IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

 

Citation:           Fire-Trol Canada Company

v. Bradley and British Colubmia
Human Rights Tribunal

2005 BCSC 1646

Date: 20050603
Docket: L051256
Registry: Vancouver

Between:

FIRE-TROL CANADA COMPANY

PETITIONER

And:

RONALD BRADLEY and
BRITISH COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

RESPONDENTS

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Masuhara

Oral Reasons for Judgment

June 3, 2005

Counsel for Petitioner:	J. Goulden
Counsel for Respondent Bradley:	T.D. Schiller
Counsel for Respondent BC Human Rights:	K. Hardie
Place of Trial/Hearing:	Vancouver, BC

[1]                THE COURT:   This is my ruling of the proceeding we heard yesterday.  This is a petition for judicial review of a BC Human Rights Tribunal decision brought on by Fire‑Trol Canada.  Mr. Bradley has initiated a complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal against his former employer, Fire‑Trol, alleging discrimination in his dismissal on the grounds of mental disability.  The hearing into the complaint is scheduled to commence June 9th, 2005.  The parties applied for and received a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal relating to the admissibility of certain communications between counsel for the parties.  The focus of the communications was Mr. Bradley's counsel taking the position that his client had been constructively dismissed.  The petitioner employer says it relied upon this statement and ceased to make further payments to Mr. Bradley.

[2]                The Tribunal heard the application April the 5th, 2005, and issued written reasons on May 12, 2005, concluding that the communications are not admissible.

[3]                The petitioner argues that the Tribunal is in error and seeks an order overturning the Tribunal's ruling and to direct the evidence to be admitted at the hearing of the complaint.

[4]                While counsel for the petitioner and the respondent Bradley seek a determination on the merits of the application, the preliminary question is to determine whether it is premature.  The aspect of it being premature is an alternate argument of Mr. Bradley.

[5]                The general rule, aside from jurisdictional issues, is that the rulings made during the course of the Tribunal's proceedings should not be challenged until the Tribunal's proceedings have concluded.  The rationale is clearly related to avoid unnecessary delay and expense.  Further, the result at the end of the day may be in favour of the party seeking the review, thus rendering this exercise unnecessary.  At this stage it is my view that the Tribunal hearing ought to proceed in the normal course to completion.  This would recognize and acknowledge this general rule as well as the reality that this court does not have a view as to all the avenues open to the petitioner to establish the foundations for its defence.  Further, resources needed by a court at this stage would be better utilized if at a later stage a need for judicial review is required, the court would then have the benefit of a full record on all of the issues and the efficiencies, if any.  Accordingly I decline to exercise my discretion in favour of the petition.

[6]                That concludes my ruling, counsel.

[7]                MS. PALLUK:  Thank you, My Lord.

[8]                MR. SCHILLER:  Thank you, My Lord.

[9]                MR. GOULDEN:  Thank you, My Lord. 

“D. Masuhara, J.”
The Honourable Mr. Justice D. Masuhara