Skip to Content

Workplace investigation helps avoid costly litigation

By Sheila Mecking and Lauren Sorel

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (“BCHRT”) recently dismissed a complaint of discrimination in the workplace, stating that the employer’s investigation, and settlement offer, adequately resolved the complaint.1

The  BCHRT, in reaching their decision to dismiss the complaint, reviewed whether the steps taken by the employer were reasonable and effective. In making this determination, the BCHRT must be persuaded that the employer 1) took the complainant’s discrimination complaint seriously; 2) appropriately addressed the impact on the complainant; and 3) took appropriate steps to ensure the discrimination would not happen again.

Salanguit v. Parq Vancouver and another

In this case, an employee of Parq Vancouver (“Parq”) filed a discrimination complaint on the basis of disability with the BCHRT against her co-worker and Parq.

Ms. Salanguit, an employee of over a decade, raised a bullying concern with her supervisor on May 22, 2019, regarding a co-worker, Shanna Abonitalla. Sometime later, Mr. Salanguit, who has a speech impediment, learned that Ms. Abonitalla had been impersonating and mimicking her speech maliciously in front of other coworkers. On July 14, 2019, Ms. Salanguit’s further advised Parq of Ms. Abonitalla’s behaviour, which was claimed to have escalated to discrimination on the basis of disability.

On July 17, 2019, Parq promptly responded to the discrimination allegation by commencing a workplace investigation. Over the course of two months, Parq investigated Ms. Salanguit’s discrimination complaint, having interviewed several witnesses, including an eyewitness who corroborated Ms. Salanguit’s allegation.

On September 18, 2019, following the conclusion of their investigation, Parq issued a “Final Written Warning” to Ms. Abonitalla advising that her conduct violated Parq’s policy against bullying and harassment, and notifying her that any further conduct of a similar nature would result in her dismissal. As a result, Ms. Abonitalla was required to apologize to Ms. Salanguit, which she completed by letter dated September 20, 2019. Parq also offered to facilitate a meeting between Ms. Salanguit and Ms. Abonitalla.

After having addressed the outcome of the investigation with the complainant and respondent, Parq continued their remedial actions. On October 8, 2019, Parq communicated with all employees in the department where the discrimination occurred, reminding them of the requirement of respectful conduct, and further instructing staff to avoid teasing and excluding co-workers. Parq advised that any such conduct would be investigated and could lead to disciplinary actions. Additionally, in June 2021 Parq reviewed and updated their bullying and harassment policy to include “unlawful discrimination”.  Employees were then required to attend in-person training for the updated policy.

Impact on employers

This case is informative for employers, as it provides insight into what human rights’ tribunals require  of employers responding to accusations of discrimination.  In dismissing the complaint of discrimination in the workplace, the BCHRT held that the measures taken by the employer were substantial enough to meet the standards of corrective action expected under human rights legislation. The BCHRT highlighted the employer’s favourable actions as follows:

“At the end of the day, the evidence is that Parq had a policy to deal with the discrimination allegation and it did so in a direct and attentive manner. It is important for the Tribunal to encourage employers to conduct themselves in this way. …  This is especially the case where an employer demonstrates respect and support for its employee, takes responsibility for its mistakes, and tries to do better…” 2

[emphasis added]

Takeaways for employers

Although every case and investigation is unique, this decision provides valuable guidance for employers. To protect themselves from unnecessary litigation, employers should:

  • Implement and follow an up-to-date discrimination, bullying and harassment policy;
  • Guarantee a thorough and fair investigation that is conducted immediately after receiving notification of an instance of bullying, harassment or discrimination;
    • At the very least, this will include interviewing the complainant, respondent, and any witnesses, in addition to reviewing any relevant security footage, documentation, etc.
  • Appropriately attend to the impact of the complaint on the complainant and other affected employees; and
  • Take corrective measures to ensure that discrimination, if substantiated, does not occur again. This includes disciplinary measures, implementing and updating policies, and providing employees with adequate training.

This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact the authors, or a member of our Labour & Employment Group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

1 Salanguit v. Parq Vancouver and another, 2024 BCHRT 119
2 Salanguit v. Parq Vancouver and another, 2024 BCHRT 119 at para 36.

Archive

A changing tide: The Ontario Court of Appeal adopts a common-sense approach to interpreting termination clauses and provides much-needed guidance

BY Rick Dunlop & Jennifer Ronalds

By Rick Dunlop and Jennifer Ronalds There has been much uncertainty in recent years with respect to the enforceability of termination clauses in employment contracts. In Baker v. Van Dolder’s…

Read More

Testing the limits: New developments in workplace drug and alcohol testing

BY Killian McParland & Onye Njoku

By Killian McParland and Onye Njoku A recent labour arbitration decision, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v Toronto Transit Commission, struck down the random drug and alcohol testing program of…

Read More

Deed Transfer Tax not payable on Purchase of Securities – HRM v. Rank Incorporated

BY Robert Grant, K.C. & Sam Ward

Robert Grant, K.C. and Sam Ward In HRM v Rank Incorporated, 2026 NSSC 217, Justice John Keith of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia determined that Deed Transfer Tax was…

Read More

Early court decisions on generative AI: What Canadian businesses need to know

BY Matthew N. Craig

Matthew N. Craig and Sam Schonfeld Regardless of which industry you are a part of, you have likely noticed the adoption of generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) all around you. Increasingly,…

Read More

Government of Canada introduces Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act

Sarah Dever Letson, CIPP/C, Maria Cummings, and Keeley A. Hussey On June 15, 2026, Bill C-36, An Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act, to amend the…

Read More

PEI’s new Employment Standards Act is now in force: What employers need to do now

Murray L. Murphy, K.C., CPHR and Jacob E. Zelman In our earlier update issued in March 2025 (At a glance: Key changes coming to Prince Edward Island’s Employment Standards Act), we flagged…

Read More

More health profession migrations: An update on Nova Scotia’s Regulated Health Professions Act

BY Tyana R. Caplan & Jennifer Taylor

By Tyana Caplan & Jennifer Taylor The midpoint of 2026 provides a timely opportunity to review which health professions in Nova Scotia have now migrated to the Regulated Health Professions…

Read More

A reason to reconsider probate planning in New Brunswick

By Christopher Marr, TEP, Partner with assistance from Brady McKinley, student-at-law Significant increase to New Brunswick probate tax and fees Effective as of June 12, 2026, probate fees and taxes have significantly increased…

Read More

Coverage – Policy Interpretation – Causation

BY Tipper McEwan

By Tipper McEwan In Green Rise Foods Inc. v. N.V. Hagelunie, 2026 ONCA 334 (CanLII),the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a case involving a series of potential causes for…

Read More

Back to the office? Not without notice: BC Court of Appeal confirms work-from-home can be a binding term of employment

BY Sacha Morisset, K.C.

By Sacha D. Morisset, K.C. The British Columbia Court of Appeal has upheld a finding of constructive dismissal against a Vancouver real estate developer that directed a longtime remote employee…

Read More

Search Archive