Month: October 2023

Responding to Dismissal Applications

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:

[4] The issue before me is whether there is no reasonable prospect Ms. Broe will be successful at a hearing…

[35] 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.

[36] 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.

[37] 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.

[38] 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.

Late filing – Timeliness of Complaint

This is a decision from the Human Rights Tribunal, posted in the September category for 2023.

The complainant filed the human rights complaint after the one-year deadline. These applications for late filing are very rarely accepted, and this case was accepted. They have dismissed cases that were one day or three days late. Brutal.

It’s also notable because it involves accessibility issues for a disabled student in a post-secondary school. This case was considered novel because the student is autistic. See paragraph 44 for details.

Here is the case and I have selected a few paragraphs from the main case.

Schulz v. Camosun College, 2023 BCHRT 142

[6] Millie Schulz has multiple mental disabilities, including autism spectrum disorder [ASD], attention deficit disorder [ADD], and post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD].

[16] On January 4, 2021, Millie Schulz sent a letter to the College dropping out the MHA program. After noting their issues and barriers, they said they did not feel supported in their classes with CAL, which was only looking out the College’s interests.

[37] Where the delay is due to a disabling condition, the Tribunal has observed that it may be in the public interest to accept a late-filed complaint: MacAlpine v. Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, 2011 BCHRT 29 at para. 42. Disabling conditions can include physical and mental ailments resulting in great difficulty coping with even the basic daily tasks of life: Naziel-Wilson v. Providence Health Care and another, 2014 BCHRT 170 at para. 21

[42] Millie Schulz argues their case is unique as it involves a complainant with ASD. While the Tribunal has addressed mental health discrimination in the provision of services, it has not addressed many of the issues impacting individuals with ASD, and their need for accommodation, especially in a school or employment setting. They cite one Tribunal case dealing with autism from 2011, which points out that the nature of adult autism and how it manifests itself in the workplace is poorly understood, and individuals with this disability are subject to stigma and stereotyping: Noriega v. B. C. (Min. of Children and Family Development), 2011 BCHRT 199 at para 28.

[44] While appreciating this case is quite common in terms of the Tribunal dealing with the accommodation of a student with mental disabilities in a post-secondary setting, I find that the 12 subject matter of accommodating autism, in particular ASD, is sufficiently unique to attract some public interest in allowing the complaint to proceed late filed.

[45] After weighing all the factors, I have decided it is in the public interest to accept this late-filed complaint. While appreciating a significant delay in filing occurred, this factor is outweighed by the reasons for delay associated with Millie Schulz’s mental disabilities and the novelty of the case. It is now necessary to address the issue of whether any substantial prejudice would result. C. Substantial Prejudice