Vancouver tenant must pay more than $500K over fire that began in her unit, court rules

The Langara Gardens apartment complex is seen in this image from Oct. 11, 2018.

A Vancouver renter's negligence led to the 2017 fire that damaged her apartment and several others, a B.C. Supreme Court judge has ruled.

Justice F. Matthew Kirchner ordered Tzu-Yu "Angela" Chou to pay nearly $569,000 to her former landlord's insurance company to cover the cost of repairs to the building, as well as lost rental revenue the landlord incurred when suites were uninhabitable. 

THE FIRE

The court heard that the fire at Langara Gardens on Nov. 14, 2017 began in Chou's unit in Building 1 of the complex.

"There is no dispute that the fire started from a stand-up torchier halogen lamp in the corner of the unit’s living room," Kirchner's decision reads, citing expert evidence provided by a fire inspector.

"Household goods in the unit – likely a box or a pillow case – made contact with the halogen bulb and caught fire while Ms. Chou was momentarily out of the room. The fire spread quickly because of a large amount of household possessions packed densely throughout the unit."

The "near-hoarding state" of the apartment at the time of the fire was a key component of the plaintiffs' argument that Chou had been negligent in allowing the fire to start.

Kirchner accepted this description of the apartment – advanced by the plaintiffs – because it matched photos taken after the fire took place, and because Chou did not provide any evidence to dispute this characterization.

THE ARGUMENTS

Langara Gardens Holdings Ltd. and Langara Gardens (Concert Nominee) Ltd. – the owners of the building and the plaintiffs in the case – brought their lawsuit against both Chou and Chao-Kung "Danny" Chen, Chou's former partner who was listed as a tenant on the lease, despite living in China at the time of the fire.

Langara argued that Chou had been negligent by "storing large amounts of combustible materials densely packed in a confined and unsafe manner near the floor lamp and then turning on that lamp with those materials close by," Kirchner's decision reads.

That negligence, the plaintiffs argued, made Chou liable for the cost of repairing the damage and for their loss of rental revenue.

Langara further argued that Chou and Chen were both liable under their tenancy agreement, which obligated them to pay for the cost of repairing damage they caused to their unit and the building more broadly.

In her defence, Chou argued that she had not been negligent, and that "the fire was just an unfortunate accident and she took immediate measures to try to put it out," according to the court decision.

She also argued that Langara had been "contributorily negligent" by not installing sprinklers in the high-rise building.

THE CONCLUSION

Kirchner was unimpressed by Chou's arguments, easily concluding from the available evidence that she had been negligent.

"The densely-packed and stacked combustible material presents a clear fire hazard that could be set off by something as simple as the halogen lamp, which burns very hot," the judge wrote.

"Moreover, given how densely packed the material was in the unit, it is foreseeable that any fire would spread exceptionally quickly and be out-of-control in moments. This also makes the damage to other units and common areas of the building reasonably foreseeable, including water damage from the volume of water needed to extinguish the fire."

Kirchner also concluded that there was no legal obligation for Langara to retrofit its building with sprinklers, and choosing not to do so was a reasonable decision, given the associated cost. Thus, Langara had not been contributorily negligent.

The judge further concluded that Chen was liable for the cost of repairs under the tenancy agreement. Chen could not be required to pay for Langara's lost rental income, however, as his liability stemmed only from the tenancy agreement, Kirchner wrote.

Ultimately, the judge found that Langara – or its insurer in its stead – was entitled to recover $512,995.04 from Chou and Chen for the cost of post-fire repairs. Langara was also entitled to recover $56,000.45 in lost rental income from Chou, but not Chen.

"I note parenthetically that under the tenancy agreement … the tenant is required to 'carry sufficient insurance to cover his property against loss or damage from any cause,'" Kirchner wrote.

"I understand Ms. Chou had insurance at some point, but allowed it to lapse before the fire. Consequently (and unfortunately), Ms. Chou’s and Mr. Chen’s losses as a result of the fire are not covered by their own insurance."