B.C. strata on the hook for $19K in short-term rental bylaw clash with homeowner
A B.C. homeowner who got hit with a serious financial penalty over strata bylaw infractions decided to take matters to the Civil Resolution Tribunal in hopes of getting her money back.
According to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, the applicant, AL, was hit with $19,000 in fines for breaching a bylaw regarding short-term rental accommodations.
AL told the tribunal that the strata wasn’t authorized to impose the fine, adding that she didn’t breach the bylaw. She said that her tenant licensed her strata lot to a guest for 30 days and that the bylaw allowed for the arrangement.
The strata claimed it validly imposed the fine and that AL’s lawyer attended a hearing to dispute it, but didn’t provide any evidence.
On Feb. 9, 2024, the building’s strata manager sent AL an email that included a letter dated Jan. 26, 2024. The letter’s subject read, “Bylaw Violation – Intent to Fine – Short Term Rental.”
According to the strata manager, the strata council received a complaint that a family checked into AL’s unit on Dec. 14, 2023 and checked out Jan. 2, 2024, less than 30 days.
In response, AL sent emails to the manager on Feb. 17 and Feb. 21, requesting more details.
On Feb. 21, AL received a letter from the manager that said, “$200 plus for 19 days STR @$1000 /day.”
The letter included no other details aside from instructions on how to pay the fine.
AL tried to dispute the fine, but the strata manager rejected her challenge in a letter on March 8.
While all this was happening, AL was in the process of selling her unit. She ended up paying the $19,200 to avoid issues with the sale.
The tribunal determined that the arrangement that AL had with the short-term rental tenant wasn’t actually a tenancy but a licence agreement. On that point, AL said that the strata bylaw on short-term accommodations was unclear. The tribunal agreed that the bylaw was confusing and required interpretation.
“The STA bylaw’s first sentence describes ‘short-term’ as meaning ‘less than 30 consecutive days.’ On a plain reading, I find this sentence prohibits a resident from granting a licence to a third party for the use of their unit for 29 consecutive days or fewer. So, on its face, a licence agreement lasting 30 consecutive days or longer is not prohibited as it does not meet the STA bylaw’s description of ‘short-term,'” the tribunal said.
The tribunal said that the second sentence states that the minimum period a strata lot could be used for rental accommodations had to exceed 30 consecutive days.
The B.C. strata tried to argue that the short-term stay was prohibited because the tenant didn’t stay in the unit for the full 30 days. AL argued that it didn’t matter whether or not the tenant stayed for 30 days, just that the licence agreement allowed the tenant to stay for 30 days.
“I find the STA bylaw prohibits licences shorter than 30 days, not a licensee’s actual stay in the unit,” the tribunal said, adding there was no bylaw violation.
The tribunal also found that the strata imposed the fine against AL before giving her written details of the complaint against the unit, thereby failing to follow the strata’s own rules.
The tribunal found that the fine was improperly levied against AL, and the B.C. strata was ordered to pay AL $19,225, which included the fine and $225 in tribunal fees.