Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Shuttle driver Robert Glen Harrison, employed by Luxury Transport Inc. to service Simon Fraser University (SFU), was removed from SFU routes and then terminated after making comments about a traffic controller’s appearance.

• SFU, as the client public body, notified Luxury of the complaint and requested that Harrison no longer drive on SFU routes, but did not ask for his termination.

• Luxury conducted its own investigation, relied on Harrison’s admissions and his lack of insight into the impact of his comments, and concluded that his conduct was a serious breach of its contractual obligation to provide professional services to SFU.

• Harrison tried to use judicial review to attack both SFU’s handling of his personal information and Luxury’s termination decision, but the court held that employment and potential defamation claims against a private employer cannot be advanced by judicial review.

• The court upheld the privacy commissioner’s decision that SFU had made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy of the information shared with Luxury, relying in part on Harrison’s own description of his conduct.

• Special costs were awarded against Harrison in favour of Luxury because he persisted in pursuing employment-related relief against a private employer through judicial review despite repeated warnings that this was the wrong procedure.

Facts and employment background

Robert Glen Harrison was a shuttle bus driver employed by Robert Moseley dba Luxury Transport Inc., providing shuttle services on the Simon Fraser University (SFU) campus. On April 2, 2024, while driving an SFU shuttle route, he stopped, opened the bus door and made comments to a construction traffic controller about her being beautiful and suggesting she should have professional photos taken. The worker complained to SFU security, who attended the scene, interviewed her and obtained at least one witness account. Later that day, SFU told Luxury that one of its drivers had made an inappropriate comment and that SFU did not want that driver continuing on SFU routes.

Employer’s investigation and termination

Luxury immediately decided to remove Harrison from SFU routes, offered him alternative work, and then conducted an internal investigation. At an April 12, 2024 meeting, Harrison admitted the essential content of his comments, insisted there was nothing wrong with what he said, invoked “free speech”, and suggested that termination would strengthen his case against SFU. Luxury concluded that his conduct, and his lack of appreciation of its impact on the worker, breached its obligation to provide professional, harassment-free services to SFU. On April 26, 2024, Luxury terminated his employment, expressly noting that SFU had appropriately shared the complaint and that the information SFU provided was neither inaccurate nor incomplete.

Judicial review and limits on employment relief

Harrison launched multiple complaints and then a petition for judicial review. Against SFU and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, he alleged breaches of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Against Luxury, he effectively challenged the termination decision and alleged it had used false information to harm him and defame him. The court held that judicial review is a public-law remedy aimed at supervising state and tribunal decision-making, and that Luxury, as a private employer, is not a public body exercising a statutory power of decision. Any challenge to his dismissal or alleged reputational harm must proceed by ordinary civil claims such as wrongful dismissal or defamation, not by judicial review.

Outcome and costs

The court upheld the privacy commissioner’s decision that SFU made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information it shared with Luxury, emphasizing that Harrison’s own written description of his comments matched the worker’s report. The petition was dismissed in full. Regular costs were awarded against Harrison to the public respondents, and special costs were ordered in favour of Luxury Transport Inc. because Harrison recklessly persisted in pursuing employment-related relief against a private employer through the judicial review procedure despite being repeatedly told it was inappropriate.