Laverentz v. Log It Contracting Ltd. and another, 2024 BCHRT 346
Date Issued: December 18, 2024
File: CS-004934
Indexed as: Laverentz v. Log It Contracting Ltd. and another, 2024 BCHRT 346
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:
Christopher Laverentz
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Log It Contracting Ltd. and Danny Erlandson
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Panel: Laila Said-Alam, Amber Prince, and Jonathan Chapnick
On his own behalf: Christopher Laverentz
Agent for Log It Contracting Ltd. Brittany Anderson
On his own behalf: Danny Erlandson
Date of Hearing: April 16-18, May 16 and 21, 2024
Location of Hearing: By videoconference
Written Reasons by: Laila Said-Alam and Amber Prince
Concurred by: Jonathan Chapnick
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This is a case about two friends, Christopher Laverentz and Danny Erlandson, who later became coworkers at a logging company, Log It Contracting Ltd. [ Log It ]. Log It is owned by Brittany Anderson.
[2] Mr. Laverentz says Mr. Erlandson made discriminatory comments to him about his family and non-religious beliefs while carpooling to work. Mr. Laverentz says his employer, Log It, failed to take appropriate action to remedy the discrimination. As a result, he felt unsafe to return to work. He says the conduct of Log It and Mr. Erlandson amounts to discrimination in employment on the basis of religion and family status, contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code .
[3] The Respondents deny they discriminated. Mr. Erlandson denies making discriminatory comments about Mr. Laverentz’s family and non-religious beliefs. Ms. Anderson, for Log It, says that Mr. Laverentz did not give Log It a chance to understand or address his concerns about discrimination. Instead, he abandoned his employment and became unreachable.
[4] A panel of the Tribunal heard the matter over five days. Mr. Laverentz and Mr. Erlandson represented themselves and testified on their own behalf. Log It was represented by Ms. Anderson. No other witnesses were called. The panel reviewed all the evidence submitted, and the parties’ submissions.
[5] For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that Mr. Laverentz has not met the burden of establishing the elements of his case, namely that he experienced an adverse impact or that the adverse impacts that he alleges are connected to his family status or religion. As such, Mr. Erlandson and Log It did not violate s. 13 of the Code . The complaint is dismissed.
II EVIDENCE
[6] I base my findings on the evidence given at the hearing by the three witnesses. In giving their evidence, the witnesses testified and relied on various documents, and audio and visual recordings, which were entered as exhibits during the hearing. I do not refer to all the evidence of every witness. However, I have carefully considered all their evidence in reaching my conclusions in this decision.
[7] There were instances where two or more witnesses provided conflicting evidence on significant issues. As such, I have considered the credibility and reliability of each witness’s evidence to make findings of fact.
[8] Credibility and reliability require different considerations when assessing a witness. Credibility involves the veracity or truthfulness of a witness. It is about whether a witness is telling the truth. Reliability involves the accuracy of a witness’ testimony, including their ability to accurately observe, recall, and recount what happened: Bradshaw v. Stenner , 2010 BCSC 1398, affirmed in 2012 BCCA 296, leave to appeal refused, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 392, at para. 186; Hardychuk v. Johnstone , 2012 BCSC 1359 at para. 10; R. v. S.A.S. , 2021 BCPC 69 at paras. 21-27.
[9] The evidence of a witness must be assessed for its “harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable”: Faryna v. Chorny , 1951 CanLII 252 (BC CA) at 357; Jahanian v Jahanian , 2021 BCSC 1890, at para. 8; Gichuru v. Smith , 2013 BCSC 895 at para. 130, aff’d 2014 BCCA 414.
[10] Next, I set out the background to Mr. Laverentz’s complaint for context.
III BACKGROUND
[11] Mr. Laverentz and Mr. Erlandson were close friends. They lived in a community of about 300 people. Their wives were friends and volunteered together at church. Their children enjoyed a friendship, too. It is through their wives that they became acquainted with each other. They were friends for one and a half years before they started working together.
[12] Mr. Erlandson had around 30 years of experience as a buncher operator in the logging industry. He had regular, seasonal employment with Log It.
[13] Through his wife, Mr. Erlandson learned that Mr. Laverentz was unemployed and looking for work. Mr. Laverentz did not have logging experience but had a commercial truck driver’s license. Mr. Erlandson asked Log It to hire Mr. Laverentz as a skidder operator for the remainder of the logging season.
[14] On behalf of Log It, Ms. Anderson hired Mr. Laverentz as a lowbed/skidder operator. Ms. Anderson’s husband was a foreman at Log It, and had an on-site supervisory role to Mr. Laverentz and others. Mr. Laverentz started working at Log It on or around September 24, 2020. He worked 12-hour shifts on a rotating schedule that was generally 12 days on site, and five days off.
[15] The Log It worksite was a five-hour drive from the community where Mr. Erlandson and Mr. Laverentz lived. On occasion, Mr. Erlandson gave Mr. Laverentz rides to the worksite.
[16] Log It maintained a camp for its staff, which included lodging and meals, a short distance from the worksite. Log It assigned Mr. Laverentz a personal room for the logging season. He lodged alone in the room during his shift and returned to it at the start of his next shift. Mr. Laverentz’s room was not occupied by anyone else when he was off site.
[17] On or around December 28, 2020, after one or two months of working for Log It, Mr. Laverentz made an offer to purchase a home. He says the home was across the street from Mr. Erlandson’s home.
[18] Mr. Laverentz requested a letter of employment from Log It for the purpose of getting approved financing for the home. On or around January 11, 2021, Ms. Anderson signed a letter of employment on behalf of Log It and gave it to Mr. Laverentz.
[19] Mr. Laverentz says that, after disclosing his intention to purchase the home, Mr. Erlandson’s demeanour towards him changed. He says Mr. Erlandson became increasingly hostile toward him the closer the date came to completing the home purchase. All of this happened during the last three weeks of Mr. Laverentz’s employment with Log It.
[20] Mr. Laverentz says that, during the rides to the worksite in the last three weeks of his employment, Mr. Erlandson gave him unsolicited advice on his home purchase and referenced God and Christianity. Mr. Laverentz says Mr. Erlandson’s comments intensified in religious tone the closer the closing date on the home approached. He recounts Mr. Erlandson making comments to the effect of, “don’t keep your hopes up, you don’t make enough money for this,” “be a good Christian because God gives things to good Christians,” “don’t be a heathen,” and “be a good Christian and God will give you good things in time.” He says that Mr. Erlandson called his children “heathens” and a bad influence. Mr. Laverentz believes that, because Mr. Erlandson disliked Mr. Laverentz’s family and non-religious beliefs, he did not want Mr. Laverentz to purchase a home and live near him.
[21] Mr. Laverentz says that, on January 27, 2021, a week or so after Mr. Erlandson learned that Mr. Laverentz’s financing was approved and conditions were removed on the home purchase, Mr. Erlandson assaulted him at the camp. He alleges Mr. Erlandson did this because he wanted Mr. Laverentz terminated so that he would lose financing on the home purchase. After the assault, Mr. Laverentz cleared his personal room at Log It of his belongings. A Log It staff person drove him to a nearby town where he met briefly with Ms. Anderson before going home. He did not return to Log It.
[22] Mr. Laverentz says that Log It disciplined him for the assault by not giving him a raise. He says Log It failed to adequately investigate and respond to Mr. Erlandson’s discrimination once they learned of the assault. He says Log It’s inaction made the work environment unsafe to return to because he had been assaulted and harassed by Mr. Erlandson, conflicts at work were not dealt with, and it was a hostile environment where he could get laid off in two weeks.
[23] On the evening of January 27, 2021, Ms. Anderson contacted Mr. Laverentz on Facebook Messenger about a work matter, and he responded that evening. Mr. Laverentz then blocked Ms. Anderson on Messenger, meaning he no longer received her messages. Not knowing that Mr. Laverentz had blocked her, Ms. Anderson messaged him again on February 1, 2021 to inquire about his plan to return to work.
[24] Mr. Laverentz also blocked Ms. Anderson’s number on his cell phone, because he preferred to have their communications on his home phone, which was recording their calls. Ms. Anderson was not aware that their conversations on January 28, 2021 and January 30, 2021 were being recorded. The Tribunal has noted concerns with having surreptitious recordings in evidence: Chestacow v. Saanich School District No. 63 , 2014 BCHRT 165 at para. 38. In the present case, the recordings (and transcripts of the recordings) were entered into evidence by consent. I find that the recordings are clear and rely on them as necessary to make my decision.
[25] Mr. Laverentz’s last communication with Log It was January 30, 2021. On February 7, 2021, he started employment elsewhere.
IV ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[26] To prove discrimination, Mr. Laverentz must establish that:
a. His religion or family status are protected by the Code ;
b. The Respondents’ conduct adversely impacted him in his employment; and
c. His religion or family status were factors in adverse impacts he experienced at work: Moore v. BC (Education) , 2012 SCC 61 [ Moore ] at para. 33.
[27] Below, I make findings about Mr. Laverentz’s allegations and apply the legal test for discrimination to those findings. I briefly begin with Mr. Laverentz’s protected characteristics, which are not in dispute. The remainder of the decision focuses on the last two elements of the Moore test.
A. Mr. Laverentz’s Protected Characteristics of Religion and Family Status
[28] The concept of religion under the Code includes atheism, or non-religion: Mangel and Yasué obo Child A v. Bowen Island Montessori School and others , 2018 BCHRT 281 at para. 210; see also Morriss v. Ruth and Naomi’s Mission , 2021 BCHRT 19 at para. 5. Mr. Laverentz explained that while he attended church on occasion and was fine with his children and wife attending church, he is not religious, and he would not consider himself a Christian. The Respondents do not dispute Mr. Laverentz’s non-belief falls within the scope of “religion” as contemplated by the Code . In these circumstances, I am satisfied that Mr. Laverentz has shown his religious beliefs are protected under the Code .
[29] Mr. Laverentz gave evidence about his family status. He spoke about being the sole financial provider for his wife, children, and another relative. He spoke about his role as a parent and caregiver for his children and relatives. As with religion, the Respondents do not dispute Mr. Laverentz’s family status attracts the protection of the Code . Again, under the circumstances, I accept Mr. Laverentz’s evidence and find that his complaint engages the protected characteristic of family status.
B. Adverse Impacts and Connection to Protected Characteristics
[30] This decision turns on whether Mr. Laverentz has proven that he was adversely impacted in employment and that the adverse impacts he alleges were related to his protected characteristics. He alleges that: Log It refused to give him benefits and a pay raise; Mr. Erlandson harassed him on drives to work about his family and non-religious beliefs; Mr. Erlandson’s harassment continued when he assaulted him on January 27, 2021 at camp; Log It failed to address the harassment and the assault; and he lost his employment with Log It as a result. I will address these allegations in turn.
1. Did Log It refuse to give Mr. Laverentz a pay raise or benefits?
[31] Mr. Laverentz began his employment with Log It on September 24, 2020. He alleges that, when he started, Ms. Anderson promised him a pay raise and benefits after working for Log It for three months. He alleges that Ms. Anderson reneged on this promise because Mr. Erlandson later told her that Mr. Laverentz was not deserving of it.
[32] There is insufficient evidence to show that Ms. Anderson promised Mr. Laverentz a pay raise. Mr. Laverentz’s employment contract only indicated that his compensation would be subject to “regular review”. It does not set out that Mr. Laverentz would automatically get a pay raise after three months of employment.
[33] At the hearing, Mr. Laverentz testified that he asked Ms. Anderson for a pay raise in December 2020 and January 2020, and that both times she said no. He also gave evidence that on January 21, 2021, he asked Ms. Anderson for a raise so that he could get financing on a home, and that she said no. In her testimony, Ms. Anderson agreed that Mr. Laverentz asked her for a raise at some point and she said no. She explained that she did not provide the raise because raises are based on good work and production and not because an employee has a mortgage. She also disagreed that Mr. Laverentz was promised a raise after working at Log It for three months.
[34] Mr. Laverentz did not point to any other evidence to show that Ms. Anderson promised him a pay raise. I prefer Ms. Anderson’s evidence on this point because it is consistent with Mr. Laverentz’s employment contract, which indicates that raises are based on “a review” rather than given automatically. A review of work performance, to decide on a pay raise, is in harmony with widely recognized employment practices: see, for example , Kirk v. Burnaby Hospice Society and another , 2019 BCHRT 5, at para. 43; Lipskaya v. UrtheCast and another , 2017 BCHRT 66, at para. 5. Mr. Laverentz has not proven that he was deprived of a raise that he was entitled to at Log It. Therefore, I do not find that he was adversely impacted when Ms. Anderson told him he could not have a raise.
[35] With respect to Mr. Laverentz’s entitlement to benefits, his employment contract states that employees are not entitled to benefits within the first 90 days of employment. This may indicate that Mr. Laverentz was entitled to benefits after 90 days of employment. However, Mr. Laverentz did not provide evidence that he was denied any benefits that he may have been entitled to. For this reason, I do not find that he was adversely impacted by virtue of being denied benefits.
[36] Absent a finding of fact that he was adversely impacted, it is unnecessary to decide whether not receiving a pay raise or benefits had any connection to his protected characteristics.
2. Did Mr. Erlandson harass Mr. Laverentz about his non-religious beliefs and his family status?
[37] Mr. Laverentz alleges that Mr. Erlandson called him a heathen and otherwise harassed him about his family and non-religious beliefs. Mr. Laverentz alleges that the harassment occurred while driving to work with Mr. Erlandson, and on one occasion while at work together. Next, I explain why I do not find that Mr. Erlandson made harassing comments to Mr. Laverentz. There is no dispute, and I accept, that Mr. Erlandson called Mr. Laverentz a heathen once at work on January 27, 2021. However, viewing this single comment in context, I do not find that it was discriminatory.
[38] Mr. Laverentz alleges that, as soon as he expressed an interest in purchasing a home near Mr. Erlandson, Mr. Erlandson’s attitude and behaviour changed. In summary, his evidence was that Mr. Erlandson called him and his children heathens in rides to work and urged him to be a good Christian so that good things would come to him. He testified that Mr. Erlandson did not want him and his family to live near him because Mr. Erlandson did not like that Mr. Laverentz and his children were not good Christians. He also testified that Mr. Erlandson felt that Mr. Laverentz’s children were a bad influence on Mr. Erlandson’s children. Mr. Laverentz’s evidence was that Mr. Erlandson’s comments escalated the closer Mr. Laverentz’s closing date approached and resulted in a physical altercation at work. He says that Mr. Erlandson tried to “sabotage” him from obtaining a mortgage, including causing an altercation at work to ensure he lost not only his job but also financing on the home he was preparing to purchase.
[39] Mr. Erlandson wholly denies these allegations. For the following reasons, I accept that he did not call Mr. Laverentz or his children heathens during their drives or harass Mr. Laverentz about his family or non-religious beliefs.
[40] First, I find that Mr. Laverentz’s testimony about Mr. Erlandson’s alleged harassment was starkly incongruous with his other evidence regarding their relationship. For example, Mr. Laverentz testified that Mr. Erlandson was his best friend, their wives were close friends, and so were their children. Their wives volunteered together at the church’s Sunday school, and Mr. Laverentz attended church with his family on occasion because he described it as a “nice thing to take your kids to.” Mr. Laverentz also submitted evidence and testified that the day before the altercation, on January 26, 2021, Mr. Erlandson “went to bat” for him, asking Log It’s foreman and co-owner, “to make sure [he knew he] had a place in this company” and for Log It to give him a raise and benefits. I am unable to reconcile Mr. Laverentz’s testimony about the alleged harassment with the preponderance of his contemporaneous evidence regarding Mr. Erlandson’s relationship with him and his family.
[41] Second, I similarly cannot reconcile Mr. Laverentz’s testimony regarding Mr. Erlandson’s alleged views and comments about Mr. Laverentz’s children, with Mr. Erlandson’s direct evidence on this topic, which was not challenged in cross-examination. Mr. Erlandson testified emotionally about his love for Mr. Laverentz and his family. He adamantly denied calling them names or condemning them during their drives to camp. He said his foster child was best friends with Mr. Laverentz’s children. Mr. Erlandson says Mr. Laverentz and his family came over for a barbeque on the weekend before their altercation. He fondly recalled chatting with Mr. Laverentz’s children before they drove up to camp.
[42] Third, I find that Mr. Laverentz was uncertain and inconsistent in some of his evidence about Mr. Erlandson’s alleged comments. For instance, in his complaint and parts of his testimony, he described Mr. Erlandson’s alleged harassment as having been constant and repeated over a three-week period. On the other hand, in other parts of his testimony, he said Mr. Erlandson made his alleged comments on only a few occasions, and he characterized Mr. Erlandson’s conduct as “nitpicking.” Finally, in another part of his testimony, Mr. Laverentz said Mr. Erlandson’s commentary “was just little banter” at the beginning, but then seemed to escalate over a two-week period as Mr. Laverentz got closer to finalizing his home purchase. In contrast, Mr. Erlandson’s evidence regarding the alleged harassment was clear and unequivocal: he repeatedly stated that it never happened. He insisted that Mr. Laverentz’s evidence was not true. He consistently stated that they did not talk about religion, and he did not criticize Mr. Laverentz’s family.
[43] For these reasons, I prefer Mr. Erlandson’s evidence over Mr. Laverentz’s. I find that Mr. Laverentz has not proven that Mr. Erlandson called him and his children heathens during their drives to work, or otherwise harassed him about his family and non-religious beliefs. It follows that he has not proven he experienced any discriminatory adverse impact regarding that alleged conduct.
3. Did Mr. Erlandson harass and assault Mr. Laverentz on January 27, 2021 at camp?
[44] The answer to this question is no.
[45] There is no question that Mr. Laverentz and Mr. Erlandson had a physical altercation in the camp dining area at Log It on January 27, 2021. Mr. Erlandson gave evidence that the altercation was precipitated by Mr. Laverentz making disparaging comments about Ms. Anderson and her husband. Mr. Erlandson testified that he told Mr. Laverentz that he had to listen to the Andersons as his bosses, and then Mr. Laverentz took a swing at him. Mr. Erlandson said that he punched back in response, and that they both screamed obscenities at each other. Mr. Erlandson said that the altercation ended when another employee who was present grabbed hold of Mr. Laverentz.
[46] Mr. Laverentz’s evidence was that he made a work-related comment that infuriated Mr. Erlandson. He testified that Mr. Erlandson then punched him three times, that he did not hit Mr. Erlandson back, and that he then left the dining area. No other witnesses were called to testify about this altercation.
[47] Mr. Erlandson testified that, after the altercation, he left the dining area and started his buncher work for the day. He said that, after 20 or 30 minutes, he had calmed down enough to go back to the dining area and talk to Mr. Laverentz. He testified that, given their friendship and working relationship, he did not want to leave things negative between them. He thought they could talk, apologize to each other for the heated interaction, and shake hands. He said he approached Mr. Laverentz, and commented along the lines of: “are you going to apologize for attacking me, and quit losing your temper like a heathen and get back to work?” On Mr. Erlandson’s account, Mr. Laverentz responded by screaming more obscenities at him, and held up a sugar shaker as if to throw it at Mr. Erlandson. Mr. Erlandson said he responded to Mr. Laverentz with words to the effect of: “you are obviously going to keep crying like a baby,” and left to start his buncher work.
[48] During his direct evidence, Mr. Laverentz did not expressly say that Mr. Erlandson called him a heathen on January 27, 2021, surrounding their altercation. He did not give any evidence that Mr. Erlandson made any comments about religion or his family surrounding the altercation. Mr. Laverentz did not challenge Mr. Erlandson’s account of coming back to the dining room. However, on his account, he held the sugar shaker defensively.
[49] There is no question that Mr. Erlandson and Mr. Laverentz got into a physical altercation on January 27, 2021 after a verbal exchange. However, there is insufficient evidence to show that Mr. Erlandson was the aggressor in the altercation. As a result, there is insufficient evidence for me to conclude that Mr. Erlandson assaulted Mr. Laverentz as an aspect of harassment or at all.
[50] Regardless of who was the aggressor, there is insufficient evidence to establish a connection between the altercation and Mr. Laverentz’s protected characteristics. I have come to this conclusion after considering Mr. Erlandson’s evidence that he referred to Mr. Laverentz as a heathen once, shortly after the altercation.
[51] Where an allegation of discrimination is based on a single comment, the Tribunal considers the circumstances to determine whether the comment rises to the level of discrimination. The Tribunal may consider factors such as the “the egregiousness or virulence of the comment, the nature of the relationship between the involved parties, the context in which the comment was made, whether an apology was offered, and whether or not the recipient of the comment was a member of a group historically discriminated against”: Pardo v. School District No. 43 , 2003 BCHRT 71 at para 12; Brito v. Affordable Housing Societies and another , 2017 BCHRT 270 at para. 43.
[52] Mr. Erlandson gave evidence that he understood a heathen to be someone who cannot control their temper. I accept his evidence on this point. While the term heathen may refer to a person who does not share a religious belief, it may also refer to someone behaving in a rough, crude, or uncivilized manner: Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Mr. Erlandson’s evidence that he used the word heathen to refer to someone who cannot control their temper, is consistent with a dictionary meaning of the word. Mr. Erlandson’s evidence about what he meant by the word is also consistent with the circumstances. He said he did not intend anything religious by the word. While his intent is not determinative of the discrimination question, I find it relevant in assessing his comments contextually. Mr. Erlandson had just had a heated altercation with Mr. Laverentz, and, on his account, they were both shouting obscenities. The circumstances may be aptly characterized as rough, crude, and uncivil.
[53] Again, Mr. Laverentz did not challenge Mr. Erlandson on this evidence or point to any other conduct or comments by Mr. Erlandson on January 27, 2021 that would suggest any connection to Mr. Laverentz’s family or non-religious beliefs. The context in which Mr. Erlandson referred to Mr. Laverentz as a heathen weighs against a finding that the comment was discriminatory.
[54] I have also considered the nature of the relationship between Mr. Erlandson and Mr. Laverentz. The Tribunal has considered, for example, whether a power imbalance or ongoing relationship between the parties is more likely to have a discriminatory impact on the recipient of the comment: Wiens v. West Telemarketing Canada and others , 2006 BCHRT 432, at para. 31; Hudda obo others v. Touchstone Property Management and others , 2016 BCHRT 41, at para. 28.
[55] In this case, the word “heathen” was said in the context of close friends in the aftermath of an altercation. After the word was uttered, the two friends did not have further contact with each other. Their relationship was at an end. While Mr. Erlandson had been at Log It longer than Mr. Laverentz, he had no authority over Mr. Laverentz. Both answered to Ms. Anderson and, at times, her husband as a foreman at Log It. Mr. Erlandson and Mr. Laverentz were on relatively equal footing at work. These circumstances do not support a finding that Mr. Erlandson’s single comment rose to the level of discrimination.
[56] I have further considered that Mr. Erlandson’s use of the word heathen occurred while approaching Mr. Laverentz after the altercation. I accept his evidence that he was approaching Mr. Laverentz for the purpose of apologizing. While his actual wording to Mr. Laverentz may not have been optimal, it was part of Mr. Erlandson’s effort to address their altercation. It is to Mr. Erlandson’s credit that he made this effort to leave things in a better way with Mr. Laverentz and prioritized taking these steps as soon as he felt calm enough to do so. I find that Mr. Erlandson’s sincere and prompt effort to resolve the altercation with a handshake weighs against a finding that his single comment was discriminatory.
[57] Finally, no evidence was presented to show that Mr. Laverentz is a member of a group historically discriminated against. There was no evidence, for example, that Mr. Erlandson’s use of the word heathen carried any particular baggage or had a discriminatory impact on Mr. Laverentz in connection with his status in a group: Martinez Johnson v. Whitewater Concrete Ltd. and others (No. 2) , 2022 BCHRT 129 at paras. 27-34.
[58] I conclude that Mr. Erlandson’s single heathen comment does not rise to the level of discrimination protected by the Code .
4. Did Log It fail to address the alleged harassment and assault?
[59] Mr. Laverentz alleged that Log It failed to address Mr. Erlandson’s harassment and assault during their January 27, 2021 altercation. This allegation cannot succeed. When there is an allegation that a respondent failed to appropriately respond to a claim of discrimination, a complainant must identify deficiencies in that response and the adverse impact of those alleged deficiencies: Mr. C. v. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and another , 2021 BCHRT 22 at paras. 118-119; Jamal v. TransLink Security Management and another (No. 2) , 2020 BCHRT 146 at para. 106. A response to a complaint of discrimination may also constitute discrimination if it is influenced by a person’s protected characteristics: West v. Pitka Logging Ltd. and others , 2024 BCHRT 147, at para. 60. Applying these principles, I am not satisfied that Log It discriminated against Mr. Laverentz. I explain why, below.
[60] I find there is insufficient evidence to establish that Log It should have suspected Mr. Erlandson’s conduct during the altercation was discrimination. After the January 27, 2021 altercation, Mr. Laverentz did not tell Ms. Anderson that Mr. Erlandson’s conduct during the altercation was discrimination. When she met Mr. Laverentz in town after the altercation, she initiated a discussion with him about what had happened at the camp. He gave evidence that he told her that he could not remember what happened and could not talk about it because he was still “putting it together.”
[61] Mr. Laverentz and Ms. Anderson spoke on the phone on January 28, 2021. When she asked what happened with Mr. Erlandson, Mr. Laverentz said he had “no idea what happened” and that up until three weeks prior, they had been best friends, but that Mr. Erlandson began to change after Mr. Laverentz initiated the purchase of the home. At no point in this conversation did Mr. Laverentz say that Mr. Erlandson made comments to him about his family or non-religious beliefs. When Mr. Laverentz asked Ms. Anderson if she was implying that he was the problem, she responded, “No, I’m saying my whole crew can’t get along.” Mr. Laverentz then assured her that her “crew is actually really good … your crew is probably one of the best crews I’ve worked with.” She asked him why there was a fight in her kitchen then, and he said, “that, I don’t know … you have to ask [Mr. Erlandson] that.”
[62] I accept that Ms. Anderson did ask Mr. Erlandson and other Log It staff what had transpired on the day of the altercation. She suspended Mr. Erlandson for his part in the altercation. There is no evidence that Log It’s response to the altercation was inappropriate or influenced in any way by Mr. Laverentz’s religion or family status.
[63] The first time Mr. Laverentz raised his allegations with Log It that Mr. Erlandson had called him a heathen during rides to work was in a phone conversation with Ms. Anderson on January 30, 2021. The conversation began with Ms. Anderson asking Mr. Laverentz if he wanted to return to work and try again. Mr. Laverentz said that he did. She proposed he work the following day, but he said he had prior commitments. They discussed staffing needs, then Mr. Laverentz abruptly changed the conversation to inform her that he had initiated multiple claims to different adjudicating bodies, including the Tribunal. It was then that he raised his allegation that Mr. Erlandson had called him a heathen during rides to work. The allegation came as a surprise to Ms. Anderson, and she struggled to understand its relation to Log It. During their conversation, Mr. Laverentz explained that he had made multiple claims as an attempt to mitigate his potential losses related to his mortgage should Log It terminate his employment.
[64] During the call, Mr. Laverentz accused Ms. Anderson of previously telling him that he could not return to work. He conceded that he understood that she did not say that he could never return to work for Log It, but rather that she had said he could not go back to work if he and Mr. Erlandson “can’t get along and not fight.” Later in the conversation, Mr. Laverentz said, “I’m happy with the way things were and I’m happy with [Mr. Erlandson] staying there. I don’t want anything negative to happen to Log It or [Mr. Erlandson].”
[65] It cannot be said that Log It failed to appropriately respond to a claim of discrimination with respect to the altercation. The evidence is that, after the altercation, Ms. Anderson (on behalf of Log It) asked Mr. Laverentz what transpired. He told her he could not remember what happened and could not talk about it. Ms. Anderson then spoke to her employees at camp to investigate the altercation. She suspended Mr. Erlandson at the conclusion of the investigation. When Mr. Laverentz and Ms. Anderson spoke on January 28, 2021, he did not allege that Mr. Erlandson made discriminatory comments during their rides to work or during the physical altercation at camp. She followed up with Mr. Laverentz about returning to work on two occasions, up to and including February 1, 2021. Unbeknownst to Ms. Anderson, Mr. Laverentz had blocked both her cell phone number and Messenger contact.
[66] I have also considered Log It’s response when Mr. Laverentz told Ms. Anderson that Mr. Erlandson had called him a heathen during rides to work. Mr. Laverentz raised the issue with Ms. Anderson during a single phone call on January 30, 2021. His description of Mr. Erlandson’s behaviour is unclear, and he stated that he was only raising the issue “to cover [his] behind,” so that he could secure his mortgage. He made no reference to any connection to his family status.
[67] I do not find Mr. Laverentz was adversely impacted by Log It’s response to his claim that Mr. Erlandson called him a heathen. The evidence was that Mr. Laverentz stopped communicating with Log It after January 30, 2021, which meant that Log It did not have an opportunity to address or resolve Mr. Laverentz’s claim of discrimination with respect to Mr. Erlandson making the alleged “heathen” comments during rides to work. Mr. Laverentz did not submit a formal complaint to Log It, and he did not offer any further information regarding the nature of the comments, the context in which they were made, or their impact on him. Further, there is no evidence that Log It’s response to Mr. Laverentz’s January 30, 2021 claim was influenced in any way by his religion or family status.
5. Is Log It responsible for Mr. Laverentz’s employment loss? If so, was there a connection between the employment loss and his non-religious beliefs or family status?
[68] Mr. Laverentz alleges that he lost his job because Log It would not address Mr. Erlandson’s conduct and would not let him return to work. He alleges that his mortgage contract was jeopardized as a result. It is his burden to prove that Log It is responsible for the end of his employment and any adverse impacts flowing from it. If he can prove an adverse impact, he would then need to prove that that his religion or family status were a factor in ending his employment.
[69] In my view, the evidence does not establish that Log It dismissed Mr. Laverentz or otherwise ended his employment against his wishes. Mr. Laverentz lost his job at Log It because he chose to stop working there. Log It is not responsible for his job loss. He left before giving Ms. Anderson a chance to address his allegations regarding Mr. Erlandson.
[70] As discussed earlier, on his last day at the worksite, Mr. Laverentz left before his shift ended, cleared his room of his personal belongings, and never returned to the worksite. Log It did not ask or instruct him to leave, nor did Log It tell him he could not return to the worksite. When Mr. Laverentz raised his allegations of discrimination on January 30, 2021, Log It’s response was not inappropriate. Ms. Anderson asked him about his allegations, investigated the allegation with other employees, and then made reasonable efforts to follow up with him about returning to work. Mr. Laverentz did not reciprocate these efforts or allow for any further discussion of his allegations. Instead, he blocked Ms. Anderson from communicating with him on their usual modes of communication. He did not try to reach her. He did not try to return to work at Log It. By February 7, 2021, he had moved on to new employment. The evidence does not show that Log It terminated his employment. Mr. Laverentz, not Log It, is responsible for any losses he incurred as a result of his choices. For these reasons, I find that Log It is not responsible for the end of its employment relationship with Mr. Laverentz or for any adverse impacts that may have flowed from that end. It is therefore not necessary to decide whether the end of his working relationship with Log It had any connection to his protected characteristics.
[71] In sum, Mr. Laverentz has not proved his case. He has not established that the Respondents’ conduct adversely impacted him in his employment in connection with his religion or family status. His complaint is dismissed.
V CONCLUSION
[72] The complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Mr. Laverentz has not proved that Mr. Erlandson and Log It’s conduct was discriminatory under the Code .
Laila Said-Alam
Tribunal Member
Amber Prince
Tribunal Member
I agree:
Jonathan Chapnick
Tribunal Member