Date Issued: July 16, 2021

File: ST-2020-008772

Type: Strata

 

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Caple v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW2433, 2021 BCCRT 778

Between:

NORMAN RODERICK BERNULF CAPLE also known as ROD CAPLE

Applicant

And:

The Owners, Strata Plan NW2433

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	David Jiang

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about the accuracy of minutes and strata governance. The applicant, Norman Roderick Bernulf Caple also known as Rod Caple, co-owns a strata lot in the respondent strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan NW2433 (strata).

2.      Mr. Caple says that the strata approved a budget at the July 2020 annual general meeting (AGM). He says the strata’s property manager then circulated AGM minutes with a different, abridged version of the budget attached. He seeks several remedies, including an order for the strata to redistribute the minutes with the approved budget attached. He also seeks an order for the strata to file a complaint with the property manager’s licensing body, the Real Estate Council of BC (RECBC).

3.      The strata says that after this dispute started, it sent the correct, approved version of the budget to the owners along with a cover letter explaining the situation. It disagrees that any orders about the minutes, budget, or property manager are necessary.

4.      Mr. Caple represents himself. The strata council president represents the strata.

5.      For the reasons that follow, I dismiss Mr. Caple’s claims and this dispute.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

6.      These are the formal written reasons of the 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.

ISSUES

10.   The issues in this dispute are as follows:

a.    Did the strata comply with its obligation to record reasonably accurate AGM minutes, and if not, what is the appropriate remedy?

b.    Must the strata file a complaint with RECBC against its property manager?

BACKGROUND, EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   In a civil proceeding like this one, Mr. Caple as the applicant must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities. I have read all the parties’ submissions but refer only to the evidence and arguments that I find relevant to provide context for my decision

12.   I begin with the undisputed background facts. The strata’s property includes several buildings that provide residential townhouse-style housing. Mr. Caple is a registered owner of one of these strata lots.

13.   The strata repealed its previous bylaws and registered a complete set of new bylaws in the Land Title Office in May 2002. The bylaws have been amended several times since then. I do not find any specific bylaws relate to this dispute.

14.   On July 27, 2020, the strata held its AGM. At the AGM, the owners in the strata voted unanimously to approve the proposed annual operating budget. The approved budget was the same as that attached to a July 2, 2020 notice of the AGM. The parties agree the approved budget complied with the requirements of the Strata Property Act (SPA).

15.   In August 2020, the property manager prepared and sent owners a copy of the July 2020 AGM minutes. The minutes included an abridged version of the approved budget numbering 2 pages. In contrast, the approved budget was 4 pages and contained more information. It is undisputed that the minutes are otherwise correct.

16.   Mr. Caple filed his application for dispute resolution in November 2020. On February 3, 2021, the strata sent owners a copy of the approved budget. It also included a cover letter from the strata, explaining that the enclosed budget was the one approved at the July 2020 AGM.

Issue #1. Did the strata comply with its obligation to record reasonably accurate AGM minutes, and if not, what is the appropriate remedy?

17.   Under SPA sections 103(2) and 45, the strata must circulate the proposed budget 2 weeks before an AGM. There is no requirement for it to recirculate the budget after it is approved. However, SPA section 35(1)(a) requires the strata to keep AGM minutes including the results of any votes.

18.   I find there are no SPA or bylaw provisions about retractions or corrections of minutes. However, non-binding CRT decisions have also found that there is an implicit requirement for the minutes to be reasonably accurate and not misleading. I agree this is the case. See, for example, The Owners, Strata Plan VR 211 v. Knight, 2020 BCCRT 193 and The Owners, Strata Plan 1769 v. Dagenais, 2020 BCCRT 957.

19.   In essence, Mr. Caple says the AGM minutes circulated in August 2020 were misleading. He says the strata failed to correct the minutes by sending owners a copy of the approved budget plus a cover letter in February 2021. He submits the strata should have sent the owners a full copy of the minutes, including the approved budget, as well as a cover letter. He says the cover letter should have included an apology and instructed owners to discard previous copies of the minutes that included the abridged budget.

20.   I agree that the minutes sent in August 2020 were inaccurate or misleading. This is because the minutes included the abridged budget, which was labelled the “Approved Budget”. This was not the case. However, for the following reasons, I find the strata corrected the minutes in February 2021.

21.   As noted above, the SPA and bylaws do not require the strata to take specific steps to correct or retract meeting minutes. I find the only requirement for a correction is that it must be reasonably clear. I find the strata’s correction met this threshold because the strata reasonably explained the correction in the February 2021 cover letter to the owners. The cover letter advised owners that the August 2020 version of the minutes should have included the enclosed approved budget, and not the abridged budget.

22.   Both parties agree that the rest of the minutes are accurate. I have also found the strata is not required to recirculate the budget after its approval. In these circumstances, I find that ordering the strata to send the minutes again, in full and with the approved budget attached, would serve little useful purpose. I find that the strata has therefore complied with its obligation, outlined in the CRT decisions cited above, to keep reasonably accurate minutes.

23.   Mr. Caple expressed concerns that current version of the July 2020 minutes has no record of previous errors. He requested a copy of the minutes in late February 2021 from the property manager. He received a copy that did not indicate the abridged budget had previously been included and removed. He requested orders with the object of preserving the record of events. I do not find this necessary. The strata is obligated to keep records, including correspondence under SPA section 35(2)(k). I find this includes the strata’s February 2021 cover letter. I find the cover letter, other correspondence, and this decision provide a reasonable record of events.

24.   I also find the requested forced apology would not be productive or helpful. I note that for this reason, the CRT generally does not order them. See, for example, the non-binding decision of Howard v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW2494, 2021 BCCRT 401.

25.   Mr. Caple withdrew his request for an order that the strata comply with the SPA, so I need not address this.

26.   For these reasons, I dismiss this part of Mr. Caple’s claims.

Issue #2. Must the strata file a complaint with RECBC against its property manager?

27.   Mr. Caple points out that RECBC regulates property managers. He says the strata must file a complaint with RECBC against its property manger for 2 reasons. First, it sent owners the abridged budget, as outlined above. Second, it was involved in a similar, separate incident in 2017. I describe this below. Mr. Caple also says RECBC will not respond to complaints from strata lot owners like himself. The strata disagrees that any complaint is warranted.

28.   The bylaws are silent on this issue. The owners in the strata may direct the strata council under SPA section 27, but the owners have not used this procedure here. I therefore find the applicable law is about how the CRT should treat the strata’s exercise of discretion.

29.   In Dollan v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 1589, 2012 BCCA 44 at paragraph 43, the Court of Appeal wrote that courts should be very hesitant in interfering with the decisions of a strata council. They added that, assuming a fair process, courts should adopt of an attitude of considerable deference. I find these comments would apply to the CRT.

30.   I turn to the facts about the 2017 incident. The property manager’s July 13, 2017 notice to the owners briefly outlines what happened. First, the strata council emailed owners the correct version of the special general meeting (SGM) minutes held on June 13, 2017. The property manager subsequently mailed to owners an incorrect version of the SGM minutes. It is undisputed that the errors concerned the enclosed 2017 budget. The property manager explained in the notice that it had enclosed the correct version of the minutes and apologized for causing any confusion.

31.   In a September 5, 2017 memorandum to the owners, the property manager explained it made another error. It said it meant to enclose a copy of the June 28, 2017 strata council meeting minutes with the above-mentioned July 13, 2017 notice. The property manager apologized for sending the minutes late.

32.   It is undisputed that at the November 4, 2020 strata council meeting, the strata council decided unanimously not to file a complaint with RECBC about its property manager.

33.   Under the principles stated in Dollan, I find the strata is entitled to considerable deference in this matter. I find it problematic to force the strata to invest time and resources to pursue a complaint it does not wish to make. I find this counter to the CRT’s mandate to encourage dispute resolution by agreement where possible.

34.   I find there is little evidence that I should second guess the strata. The property manager made some errors but there is no indication they resulted in any lasting damage. I also find the errors in 2017 are dated and of limited relevance. They are beyond the 2-year limitation period stated in the Limitation Act. There is no indication that the owners, in general, are discontent with the property manager or would support the requested order.

35.   For these reasons, I dismiss this claim as well.

CRT FEES AND EXPENSES

36.   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. The strata is the successful party and paid no CRT fees and paid no dispute-related expenses. Mr. Caple also withdrew his claims for CRT fees and dispute-related expenses. I therefore do not order any reimbursement for the parties.

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

 

ORDERS

38.   I dismiss Mr. Caple’s claims and this dispute.