Date Issued: August 12, 2021

File: ST-2021-001357

Type: Strata

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Curman v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS3583, 2021 BCCRT 883

Between:

KRISTOFER CURMAN

Applicant

And:

The Owners, Strata Plan EPS3583

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This is a strata property dispute about repairs to a door.

2.      The applicant, Kristofer Curman, owns a strata lot (SL132) in the respondent strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan EPS3583 (strata). At the time of this dispute, Mr. Cuman did not reside in SL132, but rather he rented it out.

3.      Mr. Curman says on June 11, 2020, someone broke into SL132 and damaged the main door and jamb (frame) to SL132. He says the strata is responsible to repair and maintain the door and frame under the strata’s bylaws and that it improperly charged him 50% for repair expenses of $288.75. He also says the strata did not repair the door until about September 7, 2020, causing him to lose rental income.

4.      Mr. Cuman seeks orders that the strata remove the $288.75 repair charge from his strata lot account and pay him $1,200.00 for a ½ month lost rental income.

5.      The strata disagrees SL132 was broken into. It says there was no damage to the door itself and the door frame was damaged on the interior of SL132, which it says is the responsibility of Mr. Cuman to repair. The strata also says that after discussion, it agreed to pay 50% of the repair expenses. The strata denies that it is responsible for any delay in having the repairs completed. The strata asks that Mr. Cuman’s claims be dismissed.

6.      Mr. Curman is self-represented. The strata is represented by a strata council member.

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

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

8.      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.

9.      The CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including in writing, by telephone, videoconferencing, email, 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.

10.   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.

11.   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

12.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Must the strata remove the $288.75 expense to repair the SL132 door frame from Mr. Curman’s strata lot account?

b.    Is the strata responsible to pay Mr. Cuman $1,200.00 for lost rental income?

BACKGROUND

13.   In a civil proceeding such as this, the applicant, Mr. Cuman must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities. I have read all the submissions and evidence provided but refer only to information I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

14.   The strata is an air space parcel strata corporation created on November 2, 2017 under the Strata Property Act (SPA). It consists of a 51-storey high rise building. SL132 is also know as suite 3003 and is located on the 30^th floor.

15.   Land Title Office (LTO) documents show the strata’s owner developer filed bylaws that were different from the Standard Bylaws under the SPA, but did not repeal and replace the Standard Bylaws. The strata filed several additional bylaw amendments on April 24, 2019. I find the Standard Bylaws as amended November 2, 2017 and April 24, 2019 are relevant to this dispute. I find subsequent bylaw amendments filed June 9, 2020 do not apply here. I discuss bylaws I find applicable to this dispute as necessary below.

16.   The parties agree Mr. Cuman’s tenant was scheduled to move out of SL132 on June 15, 2020, but began to move out as early as June 10, 2020. Mr. Cuman’s tenant reported to the strata that SL132 was broken into on June 11, 2020. The incident was reported to the police, but no police report was provided in evidence. I infer from the strata’s submissions that it believes the door was damaged by Mr. Curman’s tenants when personal items were moved out of SL132 on June 10, 2020.

17.   The strata initially denied responsibility for the repair. However, it later agreed to pay 50% of the repair expenses and made arrangements for the repairs to be completed by its contractor, MintClean Building Maintenance Ltd., (MintClean). MintClean’s invoice 02761 (invoice) shows a total repair expense of $550 plus GST or $577.50. 50% of the invoice equals $288.75, which is the amount the strata charged to Mr. Curman’s account.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Must the strata remove the $288.75 expense to repair the SL132 door frame from Mr. Curman’s strata lot account?

18.   In its submissions, the strata says Mr. Curman agreed to pay the expenses relating to the door and frame of SL132. Mr. Curman says he agreed to pay only for the interior frame repairs upon receipt of “a detailed invoice”, which he argues the invoice is not. He also says the invoice does not show the repairs relate only to the interior door frame, so he says the strata is responsible to pay it.

19.   I do not agree Mr. Curman’s acceptance to pay the repairs was conditional on him receiving a detailed invoice that the repairs only related to the interior door frame, or a receipt. In a July 27, 2020 email, the strata’s property manager asked Mr. Curman to confirm some attached photographs were of his door and said that the strata would “fix the frame around the lock and would have to charge back for it, and can also make the door look pretty well new”. In his July 28, 2020 email reply, Mr. Curman noted the photographs were not of his door but stated “you can proceed with the repairs. Can I get a detailed invoice and receipt?” I find the only reasonable interpretation of this email exchange is that Mr. Curman approved the work suggested by the strata’s property manager, that he unconditionally agreed to pay the expense, and expected to receive a “detailed” invoice and receipt.

20.   The description on the invoice says the work was for door repairs to #3003 that included “replacement of door jam[b], door frame, and painting” plus alignment of the door. I find the invoice description provides sufficient details to explain what work was completed. I infer Mr. Curman’s request for a receipt was either for a receipt the invoice was paid by the strata, or that he requested a receipt when he paid the invoiced amount to the strata. I do not have sufficient evidence to consider whether a receipt was provided in either case, but as I mentioned, I find Mr. Curman’s acceptance of the door and door frame repairs was unconditional.

21.   In the event I am wrong, and Mr. Curman only agreed to pay for damages to the door frame inside his strata lot, my conclusion would not change. Aside from the door alignment, which I find to be inconsequential, I do not agree with Mr. Curman that the invoice is for work completed to other areas of the door as he suggests. The photographs provided in evidence clearly show the majority of the damage occurred to the door frame near the strike plate (latch).

22.   Although I find there was damage to the door itself (“pry marks” on the door near the latch as evidenced in the photographs), that damage is minor, and the invoice does not include repairs to the door itself.

23.   Based on these reasons, I dismiss Mr. Curman’s claim that strata remove the $288.75 door expense from his strata lot account.

24.   Given this finding, I do not need consider if the door and frame are common property or part of SL132, nor the strata’s bylaws about who is responsible for the door and frame repairs. I also do not need to consider other CRT decisions cited by Mr. Curman as I find they can be distinguished on their facts.

Is the strata responsible to pay Mr. Cuman $1,200.00 for lost rental income?

25.   The parties disagree on when the door frame was repaired. The strata says it was repaired on August 6, 2020, and Mr. Curman says it was repaired on September 7, 2020. Based on the invoice date of “08/09/2020” the work could have been completed on August 9 or September 8, 2020. The significance of the completion date, as argued by Mr. Curman, is that the damaged door frame was a visible sign to prospective tenants that SL132 was unsafe and had a “non-functioning” door. Although he did rent out SL132 effective July 15, 2020, Mr. Curman believes the door’s appearance resulted in lower rent and a loss of good tenants. However, Mr. Curman did not provide any evidence that the door was unsafe or non-functional or that he had to rent out SL132 for less rent.

26.   The only evidence he provided about this claim was a partial copy of a tenancy agreement effective July 15, 2020 with rent payable at $2,400 per month. He did not submit evidence about the amount of rent his previous tenants paid or any written statements form prospective tenants that they felt the door was unsafe or not functioning properly.

27.   Further, the strata says its property manager and a strata council member separately tested the SL132 door on about June 12, 2020 and found it locked. Mr. Curman did not address these submissions of the strata so I find I can draw an adverse inference to find the door was not unsafe and likely functioning.

28.   For these reasons, I find Mr. Curman has not proved his claim for lost rent and I dismiss it.

CRT FEES AND EXPENSES

29.   As noted, under section 49 of the CRTA, and the CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for reasonable dispute-related expenses, and for CRT fees. I see no reason to deviate from this general rule. The strata was the successful party in this dispute but did not pay CRT fees, so I make no order for CRT fees.

30.   No party claimed dispute-related expenses, so I order none.

31.   The strata must comply with SPA section 189.4, which includes not charging dispute-related expenses against Mr. Curman.

ORDER

32.   I order Mr. Curman’s claims and this dispute dismissed.