Winkelmeyer v.

Woodlands Inn, 2011

BCHRT 322
20111108

DateIssued:November8,2011

File:8383

Indexedas:Winkelmeyerv.WoodlandsInn,2011BCHRT322

INTHEMATTEROFTHEHUMANRIGHTSCODE
R.S.B.C.1996,c.210(asamended)

ANDINTHEMATTERofacomplaintbefore
theBritishColumbiaHumanRightsTribunal

BETWEEN:

ConanWinkelmeyer

COMPLAINANT
AND:

WoodlandsInn

RESPONDENT

REASONSFORDECISION
APPLICATIONTODISMISS:Sections27(1)(b)and(c)

TribunalMember:

MarleneTyshynski

Onhisownbehalf:

ConanWinkelmeyer

OnbehalfoftheRespondents:

DavidMoore

Introduction

[1]
ConanWinkelmeyerfiledacomplaintallegingthatWoodlandsInn(Woodlands)discriminated
againsthimwhenitrefusedtoconsiderhimforemploymentbasedonhisphysicaldisability,contrarytos.
13oftheHumanRightsCode.
[2]
Mr.WinkelmeyerstatesthatheappliedforwhatIunderstandtobeahousekeepingpositionwith
WoodlandsinFortNelson.Heprovidedacoverletterandresumewhichindicatedhisexperienceand
providedreferences.OnJune17,2010,hewascontactedbyWoodlandsbytelephone.Mr.Winkelmeyer
understoodthathewasinterviewedbythefrontdeskmanager.Hedescribedtheconversationascongenial
andverypositiveuntilhementionedthatherequiredtheuseofacane.Then,inhisview,thetoneofthe
conversationchanged,hewaschallengedrespectingwhetherhewouldbeabletodotheworkrequired.
Mr.Winkelmeyerexplainedhowhesuccessfullymanagedsuchtasksasvacuumingandaskedforan
opportunitytodemonstratehisskill.Hewasadvisedbythespeakerthatshewouldhavetocheckwithher
supervisorandwouldcallhimbackatthesamenumber.Mr.WinkelmeyerstatesthatWoodlandsdidnot
callhimback,andcontinuestoadvertiseemploymentpositionshecouldfill.HeallegesthatWoodlands
refusedtoemployhimbecauseofhisphysicaldisabilitywhichrequireshimtorelyonacane.
[3]
Woodlandsdeniesthatitdiscriminatedandappliestohavethecomplaintdismissedpursuantto
ss.27(1)(b)and(c)oftheCode,whichprovide:

A member or panel may, at any time after a complaint is filed and with or
without a hearing, dismiss all or part of the complaint if that member or
panel determines that any of the following apply:

(b)
the acts or omissions alleged in the complaint or that part of
the complaint do not contravene this Code;
(c)

there is no reasonable prospect the complaint will suceed;

[4]
Initsresponseandapplicationtodismiss,Woodlandsstatesthatitdidnotreceivenoticeofthe
complaintinwhatitconsidersatimelymatter,thatis,untilDecember2010.Itsaysithasmanyinquiries

aboutemploymentanditisdifficulttodeterminewhospoketowhomsofarinthepast.ItstatesthatMr.
Winkelmeyerismistakenaboutwhohespoketoandhisunderstandingofchainofcommandassetoutin
hiscomplaint.WoodlandsstatesthatitcalledMr.Winkelmeyer.Nooneansweredandtherewasno
answeringmachineonwhichtoleaveamessage.Itstatesthat,initsview,Mr.Winkelmeyeralsohada
dutytomakeanefforttocontactWoodlands.Hedidnotdoso.Neitherdidheapplyfortheother
Woodlandpositionsadvertisedwhichhebelievedhewasqualifiedfor.Woodlandsstatesthatithadno
intentiontodiscriminateagainstMr.Winkelmeyerandwasfullypreparedtohavehimattendand
demonstratethathewasabletofulfilthejobduties.Hefailedtopursuethis.
[5]
InotethatWoodlandsmakesreferencetodetailsconcerninganattempttomediateasettlementof
thecomplaint.Mediationsareconfidential.Partiesparticipatewithoutprejudice.Suchareferenceis
improperandIhavenotconsideredit.
[6]
Mr.Winkelmeyerfiledaverybriefresponseinwhichheindicatedthathecouldprove,through
telephonerecords,thatWoodlandsnevercalledhimback.
[7]
Ihavereviewedandconsideredthematerialfiledbybothpartiesincomingtomydecision.In
settingouttheabovenotedinformation,Iamnotmakinganyfindingsoffact.

II Decision
[8]

TheapplicationofWoodlandsisdeniedforthereasonsthatfollow.

III Reasons
Section27(1)(b)
[9]
Complaintsmaybedismissedunders.27(1)(b)iftheactsasallegedinthecomplaint,ifproven,
wouldnotcontravenetheCode.Determinationsunderthissectionaremadeonthebasisoftheallegations
outlinedonthefaceofthecomplaint,withoutreferencetoanyalternativeexplanationorevidencewhich
therespondentsmayputforward:Baileyv.B.C.(Min.ofAttorneyGeneral)(No.2),2006BCHRT168,
para.12.
[10]
Mr.WinkelmeyerallegesthatWoodlandrefusedtohirehimortoconsiderhimforhireduetohis
physicaldisability.Ifheprovesthisallegation,hemayestablishabreachoftheCode.Therefore,the
allegation,ifproven,couldamounttoacontraventionoftheCode.Theapplicationtodismissunders.
27(1)(b)isdismissed.
Section27(1)(c)
[11]
Unders.27(1)(c)oftheCode,theTribunal has the discretion to dismiss a complaint if it
determines that the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. TheTribunalsroleistoassess
whether,basedonallthematerialbeforeit,andapplyingitsexpertise,thereisnoreasonableprospectthe
complaintwillsucceed.TheTribunalsapproachwasaffirmedbytheCourtofAppealinBerezoutskaia
v.BritishColumbia(HumanRightsTribunal),2006BCCA95,2006BCCA95,paras.9and27,and
inGichuruv.BritishColumbia(WorkersCompensationAppealTribunal),2010BCCA191,2010BCCA
191,para.31,leavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadadenied;WorkersCompensationAppeal
Tribunalv.Hill,2011BCCA49,2011BCCA49,para.27.
[12]
Thepartieshavetwoverydifferentversionsofwhattranspiredandwhetheritamountsto
discrimination.Iamnotpersuaded,onaglobalassessmentofthematerialfiled,thatMr.Winkelmeyers
complainthasnoreasonableprospectofsuccess.Icannotdeterminethisapplicationonthematerialfiled.
Ahearingisnecessaryinordertotestanddeterminetheconflictingevidence:Kellerv.CanadaWest

Promotionsandothers,2006BCHRT553,para.11.

IV Conclusion
[13]

Woodlandsapplicationtodismissisdenied.

MarleneTyshynski,TribunalMember