27/02/2018 – Jurisdiction British Columbia
Part 61 published on 01/03/2017
Civil Resolution Tribunal is the proper body to resolve dispute respecting alleged unreasonable noise
The strata corporation and the owners of one of the strata lots (the lower unit) applied to the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) for resolution of a dispute respecting excessive noise allegedly coming from the strata lot above (the upper unit).
As part of the process, the CRT facilitator had recommended “acoustical testing” to assist the parties in addressing the dispute. The facilitator was also required to consider the importance of an agreement reached with a previous owner of the upper unit.
The alleged violators applied for an order preventing the CRT from dealing with the matter, under section 12.3 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act.
The Court said that the CRT was well suited to deal with the matter and had been following a reasonable process. The Court said:
It seems to me that the facilitator was performing her functions in accordance with her mandate under the Act and in compliance with her duty of fairness. I reject the argument that by encouraging the parties to agree to acoustical testing the facilitator exhibited bias against the petitioners. Her assertion that an adjudicator would likely order such testing if the matter went to a contested hearing did not amount to pre-judgment of the case. It was merely a clear-eyed prediction of the sort of information that a CRT panel, at the tribunal hearing phase, would likely requisition under s. 42(1)(c) of the Act in order to resolve the dispute quickly and inexpensively. I would note here that s. 27(1)(b) of the Act explicitly allows a case manager to provide his or her “views on how the court or tribunal would likely resolve the dispute if it proceeded to a court or tribunal hearing”.
The application was dismissed, and the CRT was accordingly able to continue with the matter.