A woman who was told to move out of her father’s co-op after his death will get a chance to make her argument before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
A woman who was told to move out of her father’s co-op after his death will get a chance to make her argument before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
Recommended Videos
In October 2018, Hetherington moved into the Delta 55+ co-op to live with her father and care for him following her mother’s death.
In September 2021, Hetherington and her father filed separate human rights complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of family status.
After Hetherington’s father died in June 2022, his complaint was closed and the co-op notified Hetherington that her father’s death triggered the end of his membership in two months. The co-op began arranging for potential tenants to view the suite, a move Hetherington interpreted as an eviction and as retaliation for filing the original complaint.
A month later, the co-op invited Hetherington to apply for individual membership. She applied, asking the co-op to implement survivor rights according to the co-op lease to avoid having to move out or be placed on a waiting list.
“Ms. Hetherington went on to note she was over 55 years old and willing to serve on various co-op committees,” read the tribunal decision. However, her application was denied due to what the co-op called “undesirable social and nuisance behaviour,” something Hetherington alleges is a mischaracterization based on conversations from two years earlier.
Hetherington eventually moved out in September 2022. In her complaint, Hetherington also alleges the co-op failed to release her father’s co-op shares in the amount of $107,000 in a timely manner following her departure.
“Without the return of the funds, she alleges that she was forced to use her own limited money to stay in a motel for the month of October and stay with others while working out of her car for the rest of the year,” wrote tribunal member Steven Adamson in the decision issued Nov. 5.
In November 2022, the co-op issued a cheque for $102,000 to Hetherington, claiming $5,000 was being held back to cover repair costs. Hetherington alleges the holdback was unrelated to repairs during her tenancy.
Just over $4,700 was eventually returned to Hetherington, with the co-op retaining nearly $300 to pay for missing bifold doors, despite having previously agreed with Hetherington during an inspection that the doors should be disposed of and wouldn’t be the responsibility of Hetherington or her father’s estate, nor would there be a holdback charge.
“Ms. Hetherington further alleges the other problem items raised by the co-op were minor and no one else in the co-op would have been subject to this level of scrutiny,” read the decision. “She believes it is reasonable to conclude the co-op targeted her in retaliation for filing a human rights complaint.”
Adamson agreed to accept Hetherington’s complaint for a hearing. The complaint is also being joined to Hetherington’s previous complaint about discrimination on the basis of family status.
Postmedia has reached out to the co-op for comment.