Ryder v. 1034274 BC Ltd. DBA Fresh Cup Saanichton and another, 2026 BCHRT 47
Date Issued: February 11, 2026
File(s): CS-006151
Indexed as: Ryder v. 1034274 BC Ltd. DBA Fresh Cup Saanichton and another, 2026 BCHRT 47
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:
Norman Ryder
COMPLAINANT
AND:
1034274 BC Ltd. DBA Fresh Cup Saanichton and Jim Townley
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Laila Said
On their own behalf: Norman Ryder
Agent for the Respondents: William James Townley
I INTRODUCTION
[1] In his complaint, as amended, Mr. Ryder alleges that 1034274 BC Ltd. DBA Fresh Cup Saanichton and Jim Townley [together, the Respondents] discriminated against him regarding a service based on his physical disability contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code. Specifically, Mr. Ryder alleges that the Respondents discriminated against him when they failed to accommodate his Electromagnetic hypersensitivity [EHS] when they redesigned the café without consideration of his EHS and when staff forced him to sit in an area of the café he alleges had the highest levels of radiation. The Respondents banned him from the café.
[2] The Respondents deny discriminating and say that Mr. Ryder’s alleged disability was not a factor in the decision to ban him from the coffee shop. They say Mr. Ryder was banned solely because of his inappropriate behaviour that was unrelated to EHS. The Respondents apply to dismiss the application under s. 27(c) of the Code because they say there is no reasonable prospect Mr. Ryder can prove a connection between his disability and the adverse impacts he alleges. They also say they are reasonably certain to prove that their decision to ban him from the café was justified.
[3] I note for completeness that Mr. Ryder clarifies in his response to this application that the scope of his complaint does not include being banned from the café. He did not make submissions on it, and I will not be adjudicating it as an alleged adverse impact.
[4] The only issue I need to decide to dispose of this application is whether Mr. Ryder has proven he experienced an adverse impact.
[5] For the following reasons, I grant the Respondents’ application. To make this 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. I make no findings of fact.
II BACKGROUND
[6] 1034274 BC Ltd. DBA Fresh Cup Saanichton is a café owned by Jim Townley. Mr. Ryder was a patron of the café for over 10 years. He regularly brought his radiation meter to the café to read radiation levels in the café. He then chose to sit in an area of the café that he felt best accommodated his EHS.
[7] The specific events that gave rise to this complaint occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.
[8] In September 2021, public health guidelines around the pandemic required customers and staff to wear masks while standing or moving about the café.
[9] The parties dispute how and why Mr. Townley asked Mr. Ryder to sit in a certain area of the café. Mr. Townley says that he asked Mr. Ryder to observe social distancing measures and sit 2 meters from the patron Mr. Ryder was speaking to. Mr. Ryder says Mr. Townley demanded he sit in an area of the café known to regularly have the highest level of radiation.
[10] On January 1, 2022, the café closed for several weeks to renovate and expand its operations into the space next door. There is evidence before me that much of the renovation involved the dividing wall between the café and the newly acquired space. The work was done in accordance with BC and municipal building codes and did not involve electrical work.
[11] There is evidence before me that during this time, café staff asked Mr. Townley if, when they reopened, they could exclude Mr. Ryder as a daily customer because his conduct was having a negative impact on the staff. Mr. Townley agreed. The general manager was tasked to tell Mr. Ryder of Mr. Townley’s decision.
[12] Mr. Ryder came to the café when it reopened on January 25, 2022, with the radiation meter. He expressed concerns to other patrons about what he perceived to be increased levels of radiation in the café. Mr. Ryder’s visit to the café that day was otherwise uneventful. The general manager observed Mr. Ryder’s conduct with the electrometer that morning and did not engage him. The assistant manager volunteered to tell Mr. Ryder of Mr. Townley’s decision on Mr. Ryder’s next visit to the café.
[13] The following day, on January 26, 2022, Mr. Ryder returned to the café. The assistant manager informed Mr. Ryder that the café would no longer provide him with their services.
III DECISION
A. Section 27(1)(c) – No reasonable prospect of success
[14] The Respondents apply to dismiss Mr. Ryder’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c) The onus is on the Respondents to establish the basis for dismissal.
[15] 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.
[16] 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.
[17] 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.
[18] Many human rights complaints raise issues of credibility. This is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to deny an application to dismiss: Evans v. University of British Columbia, 2008 BCSC 1026 at para. 34. However, if there are foundational or key issues of credibility, the complaint must go to a hearing: Francescutti v. Vancouver (City), 2017 BCCA 242 at para 67.
[19] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Ryder will have to prove that he has a characteristic protected by the Code he was adversely impacted in services, and his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. If he does that, the burden would shift to the Respondents to justify the impact as a bona fide reasonable justification. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.
[20] The Respondents do not dispute that Mr. Ryder has EHS.
[21] Next, I turn to the second element of the Moore test. I restate here Mr. Ryder’s two allegations of adverse impacts. First, prior to the renovation, he says Mr. Townley demanded he sit in an area of the café with the highest levels of radiation. Second, the Respondents failed to accommodate his EHS when they redesigned the café because they did not consider how the renovation would impact his EHS.
[22] Though the Respondents tailored much of their application on their justification for banning Mr. Ryder from the café, they also made submissions on the adverse impacts set out above. The Respondents say Mr. Ryder has no reasonable prospect of proving an adverse impact, or a connection between his EHS and the adverse impacts he alleges.
[23] I agree. I am satisfied that Mr. Ryder’s complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. In my view, there is no reasonable prospect of Mr. Ryder proving the incident surrounding Mr. Townley’s “demand” rose to the level of adverse impact as required by the Code. The Tribunal has consistently held that where conduct occurs during a single incident or does not otherwise amount to a pattern of conduct, context is critical: Brito v. Affordable Housing Societies and another, 2017 BCHRT 270 at para. 43. In such cases, the Tribunal will consider all of the circumstances to determine whether the conduct violates the Code: Brito at para. 43; Hadzic v. Pizza Hut , 1999 BCHRT 44 at paras. 32-33; Pardo v. School District No. 43, 2003 BCHRT 71.
[24] Here, even if I accept Mr. Ryder’s version of events, which is disputed, there is no reasonable prospect he will prove Mr. Townley’s demand that he sit in a location of the café that regularly had the highest level of radiation is an adverse impact that warrants state intervention. In his complaint, he says he had chosen to sit in an area of the café that visit that was “a high radiation and stressful location”. He says that as he stood up to leave, Mr. Townley made his demand. There is no dispute that Mr. Ryder immediately left the café, as he had intended to do when he stood up to leave. As the Tribunal has said not every negative interaction that is connected to a protected characteristic will be discrimination contrary to the Code: Brito at para. 41. On the evidence, the context of the incident – specifically that it was one brief interaction and Mr. Ryder was leaving anyway – could not support a finding of adverse impact that rises to the level of discrimination at a hearing.
[25] Second, relying on Mr. Ryder’s submission in response to this application, his electrometer picked up different readings in various areas of the café before the renovation, and he would opt to sit in an area of the café that suited him. He had done so, in his own words, for “approximately 15 years of nearly every day”. After the renovation, Mr. Ryder came to the café on January 25th and, by all indications, spent his time at the café as he had routinely done over the previous 15 years. Mr. Ryder then returned on the 26th because he had no concerns about the time he spent in the café a day prior. Mr. Ryder has no reasonable prospect of proving that the renovations impacted his EHS in any way that created barriers to his ability to patronize the café after the renovations were complete.
[26] This allegation has no reasonable prospect of success, and the complaint is dismissed.
IV CONCLUSION
[27] The complaint is dismissed under s. 27(1)(c).
Laila Said
Tribunal Member
Human Rights Tribunal