Date Issued: June 13, 2025

File: ST-2023-009769

Type: Strata

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Nesha Enterprises Ltd. v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3495,
2025 BCCRT 807

Between:

NESHA ENTERPRISES LTD.

Applicant

And:

The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3495

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Deanna Rivers

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about reimbursement for a door and a chargeback of legal fees to the strata lot owner.

2.      The applicant, Nesha Enterprises Ltd. (Nesha), owns strata lot 183 (SL183) in the respondent strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3495 (strata). Nesha claims $1,021.50 for reimbursement of the costs to replace a vandalized storefront door. Nesha also says the strata improperly charged it $146.17 for legal fees incurred by the strata. Nesha is represented by its director, Shireen Nadim.

3.      The strata disagrees with Nesha’s claims. It says Nesha did not have authority to replace the door. It also says Mrs. Nadim caused the strata to incur the legal fees. A strata council member represents the strata.

4.      As I explain below, I find the strata must reimburse Nesha $504 for the door replacement, and remove the $146.17 chargeback for legal fees.

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 Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA) section 121. 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 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.

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.

9.      Both parties made submissions about the other party’s representative’s alleged dishonesty and deceit in dealing with these issues and other matters not before me. The Strata Property Act (SPA) section 31 says that each council member must act honestly and in good faith with a view to the strata’s best interests, and exercise the care, diligence, and skill of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances. To the extent that each representative was acting in their role as a council member, I do not address the allegations as the individual strata lot owners do not have legal authority to make claims for violations of SPA section 31.[1]

10.   Where each party alleges the other is not credible or reliable in recounting the events, to determine each party’s credibility I consider whether it is more likely than not that the statements are accurate when considered in relation to the documentary evidence.

11.   The strata says Nesha is prohibited by SPA section 189.1(2) from asking the CRT to resolve this dispute, as it did not apply for a hearing. However, the evidence shows that Nesha did request a hearing on September 5, 2023, which was held on September 6, 2023. So, I find I am able to resolve the issues in this dispute.

ISSUES

12.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Must the strata reimburse Nesha $1,021.50 or another amount for door repair?

b.    Is the strata entitled to charge the $146.17 legal invoice to Nesha?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

13.   As the applicant in a civil proceeding like this one, Nesha must prove its claims on a balance of probabilities, meaning more likely than not. I have considered all the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to the information that I find necessary to explain my decision.

14.   The strata plan shows the strata was created in 2009 under the SPA. It consists of 3 high-rise towers plus common facilities. The strata has a residential section with 642 strata lots, and a commercial section with 14 strata lots. SL183 is on the ground floor in the commercial section. A restaurant operates out of SL183.

15.   The strata’s bylaws were filed on July 13, 2009 and replace the Standard Bylaws. It has made 14 amendments since that date. I refer to the relevant bylaws as amended below.

Reimbursement for Door Repair

16.   A Coquitlam RCMP police report said that on October 26, 2022, a constable attended at SL183 and observed the left entrance door was completely shattered and a football-sized rock was inside the restaurant. This is confirmed by a video in evidence which showed the left door shattered inward, with a person-sized hole in the glass.

17.    A statement from Nesha’s tenant, AF, said that on October 26, 2022, he was contacted by the RCMP at 5:30 a.m.. He went to the restaurant, and found a rock through the front door, and the door’s glass was broken. He says he contacted the building manager for assistance, who told him that he would inform the management company. AF said he contacted Ultimate Glass Ltd. for an emergency repair.

18.   A September 13, 2023 email from Ultimate Glass to the strata says it received a daytime emergency callout for broken glass “around October 24, 2022.” I recognize this is the incorrect date, but find it is an error as the email was provided almost a year after the incident. Ultimate Glass says it made the final glass replacement on November 16, 2022.

19.   Ultimate Glass Ltd.’s September 11, 2022 invoice shows charges of $280 for a temporary single glaze lite door, $300 for emergency call-out, $825.11 for a “tempered sealed unit” which I infer is the permanent door, and $18 for fuel surcharge, plus taxes. The total is $1,494.27, and shows a deposit of $1,021.50, with an outstanding balance of $472.77. Nesha claims for reimbursement of the deposit amount.

20.   SPA section 72 says subject to the bylaws, the strata must repair and maintain common property that has not been designated as limited common property. Bylaw 3.1(3)(b) requires the strata corporation to repair and maintain common property. The bylaw specifically includes the entrance doors to strata lots. Bylaw 6.4 provides that the cost of maintaining the exterior of the building, including without limitation all exterior doors and windows, will be paid by the strata, and not the residential or commercial sections.

21.   It is not disputed that SL183’s entrance door was common property, and so was the strata’s responsibility to repair and maintain.

22.   A strata lot owner is not generally entitled to unilaterally spend money to repair common property, and expect the strata to reimburse them.[2] It is the responsibility of the strata council to determine repair priorities and select appropriate contractors. An exception to this general rule is where the repair is an emergency.[3]

23.   Considering the front entrance door of the strata lot was shattered, allowing entry to the strata lot without opening the door, I find the initial repair was an emergency required to prevent access to the strata lot.

24.   However, as I note above, the temporary door was replaced with a permanent door on November 16, 2022, three weeks later. So, I find that between October 26 and November 16 there was sufficient time for Nesha to report the incident to the strata and request it repair the door. I find this was no longer an emergency repair. So, I find the strata is not responsible to reimburse Nesha for its replacement of the temporary door before the strata had an opportunity to consider its request.

25.   The strata argues there is no proof that the door glass was damaged in a police-related incident, or that there was any incident that “allegedly” damaged the strata’s front windows. I find that the evidence of AF and the police report prove the door glass was damaged by an unknown person on October 26, 2022.

26.   The strata also implies that Nesha having the wrong date on a number of communications calls the incident into question. Nesha’s mistakes concerning dates do not affect my decision, as the documentary evidence and particularly the police report supports the dates I have relied on in making my decision.

27.   The strata makes other arguments concerning the payment. The strata disputes that Nesha paid the invoice. As the invoice clearly noted that the deposit was paid, and Nesha provided an e-transfer confirmation, I find Nesha has proved it paid the claimed deposit amount. AF’s evidence is that he paid the remaining invoice amount on November 12, 2022. So, I find that the invoice was paid.

28.   The strata also says when Nesha first requested reimbursement of the invoice, it paid $472.77 to Ultimate Glass Ltd.. It says Mrs. Nadim as the co-treasurer of the strata improperly authorized the payment. However, the evidence shows that the other co-treasurer also authorized the payment on December 2, 2022. Further, as Nesha had already paid Ultimate Glass the full amount of the invoice, there was no amount owing to it. There is no evidence the strata paid $472.77 to Nesha.

29.   So, I find the strata has not reimbursed Nesha any of Ultimate Glass’ invoice.

30.   Finally, the strata says it could not reimburse Nesha for the payments, as it did not have the information it need for the insurance. However, I find that the strata’s claim for insurance coverage is not relevant to whether Nesha is entitled to reimbursement.

31.   So, I find that the strata must reimburse Nesha $180 for the temporary door and $300 for the emergency call-out, plus taxes. This totals $504. As I note above, Nesha is not entitled to the cost for the permanent door as its installation was not an emergency.

Chargeback for Legal Fees

32.   On April 2, 2023, Mrs. Nadim emailed the strata’s lawyers, Lesperance Mendes. Mrs. Nadim signed the email as the “Commercial Section President Strata Plan BCS 3495.” The email was also addressed to the commercial section’s lawyer, the strata manager, and other persons not identified in this dispute. The email was about the strata’s interactions with the commercial section, and specifically about the allocation of common property expenses among the strata and the sections.

33.   On May 23, 2023, Lesperance Mendes invoiced the strata $146.17. The invoice’s description notes Mrs. Nadim’s email, another email from MS, and emails to the commercial section’s lawyers.

34.   Neither party provided me with a copy of the strata’s June 20, 2023 letter charging the legal invoice amount back to SL183. However, the strata’s strata manager’s September 14, 2023 letter to Nesha says that following the hearing, the strata denied Mrs. Nadim’s request to reverse the chargeback. The letter says that the strata council’s reason for charging the legal invoice back to SL183 was that Mrs. Nadim had initiated the communication with Lesperance Mendes, and caused the strata legal expenses, without majority approval by the strata.

35.   There is no bylaw that requires an owner to pay for the strata’s legal fees for any reason other than to enforce the strata’s bylaws or to remedy a contravention of the bylaws. I find that no bylaw enforcement or contravention was at issue in the email. In submissions, the strata also says that Nesha caused damage to the strata, but it provided no evidence of damage.

36.   Given my findings above, the strata must remove the $146.17 chargeback for Lesperance Mendes’ legal invoice from Nesha’s strata lot account.

CRT FEES, EXPENSES, AND INTEREST

37.   Under CRTA section 49, and the CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. As Nesha was partly successful, I find it is entitled to half of its paid CRT fees, which is $112.50. The strata did not pay CRT fees, and neither party claimed dispute-related expenses.

38.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. Nesha is entitled to prejudgment interest on the $504 from October 27, 2022, the date of the deposit, to the date of this decision. This equals $58.70.

39.   There is no evidence that Nesha has paid the chargeback for legal fees, so I do not order interest on that amount.

40.   The strata must comply with SPA section 189.4, which includes not charging dispute-related expenses against Nesha.

ORDERS

41.   I order the strata to immediately remove the $146.17 chargeback for Lesperance Mendes’ legal invoice from Nesha’s strata lot account.

42.   Within 15 days of the date of this decision, I order the strata to pay Nesha a total of $675.20, determined as follows:

a.    $504 as reimbursement for emergency door repairs,

b.    $58.70 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA,

c.    $112.50 in CRT fees.

43.   Nesha is also entitled to post-judgment interest under the COIA.

44.   This is a validated decision and order. 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 in which it is filed.