Poirier v. Premium, 2026 BCHRT 43
Date Issued: February 4, 2026
File: CS-005805
Indexed as: Poirier v. Premium, 2026 BCHRT 43
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 Poirier
COMPLAINANT
AND:
Civeo Premium
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Edward Takayanagi
On their own behalf: Robert Poirier – No Submissions
Counsel for the Respondent: Andrea Zwack
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Robert Poirier is French Canadian. He alleges that his employer Civeo Premium discriminated against him based on his race contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code. He says coworkers made derogatory statements about the French and when he tried to raise his concerns, he was not supported by his manager.
[2] Civeo denies discriminating. It applies to dismiss the complaint under s.27(1)(c) of the Code, arguing that there is no reasonable prospect Mr. Poirier will establish that he suffered an adverse impact connected to his race.
[3] Mr. Poirier did not respond to the application. The Tribunal set a schedule for submissions by a letter dated July 15, 2024. The Tribunal granted an extension of the deadline to file a dismissal application on August 16, 2024. Mr. Poirier objected to the extension and applied for reconsideration of the extension decision. The Tribunal declined to reconsider its decision on August 19, 2024. Civeo filed its dismissal application on September 3, 2024. Mr. Poirier did not provide a response to the dismissal application by the due date of October 8, 2024, or at all.
[4] In these circumstances, where the Tribunal records show Civeo delivered Mr. Poirier a copy of the application to his address for delivery, I am satisfied Mr. Poirier had notice of the application and an opportunity to file a response submission. I find there is no unfairness in making this decision on the materials before me.
[5] Although the Tribunal allowed the Respondent to file under s. 27(1)(c) only, the Respondent made additional arguments under s. 27(1)(b) and (d)(ii). The Tribunal will generally not consider dismissal on grounds other than those it permitted under the Case Path Pilot. The Tribunal exercises its discretion to consider additional grounds for dismissal sparingly: Ibrahim v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1222 and another, 2024 BCHRT 183 at para. 5. I decline to exercise that discretion here and have only considered the submissions under s. 27(1)(c).
[6] For the reason that follow, I allow the application and dismiss the complaint under s. 27(1)(c). On the evidence before me, I am persuaded that Mr. Poirier’s allegations do not rise above the realm of conjecture and speculation. To make this decision, I have considered all the information filed by the parties, including Mr. Poirier’s complaint and the dismissal application. In these reasons, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.
II BACKGROUND
[7] Mr. Poirier worked in the kitchen crew at a work camp for Civeo.
[8] Mr. Poirier alleges that in September or October 2021, a supervisor said during a toolbox meeting that French people “argue more than others” and said, “fucking French”. He alleges that on or about October 25, 2021, he overheard someone in the kitchen say, “fucking French”. He says that on November 11, 2021, his supervisor criticized him for not putting away pots and pans properly.
[9] Mr. Poirier alleges that he went to report his concerns to his manager on the morning of November 12, 2021. The manager was not available and Mr. Poirier was unable to meet with him. Mr. Poirier went to his quarters and sent an email resigning his employment at 2:25pm that same day. In his resignation email, Mr. Poirier raised for the first time his concern that he was discriminated against based on his race.
III DECISION
[10] Civeo applies to dismiss Mr. Poirier’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c) The onus is on Civeo to establish the basis for dismissal.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 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 [Hill] at para. 27.
[14] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Poirier will have to prove that he has a characteristic protected by the Code, he was adversely impacted in employment, and his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.
[15] For the purposes of this application, Civeo does not dispute that Mr. Poirier’s identity as a French Canadian is protected under the Code. Therefore, this decision turns on whether there is no reasonable prospect that Mr. Poirier will be able to establish that he was adversely impacted because of his protected characteristic.
[16] In his complaint Mr. Poirier makes four discrete allegations. I will deal with each allegation in turn.
[17] First, in response to the allegation that a supervisor made discriminatory remarks at a toolbox meeting Civeo says it investigated his allegation after receiving Mr. Poirier’s email of November 12, 2021. It says it was unable to determine that those remarks were made. Civeo submitted into evidence materials from its investigation including interviews with the supervisor and staff who attended the toolbox meeting denying they heard the impugned words being said.
[18] Almost all human rights complaints involve credibility issues, and this does not always mean a complaint must proceed to hearing. The Tribunal must consider whether issues of credibility “can be resolved on the basis of corroborative affidavit and contemporaneous documentary evidence”: Smyth v. Loblaw and another, 2017 BCHRT 73 at para. 41. It is only when the evidence on a dismissal application reveals foundational or key issues of credibility that the matter must proceed to a hearing: Francescutti v. Vancouver (City), 2017 BCCA 242 at para. 67. In my view, this is one of those cases where the combination of contemporaneous documentary evidence and the lack of a response from the complainant is enough to resolve issues of credibility at this preliminary stage
[19] On the documentary evidence before me, there is no reasonable prospect that findings of fact that would support the allegation that his supervisor made discriminatory remarks could be made on a balance of probabilities after a full hearing of the evidence. The mere fact that the Respondents have identified more people with a different version of events, however, does not necessarily mean that a hearing is not warranted. Rather, the difficulty here is that Mr. Poirier did not respond to the application to address Civeo’s evidence of the records of the investigation. In this circumstance, I am persuaded that Mr. Poirier has no reasonable prospect of proving the alleged comments were made.
[20] Similarly, the evidence shows Civeo investigated Mr. Poirier’s second allegation of hearing someone in the kitchen say, “fucking French” and were unable to determine that such words were spoken. Again, Mr. Poirier has not addressed this evidence.
[21] Based on the evidence before me I am persuaded there is no reasonable prospect that Mr. Poirier’s will prove that an unidentified member of the staff made discriminatory remarks.
[22] Next, there are no facts before me that could support a finding that Mr. Poirier being criticized by a supervisor was connected to his protected characteristic. Rather, Mr. Poirier says in his complaint that “Because of the previous incidents I assume that it was a racist situation”.
[23] Civeo’s evidence about this interaction is that the supervisor, at a meeting of the entire kitchen staff, directed comments to the staff as a whole.
[24] Based on the materials before me, I am persuaded that the connection between Mr. Poirier’s protected characteristic and the alleged adverse impact has not been taken out of the realm of conjecture and therefore this allegation has no reasonable prospect of success at a hearing.
[25] Finally, Mr. Poirier alleges that Civeo did not support him because he was unable to meet with the manager on the morning of November 12, 2021. Mr. Poirier says that when he went to speak to the manager at 9am the manager was unavailable.
[26] Civeo agrees that Mr. Poirier’s manager was in a meeting on the morning of November 12, 2021. It argues that a manager being in a meeting for a few hours and not available to an employee immediately does not constitute an adverse impact. I agree.
[27] Employers have an obligation under the Code to adequately respond to complaints of discrimination by its employees: Kingston v. Fairmont Hotel Vancouver and others (No. 2), 2025 BCHRT 259 at para. 88. An unreasonable or inadequate response may itself amount to discrimination: Employee v. The University and another (No. 2), 2020 BCHRT 12 at para. 272.
[28] I am not persuaded that a delay of a few hours to speak to a manager is so unreasonable or inadequate a response that it constitutes an adverse impact in employment. Here, the evidence is that Mr. Poirier went to speak to the manager without an appointment, found that the manager was occupied, and five hours later emailed his resignation alleging discrimination. Civeo has provided evidence that upon receiving the email with allegations of discrimination the manager immediately phoned Mr. Poirier to follow up and investigated the allegations.
[29] When considering Civeo’s evidence that they took Mr. Poirier’s allegations seriously by investigating them, I am persuaded that Mr. Poirier’s allegation that his employer did not adequately respond to his complaint of discrimination has no reasonable prospect of success.
IV CONCLUSION
[30] For the above reasons, I allow the application and dismiss the complaint in its entirety under s. 27(1)(c).
Edward Takayanagi
Tribunal Member