Forsythe v. Black Press Group Ltd. and others, 2025 BCHRT 59
Date Issued: March 5, 2025
File(s): CS-002250
Indexed as: Forsythe v. Black Press Group Ltd. and others, 2025 BCHRT 59
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:
Alan Forsythe
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Black Press and Glacier Media and
Carly Ferguson and Ken Goudswaard and Andrew Holota
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(b), 27(1)(c), 27(1)(d)(ii), & 27(1)(g)
Tribunal Member: Robin Dean
For the Complainant: No Submissions
Counsel for the Respondent Glacier Media: Michael Korbin
Counsel for the Respondents Black Press and Carley Ferguson and Ken Goudswaard and Andrew Holota: Craig Munroe
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This complaint arises from the termination of Alan Forsythe’s employment as a reporter for Black Press. The complaint alleges that the Respondents discriminated against Mr. Forsythe based on his political beliefs contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code .
[2] I have before me two applications to dismiss Mr. Forsythe’s complaint. Glacier Media says that Mr. Forsythe does not identify his political beliefs, and, in any event, it is difficult to understand how Mr. Forsythe’s complaint has anything to do with Glacier Media as Mr. Forsythe has not worked for Glacier Media since 2006.
[3] Black Press and the individual Respondents also apply to dismiss Mr. Forsythe’s complaint. They say that Black Press had solely non-discriminatory reasons for ending Mr. Forsythe’s employment, namely their concern about his ability to objectively report his stories and his loyalty to his employer given a tweet Mr. Forsythe wrote which negatively portrayed what he called the “mainstream media”.
[4] Mr. Forsythe did not respond to either application to dismiss his complaint.
[5] The applications to dismiss are brought under ss. 27(1)(b), 27(1)(c), 27(1)(d)(ii), and 27(1)(g). I find that I can decide the applications under s. 27(1)(b), which requires me to determine whether Mr. Forsythe alleges facts that could, if proved, be discrimination under the Code .
[6] For the following reasons, I dismiss the complaint. To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties, including Mr. Forsythe’s initial complaint form. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision. I make no findings of fact.
II BACKGROUND
[7] In the autumn of 2019, Mr. Forsythe was hired as a reporter by the Hope Standard, one of Black Press’ newspapers.
[8] On October 16, 2019, Ken Goudswaard, who was then regional editor at Black Press, contacted Carly Ferguson, group publisher at Black Press, to express concern about a draft story written by Mr. Forsythe.
[9] Mr. Forsythe and Mr. Goudswaard were both employed by Glacier Media in the early 2000s. Mr. Forsythe alleges that Mr. Goudswaard developed a “discriminatory and biased attitude” towards him while at Glacier Media, which motivated Mr. Goudswaard to “deny [Mr. Forsythe] the ability to have a career with Black Press.”
[10] The story at issue reported on an all-candidates meeting during the 2019 federal election campaign. Mr. Goudswaard was concerned because the story did not cover all candidates and included an “unverified” quotation that disparaged another Black Press editor. Ms. Ferguson says that she shared Mr. Goudswaard’s concern that the story did not meet “the journalistic standards to which all reporters are held or Black Press’ commitment to objectivity.” She was particularly concerned, she says, that Mr. Forsythe had included disparaging remarks about his own employer.
[11] Later that day, Mr. Goudswaard forwarded Ms. Ferguson a collection of tweets written by Mr. Forsythe, including one that said:
The corrupt, bought off media tell you the [People’s Party of Canada] are Nazis, a slap in the face to the candidates running and we who support them. Let the [mainstream media] know, Canadians are sick of their lies and we are taking back our country.
[12] Another tweet about the media said:
As a working journalist I can tell you, the vast majority of journalists today hold free speech in low regard.”
[13] Ms. Ferguson says that she read these tweets to be directed at least in part towards Black Press because Black Press is “clearly a member of the mainstream media.”
[14] Ms. Ferguson says that the tweets compounded her concern about Mr. Forsythe’s suitability as a journalist for Black Press and she took her concerns to Black Press’ vice president of human resources. She says she and human resources decided to terminate Mr. Forsythe’s employment due to his “contempt for his own employer as a member of the mainstream media, his attempt to include a quote disparaging a Black Press editor and his failure to report in a neutral and objective manner”.
III DECISION
[15] Section 27(1)(b) of the Code gives the Tribunal discretion to dismiss all or part of a complaint if it does not allege facts that could, if proven, contravene the Code. In exercising this discretion, the Tribunal only considers the complainant’s allegations, without reference to the respondents’ explanations or evidence: Bailey v. BC (Attorney General) (No. 2) , 2006 BCHRT 168 at para. 12; Francescutti v. Vancouver (City) , 2017 BCCA 242 at para. 49. The Tribunal is not restricted to considering facts alleged in the complaint itself; it may also consider allegations of fact made in the complainant’s response to the application to dismiss: Larssen v. City of Port Coquitlam and others (No. 2) , 2005 BCHRT 548 at paras. 26-27; see also Safaei v. Vancouver Island Health Authority , 2020 BCSC 1410.
[16] The threshold for a complainant to allege a possible contravention of the Code is low: Gichuru v. Vancouver Swing Society , 2021 BCCA 103 at para. 56. To meet the threshold in this case, Mr. Forsythe must only set out facts that, if proved, could establish that 1) he has a personal characteristic protected by the Code , 2) he was adversely impacted in employment, and 3) his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education) , 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.
[17] Both sets of Respondents argue that the complaint must fail because Mr. Forsythe does not allege facts that could establish he has a characteristic protected by the Code – i.e. political belief. I agree. Mr. Forsythe does not say what his political beliefs are in his complaint form. Under grounds of discrimination, he says only:
Black Press and its employees, as well as Glacier Media completely discriminate on certain political beliefs and association. All of their employees are allowed free expression and freedom of speech as long as it is the single view they condone.
[18] I cannot discern from the allegations in the complaint what political beliefs Mr. Forsythe holds or what political beliefs Mr. Forsythe says Black Press and Glacier Media discriminate against. For Mr. Forsythe’s complaint to overcome the applications to dismiss, I have to be satisfied that Mr. Forsythe sets out allegations that, if proved, could breach the Code . At the very least, Mr. Forsythe needed to say what his political beliefs are.
[19] While it may be possible to discern Mr. Forsythe’s political beliefs from his tweets, those tweets were submitted by the Respondents in support of their application to dismiss. I cannot appropriately or fairly draw an inference, based on material Mr. Forsythe did not submit or address, about either what his political beliefs are or that those are the political beliefs he claims are at issue in the complaint.
[20] In their applications to dismiss, the Respondents identified this deficiency in the complaint. I am satisfied Mr. Forsythe had an opportunity to clarify his political beliefs in a response to the application to dismiss. However, as noted above, he did not respond to the application to dismiss his complaint, despite being given the opportunity to request an extension of time to do so.
[21] Under these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is fair to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(b).
IV CONCLUSION
[22] Because Mr. Forsythe has not set out facts relating to the first element of the test set out in Moore , I dismiss his complaint. The complaint will not proceed.
Robin Dean
Tribunal Member