BC Human Rights Code (6:III) - Revision history

Nate Russell at 22:03, 27 November 2025

2025-11-27T22:03:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:03, 27 November 2025
Line 25:		Line 25:
	If any one of the three elements of the complainant's case is missing, there is no discrimination. If the complainant proves the three elements of their case, then the burden shifts to the respondent to justify its conduct. If the respondent proves its conduct was justified, then there is no discrimination. If the respondent’s conduct is not justified, discrimination will be found to have occurred.		If any one of the three elements of the complainant's case is missing, there is no discrimination. If the complainant proves the three elements of their case, then the burden shifts to the respondent to justify its conduct. If the respondent proves its conduct was justified, then there is no discrimination. If the respondent’s conduct is not justified, discrimination will be found to have occurred.

	The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc30/2017scc30.html~~?resultId=d44265c7cd24473aa8975b9b431307c4&searchId=2025-09-21T13:23:57:909/df5c4965241440c893c5f99e1ece1a7b~~ Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp.]'', 2017 SCC 30 further developed the legal test for discrimination established in Moore. This ruling clarified that the primary focus is on discriminatory impact, not the intention behind the action. In other words, you do not have to prove that a decision was made with a discriminatory motive or based on stereotypes.		The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc30/2017scc30.html Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp.]'', 2017 SCC 30 further developed the legal test for discrimination established in Moore. This ruling clarified that the primary focus is on discriminatory impact, not the intention behind the action. In other words, you do not have to prove that a decision was made with a discriminatory motive or based on stereotypes.

	The court also confirmed that a causal link must exist between a protected characteristic (like race, gender, or disability) and the adverse treatment (like refusing employment or tenancy). However, the protected characteristic doesn't have to be the only reason or even the most significant reason for the negative outcome—it just needs to be a contributing factor.		The court also confirmed that a causal link must exist between a protected characteristic (like race, gender, or disability) and the adverse treatment (like refusing employment or tenancy). However, the protected characteristic doesn't have to be the only reason or even the most significant reason for the negative outcome—it just needs to be a contributing factor.
Line 129:		Line 129:
	An employer may have a duty to inquire about a potential disability before taking disciplinary action against an employee, even if the employee has not formally disclosed their condition. This means that if an employer has a reasonable belief that an employee's behavior or performance issues are linked to a medical condition, they must take steps to investigate before making a decision that could negatively affect the employee.		An employer may have a duty to inquire about a potential disability before taking disciplinary action against an employee, even if the employee has not formally disclosed their condition. This means that if an employer has a reasonable belief that an employee's behavior or performance issues are linked to a medical condition, they must take steps to investigate before making a decision that could negatively affect the employee.

	This principle was established in cases like ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1997/1997bchrt39/1997bchrt39.html~~?resultId=927b2eb821f44c5f81c3436e24eee566&searchId=2025-09-21T13:22:18:788/44e92e13ca0b475ab0561b27c637979c~~ Willems-Wilson v Allbright Drycleaners]'', 1997 BCHRT 39. In this case, an employee was fired due to her behavior, which was related to an undiagnosed mental disability. Although she hadn't explicitly told her employer she had depression, the employer was aware of several key facts: she cried frequently, had been hospitalized for non-physical reasons, and attended weekly counseling sessions.		This principle was established in cases like ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1997/1997bchrt39/1997bchrt39.html Willems-Wilson v Allbright Drycleaners]'', 1997 BCHRT 39. In this case, an employee was fired due to her behavior, which was related to an undiagnosed mental disability. Although she hadn't explicitly told her employer she had depression, the employer was aware of several key facts: she cried frequently, had been hospitalized for non-physical reasons, and attended weekly counseling sessions.

	The court determined that these facts gave the employer reason to believe that a medical condition was a factor. Therefore, the employer had a duty to inquire about a possible link between the employee's behavior and her disability before firing her.		The court determined that these facts gave the employer reason to believe that a medical condition was a factor. Therefore, the employer had a duty to inquire about a possible link between the employee's behavior and her disability before firing her.

	This duty was later affirmed in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt41/2003bchrt41.html~~?resultId=4e83d1ae56c94e62853e0c561e7f490b&searchId=2025-09-21T13:21:52:461/5dbe49f12fbd4ee2b393ca55eaabf20b~~ Gardiner v. British Columbia (Attorney General)]'', 2003 BCHRT 41 at 166, where the Tribunal held that an employer has a duty to inquire when they have reason to believe that a medical condition is affecting an employee's job performance.		This duty was later affirmed in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt41/2003bchrt41.html Gardiner v. British Columbia (Attorney General)]'', 2003 BCHRT 41 at 166, where the Tribunal held that an employer has a duty to inquire when they have reason to believe that a medical condition is affecting an employee's job performance.

	'''Defence of ''Bona Fide'' Occupational Requirement (BFOR)''': Adverse treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic may be justified when it relates to a “''bona fide'' occupational requirement” (BFOR): see s. 13(4). In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1724/index.do British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union]'', [1999] 3 SCR 3 at para 54 [''Meiorin''], the Supreme Court of Canada established a three-part test for establishing a BFOR.		'''Defence of ''Bona Fide'' Occupational Requirement (BFOR)''': Adverse treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic may be justified when it relates to a “''bona fide'' occupational requirement” (BFOR): see s. 13(4). In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1724/index.do British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union]'', [1999] 3 SCR 3 at para 54 [''Meiorin''], the Supreme Court of Canada established a three-part test for establishing a BFOR.

Nate Russell at 21:09, 27 November 2025

2025-11-27T21:09:32Z

Show changes

LSLAP at 19:03, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T19:03:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:03, 13 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= August ~~14, 2024~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 5 August 2025}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = rights}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = rights}}

LSLAP: /* 5. Civil Action */

2025-09-27T23:24:02Z

5. Civil Action

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:24, 27 September 2025
Line 522:		Line 522:
	=== 5. Civil Action ===		=== 5. Civil Action ===

	A final option is to bring a civil action for wrongful dismissal either in Small Claims Court (see [[Introduction_to_Small_Claims_(20:I)\|Chapter 22: Small Claims]] of the LSLAP Manual) or the BC Supreme Court, depending on the amounts claimed. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the common law will not provide a remedy for discrimination per se in the employment context. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc39/2008scc39.html Keays v Honda Canada Inc]'', 2008 SCC 39 at para 67 [''Keays''].		A final option is to bring a civil action for wrongful dismissal either in Small Claims Court (see [[Introduction_to_Small_Claims_(20:I)\|Chapter 20: Small Claims]] of the LSLAP Manual) or the BC Supreme Court, depending on the amounts claimed. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the common law will not provide a remedy for discrimination per se in the employment context. Please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc39/2008scc39.html Keays v Honda Canada Inc]'', 2008 SCC 39 at para 67 [''Keays''].

	The court in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc39/2008scc39.html Keays]'' held that breaches of the HRC must be remedied within the statutory scheme of the HRC itself. Thus, even if the reason for dismissal was discriminatory, in a civil action, the claimant will generally only be able to recover damages based on their wrongful dismissal and/or inadequate notice (severance pay). See [[Introduction_to_Employment_Law_(9:I)\|Chapter 9: Employment Law]] of the LSLAP Manual. Accordingly, compensation for the discrimination itself must be awarded by the Tribunal.		The court in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc39/2008scc39.html Keays]'' held that breaches of the HRC must be remedied within the statutory scheme of the HRC itself. Thus, even if the reason for dismissal was discriminatory, in a civil action, the claimant will generally only be able to recover damages based on their wrongful dismissal and/or inadequate notice (severance pay). See [[Introduction_to_Employment_Law_(9:I)\|Chapter 9: Employment Law]] of the LSLAP Manual. Accordingly, compensation for the discrimination itself must be awarded by the Tribunal.

LSLAP: /* 1. Discriminatory Publication */

2025-09-27T23:16:34Z

1. Discriminatory Publication

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:16, 27 September 2025
Line 57:		Line 57:
	=== 1. Discriminatory Publication ===		=== 1. Discriminatory Publication ===

	Section 7 deals with forms of discrimination against individuals or groups of individuals, which are published, displayed, or made public. This section prohibits hate literature and other such communications that expose or are likely to expose someone in a protected group to hatred or contempt, as well as publications that indicate discrimination or intent to discriminate against a protected group. Please refer to ''[http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/decisions/2019/mar/58_CORRECTED_Oger_v_Whatcott_No_7_2019_BCHRT_58.pdf Oger v Whatcott]'' (No 7), 2019 BCHRT 58 at paras 93—97 for the former, and [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt228/2018bchrt228.html?resultIndex=1&fbclid=IwAR29aclgXwxQnU6peHALajehkvX-uSD4VK0wIv1zAnArQ-vHynzNXoWIMXI Li v Mr B], 2018 BCHRT 228 at paras 95—97 [''Li''] for the latter.		Section 7 deals with forms of discrimination against individuals or groups of individuals, which are published, displayed, or made public. This section prohibits hate literature and other such communications that expose or are likely to expose someone in a protected group to hatred or contempt, as well as publications that indicate discrimination or intent to discriminate against a protected group. Please refer to ''[http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/decisions/2019/mar/58_CORRECTED_Oger_v_Whatcott_No_7_2019_BCHRT_58.pdf Oger v Whatcott]'' (No 7), 2019 BCHRT 58 at paras 93—97 for the former, and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2018/2018bchrt228/2018bchrt228.html?resultIndex=1&fbclid=IwAR29aclgXwxQnU6peHALajehkvX-uSD4VK0wIv1zAnArQ-vHynzNXoWIMXI Li v Mr B]'', 2018 BCHRT 228 at paras 95—97 [''Li''] for the latter.

	'''Exception:''' Section 7 does '''not''' apply to communications that are intended to be private or are related to activities otherwise permitted under the ''HRC'', see s. 7(2) and ''Li'' at paras 98–104.		'''Exception:''' Section 7 does '''not''' apply to communications that are intended to be private or are related to activities otherwise permitted under the HRC, see s. 7(2) and ''Li'' at paras 98–104.

	=== 2. Discrimination in Accommodations, Services and Facilities “Customarily Available to the Public” ===		=== 2. Discrimination in Accommodations, Services and Facilities “Customarily Available to the Public” ===

LSLAP at 20:36, 21 September 2025

2025-09-21T20:36:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:36, 21 September 2025
Line 24:		Line 24:

	If any one of the three elements of the complainant's case is missing, there is no discrimination. If the complainant proves the three elements of their case, then the burden shifts to the respondent to justify its conduct. If the respondent proves its conduct was justified, then there is no discrimination. If the respondent’s conduct is not justified, discrimination will be found to have occurred.		If any one of the three elements of the complainant's case is missing, there is no discrimination. If the complainant proves the three elements of their case, then the burden shifts to the respondent to justify its conduct. If the respondent proves its conduct was justified, then there is no discrimination. If the respondent’s conduct is not justified, discrimination will be found to have occurred.

			The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc30/2017scc30.html?resultId=d44265c7cd24473aa8975b9b431307c4&searchId=2025-09-21T13:23:57:909/df5c4965241440c893c5f99e1ece1a7b Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp.]'', 2017 SCC 30 further developed the legal test for discrimination established in Moore. This ruling clarified that the primary focus is on discriminatory impact, not the intention behind the action. In other words, you do not have to prove that a decision was made with a discriminatory motive or based on stereotypes.

			The court also confirmed that a causal link must exist between a protected characteristic (like race, gender, or disability) and the adverse treatment (like refusing employment or tenancy). However, the protected characteristic doesn't have to be the only reason or even the most significant reason for the negative outcome—it just needs to be a contributing factor.

	'''Vicarious Liability:''' Section 44(2) of the HRC states that an employer is responsible for the actions of their employees, and an employer will be liable for an employee’s actions when the employee is acting within the scope of their authority or job duties. Employers are also responsible for providing a discrimination-free workplace. The employer should be named as a respondent in any human rights complaint involving an allegation of discrimination in the employment context.		'''Vicarious Liability:''' Section 44(2) of the HRC states that an employer is responsible for the actions of their employees, and an employer will be liable for an employee’s actions when the employee is acting within the scope of their authority or job duties. Employers are also responsible for providing a discrimination-free workplace. The employer should be named as a respondent in any human rights complaint involving an allegation of discrimination in the employment context.
Line 123:		Line 127:
	Because all individuals over 19 are protected by the ground of age, individuals in both the public and private sector are able to choose the age at which they wish to retire and are protected from discrimination based on age (HRC, s 1).		Because all individuals over 19 are protected by the ground of age, individuals in both the public and private sector are able to choose the age at which they wish to retire and are protected from discrimination based on age (HRC, s 1).

	'''Defence of ''Bona Fide'' Occupational Requirement ("BFOR")''': Adverse treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic may be justified when it relates to a “''bona fide'' occupational requirement” (BFOR): see s. 13(4). In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1724/index.do British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union]'', [1999] 3 SCR 3 at para 54 [''Meiorin''], the Supreme Court of Canada established a three-part test for establishing a BFOR.		An employer may have a duty to inquire about a potential disability before taking disciplinary action against an employee, even if the employee has not formally disclosed their condition. This means that if an employer has a reasonable belief that an employee's behavior or performance issues are linked to a medical condition, they must take steps to investigate before making a decision that could negatively affect the employee.

			This principle was established in cases like ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/1997/1997bchrt39/1997bchrt39.html?resultId=927b2eb821f44c5f81c3436e24eee566&searchId=2025-09-21T13:22:18:788/44e92e13ca0b475ab0561b27c637979c Willems-Wilson v Allbright Drycleaners]'', 1997 BCHRT 39. In this case, an employee was fired due to her behavior, which was related to an undiagnosed mental disability. Although she hadn't explicitly told her employer she had depression, the employer was aware of several key facts: she cried frequently, had been hospitalized for non-physical reasons, and attended weekly counseling sessions.

			The court determined that these facts gave the employer reason to believe that a medical condition was a factor. Therefore, the employer had a duty to inquire about a possible link between the employee's behavior and her disability before firing her.

			This duty was later affirmed in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2003/2003bchrt41/2003bchrt41.html?resultId=4e83d1ae56c94e62853e0c561e7f490b&searchId=2025-09-21T13:21:52:461/5dbe49f12fbd4ee2b393ca55eaabf20b Gardiner v. British Columbia (Attorney General)]'', 2003 BCHRT 41 at 166, where the Tribunal held that an employer has a duty to inquire when they have reason to believe that a medical condition is affecting an employee's job performance.

			'''Defence of ''Bona Fide'' Occupational Requirement (BFOR)''': Adverse treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic may be justified when it relates to a “''bona fide'' occupational requirement” (BFOR): see s. 13(4). In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1724/index.do British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union]'', [1999] 3 SCR 3 at para 54 [''Meiorin''], the Supreme Court of Canada established a three-part test for establishing a BFOR.
	# The employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;		# The employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;
	# The employer adopted the particular standard with an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and		# The employer adopted the particular standard with an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and
Line 658:		Line 670:
	== J. Case Path Pilot ==		== J. Case Path Pilot ==

	Unfortunately, the number of applications to dismiss filed by respondents has resulted in significant backlog and delay at the Tribunal. In response, the Tribunal is currently running a pilot project under s. 27 of the ''Human Rights Code''. On May 1, ~~2024~~, the pilot project was extended for a further year.		Unfortunately, the number of applications to dismiss filed by respondents has resulted in significant backlog and delay at the Tribunal. In response, the Tribunal is currently running a pilot project under s. 27 of the ''Human Rights Code''. On May 1, 2025, the pilot project was extended for a further year.

	Under the Case Path Pilot, the default case path will be for the complaint to proceed directly to a hearing. Only when the Tribunal determines that an application under s. 27 would further the just and timely resolution of the complaint will it permit a respondent to file an application to dismiss. For more information see the Tribunal’s [https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/practice-directions/case-path-pilot-practice-direction/ Practice Direction] on the Case Path Pilot.		Under the Case Path Pilot, the default case path will be for the complaint to proceed directly to a hearing. Only when the Tribunal determines that an application under s. 27 would further the just and timely resolution of the complaint will it permit a respondent to file an application to dismiss. For more information see the Tribunal’s [https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/practice-directions/case-path-pilot-practice-direction/ Practice Direction] on the Case Path Pilot.

LSLAP at 18:35, 21 August 2024

2024-08-21T18:35:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 21 August 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= August 1, ~~2023~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= August 14, 2024}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = rights}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = rights}}

LSLAP: /* K. Judicial Review */

2024-08-15T02:24:40Z

K. Judicial Review

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:24, 15 August 2024
Line 664:		Line 664:
	== K. Judicial Review ==		== K. Judicial Review ==

	If an individual disagrees with a decision of the Tribunal, they may ask the Supreme Court of British Columbia for a “judicial review”. A judicial review differs from an appeal to a higher court. In an appeal, the court has the authority to decide whether or not it agrees with a decision. In a judicial review, the BC Supreme Court simply decides whether ~~or not~~ there is ~~a “ground”~~ for review and may only disturb the Tribunal’s decision if the applicant can demonstrate that the Tribunal:		If an individual disagrees with a decision of the Tribunal, they may ask the Supreme Court of British Columbia for a “judicial review”. A judicial review differs from an appeal to a higher court. In an appeal, the court has the authority to decide whether or not it agrees with a decision. In a judicial review, the BC Supreme Court simply decides whether there is are grounds for review and may only disturb the Tribunal’s decision if the applicant can demonstrate that the Tribunal:

	*Made an “error of law”, e.g., an incorrect interpretation of the HRC;		*Made an “error of law”, (e.g., an incorrect interpretation of the HRC);
	*Made a finding of fact that is unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence;		*Made a finding of fact that is unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence;
	*Acted unfairly with regards to the rules of procedure and natural justice; or		*Acted unfairly with regards to the rules of procedure and natural justice; or
	*Disregarded legislative requirements; used its discretion arbitrarily, in bad faith, or for an improper purpose; or based its decisions on irrelevant factors.		*Disregarded legislative requirements; used its discretion arbitrarily, in bad faith, or for an improper purpose; or based its decisions on irrelevant factors.
			These standards of review applicable to the Tribunal’s decisions are set out in s. 59 of the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/04045_01 Administrative Tribunals Act]''.

	The standards of review applicable to the Tribunal’s decisions are set out in s. 59 of the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/04045_01 Administrative Tribunals Act]''.		If the Tribunal has made any of these errors, the Court may set aside the decision and will usually direct the Tribunal to reconsider the matter. Section 57 of the ''Administrative Tribunals Act'' mandates that an application for a judicial review must be submitted within '''60 days''' of the date the Tribunal’s decision was issued. In order to seek a judicial review, an individual is required to prepare a petition and affidavit, file the petition and affidavit at the BC Supreme Court, and serve a copy of the filed petition and affidavit on the Tribunal, the Attorney General of British Columbia, and any person whose interests may be affected by the order Court is asked to make.

	If the Tribunal has made any of these errors, the Court may set aside the decision and will usually direct the Tribunal to reconsider the matter. Section 57 of the ''Administrative Tribunals Act'' mandates that an application for a judicial review must be submitted within '''60 days''' of the date the Tribunal’s decision was issued. In order to seek a judicial review, an individual is required to prepare a petition and affidavit, file the petition and affidavit at the BC Supreme Court, and serve a copy of the filed petition and affidavit on the Tribunal, the Attorney General of British Columbia, and any person whose interests may be affected by the order ~~you desire the~~ Court to make.


	{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters1-7}}		{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters1-7}}

LSLAP: /* J. Case Path Pilot */

2024-08-15T02:18:35Z

J. Case Path Pilot

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:18, 15 August 2024
Line 658:		Line 658:
	== J. Case Path Pilot ==		== J. Case Path Pilot ==

	Unfortunately, the number of applications to dismiss filed by respondents has resulted in significant backlog and delay at the Tribunal. In response, ~~on May 6, 2022~~ the Tribunal ~~launched~~ a ~~one-year~~ pilot project under s. 27 of ~~the Human~~ Rights Code. ~~This pilot project is set to continue for a further six months after~~ May 6, ~~2023. Under the new Case Path Pilot~~, the ~~default case path will be~~ for ~~the complaint to proceed directly to~~ a ~~hearing. Only when the Tribunal determines that an application under s. 27 would~~ further the just and timely resolution of the complaint will it permit a respondent to file an application to dismiss. See the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on this new process here: http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/practice-directions/case-path-pilot-practice-direction.htm.		Unfortunately, the number of applications to dismiss filed by respondents has resulted in significant backlog and delay at the Tribunal. In response, the Tribunal is currently running a pilot project under s. 27 of the ''Human Rights Code''. On May 1, 2024, the pilot project was extended for a further year.

	~~The Tribunal has developed a strategy to address its backlog~~, ~~which it communicated to~~ the ~~public on June 30, 2023. Case~~ path ~~decisions~~ will be ~~suspended until November, 2023,~~ and ~~many hearings have been adjourned~~. ~~See: http~~://www.bchrt.bc.ca/~~tribunal~~/~~news~~/~~backlog~~-~~strategy~~-~~2023~~-06-30.~~htm~~		Under the Case Path Pilot, the default case path will be for the complaint to proceed directly to a hearing. Only when the Tribunal determines that an application under s. 27 would further the just and timely resolution of the complaint will it permit a respondent to file an application to dismiss. For more information see the Tribunal’s [https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/practice-directions/case-path-pilot-practice-direction/ Practice Direction] on the Case Path Pilot.

	== K. Judicial Review ==		== K. Judicial Review ==

LSLAP: /* I. Responding to an Application to Dismiss */

2024-08-15T02:17:07Z

I. Responding to an Application to Dismiss

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:17, 15 August 2024
Line 654:		Line 654:
	When faced with an application to dismiss, it is important to meaningfully engage with the reasons behind the application, providing supporting evidence when necessary. If the complainant does not provide evidence in response to an application to dismiss, it may result in a case being dismissed that did hold legal merit. Evidence can be as simple as a statement, although a sworn affidavit is preferable. The statement or affidavit should attach documents that help support the complainant’s argument that the complaint should be allowed to proceed to a hearing. The respondent would then have an opportunity to respond to the arguments raised by the complainant.		When faced with an application to dismiss, it is important to meaningfully engage with the reasons behind the application, providing supporting evidence when necessary. If the complainant does not provide evidence in response to an application to dismiss, it may result in a case being dismissed that did hold legal merit. Evidence can be as simple as a statement, although a sworn affidavit is preferable. The statement or affidavit should attach documents that help support the complainant’s argument that the complaint should be allowed to proceed to a hearing. The respondent would then have an opportunity to respond to the arguments raised by the complainant.

	If the Tribunal agrees to dismiss the complaint then it will not continue. Applications to dismiss are subject to judicial review.		If the Tribunal agrees to dismiss the complaint then the complaint process will not continue any further. Applications to dismiss are subject to judicial review.

	== J. Case Path Pilot ==		== J. Case Path Pilot ==