Some interesting Court Cases in B.C.

Drummond v. Strata Plan NW2654 (November 1, 2004)

"Adults only" Condominiums are legal in B.C.

The Strata Corporation's by-laws prohibited persons less than 19 years of age from residing in a Strata lot for longer than 30 days. The court said that this by-law was valid and enforceable. The court's reasons included the following:

· B.C.'s Human Rights Code does not apply to these issues.

· Age and family status are prohibited grounds of discrimination in relation to ten- ants, but are not prohibited grounds of discrimination in relation to Strata owners' rights of occupancy.

· The age restriction by-law was a legitimate and justifiable restriction and its enforcement was not significantly oppressive.

Therefore, the court ordered that a person under 19 years of age could not occupy the Strata Lot.

However, the court exercised its discretion under the Law and Equity Act to reduce the fines, which had been imposed by the Strata Corporation as a result of the breach.

Poole v. Strata Plan VR 2506 (December 6, 2004)

Strata owner permitted to use entire roof of Strata Corporation building.

The owner and the Strata Corporation had assumed that the owner was entitled to the exclusive use of the entire roof of the building. The owner had accordingly treated the entire roof area as being for the owner's exclusive use. However, it was recently discovered that a portion of the roof was not legally contained within the owner's exclusive use area.

Given the history, the equities favoured an arrangement under which the owner would have non-permanent right to use the additional area. The Court accordingly ordered that the Strata Corporation grant to the owner a 30-year lease of the non-designated area, for which the owner would pay $1,200.00 per year. At the same time, the owner was ordered to remove sufficient improvements (from the roof area) so as to bring the load on the roof to within safe levels.

Strata Plan VR19 v. Collins (December 31, 2004)

Enforcement of By-law prohibiting hard flooring.

According to S. 135(1) of the Strata Property Act, the Strata Corporation must not:

a) impose a fine against a person,

b) require a person to pay the cost of remedying a contravention, or

c) deny a person the use of a recreational facility,

for a contravention of a by-law or rule unless the Strata Corporation has

d) received a complaint about the contravention,

e) given the owner or tenant the particulars of the complaint in writing, and a reason- able opportunity to answer the complaint, including a hearing if requested by the owner or tenant, and

f) if the person is a tenant, given notice of the complaint to the person's landlord.

The Strata Corporation had passed a by-law stating that all floors of Strata lots on the second and third floors must have wall-to- wall carpeting, with the exceptions of kitchens and bathrooms and the first five feet of an entry hallway.

The Court confirmed that this by-law is valid and enforceable. The Court said that "it is within the rights of the Strata Corporation to pass and enforce any by-law that it sees fit as long as that by-law does not contravene the Act, the Human Rights Code, or any other enactment or law."

One of the owners had installed laminate flooring, in contravention of the by-law. There had been no resulting complaints about noise. Even so, the court said:

"However, if S. 135 (1) (d) refers to a complaint about the contravention itself, then the Strata council can be taken to have made the complaint themselves and thus the Strata Corporation's actions would be in accordance with S. 135(1) (d)."

The Court accordingly ordered that the owner remove the laminate flooring at the owner's expense. However, the Strata Corporation had not complied with S. 135 (1)(e) of the Act (giving the owner an opportunity for a hearing). This did not prevent the Strata Corporation from remedying the by-law contravention at the owner's expense, but it did prevent the Strata Corporation from requiring the owner to pay the costs of the enforcement proceeding. Therefore, the Strata Corporation was required to bear its own costs of the proceeding.