Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff alleged significant unfairness under section 164 of the Strata Property Act for the strata’s refusal to consent to renovations.

• A core dispute was whether the Civil Resolution Tribunal or the Supreme Court of B.C. had jurisdiction to hear the claim.

• The defendant argued the CRT had specialized expertise and that the matter should be transferred.

• The plaintiff contended the case's complexity and procedural needs, like document discovery, required court oversight.

• The court assessed the interests of justice and fairness, particularly around procedural safeguards and timing.

• No damages were awarded at this stage; the application to transfer or convert the proceeding was dismissed.

Facts and outcome of the case

Chi Yan Hui purchased a strata unit in Vancouver as a presale in 2005. In 2017, he applied for a building permit to renovate the unit but needed the consent of the strata corporation, The Owners, Strata Plan BCS3702. The plaintiff claimed the strata unreasonably withheld its consent for reasons unrelated to the renovation plans, resulting in him being unable to occupy the unit and incurring multiple years of vacancy tax. The building permit was eventually granted by the City of Vancouver in December 2020.

The plaintiff sued the strata in March 2021, alleging that it acted in a significantly unfair manner contrary to section 164 of the Strata Property Act. He sought both declaratory and compensatory relief. The defendant, after participating in litigation for several years—including filing a response and exchanging documents—applied to have the case dismissed or stayed and referred to the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT), or alternatively, converted into a petition proceeding.

The central legal issue was whether the CRT or the Supreme Court was the appropriate forum to hear the dispute. While both forums had jurisdiction, the CRT was presumed under the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act to have specialized expertise for strata matters, unless the interests of justice and fairness supported retaining the matter in court.

The court concluded that although the CRT had jurisdiction, the case should remain in the Supreme Court. The judge found that document discovery in this case was more robust under court rules and that the defendant's late procedural challenge—filed just before a hearing on document production—raised fairness concerns. The court was not persuaded the CRT could adequately address the plaintiff’s need for disclosure and procedural rights.

The court also declined to convert the matter to a petition. It found that the dispute involved contested factual issues, including bad faith and intent, making it inappropriate for summary determination. The court emphasized that converting to a petition would only reintroduce procedural steps already underway, making the process less efficient.

No damages or final costs were awarded as this was an interim procedural ruling. The case will proceed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia for full adjudication.