Case Commentary

Tribunal refused to reopen employee's disclosure and publication rulings

A former public employee sought reconsideration of publication and document disclosure decisions. The tribunal rejected the requests, emphasizing the narrow grounds for reopening decisions.

Employment discrimination disputes sometimes generate a second set of conflicts over the litigation itself. Parties disagree about disclosure, confidentiality, publication of names and the accuracy of a tribunal's written decisions. Those questions can be important, but there is a limit to how often an adjudicator will revisit a decision already made.

In Millman v. BC Ministry of Finance (BC Public Service Agency) and another (No. 2), 2026 BCHRT 185, former public service employee Patricia Millman asked the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal to reconsider an earlier decision about disclosure and whether her name should be published. She also challenged a response denying proposed corrections to earlier rulings and asked that another member decide the reconsideration applications.

The tribunal refused. It emphasized that the authority to correct slips or reconsider a ruling isn't a general opportunity to recast the substance of a decision simply because a party disagrees with its reasoning. The principle of finality matters to the ability of adjudicators to proceed fairly and efficiently. The circumstances didn't meet the narrow grounds for reopening the rulings.

There was also an outstanding issue about claims of privilege over documents. The tribunal allowed Millman a further two weeks to challenge those particular claims. That procedural direction didn't overturn its conclusion about reconsideration.

The decision didn't determine whether her former employer had discriminated against her. It dealt with how the complaint was being managed. Its relevance for employers and workers is that disclosure and publication disputes should be addressed with focused evidence and clear legal grounds at the appropriate procedural stage. Attempts to use correction mechanisms to relitigate the original outcome can consume time without advancing the underlying case.

Source: British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Millman v. BC Ministry of Finance, 2026 BCHRT 185, https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions/recent/2026-bchrt-185/

Was this useful?

Keep the value working

Have Binder keep watching this for you.

Follow the issue, see what changes next and keep related Canadian developments attached to the same business context.

0Related developments
0Related cases
0Premium tools

Read the source ↗