Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute arose over a deck constructed without prior approval under a Statutory Building Scheme (SBS) in a resort strata.

• The petitioner sought a mandatory injunction to remove the unapproved structure; the court denied it in a prior ruling.

• Equitable damages were pursued as an alternative remedy, leading to an assessment based on negotiating damages principles.

• The court evaluated the economic value of relaxing the covenant rather than direct harm caused by the breach.

• No direct evidence of community harm, but the court recognized the need to maintain authority and deter non-compliance.

• A $5,000 award was made to reflect the petitioner’s lost ability to control unauthorized improvements under the SBS.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties involved

Valley’s Edge Park Ltd., the administrator of a Statutory Building Scheme (SBS) in a recreational resort strata in Edgewater, British Columbia, filed a petition against property owners Moira and Denis Holden. The dispute began when the Holdens constructed a deck on their lot without obtaining prior approval from the petitioner, as required by the SBS. Valley’s Edge Park Ltd. argued that this action breached the SBS and initially sought a mandatory injunction to compel the removal of the structure.

Procedural history and initial ruling

In a prior decision issued in March 2024, the court found that although the respondents had breached the SBS, a mandatory injunction was not appropriate. The court reasoned that the SBS lacked clear standards and that equitable damages would be more suitable. The petitioner was granted leave to amend the petition to pursue damages in place of injunctive relief.

Arguments and legal principles

Valley’s Edge Park Ltd. argued that equitable damages should be awarded based on the value of the breach and the need to preserve the integrity of the SBS. They relied on the principles in Wrotham Park Estate v. Parkside Homes and Atlantic Lottery Corp. v. Babstock, which allow courts to award “negotiating damages” where a claimant’s loss is not easily quantifiable but involves deprivation of a right or benefit. The petitioner estimated the cost of constructing and removing the deck at $7,875 and proposed $20,000 in damages to reflect deterrence and enforcement value.

The Holdens, self-represented, countered that their construction cost was only $1,800 and that the deck caused no harm to other owners. They argued that the administrator’s authority was too discretionary and that the damage claim was excessive and punitive.

Court's analysis

Justice Armstrong reaffirmed the earlier refusal to grant an injunction and focused on calculating equitable damages. The court accepted that while no other owners complained, the SBS served a broader purpose in maintaining property standards and protecting long-term property values. It acknowledged that the administrator lost the practical ability to enforce compliance when the deck was built without approval. As a result, damages were assessed not as compensation for harm but as a fair price for relaxing the covenant in this particular instance.

The judge weighed the estimated construction value and potential deterrence effect but found the $20,000 sought by the petitioner excessive. Instead, the court awarded $5,000 as an objective figure reflecting both the petitioner’s enforcement role and the respondents’ economic benefit from the improvement.

Final judgment and costs

The judgment, delivered on June 24, 2025, awarded Valley’s Edge Park Ltd. $5,000 in equitable damages. The petitioner was also granted costs unless the respondents filed submissions contesting that award within 30 days. The decision reinforces the use of negotiating damages in strata disputes and the balancing of enforcement authority with equitable outcomes in land use conflicts.