Creasey v. Pure Sunfarms Corp., 2026 BCHRT 63
Date Issued: March 13, 2026
File: CS-006417
Indexed as: Creasey v. Pure Sunfarms Corp., 2026 BCHRT 63
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:
James Creasey
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Pure Sunfarms Corp.
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Jessica Derynck
On their own behalf: James Creasey
Counsel for the Respondent: Alexander Mitchell
I INTRODUCTION
[1] James Creasey filed a human rights complaint against his former employer, Pure Sunfarms Corp. [Respondent]. The Respondent is a licensed grower of cannabis and operates large greenhouses. Mr. Creasey worked as the Respondent’s security manager from January to November 2021. He alleges that the Respondent fired him for an alleged theft without fully investigating. Mr. Creasey says he has anxiety, depression, and an addiction that had relapsed when he was fired, and that the Respondent did not respect his need to be on medical leave for the days leading up to his termination. He alleges that this was discrimination on the basis of physical and mental disability.
[2] The Respondent denies discriminating and applies to dismiss the complaint on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect it will succeed. The Respondent says Mr. Creasey has no reasonable prospect of proving a connection between a disability and the termination of his employment. The Respondent says Mr. Creasey was fired for cause after he stole 6.15 kilograms of cannabis and attempted to steal an additional 11.9 kilograms on November 25, 2021. The Respondent disputes that Mr. Creasey had a disability at the time of the termination. The Respondent also says it terminated Mr. Creasey’s employment solely in response to his actions, which constituted serious misconduct – not because he may have had a health condition. Alternatively, the Respondent says it would have incurred undue hardship by continuing Mr. Creasey’s employment after his actions, so the decision to terminate his employment was justified.
[3] Mr. Creasey did not file a response to the application to dismiss the complaint, though I am satisfied he had notice of the application. In his complaint he does not deny that the November 25, 2021, incidents happened. Rather, he says he was in medical distress at the time, there was an explanation for his actions other than theft that the Respondent refused to discuss with him, and the Respondent did not consider his disabilities.
[4] To decide the application, I must determine whether Mr. Creasey has no reasonable prospect of establishing at a hearing that he had a disability that was a factor in his termination, either because his actions were connected to the disability, or because the disability was otherwise a factor in the Respondent’s decision to fire him.
[5] For the following reasons, I find that Mr. Creasey has no reasonable prospect of establishing his case and I dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.
[6] To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In Mr. Creasey’s case, this consists only of his complaint form. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision. I make no findings of fact.
II DECISION
A. Section 27(1)(c) – No reasonable prospect of success
[7] 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. The onus is on the Respondent to establish the basis for dismissal.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Creasey will have to prove that he has a disability, he was adversely impacted in 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 the Respondent to justify the impact as a bona fide occupational requirement. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.
[12] I am satisfied that Mr. Creasey had an opportunity to respond to the application. In these circumstances, where he did not submit any evidence in response to the application, I treat his complaint as a statement from him of what he says happened: Edgewater Casino v. Chubb-Kennedy, 2014 BCSC 416 at paras. 51-53. That said, I am left with the level of detail that he included in his complaint form. I cannot speculate about what additional evidence he might introduce at a hearing: Chan at para. 77.
B. There is no reasonable prospect of Mr. Creasey establishing a connection between a disability and the termination of his employment
[13] In his complaint Mr. Creasey says that at the time of his termination he was suffering from anxiety and depression, could not sleep because he could not manage his anxiety, and had relapsed. He says the Respondent fired him for alleged theft without a full investigation after he disclosed that he had relapsed, and while he was off work due to anxiety and depression for which he was under a doctor’s care.
[14] Mr. Creasey says he was in medical distress at the time of the incidents on November 25, 2021. He claims that he was advised not to work in any capacity, and the Respondent was aware of this, but asked him to work anyway, continuing to set up job-related meetings. He says that he felt obligated and feared for his job if he did not continue to work.
[15] Mr. Creasey says, “There was another explanation for my actions other than theft but employer refused to discuss with me or provide any consideration for my disabilities”, and that the way the Respondent treated him caused him further harm.
[16] Mr. Creasey alleges that on the night of November 25, 2021, after midnight, an unnamed representative of the Respondent called him to ask him what was going on. He says this individual would not listen to any explanation, hung up on him, and cut off his access to company systems. He says his direct supervisor would not communicate with him again.
[17] Mr. Creasey says that on November 27, 2021, the Respondent fired him by text message, accusing him of theft without an opportunity to defend himself, saying “…you get the help you need to have your positive side to take control”, as if his disabilities were a moral choice. He alleges that three other employees, a worker, a supervisor, and a manager, were seen committing theft on video and their employment was not terminated.
[18] Mr. Creasey claims that the Respondent delayed his final pay and required a confession and a return of anything taken from the property before paying him. He says the Respondent eventually delivered a post-dated cheque for his final pay on December 2, 2021, through a contracted security company rather than meeting with him themselves, which made him feel embarrassed and disregarded.
[19] Mr. Creasey’s complaint form is somewhat difficult to understand. However, I interpret his allegations to say that he was testing the security system rather than committing theft. He alleges that the Respondent told an employment insurance investigator that he had stolen 3 kg of product and that he did not have permission to test the Respondent’s security system ahead of time. Mr. Creasey acknowledges that he did not ask permission. He reiterates that he was not well at the time, but says he advised onsite security at the time of the event, and that testing the system was previously discussed within the security department before the events. He says the product at issue was waste product that would be destroyed the next day, and that it was all returned to the Respondent.
[20] I find that Mr. Creasey has not taken his complaint out of the realm of conjecture.
[21] There is no dispute that the Respondent terminated Mr. Creasey’s employment for the alleged theft of cannabis product from the Respondent’s facility. This is the adverse impact in his employment.
[22] For the complaint to proceed to a hearing, there must be some evidence capable of proving a connection between a disability and the adverse impact. This could be evidence of an express connection, or evidence that may be the basis for an inference that a disability was a factor in the Respondent’s conduct or decision: RR v. Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society, 2019 BCHRT 85 at paras. 72, 74, 76.
[23] In Mr. Creasey’s case, his complaint would proceed to a hearing if there were evidence capable of proving that a disability was a factor in his conduct for which the Respondent terminated his employment: Francescutti at para. 70. His complaint would also proceed if there were evidence before me capable of establishing an inference that a disability was otherwise a factor in the Respondent’s decision to end his employment.
1. There is no reasonable prospect of Mr. Creasey establishing that a disability was a factor in his conduct
[24] On all the evidence before me, including all of the information Mr. Creasey included in his complaint, there is no reasonable prospect of the Tribunal concluding that a disability was a factor in his conduct when he removed and attempted to remove cannabis from the Respondent’s property.
[25] The Tribunal may find that Mr. Creasey was under a doctor’s care for anxiety and depression and that he had trouble sleeping because of his anxiety. However, there is no evidence before me to base a finding that anxiety, depression, or any other health condition was a factor in his actions. Mr. Creasey also did not explain which substance or substances were involved in his addiction, what a relapse looked like for him, or how an addiction relapse might have impacted his conduct. He did not respond to the application to dismiss to provide medical evidence that might support a connection between a disability and his conduct.
[26] In his complaint Mr. Creasey says the Respondent refused to consider his disabilities when his employment was terminated. He may be suggesting that the Respondent should have inquired into whether a disability was a factor in his conduct before making the decision to terminate his employment. However, the duty to inquire into whether a disability was a factor in misconduct for which an employer may impose an adverse impact on an employee is part of an employer’s duty to accommodate a disability: Klewchuk v. Burnaby (City), 2022 BCHRT 29 at paras. 366-373. In this case I do not need to determine whether the Respondent is reasonably certain to establish that it reasonably accommodated Mr. Creasey, including inquiring into whether a disability may have factored into his conduct, when there is no reasonable prospect of him of making out his case. It is a trite principle of human rights law that there is no freestanding duty to accommodate. This means that absent a complainant proving their case, a respondent has no burden to justify their conduct, including proving it made appropriate inquiries about a complainant’s disability: Jeppesen v. ICBC, 2017 BCHRT 37 at para. 86.
2. There is no reasonable prospect of Mr. Creasey establishing that a disability was a factor in his termination
[27] On all of the evidence, including the Respondent’s evidence about its explanation for its conduct, I find that there is no reasonable prospect of the Tribunal concluding that a disability was a factor in how the Respondent treated Mr. Creasey or the decision to terminate his employment.
[28] On their face, Mr. Creasey’s allegations that the Respondent scheduled him to work despite knowing he should be on medical leave, that his employment was terminated around the time of a medical leave without a full investigation into his conduct, and that a text message from a Respondent representative telling him “you get the help you need” in the context of firing him, may be suggestive of an inference that his need to take medical leave, or underlying views about employees with disabilities, factored into how the Respondent treated Mr. Creasey and the decision to end his employment. His allegation that others committed similar conduct and were not fired may suggest an inference that the Respondent treated him differently from others because of a disability. However, when I consider all of the evidence, including the Respondent’s evidence about why they terminated Mr. Creasey’s employment, I find that there is no reasonable prospect of Mr. Creasey establishing an inference that a disability was a factor in the Respondent’s decisions or treatment of him.
[29] The Respondent submitted affidavit evidence from its Director of Human Resources, Kim Davies, and its Vice President of Technology, Scott Gapic. In response to Mr. Creasey’s allegation that the Respondent scheduled him to work while on medical leave, Ms. Davies says Mr. Creasey told his manager in October 2021 that he had a mental health condition and was getting treatment. Ms. Davies says that manager is no longer employed with the Respondent but provided her with a copy of a message exchange with Mr. Creasey when the Respondent investigated his November 25, 2021, conduct. Ms. Davies attached the message exchange as an exhibit to her affidavit. This document contains messages in which the manager encouraged Mr. Creasey to take the time he needed to recover, Mr. Creasey maintained that he was responding to emails and would continue to work from home, the manager said he was agreeable to this and offered to speak to Human Resources about arranging a leave of absence for Mr. Creasey, which Mr. Creasey declined.
[30] The exchange also contains messages in which Mr. Creasey then told his manager on November 16, 2021, that he needed more time off, and his manager agreed to temporarily assume responsibility for Mr. Creasey’s tasks. In subsequent messages they periodically communicated about Mr. Creasey’s health, and Mr. Creasey advised that he was experiencing nausea as a result of a need to adjust his sleep medication. A message from Mr. Creasey on November 24, 2021, says that he was well enough to resume working.
[31] Based on this evidence, and on Mr. Creasey’s lack of detail in his complaint, I find there is no reasonable prospect of the Tribunal finding that the Respondent inappropriately assigned him work tasks when he was unwell. Mr. Creasey did not explain who he says pushed him to work when he wanted to be on leave, which days this happened, or which work he says he felt pressured to perform. Ms. Davies’ evidence that the Respondent was supportive of Mr. Creasey when he said he needed time, and that he said he was ready to work the day before the incidents, is supported by the message exchange, which Mr. Creasey did not dispute in response to the application.
[32] The Respondent also submitted substantial evidence about its reasons for terminating Mr. Creasey’s employment. In light of this evidence, I find there is no reasonable prospect of Mr. Creasey establishing that his disclosure of information about his health or his being on medical leave were factors in the termination. The Respondent is reasonably certain to demonstrate that it terminated Mr. Creasey’s employment in response to serious misconduct and that no disability was a factor.
[33] In his affidavit Mr. Gapic explains that the Respondent’s ability to operate requires it to maintain a license with Health Canada and comply with the Food and Drugs Act, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Cannabis Act, and the Cannabis Regulations SOR/2018-144 [Regulations]. He summarizes specific security requirements the Respondent must adhere to under the Regulations. I do not need to list all of the requirements for the purposes of this decision. They include taking reasonable steps to ensure the security of the cannabis in their possession, installing perimeter and interior security and alarm systems and monitoring them at all times, having systems to restrict parts of their facility to only those who require access for completion of their duties, and employing a head of security who is responsible for their organizational security plan.
[34] Mr. Gapic explains that while Mr. Creasey was employed as the manager of security operations, he was part of a team responsible for the overall execution and management of site security and anti-theft measures, with master access to all areas of the site. Mr. Gapic says Mr. Creasey was responsible for the day-to-day management and delivery of the security program and practices, including ensuring that no cannabis was diverted outside of the site by means of theft. Mr. Gapic says it was essential that the Respondent have 100% trust in Mr. Creasey’s performance and it was critical that he not engage in any acts of theft or dishonesty.
[35] Mr. Gapic says he learned about the incidents the day after they happened, on November 26, 2021. He says the Respondent conducted an internal investigation in which he was directly involved.
[36] Mr. Gapic describes a thorough investigation in his evidence. He attached a witness statement from the security guard as an exhibit to his affidavit, which is consistent with his evidence. He explains that a security guard on duty was reviewing live CCTV video of the site at 11:25 p.m. and saw a car in an area of the facility that should not have been there, then saw a man place large garbage bags in the trunk of the car and then drive towards the exit. Mr. Gapic says the security guard ran towards the gate, which had already been activated to open. Mr. Gapic says the security guard recognized Mr. Creasey and asked him what he had put into his trunk, Mr. Creasey said “nothing”, when she asked him if she could take a look, he said “no”, and she told him that he would not be permitted to leave the site. Mr. Gapic says the security guard contacted a security supervisor to inform him of the incident, who instructed the guard to secure the security footage. Mr. Gapic says Mr. Creasey then came to speak to the security guard and told her that this was a planned event and that the supervisor knew about it, which the security guard already knew was not true because she had spoken to the supervisor.
[37] Mr. Gapic says the security supervisor called Mr. Creasey’s direct boss, Jonathan Gilmore, who was the Director of IT and Security at the time. Mr. Gilmore no longer works for the Respondent. Mr. Gapic says the security supervisor and Mr. Gilmore agreed that they would both drive to the facility at midnight, and Mr. Gilmore attempted to reach members of the Respondent’s executive leadership team at the same time. The supervisor also called police, which is a requirement under the Regulations.
[38] Mr. Gapic says Mr. Gilmore and others investigated that night into the early hours of November 26, 2021. This included recovering the bags that Mr. Creasey attempted to leave with, and reviewing video and access card records, through which they discovered that Mr. Creasey put two bags of cannabis into his car and left the facility early in the morning on November 25, 2021. Mr. Gapic attached Mr. Creasey’s access card records and still shots from video surveillance as exhibits to his affidavit.
[39] On November 26, 2021, the Respondent’s VP of Corporate Operations, Michael Lattimer, contacted Mr. Creasey to ask him to return the cannabis he stole on the morning of November 25. Mr. Gapic says Mr. Lattimer told him that Mr. Creasey threw one bag over the fence into the facility and left the second bag at the exterior of the fence, which the security supervisor then recovered.
[40] Mr. Gapic says that under the Regulations the Respondent had to file a report called a “Deviation Form” detailing the Respondent’s investigation about Mr. Creasey’s actions with the Controlled Substance and Cannabis Branch [Branch]. Mr. Gapic says he was one of the authors of this form, which Mr. Lattimer filed on December 5, 2021.
[41] In her affidavit Ms. Davies says she supported the investigation into Mr. Creasey’s actions. As part of her role, she collected screenshots of text messages between Mr. Lattimer and Mr. Creasey, which she attached as an exhibit to her affidavit. The screenshots include messages in which Mr. Lattimer texted Mr. Creasey on November 26, 2021, said he hoped Mr. Creasey was okay, and asked him to “have a chat”. Mr. Creasey’s response says:
Hi Mike. No I am not ok, not at all. I am or at least was an addict/alcoholic in a long term recovery program and volunteered for many years as a support worker in a couple different facilities. Eventually I opened my own recovery coaching business.
I recently had some life changing events occur as no I was not able to manage my mental health i relapsed and have had almost no sleep since then. I am not doing week at all. I had a couple joys [sic] sleep today so I’m more clear headed right now. I took some time working from home and saw a Doctor bout mental health and addiction..I’m not sure what else I can do right now but I am not well right now. I do not remember a lot of past few days but I know something happened and I kind of remember talking to a security guard..
I’m and all access to slack email etc has been removed so I presume you have fired me.
I do not at the moment wish to speak on phone..to much anxiety
[As written]
[42] Mr. Lattimer responded to say he needed Mr. Creasey to provide clarity and wanted to give him one last opportunity to come clean on anything else that the Respondent needed to know. Mr. Creasey replied to say he had told them everything, and there was nothing more to tell. He said they had asked for the stuff back, he had given it back, and he did not know what more he could say.
[43] The screenshots show a subsequent message from Mr. Creasey that says he is sorry for the trouble and checking himself into a recovery program. Mr. Lattimer’s response says he is happy to hear that, and he has nothing but positive thoughts for Mr. Creasey on that journey. A subsequent message from Mr. Lattimer says that he is sorry to hear of Mr. Creasey’s challenges and that he sincerely hopes Mr. Creasey can “get the help you need to have your positive side take control.” Mr. Lattimer then says that from a professional/work perspective, a line has been crossed that cannot be uncrossed, because of clear video evidence of thefts by Mr. Creasey and two others. He asks Mr. Creasey to come clean on all details of what transpired and return any stolen product, and says in that case the Respondent would consider not pressing charges and the police would be less likely to pursue charges of possession with intent to traffic. He also says this is grounds for termination without cause.
[44] Mr. Gapic says he was involved in the decision to terminate Mr. Creasey’s employment. Mr. Gapic says the Respondent made this decision because Mr. Creasey was in a critical position of trust specifically charged with preventing theft, had stolen and attempted to steal a significant amount of cannabis in breach of the Respondent’s policies, and had lied and tried to cover up his misconduct. Mr. Gapic says an additional consideration was that the Respondent had to take appropriate response measures to the theft to meet Regulatory obligations, and the Respondent reported to the Branch that it had terminated Mr. Creasey’s employment.
[45] If the Respondent were to introduce Mr. Gapic and Ms. Davies’ evidence at a hearing, and Mr. Creasey testified to his allegations as set out in the complaint at the hearing, I find there is no reasonable prospect of the Tribunal concluding that a disability was a factor in the termination of Mr. Creasey’s employment. The Respondent is reasonably certain to demonstrate that it terminated Mr. Creasey’s employment because of his conduct and for no other reason.
[46] In his complaint Mr. Creasey says there was another explanation for his actions other than theft that the Respondent refused to discuss with him, but the Respondent’s evidence is that Mr. Lattimer gave Mr. Creasey an opportunity to provide information during the Respondent’s investigation. The Respondent’s evidence, particularly the security guard’s statement attached to Mr. Gapic’s affidavit, is not consistent with Mr. Creasey’s claim that he was testing the security system and this had been discussed with the security department before. Mr. Creasey’s claim is also inconsistent with the Respondent’s evidence that the security supervisor did not know that Mr. Creasey was testing the system.
[47] In his complaint Mr. Creasey says that Mr. Lattimer’s text message regarding getting the help he needs suggests that the Respondent viewed his disabilities as a moral choice. However, Mr. Creasey quotes part of this text message out of context. The Respondent’s evidence is that the part of Mr. Lattimer’s message that Mr. Creasey left out says that he is sorry to hear of Mr. Creasey’s challenges and that he sincerely hopes Mr. Creasey can get the help he needs to have his positive side take control. There is no reasonable prospect of Mr. Creasey establishing that this text message indicates a discriminatory attitude of disabilities being a “moral choice” that may have factored into the termination. The full content of the text messages that the Respondent entered into evidence is more supportive of the Respondent’s position that they terminated Mr. Creasey’s employment in response to his conduct but otherwise were supportive of him as an employee who had disclosed that he had some mental health struggles.
[48] There is also no reasonable prospect of Mr. Creasey establishing that the Respondent treated him differently from other employees who committed similar conduct. The reference in his complaint to other employees who committed theft and were not fired is vague. One of Mr. Lattimer’s text messages mentions thefts by “two others” as well as Mr. Creasey, but Mr. Creasey did not provide any details in his complaint about other employees who committed theft and what consequences they faced or did not face.
[49] Mr. Creasey’s allegations in his complaint about the process of his termination, for example, related to the timing of his final pay, his benefits, and the employment insurance process, are not relevant to my analysis because there is no reasonable prospect of Mr. Creasey proving that the termination was discrimination.
[50] Mr. Creasey’s allegation that the product he took and attempted to take was waste product scheduled for destruction, and his assertion, which the Respondent confirms, that he returned it, are also not relevant in light of my conclusion. The Tribunal does not determine whether an employer’s decision to terminate someone’s employment was reasonable in light of all of the circumstances. For his complaint to succeed Mr. Creasey would have to establish that a disability was a factor in the termination, and I have found that he has no reasonable prospect of establishing this.
III CONCLUSION
[51] I dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect it will succeed.
Jessica Derynck
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal