Adair v. British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. and another, 2026 BCHRT 160
Date Issued: July 22, 2026
File: CS-011572
Indexed as: Adair v. British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. and another, 2026 BCHRT 160
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:
Samuel Adair
COMPLAINANT
AND:
British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. and BC Ferry & Marine Workers Union
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO RECONSIDER A DECISION
RULE 36
Tribunal Member: Shannon Beckett
Complainant: Self-Represented
Counsel for British Columbia Ferry Services Inc.: Nicole C. M. Toye and Meg Monteith
Counsel for BC Ferry & Marine Workers Union: Lindsay A. Waddell and Evelyn Tsao
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This decision considers British Columbia Ferry Services’ [BC Ferries] application to have the Tribunal reconsider its August 27, 2025, decision to join two separate complaints Samuel Adair filed with the Tribunal; one against BC Ferries, and one against the BC Ferry & Marine Workers Union [the Union]. In this decision I refer to the August 27 decision as the joinder decision.
[2] BC Ferries says it was procedurally unfair for the Tribunal to join the two complaints without giving it a chance to provide submissions on whether the complaints should be joined. It further says the complaints ought not have been joined because they have more differences than similarities and proceeding with the complaints together would prejudice BC Ferries.
[3] Mr. Adair did not provide submissions on the application, and says that he takes no position on whether the decision to join the complaints should be reconsidered.
[4] The Union takes no position on whether reconsideration is appropriate in the present case. However, it submits that if the Tribunal does engage in reconsideration, it ought to maintain the decision to join the complaints due to the significant overlap between the complaints.
[5] For the following reasons, I find that the interests of fairness and justice weigh in favour of reconsideration in this case. However, upon reconsideration I decline to change the decision to join the complaints. In my view, given the significant overlap in the subject matter of the complaints it is fair and reasonable to join the complaints and consider them together.
II BACKGROUND
[6] On February 9, 2024, Mr. Adair filed a complaint against the Union alleging discrimination contrary to s. 14 of the Human Rights Code [Code], in the area of unions and associations, based on sexual orientation and mental disability [the Union Complaint]. In the Union Complaint, Mr. Adair alleges that the Union disclosed information about his sexual orientation and mental health condition to Union members and BC Ferries without his consent. He says that because of his mental health condition, he was removed as a shop steward and his application for an internal scholarship with the Union was not considered. He also says that after the Union disclosed his sexual orientation to BC Ferries, his supervisor, co-workers, and other union members began to treat him disrespectfully, including by making discriminatory remarks to him based on his sexual orientation. The Union Complaint alleges that discrimination by the Union continued and escalated over time, with the Union refusing to investigate his complaints of discrimination and ultimately accusing him of wrongdoing.
[7] On March 17, 2025, Mr. Adair filed a complaint against BC Ferries, alleging discrimination in employment contrary to s. 13 of the Code, based on sex and sexual orientation [the BC Ferries Complaint]. In the BC Ferries Complaint, Mr. Adair alleges BC Ferries failed to investigate his complaints of discrimination after co-workers sexually harassed him, which led to a poisoned work environment.
[8] On August 27, 2025, the Tribunal advised Mr. Adair that it had joined his two complaints because they contained related allegations and hearing them together would facilitate their just and efficient resolution. However, the Tribunal did not immediately serve the complaints on BC Ferries or the Union or otherwise notify either party that the complaints had been joined.
[9] It was not until February 5, 2026, that the Tribunal first advised BC Ferries and the Union that Mr. Adair had filed complaints against them, and that the Tribunal had joined the complaints.
[10] On February 19, 2026, BC Ferries applied for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s joinder decision. The Tribunal set a submission schedule on the application which closed on June 29, 2026.
[11] On February 25, 2026, Mr. Adair filed an amendment to his joined complaint alleging that the Union retaliated against him contrary to s. 43 of the Code when it sought his expulsion from the Union [the February 2026 Amendment]. The Tribunal accepted the February 2026 Amendment on April 1, 2026, which resulted in retaliation being added as an allegation to the joined complaint.
[12] On June 8, 2026, Mr. Adair filed another amendment to his complaint [the June 2026 Amendment]. In the June 2026 Amendment, Mr. Adair provided more details concerning the origin and nature of his joined complaint, including further details about the connection between the BC Ferries and Union complaints.
[13] On June 17, 2026, the Tribunal accepted the June 2026 Amendment.
[14] On June 29, 2026, BC Ferries filed its final reply submission on its reconsideration application.
III ANALYSIS AND DECISION
A. Whether to Reconsider the Decision
[15] The Tribunal has a limited jurisdiction to reconsider its own decisions: Rule 36 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Specifically, the Tribunal may reconsider a decision if it is in the interests of justice and fairness to do so: Routkovskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2012 BCCA 141 at para. 23. The Tribunal exercises this power sparingly, giving due consideration to the principle of finality in administrative proceedings: Grant v. City of Vancouver and others (No. 4), 2007 BCHRT 206 [Grant] at para 10.
[16] The burden is on the person seeking to have a matter re-opened to show that the interests of fairness and justice demand such an order: Grant at para. 10.
[17] The Tribunal does not have authority to reconsider a decision based on an argument that the decision was wrong or unreasonable or because there has been a change of circumstances: Fraser Health Authority v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 2014 BCCA 499 [Fraser Health] at paras. 135 and 160. The Tribunal will not reconsider a decision to address arguments that could have been made in the first instance but were not, or to hear a party reargue its case: Ramadan v. Kwantlen Polytechnic University and another (No. 2), 2018 BCHRT 56 at para. 13. The Tribunal will not reconsider a decision when a party simply disagrees with the outcome.
[18] However, the Tribunal may reconsider a decision where there has not been procedural fairness: Fraser Health at para. 160.
[19] In the present case, BC Ferries argues that because it was not provided with notice of the joinder decision or an opportunity to respond, it experienced procedural unfairness. It says the Tribunal’s brief letter does not explain the basis for the decision to join the complaints, nor does it indicate whether a party applied for the joinder or the Tribunal joined the complaints on its own motion. BC Ferries argues that the decision to join the complaints was not fair or reasonable because 1) the allegations against it are substantially different than the allegations against the Union, 2) there is limited efficiency to be gleaned from joining the complaints, and 3) BC Ferries will be prejudiced from having to participate in the Union complaint.
[20] As I have set out above, the Union does not take a position about whether reconsideration is appropriate in this situation. However, it does provide submissions on what it says are the applicable legal considerations. Citing Shin v. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and another (No. 3), 2024 BCHRT 185, and Sun v. Vancouver City Savings Credit Union (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 206 as examples, it submits that the Tribunal does not automatically find a breach of procedural fairness warranting reconsideration where a party has not been given an opportunity to provide submissions on an issue decided by the Tribunal. Citing Patsa obo others v. Fraser Health Authority, 2025 BCHRT 176 and Facey v. Peace River Hydro Partners and others, 2019 BCHRT 1, the Union submits that the Tribunal has held that the interests of fairness and justice will be engaged less frequently with respect to procedural decisions which do not involve decisions of finality on the merits of any substantive issues.
[21] I generally agree with the reasoning in Patsa that the requirements of fairness and justice are attenuated where the Tribunal’s decision does not finally determine the merits of a substantive issue. I also note that considerations of efficiency—which, in the context of a Tribunal with limited adjudicative resources and a significant backlog, materially advance access to justice—often require the Tribunal to make procedural decisions on its own initiative and without detailed reasons. To require submissions and fulsome reasons for every procedural determination would significantly impair the Tribunal’s ability to efficiently discharge its mandate. Procedural fairness does not ordinarily demand such procedures in respect of routine procedural matters.
[22] That said, fairness concerns assume greater significance where a procedural decision may have a substantial impact on a party’s interests or materially affect the resources expended by one or more parties. These considerations may be at play in relation to joinder decisions, especially when the complaints involve different respondents: see for example, Zamorano Meza v. Capilano Faculty Association and another, 2024 BCHRT 101 at para. 20.
[23] Ultimately, the assessment is highly fact-specific. There is no bright-line rule governing when procedural fairness concerns will be engaged; the answer will depend on the nature and consequences of the procedural decision in the particular circumstances.
[24] In the present case, the complaints before the Tribunal at the time of the joinder decision set out different allegations against each Respondent and did not clearly explain how those allegations were connected. Further, the complaints were filed over a year apart, and it was not clear from the complaints themselves to what extent the events alleged in each complaint overlapped in time. The Tribunal has recognized that compelling a respondent to participate in a complaint to which it is not a party may be prejudicial, especially where the issues at stake do not substantially engage or affect the respondent’s interests. Such prejudice may arise from the unnecessary time, effort, and expense required to review documents, participate in interim proceedings, and ultimately attend a hearing concerning matters in which it has no substantive interest: Zamorano at paras. 20-21.
[25] In the present case, where BC Ferries and the Union are separate Respondents, and where the degree of connection between the BC Ferries and Union complaints was not, initially, patent on the face of the complaints, I accept that BC Ferries was denied a fair opportunity to provide submissions on whether the complaints should be joined. As a result, on the specific facts of this case I find it is in the interests of fairness and justice to reconsider the joinder decision.
B. Reconsideration of Decision
[26] The Tribunal may join two or more complaints if it is satisfied that “it is fair and reasonable in the circumstances to do so”: Code s. 21(6). To make this determination, the Tribunal considers the extent to which the complaints involve common legal and factual issues and overlapping parties: Dennis v. BC (Ministry of Skills Development and Labour) and others (No. 4), 2004 BCHRT 341 at para. 10. Relevant factors may include whether the parties are the same, the grounds of discrimination are the same, there is overlap in background facts, there is overlap in the witnesses who would be testifying, and the assessment of evidence and law will be similar: Deboo and others v. B.C. (Ministry of Justice), 2015 BCHRT 7 at para. 12; Zamorano at para. 6.
[27] The Tribunal also considers whether joining the complaints will promote their just and timely resolution: Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 1(1). Relevant factors may include the stage of proceedings for each complaint, whether joining the complaints will result in any delay, and the potential for prejudice to any party: Zamorano at para. 7.
[28] The overarching goals of joining complaints are to promote the efficient use of the Tribunal’s processes and resources, and to reduce the time and expense borne by the parties and their witnesses.
[29] BC Ferries says joining the complaints would prejudice it because the complaints raise distinct factual and legal issues, and concern events occurring in different time periods. It further argues that although there might be some overlap in the witnesses and their evidence, the overlap would not be substantial. I disagree.
[30] When read holistically, the original complaints and the complaint amendments, particularly the June 2026 Amendment, disclose a high degree of overlap. Read together, Mr. Adair’s complaints and amendments set out his allegations that as a result of the initial non-consensual disclosures of his disability and sexual orientation by a Union member to other BC Ferries employees, Mr. Adair experienced harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and a poisoned work environment. He alleges that he made BC Ferries and the Union aware of the poisoned work environment – which he says was caused by his colleagues as well as Union executives – and both the Union and BC Ferries failed to adequately investigate or respond to his concerns.
[31] Although Mr. Adair does not provide a specific and particularized timeline of events and specific individuals involved, it is apparent from his complaints and amendments that he is alleging discrimination, and failure to investigate harassment and discrimination complaints against both BC Ferries and the Union, on an ongoing basis. Further, it is apparent that the allegations of discrimination against both Respondents covers the same period of time; from approximately 2021, when the alleged non-consensual disclosure of his mental disability and sexual orientation was made, up to the present.
[32] In my view, the BC Ferries and Union complaints arise out of the same underlying facts, and share a common set of circumstances. Further, although the Respondents are different, the complaints impugn the overlapping conduct of both Respondents in relation to the same events over the same period of time. Even if the specific legal issues to be determined may be different in relation to s. 13 and 14 of the Code, I am satisfied that the evidence in relation to both complaints under both sections of the Code is substantially intertwined. Further, although the grounds of discrimination were originally expressed differently in the BC Ferries and Union complaints, it is apparent from the June 2026 Amendment that Mr. Adair is asserting discrimination based on mental disability, sex, and sexual orientation against both Respondents.
[33] I acknowledge that there may be aspects of the joined complaint that do not directly implicate BC Ferries; for example, Mr. Adair’s allegation in the February 2026 Amendment that the Union retaliated against him. However, overall I am persuaded that the vast majority of the joined complaint is overlapping and intertwined, and that proceeding to hear the complaints separately would result in unnecessary and wasteful duplication of Tribunal and party resources. Additionally, proceeding separately to hear these complaints, which arise out of the same factual matrix, could result in unfairness, due to the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact: Spence v. Tekmar Control Systems and others, 2009 BCHRT 211 at para. 54.
[34] Ultimately, I am satisfied that it is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to keep the BC Ferries and Union complaints joined. It will promote the efficient use of the Tribunal’s processes and resources, avoid unnecessary duplication, and reduce the time and expense borne by the parties and their witnesses.
IV Conclusion
[35] For the reasons set out above, I have reconsidered the decision to join the BC Ferries and Union complaints. Upon reconsideration, I have concluded that the joinder decision remains appropriate. Accordingly, the complaints will proceed together and be heard as one matter.
Shannon Beckett
Tribunal Member