Rana v. University of British Columbia and another, 2026 BCHRT 122
Date Issued: May 14, 2026
File: CS-010083
Indexed as: Rana v. University of British Columbia and another, 2026 BCHRT 122
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:
Devendra Rana
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Farahna Sabiq and University of British Columbia
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO ADD RESPONDENT
Rule 25(2)
APPLICATION FOR DISCLOSURE
Rule 23
Tribunal Member: Kathleen Smith
Complainant: Devendra Rana
Counsel for the Respondent University of British Columbia: Kacey Krenn
Respondent Farahna Sabiq: No submissions
Counsel for the Proposed Respondent Vancouver Coastal Health Authority: Karen N. Orr and Grace R. M. Haddock-Lapointe
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This decision sets out my reasons for denying the complainant’s application to: (1) add a respondent to the complaint; and (2) order the respondent and/or the proposed respondent to disclose the identity and contact information of an individual who is not a party to the complaint.
[2] Devendra Rana’s human rights complaint alleges that he experienced race-based discrimination when he underwent an MRI at the University of British Columbia [UBC]. Mr. Rana describes himself as originally from India and brown-skinned. Mr. Rana alleges that the attending doctor was rude and aggressively told him to “get out of here” while he was still lying on the scanner bed. In addition, Mr. Rana alleges that the doctor made unnecessary and inappropriate comments, including by suggesting that individuals from Mr. Rana’s country “always want to get money,” and inappropriately recording in the MRI report that Mr. Rana had been suspended from his job due to aggressive behaviour.
[3] In the complaint, Mr. Rana asserts that Farahna Sabiq was the attending doctor. Mr. Rana also identifies the facility that he attended as the UBC MRI centre and provided its email address. Based on the information in the complaint, the Tribunal proceeded with the complaint against Dr. Sabiq and UBC MRI research centre on the grounds of race, place of origin, colour, ancestry, and religion in the area of services.
[4] UBC subsequently responded to the complaint asserting that it is not a proper respondent to the complaint. UBC says that it operates an MRI research facility that is part of the Department of Radiology within its Faculty of Medicine. It says the MRI research facility does not conduct MRI exams ordered by patients’ health providers. Rather, it says that the UBC Hospital [Hospital] provides that service and the Hospital is operated by Vancouver Coastal Health Authority [Health Authority].
[5] On the information available to the Tribunal, Dr. Sabiq has not yet been served with the complaint. The Tribunal twice requested Mr. Rana to provide an alternative service address for Dr. Sabiq. He has not done so. UBC has not accepted service on behalf of Dr. Sabiq. UBC says its relationship to Dr. Sabiq is through her appointment in the Faculty of Medicine. UBC explains that Dr. Sabiq does not provide clinical services in her role with UBC and, therefore, UBC says that any services she provided in relation to Mr. Rana were not provided in her capacity with UBC.
[6] In the present application, Mr. Rana seeks to add the Health Authority as a respondent to the complaint. He also seeks an order that UBC and/or the Health Authority provide the name and address of the MRI technician who administered Mr. Rana’s MRI exam at the Hospital.
[7] UBC takes no position on adding the Health Authority to the complaint. Regarding the request for information about the identity of the MRI technician, UBC says it does not have that information since this individual was not employed by UBC.
[8] The Health Authority objects to being added as a respondent. It argues that the application is late-filed, Mr. Rana knew about the Health Authority’s involvement at the time he filed the complaint, has not provided reasons to explain his delay, and the Health Authority and its staff would face substantial prejudice if the application were granted. I understand, based on its arguments and evidence, that the Health Authority objects to disclosing the identity and contact information for the MRI technician.
[9] For the following reasons, I deny the application to add the Health Authority as a respondent to the complaint. In short, I am not persuaded that it would be in the public interest to add it given the lengthy delay in filing the application. Further, I am not persuaded on the materials before me that it would further the fair and efficient resolution of the complaint to order the disclosure of the name and address of the MRI technician.
II BACKGROUND
[10] I provide this background information to put this decision in context. This is not a decision on the merits of the complaint, and I make no findings of fact.
[11] The Health Authority says that before a patient can obtain an MRI exam, they must have a requisition form from their treating physician. The Health Authority provided a copy of the request form completed by Mr. Rana’s family physician.
[12] There is no dispute that on August 23, 2022, Mr. Rana attended the Hospital and obtained an MRI on his head. There is also no dispute that the Hospital is located on the UBC campus and is operated by the Health Authority.
[13] UBC argues that Dr. Sabiq is misidentified as a person who assisted in administering Mr. Rana’s MRI exam for two reasons: first, the individual who likely moved Mr. Rana in and out of the MRI scanner was the MRI technician; two, Dr. Sabiq is a woman.
[14] The Health Authority relies on the points raised by UBC in its response to the application and confirms that Dr. Sabiq was the “reporting physician.” According to the Health Authority, the author of an MRI report is generally a radiologist who is not involved in the MRI exam which forms the subject of the corresponding MRI report. The Health Authority also asserts that it is standard practice for the author of the report to transcribe the “reason for visit” description from the MRI requisition form. The Health Authority highlights that the language in Mr. Rana’s MRI report is nearly identical to the language in the MRI requisition form. Further, the Health Authority states that MRI technicians who administer MRI exams do not decide what information is included in an MRI report.
[15] Mr. Rana and the Health Authority both provided copies of emails that show Mr. Rana contacted the Health Authority’s Patient Care Quality Office [Office] on April 12, 2023, then again on September 4, 2025.
[16] In his April 12, 2023, email to the Office, Mr. Rana expressed a concern about disrespectful and discriminatory behaviours by one of its employees at the Hospital. He stated that there were two people involved in his exam, a woman and a man. He identified the man as Dr. Sabiq based on the MRI report. In his email to the Office, Mr. Rana asked a series of questions concerning the rationale and basis for Dr. Sabiq’s including information about his suspension from work in the report.
[17] The Office responded to Mr. Rana on April 14, 2023. The response states that they have opened a file and assigned it to a Patient Care Quality Liaison who will be in touch about next steps. There is no further information before me about if or when the Office communicated with Mr. Rana subsequently.
[18] In his September 4, 2025, email to the Office, Mr. Rana asked the Health Authority to provide the contact details for Dr. Sabiq and the person who administered the MRI exam. There is no further information before me about if or when the Office responded to Mr. Rana’s request. Mr. Rana’s September 4, 2025, email followed the Tribunal’s correspondence to Mr. Rana on August 13 and September 3, 2025, asking him to provide an alternative address for delivery for Dr. Sabiq since she did not file a response by the Tribunal’s deadline.
[19] On January 19, 2026, Mr. Rana brought the present application.
III Analysis and DECISION
[20] I begin with Mr. Rana’s application to add the Health Authority as a respondent outside the Tribunal’s one-year time limit for filing a complaint.
[21] Under Rule 25(2) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal will consider the following factors to determine whether to add a respondent after the one-year time limit for filing complaints:
· Whether the facts, if proven, could establish a contravention of the Code by the proposed respondent.
· Whether it is in the public interest to add the proposed respondent to the complaint and whether no substantial prejudice will result to any person because of the delay.
· Whether adding the proposed respondent will further the just and timely resolution of the complaint.
[22] Below I consider the factors in turn.
A. Arguable Contravention
[23] The Health Authority does not dispute that Mr. Rana has alleged facts that, if proven, could amount to a contravention of the Code by the Health Authority. Rather, the Health Authority’s arguments focus on the Tribunal’s one year time limit for filing a complaint. In these circumstances, I move on to consider the time limit.
B. Time Limit
[24] When assessing the matter of delay in the context of an application to add a respondent, the Tribunal applies the same considerations as those applying to late-filed complaints. Section 22 of the Code specifies that a complaint must be filed within one year of the alleged contravention unless the Tribunal determines that it is in the public interest to accept the complaint, and no substantial prejudice would result to any person because of the delay.
[25] There is no dispute that Mr. Rana seeks to add the Health Authority as a respondent well beyond the one-year time limit set out in s. 22 of the Code. The complaint arises from an alleged incident that occurred on August 23, 2022. Therefore, to be timely, any complaint against the Health Authority would have had to be filed by no later than August 23, 2023. Mr. Rana filed his application to add the Health Authority on January 19, 2026. As a result, the complaint against the Health Authority is late filed by more than two years and four months.
[26] Next, I consider whether it is in the public interest to add the Health Authority to the complaint after the time limit.
C. Public Interest
[27] When considering whether it is in the public interest to accept a late-filed complaint, the Tribunal considers a non-exhaustive list of factors, including the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, and the public interest in the complaint itself: British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite, 2014 BCCA 220 [Mzite] at para. 53.
[28] In considering the length of the delay, the starting point is that the purpose of the time limit is to ensure that complainants pursue their human rights remedies with some diligence, and that it is in the public interest for them to identify appropriate respondents to a complaint within the time limit: Buchanan v. Providence Health Care and others, 2023 BCHRT 50 at para. 33. This is so respondents can take remedial steps if appropriate, and to protect respondents from having to address dated complaints: School District v. Parent obo the Child, 2018 BCCA 136 at para. 79; Kamloops (City) v. Spina, 2021 BCSC 723 at para. 80.
[29] The Health Authority argues that granting the application would not be in the public interest given the significant delay, absence of any explanation for that delay, and evidence that suggests Mr. Rana was aware of the potential parties as early as April 2023.
[30] In support of its position, the Health Authority argues that:
a. Mr. Rana knew about the Health Authority’s involvement in the alleged contravention at the time he filed the complaint. The Health Authority relies on Mr. Rana’s April 2023 email to the Office. That email was sent four months before the complaint was filed in August 2023, and states that it concerns “one of your employees at UBC hospital.”
b. Mr. Rana would have known about the Health Authority’s potential involvement when he received UBC’s response to the complaint on June 25, 2025. UBC’s response states that despite being situated on the UBC campus, the UBC Hospital is operated by the Health Authority, and the Health Authority is responsible for providing clinical services to the public at the Hospital, including MRI services for patients as ordered by their health providers.
[31] In his reply, Mr. Rana argues that it is in the public interest to grant his application based on the way he was treated and the impact it had on him. Mr. Rana also relies on case law that sets out the principles surrounding reasons for delay; however, he does not provide any reasons for his delay in bringing the application. He also does not address the Health Authority’s arguments that he ought to have been aware of the Health Authority’s involvement sooner based on his emails to the Office and UBC’s response to the complaint.
[32] I begin with the length and reasons for the delay.
[33] The application is late-filed by more than two years which is excessive and militates against the public interest: Naziel-Wilson v. Providence Health Care and another, 2014 BCHRT 170 [Naziel-Wilson] at para. 13; and British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite, 2014 BCCA 22 at para. 59.
[34] In the application, Mr. Rana does not say when he became aware that the Hospital is operated the Health Authority or provide any explanation for the timing of the application. His reply submission also does not address the delay in bringing the application, despite the Health Authority’s response that places delay squarely in issue. As set out above, the Health Authority’s response argues that the delay is significant, Mr. Rana has not provided any explanation, and he would have known about the Health Authority’s involvement when he filed the complaint and when he received UBC’s response.
[35] In his reply, Mr. Rana asks the Tribunal to consider the following cases that reflect the principle that the reasons for delay are relevant but not determinative in deciding whether it is in the public interest to accept a late-filed complaint: Fontaine v. Ainsworth Lumber, 2005 BCHRT 56 at para. 19, Goddard v. Dixon, 2012 BCSC 161 at para. 152, and British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite, 2013 at para. 51. Mr. Rana also refers to Naziel-Wilson where the Tribunal concluded that it was in the public interest to accept a complaint that was filed 13 months late because the delay was due to a disabling condition, and Arroyo v. Association of Professional Engineers, 2010 BCHRT 241 where the Tribunal held that it may be reasonable for a complainant to exhaust internal processes before taking the step of filing a complaint. Mr. Rana does not say if or how these cases relate to his circumstances, and it is not readily apparent to me.
[36] I acknowledge that Mr. Rana is self-represented in the Tribunal’s process. I also accept that it may not always be apparent to a complainant, especially a self-represented complainant, who the appropriate respondents are to a complaint, and that he may need some time to perfect his complaint. Having said that, the difficulty I have is that even Mr. Rana’s reply submission does not provide any information or explanation relevant to this part of the analysis beyond repeating his allegation of poor treatment by Dr. Sabiq and the alleged negative impacts that flowed. As set out earlier, he cites certain legal principles about the reasons for delay but does not offer any reasons to support the application of those principles in this case. In these circumstances, I am unable to conclude that Mr. Rana has provided reasons that weigh in favour of the public interest in granting the late-filed application.
[37] Next, I consider the public interest in the complaint itself and whether substantial prejudice will result to any party.
[38] Mr. Rana relies on Naziel-Wilson to argue that the issues in this complaint are serious and novel, which militates in favour of the public interest. As I understand it, he argues specifically that the public interest is engaged because the allegations involve a health authority that provides services to the public. He also appears to argue that it is in the public interest to grant the application in circumstances where he previously contacted the Health Authority and they did not help him to obtain the name of the MRI technician.
[39] The Health Authority’s argument focuses on substantial prejudice. It asserts that the complaint will have to be defended based on witness testimony and credibility, and given the significant passage of time, it and its staff will incur substantial prejudice due to witness memories fading.
[40] I begin with Mr. Rana’s arguments about the public interest in the complaint itself. I am not persuaded that it is sufficient to outweigh the significance of the delay. The complaint involves a single isolated incident; while the alleged comment undoubtedly invokes a racial stereotype, it is not egregious or virulent; and unfortunately, the Tribunal routinely hears and decides cases related to alleged discrimination in the provision of health care services.
[41] For all these reasons, I do not find it is in the public interest to allow the late application. I dismiss the application to add the Health Authority to the complaint.
[42] I also considered the Health Authority’s argument that it would face substantial prejudice if added to the complaint now. Mr. Rana argues that the Health Authority has not provided the necessary information and evidence to support this claim and therefore the Tribunal cannot infer substantial prejudice.
[43] I begin by acknowledging that hearing fairness may be compromised where delay impacts a party’s ability to answer the complaint against them, such as when memories have faded, essential witnesses are unavailable, or evidence has been lost: Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44 (CanLII), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307at paras. 122 and 132; Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29at para. 41; Chow v. Save-On-Foods, 2024 BCHRT 95 at para. 33.
[44] At the same time, I acknowledge Mr. Rana’s argument that the Health Authority has not provided specific evidence to support its position. For example, it is not clear whether it has attempted to contact witnesses, or how it has specifically been impeded in its ability to gather evidence, particularly given Mr. Rana’s earlier contact with the Office.
[45] Based on the materials before me, I am unable to find that the Health Authority will face substantial prejudice in the event it was added at this time.
[46] In summary, when I consider all the relevant factors for adding a respondent after the time limit, I am not persuaded that this is a case where the Tribunal ought to accept the late allegations under s. 22(3) and Rule 25(2). In short, the delay is more than two years, and the complaint does not engage issues of significant public interest to justify overlooking the unexplained and lengthy delay.
[47] In reaching my conclusion on the application to add the Health Authority, I also considered whether Mr. Rana could face substantial prejudice if the Health Authority is not added to the complaint. Unfortunately, Mr. Rana did not make any arguments about substantial prejudice faced by him beyond stating that the Health Authority has not yet responded to his concerns about the technician’s conduct.
[48] Although he did not argue it, I considered whether not adding the Health Authority could result in substantial prejudice to Mr. Rana. I am not satisfied, on the materials before me, that it would. Though he cannot pursue a complaint against the Health Authority, Mr. Rana still has his complaint against UBC and Dr. Sabiq. While it appears that Mr. Rana agrees that UBC is not the correct respondent, Dr. Sabiq remains. Regarding UBC, to resolve that issue, Mr. Rana can withdraw his complaint as against UBC, or UBC may seek permission from the Tribunal later in the process to file a dismissal application on this basis. Regarding Dr. Sabiq, it is not apparent that she has received notice of the complaint yet.
[49] Although Mr. Rana did not specifically seek an order that the Health Authority provide an address for delivery for where Dr. Sabiq can be served with the complaint, it is apparent that he tried to obtain this information directly from the Health Authority. I find that it is appropriate in all of the circumstances of this case to make such an order on my own motion. My order related to this issue appears at the end of this decision.
IV Conclusion
[50] I deny the application to add Vancouver Coastal Health Authority as a respondent.
[51] I deny the application for an order for disclosure of the identity and contact information for a non-party.
[52] I order Vancouver Coastal Health Authority to provide Mr. Rana with an address for delivery where the Tribunal can serve the complaint on Dr. Sabiq. The Health Authority must do so within 14 days of this decision.
Kathleen Smith
Tribunal Member