Civil Resolution Tribunal

-

Please forgive me for ranting about the CRT.

This summary of Trkla v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS3099, 2020 BCCRT 533 is an example of how CRT adjudicators allow stratas to unlawfully transfer the cost of statutory repair obligations onto individual owners.

You have to read with a critical eye the full decision (on CanLii) to realize how the adjudicator insidiously confuses matters and obscures his distortions of fact and law by creating a narrative that is contrary to the actual chronology of events.

To unravel all that I rearranged the text to restore the true chronology, but I have left the adjudicator’s paragraph numbers for reference.

1. The owner sought reimbursement of water damage repairs, heat pump repairs, and loss of use of his property as well as an order that the strata comply with the SPA and avoid bullying

(THIS CASE SHOWS HOW CONTRARY TO S.72 REPAIR OBLIGATIONS, THE CRT ALLOWS MONTHS OR YEARS OF CHRONIC DELAYS, ADDITIONAL DAMAGE, AND LOSS OF USE AND ENJOYMENT TO BULLY OWNERS INTO PAYING TWICE FOR S.72 REPAIRS THEY'VE ALREADY PAID FOR IN STRATA FEES OR LEVIES TO COVER COMMON EXPENSES.)

40. The owner provided undisputed pictures of mould and water damage to his interior carpet, baseboard, wall, windowsill, and window frame.

46. ..."I find that the strata owed a duty to care to the owner regarding maintenance and repairs of the common property to avoid causing damage to his strata lot."

49. The owner says he reported the leak to the strata in 2014, and again on July 23, 2016 and December 3, 2016, however, he did not provide the full emails only excerpts. The strata says it has no record of being advised of the leak in 2014 or 2016 and that it was first notified of the water leak in June 2017.

51. A May 17, 2018 invoice for $1,806 shows the contractor installed new flashing and repaired the owner’s window. The contractor completed further exterior repairs in October 2018 (NOTE: ABOUT A YEAR OR MORE OF DELAY EITHER WAY TO COMPLETE REPAIRS)

52. The adjudicator says that there is no indication that the strata was involved in installation of roof flashings (HOW IS THE STRATA'S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER S.72 OF THE SPA AS CITED BY THE ADJUDICATOR NO INDICATION?!) and that the parties' agreement that the water leak was caused by poor installation of flashings on a sloping roof is not an indication that the strata is responsible for causing the damage (HOW IS S.72 OF THE SPA AS CITED NO INDICATION?!) and pictures of mould are not indications that "alleged" delay worsened any damage (HOW COULD DELAY OVER THE YEAR OF DATES ACCEPTED BY THE ADJUDICATOR BE "ALLEGED" AND HOW COULD UNDISPUTED MOULD NOT WORSEN DAMAGE, AND HOW DOES ANY OF THAT AMEND THE ORDINARY MEANING OF THE PLAIN LANGUAGE REPAIR RESPONSIBILITY IN S.72?!!)

53. ... "I dismiss this claim." (HOW CAN VIOLATING S.72 LIKE THIS RESPECT LAW AND JUSTICE!?)

13. ...In July 2018, the same owner’s heat pump malfunctioned. It is part of an HVAC system that services the owner’s strata lot. (NOTE THE NUMBERING HERE IS SIGNIFICANT - I CHANGED THE LOCATIONS TO MATCH THE CHRONOLOGY.)

15. The owner asked the strata’s property manager, CM, for the strata to repair the heat pump. The property manager advised that the strata council would need to first decide whether it had to pay for such repairs...

17. ... the strata did not provide a firm response. The owner eventually filed his application for dispute resolution in November 2019.

33. ..."I find the heat pump is common property that the strata must repair and maintain under SPA sections 3 and 72, and bylaw 10."

37. I find the owner acted unilaterally in repairing the heat pump...There is no indication that the strata agreed to permit the owner to complete heat pump repairs...

38. Although I accept that the owner expected company at his strata lot the same month his heat pump broke, I do not find this was an emergency ...I also reject any argument that the owner could have reasonably assumed the strata would refuse his request. The evidence and submissions do not(?!) support such a conclusion.

(NOTE HOW THE ADJUDICATOR DECEPTIVELY CRAFTS HIS NUMBERING SEQUENCE IN REVERSE TO THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS TO OBSCURE THE FACT THAT THE OWNER HAD ALREADY WAITED FOR MORE THAN A YEAR WITHOUT S.72 FLASHING OR WATER DAMAGE REPAIRS, AND MORE THAN ANOTHER YEAR LATER WAS STILL WAITING FOR THE STRATA TO MAKE A DECISION ON HIS REQUESTS FOR S.72 HEAT PUMP REPAIRS!!)

39. I find the strata is responsible for repairing and maintaining the owner’s heat pump but does not (?!!) need to reimburse the owner... "I dismiss this claim." (MAKING A MOCKERY OF S.72 INSTEAD OF ENFORCING IT, DEFERRING TO STRATA DELAY TACTICS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.)

Bottom line: Justice delayed is justice denied. Limitation dates expire while stratas impose years of delay and adjudicators turn the SPA into a sickening betrayal of trust that's worse than nothing in my experience.

****

Thanks for alerting me to the https://stratacommons.ca/ website!

****

 

Popular posts from this blog

Conflict of interest

-
I think recusal depends on whether you have an interest in the matter that conflicts with your duty on council to enforce the bylaws. If for example if you're reporting something like a fire hazard that puts others at risk, then I don't see any reason to recuse yourself. On the other hand, if you're complaining about your neighbour interfering with your own use and enjoyment of the property then the best practice might be to recuse yourself. Further to that, if you're a member of council and a bylaw infraction is ever reported against yourself, then under s.32 of the SPA it is mandatory that you recuse yourself from voting on enforcement. **** If you were the one with the odd colour I would say you would have to recuse yourself. Otherwise, no - just report the infraction and make a motion to enforce the bylaw pursuant to s.135 of the SPA. Quote the bylaw, and give the owner notice that fines may be issued until the approved colour is reinstated. If the rest of...
Read more

Carpenter Ants

-
We had carpenter ants pouring into our family room like a river. The nest was in an adjacent railroad tie retaining wall on the north side of our patio. I don't know how the pest control company did it, but they found the nest, and we never saw the ants again. The trick is to find the nest. The building was repaired in our leaky condo project, but the retaining wall has remained damaged for about 20 years despite an engineers report recommending repairs over 5 years ago. ****  
Read more

Duplex Deadlock

-
You could check you property tax assessment notice. Or your registered land title for the legal description of the property. If it says Strata Plan#, fractional interest in common property, then it is s.4 of the Strata Property Act (the "SPA") that is forcing you to join the other owner on a strata council. It's the law, and there is nothing you can do to change it. In a deadlocked duplex there are a few possibilites. First choice is invite the other owner for tea and negotiate some kind of mutual understanding. Second choice is bring matters before the CRT. Third choice is apply for a court ordered administrator. Fourth choice is sell. The SPA and Standard Bylaws will determine the outcome of the second and third choices, with the third choice usually being prohibitively costly. You can go online to BC Laws and scan the Table of Contents of the SPA and the Schedule of Stanard Bylaws. You might want to add them to your Favorites for quick answers to most questions i...
Read more