The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a discrimination complaint filed by a technician against the Board of Education of School District No. 23 (Central Okanagan), ruling the complaint had been appropriately addressed in previous proceedings or lacked sufficient evidence to proceed.
The complaint, filed by M.N., alleged discrimination based on mental disability, sex, and family status. It detailed claims involving negative comments about First Nations and Metis people, exclusion from workplace meetings due to an alleged sexist team name derived from a Monty Python movie, and discrimination relating to M.N.’s mental health following medical leave and administrative measures taken by the district.
Tribunal dismisses claims already addressed in arbitration
Several key allegations, including claims that the district discriminated against M.N. when placing her on administrative leave in July 2019, investigating workplace conversations from June and July 2019, and imposing medical monitoring in January 2020, were dismissed. The tribunal noted these issues had been “appropriately dealt with” in a prior arbitration hearing.
Specifically, the arbitrator found no evidence that the district’s decision to place M.N. on administrative leave was discriminatory. Instead, the leave resulted solely from the district’s decision to investigate workplace conduct.
Although the investigation had procedural flaws, the arbitrator determined these were non-discriminatory in nature. However, the arbitrator had previously ruled the 2020 medical monitoring requirement was discriminatory, awarding M.N. $7,500 in damages for discrimination and privacy invasion.
Allegations of discrimination based on family status dismissed
Claims relating to family status discrimination, specifically alleged negative comments made by a coordinator about First Nations and Metis people, were dismissed. The tribunal concluded these allegations lacked sufficient detail or evidence linking the comments to any adverse employment impacts on M.N.
Sex-based discrimination allegations found unsupported
M.N.’s claim of sex discrimination, centered around exclusion from “school zone” meetings and a team named “Knights of Ni,” was dismissed for lack of evidence. The tribunal concluded the exclusion from meetings was due to organizational structure rather than sex, noting other male technicians were similarly excluded.
Additionally, the tribunal determined the “Knights of Ni” team name, referencing a Monty Python film, lacked evidence of sexism or discriminatory intent.
Disability-related allegations largely dismissed
Several allegations of disability discrimination, including changes to M.N.’s work conditions post-medical leave and the investigation into her social media use during leave, were dismissed. The tribunal relied partly on findings from previous decisions by the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT), which established the school district’s restructuring plans predated M.N.’s medical leave and were operationally driven.
The tribunal also dismissed allegations that the district failed to address bullying complaints from 2017, finding no link between adverse employment impacts and M.N.’s disability. It further concluded the district adequately investigated social media posts and considered her disability before deciding not to discipline her for misconduct.
2019 medical monitoring claim dismissed as untimely
The tribunal rejected a claim regarding medical monitoring imposed in January 2019 as untimely. It was filed beyond the one-year limitation period, and the tribunal found insufficient reasons to extend the filing period based on the public interest.
Overall dismissal upheld
Ultimately, the tribunal granted the district’s application to dismiss the entire complaint, concluding the allegations were either previously resolved, lacked evidentiary support, or were filed too late.
For more information, see Noël v. Board of Education of School District No. 23 (Central Okanagan) (No. 4), 2025 BCHRT 18 (CanLII).
