B.C.’s Civil Decision Tribunal adjudicates disputes between strata councils and rental homeowners.
B.C.’s Civil Decision Tribunal handled some fascinating, if not downright curious, strata disputes in 2022.
1. In December, a tribunal member labelled a noise criticism as “absurd.”
There, the tribunal dismissed a criticism from a strata proprietor who claimed his upstairs neighbours repeatedly breached a noise bylaw by allowing their visiting grandchild to run, play and soar of their strata lot.
Tribunal vice-chair Kate Campbell referred to as the proprietor’s argument “an illogical, absurd interpretation” of a bylaw, stating it could successfully bar kids from the constructing.
2. The tribunal dismissed a criticism in December about an off-leash cat operating free by strata gardens and pooping in planters. It wasn’t something to do with the rampant cat that received the criticism dismissed, although. The choice mentioned the strata hadn’t allowed the proprietor to dispute fines.
3. In September, the tribunal ordered a Vancouver rental proprietor to pay his strata company $101,332 after discovering he was chargeable for a leaky fridge despite the fact that he had not but moved in.
4. In August, the tribunal ordered a Campbell River strata to cease imposing bylaws that might forestall homeowners from operating for the strata’s council.
Tribunal member Micah Carmody mentioned the strata council had handed bylaws at a particular common assembly (SGM) in September 2021 limiting the power of homeowners, in sure circumstances, to vote at common conferences and to face for council election.
5. In Could, a Richmond rental proprietor advised the tribunal {that a} washer first present in a kitchen dishwasher house after which a lounge had nothing to do with a Richmond strata leak.
The on-site constructing supervisor investigated leak complaints and located a washer put in the place the usual dishwasher can be. The supervisor mentioned the water traces had been put in improperly.
6. Additionally, in Could, the tribunal dominated {that a} luxurious constructing’s strata council was appropriate in unplugging an electrical car charger till he paid his payments.
7. Once more, in Could, the tribunal dominated a Shuswap lady may preserve her three emotional help cats regardless of her strata’s ban on a couple of pet.
She challenged the ban, saying the strata failed to satisfy its obligation to accommodate the necessity underneath the B.C. Human Rights Code.
The tribunal member mentioned the obligation solely arises if the resident has a real, disability-related want for the lodging.
8. Persevering with its cat theme, the tribunal mentioned in March, a strata would solely obtain $100 of the $800 it claimed it was owed after two renters allegedly left rubbish in a stairwell and let their pet pee in an elevator.
The strata wasn’t entitled to the remaining $700 as a result of it didn’t notify each proprietor and renters when bylaws have been damaged, the tribunal mentioned.
9. In April, a tribunal vice-chair Kate Campbell rejected a criticism from a lady who claimed her strata ‘unlawfully’ accused her of harassing and bullying the gardener.
Campbell mentioned the gardener wrote to the strata council complaining that, in Could 2021, the lady “aggressively” yelled at her about garden mowing preferences, questioned her about her work, and approached the mower whereas the gardener was working.
10. After which there are the recent tubs. Oh, final however actually not least, the recent tubs.
The tribunal dealt with a number of such disputes in 2022.
A Vancouver strata spent $22,000 combating to have a patio sizzling tub eliminated solely to have the tribunal in August discover the tub is patio furnishings and will keep.
In a November determination, a tribunal member mentioned a person had put an inflatable spa on his balcony, however the strata mentioned it was a sizzling tub and commenced fining him. The tribunal cancelled the fines however stopped in need of ordering the strata to permit the person to maintain the spa.
In June, the tribunal ordered a strata to cease imposing its sizzling tub ban. A person who had a sizzling tub raised the ire of his strata council, which later created a bylaw towards sizzling tubs after which tried to implement it earlier than passing it at an annual common assembly (AGM).
The tribunal member mentioned the Strata Property Act says such a rule can’t be enforced till handed on the subsequent AGM.
Autor
