Date Issued: October 15, 2019

File: ST-2019-002621

Type: Strata

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Norman v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 5710, 2019 BCCRT 1189

Between:

ARMAND NORMAN

Applicant

And:

The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 5710

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Lynn Scrivener

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, Armand Norman, owns a strata lot in the respondent strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 5710 (strata). The applicant says that the strata has failed to address a number of maintenance and security issues, has failed to deal with bylaw infractions, did not accommodate plumbing repairs in their strata lot, does not communicate with owners, and did not provide information to the police about thefts from their strata lot and other matters. The applicant seeks orders compelling the strata to address these issues. The strata disagrees with the applicant’s claims and asks that the dispute be dismissed.

2.      The applicant is self-represented. The strata is represented by a member of the strata council.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

3.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (tribunal). The tribunal has jurisdiction over strata property claims under section 121 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). The tribunal’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. The tribunal must act fairly and follow the law. It must also recognize any relationships between dispute parties that will likely continue after the tribunal’s process has ended.

4.      The tribunal has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including in writing, by telephone, videoconferencing, or a combination of these. I am satisfied an oral hearing is not required as I can decide the dispute fairly based on the evidence and submissions provided.

5.      Under section 10 of the CRTA, the tribunal must refuse to resolve a claim that it considers to be outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. A dispute that involves some issues that are outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction may be amended to remove those issues.

6.      The tribunal may accept as evidence information that 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 inform itself in any way it considers appropriate.

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

8.      During the tribunal process, the applicant requested that their name not be included in the decision. The tribunal’s decisions are made public and parties are identified because the tribunal’s proceedings are considered to be open. Decisions will be anonymized where a vulnerable party is involved or where sensitive information is disclosed, but parties’ names are not otherwise removed. Although invited to do so, the applicant did not make submissions about the reasons for their request for anonymization. I have considered the circumstances, and find that it would not be appropriate in this case to replace the applicant’s name with initials.

ISSUES

9.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    whether the strata should pay the applicant $50.00 for being trapped in the garbage area and be ordered to maintain the gate in the garbage area,

b.    whether the strata should be ordered to maintain the building locks and pay the applicant $50.00 for having locks that were difficult to open,

c.    whether the strata should be ordered to maintain the parking lot security door and pay the applicant $50.00,

d.    whether the strata should be ordered to repair a door on the first floor of the building and pay the applicant $150.00,

e.    whether the strata should be ordered to install a doorsweep on the first floor rear entrance and pay the applicant $200.00,

f.     whether the strata should be ordered to seal a gap on the first floor rear entrance to prevent pests, insects and rodents from entering,

g.    whether the strata should be ordered to deactivate the front door sensor to ensure that the building is secure from the inside,

h.    whether the strata should be ordered to deactivate the front door sensor as the door cannot be secured or locked during a power failure,

i.      whether the strata should be ordered to replace the arms on the parking lot security gate,

j.      whether the strata should be ordered to install keyed locks for the entry doors from the underground parking area,

k.    whether the strata should be ordered to installed keyed locks on all ground floor doors,

l.      whether the strata should be ordered to improve the security of the building and stop removing security devices,

m.   whether the strata should be ordered to maintain the mailboxes and require that all mailboxes be kept locked,

n.    whether the strata should be ordered to change the format of the occupant listing at the front door so the listings do not look like potential addresses,

o.    whether the strata should be ordered to remove the applicant’s name from the occupant listing,

p.    whether the strata should be ordered to deactivate the front door security buzzer system,

q.    whether the strata should be ordered to pay the applicant $800 for violations of the smoking bylaw,

r.     whether the strata should be ordered to pay the applicant $5,000 for failing to accommodate plumbing repairs in their strata lot and for “building security issues”,

s.    whether the strata’s property manager should be ordered to provide the applicant with key access to the building’s main water supply,

t.      whether the strata should be ordered to explain the garbage area and service contract to deal with “problems with strange operation of garbage area”,

u.    whether the strata should be ordered to use less electricity during daylight hours and reduce the number of light bulbs and light fixtures in hallways,

v.    whether the strata should be ordered to explain the cleaning contract and how to deal with complaints about cleaning,

w.   whether the strata should be ordered to provide information to the police about allegations of thefts from the applicant’s strata lot and ongoing criminal harassment of the applicant by police, the local health authority and strata members, and

x.    whether the strata should be ordered to replace the door handle in the garbage area so that the door can be locked while a strata member is in the garbage area.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

10.   The applicant’s position is that the strata has failed to maintain various parts of the building and has failed to respond to their complaints about security issues. In the applicant’s view, the strata is being mismanaged. The applicant states that their real estate agent told them that they were entitled to keys to the mechanical and electrical rooms, as well as other areas in the strata, however the strata has failed to provide these keys or to allow them to shut off the water supply in order to perform plumbing repairs. The applicant also states they need these keys and to install locks in some places in order to reduce the strata’s operating expenses. According to the applicant, they spend their own time and resources performing cleaning and repairs and documenting security issues on strata property, but they have not been reimbursed by the strata. The applicant provided a large number of images documenting what they say are maintenance and security issues. The applicant seeks a total of $6,300 in damages and reimbursement from the strata.

11.   The strata says that it is not aware of some of the issues raised by the applicant and that some have been dealt with. The strata also says that the applicant did not request hearings about these issues before commencing this dispute. According to the strata, it takes security issues seriously and is currently working on a plan to re-key doors in the strata buildings. The strata says that only strata council members have access to the mechanical and electrical rooms for security purposes. The strata states that the applicant represents themselves to others as a council member and they do not accept that they are not on the strata council. The strata says it did not give the applicant permission to perform cleaning or other services in the strata.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

12.   As a preliminary matter, the applicant’s submissions contain allegations against the strata’s property manager, other strata residents, real estate agents, and a regional real estate board. None of these individuals or organizations are parties to this dispute. I cannot make orders against non-parties and, accordingly, will not be addressing these allegations in my decision. I also note that the applicant asked to add the property manager as a party to the dispute during the tribunal’s facilitation stage. However, as the dispute was filed in the tribunal’s strata division, the case manager advised the applicant that the property manager cannot be a respondent to this dispute.

13.   In their submissions, the applicant refers to alleged discrimination under the Human Rights Code, the delivery of junk mail by Canada Post, allegations of being overcharged on their monthly strata fees, oil spills in the parking area, vehicles idling on strata property, various landscaping issues, the location of a gas meter on the property, the safety and cleanliness of a nearby bus stop, signage for street parking, bicycle and vehicle parking on strata property, storage issues, the positioning of window coverings on ground floor windows, the installation of carpeting in the hallways, the apparent need for exterior painting, the use of door mats by some residents, the possible presence of a marijuana grow operation in the strata, and the presence of deer in the neighbourhood. As these issues were not included in the applicant’s Dispute Notice, I cannot address them.  

14.   The applicant’s submissions contain allegations of threats, attacks and other criminal behaviour. Criminal activity is not within the tribunal’s jurisdiction over strata property claims as set out in section 121 of the CRTA. Accordingly, I cannot address these allegations.

15.   Turning to the strata’s submission that the applicant did not request hearings, section 189.1(2) of the Strata Property Act (SPA) states that a strata corporation, owner or tenant may not make a request that the tribunal resolve a dispute unless they have requested a hearing with the strata council under section 34.1 of the SPA or, on request, the tribunal directs that the requirement for a hearing does not apply.

16.   The applicant says they commenced the dispute as the strata and property manager did not respond to their correspondence. The evidence before me suggests that the applicant sent a large volume of correspondence to the strata’s property manager but, as these communications are not before me, I cannot assess whether any of them could be construed as containing a request for a hearing (formal or otherwise). An April 12, 2019 email message in evidence confirms that the applicant did request a hearing after the dispute was commenced.

17.   Based on their submissions, I infer that the applicant is asking for a waiver of the hearing requirement. In the particular circumstances of this case, I have decided to waive the requirement for a hearing under section 189.1(2) of the SPA as I do not believe that a strata council hearing would have resulted in a resolution of all of the issues under dispute.

18.   The thrust of the applicant’s claims is that the strata has not maintained the strata or communicated properly, and has not enforced the bylaws. I will deal with each of the applicant’s claims in turn, with reference to the strata’s bylaws, which were filed at the Land Title Office in July of 2009.

19.   Bylaw 8 states that the strata must repair and maintain common assets of the strata corporation, common property (CP) and certain items of LCP. Bylaw 8(d) specifically identifies doors as being the strata’s responsibility to repair and maintain.

20.   In addition, section 3 of the SPA provides that a strata corporation is responsible for managing and maintaining the CP and common assets of the strata corporation for the benefit of the owners. The standard of care that applies to a strata corporation with respect to the maintenance of CP is reasonableness (see Weir v. Owners, Strata Plan NW 17, 2010 BCSC 784).

21.   The strata’s bylaws also address the owners’ responsibilities to maintain the individual strata lots, at bylaw 2. Further, bylaw 6 states that an owner must obtain the written approval of the strata before making any alteration to CP or LCP.

Security Gate in the Garbage Area

22.   The applicant asks that I order the strata to maintain the security gate in the garbage area as they were trapped in this area. The applicant also seeks an order that the strata pay them $50.00. The strata says it was unaware of this event, but that it received a service request for this gate on April 13, 2019 and arranged for an unspecified repair to be performed.

23.   While there may have been an occasion when applicant was unable to exit the garbage area when they wished to, the evidence before me does not support the conclusion that this event was due to the strata’s failure to reasonably maintain the gate. Further, the evidence shows that maintenance work was performed on the gate recently. I find that the issue is resolved, and there is no need to order further maintenance on the gate. I also find that an award of $50.00 to the applicant is not supported by the evidence, and dismiss this claim.

Maintenance of Building Locks

24.   The applicant says the strata failed to maintain the locks in the building, and states that some locks would not turn or were difficult to open. They ask for an order that the strata maintain the locks and pay them $50.00. The strata says it takes prompt action to correct all malfunctioning locks and is unaware of any locks that are malfunctioning currently.

25.   The strata provided a series of invoices to support its maintenance of locks. I also note that the minutes of the June 26, 2019 annual general meeting show that the ownership voted to re-key locks on the main strata building to change to non-copiable keys. In my view, the available evidence does not establish that the strata has failed to take reasonable steps to maintain its locks. I also find that the evidence does not establish any basis for an award of $50.00 to the applicant. I dismiss this claim.

Parking Lot Security Door

26.   The applicant asks that the strata be ordered to maintain the parking lot security door and pay them $50.00. The applicant says this door could not remain shut and identifies this item as “completed”. The strata says it is not aware of any malfunction with this door.

27.   The door described by the applicant appears to be in the CP parking area. It is unclear if this is one of the repairs the applicant says they undertook at their own initiative and without the strata’s permission. I would point out that bylaw 6 states that an owner must obtain the written approval of the strata before making any alteration to CP or LCP.

28.   I am not satisfied that the evidence before me establishes that there is a defect with the parking lot security door, or that the strata has failed to maintain it reasonably. Further, I find that an award of $50.00 to the applicant is not supported by the evidence. I dismiss this claim.

Repair of Door on the First Floor

29.   The applicant seeks an order that the strata repair a base plate on a first floor door and pay them $150.00. The strata says this issue has been addressed.

30.   The applicant indicated that they had been waiting for permission from the strata to fix the base plate. The strata has not granted the applicant permission to perform this repair and, in any event, the evidence establishes that a new base plate was installed as of June 19, 2019.

31.   As the repair has been completed and I find no basis for a $150.00 payment to the applicant, I will not make an order about this issue and dismiss this claim.

Rear Door on the First Floor

32.   The applicant asks that the strata install a doorsweep and seal a gap at the first floor rear door to prevent pests from entering the building. The applicant also seeks an order that the strata pay them $200. The strata says that it arranged for a repair of this door already.

33.   A June 19, 2019 email message and photographs confirm that a new door sweep has been installed. The images do not show any gap around this door.

34.   I am satisfied that the issues with the rear door on the first floor have been dealt with and there is no need for me to make an order for its repair. I also find that the applicant has not established a basis for an award of $200 for this item, and dismiss this claim.

Front Door Sensor

35.   The applicant makes 2 claims about the front door sensor, and asks for orders that it be deactivated both because the building is insecure from the inside and because the front door cannot be secured or locked during a power failure. The strata says that the sensor is functioning correctly, but that it intended to deactivate it.

36.   A June 19, 2019 email message from a handyman confirms that the sensor has been removed. I am satisfied that this matter has been resolved and there is no need for me to make an order about the front door sensor.

Arms on the Parking Lot Security Gate

37.   The applicant seeks an order that the strata replace the arms on the parking lot security gate, which they say were stolen in March of 2019. The strata says the arms were removed as the sensor had been struck by vehicles and damaged repeatedly, resulting in increased costs with no security benefit. The strata provided invoices that document several sets of repairs to the parking enclosure gate.

38.   While the applicant may prefer that the arms be re-installed, I do not find that the strata’s decision to remove the arms was unreasonable in the circumstances, or that the decision amounts to a failure to maintain the gate. I dismiss this claim.

Keyed Locks on Parking Garage Doors and Ground Floor Doors

39.   The applicant asks for an order that the strata install keyed locks on doors to the building for underground parking and on all ground floor doors. The strata says that the doors from the underground parking are fire exits and cannot have locks on them and that all other ground floor doors already have locks on them.

40.   Images in evidence show that some doors have keyed locks installed on them. It is not clear from the evidence whether these doors are located in the parking garage or ground floor. In any event, I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes that the strata has failed to take reasonable steps to maintain the locks in question or security in the building. I dismiss this claim.

Improvement of Security

41.   The applicant asks that the strata be ordered to improve security in the building and stop removing security devices. The strata says it is unaware of any security devices being removed from the building.

42.   Although the applicant may disagree with specific items, I find that there is no indication in the evidence that security is lacking, or that the strata has failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the strata’s buildings are reasonably secure.

43.   The applicant’s submissions suggest that they installed their own locks in the CP garbage area without receiving permission from the strata. These may be the security devices to which the applicant refers. As discussed above, the bylaws prohibit the alteration of CP without permission from the strata. The strata says it did not give the applicant permission to apply locks in the garbage area or anywhere else in the strata property. Therefore, I find that it was reasonable for the strata to remove any unapproved devices. There is no indication in the evidence before me that any other security devices have been removed or not maintained, so it is not necessary to make any orders for strata action. I dismiss the applicant’s claim in this regard.

Mailboxes

44.   The applicant seeks an order that the strata maintain the mailboxes and ensure that they are kept locked. The applicant says that returned mail is visible through the windows, which may induce someone to break into the building. An image provided by the applicant shows what appears to be mail items strewn about the mail area, and this area is visible from the outside. The strata says that one unused mailbox had been broken, but is now fixed. The strata provided an image of a set of mailboxes, all of which appear to be closed and free of visible damage.

45.   Based on the evidence before me, I am unable to conclude that there is a current maintenance issue with the strata’s mailboxes. Further, while it may be preferable for individual residents to be more responsible with mail items they wish to discard or return, I find that the evidence does not support the conclusion that the strata has failed to take reasonable steps to maintain the mailbox area. I dismiss this claim.  

Occupant Listing

46.   The applicant makes 2 claims about the occupant listing at the strata’s front door, asking that the individual listings be changed so they do not look like potential addresses and that their own information be removed. The strata says the buzzer numbers on the listing do not correlate with an address or strata lot number and that the applicant’s name and buzzer number have been removed. The strata provided an image dated July 23, 2019 which does not include the applicant’s name and buzzer number in the listing. The image does not show a blank or unidentified spot which could be attributed to the applicant.

47.   I am satisfied that the issues with the occupant listing have been addressed by the strata. Accordingly, it is not necessary for me to issue an order requiring its modification.

Buzzer System

48.   The applicant asks for an order that the strata deactivate the buzzer system as it is a security risk. According to the applicant, the buzzer system is not secure as it allows the door to open whenever a resident answers the buzzer, whether or not they intend to allow the visitor into the building. The strata says that the use of a buzzer system is common, and there is no reasonable alternative to this system.

49.   The evidence before me does not contain proof of the buzzer system’s malfunction, or an opinion from a technician or other expert to comment on its operation or security. I find that the applicant has not established that the buzzer system is malfunctioning or that the strata has failed to maintain it in a reasonable manner. I dismiss this claim.

Violations of Smoking Bylaw

50.   The applicant seeks an order that the strata pay them $800 as unknown individuals were smoking near their strata lot and parking stall. The strata says it is unaware of these incidents and has no details about the alleged smoker or smokers.

51.   Bylaw 3(7)(c) was amended in 2009 to prohibit smoking on CP and LCP. There is no indication in the evidence before me that the applicant made complaints about smoking incidents with sufficient detail to allow the strata to investigate the possibility of bylaw breaches. While I do not doubt the applicant’s report of smoking activity, I am unable to conclude that the strata is failing to enforce the no smoking bylaw. I would point out that, even if there had been violations of the smoking bylaw, any associated fines would be paid to the strata, not to the applicant.

Damages for Failure to Accommodate Plumbing Repairs and Security Issues

52.   The applicant asks that the strata pay them $5,000 in damages for failing to accommodate plumbing repairs in their strata lot and for “building security issues”. The strata denies that it owes the applicant any damages.

53.   The applicant says the strata failed to allow them to turn off the building’s water supply for repair purposes, even though they offered to post notices of the pending outage themselves. The strata says that it only permits licenced plumbers who carry insurance and WorkSafeBC coverage to perform plumbing work in the strata’s buildings. As the applicant did not produce proof of insurance and workers’ compensation coverage, the strata did not provide them with access. This decision was documented in the minutes from the March 28, 2019 meeting of the strata council.

54.   Documents in evidence show that the applicant has some training in plumbing (albeit under a different name). However, there is no indication that they provided evidence of insurance or workers’ compensation coverage to the strata.  I find that, given the potential for liability and damage to other areas of the strata, it is reasonable for the strata to require proof of workers’ compensation coverage and insurance for all persons who access the building’s water supply. As the applicant did not provide the information required of all persons who wish to work on the water system, it was reasonable for the strata to decline access.  

55.   I also find that the evidence does not support the conclusion that the strata has failed to reasonably address security issues. As I find no basis for an award of damages (of $5,000 or otherwise) to the applicant from the strata, I dismiss this claim.

Keys to Access Water Supply

56.   The applicant asks that the strata be ordered to provide them with keys to the mechanical rooms to facilitate the plumbing repairs, cleaning and other maintenance tasks, adjusting the sprinkler system and to address any emergency situations. The applicant’s view is that the water supply is being mismanaged and the outdoor irrigation system uses too much water.

57.   As discussed above, the strata says it will permit the applicant to access the water supply if they satisfy the requirements for access, but that only members of the strata council have keys to these areas of the building.

58.   I have already determined that the applicant has not demonstrated that the strata inappropriately denied access to the water supply for plumbing repairs. Further, residents of the strata are not entitled to make alterations to CP without permission. I find this includes the sprinkler system. In any event, I find that the applicant has not established that the strata’s use of water for irrigation or other purposes is unreasonable or is in contravention of the SPA, the bylaws or municipal bylaws, or that the strata has failed to maintain any of the water systems in the strata.

59.   I acknowledge the applicant’s submission that their real estate agent told them that they were entitled to keys to all areas of the strata. There is nothing in the SPA or the bylaws that sets out such an entitlement. Also, the evidence before me does not demonstrate that residents other than strata council members have keys to access the mechanical room. I do not find that the strata’s decision in this regard is unreasonable, and dismiss the applicant’s claim.

Garbage Area & Service Contract

60.   The applicant asks for an order that the strata explain the garbage area and service contract for waste removal. They also ask that the strata be ordered to deal with “problems with strange operation of garbage area”. The applicant is concerned that occupants are not sorting or handling their waste properly and are placing items in the dumpster that could be donated to a thrift store. The applicant also says that commercial waste is being placed in the dumpster and that some residents fail to break down their cardboard boxes. The applicant also says that the contractor is not rinsing out the various waste bins and is emptying bins when they are only half full, resulting in increased costs to the strata. The strata says it has provided a copy of the contract to the applicant, and any complaints must be made through the property manager.

61.   Documents in evidence confirm that the property manager provided the applicant with a copy of the waste management contract on May 29, 2019. This agreement provides for the pick-up of garbage, recycling, and organics once weekly (not simply when the receptacles are full) and does not state that the contractor is responsible for cleaning the waste receptacles. The evidence also contains copies of notices the strata has posted to remind residents of the appropriate disposal of various types of waste.

62.   I find that the evidence does not establish that the strata has failed to manage the contact with the waste provider or failed to maintain the garbage area reasonably. I am not satisfied that the applicant has proven their assertion that the strata should only require waste pick-up a few times per year, particularly as the waste removal services are shared with another phase of the development and it is not clear how many residents use this service. I dismiss the applicant’s claim with respect to waste removal.  

Electricity Use

63.   The applicant seeks an order that the strata reduce electricity use during daylight hours by removing light bulbs and not using so many light fixtures in the hallways. The applicant suggests that there is plenty of sunlight in many areas such that no artificial light is required, and that this, in combination with the use of sensors in other areas, would reduce electricity consumption and utility costs. The applicant also is concerned about the environmental impact of light bulbs, which are not reusable.

64.   The strata denies that there is any misuse of electricity, and says that all hallways and stairwells are lit with low wattage bulbs to ensure safety and security. The minutes of the June 26, 2018 annual general meeting indicate that the ownership approved an expenditure to convert parkade lighting to more efficient LED bulbs.

65.   I acknowledge the applicant’s preference for sustainable energy sources. However, I find that the evidence before me does not establish that the strata has failed to maintain the lighting systems in the strata or has failed to manage energy consumption in a reasonable manner. I dismiss this claim.

Cleaning Contract and Complaints

66.   The applicant asks for an order that the strata explain the cleaning contract and how to deal with complaints. The applicant expressed concern about vacuuming and the type of vacuum used by the contractor. The strata says it has provided the applicant with a copy of the cleaning contact, and that any complaints about janitorial services must be submitted in writing to the property manager.

67.   Documents in evidence confirm that the property manager provided the applicant with a copy of the cleaning contract on May 29, 2019. I note that the contract requires the contractor to vacuum all common areas and stairwells each week, but that it does not specify what type of equipment must be used. I find that the evidence before me does not establish that the contractor is not performing the work contemplated by the contract, or that the strata is not managing the cleaning contractor or associated contract reasonably. I dismiss the applicant’s claim in this regard.

Providing Information to the Police

68.   The applicant says that the strata has failed to provide information to the police about allegations of thefts from their strata lot and ongoing criminal harassment of the applicant by police, the local health authority and other individuals. The applicant provided photos that show what they say are stolen fixtures and damage to various areas of their strata lot as a result of criminal harassment. The strata says these issues are not strata matters.

69.   While I acknowledge the applicant’s concerns, the evidence before me does not show that the strata has any information that it would be able to provide to the police under the applicable privacy legislation. Furthermore, I find that the applicant has not proven that the strata has failed to provide any such information to the police about these or any issues. I dismiss this claim.

Garbage Area Door

70.   The applicant requests an order that the strata replace the door handle in the garbage area so that the door can be locked while a strata resident is in the garbage area. The strata says the garbage enclosure is a common area that is used by both it and another phase of the strata development, and this area must be accessible to residents at all times. The strata explains that there is a combination lock on the outside and a regular knob on the inside, and that a user cannot get locked in.

71.   The evidence before me suggests that the applicant has had negative experiences with other residents while using the garbage area. However, I am not satisfied that a lock on the door would prevent such interactions or improve security for the area. Further, I do not find that limiting access to other residents would be reasonable. I dismiss this claim.

72.   In summary, I acknowledge the applicant’s concerns about maintenance and security of the strata’s buildings. However, as I have found that the evidence establishes that the strata has maintained the strata’s buildings in a reasonable manner, I dismiss all of the applicant’s claims. Nothing in my decision would prevent the applicant from raising future maintenance issues with the strata, or from requesting hearings before the strata council to resolve these issues.

TRIBUNAL FEES AND EXPENSES

73.   Under section 49 of the CRTA, 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. In accordance with the CRTA and the tribunal’s rules, as the applicant was unsuccessful, I find that they are not entitled to reimbursement of tribunal fees.

74.   For the same reasons, I find that the applicant is not entitled to reimbursement of claimed dispute related expenses. However, even if the applicant had been successful, I would not have made an order for reimbursement of all of the claimed expenses in the amount of $2,908,168.09, as many of the listed items are not properly characterised as dispute-related expenses and are not related to the issues contained in this dispute or to the strata. The applicant also claimed compensation for their time spent on the dispute. The tribunal generally does not award a party expenses for their own time spent on a dispute, unless there are extraordinary circumstances. I do not find that the circumstances of this dispute are extraordinary, and would not have made this award in any event of the outcome.  

75.   The strata must comply with section 189.4 of the SPA, which includes not charging dispute-related expenses against the applicant.

 

ORDERS

76.   I dismiss the applicant’s claims and this dispute.