MacLean v. Gabriola Golf and Country Club, 2026 BCHRT 233

Date Issued: November 5, 2026
File: CS-005687

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:

Stephen MacLean
COMPLAINANT

AND:

Gabriola Golf and Country Club
RESPONDENT

REASONS FOR DECISION

APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)

Tribunal Member: Jess Hadley

On his own behalf: Stephen MacLean

Agent for the Respondent: Kent Brownlow

I        INTRODUCTION

[1]             During the COVID pandemic, Stephen MacLean did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine. He has ongoing health concerns, and believed the vaccine would harm him. On December 12, 2021, he tried to attend an event at the Gabriola Golf and Country Club but was turned away because he could not show proof of vaccination. Mr. MacLean says that by refusing him entry, the Club discriminated against him on grounds of disability, contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.

[2]             The Club applies to dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c). It argues, among other things, that Mr. MacLean has no reasonable prospect of showing he has a disability that prevented him from being vaccinated, and therefore no reasonable prospect of showing that the Club’s refusal of services was connected to a disability.

[3]             For the following reasons, I dismiss Mr. MacLean’s complaint under s. 27(1)(c). To make my decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.

II      BACKGROUND

[4]             The following background summary is taken from the materials before me. I make no findings of fact.

[5]             The Club is a nonprofit society that runs a golf course as well as an indoor facility that hosts events.

[6]             Mr. MacLean had a surgery in 2009. Since then, he has had severe reactions to two medicines. Because of this, he was concerned that a COVID-19 vaccine would cause him harm, so he did not get vaccinated.

[7]             In December 2021, a public health order was in force that required BC businesses hosting indoor events to admit participants only if they could show either proof that they were vaccinated against COVID-19, or an exemption certificate.

[8]             On December 12, 2021, while this public health order was in force, Mr. MacLean went to the Club hoping to attend an open mic night. He did not have proof of vaccination or an exemption certificate, so the Club refused him entry.

III    DECISION

A.    Section 27(1)(c) – No reasonable prospect of success

[9]             The Club applies to dismiss Mr. MacLean’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c). The onus is on the Club to establish the basis for dismissal.

[10]         Section 27(1)(c) is part of the Tribunal’s gate-keeping function. It allows the Tribunal to remove complaints which do not warrant the time and expense of a hearing.

[11]         The Tribunal does not make findings of fact under s. 27(1)(c). Instead, the Tribunal looks at the evidence to decide whether “there is no reasonable prospect that findings of fact that would support the complaint could be made on a balance of probabilities after a full hearing of the evidence”: Berezoutskaia v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2006 BCCA 95 at para. 22, leave to appeal ref’d [2006] SCCA No. 171. The Tribunal must base its decision on the materials filed by the parties, and not on speculation about what evidence may be filed at the hearing: University of British Columbia v. Chan,2013 BCSC 942 at para. 77.

[12]         A dismissal application is not the same as a hearing: Lord v. Fraser Health Authority,2021 BCSC 2176 at para. 20; SEPQA v. Canadian Human Rights Commission,[1989] 2 SCR 879 at 899. The threshold to advance a complaint to a hearing is low. In a dismissal application, a complainant does not have to prove their complaint or show the Tribunal all the evidence they may introduce at a hearing. They only have to show that the evidence takes their complaint out of the realm of conjecture: Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal v. Hill, 2011 BCCA 49 at para. 27.

[13]         To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. MacLean would have to prove that he has a disability, that he was adversely impacted with respect to a service customarily available to the public, and that his disability was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. If he succeeded in proving that, the burden would shift to the Club to show there is a bona fide reasonable justification for the impact. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.

[14]         The Club argues Mr. MacLean has no reasonable prospect of showing he has a disability that prevented him from being vaccinated, which means that he cannot show that the Club’s refusal of services was connected to a disability. They say that Mr. MacLean simply disagreed with the public health order that the Club was following when it required him to provide proof of vaccination.

[15]         While it may be that Mr. MacLean has a disability of some kind, none of the medical documents that Mr. MacLean submitted in response to the application to dismiss mentions a disability that affected his ability to get vaccinated. According to Mr. MacLean, he asked his GP to support him in obtaining a vaccination exemption during the pandemic, but the GP refused.

[16]         There is therefore no evidence before me that would meet the low threshold of bringing Mr. MacLean’s complaint out of the realm of conjecture. Mr. MacLean has no reasonable prospect of proving he has a disability that prevented him from being vaccinated, and therefore no reasonable proving that a protected characteristic was a factor in the Club’s decision not to admit him. He has no reasonable prospect of proving discrimination.

IV    CONCLUSION

[17]         I dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c).

Jess Hadley
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal