Solomon (by Arthur Solomon) v. BC Ministry of Finance (Receivables Management Office) and another, 2026 BCHRT 104
Date Issued: April 21, 2026
File No: CS-000982
Indexed as: Solomon (by Arthur Solomon) v. BC Ministry of Finance (Receivables Management Office) and another, 2026 BCHRT 104
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:
Michael Solomon (by Arthur Solomon)
COMPLAINANT
AND:
His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia
as represented by the Ministry of Finance (Receivables Management Office)
and the Ministry of Health (Medical Services Plan)
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Beverly Froese
Legal Advocate for the Complainant: Elise Thoriacius, Student-at-law
Indigenous Community Legal Clinic
Counsel for the Respondents: Alexandra MacCarthy
I INTRODUCTION
[1] In February 2020 and July 2022, Michael Solomon made complaints against the Ministry of Finance (Receivables Management Office) and the Ministry of Health (Medical Services Plan) alleging discrimination in the area of services based on race and Indigenous identity contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code. Those complaints were joined to form one complaint that was subsequently amended in September 2022.
[2] Mr. Solomon alleges that the Respondents discriminated against him by billing him for premiums under the provincial Medical Services Plan [MSP] that he was not required to pay because of his First Nations Status under the Indian Act. He alleges he was discriminated against when his income tax refunds and GST credits were used to pay a portion of the outstanding debt. Mr. Solomon says that because of the discrimination, he could not get medical treatment he urgently needed and his health deteriorated significantly. He also says the discrimination negatively impacted him financially.
[3] The Respondents deny discriminating against Mr. Solomon. The Respondents say that because Mr. Solomon did not complete the application necessary for his MSP premiums to be covered under Health Canada’s First Nations Inuit Health Branch’s group account [Health Canada Group Account], he was required to pay the premiums himself. The Respondents say that at all times Mr. Solomon was provided with MSP coverage in accordance with the Medicare Protection Act [Act] and the Medical and Health Services Regulation [Regulation]. They also say that only some of Mr. Solomon’s unpaid premiums were recovered and the remaining balance was written off.
[4] Under its Case Path Pilot, the Tribunal allowed the Respondents to apply to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success.
[5] For the following reasons, the Respondents’ application is denied. 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 Preliminary matter – ADDING NEW ALLEGATIONS TO COMPLAINT
[6] As a preliminary matter, the Respondents say that Mr. Solomon tried to improperly expand the scope of the complaint by adding new allegations in his response to the application to dismiss.
[7] A complainant who wants to amend their complaint during an outstanding application to dismiss must apply to do so: Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure [Rules], Rule 24(4)(b). The purpose of this rule is to ensure that a respondent who files an application to dismiss a complaint does not face a moving target: Pausch v. School District No. 34 and others, 2008 BCHRT 154 at paras. 28-29. Respondents are entitled to know the allegations against them to assess whether, or on what basis, to bring their application to dismiss the complaint: Purdy v. Douglas College and others, 2016 BCHRT 117 at paras. 35-37.
[8] At the same time, the Tribunal’s complaint forms are not the equivalent of pleadings in a civil litigation process: White v. Nanaimo Daily News Group Inc. and Klaholz, 2004 BCHRT 350 at para. 23. It is not uncommon, or a violation of the Rules, for a complainant to add new particulars of their complaint in response to an application to dismiss. The distinction between particulars and new allegations was set out in Powell v. Morton, 2005 BCHRT 282 at para. 20:
… I must consider whether the amendment contains, on the one hand, further details of the facts on which the complainant intends to rely, or whether, on the other, it constitutes an expansion of the allegations made against the respondents. If the former, it will constitute particulars; if the latter, an amendment.
[9] The Respondents say that allegations Mr. Solomon makes in his response relating to the Health Canada Group Account application form and “operational decisions” regarding the application and enrollment process are new allegations.
[10] Mr. Solomon does not expressly refer to the application form or “operational decisions” in his complaint. That does not mean, however, that allegations about them in his response to this application are new allegations that improperly expand the scope of the complaint. In their response to the complaint and this application to dismiss, the Respondents referred to Mr. Solomon’s application for MSP coverage and explained the application and enrollment process. All Mr. Solomon did in his response was make submissions on how “operational decisions” made during the application and enrollment process caused or contributed to the alleged discrimination.
III BACKGROUND
[11] The background is taken from the materials filed by the parties. I make no findings of fact.
[12] Mr. Solomon is a member of the Henvey Inlet First Nation. He is a resident of British Columbia and has First Nations Status under the Indian Act.
A. The MSP
[13] The Ministry of Health is responsible for all matters relating to public health and government-operated health insurance programs in the province, including the MSP. The MSP provides coverage for services provided by medical practitioners to residents of British Columbia. The MSP is administered in accordance with the Act, the Regulation, and various policies established by the Ministry of Health. The BC Medical Services Commission [Commission] is a statutory body that manages the MSP on the Ministry of Health’s behalf in accordance with the Actand Regulation.
[14] The Actrequires all British Columbia residents to enroll in the MSP. Applications for enrollment in the MSP must be made in the manner prescribed in the Act and Regulation. Once an applicant’s identity and residency have been confirmed, the Commission must enrol them in a MSP account. Once enrolled, an applicant is referred to as a “beneficiary”.
[15] There are two types of MSP accounts. A self-administered account is for beneficiaries whose accounts are not administered by an employer, pension plan, or other group. A group account is for beneficiaries whose accounts are administered by an employer, pension plan, or other group. A beneficiary cannot be added to a group account without authorization from the group account. If the group account does not authorize the enrollment of the beneficiary, or the group account is cancelled, the beneficiary is automatically enrolled in a self-administered account so there are no gaps in coverage.
[16] Until 2013, MSP coverage for First Nations’ residents of British Colombia was provided for under the Health Canada Group Account. In 2013, the First Nations Health Authority became responsible for enrolling beneficiaries and administering the MSP to First Nations’ residents in British Columbia through its group account [FN Authority Group Account].
[17] Before January 1, 2020, all beneficiaries were required to pay premiums for MSP coverage in accordance with the Act and Regulation unless they were exempt under the Regulation. Beneficiaries in self-administered accounts were responsible for paying their own MSP premiums. If a beneficiary did not pay their premium within the time prescribed under the Act and Regulation, that amount, plus interest, could be recovered as a debt owing to the Commission. Some group accounts, including the Health Canada and FN Authority Group Accounts, paid the MSP premiums on behalf of all their members.
[18] MSP premiums were eliminated in January 2020. According to the transitional provisions of the Amendment Act, beneficiaries were still liable to pay any unpaid premiums, plus interest, to the Commission.
B. Debt collection
[19] The Ministry of Finance is responsible for taxation policies and collecting debts owed to the Province of British Columbia. From 2004 to 2021, the Ministry of Finance oversaw Revenue Services of British Columbia [Revenue Services], a third-party contractor responsible for billing, invoice, and accounts receivable management. In April 2021, Revenue Services became part of the Ministry of Finance’s Receivables Management Office of the Revenue Division [Receivables Office].
[20] Until January 1, 2020, Revenue Services was responsible for invoicing and collecting MSP premiums and collecting debts for unpaid MSP premiums on the Commission’s behalf. When collecting debts for unpaid MSP premiums, Revenue Services would send an invoice to the person and attempt to contact them by phone, text message, and letter. If the person did not respond, Revenue Services would either place their account in the “set-off program” with Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] under the Income Tax Act or review it for enforcement under the provincial Financial Administration Act. If the account went to the CRA’s set-off program, the person’s income tax or other refunds could be applied to the unpaid debt. The Respondents say that when collecting an unpaid debt for MSP premiums, neither the Ministry of Finance nor Revenue Services have any knowledge or information about the person’s personal characteristics.
C. Mr. Solomon’s MSP Premiums
[21] In November 2009, Health Insurance BC received Mr. Solomon’s application for MSP coverage under the Health Canada Group Account [Application Form]. The Application Form appears to include Mr. Solomon’s First Nations Status number. The Respondents say the Application Form was incomplete because Mr. Solomon did not first get the Health Canada Group Account’s authorization to be enrolled. As a result, Mr. Solomon was automatically enrolled in a self-administered account, which required him to pay the premiums himself.
[22] In December 2009, Health Insurance BC returned the Application Form to Mr. Solomon. Mr. Solomon says that at the time, he was not told that he was responsible for obtaining authorization from the Health Canada Group Account or that he was enrolled in the self-administered plan. He says that once he became aware that he had been enrolled in the wrong MSP account, he and his father made repeated attempts to correct the mistake. The documentary evidence indicates that in the years after Mr. Solomon was enrolled in a self-administered account, Mr. Solomon’s father contacted Health Insurance BC numerous times, as well as his local MLA and MP. It also indicates that in January 2011, Health Insurance BC sent Mr. Solomon a new application and addressed envelope to forward to the “appropriate Health Canada office”.
[23] The Respondents say that Mr. Solomon never returned a completed application for coverage under the Health Canada Group Account. The documentary evidence indicates that Mr. Solomon’s father told Health Insurance BC that Mr. Solomon unsuccessfully applied for coverage under the Health Canada Group Account at least three times.
[24] In December 2019, Mr. Solomon was added to the FN Authority Group Account effective December 2018. In January 2020, Mr. Solomon’s coverage under the FN Authority Group Account was backdated to December 2014, the maximum number of years the Respondents say is allowed under the Act and Regulation. That meant Mr. Solomon was still liable for unpaid premiums incurred between October 2008 and November 2014.
[25] The parties do not appear to dispute that Mr. Solomon never paid MSP premiums when he was enrolled in a self-administered account. They also appear to agree that the Commission requested Revenue Services recover unpaid premiums from Mr. Solomon. Between 2009 and 2020, Revenue Services recovered a portion of Mr. Solomon’s debt through CRA’s set-off program.
[26] When Mr. Solomon’s MSP coverage was transferred to the FN Health Authority Group Account, his account was removed from CRA’s set-off program. No further funds were deducted from Mr. Solomon’s income tax or GST refunds to pay his outstanding premiums. In April 2022, Revenue Services wrote off the remaining balance owing by Mr. Solomon.
IV DECISION
[27] The Respondents apply to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c). The onus is on the Respondents to establish the basis for dismissal.
[28] 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.
[29] 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.
[30] 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.
[31] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Solomon will have to prove that he was adversely impacted regarding the services the Respondents customarily provide to the public and that his race and Indigenous identity were factors in that adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. If he does that, the burden would shift to the Respondents to justify the impact as a bona fide reasonable justification. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.
A. Is there no reasonable prospect that Mr. Solomon will be able to prove that the complaint falls under s. 8 of the Code?
[32] The Respondents argue that the complaint should be dismissed because it does not engage the protections under s. 8 of the Code. Section 8 of the Code prohibits discrimination regarding a service that is “customarily available to the public”. Therefore, a complaint under s. 8 must relate to “a service, customarily available, and customarily available to the public”: British Columbia v. Crockford, 2006 BCCA 360 at para. 78.
[33] In Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 31 [Andrews/Matson], the Supreme Court of Canada [SCC] distinguished between complaints in the area of “services” that fall under human rights legislation and those that do not. Complaints that solely target legislation, for example by challenging eligibility criteria mandated by statute, do not fall under human rights legislation because enacting legislation is not a “service” the government customarily provides to the public. However, complaints that allege a discriminatory practice, for example the manner in which a government body used its statutory discretion to deny a complainant access to a service, fall under human rights legislation: at paras. 57-59, and 97; see also Child L (by Mother L) v. BC Ministry of Education, 2025 BCHRT 27 at paras. 14-16.
[34] The Respondents say that Mr. Solomon has not identified a “service” and that, in effect, he is solely targeting the Act and Regulation because he takes issue with having had to pay MSP premiums when he was enrolled in a self-administered plan. They say that Mr. Solomon is challenging the mandatory statutory requirements that beneficiaries in self-administered accounts pay MSP premiums and unpaid premiums be recovered as a debt owing to the Commission.
[35] The Respondents say that this complaint falls under the category of complaints described in Andrews/Matson as not failing under human rights legislation. In that case, the SCC upheld decisions made by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal [CHRT] dismissing complaints alleging that provisions relating to registration under the Indian Act of people who qualify for Status based on specific eligibility criteria were discriminatory. The SCC found that the CHRT reasonably concluded that the complaints were not reviewable because they were a direct attack on the eligibility criteria in the Indian Act: at para. 58.
[36] The Respondents also say this case is analogous to Khabazian-Isfahani v. BC Ministry of Finance (No. 2), 2023 BCHRT 94, where the Tribunal dismissed a complaint alleging that the statutory timeframes applicable to the provincial Fuel Tax Refund Program were discriminatory. Under the Motor Tax Fuel Act, eligible classes of people, including people with disabilities, were entitled to a refund of fuel taxes paid. The legislation expressly said that refunds could not be given more than four years from the date the amount claimed was paid or remitted. The legislation also expressly said that written notice of an appeal of a refund decision must be made within 90 days of the date of the director’s notice of the decision. The complainant alleged that the strict application of the legislative provisions without any effort to accommodate his disabilities was discriminatory under s. 8 of the Code. The Tribunal dismissed the complaint on the basis that it was a direct attack on the mandatory timeframes in the legislation. The Tribunal found that the complaint fell outside the scope of s. 8 because the legislation in question did not give the respondent any discretion relating to the timeframes: at para. 77.
[37] Mr. Solomon says the Respondents have mischaracterized the nature of his complaint and that his complaint falls into the category of complaints referred to in Andrews/Matson that fall under human rights legislation. He also says that his case is not analogous to Khabazian and is distinguishable on the facts.
[38] Based on the materials before me, I am not persuaded that the complaint should be dismissed because Mr. Solomon has no reasonable prospect of proving it falls within s. 8 of the Code.
[39] Mr. Solomon is not challenging the mandatory eligibility criteria for MSP coverage or that authorization is needed from a group account before a beneficiary can be enrolled in that group account. Nor is Mr. Solomon challenging the statutory requirement for beneficiaries in self-administered accounts to pay premiums. Rather, Mr. Solomon alleges that discretionary decisions made during the application process were discriminatory because they functioned as a barrier to him being properly enrolled in the Health Canada Group Account. He alleges he was incorrectly enrolled in a self-administered account and maintained in that account despite the attempts made by him and his father to correct the error. Mr. Solomon alleges that he was further discriminated against when the Commission exercised its discretion to refer his unpaid premiums for collection despite knowing he had First Nations Status and should have been enrolled in the Health Canada Group Account from the start.
[40] In my view, this complaint falls into the category of complaints described in Andrews/Matson as falling under human rights legislation. In that case, the SCC noted that although the eligibility criteria in the Indian Act were not a “service”, “the act of processing applications and registering individuals could be characterized as a service customarily held out to the public”: at para. 12. Similarly, in Startek v. Ministry of Finance and another, 2022 BCHRT 117, the Tribunal distinguished between complaints that are “a bare attack on the legislation” and those that concern “the administration of a service created by legislation”: at para. 7; see also Khabazian at paras. 62 and 74.
[41] The Respondents say that Mr. Solomon was not enrolled in the Health Canada Group Account because his application was incomplete and he never submitted a complete application. The Respondents say that because Mr. Solomon did not take the steps statutorily required to obtain authorization directly from the Health Canada Group Account, it was not obligated to pay his premiums. While the Act requires authorization from a group account before enrollment, the Respondents have not cited any provisions of the Act or Regulation that says who is solely responsible for obtaining that authorization. Put another way, nowhere in the legislative provisions the Respondents provided does it say that the onus is solely on an applicant to obtain the group account’s authorization.
[42] The Application Form states that it is “FOR REGISTERED STATUS INDIANS WHO ARE ASSISTED BY THE MEDICAL SERVICES BRANCH AND MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE HEALTH CANADA PACIFIC REGION OFFICE”. There is a section in the Application Form entitled “AUTHORIZATION – MUST BE SIGNED BY HEALTH CANADA” and space for the signature and contact information of a “Medical Services Branch Representative”. The top of the Application Form states that incomplete, unsigned, or unauthorized forms will be returned. Nowhere on the Application Form, however, does it cite any statutory or regulatory provisions stating that Mr. Solomon was responsible for obtaining authorization from the Health Canada Group Account before he would be enrolled. I note here that the Application Form also does not provide any information as to how the applicant should go about obtaining that authorization. Based on the materials before me, it appears that Mr. Solomon was expected to send the application to Health Canada or the Health Canada Group Account rather than to Health Insurance BC.
[43] The Respondents also submit that they had no statutory discretion to waive the collection of unpaid premiums. The excerpts from the Act and Regulation provided by the Respondents state that beneficiaries were required to pay premiums before they were repealed and beneficiaries are still liable for unpaid premiums as a debt owing to the Commission. However, those excerpts do not indicate that the Commission was statutorily required to collect them from a beneficiary, in particular from a beneficiary known to have First Nations Status. Further, unlike the situation in Khabazian, it appears from the materials before me that five years was not a statutory limitation regarding retroactive coverage. Those materials indicate that the five-year time limit on backdating coverage was a “policy” and beneficiaries could appeal to Health Insurance BC to have their coverage backdated more than five years. They also indicate that Mr. Solomon was informed in May 2020 that Health Insurance BC could not backdate his coverage more than five years because of “system limitations” and not because of statutorily mandated timeframes.
[44] As it appears the Respondents made discretionary decisions related to Mr. Solomon’s application for MSP coverage and collecting unpaid premiums, I decline to dismiss the complaint on the basis that Mr. Solomon has no reasonable prospect of proving it engages s. 8 of the Code.
B. Does Mr. Solomon have no reasonable prospect of proving his case at a hearing?
[45] The Respondents next argue that the complaint should be dismissed because Mr. Solomon has no reasonable prospect of proving that he experienced any adverse impacts.
[46] In his complaint, Mr. Solomon alleges that because he was mistakenly enrolled in a self-administered account that required him to pay premiums, his health deteriorated as a result of not being able to access critical medical care. The Respondent say that even though Mr. Solomon did not pay MSP premiums, he was able to access the medical care he needed.
[47] There is evidence supporting Mr. Solomon’s allegation. Specifically, in a letter Mr. Solomon’s father wrote to Health Insurance BC in April 2020, he referred to an incident where he asserts that Mr. Solomon was unable to access medical care. In my view, that is sufficient to take this allegation out of the realm of conjecture.
[48] In his complaint, Mr. Solomon also alleges that he experienced negative financial impacts, including the loss of employment prospects because of a poor credit score from unpaid premiums. The Respondents say that unpaid premiums do not affect a person’s credit score. Even if that is the case, the evidence indicates that Mr. Solomon experienced financial loss when his coverage was not backdated more than five years and his income tax and GST refunds were used to recover a portion of the debt.
[49] The Respondents also argue that Mr. Solomon has no reasonable prospect of proving a nexus between his race and Indigenous identity and the adverse impacts he alleges he experienced. They say there is no nexus because all beneficiaries were required to pay MSP premiums, automatically enrolled in a self-administered account if they were not authorized by a group account, and subject to collection of unpaid premiums.
[50] As I stated earlier, Mr. Solomon is not challenging the requirement for beneficiaries in self-administered accounts to pay MSP premiums, be automatically enrolled in a self-administered account if the group account did not authorize their enrollment, or have unpaid premiums collected. He challenges the manner in which his application for coverage as a person with First Nations Status was processed, starting with his application being considered “incomplete” because he did first not obtain authorization from the Health Canada Group account.
[51] The difficulty with the Respondents’ submission is that they do not address whether all beneficiaries applying for coverage to a group account were entirely responsible for obtaining authorization from that group account. Put another way, there is no information or evidence before me as to whether applicants for group accounts other than the Health Canada Group Account were responsible for obtaining authorization from that group account. Nor is there any information or evidence before me indicating that Health Insurance BC could not make efforts to obtain authorization from a group account if the applicant had not done so. In the absence of that type of information and evidence, I am not persuaded that Mr. Solomon has no reasonable prospect of proving a connection between the alleged adverse impacts and his race and Indigenous identity. For example, a nexus might be established if applicants with First Nations Status were the only applicants solely responsible for obtaining authorization from the group account to which they should otherwise have been enrolled, or if Health Insurance BC obtained authorization directly from other group accounts.
C. Is it reasonably certain that the Respondents will be able to justify their conduct?
[52] Last, the Respondents argue that the complaint should be dismissed because they are reasonably certain to prove a defence at the hearing: Purdy v. Douglas College and others, 2016 BCHRT 117 at para. 50.
[53] To justify the adverse impacts at a hearing, the Respondents would have to prove that: (1) they adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the function being performed, (2) they adopted the standard in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to fulfill that legitimate purpose; and (3) the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that legitimate purpose. This third element encompasses a respondent’s duty to accommodate the complainant to the point of undue hardship: British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 SCR 868 at para. 20.
[54] The Respondents submit that the “standards” in this case are the statutory requirements in the Act and Regulation. They say those standards were adopted in good faith, for the purpose of complying with the Act and Regulation and were reasonably necessary to ensure lawful administration of the Act and Regulation. The Respondents say they had no discretion to interpret, vary, or waive the requirement to pay premiums. They say that not requiring Mr. Solomon to pay premiums would have been an undue hardship.
[55] Again, Mr. Solomon is not challenging the statutory requirement in place at the time that beneficiaries in self-administered accounts had to pay premiums. His complaint alleges that the processing of his application for MSP coverage was discriminatory, in particular by making him responsible for obtaining authorization from the Health Canada Group Account, billing him for premiums he should not have had to pay, and then recovering a portion of those outstanding premiums even though the Respondents knew he has First Nations Status.
[56] The Respondents did not address whether any discretionary decisions made with respect to Mr. Solomon’s MSP coverage and collection of unpaid premiums were justified. Therefore, there is no evidence or information before me, for example, to explain why Health Insurance BC could not have obtained authorization from the Health Canada Group Account directly or why it could not have backdated Mr. Solomon’s enrollment to the date he made his initial application. In the absence of such information and evidence, the Respondents have not met their onus of establishing it is reasonably certain they would be able to prove a justification defence at a hearing.
V CONCLUSION
[57] The Respondents’ application to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code is denied. The complaint will proceed to a hearing.
Beverly Froese
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal