Date Issued: March 3, 2017

File: ST-2016-00106

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Fournier v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 768, 2017 BCCRT 11

BETWEEN:

Albert Fournier

APPLICANT

AND:

The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 768

RESPONDENT

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Andrew Pendray

INTRODUCTION

 

1)        On January 28, 2016 the respondent strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 678 (the strata), held a special general meeting in order to vote on two resolutions. The first of those resolutions related to amending the strata’s bylaws by adding a rental restriction bylaw (the rental resolution).   The second resolution related to the spending of money from the strata’s contingency reserve fund in order to repair a deck attached to one of the strata units (the deck resolution).

 

2)        Each of those resolutions was passed by three-quarter majority vote. This dispute arises out of the events that occurred at, and as a result of, the January 28, 2016 special general meeting (the SGM).

 

3)        The applicant, Mr. Fournier (the owner), owns one the 18 strata lots in the strata. He argues that after the SGM, the strata improperly registered with the Land Title Office a new set of bylaws (the consolidated bylaws) that had not been voted on as required by section 128 of the Strata Property Act, SBC c. 43 (SPA). The owner also submits that the strata did not follow the requirements set out in the deck resolution prior to spending money from the contingency reserve fund to complete the repairs in question.

 

4)        The owner further submits that members of the strata council were in conflict of interest in relation to the deck resolution and ought therefore to be removed from the strata council. He is also seeking the removal of the strata management company contracted by the strata.

 

5)        In response, the strata says that it was not required to consult with the owners of the strata prior to adopting the consolidated bylaws, on the basis that those bylaws represent the Schedule of Standard Bylaws to the SPA (the Standard Bylaws). The strata also denies that contingency fund money was spent contrary to the requirements of the deck resolution and the SPA. Finally, the strata denies that the members of the strata council were in a conflict of interest.

 

ISSUES

 

6)        The issues in this dispute are:

 

•       Did the strata improperly file a set of amended bylaws with the Land Title Office on February 5, 2016?

 

•       Did the strata improperly spend money from the contingency reserve fund or the operating fund to repair the deck attached to unit #203?

 

•       Was the strata council president in a conflict of interest in relation to the expenditure of the money from the contingency reserve fund to repair the deck attached to unit #203?

 

•       Were the other strata council members in a conflict of interest?

 

•       Should the strata management company’s contract be cancelled?

 

JURISDICTION

 

7)        These are the Tribunal’s formal written reasons. The Tribunal has jurisdiction over  strata property claims brought under section 3.6 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (Act).  The tribunal’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the tribunal must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

 

8)        Under the Act, the tribunal may accept as evidence information it considers relevant, necessary, and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in court. The tribunal may also ask the parties and witnesses questions and obtain information in any other way  it considers appropriate.

 

PROCEDURE

 

9)        This dispute has proceeded by way of written submissions.  The owner provided the strata with a Dispute Notice, to which the strata responded. The owner subsequently provided written submissions. Although provided with an opportunity to do so, the strata did not provide any submissions in reply.

 

10)      In light of the fact that the respondent strata chose not to provide any reply submissions, I am satisfied that there are no issues of credibility or other significant factual issues in dispute which would suggest the need for an oral hearing to be held.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Strata

 

11)      Strata Plan LMS 768 was filed in the Land Title Office in March 1993, under the former Condominium Act. The strata plan identifies 18 strata lots, consisting of 18 units.  The location of decks attached to the strata lots is identified on the strata plan. The strata plan indicates that the decks are limited common property associated with each strata lot to which the deck is attached.

 

12)      Land Title Office records show that the strata’s bylaws were registered on July 19, 1996 (the 1996 bylaws). Those bylaws were passed by special resolution on February 15, 1994.  A copy of the 1996 bylaws forms part of the record before me.

 

13)      Prior to February 5, 2016, the only amendment to the strata’s bylaws subsequent to the SPA coming into force in January 2000 was a single bylaw amendment relating to an age restriction which was registered at the Land Title Office on October 15, 2004.

 

14)      On February 5, 2016, a new set of bylaws, numbering 13 pages, was registered with the Land Title Office (the “consolidated bylaws”). The document registered with the Land Title Office on that date, in the form of a Form I of the Strata Property Regulation, sets out that:

 

The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 768, certify that the following or attached amendments to the bylaws of the Strata were approved by a resolution passed in accordance with section 128 of the Strata Property Act at an Annual or Special General Meeting held on January 28, 2016.

 

15)      The manner in which those consolidated bylaws came to exist is at issue in this dispute.

 

Notice of Special General Meeting

 

16)      The strata sent a SGM Notice to the owners which identified two resolutions to be voted on, with resolution A identified as the “Approve rental bylaw” resolution, and resolution B identified as the “Deck repair” resolution.

 

17)      The rental resolution was set out as follows in the SGM Notice:

 

BE IT RESOLVED, by a three-quarter (3/4) vote of the Owners of Strata Plan LMS 768, [building name redacted], that the addition of a no rental bylaw be added as follows:

 

35  RENTAL RESTRICTION

35.1 The number of strata lots that may be leased at any one time is restricted to Zero (O)

 

18)      Of interest, the preamble to resolution A indicated that:

 

…The Strata has been using Standard Schedule Bylaws that automatically came into effect when the Condominium Act was replaced with the Strata Property Act in 2002…

 

19)      The deck resolution was set out as follows in the SGM Notice:

 

WHEREAS, the deck at Unit 203 has been in need of repair for quite some time. According to the strata plan registered at the Land Titles office the deck is not part of the strata lot. As there is nothing in the bylaws assigning responsibility for repair to the owner, we look to Section 9.1.ii(c) of the Strata Property Act which says:

 

…

 

BE IT RESOLVED BY a three-quarter (3/4) vote of the Owners of Strata LMS 768, that an expenditure to a maximum amount of $2,500 be approved to be used for the repair and/or replacement of the deck of unit 203. Funds to be withdrawn from the Contingency Reserve Fund for this purpose.

 

20)      I note that there is no section 9.1.ii(c) of the SPA. It would appear that the section the SGM Notice intended to refer to as supporting the need to repair the deck attached to unit #203 was section 8(c)(ii) of the Standard Bylaws.

 

21)      I note further that section 116(f) of the strata’s 1996 bylaws sets out that the strata corporation shall maintain and repair the exterior of the buildings, excluding balconies and patios included in the strata lot, but including the decorating of the whole of the exterior of the buildings.

 

22)      Finally, the SGM Notice included a document entitled “The [building name redacted] – LMS 768 Consolidated Bylaws 2016”. That document appears to comprise the Standard Bylaws, with some additional bylaws of the strata adopted in 1996 and 2004 included.

 

The Special General Meeting

 

23)      The minutes of the SGM show the rental resolution was adopted as follows:

 

BE IT RESOLVED, by a three-quarter (3/4) vote of the Owners of Strata Plan LMS 768, [building name redacted], that the addition of a no rental bylaw be added as follows:

 

35 RENTAL RESTRICTION

 

35.1 The number of strata lots that may be rented or leased at any one time is restricted to Zero (0)

 

24)      The minutes of the SGM suggest that prior to voting on the deck resolution discussion occurred regarding the necessity of the repairs to the deck attached to unit #203, and a need to get further quotes prior to the work being approved:

 

Discussion ensued regarding the depth of the investigation with respect to the extent of the repair needed to the deck at Unit 203. It was suggested a professional assessment to be completed and more quotations obtained. In order  to  avoid  another  Special  General  meeting  to  approve  the  transfer  of

$2500.00 from the Contingency Reserve Fund while the deck assessment is being done, it was decided $2500 would be transferred from the [contingency reserve fund] to a Deck Repair Holding account.

 

25)      The SGM minutes indicate that the deck resolution was passed as follows:

 

BE IT RESOLVED BY a three-quarter (3/4)vote of the Owners of Strata LMS 768

– [building name redacted], that the amount of $2,500.00 be transferred from the Contingency Reserve Fund to a Deck Repair Account to be used for the repair and/or replacement of the deck at Unit 203.

 

26)      The owner submits that while a deck resolution was passed which approved a future expenditure for deck repair, that approval was contingent upon the strata obtaining three separate quotes for the repairs in question, as well as obtaining final approval from the owners in order to award a contract. The owner says that no quotes were ever presented to the owners.

 

27)      The owner also submits that he believed that the strata council president had:

 

…acted on her own, supplying information to “other” council members that may have been “colored” in her favor, in order to get the work done to the deck at her unit, #203…I also believe that in using the “position” of “Strata President” put [the strata council president] in a unique position to basically “call the shots” relating to this expenditure. I therefore submit that [the strata council president] is in a position of conflict of interest, putting the need for a seemingly “cosmetic” upgrade to her property, above the welfare of the building.

[reproduced as written]

 

ANALYSIS

 

Did the strata improperly register the consolidated bylaws with the Land Title Office on February 5, 2016?

 

28)      I find that the answer to the above noted question is “yes”.      My reasons for reaching this conclusion follow.

 

29)      I find as fact that the vote on the rental resolution at the SGM did not include a vote to approve the consolidated bylaws registered with the Land Title Office on February 5, 2016.

 

30)      Rather, the vote on resolution A was limited to amending the bylaws of the strata by adding the rental restriction bylaw set out above.  In short, it was a vote on the rental resolution.  This fact is made clear from the minutes of the SGM. I note that the strata did not suggest in its response to the Dispute Notice that the minutes of the SGM did not properly capture the nature of the vote on the rental resolution.

 

31)      The strata has argued, however, that it was entitled to register the consolidated bylaws with the Land Titles Office on February 5, 2016 on the basis that “No consultation or voting is needed” to adopt the Standard Bylaws. The strata submitted further that:

 

The current Strata Council did not change the standard Strata Property Act bylaws that came into effect in the year 2000. The amended bylaws from previous years (dated and registered) from the old condominium act were inserted into the appropriate clauses of the standard Strata Property Act. As of the Special General Meeting January 28th 2016; now named the “Consolidated Bylaws of LMS768”.

 

32)      It is true that, effective July 1, 2000, the former Condominium Act was repealed by the SPA. That fact does not, however, mean that the registered bylaws of a strata corporation that were in existence prior to the coming into force of the SPA were suddenly replaced by the Standard Bylaws. I note in this respect that section 120 of the SPA states the bylaws of the strata are the Standard Bylaws, except to the extent that different bylaws are filed in the land title office.

 

33)      As set out above, the strata had filed bylaws in the land title office in 1996. Those bylaws are different than the Standard Bylaws.

 

34)      The SPA and the Strata Property Regulation, B.C.Reg. 43/2000 (Regulation) contain transition provisions that are relevant to this issue. Section 293 of the SPA sets out that provides that the SPA and its regulations apply to a strata plan deposited and a strata corporation created under the Condominium Act.

 

35)      Section 17.11 of the Regulation provides, in part, that the Standard Bylaws set out in the SPA do not apply to a strata created under the Condominium Act until January 1, 2002, and that even as of that date the Standard Bylaws apply only to a limited extent.  Specifically, section 17.11 of the Regulation further explains that where a strata had, prior to January 1, 2002, bylaws registered at the land title office which conflict with the Standard Bylaws, and where such previously registered bylaws do not in turn conflict with the law set out in the SPA, then the previously registered bylaws would continue to be in force.

 

36)      The strata had bylaws filed in the land title office (the 1996 bylaws) pursuant to the Condominium Act. Those bylaws were different than, and to some degree conflicted with, the Standard Bylaws.   .

 

37)      Given the application of section 17.11 of the Regulation, I am of the view that the only way the 1996 bylaws which do not conflict with parts 1 through 17 of the SPA can be amended is for the strata to hold a vote on such amendments as required by section 128(1)(a) of the SPA, which requires a three-quarter vote at an annual or special general meeting.

 

38)      The evidence before me does not indicate that such a vote was held at the SGM, except with respect to the rental bylaw. As such, I find that the consolidated bylaws were not eligible to be filed with the Land Title Office on February 5, 2016. Simply put, the consolidated bylaws contain amendments to the 1996 bylaws that have not been properly approved pursuant to section 128 of the SPA. I therefore find that the consolidated bylaws registered with the Land Title Office on February 5, 2016 have no force or effect.

 

39)      I order that the strata re-file the 1996 bylaws, along with the amendment related to the rental restriction bylaw, which was appropriately passed at the SGM.

 

40)      In making that order I note that on January 31, 2017 the owner wrote to the tribunal and indicated that the strata was holding a Special General Meeting on February 2, 2017 to vote on ratifying a new set of bylaws. I am not aware of whether such a vote was held or passed. If a general meeting was properly called and conducted pursuant to the SPA and new bylaws were properly passed pursuant  to section 128 of the SPA,  I  consider  that those bylaws would supersede my order as set out above.

 

41)      I acknowledge that the owner expressed concern in his correspondence as to the timing of the scheduled February 2, 2017 special general meeting and vote. However, I do not have jurisdiction in this dispute to address the strata’s day to day operations on an ongoing basis.  I consider it sufficient to say that, given my reasoning and decision as set out above, a vote to amend the strata’s bylaws as required by section 128 of the Act would have been an appropriate step for the strata to take.

 

Did the strata improperly spend money from the contingency reserve fund or the operating fund to repair the deck attached to unit #203?

 

42)      The strata has an obligation to manage and maintain the common property and common assets of the strata for the benefit of the owners (section 3 of the SPA). In order to meet its common expenses, a strata corporation must maintain two types of funds: an operating fund and a contingency reserve fund.

 

43)      Operating expenses are expenses that usually occur at least once per year (section 92(a) of the SPA). A strata corporation may only spend money from the operating fund if the expense meets the definition of an operating fund expense and the expense has been authorized in the budget for the fiscal year, or if the owners first approve the operating fund expenditure by a ¾ vote at a general meeting. (SPA, section 97).

 

44)      Contingency reserve fund expenses are for expenses that usually occur less often than once a year or that do not usually occur (section 92(b) of the SPA). Section 96 of the SPA explains that the strata must not spend money from the contingency reserve fund unless that expenditure is consistent with the purposes of the fund as described in section 92 and the expenditure is first approved by a resolution passed by a three quarter vote at an annual or special general meeting (section 96(b) of  the SPA). Section 98(3) also authorizes expenditures from the contingency reserve fund in cases of emergency.

 

45)      I take the owner’s submission to be that the deck resolution identified in the minutes of the SGM as having been passed by a 3/4 vote is not, in fact, an accurate reflection of the resolution that was passed at that meeting. Specifically, I understand the owner to say that the deck resolution that was passed at the SGM included a requirement that prior to the money from the contingency reserve fund being spent, an inspection and multiple quotes for the proposed repair work had to be obtained.

 

46)      As the strata has not denied the owner’s submissions on that issue, I consider that it is more likely than not that the owner’s description of the nature of the deck resolution that was actually passed at the special general meeting is accurate.

 

47)      Although he acknowledges that an inspection of the deck attached to unit #203 did occur, the owner submits that the quotes required by the deck resolution were not obtained prior to the contingency reserve fund money being spent. There is no evidence or information before me to the contrary.  I therefore find that the expenditure of the money from the contingency reserve fund was not undertaken in accordance with the requirements of section 96 of the SPA.

 

48)      While the strata did not dispute the owner’s contention as to what was agreed at the SGM, it did indicate in its response to the Dispute Notice that it relied on section 98(2) of the SPA as authorization to expend the funds to carry out the deck repairs.

 

49)      Section 98 provides, in part, that if a proposed expenditure has not been put forward for approval in the budget or at an annual or special general meeting, the strata may only make such an expenditure out of the operating fund where that expenditure, together with all other unapproved expenditures for that fiscal year, is:

 

(a)    less than the amount set out in the bylaws, or

 

(b)    if the bylaws are silent as to the amount, less than $2 000 or 5% of the total contribution to the operating fund for the current year, whichever is less.

 

50)      Section 98(3) further provides, however, that such an expenditure can be made by the strata only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an immediate expenditure is necessary to ensure safety or prevent significant loss or damage.

 

51)      I take the strata’s position to be that as the ultimate expenditure on the deck repair was less than $2,000 the strata was authorized to make that expenditure pursuant to section 98(2)(b).  It is worth noting at this juncture that the worker appears to acknowledge in his submissions that the cost of the repair to the deck was $1,300. The strata’s 1996 bylaws do not include an amount a bylaw setting out a different expenditure amount than that described in section 98(2)(b) of the SPA..

 

52)      The strata has not however, provided any information to indicate that there were reasonable grounds to believe that there was an emergency which required immediate expenditure on the deck repairs. The only information before me that relates to the state of the deck attached to unit #203 is the indication in the SGM notice that the deck had been “in need of repair for quite some time”. That the need for repair had been outstanding for “quite some time” suggests to me that there was not in fact a need for an immediate expenditure.

 

53)      I consider it to be clear from the minutes of the SGM that there was ongoing debate amongst the owners as to the necessity of undertaking the repairs to the deck attached to unit #203. Absent any indication as to what the reasonable grounds were which caused the strata to believe that an immediate expenditure on the deck was necessary as contemplated by section

98 of the SPA and by section 12 of the 1996 bylaws, I find that the strata has failed to demonstrate that the expenditure was permitted by section 98.

 

54)      In summary, I find that the strata contravened sections 96 and 98 in spending the money on the deck repair.

 

55)      Neither the owner nor the strata made any arguments before me as to whether the responsibility for the cost of the deck repair was that of the strata or of the owner of unit #203. Rather, it appeared the parties assumed that the strata was responsible for such repairs, with the owner’s position simply being that perhaps those repairs were not necessary, and that certainly the expenditure for those repairs had not been properly approved by the strata council in that the required quotes had not been obtained.

 

56)      In light of my findings above, particularly with respect to the application of the 1996 bylaws at the time of the January 28, 2016 SGM, I would suggest that the strata may now wish to consider who ought to have been responsible for paying the cost of the deck for unit #203. Specifically, the strata may wish to consider what the intention of the 1996 bylaws was with respect to deck repairs. I take this opportunity to point  out  that that section 116(f) of the 1996 bylaws specifically sets out that balconies, which I consider to be a term that is interchangeable with deck, are an item that is excluded from the strata’s repair responsibilities.  I note further that section 115(c) of the 1996 bylaws indicates that an owner shall repair and maintain their strata lot, including windows and doors and areas allocated to their exclusive use. It strikes me that the deck surface attached to unit #203 is an area allocated to the exclusive use of the owner of that unit because of the limited common property designation on the strata plan.  I leave it to the strata to consider that issue further.

 

Was the strata council president in a conflict of interest in relation to the expenditure of the money from the contingency reserve fund to repair the deck attached to unit #203?

 

57)      The owner argued that the president of the strata council was in a conflict with respect to the deck resolution, on the basis that the deck in question was attached to her strata unit, #203.

 

58)      A member of a strata council owes both a statutory fiduciary duty and a statutory duty of care in the management of the affairs of the strata (Dockside Brewing Co. Ltd. v. Strata Plan LMS 3837, 2007 BCCA 183). Section 31 of the SPA sets out the standard of care for members of a strata council, requiring that they act in good faith with a view to the best interests of the strata corporation and that they exercise the care, diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person in comparable circumstances. Section 32 requires a member of a strata council to disclose a conflict of interest in a contract or transaction with the strata. I note that although section 33 of the SPA provides a mechanism for addressing situations in which a conflict of interest has been found to exist, section 3.6(2)(a) of the Act indicates that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction over that section of the SPA.

 

59)      That strata council members have a statutory fiduciary duty and standard of care in the management of the affairs of the strata. The existence of those duties does not, however, require that in all cases they must avoid personal gain as a direct result of their honest and good faith management of the corporation (Dockside Brewing Co. Ltd. v. Strata Plan LMS 3837, 2007 BCCA 183, at paragraph 54).

 

60)      The owner did not provide any information which would speak to the motivations of the strata council president with respect to the deck repair, other than to point to the fact that the deck for which repairs were voted on in the deck resolution was attached to the strata council president’s strata lot.

 

61)      Having reviewed the strata’s dispute response form, I consider that the strata council and the strata president believed, in good faith, that the Standard Bylaws applied to the strata, and that as  a  result  of  section  8(c)(ii)(C)  of  those  Standard  Bylaws,  the  strata  corporation  was responsible for the repair of the balcony at unit #203. While I have determined that the Standard Bylaws did not apply to the strata at the time the deck resolution was considered, I do not consider the evidence before me to suggest that the strata president deliberately acted in bad faith and ignored the 1996 bylaws in order to gain a personal advantage in the form of a repair to her deck. The evidence before me does not support such a conclusion. As I have indicated above, that the owner also did not raise the issue of the applicability of section 116(f) and 115(c) of the 1996 bylaws suggests to me that the parties in this case simply misunderstood the strata’s responsibility for the deck repair in question.

 

62)      I note further that the owner has not indicated that repair work was not required on the deck of unit #203. Rather, the owner has simply indicated that his personal view is that there was other repair work to be done on the strata which was “far more important than the work that was done to one person’s deck”. The owner did not identify what that other repair work might involve.

 

63)      After considering the submissions and information before me, I find that the owner’s position that the strata council president was in a conflict of interest relating to the deck resolution is speculative. As a result, I find that the strata council president was not in a conflict of interest.

 

Were the other strata council members in a conflict of interest? Should the strata management company contract be cancelled?

 

64)      The owner seeks the removal of the existing strata council “for reasons of conflict of interest”. I have addressed the owner’s assertions relating to the strata council president above. As the owner has not provided any explanation as to how or why the remaining members of the strata council were in a conflict of interest, nor what that conflict of interest may be, I find that there is no basis for considering the remedy sought by the owner on this issue. I find that the other strata council members were not in a conflict of interest.

 

65)      The owner also seeks cancellation of the strata management company’s contract. Specifically, the owner submitted that the strata management company had conducted itself improperly in trying to “introduce, by devious means, a set of bylaws that were never agreed to” by the owners.

 

66)      The strata’s 1996 bylaws, at section 121(b), allow for the council to employ agents and employees as it thinks proper for the control, management and administration of the common property, common facilities or other assets of the corporation. Section 39 of the SPA sets out that a strata corporation may cancel a contract entered into for the provision of strata management services on two months’ notice if that cancellation is first approved by a resolution passed by a three-quarter vote at an annual or special general meeting. In light of the fact that such a resolution has not been considered by the strata, I consider it to be premature to consider in this dispute the owner’s request to have the strata management company’s contract with the strata cancelled.

 

67)      I note in passing that I understand  the owner’s submissions on this issue to be alleging misconduct on the part of the property management company. It may be that such a complaint is appropriately brought under the Real Estate Services Act, SBC 2004, c. 42. The Act does not give the tribunal jurisdiction over the matters related to the Real Estate Services Act.

 

DECISION

 

68)      I find that the consolidated bylaws were improperly filed with the Land Title Office, as the consolidated bylaws had not been approved as required by section 128 of the SPA.

 

69)      I further find that the strata improperly spent money from the contingency reserve fund to repair the deck attached to unit #203 prior to obtaining the quotes for such work as required in the deck resolution. I also find that the strata was not permitted by section 98 of the Act to spend money from either the operating fund or the contingency reserve fund to complete the repair to the deck attached to unit #203.

 

70)      With respect to the allegations of conflict of interest on the part of the strata council president and members, I find that the evidence falls short of leading to a conclusion that such a conflict of interest existed. Finally, I find that the issue of cancelling the strata management company’s contract is a matter that should be considered by the strata at first instance.

 

ORDER

 

71)      I order the strata to re-file the 1996 bylaws, along with the amendment related to the rental restriction bylaw, which was appropriately passed at the SGM. In making that order I again acknowledge that it may be that a general meeting has now been properly called and conducted pursuant to the SPA, and that new bylaws may have been properly passed pursuant to section 128 of the SPA. If that is the case, I consider that those bylaws would supersede my order set out above.

 

72)      I also order that the Strata not contravene sections 96 and 98 of the SPA.

 

73)      Pursuant to section 49 of the Act and tribunal rules 14 and 15, I order the owner’s fees, in the amount of $225, representing the dispute resolution fee and the decision fee, be paid by the strata to the owner within 30 days of the date of this decision.

 

74)      Under section 167 of the SPA, an owner who brings a tribunal claim against the strata corporation is not required to contribute to the expenses of bringing that claim. I order the strata to ensure that no part of the strata’s expenses with respect to this claim are allocated to the owner.

 

75)      Under section 57 of the Act, a party can enforce this final tribunal decision by filing, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, a validated copy of the order which is attached to this decision. The order can only be filed if, among other things, the time for an appeal under section 56.5(3) of the Act has expired and leave to appeal has not been sought or consented to.

 

76)      Orders for financial compensation or the return of personal property can also be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia. However, the principal amount or the value of the personal property must be within the Provincial Court of British Columbia’s monetary limit for claims under the Small Claims Act (currently $25,000). Under section 58 of the Act,  the Applicant can enforce this final decision by filing in the Provincial Court of British Columbia a validated copy of the order which is attached to this decision. The order can only be filed if, among other things, the time for an appeal under section 56.5(3) of the Act has expired and leave to appeal has not been sought or consented to. Once filed, a tribunal order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

 

77)      Once filed, a Tribunal order has the same force and effect as an order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.