Hollands v. Unifor National Office and another, 2025 BCHRT 50
Date Issued: February 27, 2025
File(s): CS-002588
Indexed as: Hollands v. Unifor National Office and another, 2025 BCHRT 50
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:
Russell Hollands
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Unifor National Office and Unifor Local 333BC
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Jonathan Chapnick
On his own behalf: Russell Hollands
Counsel for Respondents: Blake Scott
I INTRODUCTION
[1] On August 31, 2020, Russell Hollands filed a human rights complaint against Unifor National Office [ National Union ] and Unifor Local 333BC [ Local ]. I will refer to the National Union and the Local, collectively, as Unifor .
[2] Unifor is a union. Mr. Hollands is a member of Unifor. He alleges discrimination in union membership in contravention of s. 14 of the Human Rights Code . This decision is about whether Mr. Hollands’ complaint should be dismissed without a hearing.
[3] Mr. Hollands says Unifor discriminated against him based on the protected characteristic of political belief. He alleges that Unifor refused to appoint him to a Local trustee position in 2020 because of his support for a piece of federal legislation that Unifor opposed. Mr. Hollands situates his complaint in the broader context of what he describes as Unifor officials, “acting as a political group, [subjecting] him to a decade of relentless retaliation and harassment, which encompassed derogatory name-calling, intimidating legal threats, coercive financial threats, physical confrontations,” and a code of ethics complaint against him.
[4] Unifor denies discriminating and applies under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code to dismiss Mr. Hollands’ complaint without a hearing. It says there is no reasonable prospect that the complaint will succeed because Mr. Hollands will not be able to prove a connection between his political belief and the refusal to appoint him as a trustee. Unifor says the complaint is based on speculation and conjecture.
[5] I appreciate Mr. Hollands’ concerns regarding Unifor’s alleged treatment of him over the years. The materials before me suggest an antagonistic relationship, to which Unifor appears to have contributed more than its fair share. Reviewing the materials in this complaint, I was struck by the seemingly hostile and unprofessional nature of some of Unifor’s conduct and communications. However, for the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that Mr. Hollands’ complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. The evidence filed does not take Mr. Hollands’ claim of a connection between his support for certain legislation and Unifor’s refusal to appoint him as a trustee out of the realm of conjecture. As a result, Unifor’s dismissal application is granted and the complaint is dismissed under s. 27(1)(c).
[6] To make my decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. The submissions process in this matter involved Unifor’s application, Mr. Hollands’ response, and Unifor’s reply, after which Mr. Hollands filed a request to make an additional submission. Given my decision regarding Unifor’s application, I find it unnecessary to determine the merits of Mr. Hollands’ request. I have read and considered his additional submission. In my reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain what I decided. I make no findings of fact.
II BACKGROUND
[7] The following information is drawn from the materials before me and is set out here as background. It is not meant to be an exhaustive summary of the information filed by the parties.
[8] The National Union is the Local’s parent affiliate union. The Local represents various transit workers, including BC Transit operators. It holds a general election every three years. Each general election, members elect the Local’s executive board [ Executive Board ] and a total of five trustees, of which three are transit operators. The Executive Board includes the “head trustee,” who is appointed from among the five elected trustees. Elected trustees perform quarterly audits of the Local’s financial records.
[9] In June 2017, Mr. Hollands ran for election into one of three trustee positions for transit operators. He came fifth among the transit operator candidates and was not elected. In 2018, one of the transit operator trustees resigned. The Executive Board subsequently filled the vacant trustee position by appointing the fourth place candidate from the 2017 election.
[10] In 2019, the president of the Local at the time, who I will call BW , became a Unifor staff representative and was replaced by a new president, who I will call MA .
A. Events in 2020
[11] In January 2020, another transit operator trustee resigned. By email to MA, who was the president of the Local at the time, Mr. Hollands asked to be appointed to the vacant trustee position, citing the Local’s “practice to fill the position with the next person on the ballot.” MA refused his request. In response to Mr. Hollands’ email, MA said the union’s constitutional requirement was to have three trustees and, since there were still four, the Local would not be filling the vacancy.
[12] In May 2020, a member of the Executive Board resigned from the position of financial secretary. In June 2020, the Executive Board filled the vacant financial secretary position with the occupant of the head trustee role, who I will call TM . The Executive Board decided to choose a new head trustee from among the three remaining incumbent trustees. The board further decided that, if the chosen incumbent declined to take on the head trustee role, it would appoint an additional trustee from the list of 2017 candidates. In the end, the chosen incumbent accepted the head trustee role and an additional trustee was not appointed.
[13] Mr. Hollands subsequently challenged the Executive Board’s decision to move TM into the financial secretary position. He said it was unfair and irrational to reduce the total number of trustees to three, and he asserted that the Executive Board’s decision ran afoul of Unifor’s constitution. In a meeting on July 7, 2020, the Executive Board resolved that its decision would stand. The meeting minutes state that Mr. Hollands had cost the Local “more time and money than anyone else” with “his frivolous and vexatious accusations the last dozen years.”
[14] Mr. Hollands says the events in 2020 were connected to his support for federal government legislation several years earlier.
B. Events in 2015
[15] In a June 10, 2015 email to BW, who was the Local president at the time, a staff person from a different union provided images of a computer screen at a hotel in Quebec, which showed part of the first page of a 2013 letter from Mr. Hollands to a federal government member of parliament [ Letter ]. The subject of the email to BW was “bill 377.” The Letter shown in the attached images related to a private member’s bill sponsored by the member of parliament [ Bill C-377] . Under the provisions of Bill C-377, unions were to face new financial and other disclosure requirements.
[16] In the visible part of the Letter, Mr. Holland: identifies himself as a member of the Local; expresses support for Bill C-377; says he has enclosed “hard evidence illustrating the need for full financial disclosure” by unions to their members; invites the MP to “pass this information on to the Senate, the CRA,” and others; states that, in 2011, the Local’s trustees presented audited financial statements that “were misleading and grossly misrepresented” certain expenses; and discusses his concerns regarding the 2011 financial statements.
[17] On June 12, 2015, BW forwarded the email and images to the Local’s staff representative [ Union Rep ]. Later that day, the Union Rep forwarded the email and images to the director of Unifor’s constitutional department at the time, who I will call RG , and to other Unifor staff and officials. In the forwarded email, the Union Rep: describes Mr. Hollands as “a very disruptive member” who “hates paying union dues and has made some very serious allegations in the past” about the Local’s finances; explains that Mr. Hollands “has tabled several motions over his years with respect to Local finances,” not one of which “ever came close” to passing; says Mr. Hollands “no longer attends Local meetings” because “he finds himself being shut and shouted down as he is clearly anti-Union to his very core”; says Mr. Hollands “has tried several avenues to somehow give the Local a black eye,” including complaining to the BC Labour Relations Board [ BCLRB ]; suggests that Mr. Hollands traveled to Quebec to meet with the member of parliament “to share his lies and falsehoods as a way of taking a stab” at Unifor; and says the “email just scratches the surface” of Mr. Hollands’ activities. (Mr. Hollands denies going to Quebec or otherwise meeting with the member of parliament, and there is no evidence before me suggesting otherwise).
[18] On June 22, 2015, Unifor’s western director invited RG, the Union Rep, and other Unifor staff and officials to attend a conference call. The subject of the invitation was “Conference Call: Bill 377/Local 333BC – Friday June 26th.”
[19] On June 26, 2015, BW filed a complaint against Mr. Hollands under Unifor’s code of ethics [ Ethics Complaint ]. BW submitted the Ethics Complaint to the National Union president “for investigation in the event that … charges should be forthcoming” under Unifor’s constitution. In the Ethics Complaint, BW: repeats much of what the Union Rep said in his email on June 12; accuses Mr. Hollands of “corresponding with [the member of parliament] about [Bill C-377] and … using his anti-union platform” to support the legislation; says he is concerned that Unifor “is being set up for a black eye using falsehoods and misrepresentations”; says he is filing his complaint because he believes “there has been a significant violation” of Unifor’s code of ethics; and asserts that “it is important to find out exactly what documents have been sent to [the member of parliament] and to find out exactly what allegations are being made so that some clarity can be brought to it.”
[20] On June 30, 2015, Bill C-377 received Royal Assent and became a law: An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations) , SC 2013-14-15, c. 41.
[21] Also on June 30, RG wrote to Mr. Hollands and notified him of the Ethics Complaint [ Notice of Complaint ]. In the Notice of Complaint, RG: tells Mr. Hollands that the Local received photos of the Letter; states that, to “disseminate false information or mistruths to government officials in order to encourage passage of a bill that undermines what [Unifor] stands for,” goes against Unifor’s principles; directs Mr. Hollands to provide the National Union with a complete copy of his correspondence with the member of parliament; and notes that Mr. Hollands’ cooperation would affect whether the Ethics Complaint would result in a charge against him.
[22] By letter on July 24, 2014, Mr. Hollands provided a formal response to the Notice of Complaint. He said that RG’s investigation should not go ahead unless the National Union disclosed a copy of the complaint and the name of the complainant, and that he would not comply with RG’s request for his correspondence with the member of parliament. He told RG: “You should be ashamed the Union would even consider charging a member for showing support for Government legislation. Canada is a democracy, and I am free to express my views, even if you might not agree with them.”
[23] By email on August 17, 2015, RG forwarded Mr. Hollands’ response to BW, the Union Rep, and another Unifor official. In his email, RG said Mr. Hollands was “tough talking.” He stated: “We all knew this was a possibility so I would ask you to think how we should respond to this guy and perhaps we can meet briefly … to discuss it.”
[24] By letter on October 8, 2015, RG replied to Mr. Hollands’ response to the Notice of Complaint. He copied BW, the Union Rep, and other Unifor staff and officials on the letter. RG advised that Unifor now considered the “matter closed.” He confirmed that Unifor had discovered a complete copy of the Letter on the website of an anti-union organization, noting that it appeared the member of parliament had provided the Letter to the organization without Mr. Hollands’ permission. RG went on to say that Mr. Hollands’ had “a right to express a political view that is not the same political view that is expressed by Unifor or its leaders” and was “free to express those views” as he wished. However, he cautioned Mr. Hollands “not [to] expose others to harm in the process of doing so.” He noted that, among other things, the documents Mr. Hollands had provided to the member of parliament included an audit report prepared for the Local and correspondence with the regulatory body for chartered accountants in BC [ CPABC ]. RG said these materials were confidential and Mr. Hollands’ distribution of them may have caused harm to the Local and its accountant. Further, RG said that certain statements in the Letter were “inaccurate and purely derogatory … and certainly not supported by fact,” and he questioned Mr. Hollands’ motivations for his actions.
C. Events dating back to 2011
[25] In his submissions, Mr. Hollands situates the events of 2015 and 2020 in the broader context of “relentless retaliation and harassment” by Unifor dating back to 2011. He provides several examples, including the following.
1. Hardship fund and cash draw
[26] In 2011, Mr. Hollands raised concerns regarding the constitutionality of the Local’s “hardship fund” for struggling members and “cash draw” for boosting member attendance at Local meetings. In response, the Local discontinued those initiatives, at which point Mr. Hollands says “National [Union] and Local officials formed a politically motivated group and started targeting [him] for harassment.” Mr. Hollands points to a May 6, 2011 bulletin board notice, in which the Local identified him as the person responsible for raising concerns regarding the two “unanimously adopted” initiatives, and thanked him “for his work and effort to bring to light the fact that these measures are … prohibited.”
[27] In a subsequent email to National Union officials, the Local president at the time expressed concern regarding a request by Mr. Hollands for the Local’s 2006-2010 financial statements, suggesting it could lead to further requests for financial minutia and associated “time wasting and costs” for the Local.
[28] Mr. Hollands says that, at a Local meeting where the suspension of the hardship fund and cash draw was discussed [ Hardship Fund Meeting ], his private emails with Unifor officials were read aloud, which led to him being vilified and labeled an anti-union troublemaker. He says BW (then the unit chair for transit operators), MA (then a union member), TM (then the chairperson for the hardship fund), and the Union Rep “were participants in this harassing behaviour.” Mr. Hollands says the Union Rep described his actions as “political chicken shit.”
2. Complaint to CPABC
[29] In March 2012, Mr. Hollands contacted the CPABC regarding the conduct of the accountant who prepared the Local’s 2011 audited financial statements [ CPABC Complaint ]. In a subsequent membership meeting, BW, who was the Local president at the time, reported that Mr. Hollands had complained about the accountant and as a result there was a liability issue for the Local. Mr. Hollands says he was “the victim of angry outbursts and name calling” at the meeting.
3. Application to BCLRB
[30] In January 2014, Mr. Hollands applied to the BCLRB for an order requiring the Local to provide him with certain audited financial statements and other related information, including the names of union members who received payments from the hardship fund [ BCLRB Application ]. By letter to the BCLRB and Mr. Hollands on February 13, 2014, the Union Rep said the BCLRB Application was “an abuse of process,” and the Local had “put him on notice” that it would be seeking costs against him.
[31] In a letter to Mr. Hollands on February 14, 2014, BW, who was the Local president at the time, reiterated that the BCLRB Application was an abuse of process and told him that “ ALL of the information that you have requested has been provided to you at significant cost to the Local thus far; and several times over” (emphasis in original). BW copied the BCLRB, the Executive Board, the Union Rep, and various National Union staff and officials on the letter.
[32] In the letter, BW said that, for privacy reasons, the Local would not provide the names and information of members who received hardship fund payments. He went on to tell Mr. Hollands that it “was a result of your actions in the first place that the Local had to dissolve the [hardship] fund that the Local used to assist members who were in dire straits,” and it was “a deep disappointment that the Local had to dissolve the fund.” BW reiterated that the Local would be seeking costs against Mr. Hollands.
[33] In a subsequent letter to the BCLRB, dated March 7, 2014, the Union Rep stated the following:
There is no “bandwagon” to vilify Mr. Hollands. Mr. Hollands has put himself in the limelight against a number of vocal and active Local Union activists. Accordingly they regularly speak to each other about the goings on in the Local. Mr. Hollands must be under some misapprehension that when you undertake a politically motivated endeavour such as he has; that there ought to be some sort of identity shield that goes along with it, he is woefully mistaken. …
Nevertheless, as it relates to the “Chicken Shit” allegation I say simply this; my statement at a Union meeting some 2 or 3 years ago was when I had no idea that Mr. Hollands was the person who was behind all of the circumstances that led to the Local … hiring a Chartered Accountant … .
My statement at the meeting was: “that the noise being made by someone who was political chicken shit.” … In summary, I stand by my comments (emphasis in original).
[34] Mr. Hollands says that, at a Local meeting on March 11, 2014, BW and the Union Rep discussed the BCLRB Application and portrayed Mr. Hollands as being “unhinged.”
4. 2017 election
[35] In 2017, the Executive Board required all candidates in the election to provide a photo release authorizing the Local to post their employee headshots for voters to see. Mr. Hollands declined to provide a release. In an email to Mr. Hollands on May 30, 2017, the chair of the Local’s elections committee [ Election Chair ] said Mr. Hollands had violated the election rules, but she had decided to include him on the ballot for trustee anyway. In place of Mr. Hollands’ headshot on the candidate photos posting, there was the following notation: “Refused to follow Unifor Local 333BC By-Laws and sign photo release” [ Notation ].
[36] Mr. Hollands took offense to the Notation and took issue with the Election Chair’s running of the 2017 election. On September 17, 2017, he submitted a complaint to the National Union president, asking the National Union to suspend the Election Chair from her role and call a new Local election [ Election Complaint ]. By letter on November 2, 2017, RG responded to the Election Complaint on behalf of the National Union president. He informed Mr. Hollands that the complaint was improper and was denied. Mr. Hollands subsequently filed a complaint with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC [ OIPC ] on March 13, 2018. In his OIPC complaint, Mr. Hollands said that the issue regarding his photo release in 2017 was a private matter and the publication of the Notation was not allowed under privacy legislation. The OIPC agreed and substantiated Mr. Hollands’ complaint.
III DECISION
[37] Section 14 of the Code prohibits a union from discriminating against a member because of their political beliefs or the expression of those beliefs: Manning v. Sooke Teachers’ Association and others , 2004 BCHRT 281 at para. 19. The term “political belief” is interpreted liberally: Prokopetz and Talkkari v. Burnaby Firefighters’ Union and City of Burnaby , 2006 BCHRT 462 at para. 31. It includes, but is not limited to, a person’s political belief about, or involvement in, a recognized or registered political party: Jamieson v. Victoria Native Friendship Centre , 1994 CanLII 18447 (BC HRT) at para. 13. The ground of political belief can also extend to a person’s views about legislation and their expression of those views: Wali v. Jace Holdings , 2012 BCHRT 389 at paras. 116-117.
[38] In his complaint, Mr. Hollands alleges that Unifor’s refusal to appoint him to the vacant Local trustee position in 2020 was connected to his support for Bill C-377 and amounted to discrimination based on political belief. Unifor denies discriminating and says the complaint should be dismissed under s. 27(1)(c) because there is no reasonable prospect it will succeed.
[39] Section 27(1)(c) gives the Tribunal discretion to dismiss complaints that have no reasonable prospect of success and therefore do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing: Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) , 2006 BCCA 95 at paras. 22-26, leave to appeal ref’d [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 171; Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill , 2011 BCCA 49 at para. 27 [ Hill ]. Under s. 27(1)(c), my role is to look at the information filed by the parties to decide if there is no reasonable prospect that findings of fact supporting Mr. Hollands’ complaint could be made on a balance of probabilities after a hearing of the evidence: Berezoutskaia at para. 22.
[40] To succeed against Unifor at a hearing, Mr. Hollands would need to prove the three elements of his case, namely that: (1) his support for Bill C-377 was a political belief within the meaning of the Code , (2) not being appointed as a trustee in 2020 was an adverse impact in his union membership, and (3) the former was a factor in the latter: Moore v. British Columbia , 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. In the present case, it is not disputed that Mr. Hollands’ support for Bill C-377 could constitute a political belief under the Code . For the purposes of this decision, I also accept, without deciding, that Mr. Hollands has a reasonable chance of proving that not being appointed as a trustee in 2020 amounted to an adverse impact in his union membership. The only issue left before me, then, is regarding the third element of Mr. Hollands’ case: Does Mr. Hollands have no reasonable prospect of proving that his support for Bill C-377 was a factor in the Local not appointing him as a trustee in 2020?
[41] Unifor says the answer to this question is yes. It argues that there was no nexus between Mr. Hollands’ support for Bill C-377, on one hand, and the Local’s decision not to appoint him to the position of trustee, on the other. Unifor says the complaint “is based entirely on bald speculation and conjecture.” It says the evidence demonstrates that the relevant Unifor decision-makers in 2020 did not know about Mr. Hollands’ support for Bill C-377 several years earlier, and that there were non-discriminatory reasons for not appointing Mr. Hollands in the circumstances.
[42] Mr. Hollands disagrees with Unifor. He says his complaint is based on evidence – namely, Unifor’s own documents – not speculation and conjecture. Citing Ritchie v. Central Okanagan Search and Rescue Society and others , 2016 BCHRT 110, he argues that, under s. 27(1)(c), the Tribunal’s assessment of the parties’ evidence must be grounded in the context and specific circumstances in which the alleged discrimination occurred. Mr. Hollands says the “context in this case is a National Union and a union member with differing views on a piece of legislation.” He says Unifor officials “acted collectively when planning the [Ethics Complaint]” in 2015, and this “unified collective remained steadfast when denying [him] the trustee position” in 2020. More broadly, Mr. Hollands says that a group of Unifor officials collaborated against him over a 10-year period and were aware of his support for Bill C-377. He says the key members of the group were BW, MA, TM, and the Union Rep. The core allegation advanced in his submissions is that the group’s knowledge of his support for Bill C-377 was a factor in the decision not to make him a trustee in 2020.
[43] To succeed in its dismissal application, the onus is on Unifor to establish that Mr. Hollands has no reasonable prospect of proving this allegation based on the evidence before me. Given the nature of his complaint, Mr. Hollands’ task is to point me towards some evidence capable of raising his claim “out of the realm of conjecture”: Hill at para. 27. This is a low bar, but an important one. There will often be some evidence of the possibility of discrimination when a person with a protected characteristic is denied an opportunity to participate in the administration of their union. But a mere possibility of discrimination is not enough to warrant a hearing before the Tribunal: Lee v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority , 2004 BCCA 457 at para. 26.
[44] As I explain below, on the whole of the materials filed by the parties, I am satisfied that Unifor has met its onus in this case. The evidence before me suggests that, at times, individuals implicated in Mr. Hollands’ complaint were aligned against him. However, the allegation that his support for Bill C-377 was a factor in Unifor not making him a trustee in 2020 is conjecture.
[45] Both parties filed contemporaneous documentary evidence in this case. In support of its dismissal application, Unifor also provided statements from MA, the Election Chair, the director of the constitutional department in 2020, who I will call GB , and a member of the Executive Board at the time who was the unit chair of the Local for transit operators [ Unit Chair ]. In their respective statements, MA, GB, and the Unit Chair offer first-hand descriptions of the events in 2020 and deny that Mr. Hollands’ support for Bill C-377 was a factor in what happened.
[46] The Election Chair’s statement is about whether the events in 2017 were connected to Mr. Hollands’ support for Bill C-377. The complaint before me is not about whether what happened in 2017 was discrimination. However, for the purpose of completeness, I will briefly address the evidence regarding those events first, before moving on to discuss the events in 2020.
A. 2017 election
[47] Mr. Hollands says the Notation was inaccurate and a breach of his privacy. Further, his evidence is that the Notation and Unifor’s treatment of him during the 2017 election were different from notations and how he was treated in other years. He claims that this difference is attributable to his support for Bill C-377, saying that the Notation was made to punish him for supporting Bill C-377 and was payback following his defeat of the Ethics Complaint.
[48] For its part, Unifor argues that the notion of a connection between the photo release issue in 2017 and Mr. Hollands’ support for Bill C-377 is entirely conjectural.
[49] Even accepting (without deciding) that Unifor treated Mr. Hollands differently in 2017 than in other elections, there is no evidence before me of a connection between this differential treatment and Mr. Hollands’ support for Bill C-377. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that his support for Bill C-377 was not a factor in the events in 2017. In her statement, the Election Chair says it was solely her decision to include the Notation as it was written. She says that, at the time of the 2017 election, she did not know what Bill C-377 was, or that Mr. Hollands supported it. She says the Notation was appropriate given Mr. Hollands’ failure to comply with the requirement to provide a photo release.
[50] On the information filed by the parties, then, there is no evidentiary basis for Mr. Hollands’ claim of a connection between the events in 2017 and his support for Bill C-377. The evidence does not take this claim out of the realm of conjecture.
[51] I will now move on to discuss the evidence regarding the events in 2020 and their connection (or lack thereof) to Mr. Hollands’ support for Bill C-377.
B. Events in 2020
[52] Unifor argues that the evidence before the Tribunal does not support a reasonable inference of a connection between Mr. Hollands’ support for Bill C-377 and its decision not to appoint him to a trustee position in 2020. Further, it argues that there is evidence of non-discriminatory reasons for not making Mr. Hollands a trustee.
[53] MA’s evidence is that, when he decided not to appoint Mr. Hollands, he did not know what Bill C-377 was, or that Mr. Hollands supported it. He says he was not aware of the Ethics Complaint. MA says he consulted with GB after the transit operator trustee resigned in January 2020, and decided that filling the vacant position was unnecessary. He says that, with only six months remaining before the next Local election in June 2020, he determined that it was sufficient to have four trustees.
[54] MA says that, when another trustee position was vacated in June 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic was an additional factor in the decision not to appoint another trustee. He says most of the Executive Board’s regular business had been cancelled and the Local election was postponed. He says that, at the time, appointing another trustee “had little relevance for the Local in fulfilling its business” and there “were other more pressing concerns” for the Executive Board.
[55] GB corroborates that MA consulted with him in early 2020. He says his opinion at the time was that it would not be necessary or efficient for the Local to fill the trustee vacancy given the short time frame before the next election. GB says Mr. Hollands’ support for Bill C-377 was not a factor in the advice he gave to MA. He says he did not know who Mr. Hollands was at that time, and has no memory of MA mentioning Mr. Hollands when they spoke.
[56] The Unit Chair’s evidence is consistent with MA’s and GB’s. She says Mr. Hollands’ support for Bill C-377 was not a factor in the Executive Board’s decision-making in June and July 2020. She says his political belief was never raised or discussed and there was no discussion or mention of Bill C-377. Like MA, the Unit Chair says she did not know what Bill C-377 was at the material time, or that Mr. Hollands supported it. She adds that she was not aware of the Ethics Complaint until Mr. Hollands filed his human rights complaint.
[57] Mr. Hollands questions the credibility of Unifor’s witnesses and says there are discrepancies in their statements. For example, Mr. Hollands notes that GB joined the constitutional department in 2016 and the documentary evidence indicates he was copied on correspondence in 2017 regarding the Election Complaint. Mr. Hollands argues that GB would therefore have known who he was in 2020, which contradicts what GB says in his statement. Mr. Hollands says this contradiction undermines the credibility of GB’s evidence, and “may provide a foundation” for arguing that GB was “aware of [Mr. Hollands’] political belief, given the political context within the union.” While I agree that the evidence before me casts doubt on GB’s claim of not knowing who Mr. Hollands was in early 2020, I disagree that it could provide a reasonable basis for inferring that GB knew about Mr. Hollands’ support for Bill C-377 – let alone that this knowledge was a factor in the advice GB gave to MA.
[58] I acknowledge Mr. Hollands’ comments regarding disclosure of communications between MA, GB, and BW. He says he asked Unifor for copies of their communications regarding his potential appointment as a trustee in 2020, but Unifor provided no documents that were responsive to his request. Mr. Hollands argues that this “lack of disclosure … creates uncertainty about what was discussed” by MA, GB, and BW at the time. He suggests that, under Unifor’s processes, MA should have spoken to Unifor’s regional staff representative (i.e., BW) first, before consulting with the constitutional department (i.e., GB). Mr. Hollands argues that this ambiguity casts further doubt on GB’s evidence. For its part, Unifor says it did not disclose the requested communications because none exist, and it was appropriate for MA to consult with GB.
[59] While I appreciate Mr. Hollands’ submissions, the issue of document disclosure is not before me. In a dismissal application, the Tribunal must base its decision on the materials filed by the parties: University of British Columbia v. Chan , 2013 BCSC 942 at para. 77; see also Ritchie at para. 119. Under the circumstances, I do not accept that the absence of communications between MA, GB, and BW, regarding Mr. Hollands’ potential appointment as a trustee, impacts the credibility of GB’s evidence in this dismissal application.
[60] In addition to questioning the credibility of GB’s evidence, Mr. Hollands also questions the Unit Chair’s. He notes that the Unit Chair was a member of the Executive Board in 2015. He argues that, given her role in the union at that time, she would have known about the Ethics Complaint, which contradicts what she says in her statement and undermines the credibility of her evidence. I do not accept this argument. There is no direct evidence before me suggesting the Unit Chair knew about the Ethics Complaint. In any event, even if she was aware of the complaint’s existence, it does not necessarily follow that she was privy to its subject matter.
[61] I find another aspect of Mr. Hollands’ submissions regarding the Unit Chair’s evidence more illuminating. He notes her statement that, when the Executive Board met to appoint a new head trustee to replace TM, MA advised that the Local was “not required” to add another trustee to the complement of three who were already in place; they could simply make one of the three incumbents the new head trustee. Given this evidence, Mr. Hollands queries the Unit Chair’s subsequent, seemingly contradictory, statement that, if the chosen incumbent had declined the head trustee role, the Executive Board would have been “required” to appoint another trustee “from the list of members who ran … in the last election.” Mr. Hollands questions why the Local was required to appoint a fourth trustee (who would have been Mr. Hollands) if the chosen incumbent declined the head trustee role, but not if he accepted it (which is what happened). Mr. Hollands says this discrepancy is not explained in the Unit Chair’s evidence, and he argues that it undermines Unifor’s stated reasons for not appointing him. I agree with this argument, which was not addressed by Unifor on reply. I will return to this later, after addressing Mr. Hollands’ submissions regarding MA’s statement.
[62] As I outlined above, MA’s evidence is that, when he decided not to appoint Mr. Hollands in early 2020, he did not know what Bill C-377 was and had no knowledge of the Ethics Complaint. Mr. Hollands suggests MA is not being truthful. He says MA was active within the Local long before becoming president, and had long-standing connections with the other key members of the group of Unifor officials that were aligned against him. Mr. Hollands says the evidence shows that MA, BW, TM, and the Union Rep “collaborated to harass [him] and fostered an environment of hostility.” He says that, in 2011, they engaged in “coordinated efforts to shout [him] down during the [Hardship Fund Meeting] and to label him negatively,” which demonstrated “their collective intention to intimidate him.” More generally, he claims they “routinely berated [him] at union meetings” and forced him to leave. He notes that MA is on record as saying that Mr. Hollands’ complaints and demands have cost the Local thousands of dollars.
[63] Mr. Hollands says MA’s alleged background raises questions regarding his objectivity and suggests his evidence “might be more politically motivated than initially apparent.” He argues that unions “are inherently political,” and claims that MA and TM represented the group that was aligned against him at the Executive Board meetings to discuss the trustee position vacancy in 2020. He says TM “was involved in every aspect of … union affairs” and “would have been privy to the Code of Ethics complaint” in 2015. He argues that this raises further questions about the underlying motivations for denying him the trustee position, and says these “complexities and the interconnections among the union officials warrant a detailed examination in a hearing.” While I appreciate Mr. Hollands’ concerns, on the evidence before me, I disagree that his complaint warrants a hearing.
[64] There is no direct evidence in this dismissal application that could connect Mr. Hollands’ support for Bill C-377 to Unifor’s decision not to make him a trustee. In the hundreds of pages of documents filed, there are no statements linking Bill C-377 to the Executive Board’s decision-making in 2020. There is no evidence that the Executive Board, or individual members of the Executive Board, discussed Mr. Hollands’ support for Bill C-377 at that time. Further, despite Mr. Hollands’ speculation, there is no direct evidence that members of the Executive Board in 2020 knew what Bill C-377 was or that Mr. Hollands supported it. At a hearing, then, Mr. Hollands would need to rely on circumstantial evidence and inference to prove a nexus between what happened in 2020 and his support for Bill C-377.
[65] As I have indicated, I accept that the evidence in this case could support an inference that, at times, the individuals implicated in Mr. Hollands’ complaint were aligned against him. The evidence suggests that Unifor officials and members of the Local were upset by the elimination of the hardship fund and cash draw in 2011, and blamed Mr. Hollands. I agree with Mr. Hollands that there is reason to question the sincerity of the bulletin board notice “thanking” him for helping to end those programs. The evidence also suggests that Unifor officials resented Mr. Hollands’ inquiries into the Local’s finances, viewing his actions as an affront to the union that resulted in a waste of its time and money.
[66] I agree with Mr. Hollands that, at the time of the Ethics Complaint, Unifor appears to have portrayed it as being a confidential report by a concerned union member; however, the evidence suggests it was actually borne out of “several union officials exchanging emails, attending meetings, sharing notes, and planning the complaint.” I agree with Mr. Hollands that the overall evidence regarding the Ethics Complaint suggests an alignment against him at that time. Further, I agree that this evidence, taken together with the discrepancy in the Unit Chair’s statement, and the evidence of the historical context dating back to 2011, raises questions regarding Unifor’s reasons for not appointing Mr. Hollands to a trustee position in 2020.
[67] In the documents before me, Unifor officials describe Mr. Hollands as disruptive, dishonest, vexatious, anti-union, and antagonistic towards the Local. There is little doubt that, at a hearing, Mr. Hollands would have a good chance of proving that Unifor officials disliked and were hostile towards him, and at times acted collectively against him. But that is not the issue before me.
[68] The question in this dismissal application is whether the evidence filed could support a reasonable inference of a discriminatory connection specifically between Mr. Hollands’ support for Bill C-377 and Unifor’s decision not to appoint him as a trustee in 2020. Through its submissions regarding the evidentiary record before the Tribunal in this dismissal application, Unifor has persuaded me that the answer to this question is no. While Mr. Hollands has pointed to evidence that raises the possibility his support for Bill C-377 factored into what happened in 2020, that is not enough to warrant a hearing. I am satisfied that the evidence before me does not take the nexus Mr. Hollands seeks to prove out of the realm of speculation and conjecture. As a result, I am satisfied that his complaint has no reasonable prospect of success and should not proceed to a hearing. The complaint is therefore dismissed under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code .
IV CONCLUSION
[69] This decision is not meant to minimize what Mr. Hollands says he experienced, nor to condone Unifor’s alleged conduct. In dismissing Mr. Hollands’ complaint, I make no comment about whether Unifor treated him respectfully or fairly.
[70] Unifor’s dismissal application is granted. Mr. Hollands’ complaint is dismissed.
Jonathan Chapnick
Tribunal Member