Kho v. Clinic B and another (No.2), 2026 BCHRT 60
Date Issued: March 12, 2026
File(s): CS-006273
Indexed as: Kho v. Clinic B and another (No.2), 2026 BCHRT 60
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:
Boi (Rebecca) Kho
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Clinic B and Dr. B
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER A DECISION
RULE 36
Tribunal Member: Laila Said
On their own behalf: Boi (Rebecca) Kho
Counsel for the Respondents: Neal Parker
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Boi “Rebecca” Kho filed a complaint of discrimination in services: s. 8 of the Human Rights Code. I dismissed the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code: Kho v. Clinic B and another, 2026 BCHRT 13 [the Dismissal Decision]. Ms. Kho now applies to have the Tribunal reconsider the Dismissal Decision. I have not found it necessary to seek submissions from the Respondents.
[2] For the following reasons, I deny Ms. Kho’s application for reconsideration.
II BACKGROUND
[3] The background to Ms. Kho’s complaint is set out in the Dismissal Decision at paragraphs 6 to 17, and I will not repeat it here. At a high level, the Dismissal Decision considers whether the complaint should be dismissed without a hearing because the Respondents are reasonably certain to prove that Ms. Kho was offered, and refused, reasonable accommodations.
III Analysis and DECISION
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] In her application, Ms. Kho repeats arguments raised and decided in the dismissal application. She submits that my acceptance of the Respondents’ evidence demonstrates that I did not adequately consider her submissions. She also disputes the weighing of the evidence and identifies what she says are deficiencies in an affidavit filed by the Respondents.
[8] Ms. Kho further asserts that there was a power imbalance between the parties. She says her “limited English proficiency” affected her ability to make convincing arguments, and she contrasts her self‑represented status with the Respondents’ legal representation.
[9] I find that none of Ms. Kho’s arguments present circumstances where fairness and justice require intervention in the Dismissal Decision. Reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue the decision. Ms. Kho had full opportunity to submit material during the dismissal process. The evidence before me on the application to dismiss is what I based my decision on, and it would be procedurally unfair and undermine the process to allow Ms. Kho to reargue the dismissal application at this stage. Further, the materials before the Tribunal show that Ms. Kho communicates in English at an excellent level, and there was no indication in the record that any imbalance between the parties affected her ability to present her position. Finally, granting the application would undermine the finality of the Tribunal’s process. In all the circumstances, Ms. Kho has not persuaded me that it would be in the interests of fairness or justice to reconsider the Dismissal Decision.
IV Conclusion
[10] The application to reconsider the Dismissal Decision is denied.
Laila Said
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal