Hollands v. Unifor National Office and another (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 100
Date Issued: May 2, 2025
File(s): CS-002588
Indexed as: Hollands v. Unifor National Office and another (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 100
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Russell Hollands
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Unifor National Office and Unifor Local 333BC
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER A DECISION
Rule 36
Tribunal Member: Jonathan Chapnick
On his own behalf: Russell Hollands
For the Respondents: No submissions sought
I INTRODUCTION
[1] On August 31, 2020, Russell Hollands filed a human rights complaint against Unifor National Office and Unifor Local 333BC [collectively, Respondents ], alleging discrimination based on the protected characteristic of political belief. He said the Respondents refused to appoint him to a Local trustee position because of his support for a piece of federal legislation, while situating his complaint in the broader context of what he described as “relentless retaliation and harassment” by a group of union officials dating back to 2011.
[2] The Respondents applied to dismiss the complaint without a hearing under s. 27(1)(c) of the Human Rights Code . In a decision on February 27, 2025, I granted their application and dismissed the complaint on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success: Hollands v. Unifor National Office and another , 2025 BCHRT 50 [ Decision ].
[3] On March 10, Mr. Hollands applied for reconsideration of the Decision. I do not find it necessary to seek the Respondents’ submissions. For the reasons that follow, I decline to reconsider the Decision. Mr. Hollands’ application is denied.
II DECISION
[4] In general, once the Tribunal decides an issue, the decision is final. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider the issue is “spent”: Fraser Health Authority v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal , 2014 BCCA 499 at para. 160, upheld on this point in 2016 SCC 25 [ Fraser Health ]. The decision “cannot be revisited because the tribunal has changed its mind, made an error within jurisdiction or because there has been a change of circumstances”: Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects , [1989] 2 SCR 848 at 861. A party who disagrees with a Tribunal decision can seek judicial review, subject to which the parties should be able to count on the decision being final: Tuson v. The Board of Education of School District No. 5 (No. 5) , 2021 BCHRT 14 at para. 8.
[5] The Court of Appeal has identified very narrow exceptions to this finality, including circumstances where there has not been procedural fairness: Fraser Health at paras. 141 and 160; see Tuson at para. 9. The Tribunal also has an equitable jurisdiction to re-open a decision where the interests of fairness and justice require it to do so, which is reflected in Rule 36(1) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure: see Zutter v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights) (1995), 122 DLR (4th) 665 (BCCA). This power is meant to be exercised carefully and restrictively in deference to the principle of finality: Zutter at para. 31. In a reconsideration application, the burden is on the applicant to show the Tribunal that the interests of fairness and justice require it to reconsider its previous decision: Prosko v. District of Taylor (No. 3) , 2024 BCHRT 319 at para. 6.
[6] In his reconsideration application, Mr. Hollands asserts that the Decision was procedurally unfair because: he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses; he did not have a chance to ask for an order that certain people appear before the Tribunal as hostile witnesses; he was not afforded an opportunity to make a closing submission following an oral hearing; and, in the Decision, the Tribunal failed to recognize a “continuity of knowledge” between successive union leaders. He also raises other issues regarding document disclosure and discrepancies in the Respondents’ evidence and arguments.
[7] I appreciate that Mr. Hollands is dissatisfied with the Decision. However, he has not shown me that the interests of fairness and justice require the Tribunal to reconsider it. While his application is framed largely in terms of procedural fairness, it essentially reargues matters that were put forward and argued in the first instance, in an attempt to achieve a different result. That is not what reconsideration is for: Prosko at para. 7.
[8] Mr. Hollands has already argued that his case warrants an oral hearing with all of its trappings, such as witness examinations. I did not accept his arguments: see, e.g., Decision at para. 63. In his submissions on the Respondents’ dismissal application, he detailed the overlap and connections between successive union leaderships, which I considered in reaching the Decision: see, e.g., para. 62. He also raised document disclosure issues and discrepancies in the Respondents’ evidence and arguments. I addressed these in the Decision: see, e.g., paras. 57-66.
[9] The Tribunal is not authorized to sit in appeal of its own decisions; it cannot reopen a decision “because one party or another feels that the decision is wrong”: Eddy v. Toby’s Pub and Grill and another (No. 2) , 2013 BCHRT 48 at para. 27. Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to repeat prior arguments or make new ones that could have been made previously: Prosko at para. 7. If Mr. Hollands disagrees with the Decision because he believes it is wrong, his recourse is to seek judicial review: Prosko at para. 19.
III CONCLUSION
[10] Mr. Hollands’ application to reconsider the Decision is denied. The Decision stands.
Jonathan Chapnick
Tribunal Member