Brighton Beach Properties Ltd. rejected a prospective buyer in part because of her concerns of her partner
A North Vancouver corporation that owns acres of secluded, waterfront property on Indian Arm is on the hook for $25,000 for discriminating against a would-be buyer because of her marital status, among other concerns, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has ruled.
In a decision issued Oct. 4 and posted online Thursday, tribunal member Emily Ohler said Brighton Beach Properties Ltd. rejected Angela Sparvier’s application to buy a lot in Brighton Beach, a small community on the west shore of Indian Arm, in part because of concerns about her common-law spouse Ken Starr, who used to own a lot there.
The property company assessed and rejected Sparvier’s application “primarily through the lens of her association with Mr. Starr,” which “has little to do with an assessment of Ms. Sparvier in her own right,” wrote Ohler.
The company owns 12 hectares of property accessible only by boat, about a 10-minute ride from Deep Cove.
Anyone wanting to purchase one of the community’s 22 lots has to buy shares in the corporation and receive shareholders’ approval.
Sparvier knew about Brighton Beach through Starr, who owned a lot there until a cancer diagnosis and family issues forced a foreclosure and court-ordered sale of the property in 2017, according to the tribunal decision.
The sale cost the corporation about $2,600 and soured relationships between Starr and some shareholders.
Starr maintained friendships with some neighbours and continued to visit Brighton Beach, sometimes bringing Sparvier with him.
When another shareholder, identified in the tribunal decision as L.E., was diagnosed with cancer in 2019, she decided to sell her lot to Sparvier, who had become a friend, for $320,000.
Sparvier, who identifies as Indigenous, testified she was excited at the prospect of putting down roots at Brighton Beach where she could further her connection to the land.
On Aug. 8, 2020, she signed a contract of purchase and sale to buy the lot from L.E. for $320,000 pending approval by the corporation.
But a meet-and-greet with shareholders nine days later did not go well.
The 10-minute online meeting got off to an awkward start when Sparvier was asked by one of the shareholders if she was “that Indian princess from the Alberta Stampede.”
The question left Sparvier feeling “belittled” and “shocked,” she said.
In previous email correspondence, Sparvier had said she would be the one buying the house, and referred to Starr as her “personal assistant,” adding “he does manage my professional and personal life but this is my house which I’m buying for my dog.”
During the meeting, she was asked why she needed Starr’s help, and she replied she has a disability.
Sparvier said she was not asked questions about her finances, although the board followed up with an email about the financing of the purchase after the meeting.
The email also asked Sparvier whether she planned to live in Brighton Beach full time, and who would live with her. Sparvier did not answer, saying the question was “inappropriate.”
Ohler said there was evidence to support a finding of discrimination based on marital status, including emails between the shareholders that refer to Starr and his relationship to Sparvier in a negative light.
Some shareholders said they didn’t want Starr back, and they didn’t see Starr and Sparvier as “good business partners.”
There were also concerns the $320,000 price was “absurd” and “shockingly low” and could potentially devalue other properties.
One shareholder described Sparvier as “cavalier” because she had not read the corporation policies and talked about moving to Brighton as if it were a done deal.
“The evidence suggests on a balance of probabilities that concerns about Ms. Sparvier’s relationship with Mr. Starr were pervasive and infused the lens through which Ms. Sparvier herself was assessed,” wrote Ohler.
She said Sparvier would be the sole shareholder and planned to buy the shares with her money. While it was apparent Starr would live in the house with her “it is unclear why this would have any impact on Brighton’s assessment of Ms. Sparvier’s financial responsibilities, unless they were imputing Mr. Starr’s past to her.”
Ohler said there was no evidence to support the company’s assertion shareholders would suffer financial harm if the property was sold at the “low” price, noting a group of shareholders had offered to purchase the share at the same price and planned to later sell it at a profit.
She also noted Sparvier’s realtor had testified the purchase price was within market range, and that the property had been previously listed by L.E. and did not get any offers.
Sparvier also complained she was discriminated against on the basis of Indigenous identity and disability, but Ohler said she did not find those were factors in Brighton’s rejection.
Ohler testified that the rejection embarrassed and hurt Sparvier.
“How do I articulate that I am a strong, resilient woman when I can’t even buy property in 2020?” Sparvier testified. “How could I be a role model?”
The tribunal ordered Brighton to pay $25,000 to Sparvier for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
The board offered to buy the lot from L.E., who was not interested. She fixed up the property and sold it herself for $400,000 before her death in November 2020.