Strata Dispute Resolution (22:XV): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
(Created page with "{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= July 24, 2023}} {{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = strata}} {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters15-23}}") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = strata}} | {{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = strata}} | ||
== B. Section 164 - Significantly Unfair Acts == | |||
=== 6. Cases Decided under Section 164 === | |||
A few examples of cases decided under s 164 include: | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
!Name of Case | |||
!Issue | |||
!Significantly Unfair? | |||
|- | |||
|Reid v Strata Plan LMS 2503, 2001 BCSC 1578 | |||
|Strata council resolution giving the owners permission to place planters, etc. on common property patio not significantly unfair to owner whose windows looked over area | |||
|No | |||
|- | |||
|Als v Strata Corp. NW 1067, 2002 BCSC 134 | |||
|Strata council refused permission to rent strata lot; not significantly unfair | |||
|No | |||
|- | |||
|Strata Plan VR 1767 v Steven Estate Ltd, 2002 BCSC 381 | |||
|Assessment of contribution to costs of building envelope repair based on erroneous unit entitlement registered at the land titles office in the strata plan is significantly unfair | |||
|Yes | |||
|- | |||
|McGowan v Strata Plan NW 1018, 2002 BCSC 936 | |||
|Bylaw allowing balcony enclosure; different treatment of some owners justified by safety issues | |||
|No | |||
|} | |||
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters15-23}} | {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters15-23}} | ||