Was university’s swift harassment investigation reasonable? B.C. court weighs in
A shuttle bus driver's concerns about privacy violations as part of his termination have been denied by British Columbia's Supreme Court.
A Nov. 27, 2025 decision from Justice Maegen Giltrow determined that Simon Fraser University (SFU) conducted sufficient due diligence before sharing a harassment complaint with the driver's employer.
Robert Harrison, employed by Luxury Transport to drive shuttle buses on SFU campus, stopped his bus on April 2, 2024, opened the door, and told a female construction traffic controller that she was beautiful and should be photographed.
The worker immediately filed a complaint with SFU security. Within 24 days, Harrison's employment was terminated.
Driver comments on worker’s appearance
According to security notes taken 30 minutes after the incident, the worker reported that "the driver opened the door and said that she was beautiful and should have her picture taken." Harrison did not dispute what he said. In his own subsequent information request to SFU, he confirmed: "I had stopped my bus, and opened the door to tell her she was, quote '"unbelievably beautiful"'. I then said she should get some professional photos made (she looks like Kate Moss)."
During Luxury Transport's internal investigation on April 12, Harrison maintained there was nothing inappropriate about his conduct and invoked free speech, stating "this was not Russia" and he had a right to say whatever he wanted. He told investigators the traffic controller "loved" his comment.
Luxury's termination letter stated: "What is of great concern to us is that you do not believe that there was anything remotely wrong regarding your comments to the flagger. You continue to hold that view. You do not seem to understand or care that your comments had a negative impact on the flagger to the point that she made the complaint to the university."
As a result, the company decided that the driver's conduct "was a clear and serious breach of our contractual obligation to provide professional services to the university."
Privacy during investigation
Harrison challenged his termination by filing a privacy complaint, arguing SFU failed to verify the accuracy of information before sharing it with his employer. He claimed the university violated Section 28 of British Columbia's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which requires public bodies to "make every reasonable effort to ensure that the personal information is accurate and complete" before using it to make decisions affecting individuals.
The court examined SFU's investigation process: security staff attended the scene within 30 minutes, took direct statements from the worker, obtained witness corroboration, and prepared a same-day report.
Notably, SFU did not interview Harrison before informing his employer.
SFU did not directly request Harrison's termination or suspension. On April 5, the university simply confirmed he was no longer permitted to drive on campus.
‘Accurate’ workplace investigation
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner found SFU's actions reasonable. In its Dec. 5, 2024 decision, the investigator concluded: "Based on my analysis of the interpretation of s. 28, and on the information provided by you and SFU, I find that SFU made every reasonable effort to ensure the information it collected was accurate and complete before it was used to make the decision to request that your employer remove you from SFU routes."
Justice Giltrow upheld this determination in the Nov. 27, 2025 ruling, finding the investigation "demonstrated a transparent and rational chain of analysis."
The court ordered Harrison to pay special costs to Luxury Transport for pursuing inappropriate claims against his former employer, in addition to regular costs awarded to other parties.
