On October 21, 2026, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal found that Lester B. Pearson College, an international boarding school near Victoria, discriminated against a math teacher and houseparent by firing him partly because of Facebook posts criticizing the state of Israel. In Açar v. Lester B. Pearson College UWC (No. 2), 2026 BCHRT 222, the Tribunal ordered the college to pay $94,322.35 in lost wages, with interest and a tax gross-up, plus $20,000 for injury to dignity.
Published October 2026
The decision is more useful to employers than the headline suggests. The college won most of the case. The Tribunal held that the teacher’s comment to a student and his conduct in class were not protected, that the outside investigation was fair, and that the college’s general standard for teachers’ off-duty conduct was legitimate. It lost on one point: it relied on protected political expression to fire a long-serving employee without first trying anything less. And its mitigation defence cut a claim of more than $900,000 to under $100,000. This case note explains where the lines fell and what employers should take from them.
Workplace conduct is different. The Tribunal held that a teacher’s comment to a student in the classroom was not protected, even if rooted in political belief. The college’s mistake was going from a policy breach at work to termination, partly because of the teacher’s posts, without a social media standard, without ever raising the posts with him, and without trying the steps its own investigator recommended.
What happened
The teacher, Nazım Açar, taught math at the college and lived on campus as a houseparent from 2010 until January 2020. Witnesses agreed he was well respected and had made a point of creating space for Israeli and Palestinian students to come together (paras. 13 to 14).
In September 2019, a 17-year-old Israeli student mentioned that he might be eligible for a scholarship after his military service. According to the student, the teacher replied that it would depend on how many Palestinians he killed. The student was deeply affected, withdrew from the class and complained (paras. 2, 15 to 25). The college found a serious breach of its respectful community policy, suspended the teacher for five days without pay and required him to take training (para. 30).
Another teacher then wrote to the college raising broader concerns about anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic sentiment, and pointing to the teacher’s public Facebook posts about Israel (paras. 35 to 37). The college hired lawyer Murray Rankin, KC, to investigate. His report found several allegations unfounded, but concluded that the comment to the student, the teacher’s conduct in some class discussions, and the Facebook posts breached the policy. He found the posts could reasonably give the impression of animus toward Israel, but also that the teacher did not hold discriminatory beliefs about Israeli students and could safely return to teaching. He recommended a further three-day suspension, an apology, training, and that the teacher make his Facebook page private and remove the posts (paras. 49 to 52).
The college’s acting head accepted the findings but not the recommendation. He viewed the teacher as difficult to manage and unlikely to change, and terminated his employment without cause in January 2020. He testified that the Facebook posts played a significant role in his decision (paras. 54 to 56, 114). The teacher’s direct supervisor had told him she had no concerns about the teacher returning to work (para. 149).
What the Tribunal decided
| Issue | Result |
|---|---|
| Comment to the student | Not protected. A conversation between a teacher and student in the workplace is not political activity, even if rooted in political belief (paras. 82 to 86). |
| Conduct in class discussions | Not protected, for the same reason (paras. 87 to 88). |
| The outside investigation | Not discriminatory. The Tribunal rejected the allegation that the investigator was biased (para. 109). |
| The Facebook posts | Protected. Public posts made off duty, about the actions of a state, are participation in political life (paras. 89 to 91). |
| The college’s standard | Legitimate and adopted in good faith: teachers must avoid off-duty conduct that impairs a safe, inclusive environment or the college’s mission (paras. 118 to 131). |
| The termination | Discriminatory. The college did not show that relying on the posts to fire him was reasonably necessary, or that it tried to accommodate him (paras. 132 to 151). |
Lesson 1: workplace conduct and off-duty expression are treated differently
The Tribunal drew a clear line. What a teacher says to a student in a classroom is workplace conduct, and an employer can set and enforce expectations about it, whatever belief lies behind it. What an employee posts publicly, off duty, about government action can be protected political expression in B.C. Consequences that flow from the first need no human rights justification. Consequences that flow from the second do. Where both are in play, employers should be precise about which conduct is being disciplined and why.
The protection is not unlimited. The Tribunal confirmed that teachers are held to high standards on and off duty, and that posts espousing discriminatory views linked to a teacher’s role can justify discipline. It found that criticism of a state’s actions is not, on its own, that kind of expression (paras. 135 to 141).
Lesson 2: know which beliefs are protected where you operate
British Columbia is one of a minority of jurisdictions that list political belief as a protected ground in employment. Ontario’s Human Rights Code does not. It protects creed, which the Ontario Human Rights Commission says can extend beyond religion to some sincerely held belief systems, but ordinary political opinions are unlikely to qualify. Employers with staff in both provinces should not assume the Ontario answer applies in B.C. Our article on protected grounds covers the Ontario list.
Lesson 3: have a social media standard before you need one
The college’s only rule was that teachers could not be social media friends with students. The Tribunal had to infer the standard the college was relying on from the investigator’s report (para. 119). A written standard that explains how off-duty posts can affect the job, applied consistently, gives employees notice and gives the employer something objective to point to. Our workplace policies lawyers draft social media standards that hold up.
Lesson 4: try the less drastic option first
The college did not ask the teacher to make his page private or remove the posts, as the investigator recommended, and there was no evidence he would have refused. Its view that he was difficult and would not change was, in the Tribunal’s words, speculation, and discrimination cannot be justified by speculation (paras. 146 to 147). An employer can depart from an investigator’s recommendation, but where protected expression is part of the reason, it needs evidence that the lesser steps would not work.
Lesson 5: give your real reasons at the time, and stick to them
During the hearing, the college tried to amend its response to add new reasons for the termination based on older events. The Tribunal refused (para. 111). The reasons that count are the ones recorded when the decision is made.
Lesson 6: mitigation evidence is where the money is
The teacher claimed $905,428. The award was a fraction of that, because the college proved he had not reasonably looked for work (paras. 156 to 175):
- The 11 months of pay he had already received as severance were credited, so there was no award for that period.
- For the next 19 months, while he completed a master’s degree and applied for two jobs, the Tribunal awarded nothing.
- For the following 22 months, ten job applications were not enough, and the award was cut by 50 per cent.
- Once he found other work in April 2024, the claim ended.
One part of the college’s argument failed: its assertion that Vancouver Island has more than 200 schools, made in closing argument without evidence of actual openings, was given no weight (para. 166). If you rely on a failure to mitigate, bring evidence of the jobs that were available.
Before disciplining an employee for off-duty posts
- Separate the workplace conduct from the off-duty expression, and record which you are acting on.
- Check whether the expression could fall within a protected ground in that province, such as political belief in B.C. or creed in Ontario.
- Confirm you have a social media standard, and that the employee knew about it.
- Raise the posts with the employee and ask for specific changes, such as making a page private or removing posts, before considering dismissal.
- If an investigator recommends a lesser sanction, follow it or document the evidence for going further.
- Record all your reasons at the time of the decision.
- If a claim follows, gather evidence on mitigation early, including actual job openings the employee could have applied for.
How Achkar Law helps employers
Achkar Law advises employers in British Columbia and Ontario on social media and conduct policies, discipline and terminations involving protected grounds, and human rights complaints. Our workplace policies lawyers draft and update the standards you need, our employee termination lawyers for employers review decisions before they are made, and our Vancouver employment lawyers act for B.C. employers.
This article is general information about Açar v. Lester B. Pearson College UWC (No. 2), 2026 BCHRT 222 (Tribunal file CS-004098, issued October 21, 2026), and is not legal advice. Paragraph references are to the Tribunal’s reasons. Current as of October 28, 2026. An employment lawyer can advise on your specific situation.
The post Fired Over Political Posts: Employers Can Learn From Tribunal Ruling appeared first on Achkar Law.