We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
10 October 2018
In Colbert v District of North Vancouver (2018 BCHRT 40) the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal confirmed that it will not allow an individual to use their sexual orientation as a shield against the consequences of inappropriate conduct, including both conduct at issue in a complaint and conduct in the course of a complaint.
The complainant was a citizen of the Corporation of the District of North Vancouver. In 2010 the complainant became a vocal and active critic of the district's council and several of its councillors. From 2010 he wrote more than 635 communications to the district council and members of its municipal council, which included:
In 2015 the district council determined that many of the complainant's communications were inappropriate and developed a policy to restrict the manner in which such communication would be processed. The policy was then applied only to the complainant and was renewed after one year, in December 2016.
On 13 January 2017 the complainant filed a human rights complaint, arguing that the district council's action constituted censorship and was based on the fact that he was a gay man who had actively advocated on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community. The complainant claimed that this violated Section 8 of the Human Rights Code, which prohibits discrimination in the area of service customarily available to the public.
The tribunal found that there was nothing submitted that was capable of establishing a connection between the complainant's sexual orientation and the district council's decision to apply the policy to him. To the contrary, the information provided unambiguously supported the district council's characterisation of the complainant's communications as inappropriate, harassing and threatening. The tribunal acknowledged that the district council was obliged to provide its employees with a workplace free from harassment and that no one should be required to attend their workplace and endure the types of communication to which the complainant appeared to have subjected the district council and staff. The tribunal held that the policy was based on these grounds and not the complainant's sexual orientation. As such, it found that the complainant had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the complaint.
After filing the complaint, the complainant continued to send inappropriate correspondence to the district council and began to send inappropriate correspondence to the district council's legal counsel, which included:
likely assigned this matter because all junior partners are assigned the small claims, [British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal], arbitration and mediation matters involving clients for whom the more important actions and proceedings etc including Supreme Court matters are the dominion of the senior partners;
The tribunal concluded that the complainant had engaged in two aspects of improper conduct, which threatened the integrity of the tribunal's process:
On that basis, the tribunal ordered the complainant to pay costs to the district council.
Although the complainant was a member of a protected group under the Human Rights Code due to his sexual orientation, such membership did not give him justification to engage in inappropriate conduct. The decision confirms that while the Human Rights Code protects individuals against discrimination in certain areas, the tribunal will not allow an individual who is a member of a protected group to use the code as a shield against the consequences of their inappropriate conduct.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.