Date of Original Decision: April 20, 2022

Date of Amended Decision: May 3, 2022

File: SC-2021-004390*

Type: Strata Property

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Pacific Sunrise Tradelinks Inc. v. Bryant, 2022 BCCRT 447

Between:

PACIFIC SUNRISE TRADELINKS INC.

Applicant

And:

BENJAMIN MICHEAL BRYANT

Respondent

AMENDED REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Richard McAndrew

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute was filed as small claims dispute. For reasons discussed below, I have decided this dispute under the Civil Resolution Tribunal’s strata property jurisdiction. This is a small claims [i] This dispute about a strata lot owner’s request for reimbursement of a strata corporation’s repair charges and bylaw fines from a tenant. The applicant, Pacific Sunrise Tradelinks Inc. (Pacific) rented a residential strata lot to the respondent, Benjamin Michael Bryant. Mr. Bryant hit the strata corporation’s common property garage door with his truck. Pacific claims reimbursement of $742.50 in repair expenses charged by the strata corporation. Pacific also claims reimbursement of a $200 bylaw fine issued by the strata corporation for damaging the strata corporation’s common property. The strata corporation is not a party to this dispute.

2.      Mr. Bryant denies the claims. He says that he is not responsible for the collision. Mr. Bryant says the collision occurred because the strata corporation failed to clear the snow from the garage entry ramp.

3.      Pacific is represented by a director. Mr. Bryant is self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims disputes under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). The CRT has jurisdiction over strata property claims under CRTA section 121. Section 2 of the CRTA states that the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

5.      Section 39 of the CRTA says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

6.      Section 42 of the CRTA says the CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law. The CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

Jurisdiction

7.      The parties’ submissions and evidence indicate that this dispute involves a residential tenancy. Specifically, Pacific claims that Mr. Bryant owes reimbursement of a strata charge and a bylaw fine based on their residential tenancy agreement. The CRT generally does not have jurisdiction over residential tenancy disputes, as these are decided by the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB). There are exceptions where the CRT has jurisdiction over “roommate disputes” with shared kitchen and bathroom. However, I find that this exception does not apply here because the applicant says it does not share kitchen and bathroom facilities with Mr. Bryant. So, I find that Pacific’s claims relating to the tenancy agreement are not within the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction.

8.      However, I find that Pacific’s claims also relate to Strata Property Act (SPA) section 131, which says that tenants can owe landlords or owners reimbursement of strata charges and bylaw fines. CRTA section 121(1)(a) says the CRT has jurisdiction over claims relating to the interpretation or application of the SPA, which I find includes SPA section 131. As such, I find that this claim is within the CRT’s strata property jurisdiction set out in section 1(2) and 121(1)(a) of the CRTA.

9.      Both parties were given an opportunity to provide submissions about whether this dispute should be resolved under the CRT’s strata property jurisdiction rather than the CRT’s small claims jurisdiction. Pacific said this dispute should be heard under the small claims jurisdiction. However, Pacific agreed to resolve this dispute under the CRT’s strata property jurisdiction if that applies. Mr. Bryant did not provide any submissions about whether this dispute should be resolved under the CRT’s strata property jurisdiction.

10.   Based on my above finding that this dispute involves the interpretation and application of SPA section 131, and Pacific’s consent, I will decide this dispute under the CRT’s strata property jurisdiction.

11.   Under CRTA section 123, in resolving this dispute the CRT may order a party to do or stop doing something, order a party to pay money, or order any other terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

Additional evidence

12.   At my request, CRT asked the parties to provide a copy of the parties’ rental agreement, which Pacific provided. Since Mr. Bryant had an opportunity to respond, I find that he was not prejudiced by this additional evidence and I have considered this document in my decision.

ISSUES

13.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Does Mr. Bryant owe Pacific a $742.50 reimbursement for garage door repair expenses?

b.    Does Mr. Bryant owe Pacific a $200 reimbursement of strata bylaw fines?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

14.   In a civil proceeding like this one, Pacific, as the applicant, must prove its claims on a balance of probabilities. I have read all the parties’ submissions but refer only to the evidence and argument that I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

15.   The following facts are undisputed. Pacific rented a strata lot to Mr. Bryant, for a 1-year tenancy starting on November 1, 2020. On February 18, 2021, Mr. Bryant’s truck collided with a strata garage door while entering the strata’s underground parking garage. The exterior garage ramp was covered in snow when the collision occurred. Pacific provided multiple video files which appear to show Mr. Bryant’s truck slowly sliding down the ramp and colliding with the garage door before the door fully opened.

16.   Section 130 of the SPA sets out how a strata corporation may recover costs or impose fines for bylaw violations. SPA section 130(1) says that a strata corporation may not fine an owner for the tenant’s bylaw violations. Rather, the strata corporation may fine the tenant for their bylaw breaches, but cannot fine the owner or directly. SPA section 131(1) says if the strata corporation fines a tenant, the strata corporation may collect the fine from the tenant, the landlord, or the owner of the strata lot. Section 131(2) says that if the owner pays some or all of the fine, the tenant owes the owner that amount.

17.   SPA section 135(1) says tenants must receive written particulars of bylaw complaints and have a reasonable opportunity to answer the complaint or hold a hearing before a repair charge can be imposed for violating a bylaw.

Garage door repair costs

18.   The strata corporation sent Pacific a February 21, 2021 letter claiming that Mr. Bryant breached strata bylaw 3(2)(a) by colliding with the garage door. The February 21, 2021 letter said that strata bylaw 3(2)(a) prohibits an owner or a tenant from damaging the strata’s common property, other than reasonable wear and tear. The strata corporation’s February 21, 2021 letter also said that bylaw 2(3)(a)(ii)(d) requires owners to reimburse the strata corporation for their tenant’s damage to common property by an act, omission, negligence or carelessness of the tenants. Since it is not disputed, I find that the February 21, 2021 letter contains an accurate statement of these strata bylaws.

19.   The strata corporation sent Mr. Bryant a $742.50 invoice for garage door repairs on March 5, 2021. The strata sent the same invoice to Pacific on April 22, 2021. The strata also sent Pacific a April 22, 2021 saying that these repair costs would be charged back to Pacific’s strata lot account. 

20.   However, there is no evidence or submissions showing that Pacific has paid the repair costs charged against its strata lot account. Since reimbursement under SPA section 131(2) is limited to money paid, rather than just money owed, I find that Pacific is not entitled to reimbursement from Mr. Bryant under SPA section 131(2). Given this findings, I find I do not need to consider whether Mr. Bryant at fault for the collision or whether he was properly notified of the repair charge.

Bylaw fine

21.   As discussed above, the strata corporation sent Pacific and Mr. Bryant a February 21, 2021 letter claiming that Mr. Bryant breached strata bylaw 3(2)(a) by colliding with the garage door and damaging the strata corporation’s common property. The strata corporation sent Pacific and Mr. Bryant a May 11, 2021 letter saying that the strata council has imposed a $200 bylaw fine for Mr. Bryant’s conduct.

22.   However, as discussed above, reimbursement under SPA section 131(2) is limited to money paid, rather than just money owed, and I find that Pacific has not proved that it has paid the $200 strata bylaw fine. So, I find that Pacific is not entitled to reimbursement of the bylaw fine under SPA section 131(2) and I find it unnecessary to determine whether Mr. Bryant breached the strata’s bylaws.

23.   For the above reasons, I dismiss Pacific’s claim for reimbursement of the repair costs and the bylaw fine.

CRT FEES and EXPENSES

24.   Under section 49 of the CRTA, and the CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. Since Pacific was not successful in this dispute, I find that it is not entitled to reimbursement of its CRT fees. Mr. Bryant did not claim reimbursement of dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

25.   I dismiss Pacific’s claims and this dispute.

 

________________________________________________

* This dispute was filed as a small claims dispute and it was decided under the CRT’s strata property jurisdiction

[i] Amended pursuant to CRTA section 51(1)(a) to clarify the final decision.