Simpson v. Rebel News Network Ltd., 2025 BCHRT 290
Date Issued: November 26, 2025
File(s): CS-005654; CS-013417
Indexed as: Simpson v. Rebel News Network Ltd., 2025 BCHRT 290
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:
Jessica Simpson
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Rebel News Network Ltd.
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c) and (g)
Tribunal Member: Laila Said Alam
On their own behalf: Jessica Simpson
Counsel for the Respondent: Daniel H. Coles
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This is a decision about whether to dismiss a complaint without a hearing. The complaint involves two parties who have “courted considerable public controversy…often resorting to litigation”: Simpson v. Rebel News, 2022 BCSC 1160 at para. 25.
[2] Rebel News Network Ltd. is a news media outlet. The complaint arises out of ten videos that it published on YouTube between August 2019 and July 2020 [the Videos].
[3] On March 30, 2021, Jessica Simpson filed a complaint against Rebel News, alleging that the Videos are discriminatory publications, which violate s. 7 of the Human Rights Code on the grounds of mental disability, physical disability, gender identity or expression, sex and sexual orientation [Complaint]. Ms. Simpson also filed a retaliation complaint, alleging statements made by Rebel News in a YouTube video published on October 8, 2024 breached s. 43 of the Code [Retaliation Complaint].
[4] The Tribunal granted leave for Rebel News to file an application to dismiss. Rebel News applies to dismiss both the Complaint and the Retaliation Complaint. First, Rebel News says the Complaint should be dismissed under s. 27(1)(g) of the Code on the basis that most of the Videos were published outside the one-year time limit for filing a complaint and are not part of a continuing contravention. Rebel News says the remainder of the Complaint as well as the Retaliation Complaint should be dismissed under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code. It says there is no reasonable prospect Ms. Simpson will succeed at a hearing because one video concerns events in a different province, and she has not established either that she has a mental or physical disability or that the Videos breach s. 7 of the Code. Further, the Complaint and Retaliation Complaint do not warrant the time and expense of a full hearing and should be dismissed on the basis that the BC Supreme Court has appropriately dealt with the subject matter of the Complaint. Finally, Rebel News submits that Ms. Simpson has no reasonable prospect of establishing the test set out for retaliation, namely, that the October 8, 2024, video was published with the intent of intimidating, coercing, imposing a penalty or otherwise discriminating against her because of filing the Complaint.
[5] To decide these applications, I need to resolve the following issues:
a. Whether the Videos published prior to March 30, 2020 are timely because they form part of a continuing contravention of the Videos posted in July 2020;
b. Whether Ms. Simpson has no reasonable prospect of proving that any of the timely Videos contravene s. 7 of the Code;
c. Whether there is no reasonable prospect Ms. Simpson will establish:
a. Rebel News engaged in or threatened to engage in conduct described in s. 43, and
b. there is a sufficient connection between the impugned conduct and the Complaint.
[6] For the following reasons, I allow the application in part. 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
A. Videos – April 2019 to July 2020
[7] Rebel News first became interested in Ms. Simpson in the summer of 2019, when it began reporting about the various complaints she had made to the Tribunal about body waxing salons. In those complaints, she alleged she had been wrongly denied body waxing services because she is transgender: Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons, 2019 BCHRT 147. Rebel News’ commentary initially focused on the perceived shortcomings of the Tribunal and its processes but then shifted the focus of the commentary to Ms. Simpson herself: Simpson at para. 10.
[8] Ms. Simpson alleges that the Videos published between April 2019 to July 2020 include a series of discriminatory statements that she describes in the Complaint. The Videos consist of different Rebel News reporters providing a series of updates on Ms. Simpson, referring to her by a first name Ms. Simpson does not use to identify herself and does not align with her gender identity (her deadname), and “in highly disparaging terms and with male pronouns”: Simpson at para. 27. The Court succinctly summarizes the contents of the publications, as follows:
A succession of Rebel News reporters followed Ms. Simpson to her various court appearances, to her home and to a hotel in Toronto where she was staying when she traveled there. While doing so, they put inflammatory questions to her […]
Simpson at para. 30.
[9] The publications that are subject to the Complaint are listed by date and title, below. At times, Rebel News uses Ms. Simpson’s alias, Jessica Yaniv. In the instances where Ms. Simpson is deadnamed, I use [JY] in its place:
1. August 15, 2019 – Jessica Yaniv ASSAULTS Rebel reporter with CANE!
2. August 21, 2019 – Confronting Jessica Yaniv’s fave Human Rights office in BC
3. August 23, 2019 – TransLink’s free disability pass to Jessica Yaniv must be revoked
4. December 6, 2019 – “Deadnaming” [JY] on Twitter lands Keean Bexte in the penalty box: Suspended!
5. February 5, 2020 – [JY] back in court, Mama lunges at Sheila Gunn Reid for assault question, cops called!
6. February 11, 2020 – [JY] games system, bumps up court appearance, sends lawyer instead
7. March 8, 2020 – [JY] PLEADS GUILTY to prohibited weapons charge
8. March 11, 2020 – UPDATE: [JY] uses “mental state” as a defence for violent assault
9. July 9, 2020 – [JY] to be arrested for assaulting Rebel News reporter
10. July 25, 2020 – CATFISHED: We found [JY] heading to Toronto SickKids Hospital
[10] On April 23, 2021, Ms. Simpson brought a defamation action against Rebel News in BC Supreme Court. The defamation action was brought in relation to 15 YouTube videos, including the Videos.
[11] In the defamation action, Ms. Simpson alleged that Rebel News published defamatory and harassing publications about her on YouTube, its webpage and on various social media platforms. In response, Rebel News asked the court to dismiss the action under s. 4 of the Protection of Public Participation Act [PPPA]. Rebel News argued, among other things, that the 15 videos are subject to the defences of reasonable communication and fair comment.
[12] In July 2022, the Court issued its decision dismissing the case: Simpson. Under s. 4 of the PPPA, the Court did not have a full hearing on the merits of the defamation action. Instead, s.4 of the PPPA is a
pretrial screening mechanism that instructs a judge to dismiss an action arising from expression on a matter of public interest unless the plaintiff can satisfy the judge that their action has substantial merit; the defendant has no valid defence in the proceeding; and the harm to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s expression is serious enough to outweigh the public interest in protecting that expression.
Hansman v. Neufeld, 2023 SCC 14, at para. 37.
[13] The Court accepted on the evidence before it that Rebel News could meet the low threshold of fair comment, and that overall, Ms. Simpson had not met her burden under s. 4 to show grounds to believe that Rebel News’ defences to the defamation action were unlikely to succeed. Further, the Court did not accept Ms. Simpson’s claim of having a previously “unblemished” reputation as she was “the target of extensive adverse publicity from other sources, even before Rebel News began reporting about her”: Simpson at para. 87. Nevertheless, the Court noted:
[90] In assessing the value of the impugned expression at issue in this case, I accept that at least part of the motivation behind Rebel News’ reporting was to warn the public about what the reporters believed to be the threat that Ms. Simpson’s conduct poses to society. Rebel News says that it strives to present an alternative point of view. Many will find the views that it expresses, here and elsewhere, to be highly offensive. It is, however, precisely in such cases that the law’s commitment to protecting freedom of expression will be most sorely tested.
[91] Nevertheless, the expression in issue here was deeply problematic in various ways, both in terms of its quality and the apparent motivation behind it.
[92] First, it was, by any measure, heavily laden with vitriol and gratuitous insults. Although I have accepted that Rebel News has a viable defence of “fair comment”, on the basis that the views expressed were ones that could honestly be held on the facts presented, it does not follow that the underlying inferences were always reasonably drawn. Of particular concern in that regard is the fact that much of the name-calling directed at Ms. Simpson echoed, and tended to reinforce, pernicious stereotypes about transgender people generally.
[93] Further, the reporters’ conduct in confronting Ms. Simpson at her home or hotel and asking the same inflammatory questions over and over again, appears to have been intended primarily to provoke a scene and so provide entertainment at Ms. Simpson’s expense, rather than to elicit information to enrich the public discourse.
[94] Had Ms. Simpson been able to show real damage to her reputation flowing from the impugned reporting, the dubious quality of the expression in issue here could easily have tipped the scales in favour of allowing the action to proceed.
B. Retaliation
[14] The Retaliation Complaint is filed in response to Rebel News’ October 8, 2024, YouTube video, “CAUGHT ON TAPE: Human rights tribunal threatens to censor Rebel News”. The video broadcasts a recording of a telephone call that a Rebel News reporter surreptitiously recorded with a Tribunal staff member in relation to the Complaint. The Rebel News reporter’s commentary is critical of the Tribunal, s. 7 of the Code, and then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
[15] The publication refers to Ms. Simpon with male pronouns and says she is a vexatious litigant using the Complaint as a weapon in a vendetta. The reporter characterizes the Complaint to be about news reports and editorial opinions expressed by journalists. The publication posts the Complaint and directs viewers to a website embedded in the video. The reporter refers to Ms. Simpson by her deadname, “a predator”, “Canada’s worst transgender activist”, a “convicted criminal” who “targets children”, and a “total fraud” who “pretended to be disabled to get free stuff”, including free transit. The reporter replays Rebel News clips of Ms. Simpson from previous reporting of her.
III DECISION
A. Section 27(1)(g)
[16] Section 27(1)(g) permits the Tribunal to dismiss a late-filed complaint. It is not in dispute that the allegations regarding the last two videos, dated July 9, 2020 and July 25, 2020, fall within the time limit for filing the Complaint because they were published within one year of the filing of the Complaint.
[17] Rebel News argues that the July 25, 2020 publication is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it involves events in a different province. Though this argument was made under the framework of s. 27(1)(c), I find that I can appropriately address it when I consider the threshold issue of timeliness, which considers whether Ms. Simpson has alleged facts in relation to this video that could contravene the Code. Rebel News argues that the videos published between August 15, 2019 and March 11, 2020 are late-filed and should be dismissed. Rebel News submits that the publications do not constitute a continuing contravention and accepting the late-filed allegations would not be in the public interest and would cause them significance prejudice. I consider Rebel News’ arguments in turn.
[18] A complaint is filed in time if the last allegation of discrimination happened with one year and older allegations are part of an alleged “continuing contravention”: Code, s. 22(2); School District v. Parent obo the Child, 2018 BCCA 136 at para. 68. An allegation of discrimination must set out facts that, if proven, could violate the Human Rights Code: Chen v. Surrey (City), 2015 BCCA 57 at para. 23.A continuing contravention is “a succession or repetition of separate acts of discrimination of the same character” that could be considered separate contraventions of the Code, and “not merely one act of discrimination which may have continuing effects or consequences”: Chen at para. 23; School District at para. 50.
[19] The assessment of whether discrete allegations are a continuing contravention is a “fact specific one which will depend very much on the individual circumstances of each case”: Dickson v. Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition, 2005 BCHRT 209 at para. 17. A relevant consideration is whether there are significant gaps between the allegations: Dickson at paras. 16-17. Whether or not a gap is significant will be assessed contextually, considering the length itself and any explanations for the gap: Reynolds v Overwaitea Food Group, 2013 BCHRT 67, at para. 28. A significant, unexplained, gap in time will weigh against finding a continuing contravention: Bjorklund v. BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, 2018 BCHRT 204 at para. 14.
[20] The onus is on Ms. Simpson to persuade me to accept the late-filed allegations as part of a continuing contravention.
[21] I begin with the July 25, 2020 video. I agree with Rebel News that Ms. Simpson has not alleged facts that could establish that this video violated the Code. In my view, Ms. Simpson’s allegations are too removed from British Columbia to be an arguable contravention of the Code. The publication was filmed in another province and depicts events that occurred in that province. Though it could be viewed on YouTube in British Columbia, the relationship to British Columbia is too tenuous in this instance to be an arguable contravention of the Code. The allegation relating to this video cannot proceed.
[22] I do accept that the July 9, 2020 video may violate s. 7 of the Code. Ms. Simpson filed her Complaint within one year of this video, and so this is a timely arguable contravention. Rebel News’ repeated misgendering and deadnaming relate to Ms. Simpson’s gender identity and expression as a trans woman. A person’s name and pronouns “are a fundamental part of a person’s identity. They are a primary way that people identify each other. Using correct pronouns communicates that we see and respect a person for who they are. Especially for trans, non-binary, or other non-cisgender people, using the correct pronouns validates and affirms they are a person equally deserving of respect and dignity”: Nelson v. Goodberry Restaurant Group Ltd. dba Buono Osteria and others, 2021 BCHRT 137, at para 82.
[23] The next issue I must decide is whether the Videos published outside the one-year time form a continuing contravention with the July 9, 2020, video. Rebel News says the Videos published between August 15, 2019 and March 11, 2020 are of a different character as each video depicts and engages with distinct subject matter. Further, Rebel News argues there are significant and unexplained gaps between publishing the videos, including an approximate 4-month gap between the August 23, 2019 video and the December 6, 2019 video; a two-month gap between the December 6, 2019 video and the February 5, 2020 video; and, a 4-month gap between the video published on March 11, 2020 and the timely-filed July 9, 2020 video. I find that the gaps in time are explained by Rebel News’ publications being within their control, and not Ms. Simpson’s.
[24] I acknowledge some similarities between the Videos. In particular, Rebel News has engaged in a pattern of deadnaming and misgendering Ms. Simpson and labelling her as a dangerous predator. However, in this application it is important that Ms. Simpson bears the burden of establishing a continuing contravention. She has made no arguments about how the common character of the Videos, or how they connect to form a timely continuing contravention. In this circumstance, it is not open to me to make those arguments for her. She has not persuaded me that the Videos made before the one-year time limit are part of a timely continuing contravention.
[25] Though I have not found a continuing contravention, I may still exercise my discretion to accept the late-filed complaints if it is in the public interest to do so, and no substantial prejudice will result to any person because of the delay: Code, s. 22(3).
[26] Again, the burden is on Ms. Simpson to persuade the Tribunal to accept the Complaint.
[27] The Tribunal assesses the public interest in a late-filed complaint in light of the purposes of the Code. These include identifying and eliminating persistent patterns of inequality, and providing a remedy for persons who are discriminated against: s. 3. It may consider factors like the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the complainant’s interest in accessing the Tribunal, the respondent’s interest in being able to continue its activities without worrying about stale complaints, whether the complainant got legal advice, and the public interest in the complaint itself: British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General) v. Mzite, 2014 BCCA 220 [Mzite] at para. 53 and 63; Hoang v. Warnaco and Johns, 2007 BCHRT 24; Complainant v. The Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria), 2022 BCHRT 44 at para. 18. These are important factors, but they are not necessarily determinative and not every factor will be relevant in every case: Goddard v. Dixon, 2012 BCSC 161 at para. 152; Mzite at para. 55. The inquiry is always fact and context specific.
[28] Ms. Simpson attributes her delay in filing to difficulty with the Tribunal’s online filing system. She says she initiated filing the Complaint in 2019 through the Tribunal’s online complaint intake system, using a Safari web browser. She said the filing was not processed due to a technical malfunction outside her control. She said when she discovered the defect, she immediately contacted the Tribunal and resubmitted the complaint. I also understand Ms. Simpson to allege that the Tribunal had granted “procedural accommodations…[to accept] late-filed complaints” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
[29] I am not persuaded that this explanation weighs in the public interest to accept the complaint. Prior to this Complaint, Ms. Simpson had filed multiple complaints with the Tribunal: JY v. Various Waxing Salons, 2019 BCHRT 106 at para 4. I infer from that experience she is familiar with the process and time limits to bring a complaint. Ms. Simpson has not provided any particulars of her contact with the Tribunal, the alleged technical malfunction, or how (or if) the web browser played a part in the technical malfunction. Ms. Simpson does not explain why, after her initial attempt to file the Complaint in 2019, she did not file the complaints about the four later publications made between February 2020 and March 11, 2020, within one year of their publications. Finally, the Tribunal did not have “procedural accommodations” to accept late-filed complaints during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms. Simpson has not explained the basis for this assertion. Ms. Simpson has not made any other arguments about why it is in the public interest to accept her late-filed allegations. In this circumstance, I am not persuaded that it is.I am not satisfied Ms. Simpson has met her burden of persuading me that the untimely allegations attract the public interest.
[30] It is therefore unnecessary for me to consider whether accepting the late-filed complaint would give rise to substantial prejudice.
[31] In summary, all of Ms. Simpson’s allegations about the Videos are dismissed under s. 27(1)(g), except for the allegation that the July 9, 2020 violated s. 7 of the Code.
B. Section 27(1)(c) – No reasonable prospect of success
1. The July 9, 2020 Publication
[32] Rebel News applies to dismiss the remainder of the Complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c). The onus is on Rebel News to establish the basis for dismissal.
[33] The remainder of Ms. Simpson’s Complaint is about the publication of the July 9, 2020 video titled “[JY] to be arrested for assaulting Rebel News reporter.” The video includes a recording of the prosecutor advising the reporter that he approved a charge for assault against Ms. Simpson, who the prosecutor refers to as “Jessica Yaniv”, for assaulting the reporter on January 13. The reporter encouraged viewers to donate at a website, “to help us out so we can continue with this story, so we can continue all the way until Yaniv is behind bars, for good, at a men’s prison” and “so we can continue with our fight against this predator”. Ms. Simpson alleges publication of the statements “Yaniv is behind bars for good, at a men’s prison” and “continue our fight against this predator” is a breach of s. 7 of the Code but does not say whether it is an alleged breach of s. 7(1)(a) or (b), or both.
[34] Section 27(1)(c) is part of the Tribunal’s gate-keeping function. It allows the Tribunal to remove complaints which do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing.
[35] The Tribunal does not make findings of fact under s. 27(1)(c). Instead, the Tribunal looks at the evidence to decide whether “there is no reasonable prospect that findings of fact that would support the complaint could be made on a balance of probabilities after a full hearing of the evidence”: Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2006 BCCA 95 at para. 22, leave to appeal ref’d [2006] SCCA No. 171. The Tribunal must base its decision on the materials filed by the parties, and not on speculation about what evidence may be filed at the hearing: University of British Columbia v. Chan,2013 BCSC 942 at para. 77.
[36] A dismissal application is not the same as a hearing: Lord v. Fraser Health Authority,2021 BCSC 2176 at para. 20; SEPQA v. Canadian Human Rights Commission,[1989] 2 SCR 879 at 899. The threshold to advance a complaint to a hearing is low. In a dismissal application, a complainant does not have to prove their complaint or show the Tribunal all the evidence they may introduce at a hearing. They only have to show that the evidence takes their complaint out of the realm of conjecture: Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49 [Hill] at para. 27.
[37] Ms. Simpson brings this Complaint under s. 7 of the Code. Rebel News does not dispute that the video is a publication for the purposes of s. 7.
[38] To prove her Complaint under s. 7(1)(a), Ms. Simpson will have to prove that the publications had a discriminatory effect or were intended to have a discriminatory effect on her: s. 7(1)(a). This section focuses on the connection between an impugned publication and its real-world effect. Its scope is narrower than publications that are merely offensive. It prohibits conduct where a respondent intends to make an invidious distinction with real, adverse consequences: Oger v. Whatcott (No. 7), 2019 BCHRT 58 at paras. 103-104.
[39] Under s. 7(1)(b), Ms. Simpson must prove that, in the view of a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, the July 9, 2020 Video is likely to expose her to hatred or contempt on the basis of her mental disability, physical disability, gender identity or expression, sex and sexual orientation.
[40] Rebel News accepts that Ms. Simpson has a characteristic protected by s. 7 of the Code with respect to gender identity or expression, sex and sexual orientation. Rebel News says Ms. Simpson has no reasonable prospect she will prove she has a physical or mental disability under the meaning of the Code.
[41] With respect to the July 9, 2020 video, Rebel News says there is no reasonable prospect Ms. Simpson will prove that the video is a breach of either s. 7(1)(a) or 7(1)(b) of the Code because the statements are insufficient to establish a discriminatory intent, let alone proving the more onerous test of s. 7(1)(b).
[42] Rebel News says Ms. Simpson is an individual that purposely seeks out public and political controversy. It says she may not like that Rebel News “has shone a spotlight on her misdeeds or is engaging in public dialogue arising from her criminal and civil court proceedings, but that is the protected role of media and is not a breach of the Code.”
[43] Rebel News says the July 9, 2020 video does not contain any discriminatory statements against Ms. Simpson as an individual that is disabled and transgender. It says the video describes criminal charges that have been filed against her and the conversation Rebel News had with the RCMP related to the same. Rebel News admits that while the reporter in the video referred to Ms. Simpson by her deadname and used he/him pronouns, “no statements were made with respect to the complainant as an individual that is disabled or identified as transgender.” Rebel News says referring to Ms. Simpson as her deadname and misgendering her has no discriminatory intent and is in accordance with how she has been identified in previous legal proceedings. As examples, Rebel News says the name it uses in its reporting is the name Ms. Simpson used when she commenced civil actions before the courts. Rebel News also points to the Tribunal confirming Ms. Simpson had used her deadname on her Facebook profile alongside a picture that was in accordance with male gender norms and would frequently reach out to waxing salons using that name: Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons, 2019 BCHRT 147at paras. 45, 58 71, 77, 82, 94, 99. They say using the deadname reflect its reporters’ opinion on the “apparent fluid approach” the complainant uses to refer to herself when it may be advantageous.
[44] Rebel News argues that the Tribunal is bound by the Court’s ruling that Ms. Simpson’s reputation has not been harmed as a result of the Videos as she was “the target of extensive adverse publicity from other sources, even before Rebel News began reporting about her”: Simpson, at para. 87. They say this “finding of fact…confirms that the [Videos] had no real-world effect” on Ms. Simpson.
[45] Finally, Rebel News argues that this Complaint is effectively being filed as a strategic lawsuit against public participation [a SLAPP suit] against Rebel News. Rebel News submits that because this video was considered in Simpson and found to be fair comment, the Tribunal is bound by res judicata and the statutory language in the PPPA. Rebel News says the PPPA is equally applicable to court proceedings and Tribunal proceedings, citing PPPA, s. 4 and the Supreme Court Act, RSBC 1996, s. 443. Rebel News says that s. 11 of the PPPA specifically addresses the effect of dismissal applications on administrative proceedings. Rebel News says they did not receive notice of the Complaint until the decision in Simpson had been rendered. As a result, the Complaint was never formally stayed pursuant to s. 11 of the PPPA. Rebel News says the PPPA is silent as to whether dismissal of a court proceeding under section 4 of the PPPA results in the mandatory dismissal of an administrative proceeding related to the same subject matter.
[46] Ms. Simpson says in her Complaint that Rebel News is aware of her name, pronouns, and the fact that she is disabled and transgender, yet they continue to refer to her by her deadname. Ms. Simpson also says the publications made her very uncomfortable and caused her to lose her dignity and self respect. She said the words in the publication are discriminatory slurs, hurtful, and are used to hurt her and demonstrate hatred.
[47] On the low threshold of s. 27(1)(c), I am not persuaded that the s. 7 allegations have no reasonable prospect of success at a hearing. With respect to the use of Ms. Simpson’s deadnames during civil proceedings and in the Tribunal’s decision, I note that the civil proceedings were all filed in 2016. The Tribunal decision referred to events that took place in the spring of 2018 and refers to Ms. Simpson as Jessica Yaniv and she/her pronouns. Further, while the prosecutor who is recorded in the July 9, 2020 video refers to approving charges for Jessica Yaniv, the Rebel News’ reporter refers to Ms. Simpson by her deadname and male pronouns. I also take judicial notice that transgender people encounter unique barriers, challenges, and considerations in obtaining identity-concordant government identification: Hebert, William, Burke, Nora B, Santini, Tara, Suerich-Gulick, Frank & Barile, D, “A Qualitative Look at Serious Legal Problems: Trans, Two-Spirit, and Non-Binary People in Canada” (2022) (Department of Justice Canada); Canada, Government of, Modernizing the Government of Canada’s Sex and Gender Information Practices (2025). For this reason, Rebel News’ submission regarding Ms. Simpson’s previous civil proceedings is not persuasive.
[48] I am also satisfied, based on the evidence before me, that the video goes beyond shedding light on Ms. Simpson’s misdeeds and the repercussions of her alleged assault on a Rebel News reporter. The video encourages Rebel News supporters to fund their legal proceedings against Ms. Simpson with the end goal being her incarceration in a male correctional facility. Rebel News does not dispute that Ms. Simpson is a transgender woman. In my view, advocating for a transgender woman to be placed in indefinite detention at a male correction facility takes out of the realm of conjecture that Rebel News intended the publication to have a discriminatory effect on Ms. Simpson: Lovado v. BC (Ministry of Public Safety & Solicitor General), 2017 BCHRT 115, at para 38. This takes her Complaint under s. 7(1)(a) out of the realm of conjecture.
[49] Further, the reporter’s final words to the audience refers to Ms. Simpson as a “predator”, even though the video is about an assault. The fair comment shield that Rebel News raised in the civil action for calling Ms. Simpson a “predator” appears to refer to their characterization of her behaviour in the Tribunal’s waxing decisions, and not in relation to the July 9, 2020 publication. Although the defamation case found that Ms. Simpson had failed to meet her burden under s. 4(2)(a) of the PPPA, it did not accept that she had nothing to complain about in how she was treated: Cheesman v Dobrer, 2025 BCSC 1428, at para 163, citing Simpson at para. 99. Reference to her as a “predator” in the context of deadnaming her is, in my view, the type of name-calling the Court signalled as echoing or tending to “reinforce, pernicious stereotypes about transgender people generally”: Simpson, at para. 92; see also Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, [2013] 1 SCR 467, at para 190. I am satisfied Ms. Simpson has taken this part of her Complaint out of the realm of conjecture.
[50] With respect to the higher burden of proof Ms. Simpson would face at a hearing to establish her Complaint under s. 7(1)(b) of the Code on the same set of facts that have passed the low threshold under s. 7(1)(a), I find it would not be helpful to parse out subsection (b) in this instance. In Byelkova v. Fraser Health Authority, 2021 BCSC 1312 at para. 115, appeal dismissed as moot 2022 BCCA 205, the Court said the Tribunal should be reluctant to dismiss only some allegations under s. 27(1)(c) where the complaint itself will continue:
While the Tribunal may dismiss all or part of the complaint under s 27(1), insofar as the rationale for the s 27(1)(c) gatekeeping function is the efficient operation of the Tribunal, it may well be that no efficiency is gained by only dismissing half of the claim. Dismissing half of the claim could also later prove embarrassing, prompting inconsistent adjudicative decisions or foreclosing otherwise appropriate findings due to past rulings …
[51] This reasoning is instructive here. The same set of facts apply to s. 7(1)(a) and s. 7(1)(b). Though Ms. Simpson’s burden of proof will be higher, there would be no efficiency in dismissing only half of her complaint under s. 7.
[52] Finally, Rebel News argues that the Complaint has no reasonable prospect of success because the Court has already examined the subject matter of this Complaint and determined that it was a SLAPP suit. I understand Rebel News to ask the Tribunal to consider whether the Complaint should be dismissed on the basis of issue estoppel. The applicable test for issue estoppel is set out in Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., 2001 SCC 44 at para 25. Rebel News must establish:
1. The issue in question was previously decided;
2. The prior decision was final; and
3. The parties or their privies are the same in both proceedings.
[53] The second and third criteria are satisfied: the prior Simpson decision was final, and the parties are identical in both proceedings. The issue estoppel analysis therefore turns on whether the same issue was previously decided.
[54] Rebel News argues that the Court’s finding of a SLAPP suit amounts to a determination that Ms. Simpson acted with improper motives. It submits that this finding should bind the Tribunal and result in dismissal of the Complaint.
[55] On the evidence before me, I find Rebel News’ characterization of both the Court’s decision and Ms. Simpson’s intention to be speculative. While the Court expressed skepticism regarding the Respondent’s conduct and noted Ms. Simpson’s failure to demonstrate reputational harm, it did not conclusively determine Ms. Simpson’s motives. Moreover, the current Complaint raises allegations of discriminatory impact beyond reputational harm, which was not addressed in the prior proceeding.
[56] The Court’s nuanced comments also acknowledged that Rebel News’ expression and conduct may have reinforced harmful stereotypes about transgender individuals, but the Court did not adjudicate the issue of discrimination in publications under the Code.
[57] Rebel News further argues that the Tribunal is bound by PPPA, specifically s.4. I accept that the applicability of s. 4 to complaints under s. 7 of the Code has not been judicially considered and constitutes a novel legal issue. In my view, this question should be resolved following a full evidentiary and legal hearing.
[58] In conclusion, I find that Rebel News has not met its burden of establishing that issue estoppel applies in this case, as the central issue of whether the July 9, 2020 video violates s. 7 of the Code was not previously decided. Rebel News’ argument under the PPPA raises a novel question that requires further adjudication. Accordingly, the Complaint as it relates to the July 9, 2020 publication should proceed to a hearing.
2. Retaliation – Section 43 of the Code
[59] Rebel News also applies to dismiss the Retaliation Complaint under s. 27(1)(c). Rebel News says there is no reasonable prospect Ms. Simpson will succeed in establishing the October 8, 2024 YouTube video constitutes a breach of s. 43 of the Code. Section 43 of the Code protects people from retaliatory conduct for participating, or possibly participating, in a human rights complaint process under the Code:
43 A person must not evict, discharge, suspend, expel, intimidate, coerce, impose any pecuniary or other penalty on, deny a right or benefit to or otherwise discriminate against a person because that person complains or is named in a complaint, might complain or be named in a complaint, gives evidence, might give evidence or otherwise assists or might assist in a complaint or other proceeding under this Code.
[60] Section 43 is an important part of the Code. It protects the integrity of the complaint process and is aimed at ensuring that people can exercise their rights under the Code without fear of prejudicial consequences: JW v. LS, 2023 BCHRT 30 at para. 55.
[61] To succeed at a hearing Ms. Simpson would have to show: (1) Rebel News was aware of the Complaint; (2) Rebel News engaged in or threatened to engage in conduct described in s. 43; and (3) there is sufficient connection between the impugned conduct and the complaint: Gichuru v. Pallai, 2018 BCCA 78, at para. 58.
[62] There is no dispute that Rebel News was aware that the Complaint had been filed with the Tribunal at the time the video was posted: it is the primary focus of the video. Rebel News denies retaliating against Ms. Simpson and argues that the Retaliation Complaint has no merit for several reasons. Below I summarize the claims advanced by Rebel News:
1. The publication is a continuation of its longstanding news and editorial coverage of Ms. Simpson, which is newsworthy, and a matter of considerable public interest.
2. Ms. Simpson is a vexatious litigant and has previously been found to be dishonest, deceptive, racist, and a manipulator of the Tribunal’s processes.
3. The publication has not caused Ms. Simpson harm. Rebel News asserts that Ms. Simpson maintains an active and provocative social media presence that courts attention and controversy.
[63] Ms. Simpson says the nature of the video is beyond mere commentary and is an active campaign intended to intimidate, humiliate, silence, and punish her for filing a discrimination complaint against them. She says the Respondent further misgenders and deadnames her, in a cruel and deliberate effort to undermine her identity as a transgender woman. She says the use of inflammatory language such as “cuckoo” and “predator” to describer her is designed to vilify her and subject her to public scorn. She says the video disclosed her personal contact information in the video, which has directly resulted in an onslaught of further harassment from third parties. She further alleges that a connection between the video and the Complaint can be inferred based on the timing of its publication.
[64] In response, Rebel News says Ms. Simpson has not met her burden of establishing that the video was published with the intent to intimidate, coerce, impose a penalty, or otherwise discriminate against her because she filed the Complaint. Rebel News also says the statements in the video are analogous to the statements in Palmer and Palmer v. British Columbia Teachers’ Federation, 2008 BCHRT 322 at para. 37, which was a complaint alleging a breach of s. 7(1)(a) of the Code that the Tribunal dismissed on a preliminary basis. In that case, the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation issued a letter to the Premier, a news release, and a petition encouraging the provincial government to take steps to address allegations of sexual exploitation within the Bountiful community. The Tribunal found that the publications did not indicate an intention to discriminate. Rather, the publications reflected the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation’s opinion about what the government should do in respect of a matter of ongoing public debate: Palmer, at paras. 52-53. Rebel News says, as in Palmer, the video is directed at the Tribunal and its decision to accept the Complaint. It says it provides commentary on an issue of public interest, criticizes the Tribunal’s process in accepting the Complaint, expresses opinion on whether s. 7 of the Code unreasonably restricts freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and is intended to spark public debate and political action to repeal s. 7 of the Code.
[65] I accept Rebel News’ arguments that Ms. Simpson’s allegation regarding its comments criticizing the Tribunal’s process, expressing opinions about s. 7 of the Code, advocating for its repeal, and advocating for political action in the provincial election and with respect to proposed federal legislation have no reasonable prospect of success. I understand Ms. Simpson to take issue with Rebel News’ reporting of the Complaint. Again, in my view, she has no reasonable prospect of proving that reporting violates s. 43 of the Code. The issue is whether there is no reasonable prospect that Ms. Simpson will be able to establish Rebel News’ continued misgendering, deadnaming, and name calling in a public forum is conduct described in s. 43 or has a sufficient connection to the Complaint.
[66] I am satisfied that Ms. Simpson has provided enough evidence to move her allegation of retaliation beyond speculation. It would be open to the Tribunal to find that Rebel News’ conduct of publicly misgendering her, using her dead name, and calling her inflammatory names in the video, amounted to intimidation or discrimination in violation of s. 43. This language goes beyond commentary of the Complaint filing, the Tribunal’s process, or s. 7 of the Code. It is the type of language that could dissuade people from filing human rights complaints – which is what the provision was designed to guard against.
[67] The next factor I need to consider is whether there is sufficient connection between the discrimination and the Complaint. Ms. Simpson can establish a sufficient connection in one of two ways: by showing Rebel News intended to retaliate, or by inference that Rebel News can reasonably have been perceived to have engaged in the discrimination in retaliation of the Complaint: Gichuru,at para. 58. The element of “reasonable perception” is assessed from the point of view of “a reasonable complainant, apprised of the facts, at the time of the impugned conduct”: Gichuru, at para. 58.
[68] Rebel News and Ms. Simpson have a longstanding and antagonistic relationship. On the evidence before me, Rebel News has been preoccupied with Ms. Simpson since the Tribunal’s waxing decisions gained public attention: Simpson, at paras. 26-30. Rebel News spends a considerable amount of attention and resources on Ms. Simpson. As stated in Simpson, “the invective directed by Rebel News at Ms. Simpson was often matched by that directed by her at Rebel News and others through her own social media posts. That is the nature of the arena in which she has chosen to engage”: at para. 88. In reporting on Ms. Simpson in the manner it did in the retaliation video, Rebel News did what it has consistently done: reporting on Ms. Simpson in a manner “heavily laden with vitriol and gratuitous insults”: Simpson, at para 92.
[69] I am not persuaded that Rebel News has provided a credible explanation for their conduct that rebuts any inference from the timing alone. The publication is in direct response to the complaint, talks about the complaint, and derides Ms. Simpson in connection with the complaint. This is the type of conduct that people should be protected against in the Tribunal’s process.
[70] While I have found that Rebel News did not meet the threshold for dismissing the remainder of the Complaint and Retaliation Complaint under s. 27(1)(c), this does not mean that it will be unable to establish a successful defence after a hearing of the matter. The result in this decision speaks only to the evidence submitted in this application.
IV CONCLUSION
[71] The application to dismiss is granted in part.
[72] Ms. Simpson’s allegations of discrimination under s. 7 of the Code arising from all of the Videos except for the July 9, 2020, video are dismissed under s. 27(1)(g).
[73] Rebel News’ application to dismiss the allegations regarding the July 9, 2020 video and the Retaliation Complaint is denied. Those allegations will proceed to a hearing.
Laila Said Alam
Tribunal Member