The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a Douglas College professor’s disability discrimination and retaliation complaint after a 21-day hearing, finding that the college met its accommodation obligations while the process broke down over cooperation, medical information and proposed solutions.
In Kane v. Douglas College (No. 2), 2026 BCHRT 220, tribunal member Kylie Buday rejected Marilyn Kane’s claims concerning voice amplification, classroom conditions and office location. The October 20 decision also dismissed allegations of discriminatory harassment and retaliation through two written reprimands.
The result did not turn on denying that Kane had disabilities or experienced barriers at work. The tribunal accepted her voice disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia, and found that classroom conditions and stress associated with her office location adversely affected her. The central accommodation question was whether the college had reasonably responded to those needs.
Reasonable accommodation required cooperation
Kane, a philosophy professor at the college since 1998, sought a voice amplification system and changes to her teaching and office environments. The college supplied an initial amplifier that proved unsuitable for classroom teaching. It then offered to buy the system recommended by her specialists, proposing that she move it between classrooms on a cart.
Kane objected to transporting the equipment and sought a wall-mounted system or secure classroom storage. She argued that the alternatives were affordable and feasible for a college of this size, and that her doctors had already provided enough information to support them.
Buday found that the college’s proposal was reasonable on the information available at the time. Kane’s initial objections did not explain a disability-related barrier to pushing a cart. Later medical information raised further questions about her functional limitations, including a letter that described her as being asked to carry the cart rather than push it.
The decision assessed accommodation across the history of the requests, rather than demanding a perfect solution. The college had to take reasonable steps to address disability-related needs; Kane also had to facilitate reasonable requests for information and consider reasonable proposals. The affordability of her preferred arrangement did not, by itself, establish that the college had failed its duty.
Medical information and workplace conditions
The tribunal found that requests to meet and clarify medical information were reasonable in these circumstances. Important questions remained unanswered about the extent to which heat, artificial lighting, lack of fresh air and other workplace conditions affected Kane’s ability to work.
Kane questioned the need for further information and objected to a referral for medical case management on confidentiality, impartiality and expertise grounds. Buday found that the proposed confidential process, involving an occupational health nurse, could have helped identify workable accommodations. The evidence did not support Kane’s concerns that the nurse was unqualified or that the process would breach her privacy.
The college also offered alternative offices, which Buday found Kane unreasonably rejected. When the parties finally met in March 2020, they began discussing practical classroom options, but the pandemic interrupted that progress. Once teaching moved online, the tribunal found that the classroom and office conditions at issue no longer adversely affected Kane while she worked from home.
Importantly, Buday rejected the college’s argument that Kane’s office-related stress claim necessarily failed because her allegations of bullying were unproven. Whether proximity to colleagues exacerbated her disability was a separate question. Nor did the presence of a personal preference erase a disability-related need. The college nevertheless succeeded because of its reasonable information requests and proposed solutions.
Harassment and investigation claims rejected
Kane separately alleged that colleagues harassed her because they perceived her to have a disability, and that the college’s investigation was inadequate. Buday found the alleged discriminatory harassment was not established on the evidence.
The tribunal also examined the college’s response independently. An employer can fail its human rights obligations by responding unreasonably to a discrimination complaint even when the underlying conduct is not ultimately found discriminatory. Here, the college took the complaint seriously, hired an experienced external investigator at Kane’s request, communicated the findings and provided an internal appeal process.
Kane challenged the involvement of administrators who were also addressing her conduct, the investigator’s methods and what she regarded as biased reasoning. Buday found no evidence that administrators had interfered with the investigation or influenced its outcome, and rejected the asserted flaws in the report.
Reprimands were not retaliation
The retaliation claim concerned warnings and two written reprimands over Kane’s emails. Buday accepted, for the purposes of the decision, that the college knew a human rights complaint was possible when it issued the reprimands, and that discipline could amount to adverse treatment under the Human Rights Code.
The missing element was a sufficient connection between the discipline and the possible complaint. Such a connection can be established through intent or a reasonable inference from the circumstances. Although the emails concerned accommodation, Buday found that the college disciplined how Kane communicated, rather than her assertion of human rights. The prior warnings, communications and proportionate response did not support an inference of retaliation.
The tribunal dismissed the discrimination allegations under section 13 and the retaliation allegations under section 43 of the Code.
