Month: August 2022

Human Rights Tribunal Finds Disability Discrimination by Housing Co-Op Inadequately Addressing Mould, Awards Complainant Over $20,000

kaylabergssonLeave a comment

In a decision issued on June 1, 2022, Cameron v. Burrardview Housing Co-operative (No. 3), 2022 BCHRT 74, BC Human Rights Tribunal Member Grace Chen held that a housing co-operative discriminated against a member resident when it failed to adequately address issues of moisture and mould that exacerbated the resident’s physical disability. This was physical disability discrimination in services under section 8 of the BC Human Rights Code.

The Respondent housing co-op did not deny the presence of mould in the unit, but denied discriminating.

The complainant had advised the co-op that there was mould in her bathroom which was effecting her health. The co-op hired a company to investigate and the company found that there was a small amount of mould in the townhouse. It made recommendations regarding what had to be done to prevent mould from continue to grow. The complainant hired another company to inspect the air afterwards and that company found a “significant presence of mould and the high potential for health issues in correlation with long term exposure.” The complainant was subsequently diagnosed with a mould allergy. The doctors who saw her found that she had rhinosinusitis, sensitization to mould, hypersensitized airways, and allergy to mould. These were caused by the mould inside her home.

The co-op attempted renovations to remove the mould; however, the tribunal considered them inadequate and not done in a timely enough manner.

The tribunal held that the rhinosinusitis, sensitization to mould, hypersensitized airways, and 
allergy to mould were disabilities covered under the BC Human Rights Code. The tribunal also held that the mould exacerbated her disability, which was considered an adverse impact.

Regarding whether the mould was related to the disability, the tribunal held as follows:

[99] Overall, I find the medical evidence shows Ms. Cameron’s disability is related to the 
mould in her home and that the mould exacerbated her disability. Dr. Stepaniuk’s comment 
does not dissuade me given the other doctors arrive at a different conclusion. While there is 
not enough evidence to show the mould caused her disability, I am persuaded that nexus has 
been established because the medical evidence shows the mould contributes to her disability 
symptoms. 

Regarding the connection with her disability, the tribunal also held the following:

[104] However, I find Burrardview indirectly discriminated against Ms. Cameron when she 
reported in 2016 that her health was being affected by the mould and Burrardview did not act, 
but acted in 2017 when another unit complained of mould. I find the nexus is proven between 
the differential treatment and her disability. 

The Tribunal also held that the housing co-op failed to accommodate the complainant’s disability, stating as follows:

[137] This situation has turned into a battle of mould inspection reports. Ms. Cameron does 
not trust Burrardview or its experts. The experts she retains produced different results than 
Burrardview’s experts. I cannot conclude the final Metro report and final remediation is the last 
reasonable and practical step that Burrardview has taken to the point of undue hardship. Given 
that Ms. Cameron gave evidence that the problem returned, at the very least, there should be 
some follow up on that, and there is no evidence of Burrardview addressing this. 

[138] I find Burrardview has not taken all reasonable and practical steps to accommodate Ms. 
Cameron to the point of undue hardship and has not discharged its duty to accommodate. 

It ordered that the respondent pay for some of the expenses the complainant incurred in relation to retaining the reports. It also ordered the co-op pay the complainant $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self respect.

Human Rights Tribunal Finds Employee Subjected to Work-Related Disadvantage due to Pregnancy, Orders Employer Pay Over $78,000

kaylabergssonLeave a comment

In a decision issued on July 29, 2022, LaFleche v. NLFD Auto dba Prince George Ford (No. 2), 2022 BCHRT 88, the BC Human Rights Tribunal held that an employee of NLFD Auto dba Prince George Ford experienced work-related disadvantage due to her pregnancy and family status. This constitutes sex discrimination in accordance with human rights law in BC.

Tribunal Member Amber Prince introduced the tribunal decision with the following paragraph:

For over 30 years the law in Canada is clear: a pregnancy should not lead to work‐
related disadvantages: Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1219 [Brooks]. 
Discrimination based on pregnancy undermines substantive equality along gendered lines. In 
this case, Mellissa LaFleche suffered a work‐related disadvantage because she was pregnant. 
She filed a complaint to this Tribunal seeking redress. 

According to the decision, the complainant employee started working at Prince George Ford in 2015. She became a marketing manager around December 2016. She went on maternity leave in May, 2018, during the later stages of her pregnancy. The complainant asserted she was terminated from her employment while on maternity leave. The respondent asserted that she could have returned to work, but abandoned her position. The tribunal held that she was removed from her marketing manager position while on leave, and; thus, she was constructively dismissed. As such, Prince George Ford discriminated against her as her employer based on her sex and family status contrary to section 13 of the BC Human Rights Code.

The tribunal held that someone was hired expressly and temporarily to fill the complainant’s position while she was on maternity leave. The Complainant had a meeting with representatives of Prince George Ford while on leave. The meeting led her do believe that her job duties were being changed as a result of her absence to such an extent that she was being constructively dismissed. One of the main factors leading to this conclusion was that the employee previously hired to covered the maternity leave was set to stay on permanently in the role.

The tribunal held that the complainant experienced an adverse impact in the complainant’s employment for the following reasons:

  1. She was removed from her marketing manager position;
  2. She was humiliated during the meeting where she was told her duties would change;
  3. She was constructively dismissed.

The complainant did not do anything to try and return to work after she was given the impression that her duties were being changed; however, according to the tribunal, it was not her job to:

[58] It was not Ms. LaFleche’s responsibility to mitigate the position Ford unilaterally put her 
in: an atmosphere of humiliation from being removed from her marketing manager position; a 
reasonable perception that Ford did not really welcome back; and an uncertainty of what 
position if any she would return to at Ford: Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31, 2008 SCC 20 
(CanLII), [2008] 1 SCR 661 at para. 30, cited with approval in Morgan‐Hung v. Provincial Health 
Services and others (No. 4), 2009 BCHRT 371 [Morgan‐Hung] at paras. 464‐465. 

[59] The adverse impacts that flowed to Ms. LaFleche, as a result of not being returned to 
her marketing manager position lay at Ford’s feet: Morgan‐Hung at para. 463. 

After finding that discrimination occurred, the Tribunal considered remedies. It awarded the complainant $12,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. It awarded over $66,000 in lost wages after reducing the award by the amount that her employment standards act complaint settled for. This covered a period of time that she was not able to work or find work and that she missed out on maternity and parental leave EI benefits while parenting her second child.

Human Rights Tribunal Finds Marital Status Discrimination Against Employer who Fired Former Employee’s Wife, Awards Compensation Over $70,000

kaylabergssonLeave a comment

In a decision issued on June 1, 2022, Martin v. Grapevine Optical and another (No. 2), 2022 BCHRT 76, Tribunal Member Devyn Cousineau held that employer Grapevine Optical in Oliver, British Columbia, discriminated against the complainant optician/store manager by terminating her employment one month after her husband quit. Before quitting, the Complainant Mrs. Martin’s husband Mr. Martin had an altercation with the owner of the store. After quitting, he filed a WorkSafeBC claim. Under the BC Human Rights Code, it is discrimination for an employer to refuse to continue to employ someone due to their marital status.

For the first 8 years that the complainant worked at Grapevine Optical, she had a good relationship with the store owner. She planned to work at the store in the long term and potentially buy and take over the business one day. She started working there in 2008. In 2016, her husband was hired to work at the store to relieve her of some of the burden of her workload. This worked okay until around June, 2019.

On or around June 10, 2019, the store owner and the complainant had a disagreement over a sign that was going to be changed at the store. It was a heated exchange. When the complainant went to leave the store with her husband at the end of the day, she said goodbye to the store owner. The store owner did not respond. Her husband made a remark to the store owner about not responding to his wife. The store owner followed the Martins out of the store and onto the street, where he confronted them. The store owner and Mr. Martin were yelling and angry at eachother. Angry words were exchanged. The Martins then left and went home. Mr. Martin filed a worksafeBC complaint for bullying and harassment.

Mrs. Martin attended work the next day and told the store owner that her husband would not be returning. The relationship between Mrs. Martin and the store owner became strained. On July 10, 2019, the store owner and Mrs. Martin had a conversation where the store owner told her he would be taking over all management duties that she previously did. There was disagreement between the parties about whether the complainant quit during the conversation because she asked to be let go, or was fired. The Tribunal found the following about this:

[42] Mr. Fellnermayr says he asked Mrs. Martin twice if she was quitting and she said yes – a 
claim which she fervently denies. I accept Mrs. Martin’s evidence that she would not have quit 
her job, which she was relying on to feed her family. At the same time, it is apparent that Mr. 
Fellnermayr had not completely thought through the natural consequences of his actions. He 
wanted to reassert control over his workplace by stripping Mrs. Martin of most of her essential 
job duties. Whether he intended it or not, this amounted to the termination of her employment. When she accurately perceived what was happening, he made no efforts to reverse or correct what was happening. Instead, he blamed – and continues to blame – her. 

According to the Tribunal, the Respondent was also estopped from arguing that Mrs. Martin quit her job because the Employment Standards Branch already had an oral hearing and determined that Mrs. Martin was fired from her job further to a complaint made under the Employment Standards Act.

Overall, the tribunal stated the following about the discriminatory nexus between Mrs. Martin’s termination and her marital status:

[59] I accept that Mr. Fellnermayr was increasingly unhappy with the dynamic in the workplace and that some of the above issues were factors in that unhappiness. However, I do not accept that these issues amount to a complete explanation for why he suddenly decided to remove all of Mrs. Martin’s managerial responsibilities and terminate her employment. They had worked together successfully for years, and he relied on her heavily. He never took any steps to correct the behaviour before the incident with Mr. Martin. In my view, the factor that pushed Mr. Fellnermayr to take this extreme step was that he perceived he could no longer trust Mrs. Martin because of what had happened with her husband and the subsequent decline in their relationship. This perception was not based on Mrs. Martin’s behaviour at work in the month after the incident, but arose because of her relationship with her husband. The “final
word” in Mr. Fellnermayr’s written submission reveals the event which marked the beginning of the end: “OMG!!! We were changing a sign. How did that get so wild and crazy?” The heated discussion about the sign led to Mr. Fellnermayr not saying goodbye to Mrs. Martin, which led to Mr. Martin making his sarcastic comment, which led to Mr. Fellnermayr following them out onto the street, which led to a shouting match and the end of Mr. Martin’s employment. Mrs. Martin kept coming to work, and doing her job as she had before. But in Mr. Fellnermayr’s mind, this altercation triggered the ultimate decline in a previously positive working relationship, and led to the end of Mrs. Martin’s employment.

[60] Mr. Fellnermayr’s conduct after the termination supports that he viewed at least part of the problem to stem from the fact that he had hired spouses to work for him. This prompted him to implement a new policy prohibiting the hiring of spouses. This supports an inference that Mrs. Martin’s marriage to Mr. Martin was a factor in her termination.

The tribunal decided to award the Complainant wage loss. It declined to award lost wages to the date of the hearing, but award lost wages for the period between July 10, 2019 when the complainant was fired and December 31, 2020 when she started working part-time at a coffee shop, for a total of $50,836.53. The tribunal also awarded $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.