Professional Documents
Culture Documents
19 Morriss V Ruth and Naomis Mission 2021 BCHRT 19
19 Morriss V Ruth and Naomis Mission 2021 BCHRT 19
Issued: February 2, 2021
File: 20177
Indexed as: Morriss v. Ruth and Naomi’s Mission, 2021 BCHRT 19
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Sean Morriss
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Ruth and Naomi’s Mission
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member: Devyn Cousineau
On their own behalf: Sean Morriss
Agent for the Respondent: Bill Raddatz
Date of Hearing: November 5, 2020
Location of Hearing: Via videoconference
I INTRODUCTION
Ruth and Naomi’s Mission [RAN] is a faith‐based organization that provides services to
people living in poverty. One of those services is the Portal Shelter, which offers beds for people
to stay on a semi‐permanent basis. Residents at the Portal can access meals and showers at a
separate, but nearby, building called the “Main Campus”.
Sean Morriss was a resident at the Portal Shelter in 2019. He regularly accessed showers
at the Main Campus. In around September 2019, RAN began to play Christian music and display
scripture on a large screen in the area where Mr. Morriss would wait for his shower. Mr.
Morriss became very upset by this and felt he could no longer use the shower facilities because
of the exposure to religious material. He says that RAN staff refused to help him. On December
3, 2019, he filed this human rights complaint alleging that RAN and a number of its employees
had discriminated against him based on religion in violation of s. 8 of the Human Rights Code
[Code].
Very shortly after filing his complaint, Mr. Morriss was involved in an altercation with
another resident at the Portal. Both men were evicted from the shelter. Eventually, RAN told
Mr. Morriss that he was no longer welcome to access any RAN services. Mr. Morriss alleges that
he was evicted, suspended, and banned from RAN because he filed a human rights complaint,
in violation of s. 43 of the Code.
I heard this matter over one day. For the reasons that follow, I find that RAN did not
discriminate against Mr. Morriss based on his religion. I find that RAN did not evict Mr. Morriss
from the Portal because of his human rights complaint. However, I do find that, after this
eviction, RAN extended Mr. Morriss’ suspension because of his human rights complaint. This
was a violation of s. 43 of the Code, which protects Mr. Morriss from reprisal as a result of filing
his complaint. I order RAN to cease this contravention and compensate Mr. Morriss for injury to
his dignity, feelings, and self‐respect.
1
II ISSUES
There are two issues in this complaint. The first is whether RAN discriminated against
Mr. Morriss based on his religion. The burden is on Mr. Morriss to prove three things: (1) he has
a sincerely held religious belief, (2) he was adversely impacted in connection with RAN’s
services, and (3) his religion was a factor in that adverse impact: Moore v. BC (Education), 2012
SCC 61 at para. 33. “Religion” in the Code includes religious non‐belief and refusal to participate
in religious practice: Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City), 2015 SCC 16 at para. 32;
Mangel and Yasué obo Child A v. Bowen Island Montessori School and others, 2018 BCHRT 281
at para. 210. While RAN has also raised its own religious rights in defence, I have not found it
necessary to balance those interests in light of my findings about Mr. Morriss’ claim for
protection on religious grounds.
The second issue is whether RAN retaliated against Mr. Morriss for filing a human rights
complaint, in violation of s. 43 of the Code. This issue requires Mr. Morris to prove that RAN
knew he had made, or might make, a human rights complaint and that it evicted him from the
Portal, and suspended him from RAN services, in retaliation for that complaint. An intention to
retaliate can be proven by direct evidence, or by inference where a reasonable complainant,
apprised of the facts at the time, would reasonably perceive that RAN acted in retaliation:
Gichuru v. Pallai, 2018 BCCA 78 at para. 58 (adjusted to reflect a subsequent amendment of s.
43).
With those issues in mind, I turn now to the events which gave rise to this complaint.
III FACTS
RAN is a Christian non‐profit organization that serves people experiencing poverty,
homelessness, and addiction. Its mission statement is “Loving God by transforming our
community one life at a time”, and its vision is “Transforming the lives of the poor, the
homeless and the addicted by bringing hope and healing through the love of God”. It is
2
governed by a Board of Directors. It receives funding through a variety of public and private
sources. Bill Raddatz, who represents RAN in this complaint, is its Executive Director.
While religion is at the heart of RAN’s mission and values, its goal is not to evangelize or
impose Christianity on the people it serves. Its services are open to anyone, regardless of
religion, and service users can opt in or out of religious activities. For example, the pastor opens
every dinner with a devotional prayer. People who prefer not to participate in the prayer can
wait outside until it is done and then be welcomed into the building to eat. Similarly, the pastor
offers a Bible study group to people who are interested but does not expect anyone to attend if
they do not want to. In the words of one of the staff who testified, “we’re not about preaching
– we’re about meeting people where they’re at”. Religious activities are held almost exclusively
at the Main Campus.
One of RAN’s services is the Portal Shelter. At the relevant time, the Portal was located
in a separate building from the Main Campus. The Portal offers beds for people to stay on a
semi‐permanent basis. It is staffed 24 hours a day. Residents at the Portal have access to other
RAN services, including meals at the Main Campus as well as shower and laundry facilities. At
the relevant time, the shower facilities were also located at the Main Campus.
Mr. Morriss moved into the Portal on July 3, 2019. At that time, he was in his mid‐70s.
A. Music and scripture during shower times
Shortly after he moved in, Mr. Morriss began volunteering at the Main Campus during
shower times. From about 9:30‐11:30 am, he would help to set up supplies and manage people
coming in for a shower. He sat in the large open space at the Main Campus, often chatting to
other volunteers, including Karen Hoeppner. Ms. Hoeppner is RAN’s finance manager, but at
the relevant time she was on a parental leave and volunteering for the shower program.
One day in the fall of 2019, Mr. Morriss says that he went to have a shower at the Main
Campus. He was waiting outside the showers, chatting with Ms. Hoeppner, when he says that
“all of a sudden on comes this bible loudspeaker” and a large screen starts to display Bible
3
verse. He says that he has “a problem with this” and immediately had to get up and leave out
the back door. In his recollection, the speakers were very loudly playing someone reading Bible
verse, at the same time as those verses were displayed on a 10 by 20‐foot screen. He likens it to
a “religious minaret” and says that it was “louder than a movie”.
Steven Martinolich is the pastor at RAN. It was his decision to begin playing Christian
music and displaying scripture at the Main Campus. He explains that, in the summer of 2019, he
attended a conference which brought together missions from across North America. Among
other things, he was inspired during this conference by the way in which other missions
fostered a restful, peaceful atmosphere by playing gentle music alongside powerful Biblical
verses. In the fall of 2019, he brought this practice to RAN. He created a PowerPoint
presentation which rotates through slides containing verses from the Bible. He set up this
presentation to play on the large screen at the Main Campus. At the same time, he began to
play Christian music in the morning. The witnesses describe the music as contemporary
Christian music, like soft rock or easy listening. Except for Mr. Morriss, they all agree that it
played softly in the background.
Mr. Morriss’ evidence about the effect of the scripture and music was different than
every other witness. Whereas he recalls that the speakers loudly played the voice of someone
reading the scripture on the screen, no one else remembers it that way. On this issue, I prefer
the evidence of Mr. Martinolich and the other RAN staff who testified. First, Mr. Martinolich is
most familiar with the set‐up because he created it. I found him to be a credible witness whose
evidence was consistent with others’ and the probabilities of the case as a whole: Bradshaw v.
Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398 at para. 86. Second, the RAN witnesses in general had more exposure
to the set‐up than Mr. Morriss, who – by his own admission – was only exposed for a brief
period of time before leaving. Those witnesses were Ms. Hoeppner, who worked and
volunteered regularly at the Main Campus, Mr. Raddatz, RAN’s Executive Director, and Joel
Stock, now a manager at the Portal.
I accept these witnesses’ description of the set‐up as calm and quiet, with background
music playing while a screen displayed scripture. Music was always played at a low enough
4
volume to allow conversation and to foster a sense of serenity. The scripture on screen was
generated separately from the music, which played from a YouTube playlist. At no point was
there a loud voice reading the verses from the screen. The music was the same type and
volume as RAN had been regularly playing during dinnertime, and which Mr. Morriss agrees he
never had any objection to. No one else has ever complained about the music or the screen.
Mr. Morriss struggled to explain why this change caused him to have such an adverse
reaction. At various points in his evidence, he stressed that he does not have a “problem” with
religion but just did not want it shoved down his throat. He explained that he was raised
Protestant and then married a Catholic woman who later became a Mormon. When he refused
to convert to Mormonism, they divorced. He described a time when a Mormon bishop lied to
him. Though he is not Indigenous, he feels close to First Nations cultures and likens his
relationship with religion to that of Indigenous people who were forced to attend residential
school. He went so far as to say that his exposure to religion at RAN was “residential school #2
which is a native comes there, they have to accept western religion”. At other points in his
evidence, Mr. Morriss says that he would not object to the religious material if RAN did not
receive public funds to deliver its services. He put it this way: “why am I put in the position to
sell my soul for a bowl of rice?”
Mr. Morriss was asked whether he had any medical diagnosis that could explain his
strong reaction, including post traumatic stress disorder [PTSD]. He says that he has never been
diagnosed with PTSD but has sustained head trauma that requires him to avoid stress. He says
that his medical condition was misdiagnosed for two years. Just before he moved into the
Portal, his doctor took him off the medication he had previously been taking. At least twice
during his stay at the Portal, he went to the hospital emergency room after experiencing
serious stress.
In the result, it is unclear to me what caused Mr. Morriss to react so strongly to the soft
Christian music and scripture he was exposed to in the Main Campus. It is undisputed, however,
that Mr. Morriss left the building that day and raised his concerns with a number of RAN staff.
5
Mr. Morriss stopped volunteering at the showers and began arriving at the Main
Campus right at 9:30 am, when the music was not playing yet. However, he says that one day
the music turned on while he was in the shower and he was forced, again, to leave in a hurry.
He says that, after that point, he no longer went to the Main Campus for showers and instead
gave himself sponge baths in the bathroom at the Portal.
Mr. Morriss says that he tried to talk to RAN staff about turning off the music and
scripture while he was showering but that their attitude was that “if you don’t like it, then
leave”. He says that, the first time it happened, he talked to Ms. Hoeppner and Mr. Martinolich
outside the building. He says that Mr. Martinolich told him “that’s the way it is” and that they
were not going to do anything to help him. Later, he says he spoke to Roseva Klopp, the Portal
supervisor, who told him “if you don’t like it, move”. Finally, he says that he spoke to Cory
Buettner, the Director of Community Services, who told Mr. Morriss that RAN is a Christian
organization and that he should just be grateful and not complain.
I pause here to make a note about Mr. Buettner. During the relevant time, he was the
Director of Community Services for RAN and, in that capacity, the most senior person at the
Portal. In May 2020, he took a leave of absence from work and had still not returned at the
time of this hearing. Mr. Morriss asked me to issue Mr. Buettner with an order to attend the
hearing, which I did. In response, Mr. Buettner requested to be excused from attendance on
medical grounds. I granted that request and cancelled the order compelling him to attend. In
the result, Mr. Buettner did not testify. This was nobody’s fault but has left significant gaps in
the evidence as it relates to critical decisions that Mr. Buettner made. I return to those below.
For present purposes, I simply note that Mr. Buettner did not testify so as to agree or disagree
with Mr. Morriss’ account of his conduct.
The RAN staff who did testify recall talking to Mr. Morriss about the music, but dispute
his characterisation that they were dismissive or condescending. While Mr. Martinolich was not
prepared to stop playing the music, he says there were other options for Mr. Morriss to avoid
being impacted by it. He recalls that Ms. Hoeppner had offered for Mr. Morriss to wait outside,
in a covered area, until it was his turn to shower. He says they would have brought a chair out
6
for him and that the wait is only ever up to ten minutes. In his evidence, Mr. Martinolich was
somewhat incredulous that the music would be a barrier to Mr. Morriss having a shower. He
explained:
We deal with very very difficult people – waaaaaaayyyy more difficult
than Mr. Morriss. … We do our best... to get people in to shower. Of
course ‐ that’s why we have this. You wouldn’t imagine the things we
have to do and put up with. Spit at, I’ve been sworn at… to get someone
from outside into the shower, to finally wash. This is a big deal for us. We
care. We go through and sacrifice a lot for this. So… for someone who
doesn’t like scripture, that’s really nothing! We would welcome him any
second of the day to come in and have a shower. For what we normally
put up with to get someone clean and offer what we offer, we go through
a lot. This is really nothing.
Ms. Hoeppner recalls that she tried to talk to Mr. Morriss about why he was so upset
about the music, but that they were not able to have a proper conversation. She says that Mr.
Morriss was mumbling things she could not understand, and then simply walked away. She says
that she spoke to Mr. Martinolich about it but could not remember his response.
Ms. Klopp, Portal supervisor, also testified about Mr. Morriss’ complaints. However, her
testimony was under somewhat unusual circumstances. She took a leave of absence from RAN
in January 2020 and was still on leave at the date of hearing. I granted Mr. Morriss’ request for
an order compelling her to attend the hearing and give evidence. Ms. Klopp received notice of
this order only four days before her testimony. When she appeared to testify, she did not know
what the proceeding was about. As a result, she had little opportunity to collect her thoughts
and refresh her memory about the events which had taken place over one year earlier. She
could remember very little. She does remember Mr. Morriss had raised the music as an issue
but could not remember whether she offered him any solutions. She says that Mr. Morriss
would have had other options, and that normally she would refer people to the Salvation Army
for a shower.
Mr. Stock, who was a staff member at the Portal at the time, remembers Mr. Morriss
complaining about the music at the showers. From his perspective, it seemed clear that Mr.
7
Morriss’ concerns were irrational and must be related to his mental health. He suggested that
Mr. Morriss wear earplugs, but found it impossible to have a rational conversation with him
about the problem. He says he was observing that Mr. Morriss seemed increasingly stressed
over this period and felt that he needed help for his mental health. This was reflected in a note
he made on an internal staff document dated September 12, in which he said that “Sean is
unwell with his stress problems” and asked staff to “keep an eye on him”.
What I take from the evidence is that Mr. Morriss complained about the music and
scripture. RAN was not prepared to stop playing it during the shower times, but there were
other options which would have allowed Mr. Morriss to shower with little or no exposure to it.
These options included waiting outside until it was his turn to shower, using earplugs to drown
out the music, or using the shower facilities at the Salvation Army. I find these options were
presented to Mr. Morriss, though he did not appreciate them at the time. Rather, Mr. Morriss
focused on RAN’s intention to continue playing the music and displaying the scripture, and
interpreted its response to be uncaring. For its part, the RAN staff did not fully understand Mr.
Morriss’ concerns and – aside from their suggestions about other options – did not consider
there was more they could do.
In the result, Mr. Morriss stopped going to the Main Campus for showers or for meals.
On December 3, 2019, Mr. Morriss filed this complaint of discrimination based on
religion. In addition to RAN and the Portal, he named Mr. Buettner, Mr. Martinolich, and Ms.
Klopp as individual respondents.1 Mr. Morriss says he made no secret of his intention to file the
complaint. It was officially served on RAN by letter dated January 21, 2020, but RAN staff knew
about it earlier.
B. Eviction and suspension of services
On December 12, 2019 Mr. Morriss was at the Portal. He says he was eating his dinner
peacefully at around 7:45 when out of nowhere another resident, who I will call T, came over
1
I dismissed the complaint against the individuals in a letter decision dated September 4, 2020, and denied Mr.
Morriss’ application for reconsideration of that decision in a letter decision dated September 22, 2020.
8
and started “beating the shit out of me”. Mr. Morriss says he did not react or retaliate at the
time. Later that evening, he filed a written complaint, saying:
I was sitting on a chair at [H’s] table at the back near kitchen after chores.
[T] comes straight at me, beats me, grabbing chair I am on and has a
physical altercation with me. Saying I was sitting on his chair. He had just
come back from dinner I assume.
The next morning, Mr. Morriss says he repeatedly approached Ms. Klopp to try to talk to
her about his complaint, but that she kept brushing him off. At lunchtime, he says he sat down
to eat his sandwich when T approached him again and threw hot water in his face. Mr. Morriss
says he stood up and started “giving it” to T. He says at this point that he was very stressed
because no one would talk to him about the incident the night before and nobody was helping
him. Staff intervened to break up the fight. Mr. Morriss left the Portal and hopped on a bus to
cool off.
Ms. Klopp and Mr. Stock were working on December 13 when the second altercation
between T and Mr. Morriss occurred. There was also video of that altercation, which they
reviewed multiple times and which was submitted as evidence in this hearing. The table where
Mr. Morriss was sitting is obscured in the video, and so staff could not see what happened
when T initially walked past Mr. Morriss, and who started the fight. Mr. Stock says that Mr.
Morriss was wet, but he could not determine whether he was wet because T threw liquid on
him or because he had spilled something. The video then shows T walking away from Mr.
Morriss, who follows him and tries to punch him. The entire fight lasts about 7 seconds before
staff intervenes and the men walk away from each other.
Mr. Stock says that the relationship between T and Mr. Morriss had been bad for some
time, and that each one was guilty of antagonizing the other. He says the December 13 incident
was the result of months of built up tension between them. He recalls that that both men were
very shaken up after the incident.
Mr. Raddatz recalls that Mr. Buettner brought this incident to his attention. He says that
RAN has a zero‐tolerance policy for violence, for the protection of its staff and the people they
9
serve. He and Mr. Buettner decided together to suspend T and Mr. Morriss from the Portal
because of the fight. Mr. Raddatz explains that it was important to send the message that RAN
would not tolerate any fighting. However, any suspension would be temporary. He says RAN is
always willing to accept people back if they express remorse and commit to not repeating the
behaviour.
When Mr. Morriss returned to the Portal after his bus ride, Ms. Klopp met him outside
and told him he was being evicted. He says she told him that the Salvation Army was also full,
and that their last bed had gone to T – which was salt in Mr. Morriss’ wounds. I make no finding
about whether that was true. Mr. Morriss asked when he could come back to the Portal and
was told that he was #50 on the waitlist. He went straight from the Portal to the hospital.
Mr. Morriss eventually secured a bed at the Salvation Army. Under their rules, he was
required to leave after 30 days. That limit was extended in his case.
Beginning around January 9, Mr. Morriss was actively trying to return to the Portal. He
asked a social worker to call the Portal on his behalf to ask whether he could return. Mr.
Morriss says that Mr. Buettner told the social worker that he was “banned” because he had
“sued” RAN. In an email, Mr. Buettner later denied having any conversation like this or that Mr.
Morriss was banned because of his human rights complaint. Given that Mr. Morriss did not
directly hear Mr. Buettner say this, and that all of Mr. Buettner’s written communications were
adamant that that this was not the case, I do not accept that he told the social worker that Mr.
Morriss was banned because of his complaint. That said, Mr. Morriss was not the only one who
was left with this impression.
At this time Mr. Stock had been working at the Portal for less than one year. He says
that Mr. Buettner would sometimes ask him to convey messages to staff via an online staff
chat. On January 9, Mr. Stock sent a chat message to staff that said, “Sean Morriss FYI is banned
permanently because of his lawsuits against the place. He called today because his time at
Salvation Army is done”. Just under three hours later, Mr. Buettner responded to Mr. Stock’s
10
group chat to say, “his ban is actually permanent from violence against guests and death
threats to an employees personal cell phone” [as written].
In his evidence, Mr. Stock says that he had probably misunderstood the reasons behind
Mr. Morriss’ ban. His evidence about what Mr. Buettner told him is unclear: at first, he said that
Mr. Buettner had told him “something like that” (that Mr. Morriss was banned because of his
lawsuit), but then later he said he did not remember Mr. Buettner specifically telling him that.
Rather, he was aware of the human rights complaint and says that, in his mind at the time, it
did not make sense that a person could stay at the Portal at the same time as they are suing
RAN and several of its staff (including Mr. Buettner) personally. Implicit in this explanation is
that Mr. Stock did not consider Mr. Morriss’ altercation with T to be so serious as to explain a
long‐term suspension of services, much less a permanent ban. This was also Ms. Klopp’s view.
She testified:
From my opinion and the way we ran the Portal, that would not have
warranted a permanent ban. Permanent bans were for much more
serious things. That wouldn’t have warranted a permanent ban and I
don’t recall any conversations around that.
Based on my own review of the video, I agree that Mr. Morriss’ fight with T could not be
described as extremely serious or violent so as to warrant a permanent ban, particularly in light
of the nature of RAN’s services and its belief in second chances.
At the hearing, no one could recall or explain to me what violence or death threats Mr.
Buettner was describing in his message. Mr. Morriss was shocked at this suggestion, calling Mr.
Stock’s evidence “psychedelic” and from “the far side of the moon”. He denies ever acting
violent or threatening. The only violence that anyone could recall was Mr. Morriss’ fight with T.
It seems most likely, from all of the evidence, that this is the “violence” that Mr. Buettner was
referring to. I cannot find that Mr. Morriss issued death threats to any employee.
On January 10, Mr. Morriss went to the Portal to talk to Mr. Buettner directly. He says
that Mr. Buettner confirmed that he was banned from the Portal, but invited him to stay in
RAN’s emergency shelter in the Main Campus, called “Pathways”.
11
Mr. Stock says there was a lot of “drama” about Mr. Morriss’ attempts to return at the
Portal. He says that Mr. Morriss came by and argued with Ms. Klopp and Mr. Buettner about
returning. However, Ms. Klopp was no longer working at the Portal at this time. She did not
remember any particularly negative interactions with Mr. Morriss aside from the incident with
T. Given this clear misunderstanding, I must approach Mr. Stock’s evidence with some caution. I
do, however, accept that Mr. Morriss was actively trying to return to the Portal and had
arguments with Portal staff about how or when that could happen. Mr. Morriss was 76 years
old and facing homelessness. The stakes for him were very high.
On January 21, the Tribunal gave notice that Mr. Morriss’ human rights complaint
against RAN, the Portal, Mr. Buettner, Ms. Klopp, and Mr. Martinolich had been accepted for
filing. It emailed this notice to Mr. Morriss and sent a copy to RAN and the Portal via mail.
On January 22, Mr. Morriss wrote directly to Mr. Raddatz to ask whether he was banned
from staying at the Portal. The subject of the email was “003_20177 Morriss_notice of
complaint proceeding.pdf”, referring to the Tribunal’s notice that Mr. Morriss’ complaint would
proceed. Mr. Raddatz forwarded the email to Mr. Buettner for response. On January 23, Mr.
Buettner wrote to Mr. Morriss as follows:
Mr. Morriss, I am responding to your inquiry about the suspension you
received from an incident that occurred on 12/13/2019 at 13:35. Your
suspension was due to a violent incident between yourself and another
shelter guest. Both of you were asked to leave that day and both received
a suspension of services. Staff and others witnessed you striking the other
individual who did not strike back. Staff broke up the altercation and then
asked both of you to leave. We do not tolerate violence at any of our
facilities and that is the reason for the suspension. In your recent
correspondence you mentioned speaking to me and that is simply not
true. We have not spoken on the phone before and definitely not about
this. When my staff inquired about a lawsuit which you brought up to
them, I informed them that I knew nothing about any lawsuit and
reiterated to them the reason for your suspension. At this time the Portal
is full. You may inquire upon leaving Salvation Army if a bed is available
and at that time may stay at our Pathways shelter if there is space
available. This is a final warning, if there are any more violent or abusive
12
actions towards staff or other guests you will no longer be allowed to
access our services at any of our locations.
Mr. Morriss responded to this email 15 minutes later, advising that he would be
attaching Mr. Buettner’s email to his human rights complaint. He asked Mr. Buettner to clarify
whether he was banned from the Portal. Two minutes later, Mr. Buettner clarified, “Your
suspension is off under the conditions I listed in my response”. I understand those conditions to
be that Mr. Morriss could access RAN services and stay at Pathways until a bed opened up at
Portal, so long as he refrained from any violence or abusive conduct towards staff. In response
to Mr. Buettner’s email, Mr. Morriss again said that he would be adding the email to his human
rights complaint.
Internally, Mr. Stock sent a group chat to advise “Sean Morriss according to Cory is
allowed all services at Ran except getting a bed at the portal. He can hang out at portal during
the day” [as written]. Mr. Buettner followed this up with a message that explained, “We will put
his name on the list and when beds come available will discuss his behavior and make decisions
at that time.”
Mr. Morriss went to the Portal to ask to move back in. He says that the staff person told
him that she would put his name on the waitlist but that, in the meantime, he could stay at
Pathways. Mr. Morriss objected to this suggestion because it would have required his exposure
to the music and scripture. Mr. Morriss reported to Mr. Buettner and Mr. Raddatz in an email
that he had observed T inside the Portal and questioned why he was banned, and T was not.
None of the RAN witnesses explained whether and when T had been allowed to return, and I
make no findings about that issue.
The next day, January 24, Mr. Buettner sent the staff a message to say “Sean Morriss is
suspended from all services as of today. If he asks why you can refer him to me”. He said the
ban was “indefinite”.
Mr. Buettner delivered this news to Mr. Morriss on January 25, writing:
13
Based on the previous incidents discussed and our most recent
communications with you, we have decided at this time you are not
allowed to access services at any of our RAN locations.
At the hearing, no one could explain what had happened in the 24 hours between
January 23 and January 24 that led Mr. Buettner to go from inviting Mr. Morriss back, under
certain conditions, to a complete ban on accessing any RAN services. Mr. Stock says that Mr.
Morriss was being very argumentative with staff about trying to get back into the Portal and
speculated that Mr. Buettner was responding to Mr. Morriss’ disrespectful and abusive conduct
towards staff. He testified:
I think I know why he did this… Sean I don’t think liked that he couldn’t
get a bed right away at the Portal. I have a feeling he did this because
Sean was probably like verbally abusive or something, disrespectful…. I
think Cory was trying to work it out with Sean, how Sean could come back
and there was a lot of arguing from Sean, name calling … I’m pretty sure
this is what happened. Cory’s trying to work it out with boundaries, right.
Cuz that would totally be like a boundary lesson, like you can stay in
Pathways for a while and if we see that your behaviour’s ok, you can get
along with people then we’ll give you a bed in the back. Which we still do,
right. We want to make sure people can behave ok and follow the rules
for safety. …. You asked why would he do this. I think because Sean went
off on him, called him names, stuff like that, just disrespectful, so Cory’s
like, “ok if you’re going to have that attitude, you can stay at Salvation
Army.”
Similarly, Mr. Raddatz could only speculate about what gave rise to Mr. Buettner’s
decision. He recalls that other Portal residents were complaining to Mr. Buettner that Mr.
Morriss was an antagonist and they did not want him back. He says, in any event, that a
suspension from RAN’s services is never permanent; they always leave the door open to come
back under the right conditions.
Neither of these theories, however, explain what happened between January 23 and
January 24 that led Mr. Buettner to reverse his decision to lift Mr. Morriss’ suspension, with
conditions. There was no further incident of violence, and no other communications I am aware
of aside from the emails. Any arguing from Mr. Morriss, or complaints from other residents,
would likely have happened before January 23 when Mr. Buettner said that Mr. Morriss could
14
return under conditions. I do not accept that the theories of Mr. Stock and Mr. Raddatz fully
explain the reasons for Mr. Morriss’ indefinite suspension on January 24. I return to this below.
At the time of hearing, Mr. Morriss had not returned to the Portal. He stayed at the
Salvation Army for some time before securing affordable housing.
On April 3, 2020, Mr. Morriss amended his human rights complaint to add allegations
arising from his interactions with RAN in January. During a case management call in July, he
clarified that he was alleging that RAN retaliated against him for filing his human rights
complaint when it evicted and suspended him from the Portal and other RAN services: letter
decision dated July 23, 2020.
IV DECISION
As I have said, there are two issues I must decide: (1) whether RAN discriminated
against Mr. Morriss based on his religion, and (2) whether RAN evicted, suspended, and banned
Mr. Morriss because he filed a human rights complaint. I consider each issue in turn.
A. Discrimination
People in BC have the right to access services free of discrimination based on personal
characteristics protected in s. 8 of the Code. The purpose of this protection is to foster a more
equitable society, in which “there are no impediments to full and free participation in the
economic, social, political, and cultural life of British Columbia”: Code, s. 3.
Mr. Morriss argues that by requiring him to listen to religious music and see scripture
while he waited for a shower, RAN discriminated against him based on religion. To prove his
complaint, the first thing that Mr. Morriss must establish is that he is protected from
discrimination based on religion. He must show that he has a sincere belief connected to
religion: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47 at para. 56. This could include atheism,
agnosticism, or any kind of non‐belief in a divine being or spirituality: S.L. v. Commission scolaire
des Chênes, 2012 SCC 7 at para. 32.
15
Mr. Morriss has not identified any belief, or non‐belief, connected with religion so as to
trigger the protection of s. 8. This is fatal to his complaint.
Mr. Morriss did not, or could not, articulate how his objection to the music and scripture
is rooted in any belief having a connection to religion. He struggled to explain the basis for his
objection, and the staff that he spoke to about it did not understand it. The evidence before me
suggests that the explanation could be rooted in any number of sources, including in a
philosophical objection to an organization which receives public funds openly communicating
about religion, a mental health condition, or in pain he experienced in his marriage and which
he associates with religion. Ultimately, I think it is most accurate to characterize Mr. Morriss’
complaint as an assertion that he has the right to be free from religious material when he
accesses the services provided by RAN. However, that is not the protection conferred by s. 8 of
the Code.
RAN is not a government entity. It is not under any freestanding obligation to remain
neutral in matters of religion: Saguenay at para. 74. To the contrary, it is an expressly faith‐
based organization. Its directors, members, and staff are entitled to express and practice their
religious beliefs in the delivery of their services. The Code draws the line where the effect of
such practices is to discriminate against a service user in a way that is not justified.
Mr. Morriss has not proven that he has a sincerely held belief connected to religion
which is protected from discrimination under s. 8. In these circumstances, I find that RAN did
not discriminate against him based on religion. I dismiss this part of his complaint.
Before concluding on this issue, I have noted that there was some evidence to suggest
Mr. Morriss’ strong reaction to the music and scripture could be connected to a mental health
issue. There is no question that Mr. Morriss is also protected from discrimination based on
disability. However, Mr. Morriss has not ever claimed that RAN discriminated against him based
on disability. It is not open to me in these circumstances to find that it did. Even if it were, the
evidence of Mr. Morriss’ disability and its connection to any adverse impact he experienced is
insufficient to support such a conclusion.
16
I dismiss Mr. Morriss’ complaint of discrimination based on religion.
B. Retaliation
This brings me to the more difficult issue, which is whether RAN evicted and suspended
Mr. Morriss from its services because he filed a human rights complaint. RAN’s intention is key
to this issue. As I have said, intention can be proven by direct evidence or by inference based on
what a reasonable complainant, apprised of the facts at the time, would perceive as the
motives underlying those decisions.
My analysis is grounded in the purpose of the protection conferred by s. 43 of the Code.
Section 43 is unique in the Code because it “establishes procedural protections for participants
in the human rights process”: Gichuru at para. 51. Those protections are “vital to making the
Code’s protections meaningful”: Birchall v. BSC 61 Strata Corporation and another, 2018 BCHRT
29 at para. 68. The Code’s purposes of identifying and eliminating discrimination can only be
realized if people feel safe and empowered to bring forward complaints about discrimination
without fear of reprisal. Section 43 aims to create safe conditions for people to bring forward
issues of discrimination – whether or not those issues are ultimately substantiated: Talkkari v.
City of Burnaby and others, 2005 BCHRT 68 at para. 29.
For Mr. Morriss, this means that the Code protects him from reprisal for filing a human
rights complaint. Such reprisal includes eviction or denial of service: s. 43.
I begin with RAN’s decision to evict Mr. Morriss from the Portal on December 13. I am
not satisfied this decision was, or could reasonably be perceived to be, in retaliation for his
human rights complaint. Rather, I accept RAN’s evidence that the impetus for the eviction was
Mr. Morriss’ altercation with T that day and that, because it could not be satisfied that one or
the other was primarily at fault, they evicted both men. I accept that this decision was made as
part of RAN’s zero tolerance policy for violence and its concern that it not send the message to
other residents that such behaviour was acceptable. I dismiss Mr. Morriss’ allegation that he
was evicted from the Portal on December 13 because of his human rights complaint.
17
After this eviction, there was a period when Mr. Morriss was suspended from the Portal
and, I take it, other RAN services. I accept that this suspension flowed from the altercation with
T and was consistent with RAN’s usual practice. This was the status around January 9, when Mr.
Morriss began actively attempting to return to RAN.
It is unclear when exactly RAN staff, including Mr. Buettner, became aware that Mr.
Morriss had filed a human rights complaint. A number of them knew that Mr. Morriss had a
“history” of filing human rights complaints and that it was a risk he would file one against RAN.
Mr. Raddatz explained:
The Salvation Army and I are friends. So I was out with them for lunch and
they told me that Sean has a lawsuit against them and it’s their third one.
So when I told them the problem that we were having at the Portal, they
said “beware, he’ll probably take you to the Tribunal”.
Ms. Klopp says she was also aware of Mr. Morriss’ legal issues with Salvation Army. On
September 12, 2019, Mr. Stock made the following note on an internal staff document:
Sean M is unwell with his stress problems… Please keep an eye on him. I
am giving him an official complaint form for some things he is getting
worked up about. He has a history of going straight to making a human
rights complaint with the government which is what he did with the
salvation army so I am trying to help him go through proper complaint
channels like the form and talking to Roseva. [emphasis added, as
written]
Timing‐wise, it is likely that one of the things that Mr. Morriss was getting “worked up about”
was the decision to begin playing religious music and showing scriptures at the Main Campus
during shower time.
I accept, then, that the RAN staff had known for some time that Mr. Morris “might” file
a human rights complaint. He did so on December 3. The RAN witnesses could not recall exactly
when they became aware of the complaint. Mr. Stock guesses it was sometime around
Christmas. In light of the other evidence, I accept that as a probable timeline. RAN staff knew
about it by January 9 at the latest. On that date, Mr. Stock messaged all staff to say that Mr.
Morriss was banned from all RAN services “because of his lawsuits against the place”. While
18
Mr. Buettner quickly jumped in to correct him, this message makes clear that RAN staff –
including Mr. Buettner – were aware of Mr. Morriss’ “lawsuits”. This could only refer to his
human rights complaint.
At this time, Mr. Morriss was unsuccessfully trying to return to the Portal. His status at
this point is described as a temporary suspension. Mr. Raddatz suggested in his evidence that
such a suspension would ordinarily last in the order of 30 days, after which they would meet
with the person and consider allowing them to return. This is consistent with Ms. Klopp and Mr.
Stock’s recollection that the suspension was only ever intended to be temporary.
Initially, it seemed that the suspension would be temporary and be lifted around the 30‐
day mark, consistent with RAN’s usual practice and expectations. However, on January 21, 2020
the Tribunal gave notice that it had accepted Mr. Morriss’ complaint for filing. This included the
complaint made directly against Mr. Buettner as an individual. Mr. Morriss then seemed to feel
empowered to begin emailing Mr. Raddatz and Mr. Buettner and telling them he would be
adding all emails to his human rights complaint. On January 23, Mr. Buettner did tell Mr.
Morriss that he could access RAN services and return to Portal when a bed opened up, on
condition that there was no more violence or abusive conduct towards staff. In response, Mr.
Morriss sent one more email to say, again, that he would be adding Mr. Buettner’s emails to his
human rights complaint and to question why T was not banned. There is no evidence before me
of anything else that happened involving Mr. Morriss from the time this email was sent at 12:08
pm on January 23 to twenty‐four hours later, when Mr. Buettner advised staff that Mr. Morriss
was suspended from all services.
It was Mr. Buettner’s decision to suspend Mr. Morriss from all services. He did not
testify and so I only have his emails to try to discern his motivation. In his January 25 email to
Mr. Morriss he explains that the suspension was because of the “previous incidents discussed
and our most recent communications”. However, the previous incident with T is not the type
that would warrant a long or indefinite ban from services, and I am not aware of any other
violent or specifically concerning interactions involving Mr. Morriss. As far as their
“communications”, the only communications before me in evidence are the emails between
19
them in which Mr. Morriss repeatedly mentions his human rights complaint and advises he will
be adding new allegations based on Mr. Buettner’s responses.
In my view, a reasonable complainant, apprised of these facts, would perceive that Mr.
Morriss’ suspension was extended because he had filed a human rights complaint and was
continuously threatening to add allegations of discrimination against RAN and its staff. In fact,
that was the perception of RAN’s own employee, Mr. Stock, as early as January 9. In the
absence of any other explanation that could justify the extension of Mr. Morriss’ suspension,
and in light of his repeated references to the complaint, I find it most likely that Mr. Buettner
concluded that Mr. Morriss should not return because he had filed, and was actively pursuing, a
human rights complaint against RAN as an organization and against him as an individual.
I acknowledge this may be a very human response to having a human rights complaint
filed against you. Mr. Stock expressed this view candidly in his evidence, questioning how it
would be reasonable for an organization to continue to serve a person who was actively suing
them for discrimination. No doubt a human rights complaint puts everyone in an awkward and
difficult position. Nobody wants to be accused of discrimination and then compelled to defend
a complaint in this Tribunal’s process. I acknowledge the natural reactions that most people
would have to receiving notice of such a complaint, including anger, resentment, and
frustration. In most cases, the last thing a person would want to do is to continue to serve, or
work alongside, or live with, the person who is accusing them of discrimination. However, that
is exactly what the Code requires they do – and for good reason.
Service providers, employers, and landlords are required by the Code to put aside their
personal feelings about a complaint and ensure that they are providing the safe conditions
required for such a complaint to come forward. As I have said, this obligation is essential to the
work of creating a more equitable society. In this case, I am satisfied that RAN fell short of this
obligation to Mr. Morriss and denied him services because he filed a human rights complaint
against the organization and a number of specific individuals. This was a violation of s. 43.
20
V REMEDY
I declare that RAN has violated s. 43 of the Code. I order RAN to stop the contravention
and not to commit the same or similar contravention in the future: s. 37(2)(a).
Mr. Morriss also seeks an order that RAN compensate him for injury to his dignity,
feelings, and self respect: s. 37(2)(d)(iii). At the hearing he suggested that the amount of this
order should be twice the amount that RAN receives in funding to house him. However, that is
not how RAN’s funding works and it is not how this Tribunal decides on an appropriate award.
The purpose of an award for injury to dignity is to compensate a person whose rights
under the Code have been violated. It is not to punish a respondent. The Tribunal generally
considers three broad factors: the nature of the violation, the complainant’s vulnerability, and
the effect on the complainant: Gichuru v. The Law Society of British Columbia (No. 9), 2011
BCHRT 185 at para. 260, upheld in 2014 BCCA 396.
To begin, I accept that the violation was serious. By their very nature, RAN’s services are
intended to mitigate the serious harms of poverty. It is one of three organizations in Chilliwack
providing shelter and temporary housing to people in need and its services provide the basic
necessities of life, including shelter, food, and hygiene facilities like washrooms and showers.
When he was trying to return to the Portal, Mr. Morriss had reached the end of when he was
supposed to stay at the Salvation Army and had no other options. But for the suspension, Mr.
Morriss could have stayed at Pathways (but likely would have refused) or eventually secured a
bed at the Portal. He did not describe any other services that he lost because of the suspension.
He no longer wanted to use the shower or attend dinners at RAN because of the religious
material.
I also accept that Mr. Morriss was vulnerable at this time. He was 76 years old with
medical conditions. Anyone who is underhoused is made vulnerable by society’s failure to care
for them, and that was true of Mr. Morriss as well. As I have said, he had limited options
available to him.
21
Finally, I must consider Mr. Morriss’ evidence of the impact on him. At the hearing, he
was mostly focused on the impact of the Christian music and scripture at the Main Hall. I have
not accepted his complaint of discrimination based on religion and so that impact is not
relevant to my assessment of the injury to his dignity. Mr. Morriss explained that, after his
suspension with RAN, and the arrival of the COVID‐19 pandemic, Salvation Army continuously
granted him extensions and allowed him to stay until September 2020. At that point, he
secured housing that he could afford based on his pension. In the result, he was able to stay off
the streets but in a facility intended for very short‐term stays. I have no other specific evidence
of impact.
Taking into consideration all of these factors, I award Mr. Morriss $5,000 as damages for
injury to his dignity, feelings, and self‐respect. This is consistent with similar amounts awarded
in Cartwright v. Rona and another, 2011 BCHRT 65 and Pathak v. City of Vancouver and
another, 2012 BCHRT 195. I order RAN to pay this award within three months of this decision.
VI CONCLUSION
I find that RAN did not discriminate against Mr. Morriss based on religion. I dismiss this
complaint under s. 37(1) of the Code.
I find that RAN violated s. 43 of the Code when it suspended Mr. Morriss from its
services on January 24, 2020. I make the following orders:
a. I declare that RAN’s conduct was a violation of s. 43: s. 37(2)(b).
b. I order RAN to stop the contravention and to refrain from committing the same
or a similar contravention: s. 37(2)(a).
c. I order RAN to pay Mr. Morriss $5,000 as compensation for injury to his dignity,
feelings, and self‐respect, within three months of this decision: s. 37(d)(iii).
22
d. I order RAN to pay post‐judgment interest on this amount until paid in full, based
on the rates set out in the Court Order Interest Act.
23