Medicinal marijuana user wins $3,500 human rights award after being evicted for pot smoking

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      In a  59-page decision, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has upheld a medicinal marijuna user's complaint against his landlord.

      Taylor Steele alleged discrimination in tenancy based on a physical disability after Aishwarya Investments failed to accommodate his need to manage his pain with pot.

      Steele was operating a company repairing video-game consoles and other electronic devices when he was evicted from a unit near the corner of West Broadway and Oak Street.

      As a result of a 2002 motor-vehicle accident, he suffered muscle spasms and sharp shooting pains, according to the ruling by Norman Trerise.

      Steele had been authorized by Health Canada to use medicinal marijuana, and claimed that smoking it was the easiest way to deal with the pain.

      The problem arose when Aishwarya Investments property manager Kerry Grant presented Steele with an eviction notice on March 15, 2012, claiming "numerous complaints by other tenants on your floor about the smell of marijuana in the corridor and flowing into the adjacent suite".

      Steele alleged that Grant showed up a few days later and asked if he was getting ready to leave. Steele also testified that he told Grant that he couldn't be evicted on these grounds.

      Later, Steele discovered that the locks had been changed and his possessions were being kept in storage, making it difficult to operate his business.

      Steele sought a $10,000 award for Grant's "high-handed manner" during the eviction and for Grant's refusal to correspond with Steele's lawyer at that time.

      Trerise, however, ruled that this was "irrelevant" because these actions preceded the filing of the complaint and the actual eviction was not discriminatory.

      Steele was sued in small-claims court by the landlord, which turned out to be the basis for the award.

      "I am satisfied that, for an individual in Mr. Steele's economic position, the commencement of such an action against him with a claim of $4,669 would invevitably create stress," Trerise wrote.

      As a result, Trerise ordered Aishwarya to pay Steele $2,500.

      In addition, Trerise ordered Grant to pay Steele $1,000 for his "retaliatory conduct".

      That's because "it is clear that he was, if not the guiding mind behind commencing the litigation, the recommending proponent and implementer of that action".

      Comments

      2 Comments

      Somewhat confusing story

      Aug 28, 2014 at 10:36pm

      <blockquote>Trerise, however, ruled that this was "irrelevant" because these actions preceded the filing of the complaint and the actual eviction was not discriminatory.</blockquote>
      The first part of the quote baffles me -- don't most arbitration cases involve actions that took place preceding the filing of the complaint?

      And the second part makes the title of the story seem a bit misleading. The award was not for being evicted but for ... being sued in small claims court.

      How did that part come about? The Residential Tenancy Board handles landlord / tenant disputes; how did this get to court and was it tossed on jurisdiction?

      0 0Rating: 0

      Also confused by article

      Aug 29, 2014 at 1:12pm

      Maybe it would be a nice idea for Charlie Smith to write the article in such a way, that we can capture what really occurred. Was the eviction justified?

      0 0Rating: 0