R.R. v. Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society, 2025 BCCA 151: The Court upheld substantial compensation for CLAS’s client – an Afro-Indigenous mother – who experienced discrimination when the government removed her children.

British Columbia (Ministry of Children and Family Development) v. K.S., 2025 BCSC 1445: CLAS represented an Indigenous mother and successfully fought the government’s attempt to block her human rights complaint as out of time.

Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Noël, 2023 BCSC 2408: The Court confirmed that our client’s employer could not use the documents she had to disclose as part of her human rights complaint to subsequently discipline her.

Golden Eagle Blueberry Farm v. Gatica, 2022 BCSC 304: CLAS worked with Dignidad Migrante Society to represent a group of temporary foreign workers alleging discrimination in their employment and working conditions. The court rejected the employer’s attempt to prevent the workers from joining together to have their complaints heard as a group.

Byelkova v. Fraser Health Authority, 2022 BCCA 205: The Court rejected ongoing efforts by our client’s employer to dismiss her human rights complaint without a hearing. The Court found that the employer’s challenge had become moot because the Human Rights Tribunal had already allowed the complaint to move forward.

Byelkova v. Fraser Health Authority, 2021 BCSC 1312: The Court found that the Human Rights Tribunal had unreasonably dismissed our client’s workplace sexual harassment complaint.  This decision confirms that employers cannot avoid legitimate complaints by raising unrelated performance issues.

Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 3: CLAS intervened along with several other community legal clinics to argue that administrative tribunals offer a more accessible venue than the courts for marginalized individuals to assert their human rights.

Ismail v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2013 BCSC 1079: The Court confirmed that the degrading, homophobic attacks to which our clients were subjected at a restaurant could not be justified as artistic freedom by the performing comedian.

Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61: CLAS successfully represented a father in his fight to have his son with dyslexia receive an equal education. This leading Supreme Court of Canada case affirms every child’s right to an education. See our factum here. Read more about the case here.

Friedmann v. MacGarvie, 2012 BCCA 445: The Court confirmed that sexual harassment in tenancy is prohibited by the Human Rights Code.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45: CLAS intervened to advocate for a modernized approach to public interest standing, particularly in cases involving marginalized groups who face barriers accessing justice. Read more about the case here.

Lavender Co-Operative Housing Association v. Ford, 2011 BCCA 114: CLAS represented the complainant in this appeal arguing that a co-op’s rule restricting membership to one member of a family unit discriminated on the basis of marital status. See our factum here.

British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52: CLAS represented three workers who alleged that WorkSafeBC’s Chronic Pain Policy was discriminatory. The workers challenged the Chronic Pain Policy in the WorkSafeBC system and at the Human Rights Tribunal. This decision sets a framework for how the Human Rights Tribunal should approach complaints when more than one decisionmaker has the power to address the alleged discrimination.

Armstrong v. British Columbia (Ministry of Health), 2010 BCCA 56: CLAS intervened in this case, which clarifies the proper test and approach for assessing prima facie discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

Kinexus Bioinformatics Corporation v. Asad, 2010 BCSC 33: CLAS successfully represented a Muslim complainant who had been the subject of discriminatory racial profiling in the aftermath of 9-11.

Langtry Industries Ltd. v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2009 BCSC 1091: CLAS successfully represented a family from Nicaragua who had been discriminated against in their workplace.

British Columbia v. Bolster, 2007 BCCA 65: The Court confirmed that the government is not immune from liability and was required to pay our client compensation for assessing his driver’s licence application in a discriminatory way.

Fahlman, by his guardian ad litem Fiona Gow v. Community Living British Columbia et al, 2007 BCCA 15: This decision confirms that services for people with developmental disabilities cannot be withheld based on arbitrary IQ thresholds.

School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) v. Jubran, 2005 BCCA 201: CLAS represented a student subjected to homophobic bullying even though he did not identify as being gay. The Court confirmed that the protections in the Human Rights Code apply regardless of whether our client identified as being gay and regardless of whether the harassers subjectively believed he was gay.

HMTQ v. Hutchinson et al, 2004 BCSC 1536: Family members often become the primary caregiver for a loved one with disabilities. This decision confirms that the government cannot withhold funding for supports and services simply because the individual’s primary caregiver is a relative.

Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307: CLAS represented the BC Human Rights Coalition as an intervener in this decision concerning delays in the adjudication of human rights complaints.

British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 SCR 868: This seminal Supreme Court of Canada decision confirmed that people with disabilities should be assessed and accommodated based on their individual abilities and not stereotypes and false assumptions about the disabling condition. Read more about the case here.

 Leung v. Kung, 2025 BCSC 2340: The Court confirmed that before upholding an eviction by a landlord trying to repossess the property for their own use, the RTB must address a tenant’s evidence showing the landlord has an ulterior motive for the eviction.

 McNeil v. Elizabeth Fry Society of Greater Vancouver, 2024 BCCA 2: Tenants are left with little security or protection when their landlord claims to operate “transitional housing” exempt from the usual tenancy laws. This decision examined the parameters of the exemption. Although our client’s appeal was ultimately unsuccessful, the Court’s reasons led the RTB to create clearer policy guidance on the definition of “temporary accommodation”.

Smart v. 336688 Holdings Ltd., 2023 BCSC 1271: The Court confirmed that the RTB must properly interpret the terms of a tenancy agreement before allowing a landlord to evict a tenant for allegedly breaching it.

Shaikh v. Brar, 2023 BCSC 1285: A settlement must be a free and voluntary agreement between the parties. The Court set aside a purported settlement agreement reached at an RTB eviction hearing after finding that the arbitrator had inappropriately pressured the tenant into accepting it.

Nikkel v. Atira Women’s Resource Society, 2023 BCSC 2331: Landlords cannot play gotcha by giving a tenant an extension to pay rent and then turning around to evict the tenant for not paying rent on time. The Court confirmed that it was unreasonable and unfair to allow the landlord to evict the tenant when the unpaid rent had been resolved between the parties well prior to the eviction.

Senft v. Society For Christian Care of the Elderly, 2022 BCSC 744: Evictions should be a last resort. This decision confirmed that the RTB must consider the protective purposes of the Residential Tenancy Act and the tenant’s efforts to rectify the situation after receiving the eviction notice before upholding an eviction.

Oleman v. Laura Jamieson Housing Co-Operative, 2022 BCSC 483: The Court set aside the co-op’s decision to terminate our client’s membership on finding that she did not have notice or an opportunity to be heard because she was in hospital.

 Ryan v. Mole Hill Community Housing Society, 2022 BCCA 200: The Court of Appeal confirmed that subsidized housing providers must abide by the terms of the tenancy agreements they sign. The RTB must properly interpret the tenancy agreement to ensure that landlords are not trying to raise the rent in violation of its terms.

Russell v. Craigflower Housing Cooperative, 2021 BCCA 330: CLAS successfully represented a co-op member in this appeal of her membership termination, which confirms the court’s broad discretion to consider whether a membership termination was reasonably supported by the facts.

Q-14 Holdings Ltd. v. Cowern, 2021 BCSC 2637: Landlords cannot serve repeat eviction notices after a tenant successfully disputes the first one.  Our client successfully disputed their landlord’s attempt to evict them for renovations. The court upheld the RTB’s decision to dismiss the landlord’s second eviction notice on the basis that the issues had already been dealt with in the tenant’s successful challenge to the first notice.

McDonald v. Creekside Campgrounds and RV Park, 2020 BCSC 2095: Some tenants living in mobile homes are pushed out by landlords alleging that the tenants are just campers, even when the tenants have lived on the property for years. The court confirmed that the RTB had unreasonably and unfairly determined that our clients were just seasonal campers, without considering the appropriate factors for determining if a tenancy exists.

LaBrie v. Liu, 2021 BCSC 2486: The Court quashed an RTB decision evicting our client for a $1 discrepancy in an e-transfer she sent to pay rent. This decision confirms that the RTB must investigate the circumstances surrounding an alleged shortfall before concluding that rent is unpaid.

Marshall v. Pohl, 2019 BCSC 406: This decision confirms that the RTB has an obligation to adequately explain why an eviction is being upheld.

Aarti Investments Ltd. v. Baumann, 2019 BCCA 165: The Court of Appeal confirmed that landlords have the obligation to prove they have all necessary permits and intend in good faith to renovate the unit before evicting a tenant. The RTB had unreasonably reversed the burden onto our client and evicted her when the landlord’s permits were still uncertain.

M.B.B. v. Affordable Housing Charitable Association, 2018 BCSC 2418: The Court set aside an RTB decision evicting our client. The court confirmed that the RTB must ensure the statutory requirements for ending a tenancy are met, even if the tenant is unable to attend the hearing.

PHS Community Services Society v. Swait, 2018 BCSC 824: This decision confirms that landlords cannot create policies that unreasonably restrict a tenant’s right to have guests in their home.

Fernandez v. Sakr, 2012 BCSC 1024: The Court set aside a monetary order made against our client because the RTB failed to ensure that the hearing met the most basic requirements of procedural fairness.

Barosso v. Frazer Plaza Ltd., 2011 BCSC 1448: CLAS successfully helped a group of tenants challenge an inappropriate rent increase.

Clements v. Gordon Nelson Investments Inc., 2010 BCSC 31: CLAS helped a group of tenants overturn an RTB decision granting the landlord an extraordinary rent increase.

Doughty v. Whitworth Holdings Ltd., 2008 BCSC 801: CLAS represented a group of tenants facing illegal rent increases, successfully arguing that the RTB had failed to properly apply the criteria set out in the Residential Tenancy Act.

Mochizuki v. Whitworth Holdings Ltd, 2008 BCSC 802: CLAS successfully represented a group of tenants facing illegal rent increases. This case confirms that the RTB has a duty to give adequate reasons for its decisions.

Ross v. British Columbia (Residential Tenancy Act, Dispute Resolution Officer), 2008 BCSC 1862: The Court set aside an RTB decision because the arbitrator had not adhered to principles of procedural fairness.

Berry and Kloet v. British Columbia (Residential Tenancy Act, Arbitrator), 2007 BCSC 257: This case confirms that the Residential Tenancy Act exists to protect tenants’ housing security. Tenants should only be evicted for renovations when ending the tenancy is truly necessary to accomplish the work. Read more about the case here.

Pickering v. Workers’ Compensation Board, 2025 BCSC 376: WorkSafeBC claims for mental disorder can be denied if the worker’s mental disorder is caused by a decision of the worker’s employer. The Court held that an unbounded exclusion for all employer decisions violated the Charter and must be read down to include only decisions made in good faith related to generic workplace processes.

Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16: CLAS intervened to argue that oppressive terms in a standard form agreement drafted by a powerful company should not be enforceable.

 Colwill v. Workers’ Compensation Board, 2019 BCCA 453: The Court rejected WorkSafeBC’s attempts to preclude judicial review of its policies.  However, the Court ultimately found that the WorkSafeBC’s policy for determining which workers are totally disabled was reasonable.

Denton v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 2017 BCCA 403: CLAS intervened to argue that workers should not lose their ability to assert Charter rights just because they do not understand how to navigate WorkSafeBC’s complicated review and appeal system. After this decision, the government changed the law to make it easier for workers to raise Charter issues in the WorkSafeBC system.

Goik v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 2017 BCSC 1756: The Court set aside a Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal decision denying our client compensation for a double lung transplant after he developed silicosis from exposure to silica dust in the workplace.

Chmielewski v. Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 2017 BCSC 1756: This decision confirms the important statutory presumption that any accident occurring in the course of a worker’s employment is covered by the workers’ compensation system.

British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal) v. Fraser Health Authority, 2016 SCC 25: CLAS intervened to argue that the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal should have the power to reconsider its own decisions to avoid forcing workers into a more complicated and expensive judicial review process.

Marchant v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 2014 BCSC 1194: CLAS successfully represented a worker who was denied compensation for arthritis in his knees. WorkSafeBC had decided there was no evidence that kneeling for long periods of time could cause arthritis despite evidence from the worker’s doctors to the contrary.

Jozipovic v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2012 BCCA 174: The government cannot insulate WorkSafeBC policy from review by creating a maze-like review procedure that has no realistic end point. The court also confirmed that the WorkSafeBC policy at issue was unlawful because a worker could be denied permanent disability benefits based on factors divorced from the worker’s actual lost earnings. Read more about the case here.

Squires v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2011 BCSC 556: The Court held that it was procedurally unfair to deny the worker’s adjournment request and to proceed without an oral hearing when factors beyond the worker’s control prevented him from attending.

Lepretre v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FCA 30: The Court confirmed that it was unreasonable to deny our client EI for drinking on his personal time given that the Canada Employment Insurance Commission had unreasonably concluded the employer had a “zero tolerance policy”.

Gill v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FCA 182: The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that the Canada Employment Insurance Commission must exercise discretion when deciding whether to penalize a worker by issuing a notice of violation that increases the number of hours a worker will need to qualify for future EI claims. This is important for precarious workers who make smaller but more frequent EI claims.

Gillis v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 FC 504: CLAS successfully represented this veteran in challenging the assessment of his pension by the Veterans Review and Appeals Board.

Hudson v. British Columbia (Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal), 2009 BCSC 1461: This decision clarifies the criteria to be applied when assessing whether a person qualifies for PWD benefits and the Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal’s obligation to provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

 Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39: CLAS represented the Council of Canadians with Disabilities as an intervenor, arguing that human rights protections are an implied term of every employment contract.

Harley v. Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal, 2006 BCSC 1420: The Court set aside the Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal’s decision denying our client income assistance because the panel did not adequately explain the basis for the decision.

Kovach v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2000 SCC 3: CLAS represented a coalition of injured workers’ groups, arguing that workers must receive compensation for additional disability caused by negligent medical treatment following a workplace injury.

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities, 2022 SCC 27 (“Deemed Consent”): CLAS and pro-bono counsel from McCarthy Tétrault represent the Council of Canadians with Disabilities in a Charter challenge to BC’s laws that strip all involuntary psychiatric patients of medical consent rights for psychiatric care, regardless of their individual circumstances or capacity. This decision confirmed CCD’s public interest standing to advance these important issues. Read more about the Deemed Consent case here.

A.A. v. Lions Gate Hospital (Director), 2024 BCSC 464: CLAS represented A.A. in this application to end her certification under the Mental Health Act. Although CLAS was unsuccessful, the case helped to define “treatment” under the Mental Health Act and to clarify that expediting police involvement does not justify detention.

K.A. v. Mental Health Review Board, 2022 BCSC 1830: The Court held that the Mental Health Review Board must independently assess the evidence and cannot just adopt opinions from doctors at the detaining facility unquestioningly.

A.H. v. Fraser Health Authority, 2019 BCSC 227: CLAS represented a woman who was wrongfully detained in mental health wards and facilities for nearly a year. The Court found that the detention was not authorized by the Adult Guardianship Act and issued five declarations that her Charter rights were violated during her detention. Read more about the case here.

R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22: CLAS intervened to argue that the Criminal Code Review Board had jurisdiction to apply the Charter.

Evers v. British Columbia (Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services), 2009 BCCA 560: The Court confirmed that it was unfair to proceed with a hearing in the absence of our client and wrong to detain her when she did not pose a threat to public safety.

Mazzei v. British Columbia (Director of Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services), 2006 SCC 7: CLAS intervened to support this appeal, in which the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the Criminal Code Review Board can make orders to ensure the accused has access to culturally appropriate treatment and rehabilitation.