Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whole Foods Market terminated Faranak Moradi after 70 days of employment, prompting a prohibited action complaint under s. 48 of the Workers Compensation Act alleging retaliation for reporting health and safety concerns.

• WCAT upheld the WCB's finding that the termination was performance-based, not retaliatory, and the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed Ms. Moradi's judicial review petition on June 6, 2025.

• Procedural fairness arguments centered on claims that WCAT and the reviewing court relied on an incomplete and internally inconsistent evidentiary record, which the Supreme Court rejected on judicial review.

• The Court of Appeal found Ms. Moradi's appeal carried little prospect of success, noting she had not identified a clear error of law or misapprehension of the record in the lower court's conclusions.

• Security for costs in the amount of $7,500 was ordered despite Ms. Moradi's claimed impecuniosity, with the appeal stayed until security is posted.

• An extension of time was granted for the respondent to file its factum, while Ms. Moradi's application for a stay of costs from the court below was dismissed as unnecessary.

Background and employment dispute

In 2019, Whole Foods Market terminated the employment of Faranak Moradi after she had worked for approximately 70 days. Ms. Moradi responded by filing a prohibited action complaint, alleging that her dismissal was unlawful retaliation for reporting health and safety issues in the workplace, contrary to s. 48 of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.B.C. 2019, c. 1. A Workers' Compensation Board officer determined on December 4, 2020, that Whole Foods did not take prohibited action. That finding was subsequently upheld by the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT), which acknowledged that Ms. Moradi had made out a prima facie case for a prohibited action but concluded that the employer proved the termination was due to performance issues rather than retaliation for health and safety reporting.

WCAT proceedings and evidentiary record

During the WCAT proceedings, Ms. Moradi received multiple opportunities to submit documentary evidence, both solicited and unsolicited. She personally participated in the hearing, and additional hearing time was provided to ensure the parties could complete their evidence and submissions. Notably, after the hearing, WCAT received additional evidence and submissions from Ms. Moradi that it had not agreed to accept in advance. The tribunal nonetheless took that material into account, acknowledging that Ms. Moradi had physical and/or mental health concerns that may have made it difficult for her to provide evidence within the regular timeframes. Ultimately, on review of the evidence as a whole, WCAT agreed with the investigations legal officer that the employer's termination decision was "in no way tainted by" Ms. Moradi's reporting of occupational health and safety concerns.

Judicial review in the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Ms. Moradi sought judicial review of the WCAT decision, challenging it on five main grounds. She alleged the tribunal erred by: unfairly denying her request to call certain witnesses; refusing to consider CCTV footage, employment contracts, and her comparative workload; failing to properly assess the authenticity and reliability of performance reviews and other evidence adduced by the respondent; failing to properly assess her claims of workplace retaliation and harassment; and demonstrating bias or unreasonably failing to address her claims. The Supreme Court judge applied a standard of patent unreasonableness for substantive errors and a standard of fairness for procedural complaints. On June 6, 2025, the judge dismissed the petition, concluding that none of the substantive grounds met the standard of patent unreasonableness and that the alleged procedural grounds revealed no unfairness. The judge also declined to admit fresh evidence Ms. Moradi sought to adduce, finding it did not justify departing from the general rule that judicial review is conducted on the tribunal record alone.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Ms. Moradi filed a notice of appeal on July 7, 2025, and was granted a no fees order on August 12, 2025. The appeal gave rise to three interlocutory applications heard in chambers by Madam Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten: Whole Foods' application for security for costs of the appeal, Whole Foods' request for an extension of time to file its factum, and Ms. Moradi's application for a stay of the costs order from the Supreme Court proceeding. The hearing, originally set for October 21, 2025, was adjourned multiple times — first because an interpreter was unavailable, and later due to Ms. Moradi's medical emergency — before ultimately proceeding on February 20 and 24, 2026.

Positions of the parties on security for costs

Whole Foods argued that Ms. Moradi had the financial means to post security, pointing to previous payments for disbursements and transcripts. It also contended that her grounds of appeal were weak and that the Supreme Court judge had correctly applied the relevant standards of review. Additionally, Whole Foods raised concerns about the risk of duplicative proceedings, noting a potential reconsideration application before WCAT. Ms. Moradi opposed the security order, arguing it would likely prevent substantive appellate review of her claims and constituted an improper use of the security for costs regime. She deposed in an affidavit to medical disability, unemployment, and financial circumstances, stating she was unable to meet basic living expenses, including essential medical treatment costs, housing expenses, and other fundamental living necessities. She owns no property other than a leased vehicle for which she is in debt.

The court's analysis and assessment of the appeal's merits

Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten reviewed the Supreme Court reasons and the application materials extensively. She found that the lower court judge had properly instructed herself on the legal principles, carefully considered both substantive and procedural issues raised by Ms. Moradi, and reached principled conclusions. The court observed that in challenging the Supreme Court ruling, Ms. Moradi was largely raising the same arguments she had raised on judicial review, disagreeing with the judge's conclusions without identifying a clear error of law, error in principle, abjectly flawed reasoning process, or misapprehension of the record. The court also noted that Ms. Moradi appeared to allege that the respondent, the legal investigations officer, WCAT, and possibly other adjudicators had intentionally removed or altered relevant documents — a serious and, on its face, unsubstantiated allegation. The court concluded that Ms. Moradi's appeal carried little prospect of success and that even considering her impecuniosity, security for costs could be ordered where an appeal is "virtually without merit," since a successful party should not be required to respond to an unmeritorious appeal when there is no real prospect of cost recovery.

Ruling and outcome

Madam Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten ordered Ms. Moradi to post security for costs of the appeal in the amount of $7,500 — reduced from Whole Foods' requested amount of $11,048.40 — within 30 days, with the appeal stayed until such security is posted. Should Ms. Moradi fail to post security, Whole Foods has liberty to apply to have the appeal dismissed as abandoned. The respondent's request for an extension of time to file its factum was granted, with the deadline set at 30 days past the posting of security. The alternative application to stay the appeal pending possible WCAT reconsideration was found unnecessary, as no reconsideration application had been filed and granting a stay on that basis would be speculative. Finally, Ms. Moradi's application for a stay of the Supreme Court costs order was dismissed as unnecessary, given Whole Foods' written commitment not to enforce the costs order while the appeal remains outstanding. The overall outcome favoured Whole Foods Market, the successful respondent, with security for costs set at $7,500.