Mohr v. Moduline Industries (Canada) ULC, 2026 BCHRT 89
Date Issued: April 8, 2026
File: CS-007205
Indexed as: Mohr v. Moduline Industries (Canada) ULC, 2026 BCHRT 89
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:
Sonny Mohr
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Moduline Industries (Canada) ULC
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Devyn Cousineau
On their own behalf: Sonny Mohr
Counsel for the Respondent: Jordan Thompson and Fabian Jankovic
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Sonny Mohr worked for Moduline Industries (Canada) ULC. He complained that his co-workers shirked their duties, leading to disproportionate workloads and exposure to toxic substances. He says that Moduline failed to properly address his complaints and, instead, he was forced to work in a toxic, unsafe, and dangerous workplace. He says that this amounted to discrimination based on his age (64) and disability (two kinds of arthritis), in violation of s. 13 of the Human Rights Code.
[2] Moduline argues that Mr. Mohr has not pointed to any facts that could prove discrimination related to his age or disabilities. On this basis, it asks the complaint to be dismissed under s. 27(1)(b) of the Code. Alternatively, it says that the complaint should be dismissed because Mr. Mohr has no reasonable prospect of proving his complaint. It says it acted reasonably in responding to Mr. Mohr’s complaints of his co-workers shirking duties and found those complaints to be unsubstantiated. It says it fulfilled its obligations to accommodate Mr. Mohr’s disability-related needs.
[3] I have decided to dismiss this complaint. The Code does not address all allegations of work-related wrongdoing. Its focus is exclusively on allegations of discrimination: meaning negative treatment or impacts based on a protected characteristic. In this case, Mr. Mohr has not pointed to any facts that could show his age or disabilities were a factor in any of the negative treatment he alleges. As I understand it, he says that Moduline caused or exacerbated his disabilities, causing greater “wear and tear” on his body. This may be an issue for WorkSafeBC but could not be discrimination under the Code.
II DECISION
[4] Section 27(1)(b) of the Code gives the Tribunal the discretion to dismiss all or part of a complaint if it does not allege facts that could, if proven, contravene the Code. The threshold for a complainant to allege a possible contravention of the Code is low: Gichuru v. Vancouver Swing Society, 2021 BCCA 103 at para. 56.
[5] Under s. 27(1)(b), the Tribunal only considers the allegations in the complaint and information provided by the complainant. It does not consider alternative scenarios or explanations provided by the respondent: Bailey v. BC (Attorney General) (No. 2), 2006 BCHRT 168 at para. 12; Goddard v. Dixon, 2012 BCSC 161 at para. 100; Francescutti v. Vancouver (City), 2017 BCCA 242 at para. 49. This is important here because Mr. Mohr objects strenuously to the evidence presented by Moduline about events underlying his complaint. To make my decision, I have not considered Moduline’s version of events. I have only considered Mr. Mohr’s. For that reason, I do not have to get into the parties’ conflicting versions of events.
[6] In this case, Mr. Mohr must set out facts that, if proved, could establish that:
a. he has the protected characteristics of age and disability,
b. he was treated or impacted negatively in his employment, and
c. his age and/or disabilities were a factor in the adverse employment impacts: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.
[7] The first criterion is met. Mr. Mohr says he is 64 years old and has two types of arthritis. This could engage protection from discrimination based on age and disability.
[8] The second criterion is also met. Mr. Mohr alleges the following instances of mistreatment:
a. His co-workers filed a slanderous and false complaint against him.
b. His co-workers shirk their duties, creating more work for him.
c. He complained about the shirking to Moduline, but Moduline refused to properly investigate the complaint and did nothing.
d. On December 15, 2021, Moduline fired him and then rescinded the termination “when realizing it was not justified”.
Mr. Mohr’s employment was ultimately terminated in December 2022, but he says this termination is not part of his human rights complaint so I do not consider it further.
[9] The third criterion is not met. Mr. Mohr has not set out fact that could prove his age or disabilities were a factor in any of the adverse impacts. On this point, he says:
a. Moduline’s conduct caused or exacerbated his disabilities:
i. “Occupational exposure to crystalline silica has been identified as a strong risk factor for inflammatory types of arthritis”.
ii. “The shirking of duties by co workers leads to disproportionate workloads and greater wear and tear on the body, especially when one is suffering from psoriatic Arthritis”.
iii. “It should be self evidence to any reasonable person that huge, disproportionate workloads and disproportionate exposure to toxic substances overtime would result in the development of the two forms of arthritis that I have”.
b. Moduline’s Company Manager is motivated to abuse his authority by getting rid of senior employees, who are more expensive.
[10] Respectfully, none of these facts could prove the type of connection required under human rights law.
[11] First, the Code does not address situations where an employer causes a disability: Vandale v. Town of Golden and others, 2009 BCHRT 219 at para. 43. That is an issue for WorkSafeBC. This Tribunal’s work is focused on removing work-related barriers stemming from a person’s existing disability.
[12] Second, it is not enough to say you have a disability and were treated poorly; there must be some connection between the two: Ingram v. Workers Compensation Board, 2003 BCHRT 57 at para. 20. Mr. Mohr has not alleged that his arthritis or age was one of the reasons his co-workers complained about him, or a factor in how Moduline responded to their complaint. Mr. Mohr took a medical leave shortly after complaining to Moduline about shirking, but he says that his medical leave was “secondary to my refusal to enter a toxic, unsafe and dangerous workplace”. Mr. Mohr not alleged that his arthritis or age was one of the reasons he complained about his co-workers shirking, or a factor in how Moduline responded to that complaint. He has not pointed to facts or evidence that could prove, in fact, he was being assigned work that he could not do because of his disabilities and/or that the employer refused to accommodate his disability-related needs.
[13] Third, it is not clear to me how Mr. Mohr says that his age was otherwise a factor in any adverse impacts or treatment. He says that Moduline issued a termination letter on December 15, 2021, but then immediately rescinded it. Aside from a general allegation that the company was motivated to get rid of senior employees, there are no facts that could prove a connection between this incident and his age or disabilities. Respectfully, any connection appears to rest on Mr. Mohr’s speculation about the motivations of his manager, which is not enough to support a human rights complaint.
[14] Finally, after submissions in this application were closed, Mr. Mohr applied to file further evidence which he says supports that there were serious safety issues at Moduline, and a prohibited action complaint against the company. For the sake of completeness, I’ve considered that evidence. It doesn’t change my mind. Evidence of non-compliance with the Workers Compensation Act is not evidence of discrimination. These may be issues for WorkSafeBC, but they are not issues for this Tribunal.
III CONCLUSION
[15] Mr. Mohr has not set out facts that could prove discrimination. His complaint is dismissed under s. 27(1)(b) of the Code.
Devyn Cousineau
Vice Chair