have a significant effect on the processing and eventual hearing of
complaints, and can exact significant costs, financial and otherwise, on
both other parties and the Tribunal. Under the Code, the Tribunal has very
limited tools at its disposal in order to control parties' conduct; findings of
improper conduct, and the resulting possibility of costs, are the main tool
available.
… For example, where a party contravenes a rule or an order, such
conduct may, under the express terms of s. 37(4)(b), constitute improper
conduct. While a party's intention in doing so may be relevant, no specific
intention is necessary for the breach of a rule or order to be improper.
More generally, while conduct which is the result of intentional
wrongdoing may certainly be "improper", in my view, improper conduct is
not necessarily limited to intentional wrongdoing. Any conduct which has
a significant impact on the integrity of the Tribunal's processes, including
conduct which has a significant prejudicial impact on another party, may
constitute improper conduct within the meaning of s. 37(4).
[985] At para. 10 of McLean, the Tribunal stated:
This is not a case where the finding of improper conduct rests on the
breach of a Tribunal rule or order, or on any finding of intentional
wrongdoing. Rather, the finding was based upon the impact which the
respondent’s conduct had on the integrity of the Tribunal’s processes, and
the significant prejudicial impact of its actions on the complainant.
[986] Some examples of improper conduct relevant to this case are set out in the
following:
• Offering untruthful evidence: Bains v. Metro College Inc. and Galk (No. 2), 2004
BCHRT 7; Jiwany and Jiwany v. West Vancouver Municipal Transit, 2005
BCHRT 172; Ferguson v. Kimpton (No. 2), 2006 BCHRT 467; and Stone v. B.C.
(Ministry of Health) (No. 8), 2008 BHCRT 96.
• Failure to abide by the Tribunal’s Rules, orders or directions, including those
pertaining to disclosure: Ghinis v. Crown Packaging Ltd., 2003 BCHRT 12 and
2002 BCHRT 38; Mahal v. Hartley (No. 2), 2004 BCHRT 63; Matthews v.
Huckleberry Mines and Curtis and Wakabayashi, 2006 BCHRT 93; Stone, supra;
Jacobs v. Dynamic Equipment Rentals Ltd. and Stewart (No. 2), 2005 BCHRT
353; Neuls v. Ann Davis Transition Society and Jacob (No. 2), 2007 BCHRT 5;
and Hitch v. Mount Layton Hot Springs Resort (No. 2), 2007 BCHRT 78.
C.
Kinexus’ Improper Conduct
[987] In the matter before me, Kinexus, through the actions of its management who
have represented the company throughout the proceedings, has engaged in improper
221