Ramserran v. University of Victoria and another, 2025 BCHRT 12
Date Issued: January 14, 2025
File: CS-006879Indexed as: Ramserran v. University of Victoria and another, 2025 BCHRT 12
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
R. S. B. C. 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Jennalee Ramserran
COMPLAINANT
AND:
University of Victoria and Fraser Hof
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINT
Section 22
Tribunal Member: Steven Adamson
On her own behalf: Jennalee Ramserran
Counsel for the Respondents: Marcia McNeil
I Introduction
[1] On May 24, 2022, Jennalee Ramserran filed two complaints. Her first is based on race, colour, physical disability and mental disability contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code[Code], against the University of Victoria [the University] and Doctor Fraser Hof [the Professor]. Her second is based on retaliation under s. 43 against the Professor. The Tribunal joined the two complaints under a single complaint and case number.
[2] The issue before me is whether it is in the public interest to accept the late-filed Complaint under s. 22(3) of the Code . I make no findings of fact regarding the merits of this complaint.
[3] The University applied to make further submissions in response to Ms. Ramserran’s reply submission including a detailed evidence with arguments package dated April 4, 2021. This additional material appears to have been previously disclosed to the University during its internal complaint process. I found Ms. Ramserran’s further evidence and arguments contained in her reply useful and given her lack of representation decided to consider it in making this decision. I also accept the University’s application to respond to this further information and have considered its further submissions, along with Ms. Ramserran’s response and the University’s reply in making this decision.
[4] For the reasons that follow, I do not find that it is in the public interest to allow the proceed late filed: s. 22(3).
II Background
[5] Ms. Ramserran identifies as Spanish-black mixed race and reports having a brown skin tone. Information on file indicates she has chronic pain stemming from a fibromyalgia condition and anxiety that affects her mode of learning.
[6] In January 2020, Ms. Ramserran moved from another province to attend a graduate degree program in chemistry at the University. The Professor was assigned as her supervisor in the program.
[7] From January 2020 until April 30, 2021, Ms. Ramserran alleges various forms of discrimination while attending the program. She alleges the Professor treated her differently than white female students in the program by not allowing her opportunities while pushing the white students forward towards a PhD. Ms. Ramserran specifically alleges the Professor provided research data she collected to a white student, which served as a foundation and stepping stone for that student’s PhD. She further alleges the Professor favoured white students in the lab while frequently demeaning her and accusing her of wrongdoing. Finally, Ms. Ramserran alleges being assigned to menial tasks in the lab that were not assigned to white students.
[8] During the period in question Ms. Ramserran further alleges the Professor and University failed to accommodate her disability by assigning her to physically demanding tasks in the lab. She alleges the accommodation was inadequate as the Professor told her to simply ask her peers for help with these tasks. Further, Ms. Ramserran alleges the Professor failed to hear her when she informed him that she was giving up her job in the lab because of the physical demands.
[9] On April 1, 2021, the Professor wrote to Ms. Ramserran to inform that she failed to meet the expectations of the graduate program. After listing her various shortcomings in the program, the Professor noted their negative effect on Ms. Ramserran’s research progress. He then indicated her poor performance occurred despite him implementing multiple accommodations for her medical condition and doing specific things to adjust to her preferred learning style. The Professor closed by informing Ms. Ramserran that he would continue to support her for the rest of April 2021 to facilitate her transition.
[10] Ms. Ramserran alleges the Professor’s April 1, 2021, decision to no longer supervise her graduate work was based on her personal characteristics and also done in retaliation for the perceived possibility of her filing a human rights complaint.
[11] On June 1, 2021, Ms. Ramserran filed a discrimination and harassment complaint with the University’s equity and human rights office regarding the events in the program from January 2020 until April 2021.
[12] On February 8, 2022, an investigator issued a report after interviewing witnesses. He concluded that Ms. Ramserran had not experienced discrimination while in the program based on her race or physical disability.
[13] On March 29, 2022, an adjudicator conducted a hearing on the matter at the request of Ms. Ramserran.
[14] On April 22, 2022, the adjudicator issued a hearing decision concluding the Professor did not discriminate based on disability, medical condition or race. As a result, Ms. Ramserran’s complaint was dismissed.
III ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[15] Section 22 of the Codeprovides that a complaint must be filed within one year of the alleged contravention. If filed after this time limit expires, the Tribunal can accept the complaint if it is in the public interest to do so and no substantial prejudice will result to any person because of the delay.
[16] The time limit set out in s. 22 of the Code is a substantive provision which is intended to ensure that complainants pursue their human rights remedies diligently: Chartier v. School District No. 62, 2003 BCHRT 39.
[17] The complaint was filed on May 24, 2022. To comply with the one-year time limit under s. 22(1) of the Code, the alleged act of discrimination had to occur on or after May 24, 2021.
[18] Whether it is in the public interest to accept the late-filed complaint is a multi-faceted analysis. The enquiry is fact and context specific and assessed in accordance with the purposes of the Code : Hoang v. Warnaco and Johns, 2007 BCHRT 24 at para. 26. The Tribunal considers a non-exhaustive list of factors, including the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, and the public interest in the complaint itself: British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite , 2014 BCCA 220 [Mzite] at para. 53. These are important factors, but they are not necessarily determinative: Goddard v. Dixon , 2012 BCSC 161 at para. 152; Mziteat para. 55.
[19] I have first considered the length of the delay in this case. The evidence indicates the latest allegations occurred as of April 30, 2021, when Ms. Ramserran left the graduate program. As such, the Complaint is less than one month late, which is not excessive if the complainant provides an explanation that would allow me to conclude it is in the public interest to accept the late complaint: Shewfelt v. Valley First and another, 2012 BCHRT 277, at para. 16.
[20] Ms. Ramserran’s explanation for late filing focuses on her pursuit of the University’s internal complaint process before turning her mind to seeking redress at the Tribunal. She notes that the internal complaint process took a considerable amount of time and did not reach a conclusion until close to when the one-year filing deadline at the Tribunal expired. Once a final decision from the internal process was made that was not in her favour, Ms. Ramserran states she decided to seek out a “more non-biased party” to render a decision in this matter.
[21] Apart from the University’s internal process being lengthy, Ms. Ramserran submits that as a student she relied on the institution’s policies and guidance, which failed to inform her of her right to file an external complaint with the Tribunal. She says that nowhere in the University’s relevant policy is the Tribunal’s process mentioned and without any notice she was left unaware of her legal rights under the Code . Ms. Ramserran submits that only after enduring the University’s lengthy internal process and conducting her own research, did she discover her ability to file a complaint with the Tribunal. In her view, the lack of transparency by the University about being able to pursue an external avenue of redress left her with an undue burden as a student to independently navigate complex legal frameworks while managing the systemic discrimination she was facing.
[22] The University argues Ms. Ramserran appears to have been aware of her rights under the Code as early as April 2021 when she compiled her evidence and commentary document. In that document she set out her allegations of discrimination based on race and disability, along with systemic discrimination, while making specific reference to the British Columbia’s Code. In the University’s view, Ms. Ramserran’s document referencing the existence of the Code more than a year before filing this complaint undermines her assertion that she was unaware of her ability to file with the Tribunal.
[23] Ms. Ramserran submits in reply to the University that she was aware of her rights under the Code. She submits that her April 2021 document merely reflects her awareness of discrimination protections under the Codeand does not indicate that she was aware of her right to file a complaint with the Tribunal.
[24] While appreciating Ms. Ramserran’s honesty as to why she late filed the complaint, ignorance of the Code, or the time required to become aware of one’s rights, is generally not an acceptable reason, on its own, for the delay in filing: Rashead v. Vereschagin (No. 2), 2006 BCHRT 74 at para. 12; Ferrier v. BCAA, 2009 BCHRT 412 at para. 31. Ms. Ramserran argues that her case should not be included within this general rule because she was a student, and the University failed to apprise her of the opportunity to file a complaint with the Tribunal separate from its internal process. I respectfully disagree with Ms. Ramserran that her status as a graduate student and the lack of information about the Tribunal process in the University’s literature on discrimination are sufficient to provide a further explanation as to why her lack of awareness attracts the public interest in allowing the late-filed complaint to proceed.
[25] First, Ms. Ramserran’s academic achievements which enabled her to attain a position in a graduate program at the University indicate to me that she could research the existence of the Tribunal’s and its process such that she could have filed her complaint in time on her own. In fact, the evidence indicates that she did this soon after not achieving the result she sought in the University’s internal process. I further note that Ms. Ramserran’s independent research capabilities were demonstrated by her production of the April 2021 evidence with submissions document where she sets out her allegations of discrimination and makes reference to the existence of the Code.
[26] Second, while I accept that the University’s information for students about discrimination complaints focuses only on its internal complaint process while remaining silent about the Tribunal’s process, this lack of information fails to move this case out of the general rule regarding ignorance of theCodenot attracting the public interest. This is not a case where the respondent institution created a false impression that no other avenue of redress existed apart from its internal process, nor does it involve a complainant clearly unable to explore her rights on her own or seek assistance to do so from others. Silence on the part of the University about the existence of an external avenue for redress regarding allegations of discrimination does not in my view take this case out the general rule that ignorance of the Code is not an acceptable reason for a delay in filing.
[27] In determining whether acceptance of a late-filed complaint is in the public interest, the Tribunal also considers whether there is anything particularly unique, novel, or unusual about the complaint that has not been addressed in other complaints: Hau v. SFU Student Services and others, 2014 BCHRT 10 at para. 22; Bains v. Advanced Air Supply and others, 2012 BCHRT 74 at para. 22; Mathieu v. Victoria Shipyards and others, 2010 BCHRT 244 at para. 60. Where a complaint raises a novel issue on behalf of a vulnerable group, which advances the purposes of the Code, this factor may weigh in favour of finding a public interest in accepting the complaint: Mziteat paras. 65-66. The Tribunal has considered gaps in its jurisprudence, on the one hand, and the existence of good precedents, on the other hand, in determining whether to permit a complaint to proceed: Mziteat para. 67.
[28] Ms. Ramserran is seeking justice for the disparity in how she was treated because of her race and disability, including the lack of reasonable accommodations for her chronic illness. She additionally seeks justice for the demeaning language and coercive practices that she alleges the Respondents used to create a hostile learning environment. Ms. Ramserran believes critical evidence was omitted in the outcome of the internal complaint decision. For her, these issues are systemic at that University and need to be addressed by the Tribunal so that future students do not face similar injustices.
[29] While appreciating the seriousness of Ms. Ramserran’s allegations, I am not convinced that they include a sufficiently novel issue to attract the public interest in allowing the late-filed complaint to proceed. The Tribunal has heard numerous cases about educational service providers and disability (see Dunkley v. UBC and another, 2015 BCHRT 100), race and colour (seeAhmed v. Vancouver College of Dental Hygiene Inc. (No. 2), 2020 BCHRT 161), and retaliation (see Eldor v. UBC (No. 2) , 2013 BCHRT 120), and the law in these areas is fairly settled.
[30] Considering all the circumstances, I am not persuaded that it is in the public interest to accept the late-filed complaint. Given this conclusion, it is not necessary to address the issue of whether there would be any substantial prejudice.
IV Conclusion
[31] For these reasons, the Complaint is not accepted for filing as it is not in the public interest to allow it to proceed late filed: s. 22(3) of the Code.
Steven Adamson
Tribunal Member