B.C. strata slammed by judge over its 'unworkable' bylaw
A B.C. strata that imposed a bylaw that directly targeted one owner has had the bylaw scrapped by the B.C. Supreme Court after a judge ruled it was "significantly unfair."
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Dev Dley called the bylaw "unwieldy" and "unworkable" and that it purposely targeted Murray and Christine Hall.
The details are laid out in a Dec. 12 B.C. Supreme Court decision which shows the case dates back to 2017 when the Halls bought a piece of bare land at a Chilliwack strata with the idea that they would build a house on it.
Ten days after the Halls bought the land the strata EPS 2116 passed a bylaw saying that any construction required prior written approval from the strata council.
The bylaw stated that the strata could "take into account any matter that it considers relevant" in refusing to allow an owner to build.
Shortly after purchasing the land, the Halls provided the strata with details of the proposed construction.
The strata only has five lots and the Halls chose the construction company that built the other four houses.
However, the strata didn't approve their building plan.
"The Strata Council refused to provide its approval or provide any meaningful dialogue as to how matters might proceed," Justice Dley said in the decision.
The strata then requested $10,000 to cover the cost of professionals to review the building plans.
The strata also started fining the couple for alleged property infractions.
The decision says the Halls tried to talk to the strata but got nowhere. They then took them to court.
Justice Dley ruled the strata failed to respond to the Halls' reasonable requests and had not been "good neighbours."
"This is not a case where an owner has been difficult, obstreperous or acted contrary to the community plan. Rather, this is a case of the Strata Corporation burying its head and failing to fulfill its obligations to the owners," the justice ruled.
READ MORE: B.C. couple fined $7K by strata over plants win legal victory
The Justice described the costs requested by the strata council as "oppressive" and asking the Halls for $10,000 was "simply unreasonable and unfair."
The strata argued it needed to approve the building plans to make sure the home would be safe.
However, this did not sway the judge.
"The construction of the home will be subject to municipal building inspections. There are sufficient safeguards to ensure that the objectives of safety are protected. There is no rational explanation provided for the excessive demands that the (Halls) continue to face," the Justice said. "It would be tantamount to the (Halls) paying for a second opinion that they do not require."
The Justice ruled the strata had held its general meeting where it passed the bylaw without contacting the Halls. The decision says the bylaw passed by three to one and if the Halls' had been present it would not have passed.
Justice Dley said the bylaw gave the strata unlimited powers to decline building requests and it was "oppressive" and "unfairly prejudicial."
The Justice ruled the bylaw was invalid and ordered the strata to reverse it and any fines it may have levied.
The Halls had argued for punitive damages and costs, but the justice said the case didn't warrant special costs.
However, the justice ordered the strata to pay the Halls' legal fees and not pass the cost onto them by way of the monthly strata fees.
Ultimately, more than five years after the Halls' made plans to build their home they can now continue with it.
READ MORE: B.C. strata lose legal case deciding if inflatable hot tub is 'furniture'
To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.
We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above.
