A recent decision in Singh v. Revera Home Health,
 B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 800 by Chair Bernd Walter of the B.C. Human
Rights Tribunal will be of interest to users of the human rights
system, particularly in jurisdictions like British Columbia or
Ontario which have a "direct access" model.
The complainant, Jaspreet Singh, filed a complaint with the
tribunal in May 2014. Singh alleged he was subjected to
discrimination in employment on the basis of an unrelated criminal
or summary conviction offence contrary to section 13 of the B.C.
Human Rights Code.
Pursuant to the tribunal's schedule for proceeding with the
complaint, the complainant was required to satisfy certain
disclosure obligations, including production of documents, by
mid-December 2014. He failed to do so.
Counsel for the respondents communicated with the complainant
regarding the missed deadline in early January 2015. The
complainant responded he was "too busy" to deal with the
Relying on the tribunal's rules of practice and procedure,
the respondents then brought an application for disclosure and an
extension of time to apply for dismissal of the complaint on a
preliminary basis without a hearing on the merits.
Chair Walter arranged a telephone conference for the beginning
of February in an attempt to move the complaint forward. The
complainant failed to attend the call and participate.
The chair made an order that the complainant contact the case
manager at the tribunal within one week to confirm his intent to
diligently pursue his complaint. The chair also ordered that the
complainant comply with his disclosure obligations within two
Notwithstanding the fact that he was made aware of the
tribunal's orders, the complainant failed to meet both
deadlines. The respondents then filed an application to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to s. 27.5 of the code on the basis that the
complainant failed to diligently pursue his complaint. The
respondents also asked for costs of $1,000 pursuant to s. 37(4) of
the code on account of the complainant's improper conduct.
Chair Walter dismissed Singh's complaint. The tribunal made
"every effort" to involve the complainant and assist him
in the management of his complaint, he said.
Despite clear notice that failure to comply would result in
dismissal of his complaint, the complainant took no steps to
advance the process.
The tribunal chair also considered the respondents'
submission to the effect that the complainant had engaged in
improper conduct justifying an order for costs.
The chair noted that the tribunal has held in numerous cases
that a failure to abide by its rules, orders and directions
constitutes improper conduct. The purpose of a costs award is
punitive and not compensatory; such an award is intended to have a
deterrent effect and sanction conduct which negatively impacts the
integrity of the tribunal's processes.
"In this case, the tribunal, as well as the Respondents,
have devoted considerable resources to Mr. Singh's
complaint," the chair said.
"There has been a settlement meeting, disclosure
obligations were scheduled to which Mr. Singh did not respond; a
subsequent conference in which Mr. Singh did not attend or
participate, saying he was too busy; followed by further orders and directions with which he did not
"Mr. Singh has repeatedly failed to comply or transgressed
the tribunal's orders and directions, causing additional and
unnecessary cost to the Respondents. He has engaged in persistent
The tribunal chair awarded costs of $800 against the
complainant. As far as costs awards at the tribunal go, this was a
relatively large award.
This decision is welcome news for respondents that are dealing
with a complainant who files a complaint and then repeatedly fails
to comply with the tribunal's processes and deadlines.
The tribunal is strongly inclined to give a complainant his or
her day in court. However, this is not licence for the complainant
to abuse the system and take virtually no steps to participate in
the resolution of his or her complaint after filing.
It is important to uphold the integrity of the human rights
system, properly allocate scarce resources and protect respondents
from becoming engaged in needlessly drawn out, costly and
inconvenient legal proceedings.
Previously published by The Lawyers Weekly
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Unfortunately, reasonable accommodation for employees in the workplace continues to be the source of significant litigation and even today we continue to see outrageous examples of employers behaving badly.
We are now beginning to see reported cases involving charges and subsequent fines laid against employers for failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect a worker from workplace violence.
On October 13, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal an Ontario Court of Appeal decision which ordered an employer to pay a former employee 37 months of salary and benefits following termination.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).