Date Issued: March 24, 2023

File: ST-2022-000270,
ST-2022-001378,
and ST-2022-001617

Type: Strata

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: O’Reilly v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3866, 2023 BCCRT 251

Between:

MARK O’REILLY and LAURA O’REILLY

Applicants

And:

The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3866

Respondent

And:

MARK O’REILLY

Respondent BY COUNTERCLAIM

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Kristin Gardner

INTRODUCTION

1.      This decision involves 3 linked disputes with the same parties. Mark O’Reilly and Laura O’Reilly co-own strata lot 14 (SL14) in a bare land strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3866 (strata).

2.      In Dispute ST-2022-000270, the O’Reillys say the strata has wrongly fined them for using SL14 as a bed and breakfast when there is no strata bylaw prohibiting that use. The O’Reillys request orders that the strata permit them to use SL14 as a bed and breakfast, and that the strata reverse $800 in bylaw fines levied against them.

3.      In its Dispute Response for Dispute ST-2022-000270, the strata says its bylaws prohibit using strata lots for a business or commercial purpose, such as short-term accommodation. So, the strata says it properly imposed fines against the O’Reillys for using SL14 as a bed and breakfast.

4.      In the Dispute Notice for Dispute ST-2022-001378, which I find is essentially a counterclaim, the strata seeks an order against Mr. O’Reilly for payment of the $800 in bylaw fines. It also seeks an order that he stop advertising and using SL14 as a bed and breakfast. Mrs. O’Reilly is not named as a respondent in this dispute.

5.      In Dispute ST-2022-001617, Mr. O’Reilly says the strata improperly failed to approve a fence he built on his strata lot. He seeks an order that the strata approve the fence, or in the alternative, give him reasonable time to replace his existing fence with one the strata approves. In its Dispute Response, the strata says that Mr. O’Reilly’s existing fence does not comply with an applicable statutory building scheme, and so it properly declined to approve it. Mrs. O’Reilly is not a named applicant in this dispute.

6.      After these 3 disputes were started, the strata changed its position on the issues in each of the disputes, which I address further below.

7.      Mr. O’Reilly represents Mrs. O’Reilly in Dispute ST-2022-000270 and himself in all 3 disputes. The strata is represented by a strata council member.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

8.      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.

9.      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.

10.   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.

11.   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.

Preliminary issue: change in the strata’s position.

12.   The strata filed a document in evidence for both Dispute ST-2022-000270 and ST-2022-001378 titled “2022/2023 Strata Council’s Statement”. It says the new strata council does not agree with the previous council’s position that the O’Reillys’ bed and breakfast breaches the strata’s bylaws. The strata also filed a document for Dispute ST-2022-001617, which states the new council does not agree with the previous council’s position on Mr. O’Reilly’s fence claim either.

13.   Despite the apparent change in the strata’s position on all 3 disputes, the strata did not take steps to amend its Dispute Responses for ST-2022-000270 and ST-2022-001617 or amend or withdraw the Dispute Notice for ST-2022-001378. Further, neither party argued that these disputes were now “moot”.

14.   A claim is moot when something happens after a legal proceeding starts that removes any “present live controversy” between the parties. Generally, moot claims will be dismissed. However, even when the live issue may have disappeared, courts (and the CRT) still have discretion to decide the claim if doing so would have a practical impact and potentially help avoid future disputes. See Binnersley v. BCSPCA, 2016 BCCA 259.

15.   As it was unclear whether the strata intended its statements in evidence to render these disputes moot, I asked the strata for further submissions. The strata says that while there may not be a current “live controversy” between the parties, other owners still agree with the previous council’s position. So, the strata says that it wants to “follow through” with what the previous council started and obtain a final decision from the CRT on the merits of the disputes.

16.   Under section 4 of the Strata Property Act (SPA), the powers and duties of the strata corporation are exercised and performed by the council. In other words, the current strata council is essentially the strata. So, if the current council agrees with the O’Reillys about all the issues in these 3 disputes, there is no real “live controversy” between the parties.

17.   However, there is no evidence that the strata has expressly authorized the O’Reillys to operate a bed and breakfast in SL14, that it has reversed the fines imposed against the O’Reillys, or that it has approved Mr. O’Reilly’s fence. In other words, I find the strata has not explicitly agreed with the O’Reillys’ requested remedies. In that sense, I find there remains some dispute between the parties and resolving these claims likely would not be a purely academic exercise.

18.   Even if that was insufficient to find there is a present live controversy between the parties, I am satisfied that the CRT should exercise its discretion to decide these disputes in any event. Bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate to recognize ongoing relationships between the parties, I find there is an important practical reason to decide these disputes. That is, given there seems to be a faction within the strata community that agrees with the previous council on these issues, I find that a decision now will potentially prevent future CRT disputes.

19.   There is also no suggestion in the O’Reillys’ submissions that they believe the issues in these disputes are no longer contentious given the new council’s position, and I infer they also want the CRT to decide these disputes on their merits. For that reason and because I find it reasonable to resolve the disputes in any event, I decided it was unnecessary to ask the O’Reillys for further submissions on the mootness issue.

20.   I find the strata’s initial pleadings (the Dispute Notice and Dispute Responses) are reasonably thorough. The strata also included in its submissions for Dispute ST-2022-001378 the previous council’s position on the bed and breakfast and bylaw fines claims, and I find the evidence before me provides sufficient detail about the former council’s legal position on the issues in each of the disputes. So, I find the disputes have been fully argued and there is a sufficient adversarial context between the parties to fairly adjudicate the parties’ claims and resolve these disputes.

21.   For the above reasons, I find these 3 disputes are still properly before me for determination, and I find it is reasonable to resolve them despite the strata’s general change in position. Any reference below to the strata’s submissions is a reference to the previous council’s position, other than my discussions specifically related to the contents of the new strata council’s statements.

ISSUES

22.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Do the strata’s bylaws prohibit using a strata lot as a bed and breakfast?

b.    If so, must Mr. O’Reilly pay the strata $800 in bylaw fines?

c.    Must the strata approve Mr. O’Reilly’s proposed fence?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

23.   In a civil proceeding like this one, the applicants in each dispute must prove their claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have read all of the parties’ submitted evidence and arguments, but I refer only to what I find is necessary to explain my decision.

24.   The strata is a bare land strata corporation as defined in the SPA. The strata plan shows 22 strata lots. SL14 is bordered to the west by strata lot 13 (SL13), to the east by strata lot 15, and to the south by strata lot 19.

25.   The strata’s owner developer filed a complete set of bylaws in the Land Title Office on June 16, 2010. I find these are the bylaws applicable to this dispute. No further bylaw amendments have been filed. I discuss the relevant bylaws below.

Do the bylaws prohibit using a strata lot as a bed and breakfast?

26.   The following background facts are undisputed. The O’Reillys purchased SL14 in May 2021. In the summer of 2021, the O’Reillys started operating a bed and breakfast, using one of the bedrooms in their house. They advertised on various online platforms, such as Facebook and Instagram, which directed people to their website.

27.   On August 31, 2021, SL13’s owner, JF, who was also a strata council member, verbally advised Mr. O’Reilly that the strata’s bylaws prohibited short-term rentals. The O’Reillys disagreed. JF subsequently filed a formal complaint to the strata council about the O’Reilly’s bed and breakfast operation. The strata ultimately started to impose fines against the O’Reillys in December 2021, for breaching bylaw 3(3).

28.   Strata bylaw 3(3) says an owner must use the strata lot exclusively as a private residential property for a single-family residential dwelling. The question is whether bylaw 3(3) prohibits owners from advertising and providing occupants of their strata lot with accommodation and meals for a fee.

29.   The applicants argue their bed and breakfast operation does not contravene bylaw 3(3). They rely primarily on the applicable Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) zoning bylaws. I accept the applicants’ evidence from the SCRD website that their strata is zoned RU1 (rural residential one), which the strata does not dispute.

30.   SCRD zoning bylaw 310 was in effect when the applicants started this dispute. Bylaw 310 defined “bed and breakfast” as a transient accommodation business providing overnight accommodation to travellers for 3 months or less in a calendar year and providing at least breakfast to those being accommodated. Part 502(11) of SCRD bylaw 310 permitted a bed and breakfast facility as an auxiliary use in the RU1 zone with certain conditions, which included that it be operated by the principal resident.

31.   SCRD zoning bylaw 310 was replaced by SCRD zoning bylaw 722 after the applicants started this dispute. Bylaw 722 essentially changed the term “bed and breakfast” to “short-term rental”. It defines “short-term rental” as the use of buildings for transient accommodation provided for commercial use, occupied by the same occupants for not more than 30 days, and may include accommodation commonly known as bed and breakfast. Section 5.3.1 of bylaw 722 permits “short term rental” as an auxiliary use in the RU1 zone, on the condition that a short-term rental operator resides on the property where the short-term rental is located and for the duration when the short-term rental is in operation.

32.   I accept that the SCRD bylaws have always permitted bed and breakfast operations as an auxiliary use of SL14. The strata does not dispute this. However, the strata says that despite the applicable zoning bylaws, strata bylaw 3(3) governs how an owner may use their strata lot. The strata argues that the bylaw’s wording that a strata lot must be used “exclusively as a private residential property for a single-family residential dwelling”, restricts all commercial activity from taking place on a strata lot, including short-term rentals.

33.   The strata refers to the following prior CRT decisions that it says support its interpretation of bylaw 3(3): Dhanji et al v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2472, 2019 BCCRT 1194, The Owners, Strata Plan VR 245 v. Jiwa, 2020 BCCRT 775, The Owners, Strata Plan VR 164 v. Hawco, 2018 BCCRT 134, and The Owners, Strata Plan VR812 v. Yu, 2017 BCCRT 82.

34.   In each of these decisions, the strata corporation had a bylaw that prohibited owners or residents from using a strata lot except as a “private dwelling home”. The tribunal members and vice chairs who decided those cases generally found that using a strata lot for short-term accommodation was contrary to a strata bylaw requiring that the strata lot be used exclusively as a private dwelling home.

35.   The applicants argue that the subject strata corporations in those prior CRT decisions had additional bylaws relevant to short-term accommodation use that the strata here does not have. For example, in Hawco, Jiwa, and Dhanji, the strata corporations had a bylaw that prohibited owners from using their strata lots for “commercial or professional purposes”. In Hawco, the bylaws specifically stated that the commercial or professional purposes prohibition included short-terms rentals, hotel or hotel-like accommodation and other short-term accommodation, including licences for short-term stays. While the bylaws in Yu did not generally prohibit using strata lots for commercial purposes, there was a bylaw that explicitly said strata lots must not be used for short-term accommodation purposes such as bed and breakfast, lodging house, hotel, home exchange, time share or vacation rental, and residents must not enter into a license for the use of all or part of a strata lot.

36.   I agree that there are no strata bylaws here that address strata lot rentals, including short-term accommodation, or that specifically prohibit using a strata lot for business, professional, or commercial purposes. However, it is not clear that the presence of those additional bylaws necessarily impacted the findings in the above CRT decisions that using a strata lot for paid short-term accommodation is inconsistent with a bylaw that permits a strata lot to be used only as a private dwelling home.

37.   In any event, the question is not what bylaw 3(3) means in relation to bylaws that other strata corporations have, but what it means within the context of this strata’s bylaws as a whole. Overall, I find the only reasonable interpretation of the wording in bylaw 3(3) that a strata lot be used “exclusively as a private residential property”, is that using a strata lot even partly for a public, business, professional, or commercial purpose is not a permitted use.

38.   I acknowledge that a bed and breakfast operation generally implies that guests are staying in a private residence, and that the O’Reillys continue to live in their home while they have paid guests. In that sense, I find the O’Reillys are using their strata lot as a private residential property.

39.   However, bylaw 3(3) requires that owners use their strata lot “exclusively” as a private residential property. I find that booking and accepting payment for the public to stay in a strata lot is clearly using the strata lot for a business or commercial purpose, in breach of bylaw 3(3). Further, I find that marketing is a component of operating a business, and the advertisements in evidence show the O’Reillys used images of SL14 and its street address to market their bed and breakfast. So, I find that advertising the bed and breakfast online also constitutes use of the strata lot for a commercial or professional purpose. For these reasons, I find the O’Reillys breached bylaw 3(3).

40.   I note that the new strata council’s statement says that the strata must follow the SCRD zoning bylaws unless the strata bylaws “supersede” them. Essentially, the statement acknowledges that the SCRD bylaws permit bed and breakfast operations in single-family residences zoned RU1, and suggests the strata’s bylaws do not add anything beyond the SCRD’s definition and permitted use of a “single-family residence”. So, the statement concludes that the O’Reillys’ bed and breakfast business is allowed.

41.   I disagree with the new strata council’s position. I find that a strata corporation is entitled to restrict a strata lot’s use beyond what a municipal or regional district bylaw may permit, through the strata’s bylaws. For the reasons set out above, I find the strata’s bylaws here restrict owners’ use of their strata lots to exclusively private residential property purposes.

42.   Given I have found their bed and breakfast operation, including its advertisement, breaches strata bylaw 3(3), I dismiss the O’Reillys’ claim for an order that the strata permit them to operate a bed and breakfast on SL14.

Must Mr. O’Reilly pay the strata $800 in bylaw fines?

43.    As noted, the O’Reillys ask for an order that $800 in bylaw fines imposed for breaching bylaw 3(3) be reversed, and the strata essentially counterclaims for payment of those fines.

44.   The strata provided a summary of outstanding fines, which shows the strata imposed a $50 fine every 7 days from December 27, 2021 to April 11, 2022, totalling the claimed $800. Strata bylaw 24 permits the strata to impose a fine every 7 days for a continuing bylaw contravention.

45.   There is no suggestion that the strata failed to comply with the SPA section 135 procedural requirements before imposing the bylaw fines against Mr. O’Reilly. In any event, I find the following evidence shows that the strata satisfied those requirements:

a.      September 11, 2021 email to Mr. O’Reilly advising it had received a complaint that SL14’s owners were operating a bed and breakfast from their residence and giving him an opportunity to respond, including by requesting oral hearing.

b.      September 16, 2021 oral hearing held with Mr. O’Reilly.

c.      September 19, 2021 email to Mr. O’Reilly advising of its decision that he was in breach of the bylaws and the strata would “take punitive action” should he fail to demonstrate bylaw compliance (by ceasing business operation, taking down his website, and removing business advertising from websites, social media and print form) by October 1, 2021.

d.      December 20, 2021 email to Mr. O’Reilly advising that the strata council recently observed he continued to contravene strata bylaw 3(3). Referring to its September 19 email, the strata advised it would start enforcing weekly $50 fines starting 7 days form the date of the email until he showed compliance with the bylaw.

46.   While the strata’s December 20 email did not specifically state how it observed Mr. O’Reilly continued to breach bylaw 3(3), I infer it related to ongoing advertising for the bed and breakfast. I say this because the evidence includes screenshots of advertisements on various social media platforms and the O’Reillys’ website from October 15, December 8, December 11, and December 19, 2021. Mr. O’Reilly does not dispute this evidence or deny that he continued to advertise the bed and breakfast he was operating on his strata lot.

47.   I find it very likely the O’Reillys continuously advertised their bed and breakfast business online, and so that advertising was a continuing bylaw contravention as contemplated under bylaw 24 and SPA section 135(3). There is no evidence before me that the O’Reillys have since stopped advertising their bed and breakfast.

48.   Given that I have found the O’Reillys’ bed and breakfast advertising breached bylaw 3(3), I find the strata validly imposed the $800 in continuing bylaw fines against Mr. O’Reilly. I order Mr. O’Reilly to pay the strata the claimed $800.

Must the strata approve Mr. O’Reilly’s proposed fence?

49.   When JF complained to the strata about the O’Reillys’ bed and breakfast, JF also complained that the O’Reillys had constructed a fence around SL14’s perimeter that did not comply with the strata’s statutory building scheme.

50.   A statutory building scheme is a form of restrictive covenant under section 220 of the Land Title Act. Land title documents before me show that a statutory building scheme is registered against title on SL14. Bylaw 3(4) also says that owners must comply with the registered statutory building scheme in constructing a house and ancillary improvements and landscaping on the owner’s strata lot.

51.   While neither party provided a copy of the applicable statutory building scheme, they both refer to section 3.8, which undisputedly states the following about fencing:

(a) Fencing materials consist of wood or stone only.

(b) Fences are not to be installed in front yard areas.

(c) Fences in side yards are not to be installed within 1.2 m (four feet) of the front face of the dwelling.

52.   Mr. O’Reilly says the fence he erected in July 2021 was comprised of 6-foot-high green rebar posts, connected with 5-foot-high wire mesh. Mr. O’Reilly says he was unaware of the statutory building scheme when he built the fence. He admits it did not comply with the requirements that the fence materials consist of only wood or stone, and that it be installed at least 4 feet from the front of the building. Once he became aware of the statutory building scheme, Mr. O’Reilly says his agreed to move the fence to comply with section 3.8(c).

53.   The photos Mr. O’Reilly submitted of his fence show that at some point he also replaced the rebar posts with what appears to be 4x4 wood fence posts. I find the fence as it appears in the photos is the fence Mr. O’Reilly wants the strata to approve. As the wood fence posts are still connected with wire mesh, I find Mr. O’Reilly’s current fence does not comply with section 3.8(a) of the statutory building scheme. While the parties did not provide any further evidence about whether the fence also remains non-compliant with section 3.8(c) of the statutory building scheme, I find nothing turns on that issue given I have already found the existing fence is non-compliant.

54.   Mr. O’Reilly argues that several other owners have fences that do not comply with the statutory building scheme, including some that are identical to his fence. While Mr. O’Reilly does not use these specific words, I find he is arguing that the strata treated him significantly unfairly by declining to approve his fence.

55.   The CRT has authority to make orders preventing or remedying a significantly unfair act or decision by a strata corporation under section 123(2) of the CRTA. The provision contains similar language to section 164 of the SPA, which allows the BC Supreme Court to make similar orders. The court recently confirmed the legal test for significant unfairness is the same for CRT disputes and court actions: see Dolnik v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1350, 2023 BCSC 113.

56.    In Kunzler v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS 1433, 2021 BCCA 173, the court confirmed the legal test for significant unfairness. Significantly unfair actions are those that are burdensome, harsh, wrongful, lacking in probity or fair dealing, done in bad faith, unjust, or inequitable. In applying this test, the owner’s reasonable expectations are a relevant factor, but they are not determinative. The use of the word “significant” means that the impugned conduct must go beyond mere prejudice or trifling unfairness.

57.   I find that Mr. O’Reilly expected the strata to approve his wood and wire fence because other strata lots had existing fences constructed with materials other than wood and stone. Mr. O’Reilly provided photos showing a black chain link fence around strata lot 9, and other wood and wire fences similar to Mr. O’Reilly’s around large gardens in the yards on strata lots 15, 17, and 18, and one along the border between strata lots 3 and 4. Strata lot 3’s owner, SS, provided a statement that their wood and wire fence has existed since at least 2013. Based on this evidence, I find Mr. O’Reilly’s expectation that the strata would approve his fence was objectively reasonable.

58.   In its Dispute Response, the strata stated it was previously unaware of the other fences that “potentially” did not comply with the statutory building scheme. The strata also said it had not received any complaints about those fences. The strata said it was not obligated to approve Mr. O’Reilly’s non-compliant fence just because there may have been other non-compliant fences on other strata lots.

59.   As noted, it appears the new strata council no longer takes the same position. In its statement filed in evidence, the new strata council says the strata’s owner developer granted exceptions to the statutory building code for some fences, including the one around strata lot 9. The statement also says wire fences are generally preferred because they do not obstruct the view of other strata lots like a solid wood fence could. The statement essentially concludes that given the existing non-compliant fences, it would be unfair for the strata to object to Mr. O’Reilly’s proposed fence.

60.   The new strata council did not provide any supporting evidence of the alleged historical exceptions to the statutory building scheme for fences on other strata lots. In any event, even if the owner developer granted some exceptions, I find that does not necessarily obligate the strata to grant a similar exception to Mr. O’Reilly.

61.   As noted, strata bylaw 3(4) requires owners to comply with the statutory building scheme. Generally, a strata corporation has a duty to enforce its bylaws under section 26 of the SPA, though SPA section 135 requires that a strata corporation first receive a complaint before it starts bylaw enforcement proceedings. I find that if an owner complains about a contravention of bylaw 3(4), the strata is generally obligated to investigate and start enforcement proceedings.

62.   I accept the strata’s evidence that it has not received any complaints about the other non-compliant fences, as there is no evidence before me to the contrary. So, while the strata had not enforced bylaw 3(4) against the other owners of non-compliant fences, I find that is likely because no one had ever asked the strata to do so. However, because the strata received a complaint about Mr. O’Reilly’s fence, I find the strata was obligated to take steps to enforce bylaw 3(4). In other words, I find Mr. O’Reilly has not shown the strata treated him any differently than other strata lot owners when it declined to retroactively approve his fence.

63.   I note that Mr. O’Reilly likely developed his expectation that the strata would approve his fence before he learned that the strata had not received any previous complaints about the other non-compliant fences. Further, it is undisputed that the strata permitted Mr. O’Reilly to keep his existing non-compliant fence until May 2022, to protect newly planted grass and landscaping in his yard. Overall, despite Mr. O’Reilly’s reasonable expectation that the strata would approve his fence, I find the strata’s decision not to approve it was not burdensome, harsh, wrongful, lacking in probity or fair dealing, done in bad faith, unjust, or inequitable. That is, I find the strata’s decision was not significantly unfair to Mr. O’Reilly.

64.   For these reasons, I dismiss Mr. O’Reilly’s claim for the strata to approve his fence. As the strata did not file a counterclaim for Mr. O’Reilly remove his fence, and there is no indication the strata has taken steps to impose bylaw fines against him for the non-compliant fence, I find it is unnecessary to make any order about the timeline for Mr. O’Reilly to remove his non-compliant fence. I dismiss this dispute.

CRT FEES, EXPENSES, AND INTEREST

65.   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 that the strata was the successful party in all 3 disputes. The strata paid $125 in CRT fees for Dispute ST-2022-001378, and I order Mr. O’Reilly to reimburse the strata that amount. The strata did not pay any fees for the other 2 disputes, and it did not claim any dispute-related expenses.

66.   As the O’Reillys were unsuccessful, I dismiss their claims for reimbursement of CRT fees and expenses, including $392 in legal fees to prepare a December 9, 2021 letter to the strata. I would not have awarded the claimed legal fees in any event because the dispute was not extraordinary, and the expense was incurred before the CRT issued the Dispute Notice, so I find it is not a proper dispute-related expense.

67.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. I find the strata is entitled to pre-judgement interest under the COIA for the unpaid $800 bylaw fines. I find interest is payable from the date each fine was imposed to the date of this decision. This equals $16.26.

68.   The strata must comply with section 189.4 of the SPA, which includes not charging dispute-related expenses against the O’Reillys.

ORDERS

69.   I order that within 30 days of this decision, Mr. O’Reilly must pay the strata $941.26 broken down as follows:

a.    $800 in bylaw fines,

b.    $16.26 in pre-judgement interest under the COIA, and

c.    $125 for CRT fees.

70.   The strata is also entitled to post-judgment interest under the COIA, as applicable.

71.   I dismiss Mr. and Mrs. O’Reilly’s claims in Dispute ST-2022-000270 and Mr. O’Reilly’s claims in Dispute ST-2022-001617.

72.   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.