The Worker v. Translink Security Management Ltd.

About the case

The Worker v. Translink Security Management Ltd. asks how human rights law can address the impacts of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the employment context.

This case will consider if an employer’s response to the impacts of IPV on a worker can be discriminatory under BC’s Human Rights Code (the “Code”). It will also consider IPV as an intersectional experience that is connected to gender, sex, marital status, and disability.

The Complainant, Ms. F, alleges that Translink Security Management Ltd. discriminated against her  when it demoted her from her position when she did not obtain a driver’s license which it required for her role. This happened even though her employer knew she was involved in legal proceedings related to an abusive relationship and was experiencing mental health and physical health challenges at that time.

Ms. F argues she was discriminated against based on her sex, gender, marital status, mental disability, and physical disability.

Human rights law and discrimination against survivors

Despite the high rates of IPV in our society, human rights law in BC and across Canada has rarely addressed discrimination against IPV survivors in the workplace.

This case is an opportunity for the BC Human Rights Tribunal (the Tribunal to consider how the gendered and systemic nature of IPV can lead to workplace discrimination, affecting survivors’ economic security and equality. It may also clarify what obligation employers have to accommodate workers who are impacted by IPV and recognize their distinct needs in the workplace.

West Coast LEAF’s involvement

West Coast LEAF has been granted leave to intervene before the Tribunal to address the gendered social and legal context of IPV and how that context should inform the discrimination analysis and an employer’s duty to accommodate under the Code.

Our submissions will address:

• Intersectional experiences of IPV survivors.
• How marginalization may compound barriers to safety, support, and workplace accommodation.
• How an intersectional understanding of IPV should inform the Tribunal’s approach to discrimination connected to IPV experiences and employers’ obligations toward IPV survivors.
• The barriers survivors face in reporting, disclosing, and proving experiences of IPV in the workplace and legal processes.
• How myths and stereotypes about IPV may affect workplace responses and legal decision-making.

This intervention continues West Coast LEAF’s longstanding advocacy to advance substantive equality for IPV survivors and improve legal responses to IPV. Our previous work in this area includes Single Mothers’ Alliance v. BC  and interventions before the Supreme Court of Canada:

• Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia
• Barendregt v. Grebliunas
• Colucci v. Colucci

What’s next

The case will be heard at the BC Human Rights Tribunal from July 6 to July 10, 2026.

West Coast LEAF is represented by pro bono lawyers Afifa Hashimi and Cherlene Eloria from Moore Edgar Lyster LLP, alongside our Staff Lawyers, Humera Jabir, Kate Feeney, and Idaresit Thompson.