Seeking a remedy for abuse by pursuing litigation is like being stripped naked before the enemy, with the presumption that the accused is innocent and the injured victim is not to be believed without proof. This violation of the victim's privacy is made worse by defamatory claims made by the offender with impunity. It adds significant injury in a biased justice system that is anything but fair or accessible.
Open court is a
venerated ideal of justice in common law systems, and a principle that
is regarded as indispensable. Generally, the principle requires that court proceedings be open to the public, and that publicity as to those proceedings be uninhibited. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr03_vic1/p4.html
When I asked permission to install HVAC to accommodate the lung diseases of my husband and myself NW2671's bylaws specifically contemplated enabling installation of HVAC. Council members in 2019 made motions to "allow it" with conditions, such as "the criteria should be as close to middle of the road in price and warranty as possible."
In my attempts to facilitate timely installation I voluntarily offered to pay the expense and sign an agreement for future maintenance if council required it, but it did not request payment nor indemnification. When I asked if anything else was required, council did not ask me to provide anything at all, even though I asked repeatedly.
NW2671 was already aware of my COPD and had been ever since it installed a vent in our bedroom in 2005. I nevertheless decided to provide further evidence of the medical conditions of my husband and myself, but that was a big mistake. Council immediately violated our privacy in contravention of PIPA and shared our confidential medical information with the most hostile imagainable neighbour, and after I complained gave me the most unspeakable traumatic shock by appointing her as a representative for mediation instead of a council member, knowing full well that she attacked us on multiple levels for years, that I would be extremely upset, and that she does not negotiate as already proven in CRT proceedings.
Appointing this hostile neighbour who previously deprived us of gate access and strata records for years, vandalized our home by destroying surrounding shade trees, and made false accusations to the RCMP that I was trespassing and abusing animals to intimidate me out of continuing a sit down protest against significantly unfair exclusive use of common property for unlawfully added skylights and extra decks by council members acting in conflict in contravention of proportionate unit entitlement, s.76 of the SPA, and Use of Property bylaws was such a shocking betrayal after I had exhausted all other timely resources available to me that I bought a rifle within 30 minutes.
The property manager denied my HVAC request for no good reason without council having a meeting, much less a majority vote.
Instead of acting reasonably, council doubled down and subjected us to years of litigation stress, discriminatory harassment, and personal endangerment for no good reason. During this time it repeatedly violated the terms of mediation without penalty by publishing defamatory reports that I cannot defend against without violating an offensive nondisclosure contract that I agreed to honour.
Adding insult to injury, council acted persistentlyfor 3 years trying to amend the bylaws to prohibit HVAC installation by not allowing the required penetration of the building envelope, not allowing heat pumps anywhere shown on the strata plan, and mandating that owners asking to install HVAC waive their statutory rights and protections in contravention of the Strata Property Act (the "SPA") and standard Use of Property bylaws.
The owners rejected council's motions, which were all contrary to past practice where the strata built dozens of extra decks and perpetually repairs, maintains, and insures added skylights, gas lines, and garages as common property in accordance with s.72 and s.149 of the SPA for the exclusive use and enjoyment of more privileged owners without disabilities.
If my HVAC request or council's responding motions to "allow it with conditions" and "the criteria should be as close to middle of the road in price and warranty as possible." were voted on by council in 2019 as required by s.4 of the SPA and recorded in the minutes as required by s.35 toxic litigation could have, and probably would have, been avoided.
If Councillor McConnell's motion to delete the obstructive location restriction was not ignored and the wording voted on and recorded in the minutes was not further tampered with and changed when registering the bylaw in the Land Title Office we might not have been so thoroughly discriminated against.
So how could this happen?
I think it happened because NW2671 is not managed by the owners or the strata council.
Council members serve at the pleasure of the property manager and routinely approve her declarations because Rita Caulien Brown, who owns nothing and pays nothing, performs the duties of president, secretary, treasurer, and council, controlling in large part, if not completely, the strata's meetings, correspondence, agenda, minutes, budget, purse strings, other agents, and hiring decisions, so council doesn't know what's going on. It became obvious that council has no idea what's going on even in litigation, particularly when Rita was the only observer. This transfer of so much power into the hands of a single person is an inherent conflict of interest, but it is becoming standard practice throughout BC's strata agency industry.
NW2671 is managed by a professional strata agent who has the ability to be quite charming and very persuasive, but she is not subject to the SPA. She contravenes it routinely, and in that regard she can be sarcastic, disrespectful, and vindictive. She retaliates against me relentlessly for complaining about the harm she is inflicting on us by tampering with strata records, withholding them in contravention of s.36 of the SPA, and destroying incriminating evidence.
I don't blame the owners who had the good sense to reject prohibitive bylaw amendments for 3 years. I don't blame them for being coerced by killer heat and Rita's advice that adopting new bylaws would allow us to install HVAC (in unlawful ways, and the most intrusive, obstructive, and inappropriate imaginable heat pump locations for no good reason.) I don't even blame members of the strata council who have no idea of the law and are just trying to live their own lives. I do blame Rita Caulien Brown aka Vanidour, but she could not act as she does without the support of the industry.
Members of the strata council acting in conflict for their own unjust enrichment, contrary to the best insterests of the strata corporation are not volunteers making innocent mistakes. Those taking common property for their own exclusive use and enjoyment contrary to proportionate unit entitlement and short term use restrictions, imposing special levies on others because they are not imposing s.6.9 User Fees on themselves for decades, routinely dominate council to profit from their own wrongs at the expense of their neighbours. BC's strata industry exploits this situation by seizing every opporltunity to transfer power and control from council members, who are subject to the SPA, to property managers, who are not. These "strata managers" holding themselves out as the "strata council" can, and do, contravene the SPA routinely at the expense of law-abiding owners. This contributes to churning up conflict, manufacturing confusion, and depriving owners of the accurate factual data that they require to make reasonably informed decisiions, keeping everyone at their mercy in invisible prisons of ignorance.
It is not just corrupt council members and the highly organized Strata Property Agents of BC who are at the root of most problems "in this multi-billion dollar industry in BC."
The strata industry includes the associations that are held out to represent owners of strata property. CHOA, for example, is admittedly "the largest association REPRESENTING THE STRATA INDUSTRY in British Columbia" (my emphasis added.) When there is a conflict contrary to the best interests of condominium home owners and BC's multi-billion dollar strata industry, these associations represent their partners in industry, not home owners.
BC's strata industry also includes the legal profession, acting contrary to the law. For example, in deferrence to the strata Kate Campbell, Vice Chair of the CRT, contravened the Limitation Act, Interpretation Act, and the tribunal's jurisidiction, unfairly depriving me of equal protection under the law contrary to s.76 of the SPA and standard Use of Property bylaw prohibititions in Bond v. NW2671. Clark Wilson offered to sell a booklet advising stratas to delete email and then claimed that its legal advice to those consumers who paid good money for it is not legal advice. In the same way it published an insurance flow chart advising consumers that "owners arrange and pay for repairs to all damage to their strata lot regardless of the cause of damage" if it is below the strata's deductible. Those are just some examples I have proof of.
Clark Wilson's flow chart is published by CHOA despite the fact that its persistently deceptive advice is inconsistent with Part 9 of the SPA, and in particular s.158, which states in perfectly plain language that:"158 (1) Subject to the regulations, the payment of an insurance deductible in respect of a claim on the strata corporation's insurance is a common expense to be contributed to by means of strata fees calculated in accordance with section 99 (2) or 100 (1)."
An owner (who is a named insured pursuant to s.155) makes a claim on the strata corporation's insurance when they report damage from the occurrence of a major peril, , which is usually water escape, and request compensation. If the loss is not reported within a prescribed time limit the policy is breached and benefits that the insured might be otherwise claim could be voided.
Clark Wilson is conflating a claim by an insured for compensation for damage from the occurrence of a major peril with a payment made by the insurer depending on whether its investigation reveals that the damage exceeds the deductible.
Clark Wilson is also conflating with the owner's responsibility for upgrades and routine maintenance with the strata's statutory responsibility for the insurance deductible and full replacement value repairs of damage from the occurrence of a major peril.
With all due respect, "claim" and "deductible" are different words, as are "report" "payment" and "repair." They each have their own meaning in statutory interpretation as well as in plain language.
Shockingly, BC's multi-billion dollar strata industry includes the Insurance Council of BC heading up a strata insurance conspiracy that is manufacturing multiple premiums on the same property and multiple deductibles on the same event by deceptively advising consumers that "strata insurance is for common property only" Strata Insurance Policies (insurancecouncilofbc.com
Such a blatant falsehood coming from the regulatory body appointed by the BC provincial government is contributing to derelict stratas contrary to Part 9 of the SPA, and s.149 in particular, which states in plain language what strata insurance is for, as follows:
“149 (1) The strata corporation must obtain and maintain property insurance on
(c) buildings shown on the strata plan, and
(d) fixtures built or installed on a strata lot, if the fixtures are built or installed by the owner developer as part of the original construction on the strata lot.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) (d) and section 152 (b), "fixtures" has the meaning set out in the regulations.
(3) Subsection (1) (d) does not apply to a bare land strata plan.
(4) The property insurance must
(a) be on the basis of full replacement value except in prescribed circumstances, if any, and
(b) insure against major perils, as set out in the regulations, and any other perils specified in the bylaws.”
All strata lots, even those built in air space, are "buildings shown on the strata plan," and "fixtures built or installed on a strata lot" and "major perils" are defined in Part 9 of Strata Property Regulation ("SPR") as:
9.1 (1) For the purposes of sections 149 (1) (d) and 152 (b) of the Act, "fixtures" means items attached to a building, including floor and wall coverings and electrical and plumbing fixtures, but does not include, if they can be removed without damage to the building, refrigerators, stoves, dishwashers, microwaves, washers, dryers or other items.
(2) For the purposes of section 149 (4) (b) of the Act, "major perils" means the perils of fire, lightning, smoke, windstorm, hail, explosion, water escape, strikes, riots or civil commotion, impact by aircraft and vehicles, vandalism and malicious acts.
I have lived in stratas since 1984, and after nearly 40 years of observation, education, communication, and exhausting every available resource to correct obvious and persistently continuing contraventions of governing enactments I have concluded that most, if not all, strata strife flows down from the top levels of political governance, and that is what is preventing access to justice.
I have published only a few examples of systemic patterns that are contributing more than they are worth to a dysfunctional society on a continual basis. This is killing law-abiding tax payers while the manufacturers enjoy immunity, not unlike lung cancer from smoking, it's a very costly social experiment. It is incredibly wasteful of human resources also.
BC's strata industry includes the construction industry, which has been profitting enormously from its own wrongs at the expense of owners of strata property for decades - while building codes continue to perpetuate catastrophic losses, not the least of which is when a toilet overflows in a high rise, or when vulnerable seniors die in killer heat, choking smoke, or virus laden air in substandard ventilation.
It cost my husband and I close to $100,000 in 2005 dollars for a leaky condo project that left NW2671 devastated from 2004 to 2010 and beyond. Leaky condo crisis - Wikipedia
Since the mid 2000s NW2671 has been perpetually impoverished with diminution of property values and market stigma from significantly unfair methods of operating, patterns of inequality, continuing contraventiions, ongoing litigation issues, destruction of landscaping, geotechnical instability, routine special levies, sky high strata fees and insurance costs, and restricting sales to less than prudent purchasers with confusing, contradictory, unenforceable bylaws, made worse with unreasonable AOLs while council after council fails to take corrective action.
The strata agents of BC are profiting from add-on fees for everything from refusing to post strata records online for owners to have free access 24/7 to witness fees or administration charges for anything or everything; the real estate industry is profittting from provoked sales; the legal profession is profiting from churning up make-work disputes and litigation; the construction industry is profiting from churning out defective buildings and defective depreciation reports; the insurance industry is profitting from charging sky-high premiums multiple times on the same property and insane deductibles multiple times on the same event; the condominium home owners associations are profitting by memberships and other fees, partnership agreements, and a whole lot of power, while trusting owners of strata property lose their homes or are bled dry in BC's strata industry.
Labels: Access to Justice, Air Quality, Charter of Rights, CRT, Human Rights, Kate Campbell, Limitation Act, Lung Disease, NW2671, Smoke, Strata Council, Strata Insurance, Strata Property, strata reform
