B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has told a Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»man to remove a garden shed but also told the strata to remove fines against the owner from having the shed.
According to the , Daniel Latuszek had installed a custom-built wooden shed on a limited common property (LCP) patio adjacent to his strata lot in June 2022.
Shortly after, the strata received complaints from other strata lot owners about the shed.
On multiple occasions, the strata both warned Latuszek that the shed breached various strata bylaws and fined him for his failure to comply.
Latuszek sought an order reversing the fines, an order that the strata enforce its bylaws about sheds consistently against all strata lot owners, an order that the strata “educate” other owners about its bylaws and an order for document disclosure.
In a counterclaim, the strata asked for an order that Latuszek remove the shed from his patio.
Tribunal member Christopher Rivers said Latuszek removed a pre-existing wooden storage shed from the LCP patio adjacent to his strata lot and installed the custom-built one.
At the same time, he removed a large wooden planter box containing bamboo about three floors high from the patio.
Rivers said the original shed was the same height as the new shed, but only about one-third as wide.
“While the original shed and the new shed are the same height, and the planter box and new shed are the same width and depth, the new shed is much larger than either of the other items,” Rivers said. “Unlike the planter with bamboo, which allowed light through, the new shed completely blocks the fence. The roof of the new shed is so tall that it rises above the balcony floor on the neighbouring strata lot on the next floor up.”
On June 17, 2022, the strata manager wrote to Latuszek that the strata had received a complaint about the new shed.
On July 14, 2022, the strata issued Latuszek two $200 fines for breaching strata bylaws.
Rivers said the strata did not have the authority to issue the fines as it had cited the wrong bylaw section.
“I find the strata did not have the authority to issue the fines and I order it to cancel them,” Rivers said, citing the use of the incorrect section.
Latuszek argued the new shed should be considered outdoor furniture, or a freestanding self-contained planter box or container under strata bylaws.
“It is a small building,” Rivers said.
The tribunal found Latuszek was not allowed to have a shed on the patio.
Rivers said there had been no complaints about other sheds. As such, that issue was not before him.
Rivers also found the strata had provided all documentation it was legally required to give him.
