Date Issued: April 28, 2022

File: ST-2021-006720

Type: Strata

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Jensen v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2652, 2022 BCCRT 498

Between:

LAWRENCE JENSEN

Applicant

And:

The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2652

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Kate Campbell, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This strata property dispute is about an annual general meeting (AGM).

2.      The applicant, Lawrence Jensen, owns a strata lot in the respondent strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2652 (strata).

3.      Mr. Jensen says that in August 2021, the strata held an AGM without giving proper notice to owners. He says this failure prevented some owners from voting. As remedy, he requests an order that the strata hold a “proper” AGM.

4.      The strata says the August 2021 AGM was valid, and Mr. Jensen was aware of the meeting. The strata also says that if Mr. Jensen wanted another general meeting, he could have obtained one by following the steps set out in SPA section 43(1). The strata says Mr. Jensen’s claim should be dismissed.

5.      Mr. Jensen is self-represented in this dispute. The strata is represented by a strata council member.

6.      For the reasons set out below, I dismiss Mr. Jensen’s claim.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

7.      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.

8.      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 which includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice and fairness.

9.      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.

10.   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.

ISSUE

11.   Should the CRT order the strata to hold a new AGM or a special general meeting (SGM)?

REASONS AND ANALYSIS

12.   In a civil claim like this one, Mr. Jensen, as applicant, must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have read all the parties' evidence and submissions, but below I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.

13.   Mr. Jensen wrote on his dispute application form that the strata had not given sufficient notice of the August 2021 AGM, contrary to Strata Property Act (SPA) section 45. However, in his subsequent submissions in this dispute, Mr. Jensen explains his position differently. He now says he has “no issue” with the AGM notice, and that it was done “correctly”. However, he says that after the AGM notice was sent out, the strata manager, F, sent a July 26, 2021 email to all owners which said or suggested the AGM would not occur.

14.   Only the first part of F’s email was provided in evidence, despite CRT instructions to provide all relevant evidence. In summary, the provided portion of the email says:

•         2 out of the 3 strata council members had resigned, and at least 3 people were required to form a council.

•         As a result, the strata management firm could not pay uncontracted bills, order any work, or “hold the upcoming AGM for you”.

•         “Without a Council, there will be no choice but to start the legal process to apply to the Supreme Court for the appointment of an administrator…”

15.   Mr. Jensen argues that F’s email, and the lack of any clarifying follow up communication, “disenfranchised” owners and led to some not attending the AGM, since it says or implies there would be no AGM on August 4, 2021.

16.   This assertion is supported to some extent by a December 9, 2021 email from owner R, who wrote that she interpreted F’s email to mean that because there was no council, the AGM would not occur on August 4. R wrote that she received no further communication about the AGM, but “it appears that other [owners] held an AGM and elected council representatives without communicating to the other residents”.

17.   Although F’s full email message is not before me in evidence, I agree that the provided portion is ambiguous, and that it was reasonable to interpret it to mean the August 4 AGM would not occur.

18.   However, I note that in this dispute, Mr. Jensen does not request that any decisions made at the AGM be reversed or re-voted. Rather, he says the strata should hold a new AGM in order to discuss special levies and “work to be done” in the strata. I note there is no evidence before me that the strata approved any special levy at the August 2021 AGM. However, the full minutes of that meeting were not provided in evidence.

19.   I decline to order the strata to hold an AGM or SGM for 2 reasons.

20.   First, I find it would be impractical to order an SGM or new AGM at this time, since the strata is required to hold its 2022 AGM within the next few months.

21.   Second, the applicant could have requested a SGM based on SPA section 43(1). That provision says that persons holding at least 20% of the strata corporation’s votes may, by written demand, require the strata to hold an SGM to consider a resolution or other specified matter. The evidence shows that the strata pointed out this option to Mr. Jensen’s spouse D in an August 26, 2021 email, in response to her concerns about the AGM notice.

22.   I find that requesting an SGM under SPA section 43(1) was a reasonable option that the applicant could have exercised. The schedule of voting entitlement is not before me in evidence, but since there are only 11 strata lots in the strata, 20% of votes is not a high threshold to meet. I note there is no evidence before me that Mr. Jensen attempted to obtain the necessary support from other owners.

23.   For these reasons, I do not order the strata to hold an AGM or SGM. I dismiss Mr. Jensen’s claim, and this dispute.

CRT FEES AND EXPENSES

24.   Under CRTA section 49 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.

25.   The strata is the successful party. It paid no CRT fees and claims no dispute-related expenses, so I award none.

26.   The strata must comply with section 189.4 of the SPA, which includes not charging dispute-related expenses to Mr. Jensen or his strata lot account.

ORDER

27.   I dismiss Mr. Jensen’s claim and this dispute.