Employees relocated by employer during wildfire season
On March 31, 2026, British Columbia Provincial Court Judge Harbans Dhillon found a healthcare worker guilty on all three counts of sexual assault against three female co-workers.
The group had all been relocated by their long-term care employer during a wildfire emergency and were housed in employer-arranged Airbnbs.
The case, R. v. J.M.M., raises direct questions about employer duty of care when co-workers share off-site, after-hours accommodation.
Relocation to Airbnb
“J.M.M.” and four female colleagues were relocated from Kelowna to Vancouver by their employer to care for patients evacuated during the 2023 McDougall Creek wildfires. The employer arranged two Airbnb rentals as temporary housing: “J.M.,” “R.W.” and “M.P.H.” were placed in a Kitsilano unit; J.M.M. and “B.H.” were housed in a separate unit.
On Aug. 22, 2023, the five gathered at the Kitsilano Airbnb, went to a nearby pub, and returned after 1 a.m. All had consumed alcohol; J.M.M. was the most adversely affected. The primary occupants decided J.M.M. and B.H. would sleep over. J.M.M. placed himself on the main floor couch.
By early morning, four incidents of sexual assault had occurred across three counts: a non-consensual kiss of J.M. at the pub; groping of R.W. on the street during the walk back; and two separate bedroom assaults inside the Airbnb, one on a sleeping J.M. who remained unaware until the following morning, and one on B.H.
Assault of co-workers
During the walk back, R.W. supported the visibly intoxicated J.M.M. The judge found that J.M.M.'s hands were consistently wandering away from where R.W. had placed them in order to touch her body inappropriately. She repositioned his hands repeatedly; he moved them back each time. She did not consent.
Later, B.H. awoke to someone pressed firmly against her, with hands touching her inappropriately. She quietly left the room, went downstairs to the main floor and confirmed J.M.M. was not on the couch, then went upstairs and alerted co-workers on the third floor.
R.W. went to investigate and found J.M.M. in the bed of J.M., on top of a sleeping co-worker and naked from the waist down. J.M. was clothed and entirely unaware of what was happening.
A Nova Scotia employer that insisted that a student sexually assaulting one of its educational assistants fell within the expected risks of the role recently lost its case.
HR’s involvement in complaints
At around 6 a.m., M.P.H. contacted their director of care, who escalated the situation to human resources, which referred the matter to Vancouver Coastal Health. Police did not arrive until about 9 p.m. Formal police interviews of R.W., B.H. and M.P.H. were not recorded until Aug. 25, nearly 72 hours after the incidents.
The defence argued the employer's early involvement before police may have contaminated witness evidence. The workers had the opportunity to discuss the events of the prior evening with each other before the employer was notified and were in the Airbnb during the course of employer-led interviews. The defence also noted the delay of some 48-72 hours before the police took recorded statements from the complainants or M.P.H.
Judge Dhillon rejected the argument, finding "there is no credible risk of influence on their independent recollections, even innocently." Each complainant's account concerned events that only she had personally witnessed.
"I find J.M.M. guilty of sexual assault under Count 1, Count 2, and Count 3," Judge Dhillon concluded.
