Login / RegisterTenant who paid no rent wins $1,100 award from B.C. Human Rights Tribunal
A tenant on income assistance has won a human-rights case against his landlord even though he is a "disorganized and somewhat self-aggrandizing historian" who paid no rent, according to the ruling.
The chair of the tribunal, Bernd Walter, awarded Norbert Desjarlais $1,100 as compensation under the Human Rights Code for "injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect" for being evicted in part because he was on welfare.
"Mr. Desjarlais appeared to have no understanding of the Tribunal's process, the nature of a hearing, the concept of evidence, or the elements of a complaint of discrimination under the Code," Walter wrote in his ruling. "He cited no authorities in support of his complaint or any remedy."
In addition, Desjarlais showed up late for his hearing and didn't bring relevant documents or evidence, despite earlier telling the tribunal that he would call two witnesses. That prompted Walter to give him a chance to return after a recess.
According to Walter's decision, Desjarlais later explained that he had been "light-headed due to low blood sugar".
After the evidentiary hearing concluded, Desjarlais made closing submissions and walked out of the room before the respondents, David Kanganilage and Rukmanie Samaranayaka, could offer their rebuttal.
Walter wrote that he would have "seriously considered awarding costs against Mr. Desjarlais on the basis of his conduct"—even though his complaint was upheld.
"He frequently referred to himself as an aboriginal person, a 'high achiever', a community activist and advocate, a legal academic and someone who was embarrassed or ashamed that he was in receipt of social welfare benefits," Walter added.
The ruling noted that Desjarlais asserted that he graduated from the UBC law school in 1995 and worked for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada until 2002. He also stated that he opened a restaurant in 2000.
"Mr. Desjarlais says that in 2003, he slipped and fell outside a Starbuck's store and sustained a serious lumbar spine injury," Walter noted. "Despite 'horrendous' pain and discomfort, Mr. Desjarlais did not have surgery, but was maintained on a regimen of painkillers, which he says he did not like to consume."
In 2004, Desjarlais stated that he was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, a mood disorder, and depression.
When he rented a suite in 2009, Samaranayaka filled out the residential tenancy agreement, and then turned it over to Desjarlais to fill in on his own.
According to the ruling, this enabled Desjarlais to fax it to the Ministry of Social Development to demonstrate he had a home, so he could collect shelter benefits.
"I consider Ms. Samaranayaka's willingness to sign the document an incredibly trusting, if naive, gesture, toward an individual she had, in fact, never met," Walter wrote. "As things turned out. Ms. Samaranayaka never saw Mr. Desjarlais again."
Desjarlais paid $200 toward the damage deposit, but nothing else and no rent, Walter noted. The two parties disagreed on the rent: the tenant said it was $400, whereas the landlords said it was $450.
Desjarlais claimed that when he was visiting a Ministry of Social Development office, he overheard Samaranayaka on a speaker phone asking if he was "dangerous" or "contagious", according to the ruling.
In addition, Desjarlais alleged that he overheard her saying she didn't want a tenant on welfare and to please have him forced to vacate the unit.
He submitted documents from his income-assistance file, which, according to Walter, did not support Desjarlais' account of the events. Samaranayaka claimed that the landlords "are happy to rent to people on welfare", but just want this to be "trouble-free". She also furnished evidence that a different tenant on welfare had occupied the premises.
Even though the landlords "appeared sincere", Walter added that they "were manifestly unreliable in terms of details or times".
Therefore, he concluded that he preferred Desjarlais' evidence in "key and defining areas" because it was "more in harmony with the documentary record", even though he didn't admit that he was on welfare when he rented the unit.
"I find that Mr. Dejarlais' source of income was at least a factor in the termination of the tenancy," Walter concluded. "I find Mr. Desjarlais' complaint of discrimination, on the basis of his lawful source of income, justified."
Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter at twitter.com/csmithstraight.
Perhaps the Human Rights Tribunal works on a quota system. "You know, if we can't find enough victims to placate, we all might be out of a job (one that has wages and perks that people in the private sector can only dream about). Bernd Walter needs to give his head a shake.
Now we have two of three beachfront apartments that have been sitting empty for the last two years because we can't be bothered to put up with this again.
Therefore the landlords have no obligation to carry forward with the rental agreement because it is null and void because the guy is a real loser to screws with welfare and everyone else. Because the so called victim didn't pay the rent. Now if the landlords said we don't want to rent to anyone on welfare after it is understandable but it is a shame because those on assistance pay their rent just like other members of society. The renter is not the victim here but anyone trying to rent on assistance will most likely looked over because of the asshole renter and Human Rights screw loose ruling.
Most landlords are okay with welfare but they don't like the Intent to Rent forms and refuse to sign them therefore making assistant client unable to rent.
Human Rights can not force landlords to fill out forms now can you?
Why is that? Thats rights because it isn't part of the deal, its welfares deal which results in many of its clients not securing a place to stay.
Didn't tell them he was on welfare what a bunch of... the Intent to Rent form tells the story because no one else in the world has to fill one out to rent a place to live.
"Even though the landlords "appeared sincere", Walter added that they "were manifestly unreliable in terms of details or times". "
The real story is differant than this poorly writen article and lack of business acumen is no excuse when in business of which business aka corporations via capital (money )generally write the law in this world and pit one against the other or haven't you heard .
I feel for people who get taken advantage of don't get me wrong , but that's not what happened here I believe and generally never happeneds , the landlords are ussually greedy by the fact they have the capital at somepoint and need renters to purchase and have the law on there side . So average people can't buy . We need many changes like progressive home purchase laws that benefit the 99%, land lease for non corporations that are not writen by CashCorpGrabFlipGreed, fair co-op and low rent housing with land lease shares in a large recapture scale w/ purchase options and the like anything else is slavery anyway you cut it .
The court is not a real one, it can't set precedents, and judging by their various crackhead rulings, precedents don't matter to them anyway.
Formula for BC HRT Decisions:
1) Identify complainant (woman, LGBT, visible minority, drug addict, etc.)
2) Decide how much money to award complainant
3) Read file and hear case
4) Increase award if case has any merit whatsoever
5) Determine politically-correct reason and copy & paste to file.
being a landlord, especially in bc, sucks. really sucks. which is part of the reason why prices are so high. it is a huge risk to be a landlord here, much more so than the other provinces.
some landlords are greedy, but most arent. i got stuck with a leaky condo that is worth significantly less than I paid for it, so either I rent it out (at a loss - I pay $150 a month to let a tenant live in my property) or file for bankruptcy and guaranteed lose all the money I put into the place (and still owe the bank about $50k).
i think if the landlord had disputed that evidence that they could not corroborate, the landlord would have won. but they allowed that evidence in, so they lost a little fine. They are lucky they didnt get a $15k judgement!
lesson to all landlords: if you want to boot someone out because they are on welfare, or because of their sex or religion or race or any of those illegal reasons, DONT EVER SAY IT OUT LOUD!!! lol They could have easily gotten rid of the guy by the simple fact that he didnt pay rent.
The landlords may have worded their greviences improperly to say I don't want to rent to people on welfare who don't pay their rent. And who would? Welfare treats its clients like they aren't to be trusted who else talks to a worker to check with the landlord and long forms and wait times? No one. Welfare clients are not the same as other renters the government has seen to that. It is already a hardship and the forms just add to it and the climate of mistrust.
The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal and the Residential Tenancy Branch are quasi-judicial and dispute-resolution bodies, respectively. They are not the "legal system".
The decision described in the above article was rendered by a tribunal chair, not a judge.
If anyone is "incited to violence" because of this ruling, though, you can be sure the legal system would step in.
Generally speaking I appreciate your journalistic framing but I feel like this piece is a miss, and more importantly seems to suggest that the HRT somehow didn't do its job. The concept of blind justice is key here: it doesn't matter if Desjarlais never paid rent. The issue set forth before the tribunal was whether or not Desjarlais was discriminated against based on his source of income. There was proof demonstrating that he was descriminated against and so he won his case—justice served. If the landlord wanted to sue Desjarlais for not paying rent he could do so in a different branch of the legal system (and he would probably win. Whether or not he would ever see that money is another question). This is literally an ideal example of our legal system working the way that it should. If some landlords are upset that they don't get to be discriminatory pricks, that's their "shitty human being" problem, not a fault of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal or the judicial system in general. There are better ways to reference the irony present in Dejarlais' win than the title and framing you chose.
Why?
Pages