The Ombudsperson Defence for Finding the BCF Commissioner is in Compliance
Here is the BC Ombudsperson’s not surprising decision to close File 24-006480 regarding the Ferry Commissioner’s breach of office and the Coastal Ferry Act. You can read the entire letter on the Drag Rag. My rejection of the investigator’s findings will appear in the next Grapevine edition. I urge all to email the Office of the Ombudsperson with your responses–mail@bcombudsperson.ca–especially the claim that the Commissioner has been successful in directing BCF to engage more meaningfully with the FACs, the only evidence of compliance offered in the investigator’s lengthy defence, which is shattered by BCF disbanding the FACs immediately after the Commissioner posted her directive to significantly improve engagement.
BC Ombudsperson Officer Wendy Byrne closed File 24-006480, finding that the Office of the Commissioner acted within its jurisdiction, in accordance with applicable legislation and statutory guidelines, with no administrative unfairness identified. In her July 16, 2026 letter, Byrne emphasizes that the Office of the BC Ferries Commissioner operates strictly under the legal parameters established by the Coastal Ferry Actand the Coastal Ferry Services Contract.
The following breakdown outlines the Commissioner’s jurisdictional limits and how statutory obligations were evaluated and met:
What the Commissioner Cannot Do
- No Operational Control: The Commission does not have authority over BC Ferries’ day-to-day operations and operating expenses, customer service policies, safety procedures, or specific ferry fares (except to set an overall system-wide price cap).
- No Fleet or Route Decisions: Managing wait times, cable ferry reliability, and decisions to expand or replace vessels rest solely with BCF.
What the Commissioner Can Do
- High-Level Mandate: Responsible for setting price caps, considering major capital expenditures, regulating unfair competitive advantage, approving BC Ferries’ customer complaints process, and monitoring adherence to the Coastal Services contract.
- Balancing Authority: Regulates minimum round trips under Section 38 while balancing user interests, taxpayer costs, and operator financial sustainability in the manner the Commissioner considers appropriate using its statutory authority and expertise.
How Statutory Obligations Were Met
- Forwarding Complaints: Referring operational concerns directly to BC Ferries management was appropriate and reasonable given jurisdictional limits.
- Evaluating Reporting: It remains within the Commission’s discretion to determine if public evidence is sufficient for the Commission to question BCF’s reporting on cancellations.
- Public Engagement Oversight: Exercised statutory monitoring by requiring BC Ferries to submit annual reports and clearly define and communicate what role the FACs will have in the enhanced vision of BC Ferries’ Public Engagement.
In defending the Commissioner’s compliance under Section 38 of the Act, Byrne writes that the regulator’s authority is legally restricted to high-level system oversight. These duties include establishing overall price caps, evaluating major capital expenditures, regulating unfair competitive advantages, and monitoring compliance with minimum annual round-trip schedules set out in Schedule A. Daily operational matters—such as specific sailing disruptions, cable ferry reliability, terminal traffic congestion, safety protocols, and customer service policies—rest entirely under the governance of BC Ferries as the operating corporation. The Commission possesses no statutory authority to order operational alterations or dictate vessel replacements.
In evaluating how community concerns were handled, Byrne clarifies that the Office of the Commissioner’s responses accurately reflected the legal limits of its office. Because the Commission lacks statutory authority over daily operations, issuing standard responses clarifying these jurisdictional boundaries and referring resident complaints directly to BC Ferries management was an action in accordance with their legislation.
Regarding allegations of under-reported sailings, Officer Byrne notes that Section 38 grants the Commissioner sole discretion to judge whether public evidence warrants formal questioning of BC Ferries. Furthermore, in balancing user interests, taxpayer costs, and operator financial sustainability, provincial law explicitly accords the Commissioner wide latitude to weigh these competing priorities in the manner the Commissioner considers appropriate.
Regarding community relations and Ferry Advisory Committees (FACs), Byrne writes that the Commission fulfilled its statutory mandate to monitor how BC Ferries communicates with the public. Following a 2022 performance review, the Commission issued formal orders requiring BC Ferries to submit annual public engagement reports and formally respond to regulatory recommendations, including clarifying the evolving role of the FACs. Because BC Ferries submitted its required annual filings addressing these recommendations, the Commission satisfied its statutory monitoring duties under the Act. Concluding that the Office of the Commissioner operated within its statutory authority and validly exercised its legal discretion, Officer Byrne found no evidence of administrative unfairness, procedural failure, or improper exercise of discretion, and formally closed the file under Section 13 of the Ombudsperson Act.
