The decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal to dismiss a complaint was not patently unreasonable as the Tribunal found that there were insufficient facts alleged regarding any discrimination on the part of the government towards the Complainant to move the complaint out of the realm of conjecture

Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – No reasonable cause of action – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness

Shilander (Re), [2005] B.C.J. No. 1123, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 18, 2005, Gerow J.

The Complainant filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal alleging discrimination by the provincial and federal governments on a wide variety of grounds. More specifically, the complaint alleged discrimination in the area of employment on the ground of political belief, in the area of services on the grounds of sex and sexual orientation, in the area of tenancy on the grounds of religion, sex and sexual orientation and in the area of publication on the ground of family status. The Tribunal rejected the complaint prior to a hearing on the basis that the facts alleged did not support a finding that there had been any breach of the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210.

The Complainant sought judicial review to the B.C. Supreme Court.

The Court held that the decision of the Tribunal was not patently unreasonable, which was the applicable standard of review. The Complainant provided no evidence of any actions on the part of the government or of any directives issued by the government which related to the activities she complained of. The Tribunal found that there were insufficient facts regarding any discrimination on the part of the government towards the Complainant to move the complaint out of the realm of conjecture. In the circumstances, the Court held that the Tribunal did not err in its decision to reject the complaint. There was no further relief available to the Complainant under the Judicial Review Procedure Act once it had been determined that the Tribunal did not err.

The petition was therefore dismissed.

To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.