The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has allowed a former Coast Mountain College employee’s discrimination complaint to proceed despite being filed about two months late, accepting her explanation that a workplace interaction triggered a trauma-related avoidance response.
The October 14 decision in Speirs v. Coast Mountain College and another, 2026 BCHRT 214 also found a public interest in examining the allegation that an Indigenous recruitment officer was silenced when speaking about First Nations culture at work. The ruling decides only whether the late complaint can proceed. It does not determine whether the college or the supervisor discriminated.
A complaint outside the one-year deadline
Mary-Ann Speirs filed her complaint on November 3, 2023, alleging employment discrimination based on Indigenous identity, ancestry and race. All the allegations concerned an interaction on September 2, 2022. She acknowledged that they fell outside the Human Rights Code’s one-year filing period.
Section 22(3) permits the tribunal to accept a late complaint if doing so is in the public interest and the delay will not cause substantial prejudice to anyone. Speirs had to establish both requirements. Tribunal member Steven Adamson described the two-month delay as significant, but not necessarily beyond consideration if other factors supported acceptance.
Speirs alleged that her supervisor objected to her speaking up about First Nations people during an Indigenous cultural event at the college. She said the interaction caused her to leave her recruitment role and avoid pursuing the complaint. The college and supervisor argued that her explanation lacked concrete evidence connecting the alleged trauma to her inability to file on time.
A specific explanation for the delay
For the purposes of the timing application, Adamson accepted that the interaction triggered an avoidance response explaining the delay. The tribunal considered that explanation in the context of Speirs’ experience as an Indian Day School survivor and intergenerational trauma.
The decision distinguished a specific response to the workplace event from a claim that a person was generally unable to function. Because Speirs relied on avoidance associated with that interaction, the tribunal did not require additional evidence that her overall functioning or ability to access resources had deteriorated.
Not every explanation she offered carried the same weight. The tribunal attached little public interest to her broader institutional mistrust or claimed unfamiliarity with the filing deadline, noting that she had previously used its complaint process within the time limit.
The complaint’s subject matter supplied a further reason for accepting it. The respondents characterized the allegations as a familiar employment discrimination dispute. Adamson found a distinctive issue in the alleged silencing of someone whose job was to recruit Indigenous students in a post-secondary setting. The decision said the case could explore difficulties arising as employers seek to respect Indigenous voices, identity and knowledge at work.
No substantial prejudice established
The respondents pointed to missing documents, departed employees and fading memories. The tribunal nevertheless found no substantial prejudice arising from the delay. The dispute concerned a particular interaction, and there was no information showing that former employees could not be made available as witnesses with some effort. Nor was there evidence that the supervisor was unavailable to testify or unable to produce documents from her records.
The complaint may now move forward through the tribunal’s process. The decision neither awards compensation nor relaxes the filing deadline for all Indigenous complainants. Its conclusion rests on the explanation, subject matter and prejudice evidence in this case.
Source: British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
