DABC's submission to the Special Committee to Review the Provisions of the Human Rights Code

The Special Committee to Review the Provisions of the Human Rights Code held a public consultation from July 28 to September 26, 2025, which is detailed here.  DABC has made the following submission to the Special Committee, which provides our perspective on the value of the Human Rights Commissioner’s work and the impact this work has had on issues important to the disability community. We provided three observations and two recommendations.

---

Special Committee to Review the Provisions of the Human Rights Code
c/o Parliamentary Committees Office
Room 224, Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC V8V 1X4
Canada

Phone: 250-356-2933 (collect) or 1-877-428-8337 (toll-free)
Fax: 250-356-8172
Email: HumanRightsCodeCommittee@leg.bc.ca

Dear Committee,

Re: Special Committee (the “Committee”) to Review Provisions of the Human Rights Code, sections 47.01-47.24

We write this submission to provide our perspective on the value of the Human Rights Commissioner’s (the “Commissioner”) work and the impact this work has had on issues important to the disability community. We provide three observations and two recommendations throughout this submission, and these are also summarized at the end.

Who we are

Disability Alliance BC (DABC) is a provincial, cross-disability non-profit organization and registered charity that has been advocating for people with all disabilities across the BC since 1977. Our mission is to promote a more inclusive and equitable society for people with all disabilities through direct services, community partnerships, systemic advocacy, research, and publications. Our vision is a future where people with disabilities live with dignity, independence, and full participation in society.

Through our direct service programs we:

• Help people with disabilities access federal and provincial benefits including Persons with Disability Benefit, CPP-Disability, Disability Tax Credit, and Canada Disability Benefit (through the Advocacy Access and Access DTC programs);
• Help people with disabilities file their taxes, a necessary step in accessing government benefits (through the Tax Aid program);
• Connect wheelchair users with accessible housing (through the Right Fit program); and
• Provide legal advice and information to people with disabilities on issues related to human rights and discrimination, long term disability insurance, guardianship and decision-making rights (through the Disability Law Clinic program)

Through our programs, outreach, and community connections we hear about issues impacting persons with disabilities individually, and we recognize issues that impact people on a systemic level.

Nearly one million people in BC have a disability and 29% of human rights complaints in BC are filed on the basis of disability. Despite its impact, disability is often overlooked as a system of oppression, ableism^[1] and disablism^[2] are not widely recognized terms, and people with disabilities regularly face barriers to their full and equal participation in society.

Almost immediately from her appointment in 2019, Commissioner Govender has raised awareness about, and done advocacy on, issues that affect people with disabilities. We have appreciated this work and will detail some of it as examples grounding our observations about what is working in the sections of the Human Rights Code.  We also provide recommendations for changes that could be made to further facilitate the Commissioner’s work.

Observations and Recommendations

Observation 1: The Commissioner has been broadly effective meeting her mandate outlined under s 47.12

The Commissioner has outlined many of her office’s projects in the report she provided to the Committee. An additional example of her work in furtherance of her responsibilities under s 47.12(1) is her leadership around protecting people with disabilities during pandemics.

Very shortly after the Commissioner’s appointment in 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic was sweeping through our communities. Much of the rhetoric at that time devalued the lives of people with disabilities. Statements to the effect that “only” older people or people with pre-existing conditions (i.e. people with disabilities) experienced severe illness or death, suggested that those people’s lives were less important than others. Unfortunately, many policy decisions taken during this also served to marginalize people with disabilities.

In this context of (dis)ablism and dehumanization towards people with disabilities, the Commissioner called for policies and actions that kept human rights principles at the core of any response to COVID-19.

In addition to the inquiry report “From Hate to Hope” (mentioned in the Commissioner’s report to the Committee), the Commissioner took several other steps during the COVID-19 pandemic that championed marginalized communities in general, and the disability community in particular. These included:

• Publishing a policy statement in March 2020 about COVID-19: BCOHRC_Mar2020_COVID19-Policy.pdf

This policy statement highlighted that some people were more vulnerable to the virus than others, and that some had more barriers to following public health advice. The statement emphasized that both public and private-sector organizations must recognize their human rights obligations when taking steps to mitigate the risks of the pandemic. It also provided specific guidance to landlords, employers and service providers about their human rights obligations, including towards people with disabilities:

• Urging the continuation of mask mandates: Commissioner urges Public Health Officer to maintain mask mandates | BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner % %

When the Provincial Health Officer ended mask mandates in 2022, the Commissioner highlighted the disproportionate impact this would have on seniors, persons with disabilities, indigenous people and other racialized people, and low income communities. She noted that people from these communities would feel the need to isolate themselves from society in order to protect their health and urged taking a human rights approach to these policy decisions. Unfortunately for the disability community, the Provincial Health Officer did not follow the Commissioner’s recommendations, but this public dialogue would not have happened without the Commissioner, and without her independence from government.

This work served many functions: it raised public awareness about the intersections of human rights principles and public health policy; it provided valuable information to employers, landlords, and service providers about how to respect human rights; and, critically, it created transparency around deficits in government policy decisions.

Recommendation 1: Section 47.01 should be amended so that the Legislative Assembly must appoint a Human Rights Commissioner rather than may appoint a Human Rights Commissioner

The work of the Office of the Commissioner has been of tremendous value. As we know from history, the existence of this office is not guaranteed. Amending the legislation to require the appointment of a Human Rights Commissioner would increase the security and stability of the office, and insulate it from the whims of government. It would also serve to emphasize the importance of the Commissioner’s work.

Observation 2: The Commissioner’s ability to meet its Office’s mandate is limited by s. 47.12 (f) in that it can only make non-binding recommendations respecting policies and legislative impacts that are inconsistent with the Code

While the Commissioner’s recommendations are not enforceable in law, meeting them is required to achieve compliance with law—both domestic and international—and to build a society that is defined by substantive equality and that realizes the dignity inherent in being human.^[3] It would therefore be beneficial to provide the Commissioner with additional enforcement measures.

In May 2025, the Commissioner has reported that only 16% of the recommendations made in letters directly to government ministries, offices and committees during her first term had been implemented, while 57% were not implemented, and 27% were partially implemented or in progress: BCOHRC_May2025_Where-we-stand.pdf.

As one example, the Commissioner has made several recommendations regarding the need to include social condition as an independent prohibited ground of discrimination under the BC Human Rights Code (the Code). In 2020, the Commissioner recommended that the provincial government consider strengthening human rights protections through the addition of social condition as a protected ground to ss. 7(1), 8(1), 9, 10(1), 11, 13(1), and 14 of the Code, and provided a definition for social condition: Social-Condition.pdf.

In 2022, the Commissioner cited the government’s failure to provide “clarity on when and how your government will address discrimination based on social condition” as the basis for not offering public support for the Homeless Strategy in a letter to the Ministry of Housing.^[4]

In 2023, the Commissioner referenced the outstanding need to respond to discrimination based on social condition in two recommendations^[5] from its Report of the Inquiry into hate in the COVID 19 pandemic.

As of the “Where we Stand” report published in May 2025, the Commissioner’s recommendations regarding addressing discrimination based on social condition have not been implemented by the Attorney General.

Recommendation 2: Expand the Commissioner’s powers under s. 47.12 to include additional mechanisms for holding duty-holders accountable to make changes required to bring policies and legislation into accordance with the Code.

Observation 3: the Commissioner’s powers under s. 47.16 are essential for her ability to uncover serious human rights violations impacting our community

The Commissioner’s inquiries have uncovered systemic human rights violations occurring in our community. We took particular note of the report of the inquiry into detentions under the Adult Guardianship Act (“AGA”): https://bchumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCOHRC_Were-still-here_2025.pdf

The AGA provides certain designated agencies the power to detain adults against the will for specified purposes. The Commissioner’s inquiry found that these designated agencies are detaining adults without legal authority; that adults’ rights to fair process have not been adequately respected; and that transparency and oversight over detention are lacking. These detentions violate the human rights of the adults the legislation is designed to protect. Further, and of relevance to our community, the inquiry found those who have been illegally detained under the AGA are disproportionately seniors, people who are unhoused, and people with disabilities.

Because of the lack of transparency and oversight over these detentions, the only way for this information to become transparent is through the Commissioner’s power to order designated agencies to provide necessary documentation. There is no way to get information related to these detentions without the existence Commissioner to do an inquiry. The Commissioner’s inquiry powers are essential to bringing awareness to these human rights violations and make recommendations for change.

Summary of Observations and Recommendations

Observation 1: The Commissioner has been broadly effective meeting her mandate outlined under s 47.12

Observation 2: The Commissioner’s ability to meet its Office’s mandate is limited by s. 47.12 (f) in that it can only make non-binding recommendations respecting policies and legislative impacts that are inconsistent with the Code.

Observation 3: the Commissioner’s powers under s. 47.16 are essential for her ability to uncover serious human rights violations impacting our community

Recommendation 1: Amend s. 47.01 so that the Legislative Assembly must appoint a Human Rights Commissioner rather than may appoint a Human Rights Commissioner

Recommendation 2: expand the Commissioner’s powers under s. 47.12 to include additional mechanisms for holding duty-holders accountable to make changes required to bring policies and legislation into accordance with the Code.

Conclusion

In a time of rising fascism around the world, the work of the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner is more critical than ever in BC. Our observations reflect many successes during the Commission’s initial 5-year term, and the need to protect and build on those foundations during its second term. We recommend that protection for the Office itself be enshrined in the language of s. 47.01, and that the Office’s powers to achieve its mandate under s. 47.12 be expanded to address the gap between recommendations and implementation.

 

[1] Ableism is a form of discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities. It includes attitudes, actions, or systems that devalue, marginalize, or exclude individuals who have physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments.

[2] Disablism is another term that describes discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities. In disability studies, the term ableism often refers to systems that privilege non-disabled norms and bodies, while disablism emphasizes active harm and exclusion. At DABC we often use the term ableism to cover both kinds of harm.

[3] Holding the line – Annual Report 2024/25 and Service Plan 2025/26-2027/28

[4] Where we stand: Recommendations monitoring report, 2019–2024, p.36

[5] There were: 1. The head of the BC Public Service should create a role at the assistant deputy minister level or higher to coordinate and lead prevention and responses to hate. This role should include the responsibility to oversee the implementation of the recommendations in this report aimed at the provincial government and related public bodies. It is essential that the mandate of this role stretch across all areas of hate, including hate on the basis of gender (including gender identity and expression), race, religion, Indigeneity, sexual orientation, disability, social condition and more.

12.(c) The Attorney General should take steps to enable the BC Human Rights Tribunal to be more responsive to hate, including by introducing legislation for consideration by the Legislative Assembly to amend s. 7, along with other substantive sections of the Code containing prohibited grounds of discrimination, to include social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination for the purposes of hateful publications.

 

BC Human Rights Tribunal awards $15,000 for an employer’s refusal to interview a Deaf candidate

Written by: Alex K. 

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.

Health Justice report - Seclusion and Restraints in BC: What we know and what we don’t

The team at Health Justice have analyzed information received from a Freedom of Information Act request regarding the use of seclusion and restraint for people who are admitted to hospital against their will (“involuntarily admitted”) under the Mental Health Act. Some of what they found is:

• Data on seclusion and restraint was not reliably collected prior to 2020/2021
• The data that is collected is limited, and we are therefore missing valuable information about who experiences seclusion and restraint, how often, and for how long
• Despite those limitations, we know that at least 14,788 involuntary admissions from 2020-2022 included the use of restraint or seclusion and 1 in every 4 people who are involuntarily admitted experienced the use of restraint or seclusion

Here is a short excerpt of what the report says:

“We now know that at a minimum, about one quarter of all involuntary detentions involve the use of seclusion or restraint within the first three days of admission alone. With close to 30,000 Mental Health Act detentions in BC each year, the continued unregulated and unlimited use of this physical and structural violence is unacceptable. A culture without accountability is a shield for a system where treatment can be traumatic. BC’s Mental Health Act has permitted direction and discipline to take place out of sight and out of reach of any kind of recourse for over sixty years. It’s time for this extraordinarily invasive and harmful exercise of power to meet rigorous oversight and accountability.”

For the full report, see Health Justice’s blog post here: Seclusion and Restraints in BC: What we know and what we don’t — Health Justice.