Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Mr. Girard sought judicial review of a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal decision that denied him a costs order against Clace Holdings Ltd.
   
• Prematurity emerged as the threshold issue, since the Tribunal's underlying human rights complaint process had not yet concluded.
   
• Exceptional circumstances must be established before a court will intervene in an incomplete tribunal process, per Chu v. British Columbia (Police Complaint Commissioner).
   
• Relevant factors for assessing exceptional circumstances include hardship, waste of resources, delay, fragmentation of proceedings, strength of the case, and statutory context.
   
• Discretionary tribunal decisions may only be set aside if patently unreasonable under section 59 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
   
• Underlying the costs dispute was Mr. Girard's allegation that Clace fabricated a letter concerning its mask policy at the time of the alleged discrimination.
   

Facts of the case

Martin Girard filed a human rights complaint against Clace Holdings Ltd. on April 8, 2022, alleging that Clace discriminated against him on January 17 and 18, 2022, by refusing to exempt him from mask-wearing requirements and denying him service at its grocery store because he was not wearing a mask, which he attributed to a disability. Clace filed its complaint response in December 2023. On March 13, 2025, Clace applied to dismiss Mr. Girard's complaint without a hearing. Four days later, Mr. Girard applied for a costs order against Clace under section 37(4)(b) of the Human Rights Code, alleging that Clace had fabricated a letter about its mask policy and shared it as evidence in support of its dismissal application. Clace responded to the costs application on March 27, 2025, and Mr. Girard replied on April 18, 2025, the same day he filed a separate application seeking document disclosure from Clace. On July 16, 2025, the Tribunal dismissed the costs application, allowed the disclosure application in part, and granted Mr. Girard leave to amend his response to the dismissal application. Mr. Girard applied for reconsideration of the costs decision on July 28, 2025, which the Tribunal denied on August 27, 2025. As of the judicial review, the dismissal application remained outstanding and the Tribunal's process was still ongoing.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The costs application relied on section 37(4)(b) of the Human Rights Code, which permits the Tribunal to award costs against a party found to have engaged in improper conduct during a complaint. In assessing whether to intervene before the Tribunal's process concluded, the Court applied section 59(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which provides that a discretionary decision must not be set aside unless it is patently unreasonable, and section 59(4), which defines a patently unreasonable exercise of discretion as one that is arbitrary or made in bad faith, made for an improper purpose, based entirely or predominately on irrelevant factors, or made without regard to statutory requirements.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice LeBlanc held that Mr. Girard bore the burden of establishing exceptional circumstances justifying judicial intervention before the Tribunal's process concluded, and found he had not addressed that threshold issue in his submissions, relying instead on his own view of the strength of his case and his position that delay would change nothing. The Court nonetheless considered the relevant factors. On the strength of the case, the judge noted the costs decision was discretionary and that Mr. Girard had not identified an obvious error meeting the patently unreasonable standard; the Tribunal Member had found the letter was not submitted by Clace, was not relied upon in its dismissal application, and was not shown to be fraudulent or plagiarized. On hardship, the judge agreed with the Tribunal that the costs decision did not prevent Mr. Girard from opposing the dismissal application or pursuing his complaint on its merits, and did not bar him from seeking costs later under section 37(4) based on new information. On fragmentation and delay, the Court reasoned that interim costs decisions should generally only be reviewed once the Tribunal's process is complete and the full record is available, citing Golden Eagle Blueberry Farm v. Gatica for the concern that early review could encourage parties to use judicial review to delay administrative proceedings.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice LeBlanc concluded that Mr. Girard had failed to establish any exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention before the Tribunal completed its process, and dismissed the petition in its entirety as premature. Clace Holdings Ltd. was the successful party. No costs award or monetary amount was ordered in the decision; the judgment addressed only the prematurity of the judicial review and did not determine or award costs to either party.