Slater v. Fraser Health Authority (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 54
Date Issued: February 28, 2025
File: CS-003785
Indexed as: Slater v. Fraser Health Authority (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 54
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:
Heather Slater
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Fraser Health Authority
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER A DECISION
RULE 36
Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi
On their own behalf: Heather Slater
Counsel for the Respondent: Jessica Fairbairn, Ellen Ferguson
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Heather Slater filed a complaint alleging her employer, Fraser Health Authority, discriminated against her in employment based on physical disability and sex contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code . On February 4, 2025, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint: Slater v. Fraser Health Authority , 2025 BCHRT 28 [the Original Decision ]. It found that Dr. Slater’s allegations of events between 1995 and 2007 were untimely and were not in the public interest to accept them. It dismissed allegations of events in 2021 because it found that Dr. Slater had no reasonable prospect of proving a connection between her disability and an adverse impact.
[2] Dr. Slater applies for reconsideration of the decision. She argues that because the decision says she did not file a response to the dismissal application, the decision is based solely on Fraser Health’s submissions and fails to consider the materials she submitted to the Tribunal.
[3] I have not found it necessary to seek submission from Fraser Health. For the reasons set out below, the application is denied.
II BACKGROUND
[4] The background to Dr. Slater’s complaint is set out in paragraphs 6-13 of the Original Decision. I will not repeat it here. In brief, Dr. Slater alleged that Fraser Health denied her job and education opportunities because of her sex, assigned her job duties that were unsuitable because of her disability, and failed to provide her standardized equipment to perform her job.
[5] Fraser Health filed its application to dismiss on July 6, 2023.
[6] On August 31, 2023, by way of a response to the dismissal application, Dr. Slater provided a USB containing over 160 pdf documents.
[7] On September 6, 2023, the Tribunal rejected the USB and directed Dr. Slater to resubmit the information. The Tribunal directed Dr. Slater to consolidate her documents into two pdf files, one entitled “argument,” and a second entitled “evidence.”
[8] On September 13, 2023, Dr. Slater requested an extension to amend her response to the application and format her documents. The Tribunal denied Dr. Slater’s request to amend her response. The Tribunal said Dr. Slater could resubmit her response, but she could not add new documents or make changes to arguments she had previously submitted.
[9] On September 20, 2023, Dr. Slater resubmitted a USB containing three pdf files. The first entitled “Evidence” containing 354 pages. The second entitled “Amended Schedule A Form 9.1 Aug 31” containing an index of documents. The third entitled “H Slater v Fraser Health CS-003787 amended Schedule A form_9_1_Disclosure” containing a Form 9.1 Document Disclosure Form.
III ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[10] The Tribunal has a limited jurisdiction to reconsider its own decisions: Rule 36 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure . Specifically, the Tribunal may reconsider a decision if it is in the interests of justice and fairness to do so: Routkovskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) , 2012 BCCA 141 at para. 23. The Tribunal exercises this power sparingly, giving due consideration to the principle of finality in administrative proceedings: Grant v. City of Vancouver and others (No. 4), 2007 BCHRT 206 [ Grant ] at para 10.
[11] The burden is on the person seeking to have a matter re-opened to show that the interests of fairness and justice demand such an order: Grant at para. 10.
[12] The Tribunal does not have authority to reconsider a decision based on an argument that the decision was wrong or unreasonable or because there has been a change of circumstances: Fraser Health Authority v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal , 2014 BCCA 499 [ Fraser Health ] at paras. 135 and 160. The Tribunal will not reconsider a decision to address arguments that could have been made in the first instance but were not, or to hear a party reargue its case: Ramadan v. Kwantlen Polytechnic University and another (No. 2) , 2018 BCHRT 56 at para. 13. When a party simply disagrees with a Tribunal decision, the appropriate recourse is judicial review by the BC Supreme Court.
[13] Here, Dr. Slater argues that I did not consider her submissions and should have preferred her version of events over Fraser Health’s. Dr. Slater repeats her allegations that Fraser Health denied her job and education opportunities because of her sex, assigned her job duties that were unsuitable because of her disability, and failed to provide her with workplace equipment. She has resubmitted a USB containing over 160 individual pdf documents.
[14] I find that Dr. Slater’s submissions do not present circumstances where fairness and justice require intervention in the Original Decision.
[15] In my Original Decision I noted that Dr. Slater had not filed a response to the dismissal application. This is because Dr. Slater submitted hundreds of pages of evidentiary materials but did not address or respond to the arguments made by Fraser Health in its dismissal application. Dr. Slater requested and was granted an extension of time to file a response. She was subsequently given an opportunity to reformat and resubmit her materials. I am satisfied Dr. Slater had an opportunity to provide a response to the dismissal application and chose not to do so. As I stated in my Original Decision, I considered all the information filed by the parties to make my decision.
[16] Further, Dr. Slater has not identified what materials she submitted were not considered for the Original Decision. In her reconsideration application Dr. Slater resubmits the same materials she previously provided in individual pdf files.
[17] Reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue issues that have already been determined in the Original Decision. It appears Dr. Slater disagrees with the Original Decision and believes I should have accepted her evidence to find in her favour. This is not a basis for reconsideration of a decision. It would not be in the interests of justice and fairness to interfere with a decision simply because Dr. Slater disagrees with the outcome.
IV CONCLUSION
[18] Dr. Slater’s reconsideration application is denied.
Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member