BURST
A terminated Simon Fraser University shuttle driver’s court filing has been dismissed where he claimed he had freedom of speech to tell a construction flagger she was beautiful while he was on the job.
In April 2024, Robert Glen Harrison, who was employed by Luxury Transport at the time, was driving a bus when he stopped, opened the door and told a traffic controller she was “unbelievably beautiful” and should be a model and photographed, reads a recent Supreme Court decision by Justice Maegen Giltrow.
Harrison admitted he made these comments to the construction flagger but maintains there was nothing inappropriate about it and “he meant it as an act of kindness to someone standing out on the road on a rainy day.”
The flagger, however, had issue with the comment and reported it to SFU security who took her statement and another from a witness.
The university informed Luxury Transport of the complaint made against one of its employees, leading the company to terminate Harrison weeks later.
SFU did not ask Luxury Transport to fire Harrison, but said that he was no longer allowed to drive on the university’s campus. The company offered the driver an alternative route but he declined, the decision reads, and so the company fired him.
Before the termination, Harrison was interviewed by the transportation company. He admitted to making the comments to the flagger but stated she “loved” it and there was nothing wrong with what he said.
The driver is also recorded as saying, “this was not Russia” and he had the right to free speech and could say whatever he wanted.
“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,” Luxury Transport wrote in Harrison’s termination letter.
“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.”
Harrison also claimed that SFU breached his privacy and submitted a request to the university to receive everything it had reported to Luxury Transport. The decision states the driver was provided documents by SFU as a result of his access to information request, but the pages were entirely redacted.
The transportation company also said the driver failed to follow his contract and conduct himself professionally with SFU, the company’s client, by filing a complaint against the university.
Harrison submitted multiple orders to the court, against Luxury Transportation, SFU and the commissioner investigator and sought a judicial review made by the commissioner from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia.
The driver claimed that SFU reported false information to his employer by not reaching out to him to hear his recollection of events before contacting the transportation company.
“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,” the commissioner wrote, adding that the driver admitted to stating the comments.
The driver raised multiple orders against SFU during the judicial review, rather than at the initial step to be considered by the commissioner.
Giltrow declined to consider the new grounds presented by Harrison, stating SFU was not given the opportunity to respond and the commissioner was not able to review the claims either.
The case was dismissed and Harrison was ordered to pay special costs to Luxury Transport.