Pubdate: Thu, 28 Aug 2014
Source: Georgia Straight, The (CN BC)
Copyright: 2014 The Georgia Straight
Contact:  http://www.straight.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1084
Author: Charlie Smith

MEDICINAL MARIJUANA USER WINS $3,500 HUMAN RIGHTS AWARD AFTER BEING
EVICTED FOR POT SMOKING

IN A 59-page decision, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has upheld a
medicinal marijuana user's complaint against his landlord.

Taylor Steele alleged discrimination in tenancy based on a physical
disability after Aishwarya Investments failed to accommodate his need
to manage his pain with pot.

Steele was operating a company repairing video-game consoles and other
electronic devices when he was evicted from a unit near the corner of
West Broadway and Oak Street.

As a result of a 2002 motor-vehicle accident, he suffered muscle
spasms and sharp shooting pains, according to the ruling by Norman
Trerise.

Steele had been authorized by Health Canada to use medicinal
marijuana, and claimed that smoking it was the easiest way to deal
with the pain.

The problem arose when Aishwarya Investments property manager Kerry
Grant presented Steele with an eviction notice on March 15, 2012,
claiming "numerous complaints by other tenants on your floor about the
smell of marijuana in the corridor and flowing into the adjacent suite".

Steele alleged that Grant showed up a few days later and asked if he
was getting ready to leave. Steele also testified that he told Grant
that he couldn't be evicted on these grounds.

Later, Steele discovered that the locks had been changed and his
possessions were being kept in storage, making it difficult to operate
his business.

Steele sought a $10,000 award for Grant's "high-handed manner" during
the eviction and for Grant's refusal to correspond with Steele's
lawyer at that time.

Trerise, however, ruled that this was "irrelevant" because these
actions preceded the filing of the complaint and the actual eviction
was not discriminatory.

Steele was sued in small-claims court by the landlord, which turned
out to be the basis for the award.

"I am satisfied that, for an individual in Mr. Steele's economic
position, the commencement of such an action against him with a claim
of $4,669 would invevitably create stress," Trerise wrote.

As a result, Trerise ordered Aishwarya to pay Steele
$2,500.

In addition, Trerise ordered Grant to pay Steele $1,000 for his
"retaliatory conduct".

That's because "it is clear that he was, if not the guiding mind
behind commencing the litigation, the recommending proponent and
implementer of that action".
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt