The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal refused on October 14, 2026 to reopen a disability-discrimination decision against Best Buy Canada, leaving compensation orders in place for an employee whose position was eliminated while he was seeking accommodation for knee pain.
In Sharma v. Best Buy Canada (No. 3), 2026 BCHRT 215, tribunal member Amber Prince rejected the company’s arguments about an earlier wrongful-dismissal settlement and the treatment of evidence about other employees. She clarified one statement in the original reasons but concluded that the clarification did not undermine the discrimination finding.
The underlying ruling, Sharma v. Best Buy Canada (No. 2), 2026 BCHRT 173, was issued on August 5, 2026. It ordered $38,746.65 for lost wages and benefits, $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, and $1,589 for expenses. Those fixed amounts total $60,335.65. The orders also provide for a tax adjustment on the lump-sum wage award and interest; the decision did not set a fixed amount for those additions.
A legitimate restructuring did not settle the discrimination question
Mr. Sharma had been promoted to an assistant store leader position at Best Buy’s Coquitlam store in November 2020. By March 2021, worsening knee pain limited how long he could stand or walk. He sought more seated work and discussed accommodation and other roles. Best Buy knew of the accommodation request by April 7, and a case manager accepted medical support for accommodation later that month. The company told him on April 28 that his employment was terminated.
The tribunal accepted that Best Buy’s annual restructuring was legitimate and that it eliminated his position. It also expressly recognized that human rights law does not guarantee continued employment whenever a position disappears. The narrower question was whether disability was a factor in terminating his employment instead of considering him for reassignment or another available role.
Prince drew an inference of discrimination from several circumstances together: the timing of the disability and accommodation request, the absence of meaningful discussion about reassignment despite Mr. Sharma’s interest, the possibility of a lower-level role, and his work performance. Best Buy’s reliance on an isolated argument and a low leadership rating did not persuade her that performance explained the outcome. Continuing to work, or delaying leave, also did not negate the functional limitations supported by the evidence.
The tribunal accepted that the company’s general practice of avoiding demotions had a rational workplace purpose and was adopted in good faith. But that did not establish that accommodating this employee would cause undue hardship. Best Buy had not meaningfully investigated alternatives or demonstrated the financial or other hardship of reassignment or transfer. The result concerned its handling of this employee’s circumstances, rather than a general prohibition on restructuring or a requirement to preserve an eliminated job.
The earlier settlement was considered and deducted
On reconsideration, Best Buy argued that the tribunal had failed to address a January 2023 settlement of Mr. Sharma’s wrongful-dismissal action. Prince found that the issue had been considered. On the evidence before her, the settlement resolved that civil action, and Best Buy had not established that it also settled the human rights complaint.
The tribunal distinguished the reasonable-notice remedy sought in the civil proceeding from compensation for wages lost because of discrimination. It nevertheless accounted for overlapping recovery: the August decision deducted the $17,000 gross settlement already received from the wage-and-benefit calculation. The reconsideration ruling therefore did not permit an additional $17,000 recovery or establish that settlements can never resolve human rights claims.
The wage calculation also reflected limits on the loss proved. The tribunal found that Mr. Sharma would more likely have moved to a team lead or equivalent role, rather than continued earning his eliminated position’s salary. It used that lower earning basis for the subsequent period of lost wages, separately allowed short-term disability benefits for the initial period when he could not work, and ended the wage-loss period before he started new employment on June 13, 2022.
The $20,000 dignity award was below the $50,000 requested. Prince treated termination linked to disability as serious, while also considering the relatively short employment relationship and the legitimate restructuring context. The award was compensation for the harm found, not a penalty simply because the employer reorganized its business.
A factual clarification did not change the outcome
Best Buy also challenged the original reasons’ statement that there was no evidence another employee’s position had been eliminated. On reconsideration, Prince clarified that she should have said there was no direct testimony on that point: the elimination could be inferred from documents. She nevertheless concluded that assuming the position had been eliminated did not displace the broader reasoning about Mr. Sharma’s treatment and the availability of alternatives.
The company’s argument that another employee had voluntarily accepted a demotion likewise did not justify reopening the case. Prince had understood and considered that distinction. Reconsideration was an exceptional mechanism for addressing the interests of justice and fairness, not an opportunity to argue the same case again.
The October decision denied reconsideration and stated that the August decision stood and the tribunal file was closed. The existing orders include a declaration of discrimination and a direction to cease and refrain from similar conduct, alongside the financial remedies. The rulings do not establish that the awards have been paid. Closure of the tribunal file should also not be read as a finding that every possible court-review avenue has been exhausted.
Sources: Sharma v. Best Buy Canada (No. 3), 2026 BCHRT 215, October 14, 2026; Sharma v. Best Buy Canada (No. 2), 2026 BCHRT 173, August 5, 2026.
