Date Issued: August 11, 2022

File: ST-2021-009506

Type: Strata

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Wang v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS1416, 2022 BCCRT 910

Between:

HAOYI WANG

Applicant

And:

The Owners, Strata Plan EPS1416

Respondent

 

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Sherelle Goodwin

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about alleged bylaw infractions in a strata corporation.

2.      The applicant, Haoyi Wang, co-owns a strata lot in the respondent strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan EPS1416 (strata). He says the strata incorrectly fined him for comments he made in a WeChat group in another language. He asks the CRT to order the strata to cancel the $200 fine levied against him and to “clarify the wrongful charges” Mr. Wang says the strata published in a September 20, 2021 letter to all owners.

3.      The strata says the fine is valid because Mr. Wang’s comments were defamatory and falsely accused strata council members of wrongdoing. It says the September 20, 2021 letter does not need to be clarified as it did not refer to Mr. Wang by name and was intended to discourage future baseless accusations about strata business.

4.      Mr. Wang represents himself. The strata is represented by a strata council member.

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.

ISSUE

9.      The issue in this dispute is whether the strata must cancel the $200 fine levied against Mr. Wang or clarify its September 20, 2021 letter to the owners.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil dispute like this one the applicant, Mr. Wang, must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have reviewed the parties’ submissions and weighed the evidence submitted but only refer to that which is relevant and necessary to explain and give context to my decision.

11.   The strata filed an amended set of bylaws at the Land Title Office on April 6, 2016. Although the strata filed further amended bylaws over time, I find none of those later bylaws are relevant to this dispute. So, I find the 2016 amended bylaws apply here.

12.   Among other things, bylaw 3(1) says an owner must not use a strata lot, common property, or common assets in a way that (a) causes a nuisance or hazard to another person, or (c) unreasonably interferes with the rights of other persons to use and enjoy the common property, common assets of another strata lot. I note the strata’s bylaw 3(1) is the same as Standard Bylaw 3(1) in the Strata Property Act (SPA).

13.   In a July 22, 2021 letter to Mr. Wang, the strata’s lawyer alleged Mr. Wang had contravened bylaw(3)(1)(a) and (c) by making defamatory comments and accusations about strata council members in a non-English WeChat group on July 15 and 19, 2021. The lawyer understood the WeChat group included approximately 130 strata residents and was used to discuss strata business. The lawyer said Mr. Wang’s translated comments included:

a.    Accusing a council member of being a fraud and posing as a professor,

b.    Accusing a new council member of having a “fake resume”, running in the council election with a “fake identity” and therefore being untrustworthy,

c.    Accusing strata council of misappropriating and embezzling strata funds, and

d.    Accusing council members of using their council positions as a “tool for exchanging benefits”.

14.   The letter warned Mr. Wang he could be fined $200 for contravening bylaws 3(1)(a) and (c), and advised him he could respond to the complaint, including requesting a strata council hearing.

15.   Mr. Wang responded in a July 27, 2021 email to the strata. He said the strata’s translation of the conversation was not entirely correct, explained that the strata council spent money without any recorded decisions to do so, and defended his comments about a strata council member alleging to be a professor.

16.   Neither party provided any proof the strata imposed the $200 fine. However, both the parties agree the fine was levied. So, I accept the strata fined Mr. Wang $200 for contravening bylaws 3(1)(a) and (c).

17.   However, I find Mr. Wang is not liable to pay the bylaw violation fine. As explained below, I find Mr. Wang’s alleged conduct did not contravene bylaws 3(1)(a) or (c).

18.   First, I find posting comments in an online message forum does not constitute “using a strata lot, common property or a common asset”. There is no evidence about whether the messages were posted from the strata property and even if there was, I would find that an overly broad interpretation of the bylaw.

19.   Second, I do not find posting online messages is a “nuisance” under bylaw 3(1)(a). A CRT vice chair considered a similar issue in The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2461 v. Luo, 2020 BCCRT 1264 (upheld on judicial review The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2461 v. Wong, 2022 BCSC 1222) (Luo). In that case an owner allegedly disparaged the strata council, property manager and the strata’s lawyer, and alleged fraud and theft in emails, YouTube videos, and during strata general meetings. In Luo the vice chair found such behaviour did not contravene the strata’s bylaw 3(1)(a), which I find is identical to bylaw 3(1)(a) in this dispute, and the SPA Standard Bylaw 3(1). The vice chair reasoned that the purpose of Standard Bylaw 3(1) was to prohibit conduct such as making noise, noxious odours, unrepaired leaks, or safety hazards within a strata environment. She found the act of writing emails does not constitute a nuisance or a hazard, in those circumstances. While CRT decisions are not binding on me, I accept and adopt the vice chair’s reasoning in Luo and apply it here.

20.   I find the circumstances in this dispute are less egregious than those in Luo. Here, Mr. Wang is accused of posting comments in a resident chat group, not of directing disparaging comments directly to the strata council members, in writing or in person. Neither is Mr. Wang accused of disrupting strata meetings, as was the case in Luo. I find the alleged behaviour in this dispute does not constitute “nuisance” under bylaw 3(1)(a).

21.   Third, I do not find that Mr. Wang’s alleged comments interfered with the strata council members’ use of the common property, common assets, or another strata lot, under bylaw 3(1)(c). There is no indication that Mr. Wang’s alleged comments in any way interfered with the strata council’s ability to carry on strata business. Contrary to the strata’s arguments, there is no indication that Mr. Wang’s alleged remarks “inflicted damage” on the strata in general.

22.   On balance, I find Mr. Wang’s alleged comments, even if they were proven, do not violate bylaws 3(1)(a) and (c). So, I find I need not address Mr. Wang’s argument that the strata’s interpretation of his comments was incorrect or that his comments were taken out of context.

23.   For this reason, I find Mr. Wang is not liable to pay the $200 fine and order the strata to cancel the fine it levied against Mr. Wang.

24.   Contrary to Mr. Wang’s arguments, I find the strata did not accuse him of any wrongdoing in its September 20, 2021 letter. The letter to all owners does not mention Mr. Wang’s name, or any other owners’ names. Rather, it says 2 owners have received “Cease and Desist” letters, demanding they stop making demeaning, defamatory, or false accusations in a WeChat group of owners. As I find the letter contained no “wrongful charges” against Mr. Wang, I find there is nothing to order the strata to correct.

25.   In any event, this decision will be published on the CRT’s website where it will be available for all owners to view, if they so choose.

CRT FEES and EXPENSES

26.   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. As Mr. Wang was partially successful in his dispute, I find he is entitled to partial reimbursement of his paid CRT fees. I order the strata to reimburse Mr. Wang $112.50, which is half his paid fees. The strata paid no fees and neither party claimed reimbursement of any dispute-related expenses.

27.   The strata must comply with section 189.4 of the SPA, which includes not charging Mr. Wang his proportional share of the strata’s costs related to this dispute.

ORDERS

28.   Within 14 days of this decision, I order the strata to:

a.    Cancel the $200 fine against Mr. Wang, and

b.    Pay Mr. Wang $112.50 as partial reimbursement for his CRT fees.

29.   Mr. Wang is also entitled to post judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act.

30.   I dismiss the rest of Mr. Wang’s claims.

31.   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.