Peters v. Pacific Destination Services Inc. and others, 2025 BCHRT 272
Date Issued: October 21, 2025
File:CS-007052
Indexed as: Peters v. Pacific Destination Services Inc. and others, 2025 BCHRT 272
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:
Sydney Peters
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Pacific Destination Services Inc., Grace Schmidt, and Kim Smith
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(d)(ii)
Tribunal Member: Jessica Derynck
For the Complainant: No submissions
Counsel for the Respondents: Matthew Allard
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Sydney Peters filed a complaint against Pacific Destination Services Inc. [PDS], Grace Schmidt, and Kim Smith, alleging discrimination in employment based on Indigenous identity, physical disability, and mental disability. She says the Respondents would not allow her to wear her Every Child Matters pin at work, made her uncomfortable by referring to morning huddles as “powwows”, and did not accommodate disabilities that impacted her in the workplace.
[2] In her complaint form Sydney Peters indicates that she prefers the Tribunal refer to her as Miss Peters.
[3] The Respondents deny discriminating. They say they did not require Miss Peters to remove her pin, Ms. Schmidt does not recall describing morning huddles as “powwows”, and Miss Peters did not tell them that she had disabilities and needed accommodation. They say that any adverse treatment occurred because Miss Peters did not meet the standards and expectations of the work. They say that if Miss Peters had any physical or mental disabilities, they were not a factor in the issues they had to address with her.
[4] The Respondents apply to dismiss the complaint against Ms. Schmidt and Ms. Smith [Individual Respondents]. They say it would not further the purposes of the Human Rights Code for the complaint to proceed against them.
[5] For the following reasons, I find that it would not further the purposes of the Code for the complaint to proceed against the Individual Respondents, and I dismiss the complaint against them under s. 27(d)(ii) of the Code.
[6] Miss Peters did not respond to the application to dismiss the complaint. To make my decision, I have considered the Respondents’ application materials and all the information Miss Peters included in her complaint. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.
II DECISION
[7] 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 [Daley].
[8] 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.
[9] 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] 2 SCR 84. In those situations, the remedial aims of the Code may be most fairly and efficiently fulfilled without holding individuals liable.
[10] 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.
[11] I will address these factors in turn.
A. There is an institutional respondent with the capacity to fulfill any remedies
[12] In its application to dismiss PDS denies that it discriminated against Miss Peters but acknowledges that if the Tribunal finds discrimination and orders remedies, it is the entity with the capacity to fulfill those remedies.
[13] This factor weighs in favour of dismissing the complaint against the Individual Respondents.
B. PDS acknowledges the Individual Respondents’ acts as its own and its responsibility to satisfy any remedial orders
[14] In summer 2021 PDS provided services at vaccination sites. PDS retained Ms. Schmidt and Ms. Smith as contractors to provide services as managers at the site where Miss Peters worked for PDS.
[15] Under s. 44(2) of the Code, an act or omission of the Individual Respondents within the scope of their authority as managers is deemed to be an act or omission of PDS.
[16] The Respondents submitted an affidavit from the President of PDS, Jennifer Burton, in support of the application. Ms. Burton says she is responsible for the operational management of PDS and working collaboratively with and providing guidance and support to the Chief Executive Officer. She says PDS authorized her to swear her affidavit on its behalf, and that PDS acknowledges any acts or omissions of the Individual Respondents in relation to the complaint as its own. She also says that PDS acknowledges its responsibility to satisfy any remedial orders the Tribunal might make in respect of the Individual Respondents’ conduct related to the complaint.
[17] This factor weighs in favour of dismissing the complaint against the Individual Respondents.
C. The nature of the Individual Respondents’ alleged conduct weighs in favour of dismissing the complaint against them
[18] In her complaint Miss Peters alleges the following conduct by the Individual Respondents:
a. Ms. Smith asked Miss Peters to remove an old nametag with her Every Child Matters pin attached because staff uniforms should look the same. Ms. Smith then allowed Miss Peters to wear the pin for the rest of the day but did not get back to her on whether she could continue to wear it. Instead, Miss Peters wore an orange ribbon that the Respondents provided.
b. Ms. Smith told Miss Peters that she needed to be back from breaks on time or take unpaid extensions of her breaks.
c. Ms. Schmidt hesitated before approving Miss Peters’ request to wear an orange shirt to work on September 30, 2021, and said Miss Peters then would have to go back to wearing her uniform without complaint. Ms. Schmidt then said that if Miss Peters was not 100%, she should not come to work.
d. Ms. Schmidt often referred to morning huddles as “powwows”.
e. When Miss Peters was upset because a person working for a partner organization was rude to her, a supervisor suggested she go home, but Ms. Schmidt said she was not comfortable with that because they had accommodated Miss Peters too much already. Ms. Schmidt then spoke to the supervisor and gave Miss Peters the option of going home without pay for the rest of the day.
f. Ms. Schmidt sent Miss Peters an email telling her that she had accepted shifts and then cancelled them afterward, which left Ms. Schmidt and Ms. Smith scrambling to fill the shifts, that Miss Peters seemed to be having trouble meeting PDS expectations for a number of reasons, and they could offer Miss Peters an extended contract with fewer shifts. Ms. Schmidt’s email said an extended contract would have parameters including not cancelling shifts, not leaving early, and taking only scheduled breaks. Ms. Schmidt also cancelled two of Miss Peters’ shifts for the following week.
g. After Miss Peters confirmed that she wanted to stay, Ms. Schmidt said that going forward she would have a maximum of four shifts per week, and they would be monitoring her performance.
h. Ms. Schmidt spoke harshly to Miss Peters, said she talked about being tired too much, shook her finger at her, and said she was skating on very thin ice, after Miss Peters told colleagues that she felt Ms. Schmidt had baited her to take a day off.
i. On October 28, 2021, Ms. Schmidt told Miss Peters that she did not meet the position requirements or job expectations, so would not be offered a contract extension.
[19] The Respondents deny that the alleged conduct occurred. For the purposes of this application, I only decide whether the alleged conduct weighs against or in favour of dismissing the complaint against the Individual Respondents. This decision does not address the merits of any of the allegations.
[20] I find that the nature of the alleged conduct weighs against proceeding against the Individual Respondents.
[21] First, all of the Individual Respondents’ alleged conduct took place as part of their work as managers for PDS, in relation to managing uniforms, breaks, staff huddles, shifts, and the extension of Miss Peters’ contract.
[22] Second, it is not alleged that either of the Individual Respondents was a directing mind behind the alleged conduct or substantially influenced the course of action taken. There is no information before me to suggest that either of the Individual Respondents could substantially influence PDS’ rules about uniforms, breaks, shifts, or performance standards. There is also no information to suggest that they were able to substantially influence the terms of the contract between PDS and Miss Peters. Rather, PDS contracted the Individual Respondents to manage staff when it came to these matters.
[23] Finally, I find that the conduct alleged against the Individual Respondents does not have a measure of individual culpability that weighs in favour of proceeding against them.
[24] All of the allegations against Ms. Smith, and most of the allegations against Ms. Schmidt, are about conduct that is part of their normal duties as managers, like enforcing rules and performance standards. This type of conduct does not have a measure of individual culpability.
[25] The only allegation against Ms. Schmidt that may have some measure of individual culpability is the allegation that she referred to morning huddles as “powwows”. In her complaint Miss Peters calls this both a “slur” and a “culturally inappropriate term”. Miss Peters says it was “very strange” that Ms. Schmidt would use this term to describe a morning huddle. Miss Peters also says she gave another supervisor a look and asked the other supervisor whether Ms. Schmidt had seriously just used that term.
[26] I find that using a “slur” or a culturally inappropriate term of this type, which Miss Peters found to be strange and surprising, may have a small measure of individual culpability, but not enough to warrant the complaint proceeding against an individual respondent. It is each individual’s personal responsibility to take care when speaking and avoid using slurs or culturally inappropriate terms, but the allegation in this case does not carry the same high level of individual culpability as conduct like intentional harassment.
[27] Having considered all of these factors, I find that it would not further the purposes of the Code for the complaint to proceed against the Individual Respondents.
III CONCLUSION
[28] The complaint is dismissed as against the Individual Respondents. It will proceed against PDS only.
Jessica Derynck
Tribunal Member