Badohal v. WorkSafeBC (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 265
Date Issued: October 21, 2025
File: CS-001249/16707
Indexed as: Badohal v. WorkSafeBC (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 265
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:
Harpreet Singh Badohal
COMPLAINANT
AND:
WorkSafeBC
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER A DECISION
RULE 36
Tribunal Member: Jessica Derynck
On his own behalf: Harpreet Badohal
No submissions sought from the Respondent
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Harpreet Badohal applies for reconsideration of the decision Badohal v. WorkSafe BC, 2025 BCHRT 213, dated September 3, 2025 [Decision], dismissing his complaint after a hearing. I referred to Harpreet by his first name in the Decision because that was his preference at the hearing of his complaint, and I do so again here.
[2] I did not find it necessary to request submissions from the Respondent to decide this application. For the following reasons, I find there is no basis to reconsider the Decision.
II BACKGROUND
[3] Harpreet filed his complaint against WorkSafeBC [WSBC] on August 8, 2017, alleging discrimination in employment based on religion. Harpreet wears a turban in connection with his Sikh faith. He alleged that WSBC failed to accommodate his inability to wear a hard hat because of his turban, and that a colleague once pressured him to remove his turban to wear a hard hat to a construction site.
[4] The Tribunal denied WSBC’s application to dismiss the complaint on April 28, 2020. On April 9, 2021, Harpreet amended his complaint to add allegations of retaliation and further discrimination.
[5] The hearing of the complaint proceeded for 18 days between April 18, 2023, and August 9, 2024. Harpreet was represented by legal counsel throughout. I dismissed the complaint in its entirety in the Decision.
[6] In this application Harpreet submits that the Decision was not fair because he did not have a meaningful opportunity to present his case. He also requests that a different Tribunal Member decide this application. I address each of his points in the analysis below.
III ANALYSIS AND DECISION
A. There is no basis to find that a different Tribunal Member must decide this application
[7] Harpreet requests that a different Tribunal Member decide his application for reconsideration.
[8] The Tribunal assigns applications for reconsideration to the same Member who made the decision whenever possible: Conklin v. University of British Columbia, 2018 BCHRT 262 at para. 8.
[9] In University of British Columbia v. University of British Columbia Faculty Association, 2007 BCCA 201, the Court of Appeal explained that the presumption that a decision maker will act fairly and impartially applies to reconsideration decisions, unless there is evidence to rebut the presumption and show that the party applying for reconsideration will not receive a fair hearing with the same adjudicator: paras. 84 to 85.
[10] I would be disqualified from deciding the reconsideration application if there were a reasonable apprehension of bias: Conklin at para. 10. The test to determine whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias is whether an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically and having thought the matter through, would conclude that it is more likely than not that I would fail to decide the matter fairly, either consciously or unconsciously: Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, 2003 SCC 45 at para. 60.
[11] Harpreet submits that inconsistency between the Tribunal’s rulings in his case gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. I understand his submission to be that I made rulings during the hearing, and decided issues in the Decision, inconsistently with prior decisions in his case by other Tribunal Members.
[12] I explain here that my rulings and decisions were not inconsistent with other Members’ decisions.
[13] First, Harpreet says that in denying WSBC’s application to dismiss the complaint the Tribunal decided that his case had a reasonable chance of success, and the Decision is inconsistent with this.
[14] Dismissing a complaint after a hearing is not inconsistent with a decision denying an application to dismiss and allowing the hearing to proceed. A decision denying an application to dismiss a complaint is not an indication that the complaint is likely to succeed at a hearing or has a “reasonable prospect of success”. Rather, it is a decision allowing the complainant to proceed to a hearing to attempt to prove their complaint because the respondent did not meet their onus of establishing that the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. It is up to the Member or panel hearing the complaint to determine, based on the evidence admitted at the hearing, whether the complaint is justified.
[15] Harpreet also says another Member decided before the hearing that he could call a witness to testify and then I reversed that decision at the hearing.
[16] In my analysis of Harpreet’s submissions about his proposed witness below, I explain that the Tribunal did not decide before the hearing that his proposed witness could testify. Rather, the Tribunal left any objections to that witness’s evidence to be addressed at the hearing. I decided at the hearing that his proposed witness would not testify because his evidence would not be relevant to the issues I had to decide. My ruling was not inconsistent with a prior ruling.
[17] Harpreet also says that the other issues he raises in his application, including about the hearing process and credibility findings in the Decision, indicate a reasonable apprehension of bias.
[18] I find that none of the issues Harpreet raises would lead an informed person to conclude that I am likely to fail to decide his application fairly. Reconsideration is not an opportunity to have a matter freshly considered from another person’s perspective. Rather, it is an opportunity to revisit a matter to correct specific errors or remedy particular issues of unfairness: Conklin at para. 22. In the absence of any evidence or submissions supporting a reasonable apprehension of bias, it is part of my role as a Tribunal Member to decide an application for reconsideration to determine whether justice and fairness require revisiting the decision: Grant v. City of Vancouver and others (No. 4), 2007 BCHRT 206 at para 10.
[19] I deny Harpreet’s request to have another Member decide his application. I address each of the issues in his application below.
B. Law on whether the Tribunal will reconsider a decision
[20] 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 at para 10.
[21] 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.
[22] The Tribunal does not have authority to reconsider a decision based on an argument that the decision was wrong or unreasonable or because there has been a change of circumstances: Fraser Health Authority v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 2014 BCCA 499 [Fraser Health] at paras. 135 and 160. 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. When a party simply disagrees with a Tribunal decision, the appropriate recourse is judicial review by the BC Supreme Court.
[23] The Tribunal may reconsider a decision where there has not been procedural fairness: Fraser Health.
[24] 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, 43.
C. Reconsideration of the Decision is not in the interests of justice and fairness
[25] In his application Harpreet raises six issues that he says warrant reconsideration of the Decision.
[26] I find that it is not in the interests of justice and fairness to reconsider the Decision. Some of the issues Harpreet raises in the application reflect his disagreement with decisions I made during the hearing and in the Decision. Disagreement with a decision is not a basis for reconsideration. Other issues reflect his dissatisfaction with aspects of the hearing process that he did not raise concerns about during the hearing. These issues did not create any unfairness because Harpreet had opportunities to raise them at the hearing so I could have dealt with them at that time. Harpreet had a full and fair opportunity to present his case, and there was no unfairness warranting an exercise of the Tribunal’s limited reconsideration power.
1. The decision that a proposed witness would not testify at the hearing does not raise fairness concerns
[27] I first address Harpreet’s submission that he did not have a meaningful opportunity to present his case because the Tribunal did not allow him to call evidence from Senator Baltej Singh Dhillon. Harpreet says the Tribunal permitted him to call Senator Dhillon as a witness in a letter decision dated March 21, 2022, then reversed its decision during the hearing without any reasoning.
[28] Senator Dhillon was on the WSBC Board of Directors at times relevant to the complaint.
[29] The Tribunal did not decide in its letter decision of March 21, 2022, that Senator Dhillon would be allowed to testify at the hearing. Rather, the Tribunal said that any evidence from Senator Dhillon about his motives or views related to his position on the Board of Directors was not admissible: Consortium Developments (Clearwater) Ltd. v. Sarnia (City), [1998] 3 SCR 3 at para. 45. Harpreet also wanted Senator Dhillon to testify about his experiences wearing a turban while working for the RCMP. The Tribunal said it was not apparent how evidence about Senator Dhillon’s personal experiences may be relevant, and that objections related to admissibility of his evidence could be dealt with at the hearing.
[30] At the hearing on April 23, 2020, I found that the evidence Harpreet proposed to call from Senator Dhillon was not relevant or admissible. I decided that proposed evidence about Senator Dhillon’s experiences wearing a turban while he worked for the RCMP was not relevant to the issues I needed to decide.
[31] Harpreet also wanted Senator Dhillon to testify about a document that he was aware of from his position on the Board of Directors. I decided that Senator Dhillon was not allowed to testify about the document from his perspective on the Board of Directors, and that Harpreet would need to have another witness testify about the document if he wanted to seek to introduce it.
[32] Harpreet had an opportunity at the hearing, through his counsel, to explain the evidence he wanted to call from Senator Dhillon and make submissions supporting his position. The decision that Senator Dhillon would not testify does not raise any fairness concerns. Rather, it is apparent that Harpreet disagrees with this decision, which is not a basis for reconsideration.
2. Harpreet’s inability to access his work records at the time of the hearing does not raise any fairness concerns
[33] Harpreet submits that WSBC withheld evidence that was central to the fair adjudication of the case. He says he did not have access to his work email or notebooks during the hearing because he was on disability leave, so he was deprived of a full and fair hearing.
[34] Harpreet submitted an affidavit attaching 12 pages of emails and a two-page chart in support of his application. He says he did not have access to these documents during the hearing. In his affidavit he says that after he received the Decision, at which time he was back at work, he searched his WSBC email and found documents that he says could have supported his case and affected the outcome of the Decision. He says he told the Tribunal, his counsel, and WSBC’s counsel during the hearing that he did not have access to some evidence and materials, and he did not receive any guidance for how to get those materials, which were under WSBC’s control.
[35] I find that there was no unfairness related to Harpreet’s access to documents for the hearing.
[36] A party seeking access to documents in another party’s possession or control may apply for an order that the other party disclose documents. Harpreet referred to not having access to his work emails, as well as not having access to his work phone and text messages, during his evidence, but he did not make an application for disclosure. Nothing prevented him from doing so.
[37] There is no support for Harpreet’s suggestion that WSBC withheld evidence. WSBC disclosed many documents during early stages of the process. WSBC continued to disclose additional documents during the hearing in response to evidence from Harpreet about allegations or details they were not previously aware of and could not have anticipated. There is no support for a suggestion that WSBC was aware of any potentially relevant documents and intentionally withheld them. In any case, the appropriate time to raise this concern was during the hearing.
[38] Harpreet’s documents are not new. They were available before the hearing, and he could have made an application for further disclosure, or for an order allowing him to search his work emails and records for the purposes of the hearing. Further, Harpreet filed his complaint in August 2017 and went on disability leave in January 2022. His work documents were available to him before he went on leave.
[39] There was no unfairness in the process related to document access or disclosure that would warrant reconsideration of the Decision.
3. The decision denying Harpreet’s request to call rebuttal evidence from a new witness does not raise fairness concerns
[40] Harpreet submits that he was deprived of an opportunity to present evidence from a witness, Deepak Chadda, who would have corroborated his evidence about his allegation that his colleague Dan Marcoux yelled at him when he spoke Punjabi at work. I found that this incident did not occur at paras. 317 to 324 of the Decision. Harpreet submits an affidavit from Mr. Chadda saying that he witnessed this alleged incident. Harpreet says he was constrained in his ability to contact potential witnesses because he did not have his colleagues’ contact information during the hearing.
[41] At the hearing on May 28, 2024, after Mr. Marcoux testified for WSBC, Harpreet requested to call rebuttal evidence from Mr. Chadda. I heard Harpreet’s submissions in support of his request, WSBC’s objection to his request, and Harpreet’s reply. I denied Harpreet’s request, finding that evidence from Mr. Chadda on this issue would not be appropriate rebuttal evidence because nothing prevented Harpreet from calling Mr. Chadda as a witness during his own case. Harpreet did not make an application for Mr. Chadda’s or other colleagues’ contact information before or during the hearing and nothing prevented him from doing so.
[42] There was no unfairness to Harpreet in the process related to this issue. Rather, Harpreet disagrees with my decision not to allow him to call rebuttal evidence from Mr. Chadda. This is not a basis for reconsideration.
4. There are no fairness issues related to credibility findings in the Decision
[43] Harpreet submits that the credibility findings in the Decision are unfair to him. His submission is about the basis for the credibility findings in the Decision, not any unfairness in the process. For example, Harpreet says I placed disproportionate weight on a photo in evidence to make findings about the length of his hair.
[44] Harpreet has not raised any errors or issues related to credibility findings that warrant reconsideration. Harpreet disagrees with the credibility findings and reasoning in the Decision; this is not a basis for reconsideration.
5. Harpreet’s difficult experience of the hearing process is not a basis for reconsideration
[45] Harpreet submits that the hearing process did not take his health limitations and accommodation needs into account. He says the extensive set of hearing dates were structured around availability considerations and not around his health, and the process required him to testify and undergo cross examination for long days despite the strain this would put on anyone with his health conditions. He says the Tribunal and counsel did not seek medical confirmation of whether he was in good condition to participate in the process. He says his cross examination became difficult and heated, and that when he became emotionally overwhelmed at one point, he only got a 15-minute break before cross-examination continued. He now asks why an adjournment or further accommodation were not considered.
[46] I acknowledge that the hearing process may be difficult for complainants and witnesses, especially when a hearing takes place over multiple dates. Cross-examination may be especially strenuous. However, the inherent difficulty of the process is not a basis for reconsideration. It was Harpreet’s choice to pursue his complaint. In his direct evidence he testified about events and details that were not distinct allegations in his complaint, but he said were relevant context. His allegation that Mr. Marcoux yelled at him for speaking Punjabi at work and that he reported this to his supervisors and no one did anything in response is an example of this. WSBC objected to Harpreet’s evidence about this and other details. I denied the objection and admitted Harpreet’s contextual evidence. The Respondent had a right to thoroughly cross-examine Harpreet about all of his allegations and evidence. The hearing took the number of days it did, over the duration of time it did, because of how Harpreet chose to present his case and because of the decision I made in his favour to allow him to testify about context to the extent that he did.
[47] If Harpreet had applied for an adjournment, requested longer breaks, or asked for accommodations during the hearing, I would have considered any such application or request. He did not make any such requests based on health conditions or for other reasons. There was no unfairness in the process.
6. The timeline of the complaint does not raise fairness issues warranting reconsideration
[48] Harpreet submits that the time period of the complaint, from when it was filed in 2017 until the Decision in 2025, disadvantaged him. He says that WSBC amended OHS Regulation 8.11 during this time period.
[49] Harpreet does not explain how an amendment to the Regulation during this time period of the complaint process may have disadvantaged him. The Decision addresses the previous wording of the Regulation and the amendment at paras. 184 to 185. He also does not say how the length of the process may have impacted his opportunity to present his case, or how a reconsideration process could remedy any unfairness.
[50] The length of the process is not a basis for reconsideration.
IV CONCLUSION
[51] The application for reconsideration is denied.
Jessica Derynck
Tribunal Member