A B.C. government employee’s race-discrimination complaint will proceed to a hearing despite an internal investigation, a supervisor’s suspension and required training, after the Human Rights Tribunal found those steps did not settle disputed evidence or sufficiently demonstrate that the employee’s alleged harm had been addressed.
In Sandhu v. BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and another, 2026 BCHRT 200, issued September 17, 2026, tribunal member Jonathan Chapnick denied dismissal applications by both the ministry and supervisor Ian S. Anderson. He made no findings on whether discrimination occurred.
An investigation and competing accounts
Harminder Sandhu, a communications technician and practising Sikh who wears a turban, alleged that Anderson’s conduct while supervising him between March 2021 and May 2022 created a poisoned work environment. His complaint concerned an alleged conversation involving a racial slur, comments about his turban during a work trip, an email disparaging Indigenous spiritual practices, and remarks about burning sage.
Both respondents denied discrimination. The ministry relied heavily on an investigation conducted between August 2022 and January 2023, including interviews and documents. Investigators preferred Anderson’s evidence, did not substantiate the slur and turban allegations, and found that the email breached workplace conduct standards. They did not investigate the sage allegation.
The ministry imposed a two-day suspension in February 2023. The following month, it directed Anderson to take four internal courses and develop a plan for applying what he learned. Anderson told the tribunal that he had participated honestly in the investigation and completed the required training.
The respondents sought dismissal on two grounds: that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success under section 27(1)(c) of the Human Rights Code, and that proceeding would not further the Code’s purposes under section 27(1)(d)(ii). The first ground requires respondents to show that a complaint cannot reasonably succeed or that a defence is reasonably certain to succeed; it is not a trial of the allegations.
Credibility could not be decided on the written record
Chapnick found foundational credibility questions in the conflicting accounts of the slur and turban incidents. He acknowledged weaknesses in Sandhu’s material: the turban evidence was sparse and second-hand, and his description of his own reaction appeared to have changed. But Anderson’s account also fluctuated and became more certain over time. The tribunal could not reasonably predict that it would prefer his version at a hearing.
The investigation was relevant evidence, not a conclusive answer. Its report criticized Sandhu for missing information, self-serving statements and an apparent personality conflict, but did not adequately explain what information was missing or how those observations undermined his account. Chapnick also questioned why the absence of a formal complaint or follow-up documentation undermined evidence about oral exchanges.
The tribunal emphasized that discrimination must be assessed in context, including the supervisor–subordinate relationship, racialized identity and the cumulative effect of alleged incidents. It recognized that the turban allegation, viewed alone, was at the lower end of seriousness and could be a close call. Subjective feelings alone do not establish discrimination, but the evidence had to be considered as a whole rather than incident by incident.
The email raised a related question. The respondents accepted that it was inappropriate but disputed a connection to Sandhu’s race, noting that he was not Indigenous and the comments were not directed at him. Sandhu said the email’s treatment of Indigenous spirituality and its comparison to terrorism contributed to a hostile workplace for him as a racialized employee.
Chapnick found a reasonable prospect that the email contributed to a poisoned environment. That assessment is contextual and includes the perspective of the affected person. Conduct need not target that person directly, and an employee need not belong to the particular racialized group being disparaged. A sufficiently serious single incident, or the combined effect of several incidents, can matter.
The sage allegation also remained in the case. Sandhu’s failure to answer every dismissal argument did not shift the respondents’ burden to him. Credibility and the broader workplace context still required assessment, and carving out that allegation would not produce an efficient hearing when the evidence formed part of the same overall account.
Corrective action and employee impact are different questions
The ministry argued that its investigation and corrective measures answered any possible liability. The tribunal rejected that as a sufficient basis for dismissal. Employers can be responsible under the Code for discriminatory acts of employees in the course of their employment; investigating a complaint does not automatically remove that responsibility. An appropriate response may prevent further harm or reduce resulting damages, but that is different from proving there is no viable complaint.
The tribunal separately considered whether the ministry’s response meant a hearing would serve no useful Code purpose. This is a discretionary, case-specific inquiry. Relevant questions include whether the employer took the complaint seriously, appropriately addressed its impact on the complainant and, where necessary, took steps to prevent recurrence.
On that inquiry, Chapnick credited the ministry with a timely, professional investigation, genuine efforts to respond and action on the investigation’s findings. The missing element was evidence that the impact on Sandhu had been addressed. There was no evidence of an apology from Anderson, and both respondents continued to deny that Sandhu had experienced an adverse workplace impact.
Chapnick contrasted another case in which an employer connected an employee with counselling, required an apology and offered a meeting. But he expressly rejected a standard of perfection or a requirement that the ministry take every one of those steps. The response required depends on the circumstances; the problem here was the limited evidence of measures addressing Sandhu’s own experience.
No finding of discrimination or compensation
Both dismissal applications were denied. The decision says the complaint will be scheduled for a hearing and encourages settlement efforts, including mediation. It does not award compensation, determine whose account is true or establish that every unsuccessful internal investigation must be followed by a tribunal hearing.
The ruling instead separates three issues employers may otherwise treat as one: investigating disputed events, responding to inappropriate conduct and addressing the impact on the employee who complained. On this record, the first two did not eliminate a reasonable prospect of proving discrimination or justify ending the proceeding before a hearing.
