Woman files complaint over co-op termination
A Maple Ridge woman is alleging discrimination against her co-op after it terminated her membership following a squabble over renovation work done to her unit.
Beverly Brown and her spouse, who are Indigenous, have been living at the Maples Housing Co-operative in Maple Ridge since 2009.
In 2019, the 31-unit co-op decided to perform renovation on all units.
As part of that work, contractors entered Brown's unit several times in October 2019.
Several arguments broke out between Brown, her spouse and the contractors, but the parties disagreed on who was to blame, said the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal's decision on April 9, rejecting the co-op's application to dismiss Brown's complaint.
The co-op claimed Brown and her spouse were the aggressors who threatened the contractors and interfered with their ability to do the renovations, while Brown claimed it was the contractors who were “aggressive, authoritative and argumentative.”
The contractors didn't enter the unit after Oct. 22 because they said Brown's spouse was verbally abusive and threatened them. Brown disputed this, saying the contractors yelled and swore at her spouse.
About seven months later, in May 2020, the coop's lawyer sent a letter to Brown saying they planned to hold a special meeting to consider expelling her from the co-op. The letter cited Brown and her spouse's alleged “threatening and aggressive behaviour” toward the contractors, and interfering with renovation work.
It cited what they said were unauthorized renovation work to Brown's unit in 2017 as a basis for terminating her membership. Brown said the co-op was aware of and approved that work, which included installing hardwood floors and replacing kitchen cabinets.
The co-op also said Brown violated several of the co-op's rules including its “good neighbour” provision, which prohibits obstructing or interfering with other residents' rights.
The co-op and its property manager, Spice Management Group, sought to have Brown's complaint dismissed, saying there has been no discrimination against Brown and her spouse, who they said were treated no differently than other co-op members. They also disputed that Brown suffered any “adverse impact” in tenancy or services.
But tribunal member Edward Takayanagi said that ending a tenancy is an adverse impact.
“Even though Ms. Brown ultimately appealed the co-op's decision, and her membership was reinstated, I am persuaded that the initial termination of membership is an adverse impact under the (Human Rights Code),” he said.
The parties have provided conflicting evidence over what happened between Brown and her spouse and the contractors during the renovations, and a hearing would be required to resolve the issues of credibility on key points in the complaint, he said, rejecting the co-op and property management group's application to dismiss.