Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review dismissed as premature because the Tribunal’s decisions were interlocutory, not final.

• The Court applied the prematurity principle, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify early intervention.

• Claims of procedural unfairness and bias lacked evidentiary support and were deemed weak.

• Tribunal’s rejection of proposed complaint amendments and additional disclosure requests was upheld.

• Petitioner’s use of fictitious legal authorities and procedural missteps factored into the cost ruling.

• Whole Foods awarded increased legal costs due to the petitioner’s conduct and misuse of court resources.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background of the dispute

Faranak Moradi filed a human rights complaint against her former employer, Whole Foods Market, with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in January 2020. The complaint alleged discrimination in employment based on mental and physical disability, race, sex, and sexual orientation. Moradi’s employment had been terminated during her probationary period, allegedly for failing an evaluation.

The Tribunal initially allowed the complaint to proceed only on the grounds of mental disability, physical disability, and race, rejecting the claims related to sex and sexual orientation. Moradi later attempted to amend her complaint to include new allegations and sought further document disclosure. The Tribunal dismissed these applications, ruling that the proposed amendments were untimely and introduced distinct new allegations. It also dismissed Moradi’s disclosure application, finding her requests speculative and unsupported. Meanwhile, the Tribunal granted Whole Foods’ request for disclosure of Moradi’s medical records, relying on her written consent.

Judicial review and procedural developments

Moradi filed for judicial review of several interlocutory Tribunal decisions, including the denial of her amendment and disclosure applications. The amended petition for judicial review was filed on July 15, 2024. Procedural complications ensued, including a hearing adjournment, service issues, and the submission of a false list of legal authorities generated by ChatGPT. These issues significantly affected how the Court assessed the petitioner’s conduct throughout the proceedings.

The judicial review was heard on May 14–15, 2025, with written submissions continuing afterward due to the petitioner’s illness. Justice Underhill of the BCSC issued the final judgment on July 18, 2025.

Legal analysis and findings

The Court applied the prematurity principle, concluding that the Tribunal’s decisions were interlocutory and not suitable for judicial review at this stage. According to precedent, interlocutory decisions from administrative bodies should not be reviewed unless exceptional circumstances exist. Moradi argued that her case presented final prejudice, but the Court found her claims lacked legal merit and evidentiary weight.

The Court reviewed the Tribunal’s reasoning for rejecting her amendments and disclosure requests, finding no procedural unfairness or error in discretion. It ruled that the Tribunal had reasonably concluded the amendments were untimely and the requested documents were speculative or irrelevant. The petitioner’s bias allegations were also dismissed as unsupported and based solely on adverse rulings.

Costs and consequences

Whole Foods Market was awarded increased legal costs—1.5 times the usual scale under Appendix B of the Supreme Court Civil Rules—for work related to responding to the petitioner’s amendments and procedural applications. The Court noted several examples of improper conduct, including the use of fictitious case law and misuse of court time. Special costs were considered but not awarded due to the petitioner’s improved conduct during the hearing before Justice Underhill. The Tribunal, in accordance with standard practice, was not awarded costs.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition in its entirety as premature, reinforcing the principle that judicial reviews of interlocutory administrative decisions should be deferred until the underlying process is complete.