Palafox v. Vancouver Career College and another (No. 3), 2024 BCHRT 242
Date Issued: August 16, 2024
File(s): CS-002223
Indexed as: Palafox v. Vancouver Career College and another (No. 3), 2024 BCHRT 242
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Kathlyn Palafox
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Vancouver Career College and another
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO LIMIT PUBLICATION
Rule 5(6)
Tribunal Member: Laila Said Alam
On their own behalf: Kathlyn Palafox
For the Respondents: No submissions sought
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Kathlyn Palafox filed a human rights complaint against her employer, Vancouver Career College, and VCC’s Regional Director, Joan Vojnic [together, Respondents]. She alleged that the Respondents “terminated [her] instructional agreement” with VCC, called her while she was teaching, reprimanded her, accused her of “non-compliance” with health legislation and regulations, and “cyberbullied” her because she is younger than Ms. Vojnic.
[2] In an earlier decision, I allowed the Respondents’ application and dismissed the complaint in its entirety: Palafox v. Vancouver Career College and another 2024 BCHRT 178.
[3] Ms. Palafox now applies to limit the publication of her name. The issue I need to decide is whether Ms. Palafox has established that publishing her personal information will cause harm to her reputation, such that her privacy interests outweigh the public’s interest in her personal information.
[4] For the following reasons, I deny the application. To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision. I make no findings of fact.
II BACKGROUND
[5] I understand Ms. Palafox to assert that an order to anonymize her personal information outweighs the public interest in her information because: it contains information that is not true; she continues to advocate for delivering quality nursing education; and counsel for the Respondents withheld “important facts before, during, and after the discriminatory actions” to “change the narrative of events.”
[6] She says Palafoxat para. 38 contains information that was not true, and says it is an attack on her professional dignity and academic integrity. Paragraph 38 reads:
First, she alleges that she was terminated from an instructional agreement because of her age. Even if I accept that Ms. Vojnic had said “I am older than you and I know better,” and “you can fire anybody except the oldest employee,” I am not convinced on the materials before me that was the reason why Ms. Palafox was replaced as the instructor for the course. There is undisputed evidence that she told the Campus Director and high-level administrators that she did not want to continue teaching the course and that someone with practical nurse experience should teach it. There is no reasonable prospect that she will prove the Respondents discriminated against her on the basis of age by replacing her, because she asked the Respondents to replace her.
[7] Ms. Palafox says the contents of the paragraph are incorrect because there is no documentary evidence that she refused to teach Academic Success or suggested that someone with practical nursing experience should teach it. On this application, she explains that the “primary reason I refused to continue teaching is because [VCC] is cheating students and I do not want to be part of these illegal activities.” She also cites the “non-compliance of [regulations]” as her “primary reason of refusing to continue teaching.”
[8] Second, Ms. Palafox says that this untrue information affects her personal and professional dignity as a post-secondary educator. She says this amounts to “an attack on [her] professional dignity and academic integrity.” She says she is actively involved in the Canadian Nurses Association and BC College of Nurses and Midwives, and advocates for academic integrity.
[9] Ms. Palafox provides evidence of her standing with the BC College of Nurses and Midwives, and the Canadian Nurses Association. Ms. Palafox’s standing with the College is listed as “Not authorized to practice” from April 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025. Her registration is listed as “Current – non-practicing RN.” She is listed as “Nurse Retired” with the Canadian Nurses Association.
[10] Third, Ms. Palafox says the Tribunal should limit publication of her personal information because the Respondents changed lawyers several times from 2020 to 2024. She says that “some important facts” throughout the period of discrimination were withheld to change the narrative of events.
III DECISION
[11] Complaints at the Tribunal are presumptively public: Mother A obo Child B v. School District C, 2015 BCHRT 64 at para. 7. This openness serves four main goals: maintaining an effective evidentiary process, ensuring that Tribunal members act fairly, promoting public confidence in the Tribunal, and educating the public about the Tribunal’s process and development of the law: Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 SCR 1326 at para. 61; JY v. Various Waxing Salons, 2019 BCHRT 106 at para. 25. These goals align with the purposes of the Code, which include fostering a more equitable society and identifying and eliminating persistent patterns of inequality: Code, s. 3. The main way that the Tribunal furthers these purposes is through its public decisions: A. v. Famous Players Inc., 2005 BCHRT 432 at para. 14.
[12] The Tribunal has discretion to limit publication of identifying information where a person can show their privacy interests outweigh the public interest in full access to the Tribunal’s proceedings: TribunalRules of Practice and Procedure [Rules], Rule 5(6); Stein v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2020 BCSC 70 at para. 64(a). The Tribunal may consider factors like the stage of the proceedings, the nature of the allegations, private detail in the complaint, harm to reputation, or any other potential harm: JYat para. 30. It may also consider whether the proposed limitation relates to only a “sliver” of information that minimally impairs the openness of the proceeding: CS v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2019 BCCA 406 at para. 37. It is not enough to just assert that a person’s reputation may be tarnished: Stein at para. 64(c).
[13] For the following reasons, Ms. Palafox has not established that publishing her personal information will cause harm to her reputation such that her privacy interests outweigh the public interest.
[14] Ms. Palafox says that paragraph 38 of the decision contained inaccurate information because she never said that she requested a PN to teach the course. In coming to the understanding that she had requested a PN to teach the course, I relied on, amongst other things, Ms. Palafox’s September 29, 2020, email to the practical nurse coordinator, the campus director, and the regional compliance manager. She wrote, “I am requesting for a trained teacher (PN Professional Practice Instructor preferably) for this course on the new course outline and materials to teach from September 30 to October 2nd”: Palafox at para. 15.
[15] Ms. Palafox says that paragraph 38 of the decision contained inaccurate information because she never refused to teach the course. In the decision, I relied on Ms. Palafox’s emails to the Respondents where she wrote that she “voluntarily refused” to teach the course and explained her reasoning that “eventually lead to my request that I no longer want to continue teaching the course and requested for a replacement for September 30 class”: Palafox at paras. 14 and 26. Notably, on this application to limit publication, she describes her refusal to teach the course twice: see above, Background at para. 7.
[16] Her supporting evidence, that she is retired and no longer active in the profession, does not support her position that she is “active in the nursing community (Canadian Nurses Association and BC College of Nurses and Midwives)”. She has not provided any supporting particulars or documentation to bolster her position that she actively “advocates for academic integrity.”
[17] Similarly, Ms. Palafox does not provide supporting particulars or documentation to bolster her assertion that the Respondents’ lawyers withheld important facts. She has not articulated how this affects her privacy interests, and in what ways this outweighs the public interest.
[18] Ms. Palafox has not met her burden on this application. I am not convinced that her privacy interests outweigh the public interest in the openness of this proceeding, including Ms. Palafox’s name. I decline to make an order limiting publication.
IV CONCLUSION
[19] The application to limit publication is denied.
Laila Said Alam
Tribunal Member