B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has rejected a $35,000 claim for strata roof leak damages and awarded a Chilliwack man $500 for some ceiling damage.
Wesley John Fales co-owns the strata lot and claimed the strata did not properly make repairs after a roof leak. He claimed compensation for repairs to the ceiling in the bathroom and bedroom.
In her , tribunal member Amanda Binnie said Fales also said the strata refused to hold a hearing, made false statements about him, and treated him unfairly.
Binnie said that as the strata had made a final decision that the ceiling was Fales’ responsibility, it did not hold a hearing.
“In any event, the strata says it sent (a roofing company) to investigate and repair as needed,” Binnie said.
Binnie said Fales had leaks into his unit April 19, 2023 and May 22, 2023. After the first leak, he advised the strata the same day about the leak and asked the strata to send a roofer or other tradesperson to investigate.
The strata’s manager responded on April 28, saying that because there was no active leak, it would not investigate. Binnie said the manager also said the strata was not responsible for repairs to an individual strata lot. Finally, Binnie said, the manager denied Fales’ request for a hearing because it would not change the outcome of the strata’s decision, which was final.
“I accept Mr. Fales’ submission nothing was done to [the strata lot's] roof between the first and second leak,” Binnie said. “The strata does not dispute this.”
The tribunal found the strata was negligent by doing nothing after the first leak.
“I also find the strata’s refusal to hold a hearing is evidence that the strata was deliberately ignoring the leak,” Binnie wrote.
When the second leak happened, Fales phoned the manager’s office to report it. The strata then hired the roofing company to investigate.
In its report, the company found that “pipe boot” coming through the roof was not properly secure, which likely caused the leak. The company secured the pipe boot and invoiced the strata $2,882.40, which it paid.
Binnie said there was no evidence that Fales had further leaks into his unit after the repairs.
“I find that it likely was the cause of the leak, given that there have been no further leaks since the repair and no evidence of other possible sources,” she said.
The strata does not dispute these leaks caused damage.
And, Binnie accepted there was damage to Fales’ ceiling.
“I find it is unclear from the photos if there is only water marks or actual damage to (the unit’s) walls,” Binnie said. “Mr. Fales did not provide evidence he has repaired his unit or a quote for what the cost of any repair would be.”
Binnie said from the photos dated after the first leak, she found there was damage to the ceiling near a pot light.
“I find the photos dated after the second leak show the same wall and ceiling, with a larger area of damage near the same pot light and water running down the walls,” Binnie said.
“I find the second leak caused a larger stain on the ceiling,” she said.
“I find Mr. Fales has not proven actual damage to the walls from the second leak, as opposed to the wall being only wet immediately after the leak,” Binnie ruled. “On a judgment basis, I find $500 is a reasonable amount to compensate Mr. Fales for this additional ceiling damage.”
