Sometimes, the law is the wrong answer to the question

 Kelly VanBuskirk, KC, PhD, C. Arb.

An immigrant Licensed Practical Nurse with a mental disability was passed over for several promotions. Additionally, the LPN’s supervisor was frequently rude and inconsiderate toward her and other coworkers.  The supervisor was alleged to have: told the LPN, “don’t interrupt if you don’t know what you are talking about”, gossiped about her to coworkers, delegated some of the supervisor’s duties to the LPN, and rolled her eyes when the LPN spoke.  When the LPN made a harassment complaint, the investigation took a long time to complete.

Naturally, the LPN suspected that her nationality and her disability were factors in her supervisor’s treatment of her.  Clearly, the relationship between the supervisor and the LPN was broken. The LPN stopped working for the employer in 2021 as a result of health issues and she resigned in 2022. She attributed her workplace issues largely to her supervisor’s conduct and alleged that it was discriminatory under the Human Rights Code. She also filed a union grievance against the employer and a worker’s compensation claim. 

Four years after her resignation, the Human Rights complaint was heard by a tribunal and dismissed.

In its decision regarding the LPN’s discrimination complaint, the BCHRT noted that the evidence suggested the supervisor’s conduct was “generalized incivility” rather than targeted behaviour toward the LPN. The Tribunal noted that, in her 2020 investigation interview regarding her harassment complaint against the supervisor, the LPN had stated that the supervisor “has issue with everyone,” that “anyone will tell you she is mean and aggressive,” and that the supervisor’s behaviour had a broad workplace effect. While the BCHRT accepted that “the supervisor’s conduct was at times harsh, inappropriate, and even unprofessional”, it did not agree that the supervisor had discriminated against the LPN under the Human Rights Code.

What lessons does this sad story teach to employers?  There are several, including:

a.      In the labour/employment context, a single workplace event can precipitate multiple legal claims.  I will be talking more about this in the @HR Law Canada HR Law Talks series on October 27th;

b.     The subtle facts of a case like this one matter, and they affect the outcome of these legal proceedings.  When there are multiple claims made in respect of the same occurrence, the evidence in each one has to line up;

c.      This is important:  As an employer, once a perception of unfairness exists in your workplace, employees seek relief from the problem.  That could mean resigning, “quiet quitting”, or making legal claims that often don’t exactly fit the facts of their case. Felstiner et al. wrote about it this way: ‘Because courts, for instance, often proceed by using a limited number of norms to evaluate an even more circumscribed universe of relevant facts, “the needs of the parties, their wishes for the future, cease to be relevant to the solution”’.

You can read this case for yourself at  (Complainant) v. Well Being Services Ltd., 2026 BCHRT 197