'Human rights law is about impact, not intentions,' says B.C. tribunal
A British Columbia employer has been ordered to pay more than $45,000 after a tribunal found it discriminated against a worker returning from maternity leave, despite acting without discriminatory intent.
In a decision dated March 12, 2026, Tribunal Member Beverly Froese found that North Horizon Immigration Consulting violated the Human Rights Code based on the employee's sex and family status, after a scheduling dispute derailed what had been a productive employment relationship.
The employee had worked part-time at North Horizon since 2017 on a flexible Monday-to-Thursday schedule. Her employer, owner and CEO Rita Benkhalti, had described her in writing as "the most valuable member of my team." The two had discussed the employee obtaining her immigration consultant licence and moving into a senior role at the company.
The conflict began at a Jan. 18, 2020, meeting, about three weeks before her scheduled return from maternity leave. When she said she couldn’t work Fridays due to childcare, Benkhalti assumed she had deliberately withheld this intention. The tribunal found no verbal agreement to return full-time had ever been made.
At that meeting, Benkhalti told the employee Castro Mosquera she was "demanding too much" and did not "deserve" special privileges "just because she is a mother." Froese found the account credible, noting the employee's own words: "A sentence like that marks you right in the face."
The contract clause that added fuel to the fire
Benkhalti then prepared a new employment contract offering a flexible four-day, up-to-32-hour weekly schedule. The agreement included a "Special Considerations" section requiring her to seek professional counselling for six months, with one session required on the first day of employment. Froese found she only agreed because she felt her job was at risk, and that the requirement constituted an adverse impact.
The contract contained two clauses the tribunal found to be in apparent conflict: a "Conditions of Employment" clause stating that terms "may be negotiated upon mutual agreement by both parties," and a "Future Events" clause reserving North Horizon's right to make reasonable revisions as changing circumstances required.
The Friday night before her scheduled return, the employee emailed questions about these clauses and other items in the contract. Benkhalti responded by cancelling the agreement and told her she could not start Monday. The tribunal found the employee had never refused to work and had repeatedly confirmed she was ready to return.
$45,000 reckoning for discriminatory termination
Benkhalti met with a lawyer on Feb. 11, 2020, and sent a termination email that same day. The tribunal found that by the time Benkhalti met with her lawyer, she had already decided North Horizon was under no obligation to continue negotiating with the returning employee — and that the lawyer did not advise her to end the employment.
After the meeting, she proceeded on the basis that the employee had "repudiated" the 2020 Contract, a finding the tribunal rejected. The retaliation complaint was dismissed.
Froese ordered North Horizon to pay $21,350 in lost wages for the period from termination to Oct. 27, 2020; $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect; and $3,688 for expenses including legal fees and medical costs for counselling and physiotherapy. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest were also ordered on top of these base amounts, meaning the true total cost to North Horizon will be higher.
The tribunal's clearest guidance for employers came from Froese's own ruling: "Human rights law is about impact, not intentions." She found that Benkhalti's assumption that the employee would continue raising childcare-related demands factored into both how the employee was treated and why she was terminated.
