Understanding the BC Human Rights Tribunal decision

By Stefanie Quelch (she/her) and Alanna Tom (she/her), BCTF Legal Department

On February 18, 2026, the BC Human Rights Tribunal issued a very important decision on a case filed by the BCTF and the Chilliwack Teachers’ Association (CTA) against former school board trustee Barry Neufeld. This decision affirms the right of 2SLGBTQIA+ teachers and individuals to be free from discrimination, including hateful comments made online. This case also made important findings about the role of elected school board trustees and their responsibility to the school community.  

By way of background, in 2016, the BC government amended the BC Human Rights Code (the “Code”) to include explicit protection for both gender identity and expression. This led to the Ministry of Education and Child Care directing all school districts and independent school authorities to ensure their codes of conduct and anti-bullying policies referenced sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). Not long afterward, the Ministry created SOGI 123 in collaboration with other organizations. 

SOGI 123 is not curriculum and is not mandatory. Rather, it is a set of tools and resources that can be used by teachers to support an inclusive learning environment for all students. 

While Mr. Neufeld is free to hold his views, his role as trustee brought those views into the workplace. There was a direct connection between Mr. Neufeld’s harmful rhetoric and a climate permissive of anti-2SLGBTQIA+ sentiment within the District.

In 2017, while Mr. Neufeld was an elected trustee with School District No. 33 (Chilliwack), he attended an information session about SOGI 123. Mr. Neufeld subsequently posted a public statement on his Facebook account, alleging that SOGI 123 was propaganda, an “absurd theory” and “allowing” children to “change gender” was child abuse. In response to concerns raised about his statements, Mr. Neufeld initially posted an apology. Despite doing so, over the next few years he continued to post many public statements denouncing SOGI 123, opposing gender-affirming care for trans youth, dismissing trans-gender and gender-diverse people as a “theory” or an “ideology” and assert-ing that teaching about SOGI in school primes students for abuse. 

In response to Mr. Neufeld’s posts, the BCTF and the CTA filed a human rights complaint against Mr. Neufeld, as a class complaint on behalf of all teachers employed in the District, which was subsequently narrowed by the Tribunal to be teachers who identify as 2SLGBTQIA+. The complaint alleged that Mr. Neufeld’s public statements violated three sections of the Code: discrimination in employment (s. 13), discriminatory publications (s. 7(1)(a)), and hate speech (s. 7(1)(b)). The Tribunal upheld the complaint on all three grounds.

With respect to the claim about discrimination in employment, the Tribunal found that trustees are in a position of power and play an integral role to the employment of teachers and teachers’ work environment. While Mr. Neufeld is free to hold his views, his role as trustee brought those views into the workplace. There was a direct connection between Mr. Neufeld’s harmful rhetoric and a climate permissive of anti-2SLGBTQIA+ sentiment within the District. Evidence of the significant and direct impact of this on teachers was provided by teachers who bravely testified in the hearing. 

Regarding the claim over discriminatory publications and hate speech, the Tribunal concluded the following:

“For five years, Mr. Neufeld inundated public discourse in Chilliwack with speech that degraded and denied trans people, sought to eliminate public policies for their inclusion, and sounded alarms about an imaginary threat posed by their social acceptance. He spread misinformation and inflamed anti-LGBTQ animus in the District.”

(para 164). 

This case provided much needed clarity on the application of section 7 of the Code to online publications. Code restrictions on discriminatory publications were drafted before the era of online publications and social media. In a preliminary decision, the Tribunal confirmed that individuals who publish discriminatory materials through online posts can be subject to sanctions under the Code. 

To remedy the harm caused by the violations of the Code the Tribunal ordered Mr. Neufeld to cease the contravention, refrain from engaging in similar conduct, and awarded damages of $750,000. 

Mr. Neufeld and his legal counsel have publicly commented that they will be filing for a judicial review of the final decision in the BC Supreme Court, so this lengthy legal battle may not be over.