The employer proved the termination was not tainted by the worker's safety reports
Whole Foods Market terminated a worker after 70 days on the job. She alleged it was retaliation for reporting health and safety concerns. A tribunal found the employer proved the termination was about performance.
In a March 10, 2026 decision, Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten of the British Columbia Court of Appeal found the worker's appeal carried "little prospect of success" and ordered her to post $7,500 in security for costs.
When a safety complaint meets a short tenure
In 2019, Whole Foods terminated Faranak Moradi's employment after 70 days' work. In response, she filed a prohibited action complaint under s. 48 of the Workers Compensation Act, alleging she was unlawfully dismissed as retaliation for reporting health and safety issues.
An officer with the Workers' Compensation Board determined on December 4, 2020 that Whole Foods did not take prohibited action. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal upheld that finding.
WCAT concluded that Moradi made out a prima facie case for a prohibited action; however, the employer proved the termination "was due to performance issues rather than Ms. Moradi's reporting of health and safety concerns."
How the employer's defence survived three levels of review
Moradi sought judicial review in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, raising five grounds. Among them, she alleged the tribunal erred by refusing to consider CCTV footage, employment contracts, and her comparative workload, and by failing to properly assess the authenticity and reliability of performance reviews and other evidence adduced by the employer.
The Supreme Court dismissed her petition on June 6, 2025, finding "none of the substantive grounds for judicial review me[t] the standard of patent unreasonableness, and nor [did] the alleged procedural grounds reveal any unfairness in the process."
Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten observed that Moradi received multiple opportunities to submit documentary evidence to WCAT, "both solicited and non-solicited," and that it appears additional hearing time was provided to ensure the parties could complete their evidence and submissions.
On review of the evidence as a whole, WCAT agreed with the investigations legal officer that the termination was "in no way tainted by [Ms. Moradi's] reporting of occupational health and safety concerns."
What the appeal court found
Moradi appealed, representing herself with the assistance of an interpreter. Her factum framed the case around procedural fairness, asserting "the decision under review was reached on an incomplete and internally inconsistent record, despite the Tribunal's own acknowledgements of evidentiary gaps."
Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten found that Moradi "has not identified a clear error of law, error in principle, abjectly flawed reasoning process, or a misapprehension of the record specific to the judge's conclusions."
Where an appeal is "virtually without merit," the court noted, security for costs may well be ordered even though an appellant is impecunious, because a "successful [party] should not be required to respond to an unmeritorious appeal when there is no real prospect of recovery."
The appeal is stayed until Moradi posts the $7,500 security within 30 days. If she does not, Whole Foods has liberty to apply to have the appeal dismissed as abandoned.
