Methadone patients protected by tenancy laws, Supreme Court rules

Tenants evicted from Downtown Eastside SRO hotel win a re-hearing of their case and an opportunity to seek damages for illegal evictions

Vancouver, December 2, 2009 - Four tenants illegally evicted from the Palace Hotel, run by notorious pharmacist and landlord George Wolsey, will finally get to challenge their evictions after the BC Supreme Court ruled on Friday that they are protected by residential tenancy laws.

This verdict overturns two decisions of the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) in which the tribunal refused to hear the cases and held that the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA) did not protect the tenants because Wolsey was providing “therapeutic treatment or services” in the form of methadone. The RTB made this ruling despite evidence that no treatment, services or supports of any kind were made available to the tenants.

“We got 24 hours notice to get out of our hotel and lived homeless for 5 months thanks to George Wolsey” said Blair Foster, one of the tenants illegally evicted last May. “He kept our damage deposit and a whole month’s rent, even though we were out on the streets. Now we can go back to the RTB and claim the compensation we deserve.”

Wolsey, who owns two Downtown Eastside SRO hotels, requires all his tenants to buy methadone from him at the hotels. This practice has allowed Wolsey to make more than $6,000 per year in dispensing fees for each methadone patient at his hotel. Tenants who opt to fill their prescriptions at other pharmacies face eviction from the hotels, despite new bylaws passed by the BC College of Pharmacists prohibiting these types of limits on patient choice.

After hearing submissions from Pivot lawyer Laura Track and a representative from the Ministry of the Attorney General, Mr. Justice Rice ruled that the Dispute Resolution Officers had erred by refusing to hear the cases, and sent the cases back to the RTB for a re-hearing.  Both Pivot and the Attorney General agreed that these hotels ought to be covered by the RTA, arguing that the legislature could not have intended to leave vulnerable tenants without the protections afforded by residential tenancy laws.

“The RTB really added insult to injury by refusing to hear these cases” said Track. “Using the law to protect your rights as a tenant is difficult enough, but when the Tribunal responsible for deciding these issues refuses to hear your case, it’s all but impossible. We’re glad the court has recognized that the standard for ‘therapeutic treatment or services’ is higher than what Mr. Wolsey provides.”