BC Human Rights Tribunal to reconsider accessibility issue for Uber Canada 

The Petitioners, Uber Canada Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), successfully sought judicial review of a BC Human Rights Tribunal decision.  The Tribunal found Uber had discriminated against Mr. Bauer.  The court remitted the case to the Tribunal for reconsideration. 

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness; Human rights complaints – Disability – Discrimination – Duty to accommodate – Accessiblity – Customarily available to the public; Legislation – Legislative intent – Interpretation of legislation.

Uber Canada Inc. v. Bauer, [2025] B.C.J. No. 1786, British Columbia Supreme Court, September 15, 2025, A. Majawa J.

The Respondent, Mr. Bauer, is an individual who made a complaint to the BC Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) in 2020 against the Appellants, Uber Canada Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”).  Mr. Bauer’s complaint was that Uber discriminated against him by not providing wheelchair accessible vehicles (“WAVs”) on its platform in contravention of the Human Rights Code (the “Code”). 

The Tribunal reviewed the legislative framework relating to Uber’s licensing.  The applicable legislative framework (the Passenger Transportation Act and the Passenger Transport Regulation) did not require transportation companies like Uber to provide WAVs.  After amendments to the Act and Regulation in 2019, Uber was required to pay a per-trip fee of $.90 for each passenger trip in a non-WAV.  Uber commenced operations in 2020 in BC and paid the per-trip fee. 

Uber’s legal position was that: (1) if it owed a duty to accommodate Mr. Bauer, it satisfied the duty to accommodate via payment of the per-trip licensing fee to the government; and (2) in the alternative, if the Code requires Uber to provide a WAV ride option, the per-trip fee is inconsistent with the Code.  

The Tribunal held a hearing in September 2022.  The Tribunal considered the regulatory framework and the contents of the Passenger Transportation Board’s decision to grant a license to Uber.

The Tribunal issued its written decision in March 2024 (the “Decision”).  In the Decision, the Tribunal held that Mr. Bauer was adversely effected by Uber’s lack of WAV, and he demonstrated a prima facie case of discrimination.  The Tribunal then considered and rejected Uber’s justification defence. 

The Tribunal found there was discrimination, ordered compensation, and ordered Uber to provide a wheelchair accessible option in the Lower Mainland within one year.  

Uber applied for judicial review to the BC Supreme Court.  Uber argued that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the per-trip fee, and this error led to the Tribunal rejecting Uber’s justification defence.  The Tribunal and the Attorney General of BC participated in the judicial review hearing.

The court first found that the applicable standard of review was correctness regarding for the analysis about the purpose of the per-trip fee.  

The court first considered the relevant principles of statutory interpretation.  The court concluded that the absence of an express exemption in the Code, Act, or Regulation was not necessarily dispositive of the question of whether the legislature intended to create an exemption from the Code.  However, the absence of an express exemption was a significant factor weighing against a finding of such intent.

The court considered that the Tribunal found the purpose of the per-trip fee was to incentivize Uber to provide WAVs on its platform.  The court held that the Decision provides little justification for this conclusion.  The court questioned the suggestion that the purpose of the per-trip fee was an incentive for Uber to comply with the Code.  For example, Uber was required to pay the per-trip fee for every non-accessible trip, regardless of how many WAVs it offered.  In addition, the court stated that obligations under the Code are not optional and therefore an incentive to comply with the Code makes little sense.   The court held that the purpose of the fee was to support accessibility in the industry generally and offset the costs of the government in regulating transportation companies.

The court held that the Board’s consideration and commentary about the per-trip fee did not constitute a decision exempting Uber from complying with the Code.

The court held that, in addition to making an error in its conclusion about the intent of the per-trip fee, the Tribunal also erred in its analysis of Uber’s justification defence. 

The court held that the Tribunal must assess the undue hardship threshold within the context of the proper interpretation of the purpose of the legislation.

The court ordered that the Decision is remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the court’s reasons for judgment.

The parties did not seek costs and no order was made as to costs.

This case was digested by Scott J. Marcinkow of Harper Grey LLP.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact him directly at [email protected].