It is my pleasure to introduce Sharon as the new Chair of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT).  As Canada’s first online tribunal, the CRT will significantly increase access to justice for British Columbians by helping them to resolve strata property and small claims disputes fairly, quickly, and affordably, ideally from the comfort of their home computer or even their mobile phone.  The CRT will also empower and support citizens to use a variety of dispute resolution methods, including negotiation, facilitation, and if necessary, adjudication.

The post Strata Alert: Introducing Shannon Salter, The New Chairperson of BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal. appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

Paul G. Mendes, partner, PGM@LMLAW.CA Phone: 604-685-4894

Boily v. Carleton Condominium Corporation 145, 2014 ONCA 735

A question that comes up often in strata property law is how much discretion the strata council has, and the extent to which a court will show deference to the council’s decisions. Under the Strata Property Act (the “SPA”), the strata corporation functions through council and with a few exceptions, the council has the final say on matters between general meetings. But what happens when the council willfully disregards the decisions of the owners and the court? It seems that contempt of court is still contempt, even if the contemptuous acts are done in good faith.

In Boily, a 40 year old strata development underwent extensive garage repair resulting in the need for new landscaping. The strata council proposed a new landscaping design and convened an information meeting to discuss the change. A number of owners at the meeting opposed the new design and expressed the view that it was a “substantial change” that required approval from the owners (similar to BC’s s. 71 of the SPA). The dissident owners wanted the area restored to the way it looked before the garage project.

The council disagreed and decided that they could proceed with the new design without the owners’ approval. They even offered to convene a meeting to put their decision to a vote of the owners if the owners’ petitioned the council for a meeting (similar to BC’s s. 43 of the SPA). The dissident group took the council at its word and issued a demand for a special general meeting.  The council, however, concerned that the meeting would further delay the project and increase costs, decided to call their own meeting for a simple majority vote to approve the council’s landscaping design.

Litigation ensued and the Court issued an injunction. The parties to the lawsuit reached an agreement that the decision would be put to a vote of the owners. When the council’s proposal failed to pass, the council tried wiggling out of the settlement because neither landscaping option had received the owners’ approval. This sent the dissident owners back to Court to enforce the settlement. The Court upheld the settlement and ordered the strata to pay the dissident owners’ costs at $32,500 with the council members to pay $12,000 of those costs.

As the landscaping work proceeded, the council continued to approve significant deviations from the original landscaping design by incorporating the elements of the design they favoured. After some further negotiations to resolve the matter, the dissident owners applied to the Court to have the council members held in contempt of the original court order. The Court agreed and ordered council members to pay $96,000 in costs. The Council members, not content to take “NO” for an answer, sought an second opinion from the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal summarized the seriousness of the council’s conduct this way:

[100]  After having obtained and accepted a recommendation by experts as to the optimal landscaping design, the Individual Appellants simply could not accept being put in a position in which they had to implement a design they believed was not optimal for the condominium owners. They therefore took matters into their own hands and, albeit for reasons they considered valid, defied a court order. The Individual Appellants’ arrogance led them to reckless and ultimately unlawful conduct.

With these words the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the finding of contempt, but reduced the penalty from $96,000 to $35,000, with each council member to pay $7,500 each to the strata corporation. Although the Court of Appeal was not moved by the councils’ pleading that it was acting in good faith, it did find that the $96,000 penalty imposed by the lower Court was excessive.

The Court of Appeal’s reasons for reducing the penalty is somewhat unclear. A significant mitigating factor may have been that the council members were not motivated by “personal gain”, a fact that the Court of Appeal made note of in its reasons. To me this seems to be a tacit acknowledgement of the council’s argument that was acting in good faith. What likely turned their good faith actions into bad faith, however, was their decision to act in contempt of a court order.

If there is a lesson in this case for BC stratas it is this: think twice before ignoring the direction of the ownership and get legal advice before ignoring a court order. The Ontario Court of Appeal made that clear by commenting that the council’s biggest mistake was failing to get legal advice at the earliest sign of a dispute. Had they done so, the “…needless consumption of time and money and needless acrimony could have been avoided”.

WHAT WE DO: Lesperance Mendes is a leading strata property law firm in Vancouver, British Columbia. We have been helping strata corporations and strata property owners solve their condominium disputes through mediation, arbitration and litigation since 1997. To find out how one of our trusted legal advisors can help you resolve your condo dispute, please contact Paul G. Mendes, Partner, at 604-685-4894 or PGM@LMLAW.CA.

The post Strata Alert: Ontario Court of Appeal Reduces Award of Costs Against Condo Board Members appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

McConaghie v. Systemgroup Consulting Inc., 2014 HRTO 295

Naomi Rozenberg, nrr@lmlaw.ca Phone: 604-685-3911

Paul G. Mendes, pgm@lmlaw.ca Phone: 604-685-4894

Sometimes even your best marketing ideas can land you in hot water with the Human Rights Tribunal.

Systemgroup Consulting Inc. sponsored a customer appreciation day that was for men only. Systemgroup paid for some male employees and clients to attend Mansfield Ski Club’s “Men’s Day 2012”. The ski club’s brochure advertised the event as “A day for Men without Women and Children”, using the tag line “Bring your friends, bring your acquaintances, just don’t bring your wife!” The respondent’s electronic calendar invitation to Men’s Day listed planned activities including: “massage” and “Hooters Girls™”.

A female employee of the company filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal about the “men only” event.  After she filed her complaint, the company, presumably acting without the benefit of legal advice, fired the employee for making the complaint.

The Tribunal found Systemgroup liable for (1) discrimination against a female employee on the basis of sex and (2) retaliating against the employee by terminating her employment after she complained about the event.

The Tribunal ordered Systemgroup to pay the female employee:

1. $150 (the value associated with the goods and services she would have received if she had attended the ski event as a participant);
2. lost wages for the period April 16, 2012 to October 8, 2012, inclusive, less statutory deductions and applicable taxes;
3. $18,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect; and
4. pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

This case illustrates the creative ways in which Human Rights Tribunals can find discrimination in cases that seemingly have no merit at first.  The case also illustrates the importance of obtaining legal advice before terminating an employee who files a regulatory complaint against the employer.  The result probably would have been quite different if the employer had not fired the employee for making the complaint.

WHAT WE DO: Lesperance Mendes has been advising employers and employees on employment law matters, including wrongful dismissal and human rights complaints.  For more information about our employment law practice, please contact Bob Lesperance, partner, at RJL@LMLAW.CA, or Naomi Rozenberg at NRR@LMLAW.CA.

The post Employment Law Alert: Employer Sponsorship of Men-Only Ski Event Found to be Discriminatory appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3165 v. KBK No. 11 Ventures Ltd., 2014 BCSC 2276

By Alex Chang, Associate: ajc@lmlaw.ca, 604-685-1255

The Supreme Court of British Columbia in The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3165 v. KBK No. 11 Ventures Ltd., 2014 BCSC 2276 recently upheld an award of more than $1 million for shared building costs against the Strata Corporation known as the Shangri-La in favour of its developer, KBK No.11 Ventures Ltd.

The Strata in this case is made up of two residential estate parcels, a hotel parcel, and a remainder parcel which consisted of commercial space. KBK owns the hotel and remainder parcels.

The dispute was about the cost sharing arrangement between the Strata Corporation and the two parcels owned by KBK.

The cost sharing arrangement was set out in a Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA). KBK filed the REA with the Land Title Office on the same day that the strata plan was filed, bringing the Strata Corporation into existence.

Until a strata council was elected, KBK was then required to exercise under perform the duties of the council. During that time KBK caused the Strata Corporation to enter in to an agreement whereby the REA was assigned to the Strata Corporation.

Soon after control of the Strata Corporation passed from KBK to the newly elected council, the Strata Corporation began raising concerns and disputing the cost sharing arrangement under the REA. Later, KBK commenced an arbitration claim against the Strata Corporation for its share of costs.

In response, the Strata Corporation claimed, that KBK breached its fiduciary duty to the Strata Corporation by entering it into the REA. However, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the arbitrator that KBK had not breached its duty to the Strata Corporation because it had provided adequate notice of the cost sharing arrangement through the disclosure statements and by filing the REA with the Land Title Office. The Court held that since notice was given, it could not be said that the owners did not freely accept the cost sharing arrangement in the REA.

The message from this case is that so long as a state of affairs with respect to a Strata Corporation is disclosed, it will be upheld by the court, even if the arrangement is improvident or unfair. The practical problem with this is that most condo buyers typically don’t read, understand or care about disclosure statements or agreements registered on title.

They ought to start or they may end up paying more than they bargained for.

WHAT WE DO:  Lesperance Mendes advises and represents strata corporations and owners on all aspects of condominium government including disputes over cost sharing agreements and easements.  For more information about our strata law practice, or to make an appointment with one of our experienced strata lawyers, please contact Paul G. Mendes, Partner, at PGM@LMLAW.CA or 604-685-4894.

The post Buyer beware: The Perils Of Cost Sharing In Hotel And Mixed Use Strata Developments appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

Khan v. All-Can Express Ltd., 2014 BCSC 1429

By Naomi Rozenberg, Associate: nrr@lmlaw.ca, 604-685-3911

A recent BC Supreme Court decision confirms that contractors who are in an economically dependent relationship are entitled to reasonable notice of termination or pay in lieu of notice.

Khan v. All-Can Express Ltd., 2014 BCSC 1429 involved a company in the business of transporting freight and parcels known as Ace Courier. The majority of courier drivers, including Mr. Khan, own or lease their own trucks. Ace Courier “hires” the drivers to service customers on a particular route.

The typical “owner/operator” driver has a long-term, exclusive contractual relationship with Ace Courier. He is expected to be loyal to Ace and follow Ace’s policies. He wears an Ace uniform and displays the Ace logo on his truck. On the other hand, the driver signs an agreement acknowledging his status as an independent contractor. He is responsible for his truck and all related expenses. He must hire a replacement driver when he was not available. He does not participate in employee benefits or receive vacation pay. The driver also files his income taxes as a self-employed contractor.

One such owner/operate driver, Mr. Khan, was terminated without just cause after 5 years of service. Based on the above factors, the Court concluded that Mr. Khan was a “dependent contractor”. He was awarded 4 months’ notice of termination.

This case demonstrates that the common law has evolved into a more nuanced state, where service arrangements, depending upon their particular features, can fall at different points along a continuum, ranging from pure employer-employee situations to classic independent contractor relationships. The fact that an agreement stipulates that the service provider is an independent contractor is not determinative, and does not mean that he can be terminated without just cause or reasonable notice.

This case reminds employers to include a termination clause in all service agreements and to give both employees and contractors a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal advice prior to entering into any such agreement.

WHAT WE DO:  Lesperance Mendes advises and represents strata corporations and owners on all aspects of condominium government including disputes over cost sharing agreements and easements.  For more information about our strata law practice, or to make an appointment with one of our experienced strata lawyers, please contact Paul G. Mendes, Partner, at PGM@LMLAW.CA or 604-685-4894.

The post Employment Law Alert: Contractors May Be Entitled to Reasonable Notice of Termination appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

Radcliffe v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS1436, 2014 BCSC 2241 

By Lisa Frey, Associate: laf@lmlaw.ca, 604-685-5438

The petitioners in this matter, John and Holly Radcliffe, owned a strata unit in Kelowna.  After their unit was flooded due to the poor condition of the neighbouring balcony in December 2009, the strata corporation opted to use “temporary repair” measures instead of a permanent fix.

The temporary repair measures failed only a few weeks later, and the petitioners experienced more flooding in early 2010.  The flooding ruined the petitioners’ hardwood flooring, stained and ruined carpets, and subjected the petitioners to countless hours of industrial drying fans.  However, the strata council voted not to cover the costs of fixing the petitioners’ strata lot, despite the fact that the source of the leak was common property.

At the same time that the strata corporation refused to fix the petitioners’ strata lot, the strata corporation repaired similar water damage to three strata lots located above the petitioners’ unit.

The flooding continued, and leaks inevitably led to mould and further water damage.  A second band-aid solution implemented by the strata corporation also failed.

In February of 2012, the strata corporation passed a $60,000 special levy to “compensate suffering of damages due to water penetration, mold […]” – however, for unknown reasons, the strata corporation refused to share any of these funds with the petitioners.

The balcony was finally repaired in August 2012.  Afterwards, the council, without explanation, proceeded to revoke previous assurances that they would pay the petitioners’ restoration invoices.

The petitioners sued the strata corporation on the basis of s. 164 of the Strata Property Act, SBC 1998, which allows a Court to make a wide range of orders to remedy or prevent a decision or action of the strata corporation against an owner or tenant.

The Court found that by failing to make appropriate repairs to the balcony, despite years of knowledge that the temporary repair measures were inadequate, and reimbursing other owners in similar circumstances, the strata corporation had singled out the petitioners to an extent that justified the Court’s intervention.

As a result of its “pattern of oppressive conduct and decision-making”, the strata corporation was ordered to pay the petitioners almost $15,000 to compensate them for the cost of repairs to their unit.

WHAT WE DO:  Lesperance Mendes advises and represents strata corporations and owners on all aspects of condominium government including disputes over cost sharing agreements and easements.  For more information about our strata law practice, or to make an appointment with one of our experienced strata lawyers, please contact Paul G. Mendes, Partner, at PGM@LMLAW.CA or 604-685-4894.

The post Significant Unfairness By A Strata Corporation Results In Damage Award appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

The Owners, Strata Plan VIS114 v. John Doe, 2015 BCSC 13

By Lisa Frey, Associate: laf@lmlaw.ca, 604-685-5438

In late 2013, a new tool was added to the tool belt of strata councils seeking to achieve important repairs.  Section 173(2) of the Strata Property Act, SBC 1998, c 43, came into force which allowed a strata corporation to apply to the court to approve special repair expenses which receives greater than 50% approval, but fail to reach the required 75% approval.

It was not until the case of VIS114 v John Doe, 2015 BCSC 13, that the court articulated the test that would be applied when stratas attempt to use this provision.  The statute provides as follows:

173(2) If […] a resolution is proposed to approve a special levy to raise money for the maintenance or repair of common property or common assets that is necessary to ensure safety or to prevent significant loss or damage, whether physical or otherwise […]

and the resolution achieves at least 50% of the votes, the Court can impose it on all owners as if it had achieved the necessary 75% approval.

In this case, a building envelope report was received in 2007 finding that over $5 million of repairs and maintenance would have to be made.  The entire strata council who proposed resolutions to move forward with preliminary work on the project was subsequently ousted at the next AGM, and there became a 7-year “fractious battle” between the group of owners who wanted to move ahead with these expensive repairs and the group who did not.

The court clarified that it was not necessary under s. 173 for the repairs to be immediately required for a strata corporation to access relief.  It was enough that the loss or damage was “significant” (for example the drop in BC Assessment value of one of the units over 3 years was $140,000), and that the repairs were necessary.  Furthermore, so-called “band-aid” solutions were not accepted as a viable alternative.

In this case, the levy imposed was approximately $36,000 per owner.   Even as far as special levies go, that is a steep one. The Court acknowledged the unfortunate fact that some owners would have to borrow, liquidate capital, or even sell their units to pay for the repairs.  But, no one owner’s “personal situation” should dictate the result.

This case also underscores the importance of proper CRF contributions and planning for the future.

Finally, on a heartwarming note, Ms. Tausig, an owner of a unit who was not affected by the current water ingress, stated altruistically (and wisely):

I hope that the owners on the west side of the building who are experiencing similar problems to those we used to have will soon be able to have their side of the building restored. While such repairs are expensive and disruptive, I believe they benefit the entire building in terms of comfort, health and marketability of unit.

The Court recognized her message as an expression of the prevailing philosophy under the Strata Property Act: “we are all in this together”, and imposed the special levy accordingly.

WHAT WE DO:  Lesperance Mendes advises and represents strata corporations and owners in British Columbia on all aspects of condominium governance, including court applications for needed repairs. For more information about our strata law practice, or to make an appointment with one of our experienced strata lawyers, please contact Paul G. Mendes, Partner, at PGM@LMLAW.CA or 604-685-4894.

The post Court Imposes Large Special Levy on Owners to Fund “necessary” Repairs appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

Strata Alert: The importance of being earnest with procedure

Paul G. Mendes, Partner
PGM@LMLAW.CA
604-685-4894

Getzlaf v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 159, 2015 BCSC 452

The procedure for enforcing bylaws under the Strata Property Act is very simple and easy to follow.  Section 135 of the Act is only 191 words long. If the strata follows that procedure to the letter, it becomes very difficult for an owner to challenge the strata’s bylaw enforcement decisions in Court.

In this case the petitioner bought a lovely ground floor corner unit surrounded by lush gardens in 2010. These gardens were not only beautiful to behold, they also afforded a fair bit of privacy to the unit.

The gardens sat on a concrete slab overtop of a membrane. In 2013 the strata received an engineering report confirming that the slab membrane needed to be replaced. Water leaking through the slab was causing corrosion, so the engineer advised the strata to replace the slab membrane and the landscaping. It turned out that the landscaping had actually contributed to the membrane damage.

The removal of the landscaping resulted in a loss of privacy for the unit owner. As a result, he asked the strata for permission to build a fence around his patio.  His request was denied.  The council observed that the area was common property. The council was also concerned about the impact of the proposed alteration on the repairs and the new membrane.

The owner decided to install the fence anyway. The council followed the procedure under s. 135 of the Act, and advised the owner that if he did not remove the fence, he would be fined.  The owner refused to remove the fence and responded by telling the strata that he would also be constructing a gazebo on the patio. His personal motto must have been “Go Big or Go Home”.

The owner then applied to challenge the strata’s actions in court, arguing that the strata’s decisions with respect to the membrane repairs and his proposed alterations were significantly unfair to him under s. 164 of the Act. The petition was dismissed and the strata was given judgment for the fines, plus costs.

While the judge had sympathy for the owner, the court ruled that his personal interests had to give way to the best interests of the strata a whole. The repairs in this case were necessary and almost unanimously supported by the ownership. The court upheld the strata’s decisions largely because the strata had taken care to follow the proper procedures, not only for approving the membrane repair, but also for enforcing its bylaws. One important fact in this case is that the owner was granted a hearing to air his concerns which he refused to attend.

This case highlights the importance of following proper procedures, especially when enforcing bylaws. The outcome of this case would likely have been different had the strata failed to follow proper procedure. I cannot tell you how many times I have come across cases where an owner has asked for a hearing and the council has denied the request because “there is nothing to discuss!”.  Even when there is nothing left to discuss, the council still has a legal duty to listen.

WHAT WE DO: Lesperance Mendes advises strata corporations and owners on all aspects of bylaw enforcement. Our lawyers have obtained judgments for significant fines and they have also obtained precedent setting injunctions. To find out more about our strata law practice, contact Paul G. Mendes at 604-685-4894 or by email at PGM@LMLAW.CA.

The post The importance of being earnest with procedure…with bylaw enforcement procedures appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

Strata Alert:  The Federal Election – What Strata Corporations Need to Know

 By Alexander Chang, Associate: ajc@lmlaw.ca, 604-685-1255

With the longest federal election in modern history now underway, some strata corporations may have questions regarding how they are can or should respond to campaign signage or canvassers.

Campaign Signs

It is an offence under the federal Canada Elections Act for strata corporations or their agents to prevent residents from displaying election signs in strata lots. However, the strata corporation may set reasonable conditions relating to the size or type of election signs displayed in the strata lot.

What is reasonable in terms of restrictions on the size and type of elections may vary depending on the circumstances. For example, it is arguable that restricting a strata lot to a sign so small that nobody could possibly see it, may be an unreasonably restriction. This may be particularly true for strata lots on high floors.

To avoid committing an offence under the Canada Elections Act, a strata corporation considering restrictions on signage may want to make any restrictions minimal or consider just putting up with the signage until the election is over.

A strata corporation may prohibit displaying campaign signs on common property. Owners may not temporarily use common property for their exclusive use, such as displaying campaign signs, without the permission of the strata council pursuant to s. 76. However, a strata council receiving such a request may be better served by adopting a policy of denying all such requests in order to avoid the perception of taking a political stance that all the owners may not agree with.

Canvassers and Elections Officers

The Canada Elections Act also prohibits strata corporations and their agents from preventing canvassers or elections officers from entering the common property between 9am to 9pm. Strata councils, strata managers and employees of the strata corporations should be made aware of this so that they do not improperly deny access to canvassers and elections officers when requested.

The Canada Elections Act does not govern strata corporations with respect to provincial or municipal elections which are beyond the scope of this article.

WHAT WE DO:  Lesperance Mendes advises and represents strata corporations and owners on all aspects of condominium government including disputes over cost sharing agreements and easements.  For more information about our strata law practice, or to make an appointment with one of our experienced strata lawyers, please contact Paul G. Mendes, Partner, at PGM@LMLAW.CAor 604-685-4894.

The post The Federal Election – What Strata Corporations Need to Know appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

By Alex Chang  ajc@lmlaw.ca Phone: 604-685-3567

Developers requesting crane or shoring easements over a neighbouring properties will typically offer an insurance policy. However, sometime not enough attention is paid to whether the insurance will provide the owner of the property granting the easement the kind of coverage and peace of mind they should expect. Such policies should assure the owner of the property granting the easement that they will not have to go through the trouble of having to bring a claim against the developer for damage arising from its construction project.

The plaintiff, property owner in the case of Skipper Properties Ltd. v. Zurich Insurance Company Ltd., 2015 BCSC 225 recently learned the hard way that the type of insurance offered under an easement agreement requires special attention.

In that case, the plaintiff had granted a crane and shoring easement to a developer. A term of the easement agreement provided that the developer was to include the plaintiff as a named insured under the developer’s wrap-up comprehensive general liability policy.

Skipper alleged that the developer had damaged its property as a result of the developer’s construction project and sought to coverage of the damage under the wrap up policy. However, the insurer denied the claim on the basis that the policy did not cover the loss.

The court agreed, ruling that the wrap up policy did not cover the damage to property and was a liability policy only. In other words, the insurance policy required Skipper to prove or settle its claim for damages against the developer. Only once liability had been established against the developer would the insurer step in to cover the loss to the extent of the developer’s liability.

Effectively, the insurance policy provided none of the peace of mind that the plaintiff expected to get from the policy and forced them to seek their damages through the developer.

Homeowners and strata corporations that are approached to grant easements should insure that the policy granted under the easement agreement provides for a property insurance policy that will cover damage to property from the developer’s construction project. Homeowners should also review the policy taken out to make sure that it will provide the desired coverage.

WHAT WE DO

Lesperance Mendes has experience negotiating and reviewing easement agreements on behalf of homeowners and strata corporations approached by developers.  We can assist you negotiate, review and implement your strata corporation’s easement agreement. For more information on our strata law practice, contact Paul G. Mendes, partner at pgm@lmlaw.ca phone 604-685-4894.

The post Insurance for Crane and Shoring Easement Agreements: A Cautionary Tale appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

BC Utilities Commission Rules that a Strata Corporation’s Propane System Operator is a Public Utility

By Paul G. Mendes, Partner
Phone:  604-685-4894
Email:  pgm@lmlaw.ca

Re: Superior Propane at Seascapes Development Ltd. Order G-133-15

The BC Utilities Commission has ruled that the operator of a propane delivery system in a strata development is a “public utility” subject to regulation by the Commission.  Under the terms of the order, the operator must meet certain requirements of the Utilities Commission Act, including filing a schedule of its current rates for review by the Commission.

The case came to the Commission’s attention following complaints from the strata manager and the owners of a 100-unit strata development property known as Seascapes, against Superior Plus LP doing business under the name Superior Propane.  As a result of the Order, the Commission now has the power to approve the rates charged by Superior to the strata, and to determine whether those rates are “just and reasonable”. Superior has been given an opportunity to apply for an exemption under the Utilities Commission Act.

Depending on the outcome of Superior’s application for an exemption, or any appeals, this order may have implications for other stratas, especially those that are equipped with geothermal systems and similar utility/energy services.

For jurisdictional reasons, Commission could not examine the legality of this arrangement under the Strata Property Act.  A previous unreported decision of the BC Supreme Court has questioned the legality of “bulk contracts” between strata corporations and cable/Internet service providers.

WHAT WE DO:  Lesperance Mendes advises strata corporations and property managers on a wide range of matters that are of concern to strata corporations, including contracts, warranties, bylaw enforcement and collections. For more information about our strata property law practice, please contact Paul G. Mendes, partner, at 604-685-4894 or by email at pgm@lmlaw.ca.  You can also follow Paul on Twitter “@stratalawyer” and LinkedIn.

The post BC Utilities Commission Rules that a Strata Corporation’s Propane System Operator is a Public Utility appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

Strata Alert: BCSC Upholds Developer’s Sale of Caretaker Suite to Strata Corporation

The Owners, Strata Plan BCS3642 v. Unimet Levo Development Limited Partnership, 2015 BCSC 1921

Paul G. Mendes, Partner
Phone:  604-685-4894
Email:   pgm@lmlaw.ca

Condominium developers in BC often enter into binding contracts on a strata corporation’s behalf. Sometimes the developer does it before the deposit of the strata plan, and sometimes the developer does it after the deposit of the strata plan. The significance of the timing is that under the Strata Property Act (SPA), a strata corporation only comes into legal existence once the strata plan is filed at the Land Title Office.

When a developer binds the strata corporation after the deposit of the strata plan, the SPA requires the developer to act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the strata corporation. So long as the developer is in control of the strata corporation, the developer must prefer the interests of the strata corporation over its own self-interest.  This is understood to be the developers “fiduciary duty” to the strata corporation under the SPA.

A common transaction that developers enter into after the deposit of the strata plan is a contract that commits the strata corporation to buy a “caretaker suite” from the developer at fair market value. And that begs the question: who determines fair market value when the buyer and the seller are essentially controlled by the same person?

As sometimes happens in Condolandia, relations between strata owners and developers sour once the owners take control of the council table. At that point, strata councils might start scrutinizing the developer’s conduct to see if the developer did anything that was not done “honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the strata corporation”.

This is what happened at BCS 3642, known as the Levo, located in Coquitlam, British Columbia.

While acting in its capacity as the strata council, the developer of the Levo caused the strata corporation to buy a caretaker suite and to finance the purchase with a second mortgage from the developer.

This transaction was fully disclosed in the disclosure statement that the developer filed with the Superintendent of Real Estate and distributed to all original purchasers in the development. In November, 2006 the developer removed the suite from the presale inventory and showed it as being “sold” with a list price of $372,800.

The strata plan was finally deposited in November, 2009. On the same day as the deposit of the strata plan, and while the developer still was in control of the strata corporation, the developer caused the strata corporation to buy the suite for $339,000. The sale only completed in February, 2010. By then, however, the real estate market had taken a bit of a nose dive and the market price of the condo at the time of closing was only $305,000.

Once the honeymoon between the developer and the strata corporation was over, the new strata council, comprised of strata lot owners, became concerned that the strata corporation had overpaid for the suite, and that the purchase was not properly authorized.  In 2013, the strata corporation authorized the lawsuit to set aside the purchase of the suite and to seek recovery of the money that the strata corporation spent on the suite, including strata fees, property taxes, and mortgage interest totaling about $170,000 as well as $35,000 for loss of market value.

Part of the strata corporation’s argument centered around whether or not the developer passed a formal resolution to authorize the purchase. The strata corporation tried to argue that no formal resolution to authorize the purchase of the suite was ever passed. That turned out to be a bit of a non-issue in the case, because the Judge concluded that the documents tendered by the developer in support of the purchase, met the minimal requirements of the SPA. The real issue in the case was whether the developer breached its fiduciary duty by causing the strata corporation to pay more than fair market value for the suite.

If the strata corporation was right, the Court would likely have set aside the transaction and ordered the developer to repay the strata corporation all of the damages it was seeking.

At trial, the strata corporation tendered appraisal evidence showing that the suite was worth $305,000 at the time of completion in February 2010.  The developer countered with evidence showing that the suite was valued at $340,000 in November 2006, when the developer removed the suite from the presale inventory.

The Judge ruled that the difference in market value between 2006 and 2010 was not sufficient evidence for the Court to conclude that the developer had breached its fiduciary duty to the strata corporation on the sale. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on the fact that the sale was fully disclosed in the disclosure statement, and that the final price of the suite was actually lower than the amount disclosed. Implicit in the Judge’s reasoning was the fact that original purchasers were prepared to buy into the development knowing full well that the strata corporation was going to buy the caretaker suite at $372,800.

The take away from this case is that there is no presumption that a developer has breached its fiduciary duty to the strata corporation simply because a deal it made on the strata corporation’s behalf turned out to be a poor one in hindsight. In scrutinizing the developer’s conduct while the developer controls the strata corporation, the Court will place heavy emphasis on what the developer disclosed to prospective purchasers in the disclosure statement. If a transaction was fully disclosed in the disclosure statement, the fact that the transaction may not of been completely advantageous for the strata corporation will not be enough to find the developer in breach of its fiduciary duty.

WHO WE ARE: Lesperance Mendes represents and advises strata corporations and strata councils on a wide range of strata governance matters, including relations with developers.  If you strata corporation has concerns about a lease, easement or other contract the developer entered into on your strata corporation’s behalf, call Paul G. Mendes at 604-685-4894 or send an email to PGM@LMLAW.CA.

The post Strata Alert: BCSC Upholds Developer’s Sale of Caretaker Suite to Strata Corporation appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

Strata Alert:  Ontario Court orders marijuana grow to repay strata for increased utility costs

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 659 v. Chris Truman, [2015] O.J. No. 4500 (Small Claims Ct.).

Paul G. Mendes, Partner
Phone:  604-685-4894
Email:   pgm@lmlaw.ca

This is an interesting condominium law case from Ontario.  Although it has no direct application to British Columbia, it does hint at a possible remedy for stratas faced with increased utility and insurance expenses as a result of “licensed” medical marijuana production facilities.

But first a little background on the confusing medical marijuana regime in Canada.

The production and distribution of medical marijuana was formerly governed by the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR).  Under the MMAR, people could grow medical marijuana for themselves (known as a Personal Use Production License) and for other people with licenses (known as a Designated-Person Production License).

The MMAR was repealed and replaced in March of 2014 by the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR).  The MMPR abolished all of the MMAR licenses and established the current regime, whereby licensed users can buy their medicine from licensed large scale growers by mail. The new MMPR basically makes it illegal for people to grow their own medical marijuana, even if they have a license to possess and consume it.

On March 21, 2014, the Federal Court of Canada granted an injunction preserving the rights of individuals with Personal Use Production Licenses under the MMAR to continue growing until a constitutional challenge to the MMPR is heard.

And this brings us to the decision in MTCC No. 659 v. Chris Truman.

Mr. Truman had a Personal Use Production License issued under MMAR.  In other words, he had a license to produce medical marijuana for himself. The license was tied to his condominium unit and he could not move it, so he continued to grow the medicine for himself at MTCC No 659. It turns out, however, that he was able to grow a rather large quantity of marijuana for personal use under that license.  As a result, his one unit consumed the same amount of water as all the other units combined.

As permitted under Ontario condominium law, the condominium corporation had a declaration requiring the corporation to pay for water usage except for commercial and industrial use. The strata corporation argued that Mr. Truman’s water consumption was on a commercial scale. Mr. Truman countered that his water usage was “personal” as per his Personal Use Production License under the MMAR.

The judge was reluctant to characterize Mr. Truman’s facility as a commercial operation because doing so would result in a finding that Mr. Truman was an illegal drug trafficker.  The judge concluded that the Ontario small claims court had no jurisdiction to make such a finding.  The judge did agree, however, that Mr. Truman’s water usage was not the kind of “personal use” contemplated by the declaration. The court found that it would be unfair, if not an unjust enrichment, to permit Mr. Truman to burden the other owners with increased common expenses that were never contemplated declaration. As a result, the court ordered Mr. Truman to pay the strata corporation $19,000 plus costs.

Now as I noted above, this case has no direct application in BC. It does however raise an interesting argument that may work here at home. BC stratas with licensed grow facilities are usually faced with increased utility and insurance expenses. Is it possible for owners in those stratas to argue that it is significantly unfair for them to bear the burden of the increased costs associated with the licensed medical marijuana production facility? Sadly (or happily depending on your position on the debate) we may never know the answer. Why? Because the confusing and complicated medical marijuana regime established by the previous federal government will soon be undone, either by the courts or by the current federal government.

WHAT WE DO: Lesperance Mendes advises strata owners and strata corporations on all aspects of bylaw enforcement and bylaw amendments. If you have an unusual bylaw enforcement problem and would like our skilled advice and representation, contact me at 604-685-4894 or by email at PGM@LMLAW.CA

The post Strata Alert: Ontario Court orders marijuana grow to repay strata for increased utility costs appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

“City stratas, busy stratas, dressed on holiday style.  In the air, there’s need to check the bylaws.”

Paul G. Mendes, Partner
Phone:  604-685-4894
Email:   pgm@lmlaw.ca

My apologies to Jay Livingston and Ray Evans, the composers of “Silver Bells”, that ubiquitous staple of easy listening stations at this time of the year.  Trust me, you love hearing it now but wait a few more days.

If you are the Santa of your condo at this time of year, you may be making a list and checking it twice.  Make sure to check your strata bylaws while you are at it, especially if you don’t want to be on the strata council’s naughty list.

Your strata likely has bylaws that restrict live or fresh cut Christmas trees, or which prohibit dumping Christmas trees in the strata’s garbage bins.  If a few of your favourite things include brown paper packages tied up with strings, take note on any bylaws or rules regarding recycling.

Many strata corporation bylaws also prohibit the posting or hanging of items from balconies or in windows. Arguably these strata bylaws would apply to things like tinsel, inflatable snow men, “ho ho ho  signs”, and twinkle lights.  Some stratas also have implicit bans on Christmas decorations visible from outside: check out what your bylaws say about items on balconies and items in windows.  Unless your Christmas decorations are restricted to white or off white drapes or blinds, you may be trouble.

Less grinchy stratas  will permit decorations visible outside the strata lot, but will still restrict the time in which those decorations can be displayed. In most cases, the decorations must come down by a certain date in January.  If you celebrate Ukrainian Christmas, look out! Nothing ruins a Ukrainian Christmas dinner like cold cabbage rolls and a bylaw infraction notice.  If you are fined for celebrating Ukrainian Christmas, however, I look forward to reading about your human rights complaint on the Clark Wilson LLP website.

Happy holidays to you and your family and friends.  I wish you all a safe and fun holiday season, and all the best for 2016.

WHAT WE DO: Lesperance Mendes advises strata corporations and strata management brokerages on all aspects of strata governance, including bylaws, bylaw enforcement, strata fee collections, building warranties and employment matters.  To discuss your strata issue with one of our strata lawyers, please call Paul G. Mendes at 604-685-4894 or email me at PGM@LMLAW.CA.

The post Strata Alert: How the Strata Grinch Stole Christmas appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

Strata Alert:  A Helpful Guide for Responding to Bylaw Infraction Complaints

Naomi Rozenberg, Associate
Phone:  604-685-3911
Email:   nrr@lmlaw.ca

Lesperance Mendes is frequently asked how a strata corporation should respond to complaints that residents have breached a bylaw.

In general, we recommend that a strata council follow the following “three step process” when a complaint is received to ensure compliance with section 135 of the Strata Property Act.

Step 1: Send the resident a written notice that a complaint was received by the strata corporation

The written notice should:

• include details of the complaint, including the date and time of the alleged bylaw infraction(s);
• refer to the specific bylaw(s) that was allegedly breached;
• give the recipient (owner or tenant) a reasonable opportunity to respond;
• indicate that the resident can request a hearing;
• list possible consequences if the council finds there has been an infraction, such as a fine;
• provide a deadline by which the resident must (a) respond in writing to the complaint and/or (b) request a hearing.

Step 2: Hold a council meeting

After the hearing, or if a hearing is not requested, and after the deadline to accept written submissions council must ultimately vote to decide whether there has been a bylaw infraction. In voting, council must consider the correspondence and submissions from both sides in an impartial manner. If council determines that there has been a bylaw infraction, council members must also vote on the consequences, such as a warning or a fine or other remedies that are permitted by the Strata Property Act.

Note:

• A council member who is personally involved with the complaint should recuse him or herself from the meeting at which the complaint is discussed.
• The council’s decision should be noted in the strata council meeting minutes, without reference to individual names.
• A fine must not automatically be levied every time a complaint is received.

Step 3: Send a decision letter

A decision letter must be issued that sets out the strata council’s decision.

Additional Points to Consider

1. When submitting a complaint to your strata council, include as much information as possible. The complainant should provide sufficient details such that the strata council can determine who is likely responsible for the behavior and which bylaw(s) may have been violated.

2. A strata council might conclude that a resident has breached a bylaw without proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ of the infraction, such as video surveillance. The council can take many factors into consideration when rendering a decision, including circumstantial evidence and the resident’s failure to respond to (or deny) the allegation.

3. Whether a behavior constitutes a “nuisance” is a question of mixed fact and law. Council should consider a number of factors, including the nature of the conduct, the frequency and the duration.

4. Strata corporations must ensure that their actions or decisions do not violate an owner’s reasonable expectation in a manner that is “significantly unfair”.

5. Strata councils should also be mindful of the Human Rights Code. They must ensure that their decision does not discriminate against a person or class of persons because of their race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age.

6. If fines are not having a deterrent effect, the strata council should consider other avenues of bylaw enforcement such as a court application.

Strata corporations that follow the above three-step process improve their chances of enforcing and collecting fines that are levied. The process encourages fairness, promotes impartiality and can potentially avoid future disputes.  In contrast, failure to follow the three step process will likely result in a Court order that some or all of the fines imposed be reduced or removed entirely.

Lesperance Mendes would be pleased to review your strata corporation’s process of responding to bylaw infraction complaints to ensure the procedure complies with the Strata Property Act. To make an appointment, please contact Paul G. Mendes or Naomi R. Rozenberg.

The post Strata Alert: A Helpful Guide for Responding to Bylaw Infraction Complaints appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

Regulating Short Term Rentals in your Strata Corporation

By Alex Chang and Paul G. Mendes

There has been an exponential increase in the short-term rental or home-sharing economy through websites like AirBnB. Depending on your location within the province, you can probably find hundreds of short term rental suites available in your area right now.

Unfortunately, there is limited regulation or enforcement of laws related to short-term rentals. This means that limitations on short-term rentals are generally dealt with on an ad hoc basis in the bylaws of individual strata corporations. Such bylaws must balance the needs of strata corporation and their owners.

Short-term renting clearly presents economic and personal advantages for hosts, such as the flexibility to take advantage of underused property and the opportunity to charge more rent. Some landlords renting strata lots are even choosing to rent short-term as a more profitable alternative to traditional renting. There have even been concerns expressed in Vancouver that the pool of traditional long term rental properties may be shrinking as a result of the AirBnB phenomenon. Some users also enjoy using services like AirBnB as a means of connecting with travellers from around the world.

But short term rentals can also be a real nuisance for neighbours. Do a “google search” of the words “AirBnB & nightmare & New Year’s Eve” and you will see what we mean.

Neighbours may disapprove of the use of their building as a de facto hotel because of security concerns and the potential loss of community that may come with more transient residents. Indeed, there is no obvious advantage to allowing short-term rentals from the strata corporation’s perspective. While individual owners may benefit from renting out their strata lots on a nightly basis, it is the strata corporation that bears the risk of allowing transient renters into the building.

Unfortunately, the challenges that short-term rentals present are not specifically addressed in the Strata Property Act. The case of The Owners Strata Plan VR2213 v. Duncan & Owen, 2010 BCPC 123, confirmed that short-term rentals are legally distinct from more traditional rentals. Thus, the Strata Property Act provisions that deal with rentals and rental restrictions do not apply to short-term rentals. Even s. 146 the Strata Property Act, which requires owners and tenants to certify that the tenants have received the strata corporation’s bylaws, does not apply in the short-term rental context.

Municipalities may have bylaws that regulate or restrict short-term rentals but the enforcement of these bylaws appears to be spotty at best.

In the absence of government regulation or enforcement, strata corporations should give consideration to addressing short-term rentals in their bylaws. Since the Strata Property Act and the standard bylaws do not specifically address short-term rentals, such bylaws must be drafted from scratch. Is not as simple as stating that “all rentals must be for a minimum of 12 months”.

Bylaws prohibiting short-term rentals must be passed by a ¾ vote resolution at an annual or special general meeting. Owners in different strata corporations may have different views on what regulation if any is appropriate. Thus, consideration should be given by strata councils to the views of owners so that any proposed bylaws can pass by ¾ vote.

Individual owners and strata lot buyers should also review their bylaws very carefully for any restrictions that may already exist before engaging in short-term renting. Strata corporations that have bylaws in place have a variety of enforcement options including fines and court action against owners that breach the bylaws.

As always, legal advice should be sought when reviewing, drafting or enforcing short-term rental bylaws.

WHAT WE DO: Lesperance Mendes advises strata corporations and strata managers on all aspects of bylaw amendments and enforcement. To speak to one of our strata lawyers, contact Paul G. Mendes at pgm@lmlaw.ca or Alex Chang at ajc@lmlaw.ca.

The post Strata Alert: Regulating Short Term Rentals in your Strata Corporation appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

Strata Alert: BC Supreme Court orders smoker to “butt out” pending appeal to Human Rights Tribunal

The Owners, Strata Plan NW 1815 v. Aradi, 2016 BCSC 105

Paul G. Mendes, Partner
Phone:  604-685-4894
Email:   PGM@LMLAW.CA

In what is likely to be seen as a landmark ruling in BC, the BC Supreme Court has ordered a condo owner to stop smoking in his strata lot, even while his human rights complaint against the strata is pending.

You will recall that this case was widely covered in the media back in September.

Condo owner and “life long smoker” Paul Aradi’s neighbors started complaining about second hand smoke coming from his unit back in 2013. In 2014, the strata passed a bylaw banning smoking everywhere on strata property, including inside the units.   The complaints of second hand smoke against Mr. Aradi continued, however, so the strata started enforcing the no smoking bylaw by fining Mr. Aradi.  When Mr. Aradi refused to pay the fines, the strata sued him in Small Claims Court.  Mr. Aradi then filed a human rights complaint against the strata, alleging that his addiction to cigarettes was a disability. Anyone who has quit or tried to quit smoking can certainly understand where Mr. Aradi was coming from.

The strata, however, was not content to wait for the outcome of Mr. Aradi’s human rights complaint.  Instead, the strata applied to the BC Supreme Court for an injunction to stop Mr. Aradi from smoking in his unit and on strata property under section 173 of the Strata Property Act.  Mr. Aradi opposed the injunction on the basis that it would cause him “irreparable harm”, namely due to the fact that he was also physically disabled and found it difficult to go outside every time he needed to smoke.

The Court was not persuaded and instead ordered Mr. Aradi to “butt out”.

Mr. Aradi tried persuading the judge that his limited mobility made it very difficult for him to go outside to smoke. The judge, however, was not satisfied with Mr. Aradi’s medical evidence, particularly the complete absence of evidence confirming that he was addicted to cigarettes.  In the end, the judge found that the strata council had acted in good faith when it enforced the no smoking bylaw. Taking into account all the evidence, and balancing Mr. Aradi’s interests against the legitimate interests of his neigbhours, the Court ordered Mr. Aradi to smoke outside and off strata property.

This case resolves, for the time being at least, the lingering question of whether a strata can pass a complete smoking ban that applies to individual strata lots.  It also confirms that the Court has the power under s. 173 to issue injunctions against owners who repeatedly violate significant strata bylaws, even while a human rights complaint is pending. This last point is important, because human rights complaints are often used to derail a strata’s bylaw enforcement efforts.

WHAT WE DO: Lesperance Mendes advises strata corporations and strata managers on all manners of bylaw enforcement, including bylaw amendments, actions to collect unpaid fines, and injunctions issued under s. 173 of the Strata Property Act.  To discuss your case with a qualified strata lawyer, contact Paul G. Mendes, partner at 604-685-4894 or send an email to PGM@LMLAW.CA.

The post Strata Alert: BC Supreme Court orders smoker to “butt out” pending appeal to Human Rights Tribunal appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

Strata Alert:  Burnaby Couple Ordered to Stop Abusing Strata Neighbours

Paul G. Mendes, Partner
Phone:  604-685-4894
Email:   PGM@LMLAW.CA

The Owners, Strata Plan NW 1245 v. Linden, 2016 BCSC 619

In another widely reported precedent setting case for Lesperance Mendes, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has issued an injunction and ordered two condo owners (L & T) to pay fines for waging a campaign of abuse and harassment against their condo neighbors.

The strata corporation had received numerous complaints about L & T over the years. The strata corporation fined L & T for their behavior, but L & T were undeterred. The evidence before the court detailed events going back to 2003, in which numerous owners complained of frequent loud noise and screaming coming from L & T’s apartment. There was also extensive evidence that some complainants were subjected to repeated racist and sexist verbal abuse by L & T.  Other evidence showed that some of the complainants’ unit doors had been vandalized and smeared with what appeared to be dog feces.

Upon hearing the evidence, the court issued a wide ranging injunction prohibiting L & T from engaging in the abusive behavior and ordering them to pay fines to the strata corporation.

This case highlights once again the options available to strata corporations when dealing with abusive owners. Abusive behavior, be it towards other strata owners, strata managers, or contractors, is a clear contravention of a strata corporation’s bylaws and should not be tolerated.  The key to this case was the careful documentation of the evidence by the strata manager, and the strata council’s strict adherence to the bylaw enforcement procedures under the Strata Property Act.

WHAT WE DO: Lesperance Mendes advises strata corporations, strata managers and unit owners on bylaw enforcement matters.  Our lawyers have obtained injunctions against abusive owners in the past and have also obtained significant awards of damages against abusive owners for fines. To find out more about our bylaw enforcement practice, contact Paul G Mendes at 604-685-4894 or by email at PGM@LMLAW.CA.

The post Strata Alert: Burnaby Couple Ordered to Stop Abusing Strata Neighbours appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

Strata Alert: CMHC data questions foreign ownership crisis in BC’s condo market

Paul G. Mendes, Partner
Phone:  604-685-4894
Email:  pgm@lmlaw.ca

Much ink has been spilled about the shortage of affordable housing in BC. Newspaper comment boards are often filled with subtle and not so subtle rants against foreign ownership. If you believe everything you read, most of the condo units in Yaletown and Coal Harbour sit empty while the rest of “us” are shut out of the market by foreign owners.

In case you were wondering, the words “foreign owner” and “foreign ownership” are code words used in polite conversation to refer mainly to offshore Chinese owners, Chinese immigrants, and depending on who you talk to, second generation or later Chinese Canadians.

It turns out, however, that some of our theories about foreign ownership in Vancouver’s condo market may not be supported by any evidence.

In a report published this month, CMHC confirmed what everybody already knew, namely that foreign ownership is most prominent in newer condominium developments in Toronto and Vancouver. It appears that foreign owners tend to steer away from condos in Regina for some reason.

What will likely be news to most people, however, is that the percentage of foreign ownership in Toronto and Vancouver is much lower than expected.  According to the CMHC findings:

“… the shares of foreign ownership in condominium apartments ranged from zero percent in the Regina …  to 3.3% and 3.5% in …Toronto and Vancouver …respectively.”

Wow!  Only 3.5% of condos in Vancouver are “foreign owned”.  The CMHC findings also suggest that foreign ownership increases from 2% of strata units built in the 1990s to 6% for units constructed after 2010.

This may help to explain why governments have been slow to adopt “quick fix” solutions to the problem of housing affordability in BC.  If the CMHC findings are correct, a 50% reduction in foreign ownership in the condo market would likely have little to no impact on affordability. Other factors are obviously at play.

To read a copy of the CMHC report, click here.

WHAT WE DO:  Lesperance Mendes advises and represents strata owners, strata corporations and strata managers on all aspects of strata corporation governance. To find out more about our strata law practice, please contact Paul G Mendes, partner, at 604-685-4894 or PGM@LMLAW.CA

The post Strata Alert: CMHC data questions foreign ownership crisis in BC’s condo market appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.

Strata Alert: Ontario Court Rules on Harassment Claim against Condo Corporation

Paul G. Mendes, Partner
Phone:  604-685-4894
Email:  pgm@lmlaw.ca

Wexler v. Carleton Condominium Corporation Number 28

Believe it or not, some people get very upset when their strata corporation tries to enforce the bylaws against them. In this Ontario case, a condo owner was ordered to pay her strata (called a condominium corporation in Ontario) $20,000 in costs after she unsuccessfully sued her strata for harassment.

The underlying facts will be familiar to some.

The unit owner allowed her son to feed pigeons from the unit balcony. This caused a considerable mess and nuisance to other unit owners. The strata demanded that the unit owner take steps to deal with the problem, but she refused. Instead, she wrote a number of angry letters to the strata accusing it of harassment. The strata, fed up with the unit owner’s intransigence, took steps to remedy the contravention and clean up the mess. The strata then charged the cleanup cost totaling $270 to the unit owner.

The owner responded by suing the strata corporation for harassment, claiming among other things, $2,500 in damages. In dismissing the claim, the judge identified four elements that must be present to make out a case of harassment by a strata corporation:

• outrageous conduct by the strata;
• an intention on the part of the strata to cause emotional distress to the owner;
• the presence of severe emotional distress on the part of the owner; and
• that the emotional distress must be caused by the strata’s outrageous conduct.

After reviewing the strata corporation’s declaration (analogous to strata bylaws in British Columbia) and the relevant provisions of the Ontario condominium legislation, the judge found that the owner had failed to make out a claim of harassment against her strata. The court found that the strata was merely enforcing the declaration (i.e. the bylaws) and carrying out its duties under the legislation. The court also found that the amount of the chargeback for cleaning up the pigeon poop was reasonable.

The hearing occupied three days and the strata corporation counterclaimed for full indemnity for its legal costs in in excess of $35,000, as permitted under its declaration.  The Court concluded that the unit owner was liable for the strata corporation’s enforcement costs but reduced the amount from $35,000-$20,000.

This case will have some precedential value her in BC once the Civil Resolutions Tribunal (the “CRT”) starts taking complaints.  It is not uncommon for owners who contravene the bylaws to allege that they are being harassed by their strata. Some times that allegation can be true, but in most cases it is not. The high cost of pursuing harassment allegations in court may explain why we have yet to see similar cases being decided in BC. I expect that the CRT, which invites the resolution of every condo dispute, no matter how small or trivial it is, will be inundated with harassment complaints similar to this one.

WHAT WE DO: Lesperance Mendes advises strata corporations and property managers on all aspects of bylaw drafting and enforcement. When the Civil Resolutions Tribunal comes into effect, we will continue to assist strata’s and property managers to resolve disputes under the new procedures. To find out more about our bylaw enforcement practice, please contact Paul G Mendes at 604-685-4894 or by email at PGM@LMLAW.CA.

The post Strata Alert: Ontario Court Rules on Harassment Claim against Condo Corporation appeared first on Lesperance Mendes Lawyers.