The Complainant v. PHS Community Service Society and others (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 304
Date Issued: October 29, 2024
File: CS-001241
Indexed as: The Complainant v. PHS Community Service Society and others (No. 2), 2024 BCHRT 304
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:
The Complainant
COMPLAINANT
AND:
PHS Community Service Society, Jennifer La Pierre, and BC Housing Management Commission
RESPONDENTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
APPLICATION TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT
Section 27(1)(c)
Tribunal Member: Theressa Etmanski
Advocate for the Complainant: Debra Febril
Counsel for the Respondent: Anne S. Cochrane
I INTRODUCTION
[1] The Tribunal has previously ordered that the Complainant’s name be anonymized.
[2] The Complainant identifies as African Canadian and has mental and physical disabilities, including Misophonia, a disability that makes them extremely sensitive to noise. The Complainant alleges that BC Housing, PHS Community Services Society and Jennifer La Pierre discriminated against them in tenancy on the grounds of their race, mental disability, and physical disability by failing to accommodate their disability and provide them safe housing, contrary to s. 10 of the Code. The Complainant also alleges that this conduct by BC Housing violates s.8 of the Code.
[3] BC Housing now applies to dismiss the complaint against it without a hearing. Although BC Housing has raised subsections 27(1)(b), (c), and (d) of the Code, I find that I can resolve this application under s. 27(1)(c) alone. BC Housing argues the Complainant has no reasonable prospect of proving that it subjected them to any adverse treatment in either the area of services or tenancy, or that there is a link between the Complainant’s protected characteristics and any adverse treatment they may have experienced because of BC Housing’s conduct.
[4] The respondents PHS and Ms. La Pierre take no position on this application.
[5] This decision turns on the following issues. Has the Complainant taken out of the realm of conjecture that:
a. BC Housing subjected them to adverse treatment in a tenancy context
i. by denying them space that was represented as being available for occupancy? Or
ii. by controlling a term or condition of tenancy?
b. BC Housing subjected them to adverse treatment in the provision of a service?
[6] For the reasons below, I grant the application and dismiss the complaint against BC Housing in full. 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.
[7] I acknowledge that BC Housing objects to the Tribunal considering certain allegations made by the Complainant in their response materials. BC Housing says these are new allegations and beyond the scope of the complaint accepted by the Tribunal. In light of my decision on this application, I have not found it necessary to parse through the allegations before me to address these concerns.
II BACKGROUND
[8] The following information is taken from the materials provided by the parties. I make no findings of fact.
[9] The Complainant has various mental and physical disabilities resulting from a violent attack they experienced while living overseas. Upon their return to Canada, the Complainant found themselves without stable housing. In or around February or March 2019, the Complainant applied for supported housing through BC Housing’s Supportive Housing Registry [ Registry ].
[10] The Registry is a central database of applicants for supportive housing. The Registry allows non-profit housing providers, such as PHS, to identify and house applicants that require supportive housing. BC Housing says that once a list of applicants is provided to the housing provider, its services regarding the Registry are complete. BC Housing says it does not directly manage or operate any supportive housing projects and does not draw any tenants from the Registry.
[11] Supportive Housing refers to tenancy in a premise that also offers services such as home care and meals, for example. Subsidized housing refers to rental housing that is offered below market value, with a portion of the rent covered by a rental supplement. Supportive housing may be subsidized; however, rental supplements also provide residents the option of accessing market rental housing.
[12] On March 8, 2019, the Complainant entered into a tenancy agreement with PHS and accepted a suite at Nora Hendrix Place. PHS was to provide the Complainant with support services such as health care, home support, and meals.
[13] Almost immediately, the Complainant says a neighbour began verbally harassing them and threatened to kill them. There were also serious noise disturbances. On one occasion, the Complainant says they were forced to flee their suite because of a violent situation in which the police were called. The Complainant says they notified both PHS and BC Housing about these issues, and the adverse impact on their disabilities.
[14] In late April 2019, the Complainant moved to Hummingbird Place, another PHS operated facility. Unfortunately, the Complainant reports that they soon began to experience similar noise disturbances from neighbours, which triggered their Misophonia. The Complainant felt that they were being deliberately harassed by their neighbours on either side and contacted PHS staff on several occasions. The Complainant says they also requested that soundproofing be installed in their unit. The Complainant was not satisfied with the manner in which PHS responded to their concerns.
[15] The Complainant says the situation with their neighbours at Hummingbird Place escalated to a point where a racist slur and violent threats were made against them. The Complainant described this living situation as “torture”. It appears that PHS agreed that their supportive housing options were not a good fit for the Complainant, in part because of PHS’s commitment to house people living with addiction and other behaviours which were not compatible with the Complainant’s needs or expectations as a neighbour.
[16] The Complainant contacted BC Housing several times about the issues they were experiencing while living at Nora Hendrix Place and Hummingbird Place. BC Housing says they referred any tenancy related disputes back to the Complainant’s landlord, PHS. At the same time, BC Housing reports that it also explored other options for the Complainant, including the following:
a. In May 2019, BC Housing staff met with the Complainant to discuss their eligibility for the Supported Tenants Enabling Pathways (STEP) program. The STEP program is supported by BC Housing and provides those in supportive housing an opportunity to move into independent housing with more limited supports in the community. Participants in the STEP program receive monthly assistance to help with rent payments, which provides the opportunity to seek out housing beyond those providers on the Registry. However, the Complainant says they subsequently learned they did not qualify for the STEP program because of their age.
b. On or around May 24, 2019, BC Housing says it secured a rental subsidy of $450 per month for the Complainant. However, the Complainant says they informed BC Housing that this was not a workable solution as they could not afford market housing and required supportive housing because of their disabilities. The Complainant did not use this subsidy.
c. In or around January 2020, BC Housing coordinated a “trade” between PHS and the MPA Society, whereby MPA Society would assist the Complainant finding alternative housing through the Supported Outreach Living Opportunity (SOLO) program. In return, the MPA Society would send one of their residents to PHS who wanted supportive housing. On January 23, 2020, BC Housing emailed PHS and MPA Society to say they had spoken to the Complainant who was “eager” to join the SOLO program. Subsequently the Complainant notified PHS that they had accepted housing and supports through MPA Society’s SOLO program.
d. On January 22, 2020, the Complainant submitted a Transfer Request through BC Housing’s Registry. BC Housing says it accepted and activated this application on the Registry, though it became dormant when the Complainant accepted supports through the SOLO program.
[17] The Complainant moved into market housing in or around April 2020 with the assistance of MPA Society. Unfortunately, the Complainant reports that after a month they were evicted and ended up living in a motel.
[18] BC Housing says that as of July 2020, MPA Society was providing the Complainant with stable housing and supports through the SOLO program.
III DECISION
[19] BC Housing applies to dismiss the Complainant’s complaint on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success: Code, s. 27(1)(c) The onus is on BC Housing to establish the basis for dismissal.
[20] 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.
[21] 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 .
[22] A dismissal application is also 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 .
[23] 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.
[24] To prove their complaint at a hearing, the Complainant will have to prove that they have a characteristic protected by the Code , they were adversely impacted in tenancy and/or services, and their protected characteristics were a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33. If they did that, the burden would shift to BC Housing to justify the impact as a bona fide reasonable justification. If the impact is justified, there is no discrimination.
[25] I understand the Complainant’s allegations in the areas of tenancy and services to essentially be the same. The Complainant alleges that BC Housing was involved in decisions of where they would be housed, and in doing so, failed to provide them with supportive housing that appropriately meets their needs as a person with disabilities. The Complainant says that there were vacancies at both Nora Hendrix Place and Hummingbird Place when they resided at each building, and individuals who applied after the Complainant were granted tenancy. I understand the Complainant to allege that BC Housing should have either intervened to resolve their tenancy issues or to move the Complainant to a more appropriate unit within these residences.
[26] The Complainant further alleges that BC Housing denied them a right to occupy their home at Hummingbird Place when BC Housing insisted that they move out and into unsupported market rental housing.
[27] I understand the Complainant to also allege that BC Housing was involved in the day-to-day management of their tenancy, and were, at least in part, responsible for exposing them a term or condition of their tenancy that was discriminatory based on their mental and physical disabilities. Specifically, the Complainant alleges their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises was violated, and BC Housing ignored the Complainant’s pleas for assistance to correct this condition.
[28] BC Housing does not dispute that the Complainant has characteristics protected by the Code. However, BC Housing says the Complainant has no reasonable prospect of proving that BC Housing subjected them to any adverse treatment in either the area of services or tenancy, or that there is a link between the Complainant’s protected characteristics and any adverse treatment they may have experienced because of BC Housing’s conduct.
1. Has the Complainant taken their allegation that BC Housing discriminated against them in the area of tenancy out of the realm of conjecture?
[29] I start with the area of tenancy. The primary issue I need to decide is whether the Complainant has no reasonable prospect of proving that BC Housing subjected them to adverse treatment in the tenancy context within the meaning of s. 10 of the Code. This requires a contextual analysis that considers all relevant circumstances: British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk , 2017 SCC 62 at para. 67.
[30] Protection against discriminatory treatment in a tenancy context may be found under s. 10(1)(a) or s. 10(1)(b) of the Code. Section 10(1)(a) provides that a person must not “deny to a person or class of persons the right to occupy, as a tenant, space that is represented as being available for occupancy by a tenant” because of a person’s protected characteristic.
[31] For the following reasons, I am not persuaded that the Complainant can establish that BC Housing denied them tenancy within the meaning of s. 10(1)(a), because the Complainant has not taken out of conjecture the question of whether BC Housing denied them a “space that [was] represented as being available for occupancy” at any relevant time.
[32] BC Housing says it does not have, manage, or control any supportive housing units, and it cannot require a nonprofit supportive housing provider to accept any particular new tenant. Rather, supportive housing providers can select tenants from the Registry, as occurred when the Complainant initially entered into a tenancy agreement with BC Housing. BC Housing has provided an affidavit from a senior manager which affirms that its staff has never represented to the Complainant that there was a supportive unit available through a housing provider that could have been offered to them. Rather, BC Housing says that when there was no indication of vacancies, it tried to find solutions for the Complainant by contacting other housing programs and providers to see if there were alternative solutions for the Complainant. BC Housing says the Complainant ultimately accepted one of these options.
[33] Although the Complainant suggests that there were available units that would have met their disability-related needs, there is no evidence before me that any unit was represented as available for tenancy by BC Housing at the relevant time. Indeed, the Complainant acknowledges in their affidavit that someone from BC Housing told them on or about December 9, 2019, that “BC Housing did not have any supportive housing vacancies.” A letter provided by the Complainant from Ms. La Pierre dated May 8, 2019, also states: “There are not any spare rooms at Hummingbird Place so I can neither move the couple in 306 nor can I move you to another room.” The Complainant’s belief that there were available units is not sufficient on its own to take the question of whether there were any units that were represented as being available for tenancy by BC Housing, or that BC Housing had control over who occupied those units, out of the realm of conjecture.
[34] Further, although I accept that s. 10(1)(a) includes protection in circumstances where an existing tenancy is ended, I am not persuaded that the Complainant has taken out of the realm of conjecture that BC Housing is responsible for the end of their tenancy at Hummingbird Place with PHS.
[35] BC Housing says it did not require the Complainant to move out of Hummingbird Place and that in any event, it could not have forced the Complainant to leave because BC Housing does not have the authority to end anyone’s tenancy with PHS. While this may indicate a conflict in the evidence of the parties, I am satisfied on the evidence before me that a hearing is not necessary to resolve this issue.
[36] The evidence before me supports BC Housing’s assertions that BC Housing had no authority to terminate the Complainant’s tenancy with PHS and BC Housing did not terminate the Complainant’s tenancy with PHS. While there is evidence that BC Housing assisted in finding alternative subsidized housing for the Complainant and may have encouraged that the move to an alternative occur expeditiously, I am not satisfied this evidence takes the allegation against BC Housing out of the realm of conjecture.
[37] The undisputed information before me includes the following:
a. The Complainant signed a tenancy agreement with PHS – not BC Housing. The tenancy agreement included provisions on how the tenancy could be ended. Only PHS and the tenant are referenced as parties capable of ending the agreement. The agreement states “The Program is funded by BC Housing, a crown agent, but BC Housing has no obligations to you under this Agreement.”
b. The Complainant had increasing concerns about their tenancy at Hummingbird Place due to noise disturbances and verbal assaults by their neighbours which triggered their disability symptoms. The Complainant voiced these concerns to both PHS and BC Housing numerous times. The Complainant also provided several letters from their medical professionals who were concerned about the suitability of the Complainant’s living situation at Hummingbird Place, and the impact it was having on their health. These letters recommended that the Complainant be moved to a different and more appropriate housing situation.
c. On or around May 7, 2019, the Complainant met with Ms. La Pierre from PHS to discuss their tenancy. By letter dated May 8, 2019, Ms. La Pierre summarized their meeting and responded to some questions posed by the Complainant. The following excerpt is included:
(6) Are you willing to lobby for me to be housed in a peaceful and quieter building in Vancouver, wherever that may be? I don’t know what the solution is but something needs to be done.
I would absolutely be happy to support you in finding housing that better suits you. I can provide you with a letter of support which outlines the reasons this type of supportive housing has not been working for you. As we have discussed, though Hummingbird Place is not devoid of noise, it is one of the quietest supportive housing buildings of which I am aware. I think you would probably be more suited to a subsidized housing building, rather than a supportive housing building. As I do not work in subsidized housing, I cannot recommend any buildings in particular. This is something that should be discussed with BC Housing.
d. On January 22, 2020, the Complainant emailed PHS and BC Housing. The email stated in part: “I am writing to request a very URGENT meeting with you to discuss me moving out. I must move from here this week, before the end of this month. […] If I have to put my stuff in public storage until I can get a place to live that’s what I am going to do. I cannot stay here any longer.”
e. PHS and MPA Society agreed to a housing exchange where MPA Society would provide the Complainant supports through the SOLO program and PHS would house a resident from the MPA Society who required supportive housing. BC Housing says that while it connected PHS and MPA Society regarding the Complainant, the arrangement was ultimately the decision of those two entities, with the Complainant’s agreement.
f. MPA Society assisted the Complainant search for market rental housing under the umbrella of the SOLO program, which would provide a rent supplement. On March 24, 2020, MPA Society emailed the Complainant to encourage them to broaden the scope of their search. The email states:
We have pressure from external stakeholders including BC Housing to ensure that people who are eligible for rent subsidies move into market rental housing within a reasonable time frame so that it frees up space in supported housing units, such as modular as there are many people in need of immediate housing.
g. The Complainant moved into market rental housing in or around April 2020. Their initial housing situation ended unexpectedly after one month, and the Complainant resided in a hotel until other housing was secured in or around July 2020.
[38] In these circumstances, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the Complainant will be able to prove their complaint against BC Housing under s. 10(1)(a) of the Code.
[39] Next, I must consider whether there is no prospect that the Complainant will prove that BC Housing discriminated against the Complainant regarding “a term or condition of the tenancy of the space”, as prohibited under s. 10(1)(b) of the Code. To do so, I must determine whether the Complainant has taken out of the realm of conjecture that BC Housing had sufficient control over their living space that they could influence the terms and conditions of their tenancy.
[40] The Complainant says that in all material communications with PHS, BC Housing, and others from March 2019, they were led to believe that the day-to-day management of their tenancy was controlled by BC Housing. The Complainant says that BC Housing was aware of the Complainant’s disabilities, tenancy and neighbour concerns, and their need for a safe and supportive housing environment. However, the Complainant says BC Housing ignored their pleas for assistance for close to a year, which exacerbated their disabilities. In essence, the Complainant alleges that BC Housing failed to accommodate their disabilities by resolving their tenancy issues at Nora Hendrix Place or Hummingbird Place.
[41] I understand the “term or condition of the tenancy of the space” referred to by the Complainant as their placement in a unit next to individuals who made excessive noise which aggravated their disabilities and subjected them to discriminatory and threatening statements based on their race. In other words, the condition of tenancy at issue is their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.
[42] BC Housing says where someone enters into a tenancy agreement with a housing provider, BC Housing is not responsible for the administration of their tenancy, tenancy issues, complaints, or disputes. Accommodations of personal needs are to be handled solely by the housing provider. In this case, BC Housing says this was expressly stated in the tenancy agreement between the Complainant and PHS.
[43] BC Housing acknowledges that the Complainant contacted their staff with their concerns about their tenancy at Nora Hendrix Place and Hummingbird Place. BC Housing says they took extraordinary steps to try to assist the Complainant find solutions because of the volume of the Complainant’s complaints, and because staff at BC Housing are aware of resources that can benefit tenants. This assistance included listening to the Complainant’s concerns and ensuring they were communicated back to the appropriate people at PHS and discussing different housing solutions such as the STEP and SOLO programs. BC Housing says their willingness to try to help the Complainant with their issues does not create a landlord-like duty to accommodate in the manner desired, or at all, and did not mean that BC Housing had authority or control over the Complainant’s access to use of the space.
[44] The Complainant disagrees. In support of their position that BC Housing exercised control over the terms of their tenancy, the Complainant says the following:
a. When the Complainant was trying to resolve their concerns about noise, food, and security with PHS staff, they were told to go to BC Housing. The Complainant does not specify who told them to bring these concerns to BC Housing. The Complainant raised concerns with BC Housing from March 2019 until May 1, 2020.
b. Ms. LaPierre of PHS encouraged the Complainant to discuss the option of subsidized housing with BC Housing, as she said this would be more suited to the Complainant than their current housing situation. Ms. LaPierre then wrote a letter of support to BC Housing in support of the Complainant’s application to BC Housing for subsidized housing or STEP.
c. The Complainant says they emailed a “formal grievance” to PHS and BC Housing on November 13, 2019, in which they asked BC Housing to intervene and indicated that they were holding BC Housing to “high standards and serious action.” It is unclear whether PHS or BC Housing has a grievance mechanism in place, or if submitting a grievance was the Complainant’s own initiative.
d. The Complainant’s doctor wrote to BC Housing on November 25, 2019, appealing for their support in finding more suitable housing for the Complainant. The Complainant subsequently forwarded three additional letters of support to BC Housing.
[45] I am not persuaded that this evidence takes the allegation that BC Housing had control over the Complainant’s living space with PHS out of the realm of conjecture: McCulloch v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) , 2019 BCSC 624 at para. 130. While the evidence provided may be able to establish that the Complainant believed BC Housing to have control to resolve the terms and conditions within their tenancy with PHS, this does not make it so. While the evidence indicates that BC Housing could and did assist the Complainant to access another avenue for housing, this is not the same as BC Housing having control over the terms and conditions of the Complainant’s living space at Nora Hendrix Place or Hummingbird Place.
[46] The Complainant also notes that BC Housing was a partner in developing Nora Hendrix Place and is listed online as a funder. However, I am not persuaded that these factors are sufficient to alter my conclusion above. The Tribunal has previously found that these factors alone do not create a tenancy relationship: Martin and others v. Red Door Housing Society and others , 2024 BCHRT 171, at paras. 33-34; Peterson v. Kinsmen Retirement Centre and others , 2007 BCHRT 129 and Alexander v. PAL Vancouver and others (No. 2) , 2006 BCHRT 145. I do not agree with the Complainant’s submissions that the facts in these cases are sufficiently distinguishable that they should not apply to the current complaint.
[47] By reaching the conclusion that the Complainant’s tenancy allegations have no prospect of success based on the information before me, I do not intend to give the impression that BC Housing can never be found liable under s. 10 of the Code. It will depend on the circumstances, including whether BC Housing’s role in the circumstances engages s. 10. This was the case in Watkins v. British Columbia Housing Management Commission , 2018 BCHRT 39, which was relied on by the Complainant. The facts of that case are similar in that the complainant also had issues in his tenancy including noise disturbances which negatively impacted his disability. He requested that these issues be addressed by BC Housing, and alleged that BC Housing did not take appropriate steps to do so. On an application to dismiss, the Tribunal found that BC Housing’s alleged failure to explore all reasonable solutions to accommodate the Complainant could amount to discrimination under s. 10 of the Code. However, Watkins is distinguishable because there was no question in that case that BC Housing was the landlord. The building in question was owned by the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation and by Her Majesty the Queen in the right of the Province of British Columbia, and it was within BC Housing’s mandate to manage that residence. In contrast, there is no information before me that BC Housing, or any party other that PHS, had the mandate to manage tenancy at Nora Hendrix Place or Hummingbird Place.
[48] I am satisfied that BC Housing has established that the Complainant has no reasonable prospect of successfully proving their complaint under s. 10 of the Code. The Complainant’s allegations against BC Housing in the area of tenancy are dismissed.
2. Has the Complainant taken their allegation that BC Housing discriminated against them in the provision of services out of the realm of conjecture?
[49] For the Tribunal to find that discrimination occurred, contrary to s. 8 of the Code, it must find that the alleged discrimination occurred regarding a service customarily available to the public: British Columbia v. Crockford, 2006 BCCA 360 at para. 78. In cases where the respondent disputes that the complainant’s allegations have to do with a service customarily available to the public, the Tribunal must identify the service in question, keeping in mind that not all the activities of a service provider are necessarily subject to scrutiny under the Code just because some are: Bond and Bond v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW 2671 , 2024 BCHRT 21 at para. 74. Some services will create public relationships between the service provider and its public users, while other services may establish only a private relationship between the same individuals: University of British Columbia v. Berg, 1993 CanLII 89 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 353; Gould v. Yukon Order of Pioneers, 1996 CanLII 231 (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 571 at para. 58.
[50] To determine whether a service is “customarily available to the public,” the question the Tribunal asks is whether the nature of the service creates a public relationship between the service provider and the service user: Berg at 384. It is well-accepted that a service does not have to be available to everyone to be customarily available to the public within the meaning of the Code : Berg at 382-383. The “public” for a service may be a subset of the total community, which is eligible for the service, and may be clients, students, customers, or patients. The Tribunal must engage in a purposive interpretation and identify the community of persons who are eligible to take advantage of the services in question: H.M.T.Q. v. Crockford, 2005 BCSC 663 at para. 69.
[51] The Complainant alleges that BC Housing failed to provide them with safe supportive housing. More specifically, the Complainant alleges that BC Housing did not address the tenancy issues they were having while living at Nora Hendrix Place and Hummingbird Place, despite the Complainant repeatedly asking for their assistance. From the complaint, I understand the Complainant to allege that BC Housing offers the following services to those individuals who applied for supportive housing through BC Housing’s Registry:
a. the resolution of tenancy issues between tenants and supportive housing providers, and
b. the provision of supportive housing.
[52] The issue before me is whether BC Housing is reasonably certain to prove that it does not offer these services as alleged. I am satisfied based on all the information before me that the Complainant has not taken out of the realm of conjecture that they do.
[53] BC Housing denies that it intervenes in tenancy issues between tenants and their landlords. It denies that this is a service it offers. BC Housing says these issues are solely the responsibility of the landlord to resolve.
[54] BC Housing further denies that it failed to provide the Complainant with supportive housing. BC Housing says it does not provide supportive housing and has no supportive housing units on offer. Further, BC Housing says it cannot compel any service provider to provide supportive housing to a particular tenant. BC Housing says it had no control over the safety of the Complainant’s units at Nora Hendrix Place or Hummingbird Place. Nor, says BC Housing, did it have any control over the on-site support services provided by PHS, or the ability to grant or deny access to any other supports.
[55] Rather, BC Housing says it operates the Registry, which is a central database of applicants for supportive subsidized housing. The Registry allows non-profit housing providers, such as PHS, to identify and house applicants that require on-site supports. In evidence provided by BC Housing, a senior manager described the typical process as follows:
a. People who wish to apply to the Registry fill out an application. These applications are added to the Registry.
b. When housing providers have vacancies, they may fill those vacancies themselves, or they may request a list of applicants from the Registry.
c. If requested, BC Housing will provide the housing provider with a list of applicants, after which, it is up to the housing provider to decide whether to make an offer of housing to a particular applicant. BC Housing has no control over whether the applicants and housing providers enter into a tenancy agreement.
d. Once a list of applicants is provided to a housing provider, the extent of BC Housing’s services regarding the Registry is complete.
[56] The senior manager’s evidence is that if tenants of a particular housing provider wish to be transferred from one residence to another, it is up to the housing provider, as landlord, to consider these requests. If the tenant instead wishes to transfer their tenancy to a different landlord, that individual can either apply directly to another housing provider, or submit a Transfer Request to the Registry, and the process begins again.
[57] The senior manager says that it sometimes receives communications from tenants or housing providers. BC Housing says it typically forwards complaints received from tenants to the housing provider, as BC Housing says it is not responsible for issues between tenants and their landlords.
[58] The senior manager says that if a housing provider asks them for suggestions to help them resolve a tenancy issue, its employees will regularly try to assist. However, BC Housing says it is not required to give housing providers directions on how to manage and deal with tenancy issues or complaints. The responsibility for decisions regarding tenancy issues rests with the housing provider as landlord, and BC Housing has no authority in these types of decisions.
[59] In the case of the Complainant, BC Housing says it accepted and activated the Complainant’s application for the Registry both when it was originally received on February 26, 2019, and again when they submitted a Transfer Request on January 22, 2020. BC Housing further says it voluntarily offered assistance to the Complainant in ways beyond its regular mandate. For example:
a. An employee of BC Housing says she does not normally meet with tenants and that helping the Complainant in the manner that she did was beyond her job description. She says this was the only instance she has ever met with a tenant to discuss alternative housing.
b. During one of these meetings, another BC Housing employee tried to find the Complainant a tool to modify their door to assist with dampening the noise in their unit.
c. BC Housing sought to have the Complainant accepted into the STEP program, which they were, and through this program the Complainant was offered a rental supplement.
d. BC Housing asked for the involvement of other organizations that had accommodations and services that BC Housing did not provide in an effort to assist the Complainant. This is not what BC Housing normally does.
[60] BC Housing says it should not be penalized for the exceptional efforts it took to assist the Complainant, and that the Complainant’s dissatisfaction with BC Housing’s efforts does not mean that BC Housing’s actions were discriminatory.
[61] Based on the materials before me, I am satisfied that the Complainant has not taken out of the realm of conjecture that resolving tenancy issues between supportive housing providers and their tenants is a service that BC Housing customarily provides to the public.
[62] In particular, I note that there is no evidence before me that BC Housing customarily offers the service of intervening in tenancy relationships to which they are not a party. Rather, the evidence before me supports the opposite conclusion.
[63] Further, I am satisfied that the Complainant has no reasonable prospect of proving that BC Housing customarily provides supportive housing to individuals who apply to its Registry. There is nothing before me to suggest that BC Housing manages supportive housing units, or that it can compel a supportive housing provider to accept any particular tenant. While BC Housing’s Registry functions to connect applicants with supportive housing providers, the Complainant has not alleged adverse treatment with respect to this service.
[64] The Complainant has not presented facts or evidence of adverse treatment by BC Housing that could violate s. 8 of the Code. The Complainant’s allegations against BC Housing in the area of services are dismissed.
IV CONCLUSION
[65] The Complainant’s complaint against BC Housing is dismissed in its entirety. The complaint against the other respondents will proceed to a hearing.
Theressa Etmanski
Tribunal Member