O’Brien-Hornsey v. British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. (No.3), 2026 BCHRT 234
Date Issued: November 6, 2026
File: CS-003323
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:
Erin O’Brien-Hornsey
COMPLAINANT
AND:
British Columbia Ferry Services Inc
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(d)(ii)
Tribunal Member: Devyn Cousineau
On her own behalf: Erin O’Brien Hornsey
Counsel for the Respondent: Nicole C. Toye and Alyssa L. Paez
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Erin O’Brien-Hornsey worked for BC Ferries as a Lead Operator and Supervisor, until her employment was terminated in 2020. In 2021, she filed this human rights complaint. She alleged, first, that BC Ferries discriminated against her based on her sex and disability by suspending and later terminating her employment. Second, she alleged that her workplace was poisoned by “systemic misogyny” [Sexism Allegations]. In an earlier decision, the Tribunal dismissed Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s allegations relating to her suspension and termination. It determined that her Sexism Allegations would proceed to a hearing: O’Brien-Hornsey v. British Columbia Ferry Services Inc., 2025 BCHRT 72 [Dismissal Decision].
[2] BC Ferries has made Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey a with prejudice offer to settle her Sexism Allegations. Its offer includes systemic remedies relating to training and reviewing policies, and a monetary payment of $20,000 as compensation for injury to Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s dignity, feelings, and self-respect. Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey has declined the offer, on the basis that it does not go far enough to remedy the issues raised by her complaint and the impact that the alleged discrimination had on her.
[3] In this application, BC Ferries argues that it does not further the purposes of the Human Rights Code for this complaint to proceed to a hearing in circumstances where its offer reasonably resolves the complaint. I agree.
[4] For the reasons that follow, I find that BC Ferries’ offer reasonably addresses the systemic and individual remedies that may be available to Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey if she were successful in her complaint. The offer satisfies the Code’s purposes of providing Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey with a remedy, preventing discrimination, and fostering a climate of mutual respect, while preserving the responsiveness and efficiency of the human rights system: Human Rights Code, s. 3. A hearing is not necessary. The complaint is dismissed: Code, s. 27(1)(d)(ii).
[5] I remind Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey that BC Ferries’ offer remains open for two weeks.
II DECISION
[6] Section 27(1)(d)(ii) of the Code allows the Tribunal to dismiss a complaint where proceeding with it would not further the purposes of the Code. These purposes include both private and public interests: s. 3. Deciding whether a complaint furthers those purposes is not only about the interests in the individual complaint. It may also be about broad public policy issues, like the efficiency and responsiveness of the human rights system, and the expense and time involved in a hearing: Dar Santos v. UBC, 2003 BCHRT 73 at para. 59.
[7] One circumstance where it may not further the purposes of the Code to proceed is where the respondent has made a reasonable offer to resolve the complaint. In the words of the Court of Appeal:
… If the redress offered by a respondent approximates the relief sought by the complainant that would otherwise have been obtained if the complaint went to hearing, then the aim of the legislation is satisfied. Proceeding with the hearing of the claim would be pointless.
Carter v. Travelex Canada, 2009 BCCA 180 [Carter BCCA] at para. 38
In this situation, the remedial purposes of the Code can be fulfilled through the settlement, with the public benefit of preserving the Tribunal’s scarce resources to focus on other complaints: Dar Santos at para. 59.
[8] The burden is on BC Ferries in this application.
[9] There are two pre-requisites for the Tribunal to consider dismissing a complaint based on a reasonable settlement offer. First, the settlement offer must be made “with prejudice” because the Tribunal cannot rely on information about settlement discussions that is inadmissible based on privilege: Dar Santos at para. 64. Second, the offer must remain open for the complainant’s acceptance regardless of the outcome of the application to dismiss: Issa v. Loblaw, 2009 BCHRT 264 at para. 35. There is no dispute that both pre-requisites are met in this case. BC Ferries’ offer is with prejudice and remains open for two weeks after the Tribunal renders its decision on this application.
[10] Next, to determine whether it furthers the purposes of the Code to proceed, the Tribunal considers two things. First, it determines whether the offer is reasonable. Second, even if the offer is reasonable, the Tribunal may consider whether there are considerations that weigh in favour of proceeding with the complaint, considering the purposes set out in s. 3 of the Code. Generally, it will not further the purposes of the Code to proceed where the respondent has made a reasonable, with prejudice, settlement offer: Dar Santos at para. 59.
[11] I begin by briefly setting out the background to Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s complaint and BC Ferries’ offer. I then consider whether BC Ferries’ offer is reasonable. Given my finding that it is, I also consider whether there are any other factors that weigh in favour of proceeding with the complaint. I conclude there are not.
A. Complaint and offer
[12] The background to Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s complaint is set out in the Dismissal Decision. In brief, Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey worked for BC Ferries from 2008 until 2020. She was a Lead Operator and Supervisor on the Marine Vessel Baynes Sound Connector. She was represented in her employment by the BC Ferry and Marine Workers’ Union [Union], and her employment was governed by a collective agreement between BC Ferries and the Union. It was a male-dominated work environment.
[13] Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s Sexism Allegations relate to the period between January 2019 until her termination on April 6, 2020: Dismissal Decision at para. 84. During that period, she was the only female commander on the vessel. She says she was subject to “a dramatic and eventually dangerous change in culture”. Broadly, she alleges that, “as one of the few women in a position of command, she experienced insubordination, deference to male counterparts, and sexually inappropriate jokes and language”: Dismissal Decision at para. 85. Her specific allegations are particularized in an amendment filed on July 4, 2022 [Amendment]. They include:
a. Trainees and crew members (presumably men) were demonstrating an “authoritative style” through “the use of tone, intimidating behaviours, sneaky practices and complacency”. This included “tasks not being completed, direction being ignored, unclear radio communication, walking on the deck slowly and with hands in pockets, leaving dishes and mess in the crew mess for [Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey] or long-time crew members to attend”.
b. After Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey demonstrated a procedure to a male deckhand/operator, he indicated that he was going to ask a man, who was no more qualified than Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey, about it.
c. A male crew member told sexually inappropriate jokes (“blow up dolls inferred to be children and blow job jokes”).
d. A male crew member disclosed to Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey that another male crew member had “grabbed [his] ass” and said, “I can’t wait to get you alone this weekend”.
e. While Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey was training the crew, a newly hired deckhand indicated he would have to check the information she was providing with a junior male deckhand/operator.
f. A male crew member told Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey that “If [a woman] gets the Operator job here I will transfer, there is no way I am going to work with 3 women, sorry, no!”
g. A male crew member called the “C watch” the “Cunt watch”.
h. A female crew member demonstrated poor job performance and “lack of respect for authority”, dressed inappropriately, acted flirtatiously, and brought in a printed note pad with sexual innuendo on it.
i. When Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey reported these issues to management, she was not supported.
j. Two women employees left employment because of stress or medical reasons, and Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey was fired. After that, only one woman remained in a position of authority.
Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey alleges that the cumulative impact of this culture shift was that she was working in an environment poisoned by “systemic misogyny”.
[14] BC Ferries’ settlement offer is dated October 29, 2025 [Offer]. It is presented as a “good faith effort to resolve the Complaint and allow the parties to avoid the time and expense of a hearing”. The terms of the Offer are:
a. BC Ferries will pay Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey $20,000 in general damages for alleged injury to dignity, feelings and self respect;
b. BC Ferries will not admit liability;
c. BC Ferries “commits to reviewing its processes and procedures for how complaints of discrimination on the basis of sex are brought forward and responded to”;
d. BC Ferries “confirms that it has implemented training around respectful workplaces and discrimination under the Human Rights Code (“Training”). The Training includes information on unconscious biases, stereotypes and how to respond and report allegations of discrimination”. The last Training took place in person in 2022;
e. BC Ferries confirms that, in 2024, it implemented a “Respectful Workplace Online Training Program that all employees must now complete every two years”; and
f. BC Ferries commits to further respectful workplace training for its employees.
In exchange, BC Ferries asks Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey to withdraw her human rights complaint. It does not ask for a release.
B. Is the offer reasonable?
[15] In assessing whether a settlement offer is reasonable, the Tribunal assumes that the complainant will prove their allegations and considers what the Tribunal would likely order: Heitner v. BC Provincial Renal Agency and others (No. 3), 2020 BCHRT 134 at para. 47. The offer does not need to mirror exactly what the Tribunal would order: Carter v. Travelex Canada and Travelex UK (No. 3), 2007 BCHRT 275 [Carter BCHRT] at para. 30, upheld in Carter BCCA; Sloane-Seale v. Swick’s Organic Landscaping and another (No. 2), 2012 BCHRT 22 at para. 17. However, the offer must fully address the allegations and available remedies, both monetary and non-monetary. The Tribunal will consider:
a. Whether the respondent’s remedial actions adequately remedied the alleged violation and are consistent with the types of orders the Tribunal might make if the complaints were successful; and
b. Whether the monetary settlement offered is within the reasonable range that the Tribunal might award if it found the complaint was justified.
See Issa at para. 35.
It is not always necessary for the respondent to admit liability: Heitner at para. 70; Sloane-Seale at para. 19.
[16] I begin by grounding my analysis in the allegations which are proceeding to a hearing. Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey characterizes her complaint this way: “This is an investigation into the systemic misogyny at British Columbia Ferry corporation.” Respectfully, I disagree. The Tribunal is an “adjudicator of the particular claim that is before it, not a Royal Commission”: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 64. Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s complaint is an individual complaint about whether she was adversely impacted in her employment because of her sex. The incidents at issue are set out in her complaint and Amendment, and summarized above. Any remedies the Tribunal could order would be responsive to those specific allegations.
[17] Further, some of Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s arguments refer to the processes leading to her suspension and termination. These allegations have been dismissed by the Tribunal in the Dismissal Decision. They would not form part of the allegations proceeding to hearing, and would not affect any remedy the Tribunal might order. For that reason, I do not consider these arguments.
[18] Considering Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s allegations, and the remedies the Tribunal would likely order if she were successful, I am satisfied that the Offer is reasonable.
1. Non-monetary remedies
[19] Where the Tribunal finds discrimination, it has discretion to make orders to “ameliorate the effects of the discriminatory practice”: Code, s. 37(2)(c)(i). This may include orders that a respondent undertake training or implement policies to address institutional conditions that gave rise to discriminatory practices. The orders must flow from the discrimination.
[20] The Offer includes two non-monetary remedies to promote a non-discriminatory work environment: training and policy review.
[21] Training is a remedy that this Tribunal commonly orders to address systemic discrimination. In this case, it appears that BC Ferries is committed to training regardless of whether Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey accepts its offer. This is laudable. The training aims to prevent discrimination (by raising awareness of how discrimination operates) and ensure an appropriate response (by addressing how to report and respond). The Tribunal recognizes that these types of efforts are part of an appropriate response to allegations of discrimination: Laskowska v. Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30at para. 59.
[22] Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey argues that BC Ferries’ training is not reasonable. She argues that meaningful training must include:
· In person Managing Conflict in the Workplace training delivered by independent third-party professionals across all levels of operational management, terminal and shipboard crews.
· Bystander intervention training designed to address harassment and discrimination in workplace environments.
· Leadership training and accountability mechanisms for upper management personnel responsible for workplace culture. [emphasis in original]
I note that Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey has been asking for this type of training for many years, including before her Sexism Allegations arose. In particular, she says that she had been asking for conflict management training since 2016.
[23] I appreciate, and agree, that this type of training would be useful for any employer. However, I am not persuaded that BC Ferries’ failure to include this training makes its Offer unreasonable. It has elected to focus its training on human rights awareness and a respectful workplace. Contrary to Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s suggestion that the training is “directed primarily toward shipboard and terminal staff”, the training is mandatory for all staff. The training is responsive to the issues raised by the Sexism Allegations and similar to the type of training this Tribunal might order if the complaint is successful. It is reasonable.
[24] Next, BC Ferries commits to “reviewing its processes and procedures for how complaints of discrimination on the basis of sex are brought forward and responded to”. I have some concerns about the effectiveness of this aspect of the Offer. This is a vague, essentially unenforceable commitment. The Offer does not identify what processes and procedures it will be reviewing, or what aspect of Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s allegations this review will respond to. In some cases, this would not reflect a reasonable resolution of issues of discrimination.
[25] BC Ferries cites Michaud v. Ministry of Finance (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 341, as an example of a case where the Tribunal accepted an employer’s commitment to a policy review. In my view, the offer in Michaud was stronger than the one before me here. In Michaud, the respondent committed to a “good faith … review of the circumstances of this Complaint, to examine where improvements could be made in communications and steps in the process”: para. 41. It cited specific examples where the Tribunal had suggested communications could be improved: paras. 44. The Tribunal was satisfied that the offer was responsive to the specific issues it had identified in an earlier decision: para. 45-47. The Tribunal concluded:
I can appreciate that Ms. Michaud is not satisfied with the ambiguity of what improvements may result from the review. However, where the Ministry agrees to conduct a good faith review to identify process and communications improvements, I am satisfied that it is consistent with the forward-looking types of orders the Tribunal makes when a complaint is successful at a hearing. The proposed review is a future-oriented action aimed at improving communications and steps in the process for future employees in similar circumstances. [para. 48]
In contrast here, BC Ferries has not offered any detail about what it is committing to review, and how its proposed review would be responsive to the issues presented by Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s Sexism Allegations.
[26] Despite some misgivings, however, I conclude that this part of the Offer is reasonably responsive to Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s Sexism Allegations. It is forward looking and its effect is similar to the type of “cease and refrain” order the Tribunal would typically make if it finds a complaint justified: Code, s. 37(2)(a). I take BC Ferries at its word that the Offer is made in good faith. I trust that its review will include consideration of the concerning themes presented by Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s Sexism Allegations, including a careful review of how BC Ferries supports women in leadership roles, who are working in a male-dominated environment.
[27] Finally, Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey argues that the non-monetary remedies are not reasonable because they fail to address “safe reporting pathways” or “organizational culture improvement”, and do not include the Union. I address these arguments as follows:
a. Safe reporting pathways: Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey argues that BC Ferries must ensure an “independent reporting pathway for workplace discrimination or management conduct concerns”. However, it is unclear how this proposed remedy flows from her claim. As BC Ferries points out, the collective agreement and Code of Conduct contain information about how to safely report issues of discrimination. I am not persuaded that the failure to provide for an “independent reporting pathway” makes the Offer unreasonable.
b. Culture improvement: Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey argues that other employees were impacted by the workplace culture, and that the remedy fails to address “organizational culture improvement and prevention of future harm”. It is unclear what remedies Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey is saying would address these broader concerns. Generally, the Tribunal addresses these broader issues through orders that speak to training and policy reform – both of which are addressed in the Offer.
c. Union involvement: Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey argues that any remedy must include the Union. However, at a hearing the Tribunal could not order the Union to do anything because it is not a party. The fact that the Offer does not include the Union does not make it unreasonable.
[28] In my view, the non-monetary remedies in BC Ferries’ Offer are consistent with the types of orders the Tribunal might make if the complaints were successful. They represent a reasonable resolution of the non-monetary aspects of Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s complaint.
2. Monetary remedy
[29] If Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s complaint were successful, the Tribunal would award her compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self respect. The purpose of these awards is compensatory, and not punitive. In exercising this discretion, the Tribunal generally considers three broad factors: the nature of the discrimination, the complainant’s social context or vulnerability, and the effect on the complainant: Torres v. Royalty Kitchenware Ltd., 1982 CanLII 4886 (ON HRT); Gichuru v. the Law Society of British Columbia (No. 9), 2011 BCHRT 185 at para. 260, upheld in 2014 BCCA 396.
[30] BC Ferries offers Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey $20,000 as compensation for alleged injury to her dignity, feelings, and self respect. It cites cases where the Tribunal has ordered lower amounts for more vulnerable complainants who experienced more egregious incidents of sexual harassment: MacDonald v. Najafi and another (No. 2), 2013 BCHRT 13 ($4,000 – whistling, comments about the complainant’s body, sexual innuendo, calling the complainant “girl”); McIntosh v. Metro Aluminum Products and another, 2011 BCHRT 34 ($12,500 – frequent, aggressive sexual propositions by the company’s owner); Billow v. Hardy Yardcare and another, 2022 BCHRT 98 ($15,000 – physical harassment by the employer, stereotyping of women in the workplace); and Loiselle v. Windward Software Inc. (No. 3), 2021 BCHRT 80 ($15,000 – sexual harassment including touching over four years). BC Ferries argues that, in cases where the Tribunal has awarded amounts in the range of $20,000-$25,000, the complainant experienced more egregious discrimination culminating in the loss of their employment: Sales Associate v. Aurora Biomed Inc and another (No. 3), 2021 BCHRT 5 ($20,000- sex harassment leading to termination of employment); Curken v. Gastronome Enterprises, 2023 BCHRT 2 ($25,000 – complainant was terminated after egregious and explicit sexual harassment including graphic sexual content, forced touching, and exposing genitals).
[31] Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey argues that the Offer does not account for the seriousness of the harm she experienced. She cites “loss of career continuity within the marine industry”, “significant professional and reputational harm”, and “long-term emotional and economic consequences”. She says that human rights awards have increased, and “Tribunals are heavily penalizing employers who fail to properly investigate complaints or who retaliate against employees for reporting misogyny.” She does not offer any case examples, or suggest what amount would be reasonable.
[32] I am satisfied that $20,000 is within the reasonable range that the Tribunal might award if it found the complaint was justified. The Sexism Allegations include some sexually inappropriate joking, as well a climate of disrespect towards Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey as a woman in authority. They are serious, but not as egregious as cases with higher awards. Further, as BC Ferries points out, Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey was in a position of authority during the period of the complaint. In that sense, she was not as vulnerable as the employees in the cases cited above. Finally, there is little information before me about the impact of the Sexism Allegations on Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey. Her arguments appear to relate to the impact of losing her employment. However, this is not part of her complaint that would proceed to a hearing. The Tribunal’s order would not address the impacts she experienced as a result of being suspended and eventually losing her job. Nor would the Tribunal’s order aim to punish BC Ferries. The purpose of an award for injury to dignity is to compensate the complainant, and not punish the respondent.
[33] I agree with BC Ferries that the cases it has cited set a reasonable range for the Tribunal’s potential order in this complaint. Its Offer is at the top end of that range, and represents a reasonable resolution of the monetary aspect of Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s complaint.
C. Will it serve the purposes of the Code to proceed despite the reasonable settlement offer?
[34] As I have said, the purposes of the Code include both private and public interests: s. 3. The private interests are to ensure that persons who have been discriminated against have access to a means of redress: Code, s. 3(e). The public interests include preventing discrimination, promoting the efficiency and responsiveness of the human rights system, and encouraging respondents to take appropriate action in response to human rights complaints: Dar Santos at para. 59; Code, s. 3(a)-(d).
[35] Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey argues that her complaint raises issues of public importance, including “broader questions related to workplace culture, investigative practices, and the experience of women in positions of operational authority within a hierarchical environment”. She argues that there is a public interest in preventing similar workplace issues in the future. She says that one of the men involved in the Sexism Allegations has now been transferred to work at the terminal, where the workforce is predominantly women. She expresses concern about how employees will be meaningfully protected.
[36] I accept these submissions, and understand the basis for Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey’s ongoing concerns. However, this is an individual complaint about specific events in 2019 and 2020. In my view, the Offer reasonably addresses the human rights implications of those events. If Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey accepts the Offer, the purposes of the Code will be fulfilled in respect of her complaint. She will have access to a remedy and BC Ferries will take steps to prevent discrimination. There is nothing further for the Tribunal to do. The Tribunal can and should focus its limited resources on other complaints which the parties are unable to resolve themselves. In these circumstances, it does not further the purposes of the Code for this complaint to proceed to a hearing.
III CONCLUSION
[37] The purposes of the Code are satisfied by the terms of BC Ferries’ Offer. The complaint is dismissed under s. 27(1)(d)(ii) of the Code.
[38] I remind Ms. O’Brien-Hornsey that BC Ferries’ Offer remains open for acceptance for two weeks.
Devyn Cousineau
Vice Chair