Skip to Content

BC Human Rights Tribunal

BC Human Rights Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with matter already decided by the WCB Review Divsion

Jurisdiction: - British Columbia

The decision in Workers Compensation Board v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) 2009 BCSC 377, which was released today, was concerned with whether the BC Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) had the jurisdiction to reconsider the same complaints that had already been dealt with by the Review Division of the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB").

Facts

Three complainants who suffer from chronic pain due to work related injuries applied to the Review Division, the WCB's internal appeal body, for a finding that the WCB's chronic pain policy constituted discrimination under section 8 of the BC Human Rights Code (the "Code").

Decision of the Review Division

The Review Division Officer, who had 34 years of experience and a Masters of Law degree, found that the policy did not contravene the Code, or alternatively if it did, there was a bona fide and reasonable justification.  read more »

$35,000 is new highwater mark in damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect

Jurisdiction: - British Columbia
Sector: - Insurance

In a decision issued on October 8, 2008 -  Senyk v. WFG Agency Network (No. 2), 2008 BCHRT 376 -  the BC Human Rights Tribunal awarded the complainant $35,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect. This establishes a new highwater mark in BC for these type of damages.

BC Human Rights Tribunal releases statistics on damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect

Jurisdiction: - British Columbia

The BC Human Rights Tribunal issued its "Annual Report 2007-2008" in July, 2008. According to the report:

  • The Tribunal ordered compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect in 11 cases.   
  • The awards ranged from $500 to $25,000, the highest award to date.  Also at the high end of the range, the Tribunal made an award of $20,000.   
  • At the lower end of the range were awards of $2,000 and $2,500.  
  • All other awards ranged from $5,000 to $7,500. 

The case in which the complainant received $25,000 was Datt v. McDonald's Restaurants (No. 3), 2007 BCHRT 324) (No. 2), 2007 BCHRT 161. In the report, the Tribunal summarized the case as follows:  read more »

"Advice to Unions and Employers Regarding the Accommodation of 'Invisible' Disabilities"

Four lawyers at Black, Gropper & Company (S. Michelle Blendell, Jessica L. Burke, Pamela Costanzo and Allan E. Black, Q.C.) and two lawyers at Roper Greyell (Kim G. Thorne and Michael Kilgallan) have written a very comprehensive paper entitled,  "Advice to Unions and Employers Regarding the Accommodation of 'Invisible' Disabilities" (November 2007).