12/07/2018 – Jurisdiction British Columbia
Part 65 published on 01/03/2019
Court orders owner to permit access to unit for treatment of bed bugs
Bed bugs had been found in the Respondents’ unit and in one or more neighboring units. The strata corporation sought access to the Respondents’ unit, in order to inspect and spray for bed bugs. The Respondents refused. The Court granted the requested access and also directed that the Registrar determine the costs incurred by the Corporation as a result of the Respondents’ failure to permit the requested access (such costs to be payable by the Respondents). The Court said:
In my view, the Strata Council’s obligation to manage and maintain the common property includes responsibility to protect that common property from harm, which includes insects and pests. That common area includes the floors, walls, and ceilings that form the boundary between strata lots. As noted, s. 3(1) of the Strata Council’s Bylaws states an owner cannot use a strata lot in such a way that they cause a nuisance or hazard or interfere with the other owners’ use and enjoyment of their strata lots. In addition, under s. 8 of the Bylaws, the Strata Corporation must repair and maintain all common assets and common property on behalf of the petitioner. The Strata Property Act defines common property as “that part of the land and buildings … that is not part of a strata lot,” including walls, and facilities for the passage of water, sewage, electricity, and other similar services located in a floor, wall, or ceiling (s. 1).
The respondents’ behaviour ignores their obligations as owners and interferes with the rights of other owners. The evidence is that bed bugs have been found in other units, that controlling them requires the use of pesticides, and that such pesticides are used by professional licensed pest control individuals in compliance with the Integrated Pest Management Act and its regulations.
…
In my opinion, the concerns of the strata are reasonable. Infestation by bed bugs is a situation requiring resolution. Their presence raises issues of comfort and health. In addition, the threat of their continued presence and potential reproduction is a legitimate concern. The owner of Unit 409 deposes that the precautionary spraying has caused her the inconvenience of having to vacate her home for six hours, and that further such spraying will be necessary every two months because of the risk of bugs accessing her premises from the respondents’ premises. She also states she is bothered emotionally by her inability to control the need for such measures due to the conduct of the respondents.
…
I conclude the petitioner is entitled under s. 173 of the Strata Property Act to a declaration that the respondents have contravened the Bylaws by not permitting inspection of their unit. I order that the respondents cease and desist from contravening the Bylaws by refusing entry for the purposes of inspection for pests.
…
I am satisfied the petitioner is entitled to its costs, including special costs, the reasonableness of which, including the reasonable costs of remedying a contravention of its Bylaws, should, in my view, be directed to the Registrar as was done in the Stevens case at paras. 89 and 90.
The Court also specifically addressed the question of whether or not the Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter (rather than the Civil Resolution Tribunal). The Court held that the parties had agreed to the Court hearing the matter, because the Respondents had not raised jurisdiction as an issue and the Respondents had specifically said that they were ready to see the matter resolved “in Court”.