Indexed as: Cloutier v. ICBC Driver Licensing, 2024 BCHRT 181
Date Issued: June 12, 2024
File: CS-003039
Indexed as: Cloutier v. ICBC Driver Licensing, 2024 BCHRT 181
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:
Jean-Francois Cloutier
COMPLAINANT
AND:
ICBC Driver Licensing
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(d)(ii)
|
Tribunal Member: |
Robin Dean |
|
|
On his own behalf: |
Jean-Francois Cloutier |
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Deborah Lovett, KC |
|
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Jean-Francois Cloutier’s complaint alleges that ICBC Driver Licensing discriminated against him in the area of services based on ancestry and place of origin when it refused to accept a Copie d’Acte de Naissance issued by the Province of Quebec as a secondary piece of identification for the purpose of renewing his driver’s license because the document was in French.
[2] After learning about Mr. Cloutier’s complaint, ICBC says it took steps to address his concerns and apologized to him for any inconvenience he may have experienced. ICBC also made a with prejudice offer to settle the complaint. The offer includes an apology letter and a one-time payment of $500. ICBC applies to dismiss Mr. Cloutier’s discrimination complaint under s. 27(1)(d)(ii) of the Human Rights Code on the basis that its settlement offer was reasonable as well as on the basis that it has already provided a remedy for the alleged discrimination.
[3] In my view, this application is most appropriately resolved after a consideration of whether ICBC responded appropriately to the complaint. For the following reasons, I allow ICBC’s application to dismiss Mr. Cloutier’s complaint because ICBC took appropriate steps to resolve the issues raised by Mr. Cloutier. I therefore do not need to consider whether the settlement offer was reasonable and, if so, whether it would nevertheless serve the purposes of the Codeto allow the complaint to proceed.
[4] Mr. Cloutier’s complaint is dismissed.
[5] To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In these reasons, I refer only to what is necessary to explain my decision. I make no findings of fact.
II BACKGROUND
[6] On January 14, 2021, Mr. Cloutier attended one of ICBC’s service centres to renew his BC driver’s license. He brought with him his BC driver’s license and an original Copie d’Acte de Naissance–his birth certificate, which was issued by the Province of Quebec. Mr. Cloutier says that when he attempted to use the Copie d’Acte de Naissanceas his secondary piece of identification, the ICBC clerk refused to accept it as a valid piece of identification because it was in French. Mr. Cloutier says that the clerk told Mr. Cloutier that he would have to get his birth certificate officially translated in order to use it as a secondary piece of identification.
[7] ICBC says that it accepts birth certificates issued by a Canadian province or territory in French or in English, but at the time of the transaction, the Copie d’Acte de Naissancewas not on ICBC’s list of acceptable documents to prove identity.
[8] Mr. Cloutier was able to renew his driver’s license on January 14, 2021 by producing his bank card as a piece of secondary identification.
[9] That same day, Mr. Cloutier filed his human rights complaint with the Tribunal. He also made an online submission to ICBC’s Officer of the Fairness Commissioner. The ICBC Fair Practices Office responded by telling Mr. Cloutier that he was required to provide a translation of his Copie d’Acte de Naissance. ICBC says that the information provided by the Fair Practices Office was incorrect.
[10] ICBC says it first learned of Mr. Cloutier’s human rights complaint in November 2021 and that after it learned about the complaint, it took immediate steps to resolve the situation. Specifically, upon learning of Mr. Cloutier’s complaint, ICBC made inquiries with the Quebec Vital Statistics Agency about the reliability of a Copie d’Acte de Naissance as a form of identification. After being advised that aCopie d’Acte de Naissancewas as secure and accurate as both the short and long form Quebec birth certificates, ICBC revised its driver licensing policies and procedures. ICBC says that a Copie d’Acte de Naissanceis now accepted as a form of identification for driver licensing purposes. ICBC also notified its staff of the policy changes and issued a “Fraud Stop” update indicating that Quebec birth certificates, including the Copie d’Acte de Naissance , can be in English or in French, depending on the language of the original certificate.
[11] Additionally, ICBC apologized directly to Mr. Cloutier.
[12] After taking these actions, ICBC requested that Mr. Cloutier withdraw his complaint from the Tribunal process. Mr. Cloutier responded by asking for (1) a public apology from ICBC issued in a press release to all British Columbians with Quebec birth certificates; and (2) a written policy about how Quebec birth certificates are handled by ICBC that is visible and accessible to the public online. As I understand it, ICBC did not accede to Mr. Cloutier’s requests.
[13] Mediation between the parties was unsuccessful. After the unsuccessful mediation, ICBC made a “with prejudice” settlement offer to Mr. Cloutier, which Mr. Cloutier rejected. The offer remains open for acceptance and includes a one-time payment of $500 and a letter of apology from ICBC Driver Licensing Customer Services and the Fair Practices Office.
III DECISION
[14] Section 27(1)(d)(ii) 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, Tillis v. Pacific Western Brewing and Komatsu, 2005 BCHRT 433 at para. 15, Gichuru v. Pallai (No. 2), 2010 BCHRT 125, at paras. 113-118.
[15] ICBC argues that it would not further the Code’spurposes for the complaint to proceed because the underlying dispute has been resolved or remedied: Williamson v. Mount Seymour Park Housing Coop, 2005 BCHRT 334.
[16] Generally, where a complaint of discrimination has been appropriately resolved, proceeding with the complaint would not further the purposes of the Code because the discrimination has already been remedied: Williamson at para. 13. The Tribunal’s ability to fulfill the purposes of the Codeis harmed when its resources are taken up with complaints that have already been adequately addressed, whether through settlement, unilateral respondent action or other proceedings: Williamson at para. 13.
[17] For the Tribunal to dismiss a complaint under s. 27(1)(d)(ii) on the basis that the respondent has appropriately addressed the alleged discrimination, the respondent must persuade the Tribunal that:
a. The respondent took the complainant’s discrimination claim seriously;
b. The respondent appropriately addressed the impact on the complainant; and
c. Where necessary, the respondent took appropriate steps to ensure the discrimination would not happen again: see, e.g., Horner v. Concord Security Corp, 2003 BCHRT 86; Williamson; Aflakian v. Fraser Health Authority, 2011 BCHRT 170; Baker v. Brentwood College School and another, 2011 BCHRT 170; Stengert.
[18] The Tribunal’s analysis under s. 27(1)(d)(ii) is contextual and case specific. Alongside the above requirements for dismissing a complaint on the basis that the alleged discrimination has been addressed, the Tribunal may also consider relevant contextual factors, such as: the seriousness of the alleged discrimination; the timeliness of the respondent’s response to the allegation; the nature of its response (e.g., whether the respondent investigated the allegation); whether the respondent acknowledged the discrimination; whether the complainant was compensated for their losses; whether the respondent has a discrimination policy; and the importance of encouraging parties to address allegations of discrimination in a timely and constructive manner: see Baker at para. 47.
[19] Here, the materials before me indicate that ICBC took Mr. Cloutier’s complaint seriously. It responded to his concerns once it learned what had happened, appropriately addressed the impact on Mr. Cloutier when it apologized to him, and ensured that such an incident would not occur again when it changed ICBC policy and informed ICBC staff on multiple occasions about the policy change.
[20] Other contextual factors that I find relevant to this analysis – including the seriousness of the complaint, the timeliness of the response, and the nature of the response – are either neutral or weigh in favour of dismissing the complaint.
[21] Mr. Cloutier alleges that ICBC did not take his birth certificate because it was in French. While language can be an aspect of a person’s ancestry or place of origin, language itself is not a protected ground under the Code. A person alleging language discrimination must still demonstrate that the discrimination was based on a protected ground in all cases. Here, I accept, without deciding, that language in this case is captured within the scope of ancestry or place of origin. I also accept that all complaints of discrimination are serious. However, viewed in context, I do not find his complaint of such seriousness that it weighs in favour of allowing the complaint to proceed. Mr. Cloutier’s allegation is about a discrete incident, that did not prevent him from getting a driver’s license on the day he sought it. I find the seriousness of the alleged discrimination to be a neutral factor.
[22] However, the timeliness of the ICBC’s response and the nature of its response militate in favour of dismissing Mr. Cloutier’s complaint. As stated above, ICBC worked quickly to resolve Mr. Cloutier’s concerns once it knew about his allegations. It instituted policy changes to avoid the same thing happening to others in the future and took steps to ensure that its staff knew about the policy changes.
[23] Given the above, I find that the underlying dispute has been adequately resolved or remedied, and I dismiss Mr. Cloutier’s complaint under s. 27(1)(d)(ii).
IV CONCLUSION
[24] I allow ICBC’s application to dismiss Mr. Cloutier’s complaint. Mr. Cloutier’s complaint is dismissed.
Robin Dean
Tribunal Member