News for BC Politics & Justice Monday, Oct. 5, 2026

A Facebook post urges voters to weigh a former camp worker’s allegations involving the premier and attorney general. The public record shows a real workplace failure by her employer. In more than 20 court rulings, it shows no finding of wrongdoing by either politician.

News for BC Staff · Published Oct. 5, 2026 · About a 12-minute read

VICTORIA — Nineteen days before British Columbians vote in a snap provincial election (Elections BC [1]; CBC News [2]), a post in the BetterBC Facebook group is urging voters to weigh “serious allegations” involving Premier David Eby, Attorney General Niki Sharma, the province and litigation with the camp and facilities company Dexterra Group. The allegations come from a former Dexterra camp worker. They include fraud, breach of trust, forgery, perjury and obstruction of justice, and a claim that public money paid for a lawyer in her private lawsuits (BetterBC post, Oct. 5, 2026 [3]).

To its credit, the post says the claims “should not be presented as proven facts.” Its author writes that they found no “independent public confirmation that Eby or Sharma are criminal suspects in an RCMP investigation,” and asks voters to read “the actual court filings, judgments, government records” [3].

News for BC did that. We reviewed the published rulings of the B.C. Supreme Court, the B.C. Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, along with WorkSafeBC findings, B.C. Prosecution Service policy and Elections BC rules. The record shows a real workplace failure: WorkSafeBC found the employer did not properly investigate the worker’s bullying complaint [4][5]. But it contains no finding of wrongdoing by Eby or Sharma. On June 18, 2026, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal, led by the chief justice, found “no cogent evidence” of the collusion and corruption alleged and called the claim of improper interference by the attorney general “baseless” (Pereira v. British Columbia Labour Relations Board, 2026 BCCA 271, paras. 29, 63 [6]).

Who is making the allegations

The litigant named in the post is Corinne Pereira, who has represented herself throughout (2025 BCCA 391, para. 2 [7]). According to the Court of Appeal, Horizon North Camp & Catering Inc. ended her employment on Sept. 23, 2020. Her union, UNITE HERE Local 40, pursued two grievances for her and settled both (2026 BCCA 271, para. 7 [6]). The court identifies Dexterra Group Inc. as Horizon North’s parent (para. 12 [6]). Horizon North and Dexterra merged in May 2020, with Fairfax Financial Holdings controlling 49 per cent of the combined company (Dexterra/Horizon North news release, May 29, 2020 [8]).

A trade publication reported that she worked as a guest service agent at a lodge in Kitimat (HRD Canada, June 27, 2023 [9]). In 2020, co-workers complained about her conduct. She was disciplined without being interviewed, and she complained that she was the target of workplace “mobbing” (Harper Grey LLP summary of 2025 BCCA 379 [5]; HRD Canada [9]).

Pereira sets out her case in a Substack newsletter, The Legal Lies, where her posts are signed in her name. In a November 2025 letter to B.C.’s auditor general, published there, she wrote that the Ministry of Attorney General “retained Owen Bird Law Corporation to represent a criminal witness” in her civil proceedings and kept funding that lawyer “quietly and without disclosure.” She added: “This matter has also been reported to the RCMP” (The Legal Lies, Nov. 9, 2025 [10]). Replying in the BetterBC thread, she said nobody could expect public confirmation of who police are investigating, since only informants, witnesses and victims would know, “Unless they go public about it like I did” [3].

What the courts found, claim by claim

The claim that public money paid for a lawyer. In her latest appeal, Pereira argued that the attorney general had “secretly” hired senior counsel to represent a former co-worker who was on the other side of related proceedings (2026 BCCA 271, para. 20 [6]). Her evidence was a response to a Freedom of Information request, which the court said “only establishes the existence of some unspecified records related ‘to the retention and funding’” of the lawyer’s firm (para. 32 [6]). The court found that the response “does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the Province retained” the lawyer. It also noted that the lawyer swore an affidavit saying he “was not retained by the AGBC or any other government entity” to represent the co-worker (para. 33 [6]). Pereira disputes this reading. She writes that the records were withheld in full under the legal-advice exception and that a ministry team lead told her “they do exist” (The Legal Lies, June 19, 2026 [11]). Earlier, a single appeal judge had refused to order the retainer disclosed, calling her broader theory of “a sustained course of conduct pursued by the Attorney General in many lawsuits over three years” “too speculative” (2025 BCCA 391, paras. 21–23 [7]).

The claim that the attorney general interfered. In 2025, the attorney general’s lawyers told Pereira they would apply to strike her new petition and have her declared a vexatious litigant (letter of March 4, 2025, as quoted in The Legal Lies, March 5, 2025 [12]). The Court of Appeal said the alleged misconduct amounted, “at most,” to “bringing unnecessary applications”. It added that the province “had a reasonable basis to be concerned about the impact of Ms. Pereira’s repeated litigation on the justice system.” The chambers judge never ruled on those applications. He decided only the employer’s (2026 BCCA 271, paras. 30–31 [6]).

The fraud claims. Pereira’s 2025 petition alleged that a Labour Relations Board decision-maker had altered evidence and “created facts” in dismissing her complaints about her union (2026 BCCA 271, para. 10 [6]). A B.C. Supreme Court judge struck the petition, finding “no indication of bad faith or fraud” and calling it “as clear a case of re-litigation as there could be” (2025 BCSC 1100, as summarized in 2026 BCCA 271, para. 13 [6]). The Court of Appeal agreed. It noted that she had raised fraud allegations before “and none have been established” (para. 28 [6]).

The judge. Pereira argued that the chambers judge, who had spent 24 years in the Ministry of Attorney General’s Legal Services Branch before his appointment, should have stepped aside (2025 BCCA 391, para. 24 [7]). The Court of Appeal rejected all 12 of her grounds, individually and together (2026 BCCA 271, paras. 20, 27 [6]).

The criminal complaints. Pereira tried to prosecute people herself. In January and February 2022, she swore private informations alleging “over 60 criminal or quasi-criminal offences” arising from her employment (Pereira v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2023 BCSC 928, para. 4 [4]). Crown counsel stayed them on May 18, 2022, the day before a scheduled hearing, and stayed a combined information on Nov. 22, 2022 (paras. 6, 13 [4]). The courts found no evidence of “flagrant impropriety” in those decisions (paras. 8–9 [4]). The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear her appeal on Dec. 21, 2023 (SCC docket 40631 [13]). A publication ban protects the identities of the people named in those informations (2023 BCSC 928 [4]), and News for BC is not identifying them.

The vexatious-litigant order. On May 2, 2025, after reviewing six proceedings arising from the same dispute and finding five vexatious, a judge barred Pereira from starting new proceedings in any court without leave, except in family matters (2026 BCCA 271, paras. 16–17 [6]). The Court of Appeal upheld the order. It noted that she had declined to make submissions on it (para. 55 [6]).

Where the worker’s complaint was upheld

The record is not one-sided, and a fair account has to say so. In September 2022, the B.C. Supreme Court quashed a WorkSafeBC review decision that had found the employer’s handling of her complaint reasonable, and sent the matter back (2022 BCSC 1654, as summarized by Harper Grey [5] and HRD Canada [9]). On Dec. 15, 2022, a new review officer referred the file back to the board “to issue an order against the employer for violation of s. 21(1)(a)” of the Workers Compensation Act, the general duty to protect workers’ health and safety (2023 BCSC 928, para. 15 [4]).

According to a summary of the Court of Appeal’s November 2025 ruling, WorkSafeBC found that Dexterra “did not adequately investigate” the mobbing complaint. It ordered a new investigation, which was completed in early 2023, and it issued violation orders over deficiencies in Dexterra’s procedures, policies and training for handling co-worker complaints. WorkSafeBC imposed no financial penalties. It rated the risk of serious injury as low and found the failures negligent but not deliberate, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision as reasonable (Harper Grey on 2025 BCCA 379 [5]).

The courts have been careful about how far those findings go. In 2023, the Court of Appeal said the review decision dealt with “the adequacy of the investigation, not the merits” of her bullying complaints. It added that an administrative remedy “does not establish that the employer or the Union, much less every LRB decision maker, is guilty of an offence” (2023 BCCA 31, as quoted in 2023 BCSC 928, para. 17 [4]).

Fact check: what checks out

“The public record confirms extensive litigation involving Pereira, Dexterra and the Province.” True. News for BC counted at least 23 rulings since 2022 in the B.C. Supreme Court, the B.C. Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. One went in her favour [6][7][4][13][14][5].

Public funds were “improperly used for legal representation.” Not established. The Court of Appeal found “no evidence whatsoever” that the province retained the lawyer, and the lawyer swore that no government body retained him [6]. Pereira says freedom-of-information records about the “retention and funding” exist but were withheld [11]. Those records have not been made public.

Misconduct “including fraud, breach of trust, forgery, perjury and obstruction of justice.” Unproven, and rejected where tested. No court has found any such conduct by Eby, Sharma or the province. The Court of Appeal found “no cogent evidence” of the collusion and corruption alleged [6]. News for BC found no public record of any charge.

She “reported the matter to police and identifies an RCMP file number.” Her public letter says she reported it; the file number could not be verified. A file number shows that a complaint was logged. It does not show that anyone is a suspect. RCMP guidance says police name people only after charges are sworn in court [15].

Eby and Sharma are not confirmed suspects. Accurate. The post’s own caveat holds up [3].

The employer did something wrong. Partly true, and not part of the post. WorkSafeBC found that Dexterra failed to adequately investigate and issued orders, but no penalty [5].

Why prosecutors, not politicians, decide

The claims centre on Eby and Sharma because of the office they have held. Eby was attorney general until he left cabinet in July 2022 to run for the NDP leadership, and Murray Rankin then took on the role in an acting capacity (Black Press Media, July 22, 2022 [16]). Sharma has been attorney general since Dec. 7, 2022 (B.C. government news release, Dec. 7, 2022 [17]). Pereira’s own filings argue that Eby appointed the labour board decision-maker she accuses and that Sharma promoted her (2026 BCCA 271, para. 20 [6]).

In B.C., however, decisions about prosecutions are made by Crown counsel in the BC Prosecution Service. The province says prosecutors “conduct each prosecution free from political or other external influence” (“Independence of Crown Counsel” [18]). Under the Crown Counsel Act, if the attorney general wants to direct a particular prosecution, the direction must be in writing and published in the B.C. Gazette [18][19]. None of the rulings reviewed by News for BC mentions any such direction in Pereira’s case.

The prosecution service’s own policy says Crown counsel “will generally intervene” in private prosecutions. Crown counsel then either proceed or direct a stay, and a stay can come “at any time after a private Information has been sworn, including before a process hearing” (Crown Counsel Policy Manual, PRI 1, Jan. 31, 2025 [20]). Before approving any charge, Crown counsel apply a two-part test: “whether there is a substantial likelihood of conviction” and “whether the public interest requires a prosecution” (Charge Assessment Guidelines, CHA 1 [21]). The courts found no basis to second-guess the Crown’s stays in this case [4][13].

The impact on B.C. employers and workplaces

The dispute began in an industry that matters to B.C.’s resource economy. Dexterra reported revenue of $1.04 billion in 2025 and more than 9,000 employees. It runs workforce accommodation, catering and facilities services, and in 2025 it bought Right Choice Camps and Catering, which operates in the Montney gas region (Dexterra Q4 2025 results, March 3, 2026 [22]).

For employers, the WorkSafeBC findings are the practical lesson. The court that quashed the first review found that the worker’s medical leave did not stop the company from interviewing her, since it met her during that leave about another matter. It also found the company could have carried on investigating after it fired her (HRD Canada on 2022 BCSC 1654 [9]). WorkSafeBC requires employers to have procedures setting out how and when bullying and harassment investigations are done, who is responsible and how they are documented. It also says employers “are responsible not only for establishing procedures, but for ensuring they are followed” (WorkSafeBC, “Bullying & harassment” [23]).

The broader trend points the same way. WorkSafeBC accepted 461 psychological-injury claims with disability or survivor benefits where bullying or harassment was reported in 2025, up from 271 in 2021. In the tourism and hospitality subsector, the figure was 22, up from 11 (WorkSafeBC, Psychological Injury Claims 2021 to 2025 [24]). WorkSafeBC cautions that a reported allegation does not mean it accepted that bullying happened [24].

The courts also flagged a cost to the justice system. When it upheld the vexatious-litigant order, the Court of Appeal wrote that courts “are not intended to serve as a roving commission of inquiry with an unlimited mandate,” and it described the origin of the case as “an unfortunate but routine labour dispute” (2026 BCCA 271, para. 64 [6]). It also wrote that Pereira “is sincere in her quest to correct what she considers to be a grave injustice” (para. 61 [6]).

The rules on election claims

B.C.’s Election Act does not ban criticism or allegations. It does prohibit knowingly or recklessly spreading a false statement that a candidate, party leader or associated public figure “has committed or been charged with an offence” during a campaign, when the aim is to affect the result. Penalties can reach $20,000, and Elections BC can order a person or group to stop transmitting the material (Elections BC, “Restrictions on false statements and misrepresentation” [25]). The BetterBC post presents the claims as allegations, not facts [3].

What voters can do

Read the rulings yourself. B.C. court judgments are free on CanLII (canlii.org) and the B.C. courts website. Search “Pereira” with the citations in this story [6][7][4].

Check whether charges exist. Adult criminal files in B.C. provincial court can be searched through Court Services Online (justice.gov.bc.ca/cso) [26]. A police file number alone does not mean anyone is under investigation [15].

Look for the source. Ask whether a viral post links to a ruling, an official record or a named, accountable source.

Report false election claims. Possible breaches of section 234.1 can be reported to Elections BC at 1- 800-661-8683 [25].

Know the dates. Advance voting runs Oct. 16 to 21, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. local time. Final voting day is Saturday, Oct. 24 (Elections BC [1]).

What workers and employers can do

Workers: Report bullying or harassment to your employer, and keep a written record. If the employer does not take reasonable steps, WorkSafeBC says to call its Prevention Information Line. If that does not resolve it, you can submit a Bullying and Harassment Questionnaire [23]. Unionized workers who think their union mishandled a grievance can file a duty-of-fair-representation complaint with the Labour Relations Board (Labour Relations Code, ss. 12–13 [27]).

Employers: Follow your own procedures. Hear from everyone involved, including the worker who was complained about, before disciplining anyone, and document the investigation. In this case, the courts and WorkSafeBC faulted the employer for not interviewing the complainant during her leave and for not continuing after her termination [5][9][23].

Sources

1. Elections BC, “Writs Issued for British Columbia’s 44th Provincial General Election,” September 2026. https://elections.bc.ca/news/writs- issued-for-british-columbias-44th-provincial-general-election/

2. CBC News, “British Columbia’s next provincial election set for Oct. 24 after Eby calls early vote,” Sept. 22, 2026. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/livestory/british-columbia-snap-election-2026-ndp-leader-david-eby-9.7349059

3. BetterBC (Facebook group), post beginning “With the B.C. election underway, voters should be aware of serious allegations…”, Oct. 5, 2026, 3:06 p.m. PT, with comment thread. https://www.facebook.com/groups/betterbc/posts/1630247568828074/

4. Supreme Court of British Columbia, Pereira v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2023 BCSC 928 (Harvey J.), June 6, 2023 (publication ban noted). https://www.hrreporter.com/chrr-plus/employment-law- cases/download/3733/86/Pereira%20v.%20British%20Columbia%20(Attorney%20General).pdf

5. Harper Grey LLP (E. Jerrott), “BCCA Upholds Reasonableness of Review Officer’s Decision in Complex Bullying-and-Harassment Investigation Case” (summary of Pereira v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2025 BCCA 379, Nov. 5, 2025), Dec. 19, 2025. https://www.harpergrey.com/administrative-law/bcca-upholds-reasonableness-of-review-officers-decision-in-complex-bullying- and-harassment-investigation-case/

6. Court of Appeal for British Columbia, Pereira v. British Columbia Labour Relations Board, 2026 BCCA 271, reasons of Chief Justice Marchand, Justice Edelmann and Justice Francis, June 18, 2026. https://www.hrreporter.com/chrr-plus/employment-law- cases/download/12435/11948/Pereira%20v.%20British%20Columbia%20Labour%20Relations%20Board.,%202026%20BCCA%20271. pdf (also on CanLII)

7. Court of Appeal for British Columbia, Pereira v. British Columbia Labour Relations Board, 2025 BCCA 391 (Gomery J.A., in chambers), Nov. 12, 2025. https://www.hrreporter.com/chrr-plus/employment-law- cases/download/12435/8866/Pereira%20v.%20British%20Columbia%20Labour%20Relations%20Board,%202025%20BCCA%20391.p df

8. Horizon North Logistics Inc., “Horizon North Logistics Inc. Announces Closing of Transaction with Dexterra,” May 29, 2020. https://ir.dexterra.com/2020/05/29/horizon-north-logistics-inc-announces-closing-of-transaction-with-dexterra/

9. J.R. Smith, “Worker’s appeal to ‘chastise’ WorkSafeBC fails,” HRD Canada, June 27, 2023 (on 2022 BCSC 1654 and 2023 BCCA 195). https://www.hcamag.com/ca/specialization/employment-law/workers-appeal-to-chastise-worksafebc-fails/450699

10. C. Pereira, “Public Funds, Private Interests: My Report to the Auditor General,” The Legal Lies (Substack), Nov. 9, 2025. https://thelegallies.substack.com/p/public-funds-private-interests

11. The Legal Lies (Substack), “Judges Exposed: What they don’t want you to know,” June 19, 2026. https://thelegallies.substack.com/p/judges-exposed

12. The Legal Lies (Substack), “BC Attorney General’s Unlawful Intervention,” March 5, 2025. https://thelegallies.substack.com/p/bc- attorney-generals-unlawful-intervention

13. Supreme Court of Canada, Case 40631, Corinne Marie Pereira v. Attorney General of British Columbia, docket and judgment on leave, Dec. 21, 2023. https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/40631/

14. Supreme Court of Canada, Case 40748, Corinne Pereira v. British Columbia Labour Relations Board, et al., judgment on leave, Dec. 21, 2023. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-l-csc-a/en/20205/1/document.do

15. RCMP (Newfoundland and Labrador), “When does the RCMP release names of individuals facing charges?”, news release, July 17, 2020 (archived). https://web.archive.org/web/20241201180958/https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2020/when-does-the-rcmp-release- names-individuals-facing-charges

16. Black Press Media / Victoria News, “B.C.’s Indigenous relations minister ‘honoured’ to assume attorney general role,” July 22, 2022. https://vicnews.com/2022/07/22/b-c-s-indigenous-relations-minister-honoured-to-assume-attorney-general-role/

17. B.C. Government News, “New cabinet ready to take action on cost of living, health care, housing, climate,” Office of the Premier, Dec. 7, 2022. https://archive.news.gov.bc.ca/releases/news_releases_2020-2024/2022PREM0097-001863.htm

18. Government of British Columbia, BC Prosecution Service, “Independence of Crown Counsel,” last updated May 12, 2025. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/criminal-justice/bc-prosecution-service/about/independence

19. Crown Counsel Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 87 (BC Laws). https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96087_01

20. BC Prosecution Service, Crown Counsel Policy Manual, “Private Prosecutions” (PRI 1), effective Jan. 31, 2025 (errata April 8, 2025). https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/prosecution-service/crown-counsel-policy-manual/pri-1.pdf

21. BC Prosecution Service, Crown Counsel Policy Manual, “Charge Assessment Guidelines” (CHA 1). https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/prosecution-service/crown-counsel-policy-manual/cha-1- charge-assessment-guidelines.pdf

22. Dexterra Group Inc., “Dexterra Group Inc. Announces Results for Q4 and Year ended December 31, 2025,” March 3, 2026. https://ir.dexterra.com/2026/03/03/dexterra-group-inc-announces-results-for-q4-and-year-ended-december-31-2025/

23. WorkSafeBC, “Bullying & harassment” (procedures for workers and employers). https://www.worksafebc.com/en/health- safety/hazards-exposures/bullying-harassment

24. WorkSafeBC, Psychological Injury Claims (Mental Disorder Claims) – 2021 to 2025, June 2026, pp. 19–20. https://www.worksafebc.com/~/media/BE603701808446BE96183D5C6DEEA184.ashx

25. Elections BC, “Restrictions on false statements and misrepresentation” (Election Act, ss. 234.1–234.5). https://elections.bc.ca/voting/election-integrity/restrictions-on-false-statements-and-misrepresentation/

26. B.C. Ministry of Attorney General, Court Services Online (public court file search). https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/

27. Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 244, ss. 12–13 (BC Laws). https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96244_01

This story is based on published court rulings, government records and public posts available as of Oct. 5, 2026. Quotations are taken verbatim from those documents. A court-ordered publication ban protects the identities of people named in the private informations described here.