Madden v. BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Fraser Regional Correctional Centre and Surrey Pretrial Services Centre) and another (No.3), 2026 BCHRT 207
Date Issued: October 2, 2026
File: CS-008019
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:
Connor Madden
COMPLAINANT
AND:
His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia ARB the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Fraser Regional Correctional Centre and Surrey Pretrial Services Centre) and Provincial Health Services Authority
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER A DECISION
RULE 36
Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi
On their own behalf: Connor Madden
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Connor Madden filed a complaint alleging that the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) and His Majesty the King in right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Fraser Regional Correctional Centre and Surrey Pretrial Services Centre) discriminated against him in the area of services, based on physical disability, contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.
[2] The Respondents each applied to dismiss the complaint. In an earlier decision, Madden v. BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Fraser Regional Correctional Centre and Surrey Pretrial Services Centre) and another (No.2), 2026 BCHRT 196 [the Original Decision], I granted the applications and dismissed the complaint against each respondent under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code concluding that there was no reasonable prospect the complaint would succeed at a hearing.
[3] Mr. Madden has now filed an application to reconsider the Original Decision under Rule 36 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.
[4] I have not found it necessary to seeks submissions from the Respondents.
[5] For the following reasons, I deny the reconsideration application.
II BACKGROUND
[6] The background to Mr. Madden’s decision is set out in the Original Decision and I will not repeat it here: Madden at paras. 5-13. Briefly, Mr. Madden was incarcerated at correction centres where his use of a cane was restricted by the Ministry. Mr. Madden alleges the reasons for this restriction was discriminatory and without a bona fide reasonable justification. Mr. Madden also alleged that the PHSA denied him a service by failing to advocate on his behalf for the use of his cane.
[7] The issues before me in the Original Decision was whether there was no reasonable prospect Mr. Madden’s complaint will succeed because the Ministry was reasonably certain to establish a bona fide and reasonable justification for removing Mr. Madden’s cane, and the PHSA would establish that advocating for incarcerated people is not a service they customarily provide. I was satisfied, based on the whole of the evidence, that there was not and I dismissed the complaint.
III ANALYSIS DECISION
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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. The Tribunal will not reconsider a decision when a party simply disagrees with the outcome.
[11] Mr. Madden says the Original Decision was unfair because I misunderstood his submissions and should have accepted his argument that the Ministry had no basis to restrict the use of his cane. Mr. Madden submits that I should have found that the Ministry’s placement of restrictions on the use of his cane was unjustified and the Respondents should have done more to accommodate him. As in the original application, Mr. Madden does not provide a conflicting version of events but says that I ought to have interpreted the evidence to find in his favour.
[12] Mr. Madden’s arguments do not present circumstances where fairness and justice require intervention in the Original Decision. I understand the central point of Mr. Madden’s submission is that he disagrees with the Original Decision and believes that I should have found in his favour. While I appreciate that Mr. Madden disagrees with the outcome of the Original Decision, this is not a basis for reconsideration.
[13] 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. In my Original Decision at paras. 21 to 29, I considered the parties’ evidence and submissions about the reasons the Ministry restricted Mr. Madden’s use of a cane and the accommodations he was offered. It would not be appropriate to engage in the same exercise of considering the arguments and evidence a second time. The law is clear that reconsideration is not an opportunity to “reargue matters that were argued in the first instance in an attempt to achieve a different result”: Ramadan at para. 13.
[14] For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the interests of fairness and justice require the Tribunal to reconsider the Original Decision. The application for reconsideration is therefore denied.
IV CONCLUSION
[15] I deny the application for reconsideration.
Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member