"Phone the ambulance": Homeowners sue strata over marijuana smoke

Two homeowners who live in a strata lot took it to court after complaining about marijuana smoke that disturbed their living experience.

John and Jo-Anne Hanlon sued the strata over their claims that smoke from their neighbours’ unit was a nuisance and health risk to Jo-Anne and that it prevented them “from enjoying their patio and air conditioner.”

Despite employing two air purifiers, the Hanlons haven’t been able to control the marijuana smoke coming into their home.

In this BC Civil Resolution Tribunal dispute, the Hanlons were asking for an order that the strata enforce one of their bylaws about nuisances and hazards.

You might also like:
• Landlord keeps vacation rental deposit over beet juice stains
• "I was drunk last night": Former lovers end up in court in toxic rental dispute
• BC resident sues strata after her parking stall was rendered obsolete

In defence of itself, the strata said that the Hanlons didn’t provide sufficient details or dates and times of incidents involving marijuana smoke and that it reasonably investigated the complaints.

The bylaw in question stated that no owner, tenant or occupant could use a unit in a way that causes a nuisance or hazard to another person or unreasonably interferes with another person’s rights to use and enjoy the common property, common assets or another strata lot.

However, even though the strata considered a nonsmoking bylaw, one was never passed.

In October 2022, the Hanlons wrote to the strata that “pot and cigarette smoke has become an issue.”

Jo-Anne was very sensitive to smoke, and the Hanlons stated that their doctor requested them to “phone the ambulance” the next time she had an issue, but the exact problem or issue she was having was never communicated to the tribunal.

At one point in the tribunal decision, it was revealed that the owner of a neighbouring unit and potential source of marijuana smoke agreed to meet with Jo-Anne. The owner said a friend who visited frequently smoked marijuana, but other neighbours also smoked marijuana. The owner told Jo-Anne they’d remind their friend not to smoke while the Hanlons were on their patio. At the time, the Hanlons did not object.

Another neighbour that the Hanlons spoke with agreed to not consume marijuana on the premises in the future.

While the sources of the marijuana scent and smoke were more or less confirmed, the tribunal declared, “I find they have not provided objective evidence that marijuana smoke from either SL17 or SL19 was unreasonable or substantial as required by the case law discussed above.”

Due to a lack of proof of the severity of the smoke, the tribunal dismissed the Hanlons’ claims.