Vancouver Island tenant's alarm fight unresolved

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is dealing with an unusual complaint from a man who lives in a multifamily project on Vancouver Island.

      Bradford Stephenson has alleged that his hearing disability prevents him from hearing the fire alarm in the hallway outside his door.

      The strata corporation applied to have the complaint dismissed, claiming that Stephenson has never “substantiated” his hearing loss and that the common-property fire alarm is “more than adequate”. However, this application was itself dismissed by tribunal member Norman Trerise.

      In a seven-page ruling issued on May 23, Trerise declared that no discussions have yet taken place between Stephenson and the strata corporation concerning the merits of the case and the prospect of reaching a settlement.

      “I suggest that the parties avail themselves of the mediation services of the Tribunal prior to taking this matter to a hearing,” Trerise wrote as the final sentence in his reasons for decision.

      A curious aspect of the case is that Stephenson has claimed that he cannot hear the alarm even when standing next to it. He wants the manager to investigate whether a different device might be audible.

      “The basis of the problem, according to him, is not loudness but pitch, which is too high for his hearing disability,” Trerise wrote.

      In his decision, Trerise also stated that Stephenson took a hearing test in March 2013. The tribunal member wrote that the test possibly demonstrates that Stephenson cannot hear sounds between 55 and 95 decibels, but this hasn’t been confirmed. Meanwhile, the strata council has filed evidence that the “alarm operates at 95 decibels at ten feet”, according to Trerise’s ruling.

      Then there’s the issue of a hearing aid, which would mitigate Stephenson’s hearing loss, according to the strata council. Stephenson, on the other hand, has informed the tribunal that it’s not recommended to wear a hearing aid while sleeping. Muddying the waters, Trerise wrote, is the fact that “no information is filed by either party to indicate whether Mr. Stephenson [even] wears hearing aids or to what degree they are effective.”

      Stephenson’s original request for investigation was passed along to the strata council in April 2013 and Stephenson claimed that he never received a response. Nor did the property-management company get back to him. Further complicating matters, Trerise noted that a “plain reading” of Stephenson’s original communication to the strata corporation “would suggest that the problem was with the fire alarm within his Unit 403”, even though Stephenson “has indicated that the concern…was with the fire alarm in the common area outside of his unit”.

      “On May 12, 2013, Mr. Stephenson communicated with the Strata Council requesting that they convene a meeting in the week of May 13th to 18th to discuss the issue with him,” Trerise added. “A meeting was convened, however a quorum of the Strata Council did not attend.”

      The strata council has argued that Stephenson has “moderate to severe hearing loss and requires amplification to assist him with the recognition of words or environmental sounds”.

      However, the strata council claimed that Stephenson could hear the smoke-detector alarm inside his suite when it was tested on August 20, 2013. Stephenson has responded that this device only goes off if there’s smoke in his unit, noting that whether or not the building meets the fire code “does not provide a defence to an allegation of discrimination based on the failure to accommodate”.

      “While Mr. Stephenson says the argument that he should change his hearing aid amounts to blaming the victim, it is not clear to me that, if the issue is easily resolved by a complainant, this would not be the appropriate resolution to the issue,” Trerise wrote. “The duty to accommodate [a person with a disability] only arises if there is adverse treatment. If Mr. Stephenson is capable of easily solving the problem for himself, then there may be no adverse treatment.”

      Robyn Durling, communications officer with the B.C. Human Rights Coalition, argued the case on Stephenson’s behalf in front of Trerise. After the preliminary ruling was released, Durling told the Georgia Straight by phone that he can’t comment on this specific complaint. Generally speaking, he said, a strata council cannot pass rules that violate human-rights laws.

      “With any landlord, they have a duty to accommodate unless it becomes very, very difficult,” Durling added.

      Comments