Hortua v. Winkler, 2026 BCHRT 227
Date Issued: November 3, 2026
File: CS-005579
IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)
AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
BETWEEN:
Robert Alexander Hortua
COMPLAINANT
AND:
George Winkler
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member: Robin Dean
On his own behalf: Robert Alexander Hortua
Agent for the Respondent: Beata Krasnecova
Date of Hearing: April 27 & 28, 2026
Location of Hearing: Videoconference
I INTRODUCTION
[1] This is a final decision about whether the Respondent, George Winkler, contravened s. 10 of the Human Rights Code when he told his tenant, Robert Alexander Hortua, among other things that he should “go back to Mexico, or where are you from? Mexico?” and “you should go and take English lessons” [the Statements]. Mr. Hortua, who is Colombian, says that the Statements made him feel unsafe, humiliated, and distressed in his own home. This interaction prompted Mr. Hortua to move out of Mr. Winkler’s building, the Columbia Hotel. He brings this complaint on the basis of race and place of origin.
[2] Mr. Winkler does not deny that he made the Statements. Indeed, they were recorded. However, he calls the complaint “extortion” and bases his defence on the fact that he too is an immigrant whose focus as a landlord has been to provide international students with a place to live. He says that the Statements were said jokingly and not meant maliciously.
[3] The issue before me is whether this single interaction rises to the level of requiring this Tribunal’s intervention. For the reasons that follow, I find that it does. Because Mr. Hortua’s complaint is justified, remedies will flow. In particular, I award Mr. Hortua $5,000 in injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
II FACTS
[4] In this section I set out my findings of fact. These facts are derived from the evidence submitted by the parties, through their witnesses, as well as the documents that were admitted into evidence during the hearing.
A. Witnesses
[5] Mr. Hortua called two witnesses: himself and his former partner. Mr. Hortua testified about his time living in the Columbia Hotel, the Statements, and how the Statements affected him. Mr. Hortua’s former partner, who lived with Mr. Hortua in the Columbia Hotel, testified about the state of the building, her interactions with Mr. Winkler, and her impressions of how the Statements impacted Mr. Hortua.
[6] Mr. Winkler called two witnesses as well: himself and Beata Krasnecova, his niece and agent for the hearing. Mr. Winkler testified about coming to Canada, his goal as landlord of the Columbia Hotel, which was to house newcomers, and his intentions surrounding the Statements. Ms. Krasnecova testified about the Columbia Hotel, the eviction of the tenants and the sale of the building, which was happening around the time the Statements were made, and Mr. Winkler’s sense of humour.
B. Background
[7] In or around 2010, Mr. Winkler bought the Columbia Hotel, a 77-unit building in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. As an immigrant to Canada himself, Mr. Winkler’s focus as a landlord was to provide housing for international students.
[8] Mr. Hortua moved into the Columbia Hotel in December 2019.
[9] The COVID-19 pandemic affected business at the Columbia Hotel. In July 2021, Mr. Winkler issued a one-month notice to end Mr. Hortua’s tenancy. The stated reason was the “closure of business”. At the time, only 15 of the 77 units were rented.
[10] As I understand it, Mr. Winkler had decided to sell the Columbia Hotel to a non-profit providing low-cost housing to women and children escaping abuse. In order to sell, Mr. Winkler required empty possession. In August 2021, Mr. Winkler re-issued the notice to end Mr. Hortua’s tenancy as a four-month notice to end tenancy [Notice]. Mr. Winkler offered Mr. Hortua three-months’ rent to leave before the four months. Instead of taking this offer, Mr. Hortua disputed the Notice to the Residential Tenancy Branch [RTB] and refused to leave the Columbia Hotel, along with six other tenants. A hearing was scheduled before the RTB for January 31, 2022.
[11] While Mr. Hortua was still living in the Columbia Hotel, Mr. Winkler failed to repair the Columbia Hotel’s elevator, turned off the heat to the building, removed garbage disposal, closed many of the washrooms, closed a kitchen, and laid off the staff, such as front desk staff, cleaning, and lobby security.[1]
[12] This is the context within which the incident occurred on November 6, 2021. The recording of the incident, which was entered into evidence, begins with Mr. Hortua approaching Mr. Winkler in the Columbia Hotel’s lobby and asking him about when the elevator will be repaired. Mr. Hortua offers to give Mr. Winkler the number of someone who can fix the elevator. Mr. Hortua’s voice throughout the recording is respectful but firm in asking when certain repairs to the building will be made, focusing on the elevator and the heating. Mr. Winkler, who sounds increasingly upset and aggressive, says that he does not want to speak to Mr. Hortua. Eventually, he does, however, and he makes the following comments during the approximately four-minute interaction:
a. “You should go back to Mexico, or where are you from? Mexico?”
b. “Enjoy BC and Canada. It’s good for you.”
c. “Should I buy you a beer?” When Mr. Hortua asks, “sorry?” Mr. Winkler then says: “You don’t understand, see? You should go and take English lessons”; and
d. “You should live in a nice apartment so you can invite your friends, your friends from wherever, Colombia or Mexico, wherever you’re from, and maybe you live here because you’re from Colombia and it’s the Columbia Hotel.”
[13] Mr. Winkler testified that he was joking when he said the Statements. Ms. Krasnecova explained the Statements by saying that Mr. Winkler “has his own sense of humour”. She said that Mr. Winkler meant the Statements positively because, in Mr. Winkler’s view, Mr. Hortua could “go back home”, whereas Mr. Winkler could not. Ms. Krasnecova explained that Mr. Winkler had been a political prisoner in Slovakia and would have “gone to jail” if he had returned to his country of origin. Mr. Winkler echoed this, saying he was jealous of Mr. Hortua and that he could not see his parents for 20 years after he left Slovakia.
[14] On November 16, 2021, ten days after the incident, Mr. Hortua and his partner entered into a new lease agreement in a different building with a different landlord, with the lease commencing on December 1, 2021. However, he and his partner slowly moved out of the Columbia Hotel, paying Mr. Winkler December rent in addition to their new rent. This was because Mr. Hortua did not want to breach his rental agreement with Mr. Winkler.
[15] On December 1, 2021, Mr. Winkler entered into Mr. Hortua’s apartment without notice. Mr. Winkler left when confronted by Mr. Hortua’s partner, who had installed cameras in the apartment when they started noticing things around the apartment being moved.
[16] Around December 27, 2021, Mr. Winkler offered Mr. Hortua and his partner $12,000 total to end the tenancy early, vacate the Hotel Columbia, and drop the dispute before the RTB [Settlement Payout].
[17] Mr. Hortua and his partner accepted the Settlement Payout as did the rest of the remaining tenants.
[18] Mr. Hortua and his partner split the Settlement Payout evenly between each other.
[19] Once the tenants left the Columbia Hotel, the media reported that it sold for $16,000,000.
III ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[20] Housing providers are prohibited from discriminating against persons in respect of a tenancy: Code, s. 10. To prove Mr. Winkler violated s. 10, Mr. Hortua must establish that the Statements adversely impacted him regarding a term or condition of his tenancy, and that his protected characteristics (race and place of origin) were a factor in that adverse impact: Moore v. BC (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.
[21] Not every negative comment will attract state intervention. Where a single comment or single incident is at issue, all the circumstances must be taken into account when determining whether the statement contravened the Code: Pardo v. School District No. 43, 2003 BCHRT 71 at para. 12; Brito v. Affordable Housing Societies and another, 2017 BCHRT 270 at para. 43. Those circumstances include the “egregiousness or virulence of the comment, the nature of the relationship between involved parties, the context in which the comment was made, whether an apology was offered, and whether or not the recipient of the comment was a member of a group historically discriminated against”: Pardo at para. 12. The Tribunal will intervene only where a person’s protected characteristics have presented as a barrier in their ability to fully, and with dignity, access an area of life protected by the Code: Brito at 41.
[22] Considering these guiding principles, I find that Mr. Winkler violated section 10 of the Code.
[23] The Tribunal has interpreted “egregious” to mean comments connected to a person’s protected characteristics that are an affront to their dignity or comments that invoke harmful stereotypes: Martinez Johnson v. Whitewater Concrete Ltd. and others (No. 2), 2022 BCHRT 129 at paras. 27-29 and 76; The Applicant v. Independent Investigations Office of British Columbia (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 204 at paras. 121-125; Akinbiyi v. Community Builders Benevolence Group and another, 2024 BCHRT 287 at paras. 35 and 37; April v. The Salvation Army, 2021 BCHRT 42 at para. 36.
[24] I find that the Statements were egregious and virulent in a human rights sense. They were made against a racialized man from Latin America, a member of a group that has historically faced discrimination in this country: Figueroa v. Canadian Tire Corporation, Ltd and another, 2024 BCHRT 140 at para. 40. Such phrasing has a strong anti-immigrant animus that has been weaponized, as here, against immigrants from racialized countries. It implies that Mr. Hortua did not belong in the Columbia Hotel or in Canada at all based on his immutable personal characteristics. Further, and based on the evidence before me, Mr. Winkler knew that Mr. Hortua was from Colombia; yet, he told him to go back to Mexico, employing the destructive stereotype that people from Latin American countries are all the same. The Statements were an affront to Mr. Hortua’s dignity as a racialized immigrant to Canada, and they affected him as such, making him feel unsafe in his housing. As a result of the Statements, Mr. Hortua expedited his search for new housing, which he secured 10 days after the Statements were made.
[25] In terms of the nature of the relationship between the parties, the Tribunal has considered, for example, whether a power imbalance or ongoing relationship between the parties is more likely to have a discriminatory impact on the recipient of the comment: Laverentz v. Log It Contracting Ltd. and another, 2024 BCHRT 346, para. 54.
[26] Viewed in context, I am satisfied that the power imbalance between Mr. Winkler and Mr. Hortua was such that the Statements had a larger impact on Mr. Hortua than they might have had if they had come from someone else. Mr. Winkler was Mr. Hortua’s landlord, the owner of his building, who was in the process of evicting him. Mr. Hortua was already in a precarious and vulnerable position at the time that the time Mr. Winkler made the Statements, and the Statements were made while Mr. Hortua was inquiring about repairs that needed to be completed on the building, repairs that only Mr. Winkler could make. Instead of answering Mr. Hortua’s questions, Mr. Winkler angrily told Mr. Hortua to go back to Mexico, again, attacking Mr. Hortua’s sense of belonging in Canada. No doubt both parties were frustrated at the time the Statements were made. However, Mr. Winkler did not apologize to Mr. Hortua or try to make amends for the harm that he caused.
[27] The suggestion that Mr. Winkler was joking or meant the comment positively does not absolve him of his conduct. First, I am not persuaded that he was joking or trying to be positive. In the recording, Mr. Winkler’s tone was aggressive. And in his testimony, Mr. Winkler was defensive and angry. Second, even if he were joking or attempting to be positive, Mr. Winkler’s intention is not relevant to the discrimination analysis; rather, the focus is on the impact on Mr. Hortua. As the Code says, “Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code”: s. 2.
[28] Finally, I reject Mr. Winkler’s suggestion that as an immigrant to Canada, he could not have discriminated against another immigrant. Mr. Winkler came to Canada from Slovakia in 1968 with only $50 to his name. He says as an immigrant, he has personally experienced the hardships and challenges of beginning a new life in Canada. He says he does not speak perfect English and has faced many of the same barriers as Mr. Hortua. Because of this, he says he conducts himself with respect and understanding.
[29] While both Mr. Winkler and Mr. Hortua are protected from discrimination based on their places of origin under the Code, they have different positionalities and face different barriers as a result. Mr. Winkler is a 78-year-old originally from Slovakia, who came to Canada 60 years ago. Mr. Hortua is significantly younger than Mr. Winkler, is Latin American, and, at the time, was a recent newcomer to Canada. His race and place of origin intersect in a specific way that made him particularly vulnerable to the discrimination that occurred. The fact that Mr. Winkler and Mr. Hortua are both immigrants may inform the analysis when considering the context in which the Statements were made: Rabiei v. Freshslice Holdings Ltd. and another, 2026 BCHRT 180 at para. 105.However, in this case, I do not find that this shared characteristic mitigates the virulence of the comment or the power imbalance within which it was said, given the positionalities at play. While I am alive to the difficulties that Mr. Winkler may have faced as a newcomer to Canada, particularly coming from a country facing political upheaval, that does not mean that he did not discriminate against Mr. Hortua.
IV REMEDY
A. Section 37(2)(a): Order to Cease the Contravention
[30] Having found the complaint is justified, I order Mr. Winkler to cease and refrain from committing the same or similar discrimination, as required by s. 37(2)(a) of the Code.
B. Section 37(2)(d)(iii): Injury to Dignity, Feelings, and Self-Respect
[31] Mr. Hortua asks for $20,000 to compensate him for the injury to his dignity, feelings, and self-respect. For the following reasons, I award him $5,000.
[32] Under s. 37(2)(d)(iii) of the Code, the Tribunal has the discretion to award compensation for injury to dignity. The purpose of these awards is to compensate the complainant, not punish the respondent. The amount of compensation depends on the specific facts and circumstances in a given case: Gichuru v. Law Society of British Columbia (No.9), 2011 BCHRT 185, aff’d in 2014 BCCA 396, at para. 260. At the same time, for the purposes of consistency and fairness, it is often helpful to consider the range of awards made in similar cases.
[33] The Tribunal usually considers several factors in determining quantum, including the nature of the discrimination; the complainant’s social context or vulnerability; and the specific effect the discrimination had on the complainant: Oger v. Whatcott (No. 7), 2019 BCHRT 58 at para. 225. I consider each of these factors in turn.
[34] Turning to the nature of the discrimination, discrimination occurring in the home is generally viewed as serious, given the centrality of the home in people’s lives and the safety and respite that it can provide from the larger world: Smith v. Mohan (No. 2), 2020 BCHRT 52at paras. 283-284. While the interaction was brief, the evidence indicates that the effects were serious. The conduct affected Mr. Hortua’s feelings of security living at the Columbia Hotel and his emotional safety as an immigrant in general.
[35] I have already discussed social context and vulnerability as well as the effect of the discrimination on Mr. Hortua above in my discussion of whether the Statements breached the Code. In summary, the phrasing “Go back to Mexico” has a long history of being weaponized against immigrants, particularly racialized immigrants. When used by a landlord against a tenant, it places the tenant in a particularly vulnerable position. Here, it had that effect, making Mr. Hortua feel unsafe in his new home in Canada and he signed a new lease 10 days later.
[36] Given this, I find that Mr. Hortua is entitled to an award for the injury to his dignity, feelings, and self-respect. In my view, $5,000 is sufficient due to the nature of the single interaction, as well as the fact that Mr. Hortua’s tenancy was already ending for other reasons. Although I have found that Mr. Hortua left the Columbia Hotel two months early, he may have had to find a new place to live anyway. It is somewhat difficult to parse the vulnerability that Mr. Hortua felt at the time and attribute it to the discrimination as opposed to the eviction itself.
[37] While determining the amount of an injury to dignity award is a discretionary exercise that is highly fact and context specific, in my view, $5,000 is also supported by the Tribunal’s case law. In the paragraphs that follow, I review the Tribunal cases that have guided me in making my determination. I also reckon with the cases relied upon by the parties.
[38] In Martinez Johnson, the Tribunal awarded the complainant, who was Mayan and Black, $2,500 for discrimination experienced on two occasions where he was subjected to racial slurs from a co-worker. I find that a higher award than Martinez Johnson is appropriate here, given the position of power Mr. Winkler held over Mr. Hortua, which was absent in Martinez Johnson.
[39] In Raweater v. MacDonald, 2005 BCHRT 63, the Tribunal awarded the complainant $1,500 when she was subjected to discriminatory harassment in tenancy based on her Aboriginal background and family status as a single mother. There, the complainant’s landlord made various comments including questioning the complainant about where her son’s father was; referring to her son’s possible knowledge of break-ins in the neighbourhood; referring to alleged parties her son was having in the afternoon; asking her if she was going to go to “Indian Affairs” to complain; and threatening to evict her. The complainant said the landlord’s “continuous invasion of her privacy, harassment and prejudicial comments gave her concern for the safety of herself and her daughters and caused her a great deal of stress”: at para. 32. In today’s dollars, the amount awarded in Raweater is equal to about $2,500. However, there has been an increasing upward trend in Tribunal awards since Raweater was decided: Mr. K v. Greater Vancouver Community Services Society and another (No.2), 2026 BCHRT 129 at para 74.
[40] For example, in Wiebe v. Olsen, 2025 BCHRT 14, the Tribunal awarded $10,000 to a complainant who was subjected to discriminatory comments in their tenancy that were connected to their gender identity. In particular, when the complainant asked their landlord whether they could remain a tenant if they got top surgery, the landlord said she would be uncomfortable with the complainant getting top surgery. This occurred not just once, but on at least a handful of occasions, leading the complainant to feel bullied, disrespected, and betrayed. It made them feel unsafe in their home, and fearful that the landlord would end their tenancy. It was clear during the hearing that the discrimination had a profound negative impact on the complainant. Further the landlord’s comments prompted the complainant to end their hormone treatment, which had, until that point, provided them with affirmation and increased their wellbeing.
[41] Further, in Brooks v. Skyacres Turkey Ranch Ltd. and others (No. 2), 2022 BCHRT 73, the Tribunal awarded the complainant $40,000 for harassment in employment and tenancy, which was connected to the complainant’s sexual orientation. The harassment was perpetrated by his father, was ongoing over many years, was “deeply embedded” in the complainant’s employment and tenancy, and ultimately led to the complainant leaving his job on the family farm: Brooks at para. 249. The impact on the complainant was serious and included impacts to his self-esteem, his marriage, and his family relationships. The complainant had thoughts that he could not turn off during the grieving process. He cried frequently and was obviously still emotionally affected during the hearing process.
[42] The ongoing nature of the discrimination as well as the lasting and profound impact on the complainants distinguish Wiebe and Brooks, where a higher award was appropriate,from the present case. An amount lower than $10,000 is warranted here because the discrimination against Mr. Hortua was brief and limited to one interaction with Mr. Winkler. While this case is similar to Martinez-Johnson, I am inclined to award more than $2,500 because of the power imbalance between the parties and Mr. Hortua’s vulnerability to the comments that were made. I am of the view that $5,000 is sufficient to compensate Mr. Hortua for the injury to his dignity with Raweater in mind as well. The comments there were similar in kind; however, the Raweater award reflects the lower values awarded by the Tribunal 20 years ago. Given these trends, Raweater does not necessarily undermine Mr. Hortua’s claim for a higher award: Smith at para. 302.
[43] Mr. Hortua relies on four of the Tribunal’s prior decisions: Smith [$20,000]; Kasagoni v. J Singh Enterprises dba Willingdon Husky and another (No. 3), 2023 BCHRT 65 [$35,000]; Campbell v. Vancouver Police Board (No. 4), 2019 BCHRT 275, [$20,000]; and Radek v. Henderson Development (Canada) and Securiguard Services (No. 3), 2005 BCHRT 302 [$15,000].
[44] In Smith, the complainant was an Indigenous person, who smudged in the apartment she rented from the respondent. The Tribunal awarded her $20,000 for enduring repeated comments over months based on stereotypes about Indigenous peoples. She also endured months of efforts to evict her for smudging. The Tribunal characterized those efforts as “increasingly outrageous”. At the hearing, where she was emotional, the complainant was still affected by what had happened to her.
[45] Kasagoni was a multi-faceted complaint in the sense that it contained several allegations of discrimination in employment, including (1) underpaying the complainant, (2) harassing the complainant about her disability-related claim with WorkSafeBC, (3) terminating the complainant’s employment, and (4) forcing the complainant to pay the respondent $6,500 in support of her permanent residency application and then withdrawing support for that application. The Tribunal found the complaint to be justified with the exception of the last allegation related to extortion. The Tribunal awarded the complainant $35,000 given the profound impact of the discrimination on the complainant, including immigration-related consequences and the end of her employment after being exploited by the respondent over two years.
[46] In Campbell, the Tribunal awarded $20,000 to the complainant, an Indigenous mother, who witnessed police officers stop and arrest her 19-year-old son. The arrest took around 20 minutes, during which the complainant was roughly and physically separated from her son and blocked from witnessing what was happening. Her questions to the officers went largely unanswered, and she was warned that her own behaviour could justify a charge for obstruction of justice. The events were traumatic for the complainant. The Tribunal acknowledged the seriousness of the discrimination and its significant impact on the complainant, taking into account that “the discrimination happened in a single brief encounter but struck at the core of what is already a very troubled relationship between Indigenous people and the police.” The Tribunal found that the complainant was deprived of a feeling that she was safe with, and protected by, police, and was entitled to an award commensurate with that loss of security and dignity.
[47] In Radek, the Tribunal awarded the complainant $15,000 for injury to dignity. The complainant, an Aboriginal woman with a disability, experienced repeated acts of discrimination, culminating in an incident where she was stereotyped as suspicious by mall security guards. On that occasion, she was followed, questioned in a harsh and intrusive manner, and ultimately ejected from the mall by the security guards. The Tribunal determined that the security guards’ suspicion and treatment of Ms. Radek stemmed from subtle stereotypes about her race, colour, ancestry, and disability: at paras. 483-486. In arriving at an injury to dignity award, the Tribunal took into account:
a. the fact that the complainant had suffered discrimination on multiple occasions and on multiple intersecting grounds;
b. that the complainant experienced harassment and humiliation;
c. that her humiliation was made worse by the failure of those in authority to respond appropriately to her concerns about discrimination; and
d. that the discriminatory impact on the complainant was likely more severe, considering the historical reality and trauma caused by racism suffered by Aboriginal peoples in Canada: paras. 640-644.
[48] Considering Mr. Hortua’s authorities, I remain of the view that $5,000 is appropriate. Besides Campbell, the awards that Mr. Hortua points to were made in cases where there was ongoing discrimination and/or multiple acts of discrimination. And this case is unlike Campbell. Although the interaction in Campbell was also brief, the experience and effects were different. Campbell involved the complainant’s child and included rough physical contact by the police. Since it involved the police, the incident interrupted the complainant’s sense of security. The Tribunal pointed to the significant power imbalance between the police and the complainant, particularly given the fraught history, or “troubled relationship” between Indigenous peoples and law enforcement. Further, the effects on the complainant in Campbell were long lasting and severe, including fears about depending on the police and calling them if she needed help. While no doubt Mr. Hortua’s experience affected him deeply, I do not have the same evidence about the enduring impact on his life. Further, here, there was no physical contact and no threat to Mr. Hortua’s family members. The discrimination did not involve the police, an institution meant to protect the public. Given the differences between this case and Campbell, I do not find it particularly helpful in determining the amount to award Mr. Hortua.
[49] Mr. Winkler says I should make no award, even though I have found discrimination, relying on Holt v. Coast Mountain Bus Company, 2012 BCHRT 28, and Ingenthron v. Overwaitea Food Group and Van Pelt (No. 2), 2006 BCHRT 556. In those cases, however, there was little to no evidence that the discrimination had any impact on the complainants’ dignity, feelings, and self-respect: Holt at para. 233; Ingenthron at para. 83. That is not the case here. At the hearing, Mr. Hortua described the impact that the discrimination had on him at the time, including fear that Mr. Winkler could impact his immigration status and feeling unsafe in his own home. He said that this was the first time that such an overtly discriminatory remark had been made to him, and it impacted his sense of safety generally. The Statements still impacted him at the hearing, and it was clear that he had been waiting years for some closure on the matter. Given the impact on Mr. Hortua, an award is appropriate in this situation.
[50] Finally, Mr. Winkler says that I should decline to make an award for injury to dignity because Mr. Hortua already received the Settlement Payout. I am not persuaded that I should decline to make an injury to dignity award because Mr. Hortua received $6,000 from the settlement of the RTB matter. Injury to dignity awards are meant to compensate a complainant for the negative effects of discrimination on their emotional wellbeing and safety. The $6,000 that Mr. Hortua received was not connected to this human rights complaint and it was not made in contemplation of ameliorating the effects of the discrimination on Mr. Hortua. The RTB matter and this human rights complaint are entirely separate. The fact that Mr. Hortua already received money from Mr. Winkler on a separate issue does not mean that he is not entitled to additional funds for a breach of the Code.
C. Section 37(2)(c)(i): Training
[51] Mr. Hortua seeks an order that Mr. Winkler be required to complete mandatory human rights and anti-discrimination training. Mr. Winkler objects to such an order, saying he is “already acutely aware of the realities and difficulties faced by immigrants.”
[52] Although the Tribunal may require a respondent to take specific steps to address the effects of a discriminatory practice, I decline to make such an order here: Code, s. 37(2)(c)(i),
[53] In my view, this decision, and the orders I have made, are sufficient for Mr. Winkler to understand his legal obligations under s. 10 the Code with respect to comments like the Statements. Having the benefit of this decision, I have no reason to believe that Mr. Winkler will repeat the discrimination that occurred. While such an order may be appropriate where the discrimination is systemic or where the respondent has engaged in a pattern of discrimination, there is no evidence of that here: Senyk v. WFG Agency Network (No. 2), 2008 BCHRT 376 at para. 510.
V CONCLUSION
[54] Mr. Winkler violated s. 10 of the Code. I order him to pay Mr. Hortua $5,000.
Robin Dean
Tribunal Member
[1] Ms. Krasnecova testified that the RTB investigated these service issues and directed Mr. Winkler to repair the elevator.