PoCo strata ordered to pay $1,400 for drip damage

Failing to fix a leak that dripped dirty water on a resident’s vehicles cost a Port Coquitlam strata $1,452, according to a recent Civil Resolution Tribunal ruling.

Besides failing to fix common property, the strata tried to shift the repair burden to lot owner Sajjad Ali Sheikh.

Sheikh had sought $14,132, charging the strata breached its repair and maintenance obligations and that contaminated water leaked and damaged the paint on two of his vehicles.

Sheikh, who purchased his strata lot in March 2021, reported that contaminated water had been dripping from the parkade ceiling directly onto his assigned parking stall, leaving white marks on his Toyota Rav4 and later his Range Rover.

After Sheikh outlined the damage, the strata denied his request for a new parking spot, replying that each owner was assigned a specific stall.

The strata manager also explained the owners had previously voted against a levy that would have paid to replace the leaky parkade ceiling membrane.

After the strata’s caretaker failed to fix the leak, Sheikh positioned a drip pan above his parking stall. The strata removed the pan as an unapproved alteration and fined Sheikh for violating strata bylaws.

The strata later reversed $2,400 in fines, including the $200 fine for the drip pan.

Arguing that the fines represent the arbitrariness of enforcement, Sheikh said the fines weren’t forgiven until he brought the matter to the Civil Resolution Tribunal.

During the dispute, the strata denied there were issues with the ceiling membrane. However, tribunal manager Megan Stewart noted the strata suggested Sheikh could cover his car with a tarp or rent a parking spot in another building. Those suggestions amount to: “an improper attempt by the strata to shift the burden of its responsibilities to Mr. Sheikh,” Stewart concluded.

The strata also acknowledged its caretaker tried to fix the leak. This was “unreasonable in the circumstances,” Stewart wrote.

According to previous emails, there were leaks over a “significant number” of parking stalls and the entire membrane needed to be repaired.

“I find the strata knew the parkade ceiling’s membrane required major repair or replacement when Mr. Sheikh first brought the leak to its attention. I find it obvious that having a caretaker attempt a patch repair on a ceiling whose entire membrane has deteriorated is not reasonable,” Stewart wrote.

Stewart also noted there was “no documentary evidence” the strata considered alternative solutions or different quotes for a replacement.

“In short, there is no evidence at all to reliably explain what the strata did to reasonably address the ceiling issues,” Stewart wrote, concluding the strata breached its obligations.

But while Stewart found the leaky ceiling damaged Sheikh, the tribunal manager differered on damages.

While dismissing his claim related to the drip pan he installed, Stewart also noted that Sheikh asked for $5,600 to pay for repainting a vehicle he’d sold approximately 21 months earlier.

“I find there is no obvious reason why he would have been responsible for a paint job a year and a half after selling the vehicle,” Stewart wrote.

The tribunal limited his award after finding that parts of the claim were outside the two-year limitation period under the Limitation Act. Only “fresh damage” from the two years preceding his complaint in June 2023 could be compensated.

Ultimately, Stewart decided that $500 in damages to each vehicle was fair, and that Sheikh was entitled to costs for plastic sheets he’d bought to protect the cars, as well as interest and part of his tribunal fees.

Stewart ordered the strata to pay $1,452.

Unlike a criminal matter, civil cases are decided on a balance of probabilities.