The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a complaint filed by a teacher who claimed he was discriminated against by the Conseil Scolaire Francophone de la Colombie-Britannique (CSF) due to his Anglophone background. The ruling, issued on August 29, 2024, found that M.J., who taught music for the CSF, did not establish that his ancestry or place of origin were factors in the alleged discrimination.
M.J. had argued that he faced ongoing discrimination during his employment with the CSF because he is an Anglophone from Western Canada. His complaint centered on two key issues: his failure to secure a teaching position after being required to pass a French language exam and a negative performance evaluation he received in 2018. Both incidents, according to him, were motivated by discriminatory attitudes toward non-Francophone teachers.
The tribunal, however, sided with the respondents, which included the CSF, as well as two individuals — a human resources manager and a school principal. The respondents denied any form of discrimination, stating that M.J.’s employment status was governed by a collective agreement and that his qualifications, particularly in French proficiency, were the key factors in the decisions made regarding his employment.
The exam allegation
One of M.J.’s main allegations revolved around a French proficiency exam he was required to take in 2013 after being laid off. According to M.J., the CSF should have placed him in a comparable teaching position without the need for the exam, arguing that the exam was intended to disqualify him in favour of a Francophone candidate with fewer qualifications. The respondents, however, maintained that the exam was a standard requirement for all applicants, in line with the collective agreement, and that M.J. failed the exam due to personal reasons unrelated to discrimination.
The tribunal dismissed this claim under Section 27(1)(g) of the Human Rights Code, which allows for dismissal of complaints that are filed beyond the one-year time limit. Tribunal member Beverly Froese noted that the exam allegation occurred nearly five years before the 2018 performance evaluation, with no persuasive explanation from M.J. for the delay in filing the complaint.
“I cannot find that the Exam Allegation is a continuing contravention,” Froese wrote. “In my view, finding the Exam Evaluation to be a continuing contravention would not be fair to the Respondents because it would improperly sweep in allegations which would otherwise be far outside the Code’s time limits.”
The evaluation allegation
M.J. also claimed that a negative performance evaluation he received in May 2018 was discriminatory. He argued that the evaluation was flawed and motivated by bias against him as an Anglophone. The evaluation, M.J. alleged, had lasting impacts on his career, preventing him from securing further positions within the CSF.
However, the tribunal found that his claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The ruling noted that while discrimination is often subtle, M.J. had not provided sufficient evidence to show a connection between his Anglophone background and the negative evaluation.
“The materials before me indicate that (he) communicated with the Union and (the principal) to express his concerns about the Evaluation,” Froese wrote. “In his lengthy and detailed communications, (M.J.) never suggests that any adverse treatment is connected to being an Anglophone from Western Canada. Rather, (he) expresses concerns about what he believed were numerous breaches of the collective agreement.”
The tribunal concluded that M.J.’s allegations were speculative and lacked evidence to support the claim that his ancestry or place of origin were factors in the evaluation process.
Legal representation and procedural fairness
M.J. represented himself throughout the proceedings, while the respondents were represented by counsel. The tribunal noted that during the course of the case, M.J. attempted to introduce new allegations related to geographical discrimination and cultural nepotism, but these were dismissed as they did not materially expand the scope of his original complaint.
“After reviewing the complaint and (his) response to this application, I find that the allegations at issue add further details to existing allegations and are not new allegations,” Froese wrote.
“The Respondents’ application to dismiss the remainder of the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code is granted,” the tribunal concluded, referring to the section of the Human Rights Code that allows complaints to be dismissed if they have no reasonable prospect of success.
For more information, see Johnson v. Conseil Scolaire Francophone de la Colombie-Britannique and others, 2024 BCHRT 253.
