Boettger v. Salem Anesthesia Pain Clinic and another, 2026 BCHRT 51
Date Issued: February 24, 2026
File: CS-006435
Indexed as: Boettger v. Salem Anesthesia Pain Clinic and another, 2026 BCHRT 51
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:
Tracee-Ann Boettger
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Salem Anesthesia Pain Clinic and Dr. Olumuyiwa Akinwumi Bamgbade
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO LIMIT PUBLICATION
Rule 5
Tribunal Member: Devyn Cousineau
Counsel for the Complainant: Laura Track
Counsel for the Respondents: William Clark and Neal Parker
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Tracey-Ann Boettger has filed a human rights complaint against Olumuyiwa Akinwumi Bamgbade and the Salem Anaesthesia Pain Clinic [Clinic]. She alleges that Dr. Bamgbade, an anaesthesiologist, sexually assaulted her during a medical visit at the Clinic. She says that, in doing so, he discriminated against her based on her sex and disability, in violation of s. 8 of the Human Rights Code. The Respondents deny discriminating. Dr. Bamgbade says that he did not sexually assault Ms. Boettger, and that he treated her at all times with good faith medical judgment and reasonable medical practice.
[2] The complaint is scheduled to proceed to a hearing on April 20-28, 2026. In advance of the hearing, the Respondents apply for an order limiting publication of any information that could identify the parties in this complaint. Ms. Boettger opposes the application.
[3] The application is denied. The Respondents have not persuaded me that their privacy interests outweigh the public interest in full access to this proceeding, particularly given that Dr. Bamgbade has publicised the details of these and similar allegations of sexual assault, and any potentially private information engaged by the the complaint is already in the public domain.
II DECISION
[4] Complaints at the Tribunal are presumptively public: Mother A obo Child B v. School District C, 2015 BCHRT 64 at para. 7. This openness serves four main goals: maintaining an effective evidentiary process, ensuring that Tribunal members act fairly, promoting public confidence in the Tribunal, and educating the public about the Tribunal’s process and development of the law: Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 20 (SCC), at para. 61; JY v. Various Waxing Salons, 2019 BCHRT 106 at para. 25. These goals align with the purposes of the Code, which include fostering a more equitable society and identifying and eliminating persistent patterns of inequality: Code, s. 3. The main way that the Tribunal furthers these purposes is through its public decisions: A. v. Famous Players Inc., 2005 BCHRT 432 at para. 14.
[5] The Tribunal has discretion to limit publication of identifying information where a person can show their privacy interests outweigh the public interest in full access to the Tribunal’s proceedings: Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 5(6); Stein v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2020 BCSC 70 at para. 64(a). The Tribunal may consider factors like the stage of the proceedings, the nature of the allegations, private details in the complaint, harm to reputation, or any other potential harm: JY at para. 30.
[6] In this case, the Respondents argue that the nature of Ms. Boettger’s allegations engage the privacy interests of all the parties. At the outset, I reject the Respondents’ arguments that purport to address Ms. Boettger’s privacy interests. As a competent adult, Ms. Boettger is capable of identifying and protecting her own privacy interests: Child K (by Ehmke) and another v. Queen of All Saints School and another, 2024 BCHRT 150 at para. 115. She opposes the application to limit publication. This is determinative of any arguments which rely on her privacy interests.
[7] The Respondents argue that publishing their names in this proceeding could irreparably harm Dr. Bamgbade’s professional reputation and livelihood, and negatively impact his patients. I accept that these are factors that may, in some cases, support limiting publication of information that could identify a medical professional: e.g. KS v. DR. O Corp and another, 2018 BCHRT 273 at para. 7, EC v. Dr GL, 2015 BCHRT 121 at paras. 45, 50-53; Pharmacist v. Doctor, 2019 BCHRT 176at para. 10; Ms. H v. Dr. B, 2025 BCHRT 133 at para. 13, and Mr. C v. The Clinic and another, 2016 BCHRT 192 at para. 36.
[8] However, in this case, the Respondents’ claim to privacy is belied by the fact that Dr. Bamgbade himself has publicised information about Ms. Boettger’s allegations and similar allegations from other women, two of which led to criminal charges. On two of his websites which prominently bear his name and the name of the Clinic, Dr. Bamgbade has posted links to press releases and opinion articles describing allegations of sexual assault against him. He is quoted in several articles accusing the women of criminal misconduct and extortion, and positing that the allegations and charges are evidence of systemic racial bias against him as a Black man. He says that he was fully vindicated by “full acquittals” of his criminal charges (one resulted in an acquittal, the other was stayed). Independent of the material that Dr. Bamgbade has posted himself, I note that the allegations against him have been publicised by the police, in mainstream media, and in a published decision of the BC Provincial Court.
[9] In these circumstances, I agree with Ms. Boettger that an order limiting publication is unjustified and would be ineffective. Dr. Bamgbade has chosen to engage publicly about the issues underlying this complaint. There would be no purpose in the Tribunal protecting his identity in connection with the allegations when he has not done so himself: Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons, 2019 BCHRT 147 at para. 14. It undermines the Tribunal’s integrity to make orders that it knows will be meaningless, given the amount of information about the complaint that is already in the public domain: RR v. Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society (No. 3), 2019 BCHRT 269 [RR (No. 3)] at para. 11.
[10] Finally, I note that this complaint is now at the last stage of the Tribunal’s process. I agree with Ms. Boettger that the Tribunal’s comments in RR (No. 3) apply equally here:
To the extent that it may harm the Society’s reputation to be named in this complaint, and thus undermine confidence in its services, that harm is already made possible by the publishing of the previous decisions. The next decision by this Tribunal will likely be its final one, in which it makes findings of fact and determinations of liability. In my view, whatever the outcome of that final decision, publication of the Society’s name is in the public interest. If the complaint is unsuccessful, then the Society will be cleared of allegations that it acted in a discriminatory manner. If the complaint is successful, then the public may have an interest in knowing its identity, given its trusted role as an institution serving the public … [para. 13]
[11] Likewise here, any likelihood of harm to the Respondents’ reputation from publishing Ms. Boettger’s allegations has already been made possible by substantial information about these and similar allegations in the public realm. Given the nature of the allegations, and the Respondents’ trusted role delivering medical care, there is a public interest in knowing the identities of the parties and the outcome of the complaint.
III CONCLUSION
[12] The Respondents have not persuaded me that their privacy interests outweigh the public interest in full access to the details of this complaint. The application to limit publication is denied. The hearing will now be published on the Tribunal’s 90-day hearing list.
Devyn Cousineau
Vice Chair