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
CAFCOR Forum
_GEN_GOTOBOTTOM Post Reply
TOPIC:
#18871
GOLFBALL RAIN OF TERROR # 2 - even tougher to halt GOLFBALLS FROM YOUR OWN STRATA ( B.C.) 2018/05/21 00:14  
It's hardhats for a Kamloops B.C. strata owner.

British Columbia's new Civil Dispute Resolution Tribunal refuses a Kamloops B.C. strata owner's attempts to halt what he claims are too many nuisance golf balls emerging from the amenity golf course of which he is a co-owner himself !

1 - Dictum puts mere "reasonableness" standard on the nuisance source. and . . .

2 - Looks like at best a minimal NUISANCE REMEDY for complaints against your own strata amenity golf course.

The Tribunal cited for this complainant an even lower protection, than available to totally offsite, arms-length neighbour Ms Liu in the next Province ( see GOLFBALL RAIN OF TERROR : covenant-consented vulnerability resumes- LIU v HAMPTONS GOLF Alta
https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=18845&catid=11 )

3 - Why even less protection where the source of the golfballs is your own strata's amenity golfcourse ?

One can speculate : complainant being a co-owner concurrently “shares responsibility” for alleged nuisance. Made deliberate choice. Should courts or tribunals be expected to try difficult benefit-burden analysis and to impose re-designs that would negatively impact others ? Would such even encourage under-diligencers or risk-takers to buy into risk but then congest courts ? Shouldn’t this beef really be better directed to stakeholder remedy, running for strata office or just selling etc ? Take your pick . . .

Moore v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 353, 2018 BCCRT 40 issued Feb 15/18 http://canlii.ca/t/hqfsp
( excerpt :"23. This case is novel, in that while there are a number of “errant golf ball” court decisions, none of them address a strata lot owner claiming in nuisance about golf balls from the strata corporation’s golf course that he partly owns and lives on.

I will refer to this situation as being “in the strata context”. . . .)



4 - CRT expressly prohibits strata corp from this mixed success SRL complainant sharing ANY defence costs at all.
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster