Billow v. Hardy Yardcare and another, 2022 BCHRT 98 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jslrz>,
The complainant filed a complaint against Hardy Yardcare and Rudy Sager alleging discrimination on the basis of employment, sex, mental disability, and marital status in the area of employment contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code. The Respondents did not participate in the process. The Human Rights Tribunal accepted her allegation that the respondents made demeaning remarks to her and assigned her tasks outside of her role based on her sex and mental disability. The Tribunal concluded that an award of $15,000 was reasonable to compensate her for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
However, the Tribunal did not accept that her marital status was a factor in the termination of her employment.
[40…. Here, Ms. Billow’s husband inserted himself into her employment relationship with her boss in a way that a friend or colleague could have. The evidence before me does not support a finding that Mr. Sager terminated Ms. Billow’s employment because of who her husband is or because of his relationship with her husband, but rather because of his actions vis-à-vis Ms. Billow’s employment relationship with Mr. Sager. It would not make sense for a person in these circumstances to have the protection of the Code merely because a person engaging in such actions is a spouse rather than a friend or a cousin, for example. It may well not be a reasonable or proper basis for terminating the employment but in my view, it would not serve the purposes of the Code to offer protection in this circumstance solely because it was a spouse rather than anyone else engaging in the conduct.
The Tribunal found that the respondents terminated her employment because of the behaviour of her husband over the course of the text exchange between her husband and Sager related to her illness and absence. The respondents took the text messages to be threatening, including calling Sager “fuckin piece of shit!” The Tribunal noted that, while the termination might constitute wrongful dismissal, it did not violate the Code.