The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ordered Krazy Cherry Fruit Company and owner Gary Bahniwal to pay a single $20,000 award to a former temporary foreign worker after finding that they discriminated against her based on her Jamaican place of origin and physical disability.
In Allison v. Krazy Cherry Fruit Company and others, 2026 BCHRT 182, issued Aug. 13, 2026, Vice Chair Devyn Cousineau found that Gary Bahniwal denigrated Tishanna Allison as a Jamaican worker and ended her employment because of a disabling workplace back injury without considering accommodation. The company and owner are jointly and severally liable for the dignity award, with post-judgment interest. The complaint against Harman Bahniwal was dismissed.
Evidence assessed despite respondents’ absence
None of the respondents filed a response or attended the Aug. 5 hearing. Cousineau first established that they had received notice and repeated opportunities to participate. The tribunal had corrected a mistaken understanding that cancellation of mediation meant the complaint was dismissed, provided information about a late response, and sent the hearing notice and access details. It had warned that a decision and orders could be made without their input.
Their absence did not remove Allison’s burden to prove discrimination. She testified and submitted WorkSafeBC documents. Cousineau considered discrepancies between her testimony and complaint form, finding them minor and mainly related to timing. Her account was consistent on the important points, and the tribunal accepted it as honest evidence given to the best of her ability.
Back injury followed by accusations and dismissal
Allison came to British Columbia in June 2022 for a four-month contract picking and sorting cherries. Her work permit allowed her to work only for Krazy Cherry. That restriction, together with her reliance on the employer for work and housing, was important to the tribunal’s assessment of the power imbalance.
Cousineau accepted that Gary Bahniwal made disparaging comments about Jamaican workers. After Allison fell from a ladder and injured her back in July, he accused her of not wanting to work and of coming to Canada for money and free medical care. Allison repeatedly maintained that she wanted to work but could not control being injured.
She took time off and attempted to return, but her injury continued to limit her ability to do the work. The tribunal found that the owner responded with further accusations rather than considering how she could be accommodated. He ended her employment early and bought her a ticket to Jamaica against her wishes.
Comments and failure to accommodate breached the Code
The tribunal found that Allison’s back injury was a physical disability during the relevant employment period. It explained that the Human Rights Code’s protection is interpreted broadly, considering impairment, functional limitations and the social understanding of disability. The evidence established a serious and persistent limitation on her ability to work.
Gary Bahniwal’s comments adversely affected Allison’s employment by denigrating her as a Jamaican worker and conveying that she had no value when her disability prevented her from working. Those statements were directly connected to the protected grounds.
Cousineau also found that he terminated Allison because of her disability and his perception that she no longer had value to the business. He made no attempt to consider other work she could perform while recovering or another way to accommodate her. On the accepted evidence, the company and Gary Bahniwal violated section 13 of the Code.
Complaint against Harman Bahniwal dismissed
The tribunal reached a different conclusion about Harman Bahniwal, who had a supervisory role. Allison had not identified discriminatory conduct by him in her complaint. At the hearing, she described one occasion on which he characterized Jamaican workers as lazy.
There was no evidence that he took part in the termination or in the owner’s treatment of Allison over her inability to work. Those were the central incidents in the complaint. Cousineau found it would be unfair to impose liability for the separate comment when Harman had not received notice of that allegation in the complaint.
The dismissal therefore turned on the conduct attributed to him and procedural fairness. It was not a finding that the reported comment had never been made.
Power imbalance informed dignity compensation
Allison sought compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect without proposing a dollar amount. Cousineau emphasized that this remedy compensates harm rather than punishing a respondent. She considered the nature of the discrimination, Allison’s vulnerability and the effect on her.
Although the discrimination unfolded over about seven weeks in a short-term job, the tribunal described the owner’s comments as direct, overt and egregious. The treatment culminated in the early loss of employment. The employer-tied permit and dependence on the company made the imbalance more pronounced than in an ordinary employment relationship and intensified the impact on Allison’s dignity and sense of worth.
To assess the amount, Cousineau compared four tribunal decisions involving awards from $10,000 to $35,000. The lower award involved less egregious treatment and fewer aggravating vulnerabilities. A short-term employment case with a significant power imbalance was the closest comparison, but it included more evidence and argument about the impact of discrimination. The tribunal exercised its discretion to award Allison $20,000.
Joint liability and post-judgment interest
The final orders declare that Krazy Cherry and Gary Bahniwal contravened section 13, require them to cease the contraventions and refrain from the same or similar conduct, and direct payment of the $20,000 dignity award. Their liability for that single award is joint and several.
They must also pay post-judgment interest on the award until it is paid in full, at the rates set by the Court Order Interest Act. The decision makes no wage-loss, punitive-damages or reinstatement award, and does not establish that the ordered compensation has been paid.
