Rangi v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS1965, 2024 BCHRT 205
Date Issued: July 11, 2024
File: CS-002649
Indexed as: Rangi v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS1965, 2024 BCHRT 205
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:
Darshan Rangi
COMPLAINANT
AND:
The Owners, Strata Plan BCS1965 (Waterstone Pier)
RESPONDENT
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Andrew Robb
On his own behalf: Darshan Rangi
Counsel for the Respondent: Christopher J. Bakker
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Mr. Rangi owns a strata unit in Strata Plan BCS1965 (Waterstone Pier) [the Strata]. He filed a human rights complaint alleging the Strata discriminated against him based on his race and colour. Mr. Rangi describes himself as Indo-Canadian and dark-skinned. He says that when his unit and two other units in his building were affected by water damage, the Strata set up barriers to repairs in his unit and treated him differently than the owners of the other affected units, who were non-racialised. He also made several complaints to the Strata about conditions in his unit and his building, and he says the Strata did not respond to these complaints until similar complaints were made by other, non-racialised owners.
[2] The Strata denies discriminating. It says there are legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the way it treated Mr. Rangi. It says any barriers to repairs in his unit were a result of his decision to hire his own contractor to do the repairs, instead of letting the Strata arrange the repairs, as the other affected owners did. The Strata says it responded to all Mr. Rangi’s complaints appropriately, and his race and colour were not factors in its response.
[3] The Strata applies to dismiss Mr. Rangi’s complaint because it says the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. Mr. Rangi filed a response to the Strata’s application. The Strata did not file a reply to Mr. Rangi’s response. I am satisfied that it had an opportunity to do so.
[4] For the reasons set out below, I allow the application, and I dismiss the complaint. I find Mr. Rangi has no reasonable prospect of proving that any adverse impact he experienced was connected to his race or colour. 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.
[5] I apologise to the parties for the Tribunal’s delay in making this decision.
II BACKGROUND
[6] The Strata is governed by a volunteer council elected by the owners. It employs a strata manager, whose role includes responding to owners’ complaints.
[7] Mr. Rangi’s human rights complaint refers to his complaints to the Strata about four issues. I will describe each of the issues in turn.
A. Water damage and repairs
[8] On or about January 30, 2020, a water pipe ruptured in the ceiling of Mr. Rangi’s building, damaging three units in the building, including Mr. Rangi’s.
[9] On February 21, 2020, the Strata’s manager told Mr. Rangi the Strata would arrange to do the repairs for all three units. Mr. Rangi told the manager he might want to get the repairs to his unit done himself. The manager said that if he did so, the Strata could pay him the same amount of money it would have spent on the repairs to his unit. But the Strata could not get a quote for repairs to Mr. Rangi’s unit until Strata council made a decision about hiring a contractor.
[10] Mr. Rangi was concerned about how long the Strata council took to make a decision about hiring a contractor. On March 31, 2020, he emailed a member of council, GK, to urge council to act quickly. GK told him council was doing its best, but the pandemic was slowing their efforts. He asked for Mr. Rangi’s patience.
[11] On or about April 9, 2020, the Strata council approved the cost of the repairs to all three units, and instructed the manager to hire a contractor to carry out the repairs. Mr. Rangi told the manager he still wanted to get the repairs to his unit done himself. On April 15, 2020, the manager told Mr. Rangi the amount the Strata was quoted for repairs to his unit, and advised him that he could get a payout for that amount, if he signed an agreement to indemnify the Strata. The manager said Mr. Rangi would be responsible for legal fees for preparing the agreement. Mr. Rangi did not object to this. He said his lawyer could draft the agreement.
[12] On April 22, 2020, Mr. Rangi’s lawyer sent the manager a draft indemnity agreement. On April 27, 2020, after consulting with Strata council, the manager told Mr. Rangi that some revisions were required. On the same day, Mr. Rangi provided the revised agreement, and the manager told him further revisions were still required, and he would have to provide information about the materials he planned to use in the repairs to his unit. Mr. Rangi told the manager he was frustrated with the delays in approving his planned repairs, and he felt discriminated against. He asked whether the other affected unit-owners had to go through the same process, before getting their units repaired. The manager responded that the owners of the other affected units had agreed to get repairs done by the Strata’s contractor, instead of receiving a payout, so they did not need to provide an indemnity agreement or other information.
[13] On April 29, 2020, Mr. Rangi emailed the manager to complain about Strata council’s delay in approving the indemnity agreement, council’s requirements for additional information, and council’s concerns about the materials he planned to use in the repairs. The manager forwarded this email to members of council. In response, GK sent an email to the manager and another member of council, saying he was not happy and he wanted to discuss the email with council. There is no evidence before me of any further discussions by Strata council about Mr. Rangi’s complaint email.
[14] On May 4, 2020, GK asked for further information about Mr. Rangi’s proposed repairs, including a document describing the scope of the work. Mr. Rangi provided the required information on the same day. On May 5, 2020, after consulting with other council members, GK again asked for further revisions to the indemnity agreement. There is no evidence before me about whether those revisions were made, but on May 7, 2020, GK told his fellow council-members that he was prepared to release the payout to Mr. Rangi.
[15] On May 11, 2020, the manager advised Mr. Rangi that Strata council had approved the indemnity agreement, and the Strata would send him a cheque for the amount it was quoted for repairs to his unit.
[16] The other two units affected by water damage were repaired by the Strata’s contractor. There is no evidence before me about when those repairs were completed.
[17] Several months later, the Strata hired a new manager. Mr. Rangi complained to the new manager about the delays in getting his unit repaired, among other issues. The new manager discussed Mr. Rangi’s concerns with members of Strata council. On December 1, 2020, in an email to the new manager, a member of Strata council, JS, said:
a. Mr. Rangi constantly threatens legal action to get things he’s not entitled to;
b. The Strata had asked for an indemnity agreement to ensure the repairs to Mr. Rangi’s unit were done to the Strata’s standard, and to ensure Mr. Rangi did not later ask the Strata for further payments to complete the repairs; and
c. The delays in completing repairs to his unit were Mr. Rangi’s fault because the initial indemnity agreement he provided was insufficient.
B. Exhaust pipe flappers
[18] On April 14, 2020, Mr. Rangi told the Strata’s manager that he wanted someone to fix the bathroom and kitchen exhaust pipe exterior flappers attached to his unit. He says the flappers made noise when there were strong winds, and sometimes kept him awake at night. He could not fix the flappers himself because they are on the exterior of the third floor of the building.
[19] The Strata says it instructed the manager to investigate and address this complaint, in April 2020. It did not provide any documentary evidence in support of this assertion.
[20] On May 11, 2020, in an email to the manager, Mr. Rangi asked for an update about the flappers. On the same day, the manager apologised for the delay in addressing the issue and said companies had been slow to react, due to the pandemic. On June 10, 2020, Mr. Rangi followed up again, in another email to the manager. There is no evidence before me about whether the manager took any action in response to these emails, or whether the emails were forwarded to Strata council.
[21] On September 22, 2020, Mr. Rangi emailed the manager to ask if the flappers had been fixed. The manager did not respond.
[22] On or about September 23, 2020, Mr. Rangi contacted GK about the flappers. GK said he had a similar issue in his unit, but only when winds were very strong. He said he was able to resolve the issue by closing his bathroom door, so that he did not hear the flapper. Mr. Rangi’s reply said his flapper was by his bedroom window, and he only heard the flappers from his bedroom, not his bathroom. It appears there was no further communication between Mr. Rangi and GK about the flappers.
[23] Around October 1, 2020, the Strata hired a new manager, as it was dissatisfied with the previous manager. Mr. Rangi contacted the new manager about the flappers. On December 1, 2020, the manager asked for further information about the problem with the flappers. Mr. Rangi provided the requested information the next day.
[24] On December 22, 2020, Mr. Rangi’s neighbour complained to the new manager about noise made by the flappers attached to his (the neighbour’s) unit.
[25] On January 5, 2021, Mr. Rangi emailed the manager about the flappers again, and he followed up with further emails on January 13 and 18, 2021. His email dated January 18, 2021, referred to Strata council meeting minutes from the previous week, which said the Strata had received a complaint about this issue from an owner, and the owner would be requested to contact the manager when the noise was occurring so that a council member could come to the unit and hear the extent of the problem. Mr. Rangi’s email dated January 18, 2021, said Mr. Rangi’s neighbour had complained about the same issue, yet the minutes did not refer to his neighbour’s complaint.
[26] In response, the manager invited Mr. Rangi to notify him when the flapper was making noise, so that a council member could come to his unit to hear it.
[27] On or about January 19, 2021, the Strata hired a contractor to fix the flappers. The Strata says the flappers were fixed on February 3, 2021. Mr. Rangi does not deny this.
[28] On March 3, 2021, Mr. Rangi told the Strata’s manager he could hear the exhaust pipe flappers attached to other units, and it was causing him to lose sleep. He followed up about this on March 7, 2021. There is no evidence before me about how the Strata responded to Mr. Rangi’s emails in March 2021. Mr. Rangi does not suggest the Strata’s response was inadequate.
C. Entrance door
[29] On December 6, 2018, Mr. Rangi advised the Strata’s manager that the entrance door to his unit was difficult to open, and he asked for it to be fixed. The manager said the Strata would get a quote to fix it. On March 11, 2019, Mr. Rangi followed up by email, saying the problem had not been fixed.
[30] On March 25, 2019, the Strata obtained a quote for repairing doors in three units, including Mr. Rangi’s. Strata council meeting minutes show that on April 9, 2019, Strata council decided to defer repairing the doors until it could gather further information about what repairs were needed.
[31] There is no evidence before me about what further information was gathered. Strata council meeting minutes from August 6, 2019, show that the Strata instructed the manager to hire a locksmith for Mr. Rangi’s unit and another unit that had a problem with its entry door. Mr. Rangi says the problem was not the lock, but how the door fit in its frame. He says the locksmith could not resolve this problem.
[32] In December 2019, Mr. Rangi advised the Strata’s manager by email that the door was still an issue. His email said the lock was working fine but the door needed adjustment. The manager told him a locksmith would contact him to fix the door.
[33] There is no evidence before me of any further communication about the door until December 1, 2020, when Mr. Rangi emailed the Strata’s new manager. His email said he was still having problems with the door, even though it was repaired a few months earlier. In another email dated December 2, 2020, he said the door was out of alignment and the hinges needed adjustment. On December 10, 2020, he sent another email, saying he could not lock the door at all.
[34] The Strata says its locksmith repaired the door shortly after that. Mr. Rangi denies this. He requested repairs to the door again on February 4, 2021. There is no evidence before me about whether he received a response to this request.
[35] Mr. Rangi says the problem with his door had not yet been resolved when he filed his response to the Strata’s application to dismiss his complaint, in November 2022.
D. Electrical cord
[36] On March 7, 2021, Mr. Rangi notified the Strata’s manager that another resident of his building had run an electrical extension cord through Mr. Rangi’s parking stalls, in the building’s parkade, on the previous evening. Mr. Rangi said this was not safe, and asked for the cord to be removed.
[37] The Strata says it had a problem with residents running electrical cords along multiple parking stalls, to plug in their vehicles. It says it instructed owners to move these cords off the ground.
[38] In his response to the application to dismiss, Mr. Rangi said he spoke to his parking stall neighbour, and the neighbour resolved the problem by stringing the cord along the ceiling, instead of the ground. Mr. Rangi says this was acceptable to him and there was no further issue.
III DECISION
A. Section 27(1)(c) – No reasonable prospect of success
[39] The Strata applies to dismiss Mr. Rangi’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code,s. 27(1)(c). 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.
[40] 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. 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 942at para. 77.
[41] A dismissal application is not the same as a hearing: Lord v. Fraser Health Authority, 2021 BCSC 2176at 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.
[42] To prove his complaint at a hearing, Mr. Rangi will have to prove that he has a characteristic protected by the Code, he was adversely impacted in the services he received from the Strata, and his protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. If he did that, the burden would shift to the Strata to justify the impact as a bona fide reasonable justification. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.
[43] The Strata does not deny that Mr. Rangi is Indo-Canadian and dark-skinned. The issue I must determine is whether there is no reasonable prospect Mr. Rangi could prove a connection between his race or colour and the adverse impacts alleged in his complaint. His race or colour only needs to be a “factor” in the adverse treatment, not a “significant” factor or a “material” factor: Francis v BC Ministry of Justice (No 3),2019 BCHRT 136 at paras. 282 to 290. The Tribunal’s case law recognises that racism is often difficult to prove. Many complaints of racial discrimination rely on inferences about the reasons for a respondent’s conduct. But despite the subtlety of racial prejudice, any inference of discrimination must be rooted in the evidence of a particular case: Campbell v. Vancouver Police Board (No. 4) , 2019 BCHRT 275 at para. 104.
[44] I consider each of Mr. Rangi’s allegations in turn.
B. Water damage and repairs
[45] Mr. Rangi says the Strata delayed getting estimates for repairs to his unit, after the water damage in January 2020. He says it took over two months for the Strata to get estimates to repair the damage, and the Strata caused further delays by requiring him to hire a lawyer to draft an indemnity agreement, and he received a lesser amount of money to repair his unit, compared to the owners of the other units that were damaged. He says the other owners were Caucasian, which I understand to mean they were white, non-racialised people, and the Strata treated him differently because of his race or colour, and because he hired an Indo-Canadian contractor to repair his unit.
[46] The Strata says it treated Mr. Rangi differently than the owners of the other damaged units because he was the only one who chose to hire his own contractor, instead of allowing the Strata’s contractor to complete the repairs. The Strata says it required him to provide an indemnity agreement because his contractor was unknown to the Strata, and the indemnity agreement was necessary to ensure that any work done in Mr. Rangi’s unit would not cause harm to other owners. It says it required a scope of work document and a materials list to ensure the materials that Mr. Rangi’s contractor used were of like kind and quality to the originally installed materials.
[47] The Strata cites its obligation under the Strata Property Act , and its own bylaws, to explain why it requested the indemnity agreement. It says it has a statutory obligation to manage Strata property for the benefit of all owners. The Strata’s bylaws say that when a strata owner wants to make alterations to their unit, they must obtain the Strata’s approval, and the Strata may require an indemnity agreement as a condition of approval. Mr. Rangi argues that this provision of the bylaws does not apply because he was not seeking to alter his unit, but to repair it.
[48] It is not disputed that the Strata did not approve repairs for any of the three damaged units until April 9, 2020. It is also not disputed that the owners of the other damaged units allowed the Strata’s contractor to do the repairs. There is no evidence before me that could suggest the other owners received more money than Mr. Rangi received, or any money at all, for repairs to their units. It appears that the Strata paid its contractor to do these repairs, rather than paying the owners.
[49] Mr. Rangi says the Strata treated him differently for reasons related to the fact that both he and his contractor are Indo-Canadian. But Mr. Rangi does not explain how the Strata knew the identity of his contractor, or anything about his contractor’s race or colour, before he provided the contractor’s scope of work document on May 4, 2020, which showed the contractor had the same last name as Mr. Rangi. By that date, the Strata had already made the decision to require Mr. Rangi to sign an indemnity agreement, and it had already requested revisions to the agreement. Mr. Rangi received the Strata’s approval to hire his own contractor, and was told he would receive a payout, one week after he provided the scope of work document.
[50] There is evidence that some members of Strata council were unsympathetic to Mr. Rangi, while he awaited repairs to his unit. GK said he was unhappy with Mr. Rangi’s complaints about the delay in approving his repairs, and repeatedly requested further information from Mr. Rangi, after Mr. Rangi complained. There is also evidence, in JS’s email dated December 1, 2020, that Strata council perceived Mr. Rangi as a chronic complainer who used legal tactics to get things he was not entitled to. But Mr. Rangi’s response to the application to dismiss does not say anything about JS’s email, and neither his complaint nor his response to the application to dismiss refers to GK’s requests for further information. There is no evidence before me, and Mr. Rangi does not suggest, that JS’s views about him, or GK’s requests for information, were connected to his race or colour.
[51] The Strata has provided non-discriminatory explanations for the conduct that Mr. Rangi says is discriminatory. It says the delay between the date of the damage and the date when the Strata approved repair costs was the same for all three damaged units, and did not single out Mr. Rangi. Mr. Rangi does not appear to deny this.
[52] The Strata says the requirement for Mr. Rangi to sign an indemnity agreement was based on the Strata’s responsibility to maintain the common property for the benefit of all owners. Even if an indemnity agreement was not required by the Strata’s bylaws in this situation, I am satisfied that the Strata is reasonably certain to prove it had a non-discriminatory reason for requesting the indemnity agreement.
[53] Mr. Rangi says he never received a copy of the indemnity agreement signed by the Strata, and this means the agreement was invalid. There is no evidence before me about the legal effect of the Strata’s failure to send Mr. Rangi a signed copy of the agreement. But even if the agreement was invalid due to the Strata’s failure to sign it, there is no basis in the evidence for me to infer that the Strata’s failure to sign it was connected to Mr. Rangi’s race or colour.
[54] Mr. Rangi does not suggest that the decisions of Strata council were tainted by stereotypes about Indo-Canadians or dark-skinned people. He did not make any submissions about JS’s email to the new manager, dated December 1, 2020, although it described him in negative terms. Nor does he explain any connection between his race or colour and the Strata’s decisions in relation to the repairs in his unit, other than his claim that the other owners affected by the same damage were treated differently than him. But there is no basis, in the evidence before me, to infer that he was treated differently than the other owners for any reason other than his decision to get the repairs to his unit done by his own contractor, instead of the Strata’s contractor.
[55] It appears that the Strata could have avoided some of the delays and confusion that Mr. Rangi complains about by drafting the indemnity agreement itself, or using a standard indemnity agreement, rather than leaving Mr. Rangi and his lawyer to guess about what terms and information the Strata wanted to have included in the agreement. But there is no evidence before me that could suggest the Strata proceeded in this manner for any reason connected to Mr. Rangi’s race or colour.
[56] On the evidence before me, I find this part of the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success.
C. Exhaust pipe flappers
[57] Mr. Rangi says the Strata delayed fixing the exhaust pipe flappers attached to his unit for about ten months. He made complaints to the Strata’s former manager in April, May, June, and September 2020. The Strata acknowledges that the manager’s response was unsatisfactory, and says it acted reasonably in replacing the manager. Mr. Rangi made further complaints to the new manager between October and December 2020, and the problem was finally fixed in February 2021.
[58] Mr. Rangi says the previous manager’s unsatisfactory performance does not excuse the Strata’s failure to respond to his complaints, because the Strata received all his complaints. The Strata says it started investigating this issue when Mr. Rangi first complained about it, in April 2020. There is evidence that the manager contacted a contractor to try to address the issue, around May 2020, but it appears that no further steps were taken at that time.
[59] Mr. Rangi says the Strata did not address the noise from the flappers until his neighbour, who is white, complained about the same issue. The evidence before me does not support Mr. Rangi’s suggestion that the Strata was only motivated to address the issue by his neighbour’s complaint. Mr. Rangi says his neighbour complained about the issue on December 22, 2020. Strata council meeting minutes from January 2021 only refer to one complaint, and do not specify who made the complaint. But in Mr. Rangi’s email to the manager dated January 18, 2021, he says he believes the minutes were referring to his own complaint, and he asks why they did not also refer to his neighbour’s. The minutes said the manager would contact the owner who complained to arrange for a member of Strata council to come to their unit to investigate, and a few days later, the manager contacted Mr. Rangi for this purpose. None of the flappers were fixed until after Mr. Rangi’s follow-up complaints in January 2021. All of this evidence suggests it was Mr. Rangi’s repeated complaints that spurred the Strata to act, not his neighbour’s.
[60] Mr. Rangi does not have to prove his complaint, in response to the Strata’s application to dismiss, but as noted above, he must provide sufficient evidence to bring his complaint out of the “realm of conjecture”. This means his allegations about the connection between his race or colour and the Strata’s conduct must be based on more than speculation.
[61] I find Mr. Rangi has not provided evidence of facts that could establish a connection between the Strata’s failure to fix the flappers sooner, and his race or colour. This means he has not brought this allegation out of the “realm of conjecture”.
D. Door lock
[62] The Strata acknowledges that there have been issues related to the entrance door to Mr. Rangi’s unit for many years. Mr. Rangi says the Strata should have hired a carpenter or framer to fix his door, instead of a locksmith. He says the locksmith could not fix the door jam and hinges, which were the source of the problem. Mr. Rangi says the Strata has never adequately addressed this problem.
[63] Mr. Rangi says a locksmith was unable to resolve the problem with his door, but he says the Strata was unwilling to even hire a locksmith to look at the door until other residents made complaints about similar issues. He does not say whether the other residents who complained were racialised, but he says the fact that the Strata did not take the issue seriously until other residents complained about it is evidence of discrimination.
[64] The evidence before me does not support Mr. Rangi’s assertion that the Strata only took steps to deal with the door lock because other, non-racialised residents complained about it. Strata council meeting minutes from April 9, 2019, show that three owners, including Mr. Rangi, had similar issues with their entrance doors, but council still decided to defer the issue for further investigation. Meeting minutes from August 6, 2019, show the council decided to hire a locksmith to address the issue in two units, including Mr. Rangi’s.
[65] The Strata says the issue with Mr. Rangi’s door was resolved by a locksmith shortly after Mr. Rangi complained to the new manager, in December 2020. But Mr. Rangi continued to complain about the door, in an email to the manager, on February 4, 2021. The email dated February 4, 2021, is included in the Strata’s application to dismiss, yet the Strata does not refer to the email in its submissions, or explain why it apparently did not respond.
[66] The Strata’s failure to acknowledge the evidence about Mr. Rangi’s continuing complaints about his door is troubling. The evidence before me suggests this was a serious problem, which at times resulted in Mr. Rangi being unable to fully close the main door to his unit.
[67] I understand why Mr. Rangi was frustrated with his Strata’s failure to repair his door. But once again, he does not provide any basis for an inference that this failure was connected to his race or colour. In an application under s. 27(1)(c), “it is not enough for there to be some chance that a complaint might succeed; it must have a reasonable chance of success”: Routkovskaia v FPI Fireplace Products International Ltd , 2009 BCHRT 95 at para. 47. In the absence of any basis for a finding that the Strata’s failures are connected to his race or colour, I find this part of the complaint has no reasonable chance of success.
E. Electrical cord
[68] It appears this issue was resolved promptly after Mr. Rangi complained about it, in discussions between Mr. Rangi and his parking stall neighbour. Mr. Rangi says his parking stall neighbour was white, but he does not explain how the Strata’s response to this issue was connected to his race or colour, and there is no evidence before me that could suggest such a connection. I find this part of the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success.
IV CONCLUSION
[69] I have found that Mr. Rangi has no reasonable prospect of proving that any of the issues he complained about are connected to his race or colour. This means his complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. The complaint is dismissed.
Andrew Robb
Tribunal Member