Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "BC Human Rights Code (6:III)"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks

BC Human Rights Code (6:III) (view source)

Revision as of 21:32, 12 August 2016

757 bytes removed ,  21:32, 12 August 2016
Updated from last year's material
(Updated from last year's material)
Line 33: Line 33:
''British Columbia Council of Human Rights v Berg'', [1993] 2 SCR 353 at para 10 provides the definition of “customarily available to the public”.  A service is customarily available to the public if the nature of the relationship is public. Look at the relationship between the facility and  the victim and the nature of the service itself. The court found that a university is its own public and that the relationships between  students and professors, who present the public “face” of the university, are public in this context. Please refer to ''HMTQ v McGrath'', 2009 BCSC 180 at para 89-93 for a more recent case that cites the definition of what is “customarily available to the public” following Berg.  
''British Columbia Council of Human Rights v Berg'', [1993] 2 SCR 353 at para 10 provides the definition of “customarily available to the public”.  A service is customarily available to the public if the nature of the relationship is public. Look at the relationship between the facility and  the victim and the nature of the service itself. The court found that a university is its own public and that the relationships between  students and professors, who present the public “face” of the university, are public in this context. Please refer to ''HMTQ v McGrath'', 2009 BCSC 180 at para 89-93 for a more recent case that cites the definition of what is “customarily available to the public” following Berg.  


While there is no enumerated list of relationships that count as public, locales such as pubs, night clubs, hotels, theatres, transportation  services, education facilities, insurance, medical treatment in hospitals, management services in condominiums, and participation in sporting events have all been found to entail public relationships. Licensing services and facilities may also involve public relationships; for  example, discrimination prohibited by s. 8 was ultimately found when the BC Motor Vehicle Branch maintained a blanket refusal to issue drivers  licenses to those with certain visual impairments regardless of actual driving ability. Please refer to ''BC (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v BC (Council of Human Rights)'', [1999] 3 SCR 868 (“Grismer”).
While there is no enumerated list of relationships that count as public, locales such as pubs, night clubs, hotels, theatres, transportation  services, education facilities, insurance, medical treatment in hospitals, management services in condominiums, and participation in sporting events have all been found to entail public relationships. Licensing services and facilities may also involve public relationships; for  example, discrimination prohibited by s. 8 was ultimately found when the BC Motor Vehicle Branch maintained a blanket refusal to issue drivers  licenses to those with certain visual impairments regardless of actual driving ability. Please refer to ''BC (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v BC (Council of Human Rights)'', [1999] 3 SCR 868 (“Grimmer”) who applied the three-part "Meiorin" test. For a recent case that applied the three-part “Meiorin” test, please see Moore v British Columbia (Education) 2012 SCC 61, a Supreme Court of Canada case about a School district cancelling special education program requiring a dyslexic student to enroll in specialized private school and questioned whether the school district discriminated against the student by failing to provide necessary remediation.
 
The three-part “Meiorin” test is:
1. “Identify the general purpose of the impugned standard and determine whether it is rationally connected to the performance of the job.”
2. “Demonstrate that the employer adopted the particular standard with an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the accomplishment of its purpose, with no intention of discriminating against the claimant.”
3. “Demonstrate that the impugned standard is reasonably necessary for the employer to accomplish its purpose, which by this point has been demonstrated, to be rationally connected to the performance of the job.”
''British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU'', [1999] 3 SCR 3, para 57-68.


'''Exceptions:''' There are a number of circumstances where discrimination is permitted, if it can be shown to be supported by “''bona fide'' and reasonable justification” (BFRJ) (as per the wording of s 8(1)). For the most authoritative perspective, see the “Grismer” case (cited above), which applied the three-part “Meiorin” test to services: ''British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia  Government Service  Employees' Union'' [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3, a Supreme Court of Canada case that created a unified test to determine if a violation of human rights legislation can be justified as a ''bona fide'' occupational requirement(BFOR).
'''Exceptions:''' There are a number of circumstances where discrimination is permitted, if it can be shown to be supported by “''bona fide'' and reasonable justification” (BFRJ) (as per the wording of s 8(1)). For the most authoritative perspective, see the “Grismer” case (cited above), which applied the three-part “Meiorin” test to services: ''British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia  Government Service  Employees' Union'' [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3, a Supreme Court of Canada case that created a unified test to determine if a violation of human rights legislation can be justified as a ''bona fide'' occupational requirement(BFOR).
Additionally, courts have found that services provided to members of a group who come together as a result of a private selection process  based on attributes personal to the members do not qualify as services “customarily available to the public” and are therefore not subject to  s 8 of the HRC. Please refer to ''Marine Drive Golf Club v Buntain et al and BC Human Rights Tribunal'', 2007 BCCA 17 at para 48-56.


Section 8(2) also contains certain built-in exceptions. Discrimination based on sex is permitted insofar as it relates to the maintenance of public decency. Discrimination based on sex, physical or mental disability, or age is permitted insofar as it relates to the determination of premiums or benefits under life or health insurance policies.
Section 8(2) also contains certain built-in exceptions. Discrimination based on sex is permitted insofar as it relates to the maintenance of public decency. Discrimination based on sex, physical or mental disability, or age is permitted insofar as it relates to the determination of premiums or benefits under life or health insurance policies.
Line 59: Line 63:
=== 5. Discrimination in Wages ===
=== 5. Discrimination in Wages ===


Section 12 states that wage parity between sexes is required for similar or substantially similar jobs. Please refer to ''Jules v United Native  Nations Society and Johnson'', 2009 BCHRT  115. Recovery of wages is limited to wages of an employee during the twelve-month period immediately  before the earlier of the date of the employee's termination or the commencement of the action. Most of the remedies under this section are  also available under s.13 which does not have a limitation on the period of time during which wages can be claimed.
Section 12 states that wage parity between sexes is required for similar or substantially similar jobs. Please refer to ''Kraska v Pennock'', 2011 BCSC 109. Recovery of wages is limited to wages of an employee during the twelve-month period immediately  before the earlier of the date of the employee's termination or the commencement of the action. Most of the remedies under this section are  also available under s.13 which does not have a limitation on the period of time during which wages can be claimed.


'''Limitation Dates:''' Section 12 of the HRC states:  
'''Limitation Dates:''' Section 12 of the HRC states:  
Line 75: Line 79:
In addition, the Government of B.C. has prohibited mandatory retirement as of January 1st, 2008 by revising the ''HRC'' to extend protection from age discrimination to those 65 and over (Bill 31, 3rd Sess, 38th Parl, 2007). Under these new amendments, individuals in both the public and private sector are now able to choose the age at which they wish to retire and the protection from age discrimination applies to anyone who is 19 years or older (s 1, “age”).
In addition, the Government of B.C. has prohibited mandatory retirement as of January 1st, 2008 by revising the ''HRC'' to extend protection from age discrimination to those 65 and over (Bill 31, 3rd Sess, 38th Parl, 2007). Under these new amendments, individuals in both the public and private sector are now able to choose the age at which they wish to retire and the protection from age discrimination applies to anyone who is 19 years or older (s 1, “age”).


With respect to physical disability, the B.C. Court of Appeal has recently ruled that an employer is not guilty of discrimination if he or she dismisses an employee for misconduct (e.g. theft in the workplace) that would independently justify dismissal, even if that employee’s drug or  alcohol dependency was a contributing factor to the misconduct; see ''British Columbia (Public Service Agency) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union'', 2008 BCCA 357 at para 11-18. The critical question is whether the employer’s decision was influenced by the  employee’s protected characteristic, or whether instead, the employer would have reached the same decision respecting any other employee  guilty of the same misconduct.
'''Exemption:''' In the case of discrimination on the basis of disability, Section 13(4) permits discrimination in employment if the basis for discrimination concerns a “''bona fide'' occupational requirement” (BFOR). In ''British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union'', (1999) 35 CHRR d/257 at para 54 (“Meiorin”), the Supreme Court of Canada established a three-part test for BFOR. An initial investigation determines whether the standard, policy or practice  has the direct or indirect effect of excluding or negatively affecting individuals protected by the ''HRC''. The onus of establishing sufficient evidence of a prima facie case lies with the complainant.  
 
'''Bona Fide Occupational Requirement:''' In the case of discrimination on the basis of disability, Section 13(4) permits discrimination in employment if the basis for discrimination concerns a “''bona fide'' occupational requirement” (BFOR). In ''British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union'', (1999) 35 CHRR d/257 at para 54 (“Meiorin”), the Supreme Court of Canada established a three-part test for BFOR. An initial investigation determines whether the standard, policy or practice  has the direct or indirect effect of excluding or negatively affecting individuals protected by the ''HRC''. The onus of establishing sufficient evidence of a prima facie case lies with the complainant.  


In order to establish a ''prima facie'' case the complainant must introduce evidence which, on its face, satisfies the following three elements:  
In order to establish a ''prima facie'' case the complainant must introduce evidence which, on its face, satisfies the following three elements:  
Line 83: Line 85:
#They must establish that they suffered adverse treatment.  
#They must establish that they suffered adverse treatment.  
#They must establish a nexus or connection between their protected status and the adverse treatment. It is important to note that a  complainant need not establish that their membership in a protected group was the sole or primary reason for their adverse treatment. It is sufficient to establish that it was a reason for their adverse treatment.  
#They must establish a nexus or connection between their protected status and the adverse treatment. It is important to note that a  complainant need not establish that their membership in a protected group was the sole or primary reason for their adverse treatment. It is sufficient to establish that it was a reason for their adverse treatment.  
It is important to note that a claimant need not establish that their membership in a protected group was the sole or primary reason for their adverse treatment. It is sufficient to establish that it was a reason for their adverse treatment.


Once this evidence is established, the onus of proving a BFOR defence is transferred to the respondent. The respondent must justify the standard by satisfying three elements:  
Once this evidence is established, the onus of proving a BFOR defence is transferred to the respondent. The respondent must justify the standard by satisfying three elements:  
Line 93: Line 97:
What may be considered as “undue hardship” varies by employer depending on the circumstances. In ''Central Okanagan School District No 23 v  Renaud'', [1992] 2 SCR 970 at para 21-23, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that it is more than a minor inconvenience, but that actual  interference must be established. Factors the court may consider financial cost; health and safety; and flexibility and size of the workplace. For a more exhaustive guide for employers and employees seeking accommodation, please see the B.C. Human Rights Clinic’s “[http://www.bchrc.net/duty_to_accommodate FAQ – Duty to Accommodate]”.  
What may be considered as “undue hardship” varies by employer depending on the circumstances. In ''Central Okanagan School District No 23 v  Renaud'', [1992] 2 SCR 970 at para 21-23, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that it is more than a minor inconvenience, but that actual  interference must be established. Factors the court may consider financial cost; health and safety; and flexibility and size of the workplace. For a more exhaustive guide for employers and employees seeking accommodation, please see the B.C. Human Rights Clinic’s “[http://www.bchrc.net/duty_to_accommodate FAQ – Duty to Accommodate]”.  


The “''bona fide'' occupational requirement” exception was unaffected by the 2008 amendments, and continues to apply to age discrimination as  it relates to mandatory retirement. Thus, if the employer can establish one or more BFORs related to age, then mandatory retirement can still be imposed on those grounds at any age.  
The BFOR exception was unaffected by the 2008 amendments, and continues to apply to age discrimination as  it relates to mandatory retirement. Thus, if the employer can establish one or more BFORs related to age, then mandatory retirement can still be imposed on those grounds at any age.  


Also, distinctions based on age are not prohibited insofar as they relate to a ''bona fide'' seniority scheme. Distinctions based on marital  status, physical or mental disability, sex or age will continue to be allowed under bona fide retirement, superannuation, or pension plans,  and under ''bona fide'' insurance plans, including those which are self-funded by employers or provided by third parties: see s 13(3). Mandatory retirement may also not constitute a breach of the Code when it is part of a bona fide pension plan as long as it is not done in order to circumvent the rights of individuals.  
Also, distinctions based on age are not prohibited insofar as they relate to a ''bona fide'' seniority scheme. Distinctions based on marital  status, physical or mental disability, sex or age will continue to be allowed under bona fide retirement, superannuation, or pension plans,  and under ''bona fide'' insurance plans, including those which are self-funded by employers or provided by third parties: see s 13(3). Mandatory retirement may also not constitute a breach of the Code when it is part of a bona fide pension plan as long as it is not done in order to circumvent the rights of individuals.  
Line 101: Line 105:
Section 14 states that trade unions, employers’ organizations or occupational associations may not deny membership to any person or  discriminate against a person on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family  status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, age, or unrelated criminal record. Please refer to ''De Lima v. The Empire Landmark and Hotel Conference Centre and Major'', 2006 BCHRT 440.
Section 14 states that trade unions, employers’ organizations or occupational associations may not deny membership to any person or  discriminate against a person on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family  status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, age, or unrelated criminal record. Please refer to ''De Lima v. The Empire Landmark and Hotel Conference Centre and Major'', 2006 BCHRT 440.


Protection against denial of membership has been held to apply only against an implicated union, organization, or association and not against an individual, since “persons” are not covered by s 14. Please refer to ''Ratsoy v BC Teachers’ Federation and others'', 2005 BCHRT 53 at para  23. This differs from other protections granted by the HRC, which, in appropriate circumstances, generally do allow an action to be brought against both an organization (e.g. an employer) and its individual members (e.g. a manager).
Since “persons” are not covered by s 14, protection against denial of membership has been held to apply only against an implicated union, organization, or association and not against an individual. Please refer to ''Ratsoy v BC Teachers’ Federation and others'', 2005 BCHRT 53 at para  23. This differs from other protections granted by the HRC, which, in appropriate circumstances, generally do allow an action to be brought against both an organization (e.g. an employer) and its individual members (e.g. a manager).


== B. Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination ==
== B. Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination ==
Line 115: Line 119:
Discrimination need not be intentional. Any policy or action that has an adverse effect on a protected group might be considered discriminatory. Please refer to ''Ont Human Rights Comm and O’Malley v Simpsons-Sears'', [1985] 2 SCR 536 at para 14. The policy or act does not have to affect every person in the group for it to be considered discriminatory. E.g., if a policy discriminates against only women that  are pregnant it would still be considered sex discrimination. As well, it is possible that an act or policy may affect men as well as women, but affect one sex to a disproportionate degree, in which case it could also qualify as sex discrimination.
Discrimination need not be intentional. Any policy or action that has an adverse effect on a protected group might be considered discriminatory. Please refer to ''Ont Human Rights Comm and O’Malley v Simpsons-Sears'', [1985] 2 SCR 536 at para 14. The policy or act does not have to affect every person in the group for it to be considered discriminatory. E.g., if a policy discriminates against only women that  are pregnant it would still be considered sex discrimination. As well, it is possible that an act or policy may affect men as well as women, but affect one sex to a disproportionate degree, in which case it could also qualify as sex discrimination.


Discrimination can also be established on an “intersectional” basis. This means that the discriminatory action had an adverse impact on the  basis of multiple protected grounds, occurring simultaneously, which cannot easily be separated from one another. It is not always necessary to establish that each individual ground has been met where intersectional discrimination can be established. Please refer to ''Radek v Henderson Development (Canada) Ltd.'', 2005 BCHRT 302 para 463 for more information.  
Discrimination can also be established on an “intersectional” basis. This means that the discriminatory action had an adverse impact on the  basis of multiple protected grounds, occurring simultaneously, which cannot easily be separated from one another. It is not always necessary to establish that each individual ground has been met where intersectional discrimination can be established. Please refer to ''Withler v Canada (Attorney General)'', 2011 SCC 12, para 63 for more information.  


If, after reading the HRC, you are still unsure whether the impugned action lies within the ambit of the HRC, contact the B.C. Human Rights  Clinic (see [[Governing Legislation and Resources for Human Rights (6:I)#B. Resources | Section I.B:Resources]]).
If, after reading the HRC, you are still unsure whether the impugned action lies within the ambit of the HRC, contact the B.C. Human Rights  Clinic (see [[Governing Legislation and Resources for Human Rights (6:I)#B. Resources | Section I.B:Resources]]).
Line 123: Line 127:
The grounds of ancestry, colour, place of origin and race are included in the HRC as a means to combat racism and racial discrimination. Each  of the above referenced grounds is protected in the HRC and may be cited individually in connection with a discriminatory incident or grouped  together in order to better illustrate a particular situation. For further information on how the above grounds interact, please refer to ''Torres and others v. Langtry Industries (No 5)'', 2009 BCHRT 3.  
The grounds of ancestry, colour, place of origin and race are included in the HRC as a means to combat racism and racial discrimination. Each  of the above referenced grounds is protected in the HRC and may be cited individually in connection with a discriminatory incident or grouped  together in order to better illustrate a particular situation. For further information on how the above grounds interact, please refer to ''Torres and others v. Langtry Industries (No 5)'', 2009 BCHRT 3.  


Discrimination on the basis of ancestry, colour, place of origin or race can also be established where the respondent caused harm to the complainant by taking advantage of a vulnerability caused by the complainant's ancestry, colour, place of origin or race. For more information, see ''PN v. FR and another (No. 2)'', 2015 BCHRT 60 (CanLII). Please note that this decision is under Judicial Review as of June, 2015.  
Discrimination on the basis of ancestry, colour, place of origin or race can also be established where the respondent caused harm to the complainant by taking advantage of a vulnerability caused by the complainant's ancestry, colour, place of origin or race. For more information, see ''PN v. FR and another (No. 2)'', 2015 BCHRT 60 (CanLII). Please note that this decision is under Judicial Review as of June, 2015. In B.C., the grounds of ancestry, colour, place of origin and race are protected in the areas of employment; employment advertising; membership in a trade union, employer’s organization or occupational association; public services such as schools, government programs, restaurants, and stores; publications; tenancy; and purchase of property.
 
In B.C., the grounds of ancestry, colour, place of origin and race are protected in the areas of employment; employment advertising; membership in a trade union, employer’s organization or occupational association; public services such as schools, government programs, restaurants, and stores; publications; tenancy; and purchase of property.


=== 3. Political Belief ===
=== 3. Political Belief ===
Line 143: Line 145:
=== 4. Religion ===
=== 4. Religion ===


Religious discrimination cases have helped to define several of the fundamental ideas and standards that comprise human rights law in Canada. Matters before the court have routinely addressed discriminatory incidents concerning religious faith, beliefs, customs and practices. In  B.C., protection from discrimination based on religion is provided in the areas of employment; employment advertising; membership in a trade  union, employer’s organization, or occupational association; public services; publications; tenancy and purchase of  property. The duty to  accommodate has been firmly established in case law and obliges employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees as long as  doing so does not cause undue hardship. These practices may be linked to customs involving prayer, dietary restrictions, clothing requirements, and time off on religious holy days. Please refer to ''Moore v British Columbia (Ministry of Social Services)'', BCHRC (1992), 17 CHRR D/426.  
Religious discrimination cases have helped to define several of the fundamental ideas and standards that comprise human rights law in Canada. Matters before the court have routinely addressed discriminatory incidents concerning religious faith, beliefs, customs and practices. In  B.C., protection from discrimination based on religion is provided in the areas of employment; employment advertising; membership in a trade  union, employer’s organization, or occupational association; public services; publications; tenancy and purchase of  property. The duty to  accommodate has been firmly established in case law and obliges employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees as long as  doing so does not cause undue hardship. These practices may be linked to customs involving prayer, dietary restrictions, clothing requirements, and time off on religious holy days. Please refer to ''Renaud v. Central Okanagan School District No. 23'', [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970.  


=== 5. Family Status and Marital Status ===
=== 5. Family Status and Marital Status ===


Family status generally refers to parent-child relationships but may encompass other family relationships including those between siblings, in-laws, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews and cousins. For case law on the definition of family status and the test for discrimination on that basis see ''Fianza v. Ladco Investments Inc'' (1999), 35 CHRR D/500 (BCHRT) at para 13-18, in which a sibling relationship is brought under the ambit of protection against family status discrimination. The leading authority on discrimination in employment on the ground of family status in BC is the British Columba Court of Appeal decision in ''HSABC v. Campbell River & North Island Transition Society'', 127 L.A.C. (4th) 1 (B.C.C.A.) (“Campbell River”).  
Family status generally refers to parent-child relationships but can and does encompass other family relationships including those between siblings, in-laws, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews and cousins. For case law on the definition of family status and the test for discrimination on that basis see ''Miller v British Columbia Teacher’s Federation'', 2009 BCHRT 34, para 32.


Marital status normally refers to couples with a ‘spouse-like’ relationship. The HRC extends protection to all individuals regardless of their  status (i.e. married, common-law, single, separated, divorced or widowed). Issues involving family and marital status may often overlap and may be cited concurrently to fully illustrate a certain situation.   
Marital status normally refers to couples with a ‘spouse-like’ relationship. The HRC extends protection to all individuals regardless of their  status (i.e. married, common-law, single, separated, divorced or widowed). Issues involving family and marital status may often overlap and may be cited concurrently to fully illustrate a certain situation.   
Line 155: Line 157:
=== 6.Physical or Mental Disability ===
=== 6.Physical or Mental Disability ===


Disability is not defined in the HRC. However, the concept of physical disability, for human rights purposes, generally indicates a: “physiological state that is involuntary, has some degree of permanence, and impairs the person’s ability, in some measure, to carry out the normal functions of life. Please refer to ''Boyce v New Westminister (City)'' (1994), 24 CHRR D/441 at para 50. See ''Rogal v Dalgliesh'', 2000 BCHRT 22 at para 19 for a more recent case that refers to ''Boyce v New Westminister (City)''’s definition of physical disability. In ''Morris v BCRail'', 2003 BCHRT 14, at para 214, the Tribunal set out the following three aspects for assessing whether an individual has a physical or mental disability:  
Disability is not defined in the HRC. However, the concept of physical disability, for human rights purposes, generally indicates a: “physiological state that is involuntary, has some degree of permanence, and impairs the person’s ability, in some measure, to carry out the normal functions of life. Please refer to Boyce v New Westminister (City) (1994), 24 CHRR D/441 at para 50. See Beckett v. Strata Plan NW 2603, 2016 BCHRT 27 at para 120 for a more recent case that refers to Boyce v New Westminister (City)’s definition of physical disability. In Morris v BC Rail, 2003 BCHRT 14, at para 214, the Tribunal set out the following three aspects for assessing whether an individual has a physical or mental disability:*the individual’s physical or mental impairment, if any;  
*the individual’s physical or mental impairment, if any;  
*the functional limitations, if any, which result from that impairment; and  
*the functional limitations, if any, which result from that impairment; and  
*the social, legislative or other response to that impairment and/or limitations, assessed in light of the concepts of human dignity, respect and the right to equality.  
*the social, legislative or other response to that impairment and/or limitations, assessed in light of the concepts of human dignity, respect and the right to equality.  
Furthermore, according to ''Morris v BC Rail'' at para 207, proof of impairment and/or limitation, while relevant, will not be required in all cases. See ''McGowan v Pretty Estates'', 2013 BCHRT 40 (CanLII) for more information.  
Furthermore, according to ''Morris v BC Rail'' at para 207, proof of impairment and/or limitation, while relevant, will not be required in all cases. See ''McGowan v Pretty Estates'', 2013 BCHRT 40 (CanLII) for more information.  


The protection of the HRC extends to those who are perceived to have a disability or to be at risk of becoming disabled in the future. As such, the Tribunal has rejected the application of strict criteria to determine what constitutes a physical or mental disability. This has led to a  somewhat expansive definition. For example, protection has been specifically applied to persons with AIDS, persons who are HIV positive, and persons believed to be HIV positive, all of whom are considered to have a physical disability. Please refer to ''McDonald v. Schuster Real  Estate'', 2005 BCHRT 177 at para 24 and ''J v London Life Insurance Co'' (1999), 36 CHRR D/43 (BCHRT) at para 42.   
The protection of the HRC extends to those who are perceived to have a disability or to be at risk of becoming disabled in the future. As such, the Tribunal has rejected the application of strict criteria to determine what constitutes a physical or mental disability. This has led to a  somewhat expansive definition. For example, protection has been specifically applied to persons with AIDS, persons who are HIV positive, and persons believed to be HIV positive, all of whom are considered to have a physical disability. Please refer to ''McDonald v. Schuster Real  Estate'', 2005 BCHRT 177 at para 24 and ''J v London Life Insurance Co'' (1999), 36 CHRR D/43 (BCHRT) at para 42.   


As noted above, protection from discrimination due to physical disability, extends to discrimination on the basis of a perceived propensity to become disabled in the future. In ''J v London Life Insurance Co'' at para 46, for example, the Tribunal found that the HRC prohibited discrimination against a person based on the fact that his spouse was HIV positive. Protection under this ground has also been extended to those who are suffering from addictions issues.  
As noted above, protection from discrimination due to physical disability, extends to discrimination on the basis of a perceived propensity to become disabled in the future. In ''J v London Life Insurance Co'' at para 46, for example, the Tribunal found that the HRC prohibited discrimination against a person based on the fact that his spouse was HIV positive. Protection under this ground has also been extended to those who are suffering from addictions issues.


Where a behaviour or policy adversely affects a protected group or person, either directly or indirectly, there is a duty to accommodate,  meaning that all efforts must be taken to accommodate the group or person to the point of undue hardship. Examples include installing wheelchair access and allowing workers days off on religious holidays. Please refer to ''Ferguson v Kimpton'', 2006 BCHRT 62 at para 68.  
Where a behaviour or policy adversely affects a protected group or person, either directly or indirectly, there is a duty to accommodate,  meaning that all efforts must be taken to accommodate the group or person to the point of undue hardship. Examples include installing wheelchair access and allowing workers days off on religious holidays. Please refer to ''Ferguson v Kimpton'', 2006 BCHRT 62 at para 68.  
Line 170: Line 170:
An employer’s duty to accommodate involves a substantive aspect as well as a procedural aspect. For instance, an employer who has exhausted  all reasonable means of accommodation short of incurring undue hardship would have met their substantive duty to accommodate. What constitutes  reasonable measures is a question of fact and will differ from case to case. However, the employer’s conduct may still be found to have failed  to comply with the procedural aspect of the duty to accommodate if they treat the complainant unfairly while fulfilling their substantive  duty. Please refer to ''British Columbia (Public Service Employees Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees  Union (BCGSEU)'', [1999] 3 SCR 3 (“Meiorin”), at para 65-66.
An employer’s duty to accommodate involves a substantive aspect as well as a procedural aspect. For instance, an employer who has exhausted  all reasonable means of accommodation short of incurring undue hardship would have met their substantive duty to accommodate. What constitutes  reasonable measures is a question of fact and will differ from case to case. However, the employer’s conduct may still be found to have failed  to comply with the procedural aspect of the duty to accommodate if they treat the complainant unfairly while fulfilling their substantive  duty. Please refer to ''British Columbia (Public Service Employees Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government and Service Employees  Union (BCGSEU)'', [1999] 3 SCR 3 (“Meiorin”), at para 65-66.


=== 7. Age (19 or over) ===
=== 7. Sexual Orientation ===


Age can refer to an individual’s legal age, membership in a specific age-category, or a generalized characterization of a specific age. In BC, age is a protected ground of discrimination in the areas of employment; employment advertising; membership in a trade union, employer’s  organization, or occupational association; public services; tenancy and publications. Please refer to ''Miu v Vanart Aluminum and Tam'', 2006 BCHRT 219 at para 18.  
The HRC prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, affording protection for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and heterosexuals. The issue of whether or not BDSM is covered under the HRC is an issue raised in one complaint that was dismissed on other grounds. Please see ''Hayes v. Vancouver Police Department and Barker'', 2008 BCCA 148. The same claimant further requested a decision specifically asking whether BDSM is considered a sexual orientation and covered by the HRC. The court did not conclusively decide, rather the court assumed BDSM could be considered under sexual orientation for the purposes of their decision. Please see ''Hayes v Vancouver Police Board'', 2010 BCHRT 324.


In each of these areas, age protection is restricted to those 19 years of age and over. However, those under 19 years are still able to bring  complaints to the BCHRT based on grounds other than age.
In BC, protection on the basis of sexual orientation is provided in the areas of employment; employment advertising; membership in a trade union, employer’s organization, or occupational association; public services; publications; tenancy and purchase of property.


=== 8. Criminal or Summary Conviction ===
=== 8. Sex (includes sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination and transgender discrimination) ===


BC’s HRC protects individuals convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence, or a perceived conviction (i.e. arrest or stayed charges) as long as the offence is unrelated to the employment or the intended employment of the individual. Please refer to ''Purewall v ICBC'', 2011 BCHRT 43 at para 21, ''Clement v Jackson and Abdulla'', 2006 BCHRT 411 at para 14 and ''Korthe v Hillstrom Oil Company Ltd'' (1997), (BCHRT) at para 23-28. In an effort to establish whether or not a conviction may affect an employment decision, courts require an assessment of the  relationship between the conviction and the job description. As such, employers must take into account the circumstances of the conviction in order to determine whether or not the charge relates to the employment. In ''Woodward Stores (British Columbia) v McCartney'' (1983) 43 BCLR 314 at para 7-9, Justice MacDonald laid out a list of criteria to be considered in making this determination. These criteria are as follows: 
Discrimination on the basis of sex, which is prohibited under the HRC, includes sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is defined as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that detrimentally affects a work environment or leads to adverse job-related consequences for the victims of harassment”. Please refer to ''Janzen v Platy Enterprises Ltd'', [1989] 1 SCR 1252 at 1284.
*Does the behaviour which formed the basis of the charge, if repeated, compromise the employers’ ability to conduct business safely and effectively?
*What were the circumstances and details of the offence, e.g., what was the person’s age at the time of the offence and were there any extenuating factors?
*How much time has passed since the charge? What has the individual done since that time and has there been any indication of recidivism? Has  there been evidence of the individual’s desire for rehabilitation?


In BC, the HRC extends protection on the basis of a criminal or summary conviction only in the area of employment.  
In ''PN v. FR'' and another ''(No. 2), 2015 BCHRT 60'', the HRT increased the damages available for cases of sexual harassment by awarding $50,000 for injury to dignity to a domestic foreign worker who was sexually harassed and assaulted. This case also involved allegations of discrimination based on family status, race, age, colour and place of origin.  


=== 9. Sexual Orientation ===
Sexual harassment can take a number of forms. One such form may occur when the employer or a supervisory employee requires another employee to submit to sexual advances as a condition of obtaining or keeping employment or employment-related benefits. It may also occur when employees are forced to work in an environment that is hostile, offensive, or intimidating, such as where an employer allows pornography to be posted in the workplace. It is not generally necessary for an employee to expressly object to their harasser before filing a complaint. There is also no requirement of continuing harassment; a single incident is sufficient if serious.  


The HRC prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, affording protection for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and heterosexuals. The issue of whether or not BDSM is covered under the Code has not been tested yet but the issue was raised in one complaint that was dismissed on other grounds. ''Hayes v. Vancouver Police Department and Barker'', 2005 BCHRT 590.  
The test for whether sexual harassment occurred is an objective standard. It must be shown that the alleged discriminatory conduct is “reasonably perceived to create a negative psychological and emotional environment for work.”  Please refer to ''Mottu v MacLeod'', 2004 BCHRT 76 at para 41 where the Tribunal found that dress code requirements based on sex could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. The test must also take into account the customary boundaries of social interaction in the circumstances. There may not be an action if the complaint arises due to the claimant’s innate sensitivity or defensiveness. Factors that are examined to determine the limits of reasonableness in a particular context include the nature of the conduct, the workplace environment, the type of prior personal interaction, and whether a prior objection or complaint was made. It is no defence to harassment, however, to show that harassing behaviour was traditionally tolerated in a workplace.  


In BC, protection on the basis of sexual orientation is provided in the areas of employment; employment advertising; membership in a trade  union, employer’s organization, or occupational association; public services; publications; tenancy and purchase of property.
The Tribunal has also found that transgender discrimination is protected under the ground of sex. Please refer to ''Nixon v Vancouver Rape Relief Society'', 2002 BCHRT 1, para 3 and ''Dawson v. Vancouver Police Board (No. 2)'', 2015 BCHRT 54. Dawson establishes that transgender discrimination includes misgendering of trans individuals (addressing a trans person using a pronoun, name or gender marker other than that which the trans person uses to identify themselves). It can also include the denial of trans-specific medical services.


=== 10. Sex (includes sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination and transgender discrimination) ===


Discrimination on the basis of sex, which is prohibited under the HRC, includes sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is defined as “unwelcome  conduct of a sexual nature that detrimentally affects a work environment or leads to adverse job-related consequences for the victims of harassment”. Please refer to ''Janzen v Platy Enterprises Ltd'', [1989] 1 SCR 1252 at 1284.
=== 9. Age (19 or over) ===


In ''PN v. FR and another (No. 2)'', 2015 BCHRT 60, the HRT increased the damages available for cases of sexual harassment by awarding $50,000  for injury to dignity to a domestic foreign worker who was sexually harassed and assaulted. This case also involved allegations of discrimination based on family status, race, age, colour and place of origin. Please note that as of June 2015, this decision is awaiting judicial review.  
Age can refer to an individual’s legal age, membership in a specific age-category, or a generalized characterization of a specific age. In BC, age is a protected ground of discrimination in the areas of employment; employment advertising; membership in a trade union, employer’s organization, or occupational association; public services; tenancy and publications. Please refer to ''Miu v Vanart Aluminum and Tam'', 2006 BCHRT 219 at para 18.  


Sexual harassment can take a number of forms. One such form may occur when the employer or a supervisory employee requires another employee to submit to sexual advances as a condition of obtaining or keeping employment or employment-related benefits. It may also occur when employees are forced to work in an environment that is hostile, offensive, or intimidating, such as where an employer allows pornography to be posted in  the workplace.  
In each of these areas, age protection is restricted to those 19 years of age and over. However, those under 19 years are still able to bring complaints to the BCHRT based on grounds other than age.  


It is not generally necessary for an employee to expressly object to their harasser before filing a complaint. There is also no requirement of continuing harassment; a single incident is sufficient if serious.  
=== 10. Criminal or Summary Conviction ===


The test for whether sexual harassment occurred is an objective standard. It must be shown that the alleged discriminatory conduct is “reasonably perceived to create a negative psychological and emotional environment for work.” Please refer to ''Mottu v MacLeod'', 2004 BCHRT 76 at para 41 where the Tribunal found that dress code requirements based on sex could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. The test must also take into account the customary boundaries of social interaction in the circumstances. There may not be an action if the complaint  arises due to the complainant’s innate sensitivity or defensiveness. Factors that are examined to determine the limits of reasonableness in a particular context include the nature of the conduct, the workplace environment, the type of prior personal interaction, and whether a prior  objection or complaint was made. It is no defence to harassment, however, to show that harassing behaviour was traditionally tolerated in a workplace.
BC’s HRC protects individuals convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence, or a perceived conviction (i.e. arrest or stayed charges) as long as the offence is unrelated to the employment or the intended employment of the individual. Please refer to Purewall v ICBC, 2011 BCHRT 43 at para 21, Clement v Jackson and Abdulla, 2006 BCHRT 411 at para 14 and Korthe v Hillstrom Oil Company Ltd (1997), (BCHRT) at para 23-28. In an effort to establish whether or not a conviction may affect an employment decision, courts require an assessment of the relationship between the conviction and the job description. As such, employers must take into account the circumstances of the conviction in order to determine whether or not the charge relates to the employment. In Woodward Stores (British Columbia) v McCartney (1983) 43 BCLR 314 at para 7-9, Justice MacDonald laid out a list of criteria to be considered in making this determination. These criteria are as follows:


The Tribunal has also found that transgender discrimination is protected under the ground of sex. Please refer to ''Nixon v Vancouver Rape  Relief Society'', 2002 BCHRT 1 (Para 3) and ''Dawson v. Vancouver Police Board (No. 2)'', 2015 BCHRT 54.
* Does the behaviour which formed the basis of the charge, if repeated, compromise the employers’ ability to conduct business safely and effectively?
* What were the circumstances and details of the offence, e.g., what was the person’s age at the time of the offence and were there any extenuating factors?
* How much time has passed since the charge? What has the individual done since that time and has there been any indication of recidivism? Has there been evidence of the individual’s desire for rehabilitation?


''Dawson'' establishes that transgender discrimination includes misgendering of trans individuals (addressing a trans person using a pronoun,  name or gender marker other than that which the trans person uses to identify themselves). It can also include the denial of trans-specific medical services.
In BC, the HRC extends protection on the basis of a criminal or summary conviction only in the area of employment.  


=== 11. Source of Income ===
=== 11. Source of Income ===


In a 1994 amendment to the ''Residential Tenancy Act'', source of income was established as a protected ground of discrimination with regards  to rental housing. This amendment safeguards the tenancy rights of individuals on social assistance or disability pensions, who might  otherwise be denied safe housing. Enforced by the BCHRT, source of income is a protected ground only in the area of tenancy. Please refer to ''Tanner and Vlake'', 2003 BCHRT 36 at para 22-26 for further discussion.
In a 1994 amendment to the ''Residential Tenancy Act'', source of income was established as a protected ground of discrimination with regards  to rental housing. This amendment safeguards the tenancy rights of individuals on social assistance or disability pensions, who might  otherwise be denied safe housing. Enforced by the BCHRT, source of income is a protected ground only in the area of tenancy. Please refer to ''Tanner and Vlake'', 2003 BCHRT 36 at para 22-26 for further discussion.
=== 12. Discrimination Based on Involvement in Human Rights Proceedings (s 43) ===
Besides those listed above, there is another ground of discrimination provided for by s 43 of the HRC. Under the “protection” provision it is considered a ground of discrimination to discriminate against a person because that person has made a human rights complaint, is named in a  complaint, gives evidence, or otherwise assists in a complaint or human rights proceeding. This section will very soon be amended to include protection of those intending to bring a human rights complaint but who have not yet filed one.


== C. The Complaint Process ==
== C. The Complaint Process ==


The BC Human Rights Tribunal handles complaints made under the HRC. The first step in filing a complaint with the Tribunal is to fill out a Complaint Form, which are available from the Tribunal at its office address, on its website or from other local Government Agent offices. There are helpful self-help guides to filling out complaint and response forms on the Tribunal’s website. The BC Human Rights Clinic can also assist  in drafting the complaint and completing the Complaint Form. See [[Governing Legislation and Resources for Human Rights (6:I) | Section I.B:Resources]].  
The BC Human Rights Tribunal handles complaints made under the HRC. The first step in filing a complaint with the Tribunal is to fill out a Complaint Form, which are available from the Tribunal at its office address, on its website (http://www.bchrt.bc.ca) or from other local Government Agent offices. There are helpful self-help guides to filling out complaint and response forms on the Tribunal’s website.


=== 1. Who Can Lodge a Complaint ===
=== 1. Who Can Lodge a Complaint ===


A complaint may be made by an individual victim of discrimination, one of the victims on behalf of the group or class, or by someone acting as a representative of named victim(s). If the Complaint Form is being filled out on behalf of another person or group or class of persons, the Representative Complaint Form must also be filled out and accompany the Complaint Form when sent to the Tribunal.  
A complaint may be made by an individual victim of discrimination, one of the victims on behalf of the group or class, or by someone acting as a representative of named victim(s). If the Complaint Form is being filled out on behalf of another person or group or class of persons, then a secondary form called the Representative Complaint Form must also be filled out and accompany the Complaint Form when sent to the Tribunal. The person filing out the complaint form is the claimant. The person or organization who has been filed against is then called the respondent.  


=== 2. How to File a Complaint ===
=== 2. How to File a Complaint ===


The Complaint Form must be filed with the Tribunal via mail, fax or e-mail. Complainants may access the Complaint Form and other valuable resources at the BC Human Rights Tribunal website (see [[Governing Legislation and Resources for Human Rights (6:I) | Section I.B:Resources]]). If filed by e-mail, one must also send in a signed and dated copy within 21 days. The party who is filing the complaint should be aware of the time limits. There is a general six month limitation period, which may be extended in certain circumstances. See Section II.C.5.d: Limitation Period.
The Complaint Form must be filed with the Tribunal via mail, fax or e-mail. Claimants may access the Complaint Form and other valuable resources at the BC Human Rights Tribunal website (see Section II.B: Resources). If filed by e-mail, one must also send in a signed and dated copy within 21 days. The party who is filing the complaint should be aware of the time limits. There is a general six month limitation period, which may be extended under certain circumstances.  


=== 3. Review Process ===
=== 3. Review Process ===
Line 244: Line 238:
At a settlement meeting, the Tribunal can make recommendations  and provide opinions as to the merits of the case, but cannot force parties to settle. Parties to the dispute may agree to voluntarily settle, in which case the complainant will file a Complaint Withdrawal Form as part of the terms of settlement.
At a settlement meeting, the Tribunal can make recommendations  and provide opinions as to the merits of the case, but cannot force parties to settle. Parties to the dispute may agree to voluntarily settle, in which case the complainant will file a Complaint Withdrawal Form as part of the terms of settlement.


=== 5. Procedural Options for Employees ===
== D. Procedural Options for Employees ==


The HRC is a particularly useful tool for seeking redress for a client who has been discriminated against in employment situations. Since the  B.C. Human Rights Clinic may potentially be able to handle much of the legal work free of charge, a complaint under the HRC may provide a  valuable alternative to a client who cannot afford a lengthy wrongful dismissal suit. Additionally, claimants may choose to pursue a wrongful  dismissal suit alongside a human rights complaint. Complainants who pursue dual claims will not be able to benefit from “double recovery.” An employee who believes that they were discriminated against in relation to their employment may have more than one procedural option to choose from:  
The HRC is a particularly useful tool for seeking redress for a client who has been discriminated against in employment situations. Since the  B.C. Human Rights Clinic may potentially be able to handle much of the legal work free of charge, a complaint under the HRC may provide a  valuable alternative to a client who cannot afford a lengthy wrongful dismissal suit. Additionally, claimants may choose to pursue a wrongful  dismissal suit alongside a human rights complaint. Complainants who pursue dual claims will not be able to benefit from “double recovery.” An employee who believes that they were discriminated against in relation to their employment may have more than one procedural option to choose from:  
Line 270: Line 264:
The court in ''Keays'' held that breaches of the HRC must be remedied within the statutory scheme of the ''Code'' itself. So even if the reason  for dismissal was discriminatory, in a civil action, the complainant will generally only be able to recover damages based on an unjustified  dismissal and/or inadequate notice (severance pay). See [[Foreword on Employment Law (9:I) | Chapter 9: Employment Law]]. Accordingly, compensation for the discrimination itself must proceed before the Tribunal.  
The court in ''Keays'' held that breaches of the HRC must be remedied within the statutory scheme of the ''Code'' itself. So even if the reason  for dismissal was discriminatory, in a civil action, the complainant will generally only be able to recover damages based on an unjustified  dismissal and/or inadequate notice (severance pay). See [[Foreword on Employment Law (9:I) | Chapter 9: Employment Law]]. Accordingly, compensation for the discrimination itself must proceed before the Tribunal.  


The court may further compensate the complainant in a civil action if the employer has acted unfairly or in bad faith when dismissing an employee. The basis for these additional damages is a breach of the implied term of an employment contract that employers will act in good faith in the manner of dismissal (i.e. payment for such damages can be deemed to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the formation of the contract). In ''Keays'' the Supreme Court held that any such additional award must be compensatory and must be based on the actual loss or damage suffered by the employee, which can include expenses related to mental distress stemming from the manner of dismissal. Compensable conduct might include, but is not limited to, attacking the employee's reputation at the time of dismissal, misrepresentations regarding the reason for the dismissal, or dismissal meant to deprive the employee of a pension benefit or other right such as permanent status. However, normal distress and hurt feelings arising from the dismissal itself are not grounds for additional damages.  
The court may further compensate the claimant in a civil action if the employer has acted unfairly or in bad faith when dismissing an employee. The basis for these additional damages is a breach of the implied term of an employment contract that employers will act in good faith in the manner of dismissal (i.e. payment for such damages can be deemed to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the formation of the contract). In ''Keays'' the Supreme Court held that any such additional award must be compensatory and must be based on the actual loss or damage suffered by the employee, which can include expenses related to mental distress stemming from the manner of dismissal. Compensable conduct might include, but is not limited to, attacking the employee's reputation at the time of dismissal, misrepresentations regarding the reason for the dismissal, or dismissal meant to deprive the employee of a pension benefit or other right such as permanent status. However, normal distress and hurt feelings arising from the dismissal itself are not grounds for additional damages.  


The courts are even more conservative in their approach to awarding punitive damages meant to punish the employer for their conduct in dismissal. Punitive damages will only be awarded if the employer’s conduct was harsh, vindictive, reprehensible, malicious and extreme in its nature. Thus, if the complainant is primarily concerned with being compensated for injuries to their dignity and/or denouncing their employer’s  discriminatory behaviour, then they should file a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal alongside a civil action for wrongful dismissal.   
The courts are even more conservative in their approach to awarding punitive damages meant to punish the employer for their conduct in dismissal. Punitive damages will only be awarded if the employer’s conduct was harsh, vindictive, reprehensible, malicious and extreme in its nature. Thus, if the complainant is primarily concerned with being compensated for injuries to their dignity and/or denouncing their employer’s  discriminatory behaviour, then they should file a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal alongside a civil action for wrongful dismissal.   
Line 276: Line 270:
Whatever procedural route an employee ultimately chooses, if an employee is experiencing on-going harassment on a prohibited ground of discrimination, he or she should maintain records or a journal with dates, times, places, witnesses, details of particular incidents, and even  a description of the emotional effects of the harassment.
Whatever procedural route an employee ultimately chooses, if an employee is experiencing on-going harassment on a prohibited ground of discrimination, he or she should maintain records or a journal with dates, times, places, witnesses, details of particular incidents, and even  a description of the emotional effects of the harassment.


== D. Remedies ==
== E. Remedies ==


Remedies should be considered first when deciding whether or not to pursue a claim in any administrative tribunal. Available remedies for a justified complaint are listed in s 37(2) of the HRC.  
Remedies should be considered first when deciding whether or not to pursue a claim in any administrative tribunal. Available remedies for a justified complaint are listed in s 37(2) of the HRC.  
Line 288: Line 282:
There is no maximum limit on damage awards. Note however that if a complainant seeks a remedy in both the Human Rights Tribunal (e.g. for lost wages) and in civil court (e.g. for severance pay) and are successful in both proceedings they must forfeit one award or the other as they are  not entitled to double recovery. There are several cases where the award for loss of wages was in the range of $300,000. See ''Kelly and Kerr supra''.  
There is no maximum limit on damage awards. Note however that if a complainant seeks a remedy in both the Human Rights Tribunal (e.g. for lost wages) and in civil court (e.g. for severance pay) and are successful in both proceedings they must forfeit one award or the other as they are  not entitled to double recovery. There are several cases where the award for loss of wages was in the range of $300,000. See ''Kelly and Kerr supra''.  


Although the pecuniary remedies available under the HRC are meant to be compensatory in nature, not punitive, s 37(4) does give the Tribunal  authority to order costs against either party as condemnation of improper conduct during the Tribunal processes. This order is independent of  a finding that the complaint is justified. Additionally, s 37(2) gives the Tribunal the right to award compensation for expenses that are  directly caused by the discrimination found which may include expenses such as wage loss due to the need to attend a hearing.   
The pecuniary remedies available under the HRC are meant to be compensatory in nature, not punitive, s 37(4) does give the Tribunal  authority to order costs against either party as condemnation of improper conduct during the Tribunal processes. This order is independent of  a finding that the complaint is justified. Additionally, s 37(2) gives the Tribunal the right to award compensation for expenses that are  directly caused by the discrimination found which may include expenses such as wage loss due to the need to attend a hearing.   


The Tribunal will not provide remedies in every situation where there has been real or perceived discrimination. For example, the Tribunal  will not award damages for lost wages/salary following a discriminatory dismissal but during a period for which the complainant was medically  incapable of working. Please refer to ''Senyk v WFG Agency Network (No. 2)'', 2008 BCHRT 376 at para 434. This is because even absent the discrimination the complainant would not have been able to earn wages or a salary.  
The Tribunal will not provide remedies in every situation where there has been real or perceived discrimination. For example, the Tribunal  will not award damages for lost wages/salary following a discriminatory dismissal but during a period for which the complainant was medically  incapable of working. Please refer to ''Senyk v WFG Agency Network (No. 2)'', 2008 BCHRT 376 at para 434. This is because even absent the discrimination the complainant would not have been able to earn wages or a salary.  
Line 294: Line 288:
A final order of the Tribunal may be registered in the B.C. Supreme Court so that it is enforceable as though it were an order of the court. No appeal procedure is provided for in the HRC, but the ''Judicial Review Procedure Act'', RSBC 1996, c. 241 may be of some assistance if a  client is dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision (see [[Review of Provincial Court and Tribunal Decisions for Public Complaints (5:I) | Chapter 5: Public Complaint Procedures]]).
A final order of the Tribunal may be registered in the B.C. Supreme Court so that it is enforceable as though it were an order of the court. No appeal procedure is provided for in the HRC, but the ''Judicial Review Procedure Act'', RSBC 1996, c. 241 may be of some assistance if a  client is dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision (see [[Review of Provincial Court and Tribunal Decisions for Public Complaints (5:I) | Chapter 5: Public Complaint Procedures]]).


== E. Costs ==  
== F. Costs ==  


The general rule is that costs will not normally be awarded in a human rights case. However, pursuant to s 37(4) of the HRC, the purpose of  awarding costs has been to penalize a party who acts improperly during a hearing, thereby interfering with the objective of the Tribunal. In  these cases costs are awarded punitively and do not necessarily reflect the actual expenses suffered by the other party due to the improper conduct.  
The general rule is that costs will not normally be awarded in a human rights case. However, pursuant to s 37(4) of the HRC, the purpose of  awarding costs has been to penalize a party who acts improperly during a hearing, thereby interfering with the objective of the Tribunal. In  these cases costs are awarded punitively and do not necessarily reflect the actual expenses suffered by the other party due to the improper conduct.  


== F. Judicial Review ==
== G. Judicial Review ==


If an individual disagrees with a decision by a Tribunal, he or she may appeal to 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 B.C. Supreme Court simply decides whether or not there is a “ground” for review and may only disturb the Tribunal’s decision if it can demonstrate that the Tribunal:   
If an individual disagrees with a decision by a Tribunal, he or she may appeal to 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 B.C. Supreme Court simply decides whether or not there is a “ground” for review and may only disturb the Tribunal’s decision if it can demonstrate that the Tribunal:   
Line 308: Line 302:
If the Tribunal has made any of these errors, the Court may set aside the decision and will usually direct the Tribunal to re-hear the case. 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 decision was issued; however, the Court may extend the time in limited circumstances. In order to seek a judicial review, an individual is required to prepare a petition and affidavit, file the petition and affidavit at the B.C. 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.  
If the Tribunal has made any of these errors, the Court may set aside the decision and will usually direct the Tribunal to re-hear the case. 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 decision was issued; however, the Court may extend the time in limited circumstances. In order to seek a judicial review, an individual is required to prepare a petition and affidavit, file the petition and affidavit at the B.C. 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.  


== G. Reasons Why the Complaint May Not Proceed ==
== H. Reasons Why the Complaint May Not Proceed ==


As mentioned above, the Tribunal may refuse to accept a complaint for filing because it does not have jurisdiction due to the nature of the complaint or when it was brought. Once a complaint has been filed, however, the Tribunal may nevertheless dismiss it prior to hearing on application from the respondent for a variety of reasons (s 27). Among the reasons the Tribunal may dismiss a filed complaint are (check the HRC for a complete list):
As mentioned above, the Tribunal may refuse to accept a complaint for filing because it does not have jurisdiction due to the nature of the complaint or when it was brought. Once a complaint has been filed, however, the Tribunal may nevertheless dismiss it prior to hearing on application from the respondent for a variety of reasons (s 27). Among the reasons the Tribunal may dismiss a filed complaint are (check the HRC for a complete list):
LSLAP
5,109

edits

Retrieved from "https://wiki.clicklaw.bc.ca/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/30753"