The Chair of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) has announced changes to the Tribunal’s dismissal application process under section 27(1) of the Human Rights Code, effective May 1, 2026. The changes mark the next phase in the Tribunal’s ongoing efforts to address mounting delays, growing caseloads, and resource pressures. The announcement follows a multi-year review of the Tribunal’s “Case Path Pilot,” first introduced in May 2022. The pilot fundamentally altered how dismissal applications were handled, moving away from the Tribunal’s former approach where respondents could automatically file dismissal applications within a prescribed timeline after disclosure.
What is Section 27(1) of the Human Rights Code?
Section 27(1) serves an important gatekeeping role within the human rights process. It allows the Tribunal to dismiss all or part of a complaint without a hearing, including where there the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success, where proceeding with the complaint would not further the purposes of the Code or was filed out of time.
What was the Old Rule?
Under the former Rule 19 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, dismissal applications were a “stage” in the complaint process, and respondents could automatically elect to file a dismissal application by a deadline following their response to the complaint and their disclosure obligations. According to the Tribunal, this process led to the Tribunal dedicating disproportionate resources to deciding (often meritless) applications and was not a timely or efficient resolution of complaints.
In May 2022, the Tribunal launched the Case Path Pilot and paused the ability for respondents to apply for dismissal. Instead, the Case Path Pilot became a separate review stage following completion of the parties’ document disclosure obligations.
Under the Case Path Pilot, after the parties complete their document disclosure, the Tribunal reviews the complaint and response(s), including any amendments, to determine the “path” the complaint will follow, either: (1) directly to a hearing; or (2) to submissions under s. 27(1) based on specific grounds identified by the Tribunal.
If a case is assigned to the hearing path and the respondent believes that a dismissal application is better for the fair and timely resolution of the complaint, or if the respondent wants to apply to dismiss on a different ground under s. 27(1), they can only request to file a dismissal application (by filing a Form 7.5 – Request to File Dismissal Application) within 14 days of learning of new information or circumstances that form the basis of the dismissal application. In practice this process for seeking ‘leave’ to file an application added more delay, and rarely resulted in a more efficient resolution.
What Is Changing?
The Tribunal is changing the procedure for dismissal applications under s. 27(1) by amending Rule 19 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The most significant procedural change is the revised use of the Form 7.5. Rather than waiting for authorization to file or automatically proceeding with a dismissal application, respondents will now file a Form 7.5 and provide information explaining the proposed basis for the dismissal application before the Tribunal determines whether an application will be allowed and submissions scheduled.
Under the new process, effective May 1, 2026:
(a) when the Tribunal notifies the parties of their disclosure deadlines, it will also set a deadline for the respondent(s) to file a Form 7.5;
(b) a respondent who wishes to file a dismissal application must file a Form 7.5 within the deadline set by the Tribunal; and
(c) the Tribunal will then assess whether a complaint should proceed down the “submissions path” based on the complaint and the response, including any amendments, and the Form 7.5.
Complainants will not, at least for now, have an opportunity to respond to a respondent’s request to file a dismissal application.
In essence, all complaints will now proceed directly to a hearing unless a respondent elects to file a Form 7.5 by the deadline set by the Tribunal and the Tribunal grants that request.
The Tribunal has emphasized that case path assignment decisions are intended to improve efficiency and parties should expect only brief explanations for those decisions. The Case Path Pilot will still apply to all complaints where the Tribunal has already notified the parties before May 1, 2026, of their disclosure obligations and set deadlines for next steps in the complaint process. According to the Tribunal, the Case Path Pilot will be withdrawn once the Tribunal has finished setting to the case path those complaints to which it applies.
For any complaints where disclosure deadlines and next steps have not been set before May 1, 2026, the new process will apply.
Why the Changes Matter
According to the Tribunal, dismissal applications were more successful under the Case Path Pilot than under the former Rule 19 process. The new framework appears aimed at maintaining the case path pilot model of limiting dismissal applications to those with stronger preliminary merit with the added assistance of a respondent’s initial submissions as to why summary determination under s.27 of the Code is appropriate before determining if an application will be allowed.
For respondents, this means that dismissal applications may become more strategic and targeted. The revised Form 7.5 requires greater detail about the respondent’s proposed dismissal application which adds to the initial time and expense of defending complaints, although may lower costs where complaints are dismissed through this process.
For complainants, the changes will likely result in concerns about the lack of opportunity to respond to a respondent’s Form 7.5 before a case path decision is made on whether to allow a dismissal application to be filed.
Looking Ahead
The Tribunal also signalled that broader procedural reform may be on the horizon. In particular, the Tribunal Chair noted ongoing interest in a potential “summary hearing” process that could allow certain complaints to be decided without a full oral hearing. While no formal process has yet been introduced, parties remain able to request alternative processes or timelines in dealing with a complaint under Rule 17, where such a request would further the just and timely resolution of the complaint.
Ultimately, the new amendment reflects the Tribunal’s attempt to strike an appropriate balance between procedural fairness and the practical realities of an overburdened system. For parties involved in human rights complaints, the message is clear: efficiency and early case assessment are becoming increasingly central to the Tribunal’s approach. Respondents will want to be poised to take advantage of this focus in seeking summary dismissal of meritless complaints.
Please contact Allison Bruschetta or a member of our Labour & Employment team if you have any questions regarding the BC Human Rights Tribunal’s recent changes to the dismissal application process.
Subscribe to RSS Feed