Richmond Election Image Referral Goes No Further After Human Rights Bodies Decline Action
Olivia Singh
11/5/20265 min read
A controversial election-related social media post that Richmond city council referred to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal will not result in further action from the tribunal, according to newly filed court documents.
The development is the latest turn in an ongoing B.C. Supreme Court dispute between Richmond real estate professional Jason Liu and the City of Richmond over an image Liu posted to WeChat during the summer.
The image depicted a man wearing a turban against the backdrop of an Indian flag and included figures comparing the size of Richmond’s Chinese and South Asian populations.
At the time, Kash Heed, who is of South Asian descent, was considered a leading candidate in the city’s mayoral race.
The post prompted strong criticism from Richmond city council, which passed a motion condemning what it described as discriminatory messaging and referred the matter to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
Liu subsequently went to court, challenging the city’s actions.
Now, Richmond argues that because neither the tribunal nor the Human Rights Commissioner is pursuing the matter, there is no longer a live dispute requiring judicial intervention.
City Says Case Has Become Moot
In a response filed in the B.C. Supreme Court registry on Oct. 28, the City of Richmond argued that Liu’s petition no longer serves a practical purpose.
“As the matter is moving no further, there is no live controversy as between the parties and the remedies sought by the petitioner would serve no useful purpose,” the city said in its filing.
Richmond maintains that council simply expressed its opinion about the content of a social media post and forwarded the matter to an independent human rights body for consideration.
Liu disagrees.
In his Oct. 8 petition, he asked the B.C. Supreme Court to declare the city’s actions stemming from the council motion unreasonable.
He also argues that the municipality acted outside its legal jurisdiction.
The Post That Sparked the Dispute
The controversy began with a WeChat post Liu published during the summer.
The image featured a man wearing a turban with an Indian flag behind him and displayed percentage figures relating to Richmond’s Chinese and South Asian populations.
Liu provided a translation of the accompanying Chinese-language headline and subtitle.
According to his translation, the post asked why an Indo-Canadian candidate was the frontrunner for mayor in a city where more than 54 per cent of residents were described as Chinese Canadian.
It concluded with a message referring to the Oct. 17 election and saying every vote would matter.
Liu said the post referred to Heed using a simplified Chinese term.
The imagery and wording drew backlash, with critics arguing that it framed political representation through ethnicity and suggested a candidate’s background should be relevant to whether they could legitimately lead the city.
Council Condemned the Messaging
Richmond council discussed the post in July.
Council ultimately approved a motion stating that the city did not endorse discrimination in any form and took strong exception to the messaging that had appeared online.
The motion also called for an apology from the person responsible and directed city staff to forward the matter to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for review.
The city later issued a statement saying Richmond was built on diversity and that discriminatory messaging did not reflect the values of council or the broader community.
But Liu’s subsequent court petition challenged whether municipal council had the authority to take the steps it did.
Tribunal Says It Does Not Conduct Such Inquiries
Court filings now indicate that the tribunal will not take the matter further.
According to Richmond’s response, a city staff member contacted the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal following council’s motion.
The municipality says it was told that the tribunal does not conduct inquiries and therefore could not deal with the type of request the city had submitted.
That distinction is significant.
The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal adjudicates complaints brought under the province’s Human Rights Code. It is not the same organization as the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner, whose mandate includes broader work involving systemic discrimination and human rights issues.
City staff contacted both organizations.
Human Rights Commissioner Also Declines Action
The Office of the Human Rights Commissioner separately confirmed that it would not pursue the issue.
The commissioner’s office said its work is primarily focused on systemic change.
It also noted that the commissioner would generally be unlikely to begin an inquiry into a matter that was already being considered by the tribunal.
Another factor was the wording of Richmond council’s original resolution, which specifically referred the matter to the tribunal rather than the commissioner’s office.
The commissioner therefore declined to take further action.
As a result, neither provincial human rights body is currently pursuing an investigation arising from Richmond council’s referral.
Liu Says City Overstepped Its Authority
For Liu, however, the end of the human rights referral does not necessarily settle the larger legal question.
His petition asks the B.C. Supreme Court to review the municipality’s actions and determine whether they were legally reasonable.
He also argues the city lacked jurisdiction to take the steps that followed council’s motion.
The case therefore raises questions broader than whether a human rights proceeding will actually occur.
At issue is whether a municipal government can formally condemn an individual’s political or election-related expression and refer that expression to another government body for review.
The city’s position is that council was entitled to express its view on messaging it considered discriminatory and to forward the issue to an appropriate agency.
City Says No Practical Remedy Remains
Richmond is now asking the court to treat Liu’s challenge as moot.
In Canadian law, a case can be considered moot when the underlying dispute has disappeared and a court ruling would no longer have a practical effect on the parties.
The city argues that because the human rights process is going no further, there is no continuing controversy for the court to resolve.
But courts can sometimes choose to hear a technically moot case when broader legal questions remain important or likely to arise again.
Whether the court will do so in this case has not yet been determined.
Court Date Being Sought
Court registry filings show Richmond is seeking a hearing date.
Liu said he intends to continue arguing his case if a date is confirmed.
That means the dispute could continue even though the human rights referral that triggered much of the litigation has effectively ended.
The court may ultimately have to decide whether there remains a meaningful legal issue surrounding council’s original conduct — particularly Liu’s argument that the municipality acted outside its authority.
Human Rights Issue Ends, Legal Dispute Continues
The latest filings create an unusual situation.
Richmond council referred the post to the Human Rights Tribunal because councillors believed the messaging warranted scrutiny.
The tribunal says it cannot undertake the kind of inquiry the city requested.
The Human Rights Commissioner has independently decided not to pursue the matter.
Richmond therefore says there is nothing left for the court to remedy.
Liu, however, maintains that the legality of the city’s original actions remains unresolved.
The dispute has consequently shifted away from whether the controversial image itself will face a human rights investigation and toward a different question: what authority a municipal government has when responding to political expression it considers discriminatory.
For now, the human rights process appears to have reached its end.
The court battle may not have.
News
Stay updated with the latest BC news stories, subscribe to our newsletter today.
SUBSCRIBE
© 2026 Innovatory Labs Inc. All rights reserved.
LINKS