Dr. A v. University of British Columbia, 2025 BCHRT 274
Date Issued: October 23, 2025
File: CS-015399
Indexed as: Dr. A v. University of British Columbia, 2025 BCHRT 274
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:
Dr. A
COMPLAINANT
AND:
University of British Columbia
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO EXPEDITE COMPLAINT
Rule 17
Tribunal Member: Shannon Beckett
Counsel for the Complainant: Kathryn Marshall
Counsel for the Respondent: Kacey Krenn
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This decision considers Dr. A’s application to fast-track her complaint.
[2] Dr. A says that adjudication of her complaint must be expedited so that she does not lose access to a meaningful remedy due to the passage of time, and so that her mental health does not deteriorate. The Respondent opposes the application. It says Dr. A has not demonstrated that expediting her complaint would further the just and timely resolution of the complaint, and expediting is unnecessary because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order the remedy Dr. A is seeking.
[3] I have anonymized Dr. A’s name on my own motion because this decision discusses her sensitive medical information, and because this complaint is still at a very preliminary stage of proceedings. Going forward, Dr. A must apply under Rule 5(6) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure if she wants the Tribunal to limit public disclosure of her personal information. If either party disputes my decision to anonymize Dr. A, they may request reconsideration of this aspect of the decision.
[4] For the following reasons, I deny the application.
II BACKGROUND
[5] Dr. A is a Canadian trained medical graduate who obtained her MD through the University of British Columbia [UBC] Medical School. After obtaining her MD, she moved to Nova Scotia for post-graduate training in psychiatry at Dalhousie University. She says that she experienced trauma while completing her post-graduate training, and that she has been left with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. She says that she sought a transfer from Dalhousie to UBC to finish her training at UBC, but that UBC refused to grant her an interview for one of its residency spots. Dr. A says that she applied to transfer on multiple occasions and believes that she was denied an interview because of her disability.
[6] On May 27, 2025, Dr. A filed a complaint with the Tribunal alleging UBC discriminated against her in the area of services based on her mental disability. On June 4, 2025, the Tribunal granted Dr. A’s request to fast track her complaint only to the mediation stage. The Tribunal advised that an application would be required to fast track later stages of the complaint resolution process. Dr. A filed the within application on September 2, 2025.
III DECISION
[7] Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure requires an application to expedite a complaint to explain how expediting the complaint will further the just and timely resolution of the complaint. The just and timely resolution of the complaint is a fact-specific inquiry. Some relevant factors may include whether the allegations concern an ongoing situation or have arisen during an ongoing relationship, and whether any potential remedy may be rendered ineffectual with the passage of time: Parents obo The Student v. The School, 2017 BCHRT 74; Patterson v. BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, 2018 BCHRT 288.
[8] The Tribunal must also consider how an application to fast-track one complaint may impact other parties who are also waiting for their complaints to be resolved. The Tribunal has limited resources, and so a decision to fast-track one complaint means it will take longer to make decisions in other complaints: Miller v. BC Housing Management Commission, 2024 BCHRT 149, at para. 104.
[9] Dr. A says she needs to fast track her complaint because she has been on medical leave and not working for approximately two years, and that if she does not transfer and go back to work as a resident within three years, then she will have to start her training over from scratch at significant personal cost. She further says that the government of Nova Scotia has agreed to transfer her funding to UBC, but if her complaint is not expedited, she may lose access to that funding. Finally, Dr. A says her mental health is stable now, but will deteriorate if she is not able to transfer to UBC and complete her training so that she can practice in her chosen profession. In support of this latter point, she has provided a letter from her treating psychiatrist.
[10] I am not persuaded that expediting this complaint would facilitate the just and timely resolution of this complaint.
[11] I accept that Dr. A’s situation of repeatedly applying for a transfer of her residency to UBC is an ongoing situation. I also accept that the longer Dr. A remains out of practice, the greater the risk she may have to repeat at least some, if not all, of the training she has already undertaken before she can pursue her residency. UBC’s submission that it and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons will consider whether residents returning from leave require retraining on a case-by-case basis, impliedly acknowledges Dr. A risks requiring at least some retraining as a result of an extended leave. Further, the College of Physicians and Surgeons’ bylaws set out in Dr. A’s submissions appear to suggest that a registrant is required to perform a minimum number of practice hours within three years before falling out of currency and possibly requiring retraining. Based on the above, it appears that if she does not go back to work as a resident within approximately one year, Dr. A may not be able to pursue her residency due to retraining requirements. Given that the only remedy Dr. A is seeking in this complaint is a transfer to UBC so that she can complete her residency, delay in adjudication of this complaint could render this remedy ineffectual. This context weighs in favour of expediting this complaint.
[12] However, unfortunately, even if the complaint is expedited, final resolution of the complaint and implementation of any remedy that might be ordered will likely take longer than one year. The complaint is currently at the disclosure stage. When that stage is complete on November 3, the complaint will be at the Case Path Pilot [CPP] stage. At this stage, a Tribunal member will assess whether the complaint will proceed directly to a hearing, or whether UBC will have an opportunity to file an application to dismiss the complaint prior to a hearing. If the Tribunal expedites the CPP stage, then a CPP decision could likely be made within one month. Thereafter, even if the complaint were to proceed to hearing, and the Tribunal were to move the complaint to the front of the hearing queue, late spring 2026 is likely the earliest that the complaint could be heard. After the complaint is heard, it would take several months for a decision to be issued; approximately three months if the hearing is under three days long, and approximately six months if the hearing is three days or more. Accordingly, if the complaint is expedited at all remaining stages, and if the complaint is set for a hearing, it would likely take until at least fall or winter of 2026 for a decision to be issued. Following any decision in Dr. A’s favour, there would be additional time required for UBC to implement any remedy ordered by the Tribunal.
[13] If, at the CPP stage, UBC is permitted to apply to dismiss the complaint and the Tribunal expedites the dismissal application process, then the complaint resolution process would take several additional months to resolve, assuming the complaint is not dismissed as a result of the application.
[14] Ultimately, while it may be possible that a decision in Dr. A’s favour could be issued and the specific remedy she is seeking could be implemented within approximately one year, that possibility is remote. It is more likely that the complaint would not be resolved until winter 2026 at the earliest. This timeframe is greater than one year from now and therefore exceeds the time Dr. A says she has left before her retraining requirements are triggered and her remedy will be lost. This context weighs against expediting the complaint.
[15] Compounding the issue of timeframe, is the fact that there is no guarantee that Dr. A’s complaint would be successful, or that if it were, the Tribunal could or would order the very specific remedy she is seeking. With respect to remedy, there may be constraints on the Tribunal’s ability to order a remedy which impacts the resident selection process for UBC’s Psychiatry Residency Program. Further, even if the Tribunal could order remedies which may, at least effectively, result in Dr. A being accepted into UBC’s Psychiatry Residency Program, there is no guarantee that it would.
[16] I find this situation comparable to the Tribunal’s approach to applications to expedite complaints on the basis of the need for a financial remedy. In those cases, the Tribunal has held that it does not fast-track complaints to give a complainant expedited access to a financial remedy because there is no guarantee that a complaint will be successful, and that the complainant will be awarded the remedy they have asked for: Teacher B v. Board of Education of School District No. 83, 2024 BCHRT 160, at para. 15. The uncertainty around whether Dr. A’s complaint would be successful, and whether and how the Tribunal would order the specific remedy Dr. A is seeking, weighs against expediting this complaint.
[17] I accept Dr. A’s evidence that her mental health may be negatively impacted if she is unable to return to practice in her chosen profession. But again, there is no guarantee that resolution of this complaint will result in Dr. A’s return to practice in her chosen profession. In her letter, Dr. A’s psychiatrist does not suggest that the human rights complaint process itself is impacting Dr. A’s mental health. Rather she suggests the disappointment of failed transfer applications and the delay in Dr. A’s return to her training is the source of Dr. A’s mental health decline. Dr. A’s psychiatrist specifies that “expedited review of this human rights complaint would significantly increase the chances of a successful return to practice”, which statement appears to incorrectly assume that expediting the complaint will result in Dr. A being successful in her complaint and granted the remedy she is seeking. As explained above, this is not the case. Accordingly, although I sympathize with Dr. A’s difficult situation, I find the information about her mental health does not weigh in favour of expediting the complaint.
[18] With respect to Dr. A’s remaining arguments about the potential loss of her funding and the public interest in allowing her to complete her residency, these arguments do not persuade me that that it would facilitate the just and timely resolution of this complaint to expedite the complaint.
[19] Dr. A’s submission that funding for her residency may be lost if her complaint is not expedited is based on her speculation that if the Nova Scotia government changes the new government may not honour the funding agreement. She does not support this assertion with information about the terms of the agreement, or why she thinks those terms may change if the government changes. Speculation about what might happen to the funding in the contingency of a government change does not weigh in favour of expediting the complaint.
[20] Similarly, Dr. A’s claim that the public will be deprived of health services if it does not allow her transfer is answered by UBC’s submission (which Dr. A does not dispute), that there is a cap on the number of residency spots UBC offers, and every year all spots are filled, therefore there will be the same number of new psychiatry graduates in BC each year whether or not it grants Dr. A’s transfer.
[21] In summary, I accept that Dr. A is in an ongoing situation with UBC, and that the passage of time may result in the loss of a meaningful remedy for her. However, it is unlikely the Tribunal could resolve her complaint within the required time-frame. Further, even if the complaint could be resolved within the required timeframe, there is no guarantee the complaint would be resolved in Dr. A’s favour, or that the Tribunal could or would order the specific remedy she is seeking.
IV CONCLUSION
[22] For the above reasons, I deny Dr. A’s application to expedite her complaint. In doing so, I note that nothing prevents the parties from agreeing on a resolution to Dr. A’s complaint. The parties may be better served by resolving the complaint through mutual agreement. I encourage the parties to take advantage of the Tribunal’s mediation services to explore that possibility.
[23] The next step in the complaint resolution process is the CPP review, which will take place after the parties have completed their disclosure. A Tribunal case manager will be in contact with the parties when further action is required.
Shannon Beckett
Tribunal Member