HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL DISABILITY CASE SUMMARIES MAY 2021

Posted on June 14, 2021 by L Limanni

The following are a summary of recent decisions relating to disability and human rights from the human rights tribunals in Canada (Summer, 2021, Issue 1)

This issue of our digest covers decisions from the Human Rights Tribunals of British Colombia, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, PEI, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, Quebec, and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that were rendered during the month of May 2021. Any relevant Supreme Court of Canada decisions from that month have also been included.

This information is not intended to provide legal advice.

Prepared by Research Assistants for the Law, Disability & Social Change Project: Lucia Chiara Limanni (JD Candidate, 2023) and Roxana Jahani Aval (JD Candidate, 2022).

BRITISH COLUMBIA

Dedera (by May) v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR2553, 2021 BCHRT 70
Access Full Decision Here
Date Issued: May 20, 2021

The complainant, Irena Dedera, is an eighty-year-old woman who lives with various mental and physical health issues. Ms. Dedera filed a discrimination complaint against Strata Plan VR2533 (“Strata”), the owners of the building in which she resides. Ms. Dedera’s daughter, Ms. Ashalee May, filed the complaint on her behalf. Ms. May alleged that Strata discriminated against her mother on the basis of her disability and age in contravention of s. 8 of the Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c 210 (“Code”). This section prohibits the discrimination against any person regarding accommodations, services, or facilities on numerous grounds, including on the basis of disability. Ms. May claimed that Strata failed to provide an accessible way to dispose of Ms. Dedera’s garbage despite her accommodation request to Strata. Furthermore, Ms. May claimed Strata fined her mother for a Strata bylaw breach for improper garbage disposal, planned on enforcing those fines, and harassed her mother throughout this process.

Strata has denied these claims and has applied to dismiss this complaint on the grounds of no contravention of the Code and no reasonable prospect of success pursuant to ss. 27(1) (c) and d(ii) of the Code. Additionally, Strata maintained they have fulfilled Ms. Dedera’s request and thus this complaint does not further the purpose of the Code pursuant to s. 27(1)(b).

Strata was made aware of Ms. Dedera’s health issues in 2015. The recycling system Strata had set up was inaccessible for various reasons: the lid of the garbage was too heavy to lift, the gate to this area was difficult to open and she feared harassment from her neighbours and from Strata representatives. Ms. May alleged her mother experienced harassment for over a year from both her neighbours and Strata. Ms. May requested access to a separate garbage container inside of the Strata building, as opposed to outside of the building, on behalf of her mother as an accommodation due to Ms. Dedera’s disability.

Strata denied the allegations of discrimination and harassment against Ms. Dedera and claimed they adhered to the accommodation request by providing her with a separate garbage container within the building’s premises. Further, Strata argued the complaint submitted against Ms. Dedera – which involved her payment of unpaid fines for infractions including improper garbage disposal, and a cease-and-desist letter, which demanded she end her improper behaviour including her improper garbage disposal, aimed to maintain order within the building.

Though Strata did provide Ms. Dedera with a separate garbage disposal, there has been a dispute about the manner in which the accommodation was provided. Ms. May suggested there was a delay of four years between the accommodation request and the fulfillment. Additionally, Ms. May claimed Strata was going to provide a separate garbage disposal temporarily, which Strata denied.

The Tribunal held that it was not possible to resolve the issue at hand without a hearing, due to Strata’s and Ms. May’s inconsistent allegations regarding the occurrence of the events that took place, credibility issues, the sufficiency and timeliness issues, and disagreement over whether an accommodation had been provided to Ms. Dedera. As a result, the Tribunal was unable to dismiss this complaint under s 27(1)(c) and 27(d)(ii).

In conclusion, the Tribunal denied Strata’s request to dismiss this complaint without a hearing. A hearing was ordered.

ONTARIO