A former project manager at the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia filed a human rights complaint in December 2023. They alleged that the agency treated them adversely because of disabilities, family caregiving responsibilities and gender identity or expression. Some of the events went back to July 2020, well outside the ordinary one year filing period under British Columbia's Human Rights Code. The agency argued that the older allegations were too late and should be excluded.
The events described in the complaint followed a complicated employment history. The complainant said they were discouraged from competing for a promotion because of responsibilities at home, later lost supervisory duties and struggled to secure transfers that might have helped with medical accommodation. They had worked on a temporary assignment elsewhere, spent substantial periods away because of illness and eventually received correspondence they said linked medical absences to performance concerns. Their employer gave notice of termination in January 2023. Those were allegations put forward for a preliminary procedural decision, rather than facts established after a hearing.
In Gonzales Burnside v. Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia, 2026 BCHRT 206, the Tribunal considered section 22 of the Code. A complainant ordinarily has one year to file, but events older than that can be included where they form part of a continuing contravention connected to timely allegations. The Tribunal described this as a succession of arguable discriminatory acts of the same character, rather than a single historic decision whose consequences persist. At this stage a complaint must allege facts capable of establishing a protected characteristic, an adverse workplace impact and a connection between the two. The ultimate truth of those allegations remains to be decided.
The agency argued that the 2020 concerns about promotion and duties differed from the later disability allegations, and that long gaps in time broke any sequence. Tribunal member Steven Adamson disagreed for the limited purpose of the filing deadline. He found the allegations sufficiently related to a claimed pattern of negative workplace consequences associated with the complainant's disability related absences and family caregiving responsibilities. The temporary assignment, attempts to arrange workplace transfers and periods of illness provided explanations for intervals that might otherwise have appeared disconnected.
The Tribunal accepted allegations covering July 2, 2020, through January 20, 2023, for further processing. It didn't find that the agency had discriminated, that the complainant was entitled to an accommodation or that the termination was unlawful. It also didn't need to decide whether exceptional public interest discretion justified receiving otherwise late allegations, because the continuing contravention provision was sufficient. The complaint was permitted to proceed and the case manager was to contact the parties about next steps.
For employers, the practical issue is how decisions made at different points in an employment relationship may be examined together. A promotion discussion, a change in reporting duties, repeated requests to transfer and eventual discipline can look independent when reviewed one at a time. Where the pleaded connection is disability or family responsibilities, a tribunal may consider the alleged sequence as a whole before deciding whether the complaint is timely. That opens the door to a merits hearing. It doesn't establish liability or lower the proof required at that hearing.
Sources
BC Human Rights Tribunal, Gonzales Burnside v. Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia, 2026 BCHRT 206. Official full reasons, paragraphs 1 to 37, dated September 24, 2026, https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions/recent/2026-bchrt-206/