BC resident sued strata, claiming it passed rules to harass her

A BC resident struggling with her building’s strata decided to sue it, claiming that it had passed rules specifically to harass her.

Kanwaljot Gill claimed that the strata, which governed a townhouse property she co-owned, would enforce the rules inconsistently and unfairly strictly against her.

In a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal hearing, Gill stated that the strata improperly took or destroyed her personal property and hadn’t accommodated her religious and health needs.

You might also like:
• BC resident sues strata after her parking stall was rendered obsolete
• Strata revokes resident's access to parking stall after 12 years of use
• Homeowner takes strata to court over $150 move-in fee and sort of wins

Gill’s claims included the following:

• $2,270 for personal property items that were allegedly damaged or destroyed;
• $110 reimbursement for osteopath treatment that the strata is responsible for;
• $3,560 for other treatment expenses for “alleged injuries and stress, costs for installing security cameras” around her property;
• $2,620 for reimbursement of strata fees paid between 2014 and 2022.

Gill purchased her property in 2007.

In 2014, some introduced rules included items not being allowed on grassy areas between buildings and fences, as well as only a certain number of clay, plastic or ceramic pots being permitted near all units’ entrances, and some other limitations on decorative features.

This directly impacted Gill, as the tribunal removed some items from her property, like flower pots.

“Some of the pots had large plastic decorations or electric lighting features installed.”

The tribunal found no evidence suggesting the strata adopted the rules to target Gill.

Photos submitted to the tribunal suggested that the number of pots Gill had on display was unreasonable. Other things she had installed, including a bird bath, ornaments, and metal lanterns, were deemed to look “disorganized and cluttered.”

While it’s undisputed that the strata removed items, the tribunal found that it was only done because Gill’s belongings violated the rules.

Gill claimed that some of her belongings were not returned, but there was no clear evidence in her favour.

The tribunal dismissed Gill’s claims that the BC strata only passed the rules to target or harass her.

Gill also claimed the strata failed to accommodate her religious beliefs by not agreeing to adjust some areas of her property; however, she did not tell the tribunal which religion she believed in, just that it involved chanting and meditation. The tribunal dismissed these claims.

Ultimately, Gill was awarded $0, and the tribunal dismissed the dispute entirely.