Associate

Danielle Temple

Office

Vancouver

Key Practice Area

Labour & Employment Law

Year of Call

2021

Qualifications

Education

Danielle is an employment and labour lawyer representing clients in the private, public and not-for-profit sectors. Her practice focuses on helping clients navigate complex workplace issues, including wrongful dismissal claims, human rights complaints, workplace accommodations, employment standards matters, occupational health and safety issues, and labour relations disputes. She regularly provides strategic advice on employee discipline and performance management, workplace investigations, terminations, disability management, and policy development.

Danielle represents employers in grievance arbitrations, workers compensations matters, and has appeared before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal; the B.C. Labour Relations Board, British Columbia’s Provincial Court and Supreme Court.

She is known for providing responsive, practical advice tailored to each client’s objectives, with a focus on achieving efficient and cost-effective resolutions and fostering productive workplace relationships.

In addition to her litigation practice, Danielle regularly drafts and reviews employment agreements and workplace policies, and advises on accommodation matters, privacy and personal information requests.

Danielle earned her Juris Doctor from the Peter A. Allard School of Law at UBC in 2020. She was a Wesbrook Scholar Finalist and a finalist at the National Labour Arbitration Moot.  She also served as a caseworker with the University’s Innocence Project.

Prior to attending law school, Danielle worked in labour relations in which she gained extensive practical experience in grievance resolution and collective bargaining.

  • The “Ones to Watch” Best Lawyers in Canada for 2027
  • Member of the Law Society of British Columbia
  • Member of the Canadian Bar Association
  • In Garnier v Flavelle Sawmill Co. Ltd. 2025 BCHRT 45, the Complaint sought nearly $500,000 in damages against the employer for alleged breaches of the Human Rights Code. After the close of the Complainant’s case, the employer brought an application to dismiss the case on the basis that the Complainant had not provided any evidence of discrimination (a “no evidence” motion). The application was successful and the complaint was dismissed without the employer having to call evidence.
  • In Noël v. Board of Education of School District No. 23 (Central Okanagan) (No. 4), 2025 BCHRT 18, the Complainant and unionized employee employed by the Respondent sought damages for alleged breaches of the Human Rights Code on mental disability, sex and family status. The Respondent successfully applied to dismiss the complaint without a hearing on multiple grounds including that the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.
  • In Complaint No. 2025D109, the complainant filed a prohibited action complaint and alleged that they had been constructively dismissed after reporting bullying and harassment to their employer. The Employer successfully defended against the complaint. WorkSafeBC determined that the employee had not been constructively dismissed and that the employer had a pro-safety approach, had taken the bullying and harassment complaint seriously, and offered alternatives to the worker after the worker communicated their intent to resign.
  • In Bigam v Board of Education of School District No 23 (Central Okanagan), the Respondent successfully obtained costs against the Complainant for failure to comply with her document disclosure obligations.
  • In University of British Columbia and CUPE Local 116 (Waste Site Supervisor – Job Selection Grievance), the Employer successfully defended its selection of an employee with less seniority than the grievor for a supervisor position and affirmed the Employer’s position that the incumbant was the demonstrably superior to the grievor and was properly awarded the position.
  • In Abdulrahman v Saba, 2022 BCSC 1189, the Petitioners successfully set aside an order of the Residential Tenancy Branch for the Petitioners to pay over $12,000 to their former landlord on judicial review for multiple breaches of procedural fairness. The Petitioners were not provided the materials to participate in the RTB Dispute proceerdings or provided the necessary information to even attend the hearing. The Court ruled that the refusal of the Tribunal to provide the necessary information to allow the Petitioners to attend the hearing was a breach of the Petitioners’ procedural fairness. It further concluded that the Respondent’s attempt to rely on the deemed service provisions when the Petitioners requested service by email would have been a triumph of form over substance.

 

  • Victoria Foundation Charity Law Speaker Series: Best Practices for Non-Profit Employers