A fight over a parking spot at a 42-unit Victoria condominium has led to a long-running battle before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.

The dispute resulted from a strata-council decision to declare the spot reserved for visitors with disabilities, which was later overturned at a special meeting of condo owners.

In March 2012, the tribunal refused to accept a complaint filed by Virginia Daniel, Richard Marshall, Charlotte Hoggard, and Ed Daniel of discrimination on the grounds of physical disability in connection with the parking stall.

However, the tribunal accepted a complaint of alleged retaliation by the strata council against Daniel and Marshall, who were subsequently voted off the strata council.

The strata council then filed a motion to dismiss the outstanding complaint of retaliation. On April 1, though, tribunal member Diana Juricevic issued a nine-page decision refusing this application. Instead, she urged the parties to try to resolve their dispute through tribunal-assisted mediation “without the expense of a hearing”.

The trouble began when six strata-council members, including Daniel and Marshall, voted to post a permanent sign designating a stall near the entrance for visitors with disabilities. Prior to that, owners in the building who wanted to park there were allowed to reserve it, according to Juricevic’s written decision.

Once the word got out in the building that the spot had been reserved for disabled visitors, 15 owners signed a petition seeking a special meeting, where the decision was reversed. Marshall claimed that he told the council president at the time that if the matter went to a vote and the sign were removed, it could result in a human-rights complaint. The strata council, however, denied that this discussion ever occurred.

Less than a month after the vote to remove the disabled-parking sign, a petition was circulated calling for the ouster of the complainants from the strata council. Subsequently, Daniel and Marshall were voted off the council, prompting their complaint of retaliation.

In her ruling, Juricevic stated that she declined to dismiss the complaint because “credibility assessments will have to be made and a hearing will be necessary to test the conflicting evidence”.