Chin v. British Columbia Ferry Services Inc., (No.2), 2025 BCHRT 170
Date Issued: July 17, 2025
File: CS-001887
Indexed as: Chin v. British Columbia Ferry Services Inc., (No.2), 2025 BCHRT 170
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Roger Chin
COMPLAINANT
AND:
British Columbia Ferry Services Inc.
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(d)(ii)
Tribunal Member: Devyn Cousineau
On his own behalf: Roger Chin
Counsel for the Respondent: Shelley-Mae Mitchell
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This is a decision about whether to dismiss Mr. Chin’s complaint because proceeding with it would not further the purposes of the Human Rights Code in light of systemic changes and a reasonable offer to settle made by the Respondent.
[2] The background to this complaint was set out in an earlier decision: Chin v. British Columbia Ferry Services Inc., 2024 BCHRT 168 [Dismissal Decision]. In brief, Mr. Chin has disabilities that he says prevent him from waiting for extended periods to board a ferry. On August 18, 2019, he went to the ferry terminal to take the ferry between Vancouver Island and Vancouver. There was a two-sailing wait. Mr. Chin requested assured loading due to his medical condition. He presented a 2016 doctor’s note and a form indicating he had a specialist appointment on August 20. BC Ferries denied him assured loading because he did not have a letter indicating he had been approved by BC Ferries for “Medical Assured Loading” [MAL]. Mr. Chin subsequently applied for MAL, but BC Ferries determined that he did not qualify because his travel was not for critical care or emergency medical services. In his human rights complaint, Mr. Chin alleges that BC Ferries’ refusal to grant him assured loading on August 18, and its denial of his request for MAL, was discrimination based on his disabilities, in violation of s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.
[3] In the Dismissal Decision, I set out some of the changes that BC Ferries had made to its process for managing medically assured loading for people with disabilities since the events giving rise to Mr. Chin’s complaint, including a new policy framework. I accepted that the new policy framework appeared to address the systemic concerns that Mr. Chin raises in his complaint: para. 55. However, I declined to dismiss the complaint based on these changes because the new policy framework did not address the personal remedy that Mr. Chin is seeking in this complaint: para. 56.
[4] BC Ferries has now offered to settle Mr. Chin’s complaint with a payment of $15,000. It argues that this is a reasonable offer and, combined with the systemic changes it has implemented, fully resolves the issues raised in Mr. Chin’s complaint. It asks the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint without a hearing because proceeding would not further the purposes of the Code: s. 27(1)(d)(ii).
[5] Mr. Chin argues that the issues underlying his complaint have not been resolved. He argues that the systemic changes that BC Ferries have implemented do not guarantee that he will have personalized accommodation whenever he is traveling on the ferry, no matter the purpose. He asks that the complaint proceed to a hearing, where the Tribunal can make findings of discrimination and further systemic orders.
[6] I appreciate Mr. Chin’s intentions. He is a strong advocate on behalf of people with disabilities. However, for the following reasons, I am satisfied that the public and private purposes of the Code have been fully addressed by changes to BC Ferries’ policies and its offer to settle the complaint with Mr. Chin. In this circumstance, it does not further the Code’s purposes for the parties and Tribunal to incur the time and expense of a hearing. The complaint is dismissed.
II Decision
[7] Section 27(1)(d)(ii) grants the Tribunal discretion to dismiss a complaint where it would not further the Code’s purposes to proceed. These purposes include both private and public interests: s. 3. Deciding whether a complaint furthers those purposes is not only about the interests in the individual complaint. It may also be about broad public policy issues, like the efficiency and responsiveness of the human rights system, and the expense and time involved in a hearing: Dar Santos v. University of British Columbia, 2003 BCHRT 73, at para. 59; Tillis v. Pacific Western Brewing and Komatsu, 2005 BCHRT 433 at para. 15; Gichuru v. Pallai (No. 2), 2010 BCHRT 125, at paras. 113-118.
[8] Generally, where a complaint has been appropriately resolved, proceeding with the complaint would not further the purposes of the Code because the discrimination has already been remedied: Williamson v. Mount Seymour Park Housing Co-operative and others, 2005 BCHRT 334 at para. 13. The Tribunal’s ability to fulfill the purposes of the Code is harmed when its resources are taken up with complaints that have already been adequately addressed, whether through settlement, unilateral respondent action, or other proceedings: Williamson at para. 13.
[9] The burden is on BC Ferries in this application. It argues that public and private purposes of the Code have been fully addressed by:
a. Changes to the options available to people with disabilities, since the events giving rise to Mr. Chin’s complaint; and
b. An offer to settle the complaint with a personal remedy for Mr. Chin.
[10] I consider each in turn.
A. Has the public interest in the complaint been addressed?
[11] My analysis of whether Mr. Chin’s complaint has been remedied must be grounded in the allegations set out in the complaint. This is important because, in his response to this application, Mr. Chin has raised several other concerns about BC Ferries’ services for people with disabilities, which are outside the scope of his complaint and outside the scope of what the Tribunal would consider at a hearing.
[12] The issue raised in Mr. Chin’s complaint is his disability-related need for assured loading to travel to a medical appointment on August 18, 2019, and his subsequent application for MAL.
[13] At the time of the events giving rise to Mr. Chin’s complaint, BC Ferries had several initiatives to support access for passengers with disabilities, including:
a. The Travel Assistance Program [TAP]: subsidized or free transportation for eligible people who must travel within the province for non-emergency medical specialist services not available in their own community.
b. Accessible Fare Identification card: 50% fare discount for passengers and their escorts.
c. Medical Assured Loading [MAL]: priority boarding on the ferry for eligible people who are travelling to a critical or emergency medical appointment or traveling due to a life-threatening illness, who would experience undue or extreme discomfort and difficulty waiting extended periods in the ferry line. To qualify for MAL, the person’s doctor was required to complete a form setting out the specific date(s) of the critical or emergency medical appointment. BC Ferries would then issue a MAL Letter to be presented at the ferry.
[14] In July 2020, under the provincial state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General issued the BC Ferries Medical Travel (Covid‑19) Order [Order]. The Order required BC Ferries to provide assured loading to any person who arrives at the ferry at least 30 minutes before departure, who is traveling to or from medical treatment, and who presents two documents: (1) a letter signed and dated by a medical practitioner stating that the person requires priority loading, and (2) a completed TAP form. This effectively expanded medically assured loading to those people, like Mr. Chin, who were traveling for medical reasons and who could not endure an extended wait at the ferry terminal, for health reasons. The Order remained in force until December 31, 2022, but BC Ferries has continued to implement it since then, formally adopting it as policy in April 2023.
[15] Under BC Ferries’ current policies, there are two ways that a person can access assured loading for medical-related travel, at no cost:
a. On all reservable routes, TAP users travelling to or from medical appointments can book a free reservation.
b. On routes that are not 100% reservable, BC Ferries will provide medically assured loading to TAP users who:
i. are travelling to a medical appointment;
ii. arrive at the ferry terminal at least 30 minutes before the scheduled departure time; and
iii. present a completed TAP Form and an unexpired letter from their medical practitioner stating that they require medically assured loading because an extended wait at the ferry terminal could cause risk to their health.
[16] In Mr. Chin’s response to BC Ferries’ first dismissal application, he said that priority boarding “like under the [Order]” was “the form of Accommodation that I required” on August 18, 2019. In the current application, he takes a different position. Mr. Chin argues that the new MAL policy does not address his complaint because it is a “one size fits all” solution and does not address BC Ferries’ duty to accommodate all passengers, no matter the purpose of their travel. He takes issue with the focus on getting people to their medical appointments, rather than accommodating their disability-related needs. He asks the Tribunal to order that BC Ferries provide no charge priority boarding “upon presentation of a letter requesting such requirement from my doctor, for any ferry travel, under TAP travel or not”. He says this was what was “done under the Ministerial Order during Covid”.
[17] As I said in my previous decision, I am satisfied that the changes to BC Ferries’ policies have addressed the substantive barrier that Mr. Chin says he faced on August 18 and in his subsequent application for MAL. It ensures MAL for people with disabilities who are not traveling for critical care or emergency medical services, and who cannot wait for extended periods in a ferry lineup for health reasons. Expanded options for free reservations address Mr. Chin’s concern about the added cost of making reservations to avoid extended waiting times.
[18] Contrary to Mr. Chin’s argument, the Order did not ensure priority boarding for any travel. It said:
2 (1) British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. must implement all procedures necessary to ensure that an individual who arrives at a terminal at least 30 minutes before a ferry is scheduled to sail is loaded on the ferry, along with any vehicle in or on which the individual arrives and any other individual travelling in or on that vehicle, if the individual
(a) is travelling to or from medical treatment, and
(b) presents both of the following:
(i) a letter, dated and signed by a medical practitioner, stating that the individual requires priority loading;
(ii) a completed Travel Assistance Program form,
(2) A letter under subsection (1) (b) (i) is valid throughout the period
(a) beginning on the date of the letter, and
(b) ending on the earlier of
(i) the date that is one year after the date of the letter, and
(ii) the date, if any, specified in the letter as its expiry date.
This is what Mr. Chin has said he wants and is the same as BC Ferries’ current MAL policy.
[19] Practically speaking, the outstanding issue for Mr. Chin relates to recreational travel – i.e. travel that is not for a medical-related purpose. Mr. Chin’s current position is that he should be able to access assured loading for any travel, because of his disability-related needs. He says he cannot plan his travel in advance. There are two main reasons that I do not accept this is a reason for the complaint to proceed to a hearing.
[20] First, and most importantly, this is an expansion of Mr. Chin’s complaint. His original complaint was not about assured loading for recreational travel. He has not applied to amend his complaint within four months of the hearing: Rule 24(4) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Even if he had, this is a significant expansion of his allegations which would unlikely be granted so close to the hearing. This is not an issue that will be addressed in the upcoming hearing.
[21] Second, Mr. Chin’s requested order – guaranteeing him assured loading on any ferry when he is traveling for any purpose – would undermine BC Ferries’ ability to predict and manage its capacity. BC Ferries serves many coastal communities. It is increasingly moving towards 100% reservable sailing, with some spaces set aside for customers with Assured Loading Tickets, ambulances, emergency vehicles in pursuit of an alleged criminal, and requests for MAL. As the service provider, it is BC Ferries’ prerogative to design a system that ensures equitable access for people with disabilities while continuing to meet the needs of its other customers, staff, and stakeholders. For people with disabilities traveling for medical reasons, it has done this through the MAL policy. I am satisfied that this is a reasonable policy which meets BC Ferries’ obligations to people with disabilities traveling for medical purposes. That is the issue raised by Mr. Chin’s complaint, and it has been resolved.
[22] Mr. Chin seeks several other non-monetary orders. Respectfully, none of these requested orders justify a hearing in this case. This is because the Tribunal is an “adjudicator of the particular claim that is before it, not a Royal Commission”: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 64. Any remedy it orders must flow from the complaint. Mr. Chin’s requested remedies go beyond the issues raised by his complaint, and ask the Tribunal to re-design how BC Ferries identifies and serves all the varied disability-related needs of his customers. This is not an outcome that would be achieved in the upcoming hearing. For example, Mr. Chin seeks orders that BC Ferries:
a. ensure “readily accessible accommodation process … for my disabilities as they develop at an individual level” (i.e.. upper car deck parking to rest and isolate);
b. follow the prescriptive guidelines under the Canada Transportation Act (Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations);
c. seek “assessment from a third party versed in issues of accommodation of visible and invisible disabilities”;
d. have its Accessibility Committee (or other third party) directly review accommodation requests and complaints;
e. train staff “on how to manage accommodating novel requests”;
f. conduct outreach explaining how persons with disabilities “can seek accommodation from a senior manager (eg. chief steward or terminal manager) if they are not satisfied with other staff members”;
g. publish the minutes of Accessibility Committee meetings; and
h. ensure its Accessibility Committee addresses “disability issues beyond those represented by attendees to avoid tokenism”.
[23] As I have said, these requested orders go beyond the scope of the complaint. Mr. Chin has not pointed to a basis on which the Tribunal might make any of these orders following a hearing, and I cannot identify any. It does not further the purposes of the Code to proceed to a hearing to allow Mr. Chin to ask for remedies the Tribunal will not grant.
[24] In sum, the public purposes of the Code have been fulfilled through the changes BC Ferries has made to its policies for people with disabilities traveling to or from medical appointments, who cannot wait for an extended period for a ferry.
B. Does BC Ferries’ settlement offer address Mr. Chin’s private interest in the complaint?
[25] In the Dismissal Decision, I said that the outstanding issue in the complaint was a personal remedy for Mr. Chin. BC Ferries has now offered Mr. Chin a personal remedy to settle the complaint: a lump sum payment of $15,000.
[26] The Tribunal recognizes the role of settlement agreements in furthering the remedial purposes of the Code, and encourages and invests its own resources to help parties resolve complaints through mediation: Nguyen v. School District No. 52 (Prince Rupert), 2004 BCHRT 20 at para. 15. This complaint does not involve a negotiated outcome, because the proposed settlement has been crafted by BC Ferries. However, it is equally true in these circumstances that a settlement offer may contain terms which, if accepted, could fulfill the Code’spurposes while saving the significant public and private resources it takes to resolve a complaint after a hearing.
[27] There are two prerequisites for the Tribunal to consider dismissing a complaint based on a reasonable settlement offer. First, the settlement offer must be made “with prejudice” because the Tribunal cannot rely on information about settlement discussions that is inadmissible based on privilege: Dar Santos v. University of British Columbia, 2003 BCHRT 73 at para. 64; Carter v. Travelex Canada and Travelex UK (No. 3), 2007 BCHRT 275 at para. 25. Second, the offer must remain open for the complainant’s acceptance regardless of the outcome of the application to dismiss: Issa v. Loblaw, 2009 BCHRT 264 at para. 35. There is no dispute that both prerequisites are met in this case.
[28] If the prerequisites are met, the Tribunal takes a two-step approach to determine whether to dismiss a complaint based on a reasonable settlement offer. The first step is to assess whether the offer is reasonable: Dar Santos at para. 59. If it is, then the next step is to assess whether allowing the complaint to proceed would serve the purposes of the Code. This analysis proceeds on the premise that the complainant’s allegations would be proven and the Tribunal would award a remedy: Carter at para. 45.
[29] I am satisfied that BC Ferries’ offer is reasonable. It is very close to the $20,000 that Mr. Chin is seeking. And I agree with BC Ferries that it is at the upper end of the range of what the Tribunal has ordered in similar cases, involving discrete incidents of discrimination in services. For example, it cites the following cases which I agree provide an appropriate range of potential awards: Shahadat v. Northern School of Spa Therapies (No. 3), 2024 BCHRT 120 ($10,000); Client v. Spruce Hill Resort & Spa, 2021 BCHRT 104 ($15,000); Hayes v. DW Johnson Holdings Ltd. and others, 2023 BCHRT 143 ($10,000); Pike v. Ooh La La Café and others (No. 2), 2023 BCHRT 99 ($12,000); Hayes v. Blue Marlin Inn, 2022 BCHRT 61 ($2,500); Belusic v. Yellow Cab of Victoria, 2018 BCHRT 81 ($7,500); Rai and others v. Shark Club of Langley (No. 2), 2013 BCHRT 204 ($10,000); Johnson v. AC Taxi and Williams (No. 2), 2008 BCHRT 242 ($2,500).
[30] The basis of Mr. Chin’s request for $20,000 is that this is the maximum amount available under the Canada Transportation Act to compensate a person with disabilities who has suffered pain and suffering because of an “undue barrier to … mobility”: s. 172(2). However, this is not a basis on which the Tribunal would award Mr. Chin $20,000. Rather, the Tribunal applies its own case law to determine an appropriate amount to compensate for injury to a complainant’s dignity, feelings, and self-respect. That analysis considers factors like the nature of the discrimination, the social context or vulnerability of the complainant, and the impact on the complainant. It also considers the Tribunal’s previous awards. Mr. Chin has not made any arguments about how those factors would justify an award significantly over the $15,000 he has been offered. In my view, as I have said, the offer is reasonable.
[31] In light of the systemic changes I have outlined above, and BC Ferries’ offer to provide Mr. Chin with a personal remedy, I am satisfied it does not further the Code’s purposes to allow the complaint to proceed any further. The issue that Mr. Chin has raised has been resolved, and there is no further purpose to be served by having the Tribunal and parties incur the time and expense of a hearing.
III CONCLUSION
[32] Again, I acknowledge Mr. Chin’s efforts to advocate on behalf of people with disabilities for an inclusive, equitable ferry service in BC. I am dismissing his complaint because he has effectively achieved what he set out to do. I remind him that BC Ferries’ offer remains open for him to accept.
[33] The complaint is dismissed under s. 27(1)(d)(ii) of the Code.
Devyn Cousineau
Vice Chair