Bonnefoy v. Northern Health Authority operating as Wrinch Memorial Hospital (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 20
Date Issued: January 29, 2025
File: CS-001237
Indexed as: Bonnefoy v. Northern Health Authority operating as Wrinch Memorial Hospital
(No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 20
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Linda Bonnefoy
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Northern Health Authority operating as Wrinch Memorial Hospital
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi
On their own behalf: Linda Bonnefoy (October 21, 2024, only)
Counsel for the Respondent: Matthew Desmarais, Allison Macdonald
Date of Hearing: October 21-October 23, 2024
Location of Hearing: Via Videoconference
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Linda Bonnefoy filed a complaint alleging her former employer, Northern Health Authority operating as Wrinch Memorial Hospital, discriminated against her in employment and tenancy contrary to ss. 10 and 13 of the Human Rights Code .
[2] This matter was scheduled to be heard over 10 days from October 21 to November 1, 2024. Ms. Bonnefoy attended and participated on the first day of the hearing. Ms. Bonnefoy did not attend on the second day. Ms. Bonnefoy emailed the Tribunal on October 22, 2024, saying she would not be attending or participating any further in the Tribunal’s process.
[3] In this decision, I first consider whether Ms. Bonnefoy has proven her allegations of discrimination on a balance of probabilities. Because Ms. Bonnefoy only participated in the first day of hearing, I conclude she did not meet her burden of proof. In these circumstances, I dismiss the complaint in its entirety pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Code .
[4] Next, I consider Northern Health’s application for an award of costs against Ms. Bonnefoy pursuant to s. 37(4) of the Code . It says that Ms. Bonnefoy’s communications throughout her complaint and her conduct at the hearing were inflammatory and improper. I find that Ms. Bonnefoy’s conduct was improper and grant Northern Health’s application.
II ANALYSIS
A. Should Ms. Bonnefoy’s discrimination complaint be dismissed?
[5] A complainant bears the burden of proof to prove their allegations of discrimination on a balance of probabilities.
[6] This hearing was scheduled to be heard over 10 days from October 21 to November 1, 2024, online via MS Teams.
[7] Ms. Bonnefoy attended and participated in the hearing on the first day. During the first day Ms. Bonnefoy testified about her employment with Northern Health and introduced evidence of correspondence she had with employees of Northern Health. A one hour and six minutes audio recording of a meeting between Ms. Bonnefoy and her supervisors was entered into evidence by consent without being played in full. Much of Ms. Bonnefoy’s submissions were on issues unrelated to her discrimination complaint. The first day of the hearing ended and Ms. Bonnefoy was scheduled to continue giving her direct evidence on the following day.
[8] Ms. Bonnefoy did not attend on the second day, October 22, 2024, at the scheduled starting time of 9:30am. In accordance with the Tribunal’s practice, I delayed the start of the hearing and did not hear submissions or evidence from Northern Health. The Case Manager phoned and left Ms. Bonnefoy a message but did not receive a response by phone or email.
[9] I stood the hearing down to be resumed at 11:00am. The Case Manager called Ms. Bonnefoy again and left another message. The Case Manager also emailed Ms. Bonnefoy informing her that the hearing would resume at 11:00am. Ms. Bonnefoy did not attend the hearing or contact the Tribunal. I stood the hearing down further to be resumed at 1:00pm on the same day. The Case Manager again sent an email to Ms. Bonnefoy informing her of the schedule.
[10] Ms. Bonnefoy sent an email to the Tribunal at 12:52pm.
[11] In her email Ms. Bonnefoy says, “Rather than continue to subject myself to the privileged lawyers including and not limited to LANG LLP, Northern Health rep, and Member Takayanagi Ive been invited to compile my correspondence to the Human Rights and have it reviewed for fairness.”
[12] I wrote to Ms. Bonnefoy and Northern Health to confirm my understanding of her email. I informed the parties I would reconvene the hearing the next day, October 23, 2024, at 9:30am. I wrote:
If Ms. Bonnefoy wishes to participate in the Tribunal’s hearing process she can attend at that time. If she does not attend, I will understand that Ms. Bonnefoy no longer wishes to participate in the hearing. Because the burden is on her to prove her complaint, the likely consequence will be that her complaint is dismissed.
[13] The hearing resumed at 9:30am on October 23, 2024. Ms. Bonnefoy did not attend.
[14] The burden of proof lies with a complainant to prove their allegations of discrimination. Ms. Bonnefoy was not in attendance to provide evidence in support of her complaint after the first day. As noted above, on the first day of the hearing Ms. Bonnefoy gave some evidence about her employment at Northern Health. Ms. Bonnefoy testified about providing patient care services and her working relationship with her supervisors. Ms. Bonnefoy testified that she was not provided proper tires for her vehicle, that her work phone was taken away, and that she was told to take her lunches inside her vehicle. With the limited information before me, I find I have insufficient evidence on which I could base a decision finding that Ms. Bonnefoy’s complaint of discrimination in employment and tenancy was made out. As such, Ms. Bonnefoy has not met her evidentiary burden, and I dismiss the complaint pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Code .
[15] I next consider Northern Health’s application for an order of costs.
B. Costs for improper conduct
[16] Northern Health seeks a costs order against Ms. Bonnefoy for improper conduct. They say a sum of $12,000 would be appropriate. Northern Health also asks the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to stay all of Ms. Bonnefoy’s other complaints before the Tribunal until any costs award has been paid.
[17] In response to the application for costs, Ms. Bonnefoy has provided an email saying only:
I believe the costs of Northern Health lawyers should be born by the taxpayer. In my estimation not only was the tribunal process a very hostile unfair process the BC Human Rights piled up all three complaints to be dealt simultaneously.
[18] For the reasons that follow, I find that a costs award of $3,000 is warranted in the circumstances. I do not find that it is appropriate that the Tribunal exercise its discretion to stay Ms. Bonnefoy’s other complaints before the Tribunal until the costs award has been paid in full.
[19] I first explain why I have concluded that an order for costs is warranted in the circumstances. I considered the nature of the improper conduct, and the seriousness of the effects on the Tribunal’s process. These factors weigh in favour of ordering costs against Ms. Bonnefoy.
1. Did Ms. Bonnefoy engage in improper conduct?
[20] The Tribunal may award costs against a party who has engaged in improper conduct during the course of the complaint, fails to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure [ Rules ], or does not comply with a decision, order, or direction made under the Rules: Code , s. 37(4); Rule 4(2).
[21] The Tribunal has defined improper conduct as a serious impropriety that imports a notion of intentional wrongdoing or culpable action, which a reasonable person would know is wrong. This is a high standard, because costs awards are punitive, not compensatory: Kerr v. Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) (No. 5) , 2010 BCHRT 62 at para. 26 .
[22] The Tribunal has found several types of inappropriate communications to be improper conduct: Miremadi v. Fairmont Hotel Vancouver (No. 2) , 2009 BCHRT 126 at para. 108. These include: subjecting other participants or counsel to irrelevant and disrespectful personal attacks: Miller v. Treasure Cove Casino, 2009 BCHRT 126 at para. 109; making offensive and unwarranted attacks on participants’ character: Stone v. McBride , 2004 BCHRT 221 at paras. 61-63; making serious and unfounded allegations against participants: Bakhtiyari v. BCIT (No. 5), 2007 BCHRT 200 at para. 69; and repeatedly sending rude, inflammatory, and offensive emails that personally attack people involved in the Tribunal’s process with foul language and baseless allegations: Dr. A v. Health Authority and another (No. 3) , 2023 BCHRT 10 at paras. 62-65. The Tribunal has also held that discontinuing a complaint without notice may constitute an abuse of process and therefore, improper conduct: Cook v. Citizens Research Institute , 2002 BCHRT 6 at para. 10.
[23] Northern Health points to the incidents set out next as a basis for its costs application. It says Ms. Bonnefoy’s conduct was improper and meets the high threshold necessary for a costs award to be granted by the Tribunal. I agree.
[24] On March 14, 2024, the Tribunal held a conference call with the parties to schedule a hearing. During this call Ms. Bonnefoy repeatedly yelled and interrupted counsel for Northern Health and the Tribunal.
[25] Ms. Bonnefoy insisted that this complaint should be combined with a retaliation complaint she had filed against Northern Health and her Union. Ms. Bonnefoy alleges in her retaliation complaint that Northern Health denied medical services to her husband and contributed to his death. I informed Ms. Bonnefoy that her retaliation complaint would not be combined with her discrimination complaint because the retaliation complaint was at an early stage of the Tribunal’s process and the Union had not yet filed a Response to the Complaint. I repeatedly told the parties that because the hearing would only deal with Ms. Bonnefoy’s discrimination complaint, submissions and evidence should be on the allegations in that complaint exclusively.
[26] Ms. Bonnefoy said she anticipated calling five witnesses, including herself for the hearing of her discrimination complaint. Based on the number of witnesses the parties anticipated calling, the Tribunal scheduled a hearing for 10 days in October 2024.
[27] On May 6, 2024, the Tribunal’s Acting Registrar cautioned Ms. Bonnefoy that her earlier correspondence to the Tribunal’s staff and counsel for Northern Health was inappropriate and contravened the Tribunal’s Rule to “treat all persons in the course of a complaint with courtesy and respect”: Rule 7(4). The Acting Registrar warned Ms. Bonnefoy that if she continued communicating inappropriately, her conduct could attract an order for costs against her. Some examples of Ms. Bonnefoy’s inappropriate communications cited by the Acting Registrar were:
a. “I feel [the Case Manager] enjoyed joining [Respondents’ Counsel] in shit-kicking me when I was down”
b. “the blood of my husband is on the hands of [the Case Manager]”
c. Attaching photographs of Ms. Bonnefoy’s late husband in the hospital, and a deer being butchered
d. “It must feel like such a comfort to [the Case Manager] that taxpayers provide legal counsel for Human Rights but none for the complainants and victims who bring their concerns of racism and discrimination forward”
e. “I think Human Rights and Indigenous Rights are ideas your corporation lawyers bounce around and laugh about just like the BC Crown Human Rights lawyers”
f. Calling the Case Manager a “racist misogynistic arrogant man” and an employee of Northern Health “a very racist bitch.”
[28] The Acting Registrar also noted that Ms. Bonnefoy referenced recording the conference call with the Tribunal. She warned Ms. Bonnefoy that no one is allowed to record the Tribunal’s calls or meetings without permission and if she did this again the Tribunal might order costs for improper conduct.
[29] Ms. Bonnefoy’s correspondence after the Tribunal’s warning letter continued to be disrespectful, inflammatory, and inappropriate. Some examples from her correspondence between May 6, 2024, and the first day of the hearing include:
a. Referencing violent incidents unrelated to the complaint.
b. Accusing Northern Health’s counsel of being associated with another law firm and accusing counsel of working with the RCMP to sell her business.
c. Responding to the Tribunal informing her that the hearing would occur by videoconference by saying, “NO, you will not be seeing me as I have informed you I will attend by telephone. You and the privileged lawyers can look at each other but I don’t care to look at any of you…if [Respondent’s Counsel] and his associates want to look at my mixed breed face they can do so by looking at my grandmothers face since I interpret the responses from the BC Human Rights and Alexnader Holburn mocking my Indigenous hereditary claim.”
d. “My husband is dead as a result of this Human Rights complaint.”
e. “I don’t want to be gawked at by the group of you that deem this application vexatious and have all come together as a big team to gang up on me….thats how I see it.”
f. “It disgust me that I don’t have time to attend to these matters but you are paid to sit in your law office by the taxpayer to whip off your letters to me.”
[30] On September 19, 2024, the Tribunal held a conference call to prepare for the hearing. I reminded the parties that the hearing would only deal with the allegations in Ms. Bonnefoy’s discrimination complaint and confirmed the issues to be decided in the hearing. Ms. Bonnefoy stated she intended to call nine witnesses, including herself. Based on the number of witnesses the parties said they intended to call, I established a hearing schedule for a 10-day hearing.
[31] On October 7, 2024, Ms. Bonnefoy emailed to say that she would only be calling one witness other than herself.
[32] The hearing began on October 21, 2024. Ms. Bonnefoy confirmed she would only be calling one witness other than herself. She said she intended to use the full hearing days that had been scheduled based on her assertion that she would be calling nine witnesses, to testify. During the hearing Ms. Bonnefoy ignored repeated directions from the Tribunal about focusing her testimony on the issues related to her discrimination complaint and spent a great deal of time discussing issues related to her retaliation complaint and her displeasure with the Tribunal process generally. Throughout the hearing day Ms. Bonnefoy repeatedly yelled, interrupted others, made disrespectful personal attacks about the physical appearance and character of Northern Health’s representatives and counsel, calling them “ugly,” “red faced” and “predators.” She attacked the character of the Tribunal’s staff, saying the Case Manager committed homicide. Ms. Bonnefoy demanded Northern Health’s representative provide their home address and said she would be putting an axe “up against the throat” of Northern Health’s witnesses.
[33] I repeatedly cautioned Ms. Bonnefoy that in accordance with Rule 7(4) parties are to “treat all persons in the course of a complaint with courtesy and respect.” I also repeatedly said that Ms. Bonnefoy’s retaliation complaint was not before me and therefore submissions should focus on the discrimination complaint. Because Ms. Bonnefoy repeatedly yelled and interrupted the proceedings, I twice had to mute the participants’ lines to give instruction to the parties.
[34] As noted above, Ms. Bonnefoy did not attend the hearing after the first day. It was not until midday on the second hearing day, and after repeated efforts by the Tribunal to reach Ms. Bonnefoy, that she suggested to the Tribunal that she did not intend to participate further in the hearing.
[35] In her email Ms. Bonnefoy continued to make inappropriate comments, making baseless attacks on the character of Northern Health’s staff, counsel, as well as the Tribunal’s staff, saying:
a. “[The Case Manager] bombarded me by kick-starting 2other Human Rights files”
b. “My husband is dead…because Northern Health repeatedly denied him a medivac”
c. “the retaliation by [Northern Health’s staff member] resulted in a brutish drawn-out death that the BC Human Rights has helped BCGEU and Northn Health sweep away”
[36] Ms. Bonnefoy also said that “the hearing was witnessed.” I infer Ms. Bonnefoy had allowed observers to surreptitiously attend the hearing despite the Tribunal telling her that members of the public must request to attend the hearing and identify themselves: BCHRT Public & Media Access Policy.
[37] Ms. Bonnefoy repeatedly failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules and direction. This is a serious impropriety. Her statement that she would be putting an axe against the throat of Northern Health’s witnesses is a threat of violence, which is clearly improper. Her communication to Northern Health’s counsel and the Tribunal is replete with disrespectful comments, serious unfounded allegations, and repeated rude, inflammatory, and offensive remarks and personal attacks on the people involved in the Tribunal’s process. No party to a complaint, their counsel, or the Tribunal’s staff, should have to tolerate this kind of behaviour. Further, Ms. Bonnefoy was warned by the Tribunal about her behaviour on May 6, 2024, but her conduct continued unchanged. Ms. Bonnefoy’s offensive and inappropriate communications after that date demonstrates a lack of respect and disdain for the Tribunal’s processes and rules.
[38] The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for 10-days based on the number of witnesses the parties said they intended to call. Ms. Bonnefoy eliminated most of her witnesses late in the day. She insisted she use the hearing time scheduled to address issues that the Tribunal had cautioned her are not before it and irrelevant to the matter being considered. This conduct demonstrates a disregard for the Tribunal’s directions and processes. Further, Ms. Bonnefoy abruptly abandoning her complaint – without informing the Tribunal or the other party – caused the Tribunal and Northern Health to spend time trying to determine what Ms. Bonnefoy intended to do and waiting for her response. This is an inefficient use of the Tribunal’s limited time and resources, as well as Northern Health’s.
[39] I find the cumulative effect of Ms. Bonnefoy’s conduct before the Tribunal is improper. It is one of the rare instances where a party’s conduct in the Tribunal’s process is worthy of censure and rebuke. I find that Ms. Bonnefoy’s improper conduct warrants an award of costs.
2. Appropriate Quantum
[40] I next turn to what an appropriate amount of a cost award is under the circumstances.
[41] Costs awards are discretionary. When deciding the appropriate amount of costs to order the Tribunal considers the nature and severity of the behaviour which is being sanctioned, and the impact of that behaviour on the integrity of the Tribunal’s processes. In addition, the Tribunal may also consider the party’s relative culpability with respect to the conduct, the party’s ability to pay, any factors (such as a disability) that may have contributed to the conduct, and any other consequences to the party that have arise n as a result of the sanctioned behaviour: Kelly v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia , 2007 BCHRT 382 at para. 91.
[42] A costs award should be sufficient to signal the Tribunal’s condemnation of the party’s improper conduct, service the punitive purposes of the award, and deter others from engaging in similar conduct: Ma v. Cleator, 2014 BCHRT 180 [ Ma ] at para. 285.
[43] Northern Health says Ms. Bonnefoy has engaged in nearly every type of misconduct the Tribunal seeks to condemn. It says her “overt and repeated misconduct, despite warning is unparallelled.” Northern Health says it has incurred significant legal fees to respond to Ms. Bonnefoy’s complaint including by preparing for a 10-day hearing.
[44] Northern Health says the gravity and frequency of Ms. Bonnefoy’s misconduct is markedly worse than similar cases where the Tribunal has awarded costs. It says the cumulative effect of Ms. Bonnefoy’s misconduct warrants an award higher than in the following cases it references.
[45] Northern Health says that Ms. Bonnefoy’s abandonment of her complaint is similar to Owimar v. Parking Corporation of Vancouver and another (No. 2) , 2013 BCHRT 159 ($2,000) and Peterson v. Kinsmen Retirement Centre Association and Kines (No. 4) , 2008 BCHRT 149 ($2,500) but Ms. Bonnefoy’s conduct is markedly worse because she engaged in threatening conduct and subjected parties to disrespectful personal attacks for a protracted period of time despite warnings. It says Ms. Bonnefoy was repeatedly told to limit her comments to issues raised in the complaint like in Fougere v. Rallis (No. 3) , 2003 BCHRT 56 ($5,000), but in Fougere the party did not engage in disrespectful conduct throughout the complaint, both before and during the hearing, as Ms. Bonnefoy did. It says Ms. Bonnefoy’s conduct is similar to MacGarvie v. Friedmann (No.4) , 2009 BCHRT 47 ($7,500) where the party failed to abide by the Tribunal’s orders, interrupted the proceedings, and made unfounded allegations about the parties involved in the complaint. It says the circumstances here justify a higher award because Ms. Bonnefoy has filed multiple complaints with the Tribunal and a more significant penalty is necessary to deter future improper conduct.
[46] Ms. Bonnefoy has made no submissions on the quantum of costs.
[47] Under the circumstances, I find that a substantial award of costs is appropriate. Ms. Bonnefoy repeatedly disregarded the Tribunal’s rules of appropriate communication and made unfounded allegations about virtually every party involved in the complaint process, including the Tribunal’s staff. She made disrespectful personal attacks which seriously impacted the integrity of the Tribunal’s process. Further, from her correspondence and statements in the hearing, I understand Ms. Bonnefoy ignored the Tribunal’s direction and allowed members of the public to surreptitiously observe the hearing.
[48] Ms. Bonnefoy’s conduct has had a serious effect on the integrity of the Tribunal’s processes and has caused the Tribunal and Northern Health to expend time and resources they would not have had to had Ms. Bonnefoy conducted herself appropriately in the complaint process.
[49] Despite a lack of submissions from Ms. Bonnefoy, I consider that she is a self-represented Indigenous complainant. The Tribunal’s Expanding Our Vision: Cultural Equality & Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights [ EOV Report ] at page 32 found that the Tribunal’s process was identified “as being confusing and very difficult to navigate”. The EOV Report identifies the need for legal representation for Indigenous peoples. The EOV Report’s recommendation 10.1 states that “The BCHRT staff and tribunal members should be provided with training on how trauma may impact Indigenous Peoples’ actions or interactions within the BCHRT system.”
[50] While I acknowledge that Ms. Bonnefoy is self-represented, I find that her words and conduct are her own responsibility. Her rude, inflammatory, and offensive comments in her correspondence was expressly identified as contrary to the Rules by the Tribunal’s Acting Registrar in the letter of May 6, 2024. That Ms. Bonnefoy continued to make rude and offensive comments in her subsequent communications and at the hearing demonstrates a knowing disregard for the Tribunal’s Rules . This is not a case where Ms. Bonnefoy was unaware of, and inadvertently breached, a Rule . In my view, Ms. Bonnefoy’s lack of legal representation was not a factor that contributed to her inappropriate behaviour. In light of the Tribunal’s repeated warnings, Ms. Bonnefoy ought to have known that continuing to make similar comments was wrong.
[51] Similarly, while I have considered Ms. Bonnefoy’s circumstances with a trauma-informed lens, I find that it is not a full excuse for Ms. Bonnefoy’s offensive comments and conduct. I appreciate that Ms. Bonnefoy believes that her husband’s death was a result of retaliation by Northern Health because it denied medical services to her husband. I understand that Ms. Bonnefoy sincerely believes that Northern Health and the Tribunal contributed to her husband’s death. I appreciate that Ms. Bonnefoy is dealing with significant trauma and pain. However, this does not diminish Ms. Bonnefoy’s culpability in her repeated use of rude, inflammatory, and disrespectful language after being told multiple times that such communications are inappropriate.
[52] Ms. Bonnefoy has not suggested, and there is nothing in the information before me to support, that there are factors outside of Ms. Bonnefoy’s control, such as a disability, which contributed to the behaviour in question.
[53] I do not have direct information about Ms. Bonnefoy’s ability to pay any cost award. I understand, from her statement that she took time off work to attend the hearing, that Ms. Bonnefoy is employed. There is no evidence before me about her employment income. I find there is no evidence before me to support a reduction in the costs amount based on an inability to pay.
[54] Under the circumstances, I find that Ms. Bonnefoy’s conduct, taken as a whole, has had a significant prejudicial effect on the integrity of the Tribunal’s processes and a costs award of $3,000 is appropriate.
[55] In reaching this conclusion, I considered the Tribunal’s costs awards for analogous improper conduct.
[56] In Kono v. Strata Plan LMS 2685 and another , 2017 BCHRT 143, the Tribunal awarded $3,000 in costs for conduct including repeated, inflammatory, derogatory, and offensive comments. There, the Tribunal made the costs award notwithstanding there had been no warning by the Tribunal.
[57] In Dr. A v. Health Authority and another (No. 3) , 2023 BCHRT 10, the Tribunal awarded $3,000 in costs for conduct including repeatedly sending profane, threatening, and inflammatory communication despite multiple warnings by the Tribunal. There, the complainant continued his improper communications despite five escalating warnings from the Tribunal.
[58] In this case the combination of the severe and repeated conduct despite warnings, as well as the disrespect and disregard that Ms. Bonnefoy has shown to the participants and the Tribunal’s process requires a higher award. However, I temper the award with the fact that Ms. Bonnefoy is a self-represented complainant who is clearly dealing with trauma and struggled with the Tribunal’s adversarial process. Further, I find that unlike cases where a party was found to have deliberately deceived the Tribunal, there was no intention by Ms. Bonnefoy to deceive or put forward falsehoods.
[59] I find that a costs award of $3,000 is appropriate in all of the circumstances of this case.
3. Should the Tribunal attach conditions to the costs award against Ms. Bonnefoy?
[60] Northern Health says that until any cost award has been paid the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to stay all of Ms. Bonnefoy’s other complaints. In the alternative, Northern Health says the Tribunal should, at least, stay Ms. Bonnefoy’s retaliation complaint against Northern Health and the Union.
[61] Northern Health argues that a stay is necessary to protect the integrity of the Tribunal’s processes and that it will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted.
[62] For the following reasons I deny Northern Health’s request to attach conditions to the costs award. I am not persuaded that staying Ms. Bonnefoy’s complaints – including complaints where Northern Health is not a party – is appropriate.
[63] The Tribunal has the power to control its process, including by imposing terms or conditions on an order for costs: Stone v. B.C. (Ministry of Health) (No. 8) , 2008 BCHRT 96 at para. 110; Administrative Tribunals Act s. 50(2); Code , s.32(n). This power is intended to facilitate the purposes of the Code , and further a just and timely resolution of matters.
[64] Ms. Bonnefoy currently has three other complaints before the Tribunal. Northern Health is a respondent in one of these other complaints alongside Ms. Bonnefoy’s Union. Ms. Bonnefoy names other institutional respondents in her two other complaints.
[65] In my view, granting relief to Northern Health that impacts complaints in which it is not a party would not facilitate the just and timely resolution of those complaints and is contrary to the purposes of the Code : Code 27.3(1). While Northern Health says it would suffer irreparable harm if the other proceedings are not stayed, it has not pointed to specific harms that would arise. Rather, I understand Northern Health’s argument to be that because Ms. Bonnefoy has engaged in improper conduct throughout the course of this complaint, and because she has expressed her disdain for Northern Health, its counsel, and the Tribunal, it believes Ms. Bonnefoy will engage in similar improper conduct in her other complaints.
[66] I have found that Ms. Bonnefoy’s conduct in this complaint has had a significant effect on the integrity of the Tribunal’s process warranting a costs award. However, finding that there has been a serious impropriety warranting a costs award in one complaint is not a sufficient basis to conclude that the costs award will be an insufficient deterrent and a stay of other complaints before the Tribunal is necessary.
[67] Ms. Bonnefoy has been warned about her improper conduct, and I have now issued a costs award to signify that the Tribunal will not condone such conduct. It should now be clear to Ms. Bonnefoy that she is required to “treat all persons in the course of a complaint with courtesy and respect” pursuant to Rule 7(4). If Ms. Bonnefoy engages in further improper conduct during her other complaints, the respondents in those complaints (including Northern Health), may submit their own application for an award of costs or other relief they find appropriate in the circumstances of those cases.
III CONCLUSION
[68] Ms. Bonnefoy’s complaint is dismissed.
[69] Pursuant to s.37(4)(b) of the Code , I order Ms. Bonnefoy to pay costs to Northern Health in the amount of $3,000.
Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member