Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
VANCOUVER ROOFTOP RAILING WAR buries STRATA CORP in legal costs awarded to owner-lawyer 2017/08/20 00:28  
Complex dispute won by PH - owning lawyer against his Vancouver Strata Corporation partially turning on “unfairness” without outright oppression remedy.

( The legal analysis contains elements/hints of Ontario's difficult-to-obtain oppression remedy. )

Costs & disbursements to the winning owner have STAGGERED the strata corporation, which will also have to suck up its own costs for 2 levels of litigation.

PH owners ( including lawyer Frank ’s predecessors ) began to use strata’s non-accessory rooftop as each’s exclusive use recreational area. S**T hit fan because railing heights were 9 inches short of such usage required under BC Building Code.

Ultimately strata corp decided owner would need 75 % conversion vote approval.

But owner-lawyerFrank’s answer was successful litigation which overrode any vote being needed, ordered the rails done by strata . Appears to have added $200 K on top of $ 30 K to compliance the roof rails !

Feb 2017 BC Court of Appeal upholds lawyer’s victory in lower court.

Do some apparent substantial "loose ends" get short shrift in BC's Court of Appeal, possibly due to sloppy governnance & strata document drafting ?

A cautionary tale for those who litigate . . .

What was the nature of what plaintiff Frank claimed to have had & what authority ? DID THE B.C. COURTS AWARD plaintiff some sort of recreational rights within the common element rooftop beyond merely placement of units’ systems like HVAC ?

Where is the authority for recreation ? If some sort of enlarged rights were somehow evolved, why should the deprived general owners now have to pay to skate the possible voodoo onside ( rooftop residential railing heights at roof level ) ?

and under what authority ?

Bottom Line : BC's Appeal Court refuses to overrule that lower court ruled such, despite 1990 Declaration that did not authorize PH-dedicated roofdeck usage at all.

That somehow plaintiff Frank now has a reasonable expectation that he - and arguably 2 other PH units - have a roof deck area & attendant recreational rights without any owner vote.

Not merely for placement of their PH units’ HVACs etc

NOT merely a later Disclosure statement that roof is solely for PH ‘s systems like HVAC. Somehow has fudged some sort of voodoo or squatters rights and don’t care.

Zero is said in Feb 2017 about lawyer Frank’s then-upcoming $123 k self-billing !

Frank v The Owners Strata Plan LMS 355 2017 BCCA 92

upholds Frank v The Owners Strata Plan LMS 355 2016 BCSC 1206 .

( via CAI ) xcrpted Aug 16/17 Van Sun “Fight over nine-inch railings nails strata owners with big bill” owners-with-big-bill
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster