When is Stare Decisi displaced by Per Incuriam?

STARE DECISI IS DISPLACED BY PER INCURIAM IN CRT DECISIONS

Stare decisis [Latin, "let the decision stand"] refers to the doctrine of precedent, according to which the rules formulated by judges in earlier decisions are to be similarly applied in later cases. The reason for the doctrine is that similar cases should be treated alike. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/stare-decisis

Per incuriam, literally translated as "through lack of care" is a device within the common law system of judicial precedent. A finding of per incuriam means that a previous court judgment has failed to pay attention to relevant statutory provision or precedents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_incuriam

This lack of care is the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal's specialty. Almost every unlawful decision can be distinguished on the basis that the CRT adjudicator failed to pay attention to relevant sections of the Strata Property Act or Limitation Act. It's a very bad habit.

***************

BC's Strata Property Act is exempt from Offence Act penalty provisions, and CRT decisions are not binding precedent, but that is NO EXCUSE for disregard of the law or shirking enforcement in order to defer to strata management teams. 

I notice the CRT making a disturbing number of troublesome decisions per incuriam, particularly in regard to property rights, natural justice, major perils, and insurance, by ignoring or distorting tort and nuisance laws, as well as the Strata Property Act, most notably the following statutory provisions:

Definitions – s.1

"common expenses" means expenses relating to the common property and common assets or any obligation of the strata corporation; (THE CRT IS ALLOWING STRATA MANAGEMENT TO OFFLOAD COMMON EXPENSES ONTO INDIVIDUAL OWNERS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, CONTRARY TO THE SPA, INCLUDING INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLES AND INSURED DAMAGE FROM WATER ESCAPE)

"common property" means the land and buildings (eg. BALCONIES, PATIOS, AND “DECKS”) that are not part of a strata lot on the strata plan, and ducts, pipes, or facilities for the passage of water, sewage, drainage, gas, electricity, telephone, radio, television, garbage, or similar services, if located within a floor, wall or ceiling that forms a boundary between a strata lot and another strata lot or the common property, or if capable of and intended for use in connection with the enjoyment of another strata lot or the common property.   

Ownership
s.66 - An owner owns the common property and common assets as a tenant in common in a share equal to the unit entitlement of the owner's strata lot divided by the total unit entitlement of all the strata lots.  (IN CONTRAST, THE CRT'S KATE CAMPBELL SAYS COMMON PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE STRATA)

Boundaries
s.68 - Unless otherwise shown on the strata plan, if a strata lot is separated from another strata lot, the common property or another parcel of land by a wall, floor or ceiling, the boundary of the strata lot is midway between the surface of the structural portion of the wall, floor or ceiling that faces the strata lot and the surface of the structural portion of the wall, floor or ceiling that faces the other strata lot, the common property or the other parcel of land.

Changes in Use
s.71 - The strata corporation must not make a significant change in the use or appearance of common property unless the members approve it by a 3/4 vote, or an immediate change is necessary to ensure safety or prevent significant loss or damage.
(THE CRT'S KATE CAMPBELL IGNORES THE FACT THAT DECKING ADDED IN VIOLATION OF S.71 IS USED IN CONTINUAL AND REPEATED VIOLATION OF s.76.)

Repairs
s.72 -The strata corporation must repair and maintain common property and common assets, but may by bylaw take responsibility for the repair and maintenance of specified portions of a strata lot, or make an owner responsible to repair limited common property the owner has a right to use.
(STRATAS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE REPLACEMENT VALUE INSURANCE FOR DAMAGE RESULTING FROM WATER ESCAPE and TO PAY THE DEDUCTIBLE - INSTEAD nw2671 is arbitrarily oFFLOADing DAMAGE from MAJOR PERILS ONTO individual owners as STANDARD PRACTICE condoned by the CRT.
BYLAWS THAT FORCE OWNERS WITH STRATA PLAN PATIOS TO PAINT ANNUALLY ARE UNENFORCEABLE AGAINST OWNERS  WITH UNPAINTABLE BALCONIES AND UNLAWFULLY ADDED "DECKS," AND NO OTHER PAINTING IS DONE ANNUALLY IN NW2671. THE BYLAW IS BOGUS, AND SIGNIFICANTLY UNFAIR TO THE OWNERS WITH PATIOS, BUT THE CRT HAS MADE IT OKAY FOR STRATAS TO VIOLATE THE SPA.)

Designation of Limited Common Property
s.73 – Limited common property is designated on the strata plan the developer deposited in the land title office or by a resolution under s.74 that is passed by a ¾ vote and filed in the land title office with a sketch plan that defines the areas of limited common property, and specifies each strata lot whose owners are entitled to the exclusive use of the limited common property.
(NO "DECKS" ARE DESIGNATED AS LIMITED COMMON PROPERTY IN NW2671.)

Bylaws
s. 121 - A bylaw is not enforceable to the extent that it contravenes this Act or any other enactment or law.
(ANY INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT BASED ON COERCION OR CHICANERY, SUCH AS NW2671  BYLAWS CLAIMING AN OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE TO PAINT OR REPAIR COMMON PROPERTY "DECKS" CONTRAVENES S.72 AND IS UNENFORCEABLE.)

Insurance
s.149 - The strata corporation MUST obtain and maintain PROPERTY insurance against major perils, including vandalism and WATER escape, on the basis of FULL replacement value on STRATA LOTS shown on the strata plan and fixtures built or installed by the owner developer, including floor and wall coverings, and electrical and plumbing fixtures. (OWNERS PAY THE PREMIUMS BUT ARE DEPRIVED OF PROTECTION BECAUSE THE STRATA REFUSES TO MAKE CLAIMS AND OFFLOADS REPAIRS ONTO OWNERS)

s.150 - The strata corporation must obtain and maintain liability insurance to insure the strata corporation against LIABILITY for property damage and bodily INJURY for a minimum amount of $2,000,000. (IF THE STRATA REPORTED CLAIMS FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE AND PERSONAL INJURY INSURANCE PREMIUMS WOULD SKYROCKET AND MISCONDUCT WOULD CORRESPONDINGLY LESSEN, INSTEAD IT PERSISTS AND INCREASES.)

s.158      The payment of an insurance deductible in respect of a claim on the strata corporation's insurance is a COMMON EXPENSE, but the strata corporation may SUE an owner in order to recover the deductible portion of an insurance claim IF the owner is responsible for the loss or damage. (INHERENT CONFLICTS AND DUE DILIGENCE REQUIRE A BURDEN OF PROOF IN COURT PROCEEDINGS, NOT BOGUS BYLAWS THAT OFFLOAD RESPONSIBILITY CONTRARY TO LAW.)

s.159      The members of the strata corporation may, by a resolution passed by a 3/4 VOTE subject to the SPA, decide not to repair or replace the damaged property. (THIS STRATA COVERTLY DECIDES NOT TO REPAIR, WITH NO VOTE OR RECORD IN THE MINUTES.)

s.160      If the strata corporation decides not to repair or replace the damaged property an owner may apply to the Supreme Court for an order for the strata corporation to rebuild on a just and equitable basis or provide compensation, and the strata corporation must file in the Land Title Office a certified copy of any order made. (THERE IS NOTHING JUST OR EQUITABLE ABOUT WATER DAMAGE TO UNIT 409 THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER IN CHARGE OF INSURANCE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR BEING LEFT UNREPAIRED FOR DECADES.)

s.161      An owner may obtain insurance against perils that are NOT insured by the strata corporation in section 149. (THE SPA CANNOT INTERFERE WITH AN OWNER'S RIGHT TO PROTECT THEMSELF FROM ANY PERIL, BUT NAMED PERILS MUST BE INSURED BY THE STRATA EVEN IF THE AMOUNT OF THE DEDUCTIBLE EXCEEDS FULL REPLACEMENT VALUE AND THE PREMIUMS PROVIDE NO BENEFIT.)  

****************

Despite s.36 requests for a signed and dated copy of this strata corporation’s insurance policy, repeated for decades, I have never received a copy of it. As water damage to my home that the council member in charge of insurance in this strata corporation was responsible for remains unrepaired after 25 years of excuses and delay, I have reason to be concerned. With respect to BC's Insurance Act and NW2671, I have never received notice of any definition or exclusion respecting water escape or other major perils.   

****************

Fundamental legal principles and statutes too often seem to be ignored or perversely cited lip service that do not match the orders made.

The practice of law by specialists making legal decisions that appear contrary to a fundamental word of law as taught in student text books needs to be recognized and addressed with justice and fairness instead of continually perpetuated in a growing body of questionable judgments.

For what it's worth, I've taken notice of some questionable or inconsistent issues in the cases listed in the 8-page link below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1txg6kBvhhZg6kuK0dmsnxOlya0C1tgGq/view

****************