11/12/2017 – Jurisdiction British Columbia
Part 61 published on 01/03/2017
Court grants leave to appeal from certain aspects of decision of Civil Resolution Tribunal
The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) had decided certain disputes between the owners in this two-unit strata corporation. Among other things, the CRT’s decision included the following:
- (that) the strata become a member of the Condominium Home Owner’s Association (CHOA), with the owners to share the membership cost equally; and
- (that) the parties may refer disputes to the CHOA and its decisions will be binding on the parties.
One of the owners sought leave to appeal the CRT’s decision. The Court granted leave to appeal on some of the requested grounds. One of the grounds was the “sub-delegation” to the CHOA. On this ground, the Court said:
…. the issue is whether the CRT has the statutory authority to order the parties to submit to binding decision-making authority of another entity respecting matters that would otherwise be decided by the CRT. This is a question of law. The appropriateness of such an order in the particular circumstances of a case is a question of mixed fact and law, and moreover one which would be intimately bound up with the facts, but whether such an order can be made at all is not.
Given that the CRT member’s first order required the parties to submit to binding dispute resolution by CHOA respecting matters that might otherwise be decided by the CRT, it is at arguable that the rule against sub-delegation is engaged. I note also that no party has pointed me to a provision in the Act that might authorize sub-delegation. The question here is both of specific and general importance. In my view it would be in the interests of justice and fairness to grant leave to appeal on this issue.
Leave to appeal was also granted on the CRT’s decision to accept certain “expert evidence”, the question being whether or not this admission of evidence had been in keeping with the CRT’s Rules.