Pattinson] has a history of depression and there are neurocognitive effects associated with depression; I wonder whether this may have played a role”. A second note from a different doctor dated July 8, 2022, said “it is possible that his mental health condition with associated neurocognitive effects may have played a role in his behaviour.”
[45] Dr. Pattinson argues that the University ought to have inquired further about a nexus so that he could have provided more evidence of a connection between his mental disability and his behaviour. I am not persuaded by this argument because the evidence before me is that the University made multiple requests for information from Dr. Pattinson including by scheduling independent medical evaluations, requesting medical information from his treating doctors, and extending the deadline for Dr. Pattinson to submit information multiple times.
[46] In my view, while there may be a “mere possibility” of a connection between Dr. Pattinson’s mental disability and his behaviour, this does not raise the connection above the realm of conjecture and speculation. I find on the information before me that there is no reasonable prospect that Dr. Pattinson’s allegation that his mental disability was a factor in his termination will succeed.
IV CONCLUSION
[47] I grant the application and dismiss the complaint in its entirety under s. 27(1)(c).
Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal