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

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 33
requirements. I find no evidence that the CRHC acted pursuant
to any policy with a view to discriminating against the
petitioners for using marihuana. Instead, I am satisfied on
the evidence that the landlord attempted to take reasonable
steps to accommodate the petitioners, but the petitioners
refused to cooperate. The CRHC was entitled to rely on the
statute and did so in seeking to evict.
2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII)
[70] In the course of proceedings under the RTA, Mr. and
Mrs. Young contended, as they did before me, that there was no
possible smell in the apartment complex associated with
Mr. Young's use of marihuana. Thus, the petitioners continue
to rely on the lack of smell as a starting point for many of
their arguments, yet the arbitrator clearly found otherwise
based on the evidence before him. That finding formed the
basis for refusing to set aside the Notice and was never
overcome on the evidence before me.
[71] Because the petitioners are self-represented, I
considered inviting an application to amend: either to add
the CRHC as a party or to allege that it was acting throughout
on behalf of the CRD, which is indisputably a government
actor. I then further considered referring any necessary
factual issues to the trial list to avoid the problems