A Vancouver man has lost his claim that his human rights are being violated by women-only workout times at a downtown eastside gym.

According to a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal decision, Craig Teneycke's complaint against the City of Vancouver and the Ray-Cam Community Centre has no reasonable prospect of succeeding.

"The respondents are likely to succeed in establishing that setting aside the two-hour women only time slot in a fitness centre is rationally connected to the goal of providing vulnerable women with a safe environment in which to exercise as part of ongoing efforts to improve the health of these women," wrote tribunal member Vladimir Pylypchuk.

"If men were permitted to exercise along with women, that would defeat the very purpose of providing a safe place, or a safe environment for women who feel vulnerable in such circumstances."

'Stereotype that women are helpless'

Teneycke claimed he was discriminated against in September 2014 when a Ray-Cam clerk told him the weight room was reserved for women daily from 1 to 3 p.m.

As part of his submissions, he claimed he was "verbally assaulted, intimidated and threatened" by another patron at a different time when he asked him how many sets he had left on one of the machines.

"According to the complainant, removing two hours from a 12-hour day leaves males with only 10 hours in which to work out and greatly increases the risk of interaction between abusers and other peaceful male users of the gym," the decision reads.

"The complainant goes on to argue that by setting aside time for women only, Ray-Cam is actually feeding the stereotype that women are helpless and need protection."

'Not always a one-size-fits-all solution'

In his quixotic attempt to gain access for all at Ray-Cam's weight training room, Teneycke challenged the conclusions of the landmark 2006 decision: Stopps v. Just Ladies Fitness.

In both cases, the tribunal members said there was no doubt that men were being discriminated against on the basis of their gender. But that wasn't the end of the considerations.

In order for a human rights complaint to succeed a complainant would have to prove that the discrimination had resulted in some kind of adverse effect. And in both cases, there was no lack of other fitness facilities men could attend.

"The complainant's arguments are no more than a lukewarm attempt to counter what has long been recognized in human rights law concerning the historical disadvantage endured by women" Pylypchuk writes.

"This argument misses the point that, in some circumstances, it is necessary to treat people differently in order to attain true equality, particularly when dealing with historical inequality or vulnerable classes of person. It is not always a one-size-fits-all solution."