A strata corporation makes the decisions, but its property manager may be the person who answers the resident's emails, asks for medical information or explains what can be repaired. That distinction mattered in Mudaliar v. Fort Park Property Management and Real Estate Ltd., 2026 BCHRT 193. The BC Human Rights Tribunal refused to accept that acting as a strata council's agent automatically removed Fort Park from the complaint. It ultimately dismissed the claim because the materials didn't provide a reasonable prospect of proving discrimination or retaliation by Fort Park itself.
Sabrina Mudaliar lived in a strata unit owned by her parents. She alleged that people associated with the building had subjected her to offensive notes, racial and sexual remarks, harassment and interference with her living conditions. She also raised concerns about noise from another unit and interruptions to heating and hot water. Her complaints named Fort Park, which had been retained in April 2021 to handle aspects of the building's administration. The allegations were serious, but at this stage they remained allegations. The Tribunal was deciding an application to dismiss, not determining whether the reported harassment had occurred.
The property manager wasn't automatically outside the complaint
Mudaliar had initially described the case as discrimination in tenancy under section 10 of British Columbia's Human Rights Code. Because she lived in a unit owned by her parents, Fort Park questioned whether that provision applied. The Tribunal considered the substance of the complaint rather than allowing a self represented complainant's choice of a form to decide the matter. It treated the claim as one concerning discrimination in services under section 8, which can apply to the services provided by strata corporations. That gave the allegations their appropriate legal footing without deciding whether they could succeed.
Fort Park argued that it was merely an agent carrying out the council's instructions and had no independent authority to decide what accommodation to provide. Section 44(2) of the Code attributes an agent's acts within its authority to the principal. It doesn't follow that a property manager who actually participates in an accommodation process can never be a respondent. The Tribunal distinguished Kallstrom, where the question concerned the usefulness of keeping a largely passive manager in a proceeding under a different dismissal provision, and McDaniel, where the manager had no authority to affect the challenged decisions. Fort Park had corresponded directly with Mudaliar, sought information about her disability and discussed possible accommodation. The scope of its delegated work remained a real question, so the Tribunal rejected its attempt to leave the case solely on the ground of agency. See paragraphs 22 to 39.
What the evidence had to connect
Fort Park sought dismissal under section 27(1)(c), which places the burden on the applicant to show that a complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal doesn't conduct a full merits hearing at that stage or decide contested facts. It asks whether the material could realistically support the necessary findings after a hearing. For discrimination in services, the complainant must establish a protected characteristic, adverse impact in services and a connection between that impact and the protected characteristic. A poor response to discrimination can make an adverse impact worse, but an inadequate response isn't a free standing breach of the Code without the required connection. See paragraphs 26 to 30 and 43 to 46.
The first offensive note predated Fort Park's appointment, so the manager could not have failed to respond when it was not yet involved. A later note had been reported to the strata council and the manager, and the council said it could not identify the author. It also referred to a bylaw requiring the owners of the unit to bring certain complaints. The Tribunal recognized that Mudaliar might have regarded that response as insufficient. Even on that assumption, the available evidence did not connect Fort Park's handling of the report to a protected characteristic. The added allegations of surveillance and harassment were largely attributed to other people, and the amendment did not say what Fort Park had been told, when it was told or what it did in response. See paragraphs 47 to 54.
Disability accommodation required an identifiable process
The accommodation issue received separate attention. Mudaliar linked noise from the upstairs unit and later heating and hot water problems to her disabilities. The Tribunal assumed, without deciding, that these concerns could raise a disability related adverse impact. But the correspondence showed repeated attempts to obtain information about the accommodation she needed. In June 2021 she said she was not seeking a specific accommodation. Medical information supplied in May 2023 did not identify a particular adjustment. On the later hot water issue, Fort Park explained the shared plumbing system and suggested a route to investigate repairs, including where responsibility for the unit and common property would fall. On that record, the Tribunal was satisfied Fort Park was reasonably certain to establish that it had met any applicable accommodation duty. The ruling doesn't mean a strata manager can always decline an accommodation request for want of perfect paperwork. It turned on the actual requests, information and responses shown here. See paragraphs 55 to 60.
Mudaliar also alleged retaliation after bringing human rights proceedings. Section 43 protects people from penalties and other adverse conduct sufficiently connected to a complaint or anticipated complaint. That connection may be demonstrated by intention or reasonably inferred from the circumstances. The alleged levy, limitations on access to strata records and statements about future financial consequences were either insufficiently particularized or attributed to members of the strata council rather than Fort Park. Under section 44(2), a council member's acts may be attributed to the strata, but they aren't thereby acts of the separately retained manager. Other alleged incidents involved people who were not shown to be Fort Park's representatives. The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of connecting retaliation by Fort Park to the original human rights complaint. See paragraphs 62 to 76.
What the decision actually resolved
The Tribunal dismissed the complaint against Fort Park in its entirety. It did not find that the alleged harassment was fabricated, determine that strata residents have no accommodation rights, or hold that property managers enjoy immunity whenever a council retains final authority. Nor did it decide Mudaliar's separate complaint against the strata corporation and other respondents, which was still in the Tribunal's process. Mudaliar did not file a response to Fort Park's dismissal application after receiving notice and an opportunity to do so. The outcome therefore reflects the evidence available on that application, and no merits findings should be inferred about the separate proceeding. See paragraphs 5 to 7, 31 and 77.
For strata councils and management companies, the practical lesson lies in identifying who actually did what. A manager's delegated role may put its own communications and accommodation process under scrutiny, while the council remains responsible for decisions made in its name. A workable record should show what concern was reported, what accommodation was requested, what information was sought and what response was given. For a complainant, it matters just as much to identify the specific conduct attributed to each respondent and explain its connection to a protected ground or to the human rights complaint. Those details drove this dismissal more than any general proposition about the immunity of agents.
Original decision
Mudaliar v. Fort Park Property Management and Real Estate Ltd., 2026 BCHRT 193, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Ijeamaka Anika, September 9, 2026. Read the complete official decision. This original Binder synopsis and analysis is based on the full 77 numbered paragraphs of the Tribunal's reasons.