In a recent decision1, the British Columbia Court of Appeal clarified and expanded the test for discrimination based on family status under British Columbia's Human Rights Code (the "Code"). Giving the Code a broad and liberal interpretation, the Court of Appeal held that an employee does not need to establish that their employer changed a term or condition of their employment. Rather, discrimination may be made out where a term or condition of employment, changed or not, results in serious interference with a substantial parental or family duty obligation.

What happened?

The complainant and her spouse were both employed by Gibraltar Mines Ltd. (the "employer") as journeyman tradespersons. When the complainant became pregnant, both her and her spouse were working the same 12-hour shifts. After the birth of her child, the complainant requested a workplace accommodation to change her and her spouse's work schedules to facilitate childcare arrangements. The complainant and the employer exchanged proposals but were unable to agree on a revised schedule to accommodate the complainant's request.

The complainant proceeded to file a human rights complaint against the employer at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (the "Tribunal"), alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, marital status and sex.

The employer applied to the Tribunal to have the complaint dismissed on a preliminary basis. The Tribunal dismissed the complaint on the basis of sex and marital status, but allowed the complaint on the basis of family status to proceed.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal reviewed the test for family status discrimination from the Court of Appeal's decision in Health Sciences Assoc. of B.C. v. Campbell River and North Island Transition Society ("Campbell River"), which has two elements:2

  • was there a change in a term or condition of employment by the employer; and
  • did the change result in a serious interference with a substantial parental or other family duty or obligation?

The Tribunal determined that a change in a term or condition of employment was not a precondition for a finding of discrimination on the basis of family status.

The employer brought an application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision to the BC Supreme Court and argued that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the test from Campbell River. The chambers judge of the BC Supreme Court agreed with the employer and quashed the decision of the Tribunal, holding that the established test did in fact require a change in the terms of employment as a precondition to a finding of discrimination.

The Tribunal appealed the decision of the BC Supreme Court.

What did the Court of Appeal decide?

A unanimous panel of five judges sitting for the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the chambers judge's decision.

The Court of Appeal stated that they had not decided in Campbell River that a change in a term or condition of employment was the only circumstance where a case of discrimination could be made out – that was simply the "usual case". Further, the Code itself does not require a change in a term or condition of employment to trigger discrimination and interpreting the Code restrictively would frustrate the purpose of the legislation.

The Court of Appeal also confirmed the threshold for family status discrimination from Campbell River, which is that discrimination is made out where a term or condition of employment, changed or not, results in "serious interference" with a substantial parental or family duty obligation.

Takeaways

The decision confirms that, in certain circumstances, employers in British Columbia may be found liable for discrimination when they decline to make changes to the terms or conditions of employment.

However, this does not mean that an employer is required to address every issue or conflict which arises as a result of its employees' parental obligations. In British Columbia, the term of employment must cause a serious interference with an employee's familial obligations – an inconvenience or preference will not suffice.

While the decision may be unsurprising given the interpretation of human rights legislation in Canadian courts generally, employers should take notice that the applicable analysis for family status discrimination varies from province to province, both by test and material threshold. Whether an employer's action or inaction will be considered discriminatory is dependent on the circumstances and the jurisdiction.

Footnotes

1. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) v. Gibraltar Mines Ltd., 2023 BCCA 168

2. 2004 BCCA 260

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.