The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a mental health discrimination complaint against the University of Northern British Columbia after concluding that the university’s with-prejudice settlement offer was reasonable and that proceeding to a hearing would not further the purposes of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal ruled that R.P.’s allegations of disability-based discrimination during his employment as an English Language Studies instructor did not warrant a full hearing in light of the compensation package offered.
The university proposed a total of $74,182 in compensation and damages, which included $54,038 for lost wages, $3,945 in pension contributions, $1,159 in pre-judgment interest, $40 for out-of-pocket expenses, and $15,000 for injury to dignity. The Tribunal found this amount fell within a reasonable range of what it could award at a hearing and dismissed the complaint under s. 27(1)(d)(ii) of the Code.
“It would not further the purposes of the Code to allow the complaint to proceed where [R.P.] has rejected this offer,” the Tribunal wrote.
Background of the complaint
The joined complaints, originally filed by R.P., centred on events between April 6, 2018, and January 23, 2020. R.P. alleged that a meeting with his supervisor in April 2018 worsened his mental health, eventually leading him to take a leave of absence. He was diagnosed with major depressive disorder in remission and later reassigned to a new role after his original position was eliminated during his absence.
The university requested that R.P. undergo an independent medical examination (IME) before returning to work in August 2018, citing contradictory medical information about his need for accommodations. After receiving clearance through the IME, he was placed in a trial role as an Employment Services Representative (ESR) in July 2019.
He went on a second medical leave in October 2019 and returned in January 2020. Weeks later, the university determined he could not meet the requirements of the ESR role and laid him off. R.P. alleged that the institution failed to accommodate his mental health condition and discriminated against him in employment.
Tribunal found settlement offer reasonable
The Tribunal undertook a detailed assessment of whether the university’s offer reasonably reflected the remedies available under the Human Rights Code, assuming R.P. succeeded in proving his allegations.
Although R.P. sought over $960,000 in lost wages, $800,000 for injury to dignity, and other remedies, the Tribunal found his demands speculative and unsupported. He had argued that he could have been placed in an associate professor role, but the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence such a position was available or that he had applied.
“There is no evidence before me that an associate professor position was available or … that [R.P.] applied for such a position,” the Tribunal stated.
In contrast, the university’s offer covered the wage loss period that aligned with the scope of the complaint and was supported by uncontested calculations.
The Tribunal also determined that the $15,000 offer for injury to dignity was within the reasonable range for similar cases involving failure to accommodate a mental disability in the workplace. R.P.’s claim of $800,000 was found to be disproportionate and unsupported by comparable jurisprudence.
“While any discrimination is serious, I cannot accept that the nature of the discrimination in this case is as severe as the cases [R.P.] cites,” the decision read.
Offer included open acceptance period
The Tribunal confirmed that the university’s offer met procedural requirements for dismissal under s. 27(1)(d)(ii). It was made “with prejudice,” remained open for acceptance beyond the ruling on dismissal, and did not require the complainant to abandon his other unrelated complaints pending before the Tribunal.
R.P. has filed at least six other human rights complaints against the university, which remain at earlier stages. The Tribunal emphasized that the dismissal of this complaint does not prevent him from pursuing those matters.
Tribunal weighed public interest and efficiency
In addition to the fairness of the offer, the Tribunal considered broader public interest concerns, including the efficient use of adjudicative resources. The now-dismissed complaint had been scheduled for a 10-day hearing with at least 15 witnesses expected to testify.
“Considerable resources will be required for a hearing,” the Tribunal noted. “In the present case where I have found the settlement offer is fair and reasonable … I am not persuaded that it furthers the purposes of the Code to proceed.”
The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances or novel legal issues that would justify continuing the case, ruling that the human rights system would not benefit from adjudicating matters already addressed by the settlement offer.
Settlement remains open for acceptance
While the complaint is dismissed, the university’s offer remains open for two weeks following the decision, giving R.P. time to reconsider and accept the proposed compensation package.
The Tribunal concluded: “The University’s settlement offer is reasonable. It would not further the purposes of the Code to allow the complaint to proceed where [R.P.] has rejected this offer.”
For more information, see Pattinson v. University of Northern British Columbia (No. 4), 2025 BCHRT 57 (CanLII).
