temp

Strata Rules – Parts 2 and 3

Posted by: Pihl Law Corporation

Last year I wrote about an interesting case involving the owners of a condo whose behaviour towards their neighbours was so disruptive and obnoxious that the Strata Council, who had given up after years of letter, notices and fines, applied to the court for an order to force this owner to sell her unit and move.  That order was granted in Owners v. Jordison discussed in my article dated  April 10, 2012.  I hailed the decision as a victory for strata corporations everywhere who struggle to deal with an owner who makes life difficult for everyone else.  Unfortunately (but correctly) the Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge’s remedy of a forced sale.  The Court of Appeal decided that section 173 of the Strata Property Act gives the court two remedies – a) to order an owner to perform a duty required by the Act, the bylaws or the rules; and b) to order an owner to stop contravening the Act, bylaws or rules.  Then subsection c) gives the court the power to make any other orders to give effect to a) or b).  In the Jordison case the trial judge skipped over a) and b) and used c) to support an order for the owner to sell her unit. The Court of Appeal decided that c) was not a stand-alone remedy and the court needed to make an order under a) or b) first.  The Court of Appeal would not decide the hypothetical question of whether the remedy of sale could be available for a breach of an order of a) or b).  The Court of Appeal did uphold the trial judge’s additional remedy under b)  ordering the Jordisons to stop breaking the strata rules.  Apparently the Jordisons had listed their unit for sale in any event.

Another interesting “bad neighbour” situation arose in the recent case of The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 4255 v. Newell 2012 BCSC 1542.  Mr. Newell bought a penthouse condo in Yaletown, in Vancouver.  He spent $800,000 renovating his condo including a free standing hot tub and music system on his rooftop deck.  He then began partying.  He ignored the letters and fines from council for disrupting the quiet hours of 11 p.m. to 8 a.m.  The $200 fines were paid and not considered a deterrent to the wealthy Mr. Newell.  The court agreed that when the fines failed to have any effect the Strata Council’s next move was to apply to the court for injunctive relief* – section 173 b).  Mr. Newell’s evidence at trial was that his neighbours were too sensitive to sound and that they did not “get” the Yaletown lifestyle which included a higher level of ambient noise.  The Court granted the Owners an injunction preventing Mr. Newell from using his hot tub or sound system in the quiet hours.  In media interviews Mr. Newell was quoted as saying he would abide by the court orders.  The judge’s remarks about the conduct of condo owners generally were interesting:  “Mr. Newell has displayed a poor grasp of one of the basic principles of condominium living – even in Yaletown – so aptly described by Mr. Justice Hall: that the proximity dictates that some forbearance and discretion is required of the occupants of such properties in order to avoid the infliction of misery upon fellow occupants. The Bylaws – which bind Mr. Newell so long as he owns Unit 3701 – exist to that end.”

Stay tuned for Part 3 which will set out a new dispute resolution process for strata owners under the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act.

*An “injunction” is an order to do or refrain from doing something.

The information provided above is for educational purposes only. This information is not intended to replace the advice of a lawyer or address specific situations. Your personal situation should be discussed with a lawyer. If you have any questions or concerns, contact a legal professional

Archives

  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011



  • Categories

  • Alienation of Affection
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Announcements
  • Bankruptcy
  • Bullying
  • Burial Wishes
  • Buying a Home
  • Child Support
  • City of Kelowna
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Community Involvement
  • Cyberbullying
  • Employment Law
  • Estate Planning
  • Family Law
  • Family Maintenance Enforcement Act
  • First Time Home Buyers
  • Foreclosure
  • ICBC
  • Inheritance Planning
  • Joint Tenants
  • Jury Duty
  • Liquor Liability
  • Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act
  • Marriage Agreements
  • Mobile Homes
  • Motor Vehicle Accidents
  • Negligence and Torts
  • Nuisance
  • Parental Responsibility Act
  • Personal Injury
  • Pihl Law Corporation
  • Predatory Marriage
  • Private Medical Treatments
  • Real Estate
  • Release of Liability
  • Right to Die
  • Selling a Home
  • Shared Property
  • Strata
  • Tenants in Common
  • The Apology Act
  • Uncategorized
  • Waivers
  • West Kelowna Warriors
  • Wills & Estates
  • Wills Variation Act
  • Workers Compensation Act
  • Workplace bullying
  • find us

    1465 Ellis Street, Suite 100
    250.762.5434
    lawyers@pihl.ca

    from the blog

  • In the past few years, the Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resources...Read More

  •  In 1978, three cases were decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, which...Read More

  • In recent months lawyers throughout BC have been learning new wills and estates...Read More

  • How often are you confronted by someone you know, who asks to borrow...Read More

  • latest tweets

    © 2013 PIHL Law Firm. All rights reserved.
    Website designed by Atomic 55