Coquitlam co-op member denied $3,000 claim over downsizing dispute, tribunal rules

A Coquitlam housing co-operative resident will not be compensated for belongings she says she was forced to leave behind after being moved into a smaller unit, following a ruling from the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal.

In a March 18 decision, tribunal member David Jiang dismissed a $3,000 claim filed by Manijeh Riahi against Hoy Creek Housing Co-Operative, ruling the organization provided enough notice of the move and reasonable options for storing her possessions.

“I find that Hoy Creek’s actions were neither unjust nor inequitable,” Jiang wrote.

Riahi argued she was downsized from a two-bedroom unit to a studio when the co-op transitioned into a new building in 2024, and the smaller space left her unable to bring all of her belongings. She said she had to abandon some items and later replace them at her own cost.

Hoy Creek disputed the claim, saying Riahi had previously been “overhoused” by occupying a unit with more bedrooms than permitted under national occupancy standards, and the new unit assignments were based on household composition, other members’ needs and tenure within the co-op. 

The tribunal heard in February 2024, the co-op surveyed members about their housing needs, including family size, mobility considerations and unit preferences. Riahi indicated she preferred a one-bedroom corner unit with a walk-in shower, but the co-op ultimately assigned her a studio unit in late April.

Under the co-op’s guidelines, one-bedroom units were prioritized for couples, while single occupants could be assigned studios, unless they qualified for exceptions such as disability or age-related needs.

A formal moving plan was also communicated in advance. The co-op notified members that moves would begin in May and be completed by June 30, arranging for a moving company. Members were told they could bring all, some, or none of their belongings, and that unwanted items could be left behind in their previous units. 

After learning of her unit assignment, Riahi requested reconsideration for a larger space, but the co-op denied the request, while placing her on a waitlist for a one-bedroom unit. However, the co-op did approve her request for a storage locker, waiving the $50-per-month fee.

Despite that option, Riahi left some furniture behind when she moved into the studio. The tribunal found she did not explain why she chose not to use the storage locker, which could have allowed her to keep or sell her belongings.

Jiang noted that in civil claims like this, the burden is on the applicant to prove their case on a balance of probabilities, and that Riahi did not establish the co-op’s actions were “oppressive” or “unfairly prejudicial” – the legal standard required for relief under the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act.

The decision emphasized that unfairly prejudicial conduct must be both unjust and inequitable, and that actions taken in good faith – particularly those balancing the competing needs of multiple co-op members – will generally be considered reasonable.

Jiang pointed to the advance notice of the move, the availability of storage, and the absence of evidence that moving the items would have been impossible. 

The tribunal also found it would have been “reasonably clear” that any items left behind would not be stored indefinitely by the co-op, even though there was no explicit notice they would be disposed of.

In assessing fairness, the tribunal considered several factors, including the nature of cooperative housing, past practices, and the steps Riahi could have taken to protect her own interests, such as using the free storage locker or trying to sell her belongings.

Jiang concluded the co-op met Riahi’s reasonable expectations and dismissed the claim in full.

No tribunal fees or dispute-related costs were awarded to either party.