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: Proposed reform of Ontario’s labour and employment statutes

May 30, 2017

Mark Tector and Annie Gray This morning, May 30, 2017, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne announced her government’s intention to introduce sweeping legislative reform of labour and employment laws. If passed, the proposed Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 would…

Read More

Get ready: CASL’s consent grace period ends July 1, 2017

May 19, 2017

Canada’s Anti-Spam Law (“CASL”) is a federal law in force since July 1, 2014, aimed at eliminating unsolicited and malicious electronic communications and requires organizations to comply with specific consent, disclosure and unsubscribe requirements when…

Read More

Nothing fishy here: Federal Court dismisses application for judicial review in PIIFCAF case

May 18, 2017

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Kirby Elson had been fishing in Newfoundland and Labrador for about 50 years when the policy on Preserving the Independence of the Inshore Fleet in Canada’s Atlantic Fisheries (“PIIFCAF”) was introduced in…

Read More

Client Update: The Cannabis Act – Getting into the Weeds

May 9, 2017

Rick Dunlop, David Randell, Christine Pound, Sadira Jan and Kevin Landry The federal government’s introduction of the Cannabis Act, the first step in the legalization of marijuana (or cannabis), has understandably triggered a wide range of reactions in the Canadian business…

Read More

The Latest in Employment Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, SNS 1996, c 7

May 9, 2017

Mark Tector and Annie Gray On April 26, 2017, the Government of Nova Scotia announced that amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which were passed in May of 2016, will officially come into force as of June…

Read More

Client Update: CPP disability benefits are deductible from awards for loss of earning capacity and loss of income in MVA claims

May 4, 2017

On May 2, 2017, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal issued a significant decision in Tibbetts v. Murphy, 2017 NSCA 35, on the proper interpretation of s. 113A of the Insurance Act. Specifically the issue was whether…

Read More

Protests and injunctions: is the presence of journalists a material fact for the court?

April 24, 2017

Joe Thorne and Amanda Whitehead A fundamental principle of our legal system is that all parties to a dispute should be given the opportunity to be heard. However, the law recognizes that some circumstances warrant speedy judicial…

Read More

Damages for minor injuries in Nova Scotia: a new case on the new cap

April 20, 2017

Damages for pain and suffering are capped for Nova Scotians who are injured in motor vehicle accidents if their injuries are considered “minor.” The cap was amended for accidents occurring on or after April 28,…

Read More

The Latest in Employment Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – “You gotta have (good) faith” … Terminating without notice during the probationary period

April 19, 2017

Grant Machum & Sean Kelly A recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Ly v. British Columbia (Interior Health Authority) 2017 BCSC 42, provides helpful clarification of the law on termination of probationary employees on the basis…

Read More

Municipality liable for failing to ensure visitor was reasonably safe in Municipal Public Park

April 19, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman The Supreme Court of Canada recently declined to hear an appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Campbell v Bruce (County), 2016 ONCA 371. The Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court finding…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top