B.C. property manager defeats discrimination complaint, but agency is no automatic shield

Fort Park Property Management and Real Estate Ltd. obtained dismissal of a resident’s discrimination and retaliation complaint, but the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal rejected the company’s argument that its status as the strata corporation’s agent automatically made it an improper respondent.

The September 9 ruling in Mudaliar v. Fort Park Property Management and Real Estate Ltd., 2026 BCHRT 193 found no reasonable prospect that the complaint against the manager would succeed. It did not decide Sabrina Mudaliar’s separate complaint against the strata corporation and two individuals.

Mudaliar lived in a strata unit owned by her parents. She alleged that Fort Park failed to respond properly to reports of offensive notes and harassment, failed to accommodate disability-related concerns about noise and living conditions, and retaliated against her for pursuing a human rights complaint. The manager denied discrimination.

Mudaliar did not respond to the dismissal application despite receiving notice, a submission deadline and follow-up instructions. Tribunal member Ijeamaka Anika nevertheless considered her original complaint and amendment, rather than treating the absence of a response as an automatic determination of the merits.

Services, not the box checked on the form

The complaint initially invoked the Code’s tenancy provision. Fort Park pointed out that it had no tenancy agreement with Mudaliar. The tribunal examined the substance of the self-represented complainant’s allegations and treated them as a services complaint under section 8 instead.

That approach caused no procedural unfairness, Anika found, because Fort Park had already addressed the services issue in its alternative arguments. The question became whether the evidence could support discrimination in the services associated with managing the strata building.

Under section 27(1)(c), Fort Park bore the burden of showing no reasonable prospect of success. This preliminary assessment is not a full hearing or an occasion to make findings of fact. A complainant must nevertheless supply evidence taking the case beyond speculation; fundamental credibility disputes may require a hearing.

The manager’s own conduct still mattered

Fort Park argued that the strata council made the decisions and that the company acted only within delegated authority. The tribunal explained that section 44(2), which attributes an agent’s authorized conduct to its principal, does not itself insulate the agent from a complaint about its own participation.

Earlier decisions involving more passive property managers did not resolve this case. Fort Park had directly requested information about Mudaliar’s disability and accommodation needs and corresponded with her about those requests. Its role was not limited to relaying a decision made elsewhere.

The tribunal therefore declined to dismiss the complaint merely because Fort Park was the strata’s agent. It then assessed whether the evidence could support the alleged discrimination or retaliation by Fort Park itself.

The necessary connections were missing

Discrimination required a protected characteristic, an adverse impact in services and a connection between them. An inadequate response to a reported incident was not, by itself, a separate Code violation without those elements.

One offensive note predated Fort Park’s appointment. For a later note, the response referred to an unidentified author and the requirement that complaints come from the unit’s owners. Even assuming that response was inadequate, the tribunal found no evidence connecting the manager’s handling of it to a protected characteristic.

Additional harassment allegations were attributed to other people rather than Fort Park or its representatives. The amendment did not identify what was reported to the manager, when it was reported or how the manager responded. The tribunal could not fill those gaps by speculating about evidence that might emerge at a hearing.

On accommodation, the tribunal assumed that the disability-related noise concerns were sufficiently raised to require an answer. It found Fort Park reasonably certain to establish that it had fulfilled its duty: the manager repeatedly sought relevant information, Mudaliar said in June 2021 that she did not require accommodation, and later medical documentation did not identify an adjustment she needed.

The tribunal reached the same conclusion about later heating and hot-water concerns. Fort Park explained the shared building systems and offered a route to reimbursement for repairs connected with common property, without receiving a response from Mudaliar on that issue.

The retaliation allegations also lacked the necessary connection to the human rights complaint. Alleged levies, restrictions on records and participation, and threats of financial consequences were insufficiently particularized or attributed to the strata council rather than Fort Park. The agency provision did not make a council member’s conduct the property manager’s conduct.

The entire complaint against Fort Park was dismissed. The ruling neither found the reported harassment fabricated nor determined the separate strata proceeding. It distinguishes a manager’s potential responsibility for its own work from the evidence needed to show a viable discrimination or retaliation claim.