A man who requested that a municipal pool and fitness facility provide him with a “young, hot female trainer like” (name redacted), and who earlier had swam up to three nine-year-old boys playing on a floating raft and engaged in conversation with them, was not discriminated against because of a physical or mental disability when the facility banned him.
The man filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal asserting that the facility had discriminated against him because of a disability (hypoglycemia, which he said affected his cognition in these instances, and depression).
The Tribunal dismissed his complaint. The Tribunal noted that the complainant had provided no medical evidence that hypoglycemia affected his conduct. At the time of the events, the complainant gave no indication that he was experiencing symptoms of hypoglycemia. Also, nothing in the complainant’s evidence suggested that his disabilities, either physical or mental, were known or readily observable, and therefore the facility had no “duty to inquire” into whether he had a mental disability that had influenced his actions.
The Tribunal stated that the complainant’s email setting out his request for a female trainer was “reflective of attitudes that found expression in a bygone era and that are inappropriate, particularly in the circumstances of this case. The Complainant’s email does not reflect an uncontrollable comment blurted out, but rather appears to reflect a deliberate train of thought.”
In the result, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
Hammell v. Corporation of Delta and another, 2017 BCHRT 246 (CanLII)
