B.C. condo owners get to keep hot tub despite strata's claim it breaks bylaws: CRT

(Shutterstock)

B.C. condo owners aren't being told to remove their hot tub from their patio, despite the strata's claim it breaks bylaws.

A Civil Resolution Tribunal decision posted online Tuesday outlined a dispute over the hot tub between the strata and the condo owners. The strata management company claimed the bylaws don't allow hot tubs on patios, but the owners disagreed and said they were "unfairly targeted."

The disagreement began last September, a couple of weeks after the condo owners had an engineering assessment done to consider any possible structural issues. Finding none, the owners installed an inflatable hot tub.

A letter was then sent to the owners saying there'd been a complaint about a "pool" on their patio. The owners responded through a lawyer, saying the hot tub didn't break any bylaws. Multiple letters were exchanged between the parties, with the strata management company citing which bylaws were broken.

One letter said previous requests to strata to place inflatable hot tubs on patios were also declined.

"The letter suggested a 'compromise' that the strata propose a bylaw amendment at the next annual general meeting to allow inflatable hot tubs, but that the (owners) would have to remove their hot tub until the amendment passed," the CRT decision said.

"The letter confirmed that the strata would impose weekly $200 fines if the (owners) failed to remove the hot tub."

In her decision, tribunal member Kristin Gardner considered whether a bylaw was actually broken in the first place. One bylaw mentioned in the dispute prohibits owners from storing items on their patio, but Gardner said since the hot tub is actively in use, it's not breaking that bylaw.

"The question is whether it is a permitted item on balconies and patios, and specifically, whether it is 'patio furniture,'" Gardner wrote.

Gardner explained that because the hot tub can be quickly deflated and is "readily movable," she found "it is a piece of furniture in which the (owners) can sit to use and enjoy the patio."

The decision also explained the owners proved the hot tub isn't a structural hazard to the patio, based on the engineer's report. As well, Gardner determined the way the owners drain their hot tub doesn't present a flood risk or hazard to other properties.

Gardner wrote she received "no evidence" that there have been any complaints about noise or about the hot tub being a nuisance to neighbours.

"Given that I have found the (owners') hot tub does not breach any of the bylaws (the strata management company) cited in its infraction letters, I find there is nothing currently requiring the (owners) to remove their inflatable hot tub from the patio," Gardner wrote.

"In the absence of a bylaw contravention, I find the strata has no authority to require the (owners) to remove the hot tub from the patio. Therefore, I find it is unnecessary to specifically order that the (owners) be permitted to keep their hot tub on the patio."

While the owners alleged "the strata enforced the bylaws against them because they are an interracial, sexual-minority couple," Gardner determined there was no evidence to support that. As a result, she said strata's communications and actions towards the owners "were not significantly unfair."

As the homeowners were "substantially successful" in the dispute, Gardner ordered strata to cover the cost of the owners' CRT fees. Strata was also ordered to pay $1,050 to cover the engineer's report, with Gardner saying it "was relevant and helpful in determining that the hot tub did not present a hazard."