That is an odd one, I agree with Whale.
Looking at it generally and this is not legal advice. I am assuming this person is a tenant rather than an owner.
Discrimination is where someone is treated unfairly because they belong to a particular group of people or have a particular characteristic, e.g. a disability. In this case lets assume this person is claiming discrimination because they have an allergy or allergies. It’s not clear if this person has provided proof of their allergies.
In NSW discrimination law applies in five different areas – employment, goods and services, education, accommodation and registered clubs. Obvious examples are where someone is dismissed from employment because of a disability, or someone is refused accommodation (rental) because of their race. The only category this could fit in is provision of goods and services. I don’t see how the OC is providing this person with goods and services, the landlord is. I
Human rights are a fuzzier concept and include basic rights such as equality before the law, the right to social security and education etc.
The question is either – how is this person being discriminated against, and/or what human right would be infringed by the OC doing what it is required to do to ensure the building is maintained and the basic comfort and health of the residents is assured?
Equally – what is the appropriate balance between the needs and particular disabilities of one person, and the needs of a wider community? Flowing from that – the OC is required to meet the requirements of the Act and manage the property, and take all reasonable steps in this regard. It is not unreasonable for example, if the OC identifies that the building has termites, to take steps to eradicate them. This would necessitate the use of chemicals etc. I don’t think that anyone would say that a building should just be left to be eaten by termites because one resident has a sensitivity.
It would not be unreasonable for the OC to paint the common areas if they needed to be painted, provided appropriate notice were given, and anyone who may be affected by that activity was able to vacate while that was going on. If that person was so sensitive that they could not tolerate the paint on an ongoing basis, I don’t believe that anyone would say that the wider community has to bear the burden, as opposed to the relevant person. That is – while it is unfortunate – that person has to adjust their circumstances (which may include moving out) rather than the other way around.
Call their bluff – if I were on the EC I would just go ahead and progress whatever needs to be done, while meeting all necessary requirements such as notification that you must give if you are doing something such as pest treatment. That way you can bring it to a head and resolve the issue. It sounds like the person may be unstable, and you say that they have been harassing other residents. That in itself is a breach of the law and complaints could be made about that. I am not sure why the EC is so scared of this person, but you generally find that once claims like this are tested, the resolution can be remarkably straightforward.