MacIsaac & Company
115 - 19 Dallas Road V8V5A6 Victoria, BC, Canada

In reasons released today regarding the case of Verozinis v Kot Auto Group dba Maple Ridge Honda, 2020 BCHRT 156, Tribunal Member Norman Trerise dismissed a human rights complaint against the Hyundai car dealership located in Maple Ridge, BC. https://bc-human-rights-law.com//disability-discriminatio/

In reasons released for the case of Basic v Esquimalt Denture Clinic and another, 2020 BCHRT 138 on July 7, 2020, BC Human Rights Tribunal Chair Diana Juricevic held that the Complainant Jasmine Basic was sexually harassed by her employer Andrew Lee at an Esquimalt, BC Denture Clinic and that this harassment was a factor in the termination of Ms. Basic's employment. This constituted discrimination based on sex and Mr. Lee and his clinic were ordered to pay Ms. Basic over $38,000 in damages. https://bc-human-rights-law.com//tribunal-awards-over-380/

The BC Human Rights Tribunal awarded a woman nearly $45,000 in damages after she was sexually assaulted by a man who employed her for cleaning services in his home. https://bc-human-rights-law.com//tribunal-denounces-use-o/

Metis Nation and Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centre respond to reports that emergency room health care staff play "game" to guess blood alcohol concentration levels of Indigenous patients. There is potential for this abhorrent conduct to give rise to a representative complaint under the BC Human Rights Code. https://bc-human-rights-law.com//er-staffs-alleged-game-o/

In his reasons issued on June 16, 2020, BC Human Rights Tribunal Member Paul Singh dismissed a complaint against a strata for allegedly failing to enforce a noise bylaw against the complainant's neighbours because of her sex and marital status. https://bc-human-rights-law.com//tribunal-dismisses-compl/

The complainant LL had worked for a roof repair company from 2009 to 2017. She and the owner of the company, DM, began a personal, sexual relationship around 2011. Following an eight-day hearing, the Tribunal held that although DM did not exploit LL's reliance on him for work by making work conditional upon her having sex with him, he did "impose adverse employment-related consequences on LL for issues arising from their personal relationship rather than the employment sphere," and that LL's sex was a factor in these consequences. The Tribunal also held that DM retaliated against LL in breach of section 43 of the BC Human Rights Code by texting a link to a pornographic video LL appeared in to her cousin and others. https://bc-human-rights-law.com//employee-awarded-over-23/

This decision provides a lesson for parents alleging discrimination in failing to accommodate their childcare schedules in the future. As per this decision, parents need to show that they have made an effort to find a solution to the problem. This could mean exploring alternative types of childcare facilities, an alternate schedule with the daycare provider you have, or an alternate schedule with your spouse and their employment. Even if your efforts are fruitless because you still could not solve the problem, the point is to show that you made the effort. https://bc-human-rights-law.com//human-rights-tribunal-ru/