Date Issued: November 2, 2021

File: ST-2020-009658

Type: Strata

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Wright v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 4303, 2021 BCCRT 1161

Between:

GLENN WRIGHT

Applicant

And:

The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 4303

Respondent

And:

GLENN WRIGHT

Respondent by counterclaim

 

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Micah Carmody

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant and respondent by counterclaim, Glenn Wright, owns and lives in strata lot 63 (unit 82) in the strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 4303 (strata). The strata is the respondent and applicant by counterclaim in this dispute. The strata has applied $15,400 in fines to Mr. Wright’s strata lot account for noise bylaw contraventions.

2.      Mr. Wright says his neighbour’s noise complaints against him are unfounded, the strata failed to inform him about the complaints, and the strata failed to investigate the complaints before applying fines. Mr. Wright seeks an order that the strata remove the noise bylaw contravention fines. He also wants the strata to stop imposing “unsubstantiated” noise bylaw contravention fines against him and address his “harassing neighbour.” Mr. Wright represents himself.

3.      The strata says it levied the fines in accordance with the Strata Property Act (SPA). In the counterclaim, the strata seeks $15,400 for bylaw contravention fines it imposed. The strata also seeks an order that Mr. Wright abide by the strata’s bylaws. The strata is represented by a strata council member.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      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). CRTA section 2 says the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

5.      CRTA section 39 says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice and fairness.

6.      CRTA section 42 says the CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, even where the information would not be admissible in court. The CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

7.      Under CRTA section 123, 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

8.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Was the strata’s imposition of bylaw contravention fines significantly unfair to Mr. Wright?

b.    Did Mr. Wright contravene the strata’s noise bylaws as alleged?

c.    Should some or all of the fines be reversed?

d.    Are any other remedies appropriate?

BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE

9.      In a civil proceeding such as this, the applicant Mr. Wright must prove his claim on a balance of probabilities, meaning more likely than not. The strata must prove its counterclaim to the same standard. While I have read all the evidence and submissions, I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.

10.   The strata is an 89-unit townhouse development with 24 buildings. Mr. Wright’s unit 82 is on one end of a 3-unit building. It shares a wall with unit 83, the middle unit.

11.   It is undisputed that Mr. Wright purchased and began living in unit 82 in early 2014. All the noise complaints against Mr. Wright were made in the 8-month period between May 7, 2020 and January 6, 2021. They were made exclusively by unit 83’s former owners, who lived in unit 83 for approximately 1 year, from March 2020 to March 2021. In this dispute, I refer to those former owners as the “complainants” to distinguish them from other past and current unit 83 owners.

12.   The strata’s bylaw 3(1) prohibits owners and occupants from causing a nuisance or hazard to another person, causing unreasonable noise, or unreasonably interfering with other persons’ use and enjoyment of the common property, common assets, or another strata lot (noise bylaw). Bylaw 22 allows the strata to fine an owner or tenant a maximum of $200 for each contravention of a bylaw.

Noise complaints

13.   The noise complaints began in early May 2020. In a May 26, 2020 letter to the strata, the complainants wrote that they first approached Mr. Wright directly and he was respectful and turned the TV volume down, but after May 7, 2020, refused with increasing hostility. The neighbourly relationship quickly deteriorated and the complainants turned to the strata, and later the RCMP.

14.   Generally, the complaints alleged bass noise and vibration coming from Mr. Wright’s TV. The alleged noise usually persisted for a few hours at a time in the evening, sometimes extending to the early morning. The complainants said they could sometimes tell which TV show Mr. Wright was watching, and on at least one occasion, said it woke their 1-year-old child.

15.   In total, the complainants made 76 noise complaints to the strata. It appears the complainants provided audio recordings for at least some of these complaints starting in June 2020, but those early recordings are not in evidence. The evidence includes audio recordings as well as noise measurements from November 16, 2020 on.

16.   The complainants contacted the RCMP about Mr. Wright’s TV noise on August 28, 29 and 30, 2020. The RCMP reports do not indicate any assessment of the noise but indicate that the attending constables generally asked Mr. Wright to keep the noise down. There is a gap in noise complaints between September 5 and October 17, 2020, which generally coincides with when Mr. Wright told the RCMP he would be away for 5 weeks.

17.   The strata received no more complaints after January 6, 2021. It seems the noise disturbance to the complainants continued, as documented in a January 20, 2021 RCMP report. At 10:21 pm, the constable could hear bass in intervals of approximately 45 seconds. The complainants asked the constable not to speak to Mr. Wright so as not to escalate the situation.

18.   Around March 2021, the complainants sold unit 83 and moved out. In a June 21, 2021 statement, the current owner of unit 83 since April 2021, SK, said Mr. Wright has not disturbed SK and they had no noise complaint issues with Mr. Wright.

19.   Mr. Wright also provided 2 statements from other strata residents but their strata lots did not share walls with unit 82 so I find the statements do not assist Mr. Wright.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

20.   Mr. Wright says his TV noise was reasonable and the complainants were unaccustomed to living in a wood frame strata building with shared walls. He says, and it is undisputed, that the 4 previous occupants of unit 83 over the previous 6 years never made noise complaints against him. He says his TV use has been constant. He believes the complaints arose because of personal animosity.

21.   Mr. Wright argues, among other things, that the noise complaints were never substantiated, the complainants’ noise measurements are not reliable or conclusive, the strata failed to investigate the noise complaints and seek resolution, and the strata failed to inform him of the complaints in a timely manner.

22.   The strata says the lack of complaints before and after the complainants moved into unit 83 is not determinative because different people have different schedules and lifestyles. It says when imposing the fines, it relied on the audio evidence, noise measurements, witness evidence and RCMP report provided by the complainants.

23.   The strata acknowledges it did not initially comply with SPA section 135’s procedural requirements but says it cured the non-compliance by reversing the fines and giving Mr. Wright another opportunity to provide information before making its decision to re-impose the fines.

ANALYSIS

24.   Section 26 of the SPA says the strata council exercises the powers and performs the duties of the strata corporation, including the enforcement of its bylaws. SPA section 129 says to enforce a bylaw other than a bylaw relating to a recreational facility, the strata council may either impose a fine or do work to remedy the contravention.

25.   SPA section 135 says the strata must not impose a penalty unless it has received a complaint and given the owner or tenant particulars of the complaint in writing and a reasonable opportunity to answer the complaint, including a hearing if requested. The strata must also give the owner notice in writing of a penalty decision “as soon as feasible.” Once the strata has complied with those procedural requirements, it may impose a penalty for a “continuing contravention” of the bylaw without further compliance with section 135.

26.   I agree with the strata that other than SPA section 135’s requirements, a strata corporation may address complaints of bylaw contraventions as the strata council sees fit, so long as it complies with the principles of procedural fairness and is not significantly unfair to any person who appears before the strata council: see Chorney v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS770, 2016 BCSC 148.

27.   Procedural fairness means the opportunity for an affected person to present their case fully and fairly, and have decisions affecting them made using a fair, impartial and open process appropriate to the statutory, institutional and social context of the decision: see Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), paragraph 28. For the reasons that follow, I find the strata’s process in determining whether Mr. Wright contravened the noise bylaws was not procedurally fair to Mr. Wright.

Addressing noise complaints

28.   The strata first advised Mr. Wright of a noise complaint on June 1, 2020. There are 2 letters from the strata manager with that date. One advised of a May 7, 2020 noise complaint. The other advised of 8 noise complaints between May 13 and May 25, 2020. Mr. Wright says he was only informed of 1 complaint until his November 2020 hearing. The strata did not address this. I return to this issue below.

29.   On June 16, 2020, Mr. Wright responded that previous owners of unit 83 had never complained about his TV volume, and that he could hear unit 83’s TV nightly. He requested a hearing before the strata council. The strata manager responded that council wanted him to be aware that there was “no fine associated to this warning letter,” and that strata council would respond to his written response “with due process if required.” The strata manager asked Mr. Wright if he still wanted a hearing. Mr. Wright did not immediately respond.

30.   On July 14, 2020 the strata manager followed up about the hearing. Mr. Wright said he still wanted a hearing because there was an ongoing issue with “outrageous” noise complaints as well as unrelated parking issues.

31.   I note the strata says at this time it realized it had imposed fines against Mr. Wright without giving him an opportunity to respond. It says it corrected this error by sending a July 20, 2020 letter. However, the July 20, 2020 letter in evidence referred to noise complaints up to January 6, 2021. I think this letter is misdated. There is no evidence the strata imposed any fines against Mr. Wright until August 26, 2020.

32.   The hearing was scheduled for August 11, 2020, but Mr. Wright failed to attend. Later that night, he apologized and asked for the next possible hearing date. In his absence, the strata council decided that because a warning letter was sent on June 1 and Mr. Wright failed to attend the hearing, it would fine him $200 for “each noise violation every 7 days.” A fine was imposed on Mr. Wright’s strata lot account on August 26, 2020. I find the strata was not entitled to begin imposing fines at this point. Mr. Wright was already told there would no fines arising from the complaint(s) described in the June 1, 2020 letter(s). He was not given particulars of any new complaints, contrary to SPA section 135(1)(e). Additionally, the strata failed to give Mr. Wright notice in writing of its decision to impose fines, contrary to SPA section 135(2).

33.   The October 29, 2020 strata council meeting minutes said that council had requested a hearing with Mr. Wright on several occasions not received a positive response. This appears inaccurate – the correspondence before me shows that Mr. Wright missed 1 hearing date and requested another, and the strata council did not respond. Strata council decided to fine Mr. Wright $200 every 7 days if the contravention continued.

34.   It appears the strata considered the noise complaints a “continuing contravention” of the noise bylaw as indicated in SPA section 135(3) and therefore considered it appropriate to dispense with the procedural requirements. However, noise violations observed on different dates are serial contraventions, not continuing contraventions, and therefore a fine may be imposed only if the section 135 SPA requirements are met in each instance: see Strata Plan VR 2000 v. Grabarczyk, 2006 BCSC 1960 at paragraph 43, appeal dismissed at 2007 BCCA 295.

35.   On October 28, 2020, the strata imposed 7 more $200 fines against Mr. Wright. Again the strata council failed to comply with SPA section 135 by failing to give Mr. Wright particulars and a reasonable opportunity to answer the complaints

36.   The strata council eventually held a hearing for Mr. Wright on November 9, 2020. Mr. Wright says he requested a list of all noise complaints. The next day, the strata council gave Mr. Wright a list of 51 noise complaints, dating from May 7 to October 22, 2020. Mr. Wright says until the hearing he had been made aware of was just 1 formal noise complaint against him. The strata does not specifically dispute this. I noted above the 2 versions of the June 1 letter. I find the strata was in the best position to provide evidence that it sent both letters, and I did not provide any. So, I find the strata did not give Mr. Wright notice of the next 50 noise complaints until November 10, 2020. Even if Mr. Wright received both June 1 letters, that means 43 complaints accumulated without timely notice.

37.   In its November 10 letter, the strata asked Mr. Wright to provide, within 7 days, evidence that he was not in unit 83 at the time of any of the complaints. Presumably Mr. Wright raised this issue at the hearing. On November 16, 2020, Mr. Wright provided some dates he was not at home, but did not say where he was or provide any supporting evidence.

38.   It was open to the strata to reject Mr. Wright’s explanation for lack of evidence, but the strata was required under SPA section 135 to give written notice of its decision. On the evidence before me, it did not do so.

39.   In December 2020 and January 2021, the strata periodically wrote to Mr. Wright advising of the fines it was imposing for ongoing noise complaints. It offered no opportunity to respond to the complaints. As noted above, the strata was only permitted to impose a fine for these alleged contraventions after complying with the SPA section 135 requirements for each contravention. So, I find the strata’s decisions to impose additional fines in December 2020 and January 2021 contravened SPA section 135.

Remedying non-compliance

40.   Mr. Wright’s Dispute Notice was issued on January 29, 2021 and the strata’s Dispute Response on March 2, 2021.

41.   As recorded in the March 15, 2021 strata council meeting minutes, in response to Mr. Wright’s CRT dispute, the council decided to reverse all fines to ensure “proper protocol” was followed. At the same meeting, council then decided to fine Mr. Wright $200 for each of 8 noise complaints between May 13 and May 25, 2020 and decided that if Mr. Wright did not pay $1,600 by March 31, then the strata would file a counterclaim for the “outstanding fines.” This indicates the strata decided to reimpose these 8 fines before it could have possibly considered the additional evidence Mr. Wright was invited to provide. I find this is a strong indication that the strata council did not approach the decision to reimpose fines with an open mind.

42.   Notwithstanding the March 15 decision to impose 8 fines, on March 16, the strata wrote to Mr. Wright saying it had reversed all previous fines. The strata said it had decided to “deal with the complaints by starting the process again from the beginning.” It listed all the noise complaints against Mr. Wright from May 7, 2020 to January 6, 2021. The strata said it would consider Mr. Wright’s “previous response” when determining whether the bylaws had been contravened, but invited Mr. Wright to respond in writing or request a hearing within 21 days if he had further information to provide.

43.   Mr. Wright responded that he was not confident in the strata’s hearing process and so he was seeking resolution through the CRT. He also repeated some of the arguments he had previously made to the strata.

44.   On March 29, 2021, the strata wrote to Mr. Wright that strata council had decided to fine him $200 for each incident between May 13 and May 25, 2020, totaling $1,600.

45.   April 15, 2021, the strata wrote to Mr. Wright that strata council had decided to fine him $200 for each incident, which it said totalled $15,400. Later that day the strata issued a revised letter, excluding the $1,600 in fines for May 13-25, and saying Mr. Wright owed $13,800.

46.   Mr. Wright’s strata lot account statement shows that the strata did not reverse any fines until March 29, the same day it applied $1,600 in fines. On April 16, it applied a further $13,600 in fines for “68 incidents”.

47.   The strata says it remedied its non-compliance with SPA section 135 by removing the fines from Mr. Wright’s account and giving Mr. Wright a final opportunity to provide information before levying the fines again. The strata says courts and the CRT have found that strata corporations can cure a beach of SPA section 135 this way. The strata relies on Cheung v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1902, 2004 BCSC 1750, The Owners, Strata Plan VR 2266 v. 228 Chateau Boulevard, 2018 BCCRT 198, and S.M. v. The Owners, Strata Plan ABC, 2017 BCCRT 23.

48.   In Cheung, the strata corporation fined the owner $250 for contraventions of parking and construction timing bylaws. The court held that although the strata corporation did not initially comply with SPA section 135, it rectified the irregularity before imposing the fines. Mr. Cheung’s challenge of the fines was unsuccessful.

49.   I find this dispute is distinguishable from Cheung. First, the fines here total over $15,000, compared to $250 in Cheung. Second, in Cheung, the strata corporation rectified its procedural breaches quickly, before Mr. Cheung filed his petition. In this dispute, the strata attempted to rectify its breaches only after, and explicitly because of, Mr. Wright’s CRT dispute.

50.   As for the CRT decisions the strata relies on, it is not apparent when the strata corporations in those disputes rectified their non-compliance with SPA section 135. In any event, CRT disputes are not binding on me.

51.   I agree with the statement in Cheung that the ultimate question in bylaw fine disputes is whether the strata corporation acted in a significantly unfair manner towards the owner: see paragraphs 15-17. I find this requires an examination of all the events surrounding the alleged bylaw contraventions and imposition of fines with a view to whether the strata was procedurally fair in substance rather than form.

Significant unfairness

52.   Significantly unfair conduct is conduct that is “oppressive or unfairly prejudicial.” As noted in Reid v. Strata Plan LMS 2503, 2003 BCCA 126, “oppressive conduct” is burdensome, harsh, wrongful, lacking in probity or fair dealing, or has been done in bad faith. “Unfairly prejudicial conduct” is conduct that is unjust and inequitable.

53.   Under sections 4 and 26 of the SPA, the strata council has a duty to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the strata corporation, including the enforcement of bylaws and rules. This includes a duty to investigate alleged bylaw contraventions, such as neighbour-to-neighbour noise complaints: see the non-binding but persuasive decision in Torok v. Amstutz et al, 2019 BCCRT 386. When carrying out these duties, the strata council must act reasonably.

54.   I find the strata failed to act reasonably when investigating the noise complaints against Mr. Wright. It is undisputed that no strata council member ever attended units 82 and 83 to assess the noise and determine whether it was unreasonable and therefore contravened the noise bylaw. The strata says under normal circumstances, a strata council member would have done so. It says because the Provincial Health Officer asked people to keep physically distant and not gather in another household in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, council members were not comfortable visiting the strata lots. This explanation is not entirely satisfying because, as Mr. Wright points out, it is possible to remain 2 metres apart and wear masks inside a strata lot, like the RCMP constables who attended to the noise complaints.

55.   I find the failure to attend either strata lot meant the strata was unable to determine if there were effective methods, other than fines, to enforce compliance with the noise bylaw. For example, could Mr. Wright have turned his TV volume down, and did a reasonable volume in unit 82 mean unreasonable noise in unit 83? Could the bass transmission be reduced by adjusting settings or relocating the TV or external speakers (if any)? Would it have helped to apply sound- or vibration-dampening layers between the TV or speakers and unit 83?

56.   In Kok v. Strata Plan LMS 463, 1999 CanLII 6382 (BC SC), the court noted at paragraph 55 that the imposition of fines does not serve to correct, remedy or cure bylaw contraventions. Rather, their purpose is to discourage bylaw contraventions. This purpose is not advanced by the imposition of fines before the owner is made aware of earlier complaints and has an opportunity to correct the behaviour. As noted above, after notifying Mr. Wright of the first noise complaint, the strata allowed at least 43 and possibly 50 more complaints to accumulate over the next 5 months before advising Mr. Wright about them. Moreover, the strata told Mr. Wright he would not be fined for the initial complaint(s). That was not as a result of Mr. Wright having made changes or promising to make changes to reduce noise. That suggested the strata concluded his TV watching was not a bylaw contravention. To later fine Mr. Wright for that complaint and the dozens of complaints that followed without timely notice was unfair because he had no opportunity to correct his behaviour and no clear indication that his behaviour needed correcting.

57.   The strata also apparently determined that each noise complaint was a bylaw contravention, regardless of the noise’s duration and the time of day. For example, the strata fined for 1 hour of TV noise from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. on Thursday December 3, 2020. This indicates the strata took a blanket approach and did not consider whether each complaint established noise that was unreasonable for the time of day. It is generally accepted that the disturbance caused by noise depends on factors such as background noise and the time of day – this is why many municipalities have different noise limits for daytime and night time noise: see Suzuki v. Munroe, 2009 BCSC 1403 at paragraphs 77-80.

58.   It is not necessary that noise reach a particular decibel range in order for it to be considered unreasonable. Instead, the determination is objective and must be made based on a standard of reasonableness and on all of the relevant facts: see Torok, at paragraph 47.

59.   In Simon Fraser University Foundation v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 1345, 2021 BCSC 360, the court commented on transparency in a strata council’s decision-making process. SFU was about a common property alteration decision, but I see no reason the same principles do not apply to a bylaw contravention decision. Because there is no SPA requirement that meeting minutes set out council’s decision-making process in detail, the court said a lack of detail in the minutes is not a ground for overturning a decision. However, the court said the absence of any explanation or evidence addressing how and why the council made its decision is a factor to consider in the unfairness analysis.

60.   The strata council meeting minutes, and the strata’s letters to Mr. Wright, offered no explanation of how the strata determined the bylaws were contravened, other than receipt of complaints.

61.   In this dispute, the strata relies on the complainants’ noise measurements. The strata says the noise exceeded World Health Organization (WHO) and Healthlink BC guidelines, but does not explain how. The strata submitted part of the WHO’s Guidelines for Community Noise, but does not say which values it considered, such as those for “moderate annoyance” in dwellings during daytime and evening or the lower values for “sleep disturbance” in bedrooms at night time. The strata also does not say whether it considered the values for peak sounds or for consistent background sounds, and over what time period. Accordingly, there is little evidence the strata considered and applied objective standards in making its decision.

62.   Mr. Wright suggests the noise measurements are unreliable because, among other reasons, there is no evidence of what noise testing equipment was used, its calibration, and whether the operator was appropriately qualified in noise testing. While I do not suggest that noise complaints require expert evidence to prove, I agree that these noise measurements on their own are likely insufficient to establish unreasonable noise. I say this because, first, the noise measurements are not paired with contemporaneous audio recordings, so it is not certain exactly what noise was being captured. Second, there is no evidence about where the complainants took the measurements – at the adjoining wall, a few feet away, or in a bedroom. The location of measurement is important because, as noted in Suzuki, the decibel level is reduced by 6 decibels each time the distance from a point source is doubled. Walls and other objects in between further reduce the decibel level.

63.   Based on the foregoing, I find the strata’s decision-making process that led it to impose $15,400 in bylaw contravention fines was significantly unfair to Mr. Wright. I reach this conclusion because I find the strata:

a.    Failed to adequately investigate the complaints to determine whether the noise was unreasonable,

b.    Failed to consider whether each complaint demonstrated a bylaw contravention,

c.    Failed to advise Mr. Wright about most of the complaints in a timely manner and misled Mr. Wright about whether he was contravening the bylaws,

d.    Failed to consider alternatives to fines,

e.    Did not appear to have an open mind about its decisions to re-impose the fines, and

f.     Did not provide a cogent explanation for its decisions to impose the fines.

64.   For these reasons, I order the strata to cancel all noise bylaw contravention fines imposed against Mr. Wright up to and including April 16, 2021. As a result, it is not necessary consider whether Mr. Wright contravened the bylaws for each complaint.

Summary

65.   I order the strata to cancel all noise bylaw contravention fines against Mr. Wright’s account, up to and including April 16, 2021.

66.   I decline to make any forward-looking orders that the strata stop issuing fines against Mr. Wright. The strata is required to enforce its bylaws, which may include imposing fines for future, substantiated contraventions. Also, the CRT does not generally make prospective orders about events that have yet to happen. As for Mr. Wright’s request that the strata address his “harassing neighbour,” I find that the issue is moot because the complainants have moved out since he filed his CRT dispute, so I dismiss it.

67.   I dismiss the strata’s counterclaim for payment of the fines, and for an order that Mr. Wright abide by the strata’s bylaws, which he is already required to do.

CRT FEES AND EXPENSES

68.   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. I order the strata to reimburse Mr. Wright for $225 in CRT fees. I dismiss the strata’s claim for reimbursement of CRT fees.

69.   Mr. Wright also claims $840 in legal expenses and $2,773.20 for his time spent dealing with the matter. CRT rule 9.5(3) and 9.5(5) say the CRT will not order reimbursement of a lawyer’s fees or compensation for a party’s time spent dealing with the CRT unless there are extraordinary circumstances. Mr. Wright was not represented by a lawyer and neither was the strata. The substance of the dispute, noise bylaw fines, is not overly complex. I find the circumstances of this dispute are not extraordinary, so I find Mr. Wright is not entitled to compensation.

70.   To the extent that Mr. Wright’s claimed expenses and time spent pre-date the CRT proceeding, they are not dispute-related expenses and should have been independent claims. However, I would dismiss them in any event. Legal fees are generally only recoverable in the context of “costs” or dispute-related expenses, not as damages: see Voyer v. C.I.B.C., 1986 CanLII 1226 (BC SC). As well, Mr. Wright’s legal fees and time spent are not supported by any invoices or account of time spent.

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

ORDERS

72.   I order that:

a.    The strata immediately cancel all noise bylaw contravention fines imposed against Mr. Wright’s account up to and including April 16, 2021

b.    Within 14 days of the date of this order, the strata reimburse Mr. Wright $225 for CRT fees.

73.   Mr. Wright is entitled to post-judgment interest under the COIA, as applicable.

74.   I dismiss Mr. Wright’s remaining claims.

75.   I dismiss the strata’s claims.

76.   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.