16/08/2022 – Jurisdiction Alberta
Part 79 published on 01/09/2022
Condominium corporation ordered to install ramp to accommodate resident with a disability. Condominium corporation met its obligation to make reasonable efforts to provide indoor parking to the resident.
The complainant had a physical disability which impacted her movements in and out of the condominium building. The complainant claimed that the condominium corporation had discriminated against her by failing to arrange for allocation of a permanent indoor parking space to her and by failing to build a ramp for the front entrance to the building.
The Tribunal held that the condominium corporation had not discriminated against the complainant in relation to the parking issue, but had discriminated against the complainant in relation to the ramp issue.
In relation to the parking issue, the condominium corporation had attempted, without success, to have the ownership pass a special resolution which would have granted a permanent indoor parking stall to the complainant. Instead, the corporation had committed to make reasonable efforts, from time to time, to secure an indoor parking stall for the complainant. The Tribunal held that this was reasonable accommodation of the complainant’s needs. The Tribunal said:
The availability of assigned but unused stalls as well as the willingness of other owners to swap or rent stalls to others offer the respondent the ability to accommodate the complainant each time the complainant makes her request for an indoor parking stall. The complainant may also enter a private arrangement with stall owners for an indoor stall that she can use, all because of the understanding and flexibility that exist among the owners in the complex.
In light of the evidence given by both sides in this case, I find that the complainant’s desire for the assurance of knowing that there is a parking stall for her to be used at anytime and any how she wishes is akin to perfection. However, as perfection is not the goal, the question is whether the respondent has provided reasonable accommodation in the circumstances. In my view, the respondent has discharged the duty to accommodate the complainant in this situation. They had accommodated the complainant all the times in the past that she had required accommodation. I accept the respondent’s submissions that the Board will continue to accommodate the complainant.
In relation to the ramp issue, the Tribunal said:
The Tribunal cannot tell the respondent how to run its affairs. However, where a complainant establishes a prima facie case of discrimination and the respondent is not able to establish that the alleged discriminatory conduct can be justified, bearing in mind all the circumstances of the case, the tribunal shall intervene. I accept that the work completed by the Condominium Board since becoming aware of the need to accommodate the complainant as well as the work that the respondent is currently completing are legitimate competing interests vis-à-vis the work that is needed to reasonably accommodate the complainant. However, looking at the whole evidence, the submissions of the parties in this case and the circumstances of this case, I am not persuaded that the steps taken by the respondent are reasonable and justified in the circumstances.
The Tribunal ordered the condominium corporation to arrange for construction of a ramp by a stated deadline, and also ordered the condominium corporation to pay general damages for harm to dignity and self-respect.
Cush v Condominium Corporation No. 7510322 oa Renfrew House – Alberta Human Rights Commission