Insubordination, dishonesty, and racism claims all rejected on appeal
A British Columbia operations manager was fired the same morning he told his employer he would file a workplace safety complaint. In a decision dated March 13, 2026, Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal Vice Chair David Newell rejected the employer's claims of insubordination, dishonesty, and anti-Black racism, ordering payment of $48,374.94 in lost wages and vacation pay, $9,017.90 in interest, and $387.90 in expenses. The employer must also remit $2,423.12 of the wage loss award and pay an additional $1,615.32 into the employer's RRSP plan on the worker's behalf, and remove all termination references from the worker's file. Its only success on appeal was denying a $1,500 bonus claim.
The worker was hired in July 2022 and promoted to operations manager within a month. He reported aggressive conduct from his warehouse manager in February and March 2023, with other employees raising similar complaints.
Just two days before the termination, the owner had decided on a different course. In an April 2023 statement to the Board, the owner confirmed that on March 12, 2023, "the [b]oard made the decision to maintain [Warehouse Manager] in his position and to have [worker] work with our external HR [human resources] consultant on developing his management skills as this was his first management position of any kind."
On March 14, 2023, the worker arrived to find the warehouse manager already back. He raised his safety concerns with the owner and mentioned filing a WorkSafeBC claim. He was terminated on the spot without explanation. Newell found the owner's own account of the March 12 decision directly contradicted any argument that dismissal was inevitable.
The racism defense
The employer argued the worker's complaints were tainted by anti-Black racism. The owner and warehouse manager are Black; the worker is white. On appeal, the owner stated: "Unlike [the worker], I could immediately detect that the complaints against [Warehouse Manager], either consciously or subconsciously, stemmed from the age-old stereotypes of black people being incompetent and more prone to violence."
Newell found no documented investigation into this claim. The worker was never interviewed or given a chance to respond, and the allegation surfaced only at the remedy stage, after liability was determined.
The tribunal held that "an employer must be able to show it has conducted an adequately thorough and fair investigation if it intends to rely on unconscious racism as a ground for dismissal or, as in this case, ground for denying a remedy."
What the bonus clause decided
The worker's employment contract stated that yearly bonuses were performance-based and dependent on profitability. He had been promoted, received two salary increases, and his former HR manager confirmed he was being considered for chief operations officer because his performance exceeded expectations. He received a bonus of $2,000 in 2022. The employer claimed no discretionary bonuses were paid in 2023.
Newell applied the principle that "if the historical conduct of the parties gives rise to a reasonable expectation of a bonus, then the bonus is a benefit that has a value and should form part of the calculation of the employee's damages." He denied the $1,500 bonus claim, finding that a single year of payments was insufficient to establish that reasonable expectation, even though the worker's performance supported entitlement.
The worker's mitigation efforts were also adequate. He began searching for comparable positions immediately and submitted formal applications by mid-April 2023. The employer could not identify comparable opportunities the worker failed to pursue.
See A2500820 (Re), 2026 CanLII 2568.
