Tribunal rejected employer's claim it could not afford $332 a month for disabled worker
A family-run BC convenience store that hired a relative with disabilities through a supported employment program has been ordered to pay nearly $40,000 after the BC Human Rights Tribunal found discrimination in the employer's refusal to allow a service dog at work, hurtful disability-related comments, and termination. In a decision dated March 13, 2026, Tribunal Member Jessica Derynck ruled the employer's good intentions did not affect their human rights obligations.
Kayla Aolick survived a rare childhood brain cancer that left her with a seizure disorder. In 2018, with the help of INEO Employment Services, she began an unpaid work experience placement at A1 Convenience Store — her first time in a workplace. Her service dog Shadow was trained to alert her before a seizure so she could take medication, or to alert someone else if she had a seizure and was unaware of it.
On her first day, the store owners' son told Aolick that Shadow could not stay. She worked without him for the entire duration of her employment.
Derynck found the employer never assessed whether Shadow could function in the store or discussed the impact with Aolick. "The Respondents made their decision based on limited information without discussing the issue with Kayla, leaving her in the position of deciding whether to work without Shadow so she could have a job," Derynck wrote. The Tribunal also found "no person was a substitute for Shadow because no person could predict a seizure and warn Kayla so she could take medication and try to prevent it."
From encouragement to hurtful treatment
After about eight months of unpaid work experience, Aolick began paid employment at six hours per week under a wage subsidy. The contract stated the intended results were "For the participant to increase her skills and become a regular part time staff member at this business, reaching her goal and the program goal of sustainable employment for Persons with Disabilities."
Once the subsidy ended and Aolick worked more directly with store owners Jodi and Surinder Rai, the treatment shifted. Jodi told her she was "too slow," said she scared customers away, and claimed her clothes carried dog hair and smell when they did not. Surinder told Aolick she was not capable of working a four-hour day and on one occasion pushed her out of the way so another employee could serve a customer.
Derynck found this constituted a pattern of discriminatory treatment. "Instead, the Respondents dealt with issues like Kayla's speed at transactions and their concerns about paying her as a second employee during her shifts by treating her badly," Derynck wrote. "They turned what could have been respectful discussions about genuine workplace management issues into negative treatment."
Fired through a third party
On January 8, 2020, a Work BC employment counsellor visited the store and spoke with Jodi Rai. Aolick was called to the counsellor's office after her shift and told she had been fired. The Record of Employment cited "Shortage of work / End of contract or season."
The Tribunal rejected this characterization, finding Aolick's disabilities were a factor in the termination and the employer had not established undue hardship. The Tribunal dismissed the portions of the complaint related to a chair accommodation and cancelled shifts.
Derynck ordered the respondents to pay $3,866.21 in wage loss, $35,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, $601.80 in hearing expenses, and $500 in costs, plus interest. "Poor communication in a situation like this one will not always amount to discrimination," Derynck wrote. "In this case, though, the Respondents' conduct was more than poor communication."
See Aolick v. A1 Convenience Store and others (No.2), 2026 BCHRT 62
