BC court finds housing co-op was prejudiced in rent subsidy case
A BC housing co-op was ordered by a tribunal to pay thousands of dollars after it failed to enroll a member in a federal rent subsidy program.
In a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal hearing, Roberta Lynn Marshman claimed $17,560.69 in damages, which was reimbursement for the subsidy she should have received.
Lavender Housing Cooperative denied wrongdoing and asked the tribunal to dismiss the case.
- You might also like:
- More co-op housing eyed for City-owned land, including False Creek South
- Unlikely BC city becoming rental hotspot with jump in average rates
- Motion to fill free WiFi gaps in Downtown Eastside approved by Vancouver City Council
Lavender was established in 1983, and Marshman has been a member since 1984.
According to Marshman, the federal housing subsidy in question would’ve been paid between September 2020 and March 2023.
For some background, the tribunal decision discussed that the co-op applies for subsidies on behalf of its members and then allocates those subsidies by “reducing the eligible members’ monthly housing charges.”
Marshman received a subsidy for many years but stopped receiving it in 2017 because she had another person living with her.
The tribunal decision states, “The applicant still does not agree with how the co-op handled that situation and provided a fair amount of evidence about it. She says it shows a pattern of behaviour where the co-op actively prevents her from receiving a subsidy.”
A new subsidy began in September 2020.
Members of the co-op, including Marshman, received a subsidy information package in February 2021, and she said that she did not receive a similar one sent out in 2020, though the tribunal found no proof of that claim.
In response to the February information package, Marshman sent out an application for the subsidy on February 26.
On March 18, Marshman learned that she would have to keep paying market rates because the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation hadn’t increased the number of subsidized units in the co-op.
The co-op wasn’t able to obtain a subsidy for Marshman until March 1, 2023.
“The applicant argues that when CMHC created a new subsidy program that launched in September 2020, the co-op failed to include her unit in its subsidy application. She says the co-op’s explanation of why she did not get a subsidy has changed over time,” the tribunal said.
Initially, Marshman said the co-op told her she was too late, that the subsidy had not been increased, and that her application was incomplete.
The tribunal noted that the co-op’s evidence was lacking, making it “impossible to know what happened with the co-op’s subsidy application.”
While the applicant failed to prove she deserved $17,560.69 in damages, the tribunal did award her $5,000 in compensation for the co-op’s “prejudicial actions.”
“I find its decision not to use the subsidy reserve fund to help the applicant was also unfairly prejudicial, as it appears that the co-op treated the applicant differently from other members.”
In the end, Marshman got $5,485.90 in damages and tribunal fees.