Date Issued: May 1, 2020

File: ST-2019-006772

Type: Strata

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Tollasepp v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW 2225, 2020 BCCRT 481

Between:

ANDU TOLLASEPP

Applicant

And:

The Owners, Strata Plan NW 2225

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Micah Carmody

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about noise bylaw enforcement.

2.      The applicant, Andu Tollasepp, owns strata lot 13 (unit 107) in the respondent strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan NW 2225 (strata). The applicant says he has filed 33 noise complaints about the strata lot directly above his (unit 207), with no resolution.

3.      The applicant seeks an order that the strata enforce its noise bylaws against the owner or tenant of unit 207. He also seeks $5,000 for “nuisance and negligence on behalf of strata council’s failure to uphold” the strata’s noise bylaws.

4.      The strata says it investigated the applicant’s complaints and either remedied the noise or determined the noise was not unreasonable. The strata says it has upheld its bylaws in accordance with its duties under the Strata Property Act (SPA).

5.      The applicant is self-represented. The strata is represented by a strata council member.

6.      For the reasons that follow, I find the strata failed to adequately investigate the applicant’s noise complaints and must pay the applicant damages.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

7.      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.

8.      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 fairly decide the dispute based on the evidence and submissions provided.

9.      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.

10.   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, or to pay money. The tribunal may also order any terms or conditions it considers appropriate.

ISSUES

11.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Did the strata adequately investigate the applicant’s noise complaints?

b.    Was the noise a nuisance or a contravention of the strata’s bylaws?

c.    If so, what remedies are appropriate?

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

12.   The applicant says he has been deprived of his right to quiet enjoyment of his home. He says the strata council has favoured the owner of unit 207 and delayed the investigation process, hoping that he would accept the noise and go away.

13.   The strata says it fulfilled its duties under the SPA by investigating the applicant’s noise complaints and giving the applicant a hearing. The strata also says the applicant’s incomplete renovations in his strata lot may be contributing to his noise experience.

BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE

14.   In a civil claim like this one, the applicant must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities. I have considered all the parties’ evidence and submissions, but only refer to what is necessary to explain and give context to my decision.

15.   The strata consists of 80 residential strata lots in 2 wood-frame, 4-storey buildings erected around 1984.

Bylaws

16.   The relevant bylaws may be summarized as follows:

a.    Bylaw 4(a) says an owner or resident must not make or permit noise which, in the opinion of council, is a nuisance or unreasonably interferes with a resident’s use or enjoyment of a strata lot or common property. It also says no musical instrument or other device shall be used which, in the opinion of council, causes a disturbance or interferes with the comfort of other residents.

b.    Bylaw 4(b) says an owner will not use, or permit an occupant to use, a strata lot for any purpose that involves undue traffic or noise between 10:30 p.m. and 7 a.m. All occupants have a right to quiet and peace in their residence at all times. Owners and “everyone else on the premises” are expected to take special care and attention not to make noise.

c.    Bylaw 4(c) says an owner will not cause or permit undue noise, smell, vibration or glare, or do anything which will unreasonably interfere with any other owner or occupant.

d.    Bylaw 12 says the strata may fine an owner or tenant a maximum of $200 for each contravention of a bylaw and $50 for each contravention of a rule.

e.    Bylaw 21 says that no resident may install an air conditioner without written strata council approval, and the council may only provide approval if required for medical reasons.

f.     Bylaw 29(g) says that hardwood or laminate floors must be floating to reduce noise transmission, furniture must have felt pads, and sound systems on hard floors must be placed on sound-absorbing pads.

Noise complaints

17.   The subject of the applicant’s noise complaints, unit 207, is located directly above the applicant’s unit 107. Since 2017, unit 207’s owner, FR, rented unit 207 to a tenant, HG. Neither FR nor HG are parties to this dispute.

18.   The applicant’s noise complaints are about 2 types of low-frequency sounds. The applicant describes one type of sound as the low-frequency or bass sounds from music, and the other as a more continuous “droning” noise from an air conditioner.

19.   The applicant says when the noise is present, he is unable to read or watch television. He says on numerous occasions he has had to leave his strata lot and return hours later to avoid the noise. He also says the air conditioner’s droning noise causes him a sense of uneasiness.

20.   The applicant says he added soundproofing to his ceiling after HG moved into unit 207. He says the soundproofing reduced daily noise transmission but did not reduce the low-frequency sound transmissions. I note the applicant supplied no documentation of the sound-proofing, and in his video evidence, his ceiling appears to have holes where lights should be.

21.   The applicant first complained of music from gaming or television coming from unit 207 in November 2018. That month, the strata wrote 2 letters to FR. It is not clear why the strata wrote to the owner rather than the tenant, given that SPA section 130 says when a tenant contravenes a bylaw, the strata may fine the tenant, not the owner.

22.   The letters indicated potential contraventions of bylaws 4(a)(b) and (c) (noise bylaws). The letters said the strata council might dismiss the complaints or impose a fine.

23.   In response to the letters, FR emailed the strata noting that when he lived in unit 207 he used to receive complaints from the applicant simply for walking in his strata lot. FR also gave the strata council a letter from his tenant, HG.

24.   HG’s letter said he plays video games on his personal computer using headphones, so the noise must have come from the television. HG acknowledged having poor hearing but said if his volume was too high, he would keep it lower. He said he was never told that he was being too noisy and if he was told, he would have gladly lowered his volume.

25.   On December 2, 2018, the applicant told the strata property manager that the sound transmission from unit 207 had diminished. However, he said he was still hearing “faint, low end audio transmissions.”

26.   Based on that information, the strata was satisfied that the issue had been resolved and did not require further investigation. On January 7, 2019, the strata council wrote FR advising of its decision to issue a warning not to repeat the contravention again.

27.   I find at this point, the strata had met its obligation to enforce its noise bylaws, despite not applying fines. The warning letters resulted in changes that appeared to address the source of the noise complaint.

28.   The strata submitted a May 2019 letter from the resident of unit 204, beside unit 207. The resident said the tenants of unit 207 were quiet and there had been no noise issues for 2.5 years. It is not clear to what extent the strata relied on this letter in its investigation of the applicant’s noise complaints.

29.   In May 2019, the applicant began to complain to the strata’s property manager about noise again. There are 32 written complaints in evidence, the latest dated December 13, 2019. Most complaints are about noise during the day. However, some complaints are about music and air conditioning noise occurring after 10:30 p.m., a time that has significance in the bylaws.

30.   Most of the applicant’s complaints attach time and date-stamped audio/video recordings of the noise. The videos show a live measurement of the sound level in decibels. The applicant does not explain how the sound level measurements in his videos were obtained, nor does he provide evidence of their accuracy or reliability. However, I accept that they serve a reasonable reference point to compare to the baseline noise he measured in his strata lot. The recordings show baseline noise levels in the applicant’s strata lot around the mid-30s decibels. Some recordings demonstrate droning-type noise levels consistently around 55 decibels, and briefly as high as 70 decibels. Other recordings demonstrate what seems to be the low-frequency sound from music with noise levels up to 45 decibels.

31.   The applicant says his recordings must be listened to with “earbuds” that have been sealed to the ear because lower-quality speakers will not reproduce the lower end audio frequencies required. He repeatedly gave these instructions to the property manager and to strata council.

32.   On August 6, 2019, the applicant attended a strata council meeting to present his noise complaint issues. At that time, he had made 16 noise complaints. The meeting minutes summarize the applicant’s presentation as follows:

The Owner of Strata Lot 13 attended tonight’s meeting to discuss an ongoing noise disturbance complaint and the Owner also suspected the source of the noise and would like to inquire Council’s assistance on how to rectify the situation. In addition, the Owner provided audio recordings to present to Council. When the audio was presented, a few Council Members could not hear the noise problem described by the Owner. Council noted it could be a technical problem or improper earphones, however, the evidence is not clear. The Building Manager attended the Owner’s unit to listen and investigate where the sound is emitting from. The Building Manager located the source and assisted the Owner and Tenant of the unit to minimize the noise and mitigate the problem. After review, Council will continue to monitor the issue.

33.   The minutes do not say when the building manager (and council member), KS, attended the applicant’s unit, but I infer from KS’s witness statement that it happened after the August 6 meeting and the results were inserted into the minutes, which were distributed on August 19.

34.   The applicant says he caught KS in the hallway and invited her to listen to the noise. He says she put tiles under unit 207’s air conditioner but they did not reduce the noise. The applicant continued to file complaints and to send noise recordings to the strata’s property manager. Although the strata submits that the air conditioner noise issue is resolved, the applicant says it is an ongoing issue but is only present during the warmer months when the air conditioner is in use.

35.   By email on August 21, 2019, strata council internally discussed having 3 members investigate the noise complaints by attending units 107 and 207. The Dispute Notice was issued August 26, 2019. In submissions, the strata says it was prepared to conduct an informal sound test between the units, but the applicant brought this tribunal dispute before it could proceed. I infer that the strata did not conduct any further investigation after KS attended units 107 and 207 in August 2019.

Witness statement – KS

36.   KS said she is the strata council’s vice president and, since 1989, the strata’s building manager. She said she has investigated many noise complaints over the years. She said she lives on the top floor but hears people below her, which is typical for an older, wood frame building.

37.   In August 2019, at the applicant’s request, KS investigated the noise issue by attending units 107 and 207. She could not hear any noise out of the ordinary. She noticed a “very slight humming noise” and was unsure if it was coming from the applicant’s fridge or somewhere else. She visited unit 207 and noticed a free-standing air conditioner in the living room close to the patio door. There was a stack of blankets under the air conditioner. The tenant placed some ceramic tiles under the air conditioner at the applicant’s request. The applicant continued to complain.

38.   KS said she has listened to multiple noise recordings from the applicant and has only been able to hear a very slight sound in those recordings, that in her opinion does not appear to be a nuisance.

39.   KS said the applicant has been in the process of making alterations to unit 107 since 2016. As far as she knows, the alterations have not been completed, as she observed a lack of flooring, missing pot lights, and sparse furniture.

Witness statement – DM

40.   DM is a strata council member. He said he listened to some of the applicant’s recordings and did not notice any appreciable noise.

ANALYSIS

Did the strata adequately investigate the applicant’s noise complaints?

41.   Section 26 of the Strata Property Act (SPA) requires the strata council to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the strata, which include enforcing bylaws. The strata council is required to act reasonably when carrying out these duties, and this includes a duty to investigate alleged bylaw contraventions, such as noise complaints.

42.   Section 135 of the SPA requires the strata to give an owner or tenant who is the subject of a complaint an opportunity to be heard before the strata levies a fine. This section is for the benefit of the subject of a complaint, not the person who made the complaint. Aside from section 135, the SPA sets out no procedural requirements a strata must follow when investigating a complaint. The courts have said a strata may investigate bylaw contravention complaints as its council sees fit, provided it complies with the principles of procedural unfairness and is not significantly unfair to any person appearing before the council: see Chorney v. Strata Plan VIS 770, 2016 BCSC 148.

43.   I am empowered under section 123(2) of the CRTA to make orders related to findings of significant unfairness. In The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 1721 v. Watson, 2017 BCSC 763, the court restated the test for determining significant unfairness as set out in Dollan v. Strata Plan BCS 1589, 2012 BCCA 44. While that test was considered under section 164 of the SPA, I find it equally applies to an analysis under section 123(2) of the CRTA. In Watson, the court stated the test for significant unfairness as follows:

a.    What is or was the expectation of the affected owner or tenant?

b.    Was that expectation on the part of the owner or tenant objectively reasonable?

c.    If so, was that expectation violated by an action that was significantly unfair?

44.   I find the applicant had an expectation that the strata would investigate his noise complaints, including attending units 107 and 207, to determine whether the strata’s bylaws were being contravened. That expectation was objectively reasonable given the strata’s duty, set out above, to investigate complaints of possible bylaw contraventions.

45.   An investigation need not meet any formal requirements under the SPA. However, I find the strata’s investigation was inadequate in the circumstances. KS did not dispute that she only visited units 107 and 207 because the applicant “caught” her in the hallway. There was no sound testing or measurement, and there is no evidence that KS returned to the applicant’s strata lot to determine if adding tiles under unit 207’s air conditioner had any effect on sound transmission. It is entirely unclear how the strata concluded, in its August minutes, that the noise had been minimized and the problem had been mitigated, particularly given that the applicant’s complaints continued.

46.   The August minutes stated that the strata council would continue to monitor the noise issue. The number of complaints filed after the August 6 meeting (approximately 17) with no response indicates the strata did not monitor the issue, or it took the position that its investigation obligations were suspended when the applicant commenced his tribunal proceeding. It provided no support for this position from the SPA or case law.

47.   In submissions, the strata argues that it acted in accordance with its duty to enforce its bylaws by sending bylaw contravention warning letters. This position is consistent with its property manager’s May 22, 2019 email to the applicant stating that the strata can only enforce a bylaw by issuing or warning or a fine. The property manager suggested the applicant call the municipality to enforce the municipal noise bylaw of 45 dBA at night, and said the dispute is otherwise between the two units.

48.   While promoting resolution between owners may be helpful in some instances, the strata must conduct a fair investigation and enforce its bylaws consistently. Moreover, courts have held that levying fines is a form of punishment and not necessarily an effective tool to enforce a strata’s bylaws: see Wilson v. Highlands Strata Corporation, 1999 CanLII 2900 (BC SC). If noise bylaw contraventions cannot be addressed by fines, a strata may have to make physical changes under the powers granted by SPA section 133: see Bobiash v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2656 et al, 2019 BCCRT 670, where the strata corporation was ordered to upgrade flooring and soundproofing in coordination with the subject of the noise complaint.

49.   Bylaw 4(a) says that the determination of whether noise is a nuisance or unreasonable interreference is up to the opinion of council. That does not insulate council’s decisions from scrutiny, particularly where council’s investigation is inadequate. Bylaws 4(b) and (c) refer to “undue” noise without reference to council’s opinion, suggesting a more objective standard, although some discretion is always required in determining whether noise is undue or unreasonable. Bylaw 4(b) provides that residents have at all times a right to peace and quiet, which is elevated between 10:30 p.m. and 7 a.m. Peace and quiet, in a strata context, cannot mean absolute silence, but I find the applicant is not insisting on silence and accepts that there will be some noise in the older strata building.

50.   I agree with the strata that in some of the applicant’s recordings it is difficult to hear the noise of which the applicant complains. However, the respondent advised the strata that it would be difficult to hear the lower end audio frequencies in his recordings. In light of these warnings, it was not reasonable for the strata to decide that because council members could not clearly identify noise in the recordings, it did not need to investigate ongoing complaints.

51.   In addition, the applicant’s recordings included visible measurements of the noise in decibels. Some recordings go as high, briefly, as 70 decibels. His “baseline” recordings of his apartment are in the low to high 30s decibels. Even if the strata council members could not identify the offending noise, the sound measurements should have alerted them to the need for investigation.

52.   As well, some of the applicant’s complaints were about noise after 10:30 p.m., when the bylaws say no undue noise is permitted, as opposed to simply unreasonable noise that in council’s opinion is unreasonable or a nuisance. I am not satisfied on the evidence that the strata paid adequate attention to the time of some of the complaints.

53.   The strata argues that at least some of the noise in the applicant’s strata lot is attributable to his unfinished renovations and sparse furnishings. Having reviewed the applicant’s videos, I agree that his strata lot appears unfinished and sparsely furnished. However, the unfinished renovations and sparse furnishings do not negate the strata’s duty to investigate the noise complaints. Also, the strata has provided no expert evidence explaining that finishing and furnishings in unit 107 would reduce low frequency sound transmission from unit 207.

54.   Similarly, I find the May 2019 letter from unit 207’s neighbour saying she had not experienced noise issues did not negate the strata’s duty to investigate. The neighbour is beside unit 207 whereas the applicant is below. It is generally understood that sound travels differently through different materials. It is also generally understood that different people have different tolerances to noise disturbance. The test for unreasonable noise, as explained above, is objective.

55.    In summary, because the strata’s initial investigation had no objective measurement of the noise and the effect of any noise reduction efforts, and because the strata failed to follow-up about ongoing complaints, I conclude that the strata’s approach was significantly unfair to the applicant.

Was the noise a nuisance or a contravention of the strata’s bylaws?

56.   In Suzuki v. Munroe, 2009 BCSC 1403, BC Supreme Court considered a claim for nuisance due to a noisy air conditioning unit in a non-strata context. The court found the noise from the air conditioning unit, which was installed outside about 18 feet from the plaintiff’s master bedroom window, was a nuisance. The air conditioner’s noise was around 40 to 50 decibels, measured at the property line between the 2 houses. In determining whether this noise level was unreasonable, the court relied on World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for community noise based on dBA levels (decibels weighted based on human hearing). The WHO guidelines say that noise may cause sleep disturbance in a bedroom at 30 dBA, speech intelligibility issues at 35 dBA, and annoyance in outdoor living areas at 50-55 dBA. The court also considered various municipal bylaws, which required nighttime noise not to exceed 45 dBA.

57.   While the WHO guidelines are not in evidence before me in this dispute, I find the reasoning in Suzuki helpful in determining whether the noise was reasonable. The applicant’s noise recordings show that what seems to be unit 207’s air conditioner was causing sustained noise in unit 107 as high as 55 decibels, Although it is not clear that these measurements are weighted on the “A” scale like the WHO guidelines, I accept that the noise was significantly higher than the background level of noise in his apartment in the mid-30s decibels.

58.   There is no requirement that noise reach a certain decibel range in order to be considered unreasonable or a nuisance. Rather, it is an objective determination, based on a standard of reasonableness, and in consideration of all the relevant facts, which would include the age and material of the building. In this dispute, based on the applicant’s noise recordings and the absence of objective evidence from the strata, I find that the noise from the air conditioner, and occasionally the music, was unreasonable, particularly when it occurred after 10:30 p.m. As noted, bylaw 4(b) indicates an elevated expectation of relative quiet between 10:30 p.m. and 7 a.m.

59.   The property manager’s acknowledgement that the noise was likely in excess of municipal bylaw limits of 45 dBA further supports the conclusion that the noise was unreasonable. I find that the noise created a nuisance for the applicant and interfered with his use and enjoyment of his strata lot. I find that a reasonable investigation would have proven contraventions of bylaws 4(b) and (c), if not bylaw 4(a).

Remedy

60.   The applicant asked for an order that the strata enforce its bylaws. The strata is already required by the SPA to enforce its bylaws. This does not mean that every complaint he made is a bylaw contravention and should attract a fine: see Meloche v. The Owners, Strata Plan BC 478, 2019 BCCRT 230.

61.   The strata’s duty to enforce its bylaws includes an ongoing duty to adequately investigate noise complaints. If the owner continues to make noise complaints and the strata fails to take adequate steps to investigate the complaints and enforce its bylaws, the strata will likely be liable for further damages.

62.   A proper investigation of future noise complaints ought to include 2 or more people authorized by council attending unit 107 with the applicant while the noises are occurring. It should also involve anyone occupying unit 207. It may also include hiring an appropriately qualified sound-testing professional. The test is whether a reasonable person would find the noise excessive or unreasonable. A qualified professional may help in establishing whether the noise is unreasonable based on objective standards.

63.   If the strata determines through its investigation that a bylaw contravention has occurred, the SPA requires it to take steps to address the contravention, whether by imposing fines or taking remedial action under SPA section 133. If the strata determines that no contravention has occurred, it should have some objective evidence on which to base its conclusion.

64.   I note that the strata’s bylaws prohibit installation of an air conditioner without strata approval, which must be based on medical reasons. The strata made no submissions about whether unit 207’s air conditioner was “installed” or whether the strata had issued such a permit. There is also no evidence about whether unit 207 has hard floors and if so, whether it was using the required sound-absorbing pads under bylaw 29(g). I highlight these bylaws only as possible considerations for the strata in attempting to remedy the noise issues.

Remedy - damages

65.   The applicant seeks $5,000 in damages. He says the requested compensation is appropriate given the length of time he has had to endure the noise and the numerous times he has had to leave his strata lot.

66.   In Ng, the BC Supreme Court said that in cases of nuisance, a remedy should be made without undue delay once the respondent is aware of the nuisance. Ng involved a major water leak from a pipe inside a wall in a strata lot. The court found that a strata lot owner had brought to the strata’s attention facts that required investigation, and failure to conduct that investigation amounted to an omission to use reasonable care to discover the facts. The strata was liable in nuisance.

67.   A tribunal vice chair applied the reasoning in Ng in Chen v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW 2265, 2017 BCCRT 113. In Chen, a strata lot owner complained to the strata about noise from a common property hot tub pump. The vice chair found the strata failed to properly investigate and remedy the noise nuisance caused by the pump for 2.5 years, which was significantly unfair to the owner. The vice chair awarded the owner $4,000 in damages for loss of enjoyment of her strata lot, referring to the $6,000 damages award in Suzuki, discussed above.

68.   In Chen, the source of the nuisance was common property, which the strata had a duty to repair and maintain. In Ng, the source of the nuisance was a leaking pipe, although the court did not explicitly consider whether the pipe was common property. In this case, the source of the nuisance is not common property.

69.   Several tribunal decisions following Chen establish that regardless of the source of the nuisance, a strata may be liable for damages when it takes insufficient steps to investigate complaints and enforce its bylaws. While those decisions are not binding on me, I find the reasoning persuasive and adopt it. Aside from the cases noted above, I have considered 5 other tribunal decisions involving noise-related nuisance, and 1 involving smoking-related nuisance (Torok v. Amstutz et al, 2019 BCCRT 386, Moojelsky v. The Owners, Strata Plan K 323 et al, 2019 BCCRT 698, Bobiash v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2656 et al, 2019 BCCRT 670, Lucas v. The Owners, Strata Plan 200, 2020 BCCRT 238, Yang v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR732, 2020 BCCRT 361, Bahmutsky v. Petkau, 2020 BCCRT 244).

70.   The damages awarded in those tribunal decisions ranged from $500 for limited instances of balcony noise to $5,000 for nearly 3 years of droning and living noise. In determining the appropriate damages award, I have considered that the applicant’s November 2018 complaints were addressed and there was a period of limited disturbance before he began to complain again in May 2019. I accept that the noise caused uneasiness and made it difficult for the applicant to read and watch television. However, there was no suggestion of serious sleep disturbance and the air conditioner was only used seasonally. Based on the duration of the nuisance and the nature of the noise, I find the sum of $1,500 is appropriate.

71.   I find the applicant is entitled to pre-judgment interest on this amount under the Court Order Interest Act (COIA) calculated from May 24, 2019, the earliest unaddressed noise complaint.

TRIBUNAL FEES AND EXPENSES

72.   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. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. The applicant was substantially successful. I therefore order the strata to reimburse the applicant for his $225 tribunal fees.

73.   The applicant says due to his inexperience with legal matters he was forced to obtain a lawyer’s help with a title search for FR. However, FR is not a party to this dispute, so it is not clear why the applicant required FR’s address for service. I find the applicant is not entitled to reimbursement for this expense.

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

ORDERS

75.   I order the strata, within 14 days of the date of this decision, to pay the applicant a total of $1,752.57, broken down as follows:

a.    $1,500.00 in damages,

b.    $27.57 in prejudgment interest under the COIA, and

c.    $225.00 in tribunal fees.

76.   The applicant is entitled to post-judgement interest under the COIA, as applicable.

77.   Under section 57 of the CRTA, a party can enforce this final tribunal decision by filing a validated copy of the attached order in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (BCSC). Once filed, a tribunal order has the same force and effect as a BCSC order.

78.   Orders for financial compensation or the return of personal property can also be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia (BCPC). However, the principal amount or the value of the personal property must be within the BCPC’s monetary limit for claims under the Small Claims Act (currently $35,000). Under section 58 of the CRTA, the applicant can enforce this final decision by filing a validated copy of the attached order in the BCPC. Once filed, a tribunal order has the same force and effect as a BCPC order.