Date Issued: March 17, 2022

File: ST-2021-005704

Type: Strata

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Wei v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS945, 2022 BCCRT 294

Between:

DAWEI WEI

Applicant

And:

The Owners, Strata Plan BCS945

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Laylí Antinuk

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about an alleged overpayment of strata fees.

2.      The applicant, Dawei Wei, owns a strata lot in the respondent strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan BCS945 (strata). Mr. Wei says the strata overcharged him $114.04 for his strata fees. He asks for a “double return” of the overcharged fees ($228), plus interest.

3.      The strata says it already mailed a refund cheque for the overpayment to Mr. Wei.

4.      Mr. Wei represents himself. A strata council member represents the strata.

5.      As explained below, I dismiss Mr. Wei’s claim.

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. In resolving disputes, the CRT must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between the parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

7.      The CRT has the discretion to decide how to hold the hearing. A hearing can occur by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. I have decided to hold a written hearing in this case. I find I can assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me without resort to an oral hearing.

8.      The CRT can accept any evidence that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, even if the evidence would not be admissible in court. The CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way.

9.      In resolving this dispute, the CRT may order a party to pay money, or to do or stop doing something. The CRT may also order any other appropriate terms or conditions.

ISSUES

10.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Should I resolve Mr. Wei’s claim?

b.    If so, did the strata overcharge Mr. Wei strata fees, entitling him to a refund?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   As the applicant in this civil claim, Mr. Wei must prove his claim on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I reviewed all the parties’ evidence and argument but refer only to what is necessary to explain my decision.

12.   I note that the parties did not make submissions about whether I should resolve Mr. Wei’s claim. Bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate which includes proportionality, speed and efficiency, I decided not to invite further submissions on this issue.

Should I resolve Mr. Wei’s claim?

13.   Both parties note that when Mr. Wei filed his Dispute Notice for this dispute, the CRT was in the process of making a decision about a related dispute (the prior dispute).

14.   In September 2021, a tribunal member issued a final decision about the merits of the prior dispute in Wei v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS945, 2021 BCCRT 960 (the prior decision). The issues in the prior decision were whether Mr. Wei owed the strata an NSF charge and interest on unpaid strata fees, and, if he did, whether he was entitled to a set-off because the strata had overcharged him strata fees.

15.   The tribunal member found that Mr. Wei owed the strata interest and the NSF charge. The tribunal member also concluded that Mr. Wei was not entitled to a set-off for overpaid strata fees for 2 reasons. First, the tribunal member decided it would be procedurally unfair to order a set-off because Mr. Wei raised the strata fee overpayment issue for the first time in his reply submissions. This meant the strata did not have the opportunity to respond to the overpayment issue. Second, and more significantly, Mr. Wei did not provide any evidence to prove that the strata overcharged him strata fees.

16.   Given the prior CRT decision, I find that the legal doctrine of res judicata (meaning “a matter judged”) applies here. Res judicata prevents parties from bringing multiple legal proceedings about the same issues. This ensures finality and conserves judicial resources.

17.   I find that cause of action estoppel applies here. Cause of action estoppel is a type of res judicata that prevents an applicant from pursuing a matter that was or should have been the subject of a prior proceeding. See Erschbamer v. Wallster, 2013 BCCA 76.

18.   Cause of action estoppel has 4 requirements:

a.    A court (or tribunal) of competent jurisdiction must have made a final decision about the prior action,

b.    The parties in the prior action and subsequent litigation must be the same,

c.    The cause of action and the prior action must not be separate and distinct, and

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

See Cliffs Over Maple Bay (Re), 2011 BCCA 180 at paragraph 28.

19.   I find that this case meets all 4 requirements. The prior decision involved the same parties and was a final decision of the CRT, which I find is a tribunal of competent jurisdiction. I also find that the cause of action in this dispute is not separate and distinct from the prior dispute. Both disputes are about Mr. Wei’s payment of strata fees. Lastly, I am satisfied that the current cause of action could have been argued in the prior action. In fact, the current cause of action was argued in the prior action, though not until Mr. Wei made his reply submissions. As noted, in the prior dispute, Mr. Wei claimed that any interest he owed the strata should be reduced (i.e. set-off) because he had allegedly overpaid his strata fees.

20.   I am satisfied that Mr. Wei could have (and did) make arguments about the strata fee overpayment in the prior dispute. However, the tribunal member found that Mr. Wei did not prove his claim with evidence (see paragraphs 27-28 of the prior decision). Given this, I find that the tribunal member in the prior decision conclusively decided the overpayment issue. Further, the parties say the alleged strata fee overpayment occurred in May 2021. As noted, the CRT released the prior decision in September 2021.

21.   In this dispute, Mr. Wei claims he is entitled to a refund of his strata fee overpayment from May 2021. As explained above, I find that this issue was already argued and decided in the prior dispute.

22.   Taking all this into account, I find that cause of action estoppel applies, so I do not need to address the parties’ other arguments.

23.   Neither party paid any CRT fees nor claims any dispute-related expenses, so I make no order for reimbursements.

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

ORDER

25.   I dismiss Mr. Wei’s claim and this dispute.