Date Issued: May 31, 2019

File: ST-2018-002629

Type: Strata

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Bobiash v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2656 et al, 2019 BCCRT 670

Between:

Kelly Bobiash

APPLICANT

And:

The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2656 and Rose Qwang Sun

Respondents

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Julie K. Gibson

INTRODUCTION

1.      In December 2014, the applicant Kelly Bobiash bought unit 802 (strata lot 37) in the respondent The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2656 (strata).

2.      On July 6, 2016, the respondent Rose Qwang Sun bought unit 902 (strata lot 45). Unit 902 is located directly above unit 802 in a 31-storey building.

3.      In 2014, a flood damaged the flooring in unit 902.

4.      Ms. Bobiash says that, at the time, the strata failed to ensure that the replacement hardwood floor was installed satisfactorily.

5.      Ms. Bobiash says that because no underlay was used, there is now no sound barrier between units 902 and 802. As a result, Ms. Bobiash says she experiences more noise than is reasonable, and it disturbs her quiet enjoyment of unit 802.

6.      Ms. Bobiash asks that the strata add cork underlay to the flooring installed in unit 902 or replace the hardwood flooring with carpet. Ms. Bobiash also seeks compensatory damages of $30,000 for the upset caused to her by the ongoing noise, which she says is due to the strata’s failure to fulfil its duties.

7.      Ms. Sun denies any liability in the dispute. Ms. Sun did not own unit 902 at the time of the contested hardwood installation.

8.      Ms. Sun says she leads quiet life and does not expect noise would transmit from unit 902. Ms. Sun says the strata conducted noise testing, concluding that any noise transmission was “minimal” except when the patio door was slammed.

9.      The strata says it investigated the noise complaints from Ms. Bobiash and found that unit 902 had not violated the noise bylaws.

10.   The strata says it did not breach any duties to Ms. Bobiash, either at the time of the water leak repairs nor in respect of enforcing the noise bylaw. The strata asks that the dispute be dismissed.

11.   Ms. Bobiash is self-represented. Ms. Sun represents herself. The respondent strata was represented initially by strata council member Behshad Hastibakhsh and later by strata council member Fatima Zakeri.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

12.   These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (tribunal). The tribunal has jurisdiction over strata property claims brought under section 121 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.

13.   The tribunal has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions, because I find that there are no significant issues of credibility or other reasons that might require an oral hearing.

14.   The tribunal 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 tribunal may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

15.   The applicable tribunal rules are those that were in place at the time this dispute was commenced.

16.   Under section 123 of the Act and the tribunal rules, in resolving this dispute the tribunal may make order a party to do or stop doing something, order a party to pay money, order any other terms or conditions the tribunal considers appropriate.

17.   Section 123(2) of the Act is substantially similar to section 164 of the Strata Property Act (SPA) and addresses remedies for significant unfairness in strata property disputes. Section 123(2) provides that the tribunal has discretion to make an order directed at the strata, the council or a person who holds 50% or more of the votes, if the order is necessary to prevent or remedy a significantly unfair action, decision or exercise of voting rights.

18.   Tribunal documents incorrectly show the name of the respondent as The Owners, Strata Plan, 2656. Based on section 2 of the SPA, the correct legal name of the strata is The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2656. Given the parties operated on the basis that the correct name of the strata was used in their documents and submissions, I have exercised my discretion under section 61 to direct the use of the strata’s correct legal name in these proceedings. Accordingly, I have amended the style of cause above.

ISSUES

19.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Has the strata conducted an appropriate investigation of Ms. Bobiash’s noise complaints about unit 902?

b.    Has there been a contravention of the noise bylaw?

c.    Should there be an order that the strata enforce its noise bylaws?

d.    Did the strata have a duty to Ms. Bobiash to ensure that hardwood flooring installed in unit 902 would be installed to a certain standard of soundproofing?

e.    If so, can the tribunal order the strata to correct the flooring installation in unit 902, either by adding underlay or replacing the hardwood with carpet?

f.      Is Ms. Bobiash entitled to $30,000 in damages for the disruption of her peaceful enjoyment of her strata lot?

g.    Should Ms. Bobiash be reimbursed the $225 she paid in tribunal fees?

BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE

20.   While I have read all of the material provided, I have only commented on the evidence and submissions below to the extent necessary to explain my decision.

Bylaws

21.   The strata filed amended bylaws in November 2007 which I find were in effect when the 2014 hardwood floor installation occurred.

22.   The amended bylaws filed in May 2017 and May 2018 are unchanged from the November 2007 bylaws with respect to the issues in this dispute.

23.   The relevant bylaws and related legislation may be summarized as follows:

a.    Bylaw 2.2.(1) provides that an owner must repair and maintain their strata lot, except for repair and maintenance that is the strata’s responsibility under the bylaws.

b.    Bylaw 2.3(1)(a) provides that an owner or occupant must not use a strata lot in a way that causes a nuisance or hazard to another person, (b) causes unreasonable or repetitive noise or (c) unreasonably interferes with the rights of other persons to use and enjoy another strata lot.

c.    Bylaw 2.5 says that an owner must obtain the strata’s written approval before making an alteration to the strata lot involving the parts of the strata lot which the strata must insure under section 149 of the SPA.

d.    Section 149(1)(d) of the SPA says that a strata must obtain and maintain property insurance on “fixtures built or installed on a strata lot, if the fixtures are built or installed by the owner or developer as part of the original construction on the strata lot.”

e.    The Strata Property Regulation defines fixtures as including floor coverings.

f.      Bylaw 7.1(a) provides that an owner shall not use a strata lot in a purpose that involves undue traffic or noise in or about the strata lot or common property between 10:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

24.   Based on these bylaws and sections of the SPA, I find that if flooring is original to a strata lot, the bylaws require an owner to obtain advance written approval before altering it. However, under these bylaws, if the flooring is already an owner’s own upgrade, then a subsequent change to that flooring does not require advance written approval from the strata.

Evidence and Findings

25.   At the time of construction, unit 902 had carpet flooring throughout, with an underlay, except for ceramic flooring in the bathroom, original to the strata lot.

26.   I find that, at some later point, the then owner of unit 902 replaced the carpet flooring with laminate in parts of the unit. The strata has no record of approval being sought or obtained for this alteration.

27.   However, based on the email from RP, an insurance adjuster who dealt with the repairs after the flood, the flooring being replaced was a betterment (improvement on the original flooring).

28.   In July 2014, there was a flood that affected four strata lots, including unit 902.

29.   After the July 2014 leak, unit 902’s then owner asked the strata about having engineered wood flooring installed instead of laminate. Quotes were obtained, including for an installation of a glued down engineered hardwood floor, without underlay.

30.   At the time, there was no requirement in the bylaws for the owner to obtain permission from the strata for this alteration, because it was a repair on an owner’s own upgrade to the flooring. That is, the flooring being replaced was upgraded from the original flooring at the time of construction.

31.   In August 2014, D&J Flooring Centre installed engineered hardwood in unit 902, without any underlay, using a glued down method.

32.   The August 6, 2014 strata council minutes report that water damaged had occurred in unit 902. Ms. Bobiash says these minutes were not included in her realtor’s request for information when she was considering buying unit 802.

33.   In December 2014, Ms. Bobiash purchased unit 802 and moved in.

34.   In January, February and March 2015, and again in July and August 2016 Ms. Bobiash made noise complaints to the strata.

35.   On February 4, 2015, JS, strata agent, wrote to the then owner of unit 902, AA advising that there had been noise complaints for noise occurring outside permitted hours, in violation of Bylaw 7.1(a). The letter asked the owner to respond as outlined in the SPA section 135.

36.   AA responded on February 11, 2015 saying that he and his spouse were a mature working couple with no children, who kept early bedtime hours, and therefore could not be responsible for the reported noise.

37.   On January 6, 2016, JS wrote to the occupant of unit 907 saying that there had been noise violations reported and that it considered these to be violations of Bylaw 7.1(a) and offering an opportunity to respond.

38.   On the same day, a similar letter was sent to the then owner/occupant of unit 902.

39.   On January 28, 2016, AA emailed a response to the new noise complaints, again denying that the noises could be coming from unit 902, given the hours that AA and his wife were out at work and their early bedtime.

40.   The same day, strata council met and approved fines against unspecified units who had received “multiple noise complaints, according to the minutes of the January 28, 2016 strata council meeting.

41.   Based on the documents filed in evidence, I could not determine whether fines were levied against the owner of unit 902 at that time.

42.   In February 2016, Ms. Bobiash again reported noise from unit 902.

43.   On February 11, 2016, JS, on behalf of the strata, again wrote to AA citing a noise bylaw violation and offering an opportunity for response consistent with section 135 of the SPA.

44.   JS sent a similar letter to RY, in unit 907, the same day.

45.   In February 2016, JS wrote to Ms. Bobiash asking if she could record the sounds she was hearing, because the other unit occupants had denied her claims regarding the noise violations and the strata needed further evidence to make a determination.

46.   On March 3, 2016, strata council met again and approved fines against units that had received “multiple noise complaints”. Again, I was unable to determine if fines were levied in respect of Ms. Bobiash’s noise complaints at the time.

47.   On March 11, 2016, JS emailed Ms. Bobiash and said that the noise was normal for the strata, and that the building “in general doesn’t have great soundproofing..so noises will be heard from time to time. If there are loud noises past 10 PM, please report those or if you are hearing loud noises, please try and record them on your phone so this can be used for council to enforce a noise violation.”

48.   On July 6, 2016, Ms. Sun became the owner of unit 902.

49.   In August 2016, Ms. Bobiash emailed the strata, through the property manager, saying that she thought the owner of 902 should provide proof that their flooring was installed properly.

50.   The strata investigated the noise complaints, including conducting noise testing. Strata council concluded that “the tenants in unit 902 were not in contravention of the noise bylaws.”

51.   In August 11, 2016 strata council meeting minutes, the council determined that “noise complaints” from an unspecified unit were not considered unreasonable living noise.

52.   Ms. Bobiash continued to report noise violations throughout September 2016.

53.   In early September 2016, strata council member BH wrote that he had spoken to the owner of unit 902, who had moved into the unit in late June. BH said the owner of unit 902 wondered if the noise was originating in unit 901.

54.   On September 8, 2016, AB, strata council member wrote that she had attended at Ms. Bobiash’s suite the previous evening, when she heard thumps and piano music.

55.   AB framed the issue as a “…real issue effect the quality of life for our owner resident” and requested confirmation that the flooring had been installed “per code” in unit 902.

56.   AB also wrote that she spent twenty minutes at Ms. Bobiash’s suite and heard “5 louder thumps – beyond what I myself would consider normal to put up with daily.” AB, who also resided in the strata, added that she seldom heard her own neighbours, suggesting that flooring may indeed be the issue.

57.   On October 4, 2016, JS, on behalf of the strata, wrote to Ms. Sun stating that there had been a noise violation, contrary to Bylaw 2.3 (1)(a) -(c), and inviting her to provide a response.

58.   In October 2016, Ms. Bobiash submitted noise complaints on several different dates, including loud noises heard outside of the strata’s 10:30 p.m.-7:00 a.m. quiet hours.

59.   On October 25, 2016, Ms. Bobiash appeared before strata council and presented her noise violation reports. Ms. Bobiash requested a flooring inspection be conducted in unit 802. She explained that the noise levels had increased since flooring was replaced in suite 902 following the 2014 water leak. Strata council said it would look for the records of the flooring specifications used in suite 902 and would then determine “if flooring inspection in suite #902 is required and will provide a response to suite #802 in regards to their request.”

60.   In October 2016, WF, an experienced flooring contractor, examined the floor in unit 902 and confirmed that it was hardwood glued directly the concrete slab. At the same time, a strata council member was observing sound transference to unit 802. WF offered his opinion that (quote reproduced as written):

“This hardwood flooring covers the entire living room and kitchen area and has NO underlayment of any kind. It is important to understand that floating hardwood & laminate floors require an underlay. This underlay provides a sound transfer barrier represented by a decibel rating. The hardwood floor in unit #902, due to it’s installation method, has no underlayment which will result in no sound barrier from one unit down to the next. Ben [a then strata council member] did concur that the noise transfer from unit #902 to unit #802 was significant.” (comment in brackets added)

61.   In November 2016, JS spoke with the flooring installers (D & J Flooring) who told him that unit 902 had hardwood flooring installed after the flood in 2014.

62.   On January 10, 2017, Ms. Bobiash appeared before strata council.

63.   The Minutes of the January 10, 2017 strata council meeting say that an underlay pad was not specified in the restoration company’s scope of work for the installation of hard wood flooring after the water loss in August 2014.

64.   Ms. Bobiash requested that the strata arrange for replacement flooring in unit 902 to ensure a sufficient underlay pad would be installed to provide better soundproofing.

65.   The strata council said that it would contact its insurance adjuster and restoration company to “verify the suite’s flooring records and that a response would be provided to #802 in regards to their request.”

66.   On January 20, 2017, JS emailed Ms. Bobiash saying it was confirmed that the restoration company had glued the hardwood flooring to the concrete on the installation in unit 902. That is, there was no underlay used during the 2014 hardwood flooring installation.

67.   Ms. Bobiash continued to report noise complaints in January and February 2017.

68.   On February 10, 2017, JS wrote to Ms. Sun indicating that there had been noise complaints and providing an opportunity to respond as required by section 135 of the SPA.

69.   In email responses, Ms. Sun denied causing the reported noise. She reported regular activities, such as cleaning her bathroom and preparing and eating a meal.

70.   On February 23, 2017, in response to a request from JS that further sound testing be conducted, Ms. Bobiash wrote that the hardwood installation in unit 902 was in contravention of strata standards and that therefore there was no need for further sound testing.

71.   From October to February 2017, Ms. Bobiash continued to send in new noise complaints, reporting on significant noise she heard before 7:00 a.m. and after 11:00 p.m.

72.   In May 2017 and on one occasion in August 2017, Ms. Bobiash again reported hearing unreasonable noise from the unit above.

73.   On May 12, 2017, JS again wrote to Ms. Sun stating that there had been further noise complaints and seeking her response. The strata asked that Ms. Sun maintain quiet between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am, consider soft furnishings, and be advised that fines would follow substantiated noise complaints.

74.   At a May 17, 2017 strata council meeting, strata council recorded that noise complaints, from unspecified units, were mainly considered to be reasonable levels of daily noise, and that the solution was to have the neighbours resolve the issue mutually between themselves. Both residents were invited to arrange a hearing before strata council to use mediation to resolve the issue.

75.   The same commentary regarding ongoing noise complaints appears in the strata council meeting minutes dated August 2, 2017. I infer that the mediation offer was made to Ms. Sun and Ms. Bobiash.

76.   On August 29, 2017, the strata agent wrote to Ms. Sun again, regarding the August 2017 noise complaint, asking for her response. The letter asks Ms. Sun to try to be more quiet, to use soft furnishings and to respect the strata’s quiet hours.

77.   In an October 4, 2017 strata council meeting the council said it would retract a noise bylaw violation warning for an unspecified unit.

78.   In a November 22, 2017 strata council meeting, comments about various noise bylaw violation matters are recorded, without reference to the unit number being addressed.

79.   At a January 10, 2018 strata council meeting, three different noise bylaw violation matters were discussed. Strata approved fines against owners in two instances, and in the third scenario made an offer for the parties to mediate.

80.   At a May 11, 2018 strata council meeting, council considered four separate noise bylaw violation disputes. None of the units involved were identified in the minutes.

81.   An undated document titled Hardwood/Laminate Flooring Standards published by the Alliance Real Estate Group Ltd. says that if someone proceeds with hardwood flooring without any underlayment “…the only issue we must advise you of is if specific complaints are received from occupants of adjacent suites (below), you will be responsible to correct that. Area rugs are also good at providing some sound insulating qualities.”

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

82.   Ms. Bobiash argues that the strata breached a duty to her by failing to ensure the flooring installed in unit 902 after the 2014 included an underlay for sound proofing.

83.   Ms. Bobiash requests that I order the strata to install a cork underlay or replace the flooring in unit 902 with carpet. She also seeks $30,000 in damages.

84.   The strata asks that I dismiss the claim against it. It says the noises complained of were not unreasonable and ongoing to the point where it should be required to replace the flooring in unit 902.

ANALYSIS

Did the strata conduct an appropriate investigation of Ms. Bobiash’s noise complaints?

85.   Under section 26 of the SPA, the strata council must exercise the powers and duties of the strata corporation, including enforcement of bylaws.

86.   In this situation, where the issue is known improper flooring installation, the court’s reasoning in The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 4255 v. Newell, 2012 BCSC 1542, is helpful to explain why fines are not necessarily an effective enforcement tool:

Pursuant to s. 26 of the Strata Property Act, the Strata Council must exercise the powers and perform the duties of the strata corporation, including the enforcement of bylaws and rules. Levying fines is a form of punishment; it is not an enforcement of a strata corporation’s bylaws: see Willson v. Highlands Strata Corporation, 1999 CanLII 2900 (B.C.S.C.), at para. 28. There comes a point where a strata corporation must pursue injunctive relief.

87.   The Bylaws forbid owners from using their strata lot in a way that causes unreasonable noise.

88.   I find that the noise violation in October 2016 against unit 902 was established. The investigation then revealed that the hardwood flooring in the unit had been installed in a way that left the unit without any adequate soundproofing, even against reasonable everyday noise such as Ms. Sun cooking. Put differently, the flooring installation made it difficult for Ms. Sun to use her strata lot without causing unreasonable noise from time to time.

89.   I find that the strata conducted a reasonable investigation of Ms. Bobiash’s noise complaints, but then failed to follow through with a meaningful enforcement option.

90.   Once the strata became aware that there was no underlay in unit 902’s flooring, rather than levying a fine, the strata should have opted for meaningful enforcement of its bylaws. Instead, it suggested soft furnishings and quieter behavior, which is not a permanent solution. As evidence of this, Ms. Bobiash continued to hear what reportedly unreasonable noise up to at least May 2017.

Has Ms. Sun violated the strata’s noise bylaws?

91.   I find that, while Ms. Sun violated the noise bylaws in fall 2016, she only did so because of the unidentified problem with a lack of soundproofing between unit 902 and unit 802.

92.   In submissions, Ms. Bobiash says that the noise in unit 802 has been “mostly tolerable” since she spoke to Ms. Sun in August 2017. The strata attempts to rely on this to say that the issue is resolved.

93.   I disagree. The flooring in unit 902 is such that only a limited scope of daily activities can take place there before unit 802 hears unreasonable noise, even with soft furnishings presumably in place. In making this finding I rely upon the evidence of strata member AB and contractor WF from fall 2016, which I find compelling.

94.   As such, the issue is not resolved. Ms. Sun is, on her own evidence, a quiet occupant owner. Ms. Bobiash should be entitled to soundproofing that would permit a reasonable person to live in the unit above without unduly disturbing her, which should include someone less quiet than Ms. Sun, in future.

95.   As such, I find that the strata’s duty to Ms. Bobiash, to enforce the bylaws regarding quiet enjoyment of her strata lot, has been breached by the strata’s failure to take a definitive step in resolving the issue.

Did the strata have a duty to Ms. Bobiash to ensure that hardwood flooring installed in unit 902 would be installed to a certain standard of soundproofing?

96.   I have found that there was no requirement for the strata to approve the installation of hardwood flooring into unit 902 in 2014, under the bylaws, because the hardwood was replacing an owner’s own flooring upgrade.

97.   Having said that, the strata has the power to require a flooring upgrade where the nature of the flooring in a unit is such that the strata cannot properly enforce the noise bylaw.

98.   I accept that Ms. Sun was unaware of the inadequacy of the soundproofing in the flooring of her suite, when she bought unit 802. As well, I accept that Ms. Bobiash was unaware of this defect at the time of purchasing unit 902.

99.   The question is whether, in such a scenario, the tribunal can order the strata to correct the flooring installation in unit 902, either by adding underlay or replacing the hardwood with carpet.

100.      In Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282, the BC Supreme Court commented that the Act contains authority, at what is now section 123, authorizing the tribunal to order a strata lot owner to alter their flooring, if flooring was the established cause of unreasonable noise between units.

101.      Section 133 of the SPA provides that a strata may do what is reasonably necessary to remedy a bylaw or rule contravention, including doing work on a strata lot.  I find that, given the nature of the soundproofing problem, the only practical way to remedy the bylaw contravention is for the strata to install underlayment or carpet in unit 802.

102.      Section 133(2) says that the strata may require the reasonable costs of remedying the contravention to be paid by the person who may be fined for the contravention under section 130.

103.      I find that the strata must correct the flooring installation in unit 902 to a soundproofing level at least equivalent to the carpet flooring original to the development. If the strata does not do so, it will continue to be unable to properly enforce the noise bylaw as between unit 902 and unit 802.

104.      The bylaws say repair and maintenance within the strata lot is an owner’s responsibility.  Having said that, the issue here is not so much a repair as a bylaw enforcement mechanism. Given that Ms. Sun is not at fault for the lack of underlay in her flooring, it seems unfair to require her to pay the full cost of the upgrade. I order the strata and Ms. Sun to share the costs of the soundproofing upgrade equally. This solution is consistent with the strata taking reasonable action under the SPA section 133.

105.      The opinion of WF suggests that approving or installing hardwood without underlay or other soundproofing in a multi-storey building was negligent. While that issue is not before me, nothing in this decision prevents Ms. Sun from bringing a claim against a non-party in respect of the installation issue, subject to any applicable limitation period.

Is Ms. Bobiash entitled to $30,000 in damages for the disruption of her peaceful enjoyment of her strata lot?

106.      Ms. Bobiash did not refer to any authorities supporting her claim for $30,000 in damages.

107.      Ms. Bobiash has proven that the strata owed her a duty to enforce the noise bylaw, and failed to effectively enforce it in a way that caused harm to her.

108.      I find that the ongoing noise issue impacted Ms. Bobiashon on occasion from fall 2016 to summer 2017. Ms. Bobiash had disrupted sleep from time to time when noise was occurring after hours.

109.      In Boggs v. Harrison, 2009 BCSC 789, the plaintiffs were awarded $7,500 in damages where their neighbours in a 4 unit-condominium had made them feel anxious and fearful for their safety, and largely unable to use their outdoor space, but where unreasonable noise was also one element of the proven nuisance. The facts in this dispute fall far short of the Boggs damages assessment.

110.      Ms. Bobiash also argued that the lack of soundproofing between her unit and unit 802 may impact her property value. Because I have ordered the strata to remedy the soundproofing problem, I do not award additional damages to address this issue.

111.      I set a nominal award of $500 for the noise nuisance damages, on a judgment basis, given the limited evidence about the harm, and the lack of a comparable authority.

TRIBUNAL FEES AND EXPENSES

112.      Under section 49 of the Act, and the tribunal rules, the tribunal will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for tribunal fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. I see no reason in this case to deviate from the general rule. I therefore the strata to reimburse Ms. Bobiash for tribunal fees of $225.

113.      The strata corporation must comply with the provisions in section 189.4 of the SPA, such as not charging dispute-related expenses against the owner, unless the tribunal orders otherwise

DECISION AND ORDERS

114.      I order that, within 60 days of this decision:

a.    the strata, in consultation with Ms. Sun, correct the flooring installation in unit 902 to a soundproofing level at least equivalent to the carpet flooring original to the development, using either underlayment or carpet installation,

b.    Ms. Sun provide the strata reasonable access to unit 902 to facilitate the soundproofing upgrade,

c.    the strata and Ms. Sun share the costs of the soundproofing upgrade equally, and

d.    the strata pay Ms. Bobiash a total of $725, being $500 in general damages and $225 in tribunal fees.

115.      Ms. Bobiash is entitled to post judgement interest, as applicable.

116.      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 123.1 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 Supreme Court of British Columbia.

117.      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 $35,000). 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 123.1 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.