B.C. condo owners not responsible for damage caused by tenant's discarded cigarette

A discarded cigarette is shown. (Shutterstock.com)

Mandie Brooks' condo suffered "significant damage" from a fire that started from a discarded cigarette on her neighbour's balcony last year, but her attempt to get the owners of the neighbouring unit to pay for the damage has been dismissed.

That's because Brooks took the owners, Amy and Darren Bockman, to B.C.'s Civil Resolution Tribunal over a fire that was the fault of their tenant, and not the owners themselves.

The blaze broke out in the early morning hours of Sept. 15, 2022, according to CRT member Nav Shukla's decision, which was published Thursday. 

The decision does not specify where in B.C. the condo building is located, saying only that Brooks owns and lives in unit 335 and the Brockmans own unit 337, which is next door.

The fire began when the Brockmans' tenant discarded a cigarette in a planter on the balcony of unit 337, according to the decision.

"Unit 335’s balcony sustained significant damage during the fire," Shukla's decision reads. "It is undisputed that as a result of the fire, Ms. Brooks was unable to fully use unit 335 for some time and several of her outdoor possessions were damaged."

In her CRT claim, Brooks sought to have the Brockmans pay $2,910.31 to compensate her for the clean-up costs, lost belongings and expenses she incurred while displaced from her home for two days.

"Owners may be surprised to learn that they are responsible for repairs to their strata lot even though the source of the damage originated in another strata lot," Shukla's decision reads. "Absent an applicable strata bylaw, which is not argued here, Ms. Brooks must show the Bockmans are liable in either negligence or nuisance."

While the two concepts – negligence and nuisance – and legally distinct, the tribunal member concluded that in order to prove either one in this case, Brooks would need to show that the Brockmans "failed to take reasonable steps" that could have prevented the damage to other units.

The Brockmans told the CRT they did their due diligence before renting the unit to the tenant, and noted that the tenant kept very few possessions on the balcony at the time of the fire.

"While Ms. Brooks says she complained to the strata corporation’s management company about unit 337’s tenant’s smoking on the balcony in the past, the evidence does not show that these complaints were ever raised with the Bockmans," the decision reads.

"In any event, the evidence does not suggest that the Bockmans knew or should have known that their tenant was discarding cigarettes on unit 337’s balcony in a way that was likely to start a fire."

Likewise, Shukla noted that there was no evidence of anything "peculiar" about unit 337's balcony that the Brockmans knew or should have known would make a fire more likely.

"Ms. Brooks does not argue, nor does the evidence show, that there was anything the Bockmans should have reasonably done to prevent the fire and the damage to unit 335," the decision reads. "As noted, Ms. Brooks’ only argument for the Bockmans’ liability is based on the fact that they are unit 337’s owners. However, this does not automatically make the Bockmans liable for their tenant’s conduct."

Accordingly, Shukla dismissed the claim.

The tribunal member concluded by noting that there is nothing preventing Brooks from bringing a claim against the tenant, as long as she does so within "any applicable limitation period."