Homeowner and B.C. strata battle in legal fight over parking stall 69
A B.C. strata and one of the strata’s homeowners were involved in a legal battle over a parking stall after the homeowner had his original spot, stall 69, switched to a new one.
According to the homeowner, who was the applicant in a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, in 2022, the strata switched his assigned parking stall with his consent.
In 2024, he asked for the strata to switch it back, but the strata refused.
The applicant claimed the strata hasn’t been following its bylaws and has been unfair to him throughout the process. He asked the tribunal to order the strata to return parking stall 69.
In response, the B.C. strata said it was fair in its decision-making relating to stall 69, and that the homeowner is no longer assigned to that stall because the space needed to be kept open for garbage removal and recycling.
The applicant has been a homeowner in the strata since 2008 and was originally assigned parking stalls 68 and 69. In July 2022, the strata requested that he change his stall from 69 to 161, for garbage and recycling purposes. This decision was made while the applicant was abroad, and he told the tribunal he agreed to the change “in good faith.”
Upon returning, the applicant discovered his new stall was “more constrained” and less conveniently located than 69.
While the applicant never said he had a vehicle that didn’t fit in the new stall, the tribunal said it was undisputed that the new stall was shorter, and while it is slightly wider than 69, it is also bordered by a wall rather than being open on both sides.
The tribunal accepted that the new stall was less convenient. The strata also said that 69 no longer exists.
The homeowner claimed that the stall was used for many years without safety incidents or vehicle damage. The tribunal disagreed. Based on the evidence presented before it, the tribunal said that the strata had legitimate safety reasons for 69’s reassignment.
Ultimately, the tribunal ruled against the homeowner. The homeowner said that if he could not have 69 back, he would like an adequate replacement instead of 161. The tribunal didn’t make any orders, but said nothing in the decision prevents the homeowner from negotiating a different stall instead of 161.