When Jurisdiction Goes Wvong: Complaint barred from BC Human Rights Tribunal due to lack of connection with BC
May 21, 2026
Article by:
Elizabeth Lotfali
Previously printed in the LexisNexis Labour Notes Newsletter.
BC-based employers might hire employees who reside outside British Columbia. In those circumstances, the employers should take care to consider whether they are bound by the BC Human Rights Code (the “Code”) or the legislation applicable in the province or other jurisdiction in which the employees are situated.
Employers that operate across a variety of jurisdictions can be presented with challenges when an employee alleges that he or she has experienced a violation of human rights legislation. It can be difficult to determine whether the employee is required to file a complaint at the BC Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) or if he or she is governed by the relevant administrative tribunal in his or her place of residence. There might also be challenges where an employer operates elsewhere in Canada but has some operations in British Columbia.
This issue is considered in Wvong v. Arbor Memorial Inc., 2026 BCHRT 5.
Nathan Wvong was an employee who worked for an Alberta-based company named Arbor Memorial Inc. (“Arbor Memorial”). Arbor Memorial has operations in Alberta and in British Columbia.
Mr. Wvong worked in Alberta and, while he was there, he filed a human rights complaint with the Tribunal against Arbor Memorial alleging discrimination in his employment with respect to a performance plan and discipline.
Mr. Wvong then went on medical leave and, when on leave, he moved to British Columbia. After he had moved to BC, Mr. Wvong was dismissed from employment with Arbor Memorial.
Arbor Memorial filed an application to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The Tribunal considered the fact that the BC Human Rights Code may apply to events or persons outside the province where there is a sufficient connection to British Columbia.
Relevant factors which should be considered when the Tribunal determines whether there is a sufficient connection to BC may include:
- the location of the business;
- the residence and usual place of employment;
- the terms of employment;
- the geographic history of employment; and
- the relevant time period, including specifically the time of the events giving rise to the complaint.
Mr. Wvong argued that his complaint was sufficiently connected to BC because: (1) Arbor Memorial has operations which function in BC; and (2) he was living in that province when his employment ended.
The Tribunal found that none of the above factors supported a connection between the allegations in Mr. Wvong’s complaint and British Columbia. Mr. Wvong was in Alberta during the relevant time of the allegations in the complaint. The Tribunal held that Mr. Wvong’s complaint was governed by the Alberta Human Rights Act.
Tribunal Member Devyn Cousineau found that the complaint was not sufficiently connected to BC and dismissed the complaint under section 27(1)(a) of the Code.
Takeaways
- Employers should be aware that applicable jurisdiction can turn on where the alleged discrimination occurred and not where the employee later lives.
- Employers that have BC-based operations may still be bound by extra-jurisdictional legislation and should seek advice where there is any provincial overlap in their operations.
- Early jurisdictional challenges can be decisive and cost-effective. Employers should be mindful of opportunities to challenge a complaint based on jurisdiction as it can prevent unnecessary, expensive and inconvenient hearings on the merits.
May 21, 2026
Previously printed in the LexisNexis Labour Notes Newsletter.
BC-based employers might hire employees who reside outside British Columbia. In those circumstances, the employers should take care to consider whether they are bound by the BC Human Rights Code (the “Code”) or the legislation applicable in the province or other jurisdiction in which the employees are situated.
Employers that operate across a variety of jurisdictions can be presented with challenges when an employee alleges that he or she has experienced a violation of human rights legislation. It can be difficult to determine whether the employee is required to file a complaint at the BC Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) or if he or she is governed by the relevant administrative tribunal in his or her place of residence. There might also be challenges where an employer operates elsewhere in Canada but has some operations in British Columbia.
This issue is considered in Wvong v. Arbor Memorial Inc., 2026 BCHRT 5.
Nathan Wvong was an employee who worked for an Alberta-based company named Arbor Memorial Inc. (“Arbor Memorial”). Arbor Memorial has operations in Alberta and in British Columbia.
Mr. Wvong worked in Alberta and, while he was there, he filed a human rights complaint with the Tribunal against Arbor Memorial alleging discrimination in his employment with respect to a performance plan and discipline.
Mr. Wvong then went on medical leave and, when on leave, he moved to British Columbia. After he had moved to BC, Mr. Wvong was dismissed from employment with Arbor Memorial.
Arbor Memorial filed an application to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The Tribunal considered the fact that the BC Human Rights Code may apply to events or persons outside the province where there is a sufficient connection to British Columbia.
Relevant factors which should be considered when the Tribunal determines whether there is a sufficient connection to BC may include:
- the location of the business;
- the residence and usual place of employment;
- the terms of employment;
- the geographic history of employment; and
- the relevant time period, including specifically the time of the events giving rise to the complaint.
Mr. Wvong argued that his complaint was sufficiently connected to BC because: (1) Arbor Memorial has operations which function in BC; and (2) he was living in that province when his employment ended.
The Tribunal found that none of the above factors supported a connection between the allegations in Mr. Wvong’s complaint and British Columbia. Mr. Wvong was in Alberta during the relevant time of the allegations in the complaint. The Tribunal held that Mr. Wvong’s complaint was governed by the Alberta Human Rights Act.
Tribunal Member Devyn Cousineau found that the complaint was not sufficiently connected to BC and dismissed the complaint under section 27(1)(a) of the Code.
Takeaways
- Employers should be aware that applicable jurisdiction can turn on where the alleged discrimination occurred and not where the employee later lives.
- Employers that have BC-based operations may still be bound by extra-jurisdictional legislation and should seek advice where there is any provincial overlap in their operations.
- Early jurisdictional challenges can be decisive and cost-effective. Employers should be mindful of opportunities to challenge a complaint based on jurisdiction as it can prevent unnecessary, expensive and inconvenient hearings on the merits.