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 council outvotes you in contravention of the bylaws and SPA, then I think you owe a duty to report that to the owners who elected you - unless council makes a motion to propose an amendment at the next general meeting.

In that case, the owners can vote on what colour they want and how they want to fund any change, but until then violators should be reprimanded in my opinion.

****

In regard to shadow boxing, it's true that owners are entitled to an unredacted copy of correspondence received by the strata.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a law that complaints must be in writing, or not be anonymous, solicited, or reported by a council member, unless the strata adopted a bylaw to that effect.

I agree with what you're saying about having a right to face your accuser for your own defence, which may be true in a perfect world of justice and common sense. I just wouldn't count on that in the land of strata. Not even Canada's Charter of Rights can be relied on in strataland.

****

I'm sorry, but I don't get it. Perhaps you're reading something extra into the law.

How does stripping every member of council who points out bylaw infractions of their right to vote make sense to you? Where is the sense in that?

More importantly, where is there any authority for that?

 ****

Yes, I agree that there is no requirement for council members to make bylaw infraction complaints. Nor is there any requirement that they refrain from doing so.

I disagree that council is not allowed to police owners. Who told you that?

Council has a statutory duty under s.4 of the SPA to enforce the bylaws, and under s.31 has a duty to act in the best interests of the strata with the diligence of a reasonably prudent person.

****

No, I don't need to consult a lawyer, because the SPA is written in plain language, which I can read quite easily myself.

I don't believe that everything you're telling readers is all that accurate. However, I do believe that a lawyer could argue your point, and I have no problem with that. Words are the tools of the trade, and manipulating language to support arguments is how lawyers make a living.

If you want to add words into the SPA, it might be more effective to lobby the government than to act to usurp it with a voice of authority that is only your own, even with the support of your lawyer.

****

Are you a lawyer? With all due respect to your opinion, please do not assume that yours is more valid than mine or anyone else's.

****

Yes, you're right, I'm not a lawyer either. I just read the governing enactments and the case law interpretations. Did your lawyer cite anything specific to support your comments? If not, perhaps you could be so kind as to share some authorative quotes from what you read.

****

I agree that notice of a complaint must cite the bylaw and evidence of the contravention. That's common sense.

I also agree that in a perfect world said notice would, as you say, include:

"the name of the person who lodged the complaint, what they witnessed, the date and time that they witnessed it, the exact location where they witnessed it"

However, I'm not aware of any law that requires it. In fact, I couldn't find anything in your citations of ss.35/36 of the SPA or s.18 of PIPA requiring that complaints of bylaw contraventions be in writing at all... so where do you find that part? Is it in your strata's bylaws perhaps?

****

I think you have s.32 confused. One of council's main duties is to enforce bylaws, so turning a blind eye to infractions conflicts with that duty in my opinion. If a bylaw is outdated, it can be changed, but ignoring it is negligent. The choice to enforce it, or act to change it, is a decision of council, you can't just assume that a complaint is a witch hunt without evidence.

****

I notice that some comments I replied to are now deleted. Can you quote anything from CanLii that supports the claims you made that complaints MUST be made in writing, and that council members complaining about bylaws being violated MUST recuse themselves? I'm keen to learn anything new.

****

I never said I have a problem with the requirement for a complaint, I have absolutely no problem with that. So what is your point in circling that requirement for me?

Are there extra words saying "from an owner who is not a member of the strata council" hidden in some way so that I missed them?

****

What does that article say that might "help" me? Please be so kind as to point it out. Otherwise, let's just agree to disagree.

If anything exists in that article, a CRT case, or any kind of authority that says council members who complain about a bylaw violation are acting in a conflict of interest with their duty to enforce the bylaws, I missed it.

I have no problem with different opinions, even if they are erroneous, unless they are used to insult me, or are persistently presented as fact without any authority.

****

I agree that s.32 must be followed, and that council members should not go looking for bylaw infractions.

I don't agree that council members who complain about obvious infractions are acting in conflict with their duty to enforce the bylaws and must recuse themselves as you say.

****

Help me understand what? Was there something in the OP's question about abuse of power?

It sounds to me like we agree that council members should not use bylaws to go looking for trouble or target owners for bullying or harassment.

It also sounds like we agree that when a council member makes a bylaw complaint that arises out of a personal interest that conflicts with their duty on council, they should disclose what it is and recuse themselves.

What it sounds like we don't agree on are your claims that the OP, or any council member who complains about a bylaw infraction instead of turning a blind eye, is acting in conflict and must recuse themself and sacrifice their vote on enforcement.

I think we may be splitting hairs here instead of learning anything. So let's just leave it as is until you, or your lawyer, can quote a legal authority for your claims.

**** 

Your argument that the accuser cannot decide an owner's guilt sounds pretty convincing, but a complaint does not rise to the level of an accusation without an investigation.

There's a board game about this called Clue. Accusations are made after investigation of the alternatives.

Decisions on guilt are made in stratas by a majority vote, which can be impossible for a 3 member council if one member recuses themselves for no good reason.

Also, the nature and extent of any conflict with an interest or duty of council must be fully disclosed before any recusal.

Your automatic assumption that a complaint by a member of council must arise out of bias, or conflict of interest, or desire to find someone guilty "because it would suit their agenda" is not necessarily true. I think complaints are more often based on the best interests of the strata.

When safety is at stake, that should be obvious.

****

Nobody is more confused than one who is too blind to see, or who see things that aren't there.

****

You are pretty good at telling other people what to do, but I think you should work on listening more. You might be surprised to learn that you're not always right, and that those who disagree with you are not always wrong. Please be more careful and less disrespectful. I will try to do the same.

****

Council members have a duty to enforce the bylaws, so reporting obvious infractions is not a conflict with said duty in most cases. In contrast, a council member who is either ignoring or reporting infractions for their own benefit or self interest must recuse themself pursuant to s.32 of the SPA. 

I think it is reasonable to assume that in most cases bylaws are intended to act in the best interests of the strata, rather than to harass owners or target victims, so ignoring blatant infractions may be more likely a conflict than reporting them.

Since you are in a bare land strata, you might need to check the designations for SLs. Rules don't apply to SLs, but if the text you cited are your bylaws, they are binding on SLs.

I'd be surprised if this applies to paint colours, but bylaws that serve ulterior motives for the unjust enrichment of some at the expense of others need to be eliminated. 

It may be perverse, but if there's a complaint you can't just ignore it, bylaws must be enforced unless they contravene the SPA.That's the law at least - for whatever it's worth.

****

Two pieces of legislation can never act in conflict with each other. The SPA and SPR govern bare land stratas. See SPA s.243(3) "An approving officer must not approve a bare land strata plan unless it complies with the regulations." Those regulations are defined in s.1 and s.292 of the SPA.

****

 LOL to the SSS! With respect to the "good neighbour" principle, I agree, statute trumps case law, and both statute and case law trump strata bylaws.

Yes, it's not a perfect world, it's full of confusion. What you seem to be referring to is so muddy that I'm not familiar with it at all. In regard to strata property of any kind, I understand that BC's property laws are the SPA and SPR. Section 121 makes it clear to me that strata bylaws are unenforceable to the extent that they contravene the SPA. This is further clarified in the Standard Bylaw prohibition against illegal acts.

I think the major difference is how a strata lot is designated on a bare land strata plan to include what would otherwise be common property.

****

Thank you for sharing your expertise. I agree with most of what you are saying, especially the bit about tract housing with a monolith look.

I don't agree, however, with the part where you say, "Definitely sit this one out. You are actually being legally unreasonable by virtue of marketplace availability of specific dated colour choices."

If there's a bylaw that's outdated, I think it's unreasonable to just sit it out. The bylaw should be enforced or amended in my opinion.

As far as marketplace availability, I think paint colours can be custom blended to any colour at all, anytime at all.

As far as fashion trends go, it is up to the owners to decide how they want to spend their money.

Bottom line, owners get increasingly confused when council simply ignores obvious contraventions of bylaws.

****

Thank you for posting this reference to Matching Regulations.

I don't know if Canada has matching regulations equivalent to the USA, but mixing custom colours to match the original should not be difficult.

Suppliers who refuse to mix those colours can force homeowners to change their furniture, drapes, floor coverings, and paint. This is extremely profitable for industry, but a crushing expense for homeowners.

In my view, refusals to match original colours are unreasonable, particularly when set up costs for a custom colour mix are so much less than changing practically everything throughout a home that has an integrated colour scheme.

I've been a victim of changing fashions in colour schemes that benefit industry at the expense of homeowners, and the whole environment. It's a frustrating, destructive waste, and a disgraceful price to pay.

I think that matching regulations should be directed toward suppliers, not insurers. Homeowners should control when they redecorate, not industry collaborators who act as traitors to consumers.

Unfortunately, if the insurance industry can't stand up to the renovation industry, then I don't know who can.

****

Yes, it's not a perfect world. Thank you for your most excellent explanation of some matching hardships. I really do appreciate it!