BC strata toilet leak leads to bitter responsibility dispute in court

When Yingwei Huang’s toilet leaked into the strata unit below, the downstairs owner turned to court to claim $1,500 in repairs.

The tenant of the downstairs strata lot, identified only as RS in the court decision, reported the leak to the owner, Stefan Lenasi, in March 2023 and provided photos as evidence. On the same day, Lenasi contacted the strata manager, who informed Huang that his toilet was leaking into the unit below and that he should temporarily stop using it.

It turned out to be a toilet wax seal failure in Huang’s apartment that caused the leak.

Huang hired a plumber to replace the wax seal, but less than two months later, there was another leak into Lenasi’s apartment, this time in a second, different bathroom. Once again, Huang hired a plumber to replace another toilet wax seal.

To repair the damage in his strata lot, Lenasi hired a drywaller to repair the ceiling water damage, which totalled $1,300. He turned to court to claim reimbursement for the water damage, although the court noted that his claim was $200 more than the repair costs from the receipts provided.

You might also like:
• BC strata owners face big fine for inappropriate use of Ring camera
• So gruel: Vancouver artist hides $100 for one lucky grocery shopper
• BC man’s widow victorious in court against angry customer

Lenasi argued that Huang was responsible for the cost because he was negligent. Lenasi claimed that Huang “failed to adequately maintain and make necessary repairs to his plumbing.”

However, Huang denied the liability. He argued that he did not neglect or intentionally cause the toilet damage and that he promptly responded when the leak was reported. He instead claimed that Lenasi should have purchased insurance to cover the damages.

Unfortunately for Lenasi, the court decided in Huang’s favour.

The court decided that Lenasi did not manage to prove that Huang “unreasonably failed to prevent the leak.” In other words, there was no indication that Huang knew about the leak prior and could have done anything to prevent it from happening.

While the court dismissed Lenasi’s claim, it did acknowledge that it can be “surprising for an owner to learn they are responsible for repairs to their strata lot even though the source of the damage originated from someone else’s strata lot.”

Who do you think was responsible for the cost of damages? Let us know in the comments below.