11/05/2018 – Jurisdiction British Columbia
Part 62 published on 01/06/2018
The Petitioner was not a tenant and therefore was not qualified to be a Strata Council member
The Strata Council questioned the qualifications of the Petitioner to be a Strata Council member. The Petitioner asserted that he was a tenant and had been assigned the landlord’s right to be elected and, as such, was qualified to be a Strata Council member under Section 28 of the Strata Property Act.
The Court held that the Petitioner was not a tenant for the following reasons:
- There was “no written evidence of a tenancy relationship as is necessary under 28 of the SPA”.
- “Second, there was no notification from the owners of the strata unit to the Strata Corporation that they had rented all or part of their unit pursuant to 146 of the SPA.”
- “Third, the petitioner has not asserted that he paid the strata unit owners any form of regular rent since 2011. Although the petitioner deposed that he made periodic payments to the registered owners in the past and irregular payments since 2011, he tendered no written evidence of any payments. Such evidence would be easily obtainable.”
The Court also said:
The petitioner stated that the respondent’s argument is based on an overly technical application of the SPA. He further argued that tenancy agreements can be implied. If the petitioner had provided proof of payment of rent, or affidavit evidence from one of the registered owners, I might well have been satisfied that there was a tenancy arrangement in place. The petitioner had the opportunity to remedy these issues since commencing the litigation. Because he did not do so, I cannot imply a tenancy.
The Court also dismissed the Petitioner’s request for a Declaration that the strata corporation be estopped from denying that he was eligible to be a member of the Strata Council (because of his previous time on the Council).