Date Issued: November 5, 2021

File: ST-2021-001261

Type: Strata

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: The Owners, Strata Plan VR245 v. Jiwa, 2021 BCCRT 1171

Between:

The Owners, Strata Plan VR245

Applicant

And:

ZULFIKAR JIWA aka ZULFIKARALI ALIBHAI JIWA,
NASIM JIWA aka NASIMBANOO JIWA, FARRAH JIWA,
SHAILA JIWA, and JUBILEE UNITED VENTURES INC.

RespondentS

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Chad McCarthy

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about move fees and fines for strata lot occupancy changes. The respondents, Zulfikar Jiwa aka Zulfikarali Alibhai Jiwa, Nasim Jiwa aka Nasimbanoo Jiwa, Farrah Jiwa, Shaila Jiwa, and Jubilee United Ventures Inc. (Jubilee), each own 1 or more strata lots in the applicant strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan VR245 (strata). As most of the individual respondents share the same last name, and intending no disrespect, I refer to them by their first names: Zulfikar, Nasim, Farrah, and Shaila. Zulfikar and Nasim are Farrah’s and Shaila’s parents. Zulfikar is an owner of Jubilee.

2.      The strata says the respondents owe many outstanding strata bylaw fines and move fees related to occupancy of their strata lots from June 2014 to March 2020. It claims Jubliee owes $27,200, Shaila owes $33,300, Zulfikar and Nasim jointly owe $102,600, and Farrah owes $27,000, which equals $190,100 in total. The strata also requests an order that the respondents provide additional contact information for persons who occupied their strata lots from June 1, 2014 to the present, and an order that the respondents comply with the strata’s bylaws about occupancy changes.

3.      The respondents say the strata is out of time to collect many of the fines and fees, it has unfairly duplicated or inflated many of them, and they cannot determine the breakdown of charges. They say the fines and fees are excessive given the lack of disruption from the fully furnished strata lots’ occupations, and they owe nothing. The respondents also say that the strata does not have bylaws preventing the occupancies at issue, and is unfairly attempting to limit those occupancies through the unfair, arbitrary, and inconsistent application of other bylaws. The respondents say they have no further occupant information to give, and that they are willing to pay a reasonable lesser amount for move fees that better matches the type of occupation of their strata lots.

4.      A strata council member represents the strata in this dispute. The respondents are all represented by the same Jiwa family member, who is not a respondent.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

5.      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.

6.      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.

7.      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.

8.      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.

9.      In its submissions, the strata says that Jubilee owes $27,900 in fees and fines, and Zulfikar and Nasim owe $115,000. However, the strata did not amend its Dispute Notice to reflect these increased amounts. I find it would be procedurally unfair to allow these larger claims at this late stage. I find the strata is limited to its original claims of $27,200 from Jubilee and $102,600 from Zulfikar and Nasim.

Cause of action estoppel and res judicata

10.   The parties in the CRT decision The Owners, Strata Plan VR 245 v. Jiwa, 2020 BCCRT 775, are the same as the parties in this dispute. In Jiwa, the tribunal member found that the respondents had breached the strata’s bylaws by permitting their strata lots to be used as something other than a private dwelling home, because the people using the strata lots were temporary lodgers and not “tenants” with residential leases. The tribunal member ordered the respondents to stop using their strata lots for licensed temporary lodgings instead of as private dwelling homes. The respondents were also ordered to provide the strata a list of the strata lots’ current occupants and stay lengths, and to stop advertising the strata lots on Airbnb and similar sites.

11.   I considered whether the strata is barred from claiming the bylaw fines and move fees in this dispute because the basis of these claims could have been argued in Jiwa if the parties had been reasonably diligent. This involves the legal doctrine of res judicata, meaning “the issue has already been decided”. Specifically, the question is one of cause of action estoppel, which stops someone from pursuing a matter that was or should have been the subject of a previous process (see Erschbamer v. Wallster, 2013 BCCA 76). Cause of action estoppel has 4 requirements:

a.    A final decision in a prior action,

b.    The parties in the new action must have also been parties in the prior action,

c.    The cause of action in both actions must not be separate and distinct, and

d.    The basis of the cause of action in both actions was argued or could have been argued if the parties had exercised reasonable diligence.

12.   I find both Jiwa and this dispute effectively address many of the same occupancies of the respondents’ strata lots, although Jiwa focused on whether such occupancies were permitted, and this dispute involves bylaw contravention notices and fines, and move fee demands, that were issued after the Jiwa decision.

13.   However, the timing of the bylaw fines and move fee demands is not straightforward. The tribunal member in Jiwa noted that Zulfikar emailed the strata in 2014 that he should not have to pay move in or move out fees for his guests because his strata lots were furnished and the guests only brought suitcases. The strata issued bylaw fines and demands for move fee payment in 2014 and subsequent years. The strata says it became aware of the details of most of the occupancies at issue in this dispute by February 14, 2019, and well before the CRT issued the July 10, 2020 Jiwa decision. Further, and unusually, the strata says that some of the claimed bylaw fines and move fees are clarifications of the particulars of fines and fees first issued in previous years. It is not clear on the evidence which of the fines and fees claimed in this dispute were first issued prior to Jiwa and then “clarified” after that decision, and which of the fines and fees were first claimed after Jiwa.

14.   Although the claimed fines and fees are generally for occupancies that predated Jiwa, I find that in this dispute, the strata relies on the bylaw fines and fee demands issued on October 6, 2020, after Jiwa. I find the strata could not have argued in Jiwa for payment of fines and fees that had not yet been issued or demanded. So, on balance, I find that the cause of action estoppel requirements have not been met, and they do not prevent me from considering the strata’s claims in this dispute.

ISSUES

15.   The issues in this dispute are as follows:

a.    Is the strata out of time to bring its claims?

b.    Did the occupants of the respondents’ strata lots move in or move out within the meaning of the strata’s bylaws?

c.    If so, what do the respondents owe for move fees and move-related bylaw fines?

d.    Are the respondents responsible for providing occupant names and phone numbers for previous strata lot occupants, and if so, what do they owe in bylaw fines?

e.    Must the respondents provide additional contact information for previous strata lot occupants from June 1, 2014 to the present?

f.     Should I order the respondents to comply with the strata’s bylaws about occupancy changes?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

16.   In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant the strata must prove its claims on a balance of probabilities, which means proving it is more likely than not that the strata’s position is correct. I have read and weighed the parties’ evidence and submissions, but I refer only to that which I find necessary to explain my decision.

17.   The strata was formed in 1975 under the Strata Titles Act, and continues under the Strata Property Act (SPA). Its premises are a multi-unit residential building with 60 residential strata lots. The strata repealed its bylaws and filed a new set of bylaws with the Land Title Office on January 3, 2014, which I find are the bylaws applicable to this dispute.

18.   Zulfikar and Nasim jointly own strata lots 10, 25, 29, 33, and 54, known as units 110, 205, 209, 213, and 314. Jubilee owns strata lots 45, 51, and 53, known as 305, 311, and 313. Farrah owns strata lot 5, known as unit 105, and Shaila owns strata lot 28, known as unit 208. The respondents do not dispute the strata’s statement that Zulfikar is the “contact person” for all of these strata lots. This dispute involves numerous fees and bylaw fines for events that occurred on or before March 2020, and up to 7 years ago, for occupancy changes at the respondents’ strata lots. The strata demanded move fees and issued bylaw fines for those events on October 6, 2020.

Is the strata out of time to bring its claims?

19.   The parties’ submissions addressed this issue. I find the British Columbia Limitation Act (LA) does not apply to the claimed bylaw fines, because those fines are penalties and are not claims to remedy an injury, loss, or damage (see The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 3549 v. 0738039 B.C. Ltd., 2015 BCSC 2273, affirmed in 2016 BCCA 370). However, I find the LA does apply to move fees because they are required payments under a strata bylaw, and their non-payment is a strata loss. Under LA section 6(1), I considered whether the strata is out of time to claim any move fees because those claims were first discovered more than 2 years before the strata submitted its application for CRT dispute resolution on February 13, 2021.

20.   In Grant Thornton LLP v. New Brunswick, 2021 SCC 31, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the test for determining when a claim is discoverable under the New Brunswick Limitation Act. I find the relevant discoverability provisions of that Act are substantially similar to LA section 8, and the court’s reasoning is applicable to the LA. Section 8 says a claim is discovered on the first day that a person knew or reasonably ought to have known:

a.    That injury, loss or damage had occurred,

b.    That it was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission of the respondents, and

c.    That a court proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek a remedy, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss, or damage.

21.   In Grant Thornton, the court confirmed that a claim is discovered when a plaintiff has actual or constructive knowledge of the material facts upon which a plausible inference of liability can be drawn. The court said that a plaintiff will have constructive knowledge if they ought to have discovered the material facts by exercising reasonable diligence. Further, the court said that while a plaintiff needs more than mere suspicion or speculation to have “discovered” a claim, they do not need to know the exact extent or type of harm, or the precise cause of their injury, in order for a limitation period to run. The court specifically said that a plaintiff does not need to know that the facts confer a legally enforceable right to a judicial remedy, or the constituent elements of a claim. The court also noted that knowledge of certain elements of a claim is often only obtainable through processes such as document discovery that typically occur after the plaintiff has commenced a claim.

22.   Here, it is undisputed that the strata knew strata lots 208, 209, and 314 were being occupied by persons other than the respondents by 2014. December 2014 strata letters in evidence show the strata demanded move fees for those strata lots. A November 17, 2016 strata letter addressed the reinstatement of move fees previously issued, and then rescinded, against each of the respondents. I find the evidence shows that the strata knew each respondent had allowed their strata lots to be occupied, that it was likely move fees were not paid for every occupation, and that a court proceeding would be an appropriate means of recovering unpaid move fees. I find the strata knew these things more than 2 years before February 13, 2021.

23.   The strata says it was difficult to know when occupants were arriving and departing from the strata lots because there was no full-time concierge or video surveillance. The strata says the first date on which it could confirm that move fees had not been paid as required was February 14, 2019, because the respondents provided an Airbnb listing of all occupancies and move dates on February 13, 2019. The strata says that was the discovery date of most claims. I disagree, for the following reasons.

24.   As noted, the strata knew the respondents were allowing occupancies before that date, and that move fees were not being paid. Following the binding precedent in Grant Thornton, I find that the strata did not need to know the exact number of moves or move dates to for the limitation period to run. I find the strata was aware that it had, or might have, claims for unpaid move fees. I find that nothing prevented the strata from observing occupants arriving and departing from the respondents’ strata lots. Although these observations might have been inconvenient to make with the strata’s chosen systems and staffing, I find they would not require unreasonable diligence in the circumstances.

25.   On balance, for LA purposes, I find that the strata discovered its claim to each alleged move fee on the date each occupant first arrived at or last left a respondent strata lot, as set out in the strata’s August 6, 2020 letters to the respondents. As the strata submitted its CRT dispute resolution application on February 13, 2021, I find the strata is out of time to claim a move fee for every alleged move that occurred before February 13, 2019, and I dismiss the strata’s claims for those move fees. I note that this constitutes the majority of the strata’s move fee claims. Later in this decision, I also find that the strata was not entitled to charge the respondents the remaining move fees claimed. Had they not been out of time, I also would have dismissed the earlier move fees on the same basis.

Did the occupants of the respondents’ strata lots move in or move out?

26.   Under bylaw 1.1, a “resident” includes both a tenant and a licenced occupant, and both “lease” and “rent” refer to any form of tenancy or licence agreement relating to a strata lot’s occupancy. A “move”, including a move in or a move out, is not defined in the bylaws or the SPA. The following bylaws are relevant to this issue:

a.    Bylaw 13.3 says that a resident moving in or out must get the elevator service key and elevator wall pads from the building manager if using the elevator. They also must ensure that lobby and exterior doors are not left open or unattended, that furniture is not left piled in the lobby, and that common property is left undamaged.

b.    Bylaw 13.4 says that if a strata lot resident is moving in or out, the owner must give the building manager 48 hours written notice.

c.    Bylaws 13.5 and 13.6 say that residents moving in or out must report any common property damage, and that the owner is responsible for it.

d.    Bylaw 13.7 says that, “For every move under this bylaw, both into or out of a strata lot,” before the move begins the owner must pay the strata a $50 “move fee”.

27.   The claims in this dispute include many $50 move fees under bylaw 13.7, many $200 bylaw fines under bylaw 13.7 for failing to pay move fees when required, and many $200 fines under bylaw 13.4 for failing to provide 48-hour move notice. I find that bylaws 13.4 and 13.7 only apply to a “move” into or out of a strata lot.

28.   The strata says that the respondents owe move fees for their strata lots’ occupancy changes. The strata says the purpose of bylaw 13.7(a) is to defray administrative costs associated with occupancy changes, such as recording new occupant information and arranging move-related activities like elevator use. The respondents say the move fees are about possible inconvenience and damage from actually moving household possessions such as furniture, and should not apply to occupants with hand luggage.

29.   The respondents provided fully furnished accommodations in their strata lots. It is undisputed that many strata lot stays at issue here were shorter-term licenced occupancies rather than residential tenancy “rentals” to “tenants”. In both cases, I find the evidence shows the occupants brought nothing more than reasonable hand-carried luggage, such as suitcases, into the strata lots.

30.   I find the bylaws imply that a “move” involves moving a significant amount of furniture or similar large household items into or out of a strata lot. The strata argues that moving in or out also includes situations where a person assumes or gives up strata lot occupancy, regardless of whether anything is moved. I find that interpretation is not well supported on the evidence before me. Bylaws 14.1 and 14.2, not at issue here, refer to a tenant taking possession of a strata lot, and the date when an owner rents a strata lot to a tenant, but do not refer to these as moving in or moving out. Further, I find that the plain and ordinary interpretation of a “move”, in context, is moving a significant number of large household possessions. If the bylaws meant that a “move” included an occupant taking or giving up legal occupancy, I would expect them to say that, but they do not.

31.   The strata notes that at a May 31, 2016 annual general meeting, the strata ownership defeated a motion to add proposed bylaw 13.7(c), “Move-In/Out Fee shall not apply to any owners that rent furnished suite(s).” I find this is not compelling evidence that move fees are payable for all occupancy changes of strata lots, because the bylaws do not say that. I find the proposed bylaw does not clarify what a “move” is.

32.   Further, I find the bylaws do not identify the purpose of the move fee, and providing new occupant information is addressed in a different bylaw, 18.2. Bylaw 13.7 does not mention occupancy changes. In any event, the strata submitted no proof that recording the occupancy changes at issue resulted in increased administrative expenses or took more than a moment to process for occupants without parking needs. Further, no move-related elevator use or other activities were required.

 

33.   Having considered the bylaws, SPA, evidence, and submissions, I find that for the purposes of bylaws 13.4 and 13.7, a change in legal or actual possession or occupancy is not a “move.” I find a “move” does not include a transporting reasonable hand-carried luggage to or from a strata lot.

34.   I found above that the occupants only transported reasonable hand-carried luggage to and from the strata lots, so I find there were no “moves,” and bylaws 13.4 and 13.7 do not apply to the occupancies at issue here. Therefore, I find that the strata bylaws did not require the respondents to pay a $50 move fee for any of those occupancies. I find the owners did not breach bylaws 13.4 or 13.7(a), so there was no basis for issuing those fines. I dismiss all of the strata’s claims for $50 move fees under bylaw 13.7, and all of the strata’s claims for fines issued under bylaws 13.4 and 13.7.

Are the respondents responsible for providing occupant names and phone numbers for previous strata lot occupants?

35.   Bylaw 18.1 says that within 14 days of becoming an owner, an owner must inform the strata in writing of the names and phone numbers of residents or tenants associated with the strata lot. The owner must also provide the name, phone number, and email address of an emergency contact who is not the owner. Bylaw 18.2 says that the owner must inform strata in writing of any change to the bylaw 18.1 information within 14 days of the change.

36.   SPA section 35(1)(c)(iii) and Strata Property Regulation (SPR) 4.1(6) require the strata to prepare a list of current tenant names, but the strata does not have to keep former tenant names. I find nothing in the SPA requires the strata to collect the names or phone numbers of occupants. SPA section 35(2)(k) and SPR 4.1(5) require the strata to retain copies of correspondence sent or received by the strata for at least 2 years, which I find includes written notices of occupant information.

37.   The strata says that the respondents did not provide the required names and phone numbers for many occupants, in violation of bylaw 18.2. The evidence shows that the strata fined the respondents for violating bylaw 18.2 before 2020, in addition to the large set of bylaw 18.2 fines issued on October 6, 2020. As noted, the strata does not explain which of the October 6, 2020 fines may have been “clarifications” of earlier fines as opposed to new fines. Further, although the strata’s documents were not as disorganized as the “document dump” referred to in Terry v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW 309, 2016 BCCA 449, I still found that the strata’s evidence lacked specifics and detail for the numerous claimed fines, which was unhelpful. Having said that, I find the strata claims and relies on the October 6, 2020 fines in this dispute.

38.   Jiwa ordered the respondents to provide a list of the strata lots’ current occupants and how long they would be staying. However, this information was only needed to determine when the CRT’s order prohibiting licensed temporary lodgings would take effect, at the end of each current stay. I find the issue of failing to update past occupant information was not before the CRT in Jiwa, and likely was not germane to that dispute. On balance, I find that the test for cause of action estoppel, described above, has not been met for this issue.

39.   The strata submitted letters from former resident building managers saying that they received no written notices of occupant information from the respondents. The strata says it required this information, including for previous occupants, for its records and for emergency contact purposes. However, bylaw 18.1 already requires an owner to provide separate emergency contact information. Further, I find the strata does not adequately explain why it requires the names and phone numbers of former occupants, and why it fined the respondents in 2020 for not providing that information for previous occupancies. I find bylaw 18.2 requires the respondents to provide the names and phone numbers of current occupants, but it does not require the respondents to provide historical information for all previous occupants.

40.   The respondents say they provided occupant information on “Form K” documents, but they did not always retain copies. There are many Form K documents in evidence. I find at least some of those documents contained the names and telephone numbers of strata lot occupants as required under bylaw 18.2, but the strata fined the respondents for contravening bylaw 18.2 for those occupancies on October 6, 2020. The strata does not say why it issued bylaw 18.2 fines for those occupancies.

41.   Among the several different occupancy lists provided by the strata, one identifies the occupancies for which the strata allegedly received Form K information. The source of this information is unclear, as the strata did not submit statements from its strata management company or current or former strata council members about whether such information was received for each specific occupancy of the many at issue here. The strata also does not explain its records retention policies with respect to Form K or occupant information notices, and whether this information would be available for occupancies dating back several years under different strata councils.

42.   Paragraph 55 of Kok v. Strata Plan Lms 463 (Owners), 1999 CanLII 6382 (BC SC) says, “The imposition of fines does not serve to correct, remedy or cure violations of the Bylaws but, rather, their purpose is to discourage violations of the Bylaws.” Further, according to paragraphs 15 and 39 of Drummond v. Strata Plan NW2654, 2004 BCSC 1405, a strata council need not impose a maximum fine amount, and may consider a lesser amount or no fine. The court in Drummond noted that the strata council did not consider a reduced fine amount or the potential need to litigate an issue, and reduced the fine payable by a strata lot owner. In addition, the court in Abdoh v. Owners of Strata Plan KAS 2003, 2013 BCSC 817 affirmed 2014 BCCA 270, said that the strata corporation had a duty to enforce bylaws, but given SPA section 31, “enforcement vigour must be tempered with prudence and good faith.”

43.   In correspondence with the respondents, the strata said it was required to enforce its bylaws, but I find the evidence, including September 24, 2020 strata council meeting minutes, does not show that the strata adequately considered issuing less than the maximum fine amount for every past occupancy. I find the strata seeks to collect numerous bylaw 18.2 fines issued on October 6, 2020 for the respondents’ alleged failure to provide occupant names and phone numbers for occupancies that had ended long before. The evidence does not show that any of those occupancies have continued, and the strata does not claim that any particular current occupant information remains outstanding. I find the evidence shows that the respondents intend to comply with bylaw 18.2’s occupant information requirements in the future.

44.   I find the submitted evidence does not sufficiently show whether the respondents submitted occupant names and phone numbers for each of the numerous occupancies at issue. The strata’s allegations refer to submitted occupancy lists, but I find the strata has not met its burden of showing that a respondent violated bylaw 18.2 for any particular occupancy. Further, given my findings that the strata is not entitled to historical occupant information, and that no current occupant information is outstanding, I find the October 6, 2020 bylaw 18.2 fines’ purpose was to punish the respondents for alleged past contraventions rather than to discourage violations and obtain compliance. I dismiss all of the strata’s claims for bylaw 18.2 fines.

45.   The respondents also say these fines were significantly unfair. Given that I have already dismissed the strata’s claims for these fines for other reasons, I find that a detailed significant unfairness analysis is unnecessary. However, as described in Reid v. Strata Plan LMS 2503, 2001 BCSC 1578, affirmed 2003 BCCA 126 and King Day Holdings Ltd. v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3851, 2020 BCCA 342, if an owner’s objectively reasonable expectations are violated by a significantly unfair strata action, a remedy may be provided. I find that the strata failed to meet the respondents’ objectively reasonable expectations to be promptly and adequately informed of specific bylaw 18.2 contravention allegations, so that the respondents could properly respond to the complaints as required by SPA section 135. The fines at issue here all relate to alleged violations from 2014 to March 2020, mostly in 2019 and earlier, but were not imposed until October 6, 2020. Although the strata says it only became fully aware of the violations or their specifics in 2019, I find its failure to promptly obtain evidence likely prejudiced the respondents’ ability to respond while other evidence and recollections remained available and fresh in the parties’ minds.

46.   Given my finding that the October 6, 2020 bylaw 18.2 fines were likely intended to punish rather than obtain compliance, I find that the strata’s imposition of several dozen fines nearly 1 year or more after being informed of their details, and in most cases several years after the alleged contravention events, was oppressive and unfairly prejudicial. I find this was significantly unfair, and I would dismiss the bylaw 18.2 fines on that basis as well.

47.   Overall, I dismiss the strata’s claims for $27,200 against Jubilee, $33,300 against Shaila, $102,600 against Zulfikar and Nasim, and $27,000 against Farrah.

Must the respondents provide additional contact information for previous strata lot occupants?

48.   The respondents say they have provided the strata with all of the historical occupant information available to them. The strata says the respondents have not provided this information for all past tenancies from 2014 to the present, and it seeks additional occupant names, unit numbers, and move dates. As noted above, the strata is not entitled to previous occupant information under the SPA or any bylaws. The evidence does not show that any current occupant information remains outstanding. So, I dismiss the strata’s claim for additional occupant information.

Should I order the respondents to comply with the strata’s bylaws about occupancy changes?

49.   The strata requests an order directing the respondents to “strictly” comply with bylaws 13.4, 13.7(a), 14.1, 14.2(a), and 18.1(c) and (d). In the circumstances, I find it is unnecessary to order the respondents to comply with those bylaws, which they are already required to follow. I find the respondents are aware of their obligations under those bylaws given Jiwa and this decision. I dismiss the strata’s request for an order that the respondents comply with any strata bylaws.

CRT FEES AND EXPENSES

50.   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 see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. I find the strata was unsuccessful in this dispute, but the respondents paid no CRT fees and claimed no dispute-related expenses. So, I order no reimbursements.

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

ORDER

52.   I dismiss the strata’s claims, and this dispute.