Discrimination Cost an Employer $45,000

A March 2026 decision from the BC Human Rights Tribunal issues a clear warning to employers: assumptions about what a working mother is willing to accept after maternity leave can constitute discrimination. In Castro Mosquera v. North Horizon Immigration Consulting Inc., 2026 BCHRT 61, the Tribunal concluded that a small immigration consulting firm violated Section 13 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code (the “Code”) when it humiliated an employee returning from maternity leave, prevented her from resuming work, and subsequently fired her. All of this was based on a single unexamined assumption: that she should now be available five days a week, including Fridays, even though she had never been before. The employer did not intend to discriminate, but under BC human rights law, that is irrelevant. What matters is the impact, which was significant: a termination, months of unemployment, and a financial award exceeding $45,000.

The Facts

Estherly Castro Mosquera worked part-time at North Horizon Immigration Consulting Inc. (“North Horizon”) starting in 2017. Her schedule was flexible: she worked Monday to Thursday, with some remote work, to accommodate her family obligations. She and her employer discussed the possibility of her eventually transitioning to a full-time role. In January 2019, she went on maternity leave. When she prepared to return in January 2020, she expected to resume her same schedule, as she had no childcare on Fridays. However, her employer had a different expectation. The employer presented Ms. Castro Mosquera with a new employment contract that included a five-day workweek and significantly altered terms. Ms. Castro Mosquera had questions about the contract and requested that her previous schedule continue while they addressed these issues. On January 18, 2020, during a meeting, Ms. Castro Mosquera was told by the owner and CEO of North Horizon, she was “demanding too much” and did not “deserve” special privileges “just because she is a mother.” Ms. Castro Mosquera was advised to look for work elsewhere. She was not allowed to return. On February 11, 2020, she received a termination email without prior warning.

The Legal Framework

Section 13 of the Code prohibits employment discrimination based on protected characteristics. Sex and family status are both protected.

To establish discrimination, a complainant must show they have a protected characteristic, that they experienced an adverse impact in their employment, and that there is a connection between the two. Critically, intent is not required. As the Tribunal noted, citing Fenech v. PNI Media Inc., 2024 BCHRT 171, it is possible for an employer to treat an employee differently in connection with a protected characteristic without even being aware of it. The analysis focuses on the impact of the conduct, not the mindset behind it. The Tribunal also recognized that pregnancy and maternity leave compound an employee’s vulnerability, and that the Code exists precisely to eliminate these gendered inequalities from the workplace.

What the Tribunal Found

The Tribunal identified four adverse impacts: Ms. Castro Mosquera was treated in a humiliating manner at the January 18 meeting; her return was made conditional on signing a new contract with fundamentally different terms; she was blocked from returning to work at all; and her employment was terminated.

The connection to her sex and family status was established through circumstantial evidence. Two things told the story: the timing of the treatment, which came immediately after her return from maternity leave, and the CEO’s own words: “just because she is a mother.”

The Tribunal also found that Ms. Benkhalti perceived Ms. Castro Mosquera as unreliable and assumed she was being deliberately deceptive when she could not work Fridays. In reality, Ms. Castro Mosquera simply had no Friday childcare. That misperception, grounded in assumptions about her childcare obligations, was precisely the kind of stereotype human rights law is designed to address. The Tribunal drew a reasonable inference that Ms. Castro Mosquera was treated the way she was, at least in part, because she was perceived as unreliable due to her obligations as a mother.

Adding to the harm, the CEO later announced to the North Horizon staff that Ms. Castro Mosquera was not coming back because she had refused to sign the new contract and wanted to control her own schedule and have privileges the other employees did not have. That announcement compounded the indignity Ms. Castro Mosquera had already experienced.

The Remedy

North Horizon was ordered to pay Ms. Castro Mosquera the following:

• $21,350.40 in lost wages, covering 37 weeks between February 11 and October 27, 2020

• $20,000 for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self-respect

• $3,688 in expenses, including legal fees and medical costs

• Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest

Ms. Castro Mosquera sought $50,000 for injury to her dignity. The Tribunal awarded $20,000, taking into account the approximately two-and-a-half years of her employment, the one-month period over which the discrimination occurred, and the significant personal impact on her. She found new employment in late October 2020, having actively searched since February of that year.

The retaliation claim under section 43 of the Code was dismissed. The Tribunal found the working relationship had already broken down before Ms. Castro Mosquera raised human rights concerns, and the termination was driven by that breakdown rather than by awareness of a potential complaint.

Key Takeaways for Employers

This case contains four practical lessons for every employer.

1. The pre-leave schedule is the baseline for return-to-work planning.

If an employee worked a flexible schedule before maternity leave, that flexibility is part of her employment terms. Returning from leave is not an opportunity to reset those terms unilaterally. Requiring a rigid five-day schedule on return is not a neutral reset. It is a material change that may constitute discrimination and potentially constructive dismissal. Employers who want to change an employee's terms on return should take legal advice before doing so.

2. Conditioning return on a new contract requires care.

Presenting a returning employee with a new contract that includes materially different terms, and conditioning her return on signing it, is legally risky. Any significant change to employment terms should involve proper communication, accommodation analysis, and genuine agreement. In this case, the employer’s refusal to allow Ms. Castro Mosquera to return while she reviewed the contract was itself found to be an adverse impact.

3. Assumptions about working mothers are evidence, not explanations.

The words “just because she is a mother” do not explain a business decision. They reveal a discriminatory assumption. Stereotypes about working mothers, including that they will be unavailable, demanding, or unable to meet the same standard as other employees, are exactly what the Code prohibits. Employers should examine whether their return-to-work decisions are based on operational need or on assumptions about the employee’s reliability as a parent.

4. Discrimination does not require intent.

Good intentions are not a shield. If an employer’s conduct has an adverse impact connected to an employee’s protected characteristic, that may be enough to establish discrimination. Proactive legal advice, clear accommodation processes, and documented return-to-work plans are the most reliable ways to reduce that risk. The total financial exposure in this case exceeded $45,000, not including the time, legal fees, and reputational cost of a full tribunal proceeding.

Closing Thoughts

I work with employers to build workplaces where people are treated with fairness and dignity. Not just because the law requires it, but because it is the right thing to do. Castro Mosquera v. North Horizon is a reminder that good workplace practices protect everyone: they protect employees from harm and employers from significant liability. A thoughtful return-to-work plan, built on clear communication and proper accommodation analysis, costs far less than a tribunal proceeding.

If you are navigating a return-to-work situation or want to review your accommodation and leave policies before a problem arises, I would be glad to help.

Legal Disclaimer

This blog is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Employment law is fact-specific and varies by jurisdiction; you should obtain legal advice regarding your particular circumstances.

Stay in the Know

Subscribe to The Greyston Edit periodic newsletter and receive important employment-related legal updates.