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
VISITOR PARKING scofflaws' contempts of court trigger STRATA SALE ORDER Bea v Strata LMS2138 2014/05/23 10:46  
BC judge orders strata sale - enforceable by RCMP intervention if necessary - not for scofflawing VISITOR parking prohibitions but for torrent of identical repeat claims by SRL self represented litigants.

Picked up luridly by US condo/HOA site sale order has hit Canadian Press & CBC.

Among comments at online CBC BC:
“Essentially, the couple had 1 spot and 3 cars." “I'm one of the owners in the building. BEAs had only one spot and wanted to park 3 cars, using 2 visitor stalls. Once their son moved they only wanted had 2 cars, but still used a visitor stall. He felt he was entitled to park in any stall he wanted and no owner or council had the right to tell him her couldn’t, so he sued us over and over again. He said he had the right to park where he wanted and disagreed. They didn't want a different spot, they wanted to park more than once vehicle in the parking lot - using visitor spots.”
More from same commenter :
“ It stemmed from Mr. Bea wanting to park his 3 cars in the parking lot. It was always assigned parking, with a small amount of visitor stalls. He was using 2 of them, and the council asked him not too. .."

Another commenter at online CBC : "The issue here is not the rights to a parking spot. The issue here is the Beas' abuse of the civil court system using judge shopping over 50 times to try and get one favourable ruling. The issue is that our civil courts were used to in (sic) a malicious attempt to manipulate an unfavourable judgement (sic) many times over by a family intent on seeking petty vindication for a perceived injustice. Well in the end they got what they sought - a resolution to their claim but not what they expected. Justice has triumphed”

Bea v The Owners Strata Plan LMS2138 2014 BCSC issued May 12 /14

CBC British Columbia
1-Video interview with BEA proudly defending his right to park extra cars in Visitor parking ( one of which is ominously numbered 49 : ask what "foe' or 'four' sounds like in Cantonese or Mandarin ). BEA answers CBC questions in front of his vehicle defiantly parked in Visitor Parking ! Asked whether the expulsion was worth it, BEA says “It is unjust” .

2= Separate CBC online item has shut down comments at 325 comments mostly lambasting the BEAs parking-spot-1.2642860
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
commensuracy ? Globe & Mail online voters back expulsion order- BEA v Strata LMS2138 2014/06/02 12:08  
By 12 to 1 ratio Globe & Mail readers have voted online - by June 1/14 - 299 to 25 that "The judge was right to to force a litigious condo owner ( BEA) to sell".

Thus imperfect democracy has spoken somewhat to stripping strata ownership instead of towing troublesome BEA's vehicle from Visitor parking, more litigation blocks or merely eating the equity alive under BC strata fining powers.

(I voted with the minority not for a direct court order throwing throw the litigious seniors out. )
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
RCMP expels VISITOR PARKING scofflaw/ vexatious litigant Bea v Strata LMS2138 2014/06/23 19:47  
June 16/14 CBC regional B.C. shows RCMP physically evicting BEA instead of towing vehicle / barring more court filings.

Removed in ambulance, BEA says is homeless.

Strata says selling to recoup $173 K in 6 year battle. port-coquitlam-couple-1.2677670
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
CBC online commenters roast BEA : Bea v Strata LMS2138 2014/06/23 23:58  
The 143 online CBC comments are worth reading. Most roast BEA and have little sympathy for commensuracy of response/civil liberties. Amongst the zingers

"The good news is that now he qualifies to use the visitors spot ! He needs to look at the bright side of things !"

"I don't understand why they didn't just get his vehicle towed ? The tow and storage charges may have been enough to discourage his continued non-compliance."

"The second problem here is a court system that would allow 50 court appearances over the same issue."

"Nobody can reason with these types. They continue (to) butt heads with anything they perceive is standing in their way, and they'll do this until they are totally broke. Maybe, it is time for the public trustee to step in before they become a real burden to society."
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
Appeal court upholds STRATA SALE ORDER Bea v Strata LMS2138 2015/01/29 11:33  
After June 2014 physical expulsion and start of the unit sale process, the Visitor-scofflaw/ vexatious litigant BEAs now got legal counsel.

They successfully persuaded BC's Court of Appeal to suspend the sale /allow their physical return into strata unit possession pending the Appeal.

That Court of Appeal decision has just been rendered, dismissing by a 2:1 margin the BEAs' grounds and ordering the strata unit sale to resume :

Bea v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2138, 2015 BCCA 31 issued Jan 27/15

Xcrpted The pre-text summary ( caution: summaries can be wrong ) :

quote : "Held: Appeal dismissed. The majority (per Garson and MacKenzie J.A.) held that the chambers judge had jurisdiction to make an order for seizure and sale of property, as such an order is analogous to the historical power to use sequestration as a remedy for contempt.

This power is constitutionally protected as a core aspect of a superior court’s inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt, and therefore the language of the Supreme Court Civil Rules pertaining to available powers in contempt must be read as non-exhaustive. The chambers judge’s discretionary decision to grant the order deserves deference in the circumstances, and it cannot be shown to be inappropriate in this case.

Goepel J.A. dissented. In his opinion the court’s inherent jurisdiction to sentence for contempt was limited by the provisions of the Supreme Court Civil Rules and the chambers judge did not have the jurisdiction to order the sale of the appellant’s property." (unquote)
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
Should courts strip home ownership for vexatious litigation ? ( Bea v Strata LMS2138) 2015/01/31 12:28  
Online media commenters overwhelmingly show little sympathy for the BEAs. They are not like discarded Alberta spouse Irene Murdoch, abandoned partner Rosa Becker nor doomed Good Samaritan rescuer J.A. Horsley.

But should vexatious litigants be stripped of home ownership to TRY to pry them away from more litigation against their victims ? ( Think BEA will stop litigating once homeless ? )

The Vancouver Sun ( url is below ) now quotes the BEAs' strata corporation lawyer as stating that the strata's LEGAL DEFENCE costs & disbursements - ACTUALLY incurred so far to DEFEND against the BEAs' avalanche of lawsuits - is a shocking $250,000 !

That portion ordered against the BEAs has NOT been paid. Mr Bea is looking for a further appeal to Canada's Supreme Court with the propriety of the 'sequestration' home expulsion order itself now looming uncomfortably larger.

The Vancouver Sun article drops a further piece of information possibly not widely known : the BEAs only have 34 other sets of strata owners. If 35 strata units shared $250,000 equally (uncertain) then each would be hit with $7200 and rising so far to defend against the Visitor parking scofflaws lawsuits . . .

Should courts strip home ownership for vexatious litigation ? Would it stop Bea anyway? Vancouver Sun quotes strata corp's lawyer : Strata's actual LEGAL DEFENCE costs & disbursements incurred so far to DEFEND against BEAs' avalanche of lawsuits, is $ 250 K.

Jan 28/15 Vancouver Sun “Family in contempt must sell condo” by Ian Mulgrew: ( ". . . The strata of 35 units, about 70 people of modest means, found itself dragged into different courtrooms more than 50 times, appearing before 30 judges . . . ." ) 10765404/story.html
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster