B.C. Human Rights Tribunal Rules that Employer’s Decision to Dismiss College Instructor for “Deeply Intolerant” Videos on YouTube was Not Discriminatory

Previously printed in the LexisNexis Labour Notes Newsletter.

In Glebov v. Fraser International College, 2024 BCHRT 19, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) dismissed the human rights complaint of a college instructor who was terminated from employment after he posted YouTube videos expressing his views about religion, women, gender, homosexuality, abortion and sexual assault.

The complainant, Gleb Glebov, was a sessional mathematics instructor at Fraser International College (the “College”). Glebov alleged that the College discriminated against him in employment on the basis of religion contrary to section 13 of the B.C. Human Rights Code (the “Code”) when he was fired for expressing his Christian views in the YouTube videos.

Glebov had publicly posted four videos on YouTube. In those videos, which came to the attention of the College through an anonymous source, Glebov made various statements which were deemed by the College to be intimidating and offensive to the school community, including, without limitation, statements that women who have abortions should be put to death, women are sexually assaulted because of bad parenting, homosexuality and transgenderism is “garbage”, and Muslims who do not convert will meet the anti-Christ.

The College stated it did not seek to place restrictions on Glebov’s religious views. However, when he took his views into the public space where they were accessible to the College community, he conducted himself in violation of his employer’s policies, which require sessional instructors to avoid actual or perceived conflict of interest and behave in a manner that is not intimidating or offensive to the school community. Glebov’s conduct, the College said, amounted to just cause for termination.

Before the Tribunal, Glebov argued that his statements were expressed within the context of a sermon and he “expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text”. He stated that his views were based on both the King James Bible and Russell Re Manning’s book, 30-Second Religion.

The College did not dispute that Glebov might sincerely hold his beliefs. It argued, however, that there was no evidence he sincerely believed that making videos expressing “homophobic/ transphobic, misogynistic and other deeply intolerant and discriminatory views”, and publicly posting those videos on YouTube where members of the College community could view them, were related to his religion. It also argued that there was no evidence his ability to practise his religion would be compromised if he were unable to do those things.

The Tribunal agreed with the College and dismissed Glebov’s complaint. It held that Glebov did not provide any basis for saying that the public dissemination of his views was related to the tenets of his faith, or that his ability to practise his religion would be compromised if he were unable to do so.

Tribunal Member Theressa Etmanski wrote, “While he may hold Christian religious beliefs, he has not provided any evidence to indicate that publicly disseminating his views is part of his sincerely held religious belief or practice.”  Glebov’s human rights complaint was dismissed in its entirety.


While this case turned largely on the fact that the complainant was unable to prove that he had a religious practice that was protected by the Code, this case serves as a good reminder to employers that they should have a professional code of conduct and anti-harassment policies in place.

Employee statements or other behaviour outside work can negatively impact the workplace and be grounds for termination of employment.

Employers should not, however, act too hastily in taking disciplinary action. As with any other potential misconduct, it is important that the alleged misconduct be properly investigated and any possible human rights issues be properly considered.

While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy in this article, you are urged to seek specific advice on matters of concern and not to rely solely on what is contained herein. The article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.