Some people aren鈥檛 suited for strata living, a judge concluded after hearing a case between a Summerland strata complex and a 鈥渞ogue鈥 homeowner.
BC Supreme Court Justice Briana Hardwick ruled mostly in favour of the strata complex in a case against August Jerome Flaman and Gloria Jean Flaman.
The ruling was issued last week in sa国际传媒 court after hearings in December and January.
鈥淐ertain individuals are not entirely well suited for living in a stratified situation wherein there are restrictions placed upon them which would likely not otherwise be imposed if they lived in a residence wherein they hold freehold title. This is, in my conclusion, one of those situations,鈥 Hardwick wrote in her decision.
鈥淭his situation is compounded when you have an individual (or individuals) who are inclined to take self-help and/or rogue measures to address issues of conflict in, what I describe as, a rouge manner,鈥 she continued.
The Flamans made a number of unauthorized renovations to their unit, which affected the stratasa国际传媒 common property. The husband Flaman also got into disputes with his neighbours, court heard.
The Flamans were accused of installing a furnace, air venting system, radon mitigation system and hot water heater without permission, making alterations to the building and breaking parking rules.
Much of the work took place in 2019 and 2020.
鈥淚n 2019 and 2020, the Flamans undertook a series of alterations involving exterior venting and other connections requiring penetration of the building exterior, none of which were fully approved in advance, and for some of which no approval was sought,鈥 Hardwick wrote.
After making their repairs, they asked the strata to reimburse them.
An assessment of the building in February 2021 found repairs were needed after the 鈥渦nauthorized alterations.鈥
The strata asked the court to order the Flamans to fix or undo damage they had done, pay their fines and to respect the parking rules.
While the Flamans were accused of repeatedly violating the rules, the judge also noted the strata continually allowed them to get away with it.
鈥淢uch like a parent who waffles in their otherwise appropriate disciplinary action of a child, prior waffling does not give carte blanche for further transgressions.鈥
The Flamans didn鈥檛 dispute that they did the work. 鈥淩ather, Mr.聽Flaman has attempted to justify his unauthorized alterations in a variety of ways,鈥 the judge wrote.
Essentially, the strata took too long to consider his requests.
鈥淗owever, approval is not a mere procedural consideration. Any alteration which penetrates the common property building envelope is a serious matter requiring that the strata council consider whether the change is reasonably necessary,鈥 the judge wrote.
鈥淢r.聽Flamansa国际传媒 position is that the Flamans were entitled to jump the queue on his own initiative and then seek reimbursement in due course because of his belief they had excessive delays and intentional foot dragging.鈥
Flaman could also be difficult to get along with, the court heard.
鈥淥n or about April 29, 2021, there were two contested reports of instances involving allegations that Mr.聽Flaman attempted to intimidate an individual with a vehicle. Mr.聽Flaman denies the characterization and description of the events.鈥
The judge ruled the Flamans must make amends.
She supported the strata corporationsa国际传媒 findings that the Flamans breached the strata bylaws and that the fines issued were legitimate.
The judge ordered the Flamans to pay fines and 鈥渃hargebacks鈥 within 120 days.
The couple was ordered not make alterations or break the parking rules in the future.