Evicted due to Privacy Screen

[alanjh595]

What is the duty to accommodate Canada?
Employers and service providers have an obligation to adjust rules, policies or practices to enable you to participate fully. It applies to needs that are related to the grounds of discrimination. This is called the duty to accommodate.
Nov 17, 2021

In order for a landlord to prove that accommodating a disability would cause undue hardship, they generally have to show that paying for the accommodation would make it difficult for them to continue providing adequate services as a landlord, or that it would significantly interfere with other tenants' rights in the ...

https://tenants.bc.ca/your-tenancy/huma ... 20in%20the

[rustled]

The landlord fully complied with the accommodating requirement by offering a suite more suitable to the tenant's needs.

Accommodating tenants' needs =/= accommodating tenants' wants.

[Fancy]

IF, big IF, it is indeed a medical issue, to much light for a glaucoma patient, why doesn't the patient just close the blinds?

Or wear dark glasses. There are some which change darkness according to how much light there is and available in prescription glasses.

I have glaucoma and at least so far light does not bother me to that point. Night driving is getting more annoying though.

He does wear sunglasses inside his unit according to the news report.

[cv23]

He does wear sunglasses inside his unit according to the news report.

So why does he need a privacy screen on his deck? Strange that he didn't have his glasses on for the lights of the media camera during the interview. What is wrong with the blinds in his unit? How much light is a covered bbq and a few lawn chairs stopping? The sun is up in the sky well above the height of the railing so why a screen only from the railing height down and not one covering the entire opening?
The tenant is trying to make this seem like a medical issue when it is not. Hopefully the RTB sees through the tenant's BS and simply tells the tenant to abide by the rules he agreed to or move. Shame that the RTB system gets clogged by such ridiculous claims

[cv23]

What is the duty to accommodate Canada?
Employers and service providers have an obligation to adjust rules, policies or practices to enable you to participate fully. It applies to needs that are related to the grounds of discrimination. This is called the duty to accommodate.
Nov 17, 2021

In order for a landlord to prove that accommodating a disability would cause undue hardship, they generally have to show that paying for the accommodation would make it difficult for them to continue providing adequate services as a landlord, or that it would significantly interfere with other tenants' rights in the ...

https://tenants.bc.ca/your-tenancy/huma ... 20in%20the

The unit has blinds that are clearly visible in the video. Why is that the tenant choses not to use what is provided a human rights issue? They complain about the noise, glare from headlights and the dust yet "choose" to live on the street side of the building that is subject to all those things when a unit not on the street side was offered to them. How is this a human rights issue?
How much more accommodating does a landlord have to be?
This issue is nothing to do with a tenants medical condition but rather a tenant who wants some privacy yet makes the "personal choice" to live in a unit facing a busy road. Individual personal choices have consequences and have nothing to do with human rights.

[gardengirl]

When did he get his surgery? Before or after he moved in. That could make a difference.

Why? Is he so special that the rules everyone else in the building abides by should change for him because his personal situation may have changed? If a tenant loses their job should they no longer have to pay rent?
The entire world shouldn't have to adapt to one person's personal situation. If a person's personal situation changes it is on them to learn to adapt not everyone else. If the accommodations are no longer suitable then MOVE to a place that better suits one's individual needs.(Ooops that's right they "don't want" to move so rules should change for them)

>

Exactly. If someone lives in a building with no elevator, then becomes a paraplegic, the building is not obligated to put in an elevator.

[gardengirl]

The tenants are being ridiculous. They have been offered accommodations. They have had the rules explained to them, but they continue to try to get around the rules.
In the video, the man is complaining about the glare, then it is the noise, the dust. Calls it "unbearable" yet they refused the offer of another suite at the same rent.
They want what they want and don't care about the rules.
Childish and entitled.
The building will probably be happy to be rid of them.

[alanjh595]

The building will probably be happy to be rid of them.

How is "the building" being inconvenienced?

[cv23]

The building will probably be happy to be rid of them.

How is "the building" being inconvenienced?

First for safety reasons as flammable objects on the deck are a clear fire hazard putting all occupants and the owners property at risk.
Secondly for the aesthetics of the building so it doesn't look like it belongs on Hein Rd with every form of crap hanging from it.
Thirdly who wants anything to do with people who's word and signature aren't worth crap?

If a person doesn't like the rules then they shouldn't freely agree to abide by those rules. Whining to the media and making their faces and names known when they are 100% in the wrong about abiding by rules they agreed to will not do them any favors if they decide to ever move, because of this eviction notice or in the future. What landlord would want a trouble maker who's word and signature aren't worth crap when there are so many decent potential tenants who will live up to their word and abide by the rules they freely agree to.

[alanjh595]

How is "the building" being inconvenienced?

First for safety reasons as flammable objects on the deck are a clear fire hazard putting all occupants and the owners property at risk.
Secondly for the aesthetics of the building so it doesn't look like it belongs on Hein Rd with every form of crap hanging from it.
Thirdly who wants anything to do with people who's word and signature aren't worth crap?

If a person doesn't like the rules then they shouldn't freely agree to abide by those rules. Whining to the media and making their faces and names known when they are 100% in the wrong about abiding by rules they agreed to will not do them any favors if they decide to ever move, because of this eviction notice or in the future. What landlord would want a trouble maker who's word and signature aren't worth crap when there are so many decent potential tenants who will live up to their word and abide by the rules they freely agree to.

Has there ever been a timeline offered from the time of signing of the lease and the time of the operation on his eyes?
Was there anything in the lease that changing health needs might require accommodations? (That would be a violation of their rights).
The landlord can not deny accommodations based upon present or future possible needs.

There is much more to this story required to judge this matter.

[BC Landlord]

I would like to hear the other side of the story as well.

[gardengirl]

The building will probably be happy to be rid of them.

How is "the building" being inconvenienced?

Uh. Need I explain? The owners, the other residents, the management, anyone who has had to deal with them.

[alanjh595]

How is "the building" being inconvenienced?

Uh. Need I explain? The owners, the other residents, the management, anyone who has had to deal with them.

In what manner do the other residents have had to deal with them? From what I can tell so far, is that this building is 100% rentals. Unless you have other information to the contrary......

[cv23]

Has there ever been a timeline offered from the time of signing of the lease and the time of the operation on his eyes?

He claims to have had four operations on one eye and has only lived in the unit for 6 months or so. Highly likely his condition was pre-existing when he selected the unit as being to his needs and signed a rental agreement stating that he would abide by the rules.

Was there anything in the lease that changing health needs might require accommodations? (That would be a violation of their rights).

Never seen that in any lease I've ever seen. Why would any landlord include an obviously illegal clause that couldn't be enforced?

The landlord can not deny accommodations based upon present or future possible needs.

The tenant is not being evicted because of any present or future possible needs, they are being evicted for breaking rules the tenant agreed to abide by not once but rather MULTIPLE times.

This is nothing to do with any medical issues simply a tenant repeatedly trying to skirt the rules they agreed to abide by and now realizing they "poked the bear" one too many times so must now face the repercussions of their actions.

[gardengirl]

Uh. Need I explain? The owners, the other residents, the management, anyone who has had to deal with them.

In what manner do the other residents have had to deal with them? From what I can tell so far, is that this building is 100% rentals. Unless you have other information to the contrary......

I said "probably". In listening to these people, based on my personal experience, I expect that people who repeatedly break the rules and when they get called out on it, play the victim, I would think they would not be good neighbours either.