The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has ordered Colliers Project Leaders Inc. to pay a former assistant project manager $39,615.20 in compensation after finding that the company dismissed him before completing its inquiry into disability-related performance issues.
In Shaikh v. Colliers Project Leaders Inc. (No.2), 2026 BCHRT 93, issued April 9, tribunal member Jonathan Chapnick found that Alex Shaikh's mental disability contributed to some of the behaviours behind his dismissal. Colliers had begun investigating his accommodation needs, but terminated his employment before receiving a promised specialist update.
The award comprises $24,615.20 for gross wages lost and $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, plus interest. The tribunal also ordered Colliers to stop the contravention and refrain from the same or similar discrimination.
Medical inquiry remained unfinished
Shaikh began working for Colliers on January 6, 2020, assigned to its largest client's building-improvement program. The client soon raised concerns about his performance and engagement. After a January 22 feedback meeting, Shaikh told his manager that medical conditions affected his interactions with colleagues.
Colliers' human resources manager met with him and requested a functional abilities form completed with his doctor. Shaikh returned it on February 13. It identified mild cognitive limitations involving attention, social interaction, organization and decision-making, and said a specialist assessment and medical update would follow. It also recommended a standing desk for physical limitations; Colliers provided the desk.
On February 18, Colliers removed Shaikh from the client's program and told him it would look for other assignments. It dismissed him on February 25, citing performance concerns and his subsequent contact with a client employee. His specialist appointment took place two days later.
The tribunal accepted the specialist report, together with Shaikh's testimony and the functional abilities form, as evidence connecting his disability to some of the performance behaviours. Those included disorganization, difficulty concentrating, apparent inattention and conduct perceived as excessive socializing. Chapnick did not find that disability explained every issue behind the dismissal. It needed to be a factor, not the only or overriding reason.
Client concerns did not end the accommodation duty
Colliers argued that it had made sufficient inquiries and had received no proposed accommodation for Shaikh's mental disability. It also stressed the commercial stakes: the problems arose as the company approached a competitive procurement process with its biggest client.
Chapnick accepted that the company faced a difficult client relationship. It did not have to disregard the client's feedback or ignore its request to remove Shaikh from the program. But before dismissing him, it had to make reasonable inquiries into the possible connection between his disability and the reported problems, and into his potential accommodation needs.
The doctor's form identified limitations that appeared to overlap with the performance concerns. Colliers knew, or should have known, that further medical information was coming. The tribunal found it unreasonable to dismiss Shaikh without waiting for that update.
The process had not reached the point of considering possible accommodations, much less exhausting reasonable options. Colliers therefore had not established that continuing the inquiry rather than dismissing him on February 25 would cause undue hardship.
Chapnick also found that Shaikh had cooperated. He disclosed the potential disability connection, met with human resources, promptly returned the medical form and arranged the specialist assessment. His failure to propose a particular solution did not discharge the employer's responsibility to develop and initiate reasonable accommodation proposals.
Contact with a potential witness was not proven obstruction
Colliers also argued that Shaikh's contact with a client employee after his removal from the program damaged the employment relationship. Its witnesses characterized the outreach as an attempt to regain client work.
The tribunal preferred Shaikh's account that he intended to ask the employee, identified only as MA, to corroborate an internal workplace complaint. That account aligned with the investigation interview notes. Shaikh had told the human resources manager he intended to contact a client employee, and she had neither prohibited nor cautioned him against doing so. She had not expressly instructed him to make the contact either.
Although the outreach could have disrupted the client relationship, Chapnick was not persuaded that Shaikh acted unreasonably in believing he could contact a potential witness for that purpose. Colliers had not shown that he obstructed reasonable accommodation or made immediate dismissal its only reasonable option.
The discrimination finding concerned the February 25 dismissal. The tribunal did not separately find that the performance feedback, medical-information requests, removal from the client program or handling of the internal complaint were discriminatory. Nor did it make findings of egregious conduct by Colliers.
Wage award reflected uncertainty and consulting earnings
Shaikh sought $129,230.40 in lost wages for a 96-week period from March 2020 to January 2022, based on his $70,000 annual salary. The tribunal accepted an entitlement to compensation but substantially reduced the amount.
It applied a 50 per cent contingency deduction, considering uncertainty about how long the short employment relationship would have continued and a lengthy gap between documented job interviews that coincided with the restart of Shaikh's consulting business. Chapnick nevertheless rejected the suggestion that disability-related problems would necessarily have continued if Colliers had reasonably accommodated him.
The tribunal then deducted $40,000 for estimated earnings through Shaikh's company during the claim period. It used the high end of his annual revenue estimate because there was no more detailed evidence of earnings or company expenses. The deduction applied even though he had not withdrawn those funds personally.
| Wage-loss calculation | Amount |
|---|---|
| Baseline claim | $129,230.40 |
| Less 50 per cent contingency deduction | −$64,615.20 |
| Less estimated company earnings | −$40,000.00 |
| Gross wage-loss award | $24,615.20 |
Colliers' separate failure-to-mitigate defence failed on the evidence. It had not established both inadequate efforts to find work and the availability of comparable employment. The tribunal accepted Shaikh's job-search evidence and was not persuaded that intermittent consulting work unreasonably obstructed it.
Nor did the absence of further tax or earnings documents automatically defeat the claim. Relevant documents still had to be disclosed. Chapnick found no established disclosure breach, noted that Colliers had not applied for a disclosure order, and assessed the evidence as sufficient subject to the deductions. The decision did not dispense with the obligation to prove financial loss.
Dignity compensation and interest
Shaikh requested $20,000 for injury to dignity; the tribunal awarded $15,000. Chapnick considered the significance of losing employment and Shaikh's particular vulnerability, while noting the short period involved and limited evidence specifically establishing the effects of the dismissal, rather than the preceding workplace events. The award was compensatory, not punitive.
The final order requires pre-judgement interest on the wage-loss award and post-judgement interest on all amounts awarded, in each case until paid in full, based on the rates set out in the Court Order Interest Act.
