Soliman v. British Columbia Ferry Services Inc., and others, 2025 BCHRT 186
Date Issued: August 12, 2025
File: CS-004608
Indexed as: Soliman v. British Columbia Ferry Services Inc., and others, 2025 BCHRT 186
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:
Adam Soliman
COMPLAINANT
AND:
British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. and Daniel McFadyen and Simon Mills and
Brenda Anderson
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(d)(ii)
Tribunal Member: Robin Dean
On his own Behalf: Adam Soliman
Counsel for the Respondents: Stephanie Gutierrez
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Adam Soliman describes himself as “Middle Eastern, Arab, Muslim, and with coloured skin.” He says that on July 24, 2021, BC Ferries did not permit him to board a 5 p.m. ferry from Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen and banned him from sailing the rest of the day after yelling at him and making “racial remarks” [the Incident]. Mr. Soliman brings this complaint against British Columbia Ferry Services Inc [BC Ferries] and three BC Ferries employees involved in the Incident: Daniel McFadyen, Simon Mills, and Brenda Anderson [the Individual Respondents]. He says that the Respondents discriminated against him in services based on his race, colour, place of origin, and religion, contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.
[2] In a letter dated November 19, 2024, the Tribunal informed the Respondents that the complaint would proceed directly to a hearing, however, it permitted the Respondents to bring an application to dismiss Mr. Soliman’s complaint against the Individual Respondents under s. 27(1)(d)(ii). This is the decision that follows the Respondents’ application to dismiss.
[3] The Respondents deny discriminating and argue that the complaint should be dismissed against the Individual Respondents because each of them was acting within the scope of their employment duties. The Respondents further argue that BC Ferries has the capacity to fulfill any remedies the Tribunal may order.
[4] For the reasons that follow, I have determined that it would not further the purposes of the Code to proceed against the Individual Respondents. I dismiss the complaint against them. To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.
II Background
[5] On the day of the Incident, Mr. McFadyen a Terminal Attendant, was directing vehicles onto the upper deck of the ferry when Mr. Soliman approached in his vehicle. At that time, Mr. McFadyen had just received an update from the Tower Operator informing him that the upper deck was full. Mr. McFadyen says that he tried to get Mr. Soliman’s attention so that he could direct him to drive onto the lower deck, but Mr. Soliman continued to drive towards the upper deck. Mr. McFadyen says that this created a safety concern and so he held up a hand and yelled at Mr. Soliman to stop. Mr. Soliman continued driving. Again, Mr. McFadyen instructed Mr. Soliman to stop, which Mr. Soliman did.
[6] Mr. Soliman says that Mr. McFadyen’s directions to drive onto the lower deck were unclear as Mr. McFadyen had directed previous vehicles onto the upper deck. According to Mr. Soliman, Mr. McFadyen began yelling at him for not following his instructions to drive onto the lower deck. Mr. Soliman says he apologized and asked Mr. McFadyen to stop yelling, however, Mr. McFadyen repeatedly refused and stated that “People like you should always be yelled at”. Mr. Soliman alleges that Mr. McFadyen also made several “racial remarks” at this time.
[7] Mr. McFadyen denies he said, “People like you should always be yelled at.” He also denies making any racial remarks. He says he told Mr. Soliman he could still make the 5 p.m. sailing and directed him to continue down the main ramp to the lower deck.
[8] According to Mr. McFadyen, as Mr. Soliman drove away, Mr. Soliman shouted profanities at Mr. McFadyen and told Mr. McFadyen to “fuck off”. Mr. McFadyen then radioed for assistance, and Mr. Mills, Terminal Supervisor, and Ms. Anderson, Terminal Manager, responded to Mr. McFadyen’s request. Mr. Mills arrived first and directed Mr. Soliman to park where the over-height vehicles are typically held before loading. Mr. Soliman says that Mr. Mills started making calls while laughing and pointing at Mr. Soliman’s vehicle. Mr. Soliman says that he asked Mr. Mills what was happening, and he told Mr. Soliman to be quiet.
[9] According to Mr. Mills, Mr. Soliman yelled at him, informed him that he had already told Mr. McFadyen to “fuck off”, and acted in a “hostile and aggressive” manner. Mr. Mills says he tried to explain to Mr. Soliman why he was being held, but Mr. Soliman talked over him and said that he was being mistreated because of his race and that he was going to sue Mr. Mills and BC Ferries. Mr. Mills says the passenger in Mr. Soliman’s car also yelled at him during this time.
[10] Mr. Soliman says when Ms. Anderson arrived, he told her about the Incident, including that he was deeply concerned about the racial remarks made by Mr. McFadyen. He asked Ms. Anderson to investigate and told her that Mr. Mills had acted alongside Mr. McFadyen in not allowing him to board the 5 p.m. ferry. Mr. Soliman alleges that Ms. Anderson dismissed his concerns and stated that she would not allow him to board the 5 p.m. ferry or any other ferry for the rest of the day.
[11] Ms. Anderson says she attempted to explain to Mr. Soliman that BC Ferries has a zero-tolerance policy for any verbal or physical abuse towards its employees. According to Ms. Anderson, she told Mr. Soliman that any customer who engages in verbal or physical abuse may be banned from travel under BC Ferries’ Conditions of Carriage and BC Ferries’ Rules & Requirements, which passengers agree to by purchasing a fare.
[12] According to Ms. Anderson, Mr. Soliman did not listen, yelled at her, stepped out of the vehicle, continued to yell at her, and demanded to be allowed to board the ferry. She says that he told her, “You can’t tell me what to do! We are going on that ferry!” She says he talked over her and was “very aggressive”.
[13] Ms. Anderson says that when she told Mr. Soliman he could not board the 5 p.m. ferry and would be banned the rest of the day, Mr. Soliman’s passenger got out and rushed towards Ms. Anderson, only stopping due to Mr. Soliman’s intervention. The passenger also apparently yelled at Ms. Anderson.
[14] Mr. Mills says he then called the Tower Operator and told them to contact the RCMP. At that point, Mr. Soliman and his passenger left the ferry terminal on their own.
III DECISION
[15] Section 27(1)(d)(ii) allows the Tribunal to dismiss a complaint where proceeding with it would not further the purposes of the Code. These purposes include both private and public interests: Code, 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. UBC, 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.
[16] The Respondents argue that it would not further the Code’s purposes to proceed against the Individual Respondents: Daley v. BC (Ministry of Health), 2006 BCHRT 341. For reasons I explain below, I agree.
[17] There are strong policy reasons that favour complaints against individual respondents. As the Supreme Court of Canada has acknowledged, “the aspirational purposes of the Code require that individual perpetrators of discrimination be held accountable for their actions”: British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk, 2017 SCC 62 at para. 56. This is especially true for allegations of discrimination with a high degree of personal culpability, like sexual or racial harassment: Daley at para. 53.
[18] On the other hand, naming individual respondents can complicate and delay the resolution of complaints, exacerbate feelings of personal animosity, and cause needless personal distress to individuals who are accused of discrimination: Daley at para. 54. Because employers and institutional respondents are liable for the acts of their agents, they will be responsible for any remedy ordered by the Tribunal: Code, s. 44(2); Robichaud v. Canada, 1987 CanLII 73 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 84. In those situations, the remedial aims of the Code may be most fairly and efficiently fulfilled without holding individuals liable.
[19] The Tribunal balances all these considerations to decide whether the purposes of the Code are best served by having a complaint proceed against individuals as well as an institutional respondent, or against the institutional respondent only. It has identified the following factors as relevant:
a. whether the complaint names an institutional employer as a respondent and that respondent has the capacity to fulfill any remedies that the Tribunal might order;
b. whether the institutional respondent has acknowledged the acts and omissions of the individual as its own and has irrevocably acknowledged its responsibility to satisfy any remedial orders which the Tribunal might make in respect of that individual’s conduct; and
c. the nature of the conduct alleged against the individual, including whether:
i. their conduct took place within the regular course of their employment;
ii. the person is alleged to have been the directing mind behind the discrimination or to have substantially influenced the course of action taken; and
iii. the conduct alleged against the individual has a measure of individual culpability, such as an allegation of discriminatory harassment.
Daley at paras. 60-62.
[20] In my view, each of the factors in Daley favours dismissing the complaint against the individual Respondents. I will address each factor in turn.
[21] First, BC Ferries has accepted liability for any acts or omissions of the Individual Respondents in their capacity as BC Ferries employees and takes responsibility for satisfying any remedial orders. I am satisfied that BC Ferries has the capacity to satisfy any monetary award that may be ordered on account of the conduct of the Individual Respondents.
[22] Second, the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred in the course of the Individual Respondents’ employment with BC Ferries. The undisputed evidence supports that each of the Individual Respondents were acting within the course of their respective work duties when the conduct complained of is alleged to have occurred.
[23] Third, I am unable to find the alleged conduct has a measure of personal culpability warranting proceeding against any of the Individual Respondents. The alleged conduct of Mr. Mills and Ms. Anderson is that they did not permit Mr. Soliman to board the 5 p.m. sailing and banned him from sailing for the rest of the day. Further, Mr. Soliman says that Ms. Anderson dismissed his concerns and failed to respond to Mr. Soliman’s complaint about Mr. McFadyen making discriminatory statements. In my view, in all but Mr. McFadyen’s case, nothing in the nature of their alleged conduct is capable of rising to a level of personal culpability that requires individual responsibility.
[24] Mr. Soliman alleges that during the Incident Mr. McFadyen said, “People like you should always be yelled at” and other “racial remarks”. Mr. Soliman says these comments were discriminatory and based on his protected characteristics. I agree that these comments, if they occurred as alleged, seem extraneous to Mr. McFadyen’s work. Comments arising from generalizations and stereotypes based on race, colour, place of origin, and religion are significant and should be discouraged. In my view, however, Mr. McFadyen’s alleged conduct is arguably distinguishable from the type of egregious behaviour, such as repeated sexual or racial harassment in the workplace, which attracts individual liability: Daley at para. 62; Murphy v. Lafarge of Canada and others, 2006 BCHRT 558 at paras. 35-36. Therefore, I find this is a neutral factor as it relates to the s.27(1)(d)(ii) analysis.
[25] Based on the information before me I am not persuaded that allowing the complaint to proceed against the Individual Respondents would further the purposes of the Code. BC Ferries has accepted responsibility for the Individual Respondents’ actions and said it would be responsible for any damages that are ordered, in the event that there is a finding of discrimination. Most of the Individual Respondents’ alleged conduct was squarely within the scope of their employment. Mr. McFadyen’s alleged comments are a neutral factor in the analysis. Weighing on all the foregoing, I find it would not further the purposes of the Code to proceed against any of the individual Respondents.
IV CONCLUSION
[26] I dismiss the complaint against Mr. McFadyen, Mr. Mills and Ms. Anderson. The complaint will proceed against BC Ferries alone.
Robin Dean
Tribunal Member