Tenant Q v. The Landlord, 2025 BCHRT 289

Date Issued: November 26, 2025
File No: CS-005528

Indexed as: Tenant Q v. The Landlord, 2025 BCHRT 289

IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE,
RSBC 1996, c. 210 (as amended)

AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

BETWEEN:

Tenant Q

COMPLAINANT

AND:

The Landlord

RESPONDENT

REASONS FOR DECISION

Tribunal Member: Devyn Cousineau

On their own behalf: Tenant Q

Counsel for the Respondent: Jonathan Ip

Date of Hearing: July 15-18 and August 12-13, 2025

Location of Hearing: Via Videoconference

I          INTRODUCTION

[1]               Tenant Q and the Landlord are women who met through mutual friends. Beginning in January 2020, Tenant Q rented a basement suite in the Landlord’s home. Tenant Q alleges that, early in the tenancy, the Landlord did not respect her personal boundaries. Tenant Q alleges that, after she rejected a close personal relationship and inappropriate touching, the Landlord turned on her. She alleges that the Landlord began a pattern of harassment and intimidation designed to isolate and traumatize her based on her first responder post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD]. Beginning in February 2021, the Landlord was trying to evict Tenant Q. In 2022, the Landlord successfully evicted Tenant Q for cause. In this human rights complaint, Tenant Q alleges that the Landlord discriminated against her in her tenancy, based on her sex and mental disability, in violation of s. 10 of the Human Rights Code. She asks for remedies, including compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

[2]               The Landlord denies touching Tenant Q inappropriately, harassing her, or targeting her for her disability. The Landlord says that, after the first time that she tried to evict Tenant Q, Tenant Q’s conduct made their living situation untenable. Tenant Q made frequent complaints about the Landlord to various authorities and installed cameras around the property, which drove off the Landlord’s guests and impacted the Landlord’s wellbeing. The Landlord says that she evicted Tenant Q because she was interfering with her enjoyment of the property and seriously jeopardizing her health. The Landlord asks the Tribunal to dismiss this complaint.

[3]               I heard this complaint over six days. Tenant Q testified on her own behalf. The Landlord testified and called two witnesses – her longtime boyfriend [Boyfriend] and a close friend [Friend]. For many reasons, the hearing was a challenging one. I am grateful to the participants for their efforts. I have carefully considered all their evidence.

[4]               This was a very difficult tenancy for Tenant Q and the Landlord. Each was deeply impacted by the other, and their mental and physical wellbeing suffered. Neither of them behaved perfectly.

[5]               For the reasons that follow, I am not persuaded that the Landlord discriminated against Tenant Q. I accept that Tenant Q gave evidence that she believed was truthful. However, I have found that much of her evidence was not reliable. I have preferred the evidence of the Landlord about the alleged incidents of inappropriate touching and have found that Tenant Q’s allegations of disability and sex-based harassment are inconsistent with the evidence as a whole. Finally, I have found that Tenant Q’s sex and disabilities were not a factor in her eviction for cause. The complaint is dismissed.

[6]               I begin with two preliminary issues: the Landlord’s application to limit publication, and procedural issues during the hearing.

II       APPLICATION TO LIMIT PUBLICATION

[7]               In a letter decision dated March 31, 2025, I granted Tenant Q’s application to limit publication of her name in this proceeding. Before the hearing, the Landlord applied for an order to limit publication of any information that could identify her or her witnesses. The parties completed submissions on this application in their closing arguments. Tenant Q opposes the application.

[8]                 Proceedings before the Tribunal are presumptively public: Mother A obo Child B v. School District C, 2015 BCHRT 64 at para. 7. In particular, the Tribunal’s decisions must be accessible to the public: Administrative Tribunals Act, s. 50(4), Code, s. 32(n). Like for courts, this openness serves four principal goals: maintaining an effective evidentiary process, ensuring that Tribunal members act fairly, promoting public confidence in the Tribunal, and educating the public about the Tribunal’s process and development of the law: Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 20 (SCC) at para. 61. That openness is not absolute, however. The Tribunal has discretion to limit what information is available to the public in a particular case. It may limit public disclosure of personal information where a person’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest in access to its proceedings: Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 5(4).

[9]               I am satisfied that the privacy interests of the Landlord, and her witnesses, outweigh the public interest in publishing their identities in this complaint.

[10]           In her complaint, Tenant Q makes serious allegations against the Landlord, including sexual assault, which I have found to be unsubstantiated. These are the types of allegations likely to attract the public’s salacious attention, to the detriment of the Landlord and her witnesses: JY v Various Waxing Salons, 2019 BCHRT 106 at para. 30. The Landlord lives and works in a relatively small community, and continues to rent out her properties as a source of income. I accept there is some likelihood that publishing Tenant Q’s unproven allegations could negatively affect the Landlord’s reputation in this community and her wellbeing. These are very similar circumstances as arose in Tenant v. Landlady and Husband, 2023 BCHRT 164. There, the Tribunal anonymized the names of the respondents and witnesses on the basis that the salacious allegations against them were not substantiated and may negatively impact their reputations and business.

[11]           Accordingly, in this decision, I do not publish information that could identify Tenant Q, the Landlord, or any witnesses.

III     PROCEDURAL ISSUES

[12]           As I have said, this was a difficult hearing. Tenant Q represented herself. She was well prepared and clearly worked hard to comply with my directions and expectations during the hearing. At the same time, the process was challenging for her. The Landlord’s documentary evidence was voluminous, repetitive, and poorly organized. Tenant Q’s mental health was precarious, and the topics were difficult to discuss. In response to the stress, Tenant Q’s tone at times was disrespectful to the Landlord, who was also struggling in a protracted litigation process. We were unable to complete the hearing during the scheduled three days and had to add another three hearing days. This required the Landlord to take more time off work and incur additional expense. All parties were understandably stressed by the process being further prolonged.

[13]           To manage the hearing, I took an active approach to adjudication. Among other things, this meant that I asked questions of the witnesses and at times helped Tenant Q with the phrasing of her questions. At every stage, I made efforts to ensure that Tenant Q understood the process, the choices available to her, and the consequences of those choices. I answered her questions about evidentiary and procedural issues, and gave the parties written direction about the Tribunal’s record and the substantive issues in the complaint. I considered these efforts necessary to ensure that the Tribunal’s process was accessible to Tenant Q as a self-represented person, and consistent with the directions in the Canadian Judicial Council’s Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (September 2006).

[14]           I dealt with the parties’ procedural concerns as they arose in the hearing. Here I briefly address two outstanding concerns raised by Tenant Q: the time limit I imposed on her cross-examination, and the format of closing argument.

A.    Time limit for cross-examination

[15]           I gave Tenant Q one day to complete her cross-examination of the Landlord.

[16]           For context, the hearing was initially scheduled for three days (July 15-17). When it became apparent that wasn’t sufficient, we added a fourth day. Tenant Q’s evidence took about 2.5 days (two days in direct, and about half a day in cross). The Landlord testified in direct examination for about one day, ending in the afternoon of July 18. At this point, we stopped and scheduled two more days on August 12-13. In a letter to the parties, I advised that I expected the evidence to complete during the two scheduled days. To that end, I said I would strictly enforce time limits. I gave Tenant Q one full day to cross-examine the Landlord. I said that each of the Landlord’s three remaining witnesses could testify for up to an hour and be cross examined for up to an hour.

[17]           When we resumed, Tenant Q expressed concerns about the time limit I had imposed on her cross-examination of the Landlord. However, I am satisfied that the time limit was not unfair to Tenant Q.

[18]           For scheduling reasons, there was almost a full month between the Landlord’s direct examination and cross-examination. Tenant Q had ample time to prepare her questions, prioritizing topics that were at issue in the complaint. She then had a full day to ask her questions, which was slightly longer than the Landlord testified in direct. She used some of her time to explore topics that were, in my view, not relevant to the issues before me.

[19]           It was my duty in the process to ensure that each party had a fair opportunity to present their case. This does not mean that a party gets to take as much hearing time as they feel they need. The Tribunal has limited resources, and an obligation to use those resources effectively to serve the thousands of people who are waiting for their human rights dispute to be resolved. It also has duties to the parties, who incur time, expense, and the emotional toll of participating in litigation, to ensure the process is not needlessly prolonged. In my view, Tenant Q had a fair opportunity to cross-examine the Landlord, and it was neither necessary nor appropriate to allow her to extend the cross-examination beyond one day.

B.     Closing argument

[20]           The parties ultimately made their closing arguments in writing, after the hearing. Tenant Q objects to this and argues that the parties should have completed their closing arguments orally at the end of the hearing.

[21]           For context, before the hearing I met with the parties to talk about the process. I summarized our meeting, and the process, in a letter dated June 9, 2025. Regarding closing arguments, I said: “After the evidence is done, I will talk to the parties about how to complete their final closing arguments. This may be orally, in writing, or some combination”. I reiterated this in my opening remarks at the hearing. The evidence then completed around 2:00 pm on the last day of hearing. At that point, we discussed closing argument. I excused the Landlord from this discussion, after she indicated she was content to be represented by her counsel.

[22]           Tenant Q said that she wanted to do her argument orally, that day. The Landlord’s counsel asked for time to make written arguments. In my view, given the volume of evidence and number of issues, that request was reasonable. However, I indicated that Tenant Q could give her arguments orally if that was her preference. Tenant Q was very emotional during this discussion. I ultimately ended the hearing and sent the parties further direction in a letter. In that letter, I explained Tenant Q’s options for her closing argument, which included reconvening for oral argument or submitting written arguments. I gave the parties a detailed list of issues to address in their closing argument.

[23]           Tenant Q decided to submit her closing argument in writing. In doing so, however, she expressed that she felt the process had been unfair. She cites information on the Tribunal’s website, which describes a closing argument as follows:

After all the witnesses are finished, the tribunal member will ask the parties to make a closing argument.

A closing argument briefly summarizes the evidence that the tribunal member has heard at the hearing that supports your case. It can refer to other human rights cases, which are similar to your case and support your point of view. [emphasis in original]

Based on this, Tenant Q says that she understood that closing argument would be completed at the end of the evidence. She says there was time to do that, and that she was prepared for it. She also says that it is unfair that the Landlord was allowed to leave before arguments were complete, and that counsel was allowed to submit a written argument of up to 20 pages.

[24]           Again, I do not find that the process was unfair to Tenant Q. I was clear before, during, and after the hearing that we would decide on the format of closing arguments at the end of the hearing, and the format may be oral or written. I offered Tenant Q the chance to make her arguments orally, after she explained she felt safer and more effective in the oral process. At the same time, the Landlord was entitled to a fair chance to present her case effectively. The evidence was substantial, including 133 exhibits admitted into evidence. Counsel’s request for time to review, synthesise, and make arguments about that evidence was reasonable and, in my assessment, more likely to generate arguments that would help me in my decision making. I put a page limit on that argument, so that it would not be overwhelming for Tenant Q. Finally, the Landlord was represented by counsel and not required to be present for any part of the hearing. Though it was clearly upsetting to Tenant Q that the Landlord left before the hearing finished, it was not unfair to her.

[25]           Tenant Q submitted her closing arguments by email. In those emails, she expressed – and it was evident – that her mental health was very poor. At the same time, she communicated her clear intention to file her closing arguments. The arguments were consistent with those she had made throughout the proceeding and addressed the main points she had been trying to make throughout. I have accepted and carefully considered those arguments, along with all of the evidence and arguments she presented throughout the proceeding.

[26]           I turn now to the issues in the complaint.

IV    ISSUES

[27]           There are two main allegations in the complaint: allegations of sex-based harassment and touching, and allegations of disability discrimination. These allegations are interrelated but some of the concepts that apply to them are different.

[28]           To prove her allegations of sex discrimination, Tenant Q must prove that she was adversely impacted in her tenancy, and her sex was a factor in the adverse impact: Moore v BC (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para. 33.Some of Tenant Q’s allegations fall within the category of sexual harassment.

[29]           Sexual harassment is any sexually-oriented practice that negatively impacts a tenant in their tenancy: MacGarvie v. Friedman, 2012 BCCA 445 [MacGarvie BCCA] at para. 28. It is discrimination based on sex: Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC). Sexual harassment does not need to be based on sexual attraction. In this case, it is undisputed that the Landlord is a straight woman and was not sexually attracted to Tenant Q. Rather, sexual harassment is understood as an abuse of power: Ms. K v. Deep Creek Store and another, 2021 BCHRT 158 at para. 73; British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) v. Schrenk, 2017 SCC 62 at para. 43. The analysis focuses on how the conduct impacted the complainant in an area of life protected under the Code: Ms. K at para. 93.

[30]           Broadly, Tenant Q’s allegations of sex discrimination are that:

a.    The Landlord expected Tenant Q to have a close personal friendship, giving her gifts and entering her rental suite without permission. In some cases, this type of unwanted intimacy can amount to sexual harassment: e.g. MacGarvie v. Friedman, 2009 BCHRT 47 at paras. 161-163 and 166-167, upheld in MacGarvie BCCA. The Landlord disputes this was sexual harassment, arguing it was a mutual friendship.

b.    On two separate occasions, the Landlord touched Tenant Q’s vulva against her will. This is sexual assault and, if proven, would amount to sex discrimination: Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC). The Landlord denies either of these incidents occurred. In this decision, I refer to these incidents as “inappropriate touching”.

c.     On one occasion, the Landlord texted Tenant Q “so sexy”. This is undisputed. The parties dispute whether this message rises to the level of sexual harassment.

d.    The Landlord deliberately targeted and punished Tenant Q for rejecting her friendship and sex-based touching, culminating in her ultimate eviction from the tenancy. If proven, this would be sex discrimination. The Landlord denies trying to punish Tenant Q and denies that her sex was a factor in her eviction.

e.    The Landlord audio recorded Tenant Q having sex. This is undisputed. This allegation turns on whether the audio recording adversely impacted Tenant Q based on her sex, and/or constituted sexual harassment. The Landlord says that she was recording the noises from Tenant Q’s suite as evidence that Tenant Q was interfering with the quiet enjoyment of her property.

[31]           The test for disability discrimination is the same, and requires Tenant Q to prove that:

a.    She had a disability during the tenancy (PTSD). The Landlord disputes that Tenant Q had a disability during the relevant period.

b.    She was adversely impacted in her tenancy because of various actions by the Landlord, including power outages, fire alarms, the temperature in the unit, calling the police, applying herbicide to the lawn, verbal harassment, dumping water off the deck, serving legal documents, restricting access to food, and hitting and/or egging Tenant Q’s car.

c.     Her disability was a factor in those adverse impacts. Tenant Q argues that the Landlord deliberately targeted her PTSD, by taking actions that she knew would be triggering for Tenant Q. The Landlord denies this and denies knowing that Tenant Q had PTSD. Tenant Q has expressly framed her case as an allegation of intentional disability-based harassment, rather than based on unintentional disability-related adverse impacts in her tenancy. For that reason, I do not consider whether, absent deliberate targeting, Tenant Q has proven disability-related adverse impacts requiring justification by the Landlord.

[32]           In this decision, I set out my findings on the incidents and issues that I have determined to be most important to the complaint. I do not address every issue that the parties raised in their evidence because in my view it is not necessary. For example, we reviewed over three years’ worth of text messages. Tenant Q decoded these messages in some detail, arguing they were evidence of a larger, discriminatory, pattern of “grooming” and subsequent abuse. I have not been persuaded by that overarching theory. Given that finding, I do not find it necessary to review each piece of the argument in detail.

[33]           I also do not set out evidence or address arguments about issues that are outside the scope of the discrimination complaint. In particular, it is not open to me in this complaint to review the process or outcomes in legal proceedings at the Residential Tenancy Branch [RTB] and/or BC Supreme Court. This includes reviewing the evidence submitted in those proceedings and making findings about whether it was true and/or supported the RTB’s decisions.

[34]           I turn next to an overview of the evidence before me, and my assessment of its reliability.

V       EVIDENCE

[35]           Several of Tenant Q’s allegations – including the two alleged incidents of inappropriate touching – turn on contested versions of events. Tenant Q says these events happened, the Landlord says they didn’t. Other allegations turn on the meaning I should make of uncontested events – for example, the fire alarm going off or the Landlord applying herbicide to her lawn. Tenant Q says these events were nefarious, the Landlord says they were not. To make my findings, I have had to decide whose evidence to prefer.

[36]             To do this, I start from the presumption that all the witnesses are telling the truth: Hardychuk v. Johnstone, 2012 BCSC 1359 at para. 10. Where a witness’s testimony conflicts with other evidence, I must assess the trustworthiness of their testimony “based on the veracity or sincerity of a witness and the accuracy of the evidence that the witness provides”: Bradshaw v. Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398, aff’d 2012 BCCA 296, leave to appeal refused, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 392 (QL) at para. 186. In some cases, a witness’s evidence may not be trustworthy because they have “made a conscious decision not to tell the truth”: Youyi Group Holdings (Canada) Ltd. v. Brentwood Lanes Canada Ltd., 2019 BCSC 739 at para. 89. In other cases, a witness may testify honestly but their evidence may not be reliable because of their inability to accurately observe, recall, or recount the event: R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56 at para. 42; Youyi at paras. 89-90. In that case, I may not safely rely on their testimony where it conflicts with other more accurate testimony.

[37]           In this case, the witnesses were testifying about events that happened up to five years earlier. Memories have understandably faded, shifted, or hardened around a particular version of events. Wherever possible, I have relied on the contemporaneous documents (primarily text messages) and videos that the parties have submitted. This evidence was created at the time of the events, and I have used it as a “reliable yardstick against which to compare and assess the reliability of the witness’ testimony”: Boshoff v. Inspired Retreats, 2014 BCHRT 6 at para. 8.

[38]           Here, I provide my general assessment about the reliability of the parties’ evidence. I explain my specific findings further below.

A.    Tenant Q

[39]           I accept that Tenant Q testified honestly, meaning that she sincerely believed the evidence she gave was truthful. The events in this tenancy happened during a time when the trauma of her front-line work was acute, causing her mental health to decline to the point that she could not work. Throughout much of the tenancy, she was under the threat of eviction, with limited or no alternative options for housing. I have found that some of the Landlord’s actions were imperfect. I accept that Tenant Q genuinely experienced some of those actions as threatening and terrifying – even where that was not the intent. I also accept that some of the events in this tenancy were humiliating for Tenant Q, including the intrusion into her private sex life and the involvement of law enforcement people she worked with. I accept Tenant Q’s evidence that she needed safety, and this tenancy was not safe for her.

[40]           However, I have not found all of Tenant Q’s evidence to be accurate. For that reason, she was not a reliable source of evidence and, where her testimony conflicted with other evidence, I have generally preferred the other evidence. I have reached this conclusion for three main reasons.

[41]           First, Tenant Q gave evidence about certain events that were also captured on video. She testified, and appeared to believe, that those videos supported her version of events. For the most part, they did not. There are many examples of this. Here I will only describe four:

a.    Exhibit 1 is a video taken of the inside of Tenant Q’s rental unit when a fire alarm went off. Tenant Q testified that the video shows her “pop up from my desk, run around in circles cause I’m panicking. Then you see me get on my phone”. However, the video showed that, when the alarm went off, Tenant Q stood up from her chair with an exacerbated body expression, and walked off camera. When she comes back in frame, her arms are crossed and she walks back to her desk, picking up her phone. The video did not show her popping up from her desk or running in circles.

b.    Exhibit 2 is a video taken of the inside of Tenant Q’s rental unit when the power went out. Tenant Q testified that “what you see is me running around in the dark, tripping over stuff, banging into stuff, and I ultimately end up on the phone with the police”. However, the video showed Tenant Q walking towards a light, trying the switch, and then walking out of frame, shouting “I’m calling the cops if you keep turning the power off”. She then comes briefly back in and out of the frame. There is some banging, then you can hear Tenant Q calling the police. Finally, she is in frame, standing and slowly turning around. She is not running around in the panicked state that she described in her testimony.

c.     Exhibit 21 is a video taken of the backyard of the property. Tenant Q testified that it showed the Landlord “flying across the lawn, visibly ranting” and holding garden shears. However, the video shows Tenant Q watering her plants. The Landlord walks into the backyard with a box. She appears to say something to Tenant Q, and then begins gardening in her garden boxes near Tenant Q. She bends down, and her movement is obscured by a plant. Tenant Q walks back into her suite. It does not show the Landlord behaving in the threatening way that Tenant Q described in her evidence. 

d.    Exhibit 77 is a video of the driveway. Tenant Q testified that it shows the Landlord “barreling” or “flying” down the driveway in her car, endangering her life as she tried to enter another car at the end of the driveway with her dog. However, the video shows Tenant Q getting into a car at the end of the driveway. The Landlord’s car comes out of the garage and stops. Tenant Q’s car drives away.  This video does not support Tenant Q’s description of a near life-threatening encounter.

[42]           In my view, the discrepancy between Tenant Q’s testimony and events depicted in the video evidence highlights the degree to which Tenant Q’s perception of those events is distorted and, as a result, unreliable. 

[43]           Second, Tenant Q explains that paranoia and hypervigilance are features of her PTSD. This was evident in her testimony. She speculated frequently that the Landlord, and those close to her, were conspiring to harm and deliberately torment her. I have found most of that speculation to be implausible in all the circumstances. Again, a few examples suffice:

a.     Tenant Q testified, without a shadow of a doubt, that the Landlord’s lodger was intentionally tormenting her by setting off the smoke alarm in the kitchen. There was no evidence to support this theory over the common sense understanding that sometimes smoke alarms go off in a residence.

b.    Tenant Q speculated that a woman who served her documents was the Landlord in disguise. The Landlord testified that it was a friend. There is no plausible reason that the Landlord would disguise her identity to serve Tenant Q documents and subsequently lie about who the person was. The more reasonable explanation, which I prefer, is that the person is the Landlord’s friend.

c.     Tenant Q found an empty container in the Landlord’s shed, next to a pair of rubber gloves. She speculated that it contained poison and that the Landlord was trying to kill her dog. There was no evidence to support this, and it was inconsistent with the much more likely – and innocuous – explanation that it was simply an empty container. 

d.    Tenant Q speculated that a woman who she says was following her in her car when she went to the courthouse to file papers related to her damage deposit was connected with the Landlord. There is no evidence to support this, and in my view it is implausible.

[44]           Finally, Tenant Q was at times unable to accept when her evidence was based on a misperception of facts. For example, she testified that it was abusive for the Landlord to try to evict her based on the end of her employment, when they were not in an employment relationship. When counsel pointed out in cross-examination that “end of employment” was part of a standard form and did not come from the Landlord, Tenant Q could not accept this and continued to insist that the Landlord had acted nefariously based on the language in the form. Similarly, Tenant Q speculated that boilerplate language in several affidavits was evidence of a conspiracy. She did not resile from this after it was explained that the language was boilerplate.

[45]           In sum, I have approached Tenant Q’s evidence with caution. I explain my specific findings below.

B.     The Landlord

[46]           I accept that the Landlord gave evidence she believed was true, and that evidence was mostly reliable. As for Tenant Q, these events deeply impacted her. She felt intimidated, harassed, and unsafe in her own home. She missed work, lost weight, and spent increasing amounts of time out of the home.

[47]           That said, I have approached some of her oral evidence with caution.

[48]           The Landlord had a more stoic and reserved presentation than Tenant Q. Her answers tended to be short and, at times, her evidence was not fully explained. In my view, some of the Landlord’s reticence to say more than was strictly necessary was rooted in her visible discomfort with the legal process and stated fear about what Tenant Q may do or say if she said more than was necessary. However, I also perceived that some of her evidence was tailored to cast her in the best possible light which, while understandable, gave me pause about its accuracy. The Landlord was also prone to guess in her answers, leading me to approach some of her evidence cautiously. For example, she was asked about a support letter written by a friend which referenced hearing “the brothel noises” coming from Tenant Q’s suite. She guessed that the friend had been present in the home to hear the noises. However, the sentence when read in context says that the friend had heard that “the brothel noises emanating from the suite have resulted in [the Boyfriend] not willing to spend nights there” [emphasis added].

[49]           I have also considered some discrepancies in the text records produced by the Landlord and Tenant Q. For example, the Landlord submitted a text record which made it appear as though Tenant Q had said “Merry Christmas” to her unprompted. In fact, Tenant Q’s record showed that it was the Landlord who said “Merry Christmas” first. Another text message produced by the Landlord appeared to be in an “editing” mode. These discrepancies were disturbing to Tenant Q and are unexplained. However, in my view, they are not significant. They are relatively minor issues in the context of the high volume of material the parties have produced, and do not relate to anything significant in the case. 

[50]           Notwithstanding some concern about its full accuracy, I have found that, on most issues the Landlord’s evidence was more in harmony with the text and video evidence, and the probabilities of the case. On the key issues where it conflicted with Tenant Q’s, and where the conflict could not be resolved by documentary or video evidence, I have preferred the Landlord’s account.

C.     The Landlord’s witnesses

[51]           I have accepted the evidence of the Boyfriend and the Friend. They each gave evidence about the impact of the events on the Landlord which was consistent with each other, the Landlord, and the events themselves. For example, the degradation in the Landlord’s mental health and wellbeing as a result of being under constant surveillance by Tenant Q is consistent with what I would reasonably expect for a person in that situation. Their evidence about the night of the second alleged incident of inappropriate touching was generally consistent. To the extent there were minor discrepancies – for example, about the door that Tenant Q used or how her dog came to be in the kitchen – I attribute those discrepancies to the passage of time. They did not cause me significant concern about the important aspects of their evidence.

[52]           I turn now to my findings about the events giving rise to the complaint, and whether any of them violated the Code.

VI    DECISION

[53]           Tenant Q and the Landlord met through mutual friends. In November 2019, the Landlord shared that the suite in her home would be available January 1, 2020 [Suite]. They exchanged friendly texts about price, Tenant Q’s dog, and arranging a viewing. The tenancy began on January 1, 2020.

[54]           The Suite is in the lower level of the Landlord’s home. The Landlord’s main living area is upstairs. The Suite can be accessed by an exterior door at the back of the house, or an interior door which opens into the Landlord’s living space. There is no dispute that the Suite is not well insulated for sound. The parties’ early text messages support that they could hear each other through the walls. As Tenant Q put it, they could hear each other “cough, sneeze, and fart”.

[55]           During the period of this complaint, Tenant Q worked as a public servant, on the front lines. This was relevant to her need for privacy in her home, and her declining mental health over the course of the tenancy.

A.    Early relationship

[56]           There is no dispute that the parties’ relationship was initially a pleasant one. They texted each other warm messages, memes, and pictures. They shared food and recipes, and occasionally socialized together, including with their mutual friends.

[57]           During the hearing, Tenant Q characterized the Landlord’s conduct in this early period as “grooming” her for later nonconsensual touching. I disagree with that characterisation. The frequent text messages between the parties indicate that the Landlord’s conduct fell well within what would be expected in a healthy relationship between two adult women. While there are instances where Tenant Q asks for some space, she was also an active participant in their text exchanges, using warm emojis (hearts, heart faces, kissy face), sharing funny memes and cute photos of her dog, and occasionally initiating social interactions. In June 2020, Tenant Q texted the Landlord “[the dog] and I love your company – you remind me that other humans are good for the soul I’m just avoidant so you’re good for me”.

[58]           I distinguish these circumstances from MacGarvie. In that case, the older male landlord gave the younger female tenant gifts of flowers, bread, chocolates, and stained glass, and installed a mirror in her bathroom because she was a “beautiful woman”. He was also making inappropriate comments about beautiful women, asking intrusive questions about her boyfriend, and referring to himself as sexy: MacGarvie BCCA at para. 7. In the context of their relationship, the Tribunal found that the landlord should have known the gifts and comments were unwelcome. I find there was a different context here. Tenant Q and the Landlord are both women over 40. There is no dispute that the Landlord is straight and was never sexually attracted to or interested in Tenant Q. The “gifts” that the Landlord gave were (1) a free microwave that she offered to Tenant Q, and Tenant Q accepted, and (2) flowers on Tenant Q’s birthday. In my view, these were simply friendly gestures that Tenant Q has retroactively re-interpreted as sinister.

[59]           Having said that, I accept that Tenant Q did not appreciate how frequently the Landlord reached out to her. Tenant Q’s job was very stressful, and she needed privacy and time to decompress and finish her paperwork. There are examples in the text messages of Tenant Q declining the Landlord’s invitations and – as she says – trying to establish boundaries in a friendly way. I agree with the RTB’s later assessment that the Landlord wrongly perceived “a chummy relationship with the tenant that simply did not exist” and, in that context, failed to properly respect Tenant Q’s home and privacy: RTB decision dated June 9, 2021 at p. 6.

[60]           There are three specific issues to address from this early period.

[61]           First, there is no dispute that the Landlord occasionally entered Tenant Q’s unit without giving proper notice. For example, on March 10, 2020, the Landlord entered Tenant Q’ unit to leave her flowers for her birthday. Though Tenant Q says that the Landlord did this during the night, I prefer the Landlord’s evidence that she did it in the morning before work. On other occasions, the Landlord would come to the unit when she heard Tenant Q’s dog barking and offer to take the dog.

[62]           Tenant Q says – and I accept – that she did not appreciate these intrusions, and that it denied her privacy in her rental unit. I accept it was not compliant with the Landlord’s obligations under the Residential Tenancy Act. However, in my view, this was because the Landlord considered Tenant Q a friend and felt comfortable with her. At the beginning, this was not an unfair assessment. To the extent this adversely impacted Tenant Q in her tenancy, it was not connected to her sex.

[63]           Second, the Landlord invited Tenant Q to use her hot tub. Tenant Q says that she was told that she could not wear a swimsuit in the hot tub. The Landlord agrees that she mentioned that the chemicals from swimsuits could damage the hot tub but denies requiring Tenant Q to be naked in the hot tub. Tenant Q says the Landlord had her phone with her, and she felt uncomfortable. The Landlord denies there was anything nefarious about having her phone; she denies she intended to or did take any pictures. Though the evidence about the hot tub is somewhat unclear, I accept that there was some discussion about not wearing swimsuits in the hot tub and that it is likely that Tenant Q and the Landlord used the hot tub without swimsuits at least once. However, assuming that happened, there is no evidence that the Landlord pressured Tenant Q to use the hot tub or that her participation was nonconsensual. In other words: this was not an incident of unwelcome sexualized conduct and did not violate the Code.

[64]           Third, there was an occasion (it is unclear when) when Tenant Q was hosting a female friend overnight. Tenant Q says that the Landlord asked multiple intrusive questions about their sleeping arrangements and insisted the friend sleep in her guest room. She characterizes this as controlling behaviour in relation to her guests. The Landlord denies that she insisted the friend sleep in the guest room. In my view, the most plausible scenario is that the Landlord offered for the friend to sleep in the guest room. I do not accept that she tried to force the issue or was trying to control Tenant Q’s guests. I do not find this was part of a pattern of sexual or sex-based harassment.

[65]           In March 2020, with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the parties saw each other less. Their relationship began to cool through the spring and summer 2020. Tenant Q says that this cooling began after an incident in May 2020.

B.     Garage incident (May 2020)

[66]           The first incident of alleged inappropriate touching was in the Landlord’s garage, in May 2020. There is no dispute that, during this incident, Tenant Q was wearing a skirt or dress with no underwear. However, the parties have very different accounts about what happened.

[67]           Tenant Q testified that the Landlord came up behind her, reached under her skirt, and grabbed her vulva. She says she felt the Landlord’s fingers on her labia. She says the Landlord said, “ew- you’re not wearing underwear”.

[68]           The Landlord testified that she was in the garage cleaning her car, when Tenant Q came in with some recycling. She says that Tenant Q was wearing a skirt or dress and, when she bent over, she exposed herself. She says she said something like “you’re not wearing any underwear – you should put some on”. In cross-examination, she testified that Tenant Q had exposed herself on other occasions as well.

[69]           There are two aspects of the Landlord’s evidence which I find troubling and unexplained. First, the hearing was the first time that she ever said that Tenant Q had exposed herself in this incident. Second, her cross-examination was the first time she said that Tenant Q had exposed herself on other occasions. Tenant Q was understandably surprised by this version of events, which the Landlord had never previously articulated.

[70]           On balance, however, given my larger concerns about the reliability of Tenant Q’s evidence and considering the probabilities of the case as a whole, I am not satisfied that the Landlord touched Tenant Q’s bare vulva as alleged. It simply does not make sense that she would do this in the context of their relationship. Here again I highlight that these are two older professional women with no sexual attraction or innuendo and no power imbalance, aside from the inherent imbalance between a landlord and tenant. At most, the Landlord has overestimated the closeness of their friendship but that does not support a finding that she would touch Tenant Q’s vulva out of the blue.

[71]           It is possible to reconcile the Landlord’s late disclosure of critical evidence with her general reticence, throughout all the legal proceedings with Tenant Q, to directly address the allegations of inappropriate touching. She has treated those allegations as so outlandish as not to warrant a response. Though I do not condone this legal strategy, it offers some explanation for her evidence about this incident.

[72]           I dismiss this allegation of inappropriate touching. Though I have not found any touching, it appears undisputed that Tenant Q’s vulva was exposed to the Landlord during this occasion and the Landlord made a comment about it. Tenant Q says, and I accept, that after this incident she pushed a hutch against the interior door to the Suite, to ensure that the Landlord could no longer enter uninvited. However, they continued to communicate and socialize occasionally.

C.     “So sexy” text message (June 17, 2020)

[73]           On the evening of June 17, 2020, Tenant Q helped the Landlord with a work-related task. After Tenant Q went back down to her Suite for the evening, the Landlord texted her:

So sexy…[employer] [winking face with tongue emoji]

thank you so much for helping me tonight I really appreciate it hope you have a great sleep XOXO

[74]           Tenant Q characterized this text as a “disgusting sex innuendo”. She says there was nothing sexy about her job. It was all “sadness and horror”. The Landlord says she was just being friendly, and that “sexy” was a word that Tenant Q had used to describe herself.

[75]           I appreciate that Tenant Q is upset by this message, especially with the benefit of hindsight. However, in the context of the parties’ relationship, this text was not sex discrimination. There was no sexual innuendo. On its face, it does not demean Tenant Q in connection with her sex or otherwise represent negative sex-based treatment. Rather, it was consistent with the parties’ friendly, joking messages, which were more frequent at the beginning of their relationship. I dismiss the allegation of discrimination arising from this text.

D.    Wine bottle incident (June 27, 2020)

[76]           The second incident of alleged inappropriate touching took place in the Landlord’s home, on June 27, 2020. All of the witnesses were present for this interaction.

[77]           Some basic facts about this evening are undisputed. The witnesses all agree that the Landlord was hosting friends for dinner and games, including the Friend and the Boyfriend. They agree that Tenant Q joined them later in the evening. Tenant Q says she did so reluctantly, after a very traumatic day at work. They agree that the Landlord was teasing the Friend’s husband about his crib skills, and Tenant Q accused the Landlord of being rude and belligerent. From Tenant Q’s perspective, she hoped this would end the behaviour. The Landlord, Friend, and Boyfriend testified that this was rude and unwarranted. The Friend testified that she “wasn’t impressed” with Tenant Q’s behaviour. Within 30 minutes, the party wrapped up.

[78]           The witnesses strongly dispute what happened as the evening ended.

[79]           Tenant Q says that the guests moved to the front door. She says that she was left alone with the Landlord in the kitchen, out of sight from the other guests. Tenant Q testified that the Landlord came up behind her and “cranked me in the twat” with an empty wine bottle. Elsewhere, she has described this as a poke (Form 1 – Complaint Form) or being struck (Form 9.4- Remedy Sought Form). During the hearing, she said for the first time that the force of the contact cut her labia. She says she grabbed the bottle from the Landlord and slammed it on the countertop.

[80]           The Landlord denies anything like this happened. The Friend and the Boyfriend both testified that the Landlord and Tenant Q were never separated from the group, and that they did not see or hear anything that would indicate the Landlord had assaulted Tenant Q in the kitchen. The Landlord says that they would have heard a wine bottle being slammed on a quartz countertop. The Friend and Boyfriend say they did not hear anything like that.

[81]           The next morning, Tenant Q texted the Landlord:

When you wake up today

I have a few things to share with you

Anything that is not love is fear and you generate some very negative and hostile energy toward me when you’ve had a lot of alcohol

I was always told “Drunks don’t lie when they are drunk” means your unkind words and actions reveal some unspoken truth…

We will need to talk about it because it is not ok with me

I’m not angry I just want it to stop [stop sign emoji] because it hurts my feelings [as written]

The Landlord did not respond to this message.

[82]           The Landlord also remained silent after Tenant Q sent a more explicit text four months later, accusing her of “assaulting me with a wine bottle”. The text message arose in the context of the parties’ increasingly heated messages about the temperature in the Suite, during which the Landlord expressed that she did not appreciate the “communicative way” Tenant Q was dealing with the issue. In response, Tenant Q texted:

I don’t appreciate the communicative way you deal with this? You’ve called me nasty and you’ve assaulted me with a wine bottle and I’ve just carried on being as polite as possible so too bad I’m communicating truth so you see as you admit [the former tenant] did have an oil heater I don’t appreciate lies and mistruth you don’t like it because it’s true

So anyway thank you

Again, the Landlord did not address the reference to assault with a wine bottle. She says that she did not respond because she felt Tenant Q was being combative and she did not want to engage her. She testified that she did not know what Tenant Q was referring to about the wine bottle.

[83]           The Landlord stayed silent a third time, during the parties’ first RTB hearing in 2021. This is when Tenant Q first explicitly alleged that the Landlord had assaulted her in the garage incident and the wine bottle incident. The parties agree that the Landlord did not say anything to refute these allegations during the hearing.

[84]           The subject of the RTB hearing was Tenant Q’s application to set aside the Landlord’s Notice to End Tenancy for Landlord’s Own Use. The Friend was present in this hearing as a support person for the Landlord. She and the Landlord testified that Tenant Q’s allegations of assault came up toward the end of the hearing. They were shocked; the Landlord says she was “gobsmacked”. The Friend testified that she encouraged the Landlord to address the allegations, but the Landlord was so overwhelmed that she just kept returning to the reasons she wanted to use the Suite. The Friend says that the Landlord didn’t know how to respond to anything during the hearing, and was “not thinking”. Essentially, the Landlord shut down and refused to engage with Tenant Q’s allegations.

[85]           Again, I acknowledge that it is strange that the Landlord did not expressly refute Tenant Q’s allegations when they were first raised. However, on balance, I do not find that this is enough to support a finding that the Landlord assaulted Tenant Q with a wine bottle as alleged.

[86]           First, such a violent act is incongruent with the tenor of the evening, which was a games night with friends. It is unexplained. Tenant Q testified that she didn’t think it was sexually motivated, but rather was motivated to be violent and hurt her – which it did. But there is no reasonable explanation for why the Landlord would act this way. It does not make sense. I do not accept Tenant Q’s theory that she was being punished for rejecting a close friendship and setting up boundaries. Second, I appreciate that Tenant Q says the Friend and Boyfriend were out of sight, but in my view it is implausible that they would not have heard or seen anything while they were in relatively close quarters, particularly given that Tenant Q testified that she slammed the wine bottle down in anger. Finally, I am not satisfied I can rely only on Tenant Q’s evidence to make this finding, given the issues I have identified above regarding its reliability.

[87]           I dismiss the allegation of discrimination arising from this incident.

[88]           Although I have not found that Tenant Q has proven her allegation regarding the wine bottle, it is clear that this was an uncomfortable evening between the parties. Tenant Q in particular was upset afterwards – evidenced by her text the next morning. She also says that it was after this night that she first installed a camera in her home. From this point onward, the parties’ relationship degraded steadily and dramatically.

E.     Degradation of relationship (June 2020 – January 2021)

[89]           After June 27, Tenant Q took increasing steps to establish boundaries with the Landlord. On July 2, for example, Tenant Q texted the Landlord: “my home is not your home – I would like you to not enter when I’m not home”. This marked a change in the parties’ relatively warm relationship.

[90]           This was the summer of BC’s “heat dome”, and Tenant Q began texting the Landlord about the temperature in the Suite. Their text messages throughout the summer were tense. For example, on July 10, Tenant Q asked the Landlord to “turn [the AC] on it’s summer” and said “These are not discussions we need to have”. In response, the Landlord said “it is 22 degrees upstairs this morning. [No] need to be nasty”. On August 28, after a disagreement about how Tenant Q would pay her rent, the Landlord texted Tenant Q “I’m not sure what is going on with you, I’m getting a sense from you that you’re not happy. If that is the case perhaps you need to find new accommodation”. When Tenant Q advised she would be paying rent by e-transfer, “end of discussion”, the Landlord responded, “you have been nasty and demanding for the past six weeks”. Tenant Q explained, “I’m not being nasty, I’m keeping my distance and not interacting with you… This is it I just want to live peacefully and be left alone by you”.

[91]           In the days and weeks following, there are many texts between the parties about the temperature in the Suite. Tenant Q alleges that the Landlord was refusing to heat or cool the Suite properly to punish her. I am not satisfied that is the case. Even if it was, there is no evidence to support that Tenant Q’s sex or any disability was a factor in it.

[92]           Another issue that would be an ongoing source of conflict was noise coming from Tenant Q’s unit. The Landlord started to complain about noise in September 2020. She says that, over the next year, the noise and disruptions from Tenant Q’s unit increased. I return to this below.

F.      Disability (January 2021)

[93]           In January 2021, Tenant Q was on a leave from work because of PTSD. Here I pause to say that I accept that, at least from this point onward, Tenant Q did have a disability under the Code. There is ample evidence to support this, including Tenant Q’s medical records and WorkSafeBC’s decision to award her wage loss benefits for a mental injury caused by trauma in her work, starting January 19, 2021. In 2024, WorkSafeBC accepted this was a permanent psychological condition. The Tribunal has accepted that PTSD is a disability within the meaning of the Code: Hayes v. DW Johnson Holdings Ltd. and others, 2023 BCHRT 143 at paras. 31-34.

[94]           Tenant Q did not tell the Landlord about her disability. She testified that this was because of disparaging remarks the Landlord had made about another tenant who was unemployed. She says that the Landlord would have known about the disability because the walls were thin and she would have overheard Tenant Q’s conversations with WorkSafeBC. The Landlord says she did not know Tenant Q had a disability until the parties’ third hearing at the RTB, one year later.

[95]           On balance, I find that the Landlord did not know about Tenant Q’s disability until February 2022. It is too speculative to say that she may have heard something about the disability through the walls. There is no evidence about what the Landlord may have heard through the walls, when she would have heard it, and how she would have understood that information to mean that Tenant Q had a disability, and/or any functional limitations flowing from a medical condition. This is too tenuous a theory to support a finding that the Landlord knew that, as of January 2021, Tenant Q had PTSD.

[96]           This is important because it means that I have not accepted that any of the Landlord’s conduct was designed to target or harass Tenant Q based on her disability. Even if that was the impact of the Landlord’s conduct, I am not satisfied it was her intention. Because Tenant Q has not advanced her disability complaint as one based on impact, this is dispositive of her allegation of discrimination based on disability. That part of her complaint is dismissed.

G.    First eviction attempt (February 27, 2021)

[97]           On February 27, 2021, Tenant Q arrived home to find a Two Month Notice to End Tenancy for Landlord’s Use of Property [First NTE] taped to her door. The stated reason for the eviction was that the Landlord wanted to use the Suite for a media room, recreation room, and craft room.

[98]           The Landlord says that this was the event that marked a radical change in Tenant Q’s behaviour towards her. While I have found that the relationship was degrading before this point, this is certainly the official end of any civility between the parties.

[99]           Tenant Q says she was terrified and panicked by the eviction. At this point she had been off work for a month. It was during the pandemic, and affordable housing was hard to find. She immediately filed an application with the RTB to dispute the eviction. That application was heard and decided four months later, in June 2021. I return to it below.

[100]       Tenant Q argues that the eviction was to punish her for rejecting the Landlord’s friendship and resisting her physical touching. I am not satisfied that it was. In reaching this conclusion, I do acknowledge some reservations about the real reasons that the Landlord was trying to evict Tenant Q. However, I have not found that Tenant Q has proven the two incidents of touching. And to the extent that the Landlord was trying to evict Tenant Q because of their degrading interpersonal dynamic – which I think is likely – I do not find this to be related to Tenant Q’s sex or disability.

[101]       For the remaining 19 months of the tenancy, the parties’ relationship became increasingly toxic and harmful to each of them.

[102]       Tenant Q says, and I accept, that throughout this period she was hypervigilant, paranoid, and terrified. She became hyper focused on her security and was prone to panic and sadness. She lost weight and had trouble sleeping. Some of her friends no longer wanted to visit her. She faced hostility from some of the neighbours and the Landlord’s friends. For example, in June, she got an anonymous text which told her “you are not wanted in this neighbourhood”. On another occasion, one of the Landlord’s guests approached Tenant Q’s car, where she had a camera filming the front of the Landlord’s house, and called her a “fucking cunt”.

[103]       At the same time, the Landlord says, and I accept, that her mental and physical health seriously suffered. She missed work and sought medical attention. She lost weight. As the conflict escalated, she spent increasing amounts of time away from her home. The Friend and Boyfriend corroborated that, whereas they used to frequently socialize at the Landlord’s home, the environment had become so hostile that they no longer wanted to go over there.

[104]       There were many flashpoints in this conflict, and I do not intend to detail all of them. The most significant related to (1) Tenant Q’s cameras; (2) the parties’ complaints to bylaw authorities and police; (3) noise in Tenant Q’s Suite; and (4) negative interactions. These issues were ongoing and escalating throughout 2021 until Tenant Q eventually left the Suite in October 2022. I will address them each briefly.

H.    Tenant Q’s cameras

[105]       Tenant Q installed several cameras facing the exterior of the house. She had at least three cameras filming the back and side of the house. She had two cameras in her car, filming the front of the house. She says this was necessary to preserve her safety. In response, the Landlord also installed cameras facing the backyard and the street. From this point onward, the parties were under each others’ constant surveillance.

[106]       The Landlord asked Tenant Q several times to remove the cameras, including through written notices. Tenant Q consulted with an RCMP officer, who advised that the Landlord had no reasonable expectation of privacy outside her home and that Tenant Q was entitled to keep the cameras where they were. She did.

[107]       The Landlord frequently photographed Tenant Q’s cameras – an act that Tenant Q characterises as “psychological intimidation”, but the Landlord says was to collect evidence proving the surveillance. There are several videos in evidence which show the Landlord filming the cameras in Tenant Q’s car, gesturing towards the car, and appearing visibly frustrated. Tenant Q characterizes this behaviour as menacing, erratic, profane, and dangerous. In my view, it reflects the behaviour of a person who is very upset at being continually filmed around her own home. None of this conduct related to Tenant Q’s sex or disability. It was not discriminatory.

I.       Complaints to bylaw authorities and police

[108]       In March 2021, the parties started making frequent complaints to bylaw authorities and the RCMP about each other. Tenant Q complained more often than the Landlord.

[109]       Tenant Q’s complaints included:

a.    complaints to bylaw authorities about: a retaining wall, fence, and “illegal suite” (March 12, 2021); the Landlord operating a business in violation of bylaws and COVID protocols (March 16 and 31, 2021); the Landlord renting a room to a lodger (March 30, 2021); the chemicals the Landlord was using on the lawn (May 15, 2021); watering during unauthorized times (June 7, 2021); and having a hot tub without a permit and draining the hot tub in the backyard (January 30 and February 1, 2022).

b.    reports to the RCMP about: a power outage and an unlawful entry attempt (April 8, 2021); the Landlord and her lodger taping legal documents to the door of the Suite and the expired insurance stickers on the lodger’s car (April 11, 2021); the Landlord kicking a hose down the back stairs (November 12, 2021); and the Boyfriend draining the hot tub in the backyard (January 30, 2022). Tenant Q also supplied RCMP with video surveillance of the Landlord around her car.

[110]       The Landlord’s complaints included:

a.    complaints to bylaw authorities about organic waste over the back fence (August 15, 2021) and Tenant Q filming in the backyard (January 30, 2022).

b.    reports to the RCMP about: Tenant Q’s car parked in the driveway and her surveillance cameras (May 2021); noise (July 4, 2021); guest suspected of driving while intoxicated (July 6, 2021); and Tenant Q serving alcohol on Halloween (October 31, 2021).

[111]       While not all these complaints were baseless, the parties experienced them as incessant and in my view some of them were petty. They added to the parties’ stress. For Tenant Q, it was traumatizing to interact with law enforcement authorities – some of whom she knew personally through work. For the Landlord, it was humiliating and time-consuming to be under such intense scrutiny by officials.

J.       Noise in Tenant Q’s Suite

[112]       As I have said, the Landlord began to complain about noise in Tenant Q’s Suite in September 2020. On September 18, 2020, she texted Tenant Q that she did not get much sleep because she had been woken “numerous times during the night while you and your friends socialize until this am”. After that, Tenant Q asked the Landlord to let her know when there was a noise issue, at the time when the issue was occurring.

[113]       The Landlord says that the noise escalated throughout 2021. She texted Tenant Q more frequently about the noise, including the sound of Tenant Q having sex in her bedroom late at night or early in the morning (see e.g. text messages of June 27 and July 9, 2021). The Landlord says that, as a result of the noise, she began sleeping in her spare room.

[114]       The Landlord began to collect evidence to support an eviction. This included detailed notes about Tenant Q’s activities, including the comings and goings of her guests, and her daily activities like showering, “loud cutting noises”, banging, and laughing. It also included several audio recordings of noises in the suite. Those noises included barking and Tenant Q having sex. Tenant Q likens this to stalking. I agree it was invasive. In my view, it reflects the degree to which the living conditions for both parties had become poisoned by animosity and actual or prospective litigation, including the frequent involvement of bylaw and RCMP authorities. It demonstrates the degree to which the Landlord was being negatively impacted by the ongoing tenancy.

[115]       Tenant Q was especially impacted when she learned that the Landlord had audio recorded her having sex in her own bedroom. I fully accept her evidence about this impact. This was invasive and humiliating. At the same time, throughout the parties’ various conflicts, the Landlord submitted letters from witnesses who described “brothel noises”, “loud sexual noises”, and “loud inappropriate noises at unreasonable hours”. One of the Landlord’s witnesses referred to Tenant Q having “multiple male guests” – which was untrue, and I agree was needlessly intended to characterize Tenant Q as promiscuous. This discussion of Tenant Q’s private sex life among strangers, and her ongoing uncertainty about who had listened to the Landlord’s audio recordings, was traumatic for Tenant Q.

[116]       That said, I do not accept all of Tenant Q’s speculation about these recordings. For example, Tenant Q says that the Landlord came downstairs to record in the space immediately adjacent to her bedroom. In her testimony, she called this a “listening post”. The Landlord denies doing this.  She says that she made the recordings from her upper suite. She says the only purpose of making the recordings was to document the breach of her quiet enjoyment, and that she has never shared them with anyone. I prefer the Landlord’s explanation and do not find that the Landlord was deliberately moving closer to Tenant Q’s bedroom to listen to her having sex. I also do not find that the Landlord shared the audio recordings with anyone outside the legal proceedings at the RTB and Human Rights Tribunal.

[117]       Though they were admitted into evidence, I have not listened to the audio recordings of Tenant Q having sex. In my view, doing so would be an unnecessary invasion of Tenant Q’s privacy and a violation of her dignity. I accept that the Landlord could hear Tenant Q having sex from her living space. This is corroborated by the Boyfriend, who also heard it. I also accept that these noises disturbed the Landlord’s quiet enjoyment of her space. Whereas she may have been prepared to tolerate it if she had a good relationship with Tenant Q, she was not prepared to tolerate it when their relationship was bad.

[118]       As I have said, the parties agree that noise travelled very easily between their living spaces. The Landlord testified that she could sometimes hear the sound of a key entering Tenant Q’s lock. Early in the tenancy, they would exchange joking texts about the fact they could hear each other having sex. For example, on March 13, 2020, Tenant Q texted the Landlord: “I’m out for the eve so get your freak on !!”. On March 20, 2020, the Landlord texted “we are off to bed so put your ear plugs in LOL” and then “Lol… you might need your ear plugs in the morning too LOL”. These texts support that the parties knew it was possible to unintentionally hear each other having sex and were prepared, when the relationship was good, to be tolerant of each other.

[119]       I now consider whether the Landlord’s act of audio-recording Tenant Q having sex violated the Code. I have no difficulty finding that it was an unreasonable invasion of privacy and negatively impacted Tenant Q in her tenancy. It was insensitive and ill-advised. However, I am not persuaded that it was connected to Tenant Q’s protected characteristic of sex so as to engage the protections of the Code.

[120]       First, Tenant Q’s identity as a woman was not a factor in the Landlord’s conduct or its effects. The Landlord was targeting noise generated by her tenant, which I accept was disrupting her. She also recorded other noises, like the sound of the dog barking. Tenant Q’s sex (as a woman) was not a factor in this.

[121]       Second, though the conduct clearly related to Tenant Q’s sexuality, I am not persuaded that it was sexual harassment. The context of the parties’ relationship, and the conduct at issue, does not bear any of the hallmarks of sexual harassment prohibited by the Code. To begin, it was not conduct of a sexual nature: Janzen at p. 33. The parties agree that the Landlord was a straight woman and had no sexual interest in Tenant Q. The recordings were evidence of unreasonable noise and not for a sexual purpose. Next, the gender dynamics do not reflect the type of gendered power between men and women that often supports an inference of discrimination: Ms. K at para. 73. Finally, and related, the recordings did not engage the type of gendered abuse of power that is at the root of sexual harassment: British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk, 2017 SCC 62 at para. 43. Both parties are women of a similar age. Aside from the inherent imbalance between a landlord and tenant, there are no other factors supporting that the Landlord was abusing a power imbalance. Rather, both women were actively engaged in an escalating dispute in which Tenant Q was more often the aggressor. The Landlord made the recordings in a context where she reasonably understood she had to defend herself, including by gathering evidence to support an eviction. The Landlord did not tell Tenant Q about the recordings or try to leverage them for any advantage in the tenancy. I accept her evidence that she did not play them for anyone or use them for any purpose other than the RTB and human rights proceedings.

[122]       I acknowledge the statements of the Landlord’s friends referring to “brothel noises” and “multiple male guests”. I have accepted this was intended to characterize Tenant Q negatively because of her sexual activity. The statements play on discriminatory tropes about “promiscuous” women and, in some contexts, could violate the Code. But the Landlord did not make those statements. Rather, she focused on the effect the noise had on her quiet enjoyment. I accept that this was a reasonable concern. Expressing it was not discrimination based on Tenant Q’s sex.

K.     Other negative interactions

[123]       Throughout 2021 and 2022, Tenant Q experienced most if not all her interactions with the Landlord as negative. In the hearing, she characterized many mundane or unintentional interactions as direct attacks on her safety. For her part, the Landlord also experienced interactions with Tenant Q negatively, and several of them contributed to her decision to evict Tenant Q for cause. I do not propose to address all these interactions in my decision. In my view, none of them amount to discrimination. Six examples suffice.

1.      Attempted entry (April 2, 2021)

[124]       Between March 24 and July 1, 2021, the Landlord rented a room in the house to a man [the Lodger]. The room was downstairs, next to Tenant Q’s Suite. Tenant Q says the Lodger made her feel unsafe and became an accomplice to the Landlord’s campaign against her. In her testimony, Tenant Q speculated that the Lodger had been “recruited” to intimidated her. She looked him up online and concluded that something didn’t “add up”. The evidence before me does not support any of these theories. However, I accept that Tenant Q felt unsafe having a man she did not know living so near to her.

[125]       On March 28, 2021, Tenant Q asked the Landlord to install a lock on her side of their shared door. The Landlord agreed. On March 29, the Landlord gave notice to Tenant Q that she intended to enter the Suite on April 5 at 9:30 am to install the lock. However, the Landlord instead attended and tried to enter the Suite on April 2, with the Lodger as a witness. Her entrance was blocked by the hutch that Tenant Q had pressed against the door. She texted Tenant Q. Very shortly after, she realized her mistake and texted Tenant Q again: “Wrong day. See you Monday”.

[126]       The Landlord says she made an honest mistake, in a context where she was feeling very stressed out by the whole situation. At the same time, I accept this was very traumatizing for Tenant Q. She complained to the RCMP and asked them to lay a charge of mischief against the Landlord. She remains very paranoid about the Landlord and Lodger’s true intentions on this occasion, speculating that they were conspiring to physically harm (possibly kill) her and sell off her belongings. On April 4, she wrote to the Landlord, retracting her consent to enter the Suite. They did not reschedule the lock change.

[127]       I am not persuaded that this attempted entry was a sinister act by the Landlord or the Lodger. I prefer the Landlord’s explanation that she made an innocent mistake about the date. This is consistent with her contemporaneous text to Tenant Q, the video footage of the attempted entry, and the probabilities of the case as a whole.

2.      Fire alarm and power outages (April 8, May 25, June 10, 2021)

[128]       There were at least three occasions where Tenant Q was upset by a power outage or smoke alarm, caused by activity in the Landlord’s living area. Tenant Q says that these were acts of deliberate harassment. However, I find that unlikely and prefer the Landlord’s evidence that these were accidents that were quickly addressed.

[129]       The power outage happened on April 8, 2021. It took the Landlord about 20 minutes to figure out the issue. This was reasonable. However, during that time, Tenant Q called the police.

[130]       The Landlord’s smoke alarm went off on May 25 and June 10, 2021. It seems that both times were caused by the Lodger. Both times, Tenant Q texted the Landlord. On June 10, she explained that “the alarm creates distress and is so loud it may cause auditory damage FYI hopefully you will be able to gain control over your alarm system or your lodger? Whatever the cause – this has occurred often recently”. The Landlord acknowledged the text and said she spoke to the Lodger about making sure the fan is on.

[131]       There is no evidence to support that these incidents were anything other than accidents that could happen in any home. Even though they were upsetting to Tenant Q, they were not discrimination.

3.      Incident at the Boyfriend’s house (April 21, 2021)

[132]       On April 21, 2021, Tenant Q and the Boyfriend had an interaction in front of his house, which upset the Boyfriend and the Landlord.

[133]       It is undisputed that Tenant Q parked her car across from the Boyfriend’s house. She says that she was there to walk her dog nearby. However, the Landlord and Boyfriend submitted evidence, which I accept, that this was implausible given the location of the house in relation to the dog area. It is more likely that Tenant Q intentionally parked near the Boyfriend’s house.

[134]       The Boyfriend came out of his house to confirm that it was Tenant Q’s car. At this point, they saw each other. Their evidence about what happened next is irreconcilable.

[135]       Tenant Q says that she saw the Boyfriend collapse and immediately offered help. She says the Boyfriend told her he was fine and just had a little vertigo. Given her medical background, she made a couple of recommendations. The Boyfriend denies that he collapsed or engaged Tenant Q in any way. He says that, when he came out of his house, Tenant Q began shouting at him with advice for a private medical condition that he just found out about. He says he ignored her and went back into the house. This was disturbing to him and, later, the Landlord. They considered it an extension of Tenant Q’s harassment. Tenant Q is deeply offended by the allegation that she was harassing either of them.

[136]       I prefer the Boyfriend’s account of this interaction. It is more consistent with his demeanour towards Tenant Q, which was to try not to engage with her. He testified, and I accept, that he had no desire to communicate with Tenant Q. He says he was always worried he would be accused of something and feared he could be harmed financially or legally. Given the number of complaints that Tenant Q made to authorities, this fear was not unfounded. The Boyfriend avoided going to the Landlord’s house more than necessary and did not respond to the one text that Tenant Q sent him in January 2022. I accept that this incident was troubling to the Landlord. It strengthened her negative perception of Tenant Q and her desire to end the tenancy.

4.      Herbicide (May 2021)

[137]       Early in their relationship, Tenant Q asked the Landlord to give notice if she was going to put any chemicals in the backyard, so she could keep her small dog out of the yard. The Landlord agreed, and would give Tenant Q notice if she was going to fertilize the lawn. For example, on July 5, 2020, the Landlord texted “don’t let [dog] on grass”. However in May 2021, the Landlord put a prohibited chemical on the lawn without giving Tenant Q notice. Tenant Q complained to bylaw authorities, and the Landlord was advised not to use this product.

[138]       Tenant Q argues this was an attempt to deliberately harm her dog. I do not accept that. The Landlord loved Tenant Q’s dog and, in my view, it is implausible that she would deliberately try to poison a small animal that she loved. In any event, this incident was not related to Tenant Q’s sex or disability.

5.      Soaking the blanket (August 20, 2021)

[139]       On August 20, 2021, the Landlord wrote a letter to Tenant Q asking her to remove her bedroom camera, keep noise levels down, and properly dispose of yard waste. Later that evening, Tenant Q was in the backyard with a friend when the Boyfriend threw water over the deck, soaking the blanket they were laying on. The Boyfriend said that he was watering the Landlord’s plants on the deck and had some extra water to dispose of. He did not realize Tenant Q was down there when he threw the water. It was late, and he did not expect anyone below. Tenant Q says this was intentional harassment and assault and part of a pattern of running off her guests. I do not accept this. I prefer the Boyfriend’s explanation that he was watering plants on the deck and had some extra water to dispose of. It was dark and he did not see Tenant Q or her friend. It was an accident. This is more consistent with the Boyfriend’s general approach to Tenant Q, which was to try to avoid interacting with her. In any event, this incident was not related to Tenant Q’s sex or disability.

6.      Food deliveries (July 5, 2021; September 16, 2021; March 1, 2022)

[140]       Tenant Q argues that the Landlord engaged in a pattern of behaviour which was designed to cut off her access to food. Here I will consider four times when the Landlord interfered with food being delivered to Tenant Q’s Suite. I am not persuaded that these incidents, considered individually or cumulatively, support Tenant Q’s theory.

[141]       The first incident was on July 5, 2021. Tenant Q and her guests ordered sushi. When the delivery driver arrived at the front of the house, the Landlord spoke to him. The Landlord says she told the delivery person that she hadn’t ordered the food, but he insisted she take it since it had been paid for. About 20 minutes later, one of Tenant Q’s guests knocked on the door and retrieved it from the Landlord. In my view, this incident was a mundane miscommunication, which was quickly corrected. It was not nefarious and it was not discrimination.

[142]       On another occasion, food was being delivered to Tenant Q’s door as water poured off the deck above her entrance. She gave the delivery person an umbrella to navigate out. The most logical explanation for this is that the Landlord was watering the plants on her deck.

[143]       The final incidents related to Tenant Q’s grocery orders. On at least two occasions (September 16, 2021 and March 1, 2022), the Landlord emailed the grocery store asking their delivery driver not to park in the driveway to deliver Tenant Q’s groceries. In my view, this was petty and a symptom of the parties’ toxic relationship. However, the delivery driver remained free to park on the street. I cannot agree that it was an attempt to cut Tenant Q off from food.

[144]       I return now to the Landlord’s attempts to evict Tenant Q throughout 2021 and 2022.

L.      Application to set aside First NTE granted (June 8-17, 2021)

[145]       Tenant Q’s application to set aside the First NTE was heard on June 8, 2021. The Landlord argued that she wanted to use Tenant Q’s suite for a media room, recreation room, and craft room.  Tenant Q argued that the eviction was not in good faith. This is when she first raised her allegations of inappropriate touching. As I have said, the Landlord did not refute those allegations in the hearing.

[146]       The RTB issued its decision on June 9, 2021, granting Tenant Q’s application. The RTB reasoned:

I find it significant, and most telling, that the landlord did not address or refute any of the tenant’s claims. At no point during the hearing did the landlord mention, or object to, the various alleged vagina-grabbing or poking incidents about which the tenant testified (in rather alarming detail, I might add). Rather, the landlord simply iterated, and reiterated, that they require the rental unit for their use. The landlord’s notable silence on these claims is significant, and such silence leads me to the conclusion that the landlord issued the Notice for one or more reasons unrelated to the reason stated on the Notice.

In summary, then, taking into careful consideration all of the oral testimony and documentary evidence presented before me, and applying the law to the facts, I find on a balance of probabilities that the landlord has not met the onus of establishing that they intend to occupy the rental unit, in good faith, at the end of the tenancy. [p. 5]

[147]       The Landlord applied for review of this decision. In support of her application, she explained that she had made a “crucial error” by not refuting Tenant Q’s allegations in the hearing, on the basis that she considered them outlandish, false, and not worthy of comment. She sought to submit new evidence refuting the claims. On June 16, 2021, the RTB denied the review application, reasoning that the evidence was not new and the Landlord should have submitted it in the original hearing.

[148]       The parties received the RTB’s review decision the next day – June 17. On that day, Tenant Q had a negative interaction with the Landlord and Lodger when she arrived home from work. Again, the parties disagree about who was the aggressor in this interaction.

[149]       Tenant Q says that she was unloading her car after a traumatic day at work when the Landlord and the Lodger verbally confronted her. The Landlord says that, when she came home, Tenant Q said to her: “God said no twice”, referring to the RTB’s two decisions which set aside the eviction. The Landlord accused Tenant Q of unnecessarily making it personal, and Tenant Q got escalated. The Landlord went back into the house, and Tenant Q began yelling at the Lodger. The Landlord filmed their interaction from inside the house. The video (Exhibit 18) shows Tenant Q speaking to the Lodger outside, in an animated fashion.

[150]       It is apparent the parties had a negative interaction. However, in my view I do not have to decide who the aggressor was. There is no evidence to connect the incident to Tenant Q’s sex or disability. In that circumstance, it does not engage the Code. Rather, it is simply another incident which reflects the poor state of the parties’ relationship.

M.  Second eviction attempt (August 31, 2021)

[151]       In August 2021, the Landlord tried again to evict Tenant Q, this time on the basis that she needed the Suite as an exercise space to treat her sciatica. Again, I have some skepticism about the real reason for the eviction. In my view, the parties’ poor relationship likely played some role. However, for the purpose of this decision the important point is that there is no evidence that Tenant Q’s sex or disability played any role. 

[152]       On August 31, 2021, the Landlord enlisted the help of a friend [Friend M] to serve Tenant Q with the Two Month Notice to End Tenancy for Landlord’s Own Use [Second NTE]. Friend M went to Tenant Q’s Suite and knocked on the door to deliver the documents. She was wearing a large hat and sunglasses. Tenant Q was frightened. She says that Friend M banged on her door, asking her to “open up” because she had something for her. She told Friend M to leave or she would call the police. Friend M said to her, “I’m not afraid of you and I’m not afraid of the police”. This was terrifying to Tenant Q. She called 911. Tenant Q says this incident “broke” her.

[153]       During the hearing, Tenant Q speculated that Friend M was the Landlord in disguise. I do not accept that theory, which does not make sense in the circumstances. In her text message to the Landlord that day, Tenant Q described the person as a “hostile representative” who “was not wearing a mask”. She did not say the person was the Landlord. She accused the Landlord of “tormenting” her and “acting in bad faith”. She asked the Landlord to “please stop harassing me and sending others (unmasked during a Regional Delta COVID outbreak) to harass me on your behalf”.

[154]       Tenant Q applied to the RTB to set aside the Second NTE. In the meantime, the conflict between the parties continued to escalate, to the point that the Landlord faced criminal charges and restrictions on her access to the area near the Suite.

N.    Ongoing conflict (September 2021 – January 2022)

[155]       The criminal charges stemmed from an incident on September 6, 2021. Tenant Q’s car was pelted with eggs and rocks. She suspected the Landlord of doing it, which the Landlord denies. The Landlord was charged with “fear of injury/damage to person/property” and issued a subpoena to appear in court. In the meantime, she was subject to the following conditions:

a.    You must not communicate, directly or indirectly with [Tenant Q] except in writing for the purpose of landlord tenant business transactions.

b.    You must not go to the areas of lower [address] except with 48 hours written notice  

[the Peace Bond]

[156]       Tenant Q says she needed the Peace Bond for her safety, so she could arrange for support or to be away if the Landlord was going to be near the Suite. From the Landlord’s perspective, the Peace Bond deprived her unfettered access to her yard, which was a source of pleasure for her. On March 30, 2022, at the Landlord’s request, the Peace Bond was varied to allow her access to the yard for maintenance. Eventually, on October 28, 2022, Crown counsel directed a stay of proceedings on the criminal charge.

[157]       Another serious incident occurred on October 3, 2021. That night, the Landlord bumped Tenant Q’s car with her car. There is video of this incident: Exhibit 67. The video shows the Landlord’s car pulling up in front of Tenant Q’s car, which is parked on the street in front of the Landlord’s driveway. Before backing into the driveway, the Landlord’s car rolls forward, bumping Tenant Q’s car. Tenant Q says this was intentional, and life threatening. The Landlord says it was an accident; she thought the car was in reverse but it wasn’t. Before and after the accident, the Landlord was photographing the cameras in Tenant Q’s car – behaviour that Tenant Q characterizes as “terrifying”. At one point, the Landlord raised her arm in a gesture that Tenant Q characterises as a victorious “fist bump”. In my view, it appears more intended as a rude gesture of frustration. The Landlord did not tell Tenant Q about this incident, which Tenant Q says endangered her life because she may have driven her car unaware of damage. The Landlord was later ticketed under the Motor Vehicle Act for failing to notify Tenant Q about the accident.

[158]        At the same time, the parties continued to have other negative interactions which were captured on video. For example, on October 20, 2021, the Landlord went around to the back of the house near Tenant Q’s bedroom window. Exhibit 4 is a video of the back of the house, in which you can hear a muffled voice. Tenant Q says the Landlord shouted in her bedroom window: “I’m tired of you taking my picture and listening to you fuck!” This sentence is not audible in the video. The Landlord denies saying anything like this. Given the conflict between the parties, I accept it is possible that she said something like this. Even if she did, however, it was not discriminatory.

[159]       Other examples related to the Landlord’s activities in the backyard in November 2021, before the Peace Bond. Tenant Q says that the Landlord’s behaviour was menacing and threatening, pointing to videos of the Landlord kicking a hose down her back steps (Exhibit 80), smoking outside (Exhibit 81), and banging at the side of the house (Exhibit 82). I do not agree. The videos do not support this characterization of the Landlord’s conduct. Rather, they show the Landlord engaging in mundane activities around her own home.

O.    Application to set aside Second NTE (January 2022)

[160]       The RTB heard Tenant Q’s application to set aside the Second NTE on January 13, 2022. This time, the Landlord argued that she needed to use Tenant Q’s suite for exercise and stretching, to treat her sciatica. On January 14, the RTB set aside the eviction. The adjudicator found that the Landlord was essentially re-arguing the same issues as she had presented at the previous RTB proceeding, based predominantly on the same evidence that was before the previous adjudicator. They reasoned that “[t]he Two-Month Notice represents the Landlord’s attempt to repackage the same facts with a new justification for ending the tenancy and, essentially, asking for a do-over after her previous arguments were rejected”. In that circumstance, the adjudicator found they did not have jurisdiction because the issue was res judicata.

[161]       On January 27, 2022, Tenant Q filed her an application with the RTB seeking several orders, including a lock and restrictions on the Landlord’s ability to enter her Suite. She refers to this as her “safety application”. This matter was later deferred and ultimately never heard because the Landlord’s next attempt to evict her was successful.  

P.     Third eviction attempt for cause (February – October 2022)

[162]       On February 23, 2022, the Landlord served Tenant Q with another Notice to End Tenancy, this time for cause [Third NTE]. The Landlord argued that Tenant Q had significantly disturbed her through a campaign of harassment, which included “incessant bylaw complaints”, false allegations of assault and other violations, constant surveillance, and engaging in vexatious litigation proceedings. In her submission to the RTB, the Landlord said she was living in constant fear of “unfounded and vexatious claims from the Tenant”, and that her mental and physical health had declined. The Landlord described her home as “unlivable”.

[163]       The RTB hearing took place on June 23, 2022. This time, the Landlord was represented by legal counsel. Tenant Q was represented by a legal advocate. Tenant Q was deeply offended and upset by the Landlord’s evidence in this proceeding, including evidence about how her actions had impacted the Landlord’s mental and physical health, and how she had told third parties about the noise of Tenant Q having sex. Tenant Q argues the Landlord’s evidence was misleading and false. That is not a question for me to decide.

[164]       The RTB released its decision on July 19, 2022, and amended it to correct errors on August 2, 2022. The adjudicator concluded that Tenant Q had “seriously jeopardized the health or safety or a lawful right or interest of the landlord.” The adjudicator found:

a.    Tenant Q’s loud sex noises were “an unreasonable disturbance to the other occupant and the landlord”: p. 11

b.    Tenant Q’s “engagement of city workers on trivial matters [was] a significant interference for the other occupant and the Landlord”: p. 11

c.     At least two of Tenant Q’s cameras were “problematic”, breached the Landlord’s privacy, and deterred the Landlord’s friends from visiting: p. 11; and

d.    As a result of Tenant Q’s behaviour, the Landlord’s mental health and work had suffered.

[165]       Tenant Q sought judicial review of the RTB’s decision. In September 2022, the petition was dismissed. On September 23, 2022, the BC Supreme Court issued an order requiring Tenant Q to vacate the unit in two weeks. On October 7, 2022, Tenant Q moved out.

[166]       In the meantime, the Landlord started another proceeding against Tenant Q, this time seeking $34,000 in damages. This was terrible for Tenant Q. On October 19, 2022, the Landlord amended the application to increase the monetary amount sought to $34,440.15. This amounted represented expenses for medical notes, travel expenses, lost time, the security deposit, and $25,000 for “medical notes, impact statements” for “harassment & loss of quiet enjoyment”. The Landlord ultimately withdrew the application.

[167]       I am not persuaded that Tenant Q’s sex or disability was a factor in her eviction or the Landlord’s application for damages. There is no evidence to support that connection. Rather, the more likely explanation is the obvious one: the parties’ living situation was no longer tenable and the Landlord wanted her home back. The primary stressors on the Landlord related to cameras, litigation, complaints, noise, and fear of what Tenant Q might do next. The Landlord’s reasoning did not relate to Tenant Q’s sex or disability. I dismiss this part of Tenant Q’ complaint.

VII  CONCLUSION

[168]       The evidence is very clear that this was an unhealthy tenancy relationship, which harmed both Tenant Q and the Landlord. Neither of them always behaved perfectly. Though Tenant Q was seeking to secure safety for herself, her acts of surveilling the Landlord, reporting her to authorities, and unfairly accusing her of serious misconduct affected the Landlord’s mental and physical health. At the same time, I find that some of the Landlord’s conduct in response was petty, including denying the grocery delivery person access to the driveway, making insignificant reports about Tenant Q to authorities, and keeping her damage deposit. Most serious was her decision to audio record Tenant Q having sex, which was a violation of her dignity and privacy. I encourage the Landlord to keep her promise of deleting these recordings after the parties’ litigation is done.

[169]       I have set out my findings of the most significant individual incidents above. I have considered those incidents separately and cumulatively. On balance, I am not persuaded that the Landlord discriminated against Tenancy Q in her tenancy. I have found that the Landlord was not “grooming” Tenant Q for a close personal friendship and then punishing her for rejecting it. I have found that Tenant Q did not prove her allegations of inappropriate touching. I have found that, for most of the conflict, the Landlord did not know about Tenant Q’s disability and that her conduct was not designed to torment Tenant Q based on that disability. Finally, I have found that Tenant Q’s sex and disability were not a factor in any of the Landlord’s eviction attempts. Ultimately, eviction was the natural outcome of a tenancy that had become completely untenable.

[170]       I find the complaint has not been justified. It is dismissed under s. 37(1) of the Code.

Devyn Cousineau

Vice Chair

---

This version of the Reasons for Decision has been amended in accordance with the Correction of December 2, 2025:

[1]          This corrects an error in paragraphs 55 and 73 of the decision. References to identifying information in those paragraphs are removed.

Devyn Cousineau

Vice Chair