The employer proved the termination was not tainted by the worker's safety reports

Whole Foods Market terminated a worker after 70 days on the job. She alleged it was retaliation for reporting health and safety concerns. A tribunal found the employer proved the termination was about performance.

In a March 10, 2026 decision, Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten of the British Columbia Court of Appeal found the worker's appeal carried "little prospect of success" and ordered her to post $7,500 in security for costs.

When a safety complaint meets a short tenure

In 2019, Whole Foods terminated Faranak Moradi's employment after 70 days' work. In response, she filed a prohibited action complaint under s. 48 of the Workers Compensation Act, alleging she was unlawfully dismissed as retaliation for reporting health and safety issues.

An officer with the Workers' Compensation Board determined on December 4, 2020 that Whole Foods did not take prohibited action. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal upheld that finding.

WCAT concluded that Moradi made out a prima facie case for a prohibited action; however, the employer proved the termination "was due to performance issues rather than Ms. Moradi's reporting of health and safety concerns."

How the employer's defence survived three levels of review

Moradi sought judicial review in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, raising five grounds. Among them, she alleged the tribunal erred by refusing to consider CCTV footage, employment...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMixgFBVV95cUxOUTl3STJ1cThMdlN6clhaTzVR...