The independence of a decision maker does not depend on whether every party agrees with the outcome. In Millman v BC Ministry of Finance, the BC Human Rights Tribunal refused to remove its adjudicator from further proceedings and declined to reopen earlier decisions about disclosure, the scope of a workplace complaint and publication of the complainant's name.
Patricia Millman had brought a discrimination complaint relating to her former employment at the Civil Resolution Tribunal and the provincial public service. A tribunal member had issued rulings concerning procedural applications and refused a request to anonymise the proceeding. Millman subsequently asked for corrections, reconsideration and a different member to decide her renewed applications. She argued that the reasons misstated aspects of her position and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The tribunal explained that the member responsible for an original decision will ordinarily consider reconsideration requests. A party alleging bias must satisfy the objective test involving an informed person who has examined the circumstances realistically. An unfavourable decision, or several such decisions, is not a sufficient basis for displacing the presumption of impartiality. It would not have been appropriate to transfer the applications on the record presented.
Finality supplied another independent answer. Administrative tribunals cannot ordinarily reopen issues simply because a party wishes to reargue submissions or wants the written reasons to describe the evidence differently. The adjudicator is not required to address every argument verbatim. Millman had not established procedural unfairness or an exceptional ground for reconsideration. The original disclosure and publication rulings remained in place.
The underlying discrimination allegations were not decided in this procedural judgment. For Binder Governance, the decision illustrates the practical importance of transparent reasons, impartial procedure and institutional finality. A public adjudicative body must allow genuine objections to fairness, but must also prevent reconsideration processes from indefinitely repeating a completed decision.
The full reasons were reviewed, particularly the impartiality and reconsideration analysis in paragraphs 4 to 42.