BC HRT to examine case of woman who thought neighbours' kids were too loud

Now granted, Anne Faulkner is diagnosed with hyperacusis, which makes her sensitive to noise, and she claims she can't work because of her disability; therefore, she is at a disadvantage. But how does she expect people to completely stop making noise?

But more importantly, why, why, why is the BC Human Rights Tribunal taking this case?

This is a tenant/manager type dispute. She's not being kicked out of her home. She's not being treated differently than anyone else. She is requiring an unreasonable accommodation (from a non-profit housing agency, no less!)

This is an argument, this is not a human rights case. I mean, has it come to this? Has the definition of a "human rights violation" been so watered down that loud, confrontation tenant disputes are now "human rights complaints"?

My neighbour's dog barks. Oh no! My human rights are being violated! And what about the landscape people mowing the lawn? They're waking up the baby, her human rights are being violated!

When people think of "human rights violations", they think of people being sent to jail for expressing an opinion, or being tortured by their government for supporting a dissent political movement.

Issues of life and death. Issues that are a somewhat more consequential than barking dogs, whistling kids or feelings of victimhood at.

Why, why, why are tax dollars being wasted on this?

Frankly, I'd rather the government spend the money to re-locate Ms. Faulkner. I think it would be better value for money.

---