Exacerbation as Discrimination: Accommodating Pre-existing Disabilities in the Workplace
June 2, 2026
Article by:
Katie Comley
In Tyler v. City of Powell River, 2025 BCHRT 316, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint of employment discrimination on the ground of mental disability that had been brought by a former employee of the City of Powell River pursuant to section 13 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 (the “Tribunal”, the “Complainant” and the “Code” respectively).
The complaint was dismissed on the basis that the City was able to reasonably accommodate the complainant without undue hardship.
The Complainant, who was a unionized labourer in the City’s Parks Department, had a pre-existing diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder. He worked with a colleague in the Parks Department who occasionally acted as his supervisor (the “Supervisor”). He alleged that the Supervisor had bullied and harassed him over an extended period.
Following one incident, the Complainant went home and never returned to work. At that time, he did not make a specific request of the City for a disability-related accommodation.
After several written complaints from other employees regarding the Supervisor, a formal investigation into the Supervisor’s conduct concluded that he had engaged in bullying and harassing behaviour. Because the Supervisor had no formal discipline on his file, the City believed that termination of his employment would likely be overturned through the grievance process and chose instead to transfer him to a different department.
The Complainant filed a mental injury claim with WorkSafeBC. His experiences with the Supervisor were found by WorkSafeBC to have caused an “exacerbation” of his Schizoaffective Disorder. Based on information from the Complainant’s doctor, WorkSafeBC identified a single and permanent restriction of not encountering the Supervisor while at work and communicated with the City about that proposed accommodation. The City advised that while it could certainly take steps to ensure the Complainant would not encounter the Supervisor, it could not guarantee that the two of them would not cross paths.
This led to the Complainant resigning from his employment with the City, filing his complaint with the Tribunal, and alleging that the City had discriminated against him by failing to ensure he would not come into contact with the Supervisor. That had resulted, he alleged, in the loss of his employment. At the hearing of the complaint, the Complainant gave evidence that the only accommodation he would have accepted was the termination of the Supervisor’s employment.
In its analysis, the Tribunal found that the Complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination, noting the Complainant’s inability to work due to the exacerbation of his Schizoaffective Disorder amounted to a disability-related adverse impact. The Complainant had a pre-existing disability protected under the Code and that operated as a barrier to his ability to participate fully in his employment due to, in part, the conduct of the City. It also did not matter that the Supervisor had not bullied or harassed the Complainant because of his mental disability.
However, the Tribunal ultimately found the City to have reasonably accommodated the Complainant by transferring the Supervisor and taking reasonable steps to reduce the possibility of the two employees encountering one another.
In dismissing the complaint, the Tribunal highlighted that the Complainant, through no fault of his own, required a very specific accommodation to be able to return to work. That accommodation was not one that the City could reasonably or practically provide.
Takeaways for Employers
- Not all failures to act respectfully towards colleagues will give rise to claims of discrimination but, notably, exacerbation of an employee’s pre-existing disability due to disrespectful conduct can amount to a disability-related adverse impact for the purposes of the Code.
- As part of the accommodation process, complainants have a duty to bring to the employer’s attention the facts relating to the discrimination. In the Tyler case, while the City knew that the Complainant was affected by the Supervisor’s conduct, he did not disclose that he had a disability-related need for accommodation.
Employees are entitled to reasonable – but not perfect – accommodation. In circumstances where an employee requires a specific accommodation that creates significant challenges for an employer to implement, e.g. the termination of another employee’s employment, the point of undue hardship for the employer may be reached quickly.
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.
June 2, 2026
In Tyler v. City of Powell River, 2025 BCHRT 316, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal dismissed a complaint of employment discrimination on the ground of mental disability that had been brought by a former employee of the City of Powell River pursuant to section 13 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 (the “Tribunal”, the “Complainant” and the “Code” respectively).
The complaint was dismissed on the basis that the City was able to reasonably accommodate the complainant without undue hardship.
The Complainant, who was a unionized labourer in the City’s Parks Department, had a pre-existing diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder. He worked with a colleague in the Parks Department who occasionally acted as his supervisor (the “Supervisor”). He alleged that the Supervisor had bullied and harassed him over an extended period.
Following one incident, the Complainant went home and never returned to work. At that time, he did not make a specific request of the City for a disability-related accommodation.
After several written complaints from other employees regarding the Supervisor, a formal investigation into the Supervisor’s conduct concluded that he had engaged in bullying and harassing behaviour. Because the Supervisor had no formal discipline on his file, the City believed that termination of his employment would likely be overturned through the grievance process and chose instead to transfer him to a different department.
The Complainant filed a mental injury claim with WorkSafeBC. His experiences with the Supervisor were found by WorkSafeBC to have caused an “exacerbation” of his Schizoaffective Disorder. Based on information from the Complainant’s doctor, WorkSafeBC identified a single and permanent restriction of not encountering the Supervisor while at work and communicated with the City about that proposed accommodation. The City advised that while it could certainly take steps to ensure the Complainant would not encounter the Supervisor, it could not guarantee that the two of them would not cross paths.
This led to the Complainant resigning from his employment with the City, filing his complaint with the Tribunal, and alleging that the City had discriminated against him by failing to ensure he would not come into contact with the Supervisor. That had resulted, he alleged, in the loss of his employment. At the hearing of the complaint, the Complainant gave evidence that the only accommodation he would have accepted was the termination of the Supervisor’s employment.
In its analysis, the Tribunal found that the Complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination, noting the Complainant’s inability to work due to the exacerbation of his Schizoaffective Disorder amounted to a disability-related adverse impact. The Complainant had a pre-existing disability protected under the Code and that operated as a barrier to his ability to participate fully in his employment due to, in part, the conduct of the City. It also did not matter that the Supervisor had not bullied or harassed the Complainant because of his mental disability.
However, the Tribunal ultimately found the City to have reasonably accommodated the Complainant by transferring the Supervisor and taking reasonable steps to reduce the possibility of the two employees encountering one another.
In dismissing the complaint, the Tribunal highlighted that the Complainant, through no fault of his own, required a very specific accommodation to be able to return to work. That accommodation was not one that the City could reasonably or practically provide.
Takeaways for Employers
- Not all failures to act respectfully towards colleagues will give rise to claims of discrimination but, notably, exacerbation of an employee’s pre-existing disability due to disrespectful conduct can amount to a disability-related adverse impact for the purposes of the Code.
- As part of the accommodation process, complainants have a duty to bring to the employer’s attention the facts relating to the discrimination. In the Tyler case, while the City knew that the Complainant was affected by the Supervisor’s conduct, he did not disclose that he had a disability-related need for accommodation.
Employees are entitled to reasonable – but not perfect – accommodation. In circumstances where an employee requires a specific accommodation that creates significant challenges for an employer to implement, e.g. the termination of another employee’s employment, the point of undue hardship for the employer may be reached quickly.
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.