Date Issued: July 26, 2024

File: CS-005499

Indexed as: Taggart v. WorkSafeBC, 2024 BCHRT 217

2024 BCHRT 217 (CanLII)

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:

Christopher Taggart

COMPLAINANT

AND:

WorkSafeBC

RESPONDENT

REASONS FOR DECISION

APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(f)

Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi

On their own behalf Christopher Taggart

Counsel for the Respondent: Meghann Bruneau

I INTRODUCTION

Mr. Taggart alleges that WorkSafeBC discriminated against them based on mental
disability by denying them benefits and treatment after they developed mental health

2024 BCHRT 217 (CanLII)

conditions at work. Specifically, Mr. Taggart alleges that when they applied for WorkSafeBC
benefits in December 2021, they were denied benefits and WorkSafeBC ignored their claim
because it presumed their claim was fraudulent.

WorkSafeBC denies discriminating. It says it properly adjudicated Mr. Taggart’s claim for
benefits by assessing the initial claim and subsequently reviewing its decision. WorkSafeBC says
that in August 2022, it accepted Mr. Taggart’s claim and paid them wage loss and treatment
benefits.

WorkSafeBC applies to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(a), (b), and (f) of the Human
Rights Code. I find it most efficient to deal with this application under s. 27(1)(f) on the basis
that the substance of the complaint has already been dealt with in another proceeding. I
understand the substance of Mr. Taggart’s complaint to be that WorkSafeBC did not process
their claim for benefits. I have therefore considered whether another proceeding has resolved
the substance of the complaint by processing Mr. Taggart’s WorkSafeBC claim.

For the following reasons, I am persuaded that another proceeding has appropriately
dealt with Mr. Taggart’s WorkSafeBC claim, and therefore I dismiss the complaint under s.
27(1)(f). To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In
these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.

II BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the parties’ materials.

WorkSafeBC is a public body that reviews workplace injury claims and provides
compensation for employees who are injured at work pursuant to the Workers Compensation
Act [the Act].

1
 On August 17, 2021, Mr. Taggart made a claim to WorkSafeBC saying they were disabled
from working as a result of a mental health condition caused by workplace bullying,
harassment, and stress.

2024 BCHRT 217 (CanLII)

On September 29, 2021, WorkSafeBC denied Mr. Taggart’s claim. It issued written
reasons for the decision and informed Mr. Taggart they could request a review of the decision
to deny their claim through the Review Division of WorkSafeBC.

On October 14, 2021, Mr. Taggart requested a review of the decision to deny their
claim. On November 2, 2021, Mr. Taggart’s workers’ adviser also sent a request for a review.

On November 8, 2021, while the WorkSafeBC claim was being reviewed, Mr. Taggart
filed their human rights complaint. They alleged they were denied benefits and treatment by
WorkSafeBC, and they faced “extraordinary obstacles” to receiving benefits.

On December 17, 2021, the Review Division of WorkSafeBC completed its review of the
decision to deny Mr. Taggart’s claim. It decided that the claim should be referred back for
further investigation and adjudication.

On May 17, 2022, WorkSafeBC completed its further investigation and issued its
decision. WorkSafeBC again denied Mr. Taggart’s claim for benefits.

On June 20, 2022, Mr. Taggart, through their workers’ adviser, requested the Review
Division of WorkSafeBC review the May 17, 2022, decision on an expedited basis.

On August 16, 2022, the Review Division of WorkSafeBC decided that Mr. Taggart’s
claim would be accepted and reversed the May 17, 2022, decision.

On October 24, 2022, WorkSafeBC sent Mr. Taggart a letter stating their claim was
accepted and they were paid wage loss and health care benefits.

Mr. Taggart denies that their claim was processed by WorkSafeBC. They say there has
been no remedy from WorkSafeBC and it has failed to respond to their communications. They

2
agree that the Review Division reversed the May 17, 2022, decision but say they have not
received a response or update about their claim from WorkSafeBC.

III DECISION

2024 BCHRT 217 (CanLII)

It is arguable that Mr. Taggart is asking the Tribunal to step into the shoes of
WorkSafeBC and decide their claim under the Act. Mr. Taggart says WorkSafeBC has no
oversight or regulation, and the Tribunal is the only avenue to resolve their claim. This is not the
role of the Tribunal. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decision of other
administrative bodies, absent discrimination: Standeven v. WorkSafe BC, 2007 BCHRT 150 at
para. 16. Nothing in this decision should suggest otherwise.

Section 27(1)(f) of the Code allows the Tribunal to dismiss a complaint if the substance
of the complaint has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding: British Columbia
(Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52 [Figliola] at para. 37.

The principles underlying s. 27(1)(f) flow from the doctrines of issue estoppel, collateral
attack and abuse of process, and include finality, fairness, and protecting the integrity of the
administration of justice by preventing unnecessary inconsistency, multiplicity, and
delay: Figliola at paras. 25 and 36.

To decide whether the substance of a complaint has been appropriately dealt with in
another proceeding, the Tribunal asks itself (1) whether there was concurrent jurisdiction in the
other proceeding to decide human rights issues under the Code, (2) whether the legal issue
decided in that proceeding was essentially the same as what is being complained of to the
Tribunal, and (3) whether there was an opportunity in that proceeding for the complainant to
know and argue the case they had to meet, regardless of whether the previous process
mirrored the Tribunal’s: Figliola at para. 37. In my view, each of the factors favours dismissing
the complaint.

First, it is not disputed that WorkSafeBC has concurrent jurisdiction to decide human
rights issues under the Code.

3
 Second, based on the materials before me I understand the substance of Mr. Taggart’s
complaint is that they were denied their claim for benefits by WorkSafeBC. They say they faced
extraordinary obstacles in the form of arguments made by WorkSafeBC denying their claim. The
remedy sought in each proceeding is the same: to receive wage loss and health benefits. Setting

2024 BCHRT 217 (CanLII)

aside the fact, that it is not at all clear the Tribunal could order health benefits or wage loss
against the Respondent, in my view whether Mr. Taggart had a mental disorder that entitled
them to benefits, is essentially the same as the issue that was before WorkSafeBC in its
decisions of September 29, 2021, December 17, 2021, May 16, 2022, and August 16, 2022.

Third, Mr. Taggart was represented by a workers’ adviser from November 2, 2021,
onwards. The evidence before me is that Mr. Taggart was given a full opportunity to make
submissions and submit evidence in support of their claim. Mr. Taggart was assisted by their
adviser for their review applications. I am satisfied Mr. Taggart had an opportunity in the
WorkSafeBC proceeding to know and argue their case.

Finally, WorkSafeBC argues that the substance of the complaint has been appropriately
dealt with because Mr. Taggart was approved in the review decision of August 16, 2022. It says
as of February 17, 2023, when the dismissal application was filed, Mr. Taggart has received
$10,985.02 in benefits for both wage loss and healthcare costs. WorkSafeBC provided
documentary evidence showing the amounts issued to Mr. Taggart for their claim.

Mr. Taggart disagrees with WorkSafeBC and says it has fabricated “a supposed remedy
that never actually occurred without evidence to support it.” Mr. Taggart says, “to this day,
[they are] still waiting on a response or update or anything regarding my claim file.”

I am persuaded that the substance of the complaint has been appropriately dealt with in
the WorkSafeBC proceeding. I am satisfied that the issue before the Review Division of
WorkSafeBC was essentially the same as the one before me - whether Mr. Taggart’s claim for
benefits and treatment for a workplace injury should be accepted by WorkSafeBC. The remedy
sought by Mr. Taggart, to have their claim accepted and benefits provided, is the same in each
proceeding. While Mr. Taggart submits that they have not received any response or benefits

4
from WorkSafeBC, the documentary materials do not support this assertion. The evidence
before me is that Mr. Taggart already obtained the remedy they are seeking from the Tribunal
from the WorkSafeBC review process. Their claim was accepted, and WorkSafeBC has provided
benefits to them.

2024 BCHRT 217 (CanLII)

I find that the present complaint amounts to relitigating the same dispute that has been
resolved through the WorkSafeBC process. Therefore, I allow WorkSafeBC’s application and
dismiss the complaint.

Further and in any event, I agree with WorkSafeBC that Mr. Taggart has not alleged facts
which contravene the Code. It is not enough for a complainant to say they have a disability, and
they experienced an adverse impact. They must allege facts capable of proving that their
protected characteristics were a factor in the adverse impact: Ingram v. Workers’
Compensation Board and others, 2003 BCHRT 57 at para. 20. To establish an inferred
connection at a hearing, Mr. Taggart would have to point to some evidence that would support
a reasonable inference that there was a connection between their protected characteristic and
the adverse impact. Mr. Taggart has not done so.

The materials before me do not support a nexus between WorkSafeBC’s denial of Mr.
Taggart’s claim and Mr. Taggart’s mental disability. There are no facts alleged from which it
could be inferred that the denial was in any way due to their protected ground.

IV CONCLUSION

I allow the application under s. 27(1)(f) and dismiss the complaint.

Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal