The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has partially dismissed a human rights complaint filed by a former geoscientist against Anglo American Exploration (Canada) Ltd. (AAE), ruling that some of her allegations had no reasonable prospect of success, while other parts will proceed to a hearing.
S.L., a geoscience information specialist and data geologist, accused AAE of failing to provide her with a safe, harassment-free work environment between 2015 and 2019, and claims she was subjected to sexual and gender-based harassment by a co-worker during that time. She also alleged that her termination in 2020, while she was on sick leave, was discriminatory and linked to her mental health conditions, which she says developed as a result of the harassment.
AAE filed an application to dismiss the complaint without a hearing, arguing that key parts of the complaint were filed late and that there was no evidence linking its actions to any discriminatory motive. Tribunal Member Jonathan Chapnick, however, determined that while some parts of the complaint should be dismissed, the claims relating to the harassment allegations, the termination, and a severance offer would proceed.
Timeline of allegations
S.L.’s employment with AAE spanned from 2012 until her dismissal in 2020. She alleges that starting in 2015, a male co-worker made inappropriate comments, including asking her to sit on his lap and making sexual remarks. She claims that the co-worker’s behaviour continued over several years, and culminated in a June 2019 incident, during which he allegedly yelled at her, invaded her personal space, and left her so distressed that she suffered a panic attack. S.L. subsequently went on sick leave and was later diagnosed with mental health conditions, including anxiety and PTSD.
AAE conducted an internal investigation in response to her complaints, but Lesnikov argues the investigation was flawed and incomplete. While AAE issued a final warning to the co-worker involved, Lesnikov remained on sick leave and was later terminated as part of what AAE described as a corporate restructuring.
Tribunal’s decision
Chapnick dismissed several parts of S.L.’s complaint, including her allegations related to AAE’s handling of her long-term disability (LTD) claim, its failure to report her mental injury to WorkSafeBC, and its delay in issuing her record of employment (ROE). These allegations were deemed to have no reasonable prospect of success.
S.L. had argued that AAE’s delay in submitting documents for her LTD claim resulted in a significant delay in her receiving benefits. AAE responded that the delay was due to technical issues with its system and had nothing to do with her protected characteristics. The Tribunal found there was insufficient evidence to establish a discriminatory connection between the delay and S.L.’s mental health condition.
Similarly, the Tribunal dismissed the allegation that AAE failed to report her mental injury to WorkSafeBC, noting that while there may have been confusion about who was responsible for filing the claim, there was no evidence linking the delay to her disability. The Tribunal also found no evidence of discrimination in AAE’s delay in issuing her ROE, which S.L. argued impacted her ability to access employment insurance benefits.
Parts proceeding to hearing
However, other parts of the complaint will move forward. The Tribunal rejected AAE’s argument that the harassment allegations, dating back to 2015, were filed too late. Chapnick ruled that S.L. had put forward a plausible argument that the harassment constituted a continuing contravention of the Human Rights Code, which would bring the earlier incidents within the allowable timeframe for filing a complaint.
The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the claims related to her termination and a severance offer. S.L. alleges that AAE’s restructuring was a pretext for firing her while she was on sick leave, and that her mental health conditions played a role in the decision to terminate her. AAE has maintained that the termination was part of a broader corporate strategy and unrelated to her health or sex. However, the Tribunal found that there were factual issues in dispute, including the timing and circumstances of her dismissal, which must be resolved through a hearing.
The complaint also alleges that AAE mishandled a severance offer made to her after her dismissal. S.L. claims she was in the hospital at the time and unable to respond to the offer, and that AAE failed to respond to requests from her clinicians for an extension. AAE disputes this version of events, but the Tribunal found that S.L. had presented enough evidence to allow this part of the complaint to proceed to a hearing.
For more information, see Lesnikov v. Anglo American Exploration (Canada) Ltd., 2024 BCHRT 245 (CanLII).
