Worker ‘bears the burden here; the respondent does not have to show that an order for security is warranted’
The British Columbia Court of Appeal has ordered a former Whole Foods Market employee to post $7,500 as security for costs before her appeal can proceed in a case involving allegations of retaliatory dismissal and systemic discrimination.
In Moradi v. Whole Foods Market, 2026 BCCA 105 – released March 10, 2026 – Justice DeWitt‑Van Oosten, sitting in chambers, also granted Whole Foods extra time to file its factum and dismissed the worker’s application to stay a previous costs award from the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The appeal arises from the 2019 termination of Faranak Moradi, who was dismissed after 70 days of employment. She filed a prohibited action complaint with the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB), alleging Whole Foods dismissed her in retaliation for reporting health and safety issues, contrary to s. 48 of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.B.C. 2019, c. 1.
A WCB officer rejected the complaint in December 2020, finding the company had not taken prohibited action.
On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) upheld that decision. WCAT accepted that Moradi had established a prima facie case of prohibited action but concluded Whole Foods proved it terminated her for performance reasons rather than because she raised occupational health and safety concerns.
WCAT ultimately agreed with the investigation’s legal officer that the termination was “in no way tainted by [Moradi’s] reporting of occupational health and safety concerns.”
Judicial review and Supreme Court ruling
Moradi sought judicial review in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, alleging WCAT denied her procedural fairness and mishandled the evidentiary record, including CCTV footage, employment contracts and comparative workload information. She also alleged bias and improper assessment of her harassment and retaliation claims.
On June 6, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that none of the grounds met the standard of patent unreasonableness and that there had been no procedural unfairness.
Madam Justice DeWitt‑Van Oosten said the judge below “properly instructed herself on the legal principles that governed her assessment of WCAT’s decision, carefully considered the issues raised by Moradi (both substantive and procedural), paid attention to the record before WCAT, and reached principled conclusions about whether Moradi met the test for judicial intervention.”
Appeal
On July 7, 2025, Moradi filed a notice of appeal from that decision and later obtained a no‑fees order for court filing fees. Whole Foods applied for security for costs in October 2025. The application was adjourned several times, including to accommodate the need for an interpreter and a medical emergency reported by Moradi.
Whole Foods argued that her appeal grounds were weak and that it was unlikely to recover costs if she did not succeed. It also noted she had launched another appeal relating to a human rights complaint from the same employment relationship.
Self‑represented with an interpreter, Moradi argued that requiring security would likely prevent any substantive appeal and would misuse the security for costs regime. She said her appeal raised issues of public interest and deposed that, because of her “medical disability, unemployment, and financial circumstances”, she lacked the ability to post security or withstand enforcement of costs orders and was “unable to meet basic living expenses, including essential medical treatment costs, housing expenses, and other fundamental living necessities.”
Limited prospects of success
Justice DeWitt‑Van Oosten accepted that posting security would be “difficult (and potentially impossible)” for Moradi, noting her limited financial means, outstanding costs from the Supreme Court and a second related appeal. She observed that “she has not paid the costs ordered below.”
However, she emphasised that impecuniosity is not decisive where an appeal appears very weak. “Ms. Moradi bears the burden here; the respondent does not have to show that an order for security is warranted. It is presumptively in the interests of justice to grant one.”
After reviewing the materials, she concluded the case had “little prospect of success”. While Moradi characterised her appeal as raising systemic issues, the judge found “the predominant complaint in the factum is that both the WCAT and Supreme Court decisions were procedurally unfair because they reflect decisions made on an incomplete evidentiary record.”
On the WCAT record, she wrote: “It is apparent from the decision that Ms. Moradi received multiple opportunities to submit documentary evidence to WCAT, both solicited and non‑solicited. She personally participated in the WCAT hearing and it appears additional hearing time was provided to ensure the parties could complete their evidence and submissions.”
She noted WCAT had even accepted material it had not agreed to receive in advance, acknowledging that Moradi “has some physical and/or mental health concerns which may have made it difficult to provide evidence and submissions within the regular timeframes.”
“Based on my reading of the application material,” Justice DeWitt‑Van Oosten added, “I am satisfied Ms. Moradi faces a significant challenge in advancing this appeal.” Serious allegations that documents had been intentionally removed or altered were, “on the face of it, unsubstantiated”.
Finding that security for costs was in the interests of justice, the judge reduced the amount sought by Whole Foods from $11,048.40 to $7,500, taking into account the worker’s circumstances. She ordered that Moradi has 30 days from the date of the reasons to post security and that, until security is posted, the appeal is stayed.
Madam Justice DeWitt‑Van Oosten granted Whole Foods an extension of time to file its factum “until 30 days past the posting of security”. She dismissed Ms. Moradi’s application to stay the Supreme Court costs order as unnecessary, stating: “Given the respondent’s commitment, I consider Ms. Moradi’s application for a stay unnecessary and I decline to make that order. She cannot show irreparable harm.”
Here’s how to avoid wrongful dismissal claims, according to an expert.
