Advanced Search

The Owners, Strata Plan 1769 v. Dagenais - 2020 BCCRT 957 - 2020-08-26

In the non-binding decision of Parnell v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 2451, 2018 BCCRT 7, a CRT Vice Chair commented at paragraph 22 that it may be generally permissible to videotape people.   [...]  58. In the non-binding decision of Schuler v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 4064, 2018 BCCRT 175, at paragraph 33 to 35, a CRT Vice Chair considered SPA section 61(1)(vii).   [...]  See, for example, the non-binding decisions of Wahedullah v. Kular, 2019 BCCRT 610 and Tenten v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR113, 2019 BCCRT 1427.

The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 216 v. A. K. Hoy Holdings Ltd. - 2022 BCCRT 1161 - 2022-10-24

See Ward v. Strata Plan VIS #6115, 2011 BCCA 512 and the non-binding but persuasive reasoning in Rintoul et al v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 2428, 2019 BCCRT 1007.   [...]  22. The meaning of the term “responsible for” was considered in the non-binding CRT decision of Coleman v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2706, 2022 BCCRT 1092.   [...]  Though the vice chair’s decision in Coleman is non-binding, I find their reasoning to be persuasive and I apply it here. 25. Based on the above, I find that the strata only needs to prove that the fire damage resulted from CH’s conduct, not that CH’s conduct was negligent.

Lee v. Erno - 2021 BCCRT 19 - 2021-01-07

The strata’s bylaws apply between the strata and the strata lot owners, and do not create an entitlement to damages or reimbursement between owners unless explicitly stated (see the non-binding decision Dalal v. Won, 2020 BCCRT 1268). 17. I disagree with Mr. Lee that bylaw 6 means that an owner is responsible if it does   [...]  Bylaw 6 codifies the legal principle of nuisance, which is when a person unreasonably interferes with the use or enjoyment of another person’s property (see the non-binding decision of Zale et al. v. Hodgins, 2019 BCCRT 466). There are some exceptions.

Finnamore v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW3153 - 2022 BCCRT 288 - 2022-03-16

However, while section 95 of the SPA requires the strata to account for the CRF separately from the operating fund, it does not require it to be in a separate bank account (see the non-binding decision in Garry v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS2501, 2021 BCCRT 409 at paragraph 123).   [...]  26. In relation to Mr. Finnamore’s request for “correspondence sent or received by the strata corporation and council,” I find that communications, including emails, sent between strata council members are not records within the meaning of SPA section 35 (see the non-binding but persuasive decision in Pritchard v. The   [...]  57. Though the decision in Craig is non-binding, I find the reasoning persuasive and apply it here. I find that the strata council here has also committed significant violations of the SPA. Further, I find that the strata council would benefit from strata council training.

Main v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW3163 - 2024 BCCRT 1091 - 2024-10-30

28. The words “relates to and benefits only” in SPR section 6.4(1) have been interpreted very narrowly by the CRT. See, for example, the non-binding decisions of Carroll et al v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 2499, 2019 BCCRT 125 at paragraph 34, citing Ernst & Twins Ventures (PP) Ltd. v. Strata Plam LMS 3259, 2004 BCCA   [...]  See the non-binding decision of Merchant v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 992, 2021 BCCRT 263 at paragraph 31.   [...]  50. In the non-binding decision of Carroll et al v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 2499, 2019 BCCRT 125, the strata corporation had both residential and commercial strata lots.

Caple v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW2433 - 2021 BCCRT 778 - 2021-07-16

However, non-binding CRT decisions have also found that there is an implicit requirement for the minutes to be reasonably accurate and not misleading.   [...]  See, for example, the non-binding decision of Howard v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW2494, 2021 BCCRT 401.

Millard v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS1027 - 2024 BCCRT 582 - 2024-06-21

24. I find the non-binding decision of Ottens v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2785, 2022 BCCRT 19 is relevant to determining whether the live issues in this dispute have disappeared.   [...]  See the non-binding decisions of Stevens v. KAS 2490, 2021 BCCRT 492 and Canadian Regal Education Corporation v. Section 2 of EPS1069, 2021 BCCRT 411.

The Owners, Strata Plan BCS3381 v. Kelly - 2020 BCCRT 1060 - 2020-09-18

It cites the non-binding decision of Crichton v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS431, 2017 BCCRT 33, to support its argument that the strata may charge back repairs under SPA sections 158(2) or 130 to 133.   [...]  See, for example, the non-binding decision of Lee v. Gjerek et al, 2019 BCCRT 1150 at paragraph 22, which I find accurately sets out the law.

Wu v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR2197 - 2021 BCCRT 928 - 2021-08-23

Although non-binding, I find the reasoning in Friedland persuasive and I find that, even if the special levy is too small to perform its stated purpose, this does not entitle the owners to a refund.   [...]  23. In the non-binding decision in Friedland discussed above, the tribunal member found that SPA section 108 does not establish any timeframe or deadline by which the strata must proceed with the work authorized by the resolution or refund the owners’ money collected.

Hunter v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW 1874 - 2021 BCCRT 499 - 2021-05-11

My conclusion is consistent with several prior non-binding CRT decisions. See for example Rishiraj v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1647, 2020 BCCRT 593 and Morrissey v. The Owners, Strata Plan K400, 2020 BCCRT 592.   [...]  31. In bringing this claim, the applicants rely on the non-binding CRT Vice Chair decision in Bahmutsky v. Petkau, 2020 BCCRT 244.

Rahman v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW183 - 2021 BCCRT 1226 - 2021-11-19

See, for example, the non-binding but persuasive decisions of LeBlanc v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 600, 2020 BCCRT 783, Jamal v. Rushton, 2020 BCCRT 585, and Chau v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW 155, 2020 BCCRT 1161.   [...]  See, for example, the non-binding decision of Chu v. Sefat, 2021 BCCRT 723. In Chu, the CRT Member reviewed other CRT decisions and noted they ranged from $500 for limited instances of balcony noise to $5,000 for nearly 3 years of droning and living noise.

Brookes v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW 1890 - 2021 BCCRT 1181 - 2021-11-08

Previous non-binding but persuasive CRT decisions have reached the same conclusion about the danger of second-hand smoke.   [...]  Although non-binding, I find this reasoning to be persuasive and apply it here. 47. Ms. Brookes argues that the strata unreasonably failed to enforce its nuisance bylaws by not issuing bylaw fines against SL35.

Therrien Investments Ltd. v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 7041 - 2023 BCCRT 931 - 2023-10-30

The strata also refers to the non-binding but persuasive decision of Creasy v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 4064, 2020 BCCRT 724, where a CRT vice chair considered whether a strata corporation is entitled to limit access to common property.   [...]  Further, I agree with the tribunal member’s non-binding but persuasive findings in The Owners, Strata Plan NES3135 v. T.R.F. Enterprises Ltd., 2021 BCCRT 271 at paragraph 51 that a strata corporation’s obligation to manage common property for the benefit of the owners does not mean that it can arbitrarily refuse to allow an  [...]  I agree with the non-binding but persuasive findings of the CRT tribunal member in The Owners, Strata Plan NW 2476 v. Jensen, 2023 BCCRT 623 at paragraph 21 that the combined effect of SPA section 59(3)(c) and a bylaw like bylaw 7 is that a purchaser may become a party to an indemnity agreement about common property as long