Pets, airline travel problems and strata conflicts made for interesting reading among B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal decisions in 2023.
And, hot tubs. No year-end review of the tribunal鈥檚 work would be complete without hot tub disputes.
Teeth-depth measuring
One of the more biting disputes of the year was about .
The tribunal dismissed a small claims action by two people suing for $4,125 for time they claim was wasted seeking dental information.
Otto Haug and Edith Normandin filed the claim against the BC College of Oral Health Professionals. They disputed services Normandin received through a dental clinic.
In her Aug. 22 , tribunal chair Simmi Sandhu said Haug and Normandin had asked local dental clinics and dentist associations in both B.C. and Manitoba for an 鈥渆xplanation of the benefit and price for measuring depths around their teeth.鈥�
Sandhu wasn鈥檛 clear why they had sued the college.
Cat urine
Fights about pet ownership or compensation for unsatisfactory ones dominated animal disputes this year.
In an , the tribunal dismissed a complaint from a woman who alleged her neighbours鈥� cats damaged property by entering her unit and urinating and defecating there.
Tribunal member Nav Shukla said complainant Jaime Lee Metcalfe and respondents Jamie Major and Corbin Major live in the same house.
Shukla said Metcalfe also alleged there were flies in her unit because of the cat urine. The landlord said flies Metcalfe complained about were likely from garbage she leaves by the front door as she always leaves the front door open.
Metcalfe claimed $5,000 in damages for alleged property damage and pain and suffering.
鈥淚 find the applicant has failed to prove that the respondents鈥� cats have caused any damage to their property,鈥� Shukla said.
Strata doorbell camera
The a Langley man鈥檚 bid to have a doorbell camera at his strata unit.
Brodie Thompson rents a strata lot and had installed a doorbell camera without the strata鈥檚 approval.
At the strata鈥檚 request after a bylaw complaint, he removed it but later applied for approval and was denied, tribunal member Micah Carmody said in a Dec. 12
Thompson claimed the strata was unfairly denying him a doorbell camera that it had allowed for 40 other units.
The strata said the issue was one of privacy.
鈥淭he doorbell camera鈥檚 view undisputedly included other strata lot entrances. It was appropriate for the strata to consider the privacy rights of other residents, including the person who complained about Mr. Thompson鈥檚 doorbell camera, and balance them against Mr. Thompson鈥檚 security concerns,鈥� Carmody ruled.
Couple fined as babies increased strata occupancy
A Vancouver strata fined a couple for violating occupancy restrictions after
Christina James and Matt Rowland lived in Fairview Village strata complex, a recent B.C. Human Rights Tribunal decision says.
Shortly after their first child was born, Fairview Village notified James and Rowland they were in violation of the strata鈥檚 occupancy bylaw and began levying fines for the violation.
The family eventually moved to a rental and filed the tribunal complaint, alleging family status discrimination under the B.C. Human Rights Code.
Fairview Village denied discriminating and applied to dismiss the complaint, said tribunal member Robin Dean鈥檚 on the strata鈥檚 application to dismiss the case.
Dean rejected that application.
Dean said continuing with the complaint would be in line with the public purposes of the code.
Water leak
The tribunal rejected a from two B.C. strata owners who claimed a contractor colluded with the strata to present false evidence.
The case involved mould, asbestos, multiple contractors and delays for various reasons.
However, said tribunal member Kate Campbell said in her , 鈥淚 find that much of the delay was due to the applicants鈥� own actions, so even if the water or mould were unhealthy, the strata鈥檚 actions did not cause that outcome.鈥�
In the end, Campbell ordered the strata to pay Amy Mitchell and Ian Brett $8,431.46 for the cost of restoring the parts of their unit opened for the leak investigation, plus $428.38 in prejudgment interest.
Helping grandmother
The tribunal dismissed a strata鈥檚 claim against a disabled elderly grandmother after it claimed her grandson did not meet the complex's 55-year-old age requirement when he provided the woman overnight medical care.
In his Aug. 22 , tribunal vice-chair Garth Cambrey said that the strata had failed to accommodate a now-90-year-old woman鈥檚 disability.
The strata filed the claim against siblings Dorothy Bendsen and John Metson 鈥� who co-owned a strata unit with their mother, identified as RM 鈥� after Bendsen鈥檚 son stayed with his grandmother to care for her following a stroke in 2019.
The strata had imposed $2,400 in fines.
Bendsen and Metson said their mother鈥檚 disability required overnight medical care and that she was entitled to reasonable accommodation under B.C.鈥檚 Human Rights Code.
Cambrey said the strata began imposing fines before allowing the family to respond.
鈥淚 find the bylaws imposed against the respondents are invalid,鈥� the tribunal member ruled.
Gift card mental distress
The tribunal dismissed the case of a man who said he couldn鈥檛 work due to a dispute with Home Depot over a gift card.
that he tried to purchase a tool chest online from Home Depot using a $500 gift card.
Peters said Home Depot was unable to fulfil the online order and agreed to give him a refund. He soon found it had not been credited.
Peters claimed $500 for the value of his gift card, $30 further to an offered credit from Home Depot and $24.20 in travel expenses to and from Home Depot.
He also claimed $2,000 in damages for mental distress as well as $2,300 in damages for being unable to fulfil a business contract asserting that Home Depot prevented him from acquiring the necessary items.
Rivers dismissed the mental distress claim.
鈥淭here is no medical evidence establishing that Mr. Peters has suffered any mental consequences from the events described above,鈥� Rivers said.
The tribunal dismissed the lost work claim for losing a sump pump contract.
Hair bleaching
The tribunal rejected the case of a woman who claimed $5,000 in damages after she said her .
Banafsheh Fahimi claimed Khaled Rahime"over-bleached" her hair, causing damage. She claimed $5,000 for the amount she allegedly paid Rahime for hair services, plus damages for repair treatments and products.
Rahime said Fahimi received over $1,000 in hair services for only $300, and that he offered the second appointment free to assist Fahimi with her dissatisfaction.
The tribunal member found Fahimi did not meet her burden of proving that Rahim鈥檚 hair services were negligent.
Hot tub not absurd
A B.C. Supreme Court judge upheld a B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal decision finding that a strata hot tub is patio furniture that can be allowed on balconies.
鈥淭he tribunal member鈥檚 conclusion certainly does not border on the absurd,鈥�
It鈥檚 a case that dates back two years to a where a Vancouver strata spent $22,000 fighting to have a patio hot tub removed.
John Emmerton and Van Ortega put an inflatable hot tub on a limited common property rooftop patio outside their Hamilton Street unit.
The strata told the tribunal at the time that strata bylaws did not permit hot tubs on patios and the two were in contravention of the rules.
