Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill

Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill

The BCHRT misread and misinterpreted the only evidence potentially linking age to the non‑reappointment (the meeting between Hill and Mr. Campbell), improperly inferring that age was a factor in the decision not to reappoint; that misreading rendered the Tribunal's exercise of discretion patently unreasonable....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2009 BCSC 107
Parties
PETITIONER: Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal; RESPONDENT: Marlene Hill; Tribunal: BC Human Rights Tribunal
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Petition for Judicial Review of BCHRT Decision Under the Judicial Review Procedure Act
Outcome
BCHRT decision No. 5298 (2008 BCHRT 253) set aside as patently unreasonable; WCAT's challenge sustained; costs awarded to WCAT against Marlene Hill at Scale B.
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Section 27(1)(c) Dismissal/gatekeeping, Standard of Review (patent Unreasonableness), Prematurity/interlocutory Review, Remedies and Costs
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Human Rights Employment Law Judicial Review Age Discrimination Section 27(1)(c) Dismissal/gatekeeping Standard of Review (patent Unreasonableness) Prematurity/interlocutory Review +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal

PETITIONER

Marlene Hill

RESPONDENT

BC Human Rights Tribunal

Tribunal

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Petition for Judicial Review of BCHRT Decision Under the Judicial Review Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the BCHRT committed a patently unreasonable error in declining to dismiss the age discrimination complaint under s.27(1)(c) of the Human Rights Code
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to intervene at this stage
  3. 3 What remedy is appropriate if the decision is patently unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The BCHRT misread and misinterpreted the only evidence potentially linking age to the non‑reappointment (the meeting between Hill and Mr. Campbell), improperly inferring that age was a factor in the decision not to reappoint; that misreading rendered the Tribunal's exercise of discretion patently unreasonable. Seniority and the offer of a short reappointment were irrelevant to establishing discrimination, and the Tribunal's decision was set aside; costs were awarded against Hill.

Court Disposition

BCHRT decision No. 5298 (2008 BCHRT 253) set aside as patently unreasonable; WCAT's challenge sustained; costs awarded to WCAT against Marlene Hill at Scale B.

Orders

  • Set aside decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal No. 5298 (2008 BCHRT 253).
  • Award costs to the petitioner WCAT against respondent Marlene Hill at Scale B.