01/01/2018 – Jurisdiction British Columbia
Part 61 published on 01/03/2017
Strata corporation recovers fines for violation of age restriction
The strata corporation’s by-laws included a minimum age restriction – namely, age 55. The Defendant’s mother had owned one of the units in the strata corporation. She had passed away in 2015. Some time thereafter, the Defendant, aged 48, had taken up residence in the unit.
The strata corporation insisted on compliance with the age restriction and refused the Defendant’s requests for an exception. Fines were levied by the strata corporation and the strata corporation ultimately brought this claim for recovery of the fines. The Court awarded judgment in favour of the strata corporation. The Court said:
Fairness requires that this case must be decided according to law. The law should not be contorted, regardless of the fact that sympathies lie on both sides. With the benefit of hindsight, the Defendant probably would have been better off if she had found a realtor and listed the property for sale after it became clear that a substantial majority of the other owners of this strata did not wish to give up their right to reside in a building occupied by persons who were 55 years or older. They were not unreasonable in wanting to do so. This is what they paid for when they bought their units, and it must seem unfair to them that one person could unilaterally deny them this right. The other owners (or at least those among them who are reasonable) were willing to play by the rules when it came to respecting the outcome of the vote at the Annual General Meeting and the Defendant should also have done so.
The Defendant’s unwillingness to respect the outcome of the vote stems from the emotion that followed the loss of her mother, the personal health issues that she faces, and her fear that she will not be able to collect both a disability pension and also own this home. Now the value of her asset will be reduced by the amount of fines. It is unfortunate that insult was added to injury in some of the things written in her correspondence. Some of her actions, such as invading the privacy of the Claimant’s counsel and his family, do not present her in the best light, and she is surely capable of being a better person than this. It is my hope that she will let go of this conflict before the financial and emotional costs grow beyond what they have.
The Claimant will have judgement against the Defendant for the amount of the fines, assessed at $200 per week for the period from January 4, 2016 until July 13, 2017 (67 weeks) for a total of $13,400. It will also be awarded prejudgment interest on this amount, calculated in accordance with the prescribed regulations (for ease of calculation, from July 13, 2017), and costs as claimed in the Amended Notice of Claim in the amount of $266.00.