A human rights tribunal has dismissed a complaint filed by a Métis filmmaker against the Motion Picture Production Industry Association of BC (MPPIA).
The filmmaker, B.M., alleged that MPPIA discriminated against him contrary to section 14 of British Columbia’s Human Rights Code, which prohibits discrimination by trade unions, employers’ organizations or occupational associations based on Indigenous identity.
The tribunal concluded there was “no reasonable prospect” of the complaint succeeding because MPPIA did not meet the legal definition of any of those groups and, in any event, B.M.’s Métis identity was not found to be a factor in the decision that barred him from participating in the association’s Equity & Inclusion Committee (EIC).
MPPIA a voluntary, non-profit society
In its written reasons, the tribunal noted that section 14 of the Code applies only to a “trade union,” “employers’ organization,” or “occupational association,” each of which is defined in the legislation. MPPIA successfully argued that it was a voluntary, non-profit society that lacks the regulatory or accreditation function described in those definitions.
“The term ‘occupational association’ … typically [refers to] bodies which represent the members of a single occupation, trade or profession,” the tribunal quoted from past case law. In contrast, MPPIA’s membership consists of various unions, businesses and other entities dedicated to fostering the motion picture production industry in British Columbia, but membership in MPPIA is not a prerequisite for anyone to carry on a trade, occupation or profession. The tribunal thus found “there is no reasonable prospect” of concluding that MPPIA is an occupational association.
B.M. had argued that MPPIA’s influence in the film industry effectively placed it in a position of authority over his ability to work, likening that role to a trade union or professional body. However, the tribunal disagreed. According to the decision, “Even if MPPIA has authority and influence in the film industry … there is no reasonable prospect of [the tribunal] applying s. 14 … Doing so would require reading out the requirement that membership in MPPIA be a prerequisite to carrying on a trade, occupation, or profession, rather than having a more general effect on the industry.”
Alleged discrimination over committee participation
B.M. claimed that MPPIA discriminated against him based on his Indigenous identity by preventing him from continuing to participate in the EIC. In his complaint, he stated he was removed shortly after he raised concerns about the depiction and stereotyping of Indigenous peoples in film and television, including “use of red-face” to impersonate Indigenous peoples. According to B.M., his position on these issues, as well as his criticism of past industry practices, led MPPIA to exclude him from its inclusion-related activities.
MPPIA denied that assertion. Its evidence, accepted by the tribunal, was that it welcomed B.M. onto the EIC as a “guest” and valued the unique perspectives he brought. Members of the committee testified by affidavit that disagreements arose when B.M. demanded action “outside of MPPIA’s scope and mandate,” particularly related to older productions and specific high-profile film figures who B.M. said contributed to “erasure of Indigenous people.”
According to the tribunal, the EIC’s volunteer focus was to develop “strategies and programs that lead to increased and ongoing employment for equity-seeking groups,” rather than engaging in content-based advocacy.
Tone of communications at issue
The tribunal quoted extensively from internal communications among EIC members who said they felt “uncomfortable” or “targeted” by B.M.’s accusations. One member wrote, “We seem to be the target for [B.M.’s] anger over what he believes are industry slights and that is not a good place to be.” Another member expressed a desire for “a code of conduct for those participating on MPPIA committees” to ensure respectful discussion and protect the volunteer-driven environment.
B.M. initially raised concerns after a clerical error prevented him from receiving an invitation to a committee Christmas event. He wrote to an MPPIA coordinator that he felt the omission was “racist,” even though the association quickly apologized and explained that the problem was a typographical error. In the tribunal’s view, the more central issue was B.M.’s repeated insistence on using the EIC as a platform to address historical and systemic wrongs that were beyond MPPIA’s stated mandate.
The tribunal ruled that “there is no reasonable prospect” of concluding his removal was connected to his Métis identity, noting that MPPIA members “appeared to be genuinely interested in [B.M.’s] experience as a Métis person” and only barred him when his “communication style was upsetting to some members and was disruptive to the EIC’s work.”
No reasonable prospect of success
After reviewing the evidence under the Code’s gatekeeping provisions, the tribunal dismissed the complaint on two grounds. First, it found that section 14 does not apply to MPPIA because it is neither a union, an employers’ organisation nor an occupational association. Second, even if B.M. had filed the complaint under another section of the Code, the tribunal concluded his Métis identity was not a factor in MPPIA’s decision to end his committee participation. Instead, the adjudicator pointed to B.M.’s “unhelpful communications” and demands outside the scope of MPPIA’s purposes as the reasons for his removal.
“The EIC invited [B.M.] … because they wanted to hear [his] perspective as a Métis person,” the tribunal wrote, stressing that MPPIA’s policy documents and emails revealed an effort to promote “a more representative and equitable industry.” The tribunal held that B.M. had not demonstrated any nexus between his Indigenous identity and the negative outcome he experienced.
As a result, the tribunal dismissed the complaint “under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code.” B.M. was therefore left without recourse through this human rights process, although the tribunal acknowledged the seriousness of concerns about racism and discrimination in the broader industry. It held, however, that under the law, MPPIA did not meet the threshold for an occupational association, nor did B.M. establish any adverse link to his identity.
For more information, see McDowell v. Motion Picture Production Industry Association of BC, 2024 BCHRT 351.
