‘Cruel’ BC landlord who made life harder for disabled tenant ordered to pay $100,000

A BC landlord who purposely engaged in a “targeted campaign of discrimination” against a disabled tenant in an effort to have them move out has been ordered to pay $100,000 in compensation.

The BC Human Rights Tribunal said that Wayne and Diana Rosso “cruelly” isolated a “vulnerable, disabled senior” and showed complete indifference to their behaviour.

“The (Rosso’s) showed no empathy or remorse for their treatment of Ms. Lloyd, openly admitting they would have continued their discriminatory conduct and retaliation until her tenancy ended,” the Tribunal said in a Jan. 8 decision.

“The nature of discrimination and retaliation in this case was severe, prolonged, continuous, and escalating. The (Rosso’s) failed to accommodate Ms. Lloyd’s disability-related needs for almost two years. Instead of implementing simple, cost-free or low-cost accommodations, (they) initiated a relentless, escalating campaign targeting Ms. Lloyd for adverse treatment because of her disabilities, and retaliated against her for asserting her rights,” the Tribunal said.

Over the course of two years, the Rosso’s threatened and intimidated Catherine Lloyd and her guests, took over her parking spot, barred her from the laundry room, and attempted to evict her on multiple occasions. 

When Lloyd said she was filing a Human Rights complaint, the couple retaliated by turning off her heating.

The decision said Lloyd had rented her Lower Mainland basement suite for four years from Fernanda Almeida, before the upstairs tenants moved out and Almeida’s daughter Diana Rosso and her husband Wayne Rosso moved in. Almeida was hands-off and Wayne became the de facto landlord.

The decision didn’t say where in the Lower Mainland the situation took place, but the regulator lists Diana as a licensed practical nurse at Burnaby Hospital, and Wayne’s LinkedIn page said he works at Strive Living Society.

The decision said Lloyd has progressive knee osteoarthritis and has lived with it for more than 20 years. She walked with a cane and used a mobility scooter. She was forced to stop working in 2018 because of her health.

Lloyd didn’t sign a written tenancy agreement but over the years it was arranged with the upstairs tenants that she could park her car in the driveway, so it was closer to the front door; park and charge her motorized mobility scooter in the garage; and have flexible access to the shared laundry room. She also stored some of her belongings in a crawl space and the laundry room.

However, when the Rosso’s moved in, everything changed.

The couple barred her from parking on the driveway and restricted her use of the laundry room to Monday only.

She asked for more access to the laundry room because she couldn’t guarantee her health would be good enough on a Monday to do her laundry. 

However, the Rosso’s refused.

The matter ended up at the Residential Tenancy Branch, which ruled that laundry access had to be given four days a week.

“The (Rosso’s) unlocked the laundry room door on the first two consecutive Mondays. It remained locked the remainder of the days,” the decision reads.

The Rosso’s barred Lloyd from leaving her mobility scooter in the garage and said she could charge it at the back of the house. This meant lifting it over a step. Garage bins were then placed at the back of the house, which meant the scooter’s charging cord couldn’t reach the outlet.

The couple also ordered her to move her belongings from the crawl space and laundry room. They then inspected Lloyd’s home and told her she had 40 days to clear up the “clutter.”

They made unreasonable demands on their disabled tenant and 40 days later issued an eviction notice, citing the place was still in “utter chaos” and claiming she was a hoarder.

However, the Residential Tenancy Board ruled the couple hadn’t proven any element of their eviction notice. 

The Tribunal ruled the couple “manufactured the environment” as the premise of their eviction attempt.

“Their demand that she purge her belongings and declutter to their standards in an arbitrary amount of time reflects what little regard they had to accommodate her disabilities,” the Tribunal ruled.

The decision gave a long list of the couple’s behaviour.

They put cameras with speakers around the property and would use them to communicate with Lloyd when she was outside.

A support worker said Wayne harassed him.

“He also called and threatened to file lawsuits against various organizations that advocated and supported Ms. Lloyd,” the Tribunal said.

Lloyd set up a chair and table at a halfway point between walking from her car to her front door, but Wayne wouldn’t allow it.

“In doing so, they created disability related barriers in her tenancy,” the Tribunal ruled.

After almost two years with the Rosso’s living above her, Lloyd moved out.

The decision gave a play-by-play account of what took place and how the Rosso’s made her life more difficult.

At the Human Rights hearing, Wayne testified that he would have continued his conduct until Lloyd was evicted.

“This tribunal cannot tell me how to live my life. I live it the best way I can, and I cannot change my whole life to accommodate this,” Wayne told the Tribunal, calling the case a “legal scam” and accusing Lloyd’s lawyers of “lying to her to make money off of her.”

However, the Tribunal strongly disagreed and ordered he pay $10,000 in costs because of his behaviour.

The Tribunal found Wayne had lied under oath and gave numerous examples.

“(Wayne) repeatedly made unfounded accusations, smears, and invectives against Ms. Lloyd and her counsel, made impertinent remarks directed to the Tribunal during the hearing, and gave false testimony,” the decision reads.

The Tribunal said the Rosso’s were aware of Lloyd’s disability, and did nothing to accommodate her.

“I have no issue finding Ms. Lloyd was particularly vulnerable to the (Rosso’s) discrimination due to her disability and low income,” the Tribunal ruled.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ordered Almeida and the Rosso’s pay Lloyd $60,000 as compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self respect, along with $30,596.17 as compensation for expenses, plus the $10,000 for Wayne’s conduct at the Tribunal.