Broe v. Board of Education of School District No. 67 (Okanagan Skaha)
and another, 2023 BCHRT 157
There was a case posted today that I thought discussed dismissals in a very informative way. Anyone who is self-representing and needs to respond to a dismissal application must be aware of how they need to meet the criteria so that their case can continue through the tribunal process and not be dismissed.
In the case Broe v. Board of Education of School District No. 67 (Okanagan Skaha) and another, 2023 BCHRT 157, I find the following paragraphs to be very helpful. The written decision has cases attached for you to review as part of the decision to cite if necessary in your argument and to understand further. I have linked the cases for convenience.
There is legal language in these descriptions that you might have to do your own research on if you do not have a law background.
YouTube videos I find are the most accessible as they are aimed at teaching people who are not lawyers how to understand law. If one video doesn’t tickel your fancy, keep up the search. There are a TON of them out there.
From the case:
 The issue before me is whether there is no reasonable prospect Ms. Broe will be successful at a hearing…
 On such an application, the respondent has the burden to show the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. The complainant must only put evidence before the Tribunal that takes the complaint out of the realm of conjecture. This is not a high bar: Ritchie v. Central Okanagan Search and Rescue Society and others, 2016 BCHRT 110 at para 118.
 In considering applications under s. 27(1)(c), the Tribunal considers the entirety of the materials filed by the parties to determine if the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. The test requires more than a mere chance the complaint will succeed: Wickham and Wickham v. Mesa Contemporary Folk Art and others, 2004 BCHRT 134 at para. 12.
 In order to succeed at a hearing, Ms. Broe must demonstrate she has a protected characteristic; that she experienced an adverse impact in relation to her employment; and that there was a nexus between that protected characteristic and the adverse impact alleged: Moore v. British Columbia, 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.
 To establish a justification defence at a hearing, the Respondents must show they adopted a standard in good faith for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job and that it would have been an undue hardship to accommodate Ms. Broe: British Columbia
I also highly recommend you visit the Leading Cases page on the Tribunal’s website which lists leading cases depending on the reason for the dismissal application.