Join the Disability Alliance BC Board: Make a Difference! Are you passionate about disability advocacy? Do you want to use your lived experiences to drive positive change? Disability Alliance BC (DABC) is looking for three (3) individuals to join our Board of Directors in 2025!

 Who We’re Looking For:

• Dedicated Advocates: If you have a passion for disability rights and advocacy, we want you!
• Diverse Voices: We welcome candidates from all over BC, especially those from Northern, Interior, and rural regions. We strongly encourage applications from BIPOC and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities. We value lived experiences that reflect the diversity of our province.
• Experienced Leaders: Prior experience on non-profit or community boards is a plus, but not required.

Specific experience being sought: While we will happily accept applications for candidates with any professional background, our Board would particularly welcome applications from:

• Lawyers/legal professionals
• Public sector (government) employees
• Corporate/for-profit sector workers

Why Join Us?

Since 1977, DABC has been a powerful voice for people with disabilities in British Columbia. We are a provincial non-profit and registered charity dedicated to supporting people with all disabilities to live with dignity, independence, and as equal participants in the community. We promote disability issues through direct services, community partnerships, advocacy, research, and publications.

What You’ll Do:

As a Board Member, you will:

• Provide leadership and oversight to our Executive Director.
• Ensure legal, financial, and ethical accountability.
• Help guide the implementation of our strategic plan.
• Use your experiences to inform our systemic advocacy and policy work.
• Represent DABC’s mission in your community and networks.

Commitment:

Our Board meets virtually, six times per year, with additional opportunities to contribute through committees or special initiatives. We strive to keep the time commitment manageable and accessible for all.

Eligibility: To join, you must be:

• A person with a disability.
• A member in good standing with DABC (membership fee: $15).

How to Apply:

Ready to make an impact? Email our Board & Communications Coordinator, Chloe Krause, at chloe@dabc.ca for a nomination package. This will include:

• A nomination form (completed by a nominator).
• A form detailing your reasons for seeking nomination.
• A list of Board duties and responsibilities.
• DABC’s Annual Report.

Deadline: Applications are open on a rolling basis and will be considered until Saturday August 10th. We look forward to hearing from you!

Download a copy of this Call for Nominations here.

DABC recently submitted our recommendations for Budget 2026 to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Our submission is below. 

You can also download a copy of our submission here and learn more about the consultation process here: https://consultation-portal.leg.bc.ca/consultations/40.

Please note that we were only able to submit a maximum of three recommendations. We made additional recommendations in our election priorities document, which was sent to each political party in September 2024. You can see our post about this here and download the document here.

Disability Alliance BC (DABC) is a provincial cross-disability non profit organization and registered charity, advocating for the rights of people with disabilities. The focus of our submission will be on ensuring that the BC Government invest in programs which will improve the financial security of low-income people with disabilities across our province, particularly focused on Disability Assistance, Public Transportation, and Affordable, Accessible Housing.

Recommendation 1 (300 characters): Indexing Disability Assistance rates to inflation, and removing clawbacks from employment insurance income and spousal income for people on Disability Assistance.

Explanation (2000 characters):

DABC calls upon the BC government to make good on their commitments to poverty reduction as listed on page 34 of the 2024 Poverty Reduction Strategy, specifically: “considering the case for indexing rates to inflation”, and “Considering income exemptions that could stack benefits and help people retain more income – Examples could include changing the rules around spousal income or exempting federal benefits like Employment Insurance from income.”

People on PWD deserve to feel financially secure; they should have reassurance that their PWD income will increase if inflation increases; and they should feel secure in knowing they can access their federal right to Employment Insurance (EI) without having their PWD income clawed back.

EI should be treated as a form of earned income, not unearned income, because workers contribute their employment earnings to EI through a deduction in their pay cheque. Everyone who pays EI premiums can rely on EI benefits being there when they need them, including PWD clients, however the difference is that PWD clients “are required to pursue and accept the other income or means of support,” meaning that they must accept EI if they are eligible, but have no recourse to stop their PWD income from being clawed back. We believe this clawback of EI benefits discriminates against PWD clients, which hinders them from escaping the cycle of poverty.

Lastly, people with disabilities who need to access Disability Assistance should feel financially secure without relying on income from their spouse or partner. Relying on spousal income expects that the non-disabled partner is responsible for the disabled partner’s livelihood and well-being. The current PWD system is actively encouraging people on PWD to remain single or make it very difficult to obtain and sustain a relationship. The spousal cap is in direct opposition with a person’s right to independence and equal opportunity, and therefore discriminates against people with disabilities.

Recommendation 2: Streamlining the provincial bus pass program for people with disabilities to include HandyDART rides.

Explanation:

DABC calls upon the provincial government to make good on a campaign promise within the BC NDP’s action plan that was launched ahead of last year’s election, namely “Improve transit for people with disabilities by bringing BC’s HandyDART service into government, instead of sub contracting the service to a private company.” DABC wishes to see HandyDART brought within government control not only because it will guarantee greater accountability to the public and the disability community on the state of its operations, but will also pave the way for HandyDART to more easily become integrated into the BC bus pass program, which is available to seniors and people on Disability Assistance.

Transport 2050 states that its goal is “a “fairer and more just and inclusive transportation system that truly delivers on the promise of Access for Everyone.” A more inclusive public transportation system would involve bringing HandyDART into the BC bus pass program so that low income people with disabilities who are unable to navigate conventional public transit would be able to access this much-needed service. Currently, people on Disability Assistance have to pay out of pocket for HandyDART, which we believe is a form of financial exclusion.

Recommendation 3: Build more affordable, accessible housing that includes two, three, and four-bedroom units.

Explanation:

While DABC is heartened to hear of the BC Government’s investments being made to combat the housing crisis in our province, people with disabilities in need of accessible, affordable housing are falling through the cracks.

DABC’s Right Fit program is the only program of its kind in Canada that matches wheelchair users to accessible housing. In our experience detailing the inventory of accessible housing in Metro Vancouver, we have observed a strikingly critical gap of multi-bedroom accessible housing. The vast majority of accessible units that have been built over the past few decades are one-bedroom or studio units. This neglect for multi-bedroom accessible units actively excludes families, particularly newcomer families, in need of accessible housing. There are over 70 families on our waitlist that have waited years for a multi-bedroom accessible unit to become available. Instead, they have no choice but to live in in-accessible housing, which by the Canadian definition, are considered homeless; they are the unseen and unserved component of the homeless population.

DABC calls upon the provincial government to make dedicated commitments to building multi-bedroom accessible units, as well as providing targeted financial support through rental subsidies for low income people with disabilities who have been priced out of the rental housing market. Rental subsidies are crucial to reducing the effect of poverty on people with disabilities who depend upon a scarce supply of accessible, affordable housing.

An interesting decision came out of the BC Human Rights Tribunal in April about discrimination in hiring.[1] The Tribunal found in favour of a Deaf person claiming discrimination in employment, after a potential employer refused to interview them because they were Deaf. The Tribunal ordered $15,000 as compensation for injury to dignity.

We find this case interesting for a few reasons. First, both parties in this case were self-represented, meaning they did not have lawyers representing them. Navigating legal processes and gaining access to justice can be difficult, as there are often barriers on many levels. Particularly for self-represented parties who do not have prior legal training or experience, the complaint process can be stressful and confusing at times. This case demonstrates that even without lawyer involvement, two parties can make their way through the entire human rights tribunal process – all the way to a hearing (held via Zoom) and a decision.

Second, this case was about one occurrence between the parties, which lasted only a few minutes, but still resulted in a substantial injury to dignity award. This case shows that the even a brief interaction can cause serious detrimental effects to a person’s dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and that the Tribunal acknowledges the severity of such an impact. While this is not the first case to make this kind of finding, we hope that cases like this will encourage others who have experienced similar discrimination to file complaints, as well as discourage people from engaging in discriminatory conduct.

Third, previous awards for similar scenarios had injury to dignity awards ranging from $2,000-$5,000, making the $15,000 award in this case a big increase. Historically, injury to dignity awards have been low, with more recent cases reflecting an upward trend in injury to dignity award amounts, and this case seems to follow that trend.

Some examples of previous Tribunal decisions that have similar circumstances to this case, with lower injury to dignity awards include:

• Briltz v. Yaki’s Pizza and Labossie[2] a 2006 decision where a potential employer refused to hire a person who disclosed they had epilepsy. The injury to dignity award in that case was $2,000.
• Khalil v. Woori Education Group,[3] a 2012 decision where a blind person was denied a second job interview when they disclosed their disability, although they were able to do the job. The injury to dignity award in that case was $3,000.
• Winkelmeyer v. Woodlands Inn and Suites,[4] a 2012 decision where a person’s cerebral palsy was a factor considered in being denied a job interview. The injury to dignity award in that case was $5,000.

Background Facts

The person who made the complaint (the “Complainant”) is a Deaf person who interviewed for a laser technician job with the owner’s (the “Employer”) business, a beauty salon, in February 2020. She had previous work experience in the beauty and aesthetics industry and knew that such jobs can be performed using non-verbal communication. A vocational counselor the complainant was working with in her job search had notified the Employer in writing that the Complainant is Deaf and had also arranged for an American Sign Language (ASL) Interpreter to attend the interview with her

The interpreter arrived first to the interview, shortly followed by the Complainant. The Employer did not conduct the interview. After a brief exchange, the interpreter and the Complainant left the establishment with the employer refusing to do the interview. The entire interaction lasted a few minutes. The Complainant later filed a human rights complaint against the Employer for discrimination under section 13 of the BC Human Rights Code. There was some dispute about the facts about what precisely happened during that exchange, but the Tribunal found that the Employer had decided the Complainant was unqualified for the job due to being Deaf.

Legal Reasoning

Legal Test for Discrimination

Section 13(1) of the BC Human Rights Code states that a person must not refuse to employ a person, or discriminate against a person regarding employment, because of that person’s disability.

To establish that the Employer had discriminated against her, the Complainant had to prove three elements:

1. She had a disability;
2. She experienced an adverse impact regarding employment; and
3. Her disability was a factor in the adverse impact.[5]

The Complainant is Deaf, and her Deafness is a disability within the meaning of the Code.

The Tribunal determined that the Complainant did experience an adverse impact regarding employment. The Employer did not give the Complainant a chance to show that she was qualified for the position and refused to employ the Complainant. This amounts to an adverse impact regarding employment.

The Tribunal found that upon realising the Complainant was Deaf, the Employer told her she was unqualified for the laser technician position because she would be unable to communicate with clients. The Complainant tried to explain how she could communicate with clients, but the Employer refused to consider her explanation. In this case, the Tribunal found that the Complainant’s Deafness was a factor in the adverse impact she experienced.

In this case, the Tribunal found all three elements of the legal test for discrimination to be met.

No lost wages

Compensation for lost wages may be ordered by the Tribunal in employment-related discrimination cases, depending on the situation. The Tribunal did not award lost wages to the Complainant in this case, because it determined that the Complainant would not have been hired anyway for reasons unrelated to her disability.

The Employer did not end up hiring anyone else to fill the position because the Covid-19 pandemic began shortly after this incident occurred and the company had to stop offering services. Even when the Employer was able to reopen, business was slow, and the Employer did not require nor was able to afford another employee.

Compensation for Injury to Dignity

The purpose of an injury to dignity award is to address the harm caused by human rights violations.[6] Determining the amount of an injury to dignity award depends on the specific facts and circumstances in any given case.

In making an injury to dignity award, the Tribunal considers several factors, including:

1. The nature of the discrimination
2. The complainant’s social context or vulnerability, and
3. The specific effect the discrimination had on the complainant.[7]

In arriving at $15,000 as the appropriate award for this situation, the tribunal considered each of those factors, as outlined below.

Nature of the discrimination

The Tribunal called the Employer’s conduct rash, prejudiced, callous, and insensitive to the effects that her words and actions were likely to have on the Complainant. The Tribunal found the overt nature of the discrimination the Complainant experienced to be serious.

Social context or vulnerability of the Complainant

The Tribunal considered that persons with disabilities have often been excluded from the labour force, and that Deaf persons in particular have been excluded from opportunities available to the hearing population.[8] The Tribunal also commented that, “the ‘disability’ of Deafness is largely, if not entirely, constructed by systemic barriers that operate to exclude and marginalize Deaf people.”[9] As such, the Complainant was highly vulnerable to discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the Employer’s treatment of the Complainant served to reinforce the socially constructed barriers that continue to marginalize the Complainant, and many other Deaf people, and exclude them from employment.

Specific effect of the discrimination on the Complainant

The Tribunal found that the discrimination had a severe and profound psychological and emotional impact on the Complainant. The Employer’s conduct caused her to feel humiliated and resulted in lasting effects to her self-esteem and mental health. She felt devalued as a human being by the Employer’s conduct, as she had been judged solely on the basis of being Deaf.

Read the full decision here: https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions/recent/2025-bchrt-87/

[1] Shahbakhshi v Melo and another, 2025 BCHRT 87.

[2] Briltz v. Yaki’s Pizza and Labossiere, 2006 BCHRT 245.

[3] Khalil v. Woori Education Group, 2012 BCHRT 186.

[4] Winkelmeyer v. Woodlands Inn and Suites, 2012 BCHRT 312.

[5] Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para 33.

[6] Gichuru v. Law Society of British Columbia (No. 2), 2011 BCHRT 185 at para 260.

[7] Oger v. Whatcott (No. 7), 2019 BCHRT 58 at para 225.

[8] Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 SCR 624 at paras 56-57.

[9] Braun (by Braun) v. BC Family Hearing Resource Society, 2024 BCHRT 42 at para 50.