Chiang v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal)

Chiang v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal)

The judicial review court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal because the Tribunal correctly applied the low s.27(1)(c) gatekeeping test and, on the whole of the material, concluded the evidence did not take the retaliation complaint out of the realm of conjecture and there was no reasonable prospect of establishing a nexus between the earlier complaint and the principal's conduct, which appeared to follow Board policies.

Citation
2014 BCSC 1859
Parties
Petitioner: Po Yu Emmy Chiang; Respondent Tribunal: British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal; Respondent Employer: Board of Education of School District No. 39 (Vancouver); Respondent Individual: Alex Grant
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Judicial Review Procedure Act and Human Rights Code / Judicial Review – Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition for judicial review dismissed; Tribunal decision upheld
Legal Topics
Retaliation/anti‑reprisal (s.43 Human Rights Code), Preliminary Dismissal (s.27(1)(c)), Standard of Review (patent Unreasonableness), Tribunal Gatekeeping/deference
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Employment Law Education Law Retaliation/anti‑reprisal (s.43 Human Rights Code) Preliminary Dismissal (s.27(1)(c)) Standard of Review (patent Unreasonableness) Tribunal Gatekeeping/deference

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Po Yu Emmy Chiang

Petitioner

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

Respondent Tribunal

Board of Education of School District No. 39 (Vancouver)

Respondent Employer

Alex Grant

Respondent Individual

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Judicial Review Procedure Act and Human Rights Code / Judicial Review – Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Human Rights Tribunal applied the correct s.27(1)(c) test when dismissing for no reasonable prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's decision was patently unreasonable under s.59 ATA
  3. 3 Whether the evidence took the retaliation complaint out of the realm of conjecture and showed a nexus between prior complaint and alleged conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The judicial review court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal because the Tribunal correctly applied the low s.27(1)(c) gatekeeping test and, on the whole of the material, concluded the evidence did not take the retaliation complaint out of the realm of conjecture and there was no reasonable prospect of establishing a nexus between the earlier complaint and the principal's conduct, which appeared to follow Board policies.

Court Disposition

Petition for judicial review dismissed; Tribunal decision upheld

Orders

  • Petition dismissed
  • Costs to the respondents