A BC strata corporation was able to force an owner to give up parking spots that they had used for decades.
In a publicly posted BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, the unnamed strata lot owner parked their vehicles in an area of common property near the units he owned.
The strata forbade them from continuing to park on common property, and the owner claimed they were treated significantly unfairly based on this decision. The applicant asked the tribunal for an order allowing them to continue parking where they had been or assigning them alternative parking spots.
In response, the strata acknowledged that it had indeed allowed the owner to use common property for parking for over 20 years without objection, but it added that it never gave the applicant permanent rights to the area and was entitled to cancel at any time.
- You might also like:
- BC homeowner ordered to pay strata thousands for listing home on Airbnb
- BC strata owners face big fine for inappropriate use of Ring camera
- "Could blow up the building": BC strata ordered to cancel tenant smoking fines
The strata was established in 1991, and at some point in 1997, it allowed the applicant to install a second garage door at one of their units as long as they had the correct permits. After a few years, they were no longer able to use these parking spots, and so to accommodate the applicant, the strata put down some gravel in a landscaped area of common property, so that the strata owner could use it for parking.
According to the decision, “The strata council’s December 5, 2001, meeting minutes noted that some owners raised concerns about the applicant’s change to the [common property] area. The minutes said that the strata did not have enough parking, and based on that, SL1 and SL29 created four new spots at the applicant’s expense.”
The owner used the parking until 2022, when they were given notice that the strata was going to restore the common property to natural green space because the strata had concerns about the environment.
The tribunal was tasked with determining whether the strata owner was treated significantly unfairly. Because nothing prevented the applicant or their tenants from parking in the spots they were actually designated, the tribunal found that the applicant was not treated unfairly.
After analyzing the evidence and sifting through the history of the relationship between the strata and the owner, the tribunal dismissed the applicant’s claims.