Advanced Search

Syntax: "", OR, AND, EXACT(), /p, /s, /n
(YYYY or YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD)
To find decisions deemed noteworthy by the CRT, select Yes and launch your search.
Sort by: Relevance Date

238 result(s)

  • 201.

    Sterling Pacific Developments Inc. v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 2909 - 2021 BCCRT 647 - 2021-06-11

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision

    The strata filed affidavits in support of its petition, describing the tenants’ history of contravening the strata’s bylaws and alleging that the tenants made loud noises, smoked marijuana, left common property doors unsecured, brought animals onto common property, and took mail and other property belonging to other

  • 202.

    Harvey v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 390 - 2020 BCCRT 474 - 2020-04-30

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision

    The other owners also stated that the smoke rises and affected all the units. The strata also indicated that the cost to maintain the chimneys for wood-burning fireplaces was significant.

  • 203.

    Kurji v. Accurite Renovation Ltd. - 2020 BCCRT 230 - 2020-02-27

    Small Claims Decisions - Final Decision

    27. Based on the whole of the evidence, I find that the increased electrical cost was due to the installation of a new electrical panel and breakers, 23 pot lights rather than 17, additional tv boxes, hardwired smoke alarms, outside light writing, LED motion fixtures, kitchen puck lights, a doorbell rough in and a fan force

  • 204.

    Hoy v. Solomon - 2019 BCCRT 1095 - 2019-09-17

    Small Claims Decisions - Final Decision - Notice of Objection Filed

    23. Mr. Hoy attended at the house that day and noticed a smell of stale cigarette smoke, gouging in the laminate flooring, holes and dings in the walls of the house, that the house was dirty in all areas and had garbage in the driveway including feces, sawdust and tree debris.

  • 205.

    Niebuhr v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 679 - 2021 BCCRT 863 - 2021-08-06

    Strata Property Decisions - Summary Decision

    c. The strata has abused the CRT process, by “muddying the waters”, using “smoke and mirrors”, failing to meet deadlines, withholding evidence, and demanding a preliminary decision about document disclosure and privilege.

  • 206.

    2 Burley Men Moving Ltd. v. Delmage - 2020 BCCRT 498 - 2020-05-07

    Small Claims Decisions - Final Decision - Notice of Objection Filed

    32. I note Mr. Delmage alleged Burley’s employees were smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol while loading the possessions. However, Mr. Delmage did not explain why he permitted those same employees to load and drive a truck containing his household possessions.

  • 207.

    Stieda v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW 2729 - 2019 BCCRT 1223 - 2019-10-25

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision

    33. The owner also describes examples of other owners allegedly contravening other bylaws, including by smoking, installing laminate flooring, using propane barbeques, storing bicycles in the strata’s clubhouse, parking vehicles in their carports in reverse, and allowing their pets to be off leash on strata property.

  • 208.

    The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1222 v. Ibrahim et al - 2018 BCCRT 760 - 2018-11-23

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision - Under Appeal

    It says it has received a number of complaints regarding the tenants in the unit, including about noise and the presence of marijuana smoke. The strata provided photographs of a number of different vehicles (some of which displaying out-of-province licence plates) that were said to have been parked outside of the unit in

  • 209.

    Howard v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW2494 - 2021 BCCRT 401 - 2021-04-19

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision

    77. I note that Ms. Howard’s December 16, 2020 strata account statement shows the strata has also charged her $914.75 in legal fees and $436.28 for installing smoke detectors in SL56. While there was some evidence about these charges, I find that Ms. Howard and the strata made claims only about the bylaw fines charged to   [...]  Therefore, I find there are no claims properly before me about the charges for legal fees and smoke detectors, and I decline to make any orders about them. Has the strata failed to repair and maintain CP, LCP, or SL56?

  • 210.

    Moldenhauer v. Merlo - 2021 BCCRT 82 - 2021-01-22

    Small Claims Decisions - Final Decision

    As noted above, Ms. Moldenhauer also submitted late evidence of an email attaching photographs of the car showing smoke coming from under the hood and one with firefighters around the car after apparently dousing it with water.

  • 211.

    Alani v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR437 - 2020 BCCRT 1361 - 2020-12-01

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision

    12. In a December 2019 newsletter, the strata reminded owners of the proposed bylaws and asked owners to read them before the upcoming SGM. The newsletter highlighted “some of the significant changes” in the proposed bylaws involving pets, barbeques, maximum occupancy of strata lots, smoking prohibition, pet restrictions,

  • 212.

    Carfra v. The Owners, Strata Plan 951 - 2022 BCCRT 1008 - 2022-09-12

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision

    At this time, it was believed the scent was caused by vaping and the strata owners subsequently voted to amend the non-smoking bylaw to also restrict vaping. 19. In an August 31, 2019 email to herself, Mrs. Stark made note of an encounter she had with Ms. Tatem.

  • 213.

    Jorgensen v. MacLean - 2020 BCCRT 908 - 2020-08-14

    Small Claims Decisions - Final Decision

    It also sets out some house rules for the tenant (Ms. Jorgensen), including to turn off all appliances and fully lock the front door “when we leave” (all quotes reproduced as written), not to leave candles unattended or burning at any time, and not to smoke, vape, use drugs, or have parties on the property. 16. Ms.

  • 214.

    Primeau v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR141 - 2020 BCCRT 866 - 2020-08-04

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision

    The strata takes the position that dripping water is not a nuisance because it is not harmful like smoke. I disagree that the scope of nuisance is that narrow. 34. In law, a private nuisance is a significant interference with use and enjoyment of property.

  • 215.

    Wang v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2970 - 2019 BCCRT 381 - 2019-03-27

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision - Decision After Appeal

    This property insurance must be based on full replacement value, and it must insure against major perils which, under section 9.1 of the Strata Property Regulation, include fire, lightning, smoke, windstorm, hail, explosion, water escape, strikes, riots or civil commotion, impact by aircraft and vehicles, vandalism, and

  • 216.

    Zeelie et al v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 3011 - 2019 BCCRT 263 - 2019-03-06

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision

    The applicants made complaints to the strata about the number of pets in strata lot 32, as well as parties, noise, sanitation issues in the yard, marijuana smoke, parking violations, and allegedly illegal activities they attributed to the occupants and visitors of strata lot 32.

  • 217.

    The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2885 v. Faith - 2021 BCCRT 1096 - 2021-10-15

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision

    The report states that Fire-Pro’s AASTTBC Registered Fire Protection Technician attended Ms. Faith’s strata lot on January 9, 2020 to replace a defective smoke alarm and observed the suite was “full of clutter”. The report states that the strata lot hoarding and clutter causes a significant increase to fire risk and impacts

  • 218.

    Tomlinson v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS 938 - 2021 BCCRT 331 - 2021-03-29

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision

    The only rule that appears on that document is about smoking. 31. Based on the documentary evidence provided, I find Ms. Tomlinson has misinterpreted the policy about the sidewalk use as a rule.

  • 219.

    Huang v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS1279 - 2024 BCCRT 849 - 2024-10-09

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision

    Finally, in Bahmutsky v. Petkau, 2020 BCCRT 244, a CRT vice chair awarded an owner $1,000.00 for a strata corporation’s failure to enforce its smoking bylaws for 16 months. 41. I find Ms. Huang’s loss of enjoyment of her strata lot has been less significant than the losses experienced in Chen and Hestvik noted above.

  • 220.

    Hutton v. Pelletier - 2022 BCCRT 1288 - 2022-11-30

    Accident Claims – Liability, Damages and Minor Injury Determinations - Final Decision

    36. In response, Ms. Hutton denies the pre-accident medication was for anxiety, but says it was to help her quit smoking. Ms. Hutton also argues the only pre-accident anxiety she experienced was solely about trypanophobia, an extreme fear of needles.

  • 221.

    Bahmutsky v. Griffiths - 2022 BCCRT 184 - 2022-02-22

    Small Claims Decisions - Final Decision

    They alleged Mr. Griffiths smoked on common property, interfered with their renovations, damaged a flowerbed, made racist slurs against them, and verbally and physically abused them.

  • 222.

    Graham v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 516 - 2021 BCCRT 1322 - 2021-12-17

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision

    As a body decomposes, the fluids evaporate and then redistribute onto all surfaces (like smoke), coating the surfaces of everything and as the temperature rises (no AC, sunny July/Aug) molecular absorption...takes place.

  • 223.

    The Owners, Strata Plan VR.1325 v. Mendelsohn - 2021 BCCRT 1307 - 2021-12-14

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision

    It generally prohibits smoking. Given this, I find the SPA’s Schedule of Standard Bylaws applies.

  • 224.

    Dugas v. The Owners, Strata Plan K180 - 2021 BCCRT 948 - 2021-08-31

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision

    I note that bylaw 4(17)(e) is about access to the strata’s lodge while bylaw 4(18) prohibits smoking. The bylaw amendment was about access to the lodge. With that context, I find it highly unlikely that an owner reading the resolution would have been confused by this typo.

  • 225.

    Cheng v. Section 2 of The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2321 et al - 2018 BCCRT 881 - 2018-12-19

    Strata Property Decisions - Final Decision

    23. The background to the dispute starts around November 2016 when the owner received notices from the strata about alleged bylaw complaints for smoking and excessive noise. The owner also received notices of other complaints for noise in January, March and April 2017.