Staff and parents have filed or are considering filing a human rights complaint because of a comment another employee or educator said to them at work or during an IEP meeting.
The story comes out. Followed by some version of: “I can’t believe they said that to me.”
Does a single comment violate the Code?
*********
Brito v. Affordable Housing Societies and another, 2017 BCHRT 270
[41] However, not every negative comment that is connected to a protected characteristic will be discriminatory harassment contrary to the Code. It is certainly undesirable for people to treat each other rudely, disrespectfully, or inappropriately. However, it is not the Tribunal’s purpose to adjudicate disputes other than where a person’s protected characteristic has presented as a barrier in their ability to fully, and with dignity, access an area of life protected by the Code. In performing this function, the Tribunal is cognizant that the disputes brought to it arise between human beings, with all the imperfection that entails. Not every failure to be kind or professional requires state intervention. This includes failures with discriminatory overtones – and therefore highlights a distinction between comments that may be “discriminatory” in the everyday sense of that word, and comments that amount to discrimination, within the meaning and scope of human rights legislation.
[43] In the analysis of whether negative comments rise to a level of harassment that adversely affects a person in their tenancy, the context is critical. Where conduct occurs during a single incident, or does not otherwise amount to a pattern of conduct, the Tribunal will consider all of the circumstances to determine whether it violates the Code: Hadzic v. Pizza Hut Canada (c.o.b.Pizza Hut), [1999] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 44 at paras. 32-33; Pardo v. School District No. 43, 2003 BCHRT 71. Those circumstances include “the involved parties, the context in which the comment was made, whether an apology was offered, and whether or not the recipient of the comment was a member of a group historically discriminated against”: Pardoat para. 12.
*********
One of the cases listed here is an education case.
Pardo v. School District No. 43, 2003 BCHRT 71
[12] In my view, all the circumstances must be taken into account when considering whether a single comment could constitute a contravention of the Code. Without suggesting that this is an exhaustive list, some of the relevant factors would be the egregiousness or virulence of the comment, the nature of the relationship between the involved parties, the context in which the comment was made, whether an apology was offered, and whether or not the recipient of the comment was a member of a group historically discriminated against.
If you want to research whether you think your single comment would reach the level of discriminatory harassment that created a barrier, you can search for other cases on CanLii. Here are my instructions. I found many cases by entering “single comment” in the DOCUMENT TEXT field.
I highly suggest you research other decisions and see if your situation is similar to or different from the decisions you find. It will help you determine if going this path is worth it to you as a way to resolve this. Resolution often can take many paths, and filing an external complaint is just one of your options.
Hate Speech and Harassment
The tribunal went through a LONG analysis of what is hate speech with this very well-known decision that got a lot of media attention. The School Trustee had to pay &750,000.00 for his ongoing explosions of hate speech.
Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v. Neufeld (No. 10), 2026 BCHRT 49
[120] The analysis of hate speech is driven by the dual harms it is intended to address: (1) the “grave psychological and social” harms experienced by individual members of the targeted group, and (2) the larger social harms caused by speech which “propagates, within social discourse, premises of inferiority that may gradually desensitize the majority and lay the groundwork for later, broad attacks”: Whatcottat paras. 73-74; Wardat para. 62. This second, social, harm is rooted in the recognition that “the end goal of hate speech is to shift the environment from one where harm against vulnerable groups is not tolerated to one where hate speech has created a place where this is either accepted or a blind eye is turned”: Whatcottat para. 131. This purpose-driven perspective must account for the specific context affecting the targeted group and the types of speech that, by drawing on pre-existing fears or stereotypes, is likely to expose that group to hatred or contempt.
[121] A finding of hate speech is reserved for extreme and egregious examples of delegitimizing expression, whose harms “cannot be prevented by the discernment and critical judgment of the audience”: Wardat para. 61; Whatcottat para. 46. Section 7(1)(b) of the Code does not protect against “hurt feelings, humiliation or offensiveness”: para. 47. It does not capture speech that is derogatory, false, or discrediting, or which ridicules, belittles or affronts the dignity of a group of people, including through the application of stereotype. Importantly for the purposes of this case, it does not capture speech which debates or speaks out “against the rights or characteristics of vulnerable groups”, unless the speech is made in a manner “which is objectively seen to expose them to hatred and its harmful effects”: Whatcottat para. 145.
[122] Hate speech exposes its targets to detestation and vilification. It includes “a component of looking down on or denying the worth of the other”: Whatcottat para. 43. Speech that exposes a target group to detestation tends “to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike”: Whatcottat para. 41. It seeks to “abuse, denigrate or delegitimize [the group], to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy, or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience”. Speech vilifying a group accuses “them of disgusting characteristics, inherent deficiencies or immoral propensities which are too vile in nature to be shared by the person who vilifies”: Whatcottat para. 43.
*********
For those who are wondering if filing a complaint over a single comment will be dismissed in a dismissal application, I highly suggest you speak to a lawyer.
Here is my lawyer referral list. Some are paid, and some are free.