The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a complaint alleging age and disability discrimination by the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA), ruling that a signed settlement agreement between the complainant and the employer barred further proceedings.
S.H., a vocational rehabilitation counsellor with CMHA’s Vancouver-Fraser branch, alleged she was unfairly placed on unpaid leave due to her disability during the COVID-19 pandemic. She claimed her employer treated her differently than younger, non-disabled co-workers, contrary to Section 13 of the B.C. Human Rights Code.
The CMHA argued that the complaint should be dismissed as the parties had reached a valid settlement agreement. S.H. acknowledged signing the agreement but sought to have the complaint proceed on policy grounds, asserting the seriousness of her complaint and alleging CMHA withheld critical information during negotiations.
Background of the complaint
S.H., who had nearly nine years of service with CMHA, had a documented heart condition preventing in-person work with patients during the pandemic. Initially accommodated by working remotely from March 2020, she was informed on Sept. 2, 2020, by CMHA’s HR manager that she would be placed on unpaid COVID-19 leave beginning Sept. 8, 2020, despite her union’s support for continued remote work.
After a fire at Burnaby Hospital on Nov. 15, 2020, CMHA’s on-site unit was closed, and employees worked remotely. During this time, settlement negotiations began, with multiple offers exchanged. S.H. filed her human rights complaint amid negotiations, alleging discriminatory treatment.
On Jan. 24, 2021, S.H. signed an “Exit Agreement,” explicitly releasing CMHA from liability regarding employment-related complaints, including those under the Human Rights Code.
Tribunal’s considerations
The tribunal assessed whether the settlement agreement barred further proceedings, examining factors such as the language and understanding of the release, coercion, bargaining power, fairness of the settlement, and seriousness of allegations.
S.H. argued the complaint should continue because her employer withheld critical details during settlement discussions, specifically that her colleagues continued remote work due to the hospital fire and that her replacement was permitted remote work.
The tribunal rejected this argument, noting that S.H. was represented by her union throughout extensive settlement discussions. The tribunal found no evidence of coercion or undue influence and determined the agreement was fair and closely aligned with the union’s proposed settlement.
Decision
The tribunal concluded that honouring settlement agreements aligns with public interest, providing efficiency and tailored resolutions. It stated that the mere existence of serious discrimination allegations did not justify setting aside a valid settlement agreement.
“I am persuaded that the release which [S.H.] signed applies to this human rights complaint and that, in all the circumstances, the purposes of the Code would not be furthered by allowing the complaint to proceed,” the tribunal wrote in its decision.
As a result, the tribunal dismissed the complaint under Section 27(1)(d)(ii) of the Human Rights Code.
For more information, see Hamel v. Canadian Mental Health Association, 2025 BCHRT 21 (CanLII).
