A preliminary decision about potential employer responsibility in a multi-party work arrangement.
Fraser v. Bonatti Canada Construction Inc. and others, 2026 BCHRT 209 is a useful reminder that, in a human rights complaint, the entity that issued the paycheque may not be the only party facing potential exposure. In this October 6, 2026 preliminary decision, the BC Human Rights Tribunal declined to dismiss a race discrimination complaint against Bonatti and the Kiewit Bonatti TMEP Partnership. It dismissed the complaint against Kiewit.
This is not a finding that discrimination occurred. The merits remain unresolved. The value of the decision for employers is the Tribunal’s close attention to operational control and worker dependency in a complex project arrangement.
The work arrangement
The complaint arose from a construction project setting involving multiple entities. The Tribunal considered evidence that Bonatti could have controlled performance assessment, a recommendation for termination and termination. It also considered evidence that partnership personnel directed onboarding, training, drug testing and equipment certification. The record did not, at the preliminary stage, establish the needed control or dependency relationship with Kiewit.
The Tribunal did not limit the meaning of “employment” to the formal contract or payroll relationship. Its analysis considered who had practical influence over working conditions and the worker’s ability to continue in the role.
Why this matters beyond large projects
Small businesses and nonprofits can face the same issue whenever work is shared across a parent organization, an affiliated entity, a client, a contractor, a staffing agency, a project partnership or a funder-led service model. If one entity directs the day-to-day work while another handles payroll, the responsibilities may not be as neatly separated as the contracts suggest.
The risk becomes more visible when a worker raises a human rights, discrimination, harassment or accommodation concern. If the organization controls training, scheduling, work assignment, performance management, access to the site or the decision to end the worker’s access, it should not assume another organization alone will manage the response.
A practical operational-control map
Use a one-page chart for every contractor, shared-service or labour supply arrangement. List the participating organizations in columns, then assign responsibility for each activity below. The exercise is less about assigning blame and more about finding areas where the written agreement and real practice do not match.
- Who recruits, screens, onboards and trains the worker?
- Who gives daily direction, controls the location and supplies the equipment?
- Who assesses performance, handles coaching, discipline and any recommendation to terminate?
- Who receives complaints, investigates them and decides interim protective steps?
- Who manages accommodation, medical information, modified work and return-to-work decisions?
- Who keeps the records and who notifies the other organizations when a concern arises?
Turn the map into a response plan
Once the roles are clear, confirm them in the service agreement and in day-to-day supervisor instructions. Create a shared escalation path for complaints and accommodation requests. Specify who communicates with the worker, who preserves records, who can implement a temporary change to duties or access, and who makes the final decision.
This avoids two common failures: everyone assumes someone else owns the response, or several organizations act independently and create inconsistent records. A documented, collaborative response is particularly important where one entity controls the workplace and another controls the employment paperwork.
The lesson
The preliminary outcome in Fraser v. Bonatti Canada Construction Inc. and others, 2026 BCHRT 209 does not mean every project participant is an employer. It does show that operational control, worker dependency and real workplace practice can matter. Employers should test their multi-party arrangements before a complaint arrives, not after.
Primary source: BC Human Rights Tribunal — Fraser v. Bonatti Canada Construction Inc. and others, 2026 BCHRT 209
Need practical HR guidance? Talk to an Expert →