Tag Archives: BC Human Rights Tribunal

Update on BC Human Rights Tribunal complaints against UBC

Workplace Blog has learned that in addition to Professor Jennifer Chan’s racial discrimination complaint against the University of British Columbia, there is at least one additional racial discrimination complaint against UBC lodged with the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

Wang, Tai, Wang v. The University of British Columbia, Churg, Barfoot, Wright (BCHRT Case 6120) has been scheduled for a hearing regarding BC Human Right Code Section 13 Employment – Ancestry, Colour, Mental Disability, Physical Disability, Place of Origin, Race. The complainants, who were laboratory technicians in the UBC Faculty of Medicine, filed their original complaint in 2008.

According to the BCHRT March 2012 schedule, hearing dates for Wang et al v. UBC are: August 13 to 17, 20 to 24, 27 to 31, September 10 to 14, 17 to 21, 24 to 28, 2012. Hearing dates often change at the last moment. Call the Tribunal at 604-775-2000 or toll free at 1-888-440-8844 to see if a hearing will proceed as scheduled.

Documents relevant to specific BCHRT cases (e.g., original complaints and responses) are available for public review 90 days prior to scheduled hearing date. To obtain documents call the BCHRT at 604 775-2000.

Documents related to the Wang, Tai, Wang complaint will be available May 13, 2012.

Documents related to Chan v. UBC are available now. Call BCHRT at 604 775-2000.

UBC asks BC Supreme Court to review racial discrimination complaint

The Ubyssey: UBC asks BC Supreme Court to review racial discrimination complaint

UBC has applied to the BC Supreme Court for a judicial review of a professor’s discrimination complaint.

A BC Human Rights Tribunal (HRT) decision called for a full judicial hearing of a complaint made in May 2010 by UBC Education professor Jennifer Chan. But the university is arguing that UBC’s internal review process has already put the case to rest.

Chan alleges that she was a victim of racial discrimination when considered for one of the university’s research chairs.

Chan, who is of Chinese descent, was a finalist for the Lam Chair in Multicultural Education but was not selected. She has argued that sloppy appointment procedures allowed racial bias to creep into the process. Chan filed a human rights complaint in May 2010. Earlier this year, the HRT declined UBC’s application to dismiss the complaint.

“The university believes the BC Human Rights Tribunal made some important errors in its preliminary rulings on the case of Associate Professor Chan,” said Lucie McNeill, Director of UBC Public Affairs.

McNeill said the university disagrees with the HRT’s decision because they believe Chan’s case was dealt with by UBC’s equity procedures.

“The HRT is essentially saying [that] irrespective of the internal process we have through our equity office, that somebody is entitled to that last final appeal at the human rights tribunal,” said McNeill. “But things should only go to appeal if they’re justified to go to an appeal.”

In writing the decision, Tribunal Member Norman Trerise argued that requiring an employee to go through an internal process and then denying them the right to an appeal with the HRT “essentially pulls the rug out from under that faculty member.”

“The university believes that this case is actually not correct and that interpretations at the HRT were not proper,” said McNeil. “[The university] has a responsibility to stand up and say ‘no, we cannot let this stand as precedent.’”

In an email statement to The Ubyssey, Chan said she has exhausted her pro-bono legal support and will have to self-represent.

“UBC is further delaying the complaint process, adding legal costs and stress,” she wrote. “UBC should play fair and let the HRT hearing go ahead as scheduled with full disclosure of evidence.”

McNeill denied that the university is trying to delay the case.

“The university doesn’t want to commit more time and resources to a lengthy hearing,” she said.

“This is not about avoiding or delaying tactics or anything like that. We take complaints of discrimination very seriously.”

You may also be interested in:

Does UBC have an equity gap? A look at the independence and integrity of the Equity Office

Rights tribunal to hear UBC prof’s racial discrimination complaint

Vancouver Sun: Rights tribunal to hear UBC prof’s racial discrimination complaint

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has agreed to hear the case of a University of B.C. professor who claims she was passed over for a research chair position because of her race.

Jennifer Chan, an associate professor in the faculty of education at UBC, filed a complaint alleging that the university and four administrators discriminated against her with respect to the appointment of the David Lam Chair in Multicultural Education in 2009. UBC denies any such discrimination took place and applied to have the complaint dismissed.

In her submission, Chan argues that she was better qualified for the position than the successful applicant and points out that only one member of the selection committee was a visible minority. She also alleges systemic discrimination which she claims is evidenced by being “forgotten” in her tenure and promotion schedule and the fact that visible minorities are almost entirely absent from leadership positions. Chan, who is of Chinese descent and immigrated to Canada from Hong Kong in 2001, was the only visible minority candidate to be shortlisted for the position.

Chan v UBC (BC Human Rights Tribunal)

Chan v. University of British Columbia and Haverkamp and Farrar and Shapiro and Tierney (No. 2), 2012 BCHRT 12

INTRODUCTION
[1] Jennifer Chan filed a complaint alleging that Beth Haverkamp, David Farrar, Jon Shapiro, Robert Tierney and the University of British Columbia (collectively the “Respondents”) discriminated against her with respect to the appointment of the David Lam Chair in Multicultural Education in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia (the “Lam Chair”) on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin, contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code. The Respondents deny there has been any such discrimination and apply to dismiss the complaint pursuant to ss. 27(1)(b), (c),(d)(ii) and (f), which provide:
(1) A member or panel may, at any time after a complaint is filed and with or without a hearing, dismiss all or part of the complaint if that member or panel determines that any of the  following apply:
(b) the acts or omissions alleged in the complaint…do not contravene this Code;
(c) there is no reasonable prospect that the complaint will succeed;
(d) proceeding with the complaint or that part of the complaint would not:

(ii) further the purposes of this Code.
(f) the substance of the complaint … has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.
[2] The Respondents, in the alternative, apply to dismiss the complaint against the individual respondents.

Excerpts of the decision:

[50] Further, it strikes me that it would be fundamentally unfair to allow UBC’s application on this ground. A faculty member may rely on the Policy in determining the preferred route for redress. To allow UBC to set out an appeal process in its Policy and then deny it through an application to dismiss, on this basis, essentially pulls the rug out from under that faculty member.

[51] I decline to dismiss Dr. Chan’s complaint as appropriately dealt with under the Policy.

 

[72] The issues raised in this complaint are of significance to the UBC community as a whole. I am alive to the difficulties expressed in Lee in identifying racism and related offensive behaviour. I am also alive to the low hurdle which the complainant needs to overcome on a s. 27(1)(c) application. In the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that, only after a full hearing, is it possible to determine whether the Committee’s process was tainted by prohibited motivations. Ultimately all Tribunal decisions under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code are discretionary decisions. I am not persuaded that there is no reasonable prospect that the individual complaint will succeed.

 

[77] Rather, the complaint appears to cast the Committee’s process and resultant decision as being the product of subtle racial bias and stereotyping, including the failure to apply employment equity principles. Whether or not UBC was bound by its Employment Equity Plan to apply such principles as contended by Dr. Chan will not be dispositive of the issues in this complaint – they are cast far broader than that. While I recognise that s. 27 of the Code contemplates that a part of a complaint may be dismissed on application, I also recognise that a failure to apply employment equity may be rooted in racial bias.

 

[79] If the evidence supports that the Committee was influenced by improper considerations as alleged (but which the Respondents clearly deny) the selection would constitute a violation of the Code. On the material before me, a hearing will be required to ascertain whether discrimination has occurred. I am not prepared to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the acts alleged do not contravene the Code.

 

IX CONCLUSION

[90] As stated above, I decline to dismiss Dr. Chan’s personal complaint against UBC. The systemic complaint is dismissed. I also dismiss the complaints against Dr. Haverkamp, Dr. Farrar, Dr. Shapiro and Dr. Tierney.