Truman v. CCON Recon Inc. and another (No. 3), 2025 BCHRT 24
Date Issued: February 4, 2025
File: CS-001493
Indexed as: Truman v. CCON Recon Inc. and another (No. 3), 2025 BCHRT 24
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:
Trent Truman
COMPLAINANT
AND:
CCON Recon Inc. and Greg Dahl
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi
On their own behalf: Trent Truman
On their own behalf: Greg Dahl
Date of Hearing: September 10 to 12, 2024
Location of Hearing: Video conference
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This complaint arises in the context of the dissolution of both an employment and family relationship. The Complainant, Trent Truman was an employee of the respondent company, CCON Recon Inc. which was co-owned by Mr. Truman’s mother, Ms. Dahl, and her former spouse, Mr. Truman’s stepfather, Greg Dahl. Mr. Dahl was CCON’s President, Ms. Dahl its Vice President, and – at all time material to this complaint – Mr. Truman had the titles and duties of Executive Assistant to the Directors; Health Safey and Environmental Manager; and Human Resources Administrator.
[2] Mr. Truman alleges CCON and Mr. Dahl discriminated against him in employment based on family status contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code . Mr. Truman alleges that he was fired because Mr. and Ms. Dahl were divorcing, and Ms. Dahl is his mother.
[3] CCON filed for bankruptcy subsequent to the complaint being filed. The Tribunal stayed the proceeding as against CCON pursuant to s. 69(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act on July 19, 2024. The Tribunal gave the parties an opportunity to make submissions prior to the start of the hearing that the stay should be lifted. The parties did not make any submissions on this issue. Therefore, I dismiss the complaint as against CCON.
[4] Mr. Dahl denies discriminating and says that Mr. Truman was fired for solely non-discriminatory reasons. Specifically, he says Mr. Truman was fired because he was insubordinate and performing his job poorly. Mr. Truman does not dispute he did the things Mr. Dahl says were the reason he terminated Mr. Truman.
[5] In this decision, I must decide whether Mr. Truman has established on a balance of probabilities that being related to Ms. Dahl was a factor in Mr. Dahl’s decision to terminate his employment. For the reasons that follow, I find Mr. Truman has not established a breach of the Code , and I dismiss the complaint. I find that Mr. Truman’s family status was not a factor in Mr. Dahl’s decision to fire him.
[6] While I do not refer to it all in my decision, I have considered all the evidence and submissions of the parties. This is not a complete recitation of that information, but only that necessary to come to my decision.
II BACKGROUND
[7] Mr. Truman is Ms. Dahl’s son.
[8] Ms. Dahl and Mr. Dahl were married in or about 2005 and Mr. Truman became Mr. Dahl’s stepson. Mr. and Ms. Dahl founded CCON together in or about 2006. The two were co-directors of CCON. They were the sole shareholders who each held equal shares in the company. Mr. Dahl was the President. Ms. Dahl was the Vice-President.
[9] Mr. Truman was hired at CCON in 2008. He was initially a labourer and eventually was given the titles and duties of: Executive Assistant to the Directors; Health Safey and Environmental Manager; and Human Resources Administrator, in 2014. Mr. Truman reported directly to Mr. and Ms. Dahl.
[10] In or around October 2018, Mr. Dahl and Ms. Dahl separated. Both Mr. and Ms. Dahl continued their role as President and Vice-President of CCON. Mr. Truman continued his duties and continued reporting directly to Mr. and Ms. Dahl.
[11] In or around January 2019, Mr. Dahl instituted a company policy for employees to cross train one another in their duties. The parties agree that Mr. Truman did not complete cross training another employee and did not reset login information and passwords which he maintained under his personal account.
[12] On May 9, 2019, Mr. Truman placed locks on CCON’s conference room door. The parties agree that when Mr. Dahl told Mr. Truman to remove the locks, Mr. Truman refused. When Mr. Dahl asked for the code to disarm the lock to enter the conference room Mr. Truman refused to provide the code and directed Mr. Dahl to seek them from Ms. Dahl.
[13] On May 13, 2019, Mr. Truman and Ms. Dahl had meetings with employees of CCON. The parties agree Mr. Truman turned off the security cameras in the room where the meetings took place. During these meetings Ms. Dahl instructed CCON employees to not follow company policy and stop performing duties assigned by Mr. Dahl.
[14] On or about May 16, 2019, seven CCON employees complained to Mr. Dahl about bullying and harassment by Mr. Truman and Ms. Dahl. One of the employees who met with Mr. Truman and Ms. Dahl on May 13, 2019, said she felt threatened and attacked at the meeting. Mr. Dahl confronted Mr. Truman about his participation in these meetings and said he violated CCON’s anti-bullying and harassment policies.
[15] Mr. Dahl fired Mr. Truman on May 23, 2019. In the termination letter, Mr. Dahl said Mr. Truman was being terminated for “gross insubordination” and cited the following issues:
a. Failing to train other employees as requested;
b. Installing a lock on the conference room door without authorization and refusing to provide a keycode to Mr. Dahl; and
c. Breaching CCON’s bullying and harassment policy during meetings on May 13, 2019.
[16] Mr. and Ms. Dahl’s divorce was finalized in 2022.
III ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[17] Section 13 of the Code prohibits discrimination based on family status, including the particular identity of a person’s family member: B. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) , 2002 SCC 66. The Code protects a person from being arbitrarily disadvantaged for being in a family relationship with a particular person.
[18] To succeed in his complaint, Mr. Truman must prove that he has a protected characteristic (in this case his family status); he was adversely impacted in employment; and that his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. BC (Education) , 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. It is not necessary that family status be the sole factor in the adverse impact, only that it was a factor: Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Centre) , 2015 SCC 39 at para. 52.
[19] A finding of discrimination may be based on circumstantial evidence and the inferences that are reasonably drawn from the evidence: Vestad v. Seashell Ventures Inc. , 2001BCHRT38 at para. 44. The timing of the termination of an employee’s employment may give rise to a rebuttable inference that their protected characteristic was a factor: Reid v. National Car & Truck Sales and Rentals , 2016 BCHRT 156 at para. 33.
[20] The first two elements of Mr. Dahl’s case are not at issue. It is not disputed that Mr. Truman is Ms. Dahl’s son. It is also not disputed that being fired is an adverse impact in employment. Therefore, the issue I must determine is whether Mr. Truman has established that the fact he is Ms. Dahl’s son was a factor in his termination.
[21] Both parties made arguments about whether Mr. Truman was terminated for just cause. As I informed the parties at the hearing, whether Mr. Dahl had just cause to terminate Mr. Truman’s employment is not the issue I must decide. To prove discrimination, Mr. Truman would only have to establish that his family status was one factor in the termination. It does not have to be the only factor. It is therefore possible, that an employer could have just cause to terminate a person’s employment but still discriminate against them if their decision was connected to the complainant’s protected characteristic: Seyed-Ali v. Centra City Brewers and another , 2020 BCHRT 155 at para. 50. Similarly, even if Mr. Dahl did not have just cause to terminate Mr. Truman pursuant to employment law principles Mr. Truman must still prove his termination was connected to his family status otherwise there is no breach of the Code .
[22] Mr. Truman says that he was fired because Mr. Dahl was going through a marital breakup with Ms. Dahl. He says he performed job duties as directed by Ms. Dahl, who continued in her role as Vice President of CCON after she and Mr. Dahl separated. Mr. Truman argues that Mr. Dahl deemed him to be insubordinate when he took direction from Ms. Dahl. He says that because he took directions from Ms. Dahl, Mr. Dahl viewed him as taking Ms. Dahl’s side in their marital conflict and was fired.
[23] Mr. Dahl says that the identity of Mr. Truman’s mother was not a factor in the decision to terminate the employment. He says the sole reason for the termination was Mr. Truman’s instances of poor performance and insubordination: his failure to complete cross training; his refusing to remove locks placed on the conference room; and his harassment of other employees.
[24] Mr. Dahl argues that regardless of the identity of the Vice President, any employee who does not follow the directions of the President of the company and instead chooses to follow directions which directly contradicts the President and violates the company’s policies would be considered insubordinate and fired.
[25] For the purposes of my decision, it is not necessary for me to make findings of fact on the merits of the non-discriminatory reasons given by Mr. Dahl for firing Mr. Truman. It is sufficient for Mr. Dahl to provide a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for why Mr. Dahl was fired: Christensen v. Save-a-Lot Holdings Corp. (No. 3) , 2023 BCHRT 125 at para. 98.
[26] I find, based on the evidence, that Mr. Truman’s family status was not a factor in his termination for the following reasons.
[27] First, the timing of the firing is not consistent with an inference of discrimination. Mr. Truman argues that the Tribunal should draw an inference of discrimination based on his firing occurring after Mr. and Ms. Dahl’s marriage ended. However, Mr. and Ms. Dahl separated on October 14, 2018, and Mr. Truman was fired on May 23, 2019. Mr. Truman did not say there was anything occurring in the divorce proceeding around the time he was fired. A span of over seven months does not support an inference that the firing was connected to the end of the marriage.
[28] Further, the undisputed evidence is that immediately following the separation Mr. Dahl asked Mr. Truman to continue working for CCON. The evidence before me is that Mr. Truman continued to work in the same capacity as he had prior to Mr. and Ms. Dahl’s separation, with no change in his title, work duties, or responsibilities.
[29] The parties agree that on December 13, 2018, Mr. Dahl told Mr. Truman not to “pick sides” and stay out of Mr. and Ms. Dahl’s personal affair. Mr. Truman does not dispute that he entered Mr. Dahl’s office despite being told not to do so because he was instructed to enter and retrieve personal documents by Ms. Dahl. Mr. Dahl told Mr. Truman not to enter his office for personal reasons again but did not otherwise discipline Mr. Truman. Mr. Dahl did not consider this to be ground for dismissal and continued to employ Mr. Truman for six-months following this incident. In my view, this supports Mr. Dahl’s position that Mr. Truman’s allegiance to Ms. Dahl in the marital separation was not a factor in the firing.
[30] Mr. Dahl fired Mr. Truman on May 23, 2019, following the incidents cited in the termination letter. Specifically, it was two weeks after Mr. Truman placed locks on a conference room door and refused to give Mr. Dahl the keycode on May 9, 2019, and ten days after he participated in meetings where employees reported being bullied and harassed on May 13, 2019. The parties agree that all of the incidents cited in the termination letter as the basis for Mr. Truman’s firing occurred.
[31] Mr. Truman agrees that he did not complete cross training of an employee as directed by Mr. Dahl. The parties agree that Mr. Dahl followed up with Mr. Truman by emails on February 21, February 26, March 16, and March 25, 2019, about cross training and ensuring other employees had the login information to access government websites. The parties agree Mr. Truman did not complete cross training and he maintained the login information for websites under his personal account.
[32] Mr. Truman agrees that on May 9, 2019, he placed locks on the conference room door without Mr. Dahl’s authorization. Mr. Truman testified that he was instructed to place locks on the door by Ms. Dahl. When Mr. Dahl told Mr. Truman to remove the locks Mr. Truman refused. Mr. Dahl then asked for the code to disarm the lock and enter the conference room. Mr. Truman refused to provide the code and directed Mr. Dahl to seek them from Ms. Dahl. Mr. Dahl testified that he felt Mr. Truman’s response undermined his authority as President of CCON.
[33] Mr. Truman agrees that on May 13, 2019, he attended meetings with Ms. Dahl and employees of CCON. He turned off the security cameras in the room where the meetings took place, and informed Ms. Dahl when Mr. Dahl was not going to be on the premises. Mr. Truman attended these meetings with Ms. Dahl and did not intercede when Ms. Dahl instructed an employee to not follow CCON policy and stop performing duties assigned to her by Mr. Dahl.
[34] Mr. Dahl testified that because CCON’s employees reported feeling harassed and attacked, he felt Mr. Truman’s conduct violated CCON’s anti-bullying and harassment policies and was an abuse of his position as the Human Resources Administrator. Mr. Dahl said he was concerned Mr. Truman’s behaviour was damaging the morale of other employees and making CCON vulnerable to potential lawsuits and complaints.
[35] Based on the evidence I am persuaded that Mr. Dahl’s decision to fire Mr. Truman was solely based on his conduct which Mr. Dahl considered to be insubordinate and disruptive to the business. While I acknowledge that Mr. Truman was acting on the instructions of his mother, the Vice President, I find that the familial relationship of the person instructing Mr. Truman was not a factor in the firing. This is because Mr. Dahl was aware Mr. Truman was sharing information with and acting on Ms. Dahl’s instructions from December 2018 and took no disciplinary action until he believed Mr. Truman’s actions undermined his authority as President and was negatively affecting CCON.
[36] I find the explanation given by Mr. Dahl that he decided to fire Mr. Truman based solely on his failure to cross train, and his acts of insubordination to be credible and supported by the evidence.
[37] In this case where the identity of the family members and their respective positions within the corporate entity are intertwined, I am still able to differentiate between Mr. Truman being fired for the identity of his mother, and Mr. Truman being fired for what Mr. Dahl perceived to be poor performance and insubordination. Mr. Truman may have been acting on directions from his mother, however this does not make the familial relationship a factor in the termination of the employment. This is because the evidence shows that Mr. Truman was not disciplined for following Ms. Dahl’s directions about entering Mr. Dahl’s office and taking personal documents. It was only when Mr. Truman acted on Ms. Dahl’s instructions in a manner that Mr. Dahl perceived as negatively affecting CCON that Mr. Dahl decided to fire Mr. Truman.
[38] I find that Mr. Truman was fired solely for this conduct which I find to be non-discriminatory.
IV CONCLUSION
[39] Based on the evidence I find the Respondents did not violate the Code and discriminate against Mr. Truman. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.
Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member