Adamczyk v. Intact Financial Corporation, 2024 BCHRT 323
Date Issued: November 14, 2024
File(s): CS-010824
Indexed as: Adamczyk v. Intact Financial Corporation, 2024 BCHRT 323
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:
Claire Adamczyk
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Intact Financial Corporation
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO ADD A RESPONDENT
Rule 25(2)
Tribunal Member: Ijeamaka Anika
Counsel for the Complainant: Mitchell Selly
Counsel for the Respondent Intact Financial Corporation: Steve Winder
Counsel for the Proposed Respondent, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada: Andrew Zabrovsky
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This complaint is about Claire Adamczyk’s request for workplace accommodation due to their disability. This decision is about whether to grant Mx. Adamczyk’s application to add a respondent to that complaint.
[2] On November 13, 2023, Mx. Adamczyk filed a complaint alleging that Intact Financial Corporation discriminated against them based on their disability in the area of employment contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code when it denied them workplace accommodation.
[3] On May 30, 2024, Mx. Adamczyk filed an application to add Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada as a respondent to their complaint. Mx. Adamczyk says Intact retained Sun Life to administer accommodation requests, Sun Life processed their accommodation request and recommended Intact refuse Mx. Adamczyk’s accommodation. Mx. Adamczyk says Sun Life should be held accountable. The application was made within the time limit under s. 22 of the Code.
[4] Sun Life opposes the application on the grounds that Mx. Adamczyk has not alleged that, if proven, could establish that Sun Life contravened the Code. Intact takes no position on the application.
[5] For the following reasons, I allow the application to add Sun Life to the complaint. I am satisfied that the complaint alleges an arguable contravention of the Code against Sun Life and adding Sun Life to the complaint will further the just and timely resolution of the complaint.
[6] I apologize to the parties for the delay in issuing this decision.
II BACKGROUND
[7] Mx. Adamczyk is employed by Intact as a Claims Representative.
[8] Under an Accommodation Service Agreement between Sun Life and Intact, Sun Life acts as an adjudicator and administrator of Intact’s accommodation services. Sun Life provides Intact with assessments and recommendations of accommodation needs for Intact’s employees based on the medical documentation employees submit to Sun Life.
[9] Mx. Adamczyk says that Intact directed them to apply to Sun Life for a work from home accommodation. Mx. Adamczyk provided Sun Life with a letter from their family physician regarding the accommodation they required. Sun Life informed Intact that the information provided by Mx. Adamczyk did not support a medical basis for Mx. Adamczyk to work remotely on a full-time basis. Intact rejected Mx. Adamczyk’s request and Mx. Adamczyk was not permitted to work from home on a full-time basis.
III DECISION
[10] Mx. Adamczyk applies to add Sun Life as a respondent in this complaint. Mx. Adamczyk argues that Intact denied them workplace accommodation due to Sun Life’s decision that they did not require accommodation .
[11] There is a one-year time limit for filing a human rights complaint: Code, s. 22. Section 22 is a substantive provision, meant to ensure that complainants pursue their human rights remedies promptly and that respondents can go ahead with their activities without the possibility of a dated complaint: Mother E and Baby E (by Mother E) v. BC Ministry of Health, 2023 BCHRT 20 at para. 38; Chartier v. School District No. 62, 2003 BCHRT 39 at para. 12.
[12] Mx. Adamczyk filed a complaint on November 13, 2023, and their application to add Sun Life on May 30, 2024. There is no dispute that Mx. Adamczyk filed their complaint within the one-year limit for bringing a complaint: Code, s. 22.
[13] Rule 25(2)(a) and (b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure provide that a person applying to add a respondent within the time limit must state why adding the proposed respondent will further the just and timely resolution of the complaint, and set out facts that, if proven, could establish a contravention of the Code by the proposed respondent.
A. Has Mx. Adamczyk alleged facts that contravene the Code: s. 27(1)(b)
[14] Under s. 27(1)(b), Mx. Adamczyk is not required to prove their case. Rather, they must only meet the low threshold of alleging facts that, if proven, could be a contravention of the Code: Gichuru v. Vancouver Swing Society , 2021 BCCA 103 at para. 56. The Tribunal only considers the allegations in the complaint and information provided by the complainant. It does not consider alternative scenarios or explanations provided by the respondent: Bailey v. BC (Attorney General) (No. 2), 2006 BCHRT 168 at para. 12; Goddard v. Dixon, 2012 BCSC 161 at para. 100; Francescutti v. Vancouver (City), 2017 BCCA 242 at para. 49. As indicated by the plain language of Rule 25(2)(b), the Tribunal will assume the facts alleged can be proven: Taylor v. BC (Ministry of Attorney General) and others (No. 2) , 2013 BCHRT 173 at paras. 8 and 17.
[15] In this case, Mx. Adamczyk must set out facts that, if proven, could establish that they have a characteristic protected by the Code,they were adversely impacted in employment and their protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact:Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.
[16] Sun Life’s argument is that Mx. Adamczyk has not alleged facts that, if proven, could establish the required connection between its accommodation assessments and Mx. Adamczyk’s protected characteristic. Generally, Sun Life argues that Mx. Adamczyk has not alleged that it subjected them to differential treatment or a differential process due to their disability.
[17] I consider the elements of Mx. Adamczyk’s case in turn.
[18] First, there are facts alleged in the complaint which, if proven to be true, could establish that Mx. Adamczyk has a disability. For the purposes of this application, I assume without deciding that Mx. A has alleged facts, which if proven, could establish they have a disability within the meaning of the Code.
[19] Second, I find that, at the very least, Mx. Adamczyk meets the low threshold for alleging facts that could establish adverse impact: Gichuru,at para. 56. Mx. Adamczyk says that despite receiving evidence of their disability and need for accommodation, Sun Life recommended that Intact refuse to provide them with accommodation. Sun Life argues that Mx. Adamczyk’s allegation of adverse impact does not identify any conduct of Sun Life or its representatives which involved treating Mx. Adamczyk differently or putting them at a disadvantage, and therefore does not contravene the Code.
[20] I am unable to accept Sun Life’s argument here. Mx. Adamczyk says Sun Life’s recommendation adversely impacted them because Intact refused their accommodation request based on Sun Life’s recommendation. I find that, at the very least, Mx. Adamczyk meets the low threshold for alleging facts that could establish Sun Life’s recommendation adversely impacted them: Gichuru,at para. 56.
[21] Third, on nexus, at a hearing on the merits, Mx. Adamczyk would need to prove that their protected characteristics are a “factor” in the adverse impact. I find that Mx. Adamczyk has alleged conduct that, if proven, could establish a connection between their protected characteristics and the adverse impact they allege. They allege that their disability was impacted (and continues to be impacted) by the office environment causing severe illness because, on the basis of Sun Life’s recommendation, Intact refused to accommodate them.
[22] For the purposes of this application, I am satisfied that Mx. Adamczyk’s allegation, if proven, could establish a connection between their protected characteristics and the adverse impact. In this context, these facts, if proven at a hearing, could establish a contravention of the Codeby Sun Life.
[23] I turn to whether adding Sun Life as a respondent will further the just and timely resolution of the complaint.
B. Will adding Sun Life further the just and timely resolution of the complaint.
[24] Mx. Adamczyk submits that adding Sun Life will further the just and timely resolution of the complaint because Intact and Sun Life are jointly responsible for the adverse impact of them being denied accommodations for their disability. Sun Life does not make any arguments in this regard.
[25] I am satisfied that adding Sun Life would further the just and timely resolution of the complaint because Sun Life administers Intact’s accommodation assessment, and the complaint concerns actions taken by Intact and Sun Life connected to that accommodation assessment.
[26] On this application I am not deciding whether Sun Life discriminated or if it did, whether it is jointly responsible with Intact. I do not consider the likelihood of success of Mx. Adamczyk’s complaint against Sun Life. Rather, I consider that Mx. Adamczyk has set out an arguable contravention of the Codeby Sun Life. If Mx. Adamczyk can prove their allegations of discrimination against Sun Life, they would be able to obtain an order for a remedy regarding that discrimination. This will uphold the purpose set out in s.3(e) of the Codeto provide a means of redress for those persons who are discriminated against contrary to the Code. A just determination, and the possibility of a remedy if any part of the complaint against Sun Life is successful, requires participation by Sun Life. I am satisfied that adding Sun Life as a respondent will further the just resolution of the complaint. At a later stage, it will be up to the Tribunal to determine whether Mx. Adamczyk has proven their allegations and, if so, which respondent is liable for which discriminatory conduct.
[27] I also consider the effect that adding Sun Life will have on the timeliness of the Tribunal’s process. A timely resolution of a complaint is not simply a rapid process but one where the process used is as quick as possible without jeopardizing the integrity of the process: Pike v. Ooh La La Café and others, 2022 BCHRT 72 at para. 36. Mx. Adamczyk’s allegation that Sun Life recommended Intact reject their accommodation request was part of their original complaint. The Tribunal will need to hear evidence and make findings about Sun Life’s recommendation, whether or not Sun Life is added as a respondent.
[28] On these bases, I am persuaded that adding Sun Life as a respondent will further the just and timely resolution of the complaint.
IV CONCLUSION
[29] I allow the application and add Sun Life as a respondent.
Ijeamaka Anika
Tribunal Member