B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered a housing co-op to pay $5,000 in damages to a woman who claimed the co-op failed to enrol her for housing subsidies.
Roberta Lynn Marshman claimed she had lost $17,560 in subsidies in a case where tribunal vice-chair Eric Regehr cited the co-op’s “unfairly prejudicial actions.”
She’s a member Victoria’s Lavender Housing Cooperative and asserted Lavender failed to enrol her for a federal program when a new one began in September 2020.
“She did not receive the subsidy until March 1, 2023,” Regehr said in his March 13 decision. Marshman asked for a tribunal order that she be reimbursed in full for the subsidy she should have received between September 2020 and March 2023.
At the time she started the dispute, she said she had lost $21,000 in subsidies, but amended that amount to $17,560.
Lavender denied any wrongdoing and wanted the claim dismissed.
Regehr said both parties agreed the only way Marshman could receive a federal housing subsidy is through the co-op. The tribunal noted the co-op applies for subsidies on its members’ behalf and allocates those subsidies by reducing the eligible members’ monthly housing charges.
“In that way, subsidies are revenue-neutral for co-ops,” Regehr said. “The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) administers the subsidies at issue in this dispute.”
He said Marshman had received a subsidy for many years but that ended when a roommate moved in, in 2017.
On Feb. 4, 2021, the co-op sent all members, including Marshman, an information package about the new subsidy program. Marshman said the co-op had sent a similar package out in the summer of 2020 that she did not receive.
“She provided no evidence of this other than asserting that another co-op member told her so,” Regehr said, noting Marshman did not provide a statement from any other co-op member who received a subsidy package before February 2021.
“Given this lack of supporting evidence, I accept the co-op’s evidence that the Feb. 4, 2021, letter was the first time it invited members to apply for the new subsidy program,” he said.
Marshman sent the co-op an application on Feb. 26, 2021.
On March 18, 2021, the co-op wrote to Marshman that CMHC had not increased the number of subsidized units in the co-op, so she would have to keep paying market rates.
On May 14, Marshman wrote to the co-op suggesting it had not included her in its application. She asked whether the co-op had requested additional units.
On May 27, the co-op replied that it had requested additional subsidies, but CMHC had denied the request. Again, it did not say why.
The co-op says that in 2023, the federal government invited co-ops to apply for additional funds if needed. The co-op did so, and this time obtained a subsidy for Marshman. It started March 1, 2023.
Marshman argued that when CMHC launched a new subsidy program in September 2020, the co-op failed to include her unit in its subsidy application.
“She says the co-op’s explanation of why she did not get a subsidy has changed over time. She says the co-op first told her she was too late, then that CMHC had not increased the subsidy, and then in this dispute that her application was incomplete,” Regehr said. “She also points out that the co-op did not provide evidence that would support its assertion that it promptly applied on her behalf.”
Regehr said the co-op’s submissions were brief and unclear. He said documents were undated and that an email for additional subsidies between the manager and CMHC didn’t mention Marshman.
“I find that the co-op failed to apply for the new federal subsidy that launched on Sept. 1, 2020, on the applicant’s behalf,” Regehr wrote. “I find that the applicant had a reasonable expectation that the co-op would pursue a subsidy on her behalf with reasonable diligence.”
Marshman also raised the issue of the co-op’s “subsidy surplus fund.”
She provided a copy of the co-op’s March 31, 2020, statement of financial position, which showed $8,106 in a “subsidy surplus fund.” She also provided a copy of the co-op’s 2003 financial statement, which showed the fund had over $66,000 at the time.
“The applicant says this proves the co-op had used the fund to help other members over the years, but never helped her. In fact, it ignored her correspondence where she raised this issue,” Regehr said.
“I find (the co-op’s) decision not to use the subsidy reserve fund to help the applicant was also unfairly prejudicial, as it appears that the co-op treated the applicant differently from other members.”
Regehr fined Lavender $1,000 to remedy the impact of the co-op’s actions and $4,000 for failing to use the fund to assist Marshman.