Lin v. Saputo Foods Limited and Saputo Dairy Products Canada GP, 2025 BCHRT 49
Date Issued: February 26, 2025
File: CS-001294
Indexed as: Lin v. Saputo Foods Limited and Saputo Dairy Products Canada GP, 2025 BCHRT 49
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:
Chao Lin
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Saputo Dairy Products Canada GP / Saputo Foods Ltd.
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(g)
Tribunal Member: Devyn Cousineau
On his own behalf: Chao Lin
Counsel for the Respondent: Peter Csiszar and Jaime Hoopes (application), Adriana F. Wills (reply)
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This is a decision about whether to dismiss Chao Lin’s human rights complaint without a hearing.
[2] Mr. Lin was an owner and director of Superlin, a company which contracted with Saputo Dairy Products to deliver its products under the terms of a franchise agreement. On November 1, 2017, Saputo terminated the franchise agreement because of problems it says it had with Mr. Lin’s performance. It agreed to extend the agreement temporarily to allow Mr. Lin time to try to sell Superlin. On January 30, 2019, the agreement was finally terminated.
[3] Mr. Lin filed this human rights complaint on January 29, 2020. He alleges that Saputo terminated the franchise agreement for reasons related to his mental and physical disabilities. He alleges this is discrimination in employment, in violation of s. 13 of the Human Rights Code.
[4] Saputo denies discriminating and asks that the complaint be dismissed under s. 27(1) of the Code. It argues, first, that Mr. Lin is not an employee of Saputo and so this complaint does not fall within the meaning of “employment” in s. 13 of the Code. Second, it argues that Mr. Lin’s complaint is late and should not be accepted past the one-year time limit. Third, it argues that the allegations set out in Mr. Lin’s complaint could not contravene the Code and, even if they could, have no reasonable prospect of success.
[5] At the outset, I acknowledge that losing his contract with Saputo was very difficult for Mr. Lin and his family. Mr. Lin perceives that he was treated unfairly and has described tremendous suffering as a result. Nothing in my decision undermines what Mr. Lin has described as his experience, or its impact on his mental health.
[6] However, for the reasons that follow, I have concluded that Mr. Lin filed his complaint 15 months late, and I am not persuaded to exercise my discretion to allow it to proceed. The complaint is dismissed under s. 27(1)(g) of the Code.
II BACKGROUND
[7] This background is taken from the material filed by the parties. I refer only to what is necessary to make my decision. I make no findings of fact.
[8] Saputo produces and distributes dairy products. It contracts with “Home Service Operators” to deliver its products, under the terms of a “Franchise Agreement”.
[9] Mr. Lin and his wife are owners and directors of Superlin Enterprises Ltd. On September 19, 2011, Saputo approved their request to become Home Service Operators. On October 2, 2011, Superlin and Saputo entered into a franchise agreement, under which Saputo granted Superlin the right to sell and deliver certain products within a particular territory, according to the “distinguishing characteristics of Saputo’s system and style of carrying out that business”. Mr. Lin and his wife were guarantors to the franchise agreement. Because I have not found it necessary to resolve Saputo’s argument that this was not an “employment relationship”, it is not necessary to explain the contract or relationship in detail.
[10] Between February 3, 2012, and November 2016, Saputo says there were numerous issues with Mr. Lin’s performance, including failure to maintain proper logs and maintain his vehicle. It says it received several complaints from clients and members of the public about Mr. Lin’s driving, deliveries, and compliance with safety rules, and that Mr. Lin had conflict with another Saputo employee. During this period, it issued ten letters to Mr. Lin about its concerns. In some of those letters, Saputo warned Mr. Lin that if he failed to address the issues, the company “will be forced to review alternatives such as requiring you to sell your route”.
[11] Mr. Lin appears to accept the basis for some of Saputo’s concerns, especially for the period up until December 2014. He agrees there were “undisputed opportunities” for Saputo to terminate his franchise agreement between September 23 and October 2014, and between December 10, 2014, and September 22, 2015. At the same time, he appears to dispute some of Saputo’s concerns, most notably its allegation that he had engaged in altercations with another Saputo employee. He blames those interactions on the other employee.
[12] On November 2, 2016, Mr. Lin was involved in a motor vehicle accident. He says that, because of that accident, he developed ongoing chest pain, which prevents him from driving any vehicle equipped with a regular seatbelt. His work vehicle has a seatbelt he can use, but his personal vehicle did not. As a result, he was required to take public transit to get to Saputo’s warehouse, which meant he was no longer able to arrive as early as he used to. I understand that, whereas he used to arrive at around 4:00 am when he was driving his personal vehicle, he would arrive around 6:00 am when he was required to take public transit. In addition, Mr. Lin says that he has osteoarthritis in his knees, which causes him to move slowly in his work. He says that, as a result, he had to “finish work and return to Saputo over 2 hours later than before each afternoon”. I understand that, from this point forward, Mr. Lin says that he was moving more slowly and arriving and leaving later each day due to his physical conditions.
[13] Mr. Lin also says that he has anxiety which was exacerbated by ongoing issues at work. He says that, by April 19, 2017, he was diagnosed with depression. He says that, by this time one of his supervisors was aware of his disabilities and was accommodating him. He refers to doctor’s letters which support that he has chest pain preventing him from wearing a regular seat belt.
[14] Saputo says that Mr. Lin continued to have performance issues after November 2016, which led to its decision to terminate the franchise agreement one year later. It points to the following incidents:
a. June 3, 2017: Mr. Lin had not completed necessary repairs to his vehicle, causing him to miss a deadline to provide an inspection certificate. Mr. Lin does not address this directly in his submission.
b. October 9, 2017: Mr. Lin was in the Saputo warehouse at 11:00 pm. He was told that he was not supposed to be in the warehouse at night, and asked to leave, which he did. Mr. Lin does not address this in his submission, other than to say generally that he was being singled out and that his medical conditions required him to start and end work later.
c. October 15, 2017: Mr. Lin was at the Saputo warehouse at 6:00 pm, performing repairs on his truck. At 7:45, Mr. Lin indicated he planned to stay in his truck overnight. The Warehouse Supervisor told him he was not authorized to spend the night, and Mr. Lin left. For his part, Mr. Lin says that he had planned to drive his truck home so that he could start early the next day, but the Warehouse Supervisor prevented him from doing this. He describes this as harassment.
d. October 17, 2017: Mr. Lin was at the Saputo warehouse at 1:00 am. The Warehouse Supervisor suspected that Mr. Lin had been drinking and offered to pay for a cab home and start his shift later in the morning to ensure he would have enough sleep. Mr. Lin declined, and ended up sleeping at the Saputo facility until his shift began around 5:00 am. For his part, Mr. Lin says again that the Warehouse Supervisor prevented him from taking his work vehicle home so he could start his shift early the next day and finish work in time for a medical appointment. Mr. Lin says that he told the Warehouse Supervisor that he had an injury and pain in his chest, and had two upcoming specialist appointments.
e. October 18, 2017: Mr. Lin was in a motor vehicle accident.
[15] Mr. Lin says that, within 12 hours of his conversation with the Warehouse Supervisor on October 17, Saputo called him into an emergency meeting which would eventually result in the termination of his franchise agreement. It is this timing that he says supports an inference of discrimination.
[16] The parties met on October 18, 2017. The parties agree that the Saputo representatives expressed concern about Mr. Lin’s safety, including whether he was getting enough sleep. Mr. Lin characterized this as an interrogation, in which managers were blaming him for the motor vehicle accident he had been in earlier that day and questioning his work hours. He says that their “misinterpretation of events was based on negative stereotypes about people with physical and mental disabilities”. At the end of the meeting, the Saputo representatives said they would be scheduling another meeting with Mr. Lin and his wife to discuss the future of the business.
[17] Mr. Lin says that he met again with Saputo managers on October 24, 2017. He says that he complained he was being harassed by the Warehouse Supervisor, but Saputo did not take it seriously. He says they blamed him for working too slow and continued to question him about his working hours. He says that the meeting ended with a promise that the Warehouse Supervisor would not harass him anymore if he could “immediately leave Saputo after making my paperwork done”. Mr. Lin says that he thought at that point that everything was fine.
[18] On November 1, 2017, Saputo terminated its franchise agreement with Superlin. The parties met to discuss the termination. There appears to be no dispute that Mr. Lin was told that the agreement was being terminated because of Saputo’s many concerns about his performance. There is also no dispute that Mr. Lin’s wife indicated she agreed with the decision. Mr. Lin alleges that, during this meeting, Saputo representatives also said they were terminating his employment because of his injuries and his accident on October 18. During and after this meeting, Mr. Lin and his union requested documents relating to Saputo’s performance concerns. Saputo eventually provided this information on April 5, 2019. I return to this below.
[19] Saputo confirmed its decision to end the franchise agreement in a letter dated November 1, 2017. At the same time, however, Saputo agreed to allow Superlin to continue to operate its business for three months, on a temporary basis, to allow Mr. Lin and his wife to try to find a purchaser for the business. The purchaser would have to be approved by Saputo. Ultimately, Saputo continued this extension for 15 months, until it finally terminated the agreement on January 30, 2019.
[20] Saputo says that, during this extension period, Mr. Lin continued to engage in concerning behaviour, which generated complaints from customers and Saputo staff. Mr. Lin appears to dispute the basis for these concerns, particularly as they relate to his relationships with other Saputo employees who he says were bullying and harassing him.
[21] In the meantime, Mr. Lin tried to find a purchaser for his business. He identified one prospective purchaser, who I will call Mr . E. Saputo met with Mr. E, but ultimately the sale did not go through. Saputo says that Mr. E told them he could not proceed with the purchase because of unrepaired damage to Superlin’s vehicle. Mr. Lin accuses Saputo of sabotaging this purchase by telling Mr. E that his business was not profitable. He refers to screenshots of a conversation with a Saputo supervisor, in which the supervisor is asking Mr. Lin to confirm the sale date and Mr. Lin is saying that the sale may need to be delayed as he was waiting to resolve some issues with ICBC. The supervisor responded that the ICBC issue should not interfere with the sale date. Mr. Lin also refers to 349 screenshots of conversations with Mr. E, which appear to be almost entirely in Mandarin and which I cannot read.
[22] On November 15, 2018, the parties met again. Saputo says its representatives told Mr. Lin and his wife that Superlin was required to maintain its GST and WorkSafeBC accounts in good standing, and have insurance coverage, or it would cease to be authorized to do business with Saputo. They also advised that Saputo was granting a final extension until January 30, 2019, after which the franchise agreement would be terminated. In the letter dated November 13 confirming this information, the Vice President of Distribution [ VP ] explained “no tangible progress has been made in respect of the sale of your business, service issues have continued, and it is unreasonable to continue to operate under the Temporary Exception”.
[23] In this meeting, Mr. Lin says that he complained to the VP about other Saputo managers. He alleges that the VP “repeatedly dissuaded us” from reporting issues to outside agencies, promising that Saputo would address them. On December 2, 2018, Mr. Lin says he made another complaint about a different supervisor. On December 19, 2018, Saputo’s Manager of Human Resources wrote to Mr. Lin to explain Saputo’s view that the supervisor had not harassed Mr. Lin. Mr. Lin’s allegations of bullying and harassment are not part of this human rights complaint, and so I do not consider them further: See Tribunal letter dated October 9, 2024.
[24] On December 14, 2018, on short notice, Saputo met with another prospective purchaser for Superlin – who I will call Mr. B . The VP says that Superlin did not provide Saputo with relevant documents before the interview, and Mr. B was unprepared. Saputo told Mr. B what information they would need from him to move forward, but says they never heard from Mr. B again. Mr. Lin blames Saputo for the fact that this potential purchaser fell through. He says Mr. B told him that Saputo was “not serious and he didn’t want to lose his money”.
[25] On January 30, 2019, Saputo ended its temporary extension of the franchise agreement with Superlin. On this date, Mr. Lin met again with the VP and others from Saputo. Mr. Lin says that he asked again for the “real reason” the franchise agreement was being terminated, and the VP promised to provide him with documentation. Further to the terms of the agreement, Saputo offered to buy Mr. Lin’s truck for $2,000, but he did not respond to the offer.
[26] On April 5, 2019, Saputo gave Mr. Lin and the Union a document outlining a summary of the issues it says it had with Mr. Lin’s performance, and appending 14 letters it had sent to Mr. Lin throughout their relationship.
[27] On January 29, 2020, Mr. Lin filed this human rights complaint.
III DECISION
[28] Allegations of discrimination must be filed within one year of the alleged contravention: Code , s. 22(1). Allegations are timely if they occurred within one year of filing the complaint, or if they form part of a timely continuing contravention of the Code . The purpose of this time limit is “to require allegations of discrimination to be brought forward in a timely way so that remedial steps can be taken if appropriate”: School District v. Parent obo the Child , 2018 BCCA 136 at para. 79. It is a “substantive provision which is intended to ensure that complainants pursue their human rights remedies with some speed and to allow respondents the comfort of performing their activities without the possibility of dated complaints”: Chartier v. School District No. 62, 2003 BCHRT 39 at para. 12. Keeping in mind this purpose, the Tribunal has discretion to accept untimely allegations of discrimination if it is in the public interest to do so and no substantial prejudice will result to any person because of the delay: Code , s. 22(3).
[29] The first issue I must decide is whether Mr. Lin’s complaint was filed outside the one-year time limit. This turns on whether he has alleged a timely continuing contravention of the Code. Given Mr. Lin filed his complaint on January 29, 2020, a timely contravention pursuant to s. 22(1) of the Code would have occurred on or after January 29, 2019.
A. Continuing contravention
[30] A continuing contravention requires a “succession of separate acts of discrimination of the same character or kind”: Chen v. City of Surrey , 2014 BCSC 539, aff’d 2015 BCCA 57; School District at para. 50. This is a fact and context specific analysis, which balances the interests of all parties in light of the Code’s purposes: Dickson v. Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition, 2005 BCHRT 209 at para. 19; Dove v. GVRD and others (No. 3), 2006 BCHRT 374 at para. 20. Although this is Saputo’s application, the burden is on Mr. Lin to establish that his allegations are timely, as part of a continuing contravention: Dove (No. 3) at para. 21.
[31] To anchor a continuing contravention, there must be at least one arguable contravention of the Code within the one-year time limit: School District at para. 73. An arguable contravention must set out facts that could prove: Mr. Lin has disabilities, he experienced adverse impacts regarding employment, and his disabilities were a factor in those adverse impacts: Moore v. BC (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.
[32] Mr. Lin filed his complaint on January 29, 2020. He applied to amend it on July 31, 2023, while the dismissal application was outstanding. In a letter decision dated October 4, 2024, the Tribunal accepted some of Mr. Lin’s proposed amendments and denied others. I have reviewed these documents, supplemented by Mr. Lin’s argument and unsworn affidavit, to determine whether he has alleged any facts that could prove discrimination after January 29, 2019. In my view, he has not.
[33] There are two main allegations after January 29, 2019. The first is that Saputo ended its extension of the franchise agreement on January 30, 2019. The second is that, on April 5, 2019, the VP sent Mr. Lin and his union a list of Saputo’s concerns with Mr. Lin’s performance. I consider each in turn.
[34] In his original complaint, Mr. Lin alleges that on January 30, 2019:
[Three Saputo managers] with a gentleman of Saputo HR met my wife, me and … a shop-steward of Union. In the whole meeting, only [the VP] talked with us. I don’t know why [the Human Resources Manager] didn’t present the meeting. [The VP] had promise to give us a explaining and we waited it over a year. He didn’t respond. Then [the shop steward] asked him for it too. [The VP] immediately said that every document was in his drawer and he needed organized them. He promised that he would provide it to us within a week. He failed to do it. [as written]
[35] In his amendment, Mr. Lin expands on the circumstances of asking the VP to disclose his records which documented Saputo’s concerns, and the VP’s response that he needed time to organize them. Mr. Lin characterises the VP’s behaviour in this meeting as “excessive, willful, or reckless; and is discriminatory”. He says this was a continuation of its previous discrimination – referring to the original decision in November 2017 to terminate the franchise agreement.
[36] Respectfully, these allegations do not set out facts that could violate the Code. Mr. Lin has not alleged facts that could connect Saputo’s decision to finally end its extension of the franchise agreement in January 30, 2019, with his disabilities. He also has not alleged facts that could prove that the VP’s delay in giving him a written record of Saputo’s performance concerns was related to his disabilities, or adversely impacted him regarding employment.
[37] Next, in his complaint, Mr. Lin alleges that, on April 5, 2019: “After so many asking by us and Union, we received [the VP’s] email. No surprise. Very unfortunate for misleading Union, they fabricated evidence.” He elaborates in his amendment, by alleging that Saputo had “fabricated” evidence and arguing that – in any event – this document proves that the decision to terminate his franchise agreement in November 2017 was discriminatory.
[38] These facts could not contravene the Code. At this point, Mr. Lin’s contract with Saputo was over. Receiving Saputo’s explanation for its decision could not be an adverse impact in employment that no longer existed. Further, the facts do not explain how Mr. Lin’s disabilities were a factor in the VP’s email or the documents he provided. Rather, the significance of this document is that it outlines the reasons that Saputo says explained its decision to end the franchise agreement in November 2017.
[39] I agree with Saputo that the heart of Mr. Lin’s complaint is its decision, in November 2017, to terminate the franchise agreement. That allegation is late-filed by 15 months.
B. Discretion to accept late allegations
[40] The Tribunal has discretion to accept a late-filed allegation of discrimination if it is in the public interest to do so and there is no substantial prejudice to any party: Code, s. 22(3).
[41] The public interest is assessed in light of the purposes of the Code , which include identifying and eliminating persistent patterns of inequality, and providing a means of redress for persons who are discriminated against: s. 3. The Tribunal may consider factors like the complainant’s interest in accessing the Tribunal, the length and reason for the delay in filing, whether the complainant had access to legal advice, and the novelty or importance of the human rights issues raised: British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite , 2014 BCCA 220 [ Mzite ] at paras. 53-81. This list of factors is not exhaustive. The Tribunal then considers whether any substantial prejudice will result to a party having to defend against a stale claim because of the delay. Mr. Lin bears the burden of persuading the Tribunal to accept late-filed allegations under s. 22(3): Dove (No. 3) at para. 37.
[42] In this case, I am considering a 15-month delay in filing. I agree with Saputo that this is a significant delay, and weighs against allowing the complaint to proceed: Bradsher v. St Johns Vancouver Anglican Church, 2015 BCHRT 43 at paras. 18-20.
[43] In his complaint, Mr. Lin says that he filed late because “I always wait that Saputo’s management or [the union] could do something to stop the discrimination and give me back some compensations”. He says that he initially felt that he had to rely on Saputo to deal with his complaints of harassment. Then he says he brought his allegations of harassment to the union in January 2019 and, in June 2019, asked the union for help to file a human rights complaint. He says that, in September, the union told him they would not advance a grievance because it was outside the time limits set out in the collective agreement and would not likely be successful. He says that, after that, he began to seek legal help and filed his complaint on January 29, 2020.
[44] Respectfully, I am not persuaded that this explanation supports the public interest in allowing Mr. Lin’s complaint to continue so far past the time limit. His explanation regarding harassment allegations is not relevant, because the accepted allegations in his complaint are not about harassment but rather the ending of his franchise agreement: Tribunal letter dated October 9, 2024. There is no explanation for why Mr. Lin did not file his complaint about that issue within one year of Saputo’s decision.
[45] That said, I agree with Mr. Lin that his explanation for the delay is not determinative: Riceman v. BC Hydro and others, 2005 BCHRT 475 at para. 23. There may be other factors that support the public interest in allowing the complaint to proceed.
[46] Mr. Lin argues that there is a public interest in his complaint because Saputo’s conduct has “created an impediment to my own full and free participation in the economic and social life of British Columbia” and causes him to live in fear. He says this fear undermines a primary reason he immigrated to Canada: to pursue freedom. He says he was vulnerable in his relationship with Saputo. Finally, he says that his complaint could benefit other Saputo employees by exposing harmful practices in the workplace.
[47] I acknowledge how much Mr. Lin says he has suffered because of his dealings with Saputo. I understand that he hopes a human rights complaint will provide him a means of redress for that suffering, restore his dignity, and allow him to heal a large wound and return to a life free from fear. I accept that these are reasons that it is in Mr. Lin’s interest to allow the complaint to proceed.
[48] Respectfully, however, I am not persuaded that this is a reason it is in the public interest for the complaint to proceed. The issues in this complaint are about Saputo’s decision to terminate Mr. Lin’s franchise agreement. Appreciating this is very important to Mr. Lin, it is not a matter of public interest. For example, it does not raise any systemic or novel issues: Mzite at paras. 65-76.
[49] I am not persuaded that it is in the public interest to accept Mr. Lin’s complaint for filing 15 months late. In this situation, it is not necessary to go on and consider substantial prejudice. I dismiss Mr. Lin’s complaint under s. 27(1)(g) because it was filed late.
IV CONCLUSION
[50] Mr. Lin’s complaint is dismissed.
Devyn Cousineau
Vice Chair