Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 24 As the materials relating to this complaint were placed before Arbitrator Gilbert, I will describe their content here. [47] The Human Rights complaint alleged that Mr. Young had been subjected to harassment by other residents of Beechwood Park and that the CRHC "is or should be aware of this harassment and has fostered or encouraged or not taken any reasonable measure(s) to prevent this harassment and thereby 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) discriminating [sic] against [Mr. Young] as prohibited at section 8(1) of the Code." The complaint further alleged that the CRHC discriminated against Mr. Young by attempting to seal only his door, thereby reducing the flow of fresh air through his residence. [48] Mr. Young's complaint initially named only the CRHC as respondent, but was later amended to add as respondents three fellow tenants, namely, Mr. Goorevitch, Ms. Lort and Ms. Belson. [49] On January 23, 2002, Human Rights Officer Betty Down forwarded her completed Investigation Report to Mary Duffy, Delegate for the Commissioner of Investigation and Mediation. Ms. Down reviewed the evidence from Mr. Young, including his complaints that other tenants had directed their children to run through the hallways with the intention of disturbing the petitioners, had disturbed their Christmas door decoration,
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 25 had stared at the petitioners and had engaged in conversation about the petitioners in the apartment hallway. Mr. Young had also complained that a male guest of Ms. Belson's had blown cigarette smoke into their suite from the hallway through the space between the door and the frame. [50] Ms. Down also reviewed the evidence from the CRHC representatives, Ms. Jaarsma and Ms. Joy, and the evidence 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) from Mr. Goorevitch and Ms. Lort, who generally denied the petitioners' allegations. Ms. Belson declined to participate in the investigation. [51] Ms. Down concluded her report as follows: 70. Based on the evidence as a whole, I recommend that this complaint be dismissed based on the analysis above and for the following reasons: 71. The CRHC responded to the Complainant's complaints about the anonymous letters, and the letters have stopped being written. The CRHC also responded to his complaints about tenants harassing him. 72. It appears the installation of the door sweep was a reasonable attempt to resolve the problem of marijuana smoke entering the hallway. The objective was not to stop the Complainant from smoking marijuana but to prohibit the smell from entering the hallway. As the Complainant's unit is the source of marijuana smoke, it was reasonable to install the door sweep on his unit. Although the Complainant states that this compromises the quality of air in his unit, the CRHC states that the hallway is not a source of fresh air.
Page 1 and 2: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 3 and 4: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 23: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 75 and 76:
Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
show all

Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?