On January 26, 2026 at 8:30 AM, Austen Puder emailed Navi Gill (Labour Relations) under the subject line
“CONFIDENTIAL: HOL12,” proposing to remove the worker from the Control Operator training program
and send him back to his originating department — the stated grounds being that his safety complaint
amounted to a “vexatious Work Refusal.”

“Vd like to discuss the possibility of removing an Operator i in training from the
“back to his originating ‘department for making « ave, tious Work Refusal.
26, 2026, 8:30 AM. :

The:same email records that a decibel reading had been taken and that the results were “well within
WorkSafe compliance,” that the department had offered to rotate the worker’s seating position, and that
the worker “responded with a hostile attitude toward the JHSC safety rep through text messages” once he
was informed of those results. It closes by noting the worker's absence that day:

»

. “Today, he has: booked off, claiming'a WorkSafe-related issue due to'the noise.”

y \. Puder to N..Gill,
January 26, 2026, 8:30AM ee

Evidence: Exhibit N — email, A. Puder to N. Gill, “CONFIDENTIAL: HOL12,” January 26, 2026, 8:30 AM.

Within thirty-two minutes, at 9:02 AM, Ron Wainwright forwarded the entire thread — with the worker’s
own MyHSE safety report attached — to Puder, Gill, Kevin Payne (Director, Labour Relations}, and Mo
Hassabou. Wainwright's covering line reduced the worker's reported injury toa scheduling matter:
“Attached is Mrk’s safety concern and the plan of the day he missed today through absence.”

Evidence: Exhibit O — email, R. Wainwright to A. Puder, N. Gill, K. Payne, M. Hassabou, January 26, 2026, 9:02 AM.
The significance of this exchange is not the decibel dispute itself — that dispute is addressed
independently in Sections 3-6, below, and turns on testing whose staging and misaddressing the worker
separately documented. The significance is timing and characterization. Before any noise consultant had
been retained, before any address was given to Arcose, and before any claim had been filed with
WorkSafeBC, BCRTC’s own Labour Relations chain had already: (a) labelled a MyHSE safety report a
“vexatious Work Refusal”; (b) discussed removing the worker from his training program on that basis; and
(c) circulated the plan to the same Director of Labour Relations, Kevin Payne, who would later write to the
worker in May 2026 to say his nineteen-year career was in “serious jeopardy of being terminated”
(Section 10, below). The retaliatory posture documented throughout the remainder of this dossier did not
begin in March. It was.already fully formed five weeks earlier, an the same day the worker's own bady
first forced him to miss a shift.

3. The Address Shell Game — Two False Addresses, One Room

The real address of the room in question is not in dispute: BCRTC Operations & Maintenance Centre 1
(OMC1), 6800 14th Ave, Burnaby, BC. This is the address on BCRTC’s own letterhead, in the worker's
MyHSE safety report, and in the City of Burnaby correspondence.

BCRTC gave its own acoustic consultant two different, incorrect addresses for that same room, one day
apart:

@ March 3, 2026 — Arcose Consulting's written proposal, prepared at BCRTC's request, describes
the assessment location as the “Server Room at BCRTC's center located at 6700 Southridge Drive,
Burnaby, BC” — a different street entirely.

@ March 4, 2026 — Daniyar Minster (BCRTC Safety Advisor) emails Arcose again, this time giving a
third variant: “The address is 6700 14th Ave, Burnaby, BC” — the correct street name, but the
wrong building number.

000286