Factual Estoppel
Should the WC tribunal make findings of fact, the question of factual estoppel will arise. This is independent of the human rights statute and will rest on common law doctrine.
This was the finding made by the B.C. HRT in 2025 finding that the same factual allegations had been contested in the WC proceeding and hence were binding on the HRT. 1
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in 2003 upheld the decision made by the Human Rights Tribunal to apply the findings of fact made in the prior civil trial. 2
The employee had alleged that he had been terminated from his employment due to a heart attack. He had stopped work due to this issue on March 1, had surgery on April 19 and was terminated on May 13. He sued for wrongful dismissal and claimed in this proceeding that his termination was unfair due to allegation that his termination was due to his medical disability, in support of a claim for aggravated and/or punitive damages.
At trial, the employer had shown that the termination decision was made, although not yet communicated to the plaintiff, in February, well in advance of the medical disability.
This finding of fact was accepted based on the principle of factual estoppel, which in turn, led to the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint on a preliminary motion, as such facts showed the medical issue was of no influence upon the dismissal decision. The appeal made by the Commission to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.
This issue was reviewed by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in a 2026 decision. 3
The complainant had put forward allegations of adverse treatment due to mental disability and sex and family status. The employer’s motion to dismiss the mental disability allegation was successful for reasons unrelated to the prior workers’ compensation claim.
The Appeals Tribunal in the workers compensation case concluded that the applicant had been terminated due, in part, to her decision to raise health and safety concerns, but also determined that the employer would have terminated her employment, in any event, due to performance issues.
The human rights tribunal agreed that it was bound by the findings of fact made in the first hearing. 4 In this case, however, the Tribunal continued to state that the liability issue in the human rights case remained open to be determined by a full hearing.
This was so as the Tribunal allowed the complainant to prove the assertion that the termination decision may have been influenced by her inability to arrange for childcare or due to the employer’s demands that she work when no childcare was available.
Further, the complainant had alleged that she was warned not to take maternity leave, and such would result in her termination. This issue was not before the Appeals Tribunal.
Neither the fundamental argument of mandating the review of the WCAT decision nor case splitting was raised.
Essentially, although not stated, the Tribunal concluded that the same substantive issue had not been decided.