Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of a housing co-operative’s power to terminate a long-standing member’s occupancy and membership under its Rules and Occupancy Agreement for persistent hoarding, unsanitary conditions, and safety concerns.
• Interpretation and application of Occupancy Agreement clauses requiring members to keep the unit “in good condition and repair and in keeping with the character of the rest of the Development,” and to allow access and make repairs (notably ss. 6.01, 10.01–10.05, 12.01, 25.01).
• Application of the statutory appeal grounds in s. 37(3)(b) of the Cooperative Association Act, including whether the co-op observed the principles of natural justice and whether the termination decision was reasonably supported by the facts.
• Procedural fairness questions arising from the composition and content of the termination packages (COHO materials included, HART and Orkin materials omitted) and from the member’s practical difficulties in presenting his own electronic evidence.
• Evidentiary assessment of conflicting inspection evidence from COHO (clutter, restricted access, odours, potential pest risks) versus HART and Orkin (improvements and no current fire or mouse hazard warranting their continued intervention).
• Extent of the court’s discretion to conduct a “new hearing” and substitute its view for that of the co-op’s board and membership, versus the deference owed to a membership’s collective judgment about what meets the “character” and safety expectations of the co-operative.

Background and parties

The case arises from an appeal by Boris Malitsky, a 70-year-old retired building maintenance engineer, against decisions of the Board and general membership of the Vera Housing Co-operative Association (the Co-op) to terminate his membership and occupancy of his unit in a non-profit co-operative housing development in Vancouver. He had lived in the unit for approximately 41 years and was the Co-op’s longest-standing member. The Co-op sought an order of possession after the appeal to the Supreme Court of British Columbia stayed the eviction. The central dispute concerned longstanding issues with the condition of his unit, which the Co-op characterized as involving excess clutter, sanitation problems and safety risks, and whether the Co-op’s decision-making process and ultimate decision to evict complied with statutory and contractual standards.

History of concerns about the unit

The evidence showed a lengthy history of disputes about the state of the unit. As early as 1998, a pest inspector had difficulty accessing parts of the unit because of large accumulations of items against the walls. Over the years the Co-op raised concerns including fire and safety risks from excess storage (2010), fungal contamination (2011), combustible storage (2012), and excessive clutter and poor cleanliness (2018). In 2019, the Co-op initiated similar termination proceedings supported by Orkin pest control reports and a Board resolution, but on that occasion the general membership did not reach the required approval threshold, so the member remained in place. This pattern of concern, attempted remediation, and perceived relapse into unsafe or unsanitary conditions formed an important evidentiary backdrop to the 2024–2026 litigation.

Events leading up to the 2025 termination decisions

In October 2024, the Board met with Mr. Malitsky and then sent a detailed letter stating that the unit was considered “extremely hazardous” and that urgent remediation work was needed. The Board engaged the Hoarding Actions Response Team (HART) to assist, offered to cover removal and disposal costs for contents, and imposed specific deadlines: allow contractor inspections within 10 days, engage with HART, clear contaminated items and have the unit ready for remediation within 30 days, allow follow-up inspections on set dates, and provide progress reports. Between October 2024 and February 2025, the member said he cleaned and decluttered extensively, disposed of many belongings, and worked with HART and Orkin to address fire and pest risks. The Co-op, however, remained concerned that its standards and timelines had not been met. On February 11, 2025, HART inspected the unit, followed by a Board meeting that day. A COHO Management Services inspector then inspected the unit, producing a report dated February 17, 2025, which documented potential fire hazards (stove elements and baseboard heaters covered with items), potential water damage hazards due to obstructed access to the hot water tank and fixtures, tripping hazards throughout, and signs of mouse droppings in several locations. The Board’s February 2025 letter extended the cleanup deadline to March 11, 2025 as a final extension, again warning that non-compliance could result in termination. Further COHO photographs taken on February 26, 2025 reinforced the Board’s concerns.

Inspection evidence and conflicting assessments

Inspection evidence from different agencies diverged in emphasis. HART’s email of March 4, 2025 acknowledged improvements: the unit now had a smoke alarm, wider egress pathways, and reduced combustible accumulation, putting it below the threshold for HART’s continued intervention, while stressing that some improvements were still possible and that they would revisit on March 11 to check ongoing efforts. After the March 11 inspection, a March 18 email from the fire inspector confirmed satisfaction “from a Fire Safety aspect” and closed HART’s file, noting the unit no longer required attention as a hoarding case. Orkin’s March 12, 2025 report similarly noted no new mouse activity for over a month and recognized better sanitation and clutter conditions, recommending continued bi-weekly inspections given the history. The Co-op and the court, however, emphasized that HART’s mandate was limited to fire safety and Orkin’s to pest activity, whereas the Board’s mandate under the Occupancy Agreement was broader, encompassing cleanliness, clutter, accessibility for maintenance, and keeping the unit in a condition consistent with the development’s character. The court held that the Board was entitled to give weight to COHO’s inspection, the February photos, and the direct observations of Board members, notwithstanding the more positive HART and Orkin assessments.

The governing contractual and statutory framework

The Co-op’s Rules and Occupancy Agreement framed the legal analysis. Under Rule 5.1, the Co-op may terminate membership where a member engages in conduct detrimental to the Co-op, fails to pay amounts owing after notice, or—most pertinent here—breaches a material condition of the Occupancy Agreement and fails to rectify that breach within a reasonable time after written notice. The Occupancy Agreement (Schedule A to the Rules) contains key obligations. Section 6.01 requires the member to comply, and ensure family, guests and others comply, with the Agreement, the Co-op’s Rules and Policies, and any amendments. Section 10.01 obliges the member, at their own expense, to keep the interior of the unit “in good condition and repair and in keeping with the character of the rest of the Development.” Section 10.03 makes the member liable for damage caused by those for whom they are responsible or by their negligence. Section 10.04 requires the member to make repairs as required in a manner acceptable to the directors, authorizing the Co-op to enter the unit and make repairs if the member fails to do so after 10 days’ written notice, with costs payable by the member. Section 10.05 requires written reporting of defects in electrical, mechanical or structural components of the unit or development. Section 12.01 provides that the Occupancy Agreement and term end upon termination of membership, and s. 25.01 confirms that the Agreement forms part of the Rules and is binding on both member and Co-op. Statutorily, the Cooperative Association Act (CAA) provides that a member’s right to occupy residential premises dependent on membership ends when membership ends, and that the co-operative may then seek a court order for possession. It also provides a right of appeal to the court on specific grounds, including failure to observe natural justice, lack of factual support for the decision, or lack of statutory authorization. The judge relied on Court of Appeal and Supreme Court jurisprudence, especially the Russell v. Craigflower Housing Co-operative decisions, to explain that appeals under s. 37(3) may include a “new hearing” in which the court can receive new evidence, make its own findings, and even substitute its decision for that of the co-op, though a measure of deference remains appropriate to the membership’s judgment, especially concerning local “character.”

The April 2025 Board decision

On April 2, 2025, the Board sent an April 2025 letter notifying the appellant of an April 11 Board meeting to consider a resolution to terminate his membership for breach of the Occupancy Agreement, citing the interior-condition and repair obligations in ss. 10.01–10.05. The day before the meeting, the Board delivered a package including the COHO February 2025 Report and photos. At the meeting, there was conflicting evidence over whether the appellant was prevented from presenting his own photographic evidence because of an absent HDMI cable, or whether no suitable cable was available but he was otherwise permitted to speak. The minutes recorded that, when asked why deadlines were not met, he referred to personal delays such as car problems. The member asserted that he invited a Board member to inspect the unit immediately to observe improvements, and that this was refused; Board evidence suggested the opposite—that Board members proposed an inspection and the appellant declined. After the meeting, the Board resolved by the required 75% majority of all directors to terminate his membership pursuant to the Rules and Occupancy Agreement and directed him to vacate by May 31, 2025. The Board’s counsel advised him of his right to appeal to the Co-op’s general membership and warned that the documents before the Board would need to be shared with the membership on appeal.

The August 2025 general membership decision

The appellant exercised his internal appeal right. The Board scheduled an August 13, 2025 general membership meeting and circulated a Termination Package including a notice of resolution confirming that the directors had found a material breach of the Occupancy Agreement, as well as the COHO report and photos. The Termination Package did not include HART or Orkin correspondence, although the appellant was able to distribute some of his own materials to some members before the meeting. The Co-op retained an independent chair. It sourced an HDMI cable for him, but his computer was ultimately not HDMI-compatible. Despite these technical issues, he was allowed to make extended oral submissions—over an hour—showing documents and photographs directly on his laptop to members who came up to view them, and quoting from various materials, including HART and Orkin communications. Although he had a medical diagnosis of compulsive hoarding disorder from August 11, 2025, the evidence from Board members suggested he was non-committal at the meeting about whether he accepted that diagnosis. After hearing his submissions and the materials presented, the general membership voted to uphold the Board’s decision and terminate his membership, with a follow-up Board letter in August 2025 asking him to vacate by October 31, 2025.

Subsequent developments and further condition evidence

Before the eviction could proceed, the appellant filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of British Columbia under the CAA, which stayed the eviction. Additional issues arose, including a leak in the unit. The Co-op maintained that the appellant failed to notify it in a timely way, contrary to his duty to report defects under the Occupancy Agreement, whereas he said he discussed the leak as early as October 2024. The Co-op sent an October 8, 2025 warning letter about the leak and, on the same date, another letter about storage of personal possessions on the balcony, reminding him of a policy that patios and balconies must not be used as storage areas or for food, which could attract pests. Orkin continued to monitor the unit from March 2025 to March 2026 and reported no new rodent activity, confirming that pest control measures appeared effective. HART did not reopen the file after March 2025. The appellant filed photographs intended to show the unit in good condition; the judge gave them limited weight because they were taken at times selected by the appellant, could reflect temporary tidying, and nonetheless displayed substantial clutter. In March 2026, COHO conducted another inspection and prepared a detailed report. It acknowledged some improvement but found extensive stored items in living, dining, bedroom, kitchen and bathroom areas that partially obstructed access to walls, corners, surfaces and fixtures. In the bathroom, stored items around fixtures limited normal use and cleaning; in the kitchen, food debris and organic material on floors and surfaces, plus holes in ceilings and walls, created potential conditions for pests, with multiple mouse traps visible. Access to key service components, including the water heater and electrical panel, was partly blocked, posing potential safety and maintenance concerns. Elevated combustible loads were identified in the bedroom due to large numbers of books and stored materials and in a storage shelf over the entrance stairway, where excessive weight posed risks of overload or falling items. A noticeable odour suggested poor ventilation and need for cleaning and improved housekeeping. COHO concluded that the unit would benefit from general cleaning, floor attention, clear access to service components, and pest-risk reduction measures to support safe and healthy living conditions. This later report was treated by the court as important, up-to-date evidence supporting the Co-op’s concerns even after prior remediation efforts.

Appeal grounds: natural justice

On appeal, the appellant alleged that the Co-op failed to observe the principles of natural justice at both the Board and membership stages. He argued that the Board relied on stale evidence (the February 2025 COHO report and photos) and that it and the membership unfairly emphasized material harmful to him while omitting favourable HART and Orkin correspondence from the official Termination Package. He also contended that technical barriers, such as the missing or incompatible HDMI cable, impaired his ability to present his case visually using current photographs. The judge approached natural justice in light of the case law stressing that co-ops are lay organizations whose procedures must be assessed pragmatically. The core requirements are that the member know the case to be met, receive adequate notice of the decision-making meetings and grounds, have an opportunity to attend and be heard, and have the matter decided by the appropriate body. In this case, the appellant had notice of the Board meeting and its subject matter, was aware of the concerns and specific contractual clauses at issue, and was able to attend and make submissions. The February COHO report, produced about 53 days before the Board meeting, was not considered too old or unfair, particularly in light of the Board’s more recent site visits on March 11 and access to HART and Orkin updates. On the membership appeal, the judge acknowledged a potential concern about “cherry-picking” evidence by including only COHO materials in the Termination Package. However, he ultimately held there was no breach of natural justice because it would be impractical and legally uncertain to require co-op boards to put forward all evidence favourable to the member, and any prejudice was mitigated by the appellant’s opportunity to present HART and Orkin documents himself during his lengthy oral submissions. Dozens of members saw his materials, and the membership as a whole was considered “properly informed” by the time of the vote. Technical difficulties with cabling did not, in the court’s view, rise to a denial of a meaningful hearing because the appellant remained able to speak at length, show material directly on his laptop, and answer questions.

Appeal grounds: reasonableness of the termination decision

The appellant also argued that the Board’s and membership’s decisions were not “reasonably supported by the facts,” inviting the court to conduct a full de novo review and effectively re-weigh the evidence to reach a different conclusion. The judge reiterated that the court has statutory power under the CAA to hear new evidence, consider events after the co-op’s decisions, and substitute its own conclusion, but stressed that some deference is warranted, especially regarding the membership’s assessment of whether a unit’s condition and upkeep match the “character” of the development. In assessing reasonableness, the judge considered the long history of concerns, the 2019 near-eviction, the October 2024 letter and clear deadlines, the mixed but not exonerating reports from HART and Orkin, the February and March 2025 COHO evidence, the appellant’s own photographs, and the substantial, more recent March 2026 COHO report detailing ongoing clutter, obstructed access, sanitation concerns and elevated combustible loads. He concluded that the general membership was entitled to conclude that the member had not brought his unit into the “good condition and repair” required by s. 10.01, nor into a state consistent with the development’s character, even after multiple warnings and opportunities. The membership could reasonably treat any short-term improvements with caution, given the repeated pattern of previous improvement followed by reversion, and could give weight to ongoing clutter in critical areas, potential pest attractants, blocked access to service components, and combustible loading as legitimate safety and community concerns.

Court’s approach to fresh evidence and deference

The judge acknowledged the statutory ambiguity around when a court should exercise its power to conduct a full “new hearing” versus when to adopt a more deferential, reasonableness-focused approach. He considered that, in this case, it was more appropriate to show substantial deference to the membership’s collective judgment about the unit’s condition relative to the co-op’s standards and character, rather than conduct an entirely fresh substantive re-evaluation. Even so, he went on to hold in the alternative that, if he did undertake a fuller fresh review and re-weighed all of the evidence—including the subsequent COHO 2026 report—not only would he not disturb the eviction decision, he would independently find that termination under s. 10.01 of the Occupancy Agreement was reasonably supported by the facts.

Outcome and remedies

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, holding that the Co-op had complied with the principles of natural justice and that the Board’s and membership’s decisions to terminate his membership for breach of the Occupancy Agreement were reasonably grounded in the evidentiary record. The judge ordered that the eviction stand and granted an order for possession in favour of the Vera Housing Co-operative Association as the successful party. The reasons did not fix any specific monetary damages or quantified costs award; instead, the judge set a timetable for written submissions on costs if the parties could not agree, so the total amount of any costs or other monetary award in favour of the Co-op could not be determined from this decision alone.