Complaint process

Discretionary decisions under the Human Rights Code

Last updated: January 16, 2024

A discretionary decision means there is not one right answer. The tribunal reviews all of the information and then “exercises its discretion” about how to decide.

Most decisions that the Tribunal makes are “discretionary”:

The court will only give a remedy if the discretionary decision is patently unreasonable. Learn more about the Patent reasonableness test.

Screening of complaints

Screening out of complaint:

  • Dela Merced v. Aluminum Curtain Wall System and another (17 July 2012), Cranbrook 21618 (BCSC)
  • Engler v. BC Human Rights Tribunal (11 March 2010), Vancouver S094582 (S.C.)
  • Andrews v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, 2007 BCSC 1079
  • L.M.A. v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, 2006 BCSC 1889
  • Shilander v. BC Human Rights Tribunal, 2005 BCSC 728

Sufficiency of information required in complaint – amendment allowed during screening: Lake City Casinos Ltd. v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) et al., 2006 BCSC 88

Timeliness of complaints under section 22 and section 27(1)(g)

BC Court of Appeal:

  • Chen v. Surrey (City), 2015 BCCA 57, affirming Chen v. City of Surrey, 2014 BCSC 539 (s. 22(2))
  • British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite, 2014 BCCA 220, leave to appeal refused [2014] SCCA No. 358 (s. 22(3))
  • B.C. (Ministry of the Attorney General et al.) v. Sanghera (25 July 2013), Vancouver S130713 (B.C.S.C.); aff’d 2014 BCCA 221

BC Supreme Court:

  • Brewers’ Distributor Ltd. v. Kenworthy, 2015 BCSC 1670 (s. 22(2))
  • Adolphs v. Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine, 2014 BCSC 298 (s. 22(3))
  • Patel v. Greater Vancouver Regional District, 2013 BCSC 2154 (s. 22(3))
  • Legere v PHSA and others, 2013 BCSC 306
  • Lewis v. British Columbia (Public Safety and Solicitor General), 2013 BCSC 1980
  • Goddard v. Dixon, 2012 BCSC 161
  • Lorenz v. BC Human Rights Tribunal et al, (23 February 2011), Vancouver S108205 (S.C.)
  • HMTQ v. McGrath, 2009 BCSC 180
  • Cowie v. Grand Forks District Savings Credit Union, 2006 BCSC 2008
  • Callaghan v. University of Victoria et al, 2006 BCSC 1503

Deferring a complaint under section 25

Dismissing a complaint under section 27(1)(b)

  • Goddard v. Dixon, 2012 BCSC 161 at paras. 65-83
  • Engler v. BC Human Rights Tribunal (11 March 2010), Vancouver Reg. S094582 (S.C.)

Dismissing a complaint under section 27(1)(c)

BC Court of Appeal:

  • Francescutti v. Vancouver (City), 2017 BCCA 242
  • Edgewater Casino v. Chubb-Kennedy, 2015 BCCA 9
  • Yaremy v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2015 BCCA 228
  • Routkovskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2012 BCCA 141
  • Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49
  • Gichuru v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2010 BCCA 191, leave to appeal denied, [2010] SCCA No. 217
  • Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, 2006 BCCA 95, leave to appeal denied [2006] SCCA No. 171

BC Supreme Court:

Dismissing a complaint under section 27(1)(d)

  • De Silva v. Fraser Health Authority, 2012 BCSC 1710
  • Goddard v. Dixon, 2012 BCSC 161
  • Karbalaeiali v. British Columbia ( Human Rights Tribunal), 2010 BCSC 1130
  • Carter v. Travelex Canada Limited, 2009 BCCA 180
  • Cariboo Chevrolet Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd. v. Becker, 2006 BCSC 43

Dismissing a complaint under section 27(1)(e)

  • Lungu v. British Columbia (Ministry of Children and Family Development) (20 February 2014), unreported decision Vancouver Reg. No. S120705 (B.C.S.C.)

Dismissing a complaint under section 27(1)(f)

Supreme Court of Canada: British Columbia (Workers Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52

BC Court of Appeal: Baharloo v. University of British Columbia, 2016 BCCA 277

BC Supreme Court:

Dismissing a complaint under section 27(1)(g)

See timeliness of complaints.

Decisions about remedy

BC Court of Appeal:

  • University of British Columbia v. Kelly, 2016 BCCA 271 (wage loss and injury to dignity)
  • Gichuru v. The Law Society of British Columbia, 2014 BCCA 396 (wage loss and injury to dignity)
  • J.J. v. School District No. 43 (Coquitlam), 2013 BCCA 67 (wage loss)
  • Silver Campsites Ltd. v. James, 2013 BCCA 292 (injury to dignity)
  • Morgan-Hung v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2011 BCCA 122 (wage loss)

BC Supreme Court:

Costs

  • Forsyth v. Coast Mountain Bus Company, 2013 BCCA 257, leave to appeal denied [2013] SCCA No. 338
  • Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association v. Pivot Legal Society, 2010 BCSC 807
  • Kinexus Bioinformatics Corporation v. Asad, 2010 BCSC 33 at paras. 34, 168 – 171
  • C.S. v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2017 BCSC 1268, paras. 228, 233

Reconsideration

  • Karbalaeiali v. British Columbia ( Human Rights Tribunal), 2010 BCSC 1130 at paras 38, 64-65
  • Solowan v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2007 BCSC 752 at paras. 33-34

Other

Admission and weight of expert evidence: Providence Health Care v. Dunkley, 2016 BCSC 1383

Time limit for making dismissal application: Vancouver (City) v. Grant, 2006 BCSC 1855

Refusal to issue a summons: Qin v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) et al, 2005 BCSC 1662 at paras. 32-33

Ruling that interpreter would be used: Qin v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) et al, 2005 BCSC 1662 at para. 40

Deferral of jurisdictional question to hearing:

Determination of “arguable relevance” in a disclosure application: C.S. v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2017 BCSC 1268, paras. 174-175

Admission of evidence: C.S. v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2017 BCSC 1268, para. 181

Patent unreasonableness

Section 59(4) defines a patently unreasonable decision.

The courts have said that:

The test in section 59(4) is:

A discretionary decision is patently unreasonable if the discretion

(a) is exercised arbitrarily or in bad faith,

(b) is exercised for an improper purpose,

(c) is based entirely or predominantly on irrelevant factors, or

(d) fails to take statutory requirements into account.

Statutory definition applies

  • Evans v. University of British Columbia, 2008 BCSC 1026
  • Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, 2006 BCCA 95, leave to appeal denied, [2006] SCCA No. 171 (QL)

The court must show deference (respect)

  • British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite, 2014 BCCA 220 at paras. 49-50
  • Adolphs v. Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine, 2014 BCSC 298 at paras. 19-20
  • Routskovia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2012 BCCA 141 at paras. 27-28
  • C.S. v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2017 BCSC 1268, paras. 194-198

Discretion exercised arbitrarily or in bad faith (s. 59(4)(a))

  • British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite, 2014 BCCA 220
  • University of British Columbia v. Chan, 2013 BCSC 942
  • Salvo v. Shoppers Drug Mart Store #2222, 2012 BCSC 1789
  • Goddard v. Dixon, 2012 BCSC 161
  • Silver Campsites Ltd. v. James, 2013 BCCA 292
  • Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49
  • Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, 2006 BCCA 95, leave to appeal denied, [2006] SCCA No. 171 (QL)

Discretion exercised for an improper purpose (s. 59(4)(b))

  • British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite, 2014 BCCA 220
  • Silver Campsites Ltd. v. James, 2013 BCCA 292

Discretion based entirely or predominantly on irrelevant factors (s. 59(4)(c))

Discretion fails to take statutory requirements into account (s. 59(4)(d))

Complaint process

Complaints

Mediation

Complaint response

Documents

Complaint dismissal

Application requests

Case conference

Get ready for a hearing

After a hearing

Standard of review