A landlord has been ordered to pay his former tenant who uses a wheelchair $30,000 in damages for discrimination because the rental unit was inaccessible, according to a recent decision from the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. Jeremy Alexander told the tribunal that the apartment, which was on the main floor of a home, was advertised as wheelchair accessible when he signed the tenancy agreement in 2020. He filed a claim with the tribunal after moving out, alleging the landlord, Aaron Schneider, violated B.C.’s Human Rights Code by “failing to maintain the rental property in a way that it was accessible to a person with disabilities,” according to the decision. Schneider did not respond to the claim, nor did he participate in the hearing. Landlord ‘installed further obstacles’ The tribunal heard that when Alexander went to view the suite, repairs to the walkway used to access the unit were underway — raising concerns about accessibility. “Mr. Alexander advised Mr. Schneider of his accessibility needs including needing a traversable driveway and walkway to access the building and a ramp to enter the unit,” tribunal member Edward Takayanagi wrote, in his decision “Mr. Schneider assured Mr. Alexander that repairs to the walkway would be finished in two weeks, and the rental unit was accessible.” The repairs were not completed until roughly five months after Alexander moved in, which he said meant he was unable to access the unit independently using the walkway during that time. But the end of the walkway repairs did not resolve the accessibility issues, according to the decision. “Mr. Alexander discovered that Mr. Schneider had placed a lock on the front gate of the property. Mr. Alexander found he could not reach the lock because it was at a height that was inaccessible when he was in his wheelchair,” Takayanagi wrote. “Mr. Alexander was unable to open the front gate to exit the property without assistance.” In August 2020, Schneider started digging up the driveway — which was another crucial access point for Alexander, the tribunal heard. “During the renovation work Mr. Alexander could not get through the driveway, which was filled with construction debris, without assistance,” according to the decision. The renovated driveway, when complete, was gravel — rendering it inaccessible and unusable for Alexander. A ramp was never installed. “(Schneider) provided a single piece of plywood that was propped up to the door. Mr. Alexander used this piece of plywood to access the rental unit door,” the decision said. Over the course of the tenancy, the tribunal heard Alexander’s physical and mental health deteriorated, that pleas for accommodation went unmet, and that the landlord instead “installed further obstacles to accessibility.” Profound impact Ultimately, Alexander moved out. “Mr. Alexander testified that he had no choice but to move out of the rental unit because it was inaccessible to him,” the decision said. “Mr. Alexander said he felt embarrassed and unworthy after residing in the rental property and approached subsequent rental units with trepidation. He says the experience instilled in him the belief that he cannot manage without the active assistance of others.” Takayanagi found the landlord had failed to accommodate Alexander’s disability for the entirety of the 10-month tenancy, thereby discriminating against him in violation of the B.C. Human Rights Code. “I find the nature of the discrimination in this case was severe, prolonged, and continuous,” the decision said. Awarding $30,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, Takayanagi summarized what the tribunal heard about the impact of the discrimination. “The impact was profound,” the decision said. “Mr. Alexander said he felt like a prisoner in his own home, unable to venture outside of the property without the assistance of others. This made him feel like a lesser person who had to rely on others simply to access his home.” The tribunal also awarded Alexander $1,500 as compensation for expenses incurred as a result of the discrimination including money spent using Uber or a taxi when HandyDart could not access the driveway, and money spent on having groceries or meals delivered because he was unable to leave the house to go food shopping. The tribunal decision also noted that discrimination in housing can be “particularly egregious” given the power landlords have over tenants and given the broader context of the housing and affordability crises in which finding adequate rental housing is “particularly difficult” for people with disabilities.
