In a controversial decision, the B.C. Supreme Court has ruled that residents at a supportive housing facility in Victoria must be allowed overnight guests. The facility in question, at 844 Johnson St., is run by the non-profit Portland Hotel Society. The province purchased the building in 2016 to house campers who had been evicted from a tent city on the courthouse lawn.
A point of clarification is needed. Social housing is government-subsidized accommodation for low-income families. That’s not what we’re talking about here.
Supportive housing is designed for individuals who have difficulty coping with the challenges of everyday life. Many who need this accommodation struggle with drug addiction, alcoholism and mental-health issues. Some haven’t been housed in years. They cannot simply be ushered into a room or apartment and left to fend for themselves.
When PHS took over management of the facility, incoming residents were asked to sign a tenancy agreement. One of the stipulations was that guests were only permitted between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. The purpose was both to protect staff and to maintain a peaceful night environment.
Over a period of months, several residents complained about this policy, and the matter went to arbitration. After the arbitrator found in favour of the residents, PHS asked for a judicial review. The court agreed with the arbitrator, meaning residents may now have overnight guests.
It must be said at the outset that PHS could have handled these proceedings more adroitly. Too much time was taken sorting out the facts and presenting evidence.
After considerable foot-dragging, the society asked for yet another delay. Clearly frustrated, the arbitrator called that request “audacious.” “Desperate” might have been more generous.
When the initial hearings began, PHS staff were struggling to keep order at the facility. Numerous complaints were made by people in the neighbourhood who said they’d been harassed. There were reports of loud screaming and other disturbances during night hours, and used needles were found on sidewalks.
On one occasion, police officers were called four times in one night to deal with noise complaints and fighting between tenants. Drug dealers were trying to gain access to the building, and first-responder vehicles arrived on a regular basis.
If PHS failed to present a timely submission to the arbitrator, perhaps these circumstances provide an explanation. However, while procedural errors did occur, there was a serious issue at stake.
The question before the arbitrator and the court was whether PHS had legal grounds to prohibit overnight visitors. Certainly, this would not be countenanced in normal tenant/landlord relationships.
However, the Residential Tenancy Act, which governs such matters, provides an exception for “living accommodation provided for emergency shelter or transitional housing.”
The Johnson Street facility appears in every respect to meet this description. It was set up explicitly to assist tent-city residents make the transition to regular housing.
To accomplish this, two meals are served daily, both a physician and a nurse are on call, and four mental-health-care providers are present 24 hours a day. This in no way resembles normal rental accommodation.
PHS, then, had a better case to make than perhaps it managed to present. And here a different kind of concern arises.
The society was basically left to fend for itself by the various government agencies that had a vital interest in the proceedings. Among these were the Ministry of Housing and the B.C. Housing Crown corporation that purchased the building.
When the arbitration hearing started, PHS had no legal representation. Yet this was an issue with provincewide ramifications. Why was a small non-profit agency, with limited resources and heavily embattled, forced to carry the burden of a case with such far-reaching consequences?
In any event, the court found that the rights of residents outweighed management’s need to maintain an orderly environment. Unless the ruling is appealed, it will set a precedent for other such facilities.
That is a troubling prospect. The court was right to recognize that residents of these facilities are entitled to be treated as adults. But there is a broader context here.
Across the province, public-sector agencies and charitable associations are making a concerted drive to end homelessness.
This will necessitate the construction of additional supportive housing.
But that is only a viable solution if means are found to provide neighbours with peace, quiet and a calm environment. The safety of staff who work in these facilities must also be assured.
These interests can only be guarded by establishing tenancy rules that, of necessity, will be more restrictive than in a normal apartment building.
Regrettably, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the court’s order makes an already-backbreaking task more burdensome.
At a time when far-reaching efforts are being made to end the stain of homelessness, a more comprehending judgment was required.
