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:

ANONYMOUS on behalf of OTHERS

COMPLAINANT
AND:

CLOVERDALE RODEO & EXHIBITION ASSOCIATION

RESPONDENT

APPENDIX “A”

OVERVIEW
This complaint is filed on behalf of workers and volunteers who have experienced
discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Human Rights Code committed by the Cloverdale
Rodeo & Exhibition Association (the “Association”).

The Association has no harassment policy or training for staff or volunteers and the
Association has no mechanism for volunteers and staff to raise complaints or concerns. The
Association delegates significant authority to its General Manager without oversight. From
approximately 2014 to 2021, the Association employed Michael “Mike” MacSorely as the
General Manager despite knowing of Mr. MacSorely’s blatantly racist view of South Asian
people and ongoing egregious conduct towards female staff and volunteers. The Association,
through its Executive Board, continuously dismissed concerns about Mr. MacSorely for
years.

In early 2021 the Association went through the motions of an investigation into Mr.
MacSorely’s conduct. The investigation was undermined by blatantly dismissive and sexist
comments from Mr. MacSorely and from the Association’s Executive Directors. Following the
conclusion of the investigation, Mr. MacSorely left the Association. The Association has not
apologized or acknowledged the harm caused by the racist and sexist work environment nor
has the Association taken any meaningful steps to create a safe work environment.

Page 1 of 10
The Association has continuously contravened section 13 of the Code by upholding a hostile
and poisoned work environment and by failing to respond to race- and sex-based
harassment.

THE PARTIES
The Cloverdale Rodeo & Exhibition Association is a non-profit organization responsible for
year-around management of various facilities. The Association manages the Cloverdale
Rodeo & Country Fair (“Cloverdale Rodeo”), an annual event typically held in May at the
Cloverdale Fairgrounds in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada. The Cloverdale Rodeo relies
heavily on volunteer labour.

The Association is run by a Board of Directors. The Executive Directors of the Association
are Shannon Claypool (President), Rich Kitos (1st VP/Rodeo Chair), Dale Saip (2nd
VP/Publicity Chair), and Gerry Spielmacher (Treasurer/ Human Resources). The remaining
directors are either elected by the membership or appointed from the City of Surrey and
other organizations.

The Representative Complainant requires anonymity. The Representative Complainant’s

anonymization application and submissions on their ability to act as the representative
complainant are addressed in a separate letter included with the filing of this complaint.

I. FACTS
The Association has no formal policies or procedures in place to protect employees from
discrimination or harassment. Employees of the Association are not provided with any
directions on how to register complaints or concerns about harassment or discrimination.

Association volunteers largely work under the direction of sub-committee heads. The
General Manager oversees all sub-committees. Despite relying heavily on volunteer labour
to operate, the Association has no structure in place to train volunteers on their right to be
free of harassment. The Association also has no structure in place to receive complaints or
concerns from its volunteers.
Michael “Mike” MacSorely was hired as the General Manager by the Association in
approximately 2014. Between 2014 and 2021, Mr. MacSorely was permitted to poison the
work environment for employees and volunteers with his blatant racism, sexism, and
threatening demeanor towards women and South Asian people. The Association was aware
of Mr. MacSorely’s conduct and took no steps to address it.
Mr. MacSorely worked primarily out of a small office he shared with three male and one
female non-union staff members. He regularly met with contractors, volunteers and board
members in his office. Additionally, Mr. MacSorely spent a significant amount of time
meeting with committees and other stake holders outside of the office.

Page 2 of 10
 Anti-South Asian Racism
During his time as the Association’s General Manager, Mr. MacSorely frequently made racist
remarks targeting South Asian people. Often these remarks targeted the Association’s
accountant who is also the only racialized employee who shared office space with Mr.
MacSorely. On multiple occasions, Mr. MacSorely would direct comments about “you people”
or “your people” at the accountant and then sarcastically claim the comments were about
“accountants not brown people.” Mr. MacSorely made these comments in front of staff and
volunteers.
While he was the Association’s General Manager, Mr. MacSorely also sat on the board of
Surrey Crime Prevention. Mr. MacSorely regularly subjected his staff and volunteers to racist
tirades about his perceptions of a connection between race and crime. For example, Mr.
MacSorely told a volunteer that “if we want to cut down on crime, we have to get rid of the
South Asians; they’re all killing each other anyway.” During his employment as the
Association’s General Manager, Mr. MacSorely referred to South Asian people as “carpet
riders.” Mr. MacSorely dismissed requests that he stop using racial slurs.
Mr. MacSorely managed a crew of event workers who he permitted and encouraged to make
racist remarks about South Asian people. This crew assisted with the Surrey Night Market
where crew members were permitted to complain that “Hindu food looks like baby diarrhea”
and that “Indian moms leave diapers everywhere.” Mr. MacSorely was in charge of hiring for
most positions, and in his time as General Manager, he refused to interview or hire anyone
he believed to have an Indo-Canadian name.
Misogyny
Shannon Claypool was the Association’s President for all of Mr. MacSorely’s term as General
Manager. Mr. Claypool both condoned Mr. MacSorely’s conduct and directly participated in
the creation of a poisoned work environment.
Mr. Claypool repeatedly made unwelcome sexual advances towards female volunteers. In or
around 2015, Mr. Claypool sent a sexually explicit text message to a volunteer. In or around
2018, Mr. Claypool propositioned a different volunteer during an in-person conversation.
Neither of the women complained about the conduct as the Association had no formal
harassment policy or complaint mechanism.
Mr. Claypool would frequently complain or joke about the “#MeToo” movement (a social
movement centering gendered experiences of sexual harassment). Mr. Claypool stated that
“no one can have any fun” because of the #MeToo movement and complained that the
movement was “out of control.” On one occasion in approximately 2018, Mr. Claypool
commented “frankly I’d like to get some, me too” while watching a group of Cloverdale Rodeo
attendees dancing. Mr. Claypool made this remark at the event where he could be heard by
all staff and volunteers in his vicinity.

Page 3 of 10
As General Manager, Mr. MacSorely would frequently make sexist remarks to staff and
volunteers. He routinely used the word “bitch” to describe women. Mr. MacSorely was
dismissive of “PC” or “politically correct” culture and would regularly follow sexist remarks
by sarcastically noting that he “shouldn’t say that, it’s not PC.” Mr. MacSorely frequently told
staff and volunteers that “harass is two words – her ass.” Mr. MacSorely would repeat this
phrase in response to even the hypothetical idea of a harassment complaint or concern. The
phrase became a constant refrain repeated by Mr. MacSorely at least once per month.
For approximately four years, Mr. MacSorely was permitted to continuously physically and
psychologically abuse and harass the only female employee in the Association’s office. Mr.
MacSorely and the other male staff in this office each had private offices with doors. The only
woman in the office had a desk in the middle of the office space. The placement of her desk
required her to sit facing away from the washroom and away from Mr. MacSorely’s office.
From approximately 2016 to 2019, Mr. MacSorely harassed this employee incessantly. Every
day, Mr. MacSorely would sneak up behind this employee and jab her in the ribs or pull her
hair, causing her to jump and injure herself on her desk. Mr. MacSorely repeatedly denied
this employee’s requests to move her desk or pivot it so that he could not sneak up behind
her. On the way out of the washroom, Mr. MacSorely regularly threw large balls of wet paper
towel at this woman. This employee was regularly the target of Mr. MacSorely’s extreme
mood shifts. Mr. MacSorely frequently yelled at her, sometimes positioning himself so that
his face was about an inch away from her face while yelling at her.
This harassment was constant and sustained over a significant period and observed by many
people. As such, the Executive Directors were likely aware of the conduct prior to the
employee’s explicit disclosure. In any event, in or around 2018, the employee being
subjected to harassment went to the Association’s Treasurer Gerry Spielmacher to ask for
the intervention of the Board of Directors. Mr. Spielmacher was made aware that she was
being targeted and constantly physically assaulted by Mr. MacSorely. The harassment
continued without any meaningful intervention from the Board of Directors.
During the 2014 Cloverdale Rodeo, late in the evening on or around Friday, May 16, 2014,
Mr. MacSorely called a young female sub-contractor at her home and ordered her to meet
him at a bar. Mr. MacSorely told the young woman that she had to come to the bar as part of
her job. She felt uncomfortable with the direction and refused. The young woman reported
the incident to her female contractor employer. On the same day, the contractor told Mr.
MacSorely that he should refrain from calling her staff at night. Mr. MacSorely became so
irate with her that a security guard had to intervene.
The contractor then reported Mr. MacSorely’s behavior to both the Association’s President,
Mr. Claypool, and the Association’s Treasurer who was the appointed Human Resource
liaison, Mr. Spielmacher. Both men showed little interest but, at the contractor’s insistence,
both said they would follow up with Mr. MacSorely. However, the Board did not appear to
take any further action.

Page 4 of 10
During the May 2019 Cloverdale Rodeo, Mr. MacSorely shouted at a young female South
Asian volunteer in an extremely agitated and threatening manner. When staff, volunteers,
and a contractor intervened directly, Mr. MacSorely stormed off. The female contractor was
concerned for the ongoing safety of the young woman and other volunteers and immediately
sought assistance from the Association.
On the day of the incident, the contractor voiced her concerns to every Executive Director on
the Board: Mr. Claypool, Mr. Spielmacher, Rich Kitos and Dale Saip. The contractor
emphasized to the Board of Directors that Mr. MacSorely’s outburst had been extreme,
threatening and clearly targeted towards a young, South Asian woman. This contractor
specifically told the Executive Directors that Mr. MacSorely had targeted this particular
volunteer because of her sex and her race. The contractor followed up by telephone with Mr.
Claypool and another Executive Director. However, the Board did not appear to take any
further action.
The following week, Mr. Claypool phoned the contractor that had reported the incident and
told her that she would have to find a way to work with Mr. MacSorely. Mr. Claypool stated
that, as long as he was President, Mr. MacSorely would remain the Association’s General
Manager. In the same week, the contractor attempted to raise her concerns directly with Mr.
MacSorely about the incident. Mr. MacSorely told her that the Executive Directors “had his
back and would never fire him no matter what he did” and that she would have to accept that
and deal with him or stop being involved in the Cloverdale Rodeo.
The Association’s failure to respond to the racist and sexist work environment
As of 2016, all of the four core Executive Director positions were held exclusively by white
men. The Executive Directors did little or nothing to respond to Mr. MacSorely’s misconduct
or to create a safe and inclusive environment for women and South Asian people.
Mr. MacSorely was antagonistic towards staff or volunteers who raised complaints or
concerns about his behaviour. He regularly oscillated between slamming doors, shouting, to
refusing to speak to certain staff or volunteers. He took pride in his reputation as a difficult
person to work with and bragged that he had been called “dark lord of operations” by staff
at his previous workplace. He previously worked for another exhibition association.
The Executive Directors failed to address this behaviour despite receiving numerous
complaints. On multiple occasions, concerns were expressed to the Association’s President,
Mr. Claypool. On each occasion, Mr. Claypool failed to address the concerns. Instead, Mr.
Claypool repeatedly stated “if you make me pick between Mike and you, I’ll pick Mike every
time.” Mr. Claypool emphatically supported Mr. MacSorely at every instance where concerns
were raised.
In January 2021, the Executive Directors received a letter from a former employee setting
out a series of examples of Mr. MacSorely’s inappropriate conduct. This included incidents
of Mr. MacSorely hitting female staff and making racist comments about racialized staff. The
Executive Directors ignored the letter until the letter was brought to the attention of City of

Page 5 of 10
Surrey officials. After City officials directed the Board of Directors to deal with the
allegations, the Board determined it would hire an external investigator.
In January 2021, Mr. MacSorely told staff, the Executive Directors, and volunteers that any
allegations against him were a “witch hunt” and that he would “take care of it.” Throughout
January 2021, the Executive Directors and Mr. MacSorely made dismissive remarks about
the allegations in front of staff and volunteers.
The Association retained an external investigator to investigate the misconduct allegations.
Mr. MacSorely was permitted to continue working onsite throughout the investigation. While
the investigation was ongoing, Mr. MacSorely and Executive Directors continued to make
dismissive comments about the allegations. Mr. Claypool remarked to a number of people
that the investigation was only necessary “because of a group of menopausal women” and
continued to call the investigation a “witch hunt.”
Even once the external investigator had completed interviews and was drafting the report,
Mr. MacSorely continued to tell staff and volunteers that the investigation “wasn’t anything
to worry about” and that the Executive Directors “had his back.”
Mr. MacSorely left the Association following the conclusion of the external investigation. The
Association did not make any apology to impacted staff and volunteers. Mr. Claypool
participated in media interviews where he publicly stated that “Mike resigned for personal
reasons.” The Association has also not made any meaningful changes to improve workplace
safety, provide adequate training, or to provide a complaint mechanism for staff and
volunteers.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Association has continuously breached the Code by failing to provide a harassment-free
workplace and by failing to respond in a reasonable and appropriate manner to reports of
race- and sex-based harassment. There is a clear nexus between race and sex and the adverse
treatment of South Asian and female staff and volunteers who were subjected to the
Association’s poisoned work environment. The poisoned work environment also had an
adverse impact on all staff and volunteers who were forced to experience the conduct
without intervention from the Association.
A. Continuous Contravention
The Association has been continuously contravening the Code since at least 2015. In Lynch v
British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 BCSC 1419, the Court adopted the
following statement from the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Manitoba v Manitoba (Human
Rights Commission) (1983), 2 DLR (4th) 759 (Man CA):
To be a "continuing contravention", there must be present acts of
discrimination which could be considered as separate contraventions of the
Act, and not merely one act of discrimination which may have continuing
effects or consequences. (at p. 764)

Page 6 of 10
In Dove v Greater Vancouver (Regional District), 2006 BCHRT 374, the Tribunal expanded
on the concept of continuing contravention:
On the one hand, there is the kind of case in which there are allegations of
repeated harassment or discrimination. Provided that the allegations are
sufficiently similar in character and occur with sufficient frequency, a
continuing contravention may be established. One thinks of an allegation of
a poisoned work environment as a result of recurring sexual harassment:
see, for example, Webber, supra, at para. 39. On the other, there is the kind of
case in which there is an ongoing state of affairs, for example, a public
building which is inaccessible to wheelchair users or a policy withholding
certain employment benefits for married persons from those in same sex
relationships. An example of the former may be found in Miele v. Famous
Players Inc., 2000 BCHRT 5. Another example of this kind of continuing state
of affairs was discussed in Vorley v. B.C. (Min. of Solicitor General) (No. 2),
2005 BCHRT 511, at para. 18. So long as the building remains inaccessible,
the policy remains in place, or the discriminatory conditions otherwise
continue to exist, the discrimination is ongoing and a continuing
contravention may be alleged.

Each of Mr. MacSorely’s racist and misogynistic comments and outbursts contravened the
Code. As soon as the Association became aware of the sex-based and race-based workplace
harassment, it had an obligation to respond appropriately. Instead, the Association allowed
the poisoned work environment to continue and flourish. The Association continuously
refused to intervene when it received complaints. The Association’s inadequate conduct
during the internal investigation in January and February of 2021 was a continuation of its
failure to adequately respond. The Association has still taken no steps to discourage
harassment or to receive complaints or concerns from staff and volunteers. The Association
continues to provide a workplace without any meaningful harassment policies, hiring
policies or complaint mechanisms. This inaction by the Association jeopardizes the safety
and human rights of every staff member and volunteer.
B. Failure to provide a harassment-free workplace
An employer's failure to provide a harassment-free workplace may constitute a
contravention of the Code: Young v Home Depot and others, 2018 BCHRT 68, para. 37.
The Tribunal has held that a hostile or poisoned work environment is a form of adverse
treatment in the workplace that can constitute discrimination with regards to employment
if it is sufficiently connected to a protected ground: Godin v Kledo Construction Ltd, 2001
BCHRT 14.
The Complainant contends that all workers, regardless of race or sex, have a right to work in
an environment free from discrimination and harassment. Male, non-binary, and non-South
Asian workers and volunteers are impacted by being subjected to the degradation and

Page 7 of 10
objectification of women and South Asian people in their workplace. The Tribunal stated in
Phillips v The Vienna Café and another, 2018 BCHRT 116:
workers are entitled to a harassment-free work environment and watching
someone else be demeaned may be an adverse impact. (para 23)

In Godin v Kledo Construction Ltd, the Tribunal noted that “comments related to a person's
race, colour or ancestry could constitute discrimination if they create a hostile environment
or are connected to other adverse employment consequences” (para 37). In this matter, the
Complainant submits that the Association failed to provide a harassment free workplace by
allowing misogynistic and racist comments and conduct to run rampant. The Association’s
conduct created an adverse impact for all staff and volunteers forced to work in a hostile
environment.
The Association has also failed to provide a harassment free workplace by creating an
environment where it heavily relied on volunteer labour without making any effort to
protect volunteers from harassment or to accept feedback or complaints about ongoing
harassment. The Association is directly responsible for Mr. MacSorely’s racist and sexist
conduct. In Balikama obo others v Khaira Enterprises and others, 2014 BCHRT 107, the
Tribunal considered a workplace where the employer permitted managers to engage in
horrific racist treatment of employees. The Tribunal held that:
Khaira had a duty to prevent discriminatory practices on behalf of the
company and its employees, including Bajwa and Sunny. The evidence is clear
that Sunny’s behaviour was conveyed to Bajwa both respecting his offensive
racially harassing behaviour and in terms of his sexual harassment of Ms.
Barker. The evidence reveals that Bajwa took no steps to investigate either
allegation but rather shrugged it off, in the case of racial harassment, as being
just how Sunny is, and in the case of sexual harassment by denial that such
discrimination could have occurred because Sunny was married. I make no
comment with respect to Bajwa’s actions except to note that they clearly do
not meet the requirement of Khaira to ensure a respectful workplace and erase
any poisonous workplace environment. Bajwa didn’t do that. I find, therefore,
that Khaira failed in its obligations to normalize the working
environment for its workers and is responsible for the discrimination of
Bajwa and Sunny against its black African workers and Ms. Barker on a
race, colour and place of origin basis as well as against Ms. Barker on a
sexual basis. (para 623, emphasis added)

The Tribunal accepted that a white woman in the same workplace was a victim of racial
prejudice resulting in a poison work environment as a result of treatment she experienced
flowing from her relationship with a coworker. Mr. MacSorely’s attitude towards and
treatment of women and South Asian people created a poisoned work environment for all
staff and volunteers.

Page 8 of 10
 C. Failure to respond in a reasonable and appropriate manner to reports of
sex-based harassment
Every employer has an obligation to investigate allegations of discrimination based on a
protected ground and respond in an appropriate manner: Beharrell v EVL Nursery, 2018
BCHRT 62, paras 21 and 33. The impacted staff and volunteers suffered and continue to
suffer adverse impacts because of the Association’s failure to provide a reasonable and
appropriate response to the sex-based harassment at this worksite.
The mishandled investigation in early 2021 was a continuation of the Association’s failure to
provide a reasonable and appropriate response to reports of sex- and race-based harassment
in the workplace. The Association has taken no meaningful steps to provide a harassment-
free workplace.

This Tribunal has adopted the list of criteria against which the reasonableness of an
employer's response may be measured as first set out in Laskowska v Marineland of Canada
Inc, 2005 HRTO 30:

(1) Awareness of issues of discrimination/harassment, Policy, Complaint

Mechanism and Training: Was there an awareness of issues of
discrimination and harassment in the workplace at the time of the
incident? Was there a suitable anti-discrimination/harassment policy?
Was there a proper complaint mechanism in place? Was adequate
training given to management and employees;

(2) Post-Complaint: Seriousness, Promptness, Taking Care of its Employee,

Investigation and Action: Once an internal complaint was made, did the
employer treat it seriously? Did it deal with the matter promptly and
sensitively? Did it reasonably investigate and act; and

(3) Resolution of the Complaint (including providing the Complainant with a

Healthy Work Environment) and Communication: Did the employer
provide a reasonable resolution in the Circumstances? If the complainant
chose to return to work, could the employer provide her/him with a
healthy, discrimination-free work environment? Did it communicate its
findings and actions to the complainant? (paras 59-60)

The Association clearly fails on each of these criteria. The Association has made virtually no
attempt to foster awareness of issues of discrimination or harassment. There was no policy,
complaint mechanisms, or training to protect vulnerable staff and volunteers. In each
instance where a complaint has been raised, the Association has been dismissive. In early
2021, when the Association finally hired an investigator, the General Manager and Executive
Directors continuously undermined the process through intimidating and sexist conduct.
There has been no meaningful resolution to the poisoned work environment. There was no
apology or acknowledgement of harm and the Association has not taken any steps to
increase the safety of its staff and volunteers.

Page 9 of 10
III. REMEDIES
The Representative Complainant seeks the following remedies:

a. a declaration that the Association breached section 13(1) of the Code by creating a
poisoned work environment;
b. a declaration that the Association breached section 13(1) of the Code by repeatedly
failing to appropriately respond to harassment;
c. an order that the Association cease and desist this breach;
d. an order that the Association provide harassment and discrimination training for all
management personnel;
e. an order that the Association create a meaningful anti-harassment policy and
effective complaint mechanism;
f. damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect for each group member; and
g. any such other order as the Tribunal deems appropriate.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
ALLEVATO QUAIL & ROY

per Rachel H. Roy

Barrister & Solicitor

Page 10 of 10