Taggart v. Buds Cannabis and others (No.3), 2025 BCHRT 151
Date Issued: June 24, 2025
File: CS-005495
Indexed as: Taggart v. Buds Cannabis and others (No.3), 2025 BCHRT 151
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:
Christopher Taggart
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Buds Cannabis and Megan Turpin and Dustin Ereiser
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER A DECISION
Rule 36
Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi
On their own behalf: Christopher (Adam) Taggart
For all Respondents: Megan Turpin
I INTRODUCTION
[1] In Taggart v. Buds Cannabis and others, 2025 BCHRT 107 [the Original Decision], I denied the Respondents’ dismissal application. After making that decision, I discovered that the Respondents had filed evidence, which was not brought to my attention and which, as a result, I did not consider in making the Original Decision. In Taggart v. Buds Cannabis and others (No.2), 2025 BCHRT 129 [the Reconsideration Decision], I reconsidered my decision in light of the Respondents’ documentary evidence and allowed the dismissal application. I was persuaded on the whole of the evidence that Mr. Taggart’s complaint has no reasonable prospect of succeeding at a hearing and dismissed it under s. 27(1)(c) of the Human Rights Code.
[2] Mr. Taggart now applies for reconsideration of the Reconsideration Decision pursuant to Rule 36 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. They say they have evidence that the WorkSafeBC decision which the Respondents submitted in support of the dismissal application was subsequently varied on review.
[3] I have not found it necessary to seek submissions from the Respondents to decide this application. For the following reasons, the application is denied.
II BACKGROUND
[4] The background to Mr. Taggart’s complaint is set out in paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Original Decision. I will not repeat it here. In brief, Mr. Taggart alleges their former employer, Buds Cannabis, and its owners Megan Turpin and Dustin Ereiser discriminated against them on the basis of mental disability by bullying and underpaying them.
[5] The Respondents deny discriminating. They applied under the Tribunal’s case path pilot for permission to file an application to dismiss. The Tribunal granted the request and set a submission schedule. The Respondents sent their dismissal application and evidence to the Tribunal and Mr. Taggart on October 3, 2024. Included in the Respondents’ materials was a WorkSafeBC review decision dated December 17, 2021.
[6] On November 19, 2024, Mr. Taggart sent a one-page email to the Tribunal and the Respondents which they said was their response to the application to dismiss. In their response they said, “I have not read their application to dismiss.” Mr. Taggart did not provide any evidence with their response.
[7] The Original Decision was issued on May 6, 2025, denying the application to dismiss. The decision turned on the lack of evidence supporting the Respondents’ arguments. After making that decision, the Tribunal discovered that the Respondents had filed evidence that was not considered in making the Original Decision. The Tribunal reconsidered the decision and issued the Reconsideration Decision on June 6, 2025, allowing the application and dismissing the complaint.
[8] Mr. Taggart filed an application seeking reconsideration of the Reconsideration Decision on June 10, 2025. In support of their reconsideration application, Mr. Taggart submitted a WorkSafeBC review decision dated August 16, 2022.
III Analysis and decision
[9] The Tribunal has a limited jurisdiction to reconsider its own decisions: Rule 36 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Specifically, the Tribunal may reconsider a decision if it is in the interests of justice and fairness to do so: Routkovskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2012 BCCA 141 at para. 23. The Tribunal exercises this power sparingly, giving due consideration to the principle of finality in administrative proceedings: Grant v. City of Vancouver and others (No. 4), 2007 BCHRT 206 [Grant] at para 10.
[10] The burden is on the person seeking to have a matter re-opened to show that the interests of fairness and justice demand such an order: Grant at para. 10.
[11] The Tribunal will not reconsider a decision to address arguments that could have been made in the first instance but were not, or to hear a party reargue its case: Ramadan v. Kwantlen Polytechnic University and another (No. 2), 2018 BCHRT 56 at para. 13.
[12] The Tribunal may reconsider a decision where there is new evidence that was not available at the time the party made its submission: Gichuru v. Vancouver Swing Society and others, 2018 BCHRT 18 at para. 22. Relevant factors include whether the new evidence could affect the result, and whether reconsideration would result in prejudice: Gichuru at paras. 22, and 43.
[13] Here, Mr. Taggart submits a WorkSafeBC review decision dated August 16, 2022. They argue that this is new evidence that shows Mr. Taggart was bullied by the Respondents. They say they did not know they should submit evidence with their dismissal application response and believed they were not permitted to provide evidence.
[14] I find that none of Mr. Taggart’s arguments present circumstances that engage the Tribunal’s narrow jurisdiction to review the Reconsideration Decision.
[15] First, the WorkSafeBC review decision Mr. Taggart now submits is dated August 16, 2022. Mr. Taggart filed their response to the dismissal application on November 19, 2024. Accordingly, the decision was available to Mr. Taggart during the original application process. It is not new evidence. Mr. Taggart had the opportunity to submit the review decision during the original application process and did not do so. An application for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to submit evidence that was available at the time of the original application in an attempt to strengthen their arguments.
[16] Second, based on Mr. Taggart’s response to the dismissal application, I understand Mr. Taggart received the Respondents’ dismissal application and chose not to read it. There is nothing before me to suggest that Mr. Taggart did not receive the Respondents’ materials, including the WorkSafeBC review decision of December 17, 2021. Mr. Taggart had an opportunity to respond to the dismissal application and the Respondents’ materials during the original application process. That they chose not to read the application or provide evidence at that time is not a basis for reconsideration. To consider Mr. Taggart’s evidence now, when he had the opportunity to submit it during the application process and chose not to do so, would result in unfairness to the Respondents.
[17] Third, Mr. Taggart says they were not instructed by the Tribunal to provide evidence with their application response. I cannot accept this argument. Among other reasons, the Tribunal wrote to the parties on August 22, 2024, setting the submission schedule for the dismissal application. In that letter the Tribunal provided a link to its information sheet about applications to dismiss. The information sheet explicitly provides that “a complainant should attach information to support what they say happened.” The Tribunal further instructs that “the complainant must respond to the respondent’s arguments” and “the complainant should respond to the respondent’s information. They should say if there is a problem with the information. They should say if information is missing.” The materials clearly inform the parties to provide evidence in support of their arguments.
[18] Mr. Taggart says the Tribunal imposed a rule “not to share evidence with opposing parties.” They say they were unaware they could submit evidence with their application response, and they should be permitted to submit their evidence now. Mr. Taggart has not pointed to any materials to support that the Tribunal instructed parties not to share evidence on the application to dismiss and I am aware of none. I decline to reconsider the Reconsideration Decision on this basis.
[19] For all of these reasons, I am not satisfied Mr. Taggart has met their burden of showing that it would be in the interests of fairness and justice to reconsider the Reconsideration Decision.
IV Conclusion
[20] I deny the application for reconsideration.
Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member