Rozendaal v. Fraser Health Authority

A registered nurse with a suspended licence filed a retaliation complaint after Fraser Health offered her a care aide position at a different facility and later deemed her to have resigned. The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of proving the required connection between those actions and her earlier human rights complaint — Fraser Health had a clear non-retaliatory explanation for each.

Background

Rhodora Rozendaal was employed by Fraser Health Authority as a registered nurse. In July 2017, she went on a leave of absence citing workplace stress. In December 2017, the College of Registered Nurses of BC investigated her nursing practice and suspended her nursing licence. That same month, she filed a complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of physical disability (the “Original Complaint”). The Tribunal served notice on Fraser Health in May 2018.

Between 2017 and 2020, Fraser Health repeatedly requested updates on Ms. Rozendaal’s health and licence status. She indicated a desire to return to work but provided no medical information to support her ongoing leave and confirmed her licence had been suspended. In September 2019, Fraser Health advised that because she no longer held a nursing licence, she could not work as a registered nurse, and directed her to find a position within Fraser Health she was capable of performing. In April 2020, Fraser Health offered her a care aide position at a different hospital — a role not requiring a nursing licence. When she accepted but then failed to respond to further communications about processing her return to work, Fraser Health deemed her to have resigned in August 2020.

In June 2021, Ms. Rozendaal filed a retaliation complaint under section 43 of the Human Rights Code (the “Code”), alleging that the offer of a lower-classified position at a different hospital and the subsequent deemed resignation were retaliatory acts tied to her Original Complaint. She did not respond to the dismissal application.

Issue

Did Fraser Health’s conduct — offering Ms. Rozendaal a care aide position at a different hospital and later deeming her to have resigned — constitute retaliation under section 43 of the Code?

Decision

Tribunal Member Takayanagi dismissed the complaint under section 27(1)(c) of the Code, finding no reasonable prospect of success at a hearing.

To succeed on a retaliation complaint, a complainant must establish: (1) the respondent was aware of the Original Complaint; (2) the respondent engaged in conduct of the type described in section 43; and (3) there is a sufficient connection between the impugned conduct and the Original Complaint. Only the third element was in dispute.

The Member identified several factors against finding the required connection. First, timing: nearly two years elapsed between Fraser Health becoming aware of the Original Complaint (May 2018) and the impugned conduct (April 2020 job offer), a gap that does not support an inference of retaliatory intent. Second, non-retaliatory explanation: because Ms. Rozendaal’s nursing licence had been suspended since 2017, Fraser Health simply could not offer her a registered nurse position — the care aide role was an available position for which she was qualified. Third, the deemed resignation: Fraser Health’s extensive evidence of attempts to communicate with Ms. Rozendaal, and her failure to respond or begin the care aide role, provided a clear non-retaliatory explanation for the deemed resignation.

Taken together, these factors made it reasonably certain that a hearing would not find the requisite sufficient connection between Fraser Health’s conduct and Ms. Rozendaal’s Original Complaint. Accordingly, there was no reasonable prospect of a finding that Fraser Health engaged in retaliatory conduct.

Citation: 2026 BCHRT 17