Clicklaw Wikibooks - User contributions [en]

Making a Worker's Compensation Claim (7:VI)

2026-09-25T23:03:10Z

Nate Russell: /* B. EXCEPTION: Election to Proceed by Lawsuit (WCA ss. 127–133 [Former Act, s. 10]) */

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 7 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = workers}}

This manual proceeds chronologically through the process of making a claim for compensation with the Board, the adjudication of benefits under a claim, how claims conclude, and the available review and appeal processes. A chart showing this progression is included in the Appendices. The key phases in a claim are:

* Making a Claim – the Board determines whether or not they will accept the claim;
* Wage-Loss Benefits – the Board determines a workers' wage rate and entitlement to wage-loss benefits;
* Healthcare Benefits – the Board determines what medical care is necessary to assist the worker with their recovery;
* Permanent Disability – the Board will either decide that an injury has completely resolved (in which case the claim will end) or will decide that the worker will not improve any further and some symptoms are permanent;
* Permanent Disability Award – if a worker has a permanent disability, the Board will assess a permanent disability award (also informally known as a "Pension Award");
* Vocational Rehabilitation – if a worker has a permanent disability, the Board will provide assistance as required to help the worker return to work with their new limitations.

== A. Overview: Reporting the Injury and Making a Claim ==

=== 1. Reporting the Injury (''WCA'', ss. 149–150 [Former Act, ss. 53–54]) ===

Key policies applicable to these sections of the ''WCA'' are RSCM II, #93.10–93.12; 94.10–94.20.

All injuries occurring to a worker in the course of their employment (whether it results in time off of work or not) should be reported '''as soon as possible''' by the worker or, if death results, by the worker's dependants, to the superintendent, first aid attendant, or other official in charge of work where the injury occurred. Claims have been denied (at least until an appeal took place) because a worker waited even a few days, hoping the pain would go away. In all but the most minor cases, workers should also seek medical attention promptly. Details as to the type of injuries that must be reported can be found at RSCM II, #94.12.

The information provided must include the name of the worker, time and place of the occurrence, and the nature and cause of the injury or disease (in ordinary language).

The employer must complete a report to the Board '''within three days''' of receiving the worker's report, or immediately if death results. The failure to do so is an offence under the ''WCA''.

=== 2. Making a Claim (''WCA'', ss. 151–152 [Former Act, ss. 55 (1)–(3.3)] ===

Key policies applicable to these sections of the ''WCA'' are RSCM II, #93.20–93.25.

A worker has '''one year''' after the date of their injury to make a claim for compensation under ss. 151 and 152 of the ''WCA'' [Former Act, s. 55]. If an application is made more than one year, but less than three years, after the relevant injury, the Board may pay full compensation from the date of the injury if the Board is satisfied that special circumstances precluded timely filing. If an application is made more than three years after the relevant injury, the Board may still accept the claim in special circumstances, but will only pay compensation from the date of the filing of the claim forward.

Workers can call the WCB directly to report an injury and file a claim. Teleclaim is available to workers across the province, Monday to Friday, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. See the Board website or the Appendix for current contact details. Teleclaim is designed to simplify the process, reduce the amount of paperwork, and provide a personalized service based on each individual's needs. Before calling the Board to report an injury, the worker should write down key information about the job, how the injury occurred, and what the doctor has said about the condition. The worker's statement during a Teleclaim report will form part of the claim file, and could be used as evidence in future appeal proceedings. The Teleclaim transcript may be sent to the worker. If it is not sent, the worker should request a transcript.

Note that if the worker is completing a paper application, a typed signature is not acceptable (see RSCM II, # 93.25).

=== 3. Obligations Arising Once Claim is Made (''WCA'', s. 153, 163–164 [Former Act, s. 57.1, 56]) ===

Once a worker makes a claim, they are under an ongoing obligation to provide information to the Board that is necessary for the adjudication of their claim. The Board may reduce or suspend benefits if the worker does not provide requested information. See RSCM II, #93.26.

The attending physician must complete a Physician's First Report within three days of first seeing the worker, and must fill out progress reports after each visit related to the workplace injury. See RSCM II, #95.00–95.30.

== B. EXCEPTION: Election to Proceed by Lawsuit (''WCA'' ss. 127–133 [Former Act, s. 10]) ==

Key policies applicable to these sections of the ''WCA'' are RSCM II, Chapter 16, #110.00–112.40.

Generally, a worker has no right to sue an employer or another worker in the course of their employment for a workplace injury. Instead, they are entitled to benefits from the Board. This is the "Historic Trade Off" discussed above and set out at s. 127 of the ''WCA'' [Former Act, s. 10(1)]. Note that the conduct causing the injury must arise out of and in the course of employment before this bar against litigation will apply. Actions outside of the course of employment (for example, assault or criminal negligence) do not attract this bar against litigation.

In circumstances where the s. 127 bar against litigation does ''not'' apply, a worker may choose to sue the person or company responsible for causing a work injury rather than making a claim for Board benefits. In order for a worker to have the right to choose (or "elect") to pursue a legal claim, there must be a party who is potentially liable for the injury and is not an employer or a worker in the course of their employment under the ''WCA''. As set out above, this can occur when the actions of an employer or worker fall outside the scope of their employment. In addition, this can occur when a non-worker or non-employer is responsible for the injury. For example, if a worker is injured while on the property of a private citizen, the worker may be able to elect to sue the property owner under the ''Occupiers Liability Act'', RSBC 1996, c 337, rather than claiming Board benefits.

Note that, as of May 1, 2021, there is no right to sue in relation to any motor vehicle accident occurring in BC pursuant to the ''Insurance (Vehicle) Act'', RSBC 1966, c. 231. As a result, no workers will have any right of election in respect to injuries related to a motor vehicle accident outside of a few narrow exceptions. These exceptions include accidents involving off-road/farming vehicles, manufacturer's liability issues (e.g., faulty mechanics/repair), accidents occurring outside of BC, and accidents where the potentially liable driver has committed an offence under the ''Criminal Code'' (see ''Insurance (Vehicle) Act'', ss. 113–116).

Where there is a potentially liable party to whom the s. 127 bar does not apply, the worker has a right of election under ''WCA'' s. 128 [Former Act, s. 10(2)–(4)]. The worker will be given the opportunity to make this election after applying for Board benefits. If the Board has accepted a claim and determines that there is a right of election, the worker will be provided with an "Election to Claim Compensation in BC" form. The worker must elect to claim compensation '''within three months of the date of the injury''' unless the Board allows otherwise.

If the worker elects to pursue a lawsuit, they '''will not receive any benefits from the Board'''. If they elect to receive Board benefits, they will not have the right to bring a lawsuit in respect of their injury.

An election is an important and complex decision and workers should be referred to the Workers' Advisors Office website at [http://www.gov.bc.ca/workersadvisers www.gov.bc.ca/workersadvisers] or assisted before deciding whether to claim compensation.

Where a worker elects Board benefits, the Board becomes "subrogated" to the worker's claim pursuant to s. 130 of the ''WCA'' [Former Act, s. 10(6)]. This means that the Board can step into the shoes of the worker and bring any lawsuit that the worker would be able to bring.

Board subrogation is different from the type of subrogation that occurs under insurance contracts. Insurance companies will only become subrogated to actions related to the specific type of benefits they paid out. For example, if an insurance company pays out $10,000 in relation to water damage, that company can only step into the shoes of their insured for claims specifically related to the cause of the water damage. The Board, on the other hand, is subrogated to any and all claims the worker may have connected to their injury. For example, even if the Board paid out only wage-loss benefits, the Board can still step into the shoes of the worker and bring a claim in relation to '''any''' loss or damage arising from their injury.

When the Board is subrogated to a claim, it has exclusive jurisdiction to decide if it will take legal action against a third party. If it does take action and recovers more than the total value of the worker's benefits, the worker receives the difference minus a 23% administration fee. If the Board recovers less than the total value of benefits, the worker will not receive any excess. A worker cannot waive or assign their right to compensation.

If a worker chooses to pursue court action and is unsuccessful, or the award is less than they would have received under the compensation regime, the worker may still be able to receive compensation. However, the original claim for compensation must have been made within the time limits outlined above. Note that the worker '''must have written approval from the Board for any settlement''' if they wish to apply for "top up" compensation following the settlement of a legal action (''WCA'', s. 129), which is the amount of the difference between the settlement/award and the compensation to which a worker or dependant would be entitled to under the compensation provisions.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

The Worker's Compensation Claim Acceptance Process (7:VII)

2026-09-25T22:55:22Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 7 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = workers}}

After a worker makes an application for compensation, a Board officer (usually an Entitlement Officer) issues a decision (typically in writing) accepting or denying the claim. For a compensation claim to be accepted, the Board must generally find:

* '''Status''': The applicant is a “worker” covered under the ''WCA''.
* '''Disability''': The applicant suffered a personal injury (physical or psychological) or an occupational disease, causing disability.
* '''Causation''': The worker’s disabling injury or disease arose out of and in the course of the worker’s employment.
* '''Time Limits and Procedures''': The worker submitted a timely and proper application.

If a claim is denied by the Board, it is typically because one or more of the above conditions was not met. The Board decision typically sets out the reason why the claim was denied and cites the relevant policy from RSCM II. However, the evidence on which the decision is based may or may not be summarized in the decision.

All the evidence on which the decision is based will be in the claim file, which may also include memos from Case Managers and clinical opinions from Board Medical Advisors (BMAs). The claim file may also contain detailed phone memos providing the Case Managers with a summary of the worker’s evidence. The claim file evidence as a whole provides the basis for the Board’s decision, and is evidence which will be available and considered by the appeal bodies, Review Division, and WCAT.

Workers are entitled to a copy of their claim file (paper or CD) on request and will automatically be sent a copy of the claim file if they file an appeal. In addition, the worker may obtain online access to parts of their claim file by calling the Board. These matters are covered in the section below on Access to Files (7-47). Disclosure may be given directly to the worker’s representative if the disclosure request or appeal notice is accompanied by a valid authorization of representation, signed by the worker. [Authorization forms are available on the Board website.]

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Making a Worker's Compensation Claim (7:VI)

2026-09-25T22:54:33Z

Nate Russell:

Making a Worker's Compensation Claim (7:VI)

2026-09-25T22:51:46Z

Nate Russell:

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 7 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = workers}}

This manual proceeds chronologically through the process of making a claim for compensation with the Board, the adjudication of benefits under a claim, how claims conclude, and the available review and appeal processes. A chart showing this progression is included in the Appendices. The key phases in a claim are:

* Making a Claim – the Board determines whether or not they will accept the claim;
* Wage-Loss Benefits – the Board determines a workers' wage rate and entitlement to wage-loss benefits;
* Healthcare Benefits – the Board determines what medical care is necessary to assist the worker with their recovery;
* Permanent Disability – the Board will either decide that an injury has completely resolved (in which case the claim will end) or will decide that the worker will not improve any further and some symptoms are permanent;
* Permanent Disability Award – if a worker has a permanent disability, the Board will assess a permanent disability award (also informally known as a “Pension Award”);
* Vocational Rehabilitation – if a worker has a permanent disability, the Board will provide assistance as required to help the worker return to work with their new limitations.

== A. Overview: Reporting the Injury and Making a Claim ==

=== 1. Reporting the Injury (''WCA'', ss. 149–150 [Former Act, ss. 53–54]) ===

Key policies applicable to these sections of the ''WCA'' are RSCM II, #93.10–93.12; 94.10–94.20.

All injuries occurring to a worker in the course of their employment (whether it results in time off of work or not) should be reported '''as soon as possible''' by the worker or, if death results, by the worker's dependants, to the superintendent, first aid attendant, or other official in charge of work where the injury occurred. Claims have been denied (at least until an appeal took place) because a worker waited even a few days, hoping the pain would go away. In all but the most minor cases, workers should also seek medical attention promptly. Details as to the type of injuries that must be reported can be found at RSCM II, #94.12.

The information provided must include the name of the worker, time and place of the occurrence, and the nature and cause of the injury or disease (in ordinary language).

The employer must complete a report to the Board '''within three days''' of receiving the worker's report, or immediately if death results. The failure to do so is an offence under the ''WCA''.

=== 2. Making a Claim (''WCA'', ss. 151–152 [Former Act, ss. 55 (1)–(3.3)] ===

Key policies applicable to these sections of the ''WCA'' are RSCM II, #93.20–93.25.

A worker has '''one year''' after the date of their injury to make a claim for compensation under ss. 151 and 152 of the ''WCA'' [Former Act, s. 55]. If an application is made more than one year, but less than three years, after the relevant injury, the Board may pay full compensation from the date of the injury if the Board is satisfied that special circumstances precluded timely filing. If an application is made more than three years after the relevant injury, the Board may still accept the claim in special circumstances, but will only pay compensation from the date of the filing of the claim forward.

Workers can call the WCB directly to report an injury and file a claim. Teleclaim is available to workers across the province, Monday to Friday, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. See the Board website or the Appendix for current contact details. Teleclaim is designed to simplify the process, reduce the amount of paperwork, and provide a personalized service based on each individual's needs. Before calling the Board to report an injury, the worker should write down key information about the job, how the injury occurred, and what the doctor has said about the condition. The worker's statement during a Teleclaim report will form part of the claim file, and could be used as evidence in future appeal proceedings. The Teleclaim transcript may be sent to the worker. If it is not sent, the worker should request a transcript.

Note that if the worker is completing a paper application, a typed signature is not acceptable (see RSCM II, # 93.25).

=== 3. Obligations Arising Once Claim is Made (''WCA'', s. 153, 163–164 [Former Act, s. 57.1, 56]) ===

Once a worker makes a claim, they are under an ongoing obligation to provide information to the Board that is necessary for the adjudication of their claim. The Board may reduce or suspend benefits if the worker does not provide requested information. See RSCM II, #93.26.

The attending physician must complete a Physician's First Report within three days of first seeing the worker, and must fill out progress reports after each visit related to the workplace injury. See RSCM II, #95.00–95.30.

== B. EXCEPTION: Election to Proceed by Lawsuit (''WCA'' ss. 127–133 [Former Act, s. 10]) ==

Key policies applicable to these sections of the ''WCA'' are RSCM II, Chapter 16, #110.00–112.40.

Generally, a worker has no right to sue an employer or another worker in the course of their employment for a workplace injury. Instead, they are entitled to benefits from the Board. This is the “Historic Trade Off” discussed above and set out at s. 127 of the ''WCA'' [Former Act, s. 10(1)]. Note that the conduct causing the injury must arise out of and in the course of employment before this bar against litigation will apply. Actions outside of the course of employment (for example, assault or criminal negligence) do not attract this bar against litigation.

In circumstances where the s. 127 bar against litigation does ''not'' apply, a worker may choose to sue the person or company responsible for causing a work injury rather than making a claim for Board benefits. In order for a worker to have the right to choose (or “elect”) to pursue a legal claim, there must be a party who is potentially liable for the injury and is not an employer or a worker in the course of their employment under the ''WCA''. As set out above, this can occur when the actions of an employer or worker fall outside the scope of their employment. In addition, this can occur when a non-worker or non-employer is responsible for the injury. For example, if a worker is injured while on the property of a private citizen, the worker may be able to elect to sue the property owner under the ''Occupiers Liability Act'', RSBC 1996, c 337, rather than claiming Board benefits.

Note that, as of May 1, 2021, there is no right to sue in relation to any motor vehicle accident occurring in BC pursuant to the ''Insurance (Vehicle) Act'', RSBC 1966, c. 231. As a result, no workers will have any right of election in respect to injuries related to a motor vehicle accident outside of a few narrow exceptions. These exceptions include accidents involving off-road/farming vehicles, manufacturer's liability issues (e.g., faulty mechanics/repair), accidents occurring outside of BC, and accidents where the potentially liable driver has committed an offence under the ''Criminal Code'' (see ''Insurance (Vehicle) Act'', ss. 113–116).

Where there is a potentially liable party to whom the s. 127 bar does not apply, the worker has a right of election under ''WCA'' s. 128 [Former Act, s. 10(2)–(4)]. The worker will be given the opportunity to make this election after applying for Board benefits. If the Board has accepted a claim and determines that there is a right of election, the worker will be provided with an “Election to Claim Compensation in BC” form. The worker must elect to claim compensation '''within three months of the date of the injury''' unless the Board allows otherwise.

If the worker elects to pursue a lawsuit, they '''will not receive any benefits from the Board'''. If they elect to receive Board benefits, they will not have the right to bring a lawsuit in respect of their injury.

An election is an important and complex decision and workers should be referred to the Workers' Advisors Office website at [http://www.gov.bc.ca/workersadvisers www.gov.bc.ca/workersadvisers] or assisted before deciding whether to claim compensation.

Where a worker elects Board benefits, the Board becomes “subrogated” to the worker's claim pursuant to s. 130 of the ''WCA'' [Former Act, s. 10(6)]. This means that the Board can step into the shoes of the worker and bring any lawsuit that the worker would be able to bring.

Board subrogation is different from the type of subrogation that occurs under insurance contracts. Insurance companies will only become subrogated to actions related to the specific type of benefits they paid out. For example, if an insurance company pays out $10,000 in relation to water damage, that company can only step into the shoes of their insured for claims specifically related to the cause of the water damage. The Board, on the other hand, is subrogated to any and all claims the worker may have connected to their injury. For example, even if the Board paid out only wage-loss benefits, the Board can still step into the shoes of the worker and bring a claim in relation to '''any''' loss or damage arising from their injury.

When the Board is subrogated to a claim, it has exclusive jurisdiction to decide if it will take legal action against a third party. If it does take action and recovers more than the total value of the worker's benefits, the worker receives the difference minus a 23% administration fee. If the Board recovers less than the total value of benefits, the worker will not receive any excess. A worker cannot waive or assign their right to compensation.

If a worker chooses to pursue court action and is unsuccessful, or the award is less than they would have received under the compensation regime, the worker may still be able to receive compensation. However, the original claim for compensation must have been made within the time limits outlined above. Note that the worker '''must have written approval from the Board for any settlement''' if they wish to apply for “top up” compensation following the settlement of a legal action (''WCA'', s. 129), which is the amount of the difference between the settlement/award and the compensation to which a worker or dependant would be entitled to under the compensation provisions .

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Making a Worker's Compensation Claim (7:VI)

2026-09-25T22:48:46Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 7 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = workers}}

This manual proceeds chronologically through the process of making a claim for compensation with the Board, the adjudication of benefits under a claim, how claims conclude, and the available review and appeal processes. A chart showing this progression is included in the Appendices. The key phases in a claim are:

* Making a Claim – the Board determines whether or not they will accept the claim;
* Wage-Loss Benefits – the Board determines a workers’ wage rate and entitlement to wage-loss benefits;
* Healthcare Benefits – the Board determines what medical care is necessary to assist the worker with their recovery;
* Permanent Disability – the Board will either decide that an injury has completely resolved (in which case the claim will end) or will decide that the worker will not improve any further and some symptoms are permanent;
* Permanent Disability Award – if a worker has a permanent disability, the Board will assess a permanent disability award (also informally known as a “Pension Award”);
* Vocational Rehabilitation – if a worker has a permanent disability, the Board will provide assistance as required to help the worker return to work with their new limitations.

== A. Overview: Reporting the Injury and Making a Claim ==

=== 1. Reporting the Injury (''WCA'', ss. 149–150 [Former Act, ss. 53–54]) ===

Key policies applicable to these sections of the ''WCA'' are RSCM II, #93.10–93.12; 94.10–94.20.

All injuries occurring to a worker in the course of their employment (whether it results in time off of work or not) should be reported '''as soon as possible''' by the worker or, if death results, by the worker’s dependants, to the superintendent, first aid attendant, or other official in charge of work where the injury occurred. Claims have been denied (at least until an appeal took place) because a worker waited even a few days, hoping the pain would go away. In all but the most minor cases, workers should also seek medical attention promptly. Details as to the type of injuries that must be reported can be found at RSCM II, #94.12.

The information provided must include the name of the worker, time and place of the occurrence, and the nature and cause of the injury or disease (in ordinary language).

The employer must complete a report to the Board '''within three days''' of receiving the worker’s report, or immediately if death results. The failure to do so is an offence under the ''WCA''.

=== 2. Making a Claim (''WCA'', ss. 151–152 [Former Act, ss. 55 (1)–(3.3)] ===

Key policies applicable to these sections of the ''WCA'' are RSCM II, #93.20–93.25.

A worker has '''one year''' after the date of their injury to make a claim for compensation under ss. 151 and 152 of the ''WCA'' [Former Act, s. 55]. If an application is made more than one year, but less than three years, after the relevant injury, the Board may pay full compensation from the date of the injury if the Board is satisfied that special circumstances precluded timely filing. If an application is made more than three years after the relevant injury, the Board may still accept the claim in special circumstances, but will only pay compensation from the date of the filing of the claim forward.

Workers can call the WCB directly to report an injury and file a claim. Teleclaim is available to workers across the province, Monday to Friday, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. See the Board website or the Appendix for current contact details. Teleclaim is designed to simplify the process, reduce the amount of paperwork, and provide a personalized service based on each individual’s needs. Before calling the Board to report an injury, the worker should write down key information about the job, how the injury occurred, and what the doctor has said about the condition. The worker’s statement during a Teleclaim report will form part of the claim file, and could be used as evidence in future appeal proceedings. The Teleclaim transcript may be sent to the worker. If it is not sent, the worker should request a transcript.

Note that if the worker is completing a paper application, a typed signature is not acceptable (see RSCM II, # 93.25).

=== 3. Obligations Arising Once Claim is Made (''WCA'', s. 153, 163–164 [Former Act, s. 57.1, 56]) ===

Once a worker makes a claim, they are under an ongoing obligation to provide information to the Board that is necessary for the adjudication of their claim. The Board may reduce or suspend benefits if the worker does not provide requested information. See RSCM II, #93.26.

The attending physician must complete a Physician’s First Report within three days of first seeing the worker, and must fill out progress reports after each visit related to the workplace injury. See RSCM II, #95.00–95.30.

== B. EXCEPTION: Election to Proceed by Lawsuit (''WCA'' ss. 127–133 [Former Act, s. 10]) ==

Key policies applicable to these sections of the ''WCA'' are RSCM II, Chapter 16, #110.00–112.40.

Generally, a worker has no right to sue an employer or another worker in the course of their employment for a workplace injury. Instead, they are entitled to benefits from the Board. This is the “Historic Trade Off” discussed above and set out at s. 127 of the ''WCA'' [Former Act, s. 10(1)]. Note that the conduct causing the injury must arise out of and in the course of employment before this bar against litigation will apply. Actions outside of the course of employment (for example, assault or criminal negligence) do not attract this bar against litigation.

In circumstances where the s. 127 bar against litigation does ''not'' apply, a worker may choose to sue the person or company responsible for causing a work injury rather than making a claim for Board benefits. In order for a worker to have the right to choose (or “elect”) to pursue a legal claim, there must be a party who is potentially liable for the injury and is not an employer or a worker in the course of their employment under the ''WCA''. As set out above, this can occur when the actions of an employer or worker fall outside the scope of their employment. In addition, this can occur when a non-worker or non-employer is responsible for the injury. For example, if a worker is injured while on the property of a private citizen, the worker may be able to elect to sue the property owner under the ''Occupiers Liability Act'', RSBC 1996, c 337, rather than claiming Board benefits.

Note that, as of May 1, 2021, there is no right to sue in relation to any motor vehicle accident occurring in BC pursuant to the ''Insurance (Vehicle) Act'', RSBC 1966, c. 231. As a result, no workers will have any right of election in respect to injuries related to a motor vehicle accident outside of a few narrow exceptions. These exceptions include accidents involving off-road/farming vehicles, manufacturer’s liability issues (e.g., faulty mechanics/repair), accidents occurring outside of BC, and accidents where the potentially liable driver has committed an offence under the ''Criminal Code'' (see ''Insurance (Vehicle) Act'', ss. 113–116).

Where there is a potentially liable party to whom the s. 127 bar does not apply, the worker has a right of election under ''WCA'' s. 128 [Former Act, s. 10(2)–(4)]. The worker will be given the opportunity to make this election after applying for Board benefits. If the Board has accepted a claim and determines that there is a right of election, the worker will be provided with an “Election to Claim Compensation in BC” form. The worker must elect to claim compensation '''within three months of the date of the injury''' unless the Board allows otherwise.

If the worker elects to pursue a lawsuit, they '''will not receive any benefits from the Board'''. If they elect to receive Board benefits, they will not have the right to bring a lawsuit in respect of their injury.

An election is an important and complex decision and workers should be referred to the Workers’ Advisors Office website at [http://www.gov.bc.ca/workersadvisers www.gov.bc.ca/workersadvisers] or assisted before deciding whether to claim compensation.

Where a worker elects Board benefits, the Board becomes “subrogated” to the worker’s claim pursuant to s. 130 of the ''WCA'' [Former Act, s. 10(6)]. This means that the Board can step into the shoes of the worker and bring any lawsuit that the worker would be able to bring.

Board subrogation is different from the type of subrogation that occurs under insurance contracts. Insurance companies will only become subrogated to actions related to the specific type of benefits they paid out. For example, if an insurance company pays out $10,000 in relation to water damage, that company can only step into the shoes of their insured for claims specifically related to the cause of the water damage. The Board, on the other hand, is subrogated to any and all claims the worker may have connected to their injury. For example, even if the Board paid out only wage-loss benefits, the Board can still step into the shoes of the worker and bring a claim in relation to '''any''' loss or damage arising from their injury.

When the Board is subrogated to a claim, it has exclusive jurisdiction to decide if it will take legal action against a third party. If it does take action and recovers more than the total value of the worker’s benefits, the worker receives the difference minus a 23% administration fee. If the Board recovers less than the total value of benefits, the worker will not receive any excess. A worker cannot waive or assign their right to compensation.

If a worker chooses to pursue court action and is unsuccessful, or the award is less than they would have received under the compensation regime, the worker may still be able to receive compensation. However, the original claim for compensation must have been made within the time limits outlined above. Note that the worker '''must have written approval from the Board for any settlement''' if they wish to apply for for “top up” compensation following the settlement of a legal action (''WCA'', s. 129), which is the amount of the difference between the settlement/award and the compensation to which a worker or dependant would be entitled to under the compensation provisions .

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Limitation Periods and Timing of Decisions for Workers' Compensation (7:V)

2026-09-25T22:34:08Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 7 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = workers}}

WCB deadlines are both short and generally strict, so while there are reminders throughout this section outlining relevant deadlines, they are all collected here for quick reference. Steps 3–7 are only as applicable.

# '''Report the claim to the employer''': Do this '''as soon as possible'''. Even small delays can prejudice your claim. See ''WCA'' s. 149 [Former Act, s. 53].
# '''File a claim with WCB''': Any claim must be filed within '''1 year''' of the date of injury, mental disorder, death, or disablement. If a claim is filed later than one year afterward, it may be accepted if it meets the criteria of “special circumstances” under sections 151 and 152 of the ''WCA'' [Former Act, s. 55]. One such example would be a worker who sought legal assistance and their lawyer failed to file a claim at their instruction. Another would be where a worker was either unaware of the ability to make a claim or unable to do so, so long as the lack of awareness or inability was reasonable. Note that even if a claim is accepted, if the application is filed more than three years late, the Board will only pay compensation from the date of the application forward, not from the date of the injury.
# '''Reconsideration of Board decision''': The Board may reconsider a decision for any reason within '''75 days''' of the date of that decision. The Board may reconsider a decision at any time if it contains an obvious error or omission. This is a significant change to the Board’s reconsideration powers resulting from amendments that came into force January 1, 2021. Outside of these two exceptions, a Board decision can only be changed by an appeal body. See ''WCA'' s. 123 [Former Act, s. 96(4)–(6)].
# '''Appeal to the Review Division''': '''The time limit for applying for an Internal Review with the Review Division is 90 days'''. Workers seeking appeal must always file a Request for Review with the Review Division within 90 days of the date of the decision being reviewed. Workers are not required to submit arguments or evidence at the Request for Review stage, and are only required to file the Request for Review form, which includes some basic information and a brief description of what remedy they are seeking and why. Therefore, if the 90-day limit is approaching, it is far more important to submit the Request for Review on time than it is to ensure you have fully stated your reasons for review—those can always be added later. If a worker has missed the 90-day time limit, they should file the Request for Review and request an extension, providing reasons for why they are late. The Chief Review Officer may grant an extension of time if good reasons are shown and an injustice would result if the extension is not granted. Extension of Time applications are not usually successful. See ''WCA'' s. 270 [Former Act, s. 96.2(3)–(5)]. Most Internal Review Decisions must be made '''within 5 months (150 days)'''. The ''WCA'' now requires that the internal review officers complete their review of the Board’s decision within '''150 days''' of the date when the request for review was made. See ''WCA'' s. 272(6) [Former Act, s. 96.4(6)].
# '''Reconsideration by the Review Division''': The Chief Review Officer may direct a reconsideration of a Review Division Decision on their own initiative within 23 days of the initial decision. While it is the Chief Review Officer who must decide whether or not to issue this direction, a party can write to the Review Division and request a reconsideration. Once an appeal to WCAT has been filed, no reconsideration can occur. In the case of a decision that cannot be appealed to WCAT, a party may apply to the Chief Review Officer for reconsideration on the basis of new evidence. See ''WCA'' s. 273 [Former Act, s. 96.5].
# '''Appeal to WCAT''': '''The time limit for appealing to WCAT is 30 days'''. If a worker or employer is unhappy with the outcome of a Review Division Decision, they must appeal to WCAT within 30 days of the Review Division Decision being issued. Appeals related to prohibited action complaints may be filed within 90 days. This timeline may be extended where special circumstances prevented timely filing, and an injustice would otherwise result. See ''WCA'' s. 293 [Former Act, s. 243].
# '''Most WCAT Decisions must be made within 6 months (180 days) of receiving the Claim File from the Board'''. This general time limit can be extended by the Chair due to the complexity of the matter, a request by the worker or employer, or the need to await a pending decision on another claim raising similar legal or policy issues. See ''WCA'' s. 306(5) [Former Act, s. 253(5)].

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Introduction to Compensation Claims for Injured Workers (7:III)

2026-09-25T22:31:58Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 7 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = workers}}

Sections 122–125 and 19–20 of the WCA [Former Act, ss. 96 and 113] give the Board exclusive jurisdiction over workers’ compensation and OHS matters. The courts have historically respected these strong privative clauses.

Section 122 grants the Board the exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into, hear, and determine compensation matters under Part 4 of the ''WCA'' [Former Act, Part 1]. Specifically, the board may determine:

* Whether a worker's injury has arisen out of or in the course of an employment within the scope of the compensation provisions;
* The existence and degree of a worker's disability by reason of an injury;
* The permanence of a worker's disability by reason of an injury;
* The degree of impairment of a worker's earning capacity by reason of an injury;
* the existence, for the purposes of the compensation provisions, of the relationship of a family member of a worker;
* The existence of dependency in relation to a worker;
* The amount of the average earnings of a worker for purposes of payment of compensation;
* Whether a person is a worker, subcontractor, contractor or employer within the meaning of the compensation provisions;
* The amount of the average earnings of a worker, whether paid in cash or board or lodging or other form of remuneration, for the purpose of levying assessments;
* Whether an industry or a part, branch or department of an industry is within the scope of the compensation provisions, and the class to which an industry or a part, branch or department of an industry within that scope should be assigned;
* Whether a worker in an industry that is within the scope of the compensation provisions is within the scope of those provisions and entitled to compensation under those provisions.

Section 19 similarly grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Board to inquire into and determine health and safety matters under Part 2 of the ''WCA'' [Former Act, Part 3].

Once an injured worker applies for compensation, the Board will begin to assess whether or not to accept the claim. Once the claim is accepted, the Board will then adjudicate the worker’s entitlement to the type of compensation benefits listed below.

The nature of the worker’s injury will generally determine the relevant law and policy. The main types of injuries are:

* Personal Injury (physical or physical and psychological) – sections 134 and 146 of the WCA [Former Act, s. 5];
* Psychological Injury (mental disorder) – section 135 of the WCA [Former Act, s. 5.1];
* Occupational Disease – sections 136(1) and 137 of the WCA [Former Act, ss. 6(1) and 6(3)]; and
* Hearing Loss – section 145 of the WCA [Former Act, s. 7]

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Governing Legislation, Policy and Guidelines for Workers' Compensation (7:II)

2026-09-25T22:30:56Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 7 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = workers}}

== A. Legislation ==

The ''WCA'' is the legislation which creates and governs the Board. As set out above, the ''WCA'' replaced the Former Act on April 6, 2020. While there was no substantive change encompassed in this act revision, the section numbers of the ''WCA'' have changed significantly. As such, this chapter will refer to the section numbers of the current WCA as well as the section numbers from the Former Act. [A table of concordance is available [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/about-bc/workers_compensation_concordance_pre_rs2019_to_rs2019.pdf here]. Note that this table refers to sections of the current ''WCA'' as they were at the time that the current WCA was passed. Future amendments may render this table inaccurate.]

There are several regulations passed under the ''WCA'', the most important being the OHSR.

In 2004, the ''Administrative Tribunals Act'', SBC 2004, c 45 (the “'''ATA'''”) came into effect. The ATA applies to any administrative tribunals in BC that adopt the ATA (or sections thereof) in their legislation. Under the ''WCA'', certain sections of the ATA apply to WCAT including certain procedural requirements, and a 60-day time limit for filing for judicial review from a WCAT decision. The ATA does not apply to Claims or Review Division decisions.

Citations for the ''WCA'', key amendments, and other relevant legislation are attached in the Appendix.

== B. Binding Policy ==

The WCA sections 303 and 339 [Former Act, ss. 250 and 99] make Board policy binding on all Board decision-makers and appeal bodies (i.e., the Review Division and WCAT) [Note that WCAT ''can'' choose not to apply a Board policy in specific circumstances and following specific procedures. See WCA s. 304 [Former Act, s. 251]]. The courts have determined that the effect of these provisions is to give Board policy a legal status equivalent to subordinate legislation (see below).

The key documents setting out binding Board policy are:

* The statements contained under the heading “Policy” in the WCB's ''Assessment Manual''. These policies relate to Part 5: Accident Fund and Employer Assessment of the WCA [Former Act, Division 4];
* The statements contained under the heading “Policy” in WCB's ''Prevention Manual''. These policies relate to Part 2: Occupational Health and Safety of the WCA [Former Act, Part 3]; and
* ''The Rehabilitation Services & Claims Manual'', Volume I and II (the “'''RSCM I'''” and the “'''RSCM II'''”), other than explanatory material and the headings “Background” and “Practice.” These policies relate to Part 3: Workers’ Compensation System and Part 4: Compensation to Injured Workers and their Dependants of the WCA [Former Act, Part 1].

All legislation and Board policies are available on the [http://www.worksafebc.com Board website].

In practice, Board policy confines, or attempts to confine, the nature of relevant evidence and provides the framework for how evidence is to be assessed and weighed. Therefore, in appeals, it is important to identify the correct applicable Board policy whether or not it is identified in the initial Board decision.

This manual focuses on claims compensation issues. As such, the most important policy documents for the purposes of this manual are the RSCM I and the RSCM II. The current RSCM I and RSCM II are available at [http://www.worksafebc.com www.worksafebc.com] under the “Law and Policy” section, followed by the “Compensation Policies” link under “Claims & Rehabilitation.” On the sidebar, there are tabs for both RSCM Volumes I and II. The RSCM I applies to claims initiated before June 30, 2002 and the RSCM II applies to any claims initiated after June 30, 2002.

The RSCM II has eighteen chapters. Each chapter focuses on a particular entitlement issue or benefit and contains the policies relating to that issue. Each policy is numbered and dated and is typically 1–3 pages long. The RSCM II index (also available through the RSCM II link) is very helpful for locating relevant chapters and policies.

Board policies change from time to time. Each new version of a policy is passed by the Board of Directors and is published with both a specific effective date and a determination as to whether or not the changes apply to appeals. This information is set out at the end of each policy. Each new Board policy is incorporated into the electronic version of the RSCM II available on the Board website. When handling an appeal, students should determine the relevant applicable policy (especially for old claims), and should also review the electronic version of newer policy to ensure that it is still current. The Board website also contains all the former or “archived” policy manuals so that any relevant policy is accessible, even for old claims. It is important to ensure you have found the version of an applicable policy as it read at the time a particular decision was made.

If a particular Board decision quotes part of a policy, it is good practice to read the whole policy and surrounding policies to understand the full framework for that type of benefit. Also, although a particular policy may be quoted in a decision, the decision-maker may or may not have applied the correct policy. It is best to assess the worker’s issue and determine whether or not alternative policies may be the correct applicable policies.

Lastly, Board policy must be consistent with the WCA. If someone considers a Board policy to be inconsistent with the WCA, they are entitled to challenge that policy in a WCAT appeal in which it is relevant. If the WCAT panel agrees that the policy is not supported by the WCA, the panel will refer the matter to the WCAT Chair. If the Chair agrees, they will refer the policy to WCB’s Board of Directors for ultimate determination and possible policy change. See section 304 of the WCA [Former Act, s. 251].

== C. Binding Policy: Standard of Proof and Evidence ==

Sections 339 (2) and (3) of the WCA [Former Act, s. 99] require that the Board “make its decision based on the merits and justice of the case, but in doing this the Board must apply the policies of the board of directors that are applicable in that case” and “if the Board is making a decision respecting the compensation or rehabilitation of a worker and the evidence supporting different findings on an issue is evenly weighted in that case, the Board must resolve that issue in a manner that favours the worker.” This means that, in WCB cases, there is a unique standard of proof. Where a case is 50-50, it should be resolved in favour of the worker (an “as likely as not” standard). This is less than the standard of proof used in civil claims. The civil standard is on a balance of probabilities (“more likely than not” or 50% +1).

== D. Non-Binding Guidance ==

Both WCB and WCAT provide useful interpretive guides that combine policy, important decisions, and best practices. WCB issues Practice Directives that advise on many particularly complex issues such as chronic pain, mental disorders, and overpayments. These are accessible through the “Law and Policy” section at [http://www.worksafebc.com www.worksafebc.com] under the title “Practice Directives” linked under the “Claims and Rehabilitation” section.

The ''Review Division Practices and Procedures'' manual (the “'''RDPP'''”) is an important document to review when dealing with a review of a Board decision. While the RDPP is not binding, it outlines standards and practices for the Review Division that may not be obvious on a reading of the relevant sections of the WCA.

WCAT’s guidelines are published in the ''Manual of Rules, Policy and Procedures'' (the “'''MRPP'''”), available on the WCAT website at [http://www.wcat.bc.ca www.wcat.bc.ca].

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Introduction to Workers' Compensation (7:I)

2026-09-25T22:30:11Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 7 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = workers}}

This chapter covers basic legislation, policy, and procedures associated with administrative proceedings under the ''Workers’ Compensation Act'', RSBC 2019, c 1 [“''WCA''”]. The WCA replaced the former ''Workers Compensation Act'', RSBC 1996, c 492 (the “Former Act”) on April 6, 2020. While there was no substantive change encompassed in this act revision, the section numbers of the WCA have changed significantly.

The ''WCA'' is a provincial statute creating a regulatory body called the Workers Compensation Board (''WCA'', s. 318 [Former Act, s. 81]) and is referred to as “the Board” or “WCB” in this section. Since 2003, the Workers Compensation Board does business under the name of “WorkSafeBC.” However, legally, it is still the “Workers Compensation Board,” and when party to a legal action, that is how it will be named. The Board has exclusive jurisdiction over compensation to injured workers for workplace injuries, amongst other duties.

Today’s workers’ compensation schemes, including BC’s, are based on the historic trade-off: employers fund a no-fault insurance scheme for injured workers and, in return, workers give up their right to legal action against their employer for work-related injuries and occupational diseases (''WCA'', s. 127 [Former Act, s. 10(1)]). This approach offers several benefits: it takes workplace injury claims out of the courts, minimizing the use of scarce judicial resources and limiting cost and delay for the workers; It gives greater certainty of compensation to workers, and streamlines the compensation process; and like any insurance scheme, it spreads losses amongst employers, eliminates the concern about ruinous claims, and provides coverage regardless of fault.

Aside from compensation, the Board's other duties include:

*Regulation of Occupational Health and Safety (OHS): In BC, the Board is responsible for workplace health and safety regulations, investigations, and enforcement as set out in Part 2 of the ''WCA'' [Former Act, Part 3] and in the ''Occupational Health & Safety Regulation'', BC Reg 296/97 (the “'''OHSR'''”). While most enforcement orders and penalties are against employers for safety violations, orders may also be issued against workers. Under the ''WCA'', workers are entitled to refuse unsafe work and to be protected from retaliation for reporting unsafe work practices.
*Employer Assessments: The ''WCA'' grants specific powers to the Board to set rates and collect assessments from employers to create an Accident Fund. The Accident Fund must be sufficient to finance the compensation system, and each employer is assessed annually based on a complex formula. The ''WCA'' requires the Board to operate a fully funded system.

== A. Scope of This Section ==
This section provides information to workers and their representatives on the overall structure and basic procedures of the Board and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal (“'''WCAT'''”). WCAT is an independent organization that workers or employers can go to if they want to appeal a decision from the WCB. This section is intended to assist in working on cases and appeals arising from Board decisions made under the ''WCA''. The vast majority of these cases involve Board decisions denying injured and disabled workers particular compensation benefits. This is not surprising given that Board policies are often complex, and that about 100,000 compensation claims are filed by injured workers every year, with about half of these claims involving a serious injury or disability.

Therefore, the primary focus of this material is on compensation matters which may be at issue in Board cases. Assessment and Occupational Health & Safety issues are addressed briefly at the end of the chapter. The Appendices provide information for referrals, community resources, and helpful links for finding law and policy. In particular, the ''WCA'' requires the Board, through its Accident Fund, to support the Employer’s Advisers Office and the Worker’s Advisers Office, which can provide employers and workers with free legal assistance. However, the extent of the assistance provided by these advisors changes from time to time and between locations.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Rights of the Child (6:IX)

2026-09-25T20:54:28Z

Nate Russell:

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 2 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}}

In addition to any claim under the federal or provincial codes, various protections exist for children under provincial statutes and the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/ Criminal Code]'', RSC 1985, c C-46, concerning educational and medical issues.

== A. School ==

=== 1. Compulsory Attendance and Registration ===

The ''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 412, states that all children must be enrolled by the first school day of a school year if, on or before December 31 of that school year, the child will have reached the age of 5 years (s 3(1)(a)). Parents may, however, defer enrolment until the first school day of the next school year (i.e. until age 6) (s 3(2)). Once enrolled, children must remain in an educational program until they are 16 (s 3(1)(b)). Whether children attend public or private schools, they must be registered on or before September 30 in each year either with a school or with the Minister of Education (s 13). Students must also comply with the rules, code of conduct, and policies set by the Board of Education or by their particular school (s 6).

Under section 12 of the ''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'', parents are authorized to educate their children at home or elsewhere provided they register their children pursuant to section 13.

=== 2. Discipline ===

Section 43 of the ''Criminal Code'' allows a schoolteacher to use discipline that is reasonable in the circumstances. This section refers to the use of reasonable force. The definition of reasonable force is “the substantial social consensus on what is reasonable correction supported by comprehensive and consistent expert evidence on what is reasonable” (''[https://canlii.ca/t/1g990 Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada]'', 2004 SCC 4 at para 2). However, the ''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'' specifically states that discipline of a student must be similar to that of a kind, firm, and judicious parent, and must not include corporal (physical) punishment (s 76(3)).

=== 3. Rights of Parents and Students ===

Students and parents have the right to consult with a teacher or administrative officer (''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'', ss 4 and 7(2)). As well as having the right to information regarding the attendance, behaviour and progress of their children in school (s 7(1)(a)), parents may request an annual report on the general effectiveness of the program their children are enrolled in, without their children’s consent. They are also entitled to belong to a parent’s advisory council (s 7(1)(c)). The councils can be formed by application to the Board or Minister of Education, and can advise the Board and staff of the school (s 8).

=== 4. School Records ===

Individual students and their parents are entitled to examine, on request, all records pertaining to that student while accompanied by the principal or a person designated by the principal (''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'', s 9). Student records identifying the student will not be released to other parties except when required by law, or if the student or parent consents to the disclosure in writing.

=== 5. Language of Instruction ===

Every student in BC is entitled to instruction in English (''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'', s 5). However, under section 23 of the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]'', students whose parents are citizens of Canada have the right to receive primary and secondary school instruction in either English or French if:
*their parents’ first language is that of the English or French-speaking minority population of the province in which they reside, and their parents still understand that language; or
*their parents received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and the parent resides in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French-speaking minority population of the province.

=== 6. Other Concerns ===

The ''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'' states that public schools must be conducted on strictly secular and non-sectarian principles (s 76(1)), meaning they cannot be religiously affiliated. For a case that applies s 76(1) please see [https://canlii.ca/t/jtfql Servatius v Alberni School District No. 70,] 2022 BCCA 421. In this case, a mother claimed that her children’s school had violated their religious freedom after an elder performed a smudging demonstration, and a hoop dancer said a prayer while performing at the children’s school assembly. The BC Court of Appeal ruled that the demonstrations were not religious ceremonies but public demonstrations for the purposes of building community and teaching students about Indigenous culture, practices recommended by Article 15 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

''[https://canlii.ca/t/ftp16 Moore]'' at para 36 determined that the BC government had discriminated against a dyslexic boy when it cut the special needs program during a financial crisis. The Supreme Court of Canada found that he was denied a service customarily available to the public. The service denied was meaningful access to education generally, not specific access to a special needs program. Discrimination was found because the cuts disproportionately affected special needs programs and there was no evidence that the BC government considered other options.

Parents are jointly and severally liable for intentional or negligent damage to school property caused by their children (s 10 of the School Act). Please see [https://canlii.ca/t/gfv2m Nanaimo-Ladysmith School District No. 68 v Dean] 2015 BCSC 11 for an example of parents being held liable for the negligent destruction of school property by their son. In this case, a 14-year-old student attached their friend’s padlock to the head of an overhead sprinkler in their school, which caused the entire sprinkler system to become activated, resulting in extensive damage to the school. Judgement was granted against the parents for $48,630.47 worth of damage.

There is no action against a school board or its employees unless the actionable conduct included dishonesty, gross negligence, malicious or wilful misconduct, or the cause of action is libel or slander (s 94(2)). Note section 94 limits liability, but does not absolve a board from vicarious liability.

Any person who believes a child, whether registered or not, is not enrolled in an educational program can make a report to the superintendent of schools (s 14(1)). An action lies against that person only if the report is made maliciously (s 14(3)).

School boards have a duty to provide an educational environment that is free from discriminatory harassment. This rule was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 20, 2005, when it dismissed an application for leave to appeal from a BC Human Rights Tribunal finding of discrimination against a BC school board relating to the homophobic harassment of one of its students (see ''[https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-l-csc-a/en/item/12398/index.do North Vancouver School District No 44 v Jubran]'', [2005] SCCA No 260 and [https://canlii.ca/t/1k376 North Vancouver School District No 44 v Jubran], 2005 BCCA 201 at paras 91–102). Note that while the student was found to have been discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, it was irrelevant whether he identified himself as homosexual, or whether his harassers knew or believed him to be homosexual.

The Ministry of Education has developed the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) 123 initiative, to guide educators on instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity. The aim of this initiative is to foster inclusion and respect for students who, because of their identity or expression, may face discrimination while attending school. In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/jx8k0 Hansman v Neufeld,]'' 2023 SCC 14, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the conflict between freedom of expression and the protection of one’s reputation in the context of a critique of SOGI. In this case, Mr. Neufeld, a public school board trustee, made controversial online posts criticizing SOGI. Mr. Hansman, a gay man and teacher, was prominent amongst the dissenting voices and made statements to the media regarding his opposition to Mr. Neufeld’s views. Mr. Neufeld subsequently filed a defamation suit against Mr. Hansman. The SCC ruled in favour of Mr. Hansman, writing that “Not only does protecting Mr. Hansman’s expression preserve free debate on matters of public interest, it also promotes equality, another fundamental democratic value” (para 9). In this case, the SCC acknowledged that transgender and other 2SLGBTQ+ youth are especially vulnerable to expression like Mr. Neufeld’s that reduces their “worth and dignity in the eyes of society and questions their very identity” (para 9).

== B. Medical Attention ==

=== 1. Obligation to Provide Treatment ===

The ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/index.html Criminal Code]'' (s 215) imposes criminal sanctions on parents who fail to provide their children with the necessaries of life until they reach the age of 16. This has been held to include adequate medical treatment, and a court may also extend the duty to an older child who cannot become independent of their parent(s) due to factors including age and illness. Section 218 of the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/index.html Criminal Code]'' imposes criminal sanctions on any person who abandons or exposes a child less than 10 years of age to the risk of permanent injury, damage to their health, or risk to their life.

Under the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/consol21/consol21/00_96046_01 Child Family and Community Service Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 46 ("CFCSA"), children under the age of 19 may be removed if they are deprived of necessary medical attention, but only by a court order (s 29). When a child is removed, emergency medical care can be given at the director’s authorization (s 32). In cases where the only issue is the parents’ refusal of necessary medical attention, the director can apply for a court order authorizing the medical care without removing the child from the parents’ custody (s 29).

=== 2. Consent to Treatment ===

In Canadian case law, the courts have found that a minor can consent to treatment as a “mature minor” if that person has the mental capacity to understand the nature and risks of that particular treatment (see the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96223_01 Infants Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 223, s 17). A minor, who is living away from home, working, or married, may be found to be autonomous, and free from parental control, and thus capable of consenting to or refusing treatment on their own behalf.

Under the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96223_01 Infants Act]'', (s 17), a minor can consent to surgical, medical, mental, or dental treatment without the agreement of their parents, so long as the health care provider has:

#Explained to the minor and has been satisfied that the minor understands the nature and consequences and the reasonably foreseeable benefits and risks of the health care; and
#Has made reasonable efforts to determine and has concluded that the health care is in the minor's best interests. This includes requests for birth control advice and products, and for abortions.

A court of competent jurisdiction may order medical treatment for any child if the court is satisfied that such treatment is required, and that parental consent is being unreasonably withheld. This is part of the inherent ''parens patriae'' (guardian of persons under a legal disability) jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and is now codified under section 29 of the [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96046_01 CFCSA].

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

BC Human Rights Code (6:III)

2026-09-25T20:52:37Z

Nate Russell: /* 1. Complainant's Case */

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 2 June 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}}

The ''BC Human Rights Code'' ("HRC" or the ''Code'') protects people from discrimination in certain protected areas of their lives. It also provides a mechanism to file a complaint when discrimination in those areas occurs. It is administered by the BC Human Rights Tribunal ("BCHRT"). The HRC applies to matters under provincial jurisdiction (as established by s 91 of the ''Constitution Act, 1867'') and covers both public and private bodies, including individuals. For example, the HRC applies to provincially regulated employers, unions, professional associations, most commercial businesses, Crown corporations, landlord-tenant relationships, and the provincial government itself.

The Tribunal’s decisions are available online on the BCHRT [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions website]. They are indexed by year dating back to 1997 and searchable based on a variety of criteria. They are also available on [http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt CanLII BC].

== A. Framework of a Discrimination Complaint ==
There are two types of discrimination protected under the HRC: direct discrimination, and indirect or "adverse effects" discrimination.

Direct discrimination occurs when a person or group is singled out for differential treatment based on their protected characteristic(s) (''M v H'', 1999 CanLII 686 (SCC)). Racial slurs, sexual harassment, and homophobic comments are all examples of "direct discrimination."

Indirect or "adverse effect" discrimination occurs when laws or policies do not overtly discriminate, but produce a disproportionate negative impact on members of groups sharing a protected characteristic (''Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General)'', 2020 SCC 28). For example, disability-related claims often involve adverse effect discrimination when there is a facially neutral rule, standard, policy, or practice that creates a disadvantage for someone in connection with their disability. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1985/1985canlii18/1985canlii18.html ''Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Simpsons-Sears Ltd''], 1985 CanLII 18 (SCC) for an example of indirect discrimination.

=== 1. Complainant's Case ===

As outlined in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/ftp16 Moore v British Columbia (Education)]'', 2012 SCC 61 at para 33 [''Moore''], the complainant must prove the following three elements on a balance of probabilities to establish their case:

# That they have a characteristic that is protected under the HRC;
# That they experienced an adverse impact in an area protected by the HRC; and
# That their protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact they experienced This is also known as the "nexus".

The complainant’s case is sometimes also referred to as prima facie discrimination, (on the move away from Latin in human rights cases, see [https://canlii.ca/t/hq572 ''Vik v Finamore (No. 2)''], 2018 BCHRT 9 at paras 48–50).

If any one of the three elements of the complainant's case is missing, there is no discrimination. If the complainant proves the three elements of their case, then the burden shifts to the respondent to justify its conduct. If the respondent proves its conduct was justified, then there is no discrimination. If the respondent’s conduct is not justified, discrimination will be found to have occurred.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/h49b1 Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp.]'', 2017 SCC 30 further developed the legal test for discrimination established in Moore. This ruling clarified that the primary focus is on discriminatory impact, not the intention behind the action. In other words, you do not have to prove that a decision was made with a discriminatory motive or based on stereotypes.

The court also confirmed that the protected characteristic (like race, gender, or disability) need only be a factor in the adverse treatment (like refusing employment or tenancy). The protected characteristic doesn't have to be the only factor, or even the most significant factor in the negative outcome—it just needs to be a contributing factor (at para 46).

'''Vicarious Liability:''' Section 44(2) of the HRC states that an employer is responsible for the actions of their employees, and an employer will be liable for an employee’s actions when the employee is acting within the scope of their authority or job duties. Employers are also responsible for providing a discrimination-free workplace. The employer should be named as a respondent in any human rights complaint involving an allegation of discrimination in the employment context.

=== 2. Respondent's Case ===

In the employment context, a respondent can justify its conduct by proving on a balance of probabilities that the rule, standard, practice, or requirement being challenged is a bona fide occupational requirement ("BFOR"). In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1724/index.do British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union]'', 1999 CanLII 652 (SCC) at para 54 [''Meiorin''], the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) set out a three-step analysis for determining whether a standard is a BFOR. To be considered a BFOR the tribunal must be satisfied that:

# The employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;
# The employer adopted the particular standard with an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and
# The standard is reasonably necessary to fulfil its purpose. The employer must show that it could not accommodate individual employees with the protected characteristic without experiencing undue hardship.

In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1761/index.do British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)]'', 1999 CanLII 646 (SCC) [''Grismer''] at para 20, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the application of the ''Meiorin'' test to a public services complaint and set out the three-stage analysis for determining whether a service provider had a ''bona fide'' and reasonable justification for its conduct:

# The respondent’s behaviour was for a purpose or goal that is rationally connected to the function being performed;
# The respondent behaved in good faith; and
# The respondent’s behaviour was reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose or goal, in the sense that the respondent cannot accommodate the complainant without undue hardship.

Note that most legal disputes arise in regard to the third part of the test – that is, whether the respondent reasonably accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship.

== B. Protections and Exemptions ==

The HRC provides protection against discrimination in several different areas, which are listed in sections 7–14. These sections will be further detailed in order below. Please refer to '''Section III.A.1–7'''. However, for many of these protected areas, the HRC provides certain exceptions for which discrimination is not prohibited.

Additionally, section 41, commonly referred to as the group rights exemption, allows non-profit organizations to engage in what might otherwise be deemed prohibited discriminatory conduct. It allows charitable, philanthropic, educational, and other not-for-profit organizations to give a preference to members of the identifiable group or class of persons they serve. For more information, please see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca601/2005bcca601.html Vancouver Rape Relief Society v Nixon]'', 2005 BCCA 601 [''Nixon''] at paras 43–59 (please note that this case involves a sex-binary-focused discussion of transgender identity that may be troubling for some readers).

Furthermore, under section 42, it is not discriminatory to plan, advertise, adopt, or implement an employment equity program that has the objective of ameliorating the conditions of individuals or groups who are disadvantaged because of Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, and achieves or is likely to achieve that purpose. Section 42 also gives the Human Rights Commissioner jurisdiction to approve special programs that are aimed at improving the situation of individuals or groups that have suffered historical disadvantage. If pre-approved, a special program is deemed not to contravene the Code.

=== 1. Discriminatory Publication ===

Section 7 deals with forms of discrimination against individuals or groups of individuals, which are published, displayed, or made public. This section prohibits hate literature and other such communications that expose or are likely to expose someone in a protected group to hatred or contempt, as well as publications that indicate discrimination or intent to discriminate against a protected group. Please refer to ''[http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/decisions/2019/mar/58_CORRECTED_Oger_v_Whatcott_No_7_2019_BCHRT_58.pdf Oger v Whatcott]'' (No 7), 2019 BCHRT 58 at paras 93—97 for the former, and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt228/2018bchrt228.html Li v Mr B]'', 2018 BCHRT 228 at paras 95—97 [''Li''] for the latter.

In ''Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v Neufeld (No. 3)'', 2024 BCHRT 232, the BCHRT established that section 7 applies to discriminatory publications on the internet and that the province has jurisdiction to apply section 7 to online publications. Further, the BCHRT clarified the section 7(1)(a) test in ''Chilliwack Teachers' Association v Neufeld (No. 10)'', 2026 BCHRT 49 at para 233. To establish a violation of s 7(1)(a), the complainant must demonstrate that the publication at issue:

#Targets a protected characteristic;
#Expressly or implicitly relies on, or promotes, negative beliefs or stereotypes about persons with the protected characteristic, or disregards their inherent dignity; and
#Uses those negative messages as a basis for an actual or intended adverse effect or to urge others to act to bring about the same result. The actual or intended harms of the publication must be specific, "real-world", and such that they "cannot be prevented by the discernment and critical judgment of the audience" (''Ward v Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse)'', 2021 SCC 43 at para 61 [''Ward'']; ''Oger v Whatcott (No. 7)'', 2019 BCHRT 58 at para 103). Their intended effect, whether or not achieved, is to prevent "a person or class of persons from truly participating in the political process and the ordinary activities of society just like everyone else" (''Ward'' at para 63).

'''Exception:''' Section 7 does '''not''' apply to communications that are intended to be private or are related to activities otherwise permitted under the HRC, see s. 7(2) and ''Li'' at paras 98–104.

=== 2. Discrimination in Accommodations, Services and Facilities "Customarily Available to the Public" ===

Section 8 states that a person may not deny or discriminate against any person or class of persons regarding an accommodation, service, or facility customarily available to the public because of that person’s Indigenous Identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and/or age.

''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1006/index.do University of British Columbia v Berg]'', 1993 CanLII 89 (SCC) [''Berg''] explains the concept of "customarily available to the public". A service is customarily available to the public if the nature of the relationship is public. Courts and tribunals look at the relationship between the facility and the complainant, as well as the nature of the service itself. In Berg, the court found that a university has its own public and that the relationships between students and professors, who present the public face of the university, are public in this context. Please refer to HMTQ v McGrath, 2009 BCSC 180 at paras 89–93 for a more recent case that discusses when a service is "customarily available to the public".

Additionally, courts have found that services provided to members of a group who come together as a result of a private selection process, based on their personal attributes do not qualify as services "customarily available to the public", and are therefore not subject to section 8 of the HRC. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2007/2007bcca17/2007bcca17.html Marine Drive Golf Club v Buntain et al and BC Human Rights Tribunal]'', 2007 BCCA 17 at paras 48–56.

While there is no enumerated list of relationships that count as "customarily available to the public," locales such as pubs, night clubs, hotels, theatres, transportation services, education facilities, insurance, medical treatment in hospitals and clinics, strata council and property management services in condominiums, services provided by police, access to sidewalks and public space, government services, and participation in sporting events have all been found to entail public relationships. Licensing services and facilities may also involve public relationships. For example, discrimination prohibited by section 8 was ultimately found when the BC Motor Vehicle Branch maintained a blanket refusal to issue driver’s licenses to those with certain visual impairments regardless of actual driving ability (''Grismer'').

Legislation is not a "service customarily available to the public" and bare challenges to legislation can’t proceed at the HRT, see e.g. ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt76/2019bchrt76.html Phillips v BC Ministry of the Attorney General]'', 2019 BCHRT 76 at paras 11–12.

In ''Moore'', a school district cancelled a special education program, requiring a dyslexic student to enroll in specialized private school. The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed whether the school district discriminated against the student by failing to provide necessary accommodation, and ultimately upheld the BC Human Rights Tribunal’s finding of discrimination.

'''Defences:''' Adverse treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic is not discrimination if it can be shown to be supported by a "''bona fide and reasonable justification''" ("BFRJ") (as per the wording of section 8(1)). See '''Section III.A.2''' for the three-part ''Grismer'' test to justify a discriminatory standard by raising a BFRJ. (see also '''Subsection 6: Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate''').

'''Exceptions:''' Section 8(2) also contains certain built-in exceptions. Discrimination based on sex is permitted insofar as it relates to the maintenance of public decency. For a case on the interpretation of public decency in the context of excluding transgender peoples from public washrooms, see [https://canlii.ca/t/g965p ''Sheridan v Sanctuary Investments Ltd. (No. 3)''], 1999 CanLII 35172 (BC HRT), in which the Tribunal rejected the argument that it was necessary to exclude a transgender woman from the washroom matching her gender identity in order to maintain "public decency."

Discrimination based on sex, physical or mental disability, or age is permitted insofar as it relates to the determination of premiums or benefits under life or health insurance policies. Note that statutory exceptions to human rights legislation are to be narrowly construed ([https://canlii.ca/t/1fs94 ''Zurich Insurance Co. v Ontario (Human Rights Comm.)''], 1992 CanLII 67 (SCC)).

=== 3. Discrimination in Purchase and Rental of Property ===

Section 9 provides that a person or class of persons must not be denied the opportunity to purchase real property due to their Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression.

Section 10 states that a person shall not be denied the right to occupy any space that is represented as being available for occupancy or be discriminated against with respect to a term or condition of the tenancy on the basis of Indigenous Identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, and/or lawful source of income.

'''Defences:''' Although sections 9 and 10 do not contain language specifically providing for a defence to a claim of discrimination under these provisions, like all respondents, landlords and property sellers may be able to justify ''prima facie'' discrimination if they can satisfy the three elements of the ''Grismer/Meiorin'' test. This will require that they accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship.

'''Exceptions:''' Section 10(2)(a) says the protection from discrimination in tenancy does not apply if the tenant is sharing the use of any sleeping, bathroom, or cooking facilities with the person making the representation (e.g. as a roommate). Furthermore, the reserving of specific residences for individuals aged 55 or older or for people with disabilities does not constitute discrimination (HRC, s 10(2)(b) & (c)).

=== 4. Discrimination in Employment Advertisements and Interviews ===

Section 11 prohibits employment advertisements that express limitations, specifications, or preferences based on Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity or expression and/or age. Refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2007/2007bchrt99/2007bchrt99.html Anderson v Thompson Creek Mining Ltd Endako Mines]'', 2007 BCHRT 99.

'''Exception:''' An employment advertisement that expresses a limitation, specification or preference as to a protected characteristic may be permitted if it is based on "''bona fide'' occupational requirement(s)" as per the wording of section 11. There are also exceptions for non-profit organizations and employment equity programs (see Exemptions on 6-6).

For case law on discrimination during the interview process, please refer to ''Khalil v Woori Education Group'', 2012 BCHRT 186 at paras 29-45. Under section 13, an employer cannot refuse to employ someone on the basis of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination unless there is a ''bona fide'' occupational requirement (see [[{{PAGENAME}}#6. Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate | Subsection 6: Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate]]).

=== 5. Discrimination in Wages ===

Section 12 states that wage parity between sexes is required for similar or substantially similar jobs. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc109/2011bcsc109.html ''Kraska v Pennock''], 2011 BCSC 109. Most of the remedies under this section are also available under section 13, which does not have a limitation on the period of time during which wages can be claimed.

'''Limitation Dates:''' Section 12(5) of the HRC states:
:(a) "The action must be commenced no later than 12 months from the termination of the employee's services, and
:(b) The action applies only to wages of an employee during the 12 month period immediately before the earlier of the date of the employee's termination or the commencement of the action."

Most of the remedies under this section are also available under section 13, which does not have a limitation on the period of time during which wages can be claimed.

'''Exception:''' A difference in the rate of pay between employees of different sexes based on a factor '''other''' than sex is allowed, provided that the factor on which the difference is based would reasonably justify the difference.

=== 6. Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate ===

Section 13 provides that no person shall refuse to employ another person or discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment on the basis of Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, and/or because that person has a criminal record that is unrelated to the employment. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2010/2010bchrt13/2010bchrt13.html Ratzlaff v Marpaul Construction Ltd]'', 2010 BCHRT 13 for one example of an employment case.

This section may also extend to volunteers depending on the circumstances (''Nixon''). When determining whether a volunteer is captured by this section of the HRC, the Tribunal will consider the following:

#If there is a formal process to recruit volunteers;
#If there is a training process with defined tasks for volunteers;
#Whether volunteers have to agree to follow the organizations policies and practices;
#If there are requirements about when or how often a volunteer must be available; and
#The role of volunteers in the organization.

For more information on volunteers, see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2017/2017bchrt123/2017bchrt123.html Ferri v Society of Saint Vincent de Paul and another]'', 2017 BCHRT 123 at paras 29-33.

Because all individuals over 19 are protected by the ground of age, individuals in both the public and private sector are able to choose the age at which they wish to retire and are protected from discrimination based on age (HRC, s 1).

'''Duty to Inquire:''' An employer may have a duty to inquire about a potential disability before taking disciplinary action against an employee, even if the employee has not formally disclosed their condition. This means that if an employer has a reasonable belief that an employee's behaviour or performance issues are linked to a medical condition, they must take steps to investigate before making a decision that could negatively affect the employee.

This principle was established in cases like ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1997/1997bchrt39/1997bchrt39.html Willems-Wilson v Allbright Drycleaners]'', 1997 BCHRT 39. In this case, an employee was fired due to her behaviour, which was related to an undiagnosed mental disability. Although she hadn't explicitly told her employer she had depression, the employer was aware of several key facts: she cried frequently, had been hospitalized for non-physical reasons, and attended weekly counseling sessions.

The court determined that these facts gave the employer reason to believe that a medical condition was a factor. Therefore, the employer had a duty to inquire about a possible link between the employee's behavior and her disability before firing her.

This duty was later affirmed in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt41/2003bchrt41.html Gardiner v British Columbia (Attorney General)]'', 2003 BCHRT 41 at 166, where the Tribunal held that an employer has a duty to inquire when they have reason to believe that a medical condition is affecting an employee's job performance.

'''Defence of ''Bona Fide'' Occupational Requirement (BFOR)''': Adverse treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic may be justified when it relates to a "''bona fide'' occupational requirement" (BFOR): see s 13(4). In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1724/index.do British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union]'', 1999 CanLII 652 (SCC) at para 54 [''Meiorin''], the Supreme Court of Canada established a three-part test for establishing a BFOR.
# The employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;
# The employer adopted the particular standard with an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and
# The standard is reasonably necessary to fulfil its purpose. The employer must show that it could not accommodate individual employees with the protected characteristic without experiencing undue hardship.

For a specific example of a BCHRT case that applies the BFOR test in a disability context, please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt196/2009bchrt196.html Kerr v Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd (No 4)]'', 2009 BCHRT 196 ["''Kerr''"].

'''Undue Hardship:''' What may be considered undue hardship varies by employer and depends on the circumstances. In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/910/index.do Central Okanagan School District No 23 v Renaud]'', 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), the Supreme Court of Canada held that undue hardship is more than a minor inconvenience, and that actual interference with the employer’s business must be established. Factors the court may consider include the financial cost of accommodation, health and safety concerns, and the flexibility and size of the workplace.

The burden of proving undue hardship lies on the respondent and will require evidence that all reasonable accommodations, short of undue hardship, have been provided. For more information on the duty to accommodate, please see the BC Human Rights Clinic’s "Legal Information" [https://bchrc.net/legal-information/do-i-have-a-complaint page] and their [https://bchrc.net/tag/duty-to-accomodate blog].

'''Other Exemptions''': Distinctions based on age are not prohibited if they relate to a ''bona fide'' seniority scheme. Distinctions based on marital status, physical or mental disability, sex, or age are permitted under ''bona fide'' retirement, superannuation, or pension plans, and under ''bona fide'' insurance plans, including those which are self-funded by employers or provided by third parties (HRC, s 13(3)).

=== 7. Discrimination by Unions, Employer Organizations or Occupational Associations ===

Section 14 states that trade unions, employers’ organizations, and occupational associations may not deny membership to any person or discriminate against a person on the basis of Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, and/or unrelated criminal record. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt440/2006bchrt440.html De Lima v Empire Landmark Hotel and Major]'', 2006 BCHRT 440.

Since persons are not covered by section 14, protection against denial of membership has been held to apply only against an implicated union, organization, or association, and not against an individual. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2005/2005bchrt53/2005bchrt53.html Ratsoy v BC Teachers’ Federation]'', 2005 BCHRT 53 at para 23.
This differs from other protections granted by the HRC, which, in appropriate circumstances, generally allow an action to be brought against both an organization (e.g. an employer) and its individual members (e.g. a manager).

There are two limited ways in which unions can be held liable for discrimination. The first is by creating or participating in formulating a discriminatory workplace rule, and the second is by impeding an employer’s efforts to accommodate an employee (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt44/2018bchrt44.html Chestacow v Mount St Marie Hospital of Marie Esther Society]'', [2018] BCHRT No 44 at para 32 ["''Chestacow''"]). In respect of the latter, a union may be required to waive seniority rights or other collective agreement obligations to facilitate the accommodation of an employee with a protected characteristic, such as a disability.

===8. Retaliation===

Section 43 of the Code protects people from retaliation for filing a human rights complaint, or for indicating that they might file a human rights complaint. It also protects from retaliation anyone who assists, or who might assist, someone to make a complaint.

The test for retaliation is set out in [https://canlii.ca/t/hqtpj ''Gichuru v Pallai'', 2018] BCCA 78 at paras 50–58. To prove retaliation, a complaint must show:

a) The respondent was aware that the complainant had made or might make a complaint;

b) The respondent engaged in or threatened to engage in conduct described in s 43; and

c) There is sufficient connection between the impugned conduct and the previous complaint.

Sufficient connection may be established by proving that the respondent intended to retaliate, or by the tribunal drawing that inference when the respondent can reasonably have been perceived to have engaged in prohibited retaliatory conduct. This reasonable perception is assessed from the point of view of a reasonable complainant, apprised of the facts, at the time of the impugned conduct.

In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt5/2021bchrt5.html ''The Sales Associate v Aurora Biomed Inc. and others (No. 3)''], 2021 BCHRT 5, the Tribunal interpreted the meaning of the protection for someone who "might" make a complaint. The Tribunal concluded that the protection applies where the retaliator is aware that a person might pursue some legal recourse for discrimination. It is not necessary to prove that the retaliator was specifically aware of the possibility of a human rights complaint at the Human Rights Tribunal (see paras 151–163).

== C. Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination ==

=== 1. General ===

Prohibited grounds of discrimination include Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age (for those 19 and over), criminal record (that is not related to the employment, union, or occupational association), and lawful source of income (in tenancy only).

A complainant can file a complaint on a combination of grounds. A prohibited ground does not need to have been the sole or primary motivating factor behind the discrimination; it need only have been one contributing factor. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc39/2015scc39.html ''Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v Bombardier Inc (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center)''], 2015 SCC 39 at paras 45–52 [''Bombardier''].

Not all grounds of discrimination are protected in all the areas listed in each of the sections 7–14 of the HRC. The grounds of discrimination that apply depend on the protected area in question. One must first decide which section is involved and then check to see which grounds are associated with that section. Please refer to the following chart:.

{| class="wikitable"
! style="font-weight: bold;" | Protected Grounds
! colspan="7" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;" | Protected Areas
|-
|
| style="text-align: center;" | Written Publications
| style="text-align: center;" | Public Services &
Accommodation
| style="text-align: center;" | Purchase of
Property
| style="text-align: center;" | Tenancy
| style="text-align: center;" | Employment
Advertisements
| style="text-align: center;" | Employment
| style="text-align: center;" | Unions &
Associations
|-
| Indigenous Identity
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Race
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Colour
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Ancestry
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Place of Origin
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Political Belief
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Religion
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Marital Status
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Family Status
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Physical or Mental
Disability
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Sex
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Sexual Orientation
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Gender Identity or Expression ''(NEW)''
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Age
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Criminal or
Summary Conviction
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Source of Income
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
|}

To determine whether a violation of the HRC has occurred, consult the relevant section of the HRC and review recent case law. Case law can be found on the BC Human Rights Tribunal [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions website]), indexed by year, and is also available on [http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/ CanLII BC].

Discrimination need not be intentional (HRC, s 2). Any policy or action that has an adverse effect on a protected group and which cannot be justified will be considered discriminatory. The policy or act does not have to affect every person in the group for it to be considered discriminatory. For example, if a policy discriminates against only people who are pregnant it could still be considered sex discrimination. It is also possible that an act or policy may affect men as well as women, but affect one sex to a disproportionate degree, in which case it could also qualify as sex discrimination.

Discrimination can also be established on an intersectional basis. This means that the discriminatory conduct had an adverse impact on the basis of multiple protected grounds. These grounds occur simultaneously and cannot easily be separated from one another. It is not always necessary to establish that each individual ground has been discriminated against where intersectional discrimination can be established. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2005/2005bchrt302/2005bchrt302.html Radek v Henderson Development (Canada) Ltd]'', 2005 BCHRT 302 at paras 463–467.

=== 2. Indigenous Identity ===

Indigenous Identity refers to being First Nations, Métis, or Inuit. Indigenous Identity is a protected ground against discrimination in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

While there are few cases that feature the Tribunal considering Indigenous identity as its own distinct protected ground, there are many more that look at Indigenous identity as being a protected ground through race, ancestry, or place of origin. One such case is [https://canlii.ca/t/j5wnn ''Smith v Mohan (No. 2)''], 2020 BCHRT 52, where the complainant, an Indigenous woman and member of the Tsimshian and Haisla Nations, was discriminated against by her landlord, who continually tried to evict the complainant because she was smudging in her apartment unit. See also [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt275/2019bchrt275.html ''Campbell v Vancouver Police Board (No. 4)''], 2019 BCHRT 275, which involved a finding of discrimination by the Vancouver Police against an Indigenous mother.

=== 3. Race, Colour, Ancestry, and Place of Origin ===
The grounds of race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin are included in the HRC as a means to combat racism and racial discrimination. Each of these grounds are protected in the HRC and may be cited individually in connection with a discriminatory incident or grouped together to better illustrate a particular situation. For further information on how the above grounds interact, please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt3/2009bchrt3.html ''Torres v Langtry Industries Ltd''], 2009 BCHRT 3.

The grounds of race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin are protected in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

Discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, or place of origin can also be established where the respondent caused harm to the claimant by taking advantage of a vulnerability caused by the claimant's race, colour, ancestry, or place of origin. For more information, see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2015/2015bchrt60/2015bchrt60.html ''PN v FR and another (No 2)''], 2015 BCHRT 60.

For a recent case concerning discrimination on the basis of race in the employment context, please see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt136/2019bchrt136.html ''Francis v BC Ministry of Justice (No 3)''], 2019 BCHRT 136.

The Tribunal has recognized that racism can be subtle and is sensitive to this fact. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt60/2006bchrt60.html ''Mezghrani v Canada Youth Orange Network Inc''], 2006 BCHRT 60 at para 28.

The Tribunal has acknowledged that while anti-Black racism exists in Canada and continues to create impediments to the full and free participation of Black Canadians in the economic, social, political and cultural life of BC, there is a lack of cases dealing with anti-Black racism at the Tribunal level. Given that anti-Black racism is a "distinct form of racism," the lack of these types of cases has been a factor that supports a complaint being accepted despite being filed late; please refer to [https://canlii.ca/t/jllhh ''Umolo v Shoppers Drug Mart and others''], 2021 BCHRT 166 at para 35.

=== 4. Political Belief ===

The HRC provides protection from discrimination due to political beliefs and/or affiliations only in the protected areas of employment advertising, employment, and membership in a trade union, employer’s organization, or occupational association (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

In BC, few human rights cases have been decided on the ground of political belief. The Tribunal has, however, identified two key principles in determining whether a claimant’s belief should be protected under the HRC:

#Political belief is to be given a liberal definition; it is not confined to partisan political beliefs. Hence, political beliefs are not limited to beliefs about recognized or registered political parties.
#Political belief is not unlimited; for example, views about matters such as business or human resources decisions an employer may make do not come within its ambit.

Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt462/2006bchrt462.html Prokopetz and Talkkari v Burnaby Firefighters’ Union and City of Burnaby]'', 2006 BCHRT 462 at para 31 and [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2016/2016bchrt124/2016bchrt124.html ''Fraser v British Columbia (Ministry of Forests)''], 2016 BCHRT 124.

See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2016/2016bchrt50/2016bchrt50.html Bratzer v Victoria Police Department]'', [2016] BCHRT No 50 for a unique example of how political belief can be framed. In this case, an officer of the Victoria Police Department successfully argued that his stance against the criminalization of illicit drugs and his involvement in a not-for profit that advocates for such views amounted to a political belief.

In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2012/2012bchrt389/2012bchrt389.html Wali v Jace Holdings]'', 2012 BCHRT 389 at para 117, the Tribunal determined that comments regarding matters affecting the regulation of a profession could constitute a political belief. This was narrowed to the particular legislative framework and mandate of the College of Pharmacists. The Tribunal took into account that the issue was a legislative initiative involving public welfare and was being debated in the community of pharmacists in determining that the belief was a protected political belief.

=== 5. Religion ===
Religious discrimination cases have helped to define several of the fundamental ideas and standards that comprise human rights law in Canada. Matters before the courts have routinely addressed discriminatory incidents concerning religious faith, beliefs, customs, and practices. The HRC protects against discrimination based on religion in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

As is the case in the ''Charter'' section 2(a) case law on freedom of conscience and religion, a claimant before the Tribunal must show that their religious belief or practice is sincere, but is not required to show that it is objectively required or recognized by a particular religious faith. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt1/2009bchrt1.html Friesen v Fisher Bay Seafood Limited]'', 2009 BCHRT 1, at para 57.

Atheism is encompassed within the protected ground of religion: ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt281/2018bchrt281.html Mangel and Yasué obo Child A v. Bowen Island Montessori School and others]'', 2018 BCHRT 281 at para 210.

The duty to accommodate obliges employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees so long as doing so does not cause undue hardship. Practices requiring accommodation may be linked to customs involving prayer, dietary restrictions, clothing requirements, or time off on religious holy days. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii81/1992canlii81.html Renaud v Central Okanagan School District No 23]'', [1992] 2 SCR 970 at 982.

=== 6. Family Status and Marital Status ===

Family status generally refers to parent-child relationships, but can and does encompass other family relationships including those between siblings, in-laws, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, and cousins. For case law on the definition of family status and the test for discrimination on that basis see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt34/2009bchrt34.html Miller v British Columbia Teachers’ Federation]'', 2009 BCHRT 34 at para 17.

Marital status normally refers to couples with a spouse-like relationship. The HRC extends protection to all individuals regardless of their status (i.e. married, common-law, single, separated, divorced or widowed). Issues involving family and marital status may often overlap and may be cited concurrently to fully illustrate a certain situation.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on marital and family status in all the areas protected under the HRC, with the exception that family status is not protected in the area of purchase of property (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General'''). This means adult-only buildings and strata corporations are permitted.

Protections from discrimination on the basis of marital and family status also confer protection on the basis of the identity of the complainant’s spouse or family member: ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc66/2002scc66.html B v Ontario (Human Rights Commission)]'', 2002 SCC 66.

The ground of family status also protects people from discrimination in respect of their childcare, and possibly other family care obligations. The law regarding the test that applies in the context of family status discrimination cases involving childcare obligations is unsettled in Canada.

In BC, the test for family status discrimination in employment was most recently considered in [https://canlii.ca/t/jwss3 British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) v Gibraltar Mines Ltd.,] 2023 BCCA 168. The BC Court of Appeal held that to establish discrimination based on family status, the complainant must show that a term or condition of employment results in a serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty or obligation of an employee. This protection applies equally when the interference is a consequence of a change in the term of employment, or a change in the employee’s circumstances (see para 77).

The Federal Court of Appeal set out its own four-part test for family status discrimination in federal cases in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2014/2014fca110/2014fca110.html Canada (Attorney General) v Johnstone]'', 2014 FCA 110 at para 93 ["''Johnstone''"]. Under ''Johnstone'', a complainant must show that a child is under their care and supervision, the issue engages the individual’s legal responsibility for that child as opposed to a personal choice, they have made reasonable efforts to find alternative solutions with no reasonable alternative solution is available, and the impugned workplace rule interferes with the childcare obligation in a more than trivial or insubstantial way.

=== 7. Physical or Mental Disability ===

Disability is not defined in the HRC. However, the concept of physical disability, for human rights purposes, generally indicates a "physiological state that is involuntary, has some degree of permanence, and impairs the person’s ability, in some measure, to carry out the normal functions of life" (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1994/1994canlii18445/1994canlii18445.html Boyce v New Westminister (City)]'', 1994 CanLII 18445 (BC HRT) at para 50 [''Boyce'']).

More recent cases have confirmed that a disability must have a certain level of severity, permanence or persistence: see e.g., ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2014/2014bchrt270/2014bchrt270.html Li v Aluma Systems and another]'', 2014 BCHRT 270 at para 41. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt14/2003bchrt14.html Morris v BC Rail]'', 2003 BCHRT 14 at para 214 ["''Morris''"], the Tribunal set out the following three considerations for assessing whether an individual has a physical or mental disability:

#[T]he individual’s physical or mental impairment, if any;
#[T]he functional limitations, if any, which result from that impairment; and
#[T]he social, legislative or other response to that impairment and/or limitations… assessed in light of the concepts of human dignity, respect and the right to equality.

Furthermore, according to ''Morris'' at para 207, proof of impairment and/or limitation, while relevant, will not be required in all cases. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2013/2013bchrt40/2013bchrt40.html McGowan v Pretty Estates]'', 2013 BCHRT 40 at paras 26-28 for more information.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on physical or mental disability in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

The protection of the HRC extends to those who are perceived to have a disability or to be at risk of becoming disabled in the future. As such, the Tribunal has rejected the application of strict criteria to determine what constitutes a physical or mental disability. For example, protection has been specifically applied to persons with AIDS, persons who are HIV positive, and persons believed to be HIV positive. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2005/2005bchrt177/2005bchrt177.html McDonald v Schuster Real Estate]'', 2005 BCHRT 177 at para 24 and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1999/1999canlii35199/1999canlii35199.html J v London Life Insurance Co]'' (1999), 36 CHRR D/43 at para 42 ["''London Life Insurance''"].

As noted above, protection from discrimination due to physical disability extends to discrimination on the basis of a perceived propensity to become disabled in the future. In ''London Life Insurance'' at para 46, the Tribunal found that the HRC prohibited discrimination against a person based on the fact that his spouse was HIV positive. Protection under this ground has also been extended to those who are suffering from addictions issues. For example, ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1995/1995canlii18183/1995canlii18183.html Handfield v North Thompson School District No 26]'', 1995 CanLII 18183 (BC HRT) at paras 139–143 recognized alcoholism as both a physical and mental disability.

Where a behaviour or policy adversely affects a protected group or person, either directly or indirectly due to their disability (or any other protected characteristic), there is a duty to accommodate, meaning that all reasonable efforts must be taken to accommodate the group or person up to the point of undue hardship. Examples include installing wheelchair access (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt174/2018bchrt174.html Walsh v Pink]'', 2018 BCHRT 174 at paras 104-111) or safety handrails (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt62/2006bchrt62.html Ferguson v Kimpton]'', 2006 BCHRT 62 at para 68). The duty to accommodate may also include allowing workers to return gradually to the workplace after an injury or serious illness.

=== 8. Sexual Orientation ===

The HRC prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Such discrimination does not require a complainant to prove their sexual orientation nor that a given respondent believed them to have a particular orientation. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca201/2005bcca201.html School District No 44 (North Vancouver) v Jubran]'', 2005 BCCA 201, Mr. Jubran was a high school student, subjected to homophobic insults and harassment from other students. This conduct was found to constitute discrimination, even though Mr. Jubran did not identify as homosexual and his harassers denied believing that they in fact thought he was homosexual.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

For a case regarding discrimination on this basis against patrons of a restaurant in the context of services customarily available to the public, please see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt101/2011bchrt101.html Pardy v. Earle and others (No. 4)''], 2011 BCHRT 101.

=== 9. Sex (Including Sexual Harassment, Pregnancy) ===
Discrimination on the basis of sex, which is prohibited under the HRC, includes sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is defined as "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that detrimentally affects a work environment or leads to adverse job-related consequences for the victims of the harassment" (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii97/1989canlii97.html Janzen v Platy Enterprises Ltd]'', 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1252 at 1284 [''Janzen'']).

The HRC protects against discrimination based on sex in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2015/2015bchrt60/2015bchrt60.html PN v FR and another (No 2)]'', 2015 BCHRT 60, the HRT awarded $50,000 for injury to dignity to a domestic foreign worker who was sexually harassed and assaulted. This is among the highest injury to dignity award the Tribunal has ever ordered. This case also involved allegations of discrimination based on family status, race, age, colour, and place of origin.

Sexual harassment can take a number of forms. One example is when an employer or a supervisory employee requires another employee to submit to sexual advances as a condition of obtaining or keeping employment or employment-related benefits. It may also occur when employees are forced to work in an environment that is hostile, offensive, or intimidating, such as where an employer allows pornography to be posted in the workplace.

It is not generally necessary for an employee to make an internal complaint to their employer before filing a complaint, although this may be relevant to the compensation the employer is ordered to pay if the complaint is successful. There is also no requirement of continuing harassment; a single incident may be sufficient if it is sufficiently egregious.

Whether the conduct was "unwelcome" is assessed on an objective standard: would a reasonable person have known that the conduct was unwelcome? If the respondent knew or ought to have known that the conduct was unwelcome, this part of the test is made out. A target of harassment is not required to expressly object to the conduct for it to be reasonably understood to be unwelcome. The law recognizes that a person's behaviour "may be tolerated and yet unwelcome at the same time" (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1999/1999bchrt56/1999bchrt56.html Mahmoodi v University of British Columbia and Dutton]'', 1999 BCHRT 56 at para 140).

It must also be shown that the alleged discriminatory conduct is "reasonably perceived to create a negative psychological and emotional environment for work" (''Janzen'' at 1263). The test must also account for the customary boundaries of social interaction in the circumstances. Factors that are examined to determine the limits of reasonableness in a particular context include the nature of the conduct, the workplace environment, the type of prior personal interaction, and whether a prior objection or complaint was made. However, it is no defence to harassment, to show that harassing behaviour was traditionally tolerated in a workplace.

For a more recent case involving discrimination on the basis of sex, and more specifically sexual harassment in the employment context, see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt97/2019bchrt97.html Araniva v RSY Contracting and another (No. 3)]'', 2019 BCHRT 97.

There are also examples of cases involving sex discrimination that did not amount to sexual harassment. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2004/2004bchrt76/2004bchrt76.html Mottu v MacLeod]'', 2004 BCHRT 76 at para 41, where the Tribunal found that dress code requirements based on sex could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2004/2004bchrt26/2004bchrt26.html ''Lund v Vernon Women’s Transition House Society''], 2004 BCHRT 26, the Tribunal found that an employer’s refusal to allow a female employee to breastfeed her child at work could also constitute sex discrimination. See also ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt5/2021bchrt5.html The Sales Associate v Aurora Biomed Inc. and others (No. 3)]'', 2021 BCHRT 5.

=== 10. Gender Identity or Expression ===

This protected ground has been in force since 2016, and therefore fewer decisions relating to this ground are currently available. For a recent Tribunal decision issued under the ground of gender identity or expression, please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt58/2019bchrt58.html Oger v Whatcott (No 7)]'', 2019 BCHRT 58.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on gender identity or expression in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

Please also see [https://canlii.ca/t/hvlwz ''Li v Mr B''], 2018 BCHRT 228, where the respondent, the complainant’s landlord, showed a photograph of the complainant (who was male identifying) in a dress to the complainant’s supervisor in an attempt to cause an adverse effect on the complainant’s employment. The HRT found that this constituted discrimination based on gender identity and expression.

For a case involving a nonbinary person whose coworker refused to use they/them pronouns to refer to them, please see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt137/2021bchrt137.html Nelson v Goodberry Restaurant Group Ltd. dba Buono Osteria and others]'', 2021 BCHRT 137.

Prior to the inclusion of gender identity or expression in 2016, the Tribunal had found that being transgender was a protected characteristic under the ground of sex. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2015/2015bchrt54/2015bchrt54.html Dawson v Vancouver Police Board (No 2)]'', 2015 BCHRT 54 ["''Dawson''"]. ''Dawson'' establishes that misgendering trans individuals (addressing a trans person using a pronoun, name, or gender marker other than that which the trans person uses to identify themselves) constitutes discrimination. Discrimination may also include the denial of trans-specific medical services (''Dawson'').

=== 11. Age (19+) ===

11. Age (19+)
Age can refer to an individual’s legal age, membership in a specific age-category, or a generalized characterization of a specific age. The HRC protects against discrimination based on age in all the areas protected under the HRC except the purchase of property (see the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General'''). Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt219/2006bchrt219.html Miu v Vanart Aluminum and Tam]'', 2006 BCHRT 219 at para 18.

Age protection is restricted to those 19 years of age and over. However, those under 19 years can still bring complaints to the BCHRT based on grounds other than age.

=== 12. Unrelated Criminal or Summary Conviction ===

BC’s HRC protects individuals against discrimination based on a criminal or summary conviction only in the areas of employment, trade unions, employers’ associations and occupational associations, so long as the conviction is unrelated to the employment or the intended employment of the individual (see the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

This protection includes a perceived conviction (i.e., relating to arrests, stayed charges or acquittals). Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt43/2011bchrt43.html Purewall v ICBC]'', 2011 BCHRT 43 at para 21; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt411/2006bchrt411.html Clement v Jackson and Abdulla]'', 2006 BCHRT 411 at para 14; and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1997/1997canlii24841/1997canlii24841.html Korthe v Hillstrom Oil Company Ltd]'', 1997 CanLII 24841 (BC HRT) at paras 23–28.

To establish whether or not a conviction may affect an employment decision, the Tribunal makes an assessment of the relationship between the conviction and the job description. As such, employers must take into account the circumstances of the conviction in order to determine whether or not the charge relates to individual’s employment. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1983/1983canlii444/1983canlii444.html Woodward Stores (British Columbia) v McCartney]'', 1983 CanLII 444 (BCSC) at paras 7–9, Justice MacDonald laid out a list of criteria to be considered in making this determination. These criteria are as follows:

* Does the behaviour which formed the basis of the charge, if repeated, compromise the employers’ ability to conduct business safely and effectively?
* What were the circumstances and details of the offence, e.g., what was the person’s age at the time of the offence and were there any extenuating factors?
* How much time has passed since the charge? What has the individual done since that time and has there been any indication of recidivism? Has there been evidence of the individual’s desire for rehabilitation?

=== 13. Lawful Source of Income ===

Lawful source of income is only a protected ground in the area of tenancy (see the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General'''). The HRC protects the rights of individuals on social assistance or disability pensions, for example, who might otherwise be denied housing from being discriminated against in tenancy situations.

Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt36/2003bchrt36.html Tanner v Vlake]'', 2003 BCHRT 36 at paras 22–26 for further discussion on this protected ground. For a more recent case, please see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2012/2012bchrt49/2012bchrt49.html ''Day v Kumar and another (No 3)''], 2012 BCHRT 49.

== D. Procedural Options for Employees ==

An employee who is dealing with an employment-related legal issue may have more than one procedural option to choose from. These include:

=== 1. Employer’s Internal Complaint Procedure ===

Assuming one exists, this is the most immediate way to obtain a resolution to a workplace issue. Consult the workplace’s policies to determine whether an internal complaints process exists and, if so, whether it is likely to yield a helpful resolution of the issue. Note that employees are not required to make use of internal procedures before filing a human rights complaint or other legal proceeding.

=== 2. Grievance and Arbitration (Union) ===

Unionized workers are entitled to representation by their union. Labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the HRC, and grievances often move more quickly than human rights complaints. However, if the union does not pursue a grievance relating to a human rights issue, the worker may wish to file their own human rights complaint and may even decide to name the union as a party if the worker has grounds to believe the union is complicit in the alleged discrimination. Alleging that the union has failed to provide adequate representation will not be sufficient to qualify as a breach of the HRC on its own; the union must have engaged in the discrimination.

As previously stated (see '''Section III.B.7''': Discrimination by Unions, Employer Organizations, or Occupational Associations), there are two ways in which a union may be found liable for discrimination. First by creating or participating in formulating a discriminatory workplace rule, and second by impeding an employer’s efforts to accommodate a disabled employee (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt44/2018bchrt44.html Chestacow]'' at para 32).

Initiating the grievance procedure can be a good starting point, and can be followed by initiating a human rights complaint. A grievance and a human rights complaint can also be filed in tandem. If the matter is not resolved during the initial stages of the union grievance procedure, an arbitration hearing may be held, and an arbitrator will determine liability and relief. The human rights complaint may be placed in deferral while the grievance process proceeds. If the grievance process resolves the worker’s human rights issue, the human rights complaint will be dismissed. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2019/2019bcca241/2019bcca241.html Sebastian v Vancouver Coastal Health Authority]'', 2019 BCCA 241 for some of the risks of parallel proceedings in this context.

=== 3. Human Rights Complaint ===

Another option is to file a human rights complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal (see above for the grounds, areas, exemptions, complaint process, etc.) or, under federal jurisdiction with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (see below for the grounds, areas, exemptions, process, etc). The Tribunal can award lost wages, expenses, and damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. However, if a claimant is also seeking severance pay, lost wages, or expenses in a civil suit, they will not be allowed to recover the same damages from both proceedings.

=== 4. Employment Standards Branch ===

Employees may choose to file a complaint through the Employment Standards Branch (ESB) if their employer has breached the ''Employment Standards Act'' (see [[Introduction_to_Employment_Law_(9:I)|Chapter 9: Employment Law]]). There is a '''six-month limitation period''' from the date of the breach. A complainant can file claims in both the ESB and civil court (either Small Claims or Supreme Court) for employment-related issues, including wrongful dismissal. These actions do not bar the complainant from also bringing a human rights complaint relating to the same matter. Remedies awarded by the Employment Standards Tribunal are intended to make the employee "whole" financially by way of compensation rather than reinstatement. It is important to note that the ESB does not deal with alleged discrimination. If the employee recovers unpaid wages through the ESB, they cannot "double-recover" and seek those same damages in the BCHRT or another forum.

=== 5. Civil Action ===

A final option is to bring a civil action for wrongful dismissal either in Small Claims Court (see [[Introduction_to_Small_Claims_(20:I)|Chapter 20: Small Claims]] of the LSLAP Manual) or the BC Supreme Court, depending on the amounts claimed. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the common law will not provide a remedy for discrimination per se in the employment context. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc39/2008scc39.html Keays v Honda Canada Inc]'', 2008 SCC 39 at para 67 [''Keays''].

The court in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc39/2008scc39.html Keays]'' held that breaches of the HRC must be remedied within the statutory scheme of the HRC itself. Thus, even if the reason for dismissal was discriminatory, in a civil action, the claimant will generally only be able to recover damages based on their wrongful dismissal and/or inadequate notice (severance pay). See [[Introduction_to_Employment_Law_(9:I)|Chapter 9: Employment Law]] of the LSLAP Manual. Accordingly, compensation for the discrimination itself must be awarded by the Tribunal.

The court may further compensate the claimant in a civil action if the employer has acted unfairly or in bad faith when dismissing an employee. The basis for these additional damages is a breach of the implied term of an employment contract that employers will act in good faith in the manner of dismissal (i.e. payment for such damages can be deemed to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the formation of the contract). In Keays, the Supreme Court of Canada held that any such additional award must be compensatory and must be based on the actual loss or damage suffered by the employee, which can include expenses related to mental distress stemming from the manner of dismissal. Compensable conduct might include, but is not limited to, attacking the employee's reputation at the time of dismissal, misrepresentations regarding the reason for the dismissal, or dismissal meant to deprive the employee of a pension benefit or other right such as permanent resident status. However, normal distress and hurt feelings arising from the dismissal itself are not grounds for additional damages.

The courts are even more conservative in their approach to awarding punitive damages meant to punish the employer for their conduct in dismissal. Punitive damages will only be awarded if the employer’s conduct was harsh, vindictive, reprehensible, malicious, and extreme in nature. Thus, if the claimant is primarily concerned with being compensated for injuries to their dignity and/or denouncing their employer’s discriminatory behaviour, they should file a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal alongside a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

Whatever procedural route an employee ultimately chooses to pursue, if said employee is experiencing on-going harassment on a prohibited ground of discrimination, they should maintain records or a journal with dates, times, places, witnesses, details of particular incidents, and even a description of the emotional effects of the harassment.

== E. The Process for Human Rights Complaints ==

The BC Human Rights Tribunal handles complaints made under the HRC. The following chart depicts the process of a complaint at the Tribunal and the time in between the various stages of the process (prepared by the BC Human Rights Clinic, a program of the Community Legal Assistance Society ["CLAS"]):

The first step in filing a complaint with the Tribunal is to fill out a Complaint Form, which is available at the Tribunal's office, on its [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca website] or from other local government offices. It is also possible to file the complaint online on the Tribunal's website. There are helpful self-help guides to filling out Complaint and Response forms on the Tribunal’s website. You should also consult the [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/rules/index.htm Tribunal’s Rules of Practice] and [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/practice-directions/index.htm Procedure and Practice Directions] for guidance on the various steps in the process.

=== 1. Who Can File a Complaint? ===

A complaint may be made by an individual, on behalf of a group or class, or by someone acting as a representative of the named person(s). If the Complaint Form is being filled out on behalf of another person, group, or class of persons, then a secondary form called the Representative Complaint Form must also be filled out and must accompany the Complaint Form when sent to the Tribunal. The person filling out the Complaint Form is called the complainant. The person or organization whom the complaint is against is called the respondent.

[[File:BCHRC Updated HRT Complaint Process Diagram.png|Image Provided by BCHRC]]

=== 2. How to File a Complaint ===

The Complaint Form can be filed with the Tribunal via mail or fax. The Complaint Form can also be filled out and submitted online from a computer or a mobile device. Alternatively, the Complaint Form can be submitted to the Tribunal by email. Complainants may access the Complaint Form and other valuable resources at the BC Human Rights Tribunal website (see '''Section II.B: Resources'''). There are different Complaint Forms depending on whether the complaint is being made by an individual ([https://intake.bchrt.bc.ca/hrt/hrt Form 1.1]) or a group ([https://intake.bchrt.bc.ca/hrt/hrt-group Form 1.3]). If you are filling out a Complaint Form on behalf of someone else, then the appropriate form is [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/forms/form_1_2_print.pdf Form 1.2].

The party filing the complaint should be aware of the time limits. There is a '''one-year''' limitation period. Complaints alleging continuing contraventions of the Code may be accepted as long as at least one incident of alleged discrimination occurred within the one-year limitation period: see '''Code''' s 22(2).

Late-filed complaints may be accepted if it is in the public interest to do so, under certain very limited circumstances, as per s 22(3) of the Code. In order for a member of the Tribunal to accept all or part of the complaint under s 22(3), the Tribunal must determine that a) it is in the public interest to accept the complaint, and b) no substantial prejudice will result to any person because of the delay. The Tribunal’s assessment of what is in the public interest depends on a contextual consideration of a number of factors including: the complainant’s interest in accessing the Tribunal, the length and reason for the delay in filing, whether the complainant had access to legal advice, and the novelty or importance of the human rights issues raised: [https://canlii.ca/t/g7c2b ''British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v Mzite''], 2014 BCCA 220 at paras 53–81. The Tribunal also considers "the respondent’s interest in going about its activities without the worry of stale complaints": [https://canlii.ca/t/h03rl ''Hoang v Warnaco and Johns''], 2007 BCHRT 24 at para 26. This list of factors is not exhaustive.

The BC Court of Appeal has found it to be within the public interest to accept a complaint that was filed late if the complainant was operating off erroneous legal advice regarding the one-year limitation date: [https://canlii.ca/t/jbtjn ''The Parent obo the Child v The School District''], 2020 BCCA 333. The Tribunal has also found that it can be in the public interest to accept late complaints where the delay is due to a disabling condition: [https://canlii.ca/t/g8blz ''Naziel-Wilson v Providence Health Care and another''], 2014 BCHRT 170 at para 21. See also [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2023/2023bchrt40/2023bchrt40.html ''Sheriff v Fairleigh Dickenson University''], 2023 BCHRT 40 at para 38, where the Tribunal discussed the impact of trauma on a person’s ability to file a complaint within the one-year time limit.

The BC Human Rights Tribunal has been severely backlogged over the last couple of years. Potential complainants should be aware that it often takes a year or more for a case to be initially screened and accepted for filing. The Tribunal has developed a strategy to address its backlog, which it introduced on December 15, 2023, and most recently updated on March 7, 2025. For more information, see the announcement [https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/message-from-the-chair-about-the-tribunals-backlog-strategy/ here].

=== 3. Urgent Complaints ("Fast-Track") ===
If the complaint is urgent, a complainant may request a fast-track process. To be eligible for a fast track, you must show that fast tracking or changing the process will help get to a "just and timely resolution" of the complaint.

The complainant may want to fast-track the process if the complainant risks losing the appropriate remedy if urgent action is not taken by the HRT (for example, the complaint is about an eviction notice and the complainant will have to move out in 30 days, without a fast-tracked solution). A party may also wish to fast-track the process if they are at risk of losing the chance to prove their case (for example, the respondent’s main witness is moving out of Canada soon). For more information on the fast track process, please refer to the BCHRT [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/guides-info-sheets/general-apps/16.htm website].

=== 4. Screening ===

Once the Complaint Form is filed, the Tribunal will review the form to determine if it fits under the HRC and if it appears to meet the '''one-year''' limitation period. If the Tribunal believes that it may not have the power to deal with the complaint in substance or believes that the complaint has been filed out of time, the complainant will generally be given a chance to respond before the Tribunal decides whether to proceed with the complaint. If the Tribunal believes it can proceed, it will send the Complaint Form to the respondent for a response to the complaint.

A complainant '''must''' set out a case of discrimination under the HRC on their initial complaint form. If the elements are not set out, then the Tribunal may not accept the complaint. Even if accepted, it could still be vulnerable later to an application to dismiss under section 27 of the HRC.

In order to set out the complainant’s case, the complainant must allege facts that, on their face (that is to say, assuming they are all true), satisfy the following three elements:

#That they have a characteristic that is protected under the HRC;
#That they experienced an adverse impact with respect to an area protected by the HRC; and
#That their protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact they experienced.

A complainant need not establish that their protected characteristic was the sole or primary reason for their adverse treatment. It is sufficient to establish that it was one reason for their adverse treatment. For greater analysis of this topic please refer to ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15471/index.do Bombardier]'' and ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12680/index.do Moore]''.

A complainant is not required to provide evidence at the time they file their complaint. The complaint form simply needs to tell the story, identify all of the allegations of discriminatory treatment, and satisfy the three criteria set out above.

=== 5. Disclosure Obligations ===

Disclosure refers to the sharing of information with the other parties. In order for all parties to prepare for their case it is essential that information is properly shared. Information that must be disclosed includes:

#All documents relevant to the complaint, response, as well as the remedy being requested (this must be disclosed after a complaint is filed);
#A list of witnesses (this must be disclosed after a hearing is scheduled);
#A detailed explanation of the remedy (for the complainant), or a response to the proposed remedy (for the respondent); and
#Any expert evidence or opinion (must be presented to the other party within 90 days of the hearing).

Evidence that has not been disclosed cannot be presented at a hearing. An attempt to do so may negatively affect a party’s case and may even lead to an order for costs by the Tribunal. A failure to disclose can also simply prevent a complaint from going forward, or prevent a respondent from filing an application to dismiss.

=== 6. Settlement Meeting ===

'''Parties may agree to a settlement meeting at any time after the complaint has been filed.''' The Tribunal schedules an Early Settlement Meeting after accepting the complaint for filing, which the parties can opt out of if they choose. Most human rights complaints settle, either through a settlement meeting or direct negotiations between the parties or their counsel. Guides for settlement meetings and hearings are available from the Tribunal on its [https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/ website].

At the settlement meeting, a neutral and impartial mediator who is knowledgeable in human rights law will work with the parties in order to help them try to reach an agreement. Generally, a settlement will require both sides to compromise, whether that is a complainant accepting less compensation than they initially sought, or a respondent accepting some measure of responsibility. In a settlement meeting, it is important to listen to the other side’s perspective, assess how it impacts the strength of your case, and remain open-minded regarding the remedy you are prepared to accept to resolve the complaint.

Additionally, settlements can allow for creativity in determining a resolution. While the Tribunal may be limited in its ability to address the damages, mediation can result in constructive results such as public apologies or a practical solution to the issue at hand.

This process also allows for a quicker resolution of the issue in a more informal setting, where information is kept confidential. Negotiations are without prejudice, meaning they cannot be used in future hearings, and the mediator involved will not be a part of the final hearing. The process is voluntary and the Tribunal cannot force the parties to participate in mediation or enter into a settlement agreement. If the parties do voluntarily agree to settle their dispute, as part of the terms of settlement, the complainant will file a Complaint Withdrawal Form ([http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/e-forms/form_6_electronic.pdf Form 6]). A settlement agreement is a legally binding agreement, and if one side does not comply with its terms, the other party can take to steps to enforce it.

If both parties cannot agree on a resolution, the mediation will end with no settlement agreement.

=== 7. Covid-19 and Mask Wearing Complaints ===
Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the Tribunal developed a new process for processing complaints about mask wearing in the BCHRT. For complaints filed after March 31, 2022, the HRT will dismiss any complaint that does not include the criteria set out in the [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/practice-directions/mask-wearing-complaints.htm Practice Direction]. This criteria requires complainants to demonstrate that their protected personal characteristic, if that is a physical disability, actually inhibits the wearing of a mask. If the complainant does not provide this information in their Complaint Form then their complaint will be dismissed without an opportunity to provide more information.

== F. Remedies ==

Remedies should be considered early when deciding whether or not to pursue a claim in any administrative tribunal. Available remedies for a justified complaint are listed in section 37(2) of the HRC.

'''Non-pecuniary (not financial) remedies include:'''
*An order that the respondent cease the discriminatory conduct,
*A declaratory order that the conduct complained of is, in fact, discriminatory, and
*An order that the respondent take steps to ameliorate the effects of the discrimination, such as the implementation of human rights policy and training.
People seeking advice on drafting should be directed to the BC Human Rights Tribunal website, which provides detailed information on the availability and applicability of specific remedies (see [[Governing_Legislation_and_Resources_for_Human_Rights_(6:II)|Section II.B: Resources]]).

'''Pecuniary (financial) remedies include:'''
*Compensation for lost wages/salary,
*Expenses incurred due to the discrimination,
*Reinstatement of a lost benefit, and
*Compensation for injury to dignity.
Unlike severance pay, compensation for lost wages is not based on the concept of reasonable notice. A successful claimant may recover lost wages for the entire period between their dismissal and the hearing date if they can show that they have been making reasonable efforts to find new employment.

The purpose of an award for injury to dignity is to compensate a person whose rights under the ''Code'' have been violated. It is not to punish a respondent. Damages awarded for injury to dignity have increased over the last decade, and the tribunal has made it clear that the trend for such damages is upwards (see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt174/2018bchrt174.html Biggings obo Walsh v Pink and others]'', 2018 BCHRT 174 [''Walsh'']). Currently the highest award in BC is $176,000 (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt16/2021bchrt16.html Francis v BC Ministry of Justice (No. 5)]'', 2021 BCHRT 16). Historically, however, most damages in this category are under $10,000.

The BC Human Rights Clinic has a compiled list of awards given by the HRT, sorted by ground, updated quarterly and available [https://bchrc.net/legal-information/remedies here].

The Tribunal generally considers three broad factors in determining injury to dignity awards: the nature of the violation, the complainant’s vulnerability and social context, and the effect of the discrimination on the complainant (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt185/2011bchrt185.html Gichuru v The Law Society of British Columbia (No. 9)]'', 2011 BCHRT 185 at para 260, upheld in 2014 BCCA 396). Importantly, while injury to dignity awards commonly follow in cases where discrimination is established, this is not guaranteed, as seen in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2012/2012bchrt28/2012bchrt28.html Holt v Coast Mountain Bus Company]'', 2012 BCHRT 28 at para 233. For further information regarding compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, please visit the BC Human Rights Clinic's [https://bchrc.net/the-trend-is-upwards-recent-injury-to-dignity-awards website].

Remember, to claim any type of damage, the complainant must lead evidence. If the complainant fails to lead evidence as to the effect the discrimination had on their emotional state and dignity, this may impact the Tribunal’s assessment of damages. Furthermore, if the respondent can prove that the complainant has failed to mitigate their losses, a complainant may not be entitled to wage loss compensation.

The Tribunal may not award damages for lost wages/salary following a discriminatory dismissal during a period for which the claimant was medically incapable of working (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2008/2008bchrt376/2008bchrt376.html Senyk v WFG Agency Network (No 2)]'', 2008 BCHRT 376 at para 434). This is because, even absent the discrimination, the claimant would not have been able to earn wages or a salary (but see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt238/2018bchrt238.html Eva obo others v Spruce Hill Resort and another]'', 2018 BCHRT 238 at para 214).

There is no maximum limit on damage awards. However, if a claimant seeks a remedy at both the Human Rights Tribunal (e.g. for lost wages) and in civil court or another dispute resolution forum (e.g. for severance pay), and is successful with both proceedings, they are not entitled to double recovery and will receive the amount through only one of the proceedings. There are several cases where the award for loss of wages was in the range of $300,000. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt196/2009bchrt196.html Kerr]''.

Additionally, section 37(2) gives the Tribunal the power to award compensation for expenses incurred due to the discrimination found, which may include expenses such as counselling fees incurred because of the discrimination, or expenses incurred to attend a hearing. Legal expenses incurred after the filing of a complaint are not compensable, though legal expenses incurred prior to the filing of a complaint may be. See [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt195/2019bchrt195.html ''Fraser v BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (No. 6)''], 2019 BCHRT 195 at para 16.

A final order of the Tribunal may be registered in the BC Supreme Court so that it is enforceable as though it were an order of the court. No appeal procedure is provided for in the HRC; individuals dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision must seek judicial review in BC Supreme Court pursuant to the [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96241_01 ''Judicial Review Procedure Act''], RSBC 1996, c 241 (see [[Introduction_to_Public_Complaints_Procedures_(5:I)|Chapter 5: Public Complaint Procedures]] of the LSLAP Manual).

== G. Costs ==

The general rule is that costs will not normally be awarded in a human rights case. Pursuant to section 37(4) of the HRC, the purpose of awarding costs is to penalize a party who acts improperly during the course of the complaint, thereby interfering with the objectives of the Tribunal. In these cases, costs are awarded punitively and do not necessarily reflect the actual expenses incurred by the other party due to the improper conduct.

== H. Dismissal of a Complaint Without a Hearing ==

As mentioned above, the Tribunal may refuse to accept a complaint for filing if it does not have jurisdiction due to the nature of the complaint or if it is filed late. Once a complaint has been filed, however, the Tribunal may nevertheless dismiss it prior to a hearing, on application from the respondent or on its own motion, for a variety of reasons ([https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96210_01#section27 HRC, s 27]). The following outlines some of the reasons why the Tribunal may dismiss a filed complaint (check the HRC for a complete list):

=== 1. Complaint Outside the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction ===
The Tribunal will not proceed with a complaint where it is persuaded that the complaint is not, in fact, based on a form of discrimination enumerated by the HRC, or that the complaint falls within federal jurisdiction. Even if the Tribunal accepts a complaint for filing, the respondent may still have the option to dispute jurisdiction.

=== 2. Substance of Complaint Dealt with by Another Proceeding ===
Where another proceeding, such as a labour arbitration, has adequately resolved the substance of a complaint, it will usually be dismissed. A complaint may also be deferred if such an alternative proceeding is pending. The number of other proceedings capable of adequately dealing with a human rights complaint is however, quite limited.

=== 3. No Reasonable Basis for Holding a Hearing ===
The Tribunal may dismiss a complaint where the Tribunal is persuaded that the complaint is made in bad faith, would be of no benefit to the complainant, would not further the purposes of the HRC, and/or has no reasonable prospect of success. The most recent Annual Report from the BCHRT indicates that applications to dismiss under section 27 of the HRC succeeded in fully dismissing the complaint 49% of the time. No reasonable prospect of success is the most common reason for dismissing a complaint. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt117/2011bchrt117.html Marquez v Great Canadian Casinos]'', 2011 BCHRT 117 at paras 29–38.

If you are responding to an application to dismiss a complaint, it is important in most cases to provide evidence in support of the Complainant’s contention that the complaint should be allowed to proceed to a hearing. While the burden of persuading the Tribunal that the complaint should be dismissed is on the respondent, the complainant does need to provide sufficient evidence to take their complaint out of the realm of "speculation and conjecture." An affidavit attaching relevant exhibits from the client is preferable, though an unsworn statement will also likely be acceptable in most cases.

=== 4. Complaint Brought Outside Limitation Period ===
As mentioned above, there is a '''one-year''' limitation period for filing a complaint. The '''one-year''' period begins from the last instance of any continuing discrimination. If at least one alleged incident of discrimination in a complaint falls within the one-year limitation period, other alleged incidents of discrimination dating back farther than one year may be accepted as a continuing contravention of the ''Code''. The issue of whether, or how many, multiple instances of discrimination will be considered to constitute a "continuing contravention" (thus effectively extending the one-year limitation period) is often disputed. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt204/2018bchrt204.html Bjorklund v BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General]'', 2018 BCHRT 204 at paras 13-14 for a recent discussion of how to define a "continuing contravention"; see also ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2018/2018bcca136/2018bcca136.html District v Parent obo the Child]'', 2018 BCCA 136 at paras 46–65.

However, under [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96210_01#section22 section 22(3)] of the HRC, the Tribunal has discretion to accept late-filed complaints regardless of whether there is a "continuing contravention". The requirements for doing so are that it is in the public interest to accept the late complaint, and no substantial prejudice will be caused to any party because of the delay in filing (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt39/2003bchrt39.html Chartier v Sooke School District No 62]'', 2003 BCHRT 39 at para 12).

Whether it is in the public interest to accept a complaint filed outside the one-year time limit is a multi-faceted consideration, which is governed by the purposes of the HRC, and assessed on a case-by-case basis. Factors that may be important considerations in determining whether it is in the public interest to accept a late-filed complaint include the reasons for the delay, the length of the delay, the significance of the issue raised in the complaint and fairness in all the circumstances. The list of factors that the Tribunal may consider is non-exhaustive:. ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2014/2014bcca220/2014bcca220.html British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite]'', 2014 BCCA 220; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2007/2007bchrt24/2007bchrt24.html Hoang v. Warnaco and Johns]'', 2007 BCHRT 24.

== I. Responding to an Application to Dismiss ==

When faced with an application to dismiss, it is important to meaningfully engage with the reasons behind the application, providing supporting evidence when necessary. If the complainant does not provide evidence in response to an application to dismiss, it may result in a case being dismissed that did hold legal merit. Evidence can be as simple as a statement, although a sworn affidavit is preferable. The statement or affidavit should attach documents that help support the complainant’s argument that the complaint should be allowed to proceed to a hearing. The respondent would then have an opportunity to respond to the arguments raised by the complainant.

If the Tribunal agrees to dismiss the complaint then the complaint process will not continue any further. Applications to dismiss are subject to judicial review.

== J. Case Path Pilot ==

Unfortunately, the number of applications to dismiss filed by respondents has resulted in significant backlog and delay at the Tribunal. In response, the Tribunal established a Case Path Pilot project on May 6, 2022. Under this program, dismissal applications were no longer an automatic stage in the complaint process, but rather dismissal submissions were only allowed once the Tribunal identified clear issues with the complaint.

As of May 1, 2026, the Tribunal has amended this process for dismissal applications. Now, respondents who wish to dismiss a complaint must first file Form 7.5 – Request to File Dismissal Application. The Tribunal reviews this form alongside the complaint and response and will only permit a full dismissal application to move forward if it determines it would further a just and timely resolution. For more information about the amendment, see this Message from the Chair.

Cases notified of their disclosure obligations and deadlines before May 1, 2026, will continue to follow the process outlined in the Case Path Pilot Practice Direction.

== K. Judicial Review ==

If an individual disagrees with a decision of the Tribunal, they may ask the Supreme Court of British Columbia for a "judicial review". A judicial review differs from an appeal to a higher court. In an appeal, the court has the authority to decide whether or not it agrees with a decision. In a judicial review, the BC Supreme Court simply decides whether there is are grounds for review and may only disturb the Tribunal’s decision if the applicant can demonstrate that the Tribunal:

*Made an "error of law", (e.g., an incorrect interpretation of the HRC);
*Made a finding of fact that is unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence;
*Acted unfairly with regards to the rules of procedure and natural justice; or
*Disregarded legislative requirements; used its discretion arbitrarily, in bad faith, or for an improper purpose; or based its decisions on irrelevant factors.
These standards of review applicable to the Tribunal’s decisions are set out in s 59 of the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/04045_01 Administrative Tribunals Act]''.

If the Tribunal has made any of these errors, the Court may set aside the decision and will usually direct the Tribunal to reconsider the matter. Section 57 of the ''Administrative Tribunals Act'' mandates that an application for a judicial review must be submitted within '''60 days''' of the date the Tribunal’s decision was issued. In order to seek a judicial review, an individual is required to prepare a petition and affidavit, file the petition and affidavit at the BC Supreme Court, and serve a copy of the filed petition and affidavit on the Tribunal, the Attorney General of British Columbia, and any person whose interests may be affected by the order Court is asked to make.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Rights of the Child (6:IX)

2026-09-25T20:45:10Z

Nate Russell:

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 2 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}}

In addition to any claim under the federal or provincial codes, various protections exist for children under provincial statutes and the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/ Criminal Code]'', RSC 1985, c C-46, concerning educational and medical issues.

== A. School ==

=== 1. Compulsory Attendance and Registration ===

The ''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 412, states that all children must be enrolled by the first school day of a school year if, on or before December 31 of that school year, the child will have reached the age of 5 years (s 3(1)(a)). Parents may, however, defer enrolment until the first school day of the next school year (i.e. until age 6) (s 3(2)). Once enrolled, children must remain in an educational program until they are 16 (s 3(1)(b)). Whether children attend public or private schools, they must be registered on or before September 30 in each year either with a school or with the Minister of Education (s 13). Students must also comply with the rules, code of conduct, and policies set by the Board of Education or by their particular school (s 6).

Under section 12 of the ''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'', parents are authorized to educate their children at home or elsewhere provided they register their children pursuant to section 13.

=== 2. Discipline ===

Section 43 of the ''Criminal Code'' allows a schoolteacher to use discipline that is reasonable in the circumstances. This section refers to the use of reasonable force. The definition of reasonable force is “the substantial social consensus on what is reasonable correction supported by comprehensive and consistent expert evidence on what is reasonable” (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc4/2004scc4.html Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada]'', 2004 SCC 4 at para 2). However, the ''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'' specifically states that discipline of a student must be similar to that of a kind, firm, and judicious parent, and must not include corporal (physical) punishment (s 76(3)).

=== 3. Rights of Parents and Students ===

Students and parents have the right to consult with a teacher or administrative officer (''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'', ss 4 and 7(2)). As well as having the right to information regarding the attendance, behaviour and progress of their children in school (s 7(1)(a)), parents may request an annual report on the general effectiveness of the program their children are enrolled in, without their children’s consent. They are also entitled to belong to a parent’s advisory council (s 7(1)(c)). The councils can be formed by application to the Board or Minister of Education, and can advise the Board and staff of the school (s 8).

=== 4. School Records ===

Individual students and their parents are entitled to examine, on request, all records pertaining to that student while accompanied by the principal or a person designated by the principal (''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'', s 9). Student records identifying the student will not be released to other parties except when required by law, or if the student or parent consents to the disclosure in writing.

=== 5. Language of Instruction ===

Every student in BC is entitled to instruction in English (''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'', s 5). However, under section 23 of the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]'', students whose parents are citizens of Canada have the right to receive primary and secondary school instruction in either English or French if:
*their parents’ first language is that of the English or French-speaking minority population of the province in which they reside, and their parents still understand that language; or
*their parents received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and the parent resides in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French-speaking minority population of the province.

=== 6. Other Concerns ===

The ''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'' states that public schools must be conducted on strictly secular and non-sectarian principles (s 76(1)), meaning they cannot be religiously affiliated. For a case that applies s 76(1) please see [https://canlii.ca/t/jtfql Servatius v Alberni School District No. 70,] 2022 BCCA 421. In this case, a mother claimed that her children’s school had violated their religious freedom after an elder performed a smudging demonstration, and a hoop dancer said a prayer while performing at the children’s school assembly. The BC Court of Appeal ruled that the demonstrations were not religious ceremonies but public demonstrations for the purposes of building community and teaching students about Indigenous culture, practices recommended by Article 15 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

''[https://canlii.ca/t/ftp16 Moore]'' at para 36 determined that the BC government had discriminated against a dyslexic boy when it cut the special needs program during a financial crisis. The Supreme Court of Canada found that he was denied a service customarily available to the public. The service denied was meaningful access to education generally, not specific access to a special needs program. Discrimination was found because the cuts disproportionately affected special needs programs and there was no evidence that the BC government considered other options.

Parents are jointly and severally liable for intentional or negligent damage to school property caused by their children (s 10 of the School Act). Please see [https://canlii.ca/t/gfv2m Nanaimo-Ladysmith School District No. 68 v Dean] 2015 BCSC 11 for an example of parents being held liable for the negligent destruction of school property by their son. In this case, a 14-year-old student attached their friend’s padlock to the head of an overhead sprinkler in their school, which caused the entire sprinkler system to become activated, resulting in extensive damage to the school. Judgement was granted against the parents for $48,630.47 worth of damage.

There is no action against a school board or its employees unless the actionable conduct included dishonesty, gross negligence, malicious or wilful misconduct, or the cause of action is libel or slander (s 94(2)). Note section 94 limits liability, but does not absolve a board from vicarious liability.

Any person who believes a child, whether registered or not, is not enrolled in an educational program can make a report to the superintendent of schools (s 14(1)). An action lies against that person only if the report is made maliciously (s 14(3)).

School boards have a duty to provide an educational environment that is free from discriminatory harassment. This rule was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 20, 2005, when it dismissed an application for leave to appeal from a BC Human Rights Tribunal finding of discrimination against a BC school board relating to the homophobic harassment of one of its students (see ''[https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-l-csc-a/en/item/12398/index.do North Vancouver School District No 44 v Jubran]'', [2005] SCCA No 260 and [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca201/2005bcca201.html North Vancouver School District No 44 v Jubran], 2005 BCCA 201 at paras 91–102). Note that while the student was found to have been discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, it was irrelevant whether he identified himself as homosexual, or whether his harassers knew or believed him to be homosexual.

The Ministry of Education has developed the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) 123 initiative, to guide educators on instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity. The aim of this initiative is to foster inclusion and respect for students who, because of their identity or expression, may face discrimination while attending school. In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/jx8k0 Hansman v Neufeld,]'' 2023 SCC 14, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the conflict between freedom of expression and the protection of one’s reputation in the context of a critique of SOGI. In this case, Mr. Neufeld, a public school board trustee, made controversial online posts criticizing SOGI. Mr. Hansman, a gay man and teacher, was prominent amongst the dissenting voices and made statements to the media regarding his opposition to Mr. Neufeld’s views. Mr. Neufeld subsequently filed a defamation suit against Mr. Hansman. The SCC ruled in favour of Mr. Hansman, writing that “Not only does protecting Mr. Hansman’s expression preserve free debate on matters of public interest, it also promotes equality, another fundamental democratic value” (para 9). In this case, the SCC acknowledged that transgender and other 2SLGBTQ+ youth are especially vulnerable to expression like Mr. Neufeld’s that reduces their “worth and dignity in the eyes of society and questions their very identity” (para 9).

== B. Medical Attention ==

=== 1. Obligation to Provide Treatment ===

The ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/index.html Criminal Code]'' (s 215) imposes criminal sanctions on parents who fail to provide their children with the necessaries of life until they reach the age of 16. This has been held to include adequate medical treatment, and a court may also extend the duty to an older child who cannot become independent of their parent(s) due to factors including age and illness. Section 218 of the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/index.html Criminal Code]'' imposes criminal sanctions on any person who abandons or exposes a child less than 10 years of age to the risk of permanent injury, damage to their health, or risk to their life.

Under the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/consol21/consol21/00_96046_01 Child Family and Community Service Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 46 ("CFCSA"), children under the age of 19 may be removed if they are deprived of necessary medical attention, but only by a court order (s 29). When a child is removed, emergency medical care can be given at the director’s authorization (s 32). In cases where the only issue is the parents’ refusal of necessary medical attention, the director can apply for a court order authorizing the medical care without removing the child from the parents’ custody (s 29).

=== 2. Consent to Treatment ===

In Canadian case law, the courts have found that a minor can consent to treatment as a “mature minor” if that person has the mental capacity to understand the nature and risks of that particular treatment (see the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96223_01 Infants Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 223, s 17). A minor, who is living away from home, working, or married, may be found to be autonomous, and free from parental control, and thus capable of consenting to or refusing treatment on their own behalf.

Under the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96223_01 Infants Act]'', (s 17), a minor can consent to surgical, medical, mental, or dental treatment without the agreement of their parents, so long as the health care provider has:

#Explained to the minor and has been satisfied that the minor understands the nature and consequences and the reasonably foreseeable benefits and risks of the health care; and
#Has made reasonable efforts to determine and has concluded that the health care is in the minor's best interests. This includes requests for birth control advice and products, and for abortions.

A court of competent jurisdiction may order medical treatment for any child if the court is satisfied that such treatment is required, and that parental consent is being unreasonably withheld. This is part of the inherent ''parens patriae'' (guardian of persons under a legal disability) jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and is now codified under section 29 of the [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96046_01 CFCSA].

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Rights of the Child (6:IX)

2026-09-25T20:43:10Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 2 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}}

In addition to any claim under the federal or provincial codes, various protections exist for children under provincial statutes and the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/ Criminal Code]'', RSC 1985, c C-46, concerning educational and medical issues.

== A. School ==

=== 1. Compulsory Attendance and Registration ===

The ''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 412, states that all children must be enrolled by the first school day of a school year if, on or before December 31 of that school year, the child will have reached the age of 5 years (s 3(1)(a)). Parents may, however, defer enrolment until the first school day of the next school year (i.e. until age 6) (s 3(2)). Once enrolled, children must remain in an educational program until they are 16 (s 3(1)(b)). Whether children attend public or private schools, they must be registered on or before September 30 in each year either with a school or with the Minister of Education (s 13). Students must also comply with the rules, code of conduct, and policies set by the Board of Education or by their particular school (s 6).

Under section 12 of the ''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'', parents are authorized to educate their children at home or elsewhere provided they register their children pursuant to section 13.

=== 2. Discipline ===

Section 43 of the ''Criminal Code'' allows a schoolteacher to use discipline that is reasonable in the circumstances. This section refers to the use of reasonable force. The definition of reasonable force is “the substantial social consensus on what is reasonable correction supported by comprehensive and consistent expert evidence on what is reasonable” (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc4/2004scc4.html Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada]'', 2004 SCC 4 at para 2). However, the ''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'' specifically states that discipline of a student must be similar to that of a kind, firm, and judicious parent, and must not include corporal (physical) punishment (s 76(3)).

=== 3. Rights of Parents and Students ===

Students and parents have the right to consult with a teacher or administrative officer (''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'', ss 4 and 7(2)). As well as having the right to information regarding the attendance, behaviour and progress of their children in school (s 7(1)(a)), parents may request an annual report on the general effectiveness of the program their children are enrolled in, without their children’s consent. They are also entitled to belong to a parent’s advisory council (s 7(1)(c)). The councils can be formed by application to the Board or Minister of Education, and can advise the Board and staff of the school (s 8).

=== 4. School Records ===

Individual students and their parents are entitled to examine, on request, all records pertaining to that student while accompanied by the principal or a person designated by the principal (''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'', s 9). Student records identifying the student will not be released to other parties except when required by law, or if the student or parent consents to the disclosure in writing.

=== 5. Language of Instruction ===

Every student in BC is entitled to instruction in English (''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'', s 5). However, under section 23 of the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]'', students whose parents are citizens of Canada have the right to receive primary and secondary school instruction in either English or French if:
*their parents’ first language is that of the English or French-speaking minority population of the province in which they reside, and their parents still understand that language; or
*their parents received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and the parent resides in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French-speaking minority population of the province.

=== 6. Other Concerns ===

The ''[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/revisedstatutescontents.pdf School Act]'' states that public schools must be conducted on strictly secular and non-sectarian principles (s 76(1)), meaning they cannot be religiously affiliated. For a case that applies s 76(1) please see [https://canlii.ca/t/jtfql Servatius v Alberni School District No. 70,] 2022 BCCA 421. In this case, a mother claimed that her children’s school had violated their religious freedom after an elder performed a smudging demonstration, and a hoop dancer said a prayer while performing at the children’s school assembly. The BC Court of Appeal ruled that the demonstrations were not religious ceremonies but public demonstrations for the purposes of building community and teaching students about Indigenous culture, practices recommended by Article 15 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12680/index.do Moore]'' at para 36 determined that the BC government had discriminated against a dyslexic boy when it cut the special needs program during a financial crisis. The Supreme Court of Canada found that he was denied a service customarily available to the public. The service denied was meaningful access to education generally, not specific access to a special needs program. Discrimination was found because the cuts disproportionately affected special needs programs and there was no evidence that the BC government considered other options.

Parents are jointly and severally liable for intentional or negligent damage to school property caused by their children (s 10 of the School Act). Please see [https://canlii.ca/t/gfv2m Nanaimo-Ladysmith School District No. 68 v Dean] 2015 BCSC 11 for an example of parents being held liable for the negligent destruction of school property by their son. In this case, a 14-year-old student attached their friend’s padlock to the head of an overhead sprinkler in their school, which caused the entire sprinkler system to become activated, resulting in extensive damage to the school. Judgement was granted against the parents for $48,630.47 worth of damage.

There is no action against a school board or its employees unless the actionable conduct included dishonesty, gross negligence, malicious or wilful misconduct, or the cause of action is libel or slander (s 94(2)). Note section 94 limits liability, but does not absolve a board from vicarious liability.

Any person who believes a child, whether registered or not, is not enrolled in an educational program can make a report to the superintendent of schools (s 14(1)). An action lies against that person only if the report is made maliciously (s 14(3)).

School boards have a duty to provide an educational environment that is free from discriminatory harassment. This rule was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 20, 2005, when it dismissed an application for leave to appeal from a BC Human Rights Tribunal finding of discrimination against a BC school board relating to the homophobic harassment of one of its students (see ''[https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-l-csc-a/en/item/12398/index.do North Vancouver School District No 44 v Jubran]'', [2005] SCCA No 260 and [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca201/2005bcca201.html North Vancouver School District No 44 v Jubran], 2005 BCCA 201 at paras 91–102). Note that while the student was found to have been discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, it was irrelevant whether he identified himself as homosexual, or whether his harassers knew or believed him to be homosexual.

The Ministry of Education has developed the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) 123 initiative, to guide educators on instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity. The aim of this initiative is to foster inclusion and respect for students who, because of their identity or expression, may face discrimination while attending school. In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/jx8k0 Hansman v Neufeld,]'' 2023 SCC 14, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the conflict between freedom of expression and the protection of one’s reputation in the context of a critique of SOGI. In this case, Mr. Neufeld, a public school board trustee, made controversial online posts criticizing SOGI. Mr. Hansman, a gay man and teacher, was prominent amongst the dissenting voices and made statements to the media regarding his opposition to Mr. Neufeld’s views. Mr. Neufeld subsequently filed a defamation suit against Mr. Hansman. The SCC ruled in favour of Mr. Hansman, writing that “Not only does protecting Mr. Hansman’s expression preserve free debate on matters of public interest, it also promotes equality, another fundamental democratic value” (para 9). In this case, the SCC acknowledged that transgender and other 2SLGBTQ+ youth are especially vulnerable to expression like Mr. Neufeld’s that reduces their “worth and dignity in the eyes of society and questions their very identity” (para 9).

== B. Medical Attention ==

=== 1. Obligation to Provide Treatment ===

The ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/index.html Criminal Code]'' (s 215) imposes criminal sanctions on parents who fail to provide their children with the necessaries of life until they reach the age of 16. This has been held to include adequate medical treatment, and a court may also extend the duty to an older child who cannot become independent of their parent(s) due to factors including age and illness. Section 218 of the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/index.html Criminal Code]'' imposes criminal sanctions on any person who abandons or exposes a child less than 10 years of age to the risk of permanent injury, damage to their health, or risk to their life.

Under the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/consol21/consol21/00_96046_01 Child Family and Community Service Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 46 ("CFCSA"), children under the age of 19 may be removed if they are deprived of necessary medical attention, but only by a court order (s 29). When a child is removed, emergency medical care can be given at the director’s authorization (s 32). In cases where the only issue is the parents’ refusal of necessary medical attention, the director can apply for a court order authorizing the medical care without removing the child from the parents’ custody (s 29).

=== 2. Consent to Treatment ===

In Canadian case law, the courts have found that a minor can consent to treatment as a “mature minor” if that person has the mental capacity to understand the nature and risks of that particular treatment (see the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96223_01 Infants Act]'', RSBC 1996, c 223, s 17). A minor, who is living away from home, working, or married, may be found to be autonomous, and free from parental control, and thus capable of consenting to or refusing treatment on their own behalf.

Under the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96223_01 Infants Act]'', (s 17), a minor can consent to surgical, medical, mental, or dental treatment without the agreement of their parents, so long as the health care provider has:

#Explained to the minor and has been satisfied that the minor understands the nature and consequences and the reasonably foreseeable benefits and risks of the health care; and
#Has made reasonable efforts to determine and has concluded that the health care is in the minor's best interests. This includes requests for birth control advice and products, and for abortions.

A court of competent jurisdiction may order medical treatment for any child if the court is satisfied that such treatment is required, and that parental consent is being unreasonably withheld. This is part of the inherent ''parens patriae'' (guardian of persons under a legal disability) jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and is now codified under section 29 of the [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96046_01 CFCSA].

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

LSLAP's Role in Human Rights Proceedings (6:VIII)

2026-09-25T20:42:44Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 2 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}}

In provincial proceedings, clinicians may assist clients in completing the Complaint or Response Forms at the initial stages. We may also be able to provide full representation to clients at the BC Human Rights Tribunal but are usually limited to less complex cases where the scheduled hearing is set for two days or less. Where LSLAP cannot help directly, we can refer claimants to the BC Human Rights Clinic, which may be able to assist. The BC Human Rights Clinic assists hundreds of people every year. This lawyer-run program ranges from providing summary advice to full representation for hearings at the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

The BC Human Rights Clinic accepts applications for assistance made within thirty days after a complaint has been accepted for filing. However, they may be able to offer assistance for those who are applying beyond the thirty-day limit.

In the federal system, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”) has been set up to assist individuals with drafting complaints and to facilitate mediation. Students should, therefore, refer clients to the CHRC for assistance, though they can remain involved in the process by providing representation at mediation.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Online Mediations and Hearings for Human Rights Complaints (6:VII)

2026-09-25T20:41:08Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 2 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}}

==A. Online Hearings==

===1. The BCHRT===

Within recent years, the BCHRT has begun conducting hearings remotely using Microsoft Teams (“Teams”). Online hearings via Teams are set up using email addresses, and one week before the hearing, all parties must provide contact information for anyone attending the hearing on their side. This includes any party, lawyer, advocate, agent, or witness participating in the hearing. The day before the hearing begins, the Tribunal will email each person a link to join.

Each party must give copies of any document they want to have entered as an exhibit to all other parties and the Tribunal before the hearing. The Tribunal Member hearing your case will discuss this with you during the hearing readiness conference.

Typically, you will need to attend any hearing held on Teams using a computer. In exceptional cases you may use a smartphone, subject to the presiding Tribunal Member’s discretion. Ensure that all participants to the hearing have a way to attend. If you have technical issues using Microsoft Teams that prevent you from joining the hearing, contact the Tribunal’s designated contact person, which is stated in the email with the link to the hearing.

Hearing etiquette is similar to in person proceedings. Cameras must be on at all times, and you may only speak if you are making an argument or submission, questioning a witness, or giving testimony.

===2. The CHRT===
Similar to the BCHRT, hearings and mediations under the CHRT are also being conducted remotely, using videoconference or telephone. The CHRT will send a notice of the hearing or mediation to the parties as soon as practicable, with information such as the time, link, and information about the event. Regarding documentation, the mediator, the member or the panel will provide more specific instructions about electronic filing of documents for each case.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Alternative Processes for Indigenous Complainants in Human Rights Proceedings (6:VI)

2026-09-25T20:39:29Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 2 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}}

On January 15, 2020, the Tribunal released a report titled ''Expanding Our Vision: Cultural Equality and Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights''. It makes recommendations for addressing the serious access to justice concerns for Indigenous Peoples that face human rights violations in BC. It seeks to bring in more Indigenous voices into the Tribunal process. The report can be found [https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/indigenous-peoples-and-human-rights/expand/ here].

First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people can now self-identify as Indigenous on the complaint form and ask the Tribunal to contact them. The Tribunal will call to explain the process and options for Indigenous complainants, such as including Indigenous protocols, such as an elder or smudge, and Indigenous ways to deal with the complaint.

Regarding the mediation process, an Indigenous party can tell the Tribunal that they want a traditional ceremony, such as a smudge, prayer, or song, before or after the mediation. They can also request an Indigenous mediator, or an Indigenous dispute resolution approach.

In March 2023, in order to fulfill Recommendation 9.2 in the Report, the Tribunal hired four Indigenous Navigators. These Indigenous Navigators are there to guide and support Indigenous Peoples through the Tribunals’ process, helping them to address any administrative barriers that might prevent them from protecting their human rights. Indigenous Navigators are there to work with both parties in a complaint, and are familiar with Indigenous protocols, like smudging and incorporating Elders into the dispute resolution process.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

BC Civil Rights Protection Act (6:V)

2026-09-25T20:38:41Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 2 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}}

British Columbia also has a ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96049_01#:~:text=5%20(1)%20A%20person%20who,not%20more%20than%20%2410%20000. Civil Rights Protection Act]'' ("CRPA"), which defines prohibited acts and civil remedies or damages that may be available for victims of such acts. The prohibited acts are tortious in nature, and actions will be heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The more pertinent points of the legislation are the following:

* “Prohibited act” is defined as conduct or communications that interfere with the civil rights of a person or class by promoting hatred or contempt or by promoting the inferiority or superiority of a person or class on the basis of colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, or place of origin (CRPA s 1),
* A prohibited act is a tort actionable without proof of damage. The action may be brought by the individual targeted by the prohibited act, or, if a class was targeted, by any member of that class (CRPA s. 2),
* The Attorney General may choose to intervene in such actions, but, in any case, the Attorney General must be notified within 30 days of the start of an action (CRPA s. 3),
* Remedies include general and exemplary damages. The court may order other types of relief such as an injunction in addition to or in lieu of damages (CRPA s. 4), and
* For an offence under the CRPA, a person may be liable for a fine of up to $2,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment. A corporation or other public body may be liable for a fine of up to $10,000, and any directors or top personnel who were or should have been aware of the offending conduct may be found personally liable (CRPA s. 5).

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Canadian Human Rights Act (6:IV)

2026-09-25T20:37:57Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 2 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}}

The ''Canadian Human Rights Act'' (CHRA) prohibits certain forms of discrimination in areas under federal jurisdiction. As mentioned above in [[Introduction_to_Human_Rights_(6:I)|Section I]] of this chapter, that jurisdiction is set out in section 91 of the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-3.html#docCont Constitution Act, 1867]''. The CHRA applies to both public and private bodies, as well as individuals. It covers federal departments and agencies like federal Crown corporations; chartered banks; the broadcast media; airlines, buses, and railways that travel between provinces; First Nations; and other federally regulated industries.

== A. Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination ==

The prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability (mental or physical, including previous or present alcohol dependence), and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. These grounds apply to all activities covered by the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/ CHRA]''. Furthermore, section 3(2) explicitly makes discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy illegal, and section 14(2) explicitly prohibits sexual harassment.

Note that the federal equal pay provisions are broader than the provincial ones since it is discriminatory practice to pay different wages to employees of different genders for work of equal value, even if the work itself is not similar. Factors considered when defining “equal value” include skills required, responsibilities, and working conditions. Pursuant to section 65(1), employers are liable for the discriminatory acts of their employees.

== B. Activities Where Discrimination is Prohibited ==

The activities where discrimination is prohibited include:

# The provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public (CHRA, s 5)
# The provision of commercial premises or residential accommodation (CHRA, s 6)
# Employment, employment applications and advertising, and membership in, or benefit from, employee organizations (CHRA, ss 7-10)
# Unequal wage payment for male and female employees unless justified under section 27(2) (CHRA, s 11)
# Publication of discriminatory notices, signs, symbols, emblems or other representations (CHRA, s 12)
# Harassing an individual on prohibited grounds of discrimination (CHRA, s 14)
# Situations where an individual filed a complaint under the CHRA (CHRA, s 14.1).

== C. Exceptions ==

Under section 15, there are general exceptions to practices considered discriminatory, comparable but not identical to those found in BC’s ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96210_01 HRC]'', such as those relating to ''bona fide'' occupational requirements, pension plans, and insurance schemes. Retirement policies are still exceptions under sections 9 & 15 of the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/ CHRA]'', which now represents a significant difference from the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96210_01 HRC]'', where mandatory retirement is now generally prohibited.

Section 16 of the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/ CHRA]'' (similar to section 42 of the BC HRC) states that an equity plan designed to reduce the disadvantage suffered by a group of individuals, where that disadvantage is related to one of the grounds discussed above, is not discrimination in and of itself.

== D. Filing a Complaint Under the Act ==

Any individual or group may file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If someone other than the alleged victim files a complaint, the Commission may refuse to proceed without the victim’s consent. The Commission itself may lay a complaint or it may discontinue an investigation if it deems the complaint to be frivolous or if other alternative proceedings would be more appropriate.

The Commission will provide advice and assistance in proceeding with the complaint. Correspondence may be addressed to the Ottawa office, but in practice it is generally preferable to deal with the Commission’s Vancouver office. Please consult the Commission’s website for a detailed description of the complaint process (see [[Governing Legislation and Resources for Human Rights (6:I) | Section II.B: Resources above]]).

=== 1. How Complaints are Handled ===

Many cases are resolved through discussions leading to mutual agreement. To facilitate this, the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/ CHRA]'' provides for an investigation stage and where necessary, a conciliation stage. By law, the complaint investigator cannot also be the conciliator, although in practice the investigator attempts to resolve the dispute whenever possible.

Instead of, or subsequent to these stages, the Commission may refer the complaint to the quasi-judicial Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT). The Commission has the power to assist the claimant at all stages of the process, and usually represents the claimant at the hearing stage. However, it acts in a more neutral fashion at the investigation and conciliation stages. The Tribunal may award damages and relief similar to an injunction. An order of the Tribunal is enforceable as if it were an order of the Federal Court. Any judicial review is governed by the limitation period set out in the ''Federal Courts Act'', RS 1985, c F-7 (see [[Introduction_to_Public_Complaints_Procedures_(5:I)|Chapter 5: Public Complaints Procedures]] of the LSLAP Manual). It is an offence, punishable by summary conviction, to obstruct any investigation under the '[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/ 'CHRA]'' (s 60).

The CHRA can award punitive damages of up to $20,000 where they believe that the discriminatory conduct was carried out recklessly or with wilful disregard. This represents a difference between the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/ CHRA]'' and the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96210_01 HRC]'', as the HRC’s focus is remedial rather than punitive.

=== 2. Reasons Why Complaints May Not Proceed ===

Section 41 of the ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/ CHRA]'' lists the most common reasons for the termination of an investigation. The reasons are very similar to those discussed under the HRC, including:

:(a) The complaint is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission;
:(b) The complaint could more appropriately be dealt with under another Act;
:(c) The complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith;
:(d) The complainant has not exhausted all reasonable alternative grievance or review procedures (if collective agreement or arbitration procedures are available, the complainant will be expected to pursue them); and
:(e) The complaint was not filed '''within one year''' of the alleged act of discrimination (the Commission does retain the power to extend this period under certain circumstances).

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

BC Human Rights Code (6:III)

2026-09-25T20:17:08Z

Nate Russell:

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 2 June 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}}

The ''BC Human Rights Code'' ("HRC" or the ''Code'') protects people from discrimination in certain protected areas of their lives. It also provides a mechanism to file a complaint when discrimination in those areas occurs. It is administered by the BC Human Rights Tribunal ("BCHRT"). The HRC applies to matters under provincial jurisdiction (as established by s 91 of the ''Constitution Act, 1867'') and covers both public and private bodies, including individuals. For example, the HRC applies to provincially regulated employers, unions, professional associations, most commercial businesses, Crown corporations, landlord-tenant relationships, and the provincial government itself.

The Tribunal’s decisions are available online on the BCHRT [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions website]. They are indexed by year dating back to 1997 and searchable based on a variety of criteria. They are also available on [http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt CanLII BC].

== A. Framework of a Discrimination Complaint ==
There are two types of discrimination protected under the HRC: direct discrimination, and indirect or "adverse effects" discrimination.

Direct discrimination occurs when a person or group is singled out for differential treatment based on their protected characteristic(s) (''M v H'', 1999 CanLII 686 (SCC)). Racial slurs, sexual harassment, and homophobic comments are all examples of "direct discrimination."

Indirect or "adverse effect" discrimination occurs when laws or policies do not overtly discriminate, but produce a disproportionate negative impact on members of groups sharing a protected characteristic (''Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General)'', 2020 SCC 28). For example, disability-related claims often involve adverse effect discrimination when there is a facially neutral rule, standard, policy, or practice that creates a disadvantage for someone in connection with their disability. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1985/1985canlii18/1985canlii18.html ''Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Simpsons-Sears Ltd''], 1985 CanLII 18 (SCC) for an example of indirect discrimination.

=== 1. Complainant's Case ===

As outlined in ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12680/index.do Moore v British Columbia (Education)]'', 2012 SCC 61 at para 33 [''Moore''], the complainant must prove the following three elements on a balance of probabilities to establish their case:

# That they have a characteristic that is protected under the HRC;
# That they experienced an adverse impact in an area protected by the HRC; and
# That their protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact they experienced This is also known as the "nexus".

The complainant’s case is sometimes also referred to as prima facie discrimination, (on the move away from Latin in human rights cases, see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt9/2018bchrt9.html ''Vik v Finamore (No. 2)''], 2018 BCHRT 9 at paras 48–50).

If any one of the three elements of the complainant's case is missing, there is no discrimination. If the complainant proves the three elements of their case, then the burden shifts to the respondent to justify its conduct. If the respondent proves its conduct was justified, then there is no discrimination. If the respondent’s conduct is not justified, discrimination will be found to have occurred.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc30/2017scc30.html Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp.]'', 2017 SCC 30 further developed the legal test for discrimination established in Moore. This ruling clarified that the primary focus is on discriminatory impact, not the intention behind the action. In other words, you do not have to prove that a decision was made with a discriminatory motive or based on stereotypes.

The court also confirmed that the protected characteristic (like race, gender, or disability) need only be a factor in the adverse treatment (like refusing employment or tenancy). The protected characteristic doesn't have to be the only factor, or even the most significant factor in the negative outcome—it just needs to be a contributing factor (at para 46).

'''Vicarious Liability:''' Section 44(2) of the HRC states that an employer is responsible for the actions of their employees, and an employer will be liable for an employee’s actions when the employee is acting within the scope of their authority or job duties. Employers are also responsible for providing a discrimination-free workplace. The employer should be named as a respondent in any human rights complaint involving an allegation of discrimination in the employment context.

=== 2. Respondent's Case ===

In the employment context, a respondent can justify its conduct by proving on a balance of probabilities that the rule, standard, practice, or requirement being challenged is a bona fide occupational requirement ("BFOR"). In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1724/index.do British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union]'', 1999 CanLII 652 (SCC) at para 54 [''Meiorin''], the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) set out a three-step analysis for determining whether a standard is a BFOR. To be considered a BFOR the tribunal must be satisfied that:

# The employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;
# The employer adopted the particular standard with an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and
# The standard is reasonably necessary to fulfil its purpose. The employer must show that it could not accommodate individual employees with the protected characteristic without experiencing undue hardship.

In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1761/index.do British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)]'', 1999 CanLII 646 (SCC) [''Grismer''] at para 20, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the application of the ''Meiorin'' test to a public services complaint and set out the three-stage analysis for determining whether a service provider had a ''bona fide'' and reasonable justification for its conduct:

# The respondent’s behaviour was for a purpose or goal that is rationally connected to the function being performed;
# The respondent behaved in good faith; and
# The respondent’s behaviour was reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose or goal, in the sense that the respondent cannot accommodate the complainant without undue hardship.

Note that most legal disputes arise in regard to the third part of the test – that is, whether the respondent reasonably accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship.

== B. Protections and Exemptions ==

The HRC provides protection against discrimination in several different areas, which are listed in sections 7–14. These sections will be further detailed in order below. Please refer to '''Section III.A.1–7'''. However, for many of these protected areas, the HRC provides certain exceptions for which discrimination is not prohibited.

Additionally, section 41, commonly referred to as the group rights exemption, allows non-profit organizations to engage in what might otherwise be deemed prohibited discriminatory conduct. It allows charitable, philanthropic, educational, and other not-for-profit organizations to give a preference to members of the identifiable group or class of persons they serve. For more information, please see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca601/2005bcca601.html Vancouver Rape Relief Society v Nixon]'', 2005 BCCA 601 [''Nixon''] at paras 43–59 (please note that this case involves a sex-binary-focused discussion of transgender identity that may be troubling for some readers).

Furthermore, under section 42, it is not discriminatory to plan, advertise, adopt, or implement an employment equity program that has the objective of ameliorating the conditions of individuals or groups who are disadvantaged because of Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, and achieves or is likely to achieve that purpose. Section 42 also gives the Human Rights Commissioner jurisdiction to approve special programs that are aimed at improving the situation of individuals or groups that have suffered historical disadvantage. If pre-approved, a special program is deemed not to contravene the Code.

=== 1. Discriminatory Publication ===

Section 7 deals with forms of discrimination against individuals or groups of individuals, which are published, displayed, or made public. This section prohibits hate literature and other such communications that expose or are likely to expose someone in a protected group to hatred or contempt, as well as publications that indicate discrimination or intent to discriminate against a protected group. Please refer to ''[http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/decisions/2019/mar/58_CORRECTED_Oger_v_Whatcott_No_7_2019_BCHRT_58.pdf Oger v Whatcott]'' (No 7), 2019 BCHRT 58 at paras 93—97 for the former, and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt228/2018bchrt228.html Li v Mr B]'', 2018 BCHRT 228 at paras 95—97 [''Li''] for the latter.

In ''Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v Neufeld (No. 3)'', 2024 BCHRT 232, the BCHRT established that section 7 applies to discriminatory publications on the internet and that the province has jurisdiction to apply section 7 to online publications. Further, the BCHRT clarified the section 7(1)(a) test in ''Chilliwack Teachers' Association v Neufeld (No. 10)'', 2026 BCHRT 49 at para 233. To establish a violation of s 7(1)(a), the complainant must demonstrate that the publication at issue:

#Targets a protected characteristic;
#Expressly or implicitly relies on, or promotes, negative beliefs or stereotypes about persons with the protected characteristic, or disregards their inherent dignity; and
#Uses those negative messages as a basis for an actual or intended adverse effect or to urge others to act to bring about the same result. The actual or intended harms of the publication must be specific, "real-world", and such that they "cannot be prevented by the discernment and critical judgment of the audience" (''Ward v Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse)'', 2021 SCC 43 at para 61 [''Ward'']; ''Oger v Whatcott (No. 7)'', 2019 BCHRT 58 at para 103). Their intended effect, whether or not achieved, is to prevent "a person or class of persons from truly participating in the political process and the ordinary activities of society just like everyone else" (''Ward'' at para 63).

'''Exception:''' Section 7 does '''not''' apply to communications that are intended to be private or are related to activities otherwise permitted under the HRC, see s. 7(2) and ''Li'' at paras 98–104.

=== 2. Discrimination in Accommodations, Services and Facilities "Customarily Available to the Public" ===

Section 8 states that a person may not deny or discriminate against any person or class of persons regarding an accommodation, service, or facility customarily available to the public because of that person’s Indigenous Identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and/or age.

''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1006/index.do University of British Columbia v Berg]'', 1993 CanLII 89 (SCC) [''Berg''] explains the concept of "customarily available to the public". A service is customarily available to the public if the nature of the relationship is public. Courts and tribunals look at the relationship between the facility and the complainant, as well as the nature of the service itself. In Berg, the court found that a university has its own public and that the relationships between students and professors, who present the public face of the university, are public in this context. Please refer to HMTQ v McGrath, 2009 BCSC 180 at paras 89–93 for a more recent case that discusses when a service is "customarily available to the public".

Additionally, courts have found that services provided to members of a group who come together as a result of a private selection process, based on their personal attributes do not qualify as services "customarily available to the public", and are therefore not subject to section 8 of the HRC. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2007/2007bcca17/2007bcca17.html Marine Drive Golf Club v Buntain et al and BC Human Rights Tribunal]'', 2007 BCCA 17 at paras 48–56.

While there is no enumerated list of relationships that count as "customarily available to the public," locales such as pubs, night clubs, hotels, theatres, transportation services, education facilities, insurance, medical treatment in hospitals and clinics, strata council and property management services in condominiums, services provided by police, access to sidewalks and public space, government services, and participation in sporting events have all been found to entail public relationships. Licensing services and facilities may also involve public relationships. For example, discrimination prohibited by section 8 was ultimately found when the BC Motor Vehicle Branch maintained a blanket refusal to issue driver’s licenses to those with certain visual impairments regardless of actual driving ability (''Grismer'').

Legislation is not a "service customarily available to the public" and bare challenges to legislation can’t proceed at the HRT, see e.g. ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt76/2019bchrt76.html Phillips v BC Ministry of the Attorney General]'', 2019 BCHRT 76 at paras 11–12.

In ''Moore'', a school district cancelled a special education program, requiring a dyslexic student to enroll in specialized private school. The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed whether the school district discriminated against the student by failing to provide necessary accommodation, and ultimately upheld the BC Human Rights Tribunal’s finding of discrimination.

'''Defences:''' Adverse treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic is not discrimination if it can be shown to be supported by a "''bona fide and reasonable justification''" ("BFRJ") (as per the wording of section 8(1)). See '''Section III.A.2''' for the three-part ''Grismer'' test to justify a discriminatory standard by raising a BFRJ. (see also '''Subsection 6: Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate''').

'''Exceptions:''' Section 8(2) also contains certain built-in exceptions. Discrimination based on sex is permitted insofar as it relates to the maintenance of public decency. For a case on the interpretation of public decency in the context of excluding transgender peoples from public washrooms, see [https://canlii.ca/t/g965p ''Sheridan v Sanctuary Investments Ltd. (No. 3)''], 1999 CanLII 35172 (BC HRT), in which the Tribunal rejected the argument that it was necessary to exclude a transgender woman from the washroom matching her gender identity in order to maintain "public decency."

Discrimination based on sex, physical or mental disability, or age is permitted insofar as it relates to the determination of premiums or benefits under life or health insurance policies. Note that statutory exceptions to human rights legislation are to be narrowly construed ([https://canlii.ca/t/1fs94 ''Zurich Insurance Co. v Ontario (Human Rights Comm.)''], 1992 CanLII 67 (SCC)).

=== 3. Discrimination in Purchase and Rental of Property ===

Section 9 provides that a person or class of persons must not be denied the opportunity to purchase real property due to their Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression.

Section 10 states that a person shall not be denied the right to occupy any space that is represented as being available for occupancy or be discriminated against with respect to a term or condition of the tenancy on the basis of Indigenous Identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, and/or lawful source of income.

'''Defences:''' Although sections 9 and 10 do not contain language specifically providing for a defence to a claim of discrimination under these provisions, like all respondents, landlords and property sellers may be able to justify ''prima facie'' discrimination if they can satisfy the three elements of the ''Grismer/Meiorin'' test. This will require that they accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship.

'''Exceptions:''' Section 10(2)(a) says the protection from discrimination in tenancy does not apply if the tenant is sharing the use of any sleeping, bathroom, or cooking facilities with the person making the representation (e.g. as a roommate). Furthermore, the reserving of specific residences for individuals aged 55 or older or for people with disabilities does not constitute discrimination (HRC, s 10(2)(b) & (c)).

=== 4. Discrimination in Employment Advertisements and Interviews ===

Section 11 prohibits employment advertisements that express limitations, specifications, or preferences based on Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity or expression and/or age. Refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2007/2007bchrt99/2007bchrt99.html Anderson v Thompson Creek Mining Ltd Endako Mines]'', 2007 BCHRT 99.

'''Exception:''' An employment advertisement that expresses a limitation, specification or preference as to a protected characteristic may be permitted if it is based on "''bona fide'' occupational requirement(s)" as per the wording of section 11. There are also exceptions for non-profit organizations and employment equity programs (see Exemptions on 6-6).

For case law on discrimination during the interview process, please refer to ''Khalil v Woori Education Group'', 2012 BCHRT 186 at paras 29-45. Under section 13, an employer cannot refuse to employ someone on the basis of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination unless there is a ''bona fide'' occupational requirement (see [[{{PAGENAME}}#6. Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate | Subsection 6: Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate]]).

=== 5. Discrimination in Wages ===

Section 12 states that wage parity between sexes is required for similar or substantially similar jobs. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc109/2011bcsc109.html ''Kraska v Pennock''], 2011 BCSC 109. Most of the remedies under this section are also available under section 13, which does not have a limitation on the period of time during which wages can be claimed.

'''Limitation Dates:''' Section 12(5) of the HRC states:
:(a) "The action must be commenced no later than 12 months from the termination of the employee's services, and
:(b) The action applies only to wages of an employee during the 12 month period immediately before the earlier of the date of the employee's termination or the commencement of the action."

Most of the remedies under this section are also available under section 13, which does not have a limitation on the period of time during which wages can be claimed.

'''Exception:''' A difference in the rate of pay between employees of different sexes based on a factor '''other''' than sex is allowed, provided that the factor on which the difference is based would reasonably justify the difference.

=== 6. Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate ===

Section 13 provides that no person shall refuse to employ another person or discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment on the basis of Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, and/or because that person has a criminal record that is unrelated to the employment. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2010/2010bchrt13/2010bchrt13.html Ratzlaff v Marpaul Construction Ltd]'', 2010 BCHRT 13 for one example of an employment case.

This section may also extend to volunteers depending on the circumstances (''Nixon''). When determining whether a volunteer is captured by this section of the HRC, the Tribunal will consider the following:

#If there is a formal process to recruit volunteers;
#If there is a training process with defined tasks for volunteers;
#Whether volunteers have to agree to follow the organizations policies and practices;
#If there are requirements about when or how often a volunteer must be available; and
#The role of volunteers in the organization.

For more information on volunteers, see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2017/2017bchrt123/2017bchrt123.html Ferri v Society of Saint Vincent de Paul and another]'', 2017 BCHRT 123 at paras 29-33.

Because all individuals over 19 are protected by the ground of age, individuals in both the public and private sector are able to choose the age at which they wish to retire and are protected from discrimination based on age (HRC, s 1).

'''Duty to Inquire:''' An employer may have a duty to inquire about a potential disability before taking disciplinary action against an employee, even if the employee has not formally disclosed their condition. This means that if an employer has a reasonable belief that an employee's behaviour or performance issues are linked to a medical condition, they must take steps to investigate before making a decision that could negatively affect the employee.

This principle was established in cases like ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1997/1997bchrt39/1997bchrt39.html Willems-Wilson v Allbright Drycleaners]'', 1997 BCHRT 39. In this case, an employee was fired due to her behaviour, which was related to an undiagnosed mental disability. Although she hadn't explicitly told her employer she had depression, the employer was aware of several key facts: she cried frequently, had been hospitalized for non-physical reasons, and attended weekly counseling sessions.

The court determined that these facts gave the employer reason to believe that a medical condition was a factor. Therefore, the employer had a duty to inquire about a possible link between the employee's behavior and her disability before firing her.

This duty was later affirmed in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt41/2003bchrt41.html Gardiner v British Columbia (Attorney General)]'', 2003 BCHRT 41 at 166, where the Tribunal held that an employer has a duty to inquire when they have reason to believe that a medical condition is affecting an employee's job performance.

'''Defence of ''Bona Fide'' Occupational Requirement (BFOR)''': Adverse treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic may be justified when it relates to a "''bona fide'' occupational requirement" (BFOR): see s 13(4). In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1724/index.do British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union]'', 1999 CanLII 652 (SCC) at para 54 [''Meiorin''], the Supreme Court of Canada established a three-part test for establishing a BFOR.
# The employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;
# The employer adopted the particular standard with an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and
# The standard is reasonably necessary to fulfil its purpose. The employer must show that it could not accommodate individual employees with the protected characteristic without experiencing undue hardship.

For a specific example of a BCHRT case that applies the BFOR test in a disability context, please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt196/2009bchrt196.html Kerr v Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd (No 4)]'', 2009 BCHRT 196 ["''Kerr''"].

'''Undue Hardship:''' What may be considered undue hardship varies by employer and depends on the circumstances. In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/910/index.do Central Okanagan School District No 23 v Renaud]'', 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), the Supreme Court of Canada held that undue hardship is more than a minor inconvenience, and that actual interference with the employer’s business must be established. Factors the court may consider include the financial cost of accommodation, health and safety concerns, and the flexibility and size of the workplace.

The burden of proving undue hardship lies on the respondent and will require evidence that all reasonable accommodations, short of undue hardship, have been provided. For more information on the duty to accommodate, please see the BC Human Rights Clinic’s "Legal Information" [https://bchrc.net/legal-information/do-i-have-a-complaint page] and their [https://bchrc.net/tag/duty-to-accomodate blog].

'''Other Exemptions''': Distinctions based on age are not prohibited if they relate to a ''bona fide'' seniority scheme. Distinctions based on marital status, physical or mental disability, sex, or age are permitted under ''bona fide'' retirement, superannuation, or pension plans, and under ''bona fide'' insurance plans, including those which are self-funded by employers or provided by third parties (HRC, s 13(3)).

=== 7. Discrimination by Unions, Employer Organizations or Occupational Associations ===

Section 14 states that trade unions, employers’ organizations, and occupational associations may not deny membership to any person or discriminate against a person on the basis of Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, and/or unrelated criminal record. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt440/2006bchrt440.html De Lima v Empire Landmark Hotel and Major]'', 2006 BCHRT 440.

Since persons are not covered by section 14, protection against denial of membership has been held to apply only against an implicated union, organization, or association, and not against an individual. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2005/2005bchrt53/2005bchrt53.html Ratsoy v BC Teachers’ Federation]'', 2005 BCHRT 53 at para 23.
This differs from other protections granted by the HRC, which, in appropriate circumstances, generally allow an action to be brought against both an organization (e.g. an employer) and its individual members (e.g. a manager).

There are two limited ways in which unions can be held liable for discrimination. The first is by creating or participating in formulating a discriminatory workplace rule, and the second is by impeding an employer’s efforts to accommodate an employee (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt44/2018bchrt44.html Chestacow v Mount St Marie Hospital of Marie Esther Society]'', [2018] BCHRT No 44 at para 32 ["''Chestacow''"]). In respect of the latter, a union may be required to waive seniority rights or other collective agreement obligations to facilitate the accommodation of an employee with a protected characteristic, such as a disability.

===8. Retaliation===

Section 43 of the Code protects people from retaliation for filing a human rights complaint, or for indicating that they might file a human rights complaint. It also protects from retaliation anyone who assists, or who might assist, someone to make a complaint.

The test for retaliation is set out in [https://canlii.ca/t/hqtpj ''Gichuru v Pallai'', 2018] BCCA 78 at paras 50–58. To prove retaliation, a complaint must show:

a) The respondent was aware that the complainant had made or might make a complaint;

b) The respondent engaged in or threatened to engage in conduct described in s 43; and

c) There is sufficient connection between the impugned conduct and the previous complaint.

Sufficient connection may be established by proving that the respondent intended to retaliate, or by the tribunal drawing that inference when the respondent can reasonably have been perceived to have engaged in prohibited retaliatory conduct. This reasonable perception is assessed from the point of view of a reasonable complainant, apprised of the facts, at the time of the impugned conduct.

In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt5/2021bchrt5.html ''The Sales Associate v Aurora Biomed Inc. and others (No. 3)''], 2021 BCHRT 5, the Tribunal interpreted the meaning of the protection for someone who "might" make a complaint. The Tribunal concluded that the protection applies where the retaliator is aware that a person might pursue some legal recourse for discrimination. It is not necessary to prove that the retaliator was specifically aware of the possibility of a human rights complaint at the Human Rights Tribunal (see paras 151–163).

== C. Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination ==

=== 1. General ===

Prohibited grounds of discrimination include Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age (for those 19 and over), criminal record (that is not related to the employment, union, or occupational association), and lawful source of income (in tenancy only).

A complainant can file a complaint on a combination of grounds. A prohibited ground does not need to have been the sole or primary motivating factor behind the discrimination; it need only have been one contributing factor. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc39/2015scc39.html ''Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v Bombardier Inc (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center)''], 2015 SCC 39 at paras 45–52 [''Bombardier''].

Not all grounds of discrimination are protected in all the areas listed in each of the sections 7–14 of the HRC. The grounds of discrimination that apply depend on the protected area in question. One must first decide which section is involved and then check to see which grounds are associated with that section. Please refer to the following chart:.

{| class="wikitable"
! style="font-weight: bold;" | Protected Grounds
! colspan="7" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;" | Protected Areas
|-
|
| style="text-align: center;" | Written Publications
| style="text-align: center;" | Public Services &
Accommodation
| style="text-align: center;" | Purchase of
Property
| style="text-align: center;" | Tenancy
| style="text-align: center;" | Employment
Advertisements
| style="text-align: center;" | Employment
| style="text-align: center;" | Unions &
Associations
|-
| Indigenous Identity
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Race
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Colour
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Ancestry
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Place of Origin
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Political Belief
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Religion
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Marital Status
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Family Status
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Physical or Mental
Disability
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Sex
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Sexual Orientation
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Gender Identity or Expression ''(NEW)''
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Age
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Criminal or
Summary Conviction
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Source of Income
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
|}

To determine whether a violation of the HRC has occurred, consult the relevant section of the HRC and review recent case law. Case law can be found on the BC Human Rights Tribunal [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions website]), indexed by year, and is also available on [http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/ CanLII BC].

Discrimination need not be intentional (HRC, s 2). Any policy or action that has an adverse effect on a protected group and which cannot be justified will be considered discriminatory. The policy or act does not have to affect every person in the group for it to be considered discriminatory. For example, if a policy discriminates against only people who are pregnant it could still be considered sex discrimination. It is also possible that an act or policy may affect men as well as women, but affect one sex to a disproportionate degree, in which case it could also qualify as sex discrimination.

Discrimination can also be established on an intersectional basis. This means that the discriminatory conduct had an adverse impact on the basis of multiple protected grounds. These grounds occur simultaneously and cannot easily be separated from one another. It is not always necessary to establish that each individual ground has been discriminated against where intersectional discrimination can be established. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2005/2005bchrt302/2005bchrt302.html Radek v Henderson Development (Canada) Ltd]'', 2005 BCHRT 302 at paras 463–467.

=== 2. Indigenous Identity ===

Indigenous Identity refers to being First Nations, Métis, or Inuit. Indigenous Identity is a protected ground against discrimination in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

While there are few cases that feature the Tribunal considering Indigenous identity as its own distinct protected ground, there are many more that look at Indigenous identity as being a protected ground through race, ancestry, or place of origin. One such case is [https://canlii.ca/t/j5wnn ''Smith v Mohan (No. 2)''], 2020 BCHRT 52, where the complainant, an Indigenous woman and member of the Tsimshian and Haisla Nations, was discriminated against by her landlord, who continually tried to evict the complainant because she was smudging in her apartment unit. See also [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt275/2019bchrt275.html ''Campbell v Vancouver Police Board (No. 4)''], 2019 BCHRT 275, which involved a finding of discrimination by the Vancouver Police against an Indigenous mother.

=== 3. Race, Colour, Ancestry, and Place of Origin ===
The grounds of race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin are included in the HRC as a means to combat racism and racial discrimination. Each of these grounds are protected in the HRC and may be cited individually in connection with a discriminatory incident or grouped together to better illustrate a particular situation. For further information on how the above grounds interact, please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt3/2009bchrt3.html ''Torres v Langtry Industries Ltd''], 2009 BCHRT 3.

The grounds of race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin are protected in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

Discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, or place of origin can also be established where the respondent caused harm to the claimant by taking advantage of a vulnerability caused by the claimant's race, colour, ancestry, or place of origin. For more information, see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2015/2015bchrt60/2015bchrt60.html ''PN v FR and another (No 2)''], 2015 BCHRT 60.

For a recent case concerning discrimination on the basis of race in the employment context, please see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt136/2019bchrt136.html ''Francis v BC Ministry of Justice (No 3)''], 2019 BCHRT 136.

The Tribunal has recognized that racism can be subtle and is sensitive to this fact. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt60/2006bchrt60.html ''Mezghrani v Canada Youth Orange Network Inc''], 2006 BCHRT 60 at para 28.

The Tribunal has acknowledged that while anti-Black racism exists in Canada and continues to create impediments to the full and free participation of Black Canadians in the economic, social, political and cultural life of BC, there is a lack of cases dealing with anti-Black racism at the Tribunal level. Given that anti-Black racism is a "distinct form of racism," the lack of these types of cases has been a factor that supports a complaint being accepted despite being filed late; please refer to [https://canlii.ca/t/jllhh ''Umolo v Shoppers Drug Mart and others''], 2021 BCHRT 166 at para 35.

=== 4. Political Belief ===

The HRC provides protection from discrimination due to political beliefs and/or affiliations only in the protected areas of employment advertising, employment, and membership in a trade union, employer’s organization, or occupational association (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

In BC, few human rights cases have been decided on the ground of political belief. The Tribunal has, however, identified two key principles in determining whether a claimant’s belief should be protected under the HRC:

#Political belief is to be given a liberal definition; it is not confined to partisan political beliefs. Hence, political beliefs are not limited to beliefs about recognized or registered political parties.
#Political belief is not unlimited; for example, views about matters such as business or human resources decisions an employer may make do not come within its ambit.

Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt462/2006bchrt462.html Prokopetz and Talkkari v Burnaby Firefighters’ Union and City of Burnaby]'', 2006 BCHRT 462 at para 31 and [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2016/2016bchrt124/2016bchrt124.html ''Fraser v British Columbia (Ministry of Forests)''], 2016 BCHRT 124.

See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2016/2016bchrt50/2016bchrt50.html Bratzer v Victoria Police Department]'', [2016] BCHRT No 50 for a unique example of how political belief can be framed. In this case, an officer of the Victoria Police Department successfully argued that his stance against the criminalization of illicit drugs and his involvement in a not-for profit that advocates for such views amounted to a political belief.

In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2012/2012bchrt389/2012bchrt389.html Wali v Jace Holdings]'', 2012 BCHRT 389 at para 117, the Tribunal determined that comments regarding matters affecting the regulation of a profession could constitute a political belief. This was narrowed to the particular legislative framework and mandate of the College of Pharmacists. The Tribunal took into account that the issue was a legislative initiative involving public welfare and was being debated in the community of pharmacists in determining that the belief was a protected political belief.

=== 5. Religion ===
Religious discrimination cases have helped to define several of the fundamental ideas and standards that comprise human rights law in Canada. Matters before the courts have routinely addressed discriminatory incidents concerning religious faith, beliefs, customs, and practices. The HRC protects against discrimination based on religion in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

As is the case in the ''Charter'' section 2(a) case law on freedom of conscience and religion, a claimant before the Tribunal must show that their religious belief or practice is sincere, but is not required to show that it is objectively required or recognized by a particular religious faith. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt1/2009bchrt1.html Friesen v Fisher Bay Seafood Limited]'', 2009 BCHRT 1, at para 57.

Atheism is encompassed within the protected ground of religion: ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt281/2018bchrt281.html Mangel and Yasué obo Child A v. Bowen Island Montessori School and others]'', 2018 BCHRT 281 at para 210.

The duty to accommodate obliges employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees so long as doing so does not cause undue hardship. Practices requiring accommodation may be linked to customs involving prayer, dietary restrictions, clothing requirements, or time off on religious holy days. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii81/1992canlii81.html Renaud v Central Okanagan School District No 23]'', [1992] 2 SCR 970 at 982.

=== 6. Family Status and Marital Status ===

Family status generally refers to parent-child relationships, but can and does encompass other family relationships including those between siblings, in-laws, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, and cousins. For case law on the definition of family status and the test for discrimination on that basis see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt34/2009bchrt34.html Miller v British Columbia Teachers’ Federation]'', 2009 BCHRT 34 at para 17.

Marital status normally refers to couples with a spouse-like relationship. The HRC extends protection to all individuals regardless of their status (i.e. married, common-law, single, separated, divorced or widowed). Issues involving family and marital status may often overlap and may be cited concurrently to fully illustrate a certain situation.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on marital and family status in all the areas protected under the HRC, with the exception that family status is not protected in the area of purchase of property (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General'''). This means adult-only buildings and strata corporations are permitted.

Protections from discrimination on the basis of marital and family status also confer protection on the basis of the identity of the complainant’s spouse or family member: ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc66/2002scc66.html B v Ontario (Human Rights Commission)]'', 2002 SCC 66.

The ground of family status also protects people from discrimination in respect of their childcare, and possibly other family care obligations. The law regarding the test that applies in the context of family status discrimination cases involving childcare obligations is unsettled in Canada.

In BC, the test for family status discrimination in employment was most recently considered in [https://canlii.ca/t/jwss3 British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) v Gibraltar Mines Ltd.,] 2023 BCCA 168. The BC Court of Appeal held that to establish discrimination based on family status, the complainant must show that a term or condition of employment results in a serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty or obligation of an employee. This protection applies equally when the interference is a consequence of a change in the term of employment, or a change in the employee’s circumstances (see para 77).

The Federal Court of Appeal set out its own four-part test for family status discrimination in federal cases in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2014/2014fca110/2014fca110.html Canada (Attorney General) v Johnstone]'', 2014 FCA 110 at para 93 ["''Johnstone''"]. Under ''Johnstone'', a complainant must show that a child is under their care and supervision, the issue engages the individual’s legal responsibility for that child as opposed to a personal choice, they have made reasonable efforts to find alternative solutions with no reasonable alternative solution is available, and the impugned workplace rule interferes with the childcare obligation in a more than trivial or insubstantial way.

=== 7. Physical or Mental Disability ===

Disability is not defined in the HRC. However, the concept of physical disability, for human rights purposes, generally indicates a "physiological state that is involuntary, has some degree of permanence, and impairs the person’s ability, in some measure, to carry out the normal functions of life" (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1994/1994canlii18445/1994canlii18445.html Boyce v New Westminister (City)]'', 1994 CanLII 18445 (BC HRT) at para 50 [''Boyce'']).

More recent cases have confirmed that a disability must have a certain level of severity, permanence or persistence: see e.g., ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2014/2014bchrt270/2014bchrt270.html Li v Aluma Systems and another]'', 2014 BCHRT 270 at para 41. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt14/2003bchrt14.html Morris v BC Rail]'', 2003 BCHRT 14 at para 214 ["''Morris''"], the Tribunal set out the following three considerations for assessing whether an individual has a physical or mental disability:

#[T]he individual’s physical or mental impairment, if any;
#[T]he functional limitations, if any, which result from that impairment; and
#[T]he social, legislative or other response to that impairment and/or limitations… assessed in light of the concepts of human dignity, respect and the right to equality.

Furthermore, according to ''Morris'' at para 207, proof of impairment and/or limitation, while relevant, will not be required in all cases. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2013/2013bchrt40/2013bchrt40.html McGowan v Pretty Estates]'', 2013 BCHRT 40 at paras 26-28 for more information.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on physical or mental disability in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

The protection of the HRC extends to those who are perceived to have a disability or to be at risk of becoming disabled in the future. As such, the Tribunal has rejected the application of strict criteria to determine what constitutes a physical or mental disability. For example, protection has been specifically applied to persons with AIDS, persons who are HIV positive, and persons believed to be HIV positive. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2005/2005bchrt177/2005bchrt177.html McDonald v Schuster Real Estate]'', 2005 BCHRT 177 at para 24 and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1999/1999canlii35199/1999canlii35199.html J v London Life Insurance Co]'' (1999), 36 CHRR D/43 at para 42 ["''London Life Insurance''"].

As noted above, protection from discrimination due to physical disability extends to discrimination on the basis of a perceived propensity to become disabled in the future. In ''London Life Insurance'' at para 46, the Tribunal found that the HRC prohibited discrimination against a person based on the fact that his spouse was HIV positive. Protection under this ground has also been extended to those who are suffering from addictions issues. For example, ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1995/1995canlii18183/1995canlii18183.html Handfield v North Thompson School District No 26]'', 1995 CanLII 18183 (BC HRT) at paras 139–143 recognized alcoholism as both a physical and mental disability.

Where a behaviour or policy adversely affects a protected group or person, either directly or indirectly due to their disability (or any other protected characteristic), there is a duty to accommodate, meaning that all reasonable efforts must be taken to accommodate the group or person up to the point of undue hardship. Examples include installing wheelchair access (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt174/2018bchrt174.html Walsh v Pink]'', 2018 BCHRT 174 at paras 104-111) or safety handrails (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt62/2006bchrt62.html Ferguson v Kimpton]'', 2006 BCHRT 62 at para 68). The duty to accommodate may also include allowing workers to return gradually to the workplace after an injury or serious illness.

=== 8. Sexual Orientation ===

The HRC prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Such discrimination does not require a complainant to prove their sexual orientation nor that a given respondent believed them to have a particular orientation. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca201/2005bcca201.html School District No 44 (North Vancouver) v Jubran]'', 2005 BCCA 201, Mr. Jubran was a high school student, subjected to homophobic insults and harassment from other students. This conduct was found to constitute discrimination, even though Mr. Jubran did not identify as homosexual and his harassers denied believing that they in fact thought he was homosexual.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

For a case regarding discrimination on this basis against patrons of a restaurant in the context of services customarily available to the public, please see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt101/2011bchrt101.html Pardy v. Earle and others (No. 4)''], 2011 BCHRT 101.

=== 9. Sex (Including Sexual Harassment, Pregnancy) ===
Discrimination on the basis of sex, which is prohibited under the HRC, includes sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is defined as "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that detrimentally affects a work environment or leads to adverse job-related consequences for the victims of the harassment" (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii97/1989canlii97.html Janzen v Platy Enterprises Ltd]'', 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1252 at 1284 [''Janzen'']).

The HRC protects against discrimination based on sex in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2015/2015bchrt60/2015bchrt60.html PN v FR and another (No 2)]'', 2015 BCHRT 60, the HRT awarded $50,000 for injury to dignity to a domestic foreign worker who was sexually harassed and assaulted. This is among the highest injury to dignity award the Tribunal has ever ordered. This case also involved allegations of discrimination based on family status, race, age, colour, and place of origin.

Sexual harassment can take a number of forms. One example is when an employer or a supervisory employee requires another employee to submit to sexual advances as a condition of obtaining or keeping employment or employment-related benefits. It may also occur when employees are forced to work in an environment that is hostile, offensive, or intimidating, such as where an employer allows pornography to be posted in the workplace.

It is not generally necessary for an employee to make an internal complaint to their employer before filing a complaint, although this may be relevant to the compensation the employer is ordered to pay if the complaint is successful. There is also no requirement of continuing harassment; a single incident may be sufficient if it is sufficiently egregious.

Whether the conduct was "unwelcome" is assessed on an objective standard: would a reasonable person have known that the conduct was unwelcome? If the respondent knew or ought to have known that the conduct was unwelcome, this part of the test is made out. A target of harassment is not required to expressly object to the conduct for it to be reasonably understood to be unwelcome. The law recognizes that a person's behaviour "may be tolerated and yet unwelcome at the same time" (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1999/1999bchrt56/1999bchrt56.html Mahmoodi v University of British Columbia and Dutton]'', 1999 BCHRT 56 at para 140).

It must also be shown that the alleged discriminatory conduct is "reasonably perceived to create a negative psychological and emotional environment for work" (''Janzen'' at 1263). The test must also account for the customary boundaries of social interaction in the circumstances. Factors that are examined to determine the limits of reasonableness in a particular context include the nature of the conduct, the workplace environment, the type of prior personal interaction, and whether a prior objection or complaint was made. However, it is no defence to harassment, to show that harassing behaviour was traditionally tolerated in a workplace.

For a more recent case involving discrimination on the basis of sex, and more specifically sexual harassment in the employment context, see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt97/2019bchrt97.html Araniva v RSY Contracting and another (No. 3)]'', 2019 BCHRT 97.

There are also examples of cases involving sex discrimination that did not amount to sexual harassment. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2004/2004bchrt76/2004bchrt76.html Mottu v MacLeod]'', 2004 BCHRT 76 at para 41, where the Tribunal found that dress code requirements based on sex could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2004/2004bchrt26/2004bchrt26.html ''Lund v Vernon Women’s Transition House Society''], 2004 BCHRT 26, the Tribunal found that an employer’s refusal to allow a female employee to breastfeed her child at work could also constitute sex discrimination. See also ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt5/2021bchrt5.html The Sales Associate v Aurora Biomed Inc. and others (No. 3)]'', 2021 BCHRT 5.

=== 10. Gender Identity or Expression ===

This protected ground has been in force since 2016, and therefore fewer decisions relating to this ground are currently available. For a recent Tribunal decision issued under the ground of gender identity or expression, please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt58/2019bchrt58.html Oger v Whatcott (No 7)]'', 2019 BCHRT 58.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on gender identity or expression in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

Please also see [https://canlii.ca/t/hvlwz ''Li v Mr B''], 2018 BCHRT 228, where the respondent, the complainant’s landlord, showed a photograph of the complainant (who was male identifying) in a dress to the complainant’s supervisor in an attempt to cause an adverse effect on the complainant’s employment. The HRT found that this constituted discrimination based on gender identity and expression.

For a case involving a nonbinary person whose coworker refused to use they/them pronouns to refer to them, please see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt137/2021bchrt137.html Nelson v Goodberry Restaurant Group Ltd. dba Buono Osteria and others]'', 2021 BCHRT 137.

Prior to the inclusion of gender identity or expression in 2016, the Tribunal had found that being transgender was a protected characteristic under the ground of sex. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2015/2015bchrt54/2015bchrt54.html Dawson v Vancouver Police Board (No 2)]'', 2015 BCHRT 54 ["''Dawson''"]. ''Dawson'' establishes that misgendering trans individuals (addressing a trans person using a pronoun, name, or gender marker other than that which the trans person uses to identify themselves) constitutes discrimination. Discrimination may also include the denial of trans-specific medical services (''Dawson'').

=== 11. Age (19+) ===

11. Age (19+)
Age can refer to an individual’s legal age, membership in a specific age-category, or a generalized characterization of a specific age. The HRC protects against discrimination based on age in all the areas protected under the HRC except the purchase of property (see the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General'''). Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt219/2006bchrt219.html Miu v Vanart Aluminum and Tam]'', 2006 BCHRT 219 at para 18.

Age protection is restricted to those 19 years of age and over. However, those under 19 years can still bring complaints to the BCHRT based on grounds other than age.

=== 12. Unrelated Criminal or Summary Conviction ===

BC’s HRC protects individuals against discrimination based on a criminal or summary conviction only in the areas of employment, trade unions, employers’ associations and occupational associations, so long as the conviction is unrelated to the employment or the intended employment of the individual (see the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

This protection includes a perceived conviction (i.e., relating to arrests, stayed charges or acquittals). Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt43/2011bchrt43.html Purewall v ICBC]'', 2011 BCHRT 43 at para 21; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt411/2006bchrt411.html Clement v Jackson and Abdulla]'', 2006 BCHRT 411 at para 14; and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1997/1997canlii24841/1997canlii24841.html Korthe v Hillstrom Oil Company Ltd]'', 1997 CanLII 24841 (BC HRT) at paras 23–28.

To establish whether or not a conviction may affect an employment decision, the Tribunal makes an assessment of the relationship between the conviction and the job description. As such, employers must take into account the circumstances of the conviction in order to determine whether or not the charge relates to individual’s employment. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1983/1983canlii444/1983canlii444.html Woodward Stores (British Columbia) v McCartney]'', 1983 CanLII 444 (BCSC) at paras 7–9, Justice MacDonald laid out a list of criteria to be considered in making this determination. These criteria are as follows:

* Does the behaviour which formed the basis of the charge, if repeated, compromise the employers’ ability to conduct business safely and effectively?
* What were the circumstances and details of the offence, e.g., what was the person’s age at the time of the offence and were there any extenuating factors?
* How much time has passed since the charge? What has the individual done since that time and has there been any indication of recidivism? Has there been evidence of the individual’s desire for rehabilitation?

=== 13. Lawful Source of Income ===

Lawful source of income is only a protected ground in the area of tenancy (see the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General'''). The HRC protects the rights of individuals on social assistance or disability pensions, for example, who might otherwise be denied housing from being discriminated against in tenancy situations.

Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt36/2003bchrt36.html Tanner v Vlake]'', 2003 BCHRT 36 at paras 22–26 for further discussion on this protected ground. For a more recent case, please see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2012/2012bchrt49/2012bchrt49.html ''Day v Kumar and another (No 3)''], 2012 BCHRT 49.

== D. Procedural Options for Employees ==

An employee who is dealing with an employment-related legal issue may have more than one procedural option to choose from. These include:

=== 1. Employer’s Internal Complaint Procedure ===

Assuming one exists, this is the most immediate way to obtain a resolution to a workplace issue. Consult the workplace’s policies to determine whether an internal complaints process exists and, if so, whether it is likely to yield a helpful resolution of the issue. Note that employees are not required to make use of internal procedures before filing a human rights complaint or other legal proceeding.

=== 2. Grievance and Arbitration (Union) ===

Unionized workers are entitled to representation by their union. Labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the HRC, and grievances often move more quickly than human rights complaints. However, if the union does not pursue a grievance relating to a human rights issue, the worker may wish to file their own human rights complaint and may even decide to name the union as a party if the worker has grounds to believe the union is complicit in the alleged discrimination. Alleging that the union has failed to provide adequate representation will not be sufficient to qualify as a breach of the HRC on its own; the union must have engaged in the discrimination.

As previously stated (see '''Section III.B.7''': Discrimination by Unions, Employer Organizations, or Occupational Associations), there are two ways in which a union may be found liable for discrimination. First by creating or participating in formulating a discriminatory workplace rule, and second by impeding an employer’s efforts to accommodate a disabled employee (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt44/2018bchrt44.html Chestacow]'' at para 32).

Initiating the grievance procedure can be a good starting point, and can be followed by initiating a human rights complaint. A grievance and a human rights complaint can also be filed in tandem. If the matter is not resolved during the initial stages of the union grievance procedure, an arbitration hearing may be held, and an arbitrator will determine liability and relief. The human rights complaint may be placed in deferral while the grievance process proceeds. If the grievance process resolves the worker’s human rights issue, the human rights complaint will be dismissed. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2019/2019bcca241/2019bcca241.html Sebastian v Vancouver Coastal Health Authority]'', 2019 BCCA 241 for some of the risks of parallel proceedings in this context.

=== 3. Human Rights Complaint ===

Another option is to file a human rights complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal (see above for the grounds, areas, exemptions, complaint process, etc.) or, under federal jurisdiction with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (see below for the grounds, areas, exemptions, process, etc). The Tribunal can award lost wages, expenses, and damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. However, if a claimant is also seeking severance pay, lost wages, or expenses in a civil suit, they will not be allowed to recover the same damages from both proceedings.

=== 4. Employment Standards Branch ===

Employees may choose to file a complaint through the Employment Standards Branch (ESB) if their employer has breached the ''Employment Standards Act'' (see [[Introduction_to_Employment_Law_(9:I)|Chapter 9: Employment Law]]). There is a '''six-month limitation period''' from the date of the breach. A complainant can file claims in both the ESB and civil court (either Small Claims or Supreme Court) for employment-related issues, including wrongful dismissal. These actions do not bar the complainant from also bringing a human rights complaint relating to the same matter. Remedies awarded by the Employment Standards Tribunal are intended to make the employee "whole" financially by way of compensation rather than reinstatement. It is important to note that the ESB does not deal with alleged discrimination. If the employee recovers unpaid wages through the ESB, they cannot "double-recover" and seek those same damages in the BCHRT or another forum.

=== 5. Civil Action ===

A final option is to bring a civil action for wrongful dismissal either in Small Claims Court (see [[Introduction_to_Small_Claims_(20:I)|Chapter 20: Small Claims]] of the LSLAP Manual) or the BC Supreme Court, depending on the amounts claimed. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the common law will not provide a remedy for discrimination per se in the employment context. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc39/2008scc39.html Keays v Honda Canada Inc]'', 2008 SCC 39 at para 67 [''Keays''].

The court in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc39/2008scc39.html Keays]'' held that breaches of the HRC must be remedied within the statutory scheme of the HRC itself. Thus, even if the reason for dismissal was discriminatory, in a civil action, the claimant will generally only be able to recover damages based on their wrongful dismissal and/or inadequate notice (severance pay). See [[Introduction_to_Employment_Law_(9:I)|Chapter 9: Employment Law]] of the LSLAP Manual. Accordingly, compensation for the discrimination itself must be awarded by the Tribunal.

The court may further compensate the claimant in a civil action if the employer has acted unfairly or in bad faith when dismissing an employee. The basis for these additional damages is a breach of the implied term of an employment contract that employers will act in good faith in the manner of dismissal (i.e. payment for such damages can be deemed to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the formation of the contract). In Keays, the Supreme Court of Canada held that any such additional award must be compensatory and must be based on the actual loss or damage suffered by the employee, which can include expenses related to mental distress stemming from the manner of dismissal. Compensable conduct might include, but is not limited to, attacking the employee's reputation at the time of dismissal, misrepresentations regarding the reason for the dismissal, or dismissal meant to deprive the employee of a pension benefit or other right such as permanent resident status. However, normal distress and hurt feelings arising from the dismissal itself are not grounds for additional damages.

The courts are even more conservative in their approach to awarding punitive damages meant to punish the employer for their conduct in dismissal. Punitive damages will only be awarded if the employer’s conduct was harsh, vindictive, reprehensible, malicious, and extreme in nature. Thus, if the claimant is primarily concerned with being compensated for injuries to their dignity and/or denouncing their employer’s discriminatory behaviour, they should file a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal alongside a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

Whatever procedural route an employee ultimately chooses to pursue, if said employee is experiencing on-going harassment on a prohibited ground of discrimination, they should maintain records or a journal with dates, times, places, witnesses, details of particular incidents, and even a description of the emotional effects of the harassment.

== E. The Process for Human Rights Complaints ==

The BC Human Rights Tribunal handles complaints made under the HRC. The following chart depicts the process of a complaint at the Tribunal and the time in between the various stages of the process (prepared by the BC Human Rights Clinic, a program of the Community Legal Assistance Society ["CLAS"]):

The first step in filing a complaint with the Tribunal is to fill out a Complaint Form, which is available at the Tribunal's office, on its [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca website] or from other local government offices. It is also possible to file the complaint online on the Tribunal's website. There are helpful self-help guides to filling out Complaint and Response forms on the Tribunal’s website. You should also consult the [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/rules/index.htm Tribunal’s Rules of Practice] and [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/practice-directions/index.htm Procedure and Practice Directions] for guidance on the various steps in the process.

=== 1. Who Can File a Complaint? ===

A complaint may be made by an individual, on behalf of a group or class, or by someone acting as a representative of the named person(s). If the Complaint Form is being filled out on behalf of another person, group, or class of persons, then a secondary form called the Representative Complaint Form must also be filled out and must accompany the Complaint Form when sent to the Tribunal. The person filling out the Complaint Form is called the complainant. The person or organization whom the complaint is against is called the respondent.

[[File:BCHRC Updated HRT Complaint Process Diagram.png|Image Provided by BCHRC]]

=== 2. How to File a Complaint ===

The Complaint Form can be filed with the Tribunal via mail or fax. The Complaint Form can also be filled out and submitted online from a computer or a mobile device. Alternatively, the Complaint Form can be submitted to the Tribunal by email. Complainants may access the Complaint Form and other valuable resources at the BC Human Rights Tribunal website (see '''Section II.B: Resources'''). There are different Complaint Forms depending on whether the complaint is being made by an individual ([https://intake.bchrt.bc.ca/hrt/hrt Form 1.1]) or a group ([https://intake.bchrt.bc.ca/hrt/hrt-group Form 1.3]). If you are filling out a Complaint Form on behalf of someone else, then the appropriate form is [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/forms/form_1_2_print.pdf Form 1.2].

The party filing the complaint should be aware of the time limits. There is a '''one-year''' limitation period. Complaints alleging continuing contraventions of the Code may be accepted as long as at least one incident of alleged discrimination occurred within the one-year limitation period: see '''Code''' s 22(2).

Late-filed complaints may be accepted if it is in the public interest to do so, under certain very limited circumstances, as per s 22(3) of the Code. In order for a member of the Tribunal to accept all or part of the complaint under s 22(3), the Tribunal must determine that a) it is in the public interest to accept the complaint, and b) no substantial prejudice will result to any person because of the delay. The Tribunal’s assessment of what is in the public interest depends on a contextual consideration of a number of factors including: the complainant’s interest in accessing the Tribunal, the length and reason for the delay in filing, whether the complainant had access to legal advice, and the novelty or importance of the human rights issues raised: [https://canlii.ca/t/g7c2b ''British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v Mzite''], 2014 BCCA 220 at paras 53–81. The Tribunal also considers "the respondent’s interest in going about its activities without the worry of stale complaints": [https://canlii.ca/t/h03rl ''Hoang v Warnaco and Johns''], 2007 BCHRT 24 at para 26. This list of factors is not exhaustive.

The BC Court of Appeal has found it to be within the public interest to accept a complaint that was filed late if the complainant was operating off erroneous legal advice regarding the one-year limitation date: [https://canlii.ca/t/jbtjn ''The Parent obo the Child v The School District''], 2020 BCCA 333. The Tribunal has also found that it can be in the public interest to accept late complaints where the delay is due to a disabling condition: [https://canlii.ca/t/g8blz ''Naziel-Wilson v Providence Health Care and another''], 2014 BCHRT 170 at para 21. See also [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2023/2023bchrt40/2023bchrt40.html ''Sheriff v Fairleigh Dickenson University''], 2023 BCHRT 40 at para 38, where the Tribunal discussed the impact of trauma on a person’s ability to file a complaint within the one-year time limit.

The BC Human Rights Tribunal has been severely backlogged over the last couple of years. Potential complainants should be aware that it often takes a year or more for a case to be initially screened and accepted for filing. The Tribunal has developed a strategy to address its backlog, which it introduced on December 15, 2023, and most recently updated on March 7, 2025. For more information, see the announcement [https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/message-from-the-chair-about-the-tribunals-backlog-strategy/ here].

=== 3. Urgent Complaints ("Fast-Track") ===
If the complaint is urgent, a complainant may request a fast-track process. To be eligible for a fast track, you must show that fast tracking or changing the process will help get to a "just and timely resolution" of the complaint.

The complainant may want to fast-track the process if the complainant risks losing the appropriate remedy if urgent action is not taken by the HRT (for example, the complaint is about an eviction notice and the complainant will have to move out in 30 days, without a fast-tracked solution). A party may also wish to fast-track the process if they are at risk of losing the chance to prove their case (for example, the respondent’s main witness is moving out of Canada soon). For more information on the fast track process, please refer to the BCHRT [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/guides-info-sheets/general-apps/16.htm website].

=== 4. Screening ===

Once the Complaint Form is filed, the Tribunal will review the form to determine if it fits under the HRC and if it appears to meet the '''one-year''' limitation period. If the Tribunal believes that it may not have the power to deal with the complaint in substance or believes that the complaint has been filed out of time, the complainant will generally be given a chance to respond before the Tribunal decides whether to proceed with the complaint. If the Tribunal believes it can proceed, it will send the Complaint Form to the respondent for a response to the complaint.

A complainant '''must''' set out a case of discrimination under the HRC on their initial complaint form. If the elements are not set out, then the Tribunal may not accept the complaint. Even if accepted, it could still be vulnerable later to an application to dismiss under section 27 of the HRC.

In order to set out the complainant’s case, the complainant must allege facts that, on their face (that is to say, assuming they are all true), satisfy the following three elements:

#That they have a characteristic that is protected under the HRC;
#That they experienced an adverse impact with respect to an area protected by the HRC; and
#That their protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact they experienced.

A complainant need not establish that their protected characteristic was the sole or primary reason for their adverse treatment. It is sufficient to establish that it was one reason for their adverse treatment. For greater analysis of this topic please refer to ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15471/index.do Bombardier]'' and ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12680/index.do Moore]''.

A complainant is not required to provide evidence at the time they file their complaint. The complaint form simply needs to tell the story, identify all of the allegations of discriminatory treatment, and satisfy the three criteria set out above.

=== 5. Disclosure Obligations ===

Disclosure refers to the sharing of information with the other parties. In order for all parties to prepare for their case it is essential that information is properly shared. Information that must be disclosed includes:

#All documents relevant to the complaint, response, as well as the remedy being requested (this must be disclosed after a complaint is filed);
#A list of witnesses (this must be disclosed after a hearing is scheduled);
#A detailed explanation of the remedy (for the complainant), or a response to the proposed remedy (for the respondent); and
#Any expert evidence or opinion (must be presented to the other party within 90 days of the hearing).

Evidence that has not been disclosed cannot be presented at a hearing. An attempt to do so may negatively affect a party’s case and may even lead to an order for costs by the Tribunal. A failure to disclose can also simply prevent a complaint from going forward, or prevent a respondent from filing an application to dismiss.

=== 6. Settlement Meeting ===

'''Parties may agree to a settlement meeting at any time after the complaint has been filed.''' The Tribunal schedules an Early Settlement Meeting after accepting the complaint for filing, which the parties can opt out of if they choose. Most human rights complaints settle, either through a settlement meeting or direct negotiations between the parties or their counsel. Guides for settlement meetings and hearings are available from the Tribunal on its [https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/ website].

At the settlement meeting, a neutral and impartial mediator who is knowledgeable in human rights law will work with the parties in order to help them try to reach an agreement. Generally, a settlement will require both sides to compromise, whether that is a complainant accepting less compensation than they initially sought, or a respondent accepting some measure of responsibility. In a settlement meeting, it is important to listen to the other side’s perspective, assess how it impacts the strength of your case, and remain open-minded regarding the remedy you are prepared to accept to resolve the complaint.

Additionally, settlements can allow for creativity in determining a resolution. While the Tribunal may be limited in its ability to address the damages, mediation can result in constructive results such as public apologies or a practical solution to the issue at hand.

This process also allows for a quicker resolution of the issue in a more informal setting, where information is kept confidential. Negotiations are without prejudice, meaning they cannot be used in future hearings, and the mediator involved will not be a part of the final hearing. The process is voluntary and the Tribunal cannot force the parties to participate in mediation or enter into a settlement agreement. If the parties do voluntarily agree to settle their dispute, as part of the terms of settlement, the complainant will file a Complaint Withdrawal Form ([http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/e-forms/form_6_electronic.pdf Form 6]). A settlement agreement is a legally binding agreement, and if one side does not comply with its terms, the other party can take to steps to enforce it.

If both parties cannot agree on a resolution, the mediation will end with no settlement agreement.

=== 7. Covid-19 and Mask Wearing Complaints ===
Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the Tribunal developed a new process for processing complaints about mask wearing in the BCHRT. For complaints filed after March 31, 2022, the HRT will dismiss any complaint that does not include the criteria set out in the [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/practice-directions/mask-wearing-complaints.htm Practice Direction]. This criteria requires complainants to demonstrate that their protected personal characteristic, if that is a physical disability, actually inhibits the wearing of a mask. If the complainant does not provide this information in their Complaint Form then their complaint will be dismissed without an opportunity to provide more information.

== F. Remedies ==

Remedies should be considered early when deciding whether or not to pursue a claim in any administrative tribunal. Available remedies for a justified complaint are listed in section 37(2) of the HRC.

'''Non-pecuniary (not financial) remedies include:'''
*An order that the respondent cease the discriminatory conduct,
*A declaratory order that the conduct complained of is, in fact, discriminatory, and
*An order that the respondent take steps to ameliorate the effects of the discrimination, such as the implementation of human rights policy and training.
People seeking advice on drafting should be directed to the BC Human Rights Tribunal website, which provides detailed information on the availability and applicability of specific remedies (see [[Governing_Legislation_and_Resources_for_Human_Rights_(6:II)|Section II.B: Resources]]).

'''Pecuniary (financial) remedies include:'''
*Compensation for lost wages/salary,
*Expenses incurred due to the discrimination,
*Reinstatement of a lost benefit, and
*Compensation for injury to dignity.
Unlike severance pay, compensation for lost wages is not based on the concept of reasonable notice. A successful claimant may recover lost wages for the entire period between their dismissal and the hearing date if they can show that they have been making reasonable efforts to find new employment.

The purpose of an award for injury to dignity is to compensate a person whose rights under the ''Code'' have been violated. It is not to punish a respondent. Damages awarded for injury to dignity have increased over the last decade, and the tribunal has made it clear that the trend for such damages is upwards (see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt174/2018bchrt174.html Biggings obo Walsh v Pink and others]'', 2018 BCHRT 174 [''Walsh'']). Currently the highest award in BC is $176,000 (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt16/2021bchrt16.html Francis v BC Ministry of Justice (No. 5)]'', 2021 BCHRT 16). Historically, however, most damages in this category are under $10,000.

The BC Human Rights Clinic has a compiled list of awards given by the HRT, sorted by ground, updated quarterly and available [https://bchrc.net/legal-information/remedies here].

The Tribunal generally considers three broad factors in determining injury to dignity awards: the nature of the violation, the complainant’s vulnerability and social context, and the effect of the discrimination on the complainant (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt185/2011bchrt185.html Gichuru v The Law Society of British Columbia (No. 9)]'', 2011 BCHRT 185 at para 260, upheld in 2014 BCCA 396). Importantly, while injury to dignity awards commonly follow in cases where discrimination is established, this is not guaranteed, as seen in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2012/2012bchrt28/2012bchrt28.html Holt v Coast Mountain Bus Company]'', 2012 BCHRT 28 at para 233. For further information regarding compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, please visit the BC Human Rights Clinic's [https://bchrc.net/the-trend-is-upwards-recent-injury-to-dignity-awards website].

Remember, to claim any type of damage, the complainant must lead evidence. If the complainant fails to lead evidence as to the effect the discrimination had on their emotional state and dignity, this may impact the Tribunal’s assessment of damages. Furthermore, if the respondent can prove that the complainant has failed to mitigate their losses, a complainant may not be entitled to wage loss compensation.

The Tribunal may not award damages for lost wages/salary following a discriminatory dismissal during a period for which the claimant was medically incapable of working (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2008/2008bchrt376/2008bchrt376.html Senyk v WFG Agency Network (No 2)]'', 2008 BCHRT 376 at para 434). This is because, even absent the discrimination, the claimant would not have been able to earn wages or a salary (but see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt238/2018bchrt238.html Eva obo others v Spruce Hill Resort and another]'', 2018 BCHRT 238 at para 214).

There is no maximum limit on damage awards. However, if a claimant seeks a remedy at both the Human Rights Tribunal (e.g. for lost wages) and in civil court or another dispute resolution forum (e.g. for severance pay), and is successful with both proceedings, they are not entitled to double recovery and will receive the amount through only one of the proceedings. There are several cases where the award for loss of wages was in the range of $300,000. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt196/2009bchrt196.html Kerr]''.

Additionally, section 37(2) gives the Tribunal the power to award compensation for expenses incurred due to the discrimination found, which may include expenses such as counselling fees incurred because of the discrimination, or expenses incurred to attend a hearing. Legal expenses incurred after the filing of a complaint are not compensable, though legal expenses incurred prior to the filing of a complaint may be. See [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt195/2019bchrt195.html ''Fraser v BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (No. 6)''], 2019 BCHRT 195 at para 16.

A final order of the Tribunal may be registered in the BC Supreme Court so that it is enforceable as though it were an order of the court. No appeal procedure is provided for in the HRC; individuals dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision must seek judicial review in BC Supreme Court pursuant to the [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96241_01 ''Judicial Review Procedure Act''], RSBC 1996, c 241 (see [[Introduction_to_Public_Complaints_Procedures_(5:I)|Chapter 5: Public Complaint Procedures]] of the LSLAP Manual).

== G. Costs ==

The general rule is that costs will not normally be awarded in a human rights case. Pursuant to section 37(4) of the HRC, the purpose of awarding costs is to penalize a party who acts improperly during the course of the complaint, thereby interfering with the objectives of the Tribunal. In these cases, costs are awarded punitively and do not necessarily reflect the actual expenses incurred by the other party due to the improper conduct.

== H. Dismissal of a Complaint Without a Hearing ==

As mentioned above, the Tribunal may refuse to accept a complaint for filing if it does not have jurisdiction due to the nature of the complaint or if it is filed late. Once a complaint has been filed, however, the Tribunal may nevertheless dismiss it prior to a hearing, on application from the respondent or on its own motion, for a variety of reasons ([https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96210_01#section27 HRC, s 27]). The following outlines some of the reasons why the Tribunal may dismiss a filed complaint (check the HRC for a complete list):

=== 1. Complaint Outside the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction ===
The Tribunal will not proceed with a complaint where it is persuaded that the complaint is not, in fact, based on a form of discrimination enumerated by the HRC, or that the complaint falls within federal jurisdiction. Even if the Tribunal accepts a complaint for filing, the respondent may still have the option to dispute jurisdiction.

=== 2. Substance of Complaint Dealt with by Another Proceeding ===
Where another proceeding, such as a labour arbitration, has adequately resolved the substance of a complaint, it will usually be dismissed. A complaint may also be deferred if such an alternative proceeding is pending. The number of other proceedings capable of adequately dealing with a human rights complaint is however, quite limited.

=== 3. No Reasonable Basis for Holding a Hearing ===
The Tribunal may dismiss a complaint where the Tribunal is persuaded that the complaint is made in bad faith, would be of no benefit to the complainant, would not further the purposes of the HRC, and/or has no reasonable prospect of success. The most recent Annual Report from the BCHRT indicates that applications to dismiss under section 27 of the HRC succeeded in fully dismissing the complaint 49% of the time. No reasonable prospect of success is the most common reason for dismissing a complaint. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt117/2011bchrt117.html Marquez v Great Canadian Casinos]'', 2011 BCHRT 117 at paras 29–38.

If you are responding to an application to dismiss a complaint, it is important in most cases to provide evidence in support of the Complainant’s contention that the complaint should be allowed to proceed to a hearing. While the burden of persuading the Tribunal that the complaint should be dismissed is on the respondent, the complainant does need to provide sufficient evidence to take their complaint out of the realm of "speculation and conjecture." An affidavit attaching relevant exhibits from the client is preferable, though an unsworn statement will also likely be acceptable in most cases.

=== 4. Complaint Brought Outside Limitation Period ===
As mentioned above, there is a '''one-year''' limitation period for filing a complaint. The '''one-year''' period begins from the last instance of any continuing discrimination. If at least one alleged incident of discrimination in a complaint falls within the one-year limitation period, other alleged incidents of discrimination dating back farther than one year may be accepted as a continuing contravention of the ''Code''. The issue of whether, or how many, multiple instances of discrimination will be considered to constitute a "continuing contravention" (thus effectively extending the one-year limitation period) is often disputed. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt204/2018bchrt204.html Bjorklund v BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General]'', 2018 BCHRT 204 at paras 13-14 for a recent discussion of how to define a "continuing contravention"; see also ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2018/2018bcca136/2018bcca136.html District v Parent obo the Child]'', 2018 BCCA 136 at paras 46–65.

However, under [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96210_01#section22 section 22(3)] of the HRC, the Tribunal has discretion to accept late-filed complaints regardless of whether there is a "continuing contravention". The requirements for doing so are that it is in the public interest to accept the late complaint, and no substantial prejudice will be caused to any party because of the delay in filing (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt39/2003bchrt39.html Chartier v Sooke School District No 62]'', 2003 BCHRT 39 at para 12).

Whether it is in the public interest to accept a complaint filed outside the one-year time limit is a multi-faceted consideration, which is governed by the purposes of the HRC, and assessed on a case-by-case basis. Factors that may be important considerations in determining whether it is in the public interest to accept a late-filed complaint include the reasons for the delay, the length of the delay, the significance of the issue raised in the complaint and fairness in all the circumstances. The list of factors that the Tribunal may consider is non-exhaustive:. ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2014/2014bcca220/2014bcca220.html British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite]'', 2014 BCCA 220; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2007/2007bchrt24/2007bchrt24.html Hoang v. Warnaco and Johns]'', 2007 BCHRT 24.

== I. Responding to an Application to Dismiss ==

When faced with an application to dismiss, it is important to meaningfully engage with the reasons behind the application, providing supporting evidence when necessary. If the complainant does not provide evidence in response to an application to dismiss, it may result in a case being dismissed that did hold legal merit. Evidence can be as simple as a statement, although a sworn affidavit is preferable. The statement or affidavit should attach documents that help support the complainant’s argument that the complaint should be allowed to proceed to a hearing. The respondent would then have an opportunity to respond to the arguments raised by the complainant.

If the Tribunal agrees to dismiss the complaint then the complaint process will not continue any further. Applications to dismiss are subject to judicial review.

== J. Case Path Pilot ==

Unfortunately, the number of applications to dismiss filed by respondents has resulted in significant backlog and delay at the Tribunal. In response, the Tribunal established a Case Path Pilot project on May 6, 2022. Under this program, dismissal applications were no longer an automatic stage in the complaint process, but rather dismissal submissions were only allowed once the Tribunal identified clear issues with the complaint.

As of May 1, 2026, the Tribunal has amended this process for dismissal applications. Now, respondents who wish to dismiss a complaint must first file Form 7.5 – Request to File Dismissal Application. The Tribunal reviews this form alongside the complaint and response and will only permit a full dismissal application to move forward if it determines it would further a just and timely resolution. For more information about the amendment, see this Message from the Chair.

Cases notified of their disclosure obligations and deadlines before May 1, 2026, will continue to follow the process outlined in the Case Path Pilot Practice Direction.

== K. Judicial Review ==

If an individual disagrees with a decision of the Tribunal, they may ask the Supreme Court of British Columbia for a "judicial review". A judicial review differs from an appeal to a higher court. In an appeal, the court has the authority to decide whether or not it agrees with a decision. In a judicial review, the BC Supreme Court simply decides whether there is are grounds for review and may only disturb the Tribunal’s decision if the applicant can demonstrate that the Tribunal:

*Made an "error of law", (e.g., an incorrect interpretation of the HRC);
*Made a finding of fact that is unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence;
*Acted unfairly with regards to the rules of procedure and natural justice; or
*Disregarded legislative requirements; used its discretion arbitrarily, in bad faith, or for an improper purpose; or based its decisions on irrelevant factors.
These standards of review applicable to the Tribunal’s decisions are set out in s 59 of the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/04045_01 Administrative Tribunals Act]''.

If the Tribunal has made any of these errors, the Court may set aside the decision and will usually direct the Tribunal to reconsider the matter. Section 57 of the ''Administrative Tribunals Act'' mandates that an application for a judicial review must be submitted within '''60 days''' of the date the Tribunal’s decision was issued. In order to seek a judicial review, an individual is required to prepare a petition and affidavit, file the petition and affidavit at the BC Supreme Court, and serve a copy of the filed petition and affidavit on the Tribunal, the Attorney General of British Columbia, and any person whose interests may be affected by the order Court is asked to make.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

BC Human Rights Code (6:III)

2026-09-25T20:15:28Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 2 June 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}}

The ''BC Human Rights Code'' ("HRC" or the ''Code'') protects people from discrimination in certain protected areas of their lives. It also provides a mechanism to file a complaint when discrimination in those areas occurs. It is administered by the BC Human Rights Tribunal (“BCHRT”). The HRC applies to matters under provincial jurisdiction (as established by s 91 of the ''Constitution Act, 1867'') and covers both public and private bodies, including individuals. For example, the HRC applies to provincially regulated employers, unions, professional associations, most commercial businesses, Crown corporations, landlord-tenant relationships, and the provincial government itself.

The Tribunal’s decisions are available online on the BCHRT [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions website]. They are indexed by year dating back to 1997 and searchable based on a variety of criteria. They are also available on [http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt CanLII BC].

== A. Framework of a Discrimination Complaint ==
There are two types of discrimination protected under the HRC: direct discrimination, and indirect or “adverse effects” discrimination.

Direct discrimination occurs when a person or group is singled out for differential treatment based on their protected characteristic(s) (''M v H'', 1999 CanLII 686 (SCC)). Racial slurs, sexual harassment, and homophobic comments are all examples of “direct discrimination.”

Indirect or “adverse effect” discrimination occurs when laws or policies do not overtly discriminate, but produce a disproportionate negative impact on members of groups sharing a protected characteristic (''Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General)'', 2020 SCC 28). For example, disability-related claims often involve adverse effect discrimination when there is a facially neutral rule, standard, policy, or practice that creates a disadvantage for someone in connection with their disability. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1985/1985canlii18/1985canlii18.html ''Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Simpsons-Sears Ltd''], 1985 CanLII 18 (SCC) for an example of indirect discrimination.

=== 1. Complainant's Case ===

As outlined in ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12680/index.do Moore v British Columbia (Education)]'', 2012 SCC 61 at para 33 [''Moore''], the complainant must prove the following three elements on a balance of probabilities to establish their case:

# That they have a characteristic that is protected under the HRC;
# That they experienced an adverse impact in an area protected by the HRC; and
# That their protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact they experienced This is also known as the "nexus".

The complainant’s case is sometimes also referred to as prima facie discrimination, (on the move away from Latin in human rights cases, see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt9/2018bchrt9.html ''Vik v Finamore (No. 2)''], 2018 BCHRT 9 at paras 48–50).

If any one of the three elements of the complainant's case is missing, there is no discrimination. If the complainant proves the three elements of their case, then the burden shifts to the respondent to justify its conduct. If the respondent proves its conduct was justified, then there is no discrimination. If the respondent’s conduct is not justified, discrimination will be found to have occurred.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc30/2017scc30.html Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp.]'', 2017 SCC 30 further developed the legal test for discrimination established in Moore. This ruling clarified that the primary focus is on discriminatory impact, not the intention behind the action. In other words, you do not have to prove that a decision was made with a discriminatory motive or based on stereotypes.

The court also confirmed that the protected characteristic (like race, gender, or disability) need only be a factor in the adverse treatment (like refusing employment or tenancy). The protected characteristic doesn't have to be the only factor, or even the most significant factor in the negative outcome—it just needs to be a contributing factor (at para 46).

'''Vicarious Liability:''' Section 44(2) of the HRC states that an employer is responsible for the actions of their employees, and an employer will be liable for an employee’s actions when the employee is acting within the scope of their authority or job duties. Employers are also responsible for providing a discrimination-free workplace. The employer should be named as a respondent in any human rights complaint involving an allegation of discrimination in the employment context.

=== 2. Respondent's Case ===

In the employment context, a respondent can justify its conduct by proving on a balance of probabilities that the rule, standard, practice, or requirement being challenged is a bona fide occupational requirement ("BFOR"). In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1724/index.do British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union]'', 1999 CanLII 652 (SCC) at para 54 [''Meiorin''], the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) set out a three-step analysis for determining whether a standard is a BFOR. To be considered a BFOR the tribunal must be satisfied that:

# The employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;
# The employer adopted the particular standard with an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and
# The standard is reasonably necessary to fulfil its purpose. The employer must show that it could not accommodate individual employees with the protected characteristic without experiencing undue hardship.

In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1761/index.do British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)]'', 1999 CanLII 646 (SCC) [''Grismer''] at para 20, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the application of the ''Meiorin'' test to a public services complaint and set out the three-stage analysis for determining whether a service provider had a ''bona fide'' and reasonable justification for its conduct:

# The respondent’s behaviour was for a purpose or goal that is rationally connected to the function being performed;
# The respondent behaved in good faith; and
# The respondent’s behaviour was reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose or goal, in the sense that the respondent cannot accommodate the complainant without undue hardship.

Note that most legal disputes arise in regard to the third part of the test – that is, whether the respondent reasonably accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship.

== B. Protections and Exemptions ==

The HRC provides protection against discrimination in several different areas, which are listed in sections 7–14. These sections will be further detailed in order below. Please refer to '''Section III.A.1–7'''. However, for many of these protected areas, the HRC provides certain exceptions for which discrimination is not prohibited.

Additionally, section 41, commonly referred to as the group rights exemption, allows non-profit organizations to engage in what might otherwise be deemed prohibited discriminatory conduct. It allows charitable, philanthropic, educational, and other not-for-profit organizations to give a preference to members of the identifiable group or class of persons they serve. For more information, please see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca601/2005bcca601.html Vancouver Rape Relief Society v Nixon]'', 2005 BCCA 601 [''Nixon''] at paras 43–59 (please note that this case involves a sex-binary-focused discussion of transgender identity that may be troubling for some readers).

Furthermore, under section 42, it is not discriminatory to plan, advertise, adopt, or implement an employment equity program that has the objective of ameliorating the conditions of individuals or groups who are disadvantaged because of Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, and achieves or is likely to achieve that purpose. Section 42 also gives the Human Rights Commissioner jurisdiction to approve special programs that are aimed at improving the situation of individuals or groups that have suffered historical disadvantage. If pre-approved, a special program is deemed not to contravene the Code.

=== 1. Discriminatory Publication ===

Section 7 deals with forms of discrimination against individuals or groups of individuals, which are published, displayed, or made public. This section prohibits hate literature and other such communications that expose or are likely to expose someone in a protected group to hatred or contempt, as well as publications that indicate discrimination or intent to discriminate against a protected group. Please refer to ''[http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/decisions/2019/mar/58_CORRECTED_Oger_v_Whatcott_No_7_2019_BCHRT_58.pdf Oger v Whatcott]'' (No 7), 2019 BCHRT 58 at paras 93—97 for the former, and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt228/2018bchrt228.html Li v Mr B]'', 2018 BCHRT 228 at paras 95—97 [''Li''] for the latter.

In ''Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v Neufeld (No. 3)'', 2024 BCHRT 232, the BCHRT established that section 7 applies to discriminatory publications on the internet and that the province has jurisdiction to apply section 7 to online publications. Further, the BCHRT clarified the section 7(1)(a) test in ''Chilliwack Teachers' Association v Neufeld (No. 10)'', 2026 BCHRT 49 at para 233. To establish a violation of s 7(1)(a), the complainant must demonstrate that the publication at issue:

#Targets a protected characteristic;
#Expressly or implicitly relies on, or promotes, negative beliefs or stereotypes about persons with the protected characteristic, or disregards their inherent dignity; and
#Uses those negative messages as a basis for an actual or intended adverse effect or to urge others to act to bring about the same result. The actual or intended harms of the publication must be specific, “real-world”, and such that they “cannot be prevented by the discernment and critical judgment of the audience” (''Ward v Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse)'', 2021 SCC 43 at para 61 [''Ward'']; ''Oger v Whatcott (No. 7)'', 2019 BCHRT 58 at para 103). Their intended effect, whether or not achieved, is to prevent “a person or class of persons from truly participating in the political process and the ordinary activities of society just like everyone else” (''Ward'' at para 63).

'''Exception:''' Section 7 does '''not''' apply to communications that are intended to be private or are related to activities otherwise permitted under the HRC, see s. 7(2) and ''Li'' at paras 98–104.

=== 2. Discrimination in Accommodations, Services and Facilities “Customarily Available to the Public” ===

Section 8 states that a person may not deny or discriminate against any person or class of persons regarding an accommodation, service, or facility customarily available to the public because of that person’s Indigenous Identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and/or age.

''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1006/index.do University of British Columbia v Berg]'', 1993 CanLII 89 (SCC) [''Berg''] explains the concept of “customarily available to the public”. A service is customarily available to the public if the nature of the relationship is public. Courts and tribunals look at the relationship between the facility and the complainant, as well as the nature of the service itself. In Berg, the court found that a university has its own public and that the relationships between students and professors, who present the public face of the university, are public in this context. Please refer to HMTQ v McGrath, 2009 BCSC 180 at paras 89–93 for a more recent case that discusses when a service is “customarily available to the public”.

Additionally, courts have found that services provided to members of a group who come together as a result of a private selection process, based on their personal attributes do not qualify as services “customarily available to the public”, and are therefore not subject to section 8 of the HRC. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2007/2007bcca17/2007bcca17.html Marine Drive Golf Club v Buntain et al and BC Human Rights Tribunal]'', 2007 BCCA 17 at paras 48–56.

While there is no enumerated list of relationships that count as “customarily available to the public,” locales such as pubs, night clubs, hotels, theatres, transportation services, education facilities, insurance, medical treatment in hospitals and clinics, strata council and property management services in condominiums, services provided by police, access to sidewalks and public space, government services, and participation in sporting events have all been found to entail public relationships. Licensing services and facilities may also involve public relationships. For example, discrimination prohibited by section 8 was ultimately found when the BC Motor Vehicle Branch maintained a blanket refusal to issue driver’s licenses to those with certain visual impairments regardless of actual driving ability (''Grismer'').

Legislation is not a “service customarily available to the public” and bare challenges to legislation can’t proceed at the HRT, see e.g. ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt76/2019bchrt76.html Phillips v BC Ministry of the Attorney General]'', 2019 BCHRT 76 at paras 11–12.

In ''Moore'', a school district cancelled a special education program, requiring a dyslexic student to enroll in specialized private school. The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed whether the school district discriminated against the student by failing to provide necessary accommodation, and ultimately upheld the BC Human Rights Tribunal’s finding of discrimination.

'''Defences:''' Adverse treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic is not discrimination if it can be shown to be supported by a “''bona fide and reasonable justification''” (“BFRJ”) (as per the wording of section 8(1)). See '''Section III.A.2''' for the three-part ''Grismer'' test to justify a discriminatory standard by raising a BFRJ. (see also '''Subsection 6: Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate''').

'''Exceptions:''' Section 8(2) also contains certain built-in exceptions. Discrimination based on sex is permitted insofar as it relates to the maintenance of public decency. For a case on the interpretation of public decency in the context of excluding transgender peoples from public washrooms, see [https://canlii.ca/t/g965p ''Sheridan v Sanctuary Investments Ltd. (No. 3)''], 1999 CanLII 35172 (BC HRT), in which the Tribunal rejected the argument that it was necessary to exclude a transgender woman from the washroom matching her gender identity in order to maintain “public decency.”

Discrimination based on sex, physical or mental disability, or age is permitted insofar as it relates to the determination of premiums or benefits under life or health insurance policies. Note that statutory exceptions to human rights legislation are to be narrowly construed ([https://canlii.ca/t/1fs94 ''Zurich Insurance Co. v Ontario (Human Rights Comm.)''], 1992 CanLII 67 (SCC)).

=== 3. Discrimination in Purchase and Rental of Property ===

Section 9 provides that a person or class of persons must not be denied the opportunity to purchase real property due to their Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression.

Section 10 states that a person shall not be denied the right to occupy any space that is represented as being available for occupancy or be discriminated against with respect to a term or condition of the tenancy on the basis of Indigenous Identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, and/or lawful source of income.

'''Defences:''' Although sections 9 and 10 do not contain language specifically providing for a defence to a claim of discrimination under these provisions, like all respondents, landlords and property sellers may be able to justify ''prima facie'' discrimination if they can satisfy the three elements of the ''Grismer/Meiorin'' test. This will require that they accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship.

'''Exceptions:''' Section 10(2)(a) says the protection from discrimination in tenancy does not apply if the tenant is sharing the use of any sleeping, bathroom, or cooking facilities with the person making the representation (e.g. as a roommate). Furthermore, the reserving of specific residences for individuals aged 55 or older or for people with disabilities does not constitute discrimination (HRC, s 10(2)(b) & (c)).

=== 4. Discrimination in Employment Advertisements and Interviews ===

Section 11 prohibits employment advertisements that express limitations, specifications, or preferences based on Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity or expression and/or age. Refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2007/2007bchrt99/2007bchrt99.html Anderson v Thompson Creek Mining Ltd Endako Mines]'', 2007 BCHRT 99.

'''Exception:''' An employment advertisement that expresses a limitation, specification or preference as to a protected characteristic may be permitted if it is based on “''bona fide'' occupational requirement(s)” as per the wording of section 11. There are also exceptions for non-profit organizations and employment equity programs (see Exemptions on 6-6).

For case law on discrimination during the interview process, please refer to ''Khalil v Woori Education Group'', 2012 BCHRT 186 at paras 29-45. Under section 13, an employer cannot refuse to employ someone on the basis of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination unless there is a ''bona fide'' occupational requirement (see [[{{PAGENAME}}#6. Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate | Subsection 6: Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate]]).

=== 5. Discrimination in Wages ===

Section 12 states that wage parity between sexes is required for similar or substantially similar jobs. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc109/2011bcsc109.html ''Kraska v Pennock''], 2011 BCSC 109. Most of the remedies under this section are also available under section 13, which does not have a limitation on the period of time during which wages can be claimed.

'''Limitation Dates:''' Section 12(5) of the HRC states:
:(a) "The action must be commenced no later than 12 months from the termination of the employee's services, and
:(b) The action applies only to wages of an employee during the 12 month period immediately before the earlier of the date of the employee's termination or the commencement of the action."

Most of the remedies under this section are also available under section 13, which does not have a limitation on the period of time during which wages can be claimed.

'''Exception:''' A difference in the rate of pay between employees of different sexes based on a factor '''other''' than sex is allowed, provided that the factor on which the difference is based would reasonably justify the difference.

=== 6. Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate ===

Section 13 provides that no person shall refuse to employ another person or discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment on the basis of Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, and/or because that person has a criminal record that is unrelated to the employment. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2010/2010bchrt13/2010bchrt13.html Ratzlaff v Marpaul Construction Ltd]'', 2010 BCHRT 13 for one example of an employment case.

This section may also extend to volunteers depending on the circumstances (''Nixon''). When determining whether a volunteer is captured by this section of the HRC, the Tribunal will consider the following:

#If there is a formal process to recruit volunteers;
#If there is a training process with defined tasks for volunteers;
#Whether volunteers have to agree to follow the organizations policies and practices;
#If there are requirements about when or how often a volunteer must be available; and
#The role of volunteers in the organization.

For more information on volunteers, see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2017/2017bchrt123/2017bchrt123.html Ferri v Society of Saint Vincent de Paul and another]'', 2017 BCHRT 123 at paras 29-33.

Because all individuals over 19 are protected by the ground of age, individuals in both the public and private sector are able to choose the age at which they wish to retire and are protected from discrimination based on age (HRC, s 1).

'''Duty to Inquire:''' An employer may have a duty to inquire about a potential disability before taking disciplinary action against an employee, even if the employee has not formally disclosed their condition. This means that if an employer has a reasonable belief that an employee's behaviour or performance issues are linked to a medical condition, they must take steps to investigate before making a decision that could negatively affect the employee.

This principle was established in cases like ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1997/1997bchrt39/1997bchrt39.html Willems-Wilson v Allbright Drycleaners]'', 1997 BCHRT 39. In this case, an employee was fired due to her behaviour, which was related to an undiagnosed mental disability. Although she hadn't explicitly told her employer she had depression, the employer was aware of several key facts: she cried frequently, had been hospitalized for non-physical reasons, and attended weekly counseling sessions.

The court determined that these facts gave the employer reason to believe that a medical condition was a factor. Therefore, the employer had a duty to inquire about a possible link between the employee's behavior and her disability before firing her.

This duty was later affirmed in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt41/2003bchrt41.html Gardiner v British Columbia (Attorney General)]'', 2003 BCHRT 41 at 166, where the Tribunal held that an employer has a duty to inquire when they have reason to believe that a medical condition is affecting an employee's job performance.

'''Defence of ''Bona Fide'' Occupational Requirement (BFOR)''': Adverse treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic may be justified when it relates to a “''bona fide'' occupational requirement” (BFOR): see s 13(4). In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1724/index.do British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union]'', 1999 CanLII 652 (SCC) at para 54 [''Meiorin''], the Supreme Court of Canada established a three-part test for establishing a BFOR.
# The employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;
# The employer adopted the particular standard with an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and
# The standard is reasonably necessary to fulfil its purpose. The employer must show that it could not accommodate individual employees with the protected characteristic without experiencing undue hardship.

For a specific example of a BCHRT case that applies the BFOR test in a disability context, please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt196/2009bchrt196.html Kerr v Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd (No 4)]'', 2009 BCHRT 196 ["''Kerr''"].

'''Undue Hardship:''' What may be considered undue hardship varies by employer and depends on the circumstances. In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/910/index.do Central Okanagan School District No 23 v Renaud]'', 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), the Supreme Court of Canada held that undue hardship is more than a minor inconvenience, and that actual interference with the employer’s business must be established. Factors the court may consider include the financial cost of accommodation, health and safety concerns, and the flexibility and size of the workplace.

The burden of proving undue hardship lies on the respondent and will require evidence that all reasonable accommodations, short of undue hardship, have been provided. For more information on the duty to accommodate, please see the BC Human Rights Clinic’s "Legal Information" [https://bchrc.net/legal-information/do-i-have-a-complaint page] and their [https://bchrc.net/tag/duty-to-accomodate blog].

'''Other Exemptions''': Distinctions based on age are not prohibited if they relate to a ''bona fide'' seniority scheme. Distinctions based on marital status, physical or mental disability, sex, or age are permitted under ''bona fide'' retirement, superannuation, or pension plans, and under ''bona fide'' insurance plans, including those which are self-funded by employers or provided by third parties (HRC, s 13(3)).

=== 7. Discrimination by Unions, Employer Organizations or Occupational Associations ===

Section 14 states that trade unions, employers’ organizations, and occupational associations may not deny membership to any person or discriminate against a person on the basis of Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, and/or unrelated criminal record. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt440/2006bchrt440.html De Lima v Empire Landmark Hotel and Major]'', 2006 BCHRT 440.

Since persons are not covered by section 14, protection against denial of membership has been held to apply only against an implicated union, organization, or association, and not against an individual. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2005/2005bchrt53/2005bchrt53.html Ratsoy v BC Teachers’ Federation]'', 2005 BCHRT 53 at para 23.
This differs from other protections granted by the HRC, which, in appropriate circumstances, generally allow an action to be brought against both an organization (e.g. an employer) and its individual members (e.g. a manager).

There are two limited ways in which unions can be held liable for discrimination. The first is by creating or participating in formulating a discriminatory workplace rule, and the second is by impeding an employer’s efforts to accommodate an employee (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt44/2018bchrt44.html Chestacow v Mount St Marie Hospital of Marie Esther Society]'', [2018] BCHRT No 44 at para 32 ["''Chestacow''"]). In respect of the latter, a union may be required to waive seniority rights or other collective agreement obligations to facilitate the accommodation of an employee with a protected characteristic, such as a disability.

===8. Retaliation===

Section 43 of the Code protects people from retaliation for filing a human rights complaint, or for indicating that they might file a human rights complaint. It also protects from retaliation anyone who assists, or who might assist, someone to make a complaint.

The test for retaliation is set out in [https://canlii.ca/t/hqtpj ''Gichuru v Pallai'', 2018] BCCA 78 at paras 50–58. To prove retaliation, a complaint must show:

a) The respondent was aware that the complainant had made or might make a complaint;

b) The respondent engaged in or threatened to engage in conduct described in s 43; and

c) There is sufficient connection between the impugned conduct and the previous complaint.

Sufficient connection may be established by proving that the respondent intended to retaliate, or by the tribunal drawing that inference when the respondent can reasonably have been perceived to have engaged in prohibited retaliatory conduct. This reasonable perception is assessed from the point of view of a reasonable complainant, apprised of the facts, at the time of the impugned conduct.

In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt5/2021bchrt5.html ''The Sales Associate v Aurora Biomed Inc. and others (No. 3)''], 2021 BCHRT 5, the Tribunal interpreted the meaning of the protection for someone who “might” make a complaint. The Tribunal concluded that the protection applies where the retaliator is aware that a person might pursue some legal recourse for discrimination. It is not necessary to prove that the retaliator was specifically aware of the possibility of a human rights complaint at the Human Rights Tribunal (see paras 151–163).

== C. Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination ==

=== 1. General ===

Prohibited grounds of discrimination include Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age (for those 19 and over), criminal record (that is not related to the employment, union, or occupational association), and lawful source of income (in tenancy only).

A complainant can file a complaint on a combination of grounds. A prohibited ground does not need to have been the sole or primary motivating factor behind the discrimination; it need only have been one contributing factor. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc39/2015scc39.html ''Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v Bombardier Inc (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center)''], 2015 SCC 39 at paras 45–52 [''Bombardier''].

Not all grounds of discrimination are protected in all the areas listed in each of the sections 7–14 of the HRC. The grounds of discrimination that apply depend on the protected area in question. One must first decide which section is involved and then check to see which grounds are associated with that section. Please refer to the following chart:.

{| class="wikitable"
! style="font-weight: bold;" | Protected Grounds
! colspan="7" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;" | Protected Areas
|-
|
| style="text-align: center;" | Written Publications
| style="text-align: center;" | Public Services &
Accommodation
| style="text-align: center;" | Purchase of
Property
| style="text-align: center;" | Tenancy
| style="text-align: center;" | Employment
Advertisements
| style="text-align: center;" | Employment
| style="text-align: center;" | Unions &
Associations
|-
| Indigenous Identity
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Race
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Colour
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Ancestry
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Place of Origin
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Political Belief
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Religion
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Marital Status
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Family Status
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Physical or Mental
Disability
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Sex
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Sexual Orientation
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Gender Identity or Expression ''(NEW)''
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Age
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Criminal or
Summary Conviction
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
|-
| Source of Income
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✓
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
| style="text-align: center;" | ✗
|}

To determine whether a violation of the HRC has occurred, consult the relevant section of the HRC and review recent case law. Case law can be found on the BC Human Rights Tribunal [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions website]), indexed by year, and is also available on [http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/ CanLII BC].

Discrimination need not be intentional (HRC, s 2). Any policy or action that has an adverse effect on a protected group and which cannot be justified will be considered discriminatory. The policy or act does not have to affect every person in the group for it to be considered discriminatory. For example, if a policy discriminates against only people who are pregnant it could still be considered sex discrimination. It is also possible that an act or policy may affect men as well as women, but affect one sex to a disproportionate degree, in which case it could also qualify as sex discrimination.

Discrimination can also be established on an intersectional basis. This means that the discriminatory conduct had an adverse impact on the basis of multiple protected grounds. These grounds occur simultaneously and cannot easily be separated from one another. It is not always necessary to establish that each individual ground has been discriminated against where intersectional discrimination can be established. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2005/2005bchrt302/2005bchrt302.html Radek v Henderson Development (Canada) Ltd]'', 2005 BCHRT 302 at paras 463–467.

=== 2. Indigenous Identity ===

Indigenous Identity refers to being First Nations, Métis, or Inuit. Indigenous Identity is a protected ground against discrimination in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

While there are few cases that feature the Tribunal considering Indigenous identity as its own distinct protected ground, there are many more that look at Indigenous identity as being a protected ground through race, ancestry, or place of origin. One such case is [https://canlii.ca/t/j5wnn ''Smith v Mohan (No. 2)''], 2020 BCHRT 52, where the complainant, an Indigenous woman and member of the Tsimshian and Haisla Nations, was discriminated against by her landlord, who continually tried to evict the complainant because she was smudging in her apartment unit. See also [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt275/2019bchrt275.html ''Campbell v Vancouver Police Board (No. 4)''], 2019 BCHRT 275, which involved a finding of discrimination by the Vancouver Police against an Indigenous mother.

=== 3. Race, Colour, Ancestry, and Place of Origin ===
The grounds of race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin are included in the HRC as a means to combat racism and racial discrimination. Each of these grounds are protected in the HRC and may be cited individually in connection with a discriminatory incident or grouped together to better illustrate a particular situation. For further information on how the above grounds interact, please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt3/2009bchrt3.html ''Torres v Langtry Industries Ltd''], 2009 BCHRT 3.

The grounds of race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin are protected in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

Discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, or place of origin can also be established where the respondent caused harm to the claimant by taking advantage of a vulnerability caused by the claimant's race, colour, ancestry, or place of origin. For more information, see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2015/2015bchrt60/2015bchrt60.html ''PN v FR and another (No 2)''], 2015 BCHRT 60.

For a recent case concerning discrimination on the basis of race in the employment context, please see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt136/2019bchrt136.html ''Francis v BC Ministry of Justice (No 3)''], 2019 BCHRT 136.

The Tribunal has recognized that racism can be subtle and is sensitive to this fact. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt60/2006bchrt60.html ''Mezghrani v Canada Youth Orange Network Inc''], 2006 BCHRT 60 at para 28.

The Tribunal has acknowledged that while anti-Black racism exists in Canada and continues to create impediments to the full and free participation of Black Canadians in the economic, social, political and cultural life of BC, there is a lack of cases dealing with anti-Black racism at the Tribunal level. Given that anti-Black racism is a “distinct form of racism,” the lack of these types of cases has been a factor that supports a complaint being accepted despite being filed late; please refer to [https://canlii.ca/t/jllhh ''Umolo v Shoppers Drug Mart and others''], 2021 BCHRT 166 at para 35.

=== 4. Political Belief ===

The HRC provides protection from discrimination due to political beliefs and/or affiliations only in the protected areas of employment advertising, employment, and membership in a trade union, employer’s organization, or occupational association (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

In BC, few human rights cases have been decided on the ground of political belief. The Tribunal has, however, identified two key principles in determining whether a claimant’s belief should be protected under the HRC:

#Political belief is to be given a liberal definition; it is not confined to partisan political beliefs. Hence, political beliefs are not limited to beliefs about recognized or registered political parties.
#Political belief is not unlimited; for example, views about matters such as business or human resources decisions an employer may make do not come within its ambit.

Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt462/2006bchrt462.html Prokopetz and Talkkari v Burnaby Firefighters’ Union and City of Burnaby]'', 2006 BCHRT 462 at para 31 and [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2016/2016bchrt124/2016bchrt124.html ''Fraser v British Columbia (Ministry of Forests)''], 2016 BCHRT 124.

See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2016/2016bchrt50/2016bchrt50.html Bratzer v Victoria Police Department]'', [2016] BCHRT No 50 for a unique example of how political belief can be framed. In this case, an officer of the Victoria Police Department successfully argued that his stance against the criminalization of illicit drugs and his involvement in a not-for profit that advocates for such views amounted to a political belief.

In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2012/2012bchrt389/2012bchrt389.html Wali v Jace Holdings]'', 2012 BCHRT 389 at para 117, the Tribunal determined that comments regarding matters affecting the regulation of a profession could constitute a political belief. This was narrowed to the particular legislative framework and mandate of the College of Pharmacists. The Tribunal took into account that the issue was a legislative initiative involving public welfare and was being debated in the community of pharmacists in determining that the belief was a protected political belief.

=== 5. Religion ===
Religious discrimination cases have helped to define several of the fundamental ideas and standards that comprise human rights law in Canada. Matters before the courts have routinely addressed discriminatory incidents concerning religious faith, beliefs, customs, and practices. The HRC protects against discrimination based on religion in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

As is the case in the ''Charter'' section 2(a) case law on freedom of conscience and religion, a claimant before the Tribunal must show that their religious belief or practice is sincere, but is not required to show that it is objectively required or recognized by a particular religious faith. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt1/2009bchrt1.html Friesen v Fisher Bay Seafood Limited]'', 2009 BCHRT 1, at para 57.

Atheism is encompassed within the protected ground of religion: ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt281/2018bchrt281.html Mangel and Yasué obo Child A v. Bowen Island Montessori School and others]'', 2018 BCHRT 281 at para 210.

The duty to accommodate obliges employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees so long as doing so does not cause undue hardship. Practices requiring accommodation may be linked to customs involving prayer, dietary restrictions, clothing requirements, or time off on religious holy days. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii81/1992canlii81.html Renaud v Central Okanagan School District No 23]'', [1992] 2 SCR 970 at 982.

=== 6. Family Status and Marital Status ===

Family status generally refers to parent-child relationships, but can and does encompass other family relationships including those between siblings, in-laws, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, and cousins. For case law on the definition of family status and the test for discrimination on that basis see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt34/2009bchrt34.html Miller v British Columbia Teachers’ Federation]'', 2009 BCHRT 34 at para 17.

Marital status normally refers to couples with a spouse-like relationship. The HRC extends protection to all individuals regardless of their status (i.e. married, common-law, single, separated, divorced or widowed). Issues involving family and marital status may often overlap and may be cited concurrently to fully illustrate a certain situation.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on marital and family status in all the areas protected under the HRC, with the exception that family status is not protected in the area of purchase of property (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General'''). This means adult-only buildings and strata corporations are permitted.

Protections from discrimination on the basis of marital and family status also confer protection on the basis of the identity of the complainant’s spouse or family member: ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc66/2002scc66.html B v Ontario (Human Rights Commission)]'', 2002 SCC 66.

The ground of family status also protects people from discrimination in respect of their childcare, and possibly other family care obligations. The law regarding the test that applies in the context of family status discrimination cases involving childcare obligations is unsettled in Canada.

In BC, the test for family status discrimination in employment was most recently considered in [https://canlii.ca/t/jwss3 British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) v Gibraltar Mines Ltd.,] 2023 BCCA 168. The BC Court of Appeal held that to establish discrimination based on family status, the complainant must show that a term or condition of employment results in a serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty or obligation of an employee. This protection applies equally when the interference is a consequence of a change in the term of employment, or a change in the employee’s circumstances (see para 77).

The Federal Court of Appeal set out its own four-part test for family status discrimination in federal cases in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2014/2014fca110/2014fca110.html Canada (Attorney General) v Johnstone]'', 2014 FCA 110 at para 93 ["''Johnstone''"]. Under ''Johnstone'', a complainant must show that a child is under their care and supervision, the issue engages the individual’s legal responsibility for that child as opposed to a personal choice, they have made reasonable efforts to find alternative solutions with no reasonable alternative solution is available, and the impugned workplace rule interferes with the childcare obligation in a more than trivial or insubstantial way.

=== 7. Physical or Mental Disability ===

Disability is not defined in the HRC. However, the concept of physical disability, for human rights purposes, generally indicates a “physiological state that is involuntary, has some degree of permanence, and impairs the person’s ability, in some measure, to carry out the normal functions of life” (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1994/1994canlii18445/1994canlii18445.html Boyce v New Westminister (City)]'', 1994 CanLII 18445 (BC HRT) at para 50 [''Boyce'']).

More recent cases have confirmed that a disability must have a certain level of severity, permanence or persistence: see e.g., ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2014/2014bchrt270/2014bchrt270.html Li v Aluma Systems and another]'', 2014 BCHRT 270 at para 41. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt14/2003bchrt14.html Morris v BC Rail]'', 2003 BCHRT 14 at para 214 ["''Morris''"], the Tribunal set out the following three considerations for assessing whether an individual has a physical or mental disability:

#[T]he individual’s physical or mental impairment, if any;
#[T]he functional limitations, if any, which result from that impairment; and
#[T]he social, legislative or other response to that impairment and/or limitations… assessed in light of the concepts of human dignity, respect and the right to equality.

Furthermore, according to ''Morris'' at para 207, proof of impairment and/or limitation, while relevant, will not be required in all cases. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2013/2013bchrt40/2013bchrt40.html McGowan v Pretty Estates]'', 2013 BCHRT 40 at paras 26-28 for more information.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on physical or mental disability in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

The protection of the HRC extends to those who are perceived to have a disability or to be at risk of becoming disabled in the future. As such, the Tribunal has rejected the application of strict criteria to determine what constitutes a physical or mental disability. For example, protection has been specifically applied to persons with AIDS, persons who are HIV positive, and persons believed to be HIV positive. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2005/2005bchrt177/2005bchrt177.html McDonald v Schuster Real Estate]'', 2005 BCHRT 177 at para 24 and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1999/1999canlii35199/1999canlii35199.html J v London Life Insurance Co]'' (1999), 36 CHRR D/43 at para 42 ["''London Life Insurance''"].

As noted above, protection from discrimination due to physical disability extends to discrimination on the basis of a perceived propensity to become disabled in the future. In ''London Life Insurance'' at para 46, the Tribunal found that the HRC prohibited discrimination against a person based on the fact that his spouse was HIV positive. Protection under this ground has also been extended to those who are suffering from addictions issues. For example, ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1995/1995canlii18183/1995canlii18183.html Handfield v North Thompson School District No 26]'', 1995 CanLII 18183 (BC HRT) at paras 139–143 recognized alcoholism as both a physical and mental disability.

Where a behaviour or policy adversely affects a protected group or person, either directly or indirectly due to their disability (or any other protected characteristic), there is a duty to accommodate, meaning that all reasonable efforts must be taken to accommodate the group or person up to the point of undue hardship. Examples include installing wheelchair access (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt174/2018bchrt174.html Walsh v Pink]'', 2018 BCHRT 174 at paras 104-111) or safety handrails (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt62/2006bchrt62.html Ferguson v Kimpton]'', 2006 BCHRT 62 at para 68). The duty to accommodate may also include allowing workers to return gradually to the workplace after an injury or serious illness.

=== 8. Sexual Orientation ===

The HRC prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Such discrimination does not require a complainant to prove their sexual orientation nor that a given respondent believed them to have a particular orientation. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca201/2005bcca201.html School District No 44 (North Vancouver) v Jubran]'', 2005 BCCA 201, Mr. Jubran was a high school student, subjected to homophobic insults and harassment from other students. This conduct was found to constitute discrimination, even though Mr. Jubran did not identify as homosexual and his harassers denied believing that they in fact thought he was homosexual.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

For a case regarding discrimination on this basis against patrons of a restaurant in the context of services customarily available to the public, please see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt101/2011bchrt101.html Pardy v. Earle and others (No. 4)''], 2011 BCHRT 101.

=== 9. Sex (Including Sexual Harassment, Pregnancy) ===
Discrimination on the basis of sex, which is prohibited under the HRC, includes sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is defined as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that detrimentally affects a work environment or leads to adverse job-related consequences for the victims of the harassment” (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii97/1989canlii97.html Janzen v Platy Enterprises Ltd]'', 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1252 at 1284 [''Janzen'']).

The HRC protects against discrimination based on sex in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2015/2015bchrt60/2015bchrt60.html PN v FR and another (No 2)]'', 2015 BCHRT 60, the HRT awarded $50,000 for injury to dignity to a domestic foreign worker who was sexually harassed and assaulted. This is among the highest injury to dignity award the Tribunal has ever ordered. This case also involved allegations of discrimination based on family status, race, age, colour, and place of origin.

Sexual harassment can take a number of forms. One example is when an employer or a supervisory employee requires another employee to submit to sexual advances as a condition of obtaining or keeping employment or employment-related benefits. It may also occur when employees are forced to work in an environment that is hostile, offensive, or intimidating, such as where an employer allows pornography to be posted in the workplace.

It is not generally necessary for an employee to make an internal complaint to their employer before filing a complaint, although this may be relevant to the compensation the employer is ordered to pay if the complaint is successful. There is also no requirement of continuing harassment; a single incident may be sufficient if it is sufficiently egregious.

Whether the conduct was “unwelcome” is assessed on an objective standard: would a reasonable person have known that the conduct was unwelcome? If the respondent knew or ought to have known that the conduct was unwelcome, this part of the test is made out. A target of harassment is not required to expressly object to the conduct for it to be reasonably understood to be unwelcome. The law recognizes that a person's behaviour “may be tolerated and yet unwelcome at the same time” (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1999/1999bchrt56/1999bchrt56.html Mahmoodi v University of British Columbia and Dutton]'', 1999 BCHRT 56 at para 140).

It must also be shown that the alleged discriminatory conduct is “reasonably perceived to create a negative psychological and emotional environment for work” (''Janzen'' at 1263). The test must also account for the customary boundaries of social interaction in the circumstances. Factors that are examined to determine the limits of reasonableness in a particular context include the nature of the conduct, the workplace environment, the type of prior personal interaction, and whether a prior objection or complaint was made. However, it is no defence to harassment, to show that harassing behaviour was traditionally tolerated in a workplace.

For a more recent case involving discrimination on the basis of sex, and more specifically sexual harassment in the employment context, see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt97/2019bchrt97.html Araniva v RSY Contracting and another (No. 3)]'', 2019 BCHRT 97.

There are also examples of cases involving sex discrimination that did not amount to sexual harassment. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2004/2004bchrt76/2004bchrt76.html Mottu v MacLeod]'', 2004 BCHRT 76 at para 41, where the Tribunal found that dress code requirements based on sex could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2004/2004bchrt26/2004bchrt26.html ''Lund v Vernon Women’s Transition House Society''], 2004 BCHRT 26, the Tribunal found that an employer’s refusal to allow a female employee to breastfeed her child at work could also constitute sex discrimination. See also ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt5/2021bchrt5.html The Sales Associate v Aurora Biomed Inc. and others (No. 3)]'', 2021 BCHRT 5.

=== 10. Gender Identity or Expression ===

This protected ground has been in force since 2016, and therefore fewer decisions relating to this ground are currently available. For a recent Tribunal decision issued under the ground of gender identity or expression, please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt58/2019bchrt58.html Oger v Whatcott (No 7)]'', 2019 BCHRT 58.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on gender identity or expression in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

Please also see [https://canlii.ca/t/hvlwz ''Li v Mr B''], 2018 BCHRT 228, where the respondent, the complainant’s landlord, showed a photograph of the complainant (who was male identifying) in a dress to the complainant’s supervisor in an attempt to cause an adverse effect on the complainant’s employment. The HRT found that this constituted discrimination based on gender identity and expression.

For a case involving a nonbinary person whose coworker refused to use they/them pronouns to refer to them, please see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt137/2021bchrt137.html Nelson v Goodberry Restaurant Group Ltd. dba Buono Osteria and others]'', 2021 BCHRT 137.

Prior to the inclusion of gender identity or expression in 2016, the Tribunal had found that being transgender was a protected characteristic under the ground of sex. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2015/2015bchrt54/2015bchrt54.html Dawson v Vancouver Police Board (No 2)]'', 2015 BCHRT 54 ["''Dawson''"]. ''Dawson'' establishes that misgendering trans individuals (addressing a trans person using a pronoun, name, or gender marker other than that which the trans person uses to identify themselves) constitutes discrimination. Discrimination may also include the denial of trans-specific medical services (''Dawson'').

=== 11. Age (19+) ===

11. Age (19+)
Age can refer to an individual’s legal age, membership in a specific age-category, or a generalized characterization of a specific age. The HRC protects against discrimination based on age in all the areas protected under the HRC except the purchase of property (see the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General'''). Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt219/2006bchrt219.html Miu v Vanart Aluminum and Tam]'', 2006 BCHRT 219 at para 18.

Age protection is restricted to those 19 years of age and over. However, those under 19 years can still bring complaints to the BCHRT based on grounds other than age.

=== 12. Unrelated Criminal or Summary Conviction ===

BC’s HRC protects individuals against discrimination based on a criminal or summary conviction only in the areas of employment, trade unions, employers’ associations and occupational associations, so long as the conviction is unrelated to the employment or the intended employment of the individual (see the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

This protection includes a perceived conviction (i.e., relating to arrests, stayed charges or acquittals). Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt43/2011bchrt43.html Purewall v ICBC]'', 2011 BCHRT 43 at para 21; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt411/2006bchrt411.html Clement v Jackson and Abdulla]'', 2006 BCHRT 411 at para 14; and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1997/1997canlii24841/1997canlii24841.html Korthe v Hillstrom Oil Company Ltd]'', 1997 CanLII 24841 (BC HRT) at paras 23–28.

To establish whether or not a conviction may affect an employment decision, the Tribunal makes an assessment of the relationship between the conviction and the job description. As such, employers must take into account the circumstances of the conviction in order to determine whether or not the charge relates to individual’s employment. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1983/1983canlii444/1983canlii444.html Woodward Stores (British Columbia) v McCartney]'', 1983 CanLII 444 (BCSC) at paras 7–9, Justice MacDonald laid out a list of criteria to be considered in making this determination. These criteria are as follows:

* Does the behaviour which formed the basis of the charge, if repeated, compromise the employers’ ability to conduct business safely and effectively?
* What were the circumstances and details of the offence, e.g., what was the person’s age at the time of the offence and were there any extenuating factors?
* How much time has passed since the charge? What has the individual done since that time and has there been any indication of recidivism? Has there been evidence of the individual’s desire for rehabilitation?

=== 13. Lawful Source of Income ===

Lawful source of income is only a protected ground in the area of tenancy (see the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General'''). The HRC protects the rights of individuals on social assistance or disability pensions, for example, who might otherwise be denied housing from being discriminated against in tenancy situations.

Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt36/2003bchrt36.html Tanner v Vlake]'', 2003 BCHRT 36 at paras 22–26 for further discussion on this protected ground. For a more recent case, please see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2012/2012bchrt49/2012bchrt49.html ''Day v Kumar and another (No 3)''], 2012 BCHRT 49.

== D. Procedural Options for Employees ==

An employee who is dealing with an employment-related legal issue may have more than one procedural option to choose from. These include:

=== 1. Employer’s Internal Complaint Procedure ===

Assuming one exists, this is the most immediate way to obtain a resolution to a workplace issue. Consult the workplace’s policies to determine whether an internal complaints process exists and, if so, whether it is likely to yield a helpful resolution of the issue. Note that employees are not required to make use of internal procedures before filing a human rights complaint or other legal proceeding.

=== 2. Grievance and Arbitration (Union) ===

Unionized workers are entitled to representation by their union. Labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the HRC, and grievances often move more quickly than human rights complaints. However, if the union does not pursue a grievance relating to a human rights issue, the worker may wish to file their own human rights complaint and may even decide to name the union as a party if the worker has grounds to believe the union is complicit in the alleged discrimination. Alleging that the union has failed to provide adequate representation will not be sufficient to qualify as a breach of the HRC on its own; the union must have engaged in the discrimination.

As previously stated (see '''Section III.B.7''': Discrimination by Unions, Employer Organizations, or Occupational Associations), there are two ways in which a union may be found liable for discrimination. First by creating or participating in formulating a discriminatory workplace rule, and second by impeding an employer’s efforts to accommodate a disabled employee (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt44/2018bchrt44.html Chestacow]'' at para 32).

Initiating the grievance procedure can be a good starting point, and can be followed by initiating a human rights complaint. A grievance and a human rights complaint can also be filed in tandem. If the matter is not resolved during the initial stages of the union grievance procedure, an arbitration hearing may be held, and an arbitrator will determine liability and relief. The human rights complaint may be placed in deferral while the grievance process proceeds. If the grievance process resolves the worker’s human rights issue, the human rights complaint will be dismissed. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2019/2019bcca241/2019bcca241.html Sebastian v Vancouver Coastal Health Authority]'', 2019 BCCA 241 for some of the risks of parallel proceedings in this context.

=== 3. Human Rights Complaint ===

Another option is to file a human rights complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal (see above for the grounds, areas, exemptions, complaint process, etc.) or, under federal jurisdiction with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (see below for the grounds, areas, exemptions, process, etc). The Tribunal can award lost wages, expenses, and damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. However, if a claimant is also seeking severance pay, lost wages, or expenses in a civil suit, they will not be allowed to recover the same damages from both proceedings.

=== 4. Employment Standards Branch ===

Employees may choose to file a complaint through the Employment Standards Branch (ESB) if their employer has breached the ''Employment Standards Act'' (see [[Introduction_to_Employment_Law_(9:I)|Chapter 9: Employment Law]]). There is a '''six-month limitation period''' from the date of the breach. A complainant can file claims in both the ESB and civil court (either Small Claims or Supreme Court) for employment-related issues, including wrongful dismissal. These actions do not bar the complainant from also bringing a human rights complaint relating to the same matter. Remedies awarded by the Employment Standards Tribunal are intended to make the employee “whole” financially by way of compensation rather than reinstatement. It is important to note that the ESB does not deal with alleged discrimination. If the employee recovers unpaid wages through the ESB, they cannot “double-recover” and seek those same damages in the BCHRT or another forum.

=== 5. Civil Action ===

A final option is to bring a civil action for wrongful dismissal either in Small Claims Court (see [[Introduction_to_Small_Claims_(20:I)|Chapter 20: Small Claims]] of the LSLAP Manual) or the BC Supreme Court, depending on the amounts claimed. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the common law will not provide a remedy for discrimination per se in the employment context. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc39/2008scc39.html Keays v Honda Canada Inc]'', 2008 SCC 39 at para 67 [''Keays''].

The court in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc39/2008scc39.html Keays]'' held that breaches of the HRC must be remedied within the statutory scheme of the HRC itself. Thus, even if the reason for dismissal was discriminatory, in a civil action, the claimant will generally only be able to recover damages based on their wrongful dismissal and/or inadequate notice (severance pay). See [[Introduction_to_Employment_Law_(9:I)|Chapter 9: Employment Law]] of the LSLAP Manual. Accordingly, compensation for the discrimination itself must be awarded by the Tribunal.

The court may further compensate the claimant in a civil action if the employer has acted unfairly or in bad faith when dismissing an employee. The basis for these additional damages is a breach of the implied term of an employment contract that employers will act in good faith in the manner of dismissal (i.e. payment for such damages can be deemed to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the formation of the contract). In Keays, the Supreme Court of Canada held that any such additional award must be compensatory and must be based on the actual loss or damage suffered by the employee, which can include expenses related to mental distress stemming from the manner of dismissal. Compensable conduct might include, but is not limited to, attacking the employee's reputation at the time of dismissal, misrepresentations regarding the reason for the dismissal, or dismissal meant to deprive the employee of a pension benefit or other right such as permanent resident status. However, normal distress and hurt feelings arising from the dismissal itself are not grounds for additional damages.

The courts are even more conservative in their approach to awarding punitive damages meant to punish the employer for their conduct in dismissal. Punitive damages will only be awarded if the employer’s conduct was harsh, vindictive, reprehensible, malicious, and extreme in nature. Thus, if the claimant is primarily concerned with being compensated for injuries to their dignity and/or denouncing their employer’s discriminatory behaviour, they should file a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal alongside a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

Whatever procedural route an employee ultimately chooses to pursue, if said employee is experiencing on-going harassment on a prohibited ground of discrimination, they should maintain records or a journal with dates, times, places, witnesses, details of particular incidents, and even a description of the emotional effects of the harassment.

== E. The Process for Human Rights Complaints ==

The BC Human Rights Tribunal handles complaints made under the HRC. The following chart depicts the process of a complaint at the Tribunal and the time in between the various stages of the process (prepared by the BC Human Rights Clinic, a program of the Community Legal Assistance Society [“CLAS”]):

The first step in filing a complaint with the Tribunal is to fill out a Complaint Form, which is available at the Tribunal's office, on its [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca website] or from other local government offices. It is also possible to file the complaint online on the Tribunal's website. There are helpful self-help guides to filling out Complaint and Response forms on the Tribunal’s website. You should also consult the [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/rules/index.htm Tribunal’s Rules of Practice] and [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/practice-directions/index.htm Procedure and Practice Directions] for guidance on the various steps in the process.

=== 1. Who Can File a Complaint? ===

A complaint may be made by an individual, on behalf of a group or class, or by someone acting as a representative of the named person(s). If the Complaint Form is being filled out on behalf of another person, group, or class of persons, then a secondary form called the Representative Complaint Form must also be filled out and must accompany the Complaint Form when sent to the Tribunal. The person filling out the Complaint Form is called the complainant. The person or organization whom the complaint is against is called the respondent.

[[File:BCHRC Updated HRT Complaint Process Diagram.png|Image Provided by BCHRC]]

=== 2. How to File a Complaint ===

The Complaint Form can be filed with the Tribunal via mail or fax. The Complaint Form can also be filled out and submitted online from a computer or a mobile device. Alternatively, the Complaint Form can be submitted to the Tribunal by email. Complainants may access the Complaint Form and other valuable resources at the BC Human Rights Tribunal website (see '''Section II.B: Resources'''). There are different Complaint Forms depending on whether the complaint is being made by an individual ([https://intake.bchrt.bc.ca/hrt/hrt Form 1.1]) or a group ([https://intake.bchrt.bc.ca/hrt/hrt-group Form 1.3]). If you are filling out a Complaint Form on behalf of someone else, then the appropriate form is [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/forms/form_1_2_print.pdf Form 1.2].

The party filing the complaint should be aware of the time limits. There is a '''one-year''' limitation period. Complaints alleging continuing contraventions of the Code may be accepted as long as at least one incident of alleged discrimination occurred within the one-year limitation period: see '''Code''' s 22(2).

Late-filed complaints may be accepted if it is in the public interest to do so, under certain very limited circumstances, as per s 22(3) of the Code. In order for a member of the Tribunal to accept all or part of the complaint under s 22(3), the Tribunal must determine that a) it is in the public interest to accept the complaint, and b) no substantial prejudice will result to any person because of the delay. The Tribunal’s assessment of what is in the public interest depends on a contextual consideration of a number of factors including: the complainant’s interest in accessing the Tribunal, the length and reason for the delay in filing, whether the complainant had access to legal advice, and the novelty or importance of the human rights issues raised: [https://canlii.ca/t/g7c2b ''British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v Mzite''], 2014 BCCA 220 at paras 53–81. The Tribunal also considers “the respondent’s interest in going about its activities without the worry of stale complaints”: [https://canlii.ca/t/h03rl ''Hoang v Warnaco and Johns''], 2007 BCHRT 24 at para 26. This list of factors is not exhaustive.

The BC Court of Appeal has found it to be within the public interest to accept a complaint that was filed late if the complainant was operating off erroneous legal advice regarding the one-year limitation date: [https://canlii.ca/t/jbtjn ''The Parent obo the Child v The School District''], 2020 BCCA 333. The Tribunal has also found that it can be in the public interest to accept late complaints where the delay is due to a disabling condition: [https://canlii.ca/t/g8blz ''Naziel-Wilson v Providence Health Care and another''], 2014 BCHRT 170 at para 21. See also [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2023/2023bchrt40/2023bchrt40.html ''Sheriff v Fairleigh Dickenson University''], 2023 BCHRT 40 at para 38, where the Tribunal discussed the impact of trauma on a person’s ability to file a complaint within the one-year time limit.

The BC Human Rights Tribunal has been severely backlogged over the last couple of years. Potential complainants should be aware that it often takes a year or more for a case to be initially screened and accepted for filing. The Tribunal has developed a strategy to address its backlog, which it introduced on December 15, 2023, and most recently updated on March 7, 2025. For more information, see the announcement [https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/message-from-the-chair-about-the-tribunals-backlog-strategy/ here].

=== 3. Urgent Complaints ("Fast-Track") ===
If the complaint is urgent, a complainant may request a fast-track process. To be eligible for a fast track, you must show that fast tracking or changing the process will help get to a “just and timely resolution” of the complaint.

The complainant may want to fast-track the process if the complainant risks losing the appropriate remedy if urgent action is not taken by the HRT (for example, the complaint is about an eviction notice and the complainant will have to move out in 30 days, without a fast-tracked solution). A party may also wish to fast-track the process if they are at risk of losing the chance to prove their case (for example, the respondent’s main witness is moving out of Canada soon). For more information on the fast track process, please refer to the BCHRT [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/guides-info-sheets/general-apps/16.htm website].

=== 4. Screening ===

Once the Complaint Form is filed, the Tribunal will review the form to determine if it fits under the HRC and if it appears to meet the '''one-year''' limitation period. If the Tribunal believes that it may not have the power to deal with the complaint in substance or believes that the complaint has been filed out of time, the complainant will generally be given a chance to respond before the Tribunal decides whether to proceed with the complaint. If the Tribunal believes it can proceed, it will send the Complaint Form to the respondent for a response to the complaint.

A complainant '''must''' set out a case of discrimination under the HRC on their initial complaint form. If the elements are not set out, then the Tribunal may not accept the complaint. Even if accepted, it could still be vulnerable later to an application to dismiss under section 27 of the HRC.

In order to set out the complainant’s case, the complainant must allege facts that, on their face (that is to say, assuming they are all true), satisfy the following three elements:

#That they have a characteristic that is protected under the HRC;
#That they experienced an adverse impact with respect to an area protected by the HRC; and
#That their protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact they experienced.

A complainant need not establish that their protected characteristic was the sole or primary reason for their adverse treatment. It is sufficient to establish that it was one reason for their adverse treatment. For greater analysis of this topic please refer to ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15471/index.do Bombardier]'' and ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12680/index.do Moore]''.

A complainant is not required to provide evidence at the time they file their complaint. The complaint form simply needs to tell the story, identify all of the allegations of discriminatory treatment, and satisfy the three criteria set out above.

=== 5. Disclosure Obligations ===

Disclosure refers to the sharing of information with the other parties. In order for all parties to prepare for their case it is essential that information is properly shared. Information that must be disclosed includes:

#All documents relevant to the complaint, response, as well as the remedy being requested (this must be disclosed after a complaint is filed);
#A list of witnesses (this must be disclosed after a hearing is scheduled);
#A detailed explanation of the remedy (for the complainant), or a response to the proposed remedy (for the respondent); and
#Any expert evidence or opinion (must be presented to the other party within 90 days of the hearing).

Evidence that has not been disclosed cannot be presented at a hearing. An attempt to do so may negatively affect a party’s case and may even lead to an order for costs by the Tribunal. A failure to disclose can also simply prevent a complaint from going forward, or prevent a respondent from filing an application to dismiss.

=== 6. Settlement Meeting ===

'''Parties may agree to a settlement meeting at any time after the complaint has been filed.''' The Tribunal schedules an Early Settlement Meeting after accepting the complaint for filing, which the parties can opt out of if they choose. Most human rights complaints settle, either through a settlement meeting or direct negotiations between the parties or their counsel. Guides for settlement meetings and hearings are available from the Tribunal on its [https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/ website].

At the settlement meeting, a neutral and impartial mediator who is knowledgeable in human rights law will work with the parties in order to help them try to reach an agreement. Generally, a settlement will require both sides to compromise, whether that is a complainant accepting less compensation than they initially sought, or a respondent accepting some measure of responsibility. In a settlement meeting, it is important to listen to the other side’s perspective, assess how it impacts the strength of your case, and remain open-minded regarding the remedy you are prepared to accept to resolve the complaint.

Additionally, settlements can allow for creativity in determining a resolution. While the Tribunal may be limited in its ability to address the damages, mediation can result in constructive results such as public apologies or a practical solution to the issue at hand.

This process also allows for a quicker resolution of the issue in a more informal setting, where information is kept confidential. Negotiations are without prejudice, meaning they cannot be used in future hearings, and the mediator involved will not be a part of the final hearing. The process is voluntary and the Tribunal cannot force the parties to participate in mediation or enter into a settlement agreement. If the parties do voluntarily agree to settle their dispute, as part of the terms of settlement, the complainant will file a Complaint Withdrawal Form ([http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/e-forms/form_6_electronic.pdf Form 6]). A settlement agreement is a legally binding agreement, and if one side does not comply with its terms, the other party can take to steps to enforce it.

If both parties cannot agree on a resolution, the mediation will end with no settlement agreement.

=== 7. Covid-19 and Mask Wearing Complaints ===
Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the Tribunal developed a new process for processing complaints about mask wearing in the BCHRT. For complaints filed after March 31, 2022, the HRT will dismiss any complaint that does not include the criteria set out in the [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/practice-directions/mask-wearing-complaints.htm Practice Direction]. This criteria requires complainants to demonstrate that their protected personal characteristic, if that is a physical disability, actually inhibits the wearing of a mask. If the complainant does not provide this information in their Complaint Form then their complaint will be dismissed without an opportunity to provide more information.

== F. Remedies ==

Remedies should be considered early when deciding whether or not to pursue a claim in any administrative tribunal. Available remedies for a justified complaint are listed in section 37(2) of the HRC.

'''Non-pecuniary (not financial) remedies include:'''
*An order that the respondent cease the discriminatory conduct,
*A declaratory order that the conduct complained of is, in fact, discriminatory, and
*An order that the respondent take steps to ameliorate the effects of the discrimination, such as the implementation of human rights policy and training.
People seeking advice on drafting should be directed to the BC Human Rights Tribunal website, which provides detailed information on the availability and applicability of specific remedies (see [[Governing_Legislation_and_Resources_for_Human_Rights_(6:II)|Section II.B: Resources]]).

'''Pecuniary (financial) remedies include:'''
*Compensation for lost wages/salary,
*Expenses incurred due to the discrimination,
*Reinstatement of a lost benefit, and
*Compensation for injury to dignity.
Unlike severance pay, compensation for lost wages is not based on the concept of reasonable notice. A successful claimant may recover lost wages for the entire period between their dismissal and the hearing date if they can show that they have been making reasonable efforts to find new employment.

The purpose of an award for injury to dignity is to compensate a person whose rights under the ''Code'' have been violated. It is not to punish a respondent. Damages awarded for injury to dignity have increased over the last decade, and the tribunal has made it clear that the trend for such damages is upwards (see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt174/2018bchrt174.html Biggings obo Walsh v Pink and others]'', 2018 BCHRT 174 [''Walsh'']). Currently the highest award in BC is $176,000 (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt16/2021bchrt16.html Francis v BC Ministry of Justice (No. 5)]'', 2021 BCHRT 16). Historically, however, most damages in this category are under $10,000.

The BC Human Rights Clinic has a compiled list of awards given by the HRT, sorted by ground, updated quarterly and available [https://bchrc.net/legal-information/remedies here].

The Tribunal generally considers three broad factors in determining injury to dignity awards: the nature of the violation, the complainant’s vulnerability and social context, and the effect of the discrimination on the complainant (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt185/2011bchrt185.html Gichuru v The Law Society of British Columbia (No. 9)]'', 2011 BCHRT 185 at para 260, upheld in 2014 BCCA 396). Importantly, while injury to dignity awards commonly follow in cases where discrimination is established, this is not guaranteed, as seen in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2012/2012bchrt28/2012bchrt28.html Holt v Coast Mountain Bus Company]'', 2012 BCHRT 28 at para 233. For further information regarding compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, please visit the BC Human Rights Clinic's [https://bchrc.net/the-trend-is-upwards-recent-injury-to-dignity-awards website].

Remember, to claim any type of damage, the complainant must lead evidence. If the complainant fails to lead evidence as to the effect the discrimination had on their emotional state and dignity, this may impact the Tribunal’s assessment of damages. Furthermore, if the respondent can prove that the complainant has failed to mitigate their losses, a complainant may not be entitled to wage loss compensation.

The Tribunal may not award damages for lost wages/salary following a discriminatory dismissal during a period for which the claimant was medically incapable of working (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2008/2008bchrt376/2008bchrt376.html Senyk v WFG Agency Network (No 2)]'', 2008 BCHRT 376 at para 434). This is because, even absent the discrimination, the claimant would not have been able to earn wages or a salary (but see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt238/2018bchrt238.html Eva obo others v Spruce Hill Resort and another]'', 2018 BCHRT 238 at para 214).

There is no maximum limit on damage awards. However, if a claimant seeks a remedy at both the Human Rights Tribunal (e.g. for lost wages) and in civil court or another dispute resolution forum (e.g. for severance pay), and is successful with both proceedings, they are not entitled to double recovery and will receive the amount through only one of the proceedings. There are several cases where the award for loss of wages was in the range of $300,000. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt196/2009bchrt196.html Kerr]''.

Additionally, section 37(2) gives the Tribunal the power to award compensation for expenses incurred due to the discrimination found, which may include expenses such as counselling fees incurred because of the discrimination, or expenses incurred to attend a hearing. Legal expenses incurred after the filing of a complaint are not compensable, though legal expenses incurred prior to the filing of a complaint may be. See [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt195/2019bchrt195.html ''Fraser v BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (No. 6)''], 2019 BCHRT 195 at para 16.

A final order of the Tribunal may be registered in the BC Supreme Court so that it is enforceable as though it were an order of the court. No appeal procedure is provided for in the HRC; individuals dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision must seek judicial review in BC Supreme Court pursuant to the [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96241_01 ''Judicial Review Procedure Act''], RSBC 1996, c 241 (see [[Introduction_to_Public_Complaints_Procedures_(5:I)|Chapter 5: Public Complaint Procedures]] of the LSLAP Manual).

== G. Costs ==

The general rule is that costs will not normally be awarded in a human rights case. Pursuant to section 37(4) of the HRC, the purpose of awarding costs is to penalize a party who acts improperly during the course of the complaint, thereby interfering with the objectives of the Tribunal. In these cases, costs are awarded punitively and do not necessarily reflect the actual expenses incurred by the other party due to the improper conduct.

== H. Dismissal of a Complaint Without a Hearing ==

As mentioned above, the Tribunal may refuse to accept a complaint for filing if it does not have jurisdiction due to the nature of the complaint or if it is filed late. Once a complaint has been filed, however, the Tribunal may nevertheless dismiss it prior to a hearing, on application from the respondent or on its own motion, for a variety of reasons ([https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96210_01#section27 HRC, s 27]). The following outlines some of the reasons why the Tribunal may dismiss a filed complaint (check the HRC for a complete list):

=== 1. Complaint Outside the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction ===
The Tribunal will not proceed with a complaint where it is persuaded that the complaint is not, in fact, based on a form of discrimination enumerated by the HRC, or that the complaint falls within federal jurisdiction. Even if the Tribunal accepts a complaint for filing, the respondent may still have the option to dispute jurisdiction.

=== 2. Substance of Complaint Dealt with by Another Proceeding ===
Where another proceeding, such as a labour arbitration, has adequately resolved the substance of a complaint, it will usually be dismissed. A complaint may also be deferred if such an alternative proceeding is pending. The number of other proceedings capable of adequately dealing with a human rights complaint is however, quite limited.

=== 3. No Reasonable Basis for Holding a Hearing ===
The Tribunal may dismiss a complaint where the Tribunal is persuaded that the complaint is made in bad faith, would be of no benefit to the complainant, would not further the purposes of the HRC, and/or has no reasonable prospect of success. The most recent Annual Report from the BCHRT indicates that applications to dismiss under section 27 of the HRC succeeded in fully dismissing the complaint 49% of the time. No reasonable prospect of success is the most common reason for dismissing a complaint. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt117/2011bchrt117.html Marquez v Great Canadian Casinos]'', 2011 BCHRT 117 at paras 29–38.

If you are responding to an application to dismiss a complaint, it is important in most cases to provide evidence in support of the Complainant’s contention that the complaint should be allowed to proceed to a hearing. While the burden of persuading the Tribunal that the complaint should be dismissed is on the respondent, the complainant does need to provide sufficient evidence to take their complaint out of the realm of “speculation and conjecture.” An affidavit attaching relevant exhibits from the client is preferable, though an unsworn statement will also likely be acceptable in most cases.

=== 4. Complaint Brought Outside Limitation Period ===
As mentioned above, there is a '''one-year''' limitation period for filing a complaint. The '''one-year''' period begins from the last instance of any continuing discrimination. If at least one alleged incident of discrimination in a complaint falls within the one-year limitation period, other alleged incidents of discrimination dating back farther than one year may be accepted as a continuing contravention of the ''Code''. The issue of whether, or how many, multiple instances of discrimination will be considered to constitute a “continuing contravention” (thus effectively extending the one-year limitation period) is often disputed. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt204/2018bchrt204.html Bjorklund v BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General]'', 2018 BCHRT 204 at paras 13-14 for a recent discussion of how to define a “continuing contravention”; see also ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2018/2018bcca136/2018bcca136.html District v Parent obo the Child]'', 2018 BCCA 136 at paras 46–65.

However, under [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96210_01#section22 section 22(3)] of the HRC, the Tribunal has discretion to accept late-filed complaints regardless of whether there is a “continuing contravention”. The requirements for doing so are that it is in the public interest to accept the late complaint, and no substantial prejudice will be caused to any party because of the delay in filing (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt39/2003bchrt39.html Chartier v Sooke School District No 62]'', 2003 BCHRT 39 at para 12).

Whether it is in the public interest to accept a complaint filed outside the one-year time limit is a multi-faceted consideration, which is governed by the purposes of the HRC, and assessed on a case-by-case basis. Factors that may be important considerations in determining whether it is in the public interest to accept a late-filed complaint include the reasons for the delay, the length of the delay, the significance of the issue raised in the complaint and fairness in all the circumstances. The list of factors that the Tribunal may consider is non-exhaustive:. ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2014/2014bcca220/2014bcca220.html British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite]'', 2014 BCCA 220; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2007/2007bchrt24/2007bchrt24.html Hoang v. Warnaco and Johns]'', 2007 BCHRT 24.

== I. Responding to an Application to Dismiss ==

When faced with an application to dismiss, it is important to meaningfully engage with the reasons behind the application, providing supporting evidence when necessary. If the complainant does not provide evidence in response to an application to dismiss, it may result in a case being dismissed that did hold legal merit. Evidence can be as simple as a statement, although a sworn affidavit is preferable. The statement or affidavit should attach documents that help support the complainant’s argument that the complaint should be allowed to proceed to a hearing. The respondent would then have an opportunity to respond to the arguments raised by the complainant.

If the Tribunal agrees to dismiss the complaint then the complaint process will not continue any further. Applications to dismiss are subject to judicial review.

== J. Case Path Pilot ==

Unfortunately, the number of applications to dismiss filed by respondents has resulted in significant backlog and delay at the Tribunal. In response, the Tribunal established a Case Path Pilot project on May 6, 2022. Under this program, dismissal applications were no longer an automatic stage in the complaint process, but rather dismissal submissions were only allowed once the Tribunal identified clear issues with the complaint.

As of May 1, 2026, the Tribunal has amended this process for dismissal applications. Now, respondents who wish to dismiss a complaint must first file Form 7.5 – Request to File Dismissal Application. The Tribunal reviews this form alongside the complaint and response and will only permit a full dismissal application to move forward if it determines it would further a just and timely resolution. For more information about the amendment, see this Message from the Chair.

Cases notified of their disclosure obligations and deadlines before May 1, 2026, will continue to follow the process outlined in the Case Path Pilot Practice Direction.

== K. Judicial Review ==

If an individual disagrees with a decision of the Tribunal, they may ask the Supreme Court of British Columbia for a “judicial review”. A judicial review differs from an appeal to a higher court. In an appeal, the court has the authority to decide whether or not it agrees with a decision. In a judicial review, the BC Supreme Court simply decides whether there is are grounds for review and may only disturb the Tribunal’s decision if the applicant can demonstrate that the Tribunal:

*Made an “error of law”, (e.g., an incorrect interpretation of the HRC);
*Made a finding of fact that is unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence;
*Acted unfairly with regards to the rules of procedure and natural justice; or
*Disregarded legislative requirements; used its discretion arbitrarily, in bad faith, or for an improper purpose; or based its decisions on irrelevant factors.
These standards of review applicable to the Tribunal’s decisions are set out in s 59 of the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/04045_01 Administrative Tribunals Act]''.

If the Tribunal has made any of these errors, the Court may set aside the decision and will usually direct the Tribunal to reconsider the matter. Section 57 of the ''Administrative Tribunals Act'' mandates that an application for a judicial review must be submitted within '''60 days''' of the date the Tribunal’s decision was issued. In order to seek a judicial review, an individual is required to prepare a petition and affidavit, file the petition and affidavit at the BC Supreme Court, and serve a copy of the filed petition and affidavit on the Tribunal, the Attorney General of British Columbia, and any person whose interests may be affected by the order Court is asked to make.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

BC Human Rights Code (6:III)

2026-09-25T20:09:20Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 2 June 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}}

The ''BC Human Rights Code'' ("HRC" or the ''Code'') protects people from discrimination in certain protected areas of their lives. It also provides a mechanism to file a complaint when discrimination in those areas occurs. It is administered by the BC Human Rights Tribunal (“BCHRT”). The HRC applies to matters under provincial jurisdiction (as established by s 91 of the ''Constitution Act, 1867'') and covers both public and private bodies, including individuals. For example, the HRC applies to provincially regulated employers, unions, professional associations, most commercial businesses, Crown corporations, landlord-tenant relationships, and the provincial government itself.

The Tribunal’s decisions are available online on the BCHRT [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions website]. They are indexed by year dating back to 1997 and searchable based on a variety of criteria. They are also available on [http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt CanLII BC].

== A. Framework of a Discrimination Complaint ==
There are two types of discrimination protected under the HRC: direct discrimination, and indirect or “adverse effects” discrimination.

Direct discrimination occurs when a person or group is singled out for differential treatment based on their protected characteristic(s) (''M v H'', 1999 CanLII 686 (SCC)). Racial slurs, sexual harassment, and homophobic comments are all examples of “direct discrimination.”

Indirect or “adverse effect” discrimination occurs when laws or policies do not overtly discriminate, but produce a disproportionate negative impact on members of groups sharing a protected characteristic (''Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General)'', 2020 SCC 28). For example, disability-related claims often involve adverse effect discrimination when there is a facially neutral rule, standard, policy, or practice that creates a disadvantage for someone in connection with their disability. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1985/1985canlii18/1985canlii18.html ''Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Simpsons-Sears Ltd''], 1985 CanLII 18 (SCC) for an example of indirect discrimination.

=== 1. Complainant's Case ===

As outlined in ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12680/index.do Moore v British Columbia (Education)]'', 2012 SCC 61 at para 33 [''Moore''], the complainant must prove the following three elements on a balance of probabilities to establish their case:

# That they have a characteristic that is protected under the HRC;
# That they experienced an adverse impact in an area protected by the HRC; and
# That their protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact they experienced This is also known as the "nexus".

The complainant’s case is sometimes also referred to as prima facie discrimination, (on the move away from Latin in human rights cases, see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt9/2018bchrt9.html ''Vik v Finamore (No. 2)''], 2018 BCHRT 9 at paras 48–50).

If any one of the three elements of the complainant's case is missing, there is no discrimination. If the complainant proves the three elements of their case, then the burden shifts to the respondent to justify its conduct. If the respondent proves its conduct was justified, then there is no discrimination. If the respondent’s conduct is not justified, discrimination will be found to have occurred.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc30/2017scc30.html Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp.]'', 2017 SCC 30 further developed the legal test for discrimination established in Moore. This ruling clarified that the primary focus is on discriminatory impact, not the intention behind the action. In other words, you do not have to prove that a decision was made with a discriminatory motive or based on stereotypes.

The court also confirmed that the protected characteristic (like race, gender, or disability) need only be a factor in the adverse treatment (like refusing employment or tenancy). The protected characteristic doesn't have to be the only factor, or even the most significant factor in the negative outcome—it just needs to be a contributing factor (at para 46).

'''Vicarious Liability:''' Section 44(2) of the HRC states that an employer is responsible for the actions of their employees, and an employer will be liable for an employee’s actions when the employee is acting within the scope of their authority or job duties. Employers are also responsible for providing a discrimination-free workplace. The employer should be named as a respondent in any human rights complaint involving an allegation of discrimination in the employment context.

=== 2. Respondent's Case ===

In the employment context, a respondent can justify its conduct by proving on a balance of probabilities that the rule, standard, practice, or requirement being challenged is a bona fide occupational requirement ("BFOR"). In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1724/index.do British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union]'', 1999 CanLII 652 (SCC) at para 54 [''Meiorin''], the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) set out a three-step analysis for determining whether a standard is a BFOR. To be considered a BFOR the tribunal must be satisfied that:

# The employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;
# The employer adopted the particular standard with an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and
# The standard is reasonably necessary to fulfil its purpose. The employer must show that it could not accommodate individual employees with the protected characteristic without experiencing undue hardship.

In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1761/index.do British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)]'', 1999 CanLII 646 (SCC) [''Grismer''] at para 20, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the application of the ''Meiorin'' test to a public services complaint and set out the three-stage analysis for determining whether a service provider had a ''bona fide'' and reasonable justification for its conduct:

# The respondent’s behaviour was for a purpose or goal that is rationally connected to the function being performed;
# The respondent behaved in good faith; and
# The respondent’s behaviour was reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose or goal, in the sense that the respondent cannot accommodate the complainant without undue hardship.

Note that most legal disputes arise in regard to the third part of the test – that is, whether the respondent reasonably accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship.

== B. Protections and Exemptions ==

The HRC provides protection against discrimination in several different areas, which are listed in sections 7–14. These sections will be further detailed in order below. Please refer to '''Section III.A.1–7'''. However, for many of these protected areas, the HRC provides certain exceptions for which discrimination is not prohibited.

Additionally, section 41, commonly referred to as the group rights exemption, allows non-profit organizations to engage in what might otherwise be deemed prohibited discriminatory conduct. It allows charitable, philanthropic, educational, and other not-for-profit organizations to give a preference to members of the identifiable group or class of persons they serve. For more information, please see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca601/2005bcca601.html Vancouver Rape Relief Society v Nixon]'', 2005 BCCA 601 [''Nixon''] at paras 43–59 (please note that this case involves a sex-binary-focused discussion of transgender identity that may be troubling for some readers).

Furthermore, under section 42, it is not discriminatory to plan, advertise, adopt, or implement an employment equity program that has the objective of ameliorating the conditions of individuals or groups who are disadvantaged because of Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, and achieves or is likely to achieve that purpose. Section 42 also gives the Human Rights Commissioner jurisdiction to approve special programs that are aimed at improving the situation of individuals or groups that have suffered historical disadvantage. If pre-approved, a special program is deemed not to contravene the Code.

=== 1. Discriminatory Publication ===

Section 7 deals with forms of discrimination against individuals or groups of individuals, which are published, displayed, or made public. This section prohibits hate literature and other such communications that expose or are likely to expose someone in a protected group to hatred or contempt, as well as publications that indicate discrimination or intent to discriminate against a protected group. Please refer to ''[http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/decisions/2019/mar/58_CORRECTED_Oger_v_Whatcott_No_7_2019_BCHRT_58.pdf Oger v Whatcott]'' (No 7), 2019 BCHRT 58 at paras 93—97 for the former, and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt228/2018bchrt228.html Li v Mr B]'', 2018 BCHRT 228 at paras 95—97 [''Li''] for the latter.

In ''Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v Neufeld (No. 3)'', 2024 BCHRT 232, the BCHRT established that section 7 applies to discriminatory publications on the internet and that the province has jurisdiction to apply section 7 to online publications. Further, the BCHRT clarified the section 7(1)(a) test in ''Chilliwack Teachers' Association v Neufeld (No. 10)'', 2026 BCHRT 49 at para 233. To establish a violation of s 7(1)(a), the complainant must demonstrate that the publication at issue:

#Targets a protected characteristic;
#Expressly or implicitly relies on, or promotes, negative beliefs or stereotypes about persons with the protected characteristic, or disregards their inherent dignity; and
#Uses those negative messages as a basis for an actual or intended adverse effect or to urge others to act to bring about the same result. The actual or intended harms of the publication must be specific, “real-world”, and such that they “cannot be prevented by the discernment and critical judgment of the audience” (''Ward v Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse)'', 2021 SCC 43 at para 61 [''Ward'']; ''Oger v Whatcott (No. 7)'', 2019 BCHRT 58 at para 103). Their intended effect, whether or not achieved, is to prevent “a person or class of persons from truly participating in the political process and the ordinary activities of society just like everyone else” (''Ward'' at para 63).

'''Exception:''' Section 7 does '''not''' apply to communications that are intended to be private or are related to activities otherwise permitted under the HRC, see s. 7(2) and ''Li'' at paras 98–104.

=== 2. Discrimination in Accommodations, Services and Facilities “Customarily Available to the Public” ===

Section 8 states that a person may not deny or discriminate against any person or class of persons regarding an accommodation, service, or facility customarily available to the public because of that person’s Indigenous Identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and/or age.

''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1006/index.do University of British Columbia v Berg]'', 1993 CanLII 89 (SCC) [''Berg''] explains the concept of “customarily available to the public”. A service is customarily available to the public if the nature of the relationship is public. Courts and tribunals look at the relationship between the facility and the complainant, as well as the nature of the service itself. In Berg, the court found that a university has its own public and that the relationships between students and professors, who present the public face of the university, are public in this context. Please refer to HMTQ v McGrath, 2009 BCSC 180 at paras 89–93 for a more recent case that discusses when a service is “customarily available to the public”.

Additionally, courts have found that services provided to members of a group who come together as a result of a private selection process, based on their personal attributes do not qualify as services “customarily available to the public”, and are therefore not subject to section 8 of the HRC. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2007/2007bcca17/2007bcca17.html Marine Drive Golf Club v Buntain et al and BC Human Rights Tribunal]'', 2007 BCCA 17 at paras 48–56.

While there is no enumerated list of relationships that count as “customarily available to the public,” locales such as pubs, night clubs, hotels, theatres, transportation services, education facilities, insurance, medical treatment in hospitals and clinics, strata council and property management services in condominiums, services provided by police, access to sidewalks and public space, government services, and participation in sporting events have all been found to entail public relationships. Licensing services and facilities may also involve public relationships. For example, discrimination prohibited by section 8 was ultimately found when the BC Motor Vehicle Branch maintained a blanket refusal to issue driver’s licenses to those with certain visual impairments regardless of actual driving ability (''Grismer'').

Legislation is not a “service customarily available to the public” and bare challenges to legislation can’t proceed at the HRT, see e.g. ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt76/2019bchrt76.html Phillips v BC Ministry of the Attorney General]'', 2019 BCHRT 76 at paras 11–12.

In ''Moore'', a school district cancelled a special education program, requiring a dyslexic student to enroll in specialized private school. The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed whether the school district discriminated against the student by failing to provide necessary accommodation, and ultimately upheld the BC Human Rights Tribunal’s finding of discrimination.

'''Defences:''' Adverse treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic is not discrimination if it can be shown to be supported by a “''bona fide and reasonable justification''” (“BFRJ”) (as per the wording of section 8(1)). See '''Section III.A.2''' for the three-part ''Grismer'' test to justify a discriminatory standard by raising a BFRJ. (see also '''Subsection 6: Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate''').

'''Exceptions:''' Section 8(2) also contains certain built-in exceptions. Discrimination based on sex is permitted insofar as it relates to the maintenance of public decency. For a case on the interpretation of public decency in the context of excluding transgender peoples from public washrooms, see [https://canlii.ca/t/g965p ''Sheridan v Sanctuary Investments Ltd. (No. 3)''], 1999 CanLII 35172 (BC HRT), in which the Tribunal rejected the argument that it was necessary to exclude a transgender woman from the washroom matching her gender identity in order to maintain “public decency.”

Discrimination based on sex, physical or mental disability, or age is permitted insofar as it relates to the determination of premiums or benefits under life or health insurance policies. Note that statutory exceptions to human rights legislation are to be narrowly construed ([https://canlii.ca/t/1fs94 ''Zurich Insurance Co. v Ontario (Human Rights Comm.)''], 1992 CanLII 67 (SCC)).

=== 3. Discrimination in Purchase and Rental of Property ===

Section 9 provides that a person or class of persons must not be denied the opportunity to purchase real property due to their Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression.

Section 10 states that a person shall not be denied the right to occupy any space that is represented as being available for occupancy or be discriminated against with respect to a term or condition of the tenancy on the basis of Indigenous Identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, and/or lawful source of income.

'''Defences:''' Although sections 9 and 10 do not contain language specifically providing for a defence to a claim of discrimination under these provisions, like all respondents, landlords and property sellers may be able to justify ''prima facie'' discrimination if they can satisfy the three elements of the ''Grismer/Meiorin'' test. This will require that they accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship.

'''Exceptions:''' Section 10(2)(a) says the protection from discrimination in tenancy does not apply if the tenant is sharing the use of any sleeping, bathroom, or cooking facilities with the person making the representation (e.g. as a roommate). Furthermore, the reserving of specific residences for individuals aged 55 or older or for people with disabilities does not constitute discrimination (HRC, s 10(2)(b) & (c)).

=== 4. Discrimination in Employment Advertisements and Interviews ===

Section 11 prohibits employment advertisements that express limitations, specifications, or preferences based on Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity or expression and/or age. Refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2007/2007bchrt99/2007bchrt99.html Anderson v Thompson Creek Mining Ltd Endako Mines]'', 2007 BCHRT 99.

'''Exception:''' An employment advertisement that expresses a limitation, specification or preference as to a protected characteristic may be permitted if it is based on “''bona fide'' occupational requirement(s)” as per the wording of section 11. There are also exceptions for non-profit organizations and employment equity programs (see Exemptions on 6-6).

For case law on discrimination during the interview process, please refer to ''Khalil v Woori Education Group'', 2012 BCHRT 186 at paras 29-45. Under section 13, an employer cannot refuse to employ someone on the basis of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination unless there is a ''bona fide'' occupational requirement (see [[{{PAGENAME}}#6. Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate | Subsection 6: Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate]]).

=== 5. Discrimination in Wages ===

Section 12 states that wage parity between sexes is required for similar or substantially similar jobs. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc109/2011bcsc109.html ''Kraska v Pennock''], 2011 BCSC 109. Most of the remedies under this section are also available under section 13, which does not have a limitation on the period of time during which wages can be claimed.

'''Limitation Dates:''' Section 12(5) of the HRC states:
:(a) "The action must be commenced no later than 12 months from the termination of the employee's services, and
:(b) The action applies only to wages of an employee during the 12 month period immediately before the earlier of the date of the employee's termination or the commencement of the action."

Most of the remedies under this section are also available under section 13, which does not have a limitation on the period of time during which wages can be claimed.

'''Exception:''' A difference in the rate of pay between employees of different sexes based on a factor '''other''' than sex is allowed, provided that the factor on which the difference is based would reasonably justify the difference.

=== 6. Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate ===

Section 13 provides that no person shall refuse to employ another person or discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment on the basis of Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, and/or because that person has a criminal record that is unrelated to the employment. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2010/2010bchrt13/2010bchrt13.html Ratzlaff v Marpaul Construction Ltd]'', 2010 BCHRT 13 for one example of an employment case.

This section may also extend to volunteers depending on the circumstances (''Nixon''). When determining whether a volunteer is captured by this section of the HRC, the Tribunal will consider the following:

#If there is a formal process to recruit volunteers;
#If there is a training process with defined tasks for volunteers;
#Whether volunteers have to agree to follow the organizations policies and practices;
#If there are requirements about when or how often a volunteer must be available; and
#The role of volunteers in the organization.

For more information on volunteers, see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2017/2017bchrt123/2017bchrt123.html Ferri v Society of Saint Vincent de Paul and another]'', 2017 BCHRT 123 at paras 29-33.

Because all individuals over 19 are protected by the ground of age, individuals in both the public and private sector are able to choose the age at which they wish to retire and are protected from discrimination based on age (HRC, s 1).

'''Duty to Inquire:''' An employer may have a duty to inquire about a potential disability before taking disciplinary action against an employee, even if the employee has not formally disclosed their condition. This means that if an employer has a reasonable belief that an employee's behaviour or performance issues are linked to a medical condition, they must take steps to investigate before making a decision that could negatively affect the employee.

This principle was established in cases like ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1997/1997bchrt39/1997bchrt39.html Willems-Wilson v Allbright Drycleaners]'', 1997 BCHRT 39. In this case, an employee was fired due to her behaviour, which was related to an undiagnosed mental disability. Although she hadn't explicitly told her employer she had depression, the employer was aware of several key facts: she cried frequently, had been hospitalized for non-physical reasons, and attended weekly counseling sessions.

The court determined that these facts gave the employer reason to believe that a medical condition was a factor. Therefore, the employer had a duty to inquire about a possible link between the employee's behavior and her disability before firing her.

This duty was later affirmed in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt41/2003bchrt41.html Gardiner v British Columbia (Attorney General)]'', 2003 BCHRT 41 at 166, where the Tribunal held that an employer has a duty to inquire when they have reason to believe that a medical condition is affecting an employee's job performance.

'''Defence of ''Bona Fide'' Occupational Requirement (BFOR)''': Adverse treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic may be justified when it relates to a “''bona fide'' occupational requirement” (BFOR): see s 13(4). In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1724/index.do British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union]'', 1999 CanLII 652 (SCC) at para 54 [''Meiorin''], the Supreme Court of Canada established a three-part test for establishing a BFOR.
# The employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;
# The employer adopted the particular standard with an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and
# The standard is reasonably necessary to fulfil its purpose. The employer must show that it could not accommodate individual employees with the protected characteristic without experiencing undue hardship.

For a specific example of a BCHRT case that applies the BFOR test in a disability context, please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt196/2009bchrt196.html Kerr v Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd (No 4)]'', 2009 BCHRT 196 ["''Kerr''"].

'''Undue Hardship:''' What may be considered undue hardship varies by employer and depends on the circumstances. In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/910/index.do Central Okanagan School District No 23 v Renaud]'', 1992 CanLII 81 (SCC), the Supreme Court of Canada held that undue hardship is more than a minor inconvenience, and that actual interference with the employer’s business must be established. Factors the court may consider include the financial cost of accommodation, health and safety concerns, and the flexibility and size of the workplace.

The burden of proving undue hardship lies on the respondent and will require evidence that all reasonable accommodations, short of undue hardship, have been provided. For more information on the duty to accommodate, please see the BC Human Rights Clinic’s "Legal Information" [https://bchrc.net/legal-information/do-i-have-a-complaint page] and their [https://bchrc.net/tag/duty-to-accomodate blog].

'''Other Exemptions''': Distinctions based on age are not prohibited if they relate to a ''bona fide'' seniority scheme. Distinctions based on marital status, physical or mental disability, sex, or age are permitted under ''bona fide'' retirement, superannuation, or pension plans, and under ''bona fide'' insurance plans, including those which are self-funded by employers or provided by third parties (HRC, s 13(3)).

=== 7. Discrimination by Unions, Employer Organizations or Occupational Associations ===

Section 14 states that trade unions, employers’ organizations, and occupational associations may not deny membership to any person or discriminate against a person on the basis of Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, and/or unrelated criminal record. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt440/2006bchrt440.html De Lima v Empire Landmark Hotel and Major]'', 2006 BCHRT 440.

Since persons are not covered by section 14, protection against denial of membership has been held to apply only against an implicated union, organization, or association, and not against an individual. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2005/2005bchrt53/2005bchrt53.html Ratsoy v BC Teachers’ Federation]'', 2005 BCHRT 53 at para 23.
This differs from other protections granted by the HRC, which, in appropriate circumstances, generally allow an action to be brought against both an organization (e.g. an employer) and its individual members (e.g. a manager).

There are two limited ways in which unions can be held liable for discrimination. The first is by creating or participating in formulating a discriminatory workplace rule, and the second is by impeding an employer’s efforts to accommodate an employee (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt44/2018bchrt44.html Chestacow v Mount St Marie Hospital of Marie Esther Society]'', [2018] BCHRT No 44 at para 32 ["''Chestacow''"]). In respect of the latter, a union may be required to waive seniority rights or other collective agreement obligations to facilitate the accommodation of an employee with a protected characteristic, such as a disability.

===8. Retaliation===

Section 43 of the Code protects people from retaliation for filing a human rights complaint, or for indicating that they might file a human rights complaint. It also protects from retaliation anyone who assists, or who might assist, someone to make a complaint.

The test for retaliation is set out in [https://canlii.ca/t/hqtpj ''Gichuru v Pallai'', 2018] BCCA 78 at paras 50–58. To prove retaliation, a complaint must show:

a) The respondent was aware that the complainant had made or might make a complaint;

b) The respondent engaged in or threatened to engage in conduct described in s 43; and

c) There is sufficient connection between the impugned conduct and the previous complaint.

Sufficient connection may be established by proving that the respondent intended to retaliate, or by the tribunal drawing that inference when the respondent can reasonably have been perceived to have engaged in prohibited retaliatory conduct. This reasonable perception is assessed from the point of view of a reasonable complainant, apprised of the facts, at the time of the impugned conduct.

In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt5/2021bchrt5.html ''The Sales Associate v Aurora Biomed Inc. and others (No. 3)''], 2021 BCHRT 5, the Tribunal interpreted the meaning of the protection for someone who “might” make a complaint. The Tribunal concluded that the protection applies where the retaliator is aware that a person might pursue some legal recourse for discrimination. It is not necessary to prove that the retaliator was specifically aware of the possibility of a human rights complaint at the Human Rights Tribunal (see paras 151–163).

== C. Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination ==

=== 1. General ===

Prohibited grounds of discrimination include Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age (for those 19 and over), criminal record (that is not related to the employment, union, or occupational association), and lawful source of income (in tenancy only).

A complainant can file a complaint on a combination of grounds. A prohibited ground does not need to have been the sole or primary motivating factor behind the discrimination; it need only have been one contributing factor. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc39/2015scc39.html ''Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v Bombardier Inc (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center)''], 2015 SCC 39 at paras 45–52 [''Bombardier''].

Not all grounds of discrimination are protected in all the areas listed in each of the sections 7–14 of the HRC. The grounds of discrimination that apply depend on the protected area in question. One must first decide which section is involved and then check to see which grounds are associated with that section. Please refer to the following chart:.

{| class="wikitable"
! style="font-weight: bold;" | Protected Grounds
! colspan="7" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;" | Protected Areas
|-
|
| style="text-align: center;" | Written Publications
| style="text-align: center;" | Public Services &
Accommodation
| style="text-align: center;" | Purchase of
Property
| style="text-align: center;" | Tenancy
| style="text-align: center;" | Employment
Advertisements
| style="text-align: center;" | Employment
| style="text-align: center;" | Unions &
Associations
|-
| Indigenous Identity
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
|-
| Race
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
|-
| Colour
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
|-
| Ancestry
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
|-
| Place of Origin
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
|-
| Political Belief
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
|-
| Religion
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
|-
| Marital Status
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
|-
| Family Status
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
|-
| Physical or Mental
Disability
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
|-
| Sex
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
|-
| Sexual Orientation
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
|-
| Gender Identity or Expression ''(NEW)''
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
|-
| Age
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
|-
| Criminal or
Summary Conviction
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | v
|-
| Source of Income
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | v
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | x
| style="text-align: center;" | x
|}

To determine whether a violation of the HRC has occurred, consult the relevant section of the HRC and review recent case law. Case law can be found on the BC Human Rights Tribunal [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions website]), indexed by year, and is also available on [http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/ CanLII BC].

Discrimination need not be intentional (HRC, s 2). Any policy or action that has an adverse effect on a protected group and which cannot be justified will be considered discriminatory. The policy or act does not have to affect every person in the group for it to be considered discriminatory. For example, if a policy discriminates against only people who are pregnant it could still be considered sex discrimination. It is also possible that an act or policy may affect men as well as women, but affect one sex to a disproportionate degree, in which case it could also qualify as sex discrimination.

Discrimination can also be established on an intersectional basis. This means that the discriminatory conduct had an adverse impact on the basis of multiple protected grounds. These grounds occur simultaneously and cannot easily be separated from one another. It is not always necessary to establish that each individual ground has been discriminated against where intersectional discrimination can be established. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2005/2005bchrt302/2005bchrt302.html Radek v Henderson Development (Canada) Ltd]'', 2005 BCHRT 302 at paras 463–467.

=== 2. Indigenous Identity ===

Indigenous Identity refers to being First Nations, Métis, or Inuit. Indigenous Identity is a protected ground against discrimination in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

While there are few cases that feature the Tribunal considering Indigenous identity as its own distinct protected ground, there are many more that look at Indigenous identity as being a protected ground through race, ancestry, or place of origin. One such case is [https://canlii.ca/t/j5wnn ''Smith v Mohan (No. 2)''], 2020 BCHRT 52, where the complainant, an Indigenous woman and member of the Tsimshian and Haisla Nations, was discriminated against by her landlord, who continually tried to evict the complainant because she was smudging in her apartment unit. See also [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt275/2019bchrt275.html ''Campbell v Vancouver Police Board (No. 4)''], 2019 BCHRT 275, which involved a finding of discrimination by the Vancouver Police against an Indigenous mother.

=== 3. Race, Colour, Ancestry, and Place of Origin ===
The grounds of race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin are included in the HRC as a means to combat racism and racial discrimination. Each of these grounds are protected in the HRC and may be cited individually in connection with a discriminatory incident or grouped together to better illustrate a particular situation. For further information on how the above grounds interact, please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt3/2009bchrt3.html ''Torres v Langtry Industries Ltd''], 2009 BCHRT 3.

The grounds of race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin are protected in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

Discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, or place of origin can also be established where the respondent caused harm to the claimant by taking advantage of a vulnerability caused by the claimant's race, colour, ancestry, or place of origin. For more information, see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2015/2015bchrt60/2015bchrt60.html ''PN v FR and another (No 2)''], 2015 BCHRT 60.

For a recent case concerning discrimination on the basis of race in the employment context, please see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt136/2019bchrt136.html ''Francis v BC Ministry of Justice (No 3)''], 2019 BCHRT 136.

The Tribunal has recognized that racism can be subtle and is sensitive to this fact. Please refer to [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt60/2006bchrt60.html ''Mezghrani v Canada Youth Orange Network Inc''], 2006 BCHRT 60 at para 28.

The Tribunal has acknowledged that while anti-Black racism exists in Canada and continues to create impediments to the full and free participation of Black Canadians in the economic, social, political and cultural life of BC, there is a lack of cases dealing with anti-Black racism at the Tribunal level. Given that anti-Black racism is a “distinct form of racism,” the lack of these types of cases has been a factor that supports a complaint being accepted despite being filed late; please refer to [https://canlii.ca/t/jllhh ''Umolo v Shoppers Drug Mart and others''], 2021 BCHRT 166 at para 35.

=== 4. Political Belief ===

The HRC provides protection from discrimination due to political beliefs and/or affiliations only in the protected areas of employment advertising, employment, and membership in a trade union, employer’s organization, or occupational association (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

In BC, few human rights cases have been decided on the ground of political belief. The Tribunal has, however, identified two key principles in determining whether a claimant’s belief should be protected under the HRC:

#Political belief is to be given a liberal definition; it is not confined to partisan political beliefs. Hence, political beliefs are not limited to beliefs about recognized or registered political parties.
#Political belief is not unlimited; for example, views about matters such as business or human resources decisions an employer may make do not come within its ambit.

Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt462/2006bchrt462.html Prokopetz and Talkkari v Burnaby Firefighters’ Union and City of Burnaby]'', 2006 BCHRT 462 at para 31 and [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2016/2016bchrt124/2016bchrt124.html ''Fraser v British Columbia (Ministry of Forests)''], 2016 BCHRT 124.

See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2016/2016bchrt50/2016bchrt50.html Bratzer v Victoria Police Department]'', [2016] BCHRT No 50 for a unique example of how political belief can be framed. In this case, an officer of the Victoria Police Department successfully argued that his stance against the criminalization of illicit drugs and his involvement in a not-for profit that advocates for such views amounted to a political belief.

In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2012/2012bchrt389/2012bchrt389.html Wali v Jace Holdings]'', 2012 BCHRT 389 at para 117, the Tribunal determined that comments regarding matters affecting the regulation of a profession could constitute a political belief. This was narrowed to the particular legislative framework and mandate of the College of Pharmacists. The Tribunal took into account that the issue was a legislative initiative involving public welfare and was being debated in the community of pharmacists in determining that the belief was a protected political belief.

=== 5. Religion ===
Religious discrimination cases have helped to define several of the fundamental ideas and standards that comprise human rights law in Canada. Matters before the courts have routinely addressed discriminatory incidents concerning religious faith, beliefs, customs, and practices. The HRC protects against discrimination based on religion in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

As is the case in the ''Charter'' section 2(a) case law on freedom of conscience and religion, a claimant before the Tribunal must show that their religious belief or practice is sincere, but is not required to show that it is objectively required or recognized by a particular religious faith. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt1/2009bchrt1.html Friesen v Fisher Bay Seafood Limited]'', 2009 BCHRT 1, at para 57.

Atheism is encompassed within the protected ground of religion: ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt281/2018bchrt281.html Mangel and Yasué obo Child A v. Bowen Island Montessori School and others]'', 2018 BCHRT 281 at para 210.

The duty to accommodate obliges employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees so long as doing so does not cause undue hardship. Practices requiring accommodation may be linked to customs involving prayer, dietary restrictions, clothing requirements, or time off on religious holy days. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii81/1992canlii81.html Renaud v Central Okanagan School District No 23]'', [1992] 2 SCR 970 at 982.

=== 6. Family Status and Marital Status ===

Family status generally refers to parent-child relationships, but can and does encompass other family relationships including those between siblings, in-laws, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, and cousins. For case law on the definition of family status and the test for discrimination on that basis see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt34/2009bchrt34.html Miller v British Columbia Teachers’ Federation]'', 2009 BCHRT 34 at para 17.

Marital status normally refers to couples with a spouse-like relationship. The HRC extends protection to all individuals regardless of their status (i.e. married, common-law, single, separated, divorced or widowed). Issues involving family and marital status may often overlap and may be cited concurrently to fully illustrate a certain situation.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on marital and family status in all the areas protected under the HRC, with the exception that family status is not protected in the area of purchase of property (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General'''). This means adult-only buildings and strata corporations are permitted.

Protections from discrimination on the basis of marital and family status also confer protection on the basis of the identity of the complainant’s spouse or family member: ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc66/2002scc66.html B v Ontario (Human Rights Commission)]'', 2002 SCC 66.

The ground of family status also protects people from discrimination in respect of their childcare, and possibly other family care obligations. The law regarding the test that applies in the context of family status discrimination cases involving childcare obligations is unsettled in Canada.

In BC, the test for family status discrimination in employment was most recently considered in [https://canlii.ca/t/jwss3 British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) v Gibraltar Mines Ltd.,] 2023 BCCA 168. The BC Court of Appeal held that to establish discrimination based on family status, the complainant must show that a term or condition of employment results in a serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty or obligation of an employee. This protection applies equally when the interference is a consequence of a change in the term of employment, or a change in the employee’s circumstances (see para 77).

The Federal Court of Appeal set out its own four-part test for family status discrimination in federal cases in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2014/2014fca110/2014fca110.html Canada (Attorney General) v Johnstone]'', 2014 FCA 110 at para 93 ["''Johnstone''"]. Under ''Johnstone'', a complainant must show that a child is under their care and supervision, the issue engages the individual’s legal responsibility for that child as opposed to a personal choice, they have made reasonable efforts to find alternative solutions with no reasonable alternative solution is available, and the impugned workplace rule interferes with the childcare obligation in a more than trivial or insubstantial way.

=== 7. Physical or Mental Disability ===

Disability is not defined in the HRC. However, the concept of physical disability, for human rights purposes, generally indicates a “physiological state that is involuntary, has some degree of permanence, and impairs the person’s ability, in some measure, to carry out the normal functions of life” (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1994/1994canlii18445/1994canlii18445.html Boyce v New Westminister (City)]'', 1994 CanLII 18445 (BC HRT) at para 50 [''Boyce'']).

More recent cases have confirmed that a disability must have a certain level of severity, permanence or persistence: see e.g., ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2014/2014bchrt270/2014bchrt270.html Li v Aluma Systems and another]'', 2014 BCHRT 270 at para 41. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt14/2003bchrt14.html Morris v BC Rail]'', 2003 BCHRT 14 at para 214 ["''Morris''"], the Tribunal set out the following three considerations for assessing whether an individual has a physical or mental disability:

#[T]he individual’s physical or mental impairment, if any;
#[T]he functional limitations, if any, which result from that impairment; and
#[T]he social, legislative or other response to that impairment and/or limitations… assessed in light of the concepts of human dignity, respect and the right to equality.

Furthermore, according to ''Morris'' at para 207, proof of impairment and/or limitation, while relevant, will not be required in all cases. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2013/2013bchrt40/2013bchrt40.html McGowan v Pretty Estates]'', 2013 BCHRT 40 at paras 26-28 for more information.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on physical or mental disability in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

The protection of the HRC extends to those who are perceived to have a disability or to be at risk of becoming disabled in the future. As such, the Tribunal has rejected the application of strict criteria to determine what constitutes a physical or mental disability. For example, protection has been specifically applied to persons with AIDS, persons who are HIV positive, and persons believed to be HIV positive. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2005/2005bchrt177/2005bchrt177.html McDonald v Schuster Real Estate]'', 2005 BCHRT 177 at para 24 and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1999/1999canlii35199/1999canlii35199.html J v London Life Insurance Co]'' (1999), 36 CHRR D/43 at para 42 ["''London Life Insurance''"].

As noted above, protection from discrimination due to physical disability extends to discrimination on the basis of a perceived propensity to become disabled in the future. In ''London Life Insurance'' at para 46, the Tribunal found that the HRC prohibited discrimination against a person based on the fact that his spouse was HIV positive. Protection under this ground has also been extended to those who are suffering from addictions issues. For example, ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1995/1995canlii18183/1995canlii18183.html Handfield v North Thompson School District No 26]'', 1995 CanLII 18183 (BC HRT) at paras 139–143 recognized alcoholism as both a physical and mental disability.

Where a behaviour or policy adversely affects a protected group or person, either directly or indirectly due to their disability (or any other protected characteristic), there is a duty to accommodate, meaning that all reasonable efforts must be taken to accommodate the group or person up to the point of undue hardship. Examples include installing wheelchair access (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt174/2018bchrt174.html Walsh v Pink]'', 2018 BCHRT 174 at paras 104-111) or safety handrails (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt62/2006bchrt62.html Ferguson v Kimpton]'', 2006 BCHRT 62 at para 68). The duty to accommodate may also include allowing workers to return gradually to the workplace after an injury or serious illness.

=== 8. Sexual Orientation ===

The HRC prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Such discrimination does not require a complainant to prove their sexual orientation nor that a given respondent believed them to have a particular orientation. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2005/2005bcca201/2005bcca201.html School District No 44 (North Vancouver) v Jubran]'', 2005 BCCA 201, Mr. Jubran was a high school student, subjected to homophobic insults and harassment from other students. This conduct was found to constitute discrimination, even though Mr. Jubran did not identify as homosexual and his harassers denied believing that they in fact thought he was homosexual.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

For a case regarding discrimination on this basis against patrons of a restaurant in the context of services customarily available to the public, please see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt101/2011bchrt101.html Pardy v. Earle and others (No. 4)''], 2011 BCHRT 101.

=== 9. Sex (Including Sexual Harassment, Pregnancy) ===
Discrimination on the basis of sex, which is prohibited under the HRC, includes sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is defined as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that detrimentally affects a work environment or leads to adverse job-related consequences for the victims of the harassment” (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii97/1989canlii97.html Janzen v Platy Enterprises Ltd]'', 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1252 at 1284 [''Janzen'']).

The HRC protects against discrimination based on sex in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2015/2015bchrt60/2015bchrt60.html PN v FR and another (No 2)]'', 2015 BCHRT 60, the HRT awarded $50,000 for injury to dignity to a domestic foreign worker who was sexually harassed and assaulted. This is among the highest injury to dignity award the Tribunal has ever ordered. This case also involved allegations of discrimination based on family status, race, age, colour, and place of origin.

Sexual harassment can take a number of forms. One example is when an employer or a supervisory employee requires another employee to submit to sexual advances as a condition of obtaining or keeping employment or employment-related benefits. It may also occur when employees are forced to work in an environment that is hostile, offensive, or intimidating, such as where an employer allows pornography to be posted in the workplace.

It is not generally necessary for an employee to make an internal complaint to their employer before filing a complaint, although this may be relevant to the compensation the employer is ordered to pay if the complaint is successful. There is also no requirement of continuing harassment; a single incident may be sufficient if it is sufficiently egregious.

Whether the conduct was “unwelcome” is assessed on an objective standard: would a reasonable person have known that the conduct was unwelcome? If the respondent knew or ought to have known that the conduct was unwelcome, this part of the test is made out. A target of harassment is not required to expressly object to the conduct for it to be reasonably understood to be unwelcome. The law recognizes that a person's behaviour “may be tolerated and yet unwelcome at the same time” (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1999/1999bchrt56/1999bchrt56.html Mahmoodi v University of British Columbia and Dutton]'', 1999 BCHRT 56 at para 140).

It must also be shown that the alleged discriminatory conduct is “reasonably perceived to create a negative psychological and emotional environment for work” (''Janzen'' at 1263). The test must also account for the customary boundaries of social interaction in the circumstances. Factors that are examined to determine the limits of reasonableness in a particular context include the nature of the conduct, the workplace environment, the type of prior personal interaction, and whether a prior objection or complaint was made. However, it is no defence to harassment, to show that harassing behaviour was traditionally tolerated in a workplace.

For a more recent case involving discrimination on the basis of sex, and more specifically sexual harassment in the employment context, see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt97/2019bchrt97.html Araniva v RSY Contracting and another (No. 3)]'', 2019 BCHRT 97.

There are also examples of cases involving sex discrimination that did not amount to sexual harassment. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2004/2004bchrt76/2004bchrt76.html Mottu v MacLeod]'', 2004 BCHRT 76 at para 41, where the Tribunal found that dress code requirements based on sex could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2004/2004bchrt26/2004bchrt26.html ''Lund v Vernon Women’s Transition House Society''], 2004 BCHRT 26, the Tribunal found that an employer’s refusal to allow a female employee to breastfeed her child at work could also constitute sex discrimination. See also ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt5/2021bchrt5.html The Sales Associate v Aurora Biomed Inc. and others (No. 3)]'', 2021 BCHRT 5.

=== 10. Gender Identity or Expression ===

This protected ground has been in force since 2016, and therefore fewer decisions relating to this ground are currently available. For a recent Tribunal decision issued under the ground of gender identity or expression, please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt58/2019bchrt58.html Oger v Whatcott (No 7)]'', 2019 BCHRT 58.

The HRC protects against discrimination based on gender identity or expression in all the areas protected under the HRC (See the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

Please also see [https://canlii.ca/t/hvlwz ''Li v Mr B''], 2018 BCHRT 228, where the respondent, the complainant’s landlord, showed a photograph of the complainant (who was male identifying) in a dress to the complainant’s supervisor in an attempt to cause an adverse effect on the complainant’s employment. The HRT found that this constituted discrimination based on gender identity and expression.

For a case involving a nonbinary person whose coworker refused to use they/them pronouns to refer to them, please see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt137/2021bchrt137.html Nelson v Goodberry Restaurant Group Ltd. dba Buono Osteria and others]'', 2021 BCHRT 137.

Prior to the inclusion of gender identity or expression in 2016, the Tribunal had found that being transgender was a protected characteristic under the ground of sex. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2015/2015bchrt54/2015bchrt54.html Dawson v Vancouver Police Board (No 2)]'', 2015 BCHRT 54 ["''Dawson''"]. ''Dawson'' establishes that misgendering trans individuals (addressing a trans person using a pronoun, name, or gender marker other than that which the trans person uses to identify themselves) constitutes discrimination. Discrimination may also include the denial of trans-specific medical services (''Dawson'').

=== 11. Age (19+) ===

11. Age (19+)
Age can refer to an individual’s legal age, membership in a specific age-category, or a generalized characterization of a specific age. The HRC protects against discrimination based on age in all the areas protected under the HRC except the purchase of property (see the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General'''). Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt219/2006bchrt219.html Miu v Vanart Aluminum and Tam]'', 2006 BCHRT 219 at para 18.

Age protection is restricted to those 19 years of age and over. However, those under 19 years can still bring complaints to the BCHRT based on grounds other than age.

=== 12. Unrelated Criminal or Summary Conviction ===

BC’s HRC protects individuals against discrimination based on a criminal or summary conviction only in the areas of employment, trade unions, employers’ associations and occupational associations, so long as the conviction is unrelated to the employment or the intended employment of the individual (see the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General''').

This protection includes a perceived conviction (i.e., relating to arrests, stayed charges or acquittals). Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt43/2011bchrt43.html Purewall v ICBC]'', 2011 BCHRT 43 at para 21; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2006/2006bchrt411/2006bchrt411.html Clement v Jackson and Abdulla]'', 2006 BCHRT 411 at para 14; and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1997/1997canlii24841/1997canlii24841.html Korthe v Hillstrom Oil Company Ltd]'', 1997 CanLII 24841 (BC HRT) at paras 23–28.

To establish whether or not a conviction may affect an employment decision, the Tribunal makes an assessment of the relationship between the conviction and the job description. As such, employers must take into account the circumstances of the conviction in order to determine whether or not the charge relates to individual’s employment. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1983/1983canlii444/1983canlii444.html Woodward Stores (British Columbia) v McCartney]'', 1983 CanLII 444 (BCSC) at paras 7–9, Justice MacDonald laid out a list of criteria to be considered in making this determination. These criteria are as follows:

* Does the behaviour which formed the basis of the charge, if repeated, compromise the employers’ ability to conduct business safely and effectively?
* What were the circumstances and details of the offence, e.g., what was the person’s age at the time of the offence and were there any extenuating factors?
* How much time has passed since the charge? What has the individual done since that time and has there been any indication of recidivism? Has there been evidence of the individual’s desire for rehabilitation?

=== 13. Lawful Source of Income ===

Lawful source of income is only a protected ground in the area of tenancy (see the chart above in '''Subsection 1: General'''). The HRC protects the rights of individuals on social assistance or disability pensions, for example, who might otherwise be denied housing from being discriminated against in tenancy situations.

Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt36/2003bchrt36.html Tanner v Vlake]'', 2003 BCHRT 36 at paras 22–26 for further discussion on this protected ground. For a more recent case, please see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2012/2012bchrt49/2012bchrt49.html ''Day v Kumar and another (No 3)''], 2012 BCHRT 49.

== D. Procedural Options for Employees ==

An employee who is dealing with an employment-related legal issue may have more than one procedural option to choose from. These include:

=== 1. Employer’s Internal Complaint Procedure ===

Assuming one exists, this is the most immediate way to obtain a resolution to a workplace issue. Consult the workplace’s policies to determine whether an internal complaints process exists and, if so, whether it is likely to yield a helpful resolution of the issue. Note that employees are not required to make use of internal procedures before filing a human rights complaint or other legal proceeding.

=== 2. Grievance and Arbitration (Union) ===

Unionized workers are entitled to representation by their union. Labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the HRC, and grievances often move more quickly than human rights complaints. However, if the union does not pursue a grievance relating to a human rights issue, the worker may wish to file their own human rights complaint and may even decide to name the union as a party if the worker has grounds to believe the union is complicit in the alleged discrimination. Alleging that the union has failed to provide adequate representation will not be sufficient to qualify as a breach of the HRC on its own; the union must have engaged in the discrimination.

As previously stated (see '''Section III.B.7''': Discrimination by Unions, Employer Organizations, or Occupational Associations), there are two ways in which a union may be found liable for discrimination. First by creating or participating in formulating a discriminatory workplace rule, and second by impeding an employer’s efforts to accommodate a disabled employee (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt44/2018bchrt44.html Chestacow]'' at para 32).

Initiating the grievance procedure can be a good starting point, and can be followed by initiating a human rights complaint. A grievance and a human rights complaint can also be filed in tandem. If the matter is not resolved during the initial stages of the union grievance procedure, an arbitration hearing may be held, and an arbitrator will determine liability and relief. The human rights complaint may be placed in deferral while the grievance process proceeds. If the grievance process resolves the worker’s human rights issue, the human rights complaint will be dismissed. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2019/2019bcca241/2019bcca241.html Sebastian v Vancouver Coastal Health Authority]'', 2019 BCCA 241 for some of the risks of parallel proceedings in this context.

=== 3. Human Rights Complaint ===

Another option is to file a human rights complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal (see above for the grounds, areas, exemptions, complaint process, etc.) or, under federal jurisdiction with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (see below for the grounds, areas, exemptions, process, etc). The Tribunal can award lost wages, expenses, and damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. However, if a claimant is also seeking severance pay, lost wages, or expenses in a civil suit, they will not be allowed to recover the same damages from both proceedings.

=== 4. Employment Standards Branch ===

Employees may choose to file a complaint through the Employment Standards Branch (ESB) if their employer has breached the ''Employment Standards Act'' (see [[Introduction_to_Employment_Law_(9:I)|Chapter 9: Employment Law]]). There is a '''six-month limitation period''' from the date of the breach. A complainant can file claims in both the ESB and civil court (either Small Claims or Supreme Court) for employment-related issues, including wrongful dismissal. These actions do not bar the complainant from also bringing a human rights complaint relating to the same matter. Remedies awarded by the Employment Standards Tribunal are intended to make the employee “whole” financially by way of compensation rather than reinstatement. It is important to note that the ESB does not deal with alleged discrimination. If the employee recovers unpaid wages through the ESB, they cannot “double-recover” and seek those same damages in the BCHRT or another forum.

=== 5. Civil Action ===

A final option is to bring a civil action for wrongful dismissal either in Small Claims Court (see [[Introduction_to_Small_Claims_(20:I)|Chapter 20: Small Claims]] of the LSLAP Manual) or the BC Supreme Court, depending on the amounts claimed. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the common law will not provide a remedy for discrimination per se in the employment context. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc39/2008scc39.html Keays v Honda Canada Inc]'', 2008 SCC 39 at para 67 [''Keays''].

The court in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc39/2008scc39.html Keays]'' held that breaches of the HRC must be remedied within the statutory scheme of the HRC itself. Thus, even if the reason for dismissal was discriminatory, in a civil action, the claimant will generally only be able to recover damages based on their wrongful dismissal and/or inadequate notice (severance pay). See [[Introduction_to_Employment_Law_(9:I)|Chapter 9: Employment Law]] of the LSLAP Manual. Accordingly, compensation for the discrimination itself must be awarded by the Tribunal.

The court may further compensate the claimant in a civil action if the employer has acted unfairly or in bad faith when dismissing an employee. The basis for these additional damages is a breach of the implied term of an employment contract that employers will act in good faith in the manner of dismissal (i.e. payment for such damages can be deemed to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the formation of the contract). In Keays, the Supreme Court of Canada held that any such additional award must be compensatory and must be based on the actual loss or damage suffered by the employee, which can include expenses related to mental distress stemming from the manner of dismissal. Compensable conduct might include, but is not limited to, attacking the employee's reputation at the time of dismissal, misrepresentations regarding the reason for the dismissal, or dismissal meant to deprive the employee of a pension benefit or other right such as permanent resident status. However, normal distress and hurt feelings arising from the dismissal itself are not grounds for additional damages.

The courts are even more conservative in their approach to awarding punitive damages meant to punish the employer for their conduct in dismissal. Punitive damages will only be awarded if the employer’s conduct was harsh, vindictive, reprehensible, malicious, and extreme in nature. Thus, if the claimant is primarily concerned with being compensated for injuries to their dignity and/or denouncing their employer’s discriminatory behaviour, they should file a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal alongside a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

Whatever procedural route an employee ultimately chooses to pursue, if said employee is experiencing on-going harassment on a prohibited ground of discrimination, they should maintain records or a journal with dates, times, places, witnesses, details of particular incidents, and even a description of the emotional effects of the harassment.

== E. The Process for Human Rights Complaints ==

The BC Human Rights Tribunal handles complaints made under the HRC. The following chart depicts the process of a complaint at the Tribunal and the time in between the various stages of the process (prepared by the BC Human Rights Clinic, a program of the Community Legal Assistance Society [“CLAS”]):

The first step in filing a complaint with the Tribunal is to fill out a Complaint Form, which is available at the Tribunal's office, on its [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca website] or from other local government offices. It is also possible to file the complaint online on the Tribunal's website. There are helpful self-help guides to filling out Complaint and Response forms on the Tribunal’s website. You should also consult the [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/rules/index.htm Tribunal’s Rules of Practice] and [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/practice-directions/index.htm Procedure and Practice Directions] for guidance on the various steps in the process.

=== 1. Who Can File a Complaint? ===

A complaint may be made by an individual, on behalf of a group or class, or by someone acting as a representative of the named person(s). If the Complaint Form is being filled out on behalf of another person, group, or class of persons, then a secondary form called the Representative Complaint Form must also be filled out and must accompany the Complaint Form when sent to the Tribunal. The person filling out the Complaint Form is called the complainant. The person or organization whom the complaint is against is called the respondent.

[[File:BCHRC Updated HRT Complaint Process Diagram.png|Image Provided by BCHRC]]

=== 2. How to File a Complaint ===

The Complaint Form can be filed with the Tribunal via mail or fax. The Complaint Form can also be filled out and submitted online from a computer or a mobile device. Alternatively, the Complaint Form can be submitted to the Tribunal by email. Complainants may access the Complaint Form and other valuable resources at the BC Human Rights Tribunal website (see '''Section II.B: Resources'''). There are different Complaint Forms depending on whether the complaint is being made by an individual ([https://intake.bchrt.bc.ca/hrt/hrt Form 1.1]) or a group ([https://intake.bchrt.bc.ca/hrt/hrt-group Form 1.3]). If you are filling out a Complaint Form on behalf of someone else, then the appropriate form is [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/forms/form_1_2_print.pdf Form 1.2].

The party filing the complaint should be aware of the time limits. There is a '''one-year''' limitation period. Complaints alleging continuing contraventions of the Code may be accepted as long as at least one incident of alleged discrimination occurred within the one-year limitation period: see '''Code''' s 22(2).

Late-filed complaints may be accepted if it is in the public interest to do so, under certain very limited circumstances, as per s 22(3) of the Code. In order for a member of the Tribunal to accept all or part of the complaint under s 22(3), the Tribunal must determine that a) it is in the public interest to accept the complaint, and b) no substantial prejudice will result to any person because of the delay. The Tribunal’s assessment of what is in the public interest depends on a contextual consideration of a number of factors including: the complainant’s interest in accessing the Tribunal, the length and reason for the delay in filing, whether the complainant had access to legal advice, and the novelty or importance of the human rights issues raised: [https://canlii.ca/t/g7c2b ''British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v Mzite''], 2014 BCCA 220 at paras 53–81. The Tribunal also considers “the respondent’s interest in going about its activities without the worry of stale complaints”: [https://canlii.ca/t/h03rl ''Hoang v Warnaco and Johns''], 2007 BCHRT 24 at para 26. This list of factors is not exhaustive.

The BC Court of Appeal has found it to be within the public interest to accept a complaint that was filed late if the complainant was operating off erroneous legal advice regarding the one-year limitation date: [https://canlii.ca/t/jbtjn ''The Parent obo the Child v The School District''], 2020 BCCA 333. The Tribunal has also found that it can be in the public interest to accept late complaints where the delay is due to a disabling condition: [https://canlii.ca/t/g8blz ''Naziel-Wilson v Providence Health Care and another''], 2014 BCHRT 170 at para 21. See also [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2023/2023bchrt40/2023bchrt40.html ''Sheriff v Fairleigh Dickenson University''], 2023 BCHRT 40 at para 38, where the Tribunal discussed the impact of trauma on a person’s ability to file a complaint within the one-year time limit.

The BC Human Rights Tribunal has been severely backlogged over the last couple of years. Potential complainants should be aware that it often takes a year or more for a case to be initially screened and accepted for filing. The Tribunal has developed a strategy to address its backlog, which it introduced on December 15, 2023, and most recently updated on March 7, 2025. For more information, see the announcement [https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/message-from-the-chair-about-the-tribunals-backlog-strategy/ here].

=== 3. Urgent Complaints ("Fast-Track") ===
If the complaint is urgent, a complainant may request a fast-track process. To be eligible for a fast track, you must show that fast tracking or changing the process will help get to a “just and timely resolution” of the complaint.

The complainant may want to fast-track the process if the complainant risks losing the appropriate remedy if urgent action is not taken by the HRT (for example, the complaint is about an eviction notice and the complainant will have to move out in 30 days, without a fast-tracked solution). A party may also wish to fast-track the process if they are at risk of losing the chance to prove their case (for example, the respondent’s main witness is moving out of Canada soon). For more information on the fast track process, please refer to the BCHRT [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/guides-info-sheets/general-apps/16.htm website].

=== 4. Screening ===

Once the Complaint Form is filed, the Tribunal will review the form to determine if it fits under the HRC and if it appears to meet the '''one-year''' limitation period. If the Tribunal believes that it may not have the power to deal with the complaint in substance or believes that the complaint has been filed out of time, the complainant will generally be given a chance to respond before the Tribunal decides whether to proceed with the complaint. If the Tribunal believes it can proceed, it will send the Complaint Form to the respondent for a response to the complaint.

A complainant '''must''' set out a case of discrimination under the HRC on their initial complaint form. If the elements are not set out, then the Tribunal may not accept the complaint. Even if accepted, it could still be vulnerable later to an application to dismiss under section 27 of the HRC.

In order to set out the complainant’s case, the complainant must allege facts that, on their face (that is to say, assuming they are all true), satisfy the following three elements:

#That they have a characteristic that is protected under the HRC;
#That they experienced an adverse impact with respect to an area protected by the HRC; and
#That their protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact they experienced.

A complainant need not establish that their protected characteristic was the sole or primary reason for their adverse treatment. It is sufficient to establish that it was one reason for their adverse treatment. For greater analysis of this topic please refer to ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15471/index.do Bombardier]'' and ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12680/index.do Moore]''.

A complainant is not required to provide evidence at the time they file their complaint. The complaint form simply needs to tell the story, identify all of the allegations of discriminatory treatment, and satisfy the three criteria set out above.

=== 5. Disclosure Obligations ===

Disclosure refers to the sharing of information with the other parties. In order for all parties to prepare for their case it is essential that information is properly shared. Information that must be disclosed includes:

#All documents relevant to the complaint, response, as well as the remedy being requested (this must be disclosed after a complaint is filed);
#A list of witnesses (this must be disclosed after a hearing is scheduled);
#A detailed explanation of the remedy (for the complainant), or a response to the proposed remedy (for the respondent); and
#Any expert evidence or opinion (must be presented to the other party within 90 days of the hearing).

Evidence that has not been disclosed cannot be presented at a hearing. An attempt to do so may negatively affect a party’s case and may even lead to an order for costs by the Tribunal. A failure to disclose can also simply prevent a complaint from going forward, or prevent a respondent from filing an application to dismiss.

=== 6. Settlement Meeting ===

'''Parties may agree to a settlement meeting at any time after the complaint has been filed.''' The Tribunal schedules an Early Settlement Meeting after accepting the complaint for filing, which the parties can opt out of if they choose. Most human rights complaints settle, either through a settlement meeting or direct negotiations between the parties or their counsel. Guides for settlement meetings and hearings are available from the Tribunal on its [https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/ website].

At the settlement meeting, a neutral and impartial mediator who is knowledgeable in human rights law will work with the parties in order to help them try to reach an agreement. Generally, a settlement will require both sides to compromise, whether that is a complainant accepting less compensation than they initially sought, or a respondent accepting some measure of responsibility. In a settlement meeting, it is important to listen to the other side’s perspective, assess how it impacts the strength of your case, and remain open-minded regarding the remedy you are prepared to accept to resolve the complaint.

Additionally, settlements can allow for creativity in determining a resolution. While the Tribunal may be limited in its ability to address the damages, mediation can result in constructive results such as public apologies or a practical solution to the issue at hand.

This process also allows for a quicker resolution of the issue in a more informal setting, where information is kept confidential. Negotiations are without prejudice, meaning they cannot be used in future hearings, and the mediator involved will not be a part of the final hearing. The process is voluntary and the Tribunal cannot force the parties to participate in mediation or enter into a settlement agreement. If the parties do voluntarily agree to settle their dispute, as part of the terms of settlement, the complainant will file a Complaint Withdrawal Form ([http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/e-forms/form_6_electronic.pdf Form 6]). A settlement agreement is a legally binding agreement, and if one side does not comply with its terms, the other party can take to steps to enforce it.

If both parties cannot agree on a resolution, the mediation will end with no settlement agreement.

=== 7. Covid-19 and Mask Wearing Complaints ===
Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the Tribunal developed a new process for processing complaints about mask wearing in the BCHRT. For complaints filed after March 31, 2022, the HRT will dismiss any complaint that does not include the criteria set out in the [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/practice-directions/mask-wearing-complaints.htm Practice Direction]. This criteria requires complainants to demonstrate that their protected personal characteristic, if that is a physical disability, actually inhibits the wearing of a mask. If the complainant does not provide this information in their Complaint Form then their complaint will be dismissed without an opportunity to provide more information.

== F. Remedies ==

Remedies should be considered early when deciding whether or not to pursue a claim in any administrative tribunal. Available remedies for a justified complaint are listed in section 37(2) of the HRC.

'''Non-pecuniary (not financial) remedies include:'''
*An order that the respondent cease the discriminatory conduct,
*A declaratory order that the conduct complained of is, in fact, discriminatory, and
*An order that the respondent take steps to ameliorate the effects of the discrimination, such as the implementation of human rights policy and training.
People seeking advice on drafting should be directed to the BC Human Rights Tribunal website, which provides detailed information on the availability and applicability of specific remedies (see [[Governing_Legislation_and_Resources_for_Human_Rights_(6:II)|Section II.B: Resources]]).

'''Pecuniary (financial) remedies include:'''
*Compensation for lost wages/salary,
*Expenses incurred due to the discrimination,
*Reinstatement of a lost benefit, and
*Compensation for injury to dignity.
Unlike severance pay, compensation for lost wages is not based on the concept of reasonable notice. A successful claimant may recover lost wages for the entire period between their dismissal and the hearing date if they can show that they have been making reasonable efforts to find new employment.

The purpose of an award for injury to dignity is to compensate a person whose rights under the ''Code'' have been violated. It is not to punish a respondent. Damages awarded for injury to dignity have increased over the last decade, and the tribunal has made it clear that the trend for such damages is upwards (see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt174/2018bchrt174.html Biggings obo Walsh v Pink and others]'', 2018 BCHRT 174 [''Walsh'']). Currently the highest award in BC is $176,000 (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2021/2021bchrt16/2021bchrt16.html Francis v BC Ministry of Justice (No. 5)]'', 2021 BCHRT 16). Historically, however, most damages in this category are under $10,000.

The BC Human Rights Clinic has a compiled list of awards given by the HRT, sorted by ground, updated quarterly and available [https://bchrc.net/legal-information/remedies here].

The Tribunal generally considers three broad factors in determining injury to dignity awards: the nature of the violation, the complainant’s vulnerability and social context, and the effect of the discrimination on the complainant (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt185/2011bchrt185.html Gichuru v The Law Society of British Columbia (No. 9)]'', 2011 BCHRT 185 at para 260, upheld in 2014 BCCA 396). Importantly, while injury to dignity awards commonly follow in cases where discrimination is established, this is not guaranteed, as seen in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2012/2012bchrt28/2012bchrt28.html Holt v Coast Mountain Bus Company]'', 2012 BCHRT 28 at para 233. For further information regarding compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, please visit the BC Human Rights Clinic's [https://bchrc.net/the-trend-is-upwards-recent-injury-to-dignity-awards website].

Remember, to claim any type of damage, the complainant must lead evidence. If the complainant fails to lead evidence as to the effect the discrimination had on their emotional state and dignity, this may impact the Tribunal’s assessment of damages. Furthermore, if the respondent can prove that the complainant has failed to mitigate their losses, a complainant may not be entitled to wage loss compensation.

The Tribunal may not award damages for lost wages/salary following a discriminatory dismissal during a period for which the claimant was medically incapable of working (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2008/2008bchrt376/2008bchrt376.html Senyk v WFG Agency Network (No 2)]'', 2008 BCHRT 376 at para 434). This is because, even absent the discrimination, the claimant would not have been able to earn wages or a salary (but see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt238/2018bchrt238.html Eva obo others v Spruce Hill Resort and another]'', 2018 BCHRT 238 at para 214).

There is no maximum limit on damage awards. However, if a claimant seeks a remedy at both the Human Rights Tribunal (e.g. for lost wages) and in civil court or another dispute resolution forum (e.g. for severance pay), and is successful with both proceedings, they are not entitled to double recovery and will receive the amount through only one of the proceedings. There are several cases where the award for loss of wages was in the range of $300,000. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt196/2009bchrt196.html Kerr]''.

Additionally, section 37(2) gives the Tribunal the power to award compensation for expenses incurred due to the discrimination found, which may include expenses such as counselling fees incurred because of the discrimination, or expenses incurred to attend a hearing. Legal expenses incurred after the filing of a complaint are not compensable, though legal expenses incurred prior to the filing of a complaint may be. See [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2019/2019bchrt195/2019bchrt195.html ''Fraser v BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (No. 6)''], 2019 BCHRT 195 at para 16.

A final order of the Tribunal may be registered in the BC Supreme Court so that it is enforceable as though it were an order of the court. No appeal procedure is provided for in the HRC; individuals dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision must seek judicial review in BC Supreme Court pursuant to the [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96241_01 ''Judicial Review Procedure Act''], RSBC 1996, c 241 (see [[Introduction_to_Public_Complaints_Procedures_(5:I)|Chapter 5: Public Complaint Procedures]] of the LSLAP Manual).

== G. Costs ==

The general rule is that costs will not normally be awarded in a human rights case. Pursuant to section 37(4) of the HRC, the purpose of awarding costs is to penalize a party who acts improperly during the course of the complaint, thereby interfering with the objectives of the Tribunal. In these cases, costs are awarded punitively and do not necessarily reflect the actual expenses incurred by the other party due to the improper conduct.

== H. Dismissal of a Complaint Without a Hearing ==

As mentioned above, the Tribunal may refuse to accept a complaint for filing if it does not have jurisdiction due to the nature of the complaint or if it is filed late. Once a complaint has been filed, however, the Tribunal may nevertheless dismiss it prior to a hearing, on application from the respondent or on its own motion, for a variety of reasons ([https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96210_01#section27 HRC, s 27]). The following outlines some of the reasons why the Tribunal may dismiss a filed complaint (check the HRC for a complete list):

=== 1. Complaint Outside the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction ===
The Tribunal will not proceed with a complaint where it is persuaded that the complaint is not, in fact, based on a form of discrimination enumerated by the HRC, or that the complaint falls within federal jurisdiction. Even if the Tribunal accepts a complaint for filing, the respondent may still have the option to dispute jurisdiction.

=== 2. Substance of Complaint Dealt with by Another Proceeding ===
Where another proceeding, such as a labour arbitration, has adequately resolved the substance of a complaint, it will usually be dismissed. A complaint may also be deferred if such an alternative proceeding is pending. The number of other proceedings capable of adequately dealing with a human rights complaint is however, quite limited.

=== 3. No Reasonable Basis for Holding a Hearing ===
The Tribunal may dismiss a complaint where the Tribunal is persuaded that the complaint is made in bad faith, would be of no benefit to the complainant, would not further the purposes of the HRC, and/or has no reasonable prospect of success. The most recent Annual Report from the BCHRT indicates that applications to dismiss under section 27 of the HRC succeeded in fully dismissing the complaint 49% of the time. No reasonable prospect of success is the most common reason for dismissing a complaint. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2011/2011bchrt117/2011bchrt117.html Marquez v Great Canadian Casinos]'', 2011 BCHRT 117 at paras 29–38.

If you are responding to an application to dismiss a complaint, it is important in most cases to provide evidence in support of the Complainant’s contention that the complaint should be allowed to proceed to a hearing. While the burden of persuading the Tribunal that the complaint should be dismissed is on the respondent, the complainant does need to provide sufficient evidence to take their complaint out of the realm of “speculation and conjecture.” An affidavit attaching relevant exhibits from the client is preferable, though an unsworn statement will also likely be acceptable in most cases.

=== 4. Complaint Brought Outside Limitation Period ===
As mentioned above, there is a '''one-year''' limitation period for filing a complaint. The '''one-year''' period begins from the last instance of any continuing discrimination. If at least one alleged incident of discrimination in a complaint falls within the one-year limitation period, other alleged incidents of discrimination dating back farther than one year may be accepted as a continuing contravention of the ''Code''. The issue of whether, or how many, multiple instances of discrimination will be considered to constitute a “continuing contravention” (thus effectively extending the one-year limitation period) is often disputed. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt204/2018bchrt204.html Bjorklund v BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General]'', 2018 BCHRT 204 at paras 13-14 for a recent discussion of how to define a “continuing contravention”; see also ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2018/2018bcca136/2018bcca136.html District v Parent obo the Child]'', 2018 BCCA 136 at paras 46–65.

However, under [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96210_01#section22 section 22(3)] of the HRC, the Tribunal has discretion to accept late-filed complaints regardless of whether there is a “continuing contravention”. The requirements for doing so are that it is in the public interest to accept the late complaint, and no substantial prejudice will be caused to any party because of the delay in filing (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt39/2003bchrt39.html Chartier v Sooke School District No 62]'', 2003 BCHRT 39 at para 12).

Whether it is in the public interest to accept a complaint filed outside the one-year time limit is a multi-faceted consideration, which is governed by the purposes of the HRC, and assessed on a case-by-case basis. Factors that may be important considerations in determining whether it is in the public interest to accept a late-filed complaint include the reasons for the delay, the length of the delay, the significance of the issue raised in the complaint and fairness in all the circumstances. The list of factors that the Tribunal may consider is non-exhaustive:. ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2014/2014bcca220/2014bcca220.html British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite]'', 2014 BCCA 220; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2007/2007bchrt24/2007bchrt24.html Hoang v. Warnaco and Johns]'', 2007 BCHRT 24.

== I. Responding to an Application to Dismiss ==

When faced with an application to dismiss, it is important to meaningfully engage with the reasons behind the application, providing supporting evidence when necessary. If the complainant does not provide evidence in response to an application to dismiss, it may result in a case being dismissed that did hold legal merit. Evidence can be as simple as a statement, although a sworn affidavit is preferable. The statement or affidavit should attach documents that help support the complainant’s argument that the complaint should be allowed to proceed to a hearing. The respondent would then have an opportunity to respond to the arguments raised by the complainant.

If the Tribunal agrees to dismiss the complaint then the complaint process will not continue any further. Applications to dismiss are subject to judicial review.

== J. Case Path Pilot ==

Unfortunately, the number of applications to dismiss filed by respondents has resulted in significant backlog and delay at the Tribunal. In response, the Tribunal established a Case Path Pilot project on May 6, 2022. Under this program, dismissal applications were no longer an automatic stage in the complaint process, but rather dismissal submissions were only allowed once the Tribunal identified clear issues with the complaint.

As of May 1, 2026, the Tribunal has amended this process for dismissal applications. Now, respondents who wish to dismiss a complaint must first file Form 7.5 – Request to File Dismissal Application. The Tribunal reviews this form alongside the complaint and response and will only permit a full dismissal application to move forward if it determines it would further a just and timely resolution. For more information about the amendment, see this Message from the Chair.

Cases notified of their disclosure obligations and deadlines before May 1, 2026, will continue to follow the process outlined in the Case Path Pilot Practice Direction.

== K. Judicial Review ==

If an individual disagrees with a decision of the Tribunal, they may ask the Supreme Court of British Columbia for a “judicial review”. A judicial review differs from an appeal to a higher court. In an appeal, the court has the authority to decide whether or not it agrees with a decision. In a judicial review, the BC Supreme Court simply decides whether there is are grounds for review and may only disturb the Tribunal’s decision if the applicant can demonstrate that the Tribunal:

*Made an “error of law”, (e.g., an incorrect interpretation of the HRC);
*Made a finding of fact that is unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence;
*Acted unfairly with regards to the rules of procedure and natural justice; or
*Disregarded legislative requirements; used its discretion arbitrarily, in bad faith, or for an improper purpose; or based its decisions on irrelevant factors.
These standards of review applicable to the Tribunal’s decisions are set out in s 59 of the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/04045_01 Administrative Tribunals Act]''.

If the Tribunal has made any of these errors, the Court may set aside the decision and will usually direct the Tribunal to reconsider the matter. Section 57 of the ''Administrative Tribunals Act'' mandates that an application for a judicial review must be submitted within '''60 days''' of the date the Tribunal’s decision was issued. In order to seek a judicial review, an individual is required to prepare a petition and affidavit, file the petition and affidavit at the BC Supreme Court, and serve a copy of the filed petition and affidavit on the Tribunal, the Attorney General of British Columbia, and any person whose interests may be affected by the order Court is asked to make.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Governing Legislation and Resources for Human Rights (6:II)

2026-09-25T19:50:05Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 2 June 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}}

== A. Legislation ==

''Human Rights Code'', RSBC 1996, c 210, as amended ["HRC" or the "Code"]

''Canadian Human Rights Act'', RSC 1985, c H-6, as amended ["CHRA"]

''Civil Rights Protection Act'', RSBC 1996, c 49 ["CRPA"].

== B. Resources ==

=== B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ===
An independent, administrative tribunal created by the ''BC Human Rights Code'', responsible for accepting, screening, mediating and adjudicating provincial human rights complaints. The website is very helpful. Their [https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/guides/ Guides and Information Sheets] provide extensive procedural information in English, and also some information in Chinese and Punjabi. The Tribunal’s decisions dating back to 1997 are available online through the BCHRT website, and are also available on [http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt CanLII BC].
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 1270 – 605 Robson Street Vancouver, B.C., V6B 5J3
| phone = (604) 775-2000 TTY: (604) 775-2021 Toll-free in B.C.: 1-888-440-8844 Fax: (604) 775-2020
| online = [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/ Website] E-mail: BCHumanRightsTribunal@gov.bc.ca
}}

=== The B.C. Human Rights Clinic ===
The BC Human Rights Clinic is operated by the Community Legal Assistance Society ("CLAS") and is funded by the BC Ministry of the Attorney General. The Clinic provides free legal representation to low-income claimants or those unable to represent themselves before the BC Human Rights Tribunal due to lack of capacity or disability. It also provides a free Short Service Clinic on Wednesdays between 9:00 am and 8:00 pm.
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 300 – 1140 West Pender Street Vancouver, B.C., V6E 4G1
| phone = (604) 622-1100 Toll-free in Canada: 1-855-685-6222 Fax: (604) 685-7611
| online = [http://www.bchrc.net Website]
}}

=== The B.C. Civil Liberties Association ("BCCLA") ===
If the client’s legal issue also extends to ''Charter'' rights, the BCCLA may provide assistance.
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 550 - 1188 West Georgia Street Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4A2
| phone = (604) 630-9748 Fax: (604) 687-3045
| online = [http://www.bccla.org/ Website] E-mail: info@bccla.org
}}

=== The Canadian Human Rights Commission ("CHRC") ===

The Commission can independently initiate federal human rights complaints, but normally assists complainants in drafting their complaints, and investigates complaints lodged by individuals or organizations. If insufficient evidence of discrimination is presented, the Commission can dismiss the complaint. If the Commission finds that the allegations of discrimination warrant mediation or adjudication, it can refer the case to conciliation or to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for a hearing.
{{ResourcesLSLAP_online
| online = [http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/en Website]
}}

==== Western Region ====

{{ResourcesLSLAP_addressphone
| address = Canada Place, Suite 1645, 9700 Jasper Avenue P.O. Box 21, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 4C3
| phone = (780) 495-4040 Toll-Free: 1-888-214-1090 TTY: 1-888-643-3304 Fax: (780) 495-4044
}}

==== National Office ====

{{ResourcesLSLAP_addressphone
| address = 344 Slater Street, 8th Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1E1
| phone = (613) 995-1151 Toll-free: 1-888-214-1090 TTY: 1-888-643-3304 Fax: (613) 996-9661
}}

=== The BC Office of the Human Rights Commissioner ===
The Commission promotes human rights, undertakes research, and offers public education and outreach. It also examines the human rights implications of policies, programs, and legislation to make recommendations if they are inconsistent with the human rights protections. Although the Commission does not have the power to file human rights complaints, it can intervene in complaints before the Human Rights Tribunal. See s 47.12 of the BC ''Human Rights Code'' for a full list of the Commissioner’s powers.
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = #750, 999 Canada Place Vancouver, B.C. V6C 3E1
| phone = 1-844-922-6472 (voicemail box)
| online = E-mail: info@bchumanrights.ca
}}

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Introduction to Human Rights (6:I)

2026-09-25T19:48:50Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 2 June 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = rights}}

When faced with a human rights issue, the first step is to determine whether the provincial legislation, the BC ''Human Rights Code'', RSBC 1996, c 210 ("HRC" or the “Code”), applies or whether the problem falls within federal jurisdiction under the ''Canadian Human Rights Act'', RSC 1985, c H-6 ("CHRA").

Section 91 of the ''Constitution Act'', 1867 30 & 31 Victoria, c 3 (UK), reprinted in RSC 1985, App II, No 5, lists the matters that fall under federal jurisdiction. If the complaint is covered by federal legislation, the matter would be handled under the CHRA by the Canadian Human Rights Commission ("CHRC"). The limitation date under the federal legislation is 1 year. If the complaint against the respondent (the party who is being alleged to have contravened the Code) is based on an action they undertook in their capacity as an agent or employee of a body that falls under federal jurisdiction, then that complaint could be governed by federal legislation. However, a complaint involving a federally regulated employee who is alleged to have discriminated against a provincially regulated employee in a shared workspace may possibly be brought under the provincial HRC, depending on the circumstances. For more information, see the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/hpb2k British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v Schrenk]'', 2017 SCC 62 in which the court confirmed that discrimination in the employment context “may include discrimination by [the complainant’s] co-workers, even when those co-workers have a different employer”: para 3.

Examples of some industries that are federally regulated and therefore fall within federal human rights jurisdiction are:

* Banking – but not most credit unions (note Coast Capital Savings is now under federal regulation).
* Telecommunications (internet, television and radio) – but not call centres.
* Transportation that crosses provincial or international boundaries (airlines, trains, moving companies, couriers).
* First Nations governments (but not necessarily all businesses or services provided on reserves)
* Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("RCMP")

The CHRC has a useful assessment tool that can assist in determining if an entity falls under federal jurisdiction. It can be found at https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/en/complaints/make-a-complaint. This tool is not always accurate, so if an entity is not found there but you have reason to believe that it is federal, follow up with further inquiries and analysis. See Section IV of this chapter for more on matters under federal jurisdiction.

Section 92 of the ''Constitution Act'', 1867 lists the matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction, including property and civil rights in the province, and generally all matters of a merely local or private nature. If a complaint is covered under the HRC, the matter will come before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ("BCHRT"). Human rights violations that have taken place in BC will usually fall under the provincial legislation. The limitation date for BCHRT claims is one year from when the alleged breach occurred.

In either case, because human rights legislation is considered to be “quasi-constitutional” in nature, the legislation must be given a liberal and purposive interpretation to advance the broad policy purposes underlying it.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Sample Notice Letter to Sue the City or Police (5:App B)

2026-09-25T19:41:17Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 9 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

<tt>
[Date]

Reply to: [Your Name]

Direct Line:

E-mail:

City of Vancouver

453 West 12th Avenue

Vancouver, BC V5Y 1V4

'''Attention: City Clerk'''

Dear Sir/Madam,

'''Re: [YOUR NAME] – Incident with VPD – [DATE OF INCIDENT]'''

I am writing this letter to give you notice of the time, place, and manner of damages caused to me by Vancouver Police Department officers pursuant to section 294(2) of the Vancouver Charter.

On [DATE OF INCIDENT] at approximately [TIME OF DAY] .. [enter a brief description of the events]

Because of the actions of the VPD officers, I have suffered the following injuries:

1.

2.

3.

I am now contemplating a civil suit against the officers involved and the City of Vancouver for [enter a brief description of the legal cause of action, i.e. assault and battery, negligence, or breach of Charter rights].

The VPD incident number in this matter is [ENTER INCIDENT # IF KNOWN – IF UNKNOWN THEN DELETE THIS LINE]

Sincerely,

[YOUR NAME]
</tt>

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}

Public Complaints Glossary (5:App A)

2026-09-25T19:41:03Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 9 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

'''Certiorari'''
*a formal request to a court challenging a legal decision of an administrative tribunal, judicial official, or organization, in which the requester alleges that the decision has been irregular or incomplete, or that there has been an error of law.

'''Indigency'''
*lack of ability to pay; it is a legal reason to have certain fees waived for the purpose of fairness.

'''Mandamus'''
*a writ which commands an individual, organization, administrative tribunal, or court to perform a certain action, usually to correct a prior illegal action or failure to act.

'''Ombudsperson'''
*a person who acts as a trusted intermediary between an organization and its body of citizens or constituents.

'''Onus of proof'''
*one’s duty or responsibility to prove one’s case.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}

LSLAP Program Information (5:XIV)

2026-09-25T19:39:50Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 9 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

Beyond providing advice based on the information contained in this chapter, LSLAP typically cannot assist with public complaints. For matters involving judicial review, this is because judicial review applications must be made to the BC Supreme Court or one of the Federal courts, all of which are outside of LSLAP’s mandate. For the other complaints processes in this chapter, LSLAP is typically unable to assist because these are not generally legal processes. LSLAP may exceptionally provide limited assistance to clients who are experiencing difficulty with navigating complaints processes. The organizations listed in [[Governing Legislation and Resources for Public Complaints (5:II) | Section II: Governing Legislation and Resources]] of this chapter may be able to provide further assistance.

However, matters involving internal appeals of various administrative tribunals are within LSLAP’s mandate. Individuals seeking an internal appeal of an administrative tribunal’s decision (Residential Tenancy Board, WorkSafeBC or Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, Service Canada (Employment Insurance) or the Social Security Tribunal, Employment Standards Branch, etc.), and their LSLAP clinicians, should consult the relevant chapter of this manual for more details.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Complaints against other Professionals (5:XIII)

2026-09-25T19:39:47Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 9 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

Many professions in BC are governed by professional regulatory authorities. These include various professions in education and social services, healthcare, legal services, finance, safety services, engineering, architecture and many other fields. Each regulatory authority may have its own policies and procedures for complaints against their respective professionals.

For a comprehensive list of professional regulatory authorities, visit: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/organizational-structure/ministries-organizations/regulatory-authorities

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}

Complaints against Lawyers (5:XII)

2026-09-25T19:39:44Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 9 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

The Law Society of British Columbia is the regulatory body for the legal profession in British Columbia. They have authority to review the conduct and competence of lawyers practicing in BC, including lawyers in private practice, legal aid lawyers, government lawyers and Crown prosecutors.

Prior to lodging a complaint, a client should first talk to the lawyer or another member of the lawyer's firm about the issue. If speaking directly with the lawyer fails, a complaint may be filed. This can be done by filling out a Complaint Form and emailing it to professionalconduct@lsbc.org. Alternatively, the Complaint Form can be sent by mail or courier to the following address:

::Attention: Intake Officer
::Professional Conduct
::Law Society of British Columbia
::845 Cambie Street
::Vancouver BC V6B 4Z9

The link to the Complaint Form is as follows: https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/forms/ProfCon/Complaint.pdf

After receiving the complaint, the Law Society will send back a letter advising that they have received the complaint. It will be reviewed and assigned to a staff lawyer, who may request further information, including supporting documents, before commencing an investigation.

The Law Society discipline hearings are similar to court hearings. A hearing can lead to a reprimand of the lawyer, a fine up to $20,000, conditions set upon the lawyer, suspension of the lawyer, or disbarment of the lawyer. Law Society decisions are not always final and can be appealed.

For further information on the complaint process, phone the Law Society at (604) 669-2533 or 1-800-903-5300.

If it is the lawyer’s fee that is the problem, there are two solutions:
:a) Consult the Registrar of the BC Supreme Court to review the bill. If you have not already paid for it, you have one year from the date of the bill to apply to the registrar. However, if you have paid for it, you only have three months to apply. The registrar will hold a hearing where you and your lawyer are present. The registrar will decide the fee.

:b) Use the Law Society’s free mediation service. The mediator will help all parties reach a settlement.

The Law Society cannot help with disputes over money or property. If you believe your lawyer has acted negligently, you can seek legal advice from another lawyer about your options.

:'''NOTE:''' In Spring 2024, the BC legislature passed the ''Legal Professions Act'' into law. The Act replaces the ''Legal Profession Act'' and consolidates lawyers, notaries public, and paralegals into a single professional regulator, and alters the size and composition of the regulator’s board. The Law Society of BC has launched legal action challenging the constitutionality of the new ''Act'' on the ground that it undermines the independence of the legal professions. These developments are unlikely to substantially affect the process for making complaints against lawyers, but it should be noted that there is currently significant uncertainty regarding the regulation of the legal professions in BC.

The Law Society of BC 
https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/complaints-lawyer-discipline-and-public-hearings/complaints/ 
https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/complaints-lawyer-discipline-and-public-hearings/faq-complaints-and-discipline/

Dial-A-Law 
https://dialalaw.peopleslawschool.ca/problem-with-a-lawyer/

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}

Complaints Against Other Colleges and Universities (5:X)

2026-09-25T19:39:41Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 9 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

Each individual community college and university has its own complaints process regarding bullying, harassment, human rights, academic integrity, and general student and faculty conduct. Visit each institution’s websites regarding their policies and procedures on resolution in these areas.
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}

Complaints and Appeals Simon Fraser University (5:IX)

2026-09-25T19:39:38Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 9 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

== A. The SFU Office of the Ombudsperson ==

Similar to the Office of the Ombudsperson for Students at the University of British Columbia, and performing most of the same functions, the SFU Office of the Ombudsperson can assist students in resolving conflicts with Simon Fraser University. Contact the current Ombudsperson at:

'''The SFU Office of the Ombudsperson'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 2266 Maggie Benston Centre Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6
| phone = (778) 782-4563
| online = [http://www.sfu.ca/ombudsperson.html Website] E-mail: ombuds@sfu.ca
}}

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}

Complaints and Appeals University of British Columbia (5:VIII)

2026-09-25T19:39:35Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 9 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

Often, issues with the University of British Columbia cannot be solved via legal action but can be resolved through formal or informal appeals processes. This applies equally to other educational institutions. There are various resources to assist UBC students and faculty with complaints and appeals related to UBC. Even when an individual may have legal recourse, it is generally prudent to exhaust internal appeals before proceeding with legal action. The following resources may be helpful for individuals with issues relating to UBC.

== A. The UBC Ombuds Office ==

The Office of the Ombudsperson for Students (the Ombuds Office) provides general resource information to students, makes appropriate referrals, and identifies and explains relevant university processes and policies. The Ombuds Office can facilitate discussions and use informal channels to seek the resolution of issues.

The Ombuds Office can be contacted at:

'''Office of the Ombudsperson for Students'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 181 - 1855 West Mall Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z2
| phone = (604) 822-6149 
| online = [https://ombudsoffice.ubc.ca/contact-us/ Website] Email: ombuds.office@ubc.ca
}}

== B. The AMS Advocacy Office ==

In situations where a student needs to appeal a final decision made by a department, faculty, or University representative, the AMS Advocacy Office can provide assistance by giving the student advice on their rights and responsibilities, assisting them with drafting letters and documents and representing students who must go before formal hearings at the University. Some of the specific issues the Advocacy Office helps with are:
*academic misconduct and other student disciplinary issues,
*academic appeals,
*decisions made by academic advising, enrolment services and other bodies,
*UBC student housing issues,
*off-campus housing issues,
*accessibility: disputes with the CFA and discrimination complaints,
*UBC parking and library fines, and
*non-academic misconduct issues.

The Advocacy Coordinator can be contacted at:

'''The AMS Advocacy Office'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP_addressonline
| address = NEST 3119 - 6133 University Boulevard Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1
| online = [https://www.ams.ubc.ca/support-services/student-services/advocacy/ Website] Email: advocacy@ams.ubc.ca
}}

== C. The AMS Ombuds Office ==

The AMS Ombudsperson is independent of any administrative body including both the AMS and UBC. Its jurisdiction and mandate are limited to AMS issues. The Ombuds office offers the following services to students and AMS staff:
*Conflict management services to AMS clubs and constituencies undergoing internal conflicts, and
*Receiving and investigating complaints about the AMS.

Appeals may be filed at the office or online. The Ombuds Office is staffed 30 hours per week and may be contacted at:

'''The AMS Ombuds Office'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = NEST 3119 - 6133 University Boulevard Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1
| phone = (604) 822-4846
| online = [https://www.ams.ubc.ca/support-services/ombuds/ Website] Email: ombudsperson@ams.ubc.ca
}}

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}

The Right to Vote (5:VII)

2026-09-25T19:39:31Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 9 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

== A. Introduction ==

The right to participate in the selection of their elected representatives is a basic right enjoyed by the citizens of any democracy. While this has always been recognized to some extent in Canada, in 1982 the right to vote was entrenched in the constitution by section 3 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. Under section 3, “[e]very citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein”.

While this right is qualified by section 1 of the ''Charter'', it is not subject to the overriding power provision (the “notwithstanding clause”) of section 33. As a result, any government wishing to place restrictions on the right to vote must do so in a manner that is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under section 1.

In this chapter, the discussion of voting rights will focus primarily on the requirements a person must meet to be eligible to vote in provincial, federal,
and municipal elections.

== B. British Columbia Provincial Elections ==

Eligibility requirements for BC provincial elections are outlined in the ''Election Act'', RSBC 1996, c 106. Individuals should consult this act for a specific problem as the ''Act'' is too lengthy to be discussed in detail in this chapter.

=== 1. General Information ===

The province is divided into various electoral districts, each represented by an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). Each district has a registrar of voters whose duty is to ensure that the election of candidates in that district is carried out properly. The elections process is supervised by the Chief Electoral Officer. Elections BC can be contacted at:

'''Elections British Columbia'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = P.O. Box 9275 Stn Provincial Government Victoria, BC V8W 9J6
| phone = Toll-free: 1 (800) 661-8683 
| online = [http://www.elections.bc.ca Website] Email: electionsbc@elections.bc.ca
}}

=== 2. Who Is Eligible to Vote ===

Section 29 of the ''Election Act'' sets out who is eligible to vote in provincial elections. It states that in order to be eligible to vote in an electoral district, an individual must be a Canadian citizen over the age of 18, must be a registered resident of the electoral district, must have been a resident of British Columbia for at least six months, and must not be otherwise disqualified.

Although the requirement for individuals to be resident in British Columbia for six months seems to constitute a violation of section 3 of the Charter, case law has held similar provisions to be constitutional. In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/g91lk Re Yukon Election Residency Requirements]'', [1986] 2 BCLR (2d) 50 (CA), the BC Court of Appeal sitting as the Yukon’s Court of Appeal upheld a 12-month residency requirement imposed by the territorial government. The court found that this was a reasonable limit that was justified because of the desirability of having only persons familiar with local conditions voting for local representatives.

Section 30 disqualifies the following individuals from voting: the chief electoral officer, the deputy chief electoral officer, and anyone prohibited from voting under Part 12 of the ''Election Act''.

Keep in mind that this is just a general guide and is not meant to be an exhaustive list. Consult the ''Election Act'' for more detailed and extensive information.

Section 32 of the ''Election Act'' provides that individuals may only vote in an electoral district in which they are resident. The ''Act'' defines a residence as the place where a person’s habitation is fixed, and to which, if they are absent, they intend to return. Note the following additional considerations:
*Leaving one’s home temporarily does not affect one’s residency status, but if a person leaves with the intention to remain away either indefinitely or permanently, that person loses their status as a resident in BC.
*Persons entering the province temporarily are not considered to be resident for election purposes.
*Generally, a person's residence is the place where their family resides, but if a person moves out of the family home and does not intend to return, the person's residence will be the new place they have moved to.
*Single people reside where they sleep, regardless of where they eat or work.
*A change of residence occurs only if a person moves to and intends to remain in another place.
*Canadian military personnel who reside in BC do not lose their resident status by leaving the province for extended periods of time in the course of their employment. Spouses and children who accompany military personnel may also retain their BC residence status.

=== 3. Registration and Voting Procedures ===

Eligible voters who are not presently on the voters’ list in their district may obtain an application form from the registrar of the Electoral District in which they reside. Occasionally the Registrar General will hire Deputy Registrars to visit residences to obtain new applications.

Upon receiving an application and being satisfied that the application is valid and correct, the District Registrar will add the applicant’s name to the voters’ list. That person is then eligible to vote in the next provincial election.

An eligible voter may also register at a voting place on the day of the election. Amendments to the ''Election Act'' enacted in 2008 require that the applicant produce identification in the form of either (section 41(3)):
* One document, issued by the Government of British Columbia or Canada, that contains the applicant’s name, photograph, and place of residence;
* One document, issued by the Government of Canada, that certifies that the applicant is registered as an Indian under the ''Indian Act'' (Canada); or
* At least 2 documents of a type authorized by the chief electoral officer, both of which contain the applicant's name and at least one of which contains the applicant's place of residence.

Alternatively, section 41.1 allows eligible voters without documentation to be “vouched” for by a voter registered in the applicant’s electoral district with documentation, a family member, or “a person having authority under the common law or an enactment to make personal care decisions in respect of the applicant.”

:'''NOTE:''' In the 2013 provincial election, prescription pill bottles or inhalers with the applicant’s name were accepted as a valid form of identification. This was done to address the unique challenges individuals with no fixed address and those without government-issued identification face when exercising their right to vote.

When an election writ is issued, the District Registrar will advertise in newspapers announcing the closing day for applications to register.

According to the court in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/213r9 Hoogbruin v BC (Attorney General)]'' (1985), 70 BCLR 1 (CA), individuals have a constitutional right to use absentee ballots. The procedure for absentee balloting is outlined in section 105 of the ''Election Act''. Section 27 requires that general voting day for an election is the 28th day after the date on which the election is called. If that day is a holiday, the election will be on the next day that is not a holiday. On election day itself, polls are open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

If a voter does not understand English, section 269(3) states that a sworn interpreter may be used to translate the required oath to the voter. Under section 269(4), before acting as a translator under subsection (3), an individual must make a solemn declaration that the person will be able to make the translation and will do so to the best of their abilities.

Section 109 deals with special circumstances whereby voters with physical disabilities or difficulties in reading or writing are able to get assistance in marking their ballots.

Employees are entitled by section 74 to four '''consecutive hours''' off during poll hours to attend a polling station, without loss of wages. However, the employer is entitled to choose which four hours are most convenient.

Upon arrival at the polling station, the voter must sign their name in a voting book (section 274), and confirm their present address. Refusing to comply with this demand will disqualify the voter. Upon receiving a ballot, the voter proceeds to a screened compartment, marks the ballot, and returns the ballot to the Returning Officer, who, in full view of the voter, must place the ballot in the ballot box. The voting must be by a secret ballot as per section 90. Each individual present at a voting place, including people such as voters and ballot counters, must not interfere with an individual marking a ballot, attempt to discover how an individual voted, or communicate information regarding how another person voted or marked their ballot. The voter is then required to leave the premises.

=== 4. Complaints about Elections BC ===
If you have a complaint about contraventions of the ''Election Act'', RSBC 1996, c 106, ''Local Elections Campaign Financing Act'', SBC 2014, c 18, or the ''Recall and Initiative Act'', RCBC 1996, c 398, you may make a complaint to Elections BC in writing by:

*Mail: PO Box 9275 Stn Prov Govt, Victoria BC, V8W 9J6; or
*Email: investigations@elections.bc.ca

Please see the Elections BC website here for information to include in your complaint: [https://elections.bc.ca/resources/investigations/how-to-make-a-complaint/ https://elections.bc.ca/resources/investigations/how-to-make-a-complaint/].

== C. Federal Elections ==

The rules and regulations governing federal elections are set out in the ''Canada Elections Act'', RSC 2000, c 9. Many of these rules and regulations are similar to those applicable to BC provincial elections discussed above. A brief survey of the federal ''Act'' is included below.

Canadian citizens who are 18 years of age or older on election day are generally eligible to vote in federal elections (section 3).

While federal residency requirements do exist, they are more relaxed than those applicable to BC provincial elections. A person may vote only once, in the area in which they are “ordinarily resident” (section 8(1)). This is defined in much the same way as “resident” is defined in section 32 of BC’s ''Election Act''. A person who moves between the enumerator’s visit and the day of the election could be forced to vote in the former riding if ordinarily resident there when the enumeration occurred.

All voters must present one piece of government-issued ID with a photograph and residential address before being allowed to vote (section 143(2)(a)). If a voter cannot provide the required photo ID, they may still be allowed to vote if they do one of two things (section 143(2)(b) and (3)):
:(a) Provide two pieces of acceptable identification to establish the voter's identity, at least one of which establishes the voter’s residence (a list of “acceptable identification” is to be published by the Chief Electoral Officer); or
:(b) Prove their identity and eligibility by swearing an oath in writing. The voter must also be accompanied by an individual who is '''registered to vote in the same polling division''', has '''proper identification''', and vouches for the person without ID under oath and in the prescribed form. An individual can only vouch for one person at an election (subject to an exception for employees of long-term care homes), and an individual who has been vouched for cannot vouch for someone else.

Vouching was substantially restricted under the ''Fair Elections Act'', passed in 2014, posing significant challenges to low-income individuals without official identification. These restrictions were largely reversed in 2018, but the fact that a person may only vouch for one other person and the requirement that the voucher lives and is on the elector’s list in the same polling station as the intended vouchee remain barriers for some low-income individuals.

Many other provisions of the ''Canada Elections Act'', such as an employee being entitled to receive time off work to cast a ballot, provisions for people with disabilities, and balloting procedures are very similar to BC provincial regulations and thus are not repeated here. Further inquiries and/or complaints can be sent to the Chief Electoral Officer at:

'''Elections Canada'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 350 Victoria Street Gatineau, Quebec K1A OM6
| phone = 1 (800) 463-6868
| online = [http://www.elections.ca Website]
}}

Please see the following link for more information on making complaints about federal elections: https://www.cef-cce.ca/content.asp?section=comp&document=index&lang=e

:'''Note:''' Changes to the ''Canada Elections Act'' in 2018 included the repeal of many of the controversial elements of the ''2014 Fair Elections Act''. The 2018 ''Elections Modernization Act'' restored vouching for voters without identification, transferred investigative powers back to Elections Canada, reinstated the ability for voters to use their voter information cards as identification, and removed restrictions on Elections Canada encouraging voter participation.

The Supreme Court of Canada struck down previous prohibitions preventing inmates from voting in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/50cw Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer)]'', 2002 SCC 68. A key consideration in this decision was that, by denying the vote to all prisoners, the ''Act'' failed to balance the right to vote against the seriousness of the conduct of prisoners.

== D. Municipal Elections ==

Municipal election procedures in BC are outlined in the ''Local Government Act'', RSBC 1996, c 323, beginning at section 33. Please note, however, that elections in the City of Vancouver are governed by a separate provincial act, the ''Vancouver Charter'', SBC 1953, c 55.

To be eligible to vote, a person must normally be a Canadian citizen and 18 years of age or older on the day the election is held. A person qualified in such a way must be a Canadian citizen and a resident of BC for six months immediately before election day. Furthermore, to be qualified, the person must have been a resident of the jurisdiction (as per section 64) for at least 30 days immediately before election day.

A person who qualifies as outlined above with the exception that they do not reside in the municipality may still vote in an election if they are the owner or tenant of property in that municipality (section 66). The general residency rules are similar to those outlined in the ''BC Election Act''.

Applications to register should be made to the clerk of the municipality.

Voters who are not yet registered on election day may apply to have their name added to the list on election day in a manner similar to that used in provincial elections (see sections 72-73).

A person who is unable to produce identification can be registered as a voter. In order to do so, the individual must complete an application for registration and be accompanied by someone who is a registered voter in the applicant’s electoral district, an adult family member, or someone who has the authority to make personal care decisions in respect of the applicant. The applicant and the voucher must both make a solemn declaration, in writing, as to the applicant's identity and place of residence. A person can only vouch for one person, and an individual who has been vouched for cannot vouch for another person.

:'''NOTE:''' A literal interpretation of both the ''Canada Elections Act'' RSC 2000, c 9, and the ''BC Election Act'', RSBC 1996, c 106, suggests that it is practically impossible for individuals with no fixed address to vote. However, the provincial electoral officer facilitates voting by homeless people through an administrative policy of allowing a flexible definition of “residence”.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}

Complaints against Security Guards (5:VI)

2026-09-25T19:39:28Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 9 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

== A. Introduction ==

Complaints against licensed security guards can be filed with the Registrar of Security Programs Division, Ministry of Justice. Complaints can relate to the licensing of a security business or security employee, about the conduct or behaviour of a security employee, or about the use of equipment. Filing a complaint is free. Complaining against an unlicensed guard should be done directly to the employer. Most security guards in BC are now required to be licensed under the ''Security Services Act'', SBC 2007, c 30 ''[SSA]''.

== B. Filing the Complaint ==

Complaints must be made in writing within one year of the incident. Complaint forms can be obtained by contacting the Ministry or [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/employment-business-and-economic-development/business-management/security-services/industry/forms/spd0512-complaint.pdf online], and can be submitted by mail, email, or fax.

'''Compliance and Enforcement, Security Programs Division'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = PO Box 9217 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9J1
| phone = 1 (855) 587-0185 Fax: (250) 387-4454
| online = [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/business/security-services/security-industry-licensing/about/enforcement#make-complaint Website] Email: SPDCompliance@gov.bc.ca
}}

Once a complaint has been filed, the Registrar will determine whether the matter is within its jurisdiction. If it is, then an investigator will be assigned. The complainant will be notified of the investigation by letter. Complaints can result in a warning notice, a violation ticket, or reconsideration of the officer’s licence status.

The Registrar may decide not to investigate a complaint if there has been more than one year of time between when the complaints knew about the facts and when the Registrar receives the complaint (''SSA'', section 34(2)(a)). Section 34(2) also enumerates other factors that may lead the Registrar to refuse to investigate a complaint.

Like police, licensed and unlicensed security guards can be sued civilly.

:'''NOTE:''' The BC Court of Appeal recently reversed a human rights decision by the BC Supreme Court regarding alleged discriminatory conduct by security guards on the basis of social condition. The Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) filed a complaint to the BC Human Rights Tribunal against the Downtown Ambassadors, a program for private security guards hired by the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association to patrol public spaces, alleging that the Ambassadors had engaged in a discriminatory program intended to remove individuals with no fixed address from public spaces in Downtown Vancouver. As social condition is not a protected ground under the ''BC Human Rights Code'', VANDU presented statistical information to demonstrate that Indigenous persons and persons with disabilities are disproportionately represented amongst individuals with no fixed address and submitted that the Ambassadors’ actions were therefore discriminatory on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and physical and mental disability, contrary to section 8 of the ''BC Human Rights Code''.

In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/hrfft Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal]'', 2018 BCCA 132, rev'g 2016 BCSC 534, the BC Court of Appeal restored the BC Human Rights Tribunal’s initial dismissal of VANDU’s claim, finding that the statistical correlation provided by VANDU was insufficient to establish a causal link between membership in a protected group under the BC Human Rights Code (namely Indigenous persons and persons with disabilities) and the adverse treatment by the Downtown Ambassadors against individuals with no fixed address. The Court of Appeal’s decision reversed the previous decision of the BC Supreme Court, which had quashed the Tribunal’s dismissal on the grounds that the Tribunal had used too high a standard in finding a human rights violation, and that the statistical information presented by VANDU was sufficient to show discrimination on the prohibited grounds of race and disability.

BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner published a report in May 2020 on adding social condition as an enumerated ground. Please see the report for further information: https://bchumanrights.ca/publications/social-condition/.

Individuals should be cautioned that this complaint process may not achieve satisfactory results. The Security Programs Division is limited in its ability to successfully review the conduct of security guards, both because of statutory limitations to its powers and budget constraints.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}

Complaints against Doctors (5:XI)

2026-09-25T19:37:50Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 9 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

All licensed physicians and surgeons who can practice in British Columbia must register with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC). As of August 31, 2020, the CPSBC amalgamated with the College of Podiatric Surgeons. Both are now considered under CPSBC. The CPSBC also amended their Bylaws to reflect these changes. You may see more information about the amalgamation here: [https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/pdf/2020-08-31-Amalgamation-Podiatric-Surgeons.pdf]

If you wish to file a complaint against your doctor, there are four options:

:a) Talk to your doctor;
:b) File a complaint with the CPSBC;
:c) Speak to a lawyer or the police for advice if you believe your doctor has violated a criminal law; or
:d) Speak to a lawyer for advice about suing the doctor (i.e., medical malpractice).

Even if you file a complaint with the College, you are still able to take steps c), d), or both. There is no specific time frame in which to file a complaint; however, the sooner it is filed, the easier it will be to investigate.

To file a complaint, there are three steps:

#Complete and submit a Complaint Form (found on the College’s [https://www.cpsbc.ca/public/complaints website]).
#Make the complaint in writing; include your name, address, telephone number, the name and address of the doctor, the facts of the incident, and permission to send a copy of the complaint to your doctor.
#Send the written complaint via mail, fax or email to:

'''Complaints Department - College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| online = complaints@cpsbc.ca
| address = 300–669 Howe Street Vancouver BC V6C 0B4 
| phone = 604-733-3503 (fax)
}}

Once the College reviews the written complaint, it will begin an investigation. This includes obtaining further relevant information and, potentially, relevant medical records. The physician will respond to the complaint. The College’s Inquiry Committee (made up of senior doctors and members of the public) will conduct a review of your complaint. If the College finds the complaint is valid, the physician may be expected to change aspects of their practice or undertake further education. The College may also issue remedial advice or reprimand the physician if there is a significant departure from the CMA Code of Ethics. In extreme cases, the College may prohibit a physician from practicing medicine.

Please note that there is a special procedure for sexual misconduct complaints. You can either phone the College immediately at (604) 733-7758 or submit a letter outlining the incident.

For further information:

'''Dial-A-Law''' 
https://dialalaw.peopleslawschool.ca/problem-with-a-doctor/

'''College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia''' 
[https://www.cpsbc.ca/public/complaints]

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Complaints Concerning Police Conduct (5:V)

2026-09-25T18:41:08Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 9 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

== A. Introduction ==

Individuals may be dissatisfied with the level of service given by the police. The following section outlines some of the informal and statutory procedures governing citizen complaints against police officers.

There are two main categories of police forces in BC: municipal police forces, which are governed by the BC ''Police Act'', RSBC 1996, c 367, and the RCMP, which is governed by the ''Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act'', RSC 1985, c R-10 [''RCMPA'']. The RCMP is the policing agency in all parts of BC not served by a municipal police force. Their status as the provincial police force is authorized under section 14 of the BC ''Police Act''. Municipal police forces and the RCMP will be dealt with separately, as the complaint process for each is significantly different.

In 2012 the province opened the Independent Investigations Office (“IIO”), an independent body that reviews police incidents of severe bodily harm or death. To begin an investigation, complaints are to be filed with the Police Complaint Commissioner, who forwards it to the IIO. For further information, please see: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/policing-in-bc/complaints-against-police and http://iiobc.ca/

:'''NOTE:''' In the spring of 2024, the first phase of planned reforms to the ''Police Act'' to address police governance and oversight came into force. The reforms are based on a report from April 2022 recommending sweeping reforms to the ''Act''. The amendments introduced so far mostly deal with high-level governance and oversight and will not directly affect individuals’ interactions with the police or with the complaints process, but it is important to note that significant changes related to systemic racism in policing, relations with Indigenous communities and how officers respond to mental health calls may result in the near future. To access the April 2022 report in its entirety, visit: https://opcc.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SC-RPA-Report_42-3_2022-04-28.pdf

== B. Complaints Against a Member of a Municipal Police Force ==

=== 1. General Information ===

Filing a police complaint against a municipal police officer is different from filing a lawsuit against a municipal police officer. Generally speaking, complaints against a municipal police officer can only lead to the officer being disciplined and do not compensate an individual for any loss they have suffered. Filing a lawsuit against the police in civil court can lead to compensation if a person’s rights were violated, but does not necessarily lead to the officer being disciplined. Parallel actions can be launched if an individual desires both compensation and disciplinary consequences for the officer involved in the incident.

Part 11 of the ''Police Act'' sets out a framework for dealing with public complaints about municipal police forces in BC. The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner (OPCC) was created as a body independent from all municipal police forces and government ministries. Complaints continue to be investigated by police departments, but the OPCC monitors how police departments investigate and conclude complaints throughout all the municipal police areas. The OPCC also has the power to investigate systemic issues, meaning issues that are a systemic cause or contributor to complaints, or systemic problems associated with investigations or discipline, although these systemic investigations cannot be initiated by members of the public. The complaint process is outlined below. For further information and a more detailed description of the complaint process, please refer to the OPCC website at www.opcc.bc.ca, or see Part 11 of the ''Police Act''.

:'''NOTE:''' The 2024 amendments to the Police Act create a new class of law enforcement, “safety officers”, which can be appointed by local governments and First Nations. They will have the same powers and responsibilities as peace officers and municipal constables, and will be subject to the same complaints process.

:'''NOTE: Filing a police complaint, or waiting for the conclusion of criminal charges, does not extend the limitation period for filing a civil claim.''' If an individual wants to start a civil claim, it must be done '''within two years''' from when the harm was suffered or discovered. Before beginning a civil claim for police misconduct, the individual must write a letter to the municipality relating the time, location, and nature of the alleged misconduct. This letter must be sent within 60 days of the cause of action (For the VPD: ''Vancouver Charter'', SBC 1953, c 55, section 294. For all other municipal police forces: ''Local Government Act'', RSBC 2015, section 736(1)). The letter provides the city with notice that a civil action will be filed and allows a complainant to add the city as a party to the civil action at a later date. This letter does not start a complaint or a civil action in itself but is a necessary first step that must be taken before launching a civil claim. If a letter has been sent to the City Clerk’s Office within 60 days, the limitation date for filing a civil complaint is '''2 years''' after the cause of action.

For a more detailed discussion on launching civil claims against the police, see '''Section V.D.2 of this chapter'''.

:'''NOTE:''' If an individual is seeking a copy of their police report, they should make this request before filing a complaint. Otherwise, they must wait until after the matter has been investigated.

=== 2. Complaint Process ===

A member of a municipal police department engages in misconduct when they commit an offence under any provincial or federal act that would render them unfit to perform their duties or that would discredit the reputation of the municipal police department. For an exhaustive definition of misconduct, see section 77 of the ''Police Act'', which governs policing standards for every police officer in BC regardless of department.

Additionally, each municipal police department will have its own policies regarding appropriate conduct by their police officers. Some departments, such as the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) will have their policies available online. The VPD’s Regulations and Procedure Manual can be found online at the following link: https://vpd.ca/policies-strategies/vpd-regulations-procedures-manual/.

Individuals can make complaints about alleged misconduct by municipal police to the police complaint commissioner. Individuals do not need to have directly witnessed the misconduct; complaints can be brought on behalf of someone or even by third-party complainants. The complaint must generally be made within '''12 months''' of the misconduct (''Police Act'', s 79(1)), but if good reasons exist, and it is not contrary to the public interest, the police complaint commissioner can extend that period (''Police Act'', s 79(2)).

The 2024 amendments to the ''Police Act'' create a duty for municipal police boards to establish policies and procedures for handling, reviewing, and responding to complaints (section 139(2)(a)). These must be consistent with the policy guidelines set by the Police Complaint Commissioner, must be reviewed at least once every 4 years, and must be made available on a publicly accessible website. Municipal police boards have 2 years to develop these policies, meaning that they should be implemented by the spring of 2026. As of June 2026, the most recent West Vancouver Police Board policy regarding police complaints was published May 2025. The policy can be found online at the following link: [https://westvanpolice.ca/wp-content/uploads/Police-Board_service-and-policy-complaints-May-2025.pdf policy regarding police complaints].

==== a) Step 1: Making a Complaint ====

There are two types of complaints: registered and non-registered. When someone submits a registered complaint, they will be kept informed about the investigation and its outcome, and they have a right to appeal the result. By contrast, someone submitting a non-registered complaint does not participate any further in the process and cannot appeal the outcome.

An individual can register a complaint by submitting it either directly to the OPCC or to an on-duty police member at the station who is assigned to receive ''Police Act'' complaints (''Police Act'', section 78(2)). A non-registered complaint can be submitted orally to any on-duty member in the station or on the road.

Both types of complaints can be made through the online complaint form on the OPCC website.

For help writing a letter of complaint against a Police Department, please pick up an informational brochure from:

'''BC Civil Liberties Association'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| online = [http://www.bccla.org Website]
| address = 306 - 268 Keefer Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 1B3
| phone = (604) 687-2919 Toll-Free: 1-855-556-3566 Fax: (604) 687-3045
}}
==== b) Step 2: Admissibility ====

Before investigating a complaint, the OPCC must first determine whether it is admissible (''Police Act'' section 82). A complaint is admissible if it is made '''within 12 months''' of the incident, is not frivolous or vexatious, and contains at least one allegation that, if proved, would constitute misconduct under section 77 of the ''Police Act''. Complainants will be contacted to tell them whether their complaint is admissible or not (''Police Act'', sections 83(1) and (2)). The OPCC’s determination of admissibility cannot be appealed.

Once the OPCC determines a complaint is admissible, they will send a notice of admissibility to the complainant and to the chief constable of the department involved (''Police Act'', section 83(2)). The chief constable must notify the member or former member of the complaint that has been made against them (''Police Act'', section 83(3)), appoint an investigator and, depending on the circumstances of the misconduct alleged, determine whether the matter is suitable for informal resolution.

:'''NOTE:''' Complaints about a municipal police department’s policies or about the services it provides, rather than about a particular incident of misconduct, may still be admissible but should be submitted under a different process. Contact the OPCC directly about these complaints.

==== c) Step 3: Informal Resolution or Mediation ====

A complaint may be resolved informally at any time before or during an investigation if the matter is suitable and the complainant and the police officer agree in writing to the resolution. Informal resolution or mediation is a voluntary, confidential process that provides a non-confrontational opportunity for both parties to talk to each other and hear how their actions affected the other. If a complainant does not want to meet the police officer face to face, a neutral third party or professional mediator can facilitate and help the parties reach an agreement. Within '''10 business days''' after agreeing to the proposed informal resolution, either party may revoke the agreement by notifying the relevant discipline authority or the OPCC in writing (''Police Act'', section 157(4)).

If a complainant strongly objects to their complaint being informally resolved and would prefer it be investigated immediately, they should let the OPCC know and provide reasons. Common reasons include fear of intimidation by the officer, the wish to have it formally investigated and substantiated, and a lack of time to participate in an informal process due to economic or other circumstances. Usually this objection is sufficient to move the complaint directly to the investigation step.

A complaint may also be resolved by mediation (''Police Act'', section 158(1)). If the OPCC agrees, a professional mediator may be appointed to assist the complainant and the officer in resolving the complaint. The mediator is selected by the administrator of the BC Mediator’s Roster and is completely independent from any police department or the OPCC.

==== d) Step 4: Investigation ====

An investigation into a misconduct complaint is usually conducted by the originating department’s Professional Standards Section. The OPCC may, if the circumstances require, order that an external police agency conduct the investigation. The OPCC will assign the file to an analyst, who will oversee the investigation conducted by the Professional Standards investigator and ensure that the investigation is thorough, impartial, and completed in a timely manner. All investigations must be completed within six months (''Police Act'', section 99(1)). During the investigation, the complainant and member will be periodically updated about the investigation’s progress. At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator will submit a final investigation report to the discipline authority and the OPCC. The discipline authority will then decide whether the allegations appear to be substantiated and, if so, propose corrective or disciplinary measures.

What happens next in the process depends on whether or not the allegations appear to be substantiated.

==== e) If the Complaint Is Substantiated ====

===== Pre-Hearing Conference =====

If the discipline authority decides that the allegation of misconduct is substantiated and merits disciplinary or corrective measures, the discipline authority may conduct a confidential prehearing conference with the police officer, if doing so is not contrary to the public interest (''Police Act'', section 120(2)). At the hearing, the officer has an opportunity to admit the misconduct and accept disciplinary or corrective measures. If the officer and the discipline authority at the prehearing conference agree on disciplinary measures, and the Commissioner gives their approval, the matter is considered resolved. This resolution is final and cannot be reviewed by a court on any ground.

===== Disciplinary Proceeding =====

If a prehearing conference is not held, or if it does not result in a resolution of each allegation of misconduct against the police officer, the discipline authority must convene a disciplinary proceeding to determine appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures within 40 business days of receiving the final investigation report (''Police Act'', section 118(1)). However, the discipline authority must cancel this proceeding if the Commissioner arranges a public hearing about the impugned conduct (''Police Act'', section 123(3)).

The complainant must receive at least 15 days’ notice of a disciplinary proceeding (''Police Act'', section 123(1)(c)(i)). The complainant may provide written or oral submissions in advance of the hearing but cannot actually attend the proceeding.

After hearing the evidence and submissions, the discipline authority makes findings as to whether each allegation of misconduct has been proven and invites submissions from the officer as to appropriate disciplinary measures for proven allegations (''Police Act'', section 125). Section 126(3) gives precedence to disciplinary measures seeking to correct and educate rather than blame and punish, unless they are unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

The discipline authority reports the findings, reasons, and proposed disciplinary or corrective measures to the complainant, member, and the OPCC. The complainant or member has '''20 business days''' to submit a written request to the OPCC for a review or public hearing (''Police Act'', section 136). This can be extended by the OPCC if there are good reasons for the delay and it would not be contrary to the public interest. If this time limit expires and no request is made, the OPCC has a further 20 business days to order a public inquiry on their own initiative. Unless the OPCC orders a review or public hearing, the resolution is final.

==== f) If the Complaint Is Not Substantiated ====

===== Retired Judge =====

Previously, only a police commissioner would review the file. However, complainants can now request that the OPCC appoint a retired judge to review the file and determine whether or not the decision was correct (''Police Act'', section 117(1)). The complainant must make the request in writing within '''10 business days''' of receiving the discipline authority's decision (''Police Act'', section 117(2)). It is rare to have a retired judge review the file in less serious cases due to limited resources. There is a more realistic chance of success when the OPCC appoints a retired judge.

For further information, please see http://www.opcc.bc.ca.

==== g) Public Hearing ====

The OPCC can order public hearings into matters involving misconduct by municipal police officers in British Columbia. After the investigation into the complaint has concluded, the complainant or the member may request a public hearing within '''20 business days''' of receiving the disciplinary authority’s report (''Police Act'', section 136(1)). Alternatively, the OPCC must initiate a public hearing itself if it determines that a public hearing is necessary in the public interest (''Police Act'', section 138(1)). At a public hearing, the adjudicator must decide if misconduct has been proven, determine the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, and recommend any changes in policy or practice to the police board (section 143(9)). Amendments to the ''Police Act'' in 2024 gave the OPCC the ability to consolidate multiple matters to be heard at a public hearing if they involve the same officer or are otherwise related (section 138(3.1)).

In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/fwc2p Florkow v British Columbia (Police Complaint Commissioner)]'', 2013 BCCA 92, the BC Court of Appeal found that under the ''Police Act'' as it then was then, the OPCC could only hold a public hearing after certain stages of the complaint process — after the discipline authority has concluded its investigation, after the retired judge has reviewed the file, or after the disciplinary proceeding. Amendments to the ''Police Act'' in 2024 gave the OPCC the power to order a public hearing much earlier in the process: at any time after a final investigation report is received (section 138(2.1)).

===== Test for Ordering a Public Hearing =====

In deciding whether such a hearing is necessary in the public interest, the OPCC must consider all relevant factors, including:
*The nature and seriousness of the complaint;
*The nature and seriousness of the alleged harm caused by the police officer, including whether the officer’s conduct has undermined public confidence in the police or its disciplinary processes;
*Whether a public hearing would assist in ascertaining the truth;
*Whether a case can be made that the investigation was flawed, the proposed disciplinary measures are inappropriate, or the discipline authority incorrectly interpreted the law.

After a public hearing takes place, the judge’s decision is communicated to all interested parties. The parties can appeal questions of law, but not questions of fact, to the BC Court of Appeal.

==== h) Reviews on the Record ====

The OPCC can order a review on the record instead of a public hearing if it is unlikely that a review of a disciplinary decision will require evidence beyond:
*The record of the decision;
*The officer’s service record;
*Submissions from the officer, complainant, and the OPCC.

A review on the record is limited to the issues and evidence that were used in a disciplinary proceeding. The process for calling a review on the record, as well as the associated deadlines and the available outcomes, are substantially similar to that of a public hearing. Consult sections 141 and 143 of the ''Police Act'' for certainty.

== C. Complaints Against a Member of the RCMP ==

In December 2014, the ''Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act'', SC 2013, c 18 [''ERCMPAA''], came into force. This legislation has significantly reformed the RCMP complaint process. The ''ERCMPAA'' made amendments to the ''Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act'' [''RCMPA''], which governs complaints against RCMP members.

:'''NOTE:''' In October 2024, Bill C-20, ''An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments'', SC 2024, c 25, received royal assent. This legislation is currently not in force as of June 2026; however, it is expected to come into force within the upcoming year. The Act creates a new agency, the Public Complaints and Review Commission [''PCRC''] to file complaints against personnel of the RCMP and Canadian Border Services Agency [''CBSA''], replacing the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. Expected changes to the procedure for complaints against RCMP personnel include new codified timelines for the RCMP and/or CBSA to respond to the findings of the PCRC (''Public Complaints and Review Commission Act'', sections 58, 64(2)). As well, the Act will provide the PCRC Chairperson a power to recommend the RCMP and/or CBSA Deputy Heads initiate disciplinary measures or processes in certain situations (sections 67, 68).

:Users of this manual are encouraged to review the latest publicly available information from the Government of Canada regarding the implementation of the PCRC.

:To view the ''Public Complaints and Review Commission Act'' in full, see: https://canlii.ca/t/c38t.

=== 1. General Information ===

Although the RCMP function as provincial police in BC, the complaint process is governed by the Federal ''RCMPA''. Under the ''Act'', a Civilian Review and Complaints Commission has been established to monitor complaints against members, to conduct its own investigations into allegations of misconduct, and to hold public inquiries into such allegations where it deems them appropriate. All members of the Commission are civilians.

During an informal resolution attempt, or a formal investigation, the complainant will likely make oral or written statements. It is unclear whether such statements could be used against the complainant in other proceedings. If a complainant is facing criminal charges or a civil action regarding the same matter, the complainant should get the advice of counsel before making any statements.

The Commission can only make recommendations to the Commissioner of the RCMP regarding disciplinary action. However, if the Commissioner of the RCMP does not act on these recommendations, the Commissioner must give reasons for not doing so in writing to the Commission. Complaints against the RCMP in BC should be directed to:

'''Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = National Intake Office P.O. Box 1722, Station B Ottawa, Ontario K1P 0B3
| phone = 1-800-665-6878
| online = [http://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca Website] E-mail: complaints@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca
}}

=== 2. The Complaint Process ===

==== a) Step 1: Making a Complaint ====

Individuals can make complaints orally or in writing to the relevant RCMP detachment, or to the Commission. The complaint will be acknowledged in writing. A member of the detachment will contact the complainant, and may attempt an informal resolution of the complaint. The most effective method is generally to send a written complaint to the Commission’s regional office.

Generally, a complaint must be made within one year after the day on which the conduct is alleged to have occurred (''RCMPA'', section 45.53(5)). However, the Commission may extend the time limit for making a complaint if the Commission is of the opinion that there are good reasons for doing so and that it is not contrary to the public interest (section 45.53(6)).

==== b) Step 2: Informal Resolution ====

If no attempt is made to resolve the complaint informally, or if the attempt is unsuccessful, a formal investigation of the complaint will be carried out. The complainant must be informed in writing of the results of the investigation.

Under section 45.53 of the ''RCMPA'', the Commission may refuse to deal with the complaint for certain reasons. If they refuse, the complainant may appeal this decision to the Commission for Public Complaints.

==== c) Step 3: Formal Resolution ====

A complainant who is not satisfied with the results of the investigation may request that the Commission review the handling of the complaint within 60 days of receiving notice of the decision or report (''RCMPA'', section 45.7(1)). As a result of this review, the Commission may refuse to conduct a further investigation or may conduct a public inquiry into the complaint. There is no further appeal from the Commission’s decision.

== D. Civil or Criminal Proceedings ==
Other approaches to dealing with misconduct by the police force are:
 
(a) Asking for a criminal investigation and acting as a witness, or 
(b) Suing in tort to get compensation for loss.

=== 1. Criminal Proceedings ===

The ''Criminal Code'' [''CC''] limits the criminal liability of public officers who, in the course of conducting investigations or law enforcement activities, commit acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute offences. Under sections 25.1 to 25.4 of the ''CC'', a public officer would be justified in committing an act or omission, or in directing another person to do so, that would otherwise constitute an offence, so long as the public officer (section 25.1(8)):
# Is investigating criminal activity or an offence under an Act of Parliament, or is enforcing an Act of Parliament,
# Is designated as a public officer for the purposes of sections 25.2 to 25.4 by the competent authority (the Solicitor General of Canada in the case of RCMP officers; the provincial Minister responsible for policing in the case of police forces constituted under provincial laws), and
# Believes on reasonable grounds that committing the act or omission, given the nature of the offence or criminal activity being investigated, is reasonable and proportional in the circumstances.

In deciding whether the officer's act or omission is reasonable and proportional, and therefore justifiable, the courts will look at the nature of the act or omission, the nature of the investigation, and the reasonable availability of other means for carrying out the public officer’s law enforcement duties (section 25.1(8)(c)).

If the public officer’s act or omission is likely to cause loss or serious damage to property, the public officer would need authorization from a senior law enforcement official who believes on reasonable grounds that the act or omission is reasonable and proportional (section 25.1(9)(a)).

However, these provisions do not permit officers to cause death or bodily harm to another person either intentionally or through criminal negligence, nor do they justify conduct that violates someone’s sexual integrity (section 25.1(11)).

Individuals should consult the ''Criminal Code'' (sections 25.1 to 25.4) for further details on the limited criminal liability of public officers.

Typically speaking, the only time a police officer will be charged is either if an internal investigation is launched, or a police complaint is filed and, during the course of that investigation, charges are recommended.

=== 2. Civil Proceedings ===

Individuals may be able to sue police officers civilly, even when they have also made a complaint. Section 179(1) of the BC ''Police Act'' specifically states that the complaint proceedings outlined above do not preclude a citizen from taking, or continuing, civil or criminal proceedings against an RCMP officer or a municipal constable for misconduct. Outside of BC, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/fwx06 Penner v Niagara (Regional Police Services Board)]'', 2013 SCC 19, that the result of the police complaint process calls for a case-by-case review of the circumstances to determine whether it would be unfair or unjust to prevent further litigation.

Typical actions that are launched against peace officers include tort actions in assault, battery, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution. This could be helpful to individuals who have been mistreated or suffered monetary loss because of police misconduct. These actions may now be brought in Small Claims Court.

When suing the police, the complainant would usually want to sue both the police officer and the government body responsible for the officer (see sections 11 and 20 of the ''Police Act''). For a municipal police force this is the municipality; for the RCMP it is the Minister of Justice of British Columbia.

EXAMPLE: An action brought by a complainant named John Smith could read “John Smith vs City of Vancouver, Constable Jane Doe, and Constable Richard Roe.”

:'''NOTE:''' If a police complaint is being made in addition to another legal action (typically, a civil lawsuit or a claim at the BC Human Rights Tribunal), filing a police complaint does not satisfy the relevant limitation period before which a legal action must be started. If an individual does not initiate legal action until the police complaint process has concluded, it is likely that the limitation date will have passed. If the complaint is against a municipal police force, '''special limitation periods''' apply. The municipality must be informed by notice letter to sue within '''60 days''' ('''NOTE:''' filing a police complaint does '''not''' constitute notifying the municipality), and the notice of claim should be filed within '''2 years''' of the incident (see ''[https://canlii.ca/t/4z12 Gringmuth v The Corporation of the District of North Vancouver]'', 2002 BCCA 61). The regular Small Claims Court limitation periods apply if you are suing the RCMP or a private security guard. For the BC Human Rights Tribunal, there is a '''1-year''' deadline from the date of the incident to make a claim, and there is no requirement to notify the municipality within 60 days.

Even if a complainant has not sent a notice letter to the municipal government, the municipal government should still be named as a party. At trial, the claimant can argue they had a reasonable excuse for failing to deliver a notice letter to the city, and that the municipality has not been prejudiced by the failure to write the letter.

:'''NOTE:''' Even if the 60 day limitation period has expired, a complainant should still send a notice letter to the Clerk. If the municipality was provided with notice shortly after the 60 day period expired, it will be more difficult for them to argue that they were prejudiced by the failure to send the notice letter within 60 days.

:'''NOTE:''' If a municipal government or Minister of Justice is willing to accept liability on behalf of its officers where liability is proven, they may ask that the individual officers’ names to be removed from the lawsuit. While there may be reasons to keep the individual officers on the lawsuit, if the court finds they were left on unnecessarily, costs may be awarded against the complainant.

Both municipal police and RCMP officers are partially immune from civil liability under subsection 21(2) of the ''Police Act''. However, subsection 21(3)(a) provides that this defence does not apply if the police officer has “been guilty of dishonesty, gross negligence or malicious or wilful misconduct”. In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/2bq8r Vancouver (City) v Ward]'', 2010 SCC 27, it was held that intentional torts do not qualify as wilful misconduct for the purposes of subparagraph 21(3)(a).

For detailed step-by-step information on suing the police (as well as private security guards), please see David Eby & Emily Rix, ''How to Sue the Police and Private Security in Small Claims Court'' (Vancouver: Pivot Legal Society, 2007).

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}

Privacy or Access to Information for Public Complaints (5:IV)

2026-09-25T18:28:35Z

Nate Russell: /* 1. Introduction */

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 11 August 2025}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

== A. Introduction ==

Although the right to privacy is fundamental to the healthy exercise of democratic rights, recognition and practical enforcement of this right by legislators and the courts has been slow. This problem has many sources, but underlying it is the enormous difficulty jurists have found in coming to an understanding of what is meant and entailed by this right.

The right to privacy is often balanced against the right to access information since these rights frequently collide (e.g., when an employer wishes to obtain information about an employee from a government agency). In some cases, a right of access to information may determine whether or not an individual’s privacy has been violated. Legislation regulating access to government information is designed to ensure an informed citizenry; when someone seeks information that may injure the privacy interests of a third party, mechanisms exist to weigh privacy interests of the individual against the public interest in disclosure. The following provides a quick survey of the relevant privacy or access to information laws.

== B. At Common Law ==

At common law, the torts of trespass, nuisance, defamation, and invasion of privacy may discourage some of the more blatant forms of invasion of privacy. However, these civil actions retroactively provide compensation for the breach of privacy rather than ensure privacy.

== C. Wiretap Legislation and Lawful Access ==

Individuals interested in information on wiretapping and lawful access to information should contact the BC Civil Liberties Association, who specialize in dealing in these areas. The case law in this area is very complicated, and an experienced criminal lawyer should be consulted if issues regarding a wiretap arise.

== D. Federal Privacy Act, Federal Access to Information Act ==

=== 1. Introduction ===

The federal ''Access to Information Act'', RSC 1985, c A-1, and the federal ''Privacy Act'', RSC 1985, c P-21, both deal with freedom of information. The ''Access to Information Act'' allows for access to information in records under the control of federal government institutions. The ''Privacy Act'' protects the confidentiality of information about an individual held by federal government institutions, and provides individuals with a right of access to information about themselves held by such institutions. What follows is only a brief outline of the main provisions of these acts. Individuals should consult the acts if they have a problem in this area.

=== 2. Privacy Act ===

If an individual wants to obtain information relating to themselves, they should make an application under the federal ''Privacy Act'' and should make their application directly to the agency that has the information.

The ''Privacy Act'', RSC 1985, c P-21, sets out the conditions under which a government institution may collect, maintain, and use personal information about individuals. The ''Act'' requires that:
#The information collected must relate directly to an operating program or activity of the institution (section 4).
#Information used in a decision-making process that directly affects the individual should be, wherever possible, collected directly from the individual to whom it relates, or with their consent, and the institution shall inform the individual of the purpose for which the information is being collected (section 5).
#The institution shall ensure that information used to make a decision about an individual is accurate, up-to-date and as complete as possible, that it is retained long enough for the individual to have a reasonable opportunity to obtain access to it, and that it is disposed of in accordance with the relevant regulations and ministry directives or guidelines (section 6).
#The information shall not, without the consent of the individual, be used for any purpose except that for which it was obtained, for a use consistent with that purpose, or for other purposes specified in the Act (section 7).

The Privacy Commissioner is authorized to oversee compliance by federal government institutions with the provisions of the ''Privacy Act''. The Commissioner receives and investigates complaints from individuals, audits institutions’ storage and use of information, makes recommendations to institutions and the Treasury Board regarding privacy issues, and presents an annual report to Parliament.

:'''NOTE:''' Per amendments made to the ''Access to Information Act'' and the ''Privacy Act'', a ministerial advisor and a member of a ministerial staff are excluded from the definition of “personal information”.

The Commissioner cannot make orders requiring bodies to comply with the ''Act'' but may investigate and make reports. Individuals who are refused access to their own personal information may, after the Commissioner has investigated and reported, apply to the Federal Court for an order requiring access to this information. The Privacy Commissioner may also take enforcement proceedings in Federal Court in relation to a refusal to give an individual access to their own personal information. For further information, contact:

'''BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP_online
| online = [http://fipa.bc.ca/ Website]
}}

Any complaints regarding your ''Privacy Act'' request should be submitted in writing to:

'''Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 30 Victoria Street Gatineau, QC K1A 1H3
| phone = 1-819-994-5444 Toll-Free: 1-800-282-1376 TTY: (819) 994-6591 
| online = [http://www.priv.gc.ca Website]
}}

=== 3. Access to Information Act ===

This Act gives Canadian citizens, permanent residents and any individual or corporation present in Canada the right to access any record under the control of a federal government institution.

If you are seeking to obtain information about an individual person, see '''Section IV.D.2''' of this chapter on the application of the ''Privacy Act''.

Certain classes of information are exempt from the ''Act''. These include confidential inter-governmental communications, information pertaining to law enforcement and investigations, trade secrets, personal information, and generally anything likely to be harmful to Canada’s national security interest.

On June 21, 2019, an act to amend the ''Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act'' received Royal Assent. Under the amended ''Act'', a federal institution may decline to act on a request to access to a record for various reasons if approved by the Information Commissioner. In addition to this change, the amended ''Act'' clarifies the power of the Information Commissioner regarding the authority to refuse or cease to investigate and to examine disclosure subjected to solicitor-client privilege or professional secrecy

:'''NOTE:''' In the Supreme Court of Canada decision in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/2b5ss Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v Criminal Lawyers’ Association]'', 2010 SCC 23, the Court held that the guarantee of freedom of expression under subsection 2(b) of the ''Charter'' does not guarantee access to all documents in government hands. In that case, the Court adopted the test for whether freedom of expression was infringed found in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/1ft6g Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (Attorney General)]'', [1989] 1 SCR 927, and determined that freedom of expression was not infringed by the ''Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act'', RSO 1990, c F.31. See both of these cases for more detailed information.

The procedure for obtaining a government record is as follows:
#Go to http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/atip-aiprp for the Access to Information and Privacy website, which offers a brochure about using the ''Act'', online access to Info Source, and online forms. Alternatively, any public library provides the same information. Info Source is a directory that describes each federal government institution and the information it holds, as well as the title and address of the appropriate officer to whom requests should be sent.
#Formally request the records by sending in the online or printed request forms, or by sending a letter. These options are available under “Options for Submitting an ATIP Request”. Be as specific as possible citing subject, dates, events, and individuals. Enclose a $5.00 payment, but ask that this and any other fees be waived on the grounds that the release of records would be of “general public benefit” or that similar information has been released in the past. Note: Requests for information under the ''Privacy Act'' do not require a fee.
#Once the institution receives a request, it has 30 days to give notice of whether access will be given. Senior officials can extend this time limit if they give notice of extension. If third parties are involved, the time limit is 80 days.
#If the request is refused, they must inform the person making the request of the right to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

It can take up to one year to receive records to which access is given. There is no meaningful redress for delays of this nature.

Complaints should be sent in writing to:

'''Office of the Information Commissioner'''

{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 30 Victoria Street Gatineau, QC K1A 1H3
| phone = Toll-free: 1-800-267-0441 Fax: (819) 994-1768
| online = [http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/ Website] E-mail: greffe-registry@oic-ci.gc.ca 
}}

:'''NOTE: A complaint must be made within 60 days from the date that you received a response to your request.''' There are '''no exceptions''' to this deadline. The ''Act'' does not give the Information Commissioner any discretion to accept complaints after more than 60 days.

The Information Commissioner investigates complaints in private, and each party has the right to make representations. As a result of the 2019 amendments to the ''Act'', the Information Commissioner gained substantial investigative powers (section 36(1)) as well as the power to make binding orders following an investigation requiring the government to disclose records (section 36.1). The Commissioner is not obligated to take on a case, and if they refuse to do so, there is no right to appeal this refusal.

There is, however, a right to appeal the original denial of access; this appeal must be made to the Federal Court within '''30 days''' of the decision of the Information Commissioner (section 41(1)). In court, the burden of proof is on the government to show that the information must be withheld.

:'''NOTE:''' It is helpful to check to see if the organization you are requesting information about has a form of its own. It would cut down on time for the form to go directly to the organization.

== E. Federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act ==

The federal ''Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act'', SC 2000, c 5 [''PIPEDA''], is intended to remedy some of the problems encountered by consumers and by businesses when information relating to consumer habits is collected to be used internally or externally by private sector organizations. ''PIPEDA'' is a federal law governing:

*The collection, protection, and disclosure of personal information; and
*The use of electronic versions of official documents on paper, in the public and private sphere.

While ''PIPEDA'' is a federal act, the legislation claims to have jurisdiction over the provincially regulated private sector as well as the federal sector. However, subsection 26(2) of the ''Act'' gives the Governor-in-Council the power to exempt an organization where substantially similar provincial legislation exists. Almost all provinces have enacted their own version of the ''Act''. In October 2003, BC passed the ''Personal Information Protection Act'', SBC 2003, c 63 [''PIPA''], which has been declared substantially similar legislation.

For more information on ''PIPEDA'', please see:

Stephanie Perrin, Heather Black & David Flaherty, ''The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act: An Annotated Guide'' (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2001).

:'''NOTE:''' Government of Canada introduced Bill C-36, ''An Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act (PPCDA), to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts'', 1st Sess, 45th Parl, 2026. If this legislation is enacted, it will replace Part 1 of PIPEDA and create the Digital Safety and Data Protection Commission of Canada with power to issue binding orders. Bill C-36 will also create a private right of action, allowing individuals to sue for damages when a contravention is established. Users of this manual are encouraged to reference the latest publicly released information regarding legislative reform to ensure they are up to date.

:: For a summary on Bill C-36, see: [https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2026/06/government-of-canada-introduces-legislation-to-protect-canadians-privacy-in-the-digital-age.html Backgrounder: Government of Canada introduces legislation to Protect Canadians’ Privacy in the Digital Age]

== F. BC Personal Information Protection Act ==

The BC ''PIPA'' is an attempt by the province to maintain jurisdiction over the regulation of private business, historically under the Province's control. The purpose of this act is to govern the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by '''private''' organizations. The ''Act'' has been in force since 2004 and has been declared substantially similar by the Governor-in-Council, thereby exempting ''PIPA''-applicable organizations in British Columbia from the application of the federal ''PIPEDA''.

== G. BC Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ==

=== 1. Introduction ===

The ''Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act'', RSBC 1996, c 165 [''FIPPA''], is similar in some respects to the federal access and privacy legislation relating to '''public''' organizations. As a result of this provincial legislation, there is a consistent policy regarding access and privacy for BC government ministries and agencies, and other public bodies. The ''Act'' is significant for two reasons:

:*It has standardized decision-making criteria in regards to access and privacy; and
:*It has established a uniform appeal process.

This act is amended from time to time. On November 25th, 2021 significant changes to FIPPA were enacted through [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/bills/billsprevious/2nd42nd:gov22-2 Bill 22-2021]. It is advisable to consult the ''Act'' for certainty.

The most important recent change relates to the costs associated with Freedom of Information requests. While there are no fees for personal Freedom of Information requests, a non-refundable $10 fee is now required for all general Freedom of Information requests, for each public body included in the request. A request will not be processed unless and/or until the fee is paid. There are no processing fees for the first three hours spent locating requested records or for the time taken to redact information from records. However, processing fees for requests that require additional time will vary depending on the size and complexity of the FOI request (section 71(1)). If there are costs associated with a request, the head of the public body must provide the applicant with a written estimate of the total cost before providing the associated services (section 75(4)(a)).

An individual may apply to have the fees waived if they are unable to afford them or there is a valid reason for the payment to be excused, such as the information requested is a matter of public interest (section 75(5)). However, the $10 application fee associated with all General FOI requests cannot be waived.

:'''NOTE:''' For clarity, there is '''no application fee or processing fee due from an applicant requesting their own personal information''' (section 75(3)).

Indigenous Governing Entities are exempt from associated fees to prevent barriers to accessing information.

Additional information regarding costs related to FOI requests, can be found at the following link: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/services-for-government/policies-procedures/foippa-manual/fees

Further information about the ''Act'' can be obtained from the following organization:

:[http://fipa.bc.ca/ Freedom of Information and Privacy Association]

The BC Civil Liberties Association has also published a handbook on privacy that provides detailed information about various aspects of the law relating to privacy. It can be found online at http://bccla.org/privacy-handbook.

=== 2. Scope of Freedom of Information Rights ===

Section 3 of the ''FIPPA'' provides that the ''Act'' applies to all records in the custody or control of a “public body”, subject to the exceptions outlined in subsections (3) to (5). In addition to the entities defined as public bodies in Schedule 1, including BC government ministries, institutions, municipalities, hospitals, and universities and colleges, Schedule 2 lists specific organizations that are covered by the ''Act'', including BC Hydro, ICBC, Legal Services Society, ''Mental Health Act'' Review Board, and the Workers’ Compensation Board.

A 1993 amendment to the ''FIPPA'' expanded the scope of the legislation to include governing bodies of various professions within the scope of the ''Act''. These professions include lawyers, accountants, engineers, teachers, doctors, and nurses (see Schedule 3).

Sections 12 to 22.1 restrict the disclosure of information. The following may '''not''' need to be disclosed:
*cabinet and local public body confidences (section 12),
*policy-oriented information (section 13),
*legal advice (section 14),
*information harmful to law enforcement (section 15),
*information harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations (section 16),
*financially sensitive data (section 17),
*information harmful to heritage sites or endangered species (section 18),
*information harmful to interests of an Indigenous people (section 18.1),
*information harmful to individual or public safety (section 19),
*information harmful to a third party's business interest (section 21),
*information harmful to a third party’s personal privacy (section 22), and
*information relating to abortion services (section 22.1).

It is worth noting that some of the exceptions are mandatory (sections 12, 18.1, 21 and 22 on third-party business) and others discretionary (section 13 to 18 and 18 to 20. There is also public interest override in section 25, which requires disclosure of information about risk of significant harm to the environment, or public health or safety, or in other circumstances where disclosure is clearly in the public interest.

:'''NOTE:''' In ''[https://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/995 Re South Coast BC Transportation Authority]'', [2009] BCIPCD No 20, it was decided that TransLink was a public body. Thus, public disclosure of employment records for TransLink employees would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy. However, this was based on a rebuttal of the presumption that a disclosure of personal information is an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy if the personal information describes the third party's finances, income, etc. A change of circumstances could change the outcome. In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/24cnk Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v Canadian Federation of Students – British Columbia Component]'',[2009] 2 SCR 295, TransLink was found to be a government entity under section 32 of the ''Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' [''Charter''], and thus subject to ''Charter'' scrutiny.

=== 3. Scope of Privacy Rights ===

Apart from allowing for access to information, ''FIPPA'' also has provisions restricting the collection, protection, and retention of personal information.

“Personal information” is defined in Schedule 1 of the ''Act'' as all recorded information about an identifiable individual other than contact information. The recorded information includes the individual’s name, race, colour, religious or political beliefs, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, fingerprints, blood type, health care history, educational, financial, criminal or employment history, anyone’s opinion about the individual, and the individual’s personal views or opinions, except if they are about someone else.

==== a) Collection of Personal Information ====

Public bodies can collect personal information only when authorized by legislation, for law enforcement purposes, or when necessary to the operation of a program administered by the public body, when necessary to reduce the risk that an individual will be a victim of domestic violence, when the information is collected by observation at a public event with voluntary individual participation or with the individual's consent (section 26).

In general, a public body must collect personal information directly from the individual (section 27). Notable exceptions include: when an alternative method is authorized by the individual, by the Privacy Commissioner, or under another statute; and when the information is used for the purpose of collecting a debt or fine or making a payment. Except where the information is collected for law enforcement purposes, the public body must also tell the individual from whom it collects personal information the purpose and the legal authority for collecting it.

The public body has a duty to ensure the information it collects is accurate and complete (section 28). An individual has the right to request correction if they believe there is an omission or error in the personal information (section 29).

Heads of public bodies must protect personal information by reasonable security arrangements against unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure, or disposal (section 30). Section 30.3 provides whistle-blower legislation to protect employees fulfilling this obligation.

==== b) Use of Personal Information ====

A public body can only use personal information in its possession for the purpose the information was obtained or a use consistent with that purpose, if the individual the information is about has identified the information and has consented to its use, or for a purpose for which the information may be disclosed to the public body under section 33 (section 32).

==== c) Disclosure of Personal Information ====

Sections 33 to 34 deal with disclosure of personal information by a public body. These sections empower a public body to disclose personal information only under certain circumstances, such as where there is the consent of the individual; where the information is used for a consistent purpose or for the purpose of complying with another enactment; where the information may reduce the risk that an individual is likely to be a victim of domestic violence if domestic violence is reasonably likely to occur otherwise; where the information is used in an audit; and where the information is used by a public body or a law enforcement agency to assist in an investigation in which a law enforcement proceeding is intended or likely to result.

=== 4. Process of Making a Disclosure Request ===

==== a) Step One: Requesting Disclosure or Correction ====

An individual can send a letter to a public body asking for disclosure of information pertaining to that individual or for a correction of information. If the request is for access to information, the head of the public body then has 30 days to respond (this time limit can be extended under section 10) (s 7(1)). Section 8(1) requires that any response must either (a) inform the applicant if they are entitled to access some or all of the requested documents, (b) inform the individual of where, when, and how the record will be disclosed, or (c) detail the reasons the request was denied.

If the request is for a correction of information held by the public body, the head of the public body must either correct the record (section 29(1)), or annotate the information with the correction that was requested (section 29(2)). The head of the public body must next notify all other parties to whom the information in question has been disclosed within the past year (section 29(3)).

Always check with the organization itself to see if it has its own forms for requests; this makes the process much faster.

To obtain a copy of a police report, complete the form provided by the “Information and Privacy” section of the police department from which you are requesting the records (for the VPD, you will find the form here: https://vpd.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/foi-request.pdf). It can be submitted by email, mail, or fax according to the instructions found here: https://vpd.ca/contact-us/information-privacy.
Include a copy of the person’s government-issued photo ID and a cover letter explaining the details of the report you are looking for. If you are asking to receive documents on someone’s behalf you will also need them to sign an authorization or release. There is typically no fee to request documents relating to an interaction you had with police.

If a person has been a victim of property crime, their insurance company might require them to obtain a copy of the police report. Sometimes the insurer will make the request for you. To obtain this record from the VPD, fill out the [https://vpd.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/vpd-form-1713-request-for-property-report.pdf Request for Property Report form], or send in a written request with the following information: police file number, full name, current address, telephone number, location of incident, type of incident, and any other helpful details. There is a fee for this service, although it is waived for out-of-town visitors and international students upon verification of visitor status. The form, payment ($55.00, which includes applicable taxes), and a copy of your government-issued photo ID should be mailed or brought in person to the following address:

:::ATTENTION: Correspondence Unit
:::Vancouver Police Department
:::3585 Graveley St.
:::Vancouver, BC V5K 5J5

For agencies other than the VPD, contact your local police department to determine the process and fee for requesting a copy of a police report.

For further information on the process of making a disclosure request, contact:

'''Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = PO Box 9038, Stn. Prov. Govt., 4th Floor, 947 Fort Street, Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 9A4
| phone = (250) 387-5629 Fax: (250) 387-1696
| online = [http://www.oipc.bc.ca/ Website] Email: info@oipc.bc.ca
}}

:'''NOTE:''' The public body to which a request is made may charge to provide a copy of the record and its shipping and handling, and for the time spent locating the record and preparing it for disclosure (''FIPPA'', section 75(1)). They cannot charge, however, for the first 3 hours spent locating and retrieving a record and time spent severing information (section 75(2)). Likewise, these fees do not apply to a request for the applicant’s own personal information (s 75(3)). If a request for payment is made, send a letter explaining that the fee should be waived because: 

::a) you cannot afford payment (s 75(5)(a)), 
::b) it is fair to excuse payment (s 75(5)(a)), or 
::c) the record relates to a matter of public interest (e.g., the environment, public health and safety, etc.) (s 75(5)(b)).

====b) Step Two: Filing a Complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner ====

If the public body refuses to disclose the information or make the requested correction, the next step is to file a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Under section 42, the Commissioner oversees the administration of the ''Act''. An individual can ask the Commissioner to review any decision pertaining to access or correction within 30 days of notification of the decision (section 53(2)(a)) (although section 53(2)(b) allows the Commissioner to extend this limitation period). Please refer to the ''FIPPA'' and its regulations for a detailed description of the review process.

The Commissioner has significant power to enforce a judgment (much more so than the equivalent federal official). Generally, the burden is on the public body to justify its refusal to disclose information (although there are notable exceptions pertaining to third-party interests (see section 57). The head of a public body must comply with an order of the Commissioner unless an application for judicial review is brought within 30 days (section 59). A person other than the head of a public body who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Commissioner may seek judicial review pursuant to the ''Judicial Review Procedure Act''.

== H. The BC Privacy Act ==

The BC ''Privacy Act'', RSBC 1996, c 373, makes it a “tort, actionable without proof of damages, for a person, wilfully and without claim of right, to violate the privacy of another” (section 1(1)). Subsection 1(2) of the ''Act'' entitles a person to the nature and degree of privacy that is “reasonable in the circumstances”, but the ''Act'' itself gives limited guidance to the courts on what particular circumstances are deemed to be an unreasonable invasion of privacy. However, section 2 does set out a number of exceptions.

Most of the reported cases brought under the ''Act'' have been unsuccessful, largely because the courts have been reluctant to accept a broad view of what type of expectations of privacy are reasonable. One difficulty with the ''Act'' is that a person offended by an invasion of privacy is unlikely to seek redress through a public process that will have the effect of further airing the private matter.

Actions under the ''Privacy Act'' must be brought in the BC Supreme Court (section 4).

== I. Police Information Checks (Criminal Record Checks) ==

Police information checks, also known as criminal record checks, consist of information which may be required by a potential employer or volunteer organization, in the later stage of their hiring process. Police information checks are conducted and provided by individual local police departments and the RCMP, who are supposed to play a neutral role in the hiring process.

Employment or volunteer candidates who are asked by their potential employer or volunteer organization to provide a police information check should be aware that potential employers and volunteer organizations may only use relevant information to determine the suitability of a candidate. In particular, the ''BC Human Rights Code'', RSBC 1996, c 210, section 13 makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based on having been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of a person.

[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/police/publications/police-information-checks/model_policy_guidlines.pdf The British Columbia Provincial Policing Model Policy Guidelines] operate to ensure that policies and practices align among police agencies in British Columbia so that citizens, employers, and volunteer organizations receive consistent Criminal and Police Information Checks. The following is a summary of the Guidelines.

If working with vulnerable persons, employment or volunteer candidates may be asked by their potential employer or volunteer organization to provide a vulnerable sector check. Vulnerable persons are individuals who, because of their age, disability, or other circumstances, whether temporary or permanent, are (a) in a position of dependence on others or (b) are otherwise at a greater risk than the general population of being harmed by a person in a position of authority or trust relative to them, as defined by the ''Criminal Records Act'', RSC 1985, c C-47, section 6.3(1).

Vulnerable sector checks consist of screening designed to protect vulnerable persons from dangerous offenders by uncovering the existence of a criminal record, adverse police contact, and/or pardoned (or record suspension) sexual offence conviction. This level of screening is restricted to applicants seeking employment and/or volunteering with vulnerable persons.

The Guidelines stipulate that the board, chief constable, chief officer, or commissioner should ensure that:

Job applicants who work with the vulnerable sector will, at the request of their employer, receive a check that:
:(a) includes a search of, at a minimum, Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), Police Information Portal (PIP), Justice Information (JUSTIN), and Police Records Information Management Environment (PRIME) records;
:(b) discloses to the applicant all warrants, outstanding charges, convictions and adverse contact;
:(c) does not include the disclosure of apprehensions under section 28 of the ''Mental Health Act'';
:(d) does include adverse contact involving the threat or actual use of violence directed at other individuals, regardless of, but without disclosing, mental health status;
:(e) does not include youth offences unless provided for under the ''Youth Criminal Justice Act''; and
:(f) does include information on a sexual offence conviction where a pardon or record suspension has been granted.

Those who are not working with vulnerable persons may be asked instead to provide a non-vulnerable sector check. The Guidelines stipulate that applicants who are not working with the vulnerable sector will, at the request of their employer, receive a check that:
:(a) includes a search of, at a minimum, CPIC, PIP, JUSTIN, and PRIME records;
:(b) discloses to the applicant all warrants, outstanding charges, and convictions;
:(c) does not disclose adverse contact;
:(d) does not include the disclosure of apprehensions under section 28 of the ''Mental Health Act''; and
:(e) does not include youth offences unless provided for under the ''Youth Criminal Justice Act''.

In cases where non-disclosable information indicates a significant threat to public safety, police agencies may either refuse to complete the check or take action under their duty to warn responsibilities noted below.

Nothing in the Guidelines prevents a police agency from disclosing information under either a statutory or common law duty to provide warnings where the health, safety or wellbeing of an individual or individuals is at risk of significant harm.

Further information regarding the Guidelines, including a full list of information which should or should not be included in a Police Information Check, may be found at:
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/policing-in-bc/publications-statistics-legislation/publications/police-information-checks-guidelines-for-police

Because police information checks are provided by individual police departments or the RCMP, one should consult the website of the particular police department or that of the RCMP for specific information, such as that pertaining to fees, accepted forms of identification, and further information on what will or will not be included in the police information check.

The following is a link to information on police information checks conducted by the Vancouver Police Department:
https://vpd.ca/contact-us/police-information-checks/

Please consult [[Other Issues in Criminal Matters (1:VIII) | Chapter 1: Criminal Law]] for information explaining the importance of consenting to disclosure, what information third parties may find out, the impact of having a criminal record, the elimination of records, and record suspensions.

If an individual disagrees with a decision of the police officer, such as to not provide a police information check or with the information provided on the police information checks, the individual can appeal the decision internally within the police department. The individual can submit a request to the head of the records check department within the police department where they made the initial information check request for a review of the decision. If the individual still disagrees with the appealed decision, then the next avenue of appeal, if one is available, remains unclear. It is possible that an applicant may file for Judicial Review of the police department’s decision (see [[Review of Administrative Decisions for Public Complaints (5:III) | III.C.1 on Judicial Review]]). The Privacy Commissioner’s Office may possibly have jurisdiction over these matters, although their current position is that a police information check is different than a request for release of information, and is not covered by their legislation.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}

Privacy or Access to Information for Public Complaints (5:IV)

2026-09-25T18:27:18Z

Nate Russell: /* E. Federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act */

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 11 August 2025}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

== A. Introduction ==

Although the right to privacy is fundamental to the healthy exercise of democratic rights, recognition and practical enforcement of this right by legislators and the courts has been slow. This problem has many sources, but underlying it is the enormous difficulty jurists have found in coming to an understanding of what is meant and entailed by this right.

The right to privacy is often balanced against the right to access information since these rights frequently collide (e.g., when an employer wishes to obtain information about an employee from a government agency). In some cases, a right of access to information may determine whether or not an individual’s privacy has been violated. Legislation regulating access to government information is designed to ensure an informed citizenry; when someone seeks information that may injure the privacy interests of a third party, mechanisms exist to weigh privacy interests of the individual against the public interest in disclosure. The following provides a quick survey of the relevant privacy or access to information laws.

== B. At Common Law ==

At common law, the torts of trespass, nuisance, defamation, and invasion of privacy may discourage some of the more blatant forms of invasion of privacy. However, these civil actions retroactively provide compensation for the breach of privacy rather than ensure privacy.

== C. Wiretap Legislation and Lawful Access ==

Individuals interested in information on wiretapping and lawful access to information should contact the BC Civil Liberties Association, who specialize in dealing in these areas. The case law in this area is very complicated, and an experienced criminal lawyer should be consulted if issues regarding a wiretap arise.

== D. Federal Privacy Act, Federal Access to Information Act ==

=== 1. Introduction ===

The federal ''Access to Information Act'', RSC 1985, c A-1, and the federal ''Privacy Act'', RSC 1985, c P-21, both deal with freedom of information. The ''Access to Information Act'' allows for access to information in records under the control of federal government institutions. The ''Privacy Act'' protects the confidentiality of information about an individual held by federal government institutions, and provides individuals with a right of access to information about themselves held by such institutions. What follows is only a brief outline of the main provisions of these acts. Individuals should consult the acts if they have a problem in this area.

=== 2. Privacy Act ===

If an individual wants to obtain information relating to themselves, they should make an application under the federal ''Privacy Act'' and should make their application directly to the agency that has the information.

The ''Privacy Act'', RSC 1985, c P-21, sets out the conditions under which a government institution may collect, maintain, and use personal information about individuals. The ''Act'' requires that:
#The information collected must relate directly to an operating program or activity of the institution (section 4).
#Information used in a decision-making process that directly affects the individual should be, wherever possible, collected directly from the individual to whom it relates, or with their consent, and the institution shall inform the individual of the purpose for which the information is being collected (section 5).
#The institution shall ensure that information used to make a decision about an individual is accurate, up-to-date and as complete as possible, that it is retained long enough for the individual to have a reasonable opportunity to obtain access to it, and that it is disposed of in accordance with the relevant regulations and ministry directives or guidelines (section 6).
#The information shall not, without the consent of the individual, be used for any purpose except that for which it was obtained, for a use consistent with that purpose, or for other purposes specified in the Act (section 7).

The Privacy Commissioner is authorized to oversee compliance by federal government institutions with the provisions of the ''Privacy Act''. The Commissioner receives and investigates complaints from individuals, audits institutions’ storage and use of information, makes recommendations to institutions and the Treasury Board regarding privacy issues, and presents an annual report to Parliament.

:'''NOTE:''' Per amendments made to the ''Access to Information Act'' and the ''Privacy Act'', a ministerial advisor and a member of a ministerial staff are excluded from the definition of “personal information”.

The Commissioner cannot make orders requiring bodies to comply with the ''Act'' but may investigate and make reports. Individuals who are refused access to their own personal information may, after the Commissioner has investigated and reported, apply to the Federal Court for an order requiring access to this information. The Privacy Commissioner may also take enforcement proceedings in Federal Court in relation to a refusal to give an individual access to their own personal information. For further information, contact:

'''BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP_online
| online = [http://fipa.bc.ca/ Website]
}}

Any complaints regarding your ''Privacy Act'' request should be submitted in writing to:

'''Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 30 Victoria Street Gatineau, QC K1A 1H3
| phone = 1-819-994-5444 Toll-Free: 1-800-282-1376 TTY: (819) 994-6591 
| online = [http://www.priv.gc.ca Website]
}}

=== 3. Access to Information Act ===

This Act gives Canadian citizens, permanent residents and any individual or corporation present in Canada the right to access any record under the control of a federal government institution.

If you are seeking to obtain information about an individual person, see '''Section IV.D.2''' of this chapter on the application of the ''Privacy Act''.

Certain classes of information are exempt from the ''Act''. These include confidential inter-governmental communications, information pertaining to law enforcement and investigations, trade secrets, personal information, and generally anything likely to be harmful to Canada’s national security interest.

On June 21, 2019, an act to amend the ''Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act'' received Royal Assent. Under the amended ''Act'', a federal institution may decline to act on a request to access to a record for various reasons if approved by the Information Commissioner. In addition to this change, the amended ''Act'' clarifies the power of the Information Commissioner regarding the authority to refuse or cease to investigate and to examine disclosure subjected to solicitor-client privilege or professional secrecy

:'''NOTE:''' In the Supreme Court of Canada decision in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/2b5ss Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v Criminal Lawyers’ Association]'', 2010 SCC 23, the Court held that the guarantee of freedom of expression under subsection 2(b) of the ''Charter'' does not guarantee access to all documents in government hands. In that case, the Court adopted the test for whether freedom of expression was infringed found in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/1ft6g Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (Attorney General)]'', [1989] 1 SCR 927, and determined that freedom of expression was not infringed by the ''Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act'', RSO 1990, c F.31. See both of these cases for more detailed information.

The procedure for obtaining a government record is as follows:
#Go to http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/atip-aiprp for the Access to Information and Privacy website, which offers a brochure about using the ''Act'', online access to Info Source, and online forms. Alternatively, any public library provides the same information. Info Source is a directory that describes each federal government institution and the information it holds, as well as the title and address of the appropriate officer to whom requests should be sent.
#Formally request the records by sending in the online or printed request forms, or by sending a letter. These options are available under “Options for Submitting an ATIP Request”. Be as specific as possible citing subject, dates, events, and individuals. Enclose a $5.00 payment, but ask that this and any other fees be waived on the grounds that the release of records would be of “general public benefit” or that similar information has been released in the past. Note: Requests for information under the ''Privacy Act'' do not require a fee.
#Once the institution receives a request, it has 30 days to give notice of whether access will be given. Senior officials can extend this time limit if they give notice of extension. If third parties are involved, the time limit is 80 days.
#If the request is refused, they must inform the person making the request of the right to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

It can take up to one year to receive records to which access is given. There is no meaningful redress for delays of this nature.

Complaints should be sent in writing to:

'''Office of the Information Commissioner'''

{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 30 Victoria Street Gatineau, QC K1A 1H3
| phone = Toll-free: 1-800-267-0441 Fax: (819) 994-1768
| online = [http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/ Website] E-mail: greffe-registry@oic-ci.gc.ca 
}}

:'''NOTE: A complaint must be made within 60 days from the date that you received a response to your request.''' There are '''no exceptions''' to this deadline. The ''Act'' does not give the Information Commissioner any discretion to accept complaints after more than 60 days.

The Information Commissioner investigates complaints in private, and each party has the right to make representations. As a result of the 2019 amendments to the ''Act'', the Information Commissioner gained substantial investigative powers (section 36(1)) as well as the power to make binding orders following an investigation requiring the government to disclose records (section 36.1). The Commissioner is not obligated to take on a case, and if they refuse to do so, there is no right to appeal this refusal.

There is, however, a right to appeal the original denial of access; this appeal must be made to the Federal Court within '''30 days''' of the decision of the Information Commissioner (section 41(1)). In court, the burden of proof is on the government to show that the information must be withheld.

:'''NOTE:''' It is helpful to check to see if the organization you are requesting information about has a form of its own. It would cut down on time for the form to go directly to the organization.

== E. Federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act ==

The federal ''Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act'', SC 2000, c 5 [''PIPEDA''], is intended to remedy some of the problems encountered by consumers and by businesses when information relating to consumer habits is collected to be used internally or externally by private sector organizations. ''PIPEDA'' is a federal law governing:

*The collection, protection, and disclosure of personal information; and
*The use of electronic versions of official documents on paper, in the public and private sphere.

While ''PIPEDA'' is a federal act, the legislation claims to have jurisdiction over the provincially regulated private sector as well as the federal sector. However, subsection 26(2) of the ''Act'' gives the Governor-in-Council the power to exempt an organization where substantially similar provincial legislation exists. Almost all provinces have enacted their own version of the ''Act''. In October 2003, BC passed the ''Personal Information Protection Act'', SBC 2003, c 63 [''PIPA''], which has been declared substantially similar legislation.

For more information on ''PIPEDA'', please see:

Stephanie Perrin, Heather Black & David Flaherty, ''The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act: An Annotated Guide'' (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2001).

:'''NOTE:''' Government of Canada introduced Bill C-36, ''An Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act (PPCDA), to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts'', 1st Sess, 45th Parl, 2026. If this legislation is enacted, it will replace Part 1 of PIPEDA and create the Digital Safety and Data Protection Commission of Canada with power to issue binding orders. Bill C-36 will also create a private right of action, allowing individuals to sue for damages when a contravention is established. Users of this manual are encouraged to reference the latest publicly released information regarding legislative reform to ensure they are up to date.

:: For a summary on Bill C-36, see: [https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2026/06/government-of-canada-introduces-legislation-to-protect-canadians-privacy-in-the-digital-age.html Backgrounder: Government of Canada introduces legislation to Protect Canadians’ Privacy in the Digital Age]

== F. BC Personal Information Protection Act ==

The BC ''PIPA'' is an attempt by the province to maintain jurisdiction over the regulation of private business, historically under the Province's control. The purpose of this act is to govern the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by '''private''' organizations. The ''Act'' has been in force since 2004 and has been declared substantially similar by the Governor-in-Council, thereby exempting ''PIPA''-applicable organizations in British Columbia from the application of the federal ''PIPEDA''.

== G. BC Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ==

=== 1. Introduction ===

The ''Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act'', RSBC 1996, c 165 [''FIPPA''], is similar in some respects to the federal access and privacy legislation relating to '''public''' organizations. As a result of this provincial legislation, there is a consistent policy regarding access and privacy for BC government ministries and agencies, and other public bodies. The ''Act'' is significant for two reasons:

:*It has standardized decision-making criteria in regards to access and privacy; and
:*It has established a uniform appeal process.

This act is amended from time to time. On November 25th, 2021 significant changes to FIPPA were enacted through [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/bills/billsprevious/2nd42nd:gov22-2 Bill 22-2021]. It is advisable to consult the ''Act'' for certainty.

The most important recent change relates to the costs associated with Freedom of Information requests. While there are no fees for personal Freedom of Information requests, a non-refundable $10 fee is now required for all general Freedom of Information requests, for each public body included in the request. A request will not be processed unless and/or until the fee is paid. There are no processing fees for the first three hours spent locating requested records or for the time taken to redact information from records. However, processing fees for requests that require additional time will vary depending on the size and complexity of the FOI request (section 71(1)). If there are costs associated with a request, the head of the public body must provide the applicant with a written estimate of the total cost before providing the associated services (section 75(4)(a)).

An individual may apply to have the fees waived if they are unable to afford them or there is a valid reason for the payment to be excused, such as the information requested is a matter of public interest (section 75(5)). However, the $10 application fee associated with all General FOI requests cannot be waived.

:'''NOTE:''' For clarity, there is '''no application fee or processing fee due from an applicant requesting their own personal information''' (section 75(3)).

Indigenous Governing Entities are exempt from associated fees to prevent barriers to accessing information.

Additional information regarding costs related to FOI requests, can be found at the following link: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/services-for-government/policies-procedures/foippa-manual/fees

Further information about the ''Act'' can be obtained from the following organization:

:[http://fipa.bc.ca/home/ Freedom of Information and Privacy Association]

The BC Civil Liberties Association has also published a handbook on privacy that provides detailed information about various aspects of the law relating to privacy. It can be found online at http://bccla.org/privacy-handbook.

=== 2. Scope of Freedom of Information Rights ===

Section 3 of the ''FIPPA'' provides that the ''Act'' applies to all records in the custody or control of a “public body”, subject to the exceptions outlined in subsections (3) to (5). In addition to the entities defined as public bodies in Schedule 1, including BC government ministries, institutions, municipalities, hospitals, and universities and colleges, Schedule 2 lists specific organizations that are covered by the ''Act'', including BC Hydro, ICBC, Legal Services Society, ''Mental Health Act'' Review Board, and the Workers’ Compensation Board.

A 1993 amendment to the ''FIPPA'' expanded the scope of the legislation to include governing bodies of various professions within the scope of the ''Act''. These professions include lawyers, accountants, engineers, teachers, doctors, and nurses (see Schedule 3).

Sections 12 to 22.1 restrict the disclosure of information. The following may '''not''' need to be disclosed:
*cabinet and local public body confidences (section 12),
*policy-oriented information (section 13),
*legal advice (section 14),
*information harmful to law enforcement (section 15),
*information harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations (section 16),
*financially sensitive data (section 17),
*information harmful to heritage sites or endangered species (section 18),
*information harmful to interests of an Indigenous people (section 18.1),
*information harmful to individual or public safety (section 19),
*information harmful to a third party's business interest (section 21),
*information harmful to a third party’s personal privacy (section 22), and
*information relating to abortion services (section 22.1).

It is worth noting that some of the exceptions are mandatory (sections 12, 18.1, 21 and 22 on third-party business) and others discretionary (section 13 to 18 and 18 to 20. There is also public interest override in section 25, which requires disclosure of information about risk of significant harm to the environment, or public health or safety, or in other circumstances where disclosure is clearly in the public interest.

:'''NOTE:''' In ''[https://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/995 Re South Coast BC Transportation Authority]'', [2009] BCIPCD No 20, it was decided that TransLink was a public body. Thus, public disclosure of employment records for TransLink employees would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy. However, this was based on a rebuttal of the presumption that a disclosure of personal information is an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy if the personal information describes the third party's finances, income, etc. A change of circumstances could change the outcome. In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/24cnk Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v Canadian Federation of Students – British Columbia Component]'',[2009] 2 SCR 295, TransLink was found to be a government entity under section 32 of the ''Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' [''Charter''], and thus subject to ''Charter'' scrutiny.

=== 3. Scope of Privacy Rights ===

Apart from allowing for access to information, ''FIPPA'' also has provisions restricting the collection, protection, and retention of personal information.

“Personal information” is defined in Schedule 1 of the ''Act'' as all recorded information about an identifiable individual other than contact information. The recorded information includes the individual’s name, race, colour, religious or political beliefs, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, fingerprints, blood type, health care history, educational, financial, criminal or employment history, anyone’s opinion about the individual, and the individual’s personal views or opinions, except if they are about someone else.

==== a) Collection of Personal Information ====

Public bodies can collect personal information only when authorized by legislation, for law enforcement purposes, or when necessary to the operation of a program administered by the public body, when necessary to reduce the risk that an individual will be a victim of domestic violence, when the information is collected by observation at a public event with voluntary individual participation or with the individual's consent (section 26).

In general, a public body must collect personal information directly from the individual (section 27). Notable exceptions include: when an alternative method is authorized by the individual, by the Privacy Commissioner, or under another statute; and when the information is used for the purpose of collecting a debt or fine or making a payment. Except where the information is collected for law enforcement purposes, the public body must also tell the individual from whom it collects personal information the purpose and the legal authority for collecting it.

The public body has a duty to ensure the information it collects is accurate and complete (section 28). An individual has the right to request correction if they believe there is an omission or error in the personal information (section 29).

Heads of public bodies must protect personal information by reasonable security arrangements against unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure, or disposal (section 30). Section 30.3 provides whistle-blower legislation to protect employees fulfilling this obligation.

==== b) Use of Personal Information ====

A public body can only use personal information in its possession for the purpose the information was obtained or a use consistent with that purpose, if the individual the information is about has identified the information and has consented to its use, or for a purpose for which the information may be disclosed to the public body under section 33 (section 32).

==== c) Disclosure of Personal Information ====

Sections 33 to 34 deal with disclosure of personal information by a public body. These sections empower a public body to disclose personal information only under certain circumstances, such as where there is the consent of the individual; where the information is used for a consistent purpose or for the purpose of complying with another enactment; where the information may reduce the risk that an individual is likely to be a victim of domestic violence if domestic violence is reasonably likely to occur otherwise; where the information is used in an audit; and where the information is used by a public body or a law enforcement agency to assist in an investigation in which a law enforcement proceeding is intended or likely to result.

=== 4. Process of Making a Disclosure Request ===

==== a) Step One: Requesting Disclosure or Correction ====

An individual can send a letter to a public body asking for disclosure of information pertaining to that individual or for a correction of information. If the request is for access to information, the head of the public body then has 30 days to respond (this time limit can be extended under section 10) (s 7(1)). Section 8(1) requires that any response must either (a) inform the applicant if they are entitled to access some or all of the requested documents, (b) inform the individual of where, when, and how the record will be disclosed, or (c) detail the reasons the request was denied.

If the request is for a correction of information held by the public body, the head of the public body must either correct the record (section 29(1)), or annotate the information with the correction that was requested (section 29(2)). The head of the public body must next notify all other parties to whom the information in question has been disclosed within the past year (section 29(3)).

Always check with the organization itself to see if it has its own forms for requests; this makes the process much faster.

To obtain a copy of a police report, complete the form provided by the “Information and Privacy” section of the police department from which you are requesting the records (for the VPD, you will find the form here: https://vpd.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/foi-request.pdf). It can be submitted by email, mail, or fax according to the instructions found here: https://vpd.ca/contact-us/information-privacy.
Include a copy of the person’s government-issued photo ID and a cover letter explaining the details of the report you are looking for. If you are asking to receive documents on someone’s behalf you will also need them to sign an authorization or release. There is typically no fee to request documents relating to an interaction you had with police.

If a person has been a victim of property crime, their insurance company might require them to obtain a copy of the police report. Sometimes the insurer will make the request for you. To obtain this record from the VPD, fill out the [https://vpd.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/vpd-form-1713-request-for-property-report.pdf Request for Property Report form], or send in a written request with the following information: police file number, full name, current address, telephone number, location of incident, type of incident, and any other helpful details. There is a fee for this service, although it is waived for out-of-town visitors and international students upon verification of visitor status. The form, payment ($55.00, which includes applicable taxes), and a copy of your government-issued photo ID should be mailed or brought in person to the following address:

:::ATTENTION: Correspondence Unit
:::Vancouver Police Department
:::3585 Graveley St.
:::Vancouver, BC V5K 5J5

For agencies other than the VPD, contact your local police department to determine the process and fee for requesting a copy of a police report.

For further information on the process of making a disclosure request, contact:

'''Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = PO Box 9038, Stn. Prov. Govt., 4th Floor, 947 Fort Street, Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 9A4
| phone = (250) 387-5629 Fax: (250) 387-1696
| online = [http://www.oipc.bc.ca/ Website] Email: info@oipc.bc.ca
}}

:'''NOTE:''' The public body to which a request is made may charge to provide a copy of the record and its shipping and handling, and for the time spent locating the record and preparing it for disclosure (''FIPPA'', section 75(1)). They cannot charge, however, for the first 3 hours spent locating and retrieving a record and time spent severing information (section 75(2)). Likewise, these fees do not apply to a request for the applicant’s own personal information (s 75(3)). If a request for payment is made, send a letter explaining that the fee should be waived because: 

::a) you cannot afford payment (s 75(5)(a)), 
::b) it is fair to excuse payment (s 75(5)(a)), or 
::c) the record relates to a matter of public interest (e.g., the environment, public health and safety, etc.) (s 75(5)(b)).

====b) Step Two: Filing a Complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner ====

If the public body refuses to disclose the information or make the requested correction, the next step is to file a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Under section 42, the Commissioner oversees the administration of the ''Act''. An individual can ask the Commissioner to review any decision pertaining to access or correction within 30 days of notification of the decision (section 53(2)(a)) (although section 53(2)(b) allows the Commissioner to extend this limitation period). Please refer to the ''FIPPA'' and its regulations for a detailed description of the review process.

The Commissioner has significant power to enforce a judgment (much more so than the equivalent federal official). Generally, the burden is on the public body to justify its refusal to disclose information (although there are notable exceptions pertaining to third-party interests (see section 57). The head of a public body must comply with an order of the Commissioner unless an application for judicial review is brought within 30 days (section 59). A person other than the head of a public body who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Commissioner may seek judicial review pursuant to the ''Judicial Review Procedure Act''.

== H. The BC Privacy Act ==

The BC ''Privacy Act'', RSBC 1996, c 373, makes it a “tort, actionable without proof of damages, for a person, wilfully and without claim of right, to violate the privacy of another” (section 1(1)). Subsection 1(2) of the ''Act'' entitles a person to the nature and degree of privacy that is “reasonable in the circumstances”, but the ''Act'' itself gives limited guidance to the courts on what particular circumstances are deemed to be an unreasonable invasion of privacy. However, section 2 does set out a number of exceptions.

Most of the reported cases brought under the ''Act'' have been unsuccessful, largely because the courts have been reluctant to accept a broad view of what type of expectations of privacy are reasonable. One difficulty with the ''Act'' is that a person offended by an invasion of privacy is unlikely to seek redress through a public process that will have the effect of further airing the private matter.

Actions under the ''Privacy Act'' must be brought in the BC Supreme Court (section 4).

== I. Police Information Checks (Criminal Record Checks) ==

Police information checks, also known as criminal record checks, consist of information which may be required by a potential employer or volunteer organization, in the later stage of their hiring process. Police information checks are conducted and provided by individual local police departments and the RCMP, who are supposed to play a neutral role in the hiring process.

Employment or volunteer candidates who are asked by their potential employer or volunteer organization to provide a police information check should be aware that potential employers and volunteer organizations may only use relevant information to determine the suitability of a candidate. In particular, the ''BC Human Rights Code'', RSBC 1996, c 210, section 13 makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based on having been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of a person.

[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/police/publications/police-information-checks/model_policy_guidlines.pdf The British Columbia Provincial Policing Model Policy Guidelines] operate to ensure that policies and practices align among police agencies in British Columbia so that citizens, employers, and volunteer organizations receive consistent Criminal and Police Information Checks. The following is a summary of the Guidelines.

If working with vulnerable persons, employment or volunteer candidates may be asked by their potential employer or volunteer organization to provide a vulnerable sector check. Vulnerable persons are individuals who, because of their age, disability, or other circumstances, whether temporary or permanent, are (a) in a position of dependence on others or (b) are otherwise at a greater risk than the general population of being harmed by a person in a position of authority or trust relative to them, as defined by the ''Criminal Records Act'', RSC 1985, c C-47, section 6.3(1).

Vulnerable sector checks consist of screening designed to protect vulnerable persons from dangerous offenders by uncovering the existence of a criminal record, adverse police contact, and/or pardoned (or record suspension) sexual offence conviction. This level of screening is restricted to applicants seeking employment and/or volunteering with vulnerable persons.

The Guidelines stipulate that the board, chief constable, chief officer, or commissioner should ensure that:

Job applicants who work with the vulnerable sector will, at the request of their employer, receive a check that:
:(a) includes a search of, at a minimum, Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), Police Information Portal (PIP), Justice Information (JUSTIN), and Police Records Information Management Environment (PRIME) records;
:(b) discloses to the applicant all warrants, outstanding charges, convictions and adverse contact;
:(c) does not include the disclosure of apprehensions under section 28 of the ''Mental Health Act'';
:(d) does include adverse contact involving the threat or actual use of violence directed at other individuals, regardless of, but without disclosing, mental health status;
:(e) does not include youth offences unless provided for under the ''Youth Criminal Justice Act''; and
:(f) does include information on a sexual offence conviction where a pardon or record suspension has been granted.

Those who are not working with vulnerable persons may be asked instead to provide a non-vulnerable sector check. The Guidelines stipulate that applicants who are not working with the vulnerable sector will, at the request of their employer, receive a check that:
:(a) includes a search of, at a minimum, CPIC, PIP, JUSTIN, and PRIME records;
:(b) discloses to the applicant all warrants, outstanding charges, and convictions;
:(c) does not disclose adverse contact;
:(d) does not include the disclosure of apprehensions under section 28 of the ''Mental Health Act''; and
:(e) does not include youth offences unless provided for under the ''Youth Criminal Justice Act''.

In cases where non-disclosable information indicates a significant threat to public safety, police agencies may either refuse to complete the check or take action under their duty to warn responsibilities noted below.

Nothing in the Guidelines prevents a police agency from disclosing information under either a statutory or common law duty to provide warnings where the health, safety or wellbeing of an individual or individuals is at risk of significant harm.

Further information regarding the Guidelines, including a full list of information which should or should not be included in a Police Information Check, may be found at:
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/policing-in-bc/publications-statistics-legislation/publications/police-information-checks-guidelines-for-police

Because police information checks are provided by individual police departments or the RCMP, one should consult the website of the particular police department or that of the RCMP for specific information, such as that pertaining to fees, accepted forms of identification, and further information on what will or will not be included in the police information check.

The following is a link to information on police information checks conducted by the Vancouver Police Department:
https://vpd.ca/contact-us/police-information-checks/

Please consult [[Other Issues in Criminal Matters (1:VIII) | Chapter 1: Criminal Law]] for information explaining the importance of consenting to disclosure, what information third parties may find out, the impact of having a criminal record, the elimination of records, and record suspensions.

If an individual disagrees with a decision of the police officer, such as to not provide a police information check or with the information provided on the police information checks, the individual can appeal the decision internally within the police department. The individual can submit a request to the head of the records check department within the police department where they made the initial information check request for a review of the decision. If the individual still disagrees with the appealed decision, then the next avenue of appeal, if one is available, remains unclear. It is possible that an applicant may file for Judicial Review of the police department’s decision (see [[Review of Administrative Decisions for Public Complaints (5:III) | III.C.1 on Judicial Review]]). The Privacy Commissioner’s Office may possibly have jurisdiction over these matters, although their current position is that a police information check is different than a request for release of information, and is not covered by their legislation.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}

Privacy or Access to Information for Public Complaints (5:IV)

2026-09-25T18:22:25Z

Nate Russell: /* 2. Privacy Act */

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 11 August 2025}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

== A. Introduction ==

Although the right to privacy is fundamental to the healthy exercise of democratic rights, recognition and practical enforcement of this right by legislators and the courts has been slow. This problem has many sources, but underlying it is the enormous difficulty jurists have found in coming to an understanding of what is meant and entailed by this right.

The right to privacy is often balanced against the right to access information since these rights frequently collide (e.g., when an employer wishes to obtain information about an employee from a government agency). In some cases, a right of access to information may determine whether or not an individual’s privacy has been violated. Legislation regulating access to government information is designed to ensure an informed citizenry; when someone seeks information that may injure the privacy interests of a third party, mechanisms exist to weigh privacy interests of the individual against the public interest in disclosure. The following provides a quick survey of the relevant privacy or access to information laws.

== B. At Common Law ==

At common law, the torts of trespass, nuisance, defamation, and invasion of privacy may discourage some of the more blatant forms of invasion of privacy. However, these civil actions retroactively provide compensation for the breach of privacy rather than ensure privacy.

== C. Wiretap Legislation and Lawful Access ==

Individuals interested in information on wiretapping and lawful access to information should contact the BC Civil Liberties Association, who specialize in dealing in these areas. The case law in this area is very complicated, and an experienced criminal lawyer should be consulted if issues regarding a wiretap arise.

== D. Federal Privacy Act, Federal Access to Information Act ==

=== 1. Introduction ===

The federal ''Access to Information Act'', RSC 1985, c A-1, and the federal ''Privacy Act'', RSC 1985, c P-21, both deal with freedom of information. The ''Access to Information Act'' allows for access to information in records under the control of federal government institutions. The ''Privacy Act'' protects the confidentiality of information about an individual held by federal government institutions, and provides individuals with a right of access to information about themselves held by such institutions. What follows is only a brief outline of the main provisions of these acts. Individuals should consult the acts if they have a problem in this area.

=== 2. Privacy Act ===

If an individual wants to obtain information relating to themselves, they should make an application under the federal ''Privacy Act'' and should make their application directly to the agency that has the information.

The ''Privacy Act'', RSC 1985, c P-21, sets out the conditions under which a government institution may collect, maintain, and use personal information about individuals. The ''Act'' requires that:
#The information collected must relate directly to an operating program or activity of the institution (section 4).
#Information used in a decision-making process that directly affects the individual should be, wherever possible, collected directly from the individual to whom it relates, or with their consent, and the institution shall inform the individual of the purpose for which the information is being collected (section 5).
#The institution shall ensure that information used to make a decision about an individual is accurate, up-to-date and as complete as possible, that it is retained long enough for the individual to have a reasonable opportunity to obtain access to it, and that it is disposed of in accordance with the relevant regulations and ministry directives or guidelines (section 6).
#The information shall not, without the consent of the individual, be used for any purpose except that for which it was obtained, for a use consistent with that purpose, or for other purposes specified in the Act (section 7).

The Privacy Commissioner is authorized to oversee compliance by federal government institutions with the provisions of the ''Privacy Act''. The Commissioner receives and investigates complaints from individuals, audits institutions’ storage and use of information, makes recommendations to institutions and the Treasury Board regarding privacy issues, and presents an annual report to Parliament.

:'''NOTE:''' Per amendments made to the ''Access to Information Act'' and the ''Privacy Act'', a ministerial advisor and a member of a ministerial staff are excluded from the definition of “personal information”.

The Commissioner cannot make orders requiring bodies to comply with the ''Act'' but may investigate and make reports. Individuals who are refused access to their own personal information may, after the Commissioner has investigated and reported, apply to the Federal Court for an order requiring access to this information. The Privacy Commissioner may also take enforcement proceedings in Federal Court in relation to a refusal to give an individual access to their own personal information. For further information, contact:

'''BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP_online
| online = [http://fipa.bc.ca/ Website]
}}

Any complaints regarding your ''Privacy Act'' request should be submitted in writing to:

'''Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 30 Victoria Street Gatineau, QC K1A 1H3
| phone = 1-819-994-5444 Toll-Free: 1-800-282-1376 TTY: (819) 994-6591 
| online = [http://www.priv.gc.ca Website]
}}

=== 3. Access to Information Act ===

This Act gives Canadian citizens, permanent residents and any individual or corporation present in Canada the right to access any record under the control of a federal government institution.

If you are seeking to obtain information about an individual person, see '''Section IV.D.2''' of this chapter on the application of the ''Privacy Act''.

Certain classes of information are exempt from the ''Act''. These include confidential inter-governmental communications, information pertaining to law enforcement and investigations, trade secrets, personal information, and generally anything likely to be harmful to Canada’s national security interest.

On June 21, 2019, an act to amend the ''Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act'' received Royal Assent. Under the amended ''Act'', a federal institution may decline to act on a request to access to a record for various reasons if approved by the Information Commissioner. In addition to this change, the amended ''Act'' clarifies the power of the Information Commissioner regarding the authority to refuse or cease to investigate and to examine disclosure subjected to solicitor-client privilege or professional secrecy

:'''NOTE:''' In the Supreme Court of Canada decision in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/2b5ss Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v Criminal Lawyers’ Association]'', 2010 SCC 23, the Court held that the guarantee of freedom of expression under subsection 2(b) of the ''Charter'' does not guarantee access to all documents in government hands. In that case, the Court adopted the test for whether freedom of expression was infringed found in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/1ft6g Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (Attorney General)]'', [1989] 1 SCR 927, and determined that freedom of expression was not infringed by the ''Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act'', RSO 1990, c F.31. See both of these cases for more detailed information.

The procedure for obtaining a government record is as follows:
#Go to http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/atip-aiprp for the Access to Information and Privacy website, which offers a brochure about using the ''Act'', online access to Info Source, and online forms. Alternatively, any public library provides the same information. Info Source is a directory that describes each federal government institution and the information it holds, as well as the title and address of the appropriate officer to whom requests should be sent.
#Formally request the records by sending in the online or printed request forms, or by sending a letter. These options are available under “Options for Submitting an ATIP Request”. Be as specific as possible citing subject, dates, events, and individuals. Enclose a $5.00 payment, but ask that this and any other fees be waived on the grounds that the release of records would be of “general public benefit” or that similar information has been released in the past. Note: Requests for information under the ''Privacy Act'' do not require a fee.
#Once the institution receives a request, it has 30 days to give notice of whether access will be given. Senior officials can extend this time limit if they give notice of extension. If third parties are involved, the time limit is 80 days.
#If the request is refused, they must inform the person making the request of the right to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

It can take up to one year to receive records to which access is given. There is no meaningful redress for delays of this nature.

Complaints should be sent in writing to:

'''Office of the Information Commissioner'''

{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 30 Victoria Street Gatineau, QC K1A 1H3
| phone = Toll-free: 1-800-267-0441 Fax: (819) 994-1768
| online = [http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/ Website] E-mail: greffe-registry@oic-ci.gc.ca 
}}

:'''NOTE: A complaint must be made within 60 days from the date that you received a response to your request.''' There are '''no exceptions''' to this deadline. The ''Act'' does not give the Information Commissioner any discretion to accept complaints after more than 60 days.

The Information Commissioner investigates complaints in private, and each party has the right to make representations. As a result of the 2019 amendments to the ''Act'', the Information Commissioner gained substantial investigative powers (section 36(1)) as well as the power to make binding orders following an investigation requiring the government to disclose records (section 36.1). The Commissioner is not obligated to take on a case, and if they refuse to do so, there is no right to appeal this refusal.

There is, however, a right to appeal the original denial of access; this appeal must be made to the Federal Court within '''30 days''' of the decision of the Information Commissioner (section 41(1)). In court, the burden of proof is on the government to show that the information must be withheld.

:'''NOTE:''' It is helpful to check to see if the organization you are requesting information about has a form of its own. It would cut down on time for the form to go directly to the organization.

== E. Federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act ==

The federal ''Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act'', SC 2000, c 5 [''PIPEDA''], is intended to remedy some of the problems encountered by consumers and by businesses when information relating to consumer habits is collected to be used internally or externally by private sector organizations. ''PIPEDA'' is a federal law governing:

*The collection, protection, and disclosure of personal information; and
*The use of electronic versions of official documents on paper, in the public and private sphere.

While ''PIPEDA'' is a federal act, the legislation claims to have jurisdiction over the provincially regulated private sector as well as the federal sector. However, subsection 26(2) of the ''Act'' gives the Governor-in-Council the power to exempt an organization where substantially similar provincial legislation exists. Almost all provinces have enacted their own version of the ''Act''. In October 2003, BC passed the ''Personal Information Protection Act'', SBC 2003, c 63 [''PIPA''], which has been declared substantially similar legislation.

For more information on ''PIPEDA'', please see:

Stephanie Perrin, Heather Black & David Flaherty, ''The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act: An Annotated Guide'' (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2001).

:'''NOTE:''' The legislature of Canada proposed Bill C-27, ''An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts'', 1st Sess, 44th Parl, 2022, which died in January 2025 due to Parliament prorogation. If this (or similar) legislation is (re)introduced and enacted, it may replace ''PIPEDA'', modify federal legislation to account for the introduction of artificial intelligence, and introduce changes to disclosure of the collection and use of information. Users of this manual are encouraged to reference the latest publicly released information regarding legislative reform to ensure they are up to date.

:: For a legislative summary on Bill C-27, see: [https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/441C27E]

== F. BC Personal Information Protection Act ==

The BC ''PIPA'' is an attempt by the province to maintain jurisdiction over the regulation of private business, historically under the Province's control. The purpose of this act is to govern the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by '''private''' organizations. The ''Act'' has been in force since 2004 and has been declared substantially similar by the Governor-in-Council, thereby exempting ''PIPA''-applicable organizations in British Columbia from the application of the federal ''PIPEDA''.

== G. BC Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ==

=== 1. Introduction ===

The ''Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act'', RSBC 1996, c 165 [''FIPPA''], is similar in some respects to the federal access and privacy legislation relating to '''public''' organizations. As a result of this provincial legislation, there is a consistent policy regarding access and privacy for BC government ministries and agencies, and other public bodies. The ''Act'' is significant for two reasons:

:*It has standardized decision-making criteria in regards to access and privacy; and
:*It has established a uniform appeal process.

This act is amended from time to time. On November 25th, 2021 significant changes to FIPPA were enacted through [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/bills/billsprevious/2nd42nd:gov22-2 Bill 22-2021]. It is advisable to consult the ''Act'' for certainty.

The most important recent change relates to the costs associated with Freedom of Information requests. While there are no fees for personal Freedom of Information requests, a non-refundable $10 fee is now required for all general Freedom of Information requests, for each public body included in the request. A request will not be processed unless and/or until the fee is paid. There are no processing fees for the first three hours spent locating requested records or for the time taken to redact information from records. However, processing fees for requests that require additional time will vary depending on the size and complexity of the FOI request (section 71(1)). If there are costs associated with a request, the head of the public body must provide the applicant with a written estimate of the total cost before providing the associated services (section 75(4)(a)).

An individual may apply to have the fees waived if they are unable to afford them or there is a valid reason for the payment to be excused, such as the information requested is a matter of public interest (section 75(5)). However, the $10 application fee associated with all General FOI requests cannot be waived.

:'''NOTE:''' For clarity, there is '''no application fee or processing fee due from an applicant requesting their own personal information''' (section 75(3)).

Indigenous Governing Entities are exempt from associated fees to prevent barriers to accessing information.

Additional information regarding costs related to FOI requests, can be found at the following link: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/services-for-government/policies-procedures/foippa-manual/fees

Further information about the ''Act'' can be obtained from the following organization:

:[http://fipa.bc.ca/home/ Freedom of Information and Privacy Association]

The BC Civil Liberties Association has also published a handbook on privacy that provides detailed information about various aspects of the law relating to privacy. It can be found online at http://bccla.org/privacy-handbook.

=== 2. Scope of Freedom of Information Rights ===

Section 3 of the ''FIPPA'' provides that the ''Act'' applies to all records in the custody or control of a “public body”, subject to the exceptions outlined in subsections (3) to (5). In addition to the entities defined as public bodies in Schedule 1, including BC government ministries, institutions, municipalities, hospitals, and universities and colleges, Schedule 2 lists specific organizations that are covered by the ''Act'', including BC Hydro, ICBC, Legal Services Society, ''Mental Health Act'' Review Board, and the Workers’ Compensation Board.

A 1993 amendment to the ''FIPPA'' expanded the scope of the legislation to include governing bodies of various professions within the scope of the ''Act''. These professions include lawyers, accountants, engineers, teachers, doctors, and nurses (see Schedule 3).

Sections 12 to 22.1 restrict the disclosure of information. The following may '''not''' need to be disclosed:
*cabinet and local public body confidences (section 12),
*policy-oriented information (section 13),
*legal advice (section 14),
*information harmful to law enforcement (section 15),
*information harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations (section 16),
*financially sensitive data (section 17),
*information harmful to heritage sites or endangered species (section 18),
*information harmful to interests of an Indigenous people (section 18.1),
*information harmful to individual or public safety (section 19),
*information harmful to a third party's business interest (section 21),
*information harmful to a third party’s personal privacy (section 22), and
*information relating to abortion services (section 22.1).

It is worth noting that some of the exceptions are mandatory (sections 12, 18.1, 21 and 22 on third-party business) and others discretionary (section 13 to 18 and 18 to 20. There is also public interest override in section 25, which requires disclosure of information about risk of significant harm to the environment, or public health or safety, or in other circumstances where disclosure is clearly in the public interest.

:'''NOTE:''' In ''[https://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/995 Re South Coast BC Transportation Authority]'', [2009] BCIPCD No 20, it was decided that TransLink was a public body. Thus, public disclosure of employment records for TransLink employees would not be an unreasonable invasion of third-party privacy. However, this was based on a rebuttal of the presumption that a disclosure of personal information is an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy if the personal information describes the third party's finances, income, etc. A change of circumstances could change the outcome. In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/24cnk Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v Canadian Federation of Students – British Columbia Component]'',[2009] 2 SCR 295, TransLink was found to be a government entity under section 32 of the ''Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' [''Charter''], and thus subject to ''Charter'' scrutiny.

=== 3. Scope of Privacy Rights ===

Apart from allowing for access to information, ''FIPPA'' also has provisions restricting the collection, protection, and retention of personal information.

“Personal information” is defined in Schedule 1 of the ''Act'' as all recorded information about an identifiable individual other than contact information. The recorded information includes the individual’s name, race, colour, religious or political beliefs, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, fingerprints, blood type, health care history, educational, financial, criminal or employment history, anyone’s opinion about the individual, and the individual’s personal views or opinions, except if they are about someone else.

==== a) Collection of Personal Information ====

Public bodies can collect personal information only when authorized by legislation, for law enforcement purposes, or when necessary to the operation of a program administered by the public body, when necessary to reduce the risk that an individual will be a victim of domestic violence, when the information is collected by observation at a public event with voluntary individual participation or with the individual's consent (section 26).

In general, a public body must collect personal information directly from the individual (section 27). Notable exceptions include: when an alternative method is authorized by the individual, by the Privacy Commissioner, or under another statute; and when the information is used for the purpose of collecting a debt or fine or making a payment. Except where the information is collected for law enforcement purposes, the public body must also tell the individual from whom it collects personal information the purpose and the legal authority for collecting it.

The public body has a duty to ensure the information it collects is accurate and complete (section 28). An individual has the right to request correction if they believe there is an omission or error in the personal information (section 29).

Heads of public bodies must protect personal information by reasonable security arrangements against unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure, or disposal (section 30). Section 30.3 provides whistle-blower legislation to protect employees fulfilling this obligation.

==== b) Use of Personal Information ====

A public body can only use personal information in its possession for the purpose the information was obtained or a use consistent with that purpose, if the individual the information is about has identified the information and has consented to its use, or for a purpose for which the information may be disclosed to the public body under section 33 (section 32).

==== c) Disclosure of Personal Information ====

Sections 33 to 34 deal with disclosure of personal information by a public body. These sections empower a public body to disclose personal information only under certain circumstances, such as where there is the consent of the individual; where the information is used for a consistent purpose or for the purpose of complying with another enactment; where the information may reduce the risk that an individual is likely to be a victim of domestic violence if domestic violence is reasonably likely to occur otherwise; where the information is used in an audit; and where the information is used by a public body or a law enforcement agency to assist in an investigation in which a law enforcement proceeding is intended or likely to result.

=== 4. Process of Making a Disclosure Request ===

==== a) Step One: Requesting Disclosure or Correction ====

An individual can send a letter to a public body asking for disclosure of information pertaining to that individual or for a correction of information. If the request is for access to information, the head of the public body then has 30 days to respond (this time limit can be extended under section 10) (s 7(1)). Section 8(1) requires that any response must either (a) inform the applicant if they are entitled to access some or all of the requested documents, (b) inform the individual of where, when, and how the record will be disclosed, or (c) detail the reasons the request was denied.

If the request is for a correction of information held by the public body, the head of the public body must either correct the record (section 29(1)), or annotate the information with the correction that was requested (section 29(2)). The head of the public body must next notify all other parties to whom the information in question has been disclosed within the past year (section 29(3)).

Always check with the organization itself to see if it has its own forms for requests; this makes the process much faster.

To obtain a copy of a police report, complete the form provided by the “Information and Privacy” section of the police department from which you are requesting the records (for the VPD, you will find the form here: https://vpd.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/foi-request.pdf). It can be submitted by email, mail, or fax according to the instructions found here: https://vpd.ca/contact-us/information-privacy.
Include a copy of the person’s government-issued photo ID and a cover letter explaining the details of the report you are looking for. If you are asking to receive documents on someone’s behalf you will also need them to sign an authorization or release. There is typically no fee to request documents relating to an interaction you had with police.

If a person has been a victim of property crime, their insurance company might require them to obtain a copy of the police report. Sometimes the insurer will make the request for you. To obtain this record from the VPD, fill out the [https://vpd.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/vpd-form-1713-request-for-property-report.pdf Request for Property Report form], or send in a written request with the following information: police file number, full name, current address, telephone number, location of incident, type of incident, and any other helpful details. There is a fee for this service, although it is waived for out-of-town visitors and international students upon verification of visitor status. The form, payment ($55.00, which includes applicable taxes), and a copy of your government-issued photo ID should be mailed or brought in person to the following address:

:::ATTENTION: Correspondence Unit
:::Vancouver Police Department
:::3585 Graveley St.
:::Vancouver, BC V5K 5J5

For agencies other than the VPD, contact your local police department to determine the process and fee for requesting a copy of a police report.

For further information on the process of making a disclosure request, contact:

'''Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = PO Box 9038, Stn. Prov. Govt., 4th Floor, 947 Fort Street, Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 9A4
| phone = (250) 387-5629 Fax: (250) 387-1696
| online = [http://www.oipc.bc.ca/ Website] Email: info@oipc.bc.ca
}}

:'''NOTE:''' The public body to which a request is made may charge to provide a copy of the record and its shipping and handling, and for the time spent locating the record and preparing it for disclosure (''FIPPA'', section 75(1)). They cannot charge, however, for the first 3 hours spent locating and retrieving a record and time spent severing information (section 75(2)). Likewise, these fees do not apply to a request for the applicant’s own personal information (s 75(3)). If a request for payment is made, send a letter explaining that the fee should be waived because: 

::a) you cannot afford payment (s 75(5)(a)), 
::b) it is fair to excuse payment (s 75(5)(a)), or 
::c) the record relates to a matter of public interest (e.g., the environment, public health and safety, etc.) (s 75(5)(b)).

====b) Step Two: Filing a Complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner ====

If the public body refuses to disclose the information or make the requested correction, the next step is to file a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Under section 42, the Commissioner oversees the administration of the ''Act''. An individual can ask the Commissioner to review any decision pertaining to access or correction within 30 days of notification of the decision (section 53(2)(a)) (although section 53(2)(b) allows the Commissioner to extend this limitation period). Please refer to the ''FIPPA'' and its regulations for a detailed description of the review process.

The Commissioner has significant power to enforce a judgment (much more so than the equivalent federal official). Generally, the burden is on the public body to justify its refusal to disclose information (although there are notable exceptions pertaining to third-party interests (see section 57). The head of a public body must comply with an order of the Commissioner unless an application for judicial review is brought within 30 days (section 59). A person other than the head of a public body who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Commissioner may seek judicial review pursuant to the ''Judicial Review Procedure Act''.

== H. The BC Privacy Act ==

The BC ''Privacy Act'', RSBC 1996, c 373, makes it a “tort, actionable without proof of damages, for a person, wilfully and without claim of right, to violate the privacy of another” (section 1(1)). Subsection 1(2) of the ''Act'' entitles a person to the nature and degree of privacy that is “reasonable in the circumstances”, but the ''Act'' itself gives limited guidance to the courts on what particular circumstances are deemed to be an unreasonable invasion of privacy. However, section 2 does set out a number of exceptions.

Most of the reported cases brought under the ''Act'' have been unsuccessful, largely because the courts have been reluctant to accept a broad view of what type of expectations of privacy are reasonable. One difficulty with the ''Act'' is that a person offended by an invasion of privacy is unlikely to seek redress through a public process that will have the effect of further airing the private matter.

Actions under the ''Privacy Act'' must be brought in the BC Supreme Court (section 4).

== I. Police Information Checks (Criminal Record Checks) ==

Police information checks, also known as criminal record checks, consist of information which may be required by a potential employer or volunteer organization, in the later stage of their hiring process. Police information checks are conducted and provided by individual local police departments and the RCMP, who are supposed to play a neutral role in the hiring process.

Employment or volunteer candidates who are asked by their potential employer or volunteer organization to provide a police information check should be aware that potential employers and volunteer organizations may only use relevant information to determine the suitability of a candidate. In particular, the ''BC Human Rights Code'', RSBC 1996, c 210, section 13 makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based on having been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of a person.

[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/police/publications/police-information-checks/model_policy_guidlines.pdf The British Columbia Provincial Policing Model Policy Guidelines] operate to ensure that policies and practices align among police agencies in British Columbia so that citizens, employers, and volunteer organizations receive consistent Criminal and Police Information Checks. The following is a summary of the Guidelines.

If working with vulnerable persons, employment or volunteer candidates may be asked by their potential employer or volunteer organization to provide a vulnerable sector check. Vulnerable persons are individuals who, because of their age, disability, or other circumstances, whether temporary or permanent, are (a) in a position of dependence on others or (b) are otherwise at a greater risk than the general population of being harmed by a person in a position of authority or trust relative to them, as defined by the ''Criminal Records Act'', RSC 1985, c C-47, section 6.3(1).

Vulnerable sector checks consist of screening designed to protect vulnerable persons from dangerous offenders by uncovering the existence of a criminal record, adverse police contact, and/or pardoned (or record suspension) sexual offence conviction. This level of screening is restricted to applicants seeking employment and/or volunteering with vulnerable persons.

The Guidelines stipulate that the board, chief constable, chief officer, or commissioner should ensure that:

Job applicants who work with the vulnerable sector will, at the request of their employer, receive a check that:
:(a) includes a search of, at a minimum, Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), Police Information Portal (PIP), Justice Information (JUSTIN), and Police Records Information Management Environment (PRIME) records;
:(b) discloses to the applicant all warrants, outstanding charges, convictions and adverse contact;
:(c) does not include the disclosure of apprehensions under section 28 of the ''Mental Health Act'';
:(d) does include adverse contact involving the threat or actual use of violence directed at other individuals, regardless of, but without disclosing, mental health status;
:(e) does not include youth offences unless provided for under the ''Youth Criminal Justice Act''; and
:(f) does include information on a sexual offence conviction where a pardon or record suspension has been granted.

Those who are not working with vulnerable persons may be asked instead to provide a non-vulnerable sector check. The Guidelines stipulate that applicants who are not working with the vulnerable sector will, at the request of their employer, receive a check that:
:(a) includes a search of, at a minimum, CPIC, PIP, JUSTIN, and PRIME records;
:(b) discloses to the applicant all warrants, outstanding charges, and convictions;
:(c) does not disclose adverse contact;
:(d) does not include the disclosure of apprehensions under section 28 of the ''Mental Health Act''; and
:(e) does not include youth offences unless provided for under the ''Youth Criminal Justice Act''.

In cases where non-disclosable information indicates a significant threat to public safety, police agencies may either refuse to complete the check or take action under their duty to warn responsibilities noted below.

Nothing in the Guidelines prevents a police agency from disclosing information under either a statutory or common law duty to provide warnings where the health, safety or wellbeing of an individual or individuals is at risk of significant harm.

Further information regarding the Guidelines, including a full list of information which should or should not be included in a Police Information Check, may be found at:
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/policing-in-bc/publications-statistics-legislation/publications/police-information-checks-guidelines-for-police

Because police information checks are provided by individual police departments or the RCMP, one should consult the website of the particular police department or that of the RCMP for specific information, such as that pertaining to fees, accepted forms of identification, and further information on what will or will not be included in the police information check.

The following is a link to information on police information checks conducted by the Vancouver Police Department:
https://vpd.ca/contact-us/police-information-checks/

Please consult [[Other Issues in Criminal Matters (1:VIII) | Chapter 1: Criminal Law]] for information explaining the importance of consenting to disclosure, what information third parties may find out, the impact of having a criminal record, the elimination of records, and record suspensions.

If an individual disagrees with a decision of the police officer, such as to not provide a police information check or with the information provided on the police information checks, the individual can appeal the decision internally within the police department. The individual can submit a request to the head of the records check department within the police department where they made the initial information check request for a review of the decision. If the individual still disagrees with the appealed decision, then the next avenue of appeal, if one is available, remains unclear. It is possible that an applicant may file for Judicial Review of the police department’s decision (see [[Review of Administrative Decisions for Public Complaints (5:III) | III.C.1 on Judicial Review]]). The Privacy Commissioner’s Office may possibly have jurisdiction over these matters, although their current position is that a police information check is different than a request for release of information, and is not covered by their legislation.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}

Review of Administrative Decisions for Public Complaints (5:III)

2026-09-25T18:21:39Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 9 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

==A. Step One: Informal Review ==

Disputes with government agencies can often be resolved through informal communication. Agencies often make initial decisions based on misperceptions, without all relevant information. Sometimes the most difficult part of an advocate’s job is to locate the person making the decision or in a position to review the decision. Before pursuing more drastic (and often expensive) avenues, try to locate this person and ensure that they have been provided with all relevant information.

== B. Step Two: Internal Review ==

Most government agencies have some sort of formal review process. Some agencies have little difference between formal and informal review, while others have sophisticated, published processes that closely resemble courtroom procedure. Whatever the problem is and whichever government player is involved, be sure to research the review process before launching a formal appeal. Factors such as cost, location of the hearing, type of submissions heard, and evidence required will all affect the choice of whether to pursue a resolution through the formal review process.

Generally, powers of review and review procedures are set out in the statutes and regulations that govern a particular tribunal or court. Agencies themselves further clarify this process. Many publish handbooks for internal use that are available to the general public on the court or tribunal's websites or in law libraries. Lawyers with experience in the area may also provide valuable insight. Lawyers at the Community Legal Assistance Society can be helpful when dealing with specific problems, especially poverty law topics (EI, WCB, Income Assistance, Human Rights).

'''Pay attention to time limits.''' Many worthy cases have been lost because an advocate failed to pay proper attention to limitation periods. Some limitation periods are very short.

:'''NOTE: Exhausting internal appeals before judicial review:''' There is a general rule in administrative law which requires that, where tribunals or other administrative decision-makers (such as public universities) have an internal review or appeals process, applicants must exhaust these internal processes before applying for judicial review by the courts (see ''[https://canlii.ca/t/1mkv4 Harelkin v University of Regina]'', [1979] 2 SCR 561).

:'''NOTE: Exhausting internal appeals in residential tenancy disputes:''' In October 2023, changes to the ''Residential Tenancy Act'', SBC 2002, c 78 [''RTA''] came into effect which expanded the grounds for internal review of Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) decisions (''RTA'', section 79(2)). Individuals seeking to challenge an RTB decision must ensure that they exhaust the RTB review process before seeking judicial review if any of the grounds for review found in the ''RTA'' apply to their complaint. Please consult [[Dispute Resolution in Residential Tenancies (19:X)|Chapter 19: Landlord and Tenant Law]] for more information.

:'''NOTE: Procedural fairness in internal review processes:''' As a general rule, administrative tribunals are limited in the scope of their internal review processes to the specific grounds of review listed in their enabling legislation. However, the courts have held that procedural fairness is required in administrative tribunals even if the enabling legislation for the tribunal does not explicitly include procedural fairness as one of the grounds for internal review. In ''Stelmack v Amaruso'' (14 July 2017), Vancouver S175091 (BCSC) (please note that this case is unreported) the court considered an internal review by the RTB which had failed to address a procedural fairness violation from the initial hearing because procedural fairness was not one of the listed grounds for internal review in section 79(2) of the RTA. The BC Supreme Court ruled that even if the enabling legislation does not list procedural fairness as a specific ground for internal review, arbitrators nonetheless must always consider issues of procedural fairness. In a subsequent case, the BC Supreme Court held that parties to an RTB Dispute Resolution Application are entitled to a high level of procedural fairness ([https://canlii.ca/t/htr77 ''Ndachena v Nguyen''], 2018 BCSC 1468 at para 58). Based on these cases, the door may be open to making procedural fairness arguments during all internal review processes in addition to the grounds listed in a tribunal’s enabling legislation.
See '''Section III.C.1.c(2): Procedural Fairness''' of this chapter below for more on procedural fairness.

==C. Step Three: Examining an Appeal ==

If launching an internal review fails to solve an issue, an individual can either apply for judicial review or contact the BC Ombudsperson. Both of these options can be pursued at the same time, but one option may be preferable to the other in certain circumstances. Generally, individuals will be looking to resort to the courts through judicial review, which will render a binding decision on a case. Individuals should contact the Ombudsperson when they do not have a legal course of action but still want to change a part of a government body’s structure that leads to unfairness.

=== 1. Judicial Review ===

If an individual receives an unfavourable decision from an agency’s appeal process or objects to the appeal process itself, they may have recourse to the courts. Sometimes, regulations give an individual a right to appeal directly to the courts. If so, one should use this direct right to appeal rather than the general judicial review procedure. However, even if an individual has no express statutory right to appeal to the courts, superior courts have inherent jurisdiction to review administrative action to ensure that administrative decision-makers do not exceed the authority granted to them by statute.

The courts have developed criteria against which to assess the adequacy of government agencies’ decision-making procedures. These criteria form the heart of administrative law. It is not within the scope of this section to attempt a comprehensive overview of the basic principles of administrative law. Interested parties can find an excellent introduction to these fundamental principles in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/1vxsm Dunsmuir v New Brunswick]'', 2008 SCC 9. Justices Bastarache and Lebel for the majority provide the following description at paragraphs 27-28:

::"As a matter of constitutional law, judicial review is intimately connected with the preservation of the rule of law... By virtue of the rule of law principle, all exercises of public authority must find their source in law. All decision-making powers have legal limits, derived from the enabling statute itself, the common or civil law or the Constitution. Judicial review is the means by which the courts supervise those who exercise statutory powers, to ensure that they do not overstep their legal authority. The function of judicial review is therefore to ensure the legality, the reasonableness and the fairness of the administrative process and its outcomes."

Remember that judicial review should not be contemplated unless all internal review processes have been exhausted.

==== a) Judicial Review Procedure ====

The Community Legal Assistance Society (CLAS) has produced a self-help guide to filing for Judicial Review which is a helpful reference tool, including sample court forms for filing. Those looking to file for Judicial Review may want to reference this guide after reading the following information.

:David Mossop et al, ''Representing Yourself in a Judicial Review, 5th ed'' (Vancouver: Community Legal Assistance Society, 2015), online: [https://judicialreviewbc.ca www.judicialreviewbc.ca].

A party applying for judicial review must first determine whether the Federal Court or a provincial superior court has the authority to decide on the matter. As a general rule, provincial jurisdiction includes tribunals established within provincial constitutional jurisdiction and tribunals created by the province due to a delegation of powers by the federal government.

:'''(1) Federal Court'''

:When considering judicial review of federal tribunals, look at both the ''Federal Courts Act'', RSC 1985, c F-7, and the particular tribunal’s governing statute. Often the governing statute sets out important limitation periods and procedures.

:The Federal Court Trial Division hears reviews of most federal tribunals. However, the 16 tribunals listed in section 28 of the ''Federal Courts Act'' are reviewed by the Federal Court of Appeal. Examples of federal tribunals that are reviewed by the Federal Court of Appeal include the Canada Industrial Relations Board, Employment Insurance umpires, the Competition Tribunal, and the CRTC.

:The procedures for a federal judicial review are set out in section 18.1 of the ''Federal Courts Act''.

:'''(2) Provincial Superior Courts'''

:For matters within the jurisdiction of the BC Legislature, the ''Judicial Review Procedure Act'', RSBC 1996, c 241 [''JRPA''], provides for the judicial review of the “exercise, refusal to exercise, or proposed or purported exercise, of a statutory power” (''JRPA'', s 2(2)(b)). This includes the power to review decisions “deciding or prescribing (a) the legal rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties or liabilities of a person, or (b) the eligibility of a person to receive, or to continue to receive, a benefit or licence...” (''JRPA'', s 1). In a proceeding under the ''JRPA'', the court has broad powers to craft a suitable remedy; most often the case will be returned to the tribunal for reconsideration in light of the court’s findings of law or fact (see '''Section I.F.4: Available Remedies''', below).

:The procedural rules are described in the ''BC Supreme Court Civil Rules'', BC Reg 168/2009, available in the Acts, Rules & Forms section of the BC Supreme Court website: [http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court].

:Tribunals that can be reviewed under the ''JRPA'' include the Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal, the Workers’ Compensation Board, and the Residential Tenancy Branch.

:'''(3) Standing'''

:In general, only the parties who had standing before the tribunal or who are directly affected by the tribunal’s decision may apply for judicial review.

:'''(4) Time Limits'''

:The time limit to apply to the Federal Court for judicial review under section 18.1 of the ''Federal Courts Act'' is '''within 30 days after the decision or order was first communicated''', although it can be extended by the Federal Court (s 18.1(2)). However, other federal legislation may direct different timelines. For example, for decisions made pursuant to the ''Immigration and Refugee Protection Act'', SC 2001, c 27, appellants must look to both that statute and the ''Federal Courts Act''.

:For provincial tribunals, applicants must refer to the ''Administrative Tribunals Act'', SBC 2004, c 45 [''ATA''] and the specific statute governing the tribunal; '''within 60 days of the issuing date of the decision''' is the default (''ATA'' s 57). Limitation periods may be extended pursuant to section 11 of the ''JRPA'' unless another enactment provides otherwise or the delay will result in substantial prejudice or hardship to another person affected.

:'''(5) Stay of Orders or Proceedings'''

:While an application for judicial review is pending, existing orders from a tribunal must be obeyed, and the tribunal has the discretion to continue with the proceedings. However, an applicant can ask the court to stay the tribunal’s order or to prohibit the proceedings from continuing.

:David Mossop et al, ''Representing Yourself in a Judicial Review'', 5th ed (Vancouver: Community Legal Assistance Society, 2015), online: [https://judicialreviewbc.ca www.judicialreviewbc.ca].

:'''(6) Evidence'''

:The primary evidence for judicial review is the tribunal’s record of the hearing. Generally, the court does not allow new evidence to be introduced at a judicial review hearing. However, there is a narrow exception to this: a party may submit new evidence speaks to the procedural fairness or jurisdictional issue [''[https://canlii.ca/t/gf0pg Davies v Halligan]'', 2013 BCSC 2549].

:'''(7) Filing Fees and Indigency Applications'''

:Applicants who cannot afford the filing fees for judicial review may apply for an indigency order pursuant to Rule 20-5 of the BC ''Supreme Court Civil Rules.'' Appendix C, Schedule 1 lists the fees payable to the Crown, unless otherwise provided by statute. Indigency status affords the applicant relief from all court fees and is available to those with low income and limited earning potential. Note that the process for indigency applications is complicated.

:David Mossop et al, ''Representing Yourself in a Judicial Review'', 5th ed (Vancouver: Community Legal Assistance Society, 2015), online: [https://judicialreviewbc.ca www.judicialreviewbc.ca].

==== b) Scope of Judicial Review ====

Assuming a party can resort to the courts to review the decision of a tribunal, there are limitations as to the scope of judicial review.

:'''(1) Substantive Errors'''

:An administrative body has only as much power as its governing statute grants to it. This grant of authority is limited in both the context and the manner in which the exercise of authority can be applied. If an administrative decision-maker exceeds their authority, the court can step in to provide a remedy.

::(i) Errors of Fact

::Findings of fact are generally reviewable only if they are not supported on the evidence. The appellant courts grant just as much deference to a tribunal’s findings of facts as they would to a trial court’s finding of facts in a judicial review. Nevertheless, the legislature is presumed not to have intended to give an administrative body the authority to act arbitrarily or capriciously. If the tribunal makes a finding of fact that cannot reasonably be drawn from the evidence, then it is exceeding the authority granted to it, and its decision can be set aside by the court.

::(ii) Errors of Law

::Substantive law reviewable by the courts can be divided into two areas: statutory interpretation related to the powers of a tribunal, and interpretation related to other broader questions of law.

::A tribunal can be overruled if it is acting without authority. A tribunal must generally act within the jurisdiction of the legislation that created it. Similarly, a tribunal must not misinterpret the rules that govern the way it exercises authority, since these rules represent a precondition to the exercise of that authority. The mandate of a tribunal is defined in large part by the intention of the legislature. If in the course of exercising its authority a tribunal misinterprets its mandate, a court may declare the tribunal’s decision void upon judicial review.

::Similarly, a tribunal can be overruled if it applies the law incorrectly in other contexts. The enabling statute which creates a given tribunal cannot grant it the authority to act illegally or to change the law.

::(iii) Standards of Review

::Different standards of review may be imposed depending on the issue that is under review and the nature of the tribunal. The law relating to standards of review is quite complicated and depends on which tribunal is involved.

::Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/j46kb Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov']'', 2019 SCC 65 revised the rules for determining the standard of review. Generally, for all decisions, the presumed standard of review will now be '''reasonableness''', unless legislative intent or the rule of law may require a different standard of review. The court stated:

:::"The presumption of reasonableness review can be rebutted in two types of situations. The first is where the legislature has indicated that it intends a different standard or set of standards to apply. This will be the case where the legislature explicitly prescribes the applicable standard of review. It will also be the case where the legislature has provided a statutory appeal mechanism from an administrative decision to a court, thereby signalling the legislature’s intent that appellate standards apply when a court reviews the decision. The second situation in which the presumption of reasonableness review will be rebutted is where the rule of law requires that the standard of correctness be applied. This will be the case for certain categories of questions, namely constitutional questions, general questions of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole and questions related to the jurisdictional boundaries between two or more administrative bodies."

::If a tribunal is interpreting its own enabling statute or a closely related statute with which it has particular familiarity or expertise (e.g., the Workers’ Compensation Board applying the ''Workers Compensation Act'', RSBC 2019, c 1), then the court will generally show some deference to the tribunal’s interpretation.

::In British Columbia, the ''Administrative Tribunals Act'' sets a different standard of review, '''patently unreasonable''', for Tribunals that are seen as “expert tribunals”. The largest of these tribunals are the Residential Tenancy Branch and the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Tribunal. In practice, there is often little difference between the patently unreasonable standard and a review on the reasonableness standard, as the Supreme Court of Canada noted in ''Dunsmuir'' that it would be illogical and potentially raise rule of law concerns to allow an irrational decision to stand because its irrationality was not “clear” or “obvious” enough.

::Likewise, for questions of fact, and for exercises of discretion (e.g., with respect to the appropriate remedy), the court will usually show deference to the judgment of the administrative decision-maker who saw the evidence first-hand. A court does not usually review a tribunal’s discretionary decisions unless its discretion was not exercised in good faith, was exercised for an improper purpose, was based on irrelevant considerations, or was otherwise unreasonable. The ''Vavilov'' case is now the leading authority on how courts should apply the reasonableness review, and the principles to follow when determining if a decision is unreasonable.

::Since Vavilov, the BCCA has confirmed that the standard of patent unreasonableness continues to apply to the decisions of tribunals governed by the Administrative Tribunals Act despite developments in the common law standard of review. See [https://canlii.ca/t/jfbns ''Red Chris Development Co v United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Local 1-1937''], 2021 BCCA 152 at para 29, [https://canlii.ca/t/jntc0 ''Beach Place Ventures Ltd. v. Employment Standards Tribunal''] (CanLII) 2022 BCCA 147, at para 16, and [https://canlii.ca/t/jlpc1 ''College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia v. The Health Professions Review Board''], 2022 BCCA 10. In this last case, the court notes that the standard of patent unreasonableness is the most deferential standard of review found in Canadian law, representing the constitutional limit of deference.

::However, when a decision-maker is not governed by the ''Administrative Tribunals Act'', recent BCCA decisions have affirmed that the reasonableness standard from Vavilov will apply. For example, [https://canlii.ca/t/jfnxd ''1193652 BC Ltd v New Westminster (City)''] 2021 BCCA 176 followed the ''Vavilov'' decision. In para 59, the court concluded that it should apply a reasonableness standard of review when reviewing the decision of a local government to enact a bylaw.

::The BCCA decision in [https://canlii.ca/t/jkcpr ''lululemon athletica canada inc. v. Industrial Color Productions Inc.''] 2021 BCCA 428 on November 12th, 2021 held that despite ''Vavilov'', [https://canlii.ca/t/fn9qh ''Mexico v. Cargill, Incorporated''] 2011 ONCA 622 remains the leading case on issues of standard of review for commercial arbitration. Justice Marchand elaborates on the applicability of ''Vavilov'' in this case, stating that it is not helpful as it concerns the applicable standard of review as it applies in administrative law and not commercial arbitration. The BCCA held that ''Cargill'' is not undermined by ''Vavilov'' in this context, and that the appropriate standard of review in this case is correctness.

::These recent decisions by the BCCA suggest that the standard of reasonableness from Vavilov and the standard of patent reasonableness from the Administrative Tribunals Act are separate. The standard that applies on judicial review varies, and is dependent upon the tribunal, area of law and issues involved.

:'''(2) Procedural Fairness'''

:Generally, tribunals must follow procedural norms, although their procedures may be less formal than those of a court. Tribunals must follow any procedures required by statute or regulation. However, the legislation is often largely silent on procedural requirements, and tribunals are often given a wide discretion within which to operate. Nevertheless, the superior courts are constitutionally bound to uphold the rule of law and will not allow procedural laxity to result in unreasonable prejudice to those affected by administrative decisions. That is, the legislature is presumed to have intended that the administrative body follow certain procedural fairness minimums as a precondition to exercising its authority.

:The content of the mandatory procedural fairness minimum will differ depending on the circumstances. Determining the precise procedural requirements of a given case is rarely clear-cut, and an extensive body of case law exists addressing these issues in various contexts.

:Fundamental procedural rights include the right to know the case that must be met and to respond, and the right to an impartial decision-maker. In some cases, procedural fairness requirements might also include the right to advance notice, the right to an oral hearing, the right to be represented by counsel, or the right to formal written reasons. In all cases, the prejudice to the accused from denying a procedural norm must be balanced against the need to make administrative decisions efficiently.

::(i) Standard of Review

::Generally, the tribunal’s procedural decisions will be assessed on a standard of '''fairness'''. The court will show deference to the administrative body’s discretionary choice of procedures, provided that the selection is fair in the circumstances. See e.g. ''[https://canlii.ca/t/1fqlk Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)]'', [1999] 2 SCR 817.

::For provincial tribunals to which the ''ATA'' applies, the Act provides: “questions about the application of common law rules of natural justice and procedural fairness must be decided having regard to whether, in all of the circumstances, the tribunal acted '''fairly'''” (sections 58(2)(b) and 59(5)).

::(ii) Duty to Act Fairly

::Tribunals have a common-law duty to act fairly. At its most basic level, the doctrine of fairness requires that a party be given the opportunity to respond to the case against them. The circumstances determine whether this response is a written objection or a full oral hearing. As a corollary to the right to present one’s case, the legal maxim that only the people who hear the case may decide on it applies to tribunals. The tribunal must meet quorum but need not be unanimous.

::The extent of disclosure depends on what is fair to all parties involved and whether the information at issue is prejudicial to an individual’s interests (i.e., failure to disclose inconsequential information may not be fatal). At the very least, a party must know which incidents and allegations will be at issue when the decision is made.

::The courts will allow tribunals considerable latitude in establishing procedures; however, procedures must be consistently followed. Where a tribunal informs an individual that a certain procedure will be followed, it will generally be considered unfair to follow a different procedure.

::No one has the right to an adjournment. Tribunals generally hold their hearings within a reasonable time even when their statutes have no limitation period. Nonetheless, tribunals may grant an adjournment when necessary. In deciding whether to allow an adjournment, tribunals should consider the amount of notice, the gravity of the consequences of the hearing, the degree of disclosure, and the availability of counsel.

::(iii) Right to Be Heard

::If there is a hearing, a party is entitled to be present while evidence or submissions are presented. The right to be present at a hearing normally includes a party’s right to appear with counsel and their right to an interpreter, though normally a tribunal is not required to pay for these services. The tribunal has discretion as to whether the hearing is public or private (although there is a presumption in favour of public hearings). At any hearing, the tribunal must gather and weigh the evidence. Relevance is the primary consideration when determining admissibility. Not all administrative decisions involve an oral hearing. A tribunal may have the power to make certain decisions solely on the basis of written submissions.

::(iv) Onus of Proof

::The onus of proof is normally to a civil standard, i.e., that the events alleged occurred on a balance of probabilities (more than 50% likely, or more likely than not). However, disciplinary hearings may be to a mixed standard requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt for some elements.

::(v) Duty to Act in Good Faith

::All decision-makers are expected to act in good faith and not to discriminate on the basis of irrelevant criteria. Parties are entitled to a decision made by persons untainted by the appearance of bias or conflicts of interest. A tribunal has a duty to at least consider exercising any discretion it may have.

===== c) Remedies of Judicial Review =====

Several remedies are available through judicial review:
# an order in the nature of ''mandamus'' that requires a tribunal to exercise certain powers,
# an order in the nature of ''prohibition'' that prohibits a tribunal from exercising unlawful authority,
# an order in the nature of ''certiorari'' that quashes a tribunal decision,
# where there is an exercise, refusal to exercise, or a proposed or purported exercise of a statutory power, an injunction or declaration from the court, or
# a court-issued declaration to clarify the law.

A party may also challenge a tribunal decision via a civil action for a declaration or injunction. For non-statutory tribunals, this is the only method of challenge. This is also the only method of challenge wherein the court may grant damages.

=== 2. Ombudsperson ===

The procedures created by the BC ''Ombudsperson Act'', RSBC 1996, c 340, furnish an inexpensive means for reviewing decisions and practices of '''provincial''' government bodies. At present, there is no federal equivalent of the provincial Ombudsperson. However, as discussed later in this chapter, there are sectional equivalents in such fields as police enforcement, privacy, and official languages.

The ''Act'' has the following main features:
*The Ombudsperson is empowered to investigate complaints against public sector bodies including provincial ministries and provincially appointed boards, commissions, Crown corporations, and other public institutions where the majority of the board is appointed by the provincial government or is responsible to the government.
*The Schedule to the ''Ombudsperson Act'' also empowers the Ombudsperson to investigate complaints against such entities as provincial corporations, municipalities and regional districts, universities and colleges, hospitals, and governing bodies of professional or occupational associations established by a provincial Act.
*The Ombudsperson does '''not''' have jurisdiction to investigate complaints in areas where the parties are private actors or where other specialized complaint procedures have been established. Examples include complaints regarding banks, private life and health insurance, consumer inquiries, doctors, employment issues involving private companies, federal programs, landlord and tenant (residential) inquiries, municipal police, and the RCMP. For instance, the Ombudsperson may not re-evaluate the merit of the adjudicator’s decision just because either the tenant or landlord is not happy with the decision. However, the Ombudsperson has jurisdiction to investigate the administrative unfairness of the Residential Tenancy Branch.
*The Ombudsperson has broad powers of inquiry and may make recommendations, but has no power to enforce those recommendations.
*The complainant must exhaust review or appeal procedures within the agency against which the complaint was made '''before''' turning to the Ombudsperson.
*The Ombudsperson tables an annual report in the Legislature and may publicly disclose any findings if an agency is not complying with their recommendations.

Contact the Ombudsperson at:

'''The Ombudsperson'''

{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = Second Floor - 947 Fort Street Victoria, BC V8V 3K3 Mail: PO Box 9039 STN PROV GOVT Victoria, BC V8W 9A5
| phone = (250) 387-5855 Toll-free: 1-800-567-3247 Fax: (250) 387-0198
| online = [http://www.bcombudsperson.ca/ Website]
}}

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type = chapters1-7}}

Governing Legislation and Resources for Public Complaints (5:II)

2026-09-25T18:19:24Z

Nate Russell: Undo revision 62869 by Nate Russell (talk)

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 9 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

== A. Review of Administrative Decisions ==

=== 1. Legislation ===

''Federal Courts Act'', RSC 1985, c F-7. 
''Judicial Review Procedure Act'', RSBC 1996, c 241.

=== 2. Resources ===

* Community Legal Assistance Society: BC Judicial Review Self-Help Guide: [http://www.judicialreviewbc.ca www.judicialreviewbc.ca]
* The Ombudsperson of BC website: [http://www.bcombudsperson.ca www.bcombudsperson.ca]

== B. Privacy or Access to Information ==

=== 1. Legislation ===

''Access to Information Act'', RSC 1985, c A-1. 
''Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act'', RSBC 1996, c 165. 
''Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act'', SC 2000, c 5. 
''Privacy Act'', RSBC 1996, c 373. 
''Privacy Act'', RSC 1985, c P-21.

=== 2. Resources ===

'''BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = PO Box 8308 Victoria Main Victoria, BC, V8W 3R9
| phone = (604) 739-9788 Fax: (604) 739-9788
| online = [http://fipa.bc.ca Website] Email: fipa@fipa.bc.ca 
}}

'''BC Civil Liberties Association'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 306 - 268 Keefer Street Vancouver, BC, V6A 1X5 
| phone = (604) 687-2919 Toll-Free: 1-855-556-3566 Fax: (604) 687-3045 
| online = [http://www.bccla.org/ Website] Email: info@bccla.org 
}}

'''Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = Mailing address: P.O. Box 9038, Stn. Prov Gov., Victoria, BC, V8W 9A4 Street address: 4th Floor, 947 Fort Street Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 9A4 
| phone = (250) 387-5629 Toll-free: call Service BC at 1-800-663-7867 and request transfer to (250) 387-5629
| online = [http://www.oipc.bc.ca/ Website] Email: info@opic.bc.ca 
}}

'''Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 30 Victoria Street Gatineau, QC, K1A 1H3
| phone = (819) 994-5444 Toll-Free: 1-800-282-1376 TTY: (819) 994-6591 
| online = [http://www.priv.gc.ca/ Website] 
}}

== C. Complaints about Police Conduct ==

=== 1. Legislation ===

''Police Act'', RSBC 1996, c 367. 
''Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act'', RSC 1985, c R-10.

=== 2. Resources ===

'''BC Civil Liberties Association'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 306 - 268 Keefer Street Vancouver, BC, V6A 1X5
| phone = (604) 687-2919 Toll-Free: 1-855-556-3566 Fax: (604) 687-3045 
| online = [http://www.bccla.org/ Website] Email: info@bccla.org 
}}

'''Pivot Legal Society'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 312 Main St. Vancouver, BC, V6A 282
| phone = (604) 255-9700 Fax: (604) 255-1552 
| online = [http://www.pivotlegal.org/ Website] 
}}

'''Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 5th Floor, 947 Fort Street P.O Box 9895 Stn Prov Govt. Victoria, BC, V8W 9T8
| phone = (250) 356-7458 Toll-free: 1-877-999-8707 Fax: (250) 356-6503 
| online = [http://www.opcc.bc.ca/ Website] Email: info@opcc.bc.ca 
}}

'''Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = P.O. Box 1722, Station B Ottawa, Ontario K1P0B3 
| phone = Toll-free: 1-800-665-6878 Fax: (613) 952-8045 
| online = [http://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/ Website] To use the online complaint form, click on the “Make a Complaint” link Email: complaints@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca 
}}

== D. The Right to Vote ==

=== 1. Legislation ===

''Canada Elections Act'', SC 2000, c 9 
''Election Act'', RSBC 1996, c 106 
''Local Government Act'', RSBC 2015, c 1 
''Vancouver Charter'', SBC 1953, c 55 

=== 2. Resources ===

Elections British Columbia: [http://www.elections.bc.ca www.elections.bc.ca]

Elections Canada: [http://www.elections.ca www.elections.ca]

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Governing Legislation and Resources for Public Complaints (5:II)

2026-09-25T18:19:04Z

Nate Russell:

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 11 August 2025}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

== A. Review of Administrative Decisions ==

=== 1. Legislation ===

''Federal Courts Act'', RSC 1985, c F-7. 
''Judicial Review Procedure Act'', RSBC 1996, c 241.

=== 2. Resources ===

* Community Legal Assistance Society: BC Judicial Review Self-Help Guide: [http://www.judicialreviewbc.ca www.judicialreviewbc.ca]
* The Ombudsperson of BC website: [http://www.bcombudsperson.ca www.bcombudsperson.ca]

== B. Privacy or Access to Information ==

=== 1. Legislation ===

''Access to Information Act'', RSC 1985, c A-1. 
''Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act'', RSBC 1996, c 165. 
''Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act'', SC 2000, c 5. 
''Privacy Act'', RSBC 1996, c 373. 
''Privacy Act'', RSC 1985, c P-21.

=== 2. Resources ===

'''BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = PO Box 8308 Victoria Main Victoria, BC, V8W 3R9
| phone = (604) 739-9788 Fax: (604) 739-9788
| online = [http://fipa.bc.ca Website] Email: fipa@fipa.bc.ca 
}}

'''BC Civil Liberties Association'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 306 - 268 Keefer Street Vancouver, BC, V6A 1X5 
| phone = (604) 687-2919 Toll-Free: 1-855-556-3566 Fax: (604) 687-3045 
| online = [http://www.bccla.org/ Website] Email: info@bccla.org 
}}

'''Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = Mailing address: P.O. Box 9038, Stn. Prov Gov., Victoria, BC, V8W 9A4 Street address: 4th Floor, 947 Fort Street Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 9A4 
| phone = (250) 387-5629 Toll-free: call Service BC at 1-800-663-7867 and request transfer to (250) 387-5629
| online = [http://www.oipc.bc.ca/ Website] Email: info@opic.bc.ca 
}}

'''Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 30 Victoria Street Gatineau, QC, K1A 1H3
| phone = (819) 994-5444 Toll-Free: 1-800-282-1376 TTY: (819) 994-6591 
| online = [http://www.priv.gc.ca/ Website] 
}}

== C. Complaints about Police Conduct ==

=== 1. Legislation ===

''Police Act'', RSBC 1996, c 367. 
''Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act'', RSC 1985, c R-10.

=== 2. Resources ===

'''BC Civil Liberties Association'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 306 - 268 Keefer Street Vancouver, BC, V6A 1X5
| phone = (604) 687-2919 Toll-Free: 1-855-556-3566 Fax: (604) 687-3045 
| online = [http://www.bccla.org/ Website] Email: info@bccla.org 
}}

'''Pivot Legal Society'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 312 Main St. Vancouver, BC, V6A 282
| phone = (604) 255-9700 Fax: (604) 255-1552 
| online = [http://www.pivotlegal.org/ Website] 
}}

'''Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = 5th Floor, 947 Fort Street P.O Box 9895 Stn Prov Govt. Victoria, BC, V8W 9T8
| phone = (250) 356-7458 Toll-free: 1-877-999-8707 Fax: (250) 356-6503 
| online = [http://www.opcc.bc.ca/ Website] Email: info@opcc.bc.ca 
}}

'''Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP'''
{{ResourcesLSLAP
| address = P.O. Box 1722, Station B Ottawa, Ontario K1P0B3 
| phone = Toll-free: 1-800-665-6878 Fax: (613) 952-8045 
| online = [http://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/ Website] To use the online complaint form, click on the “Make a Complaint” link Email: complaints@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca 
}}

== D. The Right to Vote ==

=== 1. Legislation ===

''Canada Elections Act'', SC 2000, c 9 
''Election Act'', RSBC 1996, c 106 
''Local Government Act'', RSBC 2015, c 1 
''Vancouver Charter'', SBC 1953, c 55 

=== 2. Resources ===

Elections British Columbia: [http://www.elections.bc.ca www.elections.bc.ca]

Elections Canada: [http://www.elections.ca www.elections.ca]

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Governing Legislation and Resources for Public Complaints (5:II)

2026-09-25T17:22:58Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

Introduction to Public Complaints (5:I)

2026-09-25T17:16:23Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 9 July 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = complaints}}

= Introduction =

This chapter provides some general information that may assist in making a public application or complaint, but does not address all problems, legal or otherwise, relating to government. This chapter contains general guidelines for dealing with public bodies (e.g., the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the Egg Marketing Board, or a public university). Individuals involved in the judicial review process should consult the following texts:

David J Mullan, ''Administrative Law'', (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2001).
*Part of the Essentials of Canadian Law series by Irwin Law, this text provides a comprehensive review of administrative law in Canada.

Sara Blake, ''Administrative Law in Canada'', 6th ed (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2017).
*This text provides a simple and clear review of administrative law.

Donald Brown & John M Evans, ''Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada'', loose-leaf (Toronto: Canvasback Publishing, 1998).
*This regularly updated three-volume text provides a more detailed review of administrative law.

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Resources for Indigenous Victims (4:XI)

2026-09-25T17:13:13Z

Nate Russell:

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 15 August 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = victims}}

Indigenous peoples are overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system as victims of crime. Per Statistics Canada, Indigenous people are twice as likely as non-Indigenous people to have been victims of violent crime (see Perrault, S. 2022. ''[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2022001/article/00012-eng.htm Victimization of First Nations people, Metis and Inuit in Canada.]'' Juristat Statistics Canada Catalogue 85 002 X). This disproportionate rate of victimization has been linked to the repercussions of long-lasting colonization and systemic racism, such as residential schools and interaction with the child welfare system. These policies have resulted in intergenerational trauma, as well as the disruption of community and family structures, all of which are linked to violent victimization of Indigenous people.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|
'''NOTE''': ''Indigenous peoples'' is a collective name for the original peoples of North America and their descendants. Often, ''Aboriginal peoples'' is also used.
|-
|}

The overrepresentation of Indigenous victims extends to homicide victims. From 2015 to 2020, the rates of homicides involving an Indigenous victim was six times higher than the rate of homicides involving non-indigenous victims (see Perrault, S. 2022. ''[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2022001/article/00012-eng.htm Victimization of First Nations people, Metis and Inuit in Canada]'', Juristat Statistics Canada Catalogue 85 002 X). Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQIA people in particular are most at risk of violent victimization. This ultimately led to a National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, in which the findings were published in [https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/final-report/ Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls].

==A. Resources:==

=== 1. Indigenous Victim Services/The Native Courtworker Program ===

The Native Courtworker program has Indigenous Victim Services workers who provide culturally sensitive services to Indigenous victims of violence to lessen the trauma and assist in the recovery associated with being a victim of crime through the provision of counselling, support, information, referrals, and practical assistance by:

*Providing emotional and cultural support specific to clients' unique needs and concerns.
*Developing and supporting comprehensive individualized safety plans.
*Working collaboratively as part of a multidisciplinary team including team meetings with police, community-based victim services, NCCABC Family Advocate, housing agencies, transition homes, MCFD, and other key partners.
*Maintaining contact and network with other community services providers and criminal justice system personnel and to provide a referral base for clients; providing community outreach and public education to promote awareness regarding victims' issues and victim services.
*Assisting in completing and submitting forms including Crime Victim Assistance Program (CVAP) applications, Victim Impact Statements, BC Housing applications and registration with the Victim Safety Unit.
*Providing information and orientation regarding the Criminal Justice system and roles of key parties.
*Maintaining integrity and hold confidentiality as a Victim Services Worker, while collaborating with systems with differing mandates and perspectives. Contact information can be found by visiting Native Courtworker and Counselling Association of British Columbia | Women's Safety ([https://nccabc.ca/ nccabc.ca])

=== 2. Salal Sexual Violence Support Centre ===

Salal's no cost Indigenous Counselling Program provides short to mid-term one-to-one counselling for Indigenous people of marginalized genders, including trans and cis women, trans men, non-binary, and Two Spirit individuals (peoples) seeking health, safety, and wellbeing.

*Support in processing the impacts of sexualized violence, intergenerational trauma, residential school, missing and murdered indigenous women, girls, and Two Spirit individuals, and loss of children,
*Provides access to traditional healing, knowledge and medicines,
*Find more information at [https://www.salalsvsc.ca/ Salal Sexual Violence Support Centre].

=== 3. Aboriginal Legal Aid BC ===

This organization aims to help Indigenous people in BC understand their legal rights by providing free legal information and connecting communities to legal support. They follow the lead of their Indigenous Services division, who work to meet the legal needs of Indigenous people in BC through innovative and culturally informed legal aid services. For more information, visit [https://aboriginal.legalaid.bc.ca/ Aboriginal Legal Aid].

=== 4. Indigenous Community Legal Clinic ===
The Indigenous Community Legal Clinic (ICLC) is an educational legal clinic of the Peter A. Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia that provides legal services to the Indigenous community. The ICLC may be able to provide advice, assistance and representation to eligible clients who cannot afford a lawyer and who self-identify as Indigenous. For more information, visit [https://allard.ubc.ca/community-clinics/indigenous-community-legal-clinic Indigenous Community Legal Clinic].

=== 5. Residential Historical Abuse Program ===
The Residential Historical Abuse Program provides professional counselling services for BC residents who were abused while under the age of 19 and while living in a home or residential program operated or funded by the province. A counsellor who meets provincial standards will develop a personal treatment plan with the victim, which may include individual, group, or family counselling.

The victim does not have to prove that they were sexually, physically, or mentally abused to receive counselling services, nor do they have to name the person(s) who abused them. The Ministry will simply verify that they were in that particular residential program at the time of the offence(s). No police complaint is necessary, but there is a legal obligation to report abuses to appropriate authorities if children are still at risk of being sexually abused. The government or the police may contact the victim for information. The contents of the application are otherwise confidential. The application process is simple and generally does not impede any legal action or application to the CVAP – although if the applicant is eligible for funding from another source for a same or similar purpose, the CVAP must deduct that funding (or those counselling sessions) when considering the application. For more information, visit [https://www.vch.ca/en/service/residential-historical-abuse-program-rhap Residential Historical Abuse Program (RHAP)].

=== 5. [https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1548700698392/1548701361628 Indigenous Services Canada] ===
Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) provides health support services to survivors, family members, and those affected by the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. ISC facilitates access to mental health counselling, emotional support, community based cultural support services and some assistance with transportation costs. To access supports in BC, call: 1-877-477-0775 or visit [https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1548700698392/1548701361628 MMIWG2S Health and Cultural Support Program].

=== 6. BC First Nations Justice Council (BCFNJC) ===
The BC First Nations Justice Council provides free legal services to self-identifying Indigenous people who are navigating the criminal and child protection justice systems. The BCFNJC has lawyers who can provide victims with free summary legal advice, as well as a Police Accountability Unit that may be able to provide legal assistance to victims who wish to complain about the way police have handled their case. They also employ a team of Resources and Support Workers who can support victims through the process of making a report to police and communicating with Crown Counsel through the trial. To contact the BCFNJC call 1-866-786-0081 or visit [https://bcfnjc.com/get-help/ Free Legal Services for Indigenous People - BC First Nations Justice Council].

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Referrals and Follow-up regarding Victims of Crime (4:XII)

2026-09-25T17:08:22Z

Nate Russell: /* 3. Other Canadian Provinces and Territories */

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 15 August 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = victims}}

Once a victim has been referred to another resource such as a lawyer, social service agency, or health professional, it is still important to follow up with the victim. This ensures that the victim is being looked after. Should a support person need to consult with a professional (e.g., a psychiatrist) about a victim's ongoing case, the victim must sign a written release form authorizing that professional to release their personal information.

== A. General Referrals ==

=== 1. Crime Victim Assistance Program ===

The Crime Victim Assistance program provides financial assistance and benefits to victims of violent crimes, their immediate family members, and some witnesses to offset the costs of the victimization, and to promote their recovery from the physical and psychological effects of the offence. In situations where the offender represents an ongoing significant risk to the victim's safety, protective measures such as home alarm systems, security devices, and other safety measures may be available. In cases involving high-risk victims, the victim and their family may be eligible for relocation expenses where all other safety measures are considered insufficient to address the victim's safety needs. For a complete list of benefits available, see the CVAP website at [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/financial-assistance-benefits Financial Assistance Benefits].

=== 2. Directory of Victim Service and Violence Against Women Programs in BC ===

The Victim Services & Violence Against Women Program Directory provides contact information for service providers across British Columbia that assist victims of crime, and women and children impacted by violence. See [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/victim-services-directory Victim Services and Violence Against Women Program Directory].

=== 3. Victim Notification – Victim Safety Unit ===

The Victim Safety Unit provides information to victims when the accused or offender is supervised by BC Corrections. Some information may also be provided to persons named in a civil protection order. Victims may be provided with ongoing information about the status of an accused or an offender, including whether or not they are currently in provincial jail, when they may get out of provincial jail, what community they may be in, and what conditions the accused or offender may have to follow. If the offender is under federal jurisdiction (under the supervision of the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada), the VSU will, upon request, forward the registration form to CSC/PBC. The CSC/PBC will provide victim notification to registered victims directly. For more information, visit [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/victim-notification Victim Notification].

=== 4. VictimLink BC ===

VictimLink BC provides information and referral services to all victims of crime and immediate crisis support to victims of family and sexual violence, including victims of human trafficking exploited for labour or sexual services. It is available 24/7 and can be accessed by calling or texting 1-800-563-0808 and via email at 211-VictimLinkBC@uwbc.ca. The service is toll-free, confidential, multilingual, and anonymous. For more information, visit: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/victims-of-crime/victimlinkbc VictimLinkBC].

=== 5. Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia ===

The Public Guardian and Trustee of BC provides assistance to adults who need support for financial and personal decision-making and administers estates of deceased persons if there is no one else to do it. They may also administer trust funds on behalf of minors. Service is available in 130 languages. The PGT aids and protects the interests of those who lack legal capacity to protect their own interests. This includes the legal and financial interests of children under the age of 19, the legal, financial, personal, and health care interests of adults who required assistance in decision making, and administering the estates of deceased and missing persons. Learn more by visiting [https://www.trustee.bc.ca/Pages/default.aspx Public Guardian and Trustee of BC].

=== 6. Victims Portal ===

This is a secure online portal that allows registered victims, and/or their named representatives, to access services and information which they are entitled to under the ''Corrections and Conditional Release Act'' (''CCRA''). The portal allows a victim to access information from the CSC and PBC and request specific information concerning the offender who harmed them. For more information, visit [https://victimsportal-portailvictimes.csc-scc.gc.ca/Main/Home The Victims Portal].

=== 7. BC's Intimate Images Protection Service ===

This is an online directory that provides contact information for service providers and specialized support for decision-making. Victims may have criminal, civil, and practical removal options of intimate images that were shared without their consent, and this service can help them receive support while deciding which pathway to use.

The BC Victim Services Directory can be found here: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/victim-services-directory Victim Services and Violence Against Women Program Directory]

== B. Referrals for Child and Youth Victims ==

=== 1. Child Protection Services BC ===

To report suspected cases of abuse or neglect of a child or youth under 19, phone 1 800 663-9122 at any time. For more information, visit [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/public-safety/protecting-children Child protection services in B.C.].

=== 2. Society for Children and Youth of BC (SCY) ===

SCY is a unique provincial organization dedicated to improving the well-being of children and youth in British Columbia. SCY recognizes that adult duty-bearers need to advocate for the rights of children and youth of BC as listed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in order to improve their well-being. Learn more at [https://scyofbc.org/ SCY of BC].

=== 3. Child and Youth Legal Centre ===

The Child and Youth Legal Centre is operated by the Society for Children and Youth of BC. It provides legal representation, free to those who qualify, for young people who are experiencing problems related to family law, child protection, human rights and many other legal issues. Appointments can be booked by calling 778-657-5544 or toll free at 1-877-462-0037 (1-800-663-7867 for elsewhere in BC). Learn more at [https://scyofbc.org/child-youth-legal-centre/#1510173090398-895b5c9f-54dd The Child and Youth Legal Centre].

== C. Referrals for Criminal Injuries Outside British Columbia ==

=== 1. National Office for Victims ===

Provides general information for victims and the public, referrals to the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) for specific enquiries and works to incorporate a victim's perspective in national policy development. Learn more at [https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/crrctns/ntnl-ffc-vctms-en.aspx National Office for Victims].

=== 2. Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime ===

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime (OFOVC) is an independent resource for victims in Canada. Victims can contact OFOVC to learn about their rights under federal law and the services available to them, or to make a complaint about any federal agency or federal legislation dealing with victims of crime. Learn more at: [https://www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/index.html Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime].

=== 3. Other Canadian Provinces and Territories ===

'''Alberta''': ''Victims of Crime Act'', RSA 2000, c V-3.
Victims of Crime Assistance Program
https://www.alberta.ca/victims-of-crime-assistance-program.aspx

'''Manitoba''': [https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/v055.php ''Victims' Bill of Rights'', CCSM c V55].
Compensation for Victims of Crime Program
https://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/vs/cvc/index.html

'''New Brunswick''': ''Victims Services Act'', SNB 2016, c 113.
Victim Services
https://www.gnb.ca/en/topic/laws-safety/courts-jails/victim-services.html

'''Newfoundland''': ''Victims of Crime Services Act'', RSNL 1990, c V-5.
Victim Services Program, Provincial Headquarters
https://www.gov.nl.ca/victimservices/

'''Northwest Territories''': ''Victims of Crime Act'', RSNWT 1988, c 9.
Victim Services
https://www.justice.gov.nt.ca/en/victim-services/

'''Nova Scotia''': ''Victims' Rights and Services Act'', SNS 1989, c 14.
Department of Justice Victim Services https://novascotia.ca/just/victim_services/

'''Ontario''': ''Victims' Bill of Rights'', SO 1995, c 6.
Ontario Victim Services (OVS)
https://www.ontario.ca/page/get-help-if-you-are-experiencing-violence

Victim Notification System (VNS)
https://www.ontario.ca/page/victim-notification-services

'''Prince Edward Island''': ''Victims of Crime Act'', RSPEI 1988, c V-3.1.

Victim Services
https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/justice-and-public-safety/victim-services

'''Quebec''': ''Crime Victims Compensation Act'', LRQ c I-6.
Indemnisation des Victimes d'actes Criminels (IVAC)
https://www.ivac.qc.ca/en/Pages/default.aspx

'''Saskatchewan''': [https://canlii.ca/t/w83 ''Victims of Crime Act'', SS 1995, c V-6.011.]
Victim Services
https://www.saskatchewan.ca/residents/justice-crime-and-the-law/victims-of-crime-and-abuse/help-from-victim-service-units-and-agencies

'''Yukon''': ''Crime Prevention and Victim Services Trust Act'', RSY 2002, c 49.
Victim Services
https://yukon.ca/en/legal-and-social-supports/supports-victims-crime/find-out-about-victim-services

== D. Finding Funding for Counselling ==

=== 1. Crime Victim Assistance Program funding for counselling ===

The ''CVAA'' establishes counselling services or expenses as a benefit that may be available to victims, immediate family members of injured or deceased victims, and some witnesses. The ''Crime Victim Assistance (General) Regulation'' sets out the conditions or limitations for providing counselling benefits and also establishes the approved fee rate for reimbursement of counselling services. The Counselling Guidelines provide further information and clarification regarding expectations for the provision of counselling services, reporting requirements and limitations applicable to service providers requesting reimbursement for counselling services on accepted claims with the CVAP. Learn more at [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/financial-assistance-benefits Financial Assistance Benefits].

=== 2. Child and Youth Mental Health (CYMH) ===

The Ministry of Children and Family Development's Child and Youth Mental Health (CYMH) teams located across B.C. provide a range of mental health assessment and treatment options for children and youth (0-18 years of age) and their families at no cost. Our clinics are staffed by mental health clinicians, psychologists, and psychiatrists. Learn more at: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/managing-your-health/mental-health-substance-use/child-teen-mental-health Child & Youth Mental Health]

=== 3. Stopping the Violence Counselling ===

Stopping the Violence (STV) and Community-Based Victim Services (CBVS)
*STV: These programs provide essential counselling and support including information, referrals, and in some cases, system liaison services for women who have experienced sexual assault, violence in relationships, and/or childhood abuse.
*CBVS: There are several community-based counselling programs that provide counselling services to women who have experienced sexual assault, relationship violence, or childhood abuse. The range of individual and group counselling services are based on the needs of the individual women and delivered in an accessible, safe, and supportive environment.
*Learn more at [https://endingviolence.org/programs-we-serve/ Ending Violence]

=== 4. Children Who Witness Abuse Programs (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) ===

This community-based program provides individual and group counselling services for children who witness the abuse of a parent, who is most often a mother. Designed to help break the intergenerational cycle of violence against women, this program helps children cope with, and heal from, the trauma of living in an abusive situation. Support is also provided to the non-offending caregiver who has been abused by their partner. Learn more at [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/bc-criminal-justice-system/if-victim/children-young-victim/protecting/cwwa-directory.pdf Children Who Witness Abuse Counselling Programs Contact List].

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Referrals and Follow-up regarding Victims of Crime (4:XII)

2026-09-25T17:05:45Z

Nate Russell: /* 6. BC's Intimate Images Protection Service */

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 15 August 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = victims}}

Once a victim has been referred to another resource such as a lawyer, social service agency, or health professional, it is still important to follow up with the victim. This ensures that the victim is being looked after. Should a support person need to consult with a professional (e.g., a psychiatrist) about a victim's ongoing case, the victim must sign a written release form authorizing that professional to release their personal information.

== A. General Referrals ==

=== 1. Crime Victim Assistance Program ===

The Crime Victim Assistance program provides financial assistance and benefits to victims of violent crimes, their immediate family members, and some witnesses to offset the costs of the victimization, and to promote their recovery from the physical and psychological effects of the offence. In situations where the offender represents an ongoing significant risk to the victim's safety, protective measures such as home alarm systems, security devices, and other safety measures may be available. In cases involving high-risk victims, the victim and their family may be eligible for relocation expenses where all other safety measures are considered insufficient to address the victim's safety needs. For a complete list of benefits available, see the CVAP website at [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/financial-assistance-benefits Financial Assistance Benefits].

=== 2. Directory of Victim Service and Violence Against Women Programs in BC ===

The Victim Services & Violence Against Women Program Directory provides contact information for service providers across British Columbia that assist victims of crime, and women and children impacted by violence. See [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/victim-services-directory Victim Services and Violence Against Women Program Directory].

=== 3. Victim Notification – Victim Safety Unit ===

The Victim Safety Unit provides information to victims when the accused or offender is supervised by BC Corrections. Some information may also be provided to persons named in a civil protection order. Victims may be provided with ongoing information about the status of an accused or an offender, including whether or not they are currently in provincial jail, when they may get out of provincial jail, what community they may be in, and what conditions the accused or offender may have to follow. If the offender is under federal jurisdiction (under the supervision of the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada), the VSU will, upon request, forward the registration form to CSC/PBC. The CSC/PBC will provide victim notification to registered victims directly. For more information, visit [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/victim-notification Victim Notification].

=== 4. VictimLink BC ===

VictimLink BC provides information and referral services to all victims of crime and immediate crisis support to victims of family and sexual violence, including victims of human trafficking exploited for labour or sexual services. It is available 24/7 and can be accessed by calling or texting 1-800-563-0808 and via email at 211-VictimLinkBC@uwbc.ca. The service is toll-free, confidential, multilingual, and anonymous. For more information, visit: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/victims-of-crime/victimlinkbc VictimLinkBC].

=== 5. Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia ===

The Public Guardian and Trustee of BC provides assistance to adults who need support for financial and personal decision-making and administers estates of deceased persons if there is no one else to do it. They may also administer trust funds on behalf of minors. Service is available in 130 languages. The PGT aids and protects the interests of those who lack legal capacity to protect their own interests. This includes the legal and financial interests of children under the age of 19, the legal, financial, personal, and health care interests of adults who required assistance in decision making, and administering the estates of deceased and missing persons. Learn more by visiting [https://www.trustee.bc.ca/Pages/default.aspx Public Guardian and Trustee of BC].

=== 6. Victims Portal ===

This is a secure online portal that allows registered victims, and/or their named representatives, to access services and information which they are entitled to under the ''Corrections and Conditional Release Act'' (''CCRA''). The portal allows a victim to access information from the CSC and PBC and request specific information concerning the offender who harmed them. For more information, visit [https://victimsportal-portailvictimes.csc-scc.gc.ca/Main/Home The Victims Portal].

=== 7. BC's Intimate Images Protection Service ===

This is an online directory that provides contact information for service providers and specialized support for decision-making. Victims may have criminal, civil, and practical removal options of intimate images that were shared without their consent, and this service can help them receive support while deciding which pathway to use.

The BC Victim Services Directory can be found here: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/victim-services-directory Victim Services and Violence Against Women Program Directory]

== B. Referrals for Child and Youth Victims ==

=== 1. Child Protection Services BC ===

To report suspected cases of abuse or neglect of a child or youth under 19, phone 1 800 663-9122 at any time. For more information, visit [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/public-safety/protecting-children Child protection services in B.C.].

=== 2. Society for Children and Youth of BC (SCY) ===

SCY is a unique provincial organization dedicated to improving the well-being of children and youth in British Columbia. SCY recognizes that adult duty-bearers need to advocate for the rights of children and youth of BC as listed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in order to improve their well-being. Learn more at [https://scyofbc.org/ SCY of BC].

=== 3. Child and Youth Legal Centre ===

The Child and Youth Legal Centre is operated by the Society for Children and Youth of BC. It provides legal representation, free to those who qualify, for young people who are experiencing problems related to family law, child protection, human rights and many other legal issues. Appointments can be booked by calling 778-657-5544 or toll free at 1-877-462-0037 (1-800-663-7867 for elsewhere in BC). Learn more at [https://scyofbc.org/child-youth-legal-centre/#1510173090398-895b5c9f-54dd The Child and Youth Legal Centre].

== C. Referrals for Criminal Injuries Outside British Columbia ==

=== 1. National Office for Victims ===

Provides general information for victims and the public, referrals to the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) for specific enquiries and works to incorporate a victim's perspective in national policy development. Learn more at [https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/crrctns/ntnl-ffc-vctms-en.aspx National Office for Victims].

=== 2. Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime ===

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime (OFOVC) is an independent resource for victims in Canada. Victims can contact OFOVC to learn about their rights under federal law and the services available to them, or to make a complaint about any federal agency or federal legislation dealing with victims of crime. Learn more at: [https://www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/index.html Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime].

=== 3. Other Canadian Provinces and Territories ===

'''Alberta''': ''Victims of Crime Act'', RSA 2000, c V-3.
Victims of Crime Assistance Program
https://www.alberta.ca/victims-of-crime-assistance-program.aspx

'''Manitoba''': [https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/v055.php ''Victims' Bill of Rights'', CCSM c V55].
Compensation for Victims of Crime Program
https://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/vs/cvc/index.html

'''New Brunswick''': ''Victims Services Act'', SNB 2016, c 113.
Victim Services
https://www.gnb.ca/en/topic/laws-safety/courts-jails/victim-services.html

'''Newfoundland''': ''Victims of Crime Services Act'', RSNL 1990, c V-5.
Victim Services Program, Provincial Headquarters
https://www.gov.nl.ca/victimservices/

'''Northwest Territories''': ''Victims of Crime Act'', RSNWT 1988, c 9.
Victim Services
https://www.justice.gov.nt.ca/en/victim-services/

'''Nova Scotia''': ''Victims' Rights and Services Act'', SNS 1989, c 14.
Department of Justice Victim Services https://novascotia.ca/just/victim_services/

'''Ontario''': ''Victims' Bill of Rights'', SO 1995, c 6.
Ontario Victim Services (OVS)
https://www.ontario.ca/page/get-help-if-you-are-experiencing-violence

Victim Notification System (VNS)
https://www.ontario.ca/page/victim-notification-services

'''Prince Edward Island''': ''Victims of Crime Act'', RSPEI 1988, c V-3.1.

Victim Services
https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/justice-and-public-safety/victim-services

'''Quebec''': ''Crime Victims Compensation Act'', LRQ c I-6.
Indemnisation des Victimes d'actes Criminels (IVAC)
https://www.ivac.qc.ca/en/Pages/default.aspx

'''Saskatchewan''': [https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/laws/regu/rrs-c-v-6.011-reg-1/latest/rrs-c-v-6.011-reg-1.html ''Victims of Crime Act'', SS 1995, c V-6.011.]
Victim Services
https://www.saskatchewan.ca/residents/justice-crime-and-the-law/victims-of-crime-and-abuse/help-from-victim-service-units-and-agencies

'''Yukon''': ''Crime Prevention and Victim Services Trust Act'', RSY 2002, c 49.
Victim Services
https://yukon.ca/en/legal-and-social-supports/supports-victims-crime/find-out-about-victim-services

== D. Finding Funding for Counselling ==

=== 1. Crime Victim Assistance Program funding for counselling ===

The ''CVAA'' establishes counselling services or expenses as a benefit that may be available to victims, immediate family members of injured or deceased victims, and some witnesses. The ''Crime Victim Assistance (General) Regulation'' sets out the conditions or limitations for providing counselling benefits and also establishes the approved fee rate for reimbursement of counselling services. The Counselling Guidelines provide further information and clarification regarding expectations for the provision of counselling services, reporting requirements and limitations applicable to service providers requesting reimbursement for counselling services on accepted claims with the CVAP. Learn more at [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/financial-assistance-benefits Financial Assistance Benefits].

=== 2. Child and Youth Mental Health (CYMH) ===

The Ministry of Children and Family Development's Child and Youth Mental Health (CYMH) teams located across B.C. provide a range of mental health assessment and treatment options for children and youth (0-18 years of age) and their families at no cost. Our clinics are staffed by mental health clinicians, psychologists, and psychiatrists. Learn more at: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/managing-your-health/mental-health-substance-use/child-teen-mental-health Child & Youth Mental Health]

=== 3. Stopping the Violence Counselling ===

Stopping the Violence (STV) and Community-Based Victim Services (CBVS)
*STV: These programs provide essential counselling and support including information, referrals, and in some cases, system liaison services for women who have experienced sexual assault, violence in relationships, and/or childhood abuse.
*CBVS: There are several community-based counselling programs that provide counselling services to women who have experienced sexual assault, relationship violence, or childhood abuse. The range of individual and group counselling services are based on the needs of the individual women and delivered in an accessible, safe, and supportive environment.
*Learn more at [https://endingviolence.org/programs-we-serve/ Ending Violence]

=== 4. Children Who Witness Abuse Programs (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) ===

This community-based program provides individual and group counselling services for children who witness the abuse of a parent, who is most often a mother. Designed to help break the intergenerational cycle of violence against women, this program helps children cope with, and heal from, the trauma of living in an abusive situation. Support is also provided to the non-offending caregiver who has been abused by their partner. Learn more at [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/bc-criminal-justice-system/if-victim/children-young-victim/protecting/cwwa-directory.pdf Children Who Witness Abuse Counselling Programs Contact List].

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Referrals and Follow-up regarding Victims of Crime (4:XII)

2026-09-25T17:05:33Z

Nate Russell: /* 7. Victims Portal */

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 15 August 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = victims}}

Once a victim has been referred to another resource such as a lawyer, social service agency, or health professional, it is still important to follow up with the victim. This ensures that the victim is being looked after. Should a support person need to consult with a professional (e.g., a psychiatrist) about a victim's ongoing case, the victim must sign a written release form authorizing that professional to release their personal information.

== A. General Referrals ==

=== 1. Crime Victim Assistance Program ===

The Crime Victim Assistance program provides financial assistance and benefits to victims of violent crimes, their immediate family members, and some witnesses to offset the costs of the victimization, and to promote their recovery from the physical and psychological effects of the offence. In situations where the offender represents an ongoing significant risk to the victim's safety, protective measures such as home alarm systems, security devices, and other safety measures may be available. In cases involving high-risk victims, the victim and their family may be eligible for relocation expenses where all other safety measures are considered insufficient to address the victim's safety needs. For a complete list of benefits available, see the CVAP website at [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/financial-assistance-benefits Financial Assistance Benefits].

=== 2. Directory of Victim Service and Violence Against Women Programs in BC ===

The Victim Services & Violence Against Women Program Directory provides contact information for service providers across British Columbia that assist victims of crime, and women and children impacted by violence. See [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/victim-services-directory Victim Services and Violence Against Women Program Directory].

=== 3. Victim Notification – Victim Safety Unit ===

The Victim Safety Unit provides information to victims when the accused or offender is supervised by BC Corrections. Some information may also be provided to persons named in a civil protection order. Victims may be provided with ongoing information about the status of an accused or an offender, including whether or not they are currently in provincial jail, when they may get out of provincial jail, what community they may be in, and what conditions the accused or offender may have to follow. If the offender is under federal jurisdiction (under the supervision of the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada), the VSU will, upon request, forward the registration form to CSC/PBC. The CSC/PBC will provide victim notification to registered victims directly. For more information, visit [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/victim-notification Victim Notification].

=== 4. VictimLink BC ===

VictimLink BC provides information and referral services to all victims of crime and immediate crisis support to victims of family and sexual violence, including victims of human trafficking exploited for labour or sexual services. It is available 24/7 and can be accessed by calling or texting 1-800-563-0808 and via email at 211-VictimLinkBC@uwbc.ca. The service is toll-free, confidential, multilingual, and anonymous. For more information, visit: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/victims-of-crime/victimlinkbc VictimLinkBC].

=== 5. Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia ===

The Public Guardian and Trustee of BC provides assistance to adults who need support for financial and personal decision-making and administers estates of deceased persons if there is no one else to do it. They may also administer trust funds on behalf of minors. Service is available in 130 languages. The PGT aids and protects the interests of those who lack legal capacity to protect their own interests. This includes the legal and financial interests of children under the age of 19, the legal, financial, personal, and health care interests of adults who required assistance in decision making, and administering the estates of deceased and missing persons. Learn more by visiting [https://www.trustee.bc.ca/Pages/default.aspx Public Guardian and Trustee of BC].

=== 6. Victims Portal ===

This is a secure online portal that allows registered victims, and/or their named representatives, to access services and information which they are entitled to under the ''Corrections and Conditional Release Act'' (''CCRA''). The portal allows a victim to access information from the CSC and PBC and request specific information concerning the offender who harmed them. For more information, visit [https://victimsportal-portailvictimes.csc-scc.gc.ca/Main/Home The Victims Portal].

=== 6. BC's Intimate Images Protection Service ===

This is an online directory that provides contact information for service providers and specialized support for decision-making. Victims may have criminal, civil, and practical removal options of intimate images that were shared without their consent, and this service can help them receive support while deciding which pathway to use.

The BC Victim Services Directory can be found here: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/victim-services-directory Victim Services and Violence Against Women Program Directory]

== B. Referrals for Child and Youth Victims ==

=== 1. Child Protection Services BC ===

To report suspected cases of abuse or neglect of a child or youth under 19, phone 1 800 663-9122 at any time. For more information, visit [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/public-safety/protecting-children Child protection services in B.C.].

=== 2. Society for Children and Youth of BC (SCY) ===

SCY is a unique provincial organization dedicated to improving the well-being of children and youth in British Columbia. SCY recognizes that adult duty-bearers need to advocate for the rights of children and youth of BC as listed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in order to improve their well-being. Learn more at [https://scyofbc.org/ SCY of BC].

=== 3. Child and Youth Legal Centre ===

The Child and Youth Legal Centre is operated by the Society for Children and Youth of BC. It provides legal representation, free to those who qualify, for young people who are experiencing problems related to family law, child protection, human rights and many other legal issues. Appointments can be booked by calling 778-657-5544 or toll free at 1-877-462-0037 (1-800-663-7867 for elsewhere in BC). Learn more at [https://scyofbc.org/child-youth-legal-centre/#1510173090398-895b5c9f-54dd The Child and Youth Legal Centre].

== C. Referrals for Criminal Injuries Outside British Columbia ==

=== 1. National Office for Victims ===

Provides general information for victims and the public, referrals to the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) for specific enquiries and works to incorporate a victim's perspective in national policy development. Learn more at [https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/crrctns/ntnl-ffc-vctms-en.aspx National Office for Victims].

=== 2. Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime ===

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime (OFOVC) is an independent resource for victims in Canada. Victims can contact OFOVC to learn about their rights under federal law and the services available to them, or to make a complaint about any federal agency or federal legislation dealing with victims of crime. Learn more at: [https://www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/index.html Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime].

=== 3. Other Canadian Provinces and Territories ===

'''Alberta''': ''Victims of Crime Act'', RSA 2000, c V-3.
Victims of Crime Assistance Program
https://www.alberta.ca/victims-of-crime-assistance-program.aspx

'''Manitoba''': [https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/v055.php ''Victims' Bill of Rights'', CCSM c V55].
Compensation for Victims of Crime Program
https://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/vs/cvc/index.html

'''New Brunswick''': ''Victims Services Act'', SNB 2016, c 113.
Victim Services
https://www.gnb.ca/en/topic/laws-safety/courts-jails/victim-services.html

'''Newfoundland''': ''Victims of Crime Services Act'', RSNL 1990, c V-5.
Victim Services Program, Provincial Headquarters
https://www.gov.nl.ca/victimservices/

'''Northwest Territories''': ''Victims of Crime Act'', RSNWT 1988, c 9.
Victim Services
https://www.justice.gov.nt.ca/en/victim-services/

'''Nova Scotia''': ''Victims' Rights and Services Act'', SNS 1989, c 14.
Department of Justice Victim Services https://novascotia.ca/just/victim_services/

'''Ontario''': ''Victims' Bill of Rights'', SO 1995, c 6.
Ontario Victim Services (OVS)
https://www.ontario.ca/page/get-help-if-you-are-experiencing-violence

Victim Notification System (VNS)
https://www.ontario.ca/page/victim-notification-services

'''Prince Edward Island''': ''Victims of Crime Act'', RSPEI 1988, c V-3.1.

Victim Services
https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/justice-and-public-safety/victim-services

'''Quebec''': ''Crime Victims Compensation Act'', LRQ c I-6.
Indemnisation des Victimes d'actes Criminels (IVAC)
https://www.ivac.qc.ca/en/Pages/default.aspx

'''Saskatchewan''': [https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/laws/regu/rrs-c-v-6.011-reg-1/latest/rrs-c-v-6.011-reg-1.html ''Victims of Crime Act'', SS 1995, c V-6.011.]
Victim Services
https://www.saskatchewan.ca/residents/justice-crime-and-the-law/victims-of-crime-and-abuse/help-from-victim-service-units-and-agencies

'''Yukon''': ''Crime Prevention and Victim Services Trust Act'', RSY 2002, c 49.
Victim Services
https://yukon.ca/en/legal-and-social-supports/supports-victims-crime/find-out-about-victim-services

== D. Finding Funding for Counselling ==

=== 1. Crime Victim Assistance Program funding for counselling ===

The ''CVAA'' establishes counselling services or expenses as a benefit that may be available to victims, immediate family members of injured or deceased victims, and some witnesses. The ''Crime Victim Assistance (General) Regulation'' sets out the conditions or limitations for providing counselling benefits and also establishes the approved fee rate for reimbursement of counselling services. The Counselling Guidelines provide further information and clarification regarding expectations for the provision of counselling services, reporting requirements and limitations applicable to service providers requesting reimbursement for counselling services on accepted claims with the CVAP. Learn more at [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/financial-assistance-benefits Financial Assistance Benefits].

=== 2. Child and Youth Mental Health (CYMH) ===

The Ministry of Children and Family Development's Child and Youth Mental Health (CYMH) teams located across B.C. provide a range of mental health assessment and treatment options for children and youth (0-18 years of age) and their families at no cost. Our clinics are staffed by mental health clinicians, psychologists, and psychiatrists. Learn more at: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/managing-your-health/mental-health-substance-use/child-teen-mental-health Child & Youth Mental Health]

=== 3. Stopping the Violence Counselling ===

Stopping the Violence (STV) and Community-Based Victim Services (CBVS)
*STV: These programs provide essential counselling and support including information, referrals, and in some cases, system liaison services for women who have experienced sexual assault, violence in relationships, and/or childhood abuse.
*CBVS: There are several community-based counselling programs that provide counselling services to women who have experienced sexual assault, relationship violence, or childhood abuse. The range of individual and group counselling services are based on the needs of the individual women and delivered in an accessible, safe, and supportive environment.
*Learn more at [https://endingviolence.org/programs-we-serve/ Ending Violence]

=== 4. Children Who Witness Abuse Programs (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) ===

This community-based program provides individual and group counselling services for children who witness the abuse of a parent, who is most often a mother. Designed to help break the intergenerational cycle of violence against women, this program helps children cope with, and heal from, the trauma of living in an abusive situation. Support is also provided to the non-offending caregiver who has been abused by their partner. Learn more at [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/bc-criminal-justice-system/if-victim/children-young-victim/protecting/cwwa-directory.pdf Children Who Witness Abuse Counselling Programs Contact List].

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Referrals and Follow-up regarding Victims of Crime (4:XII)

2026-09-25T17:03:16Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 15 August 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = victims}}

Once a victim has been referred to another resource such as a lawyer, social service agency, or health professional, it is still important to follow up with the victim. This ensures that the victim is being looked after. Should a support person need to consult with a professional (e.g., a psychiatrist) about a victim's ongoing case, the victim must sign a written release form authorizing that professional to release their personal information.

== A. General Referrals ==

=== 1. Crime Victim Assistance Program ===

The Crime Victim Assistance program provides financial assistance and benefits to victims of violent crimes, their immediate family members, and some witnesses to offset the costs of the victimization, and to promote their recovery from the physical and psychological effects of the offence. In situations where the offender represents an ongoing significant risk to the victim's safety, protective measures such as home alarm systems, security devices, and other safety measures may be available. In cases involving high-risk victims, the victim and their family may be eligible for relocation expenses where all other safety measures are considered insufficient to address the victim's safety needs. For a complete list of benefits available, see the CVAP website at [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/financial-assistance-benefits Financial Assistance Benefits].

=== 2. Directory of Victim Service and Violence Against Women Programs in BC ===

The Victim Services & Violence Against Women Program Directory provides contact information for service providers across British Columbia that assist victims of crime, and women and children impacted by violence. See [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/victim-services-directory Victim Services and Violence Against Women Program Directory].

=== 3. Victim Notification – Victim Safety Unit ===

The Victim Safety Unit provides information to victims when the accused or offender is supervised by BC Corrections. Some information may also be provided to persons named in a civil protection order. Victims may be provided with ongoing information about the status of an accused or an offender, including whether or not they are currently in provincial jail, when they may get out of provincial jail, what community they may be in, and what conditions the accused or offender may have to follow. If the offender is under federal jurisdiction (under the supervision of the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada), the VSU will, upon request, forward the registration form to CSC/PBC. The CSC/PBC will provide victim notification to registered victims directly. For more information, visit [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/victim-notification Victim Notification].

=== 4. VictimLink BC ===

VictimLink BC provides information and referral services to all victims of crime and immediate crisis support to victims of family and sexual violence, including victims of human trafficking exploited for labour or sexual services. It is available 24/7 and can be accessed by calling or texting 1-800-563-0808 and via email at 211-VictimLinkBC@uwbc.ca. The service is toll-free, confidential, multilingual, and anonymous. For more information, visit: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/victims-of-crime/victimlinkbc VictimLinkBC].

=== 5. Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia ===

The Public Guardian and Trustee of BC provides assistance to adults who need support for financial and personal decision-making and administers estates of deceased persons if there is no one else to do it. They may also administer trust funds on behalf of minors. Service is available in 130 languages. The PGT aids and protects the interests of those who lack legal capacity to protect their own interests. This includes the legal and financial interests of children under the age of 19, the legal, financial, personal, and health care interests of adults who required assistance in decision making, and administering the estates of deceased and missing persons. Learn more by visiting [https://www.trustee.bc.ca/Pages/default.aspx Public Guardian and Trustee of BC].

=== 7. Victims Portal ===

This is a secure online portal that allows registered victims, and/or their named representatives, to access services and information which they are entitled to under the ''Corrections and Conditional Release Act'' (''CCRA''). The portal allows a victim to access information from the CSC and PBC and request specific information concerning the offender who harmed them. For more information, visit [https://victimsportal-portailvictimes.csc-scc.gc.ca/Main/Home The Victims Portal].

=== 6. BC's Intimate Images Protection Service ===

This is an online directory that provides contact information for service providers and specialized support for decision-making. Victims may have criminal, civil, and practical removal options of intimate images that were shared without their consent, and this service can help them receive support while deciding which pathway to use.

The BC Victim Services Directory can be found here: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/victim-services-directory Victim Services and Violence Against Women Program Directory]

== B. Referrals for Child and Youth Victims ==

=== 1. Child Protection Services BC ===

To report suspected cases of abuse or neglect of a child or youth under 19, phone 1 800 663-9122 at any time. For more information, visit [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/public-safety/protecting-children Child protection services in B.C.].

=== 2. Society for Children and Youth of BC (SCY) ===

SCY is a unique provincial organization dedicated to improving the well-being of children and youth in British Columbia. SCY recognizes that adult duty-bearers need to advocate for the rights of children and youth of BC as listed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in order to improve their well-being. Learn more at [https://scyofbc.org/ SCY of BC].

=== 3. Child and Youth Legal Centre ===

The Child and Youth Legal Centre is operated by the Society for Children and Youth of BC. It provides legal representation, free to those who qualify, for young people who are experiencing problems related to family law, child protection, human rights and many other legal issues. Appointments can be booked by calling 778-657-5544 or toll free at 1-877-462-0037 (1-800-663-7867 for elsewhere in BC). Learn more at [https://scyofbc.org/child-youth-legal-centre/#1510173090398-895b5c9f-54dd The Child and Youth Legal Centre].

== C. Referrals for Criminal Injuries Outside British Columbia ==

=== 1. National Office for Victims ===

Provides general information for victims and the public, referrals to the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) for specific enquiries and works to incorporate a victim's perspective in national policy development. Learn more at [https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/crrctns/ntnl-ffc-vctms-en.aspx National Office for Victims].

=== 2. Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime ===

The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime (OFOVC) is an independent resource for victims in Canada. Victims can contact OFOVC to learn about their rights under federal law and the services available to them, or to make a complaint about any federal agency or federal legislation dealing with victims of crime. Learn more at: [https://www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/index.html Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime].

=== 3. Other Canadian Provinces and Territories ===

'''Alberta''': ''Victims of Crime Act'', RSA 2000, c V-3.
Victims of Crime Assistance Program
https://www.alberta.ca/victims-of-crime-assistance-program.aspx

'''Manitoba''': [https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/v055.php ''Victims' Bill of Rights'', CCSM c V55].
Compensation for Victims of Crime Program
https://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/vs/cvc/index.html

'''New Brunswick''': ''Victims Services Act'', SNB 2016, c 113.
Victim Services
https://www.gnb.ca/en/topic/laws-safety/courts-jails/victim-services.html

'''Newfoundland''': ''Victims of Crime Services Act'', RSNL 1990, c V-5.
Victim Services Program, Provincial Headquarters
https://www.gov.nl.ca/victimservices/

'''Northwest Territories''': ''Victims of Crime Act'', RSNWT 1988, c 9.
Victim Services
https://www.justice.gov.nt.ca/en/victim-services/

'''Nova Scotia''': ''Victims' Rights and Services Act'', SNS 1989, c 14.
Department of Justice Victim Services https://novascotia.ca/just/victim_services/

'''Ontario''': ''Victims' Bill of Rights'', SO 1995, c 6.
Ontario Victim Services (OVS)
https://www.ontario.ca/page/get-help-if-you-are-experiencing-violence

Victim Notification System (VNS)
https://www.ontario.ca/page/victim-notification-services

'''Prince Edward Island''': ''Victims of Crime Act'', RSPEI 1988, c V-3.1.

Victim Services
https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/justice-and-public-safety/victim-services

'''Quebec''': ''Crime Victims Compensation Act'', LRQ c I-6.
Indemnisation des Victimes d'actes Criminels (IVAC)
https://www.ivac.qc.ca/en/Pages/default.aspx

'''Saskatchewan''': [https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/laws/regu/rrs-c-v-6.011-reg-1/latest/rrs-c-v-6.011-reg-1.html ''Victims of Crime Act'', SS 1995, c V-6.011.]
Victim Services
https://www.saskatchewan.ca/residents/justice-crime-and-the-law/victims-of-crime-and-abuse/help-from-victim-service-units-and-agencies

'''Yukon''': ''Crime Prevention and Victim Services Trust Act'', RSY 2002, c 49.
Victim Services
https://yukon.ca/en/legal-and-social-supports/supports-victims-crime/find-out-about-victim-services

== D. Finding Funding for Counselling ==

=== 1. Crime Victim Assistance Program funding for counselling ===

The ''CVAA'' establishes counselling services or expenses as a benefit that may be available to victims, immediate family members of injured or deceased victims, and some witnesses. The ''Crime Victim Assistance (General) Regulation'' sets out the conditions or limitations for providing counselling benefits and also establishes the approved fee rate for reimbursement of counselling services. The Counselling Guidelines provide further information and clarification regarding expectations for the provision of counselling services, reporting requirements and limitations applicable to service providers requesting reimbursement for counselling services on accepted claims with the CVAP. Learn more at [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bcs-criminal-justice-system/if-you-are-a-victim-of-a-crime/victim-of-crime/financial-assistance-benefits Financial Assistance Benefits].

=== 2. Child and Youth Mental Health (CYMH) ===

The Ministry of Children and Family Development's Child and Youth Mental Health (CYMH) teams located across B.C. provide a range of mental health assessment and treatment options for children and youth (0-18 years of age) and their families at no cost. Our clinics are staffed by mental health clinicians, psychologists, and psychiatrists. Learn more at: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/managing-your-health/mental-health-substance-use/child-teen-mental-health Child & Youth Mental Health]

=== 3. Stopping the Violence Counselling ===

Stopping the Violence (STV) and Community-Based Victim Services (CBVS)
*STV: These programs provide essential counselling and support including information, referrals, and in some cases, system liaison services for women who have experienced sexual assault, violence in relationships, and/or childhood abuse.
*CBVS: There are several community-based counselling programs that provide counselling services to women who have experienced sexual assault, relationship violence, or childhood abuse. The range of individual and group counselling services are based on the needs of the individual women and delivered in an accessible, safe, and supportive environment.
*Learn more at [https://endingviolence.org/programs-we-serve/ Ending Violence]

=== 4. Children Who Witness Abuse Programs (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) ===

This community-based program provides individual and group counselling services for children who witness the abuse of a parent, who is most often a mother. Designed to help break the intergenerational cycle of violence against women, this program helps children cope with, and heal from, the trauma of living in an abusive situation. Support is also provided to the non-offending caregiver who has been abused by their partner. Learn more at [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/bc-criminal-justice-system/if-victim/children-young-victim/protecting/cwwa-directory.pdf Children Who Witness Abuse Counselling Programs Contact List].

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Resources for Indigenous Victims (4:XI)

2026-09-25T16:59:24Z

Nate Russell:

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 15 August 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = victims}}

Indigenous peoples are overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system as victims of crime. Per Statistics Canada, Indigenous people are twice as likely as non-Indigenous people to have been victims of violent crime (see Perrault, S. 2022. ''[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2022001/article/00012-eng.htm Victimization of First Nations people, Metis and Inuit in Canada.]'' Juristat Statistics Canada Catalogue 85 002 X). This disproportionate rate of victimization has been linked to the repercussions of long-lasting colonization and systemic racism, such as residential schools and interaction with the child welfare system. These policies have resulted in intergenerational trauma, as well as the disruption of community and family structures, all of which are linked to violent victimization of Indigenous people.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|
''Indigenous peoples'' is a collective name for the original peoples of North America and their descendants. Often, ''Aboriginal peoples'' is also used.
|-
|}

The overrepresentation of Indigenous victims extends to homicide victims. From 2015 to 2020, the rates of homicides involving an Indigenous victim was six times higher than the rate of homicides involving non-indigenous victims (see Perrault, S. 2022. ''[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2022001/article/00012-eng.htm Victimization of First Nations people, Metis and Inuit in Canada.]'' Juristat Statistics Canada Catalogue 85 002 X). Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQIA people in particular are most at risk of violent victimization. This ultimately led to a National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, in which the findings were published in [https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/final-report/ Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls].

==A. Resources:==

=== 1. Indigenous Victim Services/The Native Courtworker Program ===

The Native Courtworker program has Indigenous Victim Services workers who provide culturally sensitive services to Indigenous victims of violence to lessen the trauma and assist in the recovery associated with being a victim of crime through the provision of counselling, support, information, referrals, and practical assistance by:

*Providing emotional and cultural support specific to clients' unique needs and concerns.
*Developing and supporting comprehensive individualized safety plans.
*Working collaboratively as part of a multidisciplinary team including team meetings with police, community-based victim services, NCCABC Family Advocate, housing agencies, transition homes, MCFD, and other key partners.
*Maintaining contact and network with other community services providers and criminal justice system personnel and to provide a referral base for clients; providing community outreach and public education to promote awareness regarding victims' issues and victim services.
*Assisting in completing and submitting forms including Crime Victim Assistance Program (CVAP) applications, Victim Impact Statements, BC Housing applications and registration with the Victim Safety Unit.
*Providing information and orientation regarding the Criminal Justice system and roles of key parties.
*Maintaining integrity and hold confidentiality as a Victim Services Worker, while collaborating with systems with differing mandates and perspectives. Contact information can be found by visiting Native Courtworker and Counselling Association of British Columbia | Women's Safety ([https://nccabc.ca/ nccabc.ca])

=== 2. Salal Sexual Violence Support Centre ===

Salal's no cost Indigenous Counselling Program provides short to mid-term one-to-one counselling for Indigenous people of marginalized genders, including trans and cis women, trans men, non-binary, and Two Spirit individuals (peoples) seeking health, safety, and wellbeing.

*Support in processing the impacts of sexualized violence, intergenerational trauma, residential school, missing and murdered indigenous women, girls, and Two Spirit individuals, and loss of children,
*Provides access to traditional healing, knowledge and medicines,
*Find more information at [https://www.salalsvsc.ca/ Salal Sexual Violence Support Centre].

=== 3. Aboriginal Legal Aid BC ===

This organization aims to help Indigenous people in BC understand their legal rights by providing free legal information and connecting communities to legal support. They follow the lead of their Indigenous Services division, who work to meet the legal needs of Indigenous people in BC through innovative and culturally informed legal aid services. For more information, visit [https://aboriginal.legalaid.bc.ca/ Aboriginal Legal Aid].

=== 4. Indigenous Community Legal Clinic ===
The Indigenous Community Legal Clinic (ICLC) is an educational legal clinic of the Peter A. Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia that provides legal services to the Indigenous community. The ICLC may be able to provide advice, assistance and representation to eligible clients who cannot afford a lawyer and who self-identify as Indigenous. For more information, visit [https://allard.ubc.ca/community-clinics/indigenous-community-legal-clinic Indigenous Community Legal Clinic].

=== 5. Residential Historical Abuse Program ===
The Residential Historical Abuse Program provides professional counselling services for BC residents who were abused while under the age of 19 and while living in a home or residential program operated or funded by the province. A counsellor who meets provincial standards will develop a personal treatment plan with the victim, which may include individual, group, or family counselling.

The victim does not have to prove that they were sexually, physically, or mentally abused to receive counselling services, nor do they have to name the person(s) who abused them. The Ministry will simply verify that they were in that particular residential program at the time of the offence(s). No police complaint is necessary, but there is a legal obligation to report abuses to appropriate authorities if children are still at risk of being sexually abused. The government or the police may contact the victim for information. The contents of the application are otherwise confidential. The application process is simple and generally does not impede any legal action or application to the CVAP – although if the applicant is eligible for funding from another source for a same or similar purpose, the CVAP must deduct that funding (or those counselling sessions) when considering the application. For more information, visit [https://www.vch.ca/en/service/residential-historical-abuse-program-rhap Residential Historical Abuse Program (RHAP)].

=== 5. [https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1548700698392/1548701361628 Indigenous Services Canada] ===
Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) provides health support services to survivors, family members, and those affected by the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. ISC facilitates access to mental health counselling, emotional support, community based cultural support services and some assistance with transportation costs. To access supports in BC, call: 1-877-477-0775 or visit [https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1548700698392/1548701361628 MMIWG2S Health and Cultural Support Program].

=== 6. BC First Nations Justice Council (BCFNJC) ===
The BC First Nations Justice Council provides free legal services to self-identifying Indigenous people who are navigating the criminal and child protection justice systems. The BCFNJC has lawyers who can provide victims with free summary legal advice, as well as a Police Accountability Unit that may be able to provide legal assistance to victims who wish to complain about the way police have handled their case. They also employ a team of Resources and Support Workers who can support victims through the process of making a report to police and communicating with Crown Counsel through the trial. To contact the BCFNJC call 1-866-786-0081 or visit [https://bcfnjc.com/get-help/ Free Legal Services for Indigenous People - BC First Nations Justice Council].

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}

Resources for Indigenous Victims (4:XI)

2026-09-25T16:58:20Z

Nate Russell: 2026 update

{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= 15 August 2026}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = victims}}

Indigenous peoples are overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system as victims of crime. Per Statistics Canada, Indigenous people are twice as likely as non-Indigenous people to have been victims of violent crime (see Perrault, S. 2022. ''[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2022001/article/00012-eng.htm Victimization of First Nations people, Metis and Inuit in Canada.]'' Juristat Statistics Canada Catalogue 85 002 X). This disproportionate rate of victimization has been linked to the repercussions of long-lasting colonization and systemic racism, such as residential schools and interaction with the child welfare system. These policies have resulted in intergenerational trauma, as well as the disruption of community and family structures, all of which are linked to violent victimization of Indigenous people.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|
'Indigenous peoples' is a collective name for the original peoples of North America and their descendants. Often, 'Aboriginal peoples' is also used.
|-
|}

The overrepresentation of Indigenous victims extends to homicide victims. From 2015 to 2020, the rates of homicides involving an Indigenous victim was six times higher than the rate of homicides involving non-indigenous victims (see Perrault, S. 2022. ''[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2022001/article/00012-eng.htm Victimization of First Nations people, Metis and Inuit in Canada.]'' Juristat Statistics Canada Catalogue 85 002 X). Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQIA people in particular are most at risk of violent victimization. This ultimately led to a National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, in which the findings were published in [https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/final-report/ Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls].

==A. Resources:==

=== 1. Indigenous Victim Services/The Native Courtworker Program ===

The Native Courtworker program has Indigenous Victim Services workers who provide culturally sensitive services to Indigenous victims of violence to lessen the trauma and assist in the recovery associated with being a victim of crime through the provision of counselling, support, information, referrals, and practical assistance by:

*Providing emotional and cultural support specific to clients' unique needs and concerns.
*Developing and supporting comprehensive individualized safety plans.
*Working collaboratively as part of a multidisciplinary team including team meetings with police, community-based victim services, NCCABC Family Advocate, housing agencies, transition homes, MCFD, and other key partners.
*Maintaining contact and network with other community services providers and criminal justice system personnel and to provide a referral base for clients; providing community outreach and public education to promote awareness regarding victims' issues and victim services.
*Assisting in completing and submitting forms including Crime Victim Assistance Program (CVAP) applications, Victim Impact Statements, BC Housing applications and registration with the Victim Safety Unit.
*Providing information and orientation regarding the Criminal Justice system and roles of key parties.
*Maintaining integrity and hold confidentiality as a Victim Services Worker, while collaborating with systems with differing mandates and perspectives. Contact information can be found by visiting Native Courtworker and Counselling Association of British Columbia | Women's Safety ([https://nccabc.ca/ nccabc.ca])

=== 2. Salal Sexual Violence Support Centre ===

Salal's no cost Indigenous Counselling Program provides short to mid-term one-to-one counselling for Indigenous people of marginalized genders, including trans and cis women, trans men, non-binary, and Two Spirit individuals (peoples) seeking health, safety, and wellbeing.

*Support in processing the impacts of sexualized violence, intergenerational trauma, residential school, missing and murdered indigenous women, girls, and Two Spirit individuals, and loss of children,
*Provides access to traditional healing, knowledge and medicines,
*Find more information at [https://www.salalsvsc.ca/ Salal Sexual Violence Support Centre].

=== 3. Aboriginal Legal Aid BC ===

This organization aims to help Indigenous people in BC understand their legal rights by providing free legal information and connecting communities to legal support. They follow the lead of their Indigenous Services division, who work to meet the legal needs of Indigenous people in BC through innovative and culturally informed legal aid services. For more information, visit [https://aboriginal.legalaid.bc.ca/ Aboriginal Legal Aid].

=== 4. Indigenous Community Legal Clinic ===
The Indigenous Community Legal Clinic (ICLC) is an educational legal clinic of the Peter A. Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia that provides legal services to the Indigenous community. The ICLC may be able to provide advice, assistance and representation to eligible clients who cannot afford a lawyer and who self-identify as Indigenous. For more information, visit [https://allard.ubc.ca/community-clinics/indigenous-community-legal-clinic Indigenous Community Legal Clinic].

=== 5. Residential Historical Abuse Program ===
The Residential Historical Abuse Program provides professional counselling services for BC residents who were abused while under the age of 19 and while living in a home or residential program operated or funded by the province. A counsellor who meets provincial standards will develop a personal treatment plan with the victim, which may include individual, group, or family counselling.

The victim does not have to prove that they were sexually, physically, or mentally abused to receive counselling services, nor do they have to name the person(s) who abused them. The Ministry will simply verify that they were in that particular residential program at the time of the offence(s). No police complaint is necessary, but there is a legal obligation to report abuses to appropriate authorities if children are still at risk of being sexually abused. The government or the police may contact the victim for information. The contents of the application are otherwise confidential. The application process is simple and generally does not impede any legal action or application to the CVAP – although if the applicant is eligible for funding from another source for a same or similar purpose, the CVAP must deduct that funding (or those counselling sessions) when considering the application. For more information, visit [https://www.vch.ca/en/service/residential-historical-abuse-program-rhap Residential Historical Abuse Program (RHAP)].

=== 5. [https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1548700698392/1548701361628 Indigenous Services Canada] ===
Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) provides health support services to survivors, family members, and those affected by the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. ISC facilitates access to mental health counselling, emotional support, community based cultural support services and some assistance with transportation costs. To access supports in BC, call: 1-877-477-0775 or visit [https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1548700698392/1548701361628 MMIWG2S Health and Cultural Support Program].

=== 6. BC First Nations Justice Council (BCFNJC) ===
The BC First Nations Justice Council provides free legal services to self-identifying Indigenous people who are navigating the criminal and child protection justice systems. The BCFNJC has lawyers who can provide victims with free summary legal advice, as well as a Police Accountability Unit that may be able to provide legal assistance to victims who wish to complain about the way police have handled their case. They also employ a team of Resources and Support Workers who can support victims through the process of making a report to police and communicating with Crown Counsel through the trial. To contact the BCFNJC call 1-866-786-0081 or visit [https://bcfnjc.com/get-help/ Free Legal Services for Indigenous People - BC First Nations Justice Council].

{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}}