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.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top