Date Issued: March 16, 2021

File: ST-2020-007365

Type: Strata

 

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as:  Greene v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1244, 2021 BCCRT 291

Between:

GARY GREENE, BEATRICE MARLENE MCPHERSON, JUNE LOW, VICKY PELINGON, JASON KOLIBABA and DARLENE SUKOVIEFF

ApplicantS

And:

The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1244

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Sherelle Goodwin

INTRODUCTION

1.    This dispute is about strata corporation governance and spending.

2.    The applicants, Gary Greene, Beatrice Marlene McPherson, June Low, Vicky Pellingon, Jason Kolibababa and Darlene Sukovieff, each own or co-own a strata lot in the respondent strata corporation, The Owners Strata Plan KAS 1244 (strata). The applicants say that the strata breached the Strata Property Act (SPA) and the Strata Property Regulation (Regulation) in the way it spent the strata’s money. The applicants say the strata failed to deposit unspent parking levy funds into the contingency reserve fund (CRF), failed to repay the balance of an insurance loan to the CRF, and incorrectly spent funds from the CRF. They ask that the strata be ordered to pay these monies into the CRF. The strata says it returned any funds owing to the CRF.

3.    The applicants also say the strata failed to get owner approval for extraordinary expenses and paid those expenses out of the operating fund instead of the CRF. They say the strata contravened its own bylaw by not allowing observers at council meetings. The applicants ask the CRT to ensure all owners are made aware strata’s violations of the SPA, the Regulation, and the strata’s bylaws.

4.    The strata admits it incorrectly paid some extraordinary expenses from the operating account but says it will comply with the SPA and the Regulation going forward.

5.    Mr. Greene represents the applicants. The strata is represented by a strata council member.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

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

7.    The CRT 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.

8.    The CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in court. The CRT may also ask the parties and witnesses questions and inform itself in any way it considers appropriate.

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

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

10. In their submissions, the applicants refer to Greene v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1244, 2020 BCCRT 22, a prior CRT decision issued on January 7, 2020 (Greene). In that decision a CRT vice chair ordered the strata to correct all identified roof deficiencies and to investigate and repair any identified common property dryer vents connected to bathroom exhaust vent fans, as well as the common property stairwell duct. The applicants say, in part, that the strata failed to complete the investigations and repairs ordered, that the strata has misrepresented the status of those investigations and repairs to the owners, and that the strata has incorrectly allocated those investigation and repair costs between the operating fund and the CRF.

11. Under section 57 of the CRTA, a CRT final order relating to a strata dispute is enforceable by the BC Supreme Court. I find the CRT has no jurisdiction to enforce its own orders. For that reason, I have not considered the applicants’ submissions about the strata’s allegedly incomplete or incorrect investigations, repair work, or expense allocation specific to the CRT’s January 7, 2020 order. Should the applicants wish to pursue this matter, their remedy lies with the Supreme Court and not the CRT.

 

ISSUES

12. The remaining issues in this dispute are:

a.    Did the strata fail to deposit or return unspent parking lot levy funds, CRF loan funds, or incorrectly withdrawn CRF funds into the CRF?

b.    Did the strata fail to obtain owner approval and use operating funds for projects that should have been paid out of the CRF?

c.    Did the strata violate bylaw 17 by failing to allow an owner to attend a council meeting as an observer?

d.    If any of the above answers are “yes”, what is an appropriate remedy?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

13. In a civil claim such as this one the applicants must prove each of their claims on a balance of probabilities. I have reviewed all the evidence and submissions provided by all parties, but only refer to that necessary to explain my decision.

Background

14. The strata was created in 1993 and consists of 96 residential strata lots in a 4-story building.

15. The strata filed an amended set of bylaws in the Land Title Office on November 21, 2017, which I find apply to this dispute. Although the strata filed further amendments to its bylaws in 2018 and 2019, I find those bylaws are not applicable here. I discuss the specific bylaws applicable to this dispute in more detail below.

16. Mr. Greene was a member of strata council until June 2019.

17. The strata’s fiscal year ends on July 31^st of each year.

CRF funds

18. The applicants ask that the strata be ordered to return the following amounts to the CRF:

a.    $8,387 unspent parking levy,

b.    $17,894.25 balance owing on the 2019-20 insurance loan, and

c.    $541 incorrectly withdrawn to pay for an operating expense.

Unspent Parking Levy

19. At the September 27, 2017 annual general meeting (AGM), the owners voted on a proposed $20,000 special levy, to resurface and repair the strata’s parking lot. The AGM minutes indicate that the resolution was carried.

20. The September 25, 2018 AGM minutes show that the strata had repaved the parking lot but was still addressing touch ups. Bank account reconciliations done by the strata’s former manager show that $8,387 remained in the special levy account as of October 31, 2018. There is no indication, in either AGM minutes or strata council meeting minutes, that any further parking lot resurfacing or repair work was needed.

21. The strata says its accountant has shown that the unspent parking levy funds were deposited to the CRF. I disagree because the accountant’s written evidence does not address the special levy funds, other than to confirm the $8,387 balance when the new property management company started working with the strata, in the fall of 2018.

22. Based on the strata’s financial statements and banking documents, I find the strata closed its parking lot levy account, CRF account, and operating fund account around October 31, 2018, when it changed property management companies. A strata council member deposited all 3 account balances to a holding account on November 16, 2018.

23. I find the strata’s new management company opened a new CRF account with exactly the same balance as the strata’s old CRF account on December 20, 2018. The strata’s financial records show that the only funds the strata subsequently deposited into the new CRF account are monthly CRF contributions or installments on strata insurance premium loan repayments, as I explain in more detail below. So, I find the strata has not transferred the $8,387 out of the holding account into the new CRF account.

24. It is undisputed that, at that time, the strata had a building improvement loan that it made monthly payments toward.

25. In a December 3, 2018 email a strata council member explained that the funds in the holding account would satisfy the strata’s monthly loan payment of $8,809.12. He also explained that he had removed most of the former operating account balance from the holding account so the new management company could open a new operating fund account. Although neither party submitted the holding account bank statements as evidence, I find it likely that the unspent parking lot levy funds in the holding account were withdrawn by the bank, to satisfy its monthly loan payment. I find there is very likely no unspent parking lot levy money remaining and thus no remedy available. Even if there were funds remaining, I would find the strata would not be required to deposit the money into the CRF because I find the underlying special levy is invalid.

26.   Section 108 of the SPA addresses special levies. Subsection 2 requires that a special levy resolution be passed by a ¾ vote at an AGM or special general meeting (SGM) if each strata lot’s share is calculated in accordance with section 99 of the SPA, which I find is the case here. According to the September 27, 2017 AGM minutes, the parking lot special levy was carried by a vote of 17 for and 12 against, with no abstentions. I find that less than the required ¾ of owners present at the AGM voted for the special levy and so the levy is invalid. This means that section 108(6) of the SPA does not apply and the strata would not be required to deposit any unspent parking lot funds to the CRF, if there were any funds remaining.

Insurance Loan

27. It is undisputed that the strata borrowed $27,861 from the CRF in October 2019 to pay the strata’s insurance premium for the 2019-20 year.

28. The strata may borrow money from the CRF under section 95(4) of the SPA, so long as the requirements in the Regulation are met. Section 6.3(1) of the Regulation requires that the loan be made to cover a temporary shortage in the operating fund resulting from expenses becoming payable before the budgeted monthly contributions to the fund were collected, which I find is the case here.

29. The strata says the insurance loan was returned to the CRF and relies on its accountant’s report. The accountant’s report refers to the strata’s repayment of the CRF loan for the 2018-19 insurance premium, and not the 2019-20 insurance premium loan. The strata does not otherwise explain how it repaid the 2019-20 CRF loan.

30. According to the September 27, 2019 strata council meeting minutes, the strata voted to repay the $27,861 CRF loan in equal monthly payments, which I find would be $2,321.75 per month. The CRF bank statement shows the strata deposited $6,965.25 to the CRF account on November 28, 2019 which, I find, is equal to 3 monthly payments of $2,321.75 each. I find the only later deposit to the CRF account is a monthly CRF contribution from the owners’ strata fees.

31. On balance, I find the strata has repaid $6,965.25 of the CRF loan, leaving a $20, 895.75 balance owing. I find the strata has failed to repay the CRF loan by its July 31, 2020 fiscal year end, as required under Regulation 6.3(1).

Fire System Inspection

32. Sections 92 and 96 of the SPA prohibit the strata from spending funds from the CRF unless the expense occurs less than once per year and the owners have approved the expense. A majority vote is required to approve the expense for a depreciation report, or for any repair, maintenance or replacement recommended in the strata’s most recent depreciation report. A ¾ vote is required to approve any other CRF expenditure. Section 98 of the SPA allows the strata to use either the CRF or operating fund for emergency expenses, with certain conditions.

33. It is undisputed that the owners approved spending up to $15,000 from the CRF to upgrade the strata’s fire system at the September 27, 2018 AGM.

34. The applicants provided a series of 3 invoices from a fire protection company in February 2019, which total $9,330.35, including a $541.19 invoice for an annual emergency system inspection. The strata paid those invoices in April 2019 around the same time it withdrew $9,330.35 from the CRF account.

35. I agree that an annual inspection is an operating expense. I find the strata paid the $541.19 operating expense with CRF funds, contrary to the SPA.

Operating fund expenditures

36. The applicants say the strata has failed to comply with sections 96 to 98 of the SPA by using operating funds to pay for expenses that occur less than once per year, also known as extraordinary expenses. They also say the strata has failed to obtain owner approval for some of these extraordinary expenses. The applicants say that, by bypassing owner approval, the strata is not being transparent in its spending.

37. Section 92(a) of the SPA says that the strata’s operating fund is for common expenses that occur at least once per year and to pay the expense of obtaining a depreciation report. Under section 97, the strata must not spend money from its operating fund unless the expense is authorized by the strata’s budget, approved by a ¾ vote of the owners at a general meeting, or authorized under section 98 of the SPA.

38. Section 98(2) allows unapproved operating fund expenditures up to a certain amount, or an amount set by a strata bylaw. Bylaw 21(3) allows the strata to spend up to 10% of the owners’ total contribution to the operating fund for that year, without approval. I find this to be approximately $24,000 for the 2019-20 fiscal year. However, those unauthorized expenditures must also be common expenses that occur at least once per year (see Stevenson v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1419, 2017 BCCRT 70, which is not binding but persuasive).

39. Section 98(3) of the SPA allows unapproved spending from the CRF or the operating fund, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the immediate expense is reasonably necessary to ensure safety or prevent significant loss. Subsection (5) limits any emergency expenditure to the minimum amount needed to ensure safety or prevent significant loss. Section 98(6) requires the strata to inform owners as soon as feasible about any emergency spending.

40. The strata admits that it has spent money from the operating fund for extraordinary expenses that should have been paid out of the CRF account. It says it saw no need to transfer available CRF funds out of the operating account then back in again. I infer the strata means CRF contributions from owners’ strata fees. I find such an approach is contrary to sections 96 to 98 of the SPA. Further, I find it likely that such an approach will lead to shortfalls in one or the other account as it is highly unlikely that the monthly CRF contributions will be exactly equal to any authorized or emergency CRF expenditures for that month.

41. The strata says it will pay expenses as required under the SPA. For clarity, I find the strata must, in the future, deposit CRF contributions from strata fees to the CRF account monthly, and transfer only authorized, or emergency, CRF expenditure funds out of the CRF account as allowed under the SPA.

42. I will address each of the applicants’ allegations about unauthorized CRF type expenditures in turn.

Security camera system replacement and upgrade

43. It is undisputed that the strata’s security camera recording equipment was stolen, as noted in the November 7, 2019 strata council meeting minutes.

44. The applicants say the strata spent $7,261.44 to purchase and set up a new security camera system without owner approval. They say that, although the security spending could constitute emergency spending under section 98(3) of the SPA, the strata only needed to spend $5,000 to rekey the building locks and set up a keyfob system in order to ensure safety or prevent significant loss.

45. The strata says it spent $12,303.48 on security equipment and set up in December 2019. It admits that it did not obtain owner approval for the expense. It is unclear how the strata calculated this expense and neither party provided the strata’s ledgers or expense details.

46. Based on the strata’s November 7, 2019 council meeting minutes, I find the strata decided to replace the stolen recording equipment, purchase additional security cameras, reset door alarms and improve strata office security following the theft. In its January 20, 2020 meeting minutes, the strata council voted to reimburse the operating account $7,261.44 from the CRF for security system replacement and upgrade expenses. Regardless of the amount of money the strata spent, I find that it failed to obtain owner approval prior to replacing and upgrading its security system, contrary to the SPA. I further find the total expense does not meet the criteria for an unapproved expenditure in section 98(3) of the SPA. I find that it was not necessary to immediately upgrade the strata’s entire security system to prevent significant loss, such as a repeated theft of the strata’s recording equipment.

Attic hatches

47. It is undisputed that the strata spent $600 to install locks on the attic doors in April 2020. The applicants say the strata incorrectly attributed that expense to “CRT repair expenses” which, I infer, is the strata’s expenses to comply with the Greene decision. The applicants refer to the strata’s “CRT ledger” and general ledger in emails submitted as evidence but did not submit copies of those ledgers as evidence. However, the strata does not dispute that it posted this expense to the CRT ledger and acknowledges it did not seek owner approval for CRT repair expenses which, it says, totalled $13,557.64.

48. Regardless of which line item the strata posted the $600 attic lock expense to, I find the expense was authorized under section 98(3) of the SPA. The strata plan indicates that the attic is one large space above all 4^th floor strata lots and is designated common property. It is undisputed that an owner entered the attic space to inspect it. The strata’s March 12, 2020 council meeting minutes indicate that access to the strata raised potential privacy and safety concerns which the applicants have not disputed. I find it reasonable for the strata to take immediate steps to lock the attic doors in order to prevent potential safety issues which could lead to significant loss. On balance, I find the $600 expense is authorized under section 98(3) of the SPA. I further find the strata complied with section 98 of the SPA by informing the owners of the cost and reason for the cost, in the March 12, 2020 council meeting minutes.

49. However, I agree with the applicants that the strata contravened the SPA by paying the expense out of operating funds rather than the CRF.

Dryer vent and bathroom exhaust vent screens

50. In the Dispute Notice the applicants alleged the strata incorrectly spent operating funds to install dryer vent screens but provided no submissions on this particular expense. In their submissions, the applicants say the strata spent $1,456.75 of operating funds for bathroom exhaust duct screens, without owner approval. The strata does not dispute the amount spent and does not address this specific allegation in its submissions.

51. I agree with the applicants that installing screens on the bathroom vents is an extraordinary expense and so should be paid out of the CRF. It is undisputed that the strata did not obtain owner approval for the expenditure.

52. At its April 29, 2020 council meeting the strata discussed the need to cover approximately 72 bathroom vents as soon as possible due to potential damage from birds nesting in several of the vents, as well as condensation in the vents. While I find cleaning and covering those vents with birds nests in them was reasonably necessary to immediately prevent significant damage, I find cleaning and covering all 72 bathroom vents goes beyond the minimum expense necessary to prevent significant damage under section 98(5) of the SPA.

53. I find the strata was not authorized under section 98(3) of the SPA to clean and cover 72 vents as a CRF expenditure without first obtaining owner approval. I further find the strata contravened the SPA by using operating account funds for the unauthorized vent cover expense.  

Door Upgrade

54. The applicants say the strata paid $2,625 out of the operating fund to replace an external safety gate with a steel door. I agree that such an expense would be an extraordinary expense to be paid from the CRF and would require owner approval which, I find, is not present in any AGM or SGM meeting minutes.

55. Although the applicants have not proven that the $2,625 paid from the operating account on January 15, 2020 was for the new steel door, the strata does not dispute this. Further, based on photos submitted by the applicants, I find the safety gate was replaced with a steel door. So, I find the strata contravened section 97 of the SPA by failing to pay for the new door out of the CRF and failing to obtain owner approval for the expense.

Attic Air Shoots and Vents

56. The applicants say the owners approved a $7,000 CRF expenditure to remediate mould in the attic at a July 22, 2019 special general meeting (SGM). They say the strata used those funds to install rafter vents, airways, and air shoots. The applicants say the owners were not notified in advance of the SGM that there would be a vote on air shoots and rafters, so were not prepared to discuss it. I infer the applicants to mean the CRF expenditure approval is invalid.

57. Section 45 of the SPA requires the strata to give all owners notice of an SGM, including the proposed wording of any resolution requiring a ¾ vote, which I find is the type of vote required here. Section 50(2) allows the wording of a resolution to be amended during a general meeting, so long as the amendment does not substantially change the resolution and the amended wording is approved by a ¾ vote before a vote on the actual resolution is held. I find that section 50(2) was not met in this case.

58. According to the SGM minutes, 36 of the 48 owners at the meeting voted to approve the strata’s proposed resolution to spend up to $30,000 on mould remediation. I find the vote meets the ¾ vote requirement to approve the resolution. Despite this, an owner then moved to amend the resolution to spend up to $7,000 from the CRF on mould remediation. The minutes say the $7,000 motion was carried with 41 owners in favour. I find amending the resolution to a different dollar value is a significant change and that the amendments to the resolution were not approved prior to the vote on the resolution. I find the amended resolution contravenes section 50(2) of the SPA. I further find the $30,000 resolution was approved by the owners at the SGM and not revoked. So, I find the owners authorized the strata to spend up to $30,000 on mould remediation in the attic.

59. I disagree with the applicants that the SGM vote was about air shoots or rafter vents. I find the resolution was specifically worded to include mould remediation. Based on the SGM minutes, I find the strata advised the owners that it intended to follow the recommendations set out in a July 19, 2019 report, which included increasing ventilation in the attic and monitoring the potential for mould.

60.  Based on a December 31, 2019 invoice and January 29, 2020 cheque, I find the strata paid $7,042.63 from its operating account to repair roof venting insulation, install “air shoots”, and to ensure adequate air circulation in the strata’s common property attic. I find this expense falls within the authorized mould remediation expenditure and should have been paid from the CRF. I agree with the applicants that the strata contravened the SPA by using operating funds for the expense.

Fire Door Sweeps

61. Based on a January 25, 2020 invoice and a January 29, 2020 cheque, I find the strata spent $744.69 from the operating fund to replace “fire sweeps” on the bottom of the strata’s internal fire doors. The applicants say that the strata should have sought the owners’ approval and paid the expense out of the CRF. However, they provided no evidence about the nature of sweeps or how often they need to be replaced. It is unclear to me what the sweeps are made out of and their expected lifespan. So, I find the applicants have failed to prove that the strata contravened the SPA in regard to the fire sweeps.

62. In summary, I find the strata contravened the expense sections of the SPA in regard to upgrading the security camera system, installing attic hatch locks, installing bathroom exhaust vent screens, upgrading a fire door, and installing air shoots and vents for mold remediation.

Remedy

63. As noted above, I find the strata failed to repay its CRF loan of $20,895.75 and incorrectly removed $541.19 from the CRF for an operating expense. I decline to order the strata to return those funds to the CRF because I find the strata has used operating funds for expenses that should have been paid out of the CRF. In a very general way, and in the absence of the strata’s ledgers, I find these expenses total approximately $22,000. So, I find the amount the strata owes to the CRF is approximately the same as the amount it should have used from the CRF to pay for extraordinary expenses. For this reason, I decline to order the strata to repay the CRF.

64. While I make no order in this regard, I find that the strata is required to fund the CRF with the owners’ strata fees, properly categorize expenditures and pay them out of the correct account, and obtain owner approval for the operating fund budget and CRF expenditures, as set out in the SPA and Regulation.

65. The applicants ask that the CRT author a letter to the owners informing them of the strata’s SPA contraventions in its spending. The applicants refer to Wong et al v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2461, 2018 BCCRT 255, where a tribunal member ordered the strata to reimburse all owners their respective portion of an invalid special levy. In order to explain this order to the owners who were not party to the dispute, the tribunal member ordered that the strata send a copy of the CRT order, as well as an explanatory letter, with each owners’ reimbursement. I find the facts here very different than those in Wong, as here there is no order that the strata reimburse any funds to all the owners. I decline to order the strata to write an explanatory letter to the owners. Further, I decline to author such a letter from the CRT, as I find it is not a remedy available under section 123 of the CRTA.

Alleged breach of bylaw 17

66. Strata bylaw 17(3) allows owners to attend strata council meetings as observers. Subsection (4) does not allow owners to observe those portions of the meeting that deal with bylaw contravention allegations, rental restriction bylaw exemption hearings or where, in the council’s opinion, the presence of an observer would unreasonably interfere with an individual’s privacy.

67. The applicants say the strata breached bylaw 17 by refusing to allow Mr. Greene to observe most of its January 20, 2020 strata council meeting, as an observer. The strata says that it asked Mr. Greene to leave the meeting because it was addressing an employee issue and felt an observer would breach the employee’s privacy. It also says it was impractical to recall Mr. Greene to the meeting for “the final few minutes”.

68. The January 20, 2020 strata council meeting minutes show that Mr. Greene attended the meeting and was asked to leave after approximately 10 minutes, just before the strata discussed the impact of the Greene decision and an employee issue. The minutes indicate that the business to be discussed involved privacy issues and a conflict of interest between the strata and Mr. Greene.

69. The parties agree that the council’s discussion of an employee issue involved privacy issues and that Mr. Greene was correctly excluded from that portion of the council meeting. I agree and find the strata was entitled to exclude Mr. Greene from that portion of the meeting under bylaw 17(4). However, I find the strata was not entitled to exclude Mr. Greene from that part of the meeting where the council discussed the Greene decision.

70. I find bylaw 17 does not allow the strata to exclude an observer on the basis of conflict of interest. If the strata council had been discussing legal advice obtained about the Greene decision, then Mr. Greene might have been excluded on the common law basis of solicitor-client privilege. However, the strata has not argued that any legal advice was discussed, and this is not reflected in the meeting minutes. So, I find Mr. Greene was entitled, under bylaw 17, to observe that portion of the strata council meeting about the Greene decision.

71. I also find the strata must recall observers for that part of the meeting which is not personal in nature, or save the personal matters to the end of the meeting.

72. Overall, I agree with the applicants and find the strata contravened bylaw 17 by excluding Mr. Greene from the majority of the January 20, 2020 strata council meeting. The strata must comply with its own bylaws. I decline to order the strata to notify the owners of this contravention as this decision will be published and therefore available to all owners.

CRT FEES and EXPENSES

73. Under section 49 of the CRTA, and the CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. In this case, I have declined to grant the applicants’ requested remedies. However, I agreed with many of the applicants’ arguments and found the strata has acted contrary to the SPA, the Regulation, and its own bylaw. Therefore, I consider that the parties have had divided success in this case. I therefore order the strata to reimburse the applicants$112.50 as part of their CRT fees.

74. The strata claims reimbursement of $525 in dispute-related expenses. CRT rule 9.5 says the CRT can order payment of a party’s reasonable expenses directly related to the conduct of the dispute. I do not allow the strata’s $300 claim for accountant fees, as I find the accountant’s report did not address the matters in this dispute. Nor do I allow the strata’s $225 claim for additional strata management fees. First, the strata provided a $157.50 invoice and no explanation why it claimed $225. Second, the invoice is for a final review of CRT items, without any explanation of the purpose of the review or how its related to the conduct of the dispute. I dismiss the strata’s claim for dispute-related expenses.

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

ORDERS

76. Within 14 days of the date of this order I order the strata to reimburse the applicants $112.50 for part of their CRT fees.

77. The applicants are entitled to post-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act.

78. I make no further orders in this dispute.

79. Under section 57 of the CRTA, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the British Columbia Supreme Court. Under section 58 of the CRTA, the order can be enforced through the British Columbia Provincial Court if it is an order for financial compensation or return of personal property under $35,000. Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the court that it is filed in.