FILE PHOTO.
Image Credit: pexels.com
November 13, 2022 - 6:58 AM
A B.C. condo owner has won a legal battle against his strata after they began fining him for having an inflatable hot tub on his deck.
According to a Nov. 10, Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, Maple Ridge strata BCS2331 fined Alejandro Jose Noriega $600 for having the inflatable hot tub on his patio.
The decision said about one month after Noriega set the hot tub up the strata received a complaint. The strata then began issuing $200 fines every seven days if he didn't remove the hot tub.
Noriega relented, drained the tub and packed it away, but then filed a case against the strata saying under its bylaws it had no right to prohibit him from having an inflatable hot tub on his deck.
The crux of the case is whether an inflatable hot tub is considered "patio-style furniture."
It's not the first time a strata has disputed whether an inflatable hot tub was furniture or not. In August, the Tribunal sided with a condo owner who had an inflatable hot tub. The case cost the strata $22,000 in legal fees.
READ MORE: B.C. strata spent $22,000 on lawyers, loses case over inflatable hot tub
The strata argued its bylaws only allow "patio-style furniture" on decks and the inflatable tub wasn't allowed.
The strata said the "common definition" of patio furniture is "furniture such as chairs, tables, settees or lounges, suited for use on a patio or deck that will not be damaged by exposure to rain, sun or other outdoor elements."
However, the Tribunal said the strata hadn't said where its "common definition" came from and instead would look at Merriam-Webster dictionary.
"That definition of furniture... includes equipment that is necessary, useful, or desirable, such as movable articles used in readying an area, such as a room or patio, for occupancy or use," the decision read.
The Tribunal said the inflatable hot tub can easily be moved by one or two people and therefore falls under the category of patio furniture under the strata's bylaws.
The strata argued that while the hot tub is easily moveable when drained and deflated the hot tub remained in place for more than two months, which suggests a degree of permanency.
The Tribunal didn't agree.
"How often a person moves an item does not determine how reasonably or readily moveable it is," the Tribunal ruled.
The strata also argued Noriega did not get a municipal permit for the hot tub, and he hadn't provided engineering studies to confirm the patio’s structural stability or whether his plumbing could handle draining the tub.
The Tribunal said while the strata's concerns were legitimate it had not provided any evidence to support them.
Noriega said he didn't need a municipal permit for the inflatable hot tub.
Ultimately, the Tribunal ordered the strata to refund $600 of fines and found nothing in the bylaws preventing Noriega was setting up the hot tub again.
The strata are also on the hook for the $225 to cover Noriega's Tribunal fee.
READ MORE: Vernon man buys $1M home; sues over missing table
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.
News from © iNFOnews, 2022