contents   previous   next

BC Human Rights Tribunal

Making the most of your CRT claim
BC arthritis sufferer files complaint against strata over air conditioner
Stratas (condos) are not in the business of “policing conduct” between residents
Leaky condo results in mould in unit
Eight rules of responding to a smoking complaint
Leaky condo issues prompt Human Rights complaint
Deaf Surrey man loses human rights fight

Making the most of your CRT claim
Cleveland Doan LLP
Shawn Smith
11 October 2018

The Civil Resolution Tribunal (“CRT”) was designed with the lay person in mind, to the extent that parties are required to represent themselves (except in exceptional cases). However, that does not mean there is not a role for lawyers to play in the process. The most important service lawyers can provide in relation to the CRT is helping participants to properly present or defend their case. This can be done through providing assistance in drafting the claim or response and later in helping to assemble evidence, identifying applicable case law and presenting detailed and well laid out arguments.

Why is the help of a lawyer important, one may ask?  The answer lies in s.56.5 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (the “CRTA”). That section sets out the criteria for appealing a decision of the CRT. It contains two important provisions with respect to bringing an appeal. The first is that an appeal can only be brought on a question of law. The second is that a party must receive leave (permission) of the court in order to bring an appeal.

Limiting appeals to questions of law narrows the number of decisions which can be appealed. A question of law revolves around whether the Tribunal member applied the right legal principles. This means that an appeal cannot be allowed where the Tribunal member made an error with respect to the facts. For example, if a Tribunal member determined that the source of a water leak arose from outside a strata lot, yet the evidence showed that its source was in fact from within in the strata lot, an appeal could not be brought on that point.

Section 56.5 of the CRTA permits the court to grant a party leave to bring an appeal where the court “determines that it is in the interests of justice and fairness to do so”. The legislation then sets out various factors to be considered when leave to appeal is sought, including:
whether an issue raised by the claim or dispute that is the subject of the appeal is of such importance that it would benefit from being resolved by the Supreme Court to establish a precedent;
whether an issue raised by the claim or dispute relates to the constitution or the Human Rights Code;
the importance of the issue to the parties, or to a class of persons of which one of the parties is a member; and
the principle of proportionality.

In Allard v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 692, 2018 BCSC 1066, the court discussed the criteria underlying the ‘justice and fairness’ requirement of s.56.5 and agreed with the decision in McKnight v. Borque 2017 BCSC 2280 that the correct approach also involves an analysis of whether the case to be made on appeal has arguable merit. An argument which is weak in relation to the factors set out in s.56.5 might be saved by its merit. (A lack of “arguable merit” has been equated with having no reasonable prospect of success.)

Based on the test in Allard, a claim with no arguable merit cannot be saved. In the words of the court, a case which is unlikely to be resolved in the applicant’s favour is unlikely to engage general concerns re justice and fairness. A case in which live and important issues are raised, thereby engaging the factors in s.56.5, will usually have sufficient merit to meet the test. In the end, the type of appeals which will likely be allowed are those involving legal issues that have not yet been considered by the court and matter of governance involving the whole strata corporation (so long as they are founded on a reasonable argument.)  However, they will almost certainly be denied on less significant matters such as fines; the proportionality factor outweighing all else.

If the party seeking to appeal the decision is fortunate enough to get over the hurdle presented by the leave test, it must then convince the court that the decision reached was wrong. That is also not an easy task.  In The Owners, Strata Plan BCS1721 v. Watson 2018 BCSC 164 the British Columbia Supreme Court considered what the standard of review would be on an appeal from the CRT. The court held that the standard to be applied to the CRT’s decisions is one of reasonableness; as opposed to the more stringent correctness standard. In its decision, the court made the following observations when discussing the reasonableness standard:

Reasonableness is a deferential standard (start from the position the Tribunal got it right);

The concern is whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.

The standard of reasonableness does not require perfection. Not every flaw in a tribunal’s reasoning will attract judicial intervention.

What can be taken from the test set out in s. 56.5 and the decisions in Watson and Allard is that in most cases parties to a CRT claim will only get one “kick at the can.” They can either fail on the test for leave or fail to prove the decision is outside the realm of reasonable outcomes. A second “kick at the can” can also prove extremely expensive as it requires two court applications; the leave application and the appeal itself.

All this means that despite the less formal aspects of the CRT process, a great deal of care and attention must be taken in preparing or defending a CRT claim. One cannot assume the Tribunal member will interpret the evidence in the same way you do. It is also important to ensure the right evidence, in its most compelling form, is before the Tribunal. Compelling evidence will often carry the day.

Referencing the correct legal principles and relevant case law is important as well. Leaving it to the Tribunal member to identify those means risking that a favourable argument or case will be missed.

Tying the evidence and the legal principles together in a coherent and compelling way is critical to a successful argument. Since there is no oral hearing in most cases, there will generally be no chance to explain a point that is unclear. Making a solid argument increases the chances of a favourable and defensible decision.

While some may feel up to the task, most owners and particularly most strata council members will not. It is a heavy burden to place on the shoulders of a volunteer council member. That burden can be relieved by obtaining assistance with preparing and presenting the claim or defending against one.

This article is intended for information purposes only and should not be taken as the provision of legal advice. Shawn M. Smith is lawyer whose practice focuses on strata property law.


Arthritis sufferer files complaint against strata
The North Shore News
Jane Seyd
21 December 2017

A woman who lives in The Manor at Edgemont has filed a human rights complaint against her strata council, saying it discriminated against her on the basis of disability.     photo Kevin Hill, North Shore News

A North Vancouver woman has filed a human rights complaint against her Edgemont strata council, saying the council discriminated against her by not allowing her to install a central air conditioner in her townhouse to help with her arthritis symptoms.

Marianne Macario told the human rights tribunal that she suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, which is aggravated by warm temperatures, which cause her joints to swell.

Macario requested permission to install an air conditioning system in her unit in June 2016, but the strata council refused, according documents filed with the tribunal. In doing so, Macario said the strata discriminated against her on the basis of a disability.

According to tribunal documents, Macario lives in a two-floor duplex-style apartment in a 44-unit building in Edgemont. “She is a teacher, and so during the summers, when temperatures are hottest, she is at home,” according to the documents. During the summer of 2015, temperatures soared inside her home to between 28 and 32 degrees Celsius, causing her a “nightmare of pain and depression,” according to documents filed with the tribunal.

Macario put a portable air conditioning unit in her bedroom window, but soon got a letter from the president of the strata, asking her to remove the hose from the unit so it couldn’t be seen from the street. Potential noise and esthetic concerns were both factors in the request to remove the unit.

After that, Macario researched permanent air conditioning systems that might work in her apartment. She settled on a $20,000 unit, which she believed to be quiet and unobtrusive and in 2016 asked the strata for permission to install it.

Meanwhile, two strata council members attended a demonstration for a similar unit, and voiced a number of concerns about it. Among those: that the system would be noisy, would emit a significant amount of hot air, was ugly, could create vibration and could cause moisture build up in common areas of the building.

At the strata’s annual general meeting, held after that, Macario presented a doctor’s note about her arthritis. But the resolution was defeated.

In rejecting Macario’s request, the strata encouraged her to pursue other methods of cooling her apartment, including ceiling fans and blinds.

But Macario told the human rights tribunal she had either tried the other methods and found they didn’t work, or they were impractical.

For instance, she wrote that she previously had a ceiling fan over her bed “but it simply blew warm air on her and did not decrease the room temperature.”

She added she would need five portable units to cool her home which would block her view, take up a lot of space in small rooms and not be energy efficient.

Macario filed a complaint with the human rights tribunal on July 29, 2016.

The strata council argued that allowing Macario to install a permanent system would create undue hardship to the strata, including creating noise levels higher than those permitted by municipal bylaws, risking damaging the building envelope and negatively impacting the building’s appearance.

The strata asked the tribunal for an early dismissal of Macario’s complaint, arguing her objection to using portable units was based on “convenience rather than their effectiveness.”

But tribunal member Devyn Cousineau recently rejected that, stating the case should proceed to a full hearing on the evidence.


Finnamore v. Strata Plan NW 3153
2018 BCHRT 26
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
File: 15766
Tribunal Member: Barbara Korenkiewicz
Date issued: 02 February 2018

Mr. Finnamore complains against The Owners, Strata Plan NW 3153 [Strata] alleging discrimination in the provision of a service customarily available to the public, based on sex and sexual orientation. The Strata denies discriminating and applies to dismiss the complaint.

Mr. Finnamore owns and resides in a unit at the Strata (condo). On October 16, 2016. Mr. Finnamore says that, as he was driving out of the Strata’s parkade, a fellow resident who was sawing some wood in the Strata’s driveway yelled out, “Is that enough room for you princess?” Mr. Finnamore says the incident escalated after he exited his vehicle and approached the resident. Mr. Finnamore says the resident launched into a tirade during which he directed homophobic slurs at him. He further says that the resident also asked Mr. Finnamore why he does not just move out and make everyone happy as everyone at the Strata hates him.

Mr. Finnamore notified the Strata Council (board of directors) about the incident describing it as harassment. He asked the Council to censure his fellow resident and to declare that it does not condone violations of the Human Rights Code. Mr. Finnamore says that the Strata’s failure to address his harassment complaint concerning his fellow resident’s homophobic conduct is discrimination.

The Strata says that unless a specific Strata bylaw violation is alleged, policing the behaviour of strata residents towards one another is not one of the services offered by a strata corporation.

The Strata says that when it received Mr. Finnamore’s email regarding this incident, it notified him that it would be dealing with the matter as a bylaw violation complaint. It says it did so when it wrote to the resident involved and advised him to stop using the Strata’s common property as a woodworking area. The Strata says that it did not take steps to address the alleged offensive comments made by the resident because it has no jurisdiction to do so.

Analysis and decision
For the reasons that follow, I allow the Strata’s dismissal application and dismiss the complaint under section 27(1)(c) of the Code.

A complaint by a strata resident that details being subjected to homophobic slurs by a fellow resident who has created a hostile environment may be found to contravene the Code. Loss of enjoyment and peaceful use of common property due to another’s conduct could amount to an adverse impact. Where the protected characteristic, actual or perceived, is a factor in conduct causing the adverse impact, a failure by the Strata to enforce its bylaws to prevent such conduct could result in a violation of the Code being made out. As a result, I am satisfied that the acts alleged in the complaint, if proved, could contravene s. 8 of the Code.

A strata council that receives a complaint of this nature would be well served to consider whether any bylaws regarding use and enjoyment of strata property may be engaged, and, if so, to handle the potential bylaw infraction in the same manner as it would any other.

In order for his complaint to succeed at a hearing, Mr. Finnamore would have to prove that the Strata’s decision not to address his complaint about the fellow resident’s homophobic slurs adversely impacted him in respect of a service, and that his sex and/or sexual orientation, actual or perceived, were a factor in that adverse impact.

The Strata argues that there is no reasonable prospect that Mr. Finnamore will be able to prove that he has experienced an adverse impact related to the Strata’s response to his complaint regarding the fellow resident’s comments.

Not every negative comment or single incident that is connected to a prohibited characteristic will be discriminatory harassment contrary to the Code. Not every failure to be kind or respectful requires state intervention. This includes failures with discriminatory overtones – and therefore highlights a distinction between comments that may be “discriminatory” in the everyday sense of that word, and comments that amount to discrimination.

In the analysis of whether negative comments made between residents while interacting on a strata corporation’s common property rise to a level of harassment that adversely affects a person residing in a strata complex, the context is critical.

It appears that one disrespectful comment from the fellow resident escalated into several after Mr. Finnamore flipped him off, stopped and exited his vehicle and went over to engage. In my view, the fellow resident’s remarks made in the heat of the moment were disrespectful and socially inappropriate. Likewise, Mr. Finnamore’s aggressive gesture in “flipping him off” was also disrespectful and socially inappropriate. While the type of conduct exhibited by both men during this incident can be upsetting or hurtful, the situation is best addressed by an exchange of apologies. It appears, on the evidence I have considered, to be an isolated incident.

In my view, the complaint does not merit using the Tribunal’s scarce resources and it is appropriately dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.


Kates v. Strata Plan VAS2844, 2018 BCHRT 203
File: 15790
Date Issued:  28 August 2018

Mould in condo prompts human rights complaint against strata
CBC News
By: Maryse Zeidler
03 September 2018

A Vancouver condo owner enmeshed in a years-long battle against her strata has filed a human rights complaint saying there is toxic mould in her unit, which she says has exacerbated her health problems.

Anne Kates owns an apartment in Vancouver's West End. Like many residential buildings in B.C., hers is a strata-titled property. The strata owns the land in common and is responsible for repairs to that land. Homeowners are responsible for repairs to their units.

Kates first filed a complaint at the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal against the strata in November 2016, saying toxic mould was permeating part of her condo.

She said it was caused by a water leak into the building, which the strata is responsible for repairing.

The strata argues that Kates is responsible for the damage in her suite.

The strata tried to have the case dismissed, but the tribunal recently denied its application and the case was allowed to go forward.

According to the decision, some of the ongoing health problems Kates has faced because of the mould include "significant heart and lung ailments."

Tony Gioventu, executive director for The Condo Home Owners Association of B.C., says the complaint is a classic case of a strata facing expensive maintenance and repairs.

"One of the challenges with very high real estate prices is the affordability issue, which tends to put pressure on owners making decisions on things like maintenance and renewals and long-term planning," Gioventu said.

Both Kates and the strata declined to comment.

3 kinds of mould discovered
The building where Kates's owns a condo has had problems with water leaking into it since 2015.

At that time, engineers recommended a comprehensive plan to fix the exterior walls.

In August 2016, a contractor working on renovations in Kates's apartment noticed mould.

She hired an environmental company, which submitted a report that said it discovered three kinds of mould, including two that "should not be found at any level in a normal indoor environment," tribunal member Emily Ohler quoted in her decision.

The report said the second room in Kates's apartment wasn't safe for occupancy. She had the contractor immediately seal the bedroom. She hasn't had access to it since.

Contractors hired by the strata tore into the walls in the bedroom and sprayed them for mould, but Kates said they also kept the wall open with no clear indication of what was to happen next.

The decision says the strata considered the problem solved, although it wasn't clear how it came to that conclusion.

'Every day I live in fear'
The battle between Kates and the strata over the mould issues continues to this day, according to the decision.

Kates sent the strata a doctor's note which laid the blame for her heart and lung problems partly on the mould in her home.

"Every day I live in fear of what is going to happen to my health and quality of life," Kates told the tribunal.

Since 2016, the strata voted twice to reject approving construction that would have dealt with the water leakage problem throughout the building. The second estimate came to $2.6 million.

Kates was one of several members who voted against the second proposed rehabilitation project, the decision says. She didn't think it adequately resolved the problem that has been causing water to leak into her apartment.

Another engineering report estimated the costs to repair Kates's and the neighbouring unit alone would cost up to $250,000. The strata argued she would be responsible for her share of those costs.

'Just fix your building'
Gioventu, with the Condo Home Owners Association says it isn't the first time a strata battle has gone to the Human Rights Tribunal.

Many stratas defer basic maintenance and repairs until costs get out of hand, he said.

"It just gets atrociously expensive for everybody rather than just fix your building," he said. "Nobody wants to pay special levies. They're hoping it's going to go away."

Unfortunately, Gioventu says, even when courts get involved, repairs can still take years.

"The solution is just good long-term planning, and planning for the renewal of your building system."

Fiona Court, 1345 Burnaby Street, Vancouver is a 17 suite low rise condo built  in 1992. According to this article, this 26 year old condo needs at last $2.6 million in repairs. That works out to an average of $153, 000 per unit.


Eight steps every strata council should take when responding to a smoking complaint
By Lesperance Mendes
Amanda M. Magee, Associate
17 October 2018

With cannabis legalization fast approaching, it is a good time for strata council members to educate themselves about a strata corporation’s obligations when responding to smoking complaints.

a duty to accommodate

Regardless of what a strata corporation’s bylaws say about smoking, the strata corporation has a duty to accommodate any resident who has a legitimate medical condition that is exacerbated by second-hand smoke.

Strata corporations are subject to claims under section 8 of the Human Rights Code, which says that a person must not be discriminated against regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public. A resident owner or tenant will successfully establish discrimination if they can show that they have a disability (such as a medical condition), and that they have suffered an adverse impact in relation to provision of services by the strata corporation as a result of that disability. If the claimant can establish discrimination, then the onus shifts to the strata to prove that it has accommodated the complainant up to the point of undue hardship.

failed to take any meaningful action

For example, in the case of Leary v. Strata Plan VR1001, 2016 BCHRT 139, an owner who suffered from allergic and asthmatic bronchitis won a human rights claim against her strata when the strata council failed to take any meaningful action to respond to her complaints about smoke ingress into her unit from neighbouring units. The strata was ordered to engage an air quality specialist to investigate the smoke ingress, and to work with the claimant to find a reasonable solution. The strata was also ordered to pay the claimant $7,500 as compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect.

In the Leary decision, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal set out helpful guidelines for strata corporations to follow when responding to smoking complaints. Upon receipt of a smoking complaint from a resident, the strata council should take the following steps:
Address requests for accommodation promptly, and take them seriously. There are very real consequences for a strata corporation that fails to adequately respond to smoking complaints.
Designate a “first responder”. Consider having one strata council member responsible for responding to smoking complaints and requests for accommodation. That should allow the strata to be more responsive to requests, including in between council meetings.
Request medical information. The strata is entitled to enough medical information to understand the need and extent for accommodation, but no more. In the Leary case, a doctor’s note explaining that the claimant’s bronchitis was negatively impacted by second-hand smoke was enough information to establish a disability and adverse impact.
Keep medical information confidential. If an owner or tenant submits medical documentation to support their request, only the individuals who are involved in the accommodation process should have access to that information. Under no circumstances should it be circulated to the general ownership.
Get an expert. A “sniff test” undertaken by another council member or the strata manager is rarely sufficient to evaluate the presence of smoke ingress into a unit. The strata may have to retain and pay for an air quality expert as part of its duty to accommodate.
Investigate possible solutions. The strata council should be proactive and take the lead on figuring out how to resolve the smoke ingress. It should not put the onus on the complaining owner or tenant to find a solution.
Document any undue hardship. The strata’s duty to accommodate is limited to the point of undue hardship. If there is no solution to the smoke ingress possible without causing the strata to suffer hardship, the strata council should document that hardship. For example, if the cost of a potential solution is too expensive, the strata should obtain estimates for that work and keep them on record. If there are competing needs of other strata members with disabilities, the strata council should document that in writing. Always have a paper trail.
Make a decision. The strata council will ultimately be responsible for deciding how to respond to a request for accommodation. The council cannot offload that decision onto the owners by calling a vote at a general meeting. When recording the council’s decision in the meeting minutes, make sure not to disclose more than necessary about the accommodation. The complainant’s name and the details of their medical condition should never be recorded in the minutes.
If the strata council is unsure about the strata’s obligations when responding to a smoking complaint or whether it has fulfilled the duty to accommodate, consider seeking legal advice. While smoking complaints may often seem trivial, the strata corporation faces very real consequences if it fails to adequately respond to them.


Leaky condo issues prompt Human Rights complaint
Lesperance Mendes
Naomi R. Rozenberg, Associate
17 October 2018

Strata corporations, take note. If your building is suffering from leaky condo issues, you may be confronted with a human rights complaint, among other court battles.

The facts
This messy, complex problem is all too familiar to the owners at Strata Plan VAS 2844. Their building requires repairs to address a pervasive water ingress issue, due to premature failure of the exterior wall assembly, a.k.a. the building envelope.

One of the owners, Ms. Kates, filed a complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal against the strata corporation. Her suite suffers from water ingress and resulting mould growth. Ms. Kates claims that she suffers from an array of health problems, and has medical evidence linking mould to an exacerbation of those problems. At various points over the years, Ms. Kates brought those issues to the attention of her strata.

In 2016, an environmental company performed mould testing in Ms. Kates’ unit, which revealed “toxigenic moulds” that render her second bedroom unsafe for occupancy. Ms. Kates had the bedroom sealed off.

In the meantime, the owners rejected a plan to finance a $2.4 million building envelope rehabilitation project.

The strata hired a contractor to carry out mould remediation at Ms. Kates’ suite. Her walls were opened up, sprayed for mould, and left open because the source of the water ingress – through the building envelope – had not been addressed.

In summer 2017, the contractor returned to the suite and reported back to the strata that the mould remediation work was complete, based on there being no visible mould. However, Ms. Kates was not satisfied since no air testing was done.

In December 2017, various neighbours contacted Ms. Kates seeking her support in the impending vote on implementing building envelope repairs. That vote was not successful, with Ms. Kates among those owners voting against it. Ms. Kates takes issue with both the remediation of the mould within her unit and the proposed building envelope repair work.

Applications to dismiss the complaint
In 2018, the strata applied to dismiss Ms. Kates’ human rights complaint on the basis that:
there is no reasonable prospect that the complaint succeed, and
Ms. Kates has refused a reasonable settlement offer, which remains open, and it would not serve the purposes of the Human Rights Code to proceed with the complaint in the face of that offer.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the strata’s application. It was not persuaded that the complaint had “no reasonable prospect of success”, or that the strata would be able to establish that it accommodated Ms. Kates to the point of undue hardship in its efforts to remediate the mould.

Is there no reasonable prospect the complaint would succeed?
In essence, the Tribunal was asked to consider whether Ms. Kates might be able to establish that:

she has a physical disability;

she experienced an adverse impact in the strata’s provision of a service; and her disability was a factor in the adverse impact.
If Ms. Kates were to establish her case at a hearing, the issue would become whether the strata fulfilled its duty to accommodate her to the point of “undue hardship”.

The strata argued that it has no duty to repair damage to her strata lot property, even if the damage is caused by the common property. In response, Ms. Kates asserted that the strata took responsibility for similar repairs at other units, which undermined the strata’s position.

Ms. Kates also says that she has not been able to use her second bedroom since August 8, 2016, and her walls have been left opened since October 4, 2016. She relates this to the strata’s failure to appropriately address the mould and moisture problems in her unit. Based on those assertions, Ms. Kates may be able to establish at a hearing that her disability was a factor in the adverse impacts that she alleges.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not convinced that the complaint would fail.

 B. Had the strata corporation made a reasonable settlement offer such that proceeding would not further the purposes of the Code?
The strata corporation had made a “with prejudice” offer to settle the human rights complaint. The offer was predicated on its assertion that “there are no outstanding issues which require attention”, and went on to offer to settle the complaint on certain terms.

The Tribunal concluded that it was not provided with sufficient evidence to determine whether or not more work was still necessary to address the issue of mould in Ms. Kates’ unit. For that reason, the Tribunal refused to exercise its discretion to dismiss the complaint.

BC Supreme Court proceedings to fund building envelope repairs
According to the Tribunal’s reasons, the strata corporation has also filed a proceeding in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, where it is seeking to override the owners opposed to the building envelope repairs in order to proceed with it. That case is also pending.

Lessons for Strata Corporations with building enclosure issues
If your condominium has water ingress issues and there is no immediate plan to repair the building, the strata should seek legal advice on steps it should take to accommodate owners with disabilities, to reduce the chance of human rights complaints and other expensive court proceedings.

Lesperance Mendes has been advising and representing strata corporations and owners on construction defect claims and human rights matters since 1997. THIS ARTICLE IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE: This article provides general information and should not be relied on upon without independent legal advice.


Deaf Surrey man loses human rights fight
Surrey Now-Leader
30 November 2018

Darrell Siebring argued his strata should pay for two sign language interpreters, not just one

A deaf Surrey man has lost his fight against his strata, whom he accused of discriminating against him on the grounds of physical disability for refusing to pay for an additional sign language interpreter at its annual general meetings.

Darrell Siebring filed his complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in March and the building’s manager then applied to have it dismissed, denying discrimination and arguing that the situation had already been remedied.

Tribunal member Kathleen Smith noted in her reasons to dismiss the complaint, issued Nov. 23, that Siebring requires interpretation to be able to participate in the strata meetings and that the strata already agreed to pay for one sign language interpreter.

Siebring had previously complained to the tribunal that the strata failed to accommodate his disability, resulting in agreements dated Oct. 22, 2012 and May 9, 2016 that set out the conditions under which the strata arranges and pays for interpretation services at its meetings.

Smith said Siebring then emailed a representative of the strata in January, advancing his argument that under the agreement he is actually entitled to have two interpreters. “He says that the refusal to pay for two interpreters is discrimination and a breach of the agreement,” she noted.

“The strata ultimately responded that the terms of the agreement obligate it to pay for only one interpreter and that any additional interpreter would be at Mr. Siebring’s expense.”

Smith decided Siebring’s complaint has “no reasonable prospect of success” because he didn’t provide evidence of any adverse impact he’s allegedly experienced.

“Because Mr. Siebring has not articulated any allegations of adverse impact, I find that he has no reasonable prospect of establishing that he suffered an adverse impact as a result of the strata’s refusal to pay for two interpreters at the AGM,” Smith concluded. “If Mr. Siebring has no reasonable prospect of establishing this element of his case, it follows that he has no reasonable prospect of succeeding with his complaint.”

She dismissed it “in its entirety.”