Parking Manager IMPARK had a bad day at B.C. Supreme Court. Did it get towed away ?
A 68 unit Burnaby B.C. office strata corporation - the plaintiff here - had started asking questions about what it had been paying for years towards The Crystal complex's gigantic 994 space/4 storey shared parking facility.
Typically those contributions
were 30 % of the strata plaintiff's budget . . . .
In the subsequent dispute manager IMPARK would ultimately in 2012 lock the plaintiff strata corporation’s members out of their 76 Usage Passes for First Come/First Served parking !
By January 2017 IMPARK is claiming $ 600 K was owed by the plaintiff strata corporation.
But now B.C.'s Supreme Court has struck down those charges under the P.C.R. Positive Covenant Rule.
The judgment even rules that the plaintiff strata corp had an ‘easement’ right to use 76 spaces gratuitously despite the extra-legal lockout ! It rules that the plaintiff corporation had been snookered/self-snookered for many years.
1- A bigger question now looms :
Did incompetent professionalism also fail to encumber the other user groups ? What will this do to overall financing of the giant parking facility's operations & periodic refurbishments ?
Should IMPARK have played its cards differently ? Whose vehicle just got towed away ?
2 - An important final biggy :
B.C. Supreme Court confirms & valuably discusses the P.C.R. Positive Covenant Rule.
Applies it here to declare invalid a pre-Declaration PARKING FACILITY PAYMENT Covenant that went no further than the Burnaby strata’s original developer, sorta like Brennan v Dole 2005/6. ( The plaintiff strata's Declarant had failed to register any sort of “Assumption Agreement” immediately after the strata ‘s Declaration was registered & before any unit sales finalized / root deeds issued ).
To be appealed or not, the B.C. application of the Positive Covenant Rule
may even be a challenge to the judicial activism shown somewhat notoriously half a continent away in a 2016 Toronto Divisional Court Owners Association/Trust dispute.
Obiter comments in this B.C. judgment may target that Toronto approach by stating that neither ‘benefit-burden’ nor ‘conditional grant’ have been accepted in Canada in these Covenant disputes.
Further it interprets as a strong confirmation of the P.C.R., Canada‘s Supreme Court highly laudable decision Heritage Capital Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co., 2016 SCC 19 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/gr6cdMore about why the P.C.R. Positive Covenant rule is an important protection that - RESPECTFULLY - SHOULD NOT BE WEAKENED IN ANY WAY : please see CAFCOR item "Sewage war . . "
http://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=18660&catid=2 3 - The Crystal Shared Parking war Burnaby B.C. :
The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 3905 v. Crystal Square Parking Corporation, 2017 BCSC 71 issued Jan 17/17
http://canlii.ca/t/gwz9d 
Google search parameters appear to have been manipulated so as to suppress searchers noticing a CAFCOR item about this important property & civil rights victory. SEE 
