238 result(s)
-
126.
Crozier v. Cooper - 2020 BCCRT 199 - 2020-02-20
Small Claims Decisions - Final Decision14. The applicants say when the engine was started, it ran roughly and produced a lot of black smoke. After several restarts, the engine then caught on fire behind the exhaust cover. [...] I accept the applicants’ position, which is also supported by a statement from a witness to the smoke and fire, GC. 15. The applicants then sought assistance from another friend, Sean Cochrane, a marine engineer with particular expertise in diesel engines.
-
127.
Lauder Ranches Ltd v. Frolek - 2018 BCCRT 718 - 2018-11-13
Small Claims Decisions - Final DecisionInstead, the respondent simply says he had told the applicant he was waiting for a machine and that it was ‘difficult” to work in the smoke for the surrounding fires. I do not accept the respondent told the applicant he could not work due to smoke, and the only mention of waiting for a machine was on August 10, 2017.
-
128.
Shainbom v. Almatt Ventures Ltd. - 2022 BCCRT 1203 - 2022-11-02
Small Claims Decisions - Final Decisione. A few days later when Mrs. Shainbom connected the wires of her tent trailer to her vehicle via the 7-pin adapter, smoke came from the vehicle’s rear where the rewired adapter had been attached. [...] This followed the smoke incident described above. Mr. Bland wrote that the wiring for the connector and harness had melted following a massive power surge that fed throughout the vehicle’s wiring system, which is undisputed.
-
129.
Hood v. Smart Gas and Auto Detailing Ltd. - 2019 BCCRT 546 - 2019-05-08
Small Claims Decisions - Final DecisionThe applicant says the next day her car stalled repeatedly, it “struggled” to drive up the street, and when she looked in the rearview mirror she saw plumes of smoke coming from the rear of the car. She had the car towed to a mechanical shop, Perform-X Automotive (Perform-X), where they said the problem was due to [...] a. The car was brought in on October 17, 2018 for “hard starting and very poor running conditions”, with reported heavy smoke. b. The mechanic performed full scans and tested all engine systems, and based on the results suspected improper fuel burning.
-
130.
Aslan Electrical, Plumbing, Gasfitting, Refrigeration & Sheetmetal Services LTD v. Fasoli - 2018 BCCRT 408 - 2018-08-01
Small Claims Decisions - Final Decision - Notice of Objection Filed23. After the first few service calls, the respondent’s wife emailed the applicant on October 12, 2017 and said the furnace was producing smoke. On October 18, the respondent’s wife emailed and said the furnace was no longer smoking or smelling, but had started “burping/woofing” during the first few minutes of operation.
-
131.
Throssell v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2220 - 2024 BCCRT 861 - 2024-09-03
Strata Property Decisions - Final Decisionseveral instances of noise and nuisance, unauthorized parking, unauthorized rentals, unauthorized fob usage, an unkempt patio, smoking, and common property damage. The strata did not fine Mr. Throssell for all of the alleged breaches, but did fine him a total of $1,400 for noise, nuisance, smoking, and property damage.
-
132.
Boe v. 628398 B.C. Ltd., Raedler & Associates Consulting Ltd. dba Mr. Lube Store 93 - 2018 BCCRT 897 - 2018-12-21
Small Claims Decisions - Final Decision - Notice of Objection FiledShe said that the respondent’s employees worked on the car after it would not start, and as they did so smoke came from under the hood. The applicant called her mechanic, and then had the car towed to his shop. [...] • When the car started it was running rough and had excessive steam or smoke, but that cleared up after running for a while. Then the car performed fine.
-
133.
Yee v. Rapid Auto Glass Ltd. - 2021 BCCRT 827 - 2021-07-29
Small Claims Decisions - Final Decision19. I find it was an implied term of the parties’ agreement that Rapid would take reasonable care of Mr. Yee’s vehicle while in its possession, which I find includes not vaping or smoking inside the vehicle. Two of the dashcam videos in evidence show puffs of what appears to be smoke along with the sounds of inhaling,
-
134.
Vo v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3444 - 2019 BCCRT 639 - 2019-05-27
Small Claims Decisions - Final Decisionfashion, and smoking on common property. 16. As set out in the strata’s Notice of Complaint letters (which on their face were addressed to unit 2004 and note they were sent by email and to the street address), the frequency of the tenant’s infractions varied between near daily or weekly, beginning on May 16, 2018. [...] These relate to using a bicycle and scooter in the lobby, smoking on common property, using elevators improperly, all contrary to the strata’s bylaws.
-
135.
The Owners, Strata Plan NW 3365 v. Keith - 2019 BCCRT 1418 - 2019-12-16
Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision - Under Judicial ReviewThe letters say that neighbouring businesses’ employees suffered headaches, odours ruined their clothing, and the businesses received disparaging comments from customers of other strata lots asking if they were growing or smoking marijuana. 18. The letters suggest that it is one person that owns two commercial units in the [...] He denies that his strata lot was responsible for any odours disturbing other strata lots and points out that other grow operations exist in the strata and that people also smoke marijuana nearby. 20. The strata argues that the owner created a nuisance and it is irrelevant if he took steps to mitigate the nuisance or [...] The Chair also found that the medical necessity to ingest marijuana did not mean that a person is entitled to smoke it. Following this line of analysis, it would also not mean that a person is allowed to grow it without complying with strata bylaws.
-
136.
Somerville v. J. F. Vision Autoglass Ltd. - 2022 BCCRT 1343 - 2022-12-14
Small Claims Decisions - Final Decision10. The undisputed evidence is that Mr. Somerville’s truck began to run roughly and create excessive exhaust smoke after JFV replaced the windshield sometime in or around March 2022. [...] I find the cross-connection caused the excessive exhaust smoke and rough running issues. 13. JFV does not say whether its windshield replacement work involved disconnecting and reconnecting the washer fluid line.
-
137.
Gingras et al v. Smith-Friesen et al - 2018 BCCRT 826 - 2018-12-10
Small Claims Decisions - Final Decision - Notice of Objection FiledApplicants could have brought own food and fuel, and smoke insufficient to frustrate contract. Applicant argued property was inaccessible, but tribunal found that although main routes were impacted by fire, there was an alternate route, which respondents told applicants about at the time. [...] Similarly, while the presence of smoke may have been unpleasant and not what the applicants preferred, I do not find that it would have caused the contract to be frustrated.
-
138.
Tran v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 6828 - 2021 BCCRT 28 - 2021-01-11
Strata Property Decisions - Final DecisionTo a lesser extent, she hears the father’s footsteps as he goes out to the balcony to smoke or vape. She says the noise starts every morning between 5 and 6 a.m., which wakes her up and often prevents her from falling back to sleep. [...] 18. Ms. Tran also complains in her submissions about the father’s smoking, but she has not asked for a remedy related to smoking, so I have not considered that issue in this decision.
-
139.
The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1336 v. Bendsen - 2023 BCCRT 715 - 2023-08-22
Strata Property Decisions - Final DecisionThe strata’s March 18, 2022, letter cited the age bylaws as well as smoking bylaws. I find the letter only advised that the strata was contemplating fines for breach of the smoking bylaw and not the age bylaw.
-
140.
Ross v. Woodbridge NW (Yorkson) Ltd. - 2022 BCCRT 1087 - 2022-10-04
Small Claims Decisions - Final Decision12. In the Dispute Notice, Mr. Ross also claimed for a missing smoke detector. In submissions, he advised that Woodbridge has since fixed the smoke alarm, so I find it is no longer at issue, and I have not addressed it below.
-
141.
The Owners, Strata Plan NW 2209 v. Stuart - 2021 BCCRT 1168 - 2021-11-04
Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision65. Finally, the strata claims $451.50 for performing an electrical check and installing a new smoke alarm. The work order in evidence says the electrician confirmed all power outlets, lights, and switches worked, and no damage was found on wires inside the strata lot. [...] The electrician also noted the smoke alarm was missing, so they installed a new one. 66. Ms. Stuart does not specifically dispute the necessity of this electrical work. [...] On balance, I am satisfied that having an electrician check the wires for damage or existing hazards and installing a smoke alarm were reasonably necessary as part of the SL26 remediation work.
-
142.
Sarophim v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS4597 - 2021 BCCRT 1091 - 2021-10-14
Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision• Resolution “C” on a smoking bylaw amendment • Resolution “D” on the CP fence alteration behind SL21 and SL22 [...] 84. This leaves Resolution “C” (smoking bylaw amendment). Given I have found the AGM was invalid, I order the strata to hold an SGM within 60 days for the purpose of allowing the owners to vote, either in person or by unrestricted proxy, on Resolution “C” from the 2020 AGM. The SGM must comply with the strata’s bylaws and [...] 85. I note that the smoking bylaw amendment passed at the 2020 AGM, but there is no evidence before me about whether the strata has filed the bylaw amendment in the LTO. If the strata has filed the bylaw 3(7) amendment in the LTO, I order the strata not to enforce it unless, and until, the bylaw is approved by a 3⁄4 vote at
-
143.
The Owners, Strata Plan EPS 4743 v. Hoang - 2021 BCCRT 118 - 2021-02-01
Strata Property Decisions - Final Decisiona. $200 for smoking, b. $200 for nuisance, c. $200 about a cell phone thrown from SL332 into the strata’s hot tub on the ground level, [...] 86. As for the smoking fine, the strata says it was retracted so I find it is not valid. [...] Accordingly, I dismiss the strata’s claim for the $200 smoking bylaw fine. 87. I am unable to determine the details that resulted in the $200 nuisance fine, nor is there evidence the strata advised Ms. Nguyen that the fine was imposed.
-
144.
Skelton v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 6212 - 2024 BCCRT 201 - 2024-02-29
Strata Property Decisions - Final DecisionIn a more recent CRT decision, a vice chair declined to order a tenant to stop its subtenants from smoking on strata property (see The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1622 v. Kamloops (Pacific No. 52) Branch of the Royal Canadian Legion, 2022 BCCRT 205 at paragraphs 21 to 24). [...] He found that if he granted the order and the subtenant later smoked on their balcony, the tenant would be in breach of a court order for something someone else did.
-
145.
Section 1 of The Owners, Strata Plan KAS3112 v. Lentz - 2019 BCCRT 1152 - 2019-10-01
Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision - Decision After Judicial ReviewThe minutes indicate that the council discussed that it had sent a by-law violation letter to the dispensary for marijuana smoke but that they accepted that the tenant was not smoking marijuana but a different brand of cigarettes.
-
146.
Muller v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS4420 - 2023 BCCRT 44 - 2023-01-17
Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision100. The undated invoice from Skylight stated a breaker was detecting a short circuit in the outside plugs or lights on the roof deck, and that smoke detectors were being set off because they were different models and not properly communicating with one another. [...] There is insufficient evidence before me to establish that the smoke detectors or light circuits fall within the strata’s responsibility to repair and maintain. [...] Further, the Skylight invoice does not mention anything that would connect the delayed fire inspection to the noted light circuit or smoke detector issues. 101. Overall, even if I accepted that the strata failed to properly maintain common property by not scheduling a fire inspection in 2021, I find Ms. Muller has not
-
147.
Ferreira v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS867 - 2020 BCCRT 239 - 2020-02-28
Strata Property Decisions - Final DecisionSmoking Jul 8, 2018 Jul 20, 2018 Sept 13, 2018 Oct. 4, 2018 $100 [...] I will refer to the $50 nuisance/noise fine, the $100 smoking fine, and the $50 bike storage fine, as the 2018 fines, and the $50 late payment fine and $100 Form K fine as the 2019 fines.
-
148.
Stehle v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 2617 - 2023 BCCRT 935 - 2023-10-31
Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision69. In The Owners, Strata Plan BCS2438 v. Graham, 2022 BCCRT 904, a CRT member ordered payment of legal fees under SPA section 133(2) for a strata corporation’s costs in enforcing no-smoking bylaws, including costs of pursuing a CRT dispute to collect bylaw fines and obtain a no-smoking order against a strata lot occupant.
-
149.
Chhina v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS3395 - 2022 BCCRT 757 - 2022-06-30
Strata Property Decisions - Final DecisionAccording to the strata’s infraction chart, it imposed 9 fines on Mr. Chhina relating to complaints of alleged bylaw infractions that occurred during these parties, including 2 noise complaints, 1 complaint of smoking in the elevator and 1 of smoking on a limited common property balcony, 2 for throwing garbage off a balcony
-
150.
Yang v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR732 - 2020 BCCRT 361 - 2020-03-31
Strata Property Decisions - Final DecisionSK also reiterated her complaint about barbeque smoke from unit 406. 49. On September 30, 2017, the applicant wrote to the strata reporting noise complaints from unit 415. [...] f. one report of the smell of pot smoke 50. On October 11, 2017, the strata wrote back to the applicant acknowledging her September 30, 2017 letter.