Date Issued: June 30, 2022

File: ST-2021-007580

Type: Strata

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Chhina v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS3395, 2022 BCCRT 757

Between:

JASANDEEP CHHINA

Applicant

And:

The Owners, Strata Plan BCS3395

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Kristin Gardner

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about bylaw fines, fob deactivation, and related legal fees.

2.      The applicant, Jasandeep Chhina, owns a strata lot in the respondent strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3395 (strata).

3.      Mr. Chhina says the strata improperly imposed $5,200 in bylaw fines against him. Mr. Chhina denies violating the bylaws and says the strata failed to inform him of the strata’s decision to impose the fines. He requests an order that the strata “cancel” all outstanding bylaw fines against him.

4.      Mr. Chhina also says the strata deactivated his fobs for no reason and without notice, so he was unable to access his strata lot and his vehicle. He requests an order that the strata stop cutting off his access to the building. Mr. Chhina also claims $4,900 in legal fees he incurred to get his fob reactivated and respond to the bylaw fines.

5.      The strata says all bylaw fines were justified and properly imposed against Mr. Chhina in accordance with the Strata Property Act (SPA). The strata also says that Mr. Chhina cloned his fob, and that it properly deactivated the unauthorized fob for security reasons. The strata argues that Mr. Chhina’s legal fees were unnecessary, exorbitant, and unproven.

6.      Mr. Chhina is self-represented. The strata is represented by a strata council member.

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 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.

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.

Late evidence

11.   Mr. Chhina submitted several items of late evidence, after the parties had completed their submissions. The strata then provided additional late evidence of its own in response. Given that each party was given the opportunity to comment on the other’s late evidence, I find there is no actual prejudice to it being admitted. Therefore, I admit the late evidence and have considered it where relevant below.

Initial bylaw infraction letters

12.   After reviewing the evidence in this dispute, I found the evidence about the number of bylaw fines imposed and what Mr. Chhina was disputing unclear. So, I asked the parties for some additional evidence, including copies of the strata’s initial letters to Mr. Chhina advising him of the alleged bylaw infractions.

13.   The strata responded that Mr. Chhina had already filed these letters as evidence in this dispute. However, I find that only the letters advising of the strata’s decision to impose fines for the alleged bylaw infractions are before me. I find from Mr. Chhina’s submissions that he did not provide copies of the requested letters because he felt the strata was responsible for doing so.

14.   I decided to proceed with a final decision without requiring the parties to provide copies of the strata’s initial letters. I find the other evidence the parties provided was sufficient to determine the scope of Mr. Chhina’s claim about reversing the bylaw fines, and I find the letters would not likely have changed the outcome of this dispute. While the strata’s initial letters are relevant evidence that the parties should have produced, I find repeating my request for further evidence at this late stage would be inconsistent with the CRT’s mandate for speedy and efficient dispute resolution.

ISSUES

15.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Did Mr. Chhina breach the bylaws, and if so, what amount of bylaw fines is the strata entitled to impose, if any?

b.    Should I order the strata not to deactivate Mr. Chhina’s fob?

c.    Is Mr. Chhina entitled to reimbursement of his legal expenses?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

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

17.   The strata consists of 152 strata lots in a high-rise building in downtown Vancouver, BC. The strata plan was filed in the Land Title Office (LTO) in 2009.

18.   Mr. Chhina owns strata lot 151 (also known as unit 2003), which is a penthouse unit on the building’s 20^th floor. Mr. Chhina says he took possession and received the keys for unit 2003 on May 21, 2021, which the strata does not dispute.

19.   The strata filed bylaw amendments with the LTO on December 5, 2012, which I find are a complete set of bylaws. The strata filed subsequent bylaw amendments, most of which are not relevant to this dispute. I find the bylaw amendments filed on September 20, 2018 about fobs, use of property, and moving are relevant to this dispute, and I will discuss the relevant bylaws in further detail below.

 

Bylaw fines

20.   In the Dispute Notice, Mr. Chhina alleges the strata’s finance department advised him on an unspecified date that the strata had imposed 21 separate fines against his strata lot, totalling $4,200. Mr. Chhina says he was previously unaware that the strata had decided to impose those fines. He says that after the Dispute Notice was issued, the strata sent him additional infraction letters, and he alleges the strata has imposed a total of 26 separate bylaw fines. He amended the Dispute Notice on February 7, 2022, to request the strata reverse $5,200 in bylaw fines for the 26 alleged infractions, all of which he denies.

21.   The strata provided a chart summarizing Mr. Chhina’s alleged bylaw infractions (infraction chart), which includes only 17 infractions, each resulting in a $200 fine. A February 17, 2022 letter from the strata’s management company, RMS, confirmed that as of the date of the amended Dispute Notice on February 7, 2022, Mr. Chhina had a total of $3,400 in outstanding bylaw fines, which I infer relate to the 17 alleged infractions set out in the strata’s chart. So, I find Mr. Chhina’s claim to reverse bylaw fines is limited to the 17 fines the strata imposed before February 7, 2022.

22.   As noted, Mr. Chhina bears the burden of proving he is not liable for the bylaw fines imposed. I will address each of the fines in groups where appropriate below.

Bylaws infractions on May 22 and May 23, 2021

23.   It is undisputed that occupants of unit 2003 held 2 parties on the evenings of May 22 and May 23, 2021. According to the strata’s infraction chart, it imposed 9 fines on Mr. Chhina relating to complaints of alleged bylaw infractions that occurred during these parties, including 2 noise complaints, 1 complaint of smoking in the elevator and 1 of smoking on a limited common property balcony, 2 for throwing garbage off a balcony onto limited common property, 1 for causing damage to the limited common property below unit 2003, 1 for dropping drugs off a balcony onto limited common property, and 1 for threatening another strata lot occupant.

24.   Section 130(1) of the SPA says a strata corporation may fine an owner if a bylaw is contravened by the owner, an owner’s visitor, or an occupant if the strata lot is not rented by the owner. Section 130(2) says that a strata corporation may fine a tenant if a bylaw or rule is contravened by the tenant, a tenant’s visitor, or an occupant if the strata lot is not sublet by the tenant. Section 131 says that if a strata corporation fines a tenant, the strata may require the owner or landlord to pay the fine.

25.    While Mr. Chhina does not specifically argue this point, I find that the evidence shows Mr. Chhina’s strata lot was rented to tenants on May 22 and May 23, 2021. I base this conclusion on the following:

a.    A May 26, 2021 letter Mr. Chhina sent to the occupants of the strata lot below unit 2003, apologizing for the events on May 22 and May 23, 2021, which he attributes to “new renters” and advising that he had since evicted the renters,

b.    A May 27, 2021 email Mr. Chhina sent to RMS requesting the strata manager contact him to discuss the previous weekend’s events, stating there had also been damage to his strata lot and that he had already evicted the tenants,

c.    A Mutual Agreement to End a Tenancy document showing Mr. Chhina’s strata lot was rented to a tenant and that the tenant agreed to vacate the premises as of May 31, 2021,

d.    The strata’s correspondence before me about the alleged bylaw infractions, all addressed to Mr. Chhina at an address other than his strata lot address for unit 2003, and

e.    The strata fined Mr. Chhina for failing to provide a Form K Notice of Tenant’s Responsibilities (Form K) during this period, as discussed further below.

26.   I disagree with the strata’s submission that the fob report in evidence establishes that Mr. Chhina’s mobile phone was used for the party guests to gain entrance to the building. There is no phone number on the report and the strata provided no other evidence that Mr. Chhina’s phone number was programmed for the entry phone. I find it more likely than not that Mr. Chhina was not present during the May 22 and May 23 parties and was not responsible for admitting the party guests into the building. I also find that by May 27, 2021 the strata knew Mr. Chhina’s tenants were responsible for any alleged bylaw infractions committed on those dates.

27.   Previous CRT decisions have interpreted SPA sections 130 and 131 to mean that an owner cannot be directly fined for a tenant’s bylaw contraventions because it deprives the tenant of the procedural protections found in section 135 of the SPA: see, for example, Clark v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2785, 2017 BCCRT 49, Wong et al v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1178, 2019 BCCRT 1088, and Shepheard v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS4114, 2020 BCCRT 287. While not binding on me, I agree with the reasoning in these decisions and apply it here.

28.   As noted, the initial infraction letters are not before me in evidence, though I infer they were addressed only to Mr. Chhina. I say this because the strata’s subsequent letters about these bylaw infractions, including the strata’s letters confirming its decision to impose the bylaw fines, are addressed only to Mr. Chhina. There is no suggestion in the evidence that the strata ever notified Mr. Chhina’s tenants about their alleged bylaw contraventions, and I find the strata did not fine Mr. Chhina’s tenants for their alleged bylaw violations. Instead, the strata fined Mr. Chhina directly, which the strata had no authority to do under section 130 of the SPA.

29.   For these reasons, I find the strata did not validly impose fines against Mr. Chhina for the 9 alleged bylaw infractions on May 22 and May 23, 2021. I order the strata to remove the $1,800 in associated fines applied to Mr. Chhina’s strata lot account.

Form K

30.   As noted, the strata imposed a $200 fine for Mr. Chhina’s alleged failure to submit a Form K for his tenants. RMS’ August 11, 2021 letter advising Mr. Chhina of the strata’s decision to impose a fine says the strata received a report on May 23, 2021 that Mr. Chhina had not submitted a Form K for his tenants. The strata’s infraction chart indicates the initial infraction letter was dated May 31, 2021.

31.   Bylaw 38(1) says that within 2 weeks of renting a strata lot, the owner must give the property manager, as the strata’s agent, a copy of the Form K signed by the tenant. This same requirement is also set out in SPA section 146(2).

32.   Given that Mr. Chhina only took possession of unit 2003 on May 21, 2021, I find that was the earliest date he could have rented his strata lot to his tenants. Therefore, his earliest deadline to provide a Form K for those tenants was June 4, 2021. I find that Mr. Chhina had not breached bylaw 38(1) when the strata received the alleged complaint or before it issued its initial May 31, 2021 infraction letter.

33.   Further, the undisputed evidence is that Mr. Chhina’s tenants moved out on May 31, 2021. Therefore, I find that Mr. Chhina was not obligated under the bylaws or section 146 of the SPA to provide a signed Form K for those tenants because they moved out before the 2-week deadline to provide the Form K had expired.

34.   I note that Mr. Chhina’s lawyer sent the strata an August 5, 2021 letter disputing this alleged bylaw infraction, which set out this relevant timeline. None of the strata’s correspondence or submissions explain its reasons for finding that Mr. Chhina breached bylaw 38(1).

35.   I find that Mr. Chhina did not breach bylaw 38(1), and I order the strata to reverse the $200 bylaw fine it imposed for the alleged failure to submit a Form K.

Move-in/out violations

36.   The strata’s infraction chart shows it imposed 3 separate $200 fines against Mr. Chhina for what it describes as “illegal moves”, in breach of bylaw 36(2). The first 2 alleged infractions are dated “as of May 23, 2021” and May 31, 2021, which I infer relate to the dates Mr. Chhina’s initial tenants moved in and out of unit 2003. The third alleged infraction date is June 12, 2021.

37.   On September 20, 2018, the strata filed an amendment to bylaw 36(2) to require that residents provide the strata with notice of moves at least 72 hours in advance before the moving date. It also says that all moves must take place between 9:00 am and 5:30 pm. Bylaw 36(1) says that “moves” include large deliveries or pick-ups where exclusive use of the elevator is required or where there is risk of damage to the building’s common areas.

38.   Mr. Chhina argues that the former owner of unit 2003 left most of their furniture behind, so his tenants did not need exclusive use of the elevator to move anything into his strata lot. The strata provided no evidence to the contrary, so I accept Mr. Chhina’s evidence on this point. Further, even if Mr. Chhina’s tenants did move anything particularly large or that involved a risk of damage to common areas, again, I find section 130(2) of the SPA requires the strata to fine Mr. Chhina’s tenants. The SPA does not permit the strata to fine Mr. Chhina directly for his tenants’ bylaw violations.

39.   As for the June 12, 2021 “illegal move”, the description of the alleged infraction in RMS’ August 11, 2021 letter says it was “reported that the Resident(s) of unit 2003 moved in without making a move-in booking time”. While the strata’s infraction chart stated the source of the infraction was multiple photos of items being moved in, the strata did not provide any photos in support of this alleged infraction.

40.   Mr. Chhina says that no tenants moved into unit 2003 on June 12, 2021, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept this as true. Further, again, if tenants had moved in that day without booking the elevator in violation of bylaw 36(2), the strata would be obligated to fine the tenants, not Mr. Chhina directly.

41.   Given the above, I find Mr. Chhina has established that he did not violate bylaw 36(2), and so I order the strata to reverse the 3 $200 bylaw fines imposed for the alleged “illegal moves”.

June 7, 2021 garbage infraction

42.   RMS sent Mr. Chhina an August 11, 2021 letter, advising the strata had decided to impose a $200 fine against him for a bylaw infraction on June 7, 2021. The infraction is described in the letter as: “the resident(s) and their guests were throwing refuse off their balcony onto balconies below”, in contravention of bylaws 4(1) and 39(13).

43.   Bylaw 4(1) says an owner, tenant, occupant or visitor must not use a strata lot or common property in a way that causes a nuisance or hazard to another person or that unreasonably interferes with the rights of others to use and enjoy the common property or another strata lot.

44.   Bylaw 39(13) says a resident or visitor must not throw any item of any sort, including cigarette butts, from balconies, patios or windows.

45.   Mr. Chhina generally denies throwing garbage over the balcony and says there is no proof any garbage came from his strata lot.

46.   SPA section 135(1) says a strata corporation may not impose a bylaw fine unless it has received a complaint, given the owner or tenant written particulars of the complaint and a reasonable opportunity to answer the complaint, including a hearing if requested. SPA section 135(2) says the strata must also give the owner or tenant written notice of its decision to impose the fine as soon as feasible. SPA section 135(3) says that once the strata has complied with these procedural steps, the strata may impose the fine.

47.   The BC Court of Appeal has found that strict compliance with section 135 of the SPA is required before a strata corporation can impose fines. The court also determined that bylaw fines are invalid if the section 135 procedural requirements are not followed: Terry v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW 309, 2016 BCCA 449. Terry is binding precedent that the CRT must follow.

48.   I infer that the description of the complaint contained in RMS’ August 11, 2021 letter noted above was the extent of the particulars Mr. Chhina received about this alleged infraction on June 7, 2021. However, I find the alleged infraction did not occur on June 7, 2021. The evidence shows RMS received a June 6, 2021 email from the occupant of unit 1903 advising that they had noticed garbage outside their window and attaching 2 photos showing a cigarette box and a sock on the common property deck outside their strata lot. The email does not say they observed anyone throwing items off the unit 2003 balcony or how long the items had been present. There is also no evidence that the strata provided Mr. Chhina with a copy of the June 6, 2021 email or the attached photos before it imposed the fine.

49.   I find the strata identified the incorrect violation date and did not provide Mr. Chhina with sufficient particulars of the complaint, contrary to its obligations under SPA section 135. I find this alone is enough to find the bylaw fine was invalidly imposed. So, I order the strata to reverse the $200 fine imposed for an alleged June 7, 2021 breach of bylaws 4(1) and 39(13).

July 2021 noise complaints

50.   The evidence shows the strata imposed 2 separate $200 bylaw fines against Mr. Chhina for alleged noise complaints on July 2 and July 10, 2021. The evidence shows the strata manager received complaints from an occupant in unit 1903 about excessive noise coming from unit 2003 on each of these dates.

51.   A July 2, 2021 RMS incident report in evidence states a third-party security company officer responded to a noise complaint at 12:32 am and knocked on the door of unit 2003 where they could hear a loud party. The officer says the host agreed to lower the volume, after which they received no further complaints.

52.   A July 10, 2021 RMS incident report stated the same security officer responded to a noise complaint at 3:15 am and they could hear loud music from unit 2003 as soon as they got off the elevator. When the officer knocked on the door, the occupants turned the music down and lowered their voices but did not open the door. The officer received a further complaint at 3:44 am, so went back to unit 2003, but the occupants refused to open the door.

53.   Mr. Chhina denies these allegations of excessive noise. He says he maintains a quiet environment in unit 2003. The strata this submission suggests that Mr. Chhina was personally residing in unit 2003, though the strata admits that Mr. Chhina filed a Form K showing his strata lot was rented to a tenant when these noise complaints occurred.

 

54.   Despite the strata’s receipt of a Form K, there is no evidence before me that the strata provided Mr. Chhina’s registered tenant with particulars of the alleged noise complaints, as required under section 135 of the SPA. In other words, even if Mr. Chhina was also residing in unit 2003 on July 2 and July 10, 2021, I find the strata was obligated to follow the SPA section 135 procedural requirements for providing notice to unit 2003’s tenant. Because the strata failed to do so, I find the strata breached SPA section 135 and the fines were therefore not validly imposed. I order the strata to remove the $200 fines imposed for the July 2 and July 10, 2021 noise violations.

Fob cloning

55.   The final $200 bylaw fine relates to an allegation about use of an unauthorized fob. The evidence shows that on September 30, 2021, a strata council member reported they observed someone scan their phone to unlock the elevator to the 20^th floor. The council member sent the building manager an email stating the person had told her that his friend “put something in his phone”, and the council member was concerned an after-market fob was being used. I accept that the records in RMS’ incident report show the fob in question was registered to Mr. Chhina.

56.   In RMS’ November 1, 2021 letter to Mr. Chhina confirming the strata’s decision to impose a fine, the infraction details stated that residents of unit 2003 were using their cell phone as a fob, so it was “plausible” the residents had cloned their fob to their phone. The letter stated this was a breach of bylaws 40(9) to (12).

57.   Bylaw 40(9) says all issues related to a fob or its reactivation must be authorized by the owner of the strata lot. Bylaw 40(10) says owners or tenants abusing common area facilities will be barred access to those facilities through fob deactivation for one year, after which the owner must apply to the strata council to restore access. Bylaw 40(11) says all keys to locks on common property are common property and will be made and issued only with the strata council’s authority. Bylaw 40(12) says residents should report any suspicious people in and around the building to the strata agent or police.

58.   I find only bylaw 40(11) is potentially relevant to the allegation that Mr. Chhina cloned a fob. It is unclear why RMS referred to the other subsections of bylaw 40 in its letter.

59.   Even if I was prepared to find that a fob is a key and the elevator was a lock, as required to consider a breach of bylaw 40(11), for the following reasons I find that Mr. Chhina has established the strata did not properly impose a fine against him. Notably, the strata does not argue that Mr. Chhina used the allegedly cloned fob, or dispute that Mr. Chhina’s strata lot was rented to a tenant at the time. I accept Mr. Chhina’s evidence that he provided an original physical fob to his tenant, as there is no evidence to the contrary, and the strata does not particularly dispute this submission.

60.   Overall, I find there is insufficient evidence to conclude that an original fob was cloned at all. I find that a “plausible” bylaw breach is insufficient to impose a fine, and that Mr. Chhina’s submission that there was a physical fob inside a wallet phone case is a more likely scenario. The strata provided no evidence about how a fob might be cloned to a phone or that the fob in question was too large to fit in a wallet phone case. Also, there is no evidence that the strata notified Mr. Chhina’s tenant about the alleged bylaw contravention, contrary to SPA section 135. For all these reasons, I find the strata did not validly impose this fine, and I order it be removed.

61.   In summary, I find the strata must remove all $3,400 in bylaw fines charged to Mr. Chhina’s strata lot account before February 7, 2022. I note that it appears the strata may have imposed additional fines against Mr. Chhina after February 7, 2022, but I find those fines are not before me in this dispute. Nothing in this decision prevents Mr. Chhina from disputing bylaw fines charged to his strata lot account after February 7, 2022.

62.   Given my conclusions above, I find it is unnecessary to address Mr. Chhina’s allegation that the strata failed to hold a hearing within 4 weeks of his request, as required under section 34.1 of the SPA.

 

Fob deactivation

63.   Mr. Chhina says that not only was he improperly fined for allegedly cloning a fob, but the strata also deactivated all his fobs on October 1, 2021 without any notice. He says the building manager and RMS did not immediately fix the issue when he reported it, so his lawyer demanded the fobs be immediately reactivated. The building manager then confirmed later that night that Mr. Chhina’s fob had been reactivated.

64.   The strata says that only the allegedly cloned fob was deactivated for security reasons, and that Mr. Chhina’s other fobs would have continued working, unless they were also clones. The strata does not dispute that it did not attempt to contact Mr. Chhina before deactivating his fob.

65.   Mr. Chhina submits that his civil rights were infringed, and he was unable to fulfill his duties as a physician that evening because he could not access his residence or his vehicle, which was in the parkade. However, Mr. Chhina does not seek any monetary damages related to these submissions.

66.   Rather, in the Dispute Notice Mr. Chhina requested an order that the strata stop cutting off his access to the building. This is a request for what is called “injunctive relief”, which is an order that someone do or stop doing something. While orders for injunctive relief are permitted under section 123 of the CRTA, the CRT does not generally grant prospective orders: see for example, Bourque et al v. McKnight et al, 2017 BCCRT 26, Parkinson et al v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 5086, and Fisher v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1420, 2019 BCCRT 1379.

67.   Here, even if Mr. Chhina established that the strata improperly deactivated his fob on this occasion, I decline to make the requested order for injunctive relief. There is no evidence that the strata deactivated Mr. Chhina’s fob more than once, and I find it would be inappropriate to restrict the strata’s future conduct in this way.

68.   I also note that in his submissions, Mr. Chhina requests that the strata manager be reassigned and that all strata members resign because it is “clear they are not fit to lead”. The evidence shows the strata manager has already been reassigned, so I find that request is now moot. In any event, these remedies were not mentioned in the Dispute Notice, so I find they are not properly before me, and I decline to make any findings about them.

69.   Overall, I dismiss Mr. Chhina’s claims about his fob deactivation.

Legal fees

70.   Mr. Chhina says that he incurred “approximately” $4,900 in legal fees for a lawyer to review and edit a letter to the strata about the alleged bylaw infractions, and for emergency afterhours services to help get his fob reactivated on October 1, 2021.

71.   I acknowledge that Mr. Chhina believes hiring a lawyer was necessary, particularly when he was unable to access his property. However, legal fees are not generally recoverable as damages: see Voyer v. C.I.B.C., 1986 CanLII 1226 (BC SC). Rather, they may be recoverable as “costs” or dispute-related expenses. From his description of services, I find Mr. Chhina’s legal expenses likely entirely pre-date this CRT proceeding. This means they are not dispute-related expenses because they do not relate directly to bringing this CRT dispute.

72.   Further, Mr. Chhina did not provide any evidence supporting this claimed expense, such as an invoice or statement of account from his lawyer. So, the find the amount of his alleged expense is unproven. For all these reasons, I dismiss Mr. Chhina’s claim for reimbursement of legal fees.

CRT FEES AND EXPENSES

73.   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 find Mr. Chhina was partially successful. I therefore order the strata to reimburse Mr. Chhina $112.50, for half of his CRT fees.

74.   Neither Mr. Chhina nor the strata claimed dispute-related expenses, so I make no order.

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

ORDERS

76.   I order that:

a.    The strata must immediately remove the $3,400 in bylaw fines charged to Mr. Chhina’s strata lot account between May 21, 2021 and February 7, 2022.

b.    Within 30 days of this decision, the strata must reimburse Mr. Chhina $112.50 for CRT fees.

77.   Mr. Chhina is entitled to post-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, as appliable.

78.   I dismiss Mr. Chhina’s remaining claims.

79.   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.