Court & Civil Resolution Tribunal Decisions

Civil Resolution Tribunal, BC Supreme Court and BC Court of Appeal decisions can be very instructive in understanding strata legislation. The CRT does not have jurisdiction over all sections of the Strata Property Act, so reviewing cases in the BC Supreme Court and Court of Appeal is important.

We are regularly updating this page with important CRT and court decisions so check back often. For the full collection of decisions currently available, visit:

Civil Resolution Tribunal Decisions

Bylaw Enforcement: Fines & Chargebacks

  • Biddle v. The Owners, Strata Plan NWS 1670 : Invalid fines, improper communication with strata owner

  • Champion v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 2680 : Unenforceable bylaw

  • La v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS4743 : Unlawful charge to owner’s bank account for invalid fines
    [20] “The strata acknowledges it had no right to request payment for the bank for the outstanding fine amounts.”
    [20] “Section 116(3) of the SPA expressly prohibits the registration of a lien for an unpaid fine. The strata admits the letter was sent by mistake and acknowledges it could not have filed a lien for the unpaid fines.”
    [34] “The strata admits its $100 in late payment fines in 2020 are invalid. It also acknowledges that it cannot prove a January 24, 2019 $200 fine assessed for unknown reasons on Mr. La’s strata lot account ledger.”
    [34] “The strata has provided no evidence supporting an April 9, 2019 smoking bylaw violation fine for $200.”

Maintenance & Repairs

Access to Records

Noise

Tollasepp v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW 2225, 2020 BCCRT 481

Property Management Liability

BC Supreme Court Decisions

Maintenance & Repairs

Consumer Protection

Document Disclosure

Governance

  • Mitchell v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1202 2015 BCSC 2153 :
    Significant Unfairness to owner;
    “[57] Not all owners know what the respondent can and cannot do. Strata councils have certain powers and authority and the Act, in part, is to ensure transparency and that those powers are not abused. Many owners may simply assume that the respondent is acting entirely within its authority.
    [86]  In this case, there is currency to the concerns in that there was a past pattern of an apparent lack of willingness to listen to the petitioner as an owner. The general tone of the interactions was confrontational. While specific issues may have been resolved, that occurred in the context of litigation and it is the animus of the interaction that is ongoing.”
  • Strata Plan NW971 : Invalid vote was not secret as requested; Tony Gioventu not authorized to chair general meeting

  • Stark v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 2362  : Invalid Special Levy

Approval of Legal Expenditures

The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 3162 v. Staerkle, 2017 BCSC 392

Notable Judicial Reviews

West. v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2637, 2021 BCSC 824 Findings: CRT Vice Chair applied the wrong legal test; CRT Vice Chair incorrect in conclusion that strata’s actions were reasonable; CRT Vice Chair engaged in mistaken reasoning; Wests were denied required degree of procedural fairness.

Yoon v. British Columbia (Civil Resolution Tribunal), 2021 BCSC 1111

Office of the Privacy Commissioner Decisions

OrderP21-06, THE OWNERS,STRATA PLAN BCS1964 : Surveillance cameras on common property