Addressing Timeliness Issue Raised by Respondent
The Respondent, Fraser Health Authority, disputes the timeliness of our Amendment filed earlier this month. We seek permission for an additional submission to counter the Respondent's argument, citing fairness and an alleged misinterpretation of Rule 24.
PROCEDURAL UPDATE
Dr. Eleni Patsa
11/30/20231 min read
We have now filed a further submission on my Class Complaint to the BC Human Rights Tribunal, in direct response to a procedural challenge raised by the Fraser Health Authority regarding the timing of our complaint amendment. More specifically:
The application outlines a sequence of events, starting with Fraser Health's request for more details (further particulars) about my complaint. This request was followed by our response and an amendment to our complaint. Fraser Health then questioned the timeliness of this amendment, prompting us to apply for permission to make a further submission addressing this new issue of timing.
Our application is grounded in Tribunal Rule 28, which allows for further submissions when new issues arise in reply submissions. The crux of our further submission argues against Fraser Health's interpretation of the timing rules, advocating that the Tribunal's longstanding practice considers the date of the initial complaint filing as the relevant marker for timeliness, not the amendment date.
We argued that the Tribunal's historical stance and procedural guidelines support our position that the amendment's allegations are timely, as they pertain to the same period covered in the original complaint. This interpretation aligns with established Tribunal precedents and ensures that the substance of our complaint is fully considered without being prematurely dismissed on procedural grounds.