Date Issued: October 31, 2023

Files: ST-2022-006965

and ST-CC-2023-000616

Type: Strata

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Stehle v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 2617, 2023 BCCRT 935

Between:

GERRY STEHLE

Applicant

And:

The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 2617

Respondent

And:

GERRY STEHLE

Respondent BY COUNTERCLAIM

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Kate Campbell

 

INTRODUCTION

1.      This strata property dispute is about recreational vehicle (RV) parking.

2.      Gerry Stehle co-owns strata lot 30 (SL30) in a bare land strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 2617 (strata). Mr. Stehle is the applicant in the primary claim, and the respondent to the strata’s counterclaim. Mr. Stehle is self-represented in this dispute. The strata is represented by a strata council member.

3.      Mr. Stehle says that in 2022, the strata directed him to remove his RV from his strata lot or risk bylaw fines. Mr. Stehle says he is exempt from bylaw 30, which restricts RV parking, based on the terms of his 2004 purchase agreement with the owner developer. He also says the strata has not enforced bylaw 30 for 14 years, so it is unfair for the strata to enforce it against him now.

4.      As remedy, Mr. Stehle requests an order that the strata stop demanding that he remove his RV.

5.      The strata says Mr. Stehle routinely violates bylaw 30. The strata says the terms of the purchase agreement between Mr. Stehle and the owner developer are not binding on the strata, and Mr. Stehle is not exempt from bylaw 30.

6.      In its counterclaim, the strata claims that Mr. Stehle installed a gravel RV parking pad on SL30, which encroached onto common property. The strata says this was an unapproved alteration, contrary to strata bylaws.

7.      As remedy, the strata requests orders that Mr. Stehle stop parking his RV on SL30, and pay $8,600 in bylaw fines, survey costs, and legal fees incurred in enforcing its bylaws.

 

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

8.      The CRT has jurisdiction over strata property claims under Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA) section 121. The CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly.

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. The parties have not requested an oral hearing. In Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282, the court recognized that oral hearings are not necessarily required even where credibility is at issue. In this dispute, there are no significant factual disputes or issues of credibility that require oral testimony or cross-examination. Bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and speedy dispute resolution, I find it is appropriate to decide this dispute through documentary evidence and written submissions.

10.   The CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary, and appropriate, even if the information would not be admissible in court.

RV Parking Pad

11.   In its counterclaim, the strata initially requested an order that Mr. Stehle remove the gravel RV parking pad and restore the common property to its original state. The strata now agrees this has already occurred, so I make no order for removal or restoration in this decision. However, the strata continues to seek an order that Mr. Stehle pay bylaw fines and legal fees arising from the gravel pad’s encroachment onto common property. I address that issue in my reasons below.

Late Evidence

12.   Mr. Stehle provided late evidence, after the parties had provided final submissions. The strata was given an opportunity to respond to this late evidence. However, I find it is not determinative of the issues before me in this dispute, so I place no weight on it.

ISSUES

13.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Is Mr. Stehle permitted to park an RV on SL30?

b.    Must Mr. Stehle pay bylaw fines?

c.    Must Mr. Stehl pay land survey expenses?

d.    Must Mr. Stehle pay legal fees?

BACKGROUND

14.   In a civil claim like this one, Mr. Stehle, as applicant, must prove his claim on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). The strata must prove its counterclaim to the same standard. I have reviewed all the parties' evidence and submissions, but below I only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.

15.   The strata consists of 79 bare land strata lots, plus common property. The evidence shows that Mr. Stehle purchased SL30 from the owner developer shortly after the strata was created in January 2004.

16.   The owner developer did not file bylaws with the Land Title Office (LTO). The strata says this means there were no bylaws, but I find this is incorrect. Strata Property Act (SPA) section 120(1) provides that if no different bylaw are filed at the LTO, the Standard Bylaws in the SPA apply. There is no Standard Bylaw prohibiting or limiting parking, including RV parking.

17.   LTO documents show that in 2008, the strata filed bylaw amendments at the LTO. These apply to this dispute. The amendments included bylaw 30 about parking and storage. The relevant parts of bylaw 30 are:

30(1) No oversized vehicles (bigger than a pick-up truck) construction heavy duty equipment or trailers will be allowed overnight parking within the sub-division.

(2) R. V. Parking (includes trailers, boats, utility trailers) – No parking units on private property. (RV loading allowed for 3 days maximum for loading, unloading, and cleaning.)

(3) Storage – No boats, trucks, or recreational vehicles of any kind whatsoever...

REASONS AND ANALYSIS

Is Mr. Stehle permitted to park an RV on SL30?

18.   Mr. Stehle says he should be permitted to park an RV on SL30 for 2 reasons. First, he says his 2004 purchase agreement with the owner developer includes a term permitting RV parking on SL30. Second, he says it is significantly unfair for the strata to enforce bylaw 30 against him now, as the strata has not enforced it previously.

19.   For the following reasons, I find Mr. Stehle is bound by bylaw 30, and is not entitled to park an RV on SL30. I also find it is not significantly unfair for the strata to enforce bylaw 30 against Mr. Stehle.

Purchase Agreement

20.   Mr. Stehle provided a copy of the June 1, 2004 contract of purchase and sale (contract) for SL30. The parties to the contract were Mr. Stehle and Lynn Stehle (purchasers) and the owner developer (vendor). Item 10 of the contract states that the purchasers acknowledge receiving a copy of the Disclosure Statement. A written addendum to the contract also states as follows (reproduced as written):

Addendum to Item #10 of the Contract of Purchase and Sale for Lot 30, College Heights

Recreational Vehicle Amendment to Section 3.2 of the Disclosure Statement

RV parking will be permitted providing the unit is maintaining in an “as new” condition and contained totally within the Owners lot. The unit will be positioned so that it will not obstruct the view of other owners in the development.

21.   Mr. Stehle says that based on this addendum, he is exempt from bylaw 30, and is entitled to park an RV on SL30. For the following reasons, I disagree.

22.   The addendum states that it is an amendment to the disclosure statement. A disclosure statement is a marketing document required under the Real Estate Development Marketing Act. It is provided by the owner developer to prospective buyers when the strata is under construction or newly built. Numerous CRT decisions state that a disclosure statement describes the intentions of the owner developer, but does not provide a guarantee, and does not bind the strata: see Yaremko v. The Owners, Strata Plan 1601, 2020 BCCRT 289, Ojani v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS3505, 2021 BCCRT 14 and The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2429 v. Onni Development (The Point) Corp., 2019 BCCRT 1177. While prior CRT decisions are not binding precedents, I find the reasoning in these decisions persuasive, and rely on it here.

23.   As argued by the strata, it is not a party to the contract, and so is not bound by it. Mr. Stehle argues that at the time the contract was signed, the owner developer was the strata, as less than 50% of the strata lots had been sold, and the strata council had not yet been elected. I agree that under SPA Part 3, the owner developer was responsible for running the strata at that time. However, the owner developer and the strata are separate legal entities. The owner developer signed the contract in its own capacity, and not on behalf of the strata. The owner developer does not have authority to bind the strata in contracts to which the strata was not a party. For example, in paragraph 21 of Deng v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 3904, 2017 BCCRT 8 A1, the

 

24.   former CRT Chair reasoned that an agreement a strata lot owner makes with the owner developer is a private contract, and does not bind the strata.

25.   For these reasons, I find the strata is not bound by the disclosure statement, amendments to the disclosure statement, or the contract between the Stehles and the owner developer.

26.   In a July 26, 2022 letter to the strata, Mr. Stehle’s lawyer wrote that in 2004, the Stehles had a discussion with the owner developer about amending the statutory building scheme (SBS) to permit RV parking on SL30. However, there is no evidence that the SBS was amended. Also, the copy of the SBS in evidence states that it expired in 2020. So, I find the SBS, and promises about it from the owner developer, do not permit Mr. Stehle to park an RV.

27.   The SPA has specific provisions allowing retroactive exemptions to some types of strata bylaws. Currently, these exemptions may apply to pet bylaws, and age restriction bylaws. Until 2022, there were also provisions through which an owner developer could issue a form (Form J) granting a strata lot purchaser an exemption to rental restriction bylaws. Since the SPA specifically contemplates such exemptions for some things, but not for parking or RV storage, I find the SPA does not permit the owner developer to permanently exempt Mr. Stehle from future bylaw amendments about RV parking.

28.   For these reasons, I find the contract does not exempt Mr. Stehle from bylaw 30, and does not permit Mr. Stehle to park an RV on SL30.

Significant Unfairness

29.   Mr. Stehle argues that it is significantly unfair for the strata to enforce bylaw 30 against him, for 2 reasons. First, because the owner developer led Mr. Stehle to reasonably believe he could park his RV on SL30 for as long as he owned the property. Second, because the strata did not enforce bylaw 30 until 2021, even though Mr. Stehle had been parking his RV there for 18 years.

30.   CRTA section 123(2) says the CRT may make orders remedying a strata corporation’s significantly unfair acts or decisions. The court has the same authority under section 164 of the SPA, and the same legal test applies. See Dolnik v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1350, 2023 BCSC 113.

31.   In Kunzler v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS 1433, 2021 BCCA 173, the court confirmed that significantly unfair actions or decisions 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 objectively reasonable expectations are a relevant factor, but are not determinative. See also Dollan v. The Owners, Strata Plan 1589, 2012 BCCA 44.

32.   I find Mr. Stehle’s expectation that the strata would honour the owner developer’s promise about RV parking on SL30 was objectively unreasonable. As explained above, the strata is a separate legal entity from the owner developer, did not make the promise, and is not bound by the owner developer’s promises.

33.   I also find Mr. Stehle’s expectation that the strata would not enforce bylaw 30 because it had not done so in the past is objectively unreasonable. Under SPA section 26, the strata has a duty to enforce its bylaws. As argued by the strata, the fact that previous strata councils failed to enforce bylaw 30 does not mean the strata is forever barred from future enforcement.

34.   In finding that the strata’s actions were not significantly unfair to Mr. Stehle, I note that he has not provided evidence that other owners were permitted to continue parking RVs or boats on strata lots after 2021. Rather, the evidence shows that other owners were asked to move vehicles stored contrary to bylaw 30.

35.   I also place significant weight on the results of the March 24, 2022 special general meeting (SGM). At the SGM, owners voted on a resolution to amend bylaw 30 to permit RV parking on strata lots. The minutes show the resolution was defeated by a wide margin. The vote clarified that the majority of owners opposed RV parking on strata lots. Given that result, I find the strata reasonably concluded that it had to enforce bylaw 30. In other words, it would have been unreasonable for the strata not to enforce bylaw 30 after outcome of the SGM vote.

36.   Finally, Mr. Stehle argues that the strata acted unfairly, and contrary to SPA section 135, because the only written complaints about his RV were from council members.

37.   Section 135 does not require that complaints be made in writing: see The Owners, Strata Plan NW3075 v. Stevens, 2018 BCPC 2, at paragraph 52. Also, bylaw complaints may come from council members: see The Owners, Strata Plan VR19 v. Collins et al., 2004 BCSC 1743 at paragraph 16.

38.   For all these reasons, I find it was not significantly unfair for the strata to enforce bylaw 30 against Mr. Stehle. I dismiss Mr. Stehle’s claim for an order that the strata permit RV parking on SL30.

Must Mr. Stehle pay bylaw fines?

39.   The strata says Mr. Stehle has breached bylaw 30 by parking his RV on SL30 for extended periods. The strata also says Mr. Stehle breached other bylaws by building a parking pad that encroached onto common property. I address these 2 alleged breaches in turn.

Bylaw 30 – RV Parking

40.   The strata first wrote to the Stehles on December 4, 2021, warning them about potential breaches of bylaw 30, and asking them to comply with the bylaw. On May 30, 2022, the strata’s lawyer wrote to the Stehles. The letter said the strata had received complaints that the Stehles were parking an RV on SL30 and a portion of common property. The letter set out the text of bylaw 30, and gave the Stehles an opportunity to respond to the complaint. The letter also noted Mr. Stehle’s argument that he was permitted to park the RV based on the contract. The lawyer said the contract was not binding on the strata, and strata bylaws prevailed. The lawyer noted the recent SGM vote, and said the strata would give Mr. Stehle time to comply with bylaw 30 if he agreed to do so. Otherwise, Mr. Stehle was directed to respond to the complaint. The letter said if he did not respond, the strata council would decide

 

41.   whether Mr. Stehle had breached bylaw 30, and could impose fines or remedy the breach and charge the costs back to Mr. Stehle under SPA section 133.

42.   Mr. Stehle corresponded with the strata about the alleged breach of bylaw 30. The strata’s lawyer wrote to the Stehles again on July 6, 2022. The letter said the strata council had reviewed the documents received, and concluded that Mr. Stehle had breached bylaw 30 by parking an RV on SL30 and common property. The letter said the council had decided to impose a $200 fine, with further fines to be assessed every 7 days if the contravention continued. The letter also said the council had decided to charge back bylaw enforcement costs against Mr. Stehle under SPA section 133, including legal expenses and survey costs related to removing the encroachment onto common property. The letter said the strata would waive all fines if Mr. Stehle agreed to move the RV within 7 days, and remove the parking pad encroachment within 90 days.

43.   In a December 12, 2022 letter to the Stehles, the strata’s lawyer stated that the Stehles had not agreed to remove the RV or parking pad encroachment. The letter said that fines of $200 per week had been imposed from July 6, 2022 to November 30, 2022. SL30’s strata lot account shows that this totalled $3,400. The letter said the strata had also imposed a retroactive fine of $5,200, made up of $50 per week for the 2 years prior to July 6, 2022. The letter also said the strata had imposed chargebacks of $787.50 for survey costs, and $11,877.42 for legal fees incurred in enforcing the bylaws.

44.   I find the $5,200 “retroactive fine” for the period before July 6, 2022 is invalid. SPA section 135 requires that before imposing a fine, a strata corporation must give the owner written particulars of the complaint, and a reasonable opportunity to answer the complaint. In this case, the strata did not give Mr. Stehle written particulars of the complaint until May 30, 2022, and gave Mr. Stehle until June 15, 2022 to respond.. In Shen v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 970, 2020 BCCRT 953 at paragraph 53, a tribunal Vice Chair found that retroactive fines are akin to charging fines before notifying an owner of the particulars of a complaint. I agree with that reasoning, and adopt it here. I find the $5,200 in retroactive fines are invalid, and I dismiss this part of the strata’s counterclaim.

45.   As for the $3,400 in fines from July to November 2022, Mr. Stehle says those are invalid because there was no continuing breach. Rather, he says he removed the RV on August 1, 2022, and only returned it for periods of up to 3 days for loading and unloading, as permitted by bylaw 30(2). He admits the RV was continuously parked for more than 7 days in November 2022.

46.   SPA section 135 says a strata corporation may impose further fines for a continuing bylaw contravention without the need to give additional notice. Similarly, strata bylaw 24 says the strata may impose a fine every 7 days for a bylaw contravention that continues, without interruption, for longer than 7 days.

47.   In The Owners v. Grabarczyk, 2006 BCSC 1960, the court found that a strata corporation must provide separate written notice and the right to be heard for each incident, if a bylaw breach is repeated rather than continuing.

48.   In this case, the strata says that Mr. Stehle’s “self-serving assertions about the RV's alleged comings and goings are not properly in evidence.” However, the strata bears the burden of proving its counterclaim for payment of bylaw fines. I find the strata has not proved that the RV was parked continuously, without interruption, from July 6, 2022 to November 30, 2022. Instead, I find Mr. Stehle’s assertion that he used the RV for camping in August 2022 is plausible, and the strata has not proven otherwise.

49.   So, I find the strata has not proven a continuous breach of bylaw 30 after August 1, 2022. Since there was no new notice issued after July 6, 2022, I find the strata was only entitled to impose weekly fines on Mr. Stehle from July 6 to August 1, 2022. At $200 per week, this equals $600.

50.   Although Mr. Stehle admits continuous parking in November 2022, the strata issued no new section 135 notice, so was not entitled to impose fines for that period: see Grabarczyk.

51.   In conclusion, I find Mr. Stehle must pay the strata $600 in bylaw fines for parking his RV contrary to bylaw 30. The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to this amount. From August 1, 2022, this equals $27.52.

Bylaws 3 and 6 – Parking Pad Encroachment

52.   The strata says Mr. Stehle violated several strata bylaws by constructing a gravel RV parking pad that encroached onto common property. I summarize the relevant parts of these bylaws as follows:

3(1)(c) – an owner must not use common property in a way that unreasonably interferes with the rights of other persons to use and enjoy the common property.

3(1)(e) – an owner must not use common property in a way that is contrary to a purpose for which it is intended, as shown on the strata plan.

3(2) – an owner must not cause damage, other than reasonable wear and tear, to common property.

6(1) – an owner must obtain the strata’s written approval before altering common property.

53.   In his CRT submissions, Mr. Stehle admits to constructing the parking pad, and admits that it encroached onto common property. As noted above, the parties agree that the encroachment has now been satisfactorily removed.

54.   It is somewhat unclear from the strata’s submissions whether it seeks an order for payment of bylaw fines specifically related to the encroachment. Its submissions only deal with the fines imposed in the July 6, 2022 letter discussed above. I find that no fines for the encroachment can arise from that letter. This is because, while the letter mentioned the encroachment, it says the council had decided to “further investigate the question of the parking pad encroachment on common property.” Also, the letter did not mention bylaws 3 or 6. So, I find that at the time the July 6, 2022 fines were imposed for violating bylaw 30, the strata had not given Mr. Stehle sufficient particulars about the alleged breach relating to the parking pad. Specifically, the strata had not yet told him which bylaws he had breached, and had not yet made a decision about whether there was a breach.

55.   The strata’s lawyer sent Mr. Stehle a January 17, 2023 letter stating that it had imposed a $750 fine for the parking pad encroachment. The letter indicates the fine was calculated at $50 per day from October 5, 2022 onwards. The January 8, 2023 council meeting minutes, where the council approved the fine, confirm that the fine was intended to be retroactive.

56.   Since this is a retroactive fine, I find it is invalid. As explained above, SPA section 135 does not permit retroactive fines. So, I do not order Mr. Stehle to pay fines for the parking pad encroachment.

Must Mr. Stehl pay land survey expenses?

57.   The strata requests an order that Mr. Stehle pay $787.50 for a land survey, since the strata incurred this charge while investigating whether Mr. Stehl’s RV parking pad encroached onto the adjacent common property. The strata provided an invoice confirming it paid this amount.

58.   As noted above, Mr. Stehle now admits to the encroachment. But, he says the survey was unnecessary because the original survey pins were clearly visible on the land.

59.   I am not persuaded by this argument for 2 reasons. First, if the survey pins were clearly visible, Mr. Stehle should have removed the encroachment shortly after the strata raised the issue and requested remediation in its May 30, 2022 and July 6, 2022 letters. Second, in the July 6, 2022 letter, the strata’s lawyer said the council intended to investigate the alleged parking pad encroachment further, and would address it after obtaining a surveyor’s advice. Mr. Stehle did not, at that time, admit to the encroachment, or inform the strata that the survey pins were visible. Instead, the strata obtained the survey on July 14, 2022. In a July 26, 2022 letter to the strata, Mr. Stehle’s lawyer again did not admit the encroachment, but instead requested a copy of the surveyor’s report supporting the allegation.

60.   Since Mr. Stehle did not admit to the encroachment or inform the strata about the survey pins until after the survey occurred, I find it was reasonable and necessary for the strata to obtain the survey in order to enforce its bylaws. Specifically, I find that building an RV pad that encroached onto common property, without written authorization, breached bylaw 6(1).

61.   SPA section 133(2) says a strata corporation may charge the reasonable costs of remedying a bylaw contravention to the person who may be fined for the contravention. The SPA section 135 notice requirements apply to such charges.

62.   I find the strata gave sufficient notice of the survey charge. In its July 6, 2022 letter, the strata’s lawyer said that if Mr. Stehle did not remove the encroachment, the strata would enforce its bylaws, and would charge the Stehles legal expenses and any additional costs under SPA section 133. Since the letter also said the strata intended to obtain a land survey, I find the strata gave Mr. Stehle notice that he could be liable for the survey cost. The strata also sent another letter confirming the charge when it added the survey cost to Mr. Stehle’s strata lot account in December 2022. For these reasons, I find the strata met the section 135 requirements, and is entitled to reimbursement for the survey.

63.   So, I order Mr. Stehle to pay $787.50 for the survey. Prejudgement interest under the COIA applies to this amount. From December 12, 2022, this equals $31.25.

Must Mr. Stehle pay the strata’s legal fees?

64.   The strata claims reimbursement of legal fees under SPA section 133, and alternatively, under CRT rule 9.5. Rule 9.5 says the CRT may order reimbursement of legal fees in extraordinary circumstances.

65.   In its counterclaim application, the strata claimed reimbursement of $11,877.42 in legal fees incurred in enforcing its bylaws. In its subsequent submission, the strata claimed additional reimbursement of $11,660.50 in legal fees incurred in defending against Mr. Stehle’s CRT claim, and pursuing the strata’s counterclaim. This totals $23,537.92.

66.   The strata provided copies of 4 invoices, showing total charges of $30,203.24 for legal fees and disbursements. One invoice is labelled “Bylaw Enforcement (Stehle)” and the other 3 invoices are labelled “Issues with Owner (Stehle)”. The strata did not specifically argue that it was claiming the full amount of all invoices, did not explain what the later invoices were for, and did explain the distinction between its claimed legal fees and the invoiced amounts. So, I have not considered any claim for the amount over $23,537.92. However, I find it is procedurally fair to consider whether Mr. Stehle must reimburse the full $23,537.92. Although part of this amount was not included in the counterclaim Dispute Notice, Mr. Stehle had notice of the increased legal fees claim, and an opportunity to respond to it.

67.   Mr. Stehle says the strata is not entitled to recover legal fees because it has no bylaw permitting recovery. However, as noted above, SPA section 133(2) permits a strata corporation to charge an owner with the reasonable costs of remedying the owner’s bylaw contravention. In this case, I have found that Mr. Stehle contravened strata bylaws by parking his RV contrary to bylaw 30, and by building a parking pad that encroached onto common property without written permission.

68.   In Nadeau v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 6635, 2022 BCCRT 511, a CRT vice chair summarized court decisions on reimbursement of legal fees under SPA section 133 (see paragraphs 28 to 39). The vice chair concluded that courts have determined that SPA section 133 allows a strata corporation to recover its actual reasonable legal costs to remedy or attempt to remedy a bylaw contravention. The vice chair also found the CRT has discretion to determine what legal fees are reasonable based on the circumstances of the dispute, including proportionality. I find the reasoning in Nadeau persuasive, and I rely on it here.

69.   In The Owners, Strata Plan BCS2438 v. Graham, 2022 BCCRT 904, a CRT member ordered payment of legal fees under SPA section 133(2) for a strata corporation’s costs in enforcing no-smoking bylaws, including costs of pursuing a CRT dispute to collect bylaw fines and obtain a no-smoking order against a strata lot occupant. Although Graham is not binding on me, I also find its reasoning persuasive, and apply it here. In particular, I find that the reasoning in Graham supports the conclusion that a strata corporation may be entitled to reimbursement of legal fees under SPA section 133(2) when using the CRT to enforce bylaws, and collect bylaw fines.

70.   Mr. Stehle also says the strata’s claimed legal fees are not reasonable. In part, he bases his position on his belief that the owner developer’s promise to permit RV parking was binding on the strata. Since I have found that position incorrect, I find Mr. Stehle cannot rely on it to avoid reimbursement of legal fees under SPA section 133(2). I note that in its December 4, 2021 letter, the strata offered Mr. Stehle time to comply with bylaw 30, but he did not do so.

71.   Having reviewed the evidence and submissions before me, I find that the strata’s legal fees, although high, were generally reasonable in the circumstances. Mr. Stehle was first informed of the bylaw contravention in writing in December 2021, but did not remove the RV or the RV parking pad, and did not accept the strata’s offer of time to comply with the bylaws. Mr. Stehle waited for the strata to obtain a land survey, and raised legal arguments about the contract and the SBS, which I have found to be incorrect. So, I find it was reasonable for the strata to incur significant legal fees in order to enforce its bylaws in relation to RV parking and the parking pad.

72.   However, one invoice, dated September 27, 2023, shows that the strata incurred legal fees in October 2018 and January 2020. I find these cannot reasonably be charged to Mr. Stehle, since the strata did not give him written notice of potential bylaw breaches until December 2021. So, I find Mr. Stehle is not responsible for those charges, which equal $290.00.

73.   Also, as explained above, I find that some of the bylaw fines imposed are invalid because they are not consistent with SPA requirements. The legal invoices do not show what amount of legal fees are attributable to the invalid fines, but I find that some of them must be, since they are part of the correspondence from the strata’s lawyer. For that reason, I find, on a judgment basis, that it is reasonable for Mr. Stehle to pay 50% of the strata’s claimed $23,537.92 in legal fees, not counting the $290.00 noted above.

74.   50% of $23,247.92 equals $11,623.96. I order Mr. Stehle to pay this amount.

 

75.   This is analogous to an order for costs in BC Supreme Court. Under the COIA, prejudgment interest is not payable on costs orders. So, I order no prejudgment interest.

CRT FEES AND EXPENSES

76.   As the strata was largely successful in this dispute, under the CRTA and the CRT’s rules I find it is entitled to reimbursement of $125.00 it paid in CRT fees. Neither party claimed dispute-related expenses, so I order none.

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

ORDERS

78.   I order that within 30 days of this decision, Mr. Stehle must pay the strata a total of $13,193,23, broken down as:

a.    $600.00 in bylaw fines for parking his RV contrary to bylaw 30,

b.    $787.50 for the land survey,

c.    $11,623.96 as reimbursement for legal fees,

d.    $125.00 as reimbursement of CRT fees, and

e.    $56.77 in prejudgment interest under the COIA.

79.   I dismiss Mr. Stehle’s claim.

80.   The strata is entitled to postjudgment interest under the COIA.

81.   Under CRTA section 57, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the British Columbia Supreme Court. Under CRTA section 58, 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.