Dear Tony: Our strata council has received a very threatening letter from an owner because we will not approve retroactive alterations to their unit. They removed a wall, which was load bearing, changed a window on the exterior, and installed a washer and dryer with an external exhaust vent, all of which are clearly prohibited in our bylaws.
The first sign of problems occurred when the upstairs neighbour noticed a sagging section of her floor. This is when we started bylaw complaints, investigation and enforcement. The owner of the renovated unit claims they had permits and an engineering report before they proceeded, but they will provide documents, if we approve their alterations.
We contacted the city office and no permits have been issued to anyone in our building address for more than 10 years. The letter threatens court action if we don’t authorize the alterations. How would you advise we proceed? —Scott H.
Dear Scott: Your obligation as a strata corporation is to comply with and enforce your bylaws. The alterations are significant and in reading your bylaws, prohibited alterations are defined to protect the integrity of your building constructed in the 1950s as an original rental building, later converted to a strata in the 1980s.
Your bylaws also include a requirement to restore unauthorized alterations to their original condition, at the cost of the owner. In light of the recent communications, a response from your lawyer would be prudent. As a strata corporation the Civil Resolution Tribunal is an appropriate jurisdiction to obtain decisions ordering compliance with bylaws.
In a recent CRT decision for Strata Plan KAS 1970, a subsequent purchaser was aware of an authorized extension of the strata lot with the addition of a loft. They were also aware of the strata corporation notice to the previous owner that the alteration was unauthorized under the bylaws and the bylaw notice to remove the loft.
The subsequent purchasers argued it was unfair, however, the tribunal found it was not. The buyers purchased the strata lot knowing that the local district had issued a stop work order and the strata had refused to approve the alterations. The letter in the Form B Information Certificate (issued to the buyer) made it clear that the strata was concerned that retroactive approval would set a precedent which would interfere with the stratasa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½ operation as a hotel condominium.
In these circumstances, the stratasa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½ refusal to retroactively approve the strata lotsa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½ alterations does not rise to the level of significant unfairness. One more item of note here.
Don’t use AI to support your arguments or claims, especially when the claimed citations don’t exist. The applicantsa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½ submissions reference 10 decisions where they say courts ruled that a strata could not force the removal of strata lot alterations. These cases have the parties’ names and the years published, but no legal citation. Nine of these cases do not exist. The remaining case was irrelevant.
Tony Gioventu is executive director of the Condominium Home Owners Association (CHOA).
Email questions to: info@choa.bc.ca
