Red Chris mine worker’s accommodation complaint dismissed after nearly two years of modified duties

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a former Red Chris mine worker’s disability complaint, concluding that the employer was reasonably certain to establish that it had accommodated him to the point of undue hardship after nearly two years of modified duties.

In Everall v. Newcrest Red Chris Mine Ltd., 2026 BCHRT 217, issued October 15, 2026, tribunal member Ijeamaka Anika ruled that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success on the materials submitted. It was a preliminary dismissal decision, not a finding of facts after a full hearing.

The result does not establish a fixed time limit on accommodation or a general right to end modified work once a disability becomes permanent. The tribunal examined the particular duties, the mine’s operational needs, the worker’s qualifications and the accommodation history.

Modified work after a hand and arm injury

Devin Everall began working at the mine in 2017 and became a serviceman in 2018. That job involved maintaining mobile production and support equipment, including physically demanding work with tools, heavy loads, ladders and machinery.

After a hand and arm injury in August 2019, he performed modified duties from September 2019. Those tasks included maintenance scheduling, paperwork, validating timecards, ordering parts and helping organize work. The employer’s evidence was that these were largely tasks normally performed by his supervisor and other employees, while other servicemen covered the servicing work he could no longer do.

In May 2021, WorkSafeBC advised that his restrictions were permanent and that he could not return to his serviceman position. Newcrest said it could not maintain the modified arrangement indefinitely and had no available position matching both his restrictions and his qualifications. His employment ended in June 2021, and he began receiving vocational rehabilitation benefits.

Everall alleged that Newcrest had eliminated his position and failed to accommodate him. He also disputed its account that it met with him about accommodation. Newcrest denied discrimination and sought dismissal of his complaint under section 27(1)(c) of B.C.’s Human Rights Code.

An unanswered application, but an onus on the employer

Everall did not respond to the dismissal application. After he asked for assistance, the tribunal extended his deadline and directed him to organizations that might help. It later told him the application would proceed without a response and explained how to seek permission to file late. He did not reply. His complaint form was the only material before the tribunal from him.

That absence did not remove Newcrest’s burden of establishing a basis for dismissal. The tribunal explained that this screening process asks whether a complaint has a reasonable prospect of succeeding, rather than deciding disputed facts as it would after a hearing.

Newcrest accepted that the employment ended because Everall’s permanent disability prevented him from performing the core duties of his job. Anika assumed, without deciding, that he had enough evidence to support the elements of a discrimination complaint and focused on the employer’s justification defence.

Why the modified duties did not become a permanent position

The decisive issue was whether Newcrest was reasonably certain to prove that it had accommodated Everall to the point of undue hardship. The tribunal considered the entire history, rather than treating a temporary arrangement as automatically requiring a permanent one.

On Newcrest’s uncontradicted evidence, keeping the arrangement would have meant creating a position made up of work taken from other employees. When Everall left, those duties returned to his supervisor. The tribunal distinguished ending that arrangement from eliminating the underlying serviceman position.

Accommodation can require changes and consideration of transfers, but it does not necessarily require creating work for which there is no real operational need, displacing other workers or fundamentally changing a job. Whether temporary duties must continue permanently depends on the circumstances.

Everall identified a mobile maintenance planner vacancy that he had applied for in June 2021. Newcrest’s evidence described a senior role requiring advanced knowledge of its SAP system and seven to ten years of maintenance planning and scheduling experience. There was no evidence before the tribunal that Everall had that planning experience. On that record, Anika concluded that Newcrest was reasonably certain to establish that accommodation did not require placing him in the role and training him into it.

Limits of the ruling

The tribunal also considered communications after the employment ended. Newcrest offered to speak with Everall directly in August 2021, while he wanted it to communicate through a union that did not yet represent workers at the mine. Later exchanges continued after the union became the bargaining agent. In May 2022, the union said it was no longer pursuing reinstatement or accommodation for him, and WorkSafeBC later determined that he had found permanent, physically suitable work elsewhere.

Anika did not have to resolve whether the disputed accommodation meeting occurred. Even assuming it did not, Everall had identified no accommodation that a meeting could have produced in light of the uncontradicted evidence about available jobs. Nor did the tribunal decide Newcrest’s separate argument that he had failed to participate fully in the accommodation process.

The order dismisses the human rights complaint. It awards no compensation and is not a general ruling that an employer can dispense with consultation whenever a worker needs permanent accommodation.