A welder’s discrimination complaint arising from the Trans Mountain Expansion Project will continue against Bonatti Canada Construction Inc. and the Kiewit Bonatti TMEP Partnership, after the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal rejected their argument that only his subcontractor employer could face the claim.
In Fraser v. Bonatti Canada Construction Inc. and others, 2026 BCHRT 209, issued October 6, 2026, tribunal member Jess Hadley dismissed the complaint against Kiewit TMEP Corp. The ruling decided which parties would remain in the proceeding, not whether discrimination occurred.
Rundle Construction Inc., which the applicants identified as the welder’s employer, had not sought dismissal. The complaint would therefore proceed to a hearing against Rundle regardless of the outcome of this application.
Who controlled the work?
Reynel Fraser, a Black welder born in Trinidad and Tobago, worked on the project between approximately July and October 2021. He alleged discriminatory treatment connected to his race, colour, ancestry and place of origin, including less favourable working conditions and his eventual termination. Those allegations were not findings of fact in this decision.
According to the applicants, the partnership managed construction, Kiewit and Bonatti were its partners, and Bonatti subcontracted some construction functions to Rundle. They relied on evidence that Rundle paid Fraser, a Rundle collective agreement governed his employment conditions, and the termination form was a Rundle document.
Fraser responded that the other entities also acted as his employers. His evidence included directions from project personnel, communications about hiring and pay approval, and documents connected with his termination.
The tribunal explained that employment under the Human Rights Code is interpreted broadly. The central questions concern an organization’s control over working conditions and remuneration, and the worker’s corresponding dependency. A formal payroll arrangement is not necessarily the complete answer.
Relevant considerations can include who benefits from the work, controls its conditions, pays the worker and can remedy discrimination. The tribunal also noted that a respondent need not always be an employer to face an employment-discrimination complaint. However, Fraser’s argument on this application was specifically that these applicants were his employers; the decision did not resolve a separate theory of responsibility for non-employers.
Different evidence for different companies
The most important evidence concerning Bonatti was the discipline form used to terminate Fraser. It referred to an unsatisfactory performance assessment by a line manager and carried signatures from a line manager, project manager and human-resources representative. Fraser supplied emails indicating that all three had Bonatti email addresses.
The applicants did not explain why people apparently working for Bonatti had assessed Fraser’s performance and signed off on his termination if Bonatti exercised no control over his employment. The form also bore both Rundle’s and Bonatti’s logos. Hadley found some evidence capable of supporting a relationship of control and dependency, sufficient to keep the complaint against Bonatti alive.
The absence of a Labour Relations Board declaration that the applicants and Rundle were common employers did not determine the Human Rights Code question. Nor did Fraser’s inclusion in Rundle’s bargaining unit dispose of whether Bonatti exercised relevant control.
The partnership also remained a respondent. Fraser provided emails in which people using partnership signature blocks directed matters such as onboarding, training, drug testing and equipment certification. Although the evidence of a potential employment relationship was not extensive, the tribunal found that the applicants had not shown the complaint lacked a reasonable prospect of success.
The evidence against Kiewit itself was different. The single email from a Kiewit employee asked someone at Bonatti whether Fraser had completed paperwork; it did not show Kiewit directing his work. Unlike the evidence concerning Bonatti and the partnership, the record did not contradict Kiewit’s evidence that it had no role in directing, paying or terminating him.
A hearing threshold, not a liability ruling
Under section 27(1)(c) of the Code, a dismissal application asks whether a complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. The threshold for reaching a hearing is low, but a complainant must still offer evidence that takes the claim beyond speculation. Hadley expressly made no findings of fact.
The result leaves the complaint proceeding against Rundle, Bonatti and the partnership, while removing Kiewit TMEP Corp. It does not establish that every contractor on a shared project is an employer, that any remaining respondent discriminated, or that compensation is payable. The distinction turns on the evidence of each entity’s practical role in the worker’s employment.
