Turns out, Heather M. MacNaughton is the tribunal chair for the Maclean’s case. We thought it would be Barbara Humphreys, as she’s done most of the heavy lifting for the BCHRT in 2008. Judy Parrack is another of their designated hitters, sitting in on several cases this year. Obviously, though, this case requires the big guns, as MacNaughton is the Chair-with-a-big-C of the entire BCHRT.
Still, MacNaughton has done some trenches work in ’08. Here’s her statement from one of her cases dated March 19, 2008. It should give a good idea of how the BCHRT system works: you’re guilty until you prove your innocence.
Gallagher v Edna Laughy, Cindy Williams, Aggressive K-9 Services and Action Guard Dog Services
 The sole basis for the respondents’ application is:
“There was no age discrimination in Aggressive K-9 Services not hiring the Complainant. He was simply not a suitable candidate for the job. A decision in this case will not effect anyone else as anyone hired is judged on merit not age, sex or any other factors.”
 As the Tribunal has repeatedly said, to be successful in an application under s. 27(1)(c), a respondent must do more than just dispute that discrimination occurred. They must put before the Tribunal sufficient information for a member to determine that there is no reasonable prospect of the complaint succeeding. No such information accompanied this application and, based on the disputed versions of events, I cannot determine that there is no reasonable prospect that this complaint will succeed.
 Furthermore, if Mr. Gallagher is able to prove his allegations, and establish that age was a factor in the decision making with respect to him, this complaint will benefit him and will further the purposes of the Code.
 As a result, I deny the respondents’ application to dismiss the complaint.
— Heather M. MacNaughton, Tribunal Chair