A $600K Lesson in Fairness: Why BC Employers Must Conduct Workplace Investigations with Care

A recent British Columbia Supreme Court ruling has captured national attention—and for good reason! In City of Nanaimo v. Mema, the court upheld a BC Human Rights Tribunal decision awarding over $640,000 to the City of Nanaimo’s former Chief Financial Officer, Victor Mema, for discriminatory dismissal. The tribunal found Mr. Mema had been treated unfairly and subjected to racial bias during an internal audit that led to his termination. The court’s endorsement of these findings sends a powerful message to BC employers: workplace investigations into employee conduct must be procedurally fair, evidence-based, free from discrimination, and, ideally, well-documented—even when an employee’s actions warrant an investigation.

The Case in Brief

Victor Mema, an experienced financial officer, was hired by the City of Nanaimo in 2015. During his employment, he used a City-issued credit card for $14K in personal purchases—a practice reportedly not uncommon among City staff—and was reportedly working on a repayment plan for the expenses. However, in 2018, Mema was placed on administrative leave and later terminated following an internal audit alleging misconduct related to his use of the City-issued credit card.

The BC Human Rights Tribunal concluded that the investigation and termination were influenced by racial bias, citing differences in how Mr. Mema was treated compared to other employees. While the Tribunal acknowledged Mr. Mema’s “poor decisions” regarding his use of the employer-issued credit card, it also found that negative characterizations in the audit report aligned with discriminatory stereotypes. The Tribunal awarded Mema damages for lost wages and injury to dignity, and the BC Supreme Court upheld this award, emphasizing the legitimacy of relying on circumstantial evidence to uncover systemic or implicit bias.

Link to the full court decision: 2025 BCSC 863

Why Employers Must Pay Attention

This case serves as a crucial reminder that employers in British Columbia must exercise caution when auditing employee conduct or launching workplace investigations. Such diligence also includes establishing clear protocols and fairly applied expectations to mitigate misunderstandings.

One of the areas where Mr. Mema’s employers likely went wrong is by not addressing employees’ use of their employer-issued credit cards in a fair and even manner. While one might argue that the monetary amount of Mr. Mema’s personal credit card charges may logically warrant more concern and attention than smaller, easier-to-reimburse purchases, clear protocols need to be established and enforced uniformly among staff, rather than relying on subjectivity and personal opinion. Otherwise, employers risk making an employee feel unjustly targeted. For this reason, proactive employers would benefit from having an HR or legal advisor help them clearly define and outline expectations and protocols surrounding employee privileges, such as making personal charges on credit cards that are intended for professional expenses only.

Clearly defined protocols should include an outline of steps employees can take to remedy accidental card misuse. It should also include the potential repercussions that employees could face at specific intervals if they fail to take steps to repay their debts. When a concern arises, workplace investigations and employee reprimands should follow the same steps and include detailed documentation.

In sensitive matters, cool heads prevail, and it’s in the employer’s best interest that actions and dialogue respect every employee’s right to privacy and are free from personal bias.

Financial and Reputational Risks

The damages awarded in this case were substantial:

Over $583,000 in lost wages
$50,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect
Additional compensation for expenses incurred

Beyond the monetary impact, the case attracted public and media scrutiny, affecting the City of Nanaimo’s reputation and raising questions about its internal practices.

Best Practices for Employers

To reduce risk and promote fairness, employers in BC should:

Maintain detailed, up-to-date policies on employee conduct
Provide anti-discrimination and bias training to staff and investigators
Document all steps of internal audits and investigations
Communicate directly and respectfully with affected employees
Consult with a trusted legal or HR advisor when managing complex cases.

The following legal principles and best practices can help prevent similar outcomes:

1. Ensure procedural fairness

In British Columbia, employees are entitled to fair treatment in discipline and dismissal, including:

Clear communication of allegations
A chance to respond
Access to relevant findings, excluding confidential details or legal opinions

Failing to follow these basic steps can give rise to claims of wrongful dismissal or breach of procedural fairness, even before considering human rights implications.

2. Avoid discriminatory assumptions and language

The BC Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and other protected grounds. Discrimination can be direct or subtle, such as differing standards for employees of different backgrounds or language in reports that invoke harmful stereotypes.

In Mr. Mema’s case, the tribunal noted that the language used to describe his actions cast him as dishonest and evasive, without sufficient evidence. The differential treatment he received in comparison to white colleagues who also used City cards for personal purchases supported the finding of racial discrimination.

3. Apply policies consistently

Employers must have clearly defined and consistently applied policies for issues such as credit card use, repayment timelines, and disciplinary actions. Inconsistent application—or the absence of clear policies—can lead to discretionary enforcement that opens the door to bias.

4. Train managers and investigators in bias awareness

Unconscious bias can shape how investigations are conducted and reported. Employers should train their HR staff, auditors, and decision-makers to:

Recognize and mitigate implicit bias
Focus on factual findings rather than assumptions
Evaluate conduct using consistent standards regardless of employee identity

5. Respect confidentiality and professionalism

Mr. Mema reportedly learned of the investigation against him through a media report rather than directly from his employer. Such lapses in confidentiality and communication can erode trust and further compound perceived unfairness.

In Closing

The City of Nanaimo v. Mema case stands as a powerful example of how failing to conduct fair and unbiased workplace investigations can violate both employment and human rights laws in BC. Employers should take proactive steps to ensure that internal reviews are evidence-based, procedurally fair, and free of discriminatory influence.

If You Have Questions, We Can Help

Spraggs Law regularly advises employers on workplace investigations, policy development, and compliance with the Employment Standards Act and Human Rights Code. For support in navigating these complex areas, contact our Coquitlam-based team today at (604) 359-1618 or online.

Please note: This article does not contain legal advice. If you would like advice on your specific situation, please contact Spraggs Law.