The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has refused the University of British Columbia’s request for $3,000 in costs against a complainant who referred to a confidential mediation in a communication with a medical regulator. The tribunal nevertheless found the reference improper and issued a warning.

In Hildebrand v. University of British Columbia, 2026 BCHRT 211, issued October 8, tribunal member Laila Said distinguished information that already existed outside settlement discussions from information obtained through mediation. The ruling leaves Dennis Hildebrand’s underlying disability discrimination complaint unresolved.

A request for costs, not a decision on discrimination

Hildebrand’s complaint concerns his exclusion from the university and its conditions for considering his return. UBC denies discrimination. The dispute over costs arose after tribunal-assisted mediation, when Hildebrand contacted the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for help obtaining a completed, signed medical assessment report.

UBC argued that his reference to the mediation breached settlement privilege and the tribunal’s mediation policy. It also said he had misrepresented its position. Hildebrand maintained that the information concerned a requirement the university had communicated independently of the mediation.

The tribunal’s power under section 37(4) of the Human Rights Code permits costs against a party for improper conduct during a complaint. Such awards are punitive and seek to deter conduct that significantly harms the integrity of the tribunal’s process. Improper conduct need not be intentional.

Pre-existing information and mediation confidentiality

Said was not persuaded that UBC had established a breach of settlement privilege on the materials before the tribunal. A completed assessment had been a prerequisite to considering Hildebrand’s return well before the mediation. The impugned communication concerned his effort to obtain that report, rather than information UBC had confidentially supplied for settlement.

The tribunal also distinguished earlier cases in which parties used statements from settlement meetings in their formal complaint responses. Here, it found no clear benefit from the mediation reference, no demonstrated use of the information against UBC, and no indication that the disclosure impaired the university’s ability to participate in the case. The issue concerned a procedural requirement rather than the substance of settlement negotiations.

That did not make the reference appropriate. Said found it unnecessary for Hildebrand to mention the mediation when seeking the regulator’s assistance and concluded that he appeared to be trying to influence the regulator to act. The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that confidentiality depended on whether the mediation produced a settlement. It applies even when no agreement is reached.

A warning considered sufficient

UBC argued that a costs order would deter further improper conduct and protect the prospects of settlement. Said found no serious or significant prejudice to UBC in the circumstances and considered that a costs award at this early stage could inflame the dispute.

The tribunal also took into account that Hildebrand was self-represented, that the incident appeared to be isolated and that there was no indication earlier warnings or other measures had failed. It regarded a warning as proportionate and sufficient.

The costs application was denied. The tribunal emphasized that it takes mediation confidentiality seriously and would not tolerate disclosure of information obtained through mediation. UBC remains free to seek costs if further improper conduct occurs. The decision does not authorize parties to disclose settlement discussions or determine the merits of the discrimination complaint.

Source: British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.