Date Issued: May 30, 2022

File: ST-2021-007228

Type: Strata

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: The Owners, Strata Plan EPS6747 v. Xu, 2022 BCCRT 635

Between:

The Owners, Strata Plan EPS6747

Applicant

And:

Dinghao Xu

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Kate Campbell, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This strata property dispute is about payment of strata fees and related charges.

2.      The respondent, Dinghao Xu, owns a strata lot in the applicant strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan EPS6747 (strata).

3.      The strata says Mr. Xu failed to pay 4 months of strata fees, contrary to the Strata Property Act (SPA) and strata bylaws. The strata also says Mr. Xu breached the strata’s parking bylaw, and failed to pay resulting fines. The strata requests an order that Mr. Xu pay $788 for “fines of infraction and late fees”.

4.      Mr. Xu says he agrees “to a portion of the violation”. However, he says the strata has enforced its bylaws in a discriminatory manner, the strata’s management company has not fulfilled its duties, and a strata council member was rude and yelled at his family member. Mr. Xu says he will not pay the claimed amount until the strata council and strata management company prove they will not discriminate.

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

6.      For the reasons set out below, I dismiss the strata’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.   Must Mr. Xu pay the strata $788?

REASONS AND ANALYSIS

12.   In a civil claim like this one, the strata, as applicant, must prove its 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.   For the follow reasons, I find the strata has not proven or sufficiently explained its claim for $788. Specifically, even though the strata had an opportunity to provide evidence and submissions, it is unclear exactly what the $788 is for, when the charges were incurred, or what bylaws or SPA provisions authorize the charges.

14.   In its dispute application, the strata set out its requested remedy as follows:

A order that Dinghao Xu to pay outstanding fee to the strata to Bylaws against late strata fee payments along with interests, penalty fees and any other associated fees. The outstanding fees owed to strata to enforce a bylaw and all the fees incurred by Respondent's action is $788.00

15.   In its application, evidence, and submissions, the strata did not explain how it arrived at the $788 figure. For example, it is unclear whether all or a portion of that amount is for unpaid strata fees, interest, or “penalty fees”, as mentioned in the dispute application. It is not clear what authority the strata relied on, if any, to charge penalties or interest, or how it calculated the amounts.

16.   The strata provided copies of 4 invoices, which I also find do not explain its claimed $788. None of the invoices, separately or together, add up to $788. Also, there are 2 invoices both dated April 15, 2021, and both for Mr. Xu’s strata lot account, but they both show entirely different charges, and different amounts owing. Similarly, there are 2 different account statements dated May 7, 2021, each of which also shows entirely different charges and amounts owing. Looking at these account statements, I cannot determine how the strata arrived at its claimed $788.

17.   The strata submits that Mr. Xu failed to pay strata fees from January to April 2021. However, the only charge on the account statements that is labelled strata fees is for December 2020, which the strata does not say was unpaid. Since the December 1, 2020 strata fee charge is for $133.58, I infer that the $133.58 charges dated January 1, 2021 and February 1, 2021 are also for strata fees. However, those charges are labelled on one of the April 15, 2021 account statements as being for invoices 58 and invoice 66. One of the May 7, 2021 account statements shows that invoices 58 and 66, each for $133.58, were paid on May 1, 2021. Also, there is no entry on any of the account statements showing strata fees charged for March or April 2021. There are some charges for $800.30, but they are unlabeled, and the strata has not explained them. The strata has also not explained or proven how much Mr. Xu’s monthly strata fees are.

18.   There are various other charges on the 4 account statements, some labelled as “LF”, which may mean “late fee”. However, the none of the evidence or submissions explains this, or explains what charge each “LF” relates to (if any).

19.   For these reasons, I find the strata has not proven its claim for unpaid strata fees, or associated charges.

20.   Also, I find the strata has not proven its claim for bylaw fines. The strata says Mr. Xu violated strata parking bylaws by parking his car in other owners’ spots and using up their entitlements to free electric vehicle charging. However, the strata’s invoices do not show what fines were applied, in what amounts, or when. I cannot tell from reading the invoices what charges, if any, are for bylaw fines. I also cannot tell when the alleged violations occurred, or whether the strata followed the procedural requirements of SPA section 135 before imposing the fines. The strata has not said what bylaws Mr. Xu has allegedly violated. Finally, the strata has not said what portion of the claimed $788 is for bylaw fines.

21.   For these reasons, I find the strata has not proven its claim for payment of bylaw fines.

22.   I dismiss the strata’s claim for payment of $788.

CRT FEES AND EXPENSES

23.   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.

24.   Mr. Xu is the successful party. He paid no CRT fees and claims no dispute-related expenses, so I award none.

25.   The strata must comply with section 189.4 of the SPA, which includes not charging dispute-related expenses to Mr. Xu.

ORDER

26.   I dismiss the strata’s claim and this dispute.