NO.

________________
NEW WESTMINSTER REGISTRY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN
Dianne Shirley Bond, also known as
Dianne Shirley Matthias
PLAINTIFF
AND
The Owners Strata Plan NW2671,
the City of Coquitlam, and
Adrienne Murray, also known as Adrienne Murray Law Corporation
DEFENDANTS
NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM
This action has been started by the plaintiff for the relief set out in Part 2 below.
If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must
(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this court
within the time for response to civil claim described below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the plaintiff.
If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must
(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-
named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described
below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the plaintiff and
on any new parties named in the counterclaim.
JUDGEMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the
response to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below.
Time for response to civil claim
A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff,
10-Oct-14
New Westminster
Court File No. NEW-S-S-165066
2

(a) if you reside anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after the date on which a copy of
the filed notice of civil claim was served on you,
(b) if you reside in the United States of America, within 35 days after the date on which a
copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you,
(c) if you reside elsewhere, within 49 days after the date on which a copy of the filed
notice of civil claim was served on you, or
(d) if the time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within that
time.
CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF
Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The Plaintiff, Dianne Shirley Bond, also known as Dianne Shirley Matthias, (Ms.
Bond) is a newspaper carrier and former paralegal residing at 409 - 1215 Lansdowne
Drive, Coquitlam, BC V3E 2P2 since May 27, 1988.
2. The Defendant Strata, The Owners Strata Plan NW2671, also known as Sunridge
Estates, is a strata corporation incorporated under the laws of the Province of British
Columbia, with its registered and records office located at 1-22374 Lougheed
Highway, in the City of Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia, V2X 2T5
(the Strata.)
3. The Defendant, City of Coquitlam, is a political entity responsible among other things
for building and development, slope and tree protection, inspections, environmental
services, and related enactments and enforcement in Coquitlam, British Columbia,
with an address for service at 3000 Guildford Way, Coquitlam BC V3B 7N2.
4. The Defendant, Adrienne Murray, a senior member of the BC Law Society practicing
strata law in an office located at 4-1365 Johnston Rd, White Rock, BC V4B 3Z3, is
the president and only director known to the Plaintiff of Adrienne Murray Law
Corporation, whose mailing and delivery address is a single detached house located at
5465 181A Street, Surrey, BC V3S7Z2, where the Plaintiff presumes that Ms. Murray
resides.
5. The Plaintiff is married to H. Lawrence Bond (Mr. Bond), a lithographer, and
together they have continually owned and occupied Unit 409 as joint tenants since
they purchased it from the developer on May 27, 1988.
6. The Plaintiff represents Mr. Bond in home matters generally and the husband and
wife have agreed that Ms. Bond will represent Mr. Bonds strata interests and serve as
the Plaintiff in these proceedings to keep the disruption and litigation stress on
Mr. Bond to a minimum while he earns a living for them both.
3

7. The Plaintiff claims that significantly unfair treatment by the Defendant Strata,
escalating against the Plaintiff since 1990 and reached a crisis on April 8, 2014, when
owners at the Annual General Meeting approved an extra deck for a member of
council and denied a comparatively modest remedial extension of Unit 409s strata
plan patio to reinstate space taken away with trellis planters after decades of
misrepresentations and unfair delays for the unjust enrichment of others.
8. The Plaintiff claims that the strata president, Lynda Baker, misrepresented the strata
corporations duty to comply with and enforce the bylaws and discredited the Plaintiff
for her own unjust enrichment with emphatically pronounced false statements
advising owners that Ms. Baker owns an extra deck, which if true would give her
approximately twice as much limited common property as she owns, pays strata fees
for, or purchased and would disallow the Plaintiffs proposed extension of Unit 409s
patio in perpetuity.
9. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has a history of deliberate
misrepresentations and significantly unfair governance, routinely violating statutory
and common law rights and acting for decades in a conspiracy of false pretences and
profit from misconduct and abuse that resembles a criminal organization more than a
democratic entity ruled by law, or trust and justice.
10. The Plaintiff further claims that over the years representatives of the Defendant Strata
have tortured the Plaintiff in retaliation for pursuing her statutory and common law
rights, threatened her with further abuse, and attempted to coerce the Plaintiff to stop
complaining and move.
11. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata committed offences that the Plaintiff
believes constitute vandalism, assault, theft, money laundering, embezzlement,
trespass, and fraud which the court might consider indictable, particulars of which are
set out in this Notice of Civil Claim and further particulars may be provided prior to
trial.
12. The Plaintiff claims that Adrienne Murray plays an instrumental role in contributing
to strata strife and is responsible for misleading misrepresentations that disparage the
Plaintiff, deny the Plaintiffs rights to strata records as provided by statute, and
effectively thwart the law, shield misrepresentations, corruption, oppression, unjust
enrichment, and shirking, particulars of which are set out in this Notice of Civil Claim
and further particulars may be provided prior to trial.
13. The Plaintiff is painfully aware that complaints against the powers that be,
particularly officers of the court, face a high risk of being deemed scandalous and
vexatious by a judge but the Plaintiff nevertheless claims that strata lawyers and
police are power alliance participants in a strata agency industry motivated by
inherent conflicts of interest, and Ms. Murray plays an instrumental role for her own
profit which contributes to pervasive unfairness, confusion, injustice, and strife that
contributes to a dysfunctional society.
4


14. particularly a letter dated June 19, 2007, which the Defendant Strata published in the
minutes and has continued delivering for years, most recently in 2013.
15. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murray contributes to a pervasive method of operating
in the strata agency industry that employs false pretences and oppressive bullying to
deny statutory and common law rights and crazy-making character assassination to
discredit and deter complainants.
16. and caused undue damage to the Plaintiff and profit to herself.
17. The Plaintiff claims that on or about May 12, 2014, the Defendant City failed to
provide the Plaintiff with requested information and advised the Plaintiff that
restrictive covenants are not relevant and landscaping does not affect the stability of
the Plaintiffs home because it was built on solid ground and would not sink and
criticized the Plaintiff for expressing concern, disregarding a history of over
excavation and sinking, indicating that it allowed or encouraged the Defendant Strata
to destroy hundreds of trees, discrediting the Plaintiff, resulting in damage to the
Plaintiff and unjust enrichment to others, including a long entrenched councillor of
the Defendant City, as extra decking, unobstructed panoramic views, and
geotechnical concerns replaced the trees and landscaping provided by the developers
landscape architects.
18. The Plaintiff claims that the landscaping sat in ruins for over 5 years as the roots of
hundreds of trees and thousands of bushes decomposed, ground was stripped bare,
and soil eroded while all of a sudden rain that used to soak into the earth rushed down
drains, buildings sank, pavement, water mains, sewers, and underground pipes started
cracking and breaking, sink holes developed, foundations separated, walls cracked,
windows and doors stuck and malfunctioned throughout the strata complex, and gas
lines became an issue, and since new trees and bushes were planted in 2010 problems
have continued, and this history raises geotechnical issues that are inconsistent with
the citys claims that restrictive covenants and landscaping have no effect on the
stability of the Plaintiffs home because it is built on solid ground.
19. Further particulars of the Plaintiffs claims against the Defendants and a variety of
agents of the Defendant Strata are set out at the end of Part 1 of this Notice of Civil
Claim.
20. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants conduct constitutes negligence that is
systemic in nature and will continue unless the court imposes real deterrents.
21. The Plaintiffs goal in commencing these proceedings is to secure the most just,
speedy and inexpensive determination of every issue on its merits in a way that is
proportionate to the complexity, extent, and importance of the issues in dispute to not
just the Plaintiffs health, employment, relationships, property, and life, past, present,
5

and future, but to the future impact on the strata agency industry and to all BC strata
owners.
22. The Plaintiff claims that contrary to acting to advance remedies the Defendant Strata
has acted unreasonably to provoke court proceedings and exploit the Plaintiffs
vulnerabilities on a significantly unfair playing field.
23. The Plaintiff claims that legal services which seem reasonable to the Defendant Strata
and the elite are well beyond the Plaintiffs reach as a partially disabled semi-retired
litigant without a pension, particularly when considering the whole of the
circumstances, including the complexity, scope, and persistence of the issues arising
out of the Defendant Stratas ongoing actions against the Plaintiff.
24. The Plaintiff is so afraid of the inherent risks arising out of filing this Notice of Civil
Claim while deprived of strata records and handicapped by extreme stress arising out
of the Defendant Stratas decades of relentlessly unfair treatment and
misrepresentations that she feels out of control and nearly hysterical.
25. While dealing with strata issues the Plaintiff has become extremely susceptible to loss
of focus and mistakes which would not exist but for wrongful actions of the
Defendants, and which may put pleadings that she has done her very best to prepare
as a near hysterical self-represented litigant at risk of being struck out with costs, and
the Plaintiff claims that this would be unfair and further contribute without mercy to
the damage and mischief caused by the Defendants.
26. The Plaintiff further claims that direct personal knowledge of her physical, emotional,
and practical experience creates a feeling of impending doom and shortened life
expectancy, and the Plaintiff offers to make just and reasonable amendments to this
Notice of Civil Claim in the interests of hastening settlement, reducing stress, and
living the remaining years of her life in peace and quiet.
27. The Plaintiff has made her best efforts to resolve the issues fairly and make her
claims comprehensive and correct and claims that her efforts and motives should be
respected, but most unfortunately she is completely unable to make this Notice of
Civil Claim succinct and had to file it as is, with apologies for defects, as her rate of
break down is escalating, and increased time and effort only made it longer and more
hysterically incoherent.
28. In an attempt to make 202 pages more manageable the Plaintiff added a table of
contents as Part 5 to the Appendix, and if possible will submit her claims for filing
electronically in Microsoft Word format to allow the receiver to download and click
Enable Editing, View, Navigation Pane, and Browse the Headings.
29. The Plaintiff says she set out many claims based on a perceived need to demonstrate
the significance of the unfair acts against her with related history and to address
concerns about res judicata and future effects on BCs growing population of strata
6

owners, as well as the Plaintiff, of continued unfairness in the power alliance and
strata agency industry.
30. The Plaintiff claims that revolving turnover in strata ownership, strata councils, strata
agents, and strata lawyers is a material contributor to this long protracted series of
insidious misrepresentations and the intricate complexities of unfair treatment that has
evolved in what is a crushing marathon for the Plaintiff and a reckless relay for
everyone else.
31. Particulars of the Plaintiffs claims against the Defendant Strata are set out first and
claims against others are set out near the end of this Notice of Civil Claim.
32. The main remedies the Plaintiff seeks are that the Defendant Strata:
a) comply with the provisions set out in the Strata Property Act;
b) comply with and enforce the strata bylaws;
c) extend, repair, and maintain Unit 409s patio to reinstate the Plaintiffs original
outdoor dining space, privacy, and legitimate expectation of equitable unit
entitlement formulas, enjoyment of shared common property, and exclusive use
and benefit of Unit 409s strata plan patio;
d) repair and acknowledge in writing that Unit 409s water stained paint, warped
door systems, damaged flooring systems, cracked walls, are part of the building
that the Defendant Strata is responsible to insure and repair;
e) repair the gouged siding, eroding support pillar, defectively aligned plumbing, air
ducts, and exterior taps which are common property next to, under, above, and
outside of Unit 409;
f) reinstate and maintain the birch trees, variegated dogwood, and ground cover
around Unit 409;
g) take affirmative action to eliminate inequitable rules or bylaw amendments,
particularly those governing decorating, email, and painting that are nonstandard
and uniquely unfair to the Plaintiff, retaliatory, inappropriate, or improperly filed;
h) impose user fees in amounts adequate to comply with the concept of fairness in
unit entitlement to exclusive use, maintenance and repairs of common property
and rectify a corrupt history of unfair loss and unjust enrichment;
i) undertake to take the care required to avoid future abuse or personal injury to the
Plaintiff or harm to Unit 409s property value;
j) compensate for the damage and loss to the Plaintiff attributable the Defendant
Stratas wrongful or significantly unfair acts or omissions.
7

33. The Plaintiff claims with apology that much of the extensive length, redundancies,
and potential defects in this Notice of Civil Claim arise out of the Plaintiff being
emotionally impaired and psychologically exhausted by the stress that has been
flowing from, escalating, and accumulating out of significant unfairness since 1989.
34. The Plaintiff claims that said damage to the Plaintiffs health and ability to function
well under the stress attributable to litigation and the conduct of the Defendant Strata
is a material factor that must be recognized to do justice between the parties.
35. The Plaintiff claims that the effect of the unfairness imposed on her over the years is
relentless and devastating in comparison to the impact on artificial bodies impervious
to human thresholds of endurance and pain and others who are correspondingly
enriched or volunteer on a revolving basis and these inconvenient truths need to be
recognized by the court in the interest of justice.
36. The Plaintiff is seeking all remedies that she may be entitled to in order to do justice
between the parties so that all matters may be completely and finally determined and
the need for future legal proceedings concerning such matters may be avoided.
37. The Plaintiff claims that as a strata corporation the Defendant Strata owes a duty to
take care not to unreasonably cause or perpetuate foreseeable harm or significant
unfairness to owners in the neighbourhood, including the Plaintiff.
38. A summary of the Plaintiffs claims against the Defendant Strata, further particulars
of which are set out elsewhere, include, but are not limited to the Defendant Strata:
a) failing to comply with or enforce strata bylaws, most especially number 4
b) ignoring city bylaws and binding restrictive covenants that run with the land
c) violating material indemnity agreements and building envelope contracts
d) destroying trees and landscaping
e) engaging in unfair and costly conflicts of interest
f) mismanaging common property and shirking its repair and maintenance
obligations
g) sabotaging funding and sharing formulas and unit entitlement concepts
h) depriving the Plaintiff of her right to access and fairly share in common property
i) compelling the Plaintiff to give up space on Unit 409s patio to host obstructions
installed by the strata in place of the tree removed to accommodate extra decking
for Unit 407
8

j) compelling the Plaintiff to provide privacy screening which was originally
common property and which Unit 508 and Unit 407 share the benefits of at the
sole expense of the Plaintiff
k) encroaching on Unit 409s strata plan patio space in ways that have spoiled its
original function as an outdoor dining area
l) persistently ignoring major structural defects that cause mold, property damage,
economic loss, and harm to health
m) failing to insure and, or in the alternative, complete replacement value repairs for
water damage to Unit 409 which the member of council in charge of insurance
was responsible for
n) retaliating against the Plaintiff and vilifying her after she complained about unfair
treatment and acts that raise reasonable apprehensions of misconduct
o) entering the Plaintiffs strata lot and causing damage to the windows and doors
and floor coverings
p) persistently refusing to extend the exterior taps on Unit 409 to specifications
q) poisoning the Plaintiff with pesticides and prolonged exposure to sewer gas
r) battering the Plaintiff with toxic fumes from exterior sealant erroneously applied
throughout the interior of Unit 409
s) causing or contributing to hearing damage, falls, and back injury to the Plaintiff
t) mismanaging strata funds, diverting special levy funds, and misrepresenting
expenses
u) creating extraordinary, unreasonable, devastatingly prolonged, and complicit
delays
v) discrediting and vilifying the Plaintiff with disparaging character assassination
w) instituting frivolous and vexatious bylaws uniquely unfair to the Plaintiff
x) violating at least 50 sections of legislation without apology
y) creating and perpetuating ever-increasing loss to the Plaintiff and profit and
benefit of those doing the Plaintiff wrong
z) misrepresenting or failing to distribute information required for reasonably
informed decision-making
aa) practicing decision-making by undisclosed parties without votes or minutes
9

bb) misrepresenting facts and law in a manner preventing a remedial patio extension
cc) persistently characterizing strata plan patios as decks contrary to legal advice
dd) unfairly sectioning off repairs and maintenance of strata plan patios from strata
plan balconies contrary to the provisions for sections under the S.P.A.
ee) depriving units with strata plan patios of the prompt attention, inexpensive
regular maintenance, and easy care building material provided to units with
balconies
ff) deleting incriminating email evidence of defamatory misconduct
gg) withholding access to strata records for years contrary to law and then
deliberately destroying them
hh) tampering with minutes
ii) bypassing the Plaintiff when distributing minutes
jj) persistently refusing to provide requested minutes
kk) failing to maintain common property
ll) destroying strata property worth millions of dollars
mm) impoverishing the strata corporation
nn) collecting strata fees without providing the corresponding benefits
oo) downgrading owners strata plan patios
pp) diverting special levy funds contrary to law and contract and the direction of
owners
qq) shirking the Defendant Stratas liability for damage arising out the Defendant
Stratas acts and decisions
rr) offloading the Defendant Stratas responsibility for repairs and maintenance that
owners pay strata fees to cover
ss) offloading repairs of shared plumbing onto lower units
tt) undermining fair and reasonable strata fee and unit entitlement formulas
uu) abusing the Defendant Stratas discretionary powers, acting in unreasonable ways
that are not even-handed
10

vv) inflicting unusual unfairness and stress on the Plaintiff for so long that it impairs
the Plaintiffs ability to function normally
ww) vilifying and intimidating the Plaintiff, fraudulently making
misrepresentations and defamatory accusations of assault, criminal harassment,
and malice; calling her vile and despicable for trying to rely on statutory and
common law rights and curb ever-increasing loss.
39. Facts that are material to the Plaintiffs claims, that only images can reveal, are
contained in a variety of strata blogs that the Plaintiff has posted since 2007 to inform
other owners and decision makers. The time stamps are arranged to organize the
priorities and flow of the blogger entries rather than any real times and dates.
40. The Plaintiff resists advertising or promoting her strata blogs and promptly advises
those that she blogs about. The Plaintiff has taken a variety of measures to manage
exposure and for quite some time sunridgecoquitlam.blogspot.com displayed a
security warning that discouraged casual visitors.
41. The Plaintiff claims that her blogs have existed since 2007 with knowledge of the
Defendant Strata and the content remaining unchallenged and her hopes for remedial
action or some positive effect are undaunted.
42. The Plaintiffs claims against the Defendant Strata include underlying issues specific
to common property, limited and exclusive use and benefits, unit entitlement, strata
fees, insurance, maintenance and repairs, strata records, and a history of unfairness
and questionable conduct.
43. The Plaintiff claims that unfair treatment by the Defendant Strata is ongoing and
relentless as evidenced by:
a) members of council taking common property rent-free for their own exclusive
use and unjust enrichment at the Plaintiffs expense while depriving the Plaintiff
of privacy and comparable enjoyment of outdoor patio space and access to
common property that the Plaintiff owns in proportion to Unit 409s unit
entitlement share;
b) needlessly and deliberately cutting down trees in full knowledge that they were
fundamental to the Plaintiffs environment, privacy, enjoyment, peace of mind,
and property value;
c) disparaging and discrediting the Plaintiff at Annual General Meetings, most
recently by misrepresenting facts and law on April 8, 2014, which resulted in
denial of a remedial extension to Unit 409s strata plan patio and increased
misrepresentations, unfairness and abuse of the Plaintiff;
d) threatening the Plaintiff with fines of $200 every 7 days in an attempt to coerce
the Plaintiff to sign a sign a liability indemnity agreement transferring onto the
11

Plaintiff the Defendant Stratas responsibility and cost of damage to Unit 409
caused by the Defendant Strata altering the developers patio door design,
landscaping specifications, and use and appearance of the common property
contrary to section 71 of the Strata Property Act,
e) persistent letters from the Defendant Stratas lawyers denying and, or in the
alternative, misrepresenting the Plaintiffs statutory and common law rights and
accusing the Plaintiff of harassment and malice for letters attempting to defend
against unfairness and misconduct,
f) denying the Plaintiff access to strata records and destroying material evidence of
misconduct,
g) repeatedly requiring the Plaintiff to travel to other cities to pursue access to
records that are withheld on arrival and forever,
h) publishing minutes that unfairly vilify the Plaintiff in the permanent record,
i) harassing the Plaintiff so persistently that the trauma is unspeakable.
44. The Plaintiff having served on council herself recognizes and appreciates that
members of the strata council are volunteers who are often left ignorant and
misinformed, and claims that negligence and management misconduct in strata
governance has deprived the Plaintiff of the peaceful home environment that the
Plaintiff enjoyed prior to serving on council.
45. The Plaintiff claims that affirmative action is required to deter the Defendant Strata
from continually acting with unfairness and disrespect of the law and peoples lives,
so that the Plaintiffs home might be restored to more of a sanctuary than a place of
oppression and abuse.
46. Regardless of varying formats, in her best attempt to facilitate fair and just remedies
the Plaintiff is making each statement as a claim in addition, or in the alternative, to
any other claims she is making against the Defendants.
Background
47. On May 27, 1988, the Plaintiff purchased and took possession of the land legally
described as Strata Lot 25 District Lot 385 Group 1 New Westminster District Strata
Plan NW2671 together with an interest in the common property in proportion to the
unit entitlement of the strata lot as shown on Form 1 (Strata Lot 25), pursuant to
restrictive covenants that run with the land and a contract of purchase and sale made
with the developer, International Land Corporation Ltd.
48. May 27 is an anniversary of mixed emotions for the Plaintiff, as one year later, on
May 27, 1989, the Plaintiffs married and were happy, until the Defendant Strata
turned the purchase of their new home into the most enduring heartache of their lives.
12

49. Strata Lot 25 is civically known and described as Unit 409 - 1215 Lansdowne Drive,
Coquitlam, British Columbia (409). The Plaintiffs occupy it as joint tenants.
50. The strata complex is in the city of Coquitlam at the corner of Lansdowne Drive and
Guildford Way on a steep south facing 5-acre slope at the toe of Eagle Mountain.
51. The site has a history of sinking and water seepage. Eagle Mountain is on the north
side, Scott Creek is on the west side, a city staircase with a history of sliding is on the
east side, and a swamp which has been built over with pilings for the Eagleridge
Secondary School is across from it on the south side of Guildford Way.
52. The slope and Building 7 around Unit 409 was circled on a map of areas designated
by the city of Coquitlam as sensitive tree protection areas.
53. Building 7 and Unit 409 sunk approximately 6 inches after construction.
54. The initial instability was promptly and effectively remedied with a bed of concrete, a
20-year warranty, and a surrounding forest of trees that the developers landscape
architect planted.
55. The developers landscape architect planted at least 12 trees near Unit 409 in the
following configuration: 1 to the northeast, 4 or more to the east, 2 in front and 5 or
more across from the unit.
56. The complex contains 68 townhouses in 17 four-plex buildings, comprised of
approximately 32 three bedroom units and 36 two bedroom units. Most 2-bedroom
units are single level and 3-bedroom units are 2-level. 409 is a 3-bedroom unit built
directly below a 2-bedroom unit, (Unit 510).
57. The strata complex was built in two phases with the second phase filed in 1990
approximately 2 years after the Plaintiff purchased 409.
58. Phase One is distinguished from Phase Two with five floor plans, some with
skylights, some with carports, all with wood-burning fireplaces, 4-piece ensuites, robe
hooks on interior doors, and conveniently located exterior taps. 2-bedroom units have
entrances into the units directly from the garages, and 3-bedroom units have
peninsula kitchens and front stairs of cement.
59. Phase Two was constructed by a different developer using two floor plans, 3-piece
ensuites, and no sky lights or carports, with the 3-bedroom units having front stairs of
painted wood and no peninsulas in the kitchens.
60. The Defendant Strata further damaged Phase One by cutting up the pavement to
install gas fireplaces, destroying patios and landscaping, and wasting an opportunity
during building envelope repairs to add ventilation to the roofing and building.
13

61. Most 2-bedroom units are upper units with north and south exterior doors which open
and provide a cross draft that releases summer heat. As the wind comes mostly from
the west this is especially so in the southeast facing upper units. 3-bedroom units are
located below and do not have a cross draft design or upper unit privacy but
surrounding trees and bushes help control the heat with landscaped privacy.
62. Certain plumbing is shared between strata lots with pipes located vertically in the
walls and horizontally in the kitchen of lower units like Strata Lot 25.
63. The back side of the complex has about a dozen north facing 2-bedroom units with
long driveways facing onto Rambler Way (the unit numbers in the 500 series).
64. The strata plan provides for one patio or balcony for each strata lot. These strata plan
patios and balconies are defined as limited common property and assigned to adjacent
strata lots. All 2-bedroom units have south balconies and all 3-bedroom units have
east or west patios.
65. In Building 7, Unit 510s balcony occupies 3
rd
story air space to the south and Unit
409s patio comes off the 2
nd
story to the east over a retaining wall. In Building 6,
Unit 407s patio comes off the 2
nd
story to the west, but due to the steepness of the
slope it is at ground level.
66. As an inseparable and simultaneous consequence of the purchase of Unit 409 the
Plaintiff entered into legal relationships with rights and responsibilities set out in law,
including, but not limited to:
a) agreements between the owners of Sunridge Estates and the District of
Coquitlam filed in the Land Title Office as Restrictive Covenants Z123808
and Z123809. These Restrictive covenants run with the land and are binding
on the city, strata, and each unit holder and require detailed landscaping plans
for any construction with specifications of plant materials, landscape
screening, and surface treatments for the common property;
b) the registered strata plan sets out the boundaries of the buildings and each
strata lot with one patio or balcony per strata lot designated as limited
common property for the exclusive use of the owners of the respective strata
lot and common property owned and shared as tenants in common;
c) a schedule of unit entitlements sets out each strata lots share of the property
as well as strata fee formulas which cover property that the Defendant Strata
is responsible to insure and maintenance and repair of common property.
d) the design specifications of the developers landscape architect for the
common property, which included the environmental benefits of over 280
trees;
14

e) the registered prospectus and Disclosure Statement of International Land
Corporation Ltd. with no rental restrictions;
f) the Condominium Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 61 and RSBC 1996, c 64,
g) the bylaws in Part 5 of the Condominium Act,
h) bylaws registered in the Land Title Office for The Owners Strata Plan
NW2671;
i) the Strata Property Act, SBC 1998, c 43 (the S.P.A.);
j) the Strata Property Regulation, BC Reg 43/2000; and
k) the strata corporations insurance policies.
67. The Strata Property Act and unit entitlement formulas govern strata fees for repairs
and maintenance and the owner of 3-bedroom unit like the Plaintiffs pays up to 25%
more in strata fees and has up to 25% more unit entitlement ownership of the
common property than the owner of certain 2-bedroom units.
68. Each unit has one vote; however, 2-bedroom units outnumber 3-bedroom units by 4
votes and usually dominate council by at least 2 to one, sometimes completely.
69. In deciding to purchase Unit 409 the Plaintiff relied on legal relations and protections,
and the Defendant Stratas persistent violations of shared rights and responsibilities
concerning maintenance and repairs and use and benefit of common property
shattered the Plaintiffs trust in and ability to rely on the law.
70. From 1989 to 2014 the Defendant Strata allowed individual owners to make
significant changes to the use and appearance of the common property without a vote
at any general meeting, replacing trees and landscaping with added decking and
panoramic views, some of which the Plaintiff claims undermine curb appeal, privacy,
peace, and security, and are a cause of significant unfairness and injustice that the
Defendant Strata could have easily avoided and, or in the alternative, remedied by
enforcing the bylaws.
71. The Defendant Strata allows certain owners to take up to 2 or 3 times more than their
share of the common property without paying user fees, causing significant loss and
expense to the Plaintiff, destroying landscaping, and creating two classes of owners,
with the privileged disproportionately funded by the strata fees of the deprived.
72. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata unreasonably failed to impose user fees
and used special levy funds to cover extra expenses attributable to extra decking and
panoramic views for a privileged minority who are perpetuating significant unfairness
in a cycle that is truly vicious in nature.
15

73. The Plaintiff claims compensation for a 25-year history of significant unfairness by
the Defendant Strata, which:
a) diverted strata fees to special interests detrimental to the Plaintiff;
b) failed in its statutory duty to repair and maintain the common property and the
structure and fixtures of the Plaintiffs strata lot and strata plan patio;
c) tampered with and prevented access to strata records, depriving the Plaintiff of
evidence and factual data that the Plaintiff required to make informed
decisions, mitigate damages, and defend themselves against unfair acts and
decisions;
d) pre-emptively and unfairly changed the use and appearance of common
property, downgrading the quality and design of the Plaintiffs strata plan
patio, exterior water taps, geotechnical security, and the trees, bushes, and
ground cover surrounding Unit 409;
e) diverted strata fees that the Plaintiff paid and the Defendant Strata spent on
special interests for the benefit of others who paid less and took over twice as
much as their share;
f) imposed a hidden increase in the Plaintiffs annual strata fees of up to 20%
over prescribed unit entitlement formulas to cover extra expenses generated
by detrimental acts and failures of the Defendant Strata that were uniquely and
significantly unfair to the Plaintiff;
g) routinely allowed owners and members of council to act in conflicts of
interest, profit from their own wrongs without colour of right, and acted
against the Plaintiff for complaining;
h) persistently failed to enforce the nuisance bylaws and repeatedly acted and
made decisions with progressively and foreseeably increasingly severe and
prolonged unfair effect which sickened the Plaintiff over a 25-year period
ending in serious functional impairment.
74. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata engaged in a series of unfair acts and
decisions, each of which was uniquely detrimental to the Plaintiff, causing the
Plaintiff injury, loss, hardship, and damage not experienced by other owners.
75. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata owes common law duties to the
Plaintiff and fell below a reasonable standard of care that caused harm to the Plaintiff
which was foreseeable and would have been avoided by following the provisions of
the Strata Property Act for repairing structural and water damage, imposing user fees
for exclusive use of common property, obeying the directions of owners to council,
obtaining 75% approval prior to destroying landscaping and cutting down trees and
16

making significant changes to common property, restricting the spending of special
levy funds to their intended purpose, and acting honestly in good faith.
76. The Plaintiff says that the claims set out herein are material to an insidious 20-year
history of unfairness that is protracted, persistent, and ever-increasing.
77. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas acts and decisions have caused
nuisance, heart break, and loss that the Plaintiff finds unspeakable.
Limitation Dates
78. The Plaintiff claims that the time line of events is material to the credibility of claims
and the significance of unfairness to the Plaintiff, and this historical timeline is shown
in part in documents which are in a chronological list well over 65 pages and 2
decades long.
79. The Plaintiff claims that the requirements of strata bylaws and Strata Property Act are
ongoing obligations and the Plaintiff has a legitimate expectation that the protection
from unfairness that increases in significance over time and does not expire due to the
Defendant Strata engaging in deliberate delays.
80. The Plaintiff claims that at all material times the Defendants had full and timely
notice of the circumstances of the Plaintiffs claims and the balance of justice falls
heavily against permitting the Defendants to escape liability for acts of unfairness.
81. The Plaintiff further claims that exemplary damages arise out of the long history of
repetitive abuse of the Plaintiff and unreasonable delays by the strata and the negative
social impacts of suing your neighbours - all of which make future abuse of the
Plaintiff foreseeable, if not predictable.
82. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata and its agents deliberately created years
of horrific delays in conflicts of interest for the ever increasing unjust enrichment of a
few, to the detriment of the Plaintiff, and it would be significantly unfair and
unacceptably prejudicial to the Plaintiff for the Defendant Strata to escape liability for
damage arising from such corrupt time management.
83. The Plaintiff further claims that the complex interrelationships and broad
circumstances giving rise to violations of the Plaintiffs statutory and common law
rights are continuing in nature and, to be fair, require a more effective remedy and
practical deterrent than suing for each and every breach.
84. The Plaintiff claims that most of the inequities, misrepresentations, delays, and
failures to honour obligations are deliberately and systemically controlled by the
Defendants, and for the Defendants to avoid liability for their own voluntarily
dilatory behavior by withholding material records and utilizing limitation dates to
restrict the Court's inherent power to remedy injustice would be more mischievous
17

than remedial; it defies common sense and would most significantly create the
ultimate unfairness to strata owners with little, if any, reasonable access to justice.
85. The Plaintiff claims that ultimately, two wrongs do not make a right.
Strata Agents
86. The Plaintiff refers to the Defendant Strata as including separately or together, past,
present, and future agents and owners whose conduct the Defendant Strata is
vicariously liable or bears responsibility for, including but not limited to, volunteer
members of strata councils and hired professionals in the industries of strata property
management, construction, engineering, landscaping, and law.
87. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murrays actions caused damage which was foreseeable
and easily avoidable with reasonable care and is in many ways representative of strata
lawyers in general who are influenced by Ms. Murrays conduct, and with all such
lawyers in mind, Ms. Murray may be referred to as the Defendant Lawyer.
88. The Plaintiff claims that certain questions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant
Strata may be adjudicated without the addition of the Defendant City or Defendant
Lawyer, however it is just to join those parties in these proceedings to ensure
effective adjudication of common issues in claims that are substantially connected.
89. The Plaintiff pays taxes and strata fees and claims to have a legitimate expectation
that statutory and common law rights and legal protections can be relied on as
written, including restrictive covenants, contracts, specifications, strata enactments
and bylaws.
90. The Plaintiff further claims that she is entitled to expect certain geotechnical security,
respect and privacy, as well as fair, honest dealings and records that she is
fundamentally deprived of by the actions of the Defendants.
Images
91. The Plaintiff claims that hundreds of photos speak for themselves, and this evidence
is more quickly, cheaply, and effectively viewed in colour online than in hard copies.
92. By way of example, a representative image is inserted below each of the following
issues: bylaws; exterior sealant; extra decking; financial matters, geotechnical
concerns; landscaping; nuisance; structural defects; trees; trespass; and water damage.
93. The Plaintiff further claims that images posted online in the Plaintiffs strata blogs
which can be accessed by following the links at sunridgecoquitlam.blogspot.com
detail certain claims much better in pictures than words and can be best presented in
the form of electronic discovery.

18

The first image starts on the next page.
19

Bylaws
94. The photo inserted below this paragraph depicts a window covering bylaw
amendment as one representative image of several bylaws that the Defendant Strata
amended in a manner uniquely unfair to the Plaintiff. The amendment illustrated
prohibits window decorations following which the Defendant Strata began
claiming that bottles in the Plaintiffs windows and architectural glass panels which
cannot be seen from the street and cost the Plaintiff approximately $7,000 to screen
invasive views imposed by the Defendant Strata violate the bylaw, despite the fact
that off white blinds are installed as window coverings in every window in the
Plaintiffs strata lot. Making it worse, rather than recluse herself, a member of council
responsible for ruining Unit 409s views and privacy by pre-emptively cutting down
trees and significantly changing the use and appearance of the common property
contrary section 71 of the Strata Property Act is threatening the Plaintiff with fines
while screening bottles in her own Unit 320 kitchen and dining room windows do not
attract similar accusations and threats. The word decorations in the bylaw
amendment is highly unusual and uniquely targets the Plaintiff for harassment with
threats of punitive fines for acting to mitigate damage and loss that the Defendant
Strata caused by exposing intrusive views which go right through Unit 409 clear into
the ensuite and for years invaded the Plaintiffs entire living area with the sight of
stark rooftops and obnoxious storage tarps on extra decking, while the Defendant
Strata made the common property look like a war zone for 5 years on a high profile
corner exposed to high volume public traffic and persistently allows highly obtrusive
extra decking to destroy curb appeal and park-like views. The Plaintiff claims
punitive damages against the Defendant Strata arising out wanton destruction of
natural privacy, peace, and enjoyment and uniquely unfair and persistent harassment
of the Plaintiff.
20


21

Exterior Sealant
95. The photo inserted below this paragraph is one representative example of a variety of
assaults and personal injury inflicted on the Plaintiff by the Defendant Strata and
illustrates just a little of the toxic sealant that the Defendant Strata applied in copious
quantities throughout Unit 409 in full knowledge that it was formulated for exterior
use and intimidating her with a lawyer when she complained about the attack and
tried to protect her bad lungs from ongoing harm from fumes that took approximately
a year to dissipate with Unit 409s windows kept open after the sealant was
supposedly removed when the Plaintiff was forced to move out.


22

Extra Decking
The drawing inserted below this paragraph is an example of significantly unfair changes in the use and
appearance of common property made pre-emptively without notice, permits, or majority approval.
The Plaintiff complained that tree and landscape destruction took away privacy, equity, property value,
environmental security and personal enjoyment, and strata management acting in conflict for their own
unjust enrichment refused to remedy the related nuisance and responded by instructing the Plaintiff to
put trellis planters on Unit 409s patio to replace the tree. For decades it has unreasonably refused to
comply with and enforce the bylaws and ignored and unfairly denied any and all requests to mitigate
attributable damage, including: 1) reduce the extra decking on Unit 407 to reinstate the privacy tree
and landscaped safety and access buffer, 2) move the trellis planters to the outside of Unit 409s patio,
3) pay rent to the Plaintiff for the trellis planters and space taken on Unit 409s patio, 4) reimburse
their purchase price, 5) give the Plaintiff air space above the extra decking in the same or even half the
amount as the common property taken by Unit 407, 6) reinstate the original in-swing door and extend
Unit 409s patio with a 1.5 foot cantilever extension, 7) give Unit 409 extra decking in a unit
entitlement proportion comparable to others, 8) put a couple of posts on the common property to
accommodate the trellis planter privacy screen and loss of railing space. The Plaintiff also offered to
pay for remedial extra decking that she requested, and did pay for it in 2007 when Councillor Berg
acting contrary to the direction of the owners diverted special levy building envelope repair funds to
demolish and reconstruct extra decking that the Plaintiff was unfairly deprived of. The Plaintiff claims
that the Defendant Strata is violating nuisance bylaws, the landscaping specifications in restrictive
covenants, usage restrictions in the Strata Property Act, and user fee provisions in the Regulations and
is misrepresenting ownership of common property and assets intended by necessary implication of the
strata plan to be shared in proportion to unit entitlement and is retaliating against the Plaintiff for her
continual requests that council comply with and enforce the bylaws to remedy the nuisance and stop
unreasonable delays, unjust enrichment, corrupt oppression and defamatory misrepresentations.

23

Financial Matters
The photo inserted below this paragraph illustrates one example of damage arising out of
the Defendant Strata diverting special levy funds paid by the Plaintiff for building
envelope repairs that were not received. The money was spent to cut down trees and build
extra decks for the unjust enrichment of members of council acting contrary to law in
blatant conflicts of interest. In this example the Defendant Strata entered Unit 409 and
replaced marine enamel with primer, which cost a dollar to save a dime and caused
screaming pain and personal injury to the Plaintiff when her skin was defatted by paint
remover in the do-it-yourself repairs required after the Defendant Strata ignored votes
and the direction of owners and blatantly diverted responsibilities.


24

Geotechnical Concerns
96. The 7-inch mark on the measuring tape in the photo inserted below this paragraph is
one representative image of a sink hole in front of Building 6 in an area repeatedly
repaired by the Defendant Strata after in violation of the bylaws it deliberately
destroyed trees, bushes, and ground cover planted and specified by the developers
landscape architect pursuant to restrictive covenants that run with the land. The
Plaintiff claims that failing window and door operations and sink holes throughout the
complex, along with photos posted by the Plaintiff on her blogs of sinking buildings,
cracking pavement, cracking walls, breaking sewers, breaking underground pipes and
breaking water mains speak for themselves about geotechnical issues more clearly
than words and that the Defendant Strata has vilified, defamed, and perversely
accused the Plaintiff of harassment for complaining about persistent and needless
destruction of hundreds of mature trees and attributable nuisance and financial issues.


25

Landscaping
97. The 2014 photo of rhododendron root weevil inserted below this paragraph is one
representative image that illustrates landscaping in front of Unit 409 that the Plaintiff
claims the Defendant Strata vandalized in an extremely costly, ongoing cycle of
conflicting interests, sabotage and deliberate retaliation creating years of horrific
degradation, squeezed budgets, negligence, and ongoing loss of trees and ground
cover and geotechnical security. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata
unfairly bypasses Unit 409 for gardening services and fails to provide reasonable
maintenance and reinstatement of trees and landscaping that residents deliberately
and persistently destroyed to unscrupulously create unobstructed panoramic views.

26

Nuisance
The photo inserted below this paragraph illustrates a nuisance that landscape architects of
both the developer and strata tried to screen with privacy trees. Privacy between the
buildings was lost when a vine maple tree was destroyed without authority for extra
decking and never reinstated despite continual complaints by the Plaintiff since 1989, and
the Plaintiff claims that the resultant nuisance includes extra expense, personal attacks,
oppression, and ever-increasing loss of enjoyment, while substituted privacy screens have
been encroaching rent-free on Unit 409s patio and outdoor dining area for over 20 years
in such a manner that Unit 409 gets far less than the Plaintiff bargained for while those
who pay less take more than double their share at the Plaintiffs expense. In 2005 the
Defendant Strata further devalued Unit 409 by further altering the property with a swing-
out design of patio door that ruined what was left of Unit 409s outdoor dining area and
needed repeated repairs for nearly 10 years until the Plaintiff reinstated the trouble-free
original patio door system at a personal cost of more than $3,000 and then it
unreasonably interfered with any sale of Unit 409 with threats of a $200 fine every 7 days
until the Plaintiff signs an indemnity agreement that offloads the Defendant Stratas
repair and maintenance obligations and transfers to Unit 409 responsibility for costs of
damage and risk caused by deliberate acts of the Defendant Strata that are uniquely unfair
and detrimental to the Plaintiff and have made her life at home miserable for years.

27

Structural Defects
98. The photo inserted below this paragraph shows a lamp that stands straight on Unit
409s cement porch standing crooked in the master bedroom directly above a
supporting pillar made of water soluble concrete illustrating unrepaired damage and
structural defects that are uniquely damaging to the Plaintiff.

28

Trees
99. The photo of trees inserted below this paragraph and the mirrors that reflected them in
the living room, dining room, and hallway of Unit 409 illustrate the significance of
trees on the appearance of the property and some of the loss that the Defendant Strata
caused to the Plaintiff by destroying them negligently or maliciously creating unjust
enrichment, unreasonable expense, and untold damage without the votes of approval
required under the Strata Property Act.

29

Trespass
100. The photo of black mold from Unit 409 inserted below this paragraph illustrates the
damage from offset ducting in the common property impeding ventilation and
misaligned common plumbing trespassing into Unit 409, damaging the property to
the extent that the Plaintiffs ensuite shower is unfit for the purpose for which it is
intended and a danger to the health of the Plaintiff, for decades.

30

Water Damage
The photos inserted below this paragraph show warped door systems identified by the
Defendant Stratas engineer as consistent with water damage and the resultant effect
on Unit 409s carpet to illustrate some of the unrepaired damage from Unit 510
flooding Unit 409 when the Defendant Strata is supposed to have replacement value
insurance for water damage but persistently deprives the Plaintiff of corresponding
benefits in a particularly unfair method of operating which goes beyond negligence.

31


Condominium Act
101. The Plaintiff claims that since 1989 the Defendant Strata deliberately and continually
engaged in delays to avoid obligations and responsibilities that are ongoing.
102. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata misrepresented and violated its
obligations under the Condominium Act, [RSBC 1979] Chapter 61,until it was
replaced by the Strata Property Act, SBC 1998, c 43in or about 2000, and it has
continued misrepresenting and violating its ongoing obligations under the new S.P.A.
and amendments thereto, causing ever-increasing loss to the Plaintiff.
a) The Plaintiffs claims under the Condominium Act include, but are not limited
````````````````````````````to, the following particulars.
103. With respect to the strata plan and section 3(4), the Plaintiff claims that every owner
holds their strata lot and their share in the common property subject to the interests in
unit entitlements and the landscaping requirements in restrictive covenants registered
in the Land Title Office, including without limit the landscaping that the Plaintiff paid
for with the purchase of Unit 409 and subsequent strata fees which the Defendant
Strata pre-emptively destroyed.
104. With respect to equity and section 4 entitlements, the Plaintiff claims that the
Defendant Strata has persistently acted contrary to the Plaintiffs ongoing
contributions to common expenses and deprived the Plaintiff of repairs and
maintenance and use of and access to common property in proportion to Unit 409s
unit entitlement such that the Plaintiff has been getting much less than bargained for
and others have been getting far more than their share with ever-growing loss and
unfairness to the Plaintiff which becomes increasingly significant over the years.
105. With respect to section 6 boundaries, the Plaintiff claims that the boundaries of strata
lots are registered in the Land Title Office as shown on the strata plan drawings,
32

indefeasible title, and unit entitlement formulas, all of which distinguishes strata lot
boundaries from any common boundaries that were misaligned as built.
106. With respect to section 12 common property, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant
Strata oppressively violated the Plaintiffs rights to use and access common property
and benefit from common assets of the strata corporation including limited common
property and shared landscaping in shares proportional to the unit entitlement of their
strata lot.
107. With respect to section 13, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is responsible
for ever-increasing damage from continually complained of bylaw violations,
including acts and omissions of original owners and all of their successors.
108. The Plaintiff claims that pursuant to section 28 the Plaintiff had a legitimate
expectation that the strata bylaws are binding on the owners and strata corporation
both to the same extent and the Plaintiff relied on the bylaws as if they were signed
and sealed by the strata corporation and each owner.
109. The Plaintiff claims that strata bylaws effectively create covenants on the part of the
strata corporation with each owner and on the part of each owner with every other
owner and with the corporation to observe and perform their provisions and that the
Defendant Strata persistently violated and failed to comply with or enforce particular
bylaws to the detriment of the Plaintiff.
110. The Plaintiff claims that contrary to section 34 the Defendant Strata persistently failed
in its ongoing obligation to keep the common plumbing and vents in a state of
serviceable repair and to properly maintain the trees and landscaping of the strata
corporation, thereby causing ever-increasing loss to the Plaintiff arising from
structural defects and unauthorized destruction of trees and landscaping.
111. The Plaintiff claims that contrary to section 34 the strata corporation never
established a fund sufficient to discharge its obligations or pay unusual expenses,
thereby causing ever-increasing loss to the Plaintiff.
112. With respect to section 35, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata continually
failed to use the contingency reserve fund to repair defectively installed pipes, chutes,
ducts or other facilities for the passage or provision of water, sewage, drainage, and
other services contained within a wall of a building shown on the strata plan, where
the centre of the wall forms the common boundary of a strata lot (Unit 409) with
another strata lot (Unit 411).
113. The Plaintiff claims that the boundaries of the strata lot are defined and illustrated in a
drawing on the strata plan which is distinguished as strata lot number 25.
114. The Plaintiff claims that with reference to the common boundary between Unit 409
and Unit 411 an ensuite shower wall containing common plumbing is trespassing on
33

the Plaintiffs strata lot resulting in uncharacteristic recurrent mold which arises out
of use of Unit 409s ensuite shower.
115. The Plaintiff claims that with reference to the common boundary between Unit 409
and Unit 510 or the common property a duct that goes from Unit 409s ensuite ceiling
through Unit 510s roof for the provision of air for Unit 409s bathroom fan is
misaligned in a manner that obstructs airflow and renders the duct and fan in the
Plaintiffs strata lot unfit for effective ventilation or the purpose for which they are
intended, resulting in uncharacteristic recurrent mold which arises out of use of Unit
409s ensuite shower.
116. The Plaintiff claims that with reference to the common boundary between the floor of
the strata lot and the common property below, the flooring substrate is damaged and
the supporting pillar in the garage is defective resulting in sinking floors in Unit 409,
and the Defendant Strata is persistently failing to repair the structure of the building.
117. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata failed in its duty to be responsible for
the enforcement of the strata bylaws, the control, management and administration of
the common property, common facilities and the assets of the strata corporation, and
all ancillary rights and obligations reasonably necessary to make easements effective
enough to preserve the property, its service, and the health and safety of the Plaintiff.
118. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant Strata misrepresented its responsibility
to repair and maintain strata property as mandated by the Condominium Act and
strata bylaws and unfairly denied or offloaded its obligations onto the Plaintiff,
including its obligation to comply with and enforce the strata bylaws.
119. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has an ongoing responsibility for
certain work in respect to the Plaintiffs strata lot, including any work to maintain
common plumbing in serviceable condition to avoid creating property damage or a
health hazard from chronic mildew, and any work to repair the structure of the
building, including misaligned walls between strata lots and air vents and ducts
through ceilings and the strata lot above as well as sinking flooring substrate and
supporting pillars below the strata lot, and is persistently shirking it.
Strata Property Act
120. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata and its representatives make fallacious
misrepresentations that depict the Strata Property Act, SBC 1998, c 43 and
amendments thereto (the Act or S.P.A.) as legislative guidelines instead of the
law of the land and betray the Plaintiffs trust in the law and bring disrepute to
officers of the court.
121. Particulars are set out elsewhere in this Notice of Civil Claim and will be further
repeated as needed prior to trial..
34

122. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata conducts itself in ways that are
inconsistent with the following sections of the Strata Property Act:
Part 1 Section 1
s.1 Definitions and Interpretation
123. The Plaintiff claims that contrary to Section 1 the Defendant Strata has misinterpreted
or ignored definitions in the Strata Property Act and is making unfair
misrepresentations, most of which support unjust enrichment of members of council.
124. Particulars include, but are not limited to:
a) redefining common expense that strata fees are paid to cover and offloading
them as the responsibility of individual owners in minority sections
b) misrepresenting shared common property as limited common property to
owners and police for the unjust enrichment of members of council
c) diverting contingency reserve fund money to fallacious emergencies,
insidiously contrived after years of destruction and delays
d) registering a 3/4 vote painting bylaw in the LTO with not a single vote cast
e) routinely reporting a unanimous or majority vote with no vote cast in
favour, or at all (and counting the Plaintiff as voting in favour when the
Plaintiff abstains in protest from voting in any way at all)
f) ignoring strata plan boundaries of a strata lot in regard to plumbing
trespassing in 409s ensuite
g) corrupting unit entitlement determinations of a strata lots proportionate
shares of common property and common expenses, with rent-free beneficial
transfers of property to the privileged and unfair offloads of expenses onto
owners in the exploited minority section.
Part 2 The Strata Corporation Sections 2 to 4
s.3 Manage and maintain common property
125. The Plaintiff claims that contrary to Section 3 the Defendant Strata fails to operate
within restrictions created by the Act as set out in the following particulars.
126. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is failing to manage and maintain the
common property and common assets of the strata corporation in good faith, and:
a) is responsible for significant changes in the use and appearance of common
property without 75% approval, providing unobstructed panoramic views and
35

rent-free extra decking for a minority at the expense of others, most
particularly the Plaintiff;
b) acts unfairly, transferring use and benefit and offloading expenses to avoid
user fees for the unjust enrichment of some at the expense of the innocent and
less privileged and the strata corporation as a whole;
c) destroyed landscaping and patios with a replacement value estimated in the
millions; leaving the common property in a horrific shambles, looking like a
derelict war zone for approximately 5 years;
d) disregards restrictive covenants, tree and slope protection concerns,
geotechnical issues, privacy, noise, heat, esthetics, cost, fairness, and the law
of the land contrary to the best interests of all owners;
e) cost untold extra expense from erosion and loss when the buildings sank,
including:
1. approximately $27,000 in structural repairs to Unit 407,
2. undisclosed thousands shoring up the foundation of Unit 409,
3. undisclosed repair expenses for misaligned windows and doors,
including sliders, swing doors, and garage doors, and cracked
walls and driveway repairs offloaded onto individuals,
4. tens or hundreds of thousands in other repairs to buildings,
underground services, pavement, sink holes, and separating
foundations.
f) this is causing all kinds of extra expense and increases in strata fees that far
outpace inflation, much of it undisclosed.
127. On September 6, 2006, the Defendant Strata advised a meeting of owners that it
lacked the money to cover its maintenance obligations, and this continues, most
recently with the Defendant Stratas claims in the minutes of May 22, 2014 that it still
does not have the funds to meet its repair and maintenance obligations.
128. The Plaintiff claims that the funding shortfall is due to the Defendant Strata diverting
strata funds to destroying landscaping and patios to open up views and avoid user fees
while neglecting its repair and maintenance obligations and that the Defendant Strata:
a) disregarded the strata corporations geotechnical history of sinking buildings
and failed to reinstate trees pursuant to the terms of the building envelope
repair contract
36

b) allowed Al MacLeod and Georgia Title to pre-emptively remove valuable
mature trees around Unit 409 and elsewhere, without a 75% vote, contrary to
bylaws, restrictive covenants, the building envelope contract, and section 71
of the Strata Property Act
c) contrary to the Strata Property Act, diverted special levy funds to demolish
and reconstruct derelict extra decking that was added illegally contrary to
votes, contracts, bylaws, and directions from the owners
d) littered the common property with dismantled decks for years and left it
looking like a war zone with bare dirt, virulent weeds, and sinking buildings
from about 2004 to 2010
e) continually avoids disclosing the true costs and fails to act reasonably to
utilize the Defendant Stratas directors and officers liability insurance
f) tampers with, destroys, and denies access to strata records
g) shifts responsibility for expenses, forcing deprived owners to subsidize the
privileged
h) repeatedly neglects repairs and maintenance and destroys landscaping at
undue expense
i) creates divisions between units with strata plan patios and balconies contrary
to fairness and unit entitlement.
129. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata pre-emptively and unfairly changed the
shared use and appearance of common property registered on the strata plan and in
the landscape designs existing pursuant to the requirements of binding restrictive
covenant that run with the land
130. The Plaintiff claims that they get far less than they bargained for and pay far more
than others who take far more than their share.
131. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant Strata:
a) denies access to strata records under the S.P.A.,
b) hides historical damage and costs attributable to geotechnical issues,
c) deprives the Plaintiff of use and enjoyment of common property,
d) deprives the Plaintiff of repairs and maintenance,
e) refuses to impose user fees to cover the extra costs attributable to those using
common property for their own exclusive benefit at the expense of others,
37

f) offloads the extra cost from the strata corporations unfair acts onto the
victims,
g) spends strata fees providing extra decking and unobstructed panoramic views
to those who pay less and take more, and
h) discredits, defames, and vilifies the Plaintiff.
s.4 Functions through council
132. Contrary to section 4 governance, the Defendant Strata fails to exercise the powers
and perform the duties of the strata corporation through council, routinely allowing
acts and decisions by unidentified persons without notice or disclosure in the minutes
and the Plaintiff is deprived of information and protections that owners are entitled to
and as a result incurs hardship, loss, stress and abuse.
Part 4 Strata Governance Sections 25-65
s.26 Council must enforce bylaws
133. Contrary to Section 26, the Defendant Strata is failing to enforce strata bylaws; for
example, contrary to bylaw 4 the Defendant Strata is failing to remedy a nuisance that
has been ongoing since the early 1990s:
a) continually violating directions from council, strata bylaws, city tree cutting
bylaws, restrictive covenants, geotechnical requirements, and the interests of
others, including the Plaintiff, by allowing an owner to pre-emptively remove
a vine maple tree without authority in or about the early 1990s
b) promoting corruption and pre-emptive wrongs in the strata corporation by
failing to reinstate the tree, allowing the tortfeasors to profit from their own
wrongs and double the size of their strata lots patio contrary to councils
direction and the Plaintiffs continual complaints of loss, increased risk of
liability, and significant unfairness;
c) effectively rewarding the tortfeasors and subsequent owners of Unit 407 with
the privilege of exclusive use and benefit of twice their unit entitlement share
in common property rent-free at the expense of other owners and particularly
the Plaintiff instead of imposing fines and user fees;
d) exposing the windows of Units 409 and 508 to clear and direct views all the
way through both strata lots straight into each of the ensuites, unfairly
reducing the Plaintiffs use and enjoyment and value of the property that the
Plaintiff purchased;
38

e) trespassing on the Plaintiffs strata plan patio with trellis planters encroaching
on its seating area to provide privacy between unit windows in place of the
vine maple tree;
f) interfering with the Plaintiffs access to and use and enjoyment of common
property as set out in the strata plan that the Plaintiff relied on at the time of
purchase;
g) creating over 20 years of loss and cost, increasing stress, and ongoing strata
strife.
s.27 Direction of owners
134. SECTION 27, the Defendant Strata is failing to comply with the direction passed by a
majority vote of owners at the 2006 annual general meeting to restrict the council in
its exercise of powers to avoid imposing user fees for extra decks and instead of
complying with law and the direction of owners the Defendant Strata acted in a
conflict of interest and diverted special levy funds to demolish and reconstruct extra
decks that were added to the common property illegally, without votes, permits,
authority, or funding.
s.28 Eligibility for council
135. The Defendant Strata violated section 28 when it permitted Al MacLeod to obstruct
the Plaintiffs offer to serve on council when she was eligible and transferred the
strata records to Mr. MacLeod instead of to the new strata secretary or any member of
council when Mr. MacLeod was not a member of the strata council.
s.31 Honesty, good faith, best interests, care
136. Contrary to section 31, the Defendant Strata puts owners on council who fail to act
honestly in good faith with a view to the best interests of the strata corporation and
fail to exercise the care, diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person in
exercising the powers and performing the duties of the strata corporation. Particulars
include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) failing to report decisions and depriving the Plaintiff of access to strata
records in disregard of facts and law,
b) publishing, broadcasting, and repeatedly sending the Plaintiff copies of, most
recently in 2013, a disparaging 2007 letter from Adrienne Murray containing
damaging and defamatory misrepresentations and accusations instead of
honouring its statutory obligations to the Plaintiff,
c) depriving Unit 409 of landscaping, fertilizer, pest control, trees and ground
cover,
39

d) pre-emptively destroying landscaping and removing mature trees without 75%
approval, without need, in full knowledge of the detriment and trauma to the
Plaintiff,
e) pre-emptively destroying and removing thousands of plants, including bushes
and ground cover and hundreds of trees, leaving barren dirt and weeds for 5
years, with loss and expense beyond belief
f) persistently failing to obtain a geotechnical report or consider restrictive
covenants and evidence of sinking
g) transferring strata responsibility for repairs and maintenance onto owners who
pay strata fees for fundamental benefits that the Plaintiff was deprived of to
provide expensive new views and extra decking to others,
h) imposing unreasonable delays, disrespectful treatment, and foreseeable
psychological trauma and unfair expense on the Plaintiff,
i) diverting special levy funds and persistently failing to impose reasonable user
fees
j) failing to review material facts and weigh each alternative carefully with an
appropriate degree of prudence and diligence prior to making decisions or
exercising their vote.
k) Members of council repeatedly perpetuate unfair treatment when they could
easily choose a course of action more fair and reasonable in the
circumstances.
l) A protracted period of unfair acts and decisions have caused damage and loss
including without limit persistent stress, exhaustion, and injury to the Plaintiff.
m) Further particulars of oppression, lack of good faith, and conflicts of interest
by agents of the Defendant Strata are set out in the Plaintiffs claims against
named individuals.
s.32 Disclosure, abstention, conflict
137. SECTION 32, the Defendant Strata is failing to require disclosure of conflicts of
interest or abstention from voting and attendance during discussion of matters of
interest to council members acting in a conflict. Particulars of historical conflicts
include extra decking and user responsibilities, trees and views, parking, dogs, real
estate commissions, and bylaws that provoke sales.
40

S.33 Accountability
138. SECTION 33, the Defendant Strata allowed council members with an interest in
transactions to act, and cause damage to the Plaintiff, without full disclosure or
reclusion of that council members vote and failed to ratify the nature and extent of
the council member's interest by a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote at an annual or
special general meeting.
139. The Plaintiff claims in particular and without limit that Al MacLeod acted more
corruptly than honestly when without a vote he had valuable mature trees cut down in
front of the Unit 409 and that the Defendant Strata was negligent in failing to
commence proceedings to pursue compensation for the loss and expense attributable
to those who had strata corporation landscaping destroyed and trees cut down
contrary to the strata bylaws and section 71.
140. The Plaintiff claims that unreasonably costly destruction, conflicts of interest, unjust
enrichment, misrepresentations, vandalism, malice and oppression are attributable to
opening views, accommodation of extra decking, and retaliation for complaining
about unfairness and challenging misconduct in the strata agency industry.
s.34 Written decision within one week after a hearing
141. SECTION 34, the Defendant Strata deprived the Plaintiff of written decisions on the
issues within one week after a council meeting hearing, or at all.
142. Particulars include the meetings held on November 30, 2006 and April 2007 and this
Notice of Civil Claim.
s.35 Prepare and retain copies of strata records
143. SECTION 35, the Defendant Strata is failing to prepare and retain copies of strata
records, thereby misinforming purchasers of strata lots, and deleted material records,
misrepresented email, correspondence, privacy, facts and law to the detriment of the
Plaintiff.
s.36 Records and copies
144. SECTION 36, the Defendant Strata is failing to make the records and documents
referred to in section 35 available to the Plaintiff and presumably to others also,
including prospective purchasers of strata lots, as required, or at all.
145. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is avoiding production of strata records
by claiming privacy rights and claiming that requests are harassment, thereby
concealing facts that reveal evidence of corrupt governance, unrepaired damage,
unmet strata obligations, and potential liabilities.
41

146. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has a history of wrongfully
withholding, tampering with, manipulating, deleting and denying access to strata
records, including insurance policies, minutes, contracts, correspondence, facts and
information, depriving the Plaintiff and others, including the Defendant Stratas
professional advisors, of material evidence or factual data and the opportunity to
make reasonably informed decisions to avoid or mitigate undue harm.
s.40 AGMs no later than 2 months after FYE
147. SECTION 40, the Defendant Strata routinely fails to hold annual general meetings no
later than 2 months after the strata corporations fiscal year end and discredits the
Plaintiff when she points out the defect or complains about impact.
s.59 Copies in a requested Information Certificate
148. SECTION 59, the Defendant Strata failed to give the Plaintiff information, disclosure,
and copies as required in requested Information Certificates.
s.61 Notice given by strata corporation
149. SECTION 61, the Defendant Strata violates subsection (3) by failing to allow 4 days
for deemed delivery of AGM notice after it is mailed, put through the mail slot, faxed
or emailed, and damaged the credibility of the Plaintiff to the voting owners at a
crucial point in time by falsely claiming that the notice for the AGM held on April 8,
2014 was in order when the Plaintiff pointed out the error.
Part 5 Property - Sections 66 to 90
s.66 Share equal to unit entitlement
150. SECTION 66, the Defendant Strata is depriving the Plaintiff of shared use and benefit
of common property equal to, or even proportionate to, unit entitlement ownership, or
fair and reasonable enjoyment proportionate to their strata fees; particulars include,
but are not limited to the Defendant Strata:
a) effectively allowing others to cut down trees thereby providing for
unobstructed panoramic views and extra decks added to the common property
for the benefit of tortfeasors in breach of city and strata bylaws to the
significantly unfair detriment of the Plaintiff;
b) unreasonably withholding approval, for over 25 years, of the Plaintiffs many
requests for nuisance remedies to restore equitable sharing of common
property;
c) significantly depriving the Plaintiff of access to and use and benefit of
common property that the Plaintiff pays more for and get less use and benefit
of than others who pay less and take more, a great deal more;
42

d) unreasonably ignoring and refusing approval of the Plaintiffs various
proposed remedies made over 25 years to reinstate either the original Maple
privacy screen or the dining space taken up on Unit 409s patio by trellis
planters encroaching on the Plaintiffs limited common property in place of a
maple tree the landscape architect placed on the common property between
the windows of the buildings which was cut down with impunity in breach of
city and strata bylaws;
e) replacing Unit 409s original trouble-free space-saving swing-in style of patio
door with a defective swing-out design that kept sticking and had to be
repeatedly ground down, with locks that broke, and handles that repeatedly
loosened, and foreseeably and uniquely deprived the Plaintiff of use of Unit
409s patio and outdoor dining space, without compensation;
f) ignoring and refusing approval for over 10 years of the Plaintiffs requests for
a variety of proposed remedies to reinstate the Plaintiffs original use and
enjoyment and right to exclusive benefit of the space on Unit 409s strata plan
patio and proportionate enjoyment of the common property;
g) effectively creating repair and maintenance divisions between units with strata
plan patios and units with balconies, ignoring the Defendant Stratas duty to
repair and maintain the Plaintiffs strata plan patio for approximately 25 years
and spending the Plaintiffs strata fees to repair and maintain balconies and
demolish and reconstruct extra decks for those same owners who paid up to
25% less than the Plaintiff but took and cost up to 2 or 3 times more at the
Plaintiffs expense;
h) imposing unique and significant hardship on the Plaintiff with an underhanded
effective annual increase in costs to the Plaintiff amounting to up to 20% over
the prescribed unit entitlement formula for proportionate sharing of common
property and repairs and maintenance to cover painting inferior wood that the
Defendant Strata unscrupulously installed and damaged through neglect along
with large fields of extremely high maintenance wooden lattice, which it
replaced Unit 409s low maintenance and much higher quality original strata
plan patio and landscaping with while providing upgraded balconies and fully
funded maintenance to those with extra decks built at the Plaintiffs expense;
i) failing to paint the new construction while it deteriorated with no maintenance
for years until it now requires annual painting and costs well over 10 times the
maintenance of the Plaintiffs original patio;
j) offloading the responsibility for repairing the damage and paying the ongoing
extra costs from the Defendant Strata onto the Plaintiff;
43

k) depriving the Plaintiff of legal rights and quiet enjoyment with damaging loss,
oppression, trespass, and delay along with retaliation, defamation and false
accusations of harassment and malice for complaining.
151. The Plaintiff claims to own an undivided proportionate interest in the common
property as tenants in common and says that the Defendant Strata abuses the words
undivided and proportionate in an ambiguous manner that effectively divides shared
property and grants disproportionate use, access, and possession to individuals for the
unjust enrichment of members of council to the detriment of the Plaintiff who pays
more and get less than half as much benefit as more privileged individuals.
152. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas retaliation against the Plaintiff for
complaining is more abusive than remedial, and it is significantly unfair for the
Defendant Strata to deprive the Plaintiff of benefits proportionate to the repairs and
maintenance, patio extensions, and enjoyable views it created and perpetuates for the
benefit of other unit holders using the Plaintiffs strata fees.
153. The Plaintiff claims that designations of common property for the exclusive use of
certain unit holders without appropriate user fees is contrary to their proportionate
interest as tenants in common, whether defacto or on title, and significantly unfair, a
conflict of interest, and inconsistent with prima facie unit entitlement rights and
principles of proportionate partition.
154. The Plaintiff claims that all of this is significantly unfair and good conscience
requires a remedy to unjust enrichment that restores integrity to the Defendant Strata.
155. The Plaintiff further claims that the imposition of user fees based on a constructive
trust formula is required to do justice between unit holders whose beneficial use of
common property and strata fees has been inconsistent with proportionate unit
entitlement during years of unconscionable unfairness and calculated confusion.
s.68 Strata lot boundaries on strata plan
156. The Plaintiff claims that pursuant to Sections 1, 31, 68,69, and 72, the Defendant
Strata has an ongoing duty to repair the structure of the building in accordance with
the strata lot boundaries shown on the strata plan and building blueprints.
157. The Plaintiff claims that shared pipes are trespassing into the boundaries of Plaintiffs
strata lot with an ascertainable definable infringement of approximately 1.5 x40x88
cubic inches, causing damage and loss to the Plaintiff.
158. The Plaintiff claims that mold issues and legal restrictions on the Plaintiffs right to
alter common property impose a further duty on the Defendant Strata to repair the
structure of the building to correct the misaligned roof venting and misaligned pipes
and flatten the wall between the ensuites of Units 409 and 411 to conform with proper
strata lot boundaries.
44

159. The Plaintiff claims they have lost years of use of their ensuite shower due to health
hazards associated with chronic black mold or mildew arising out of the defective
alignment of pipes and offset ducts that inhibit airflow making the air vents and
shower system unfit for the purpose for which they are intended.
s.69 Implied easements
160. SECTION 69, the Defendant Strata fails to enforce implied easements to repair the
structure of the building to end unfair trespass into the Plaintiffs ensuite and remedy
an ongoing source of repeatedly failed seals and chronic mould arising out of
defective transitions between Unit 409s overcrowded shower wall and tub.
s.71 Significant changes in use and appearance of common property
161. The Plaintiff claims that contrary to Section 71 the Defendant Strata continually acts
pre-emptively causing and perpetuating damage and loss attributable to significant
changes in the use and appearance of common property without approval as required,
or at all, and the ultimate damage attributable to the loss of landscaping and removal
of hundreds of mature trees along with the cost of extra decking equates to millions of
dollars.
s.72 Repair and maintain common property and structure of strata lot
162. Contrary to Sections 1 and 72, the Defendant Strata misrepresents shared expenses
and is failing to repair and maintain common property, reinstate trees, and take
responsibility for the repair and maintenance of Unit 409specified portions of the
Plaintiffs strata lot.
s.76 Short Term Exclusive Use of common property
163. SECTION 76, limits giving permission for a period of not more than one year for
exclusive use of common property that is not designated as limited common property,
and the Defendant Strata is acting in violating section 76. Extra decking built for the
exclusive use and unjust enrichment of certain owners at the expense of others is
occupying property that is designated on the strata plan as common property and
there is no resolution in the minutes giving permission for exclusive use or imposing
user fees as provided in the legislation. The Defendant Strata is violating section 76
and governing common property for the unjust enrichment of members of council
acting in a conflict of interest, and making significant changes effectively trespassing
on the limited common property of Unit 409, in doing so is also tangentially violating
in a variety of ways sections 26, 27, 32, 33, 35, 36, and/or71, and arguably sections
31, 66, 91, 94, 96, 98, 99, 108, 110, 148, 150, 191, and /or193.
45

s.83 Work order against strata corporation property
164. SECTION 83, the Defendant Strata misrepresented a work order and pressured
owners with erroneous suggestions that a local authority required reconstruction of
extra decks on the common property.
Part 6 Finances Sections 91 to 118
s.91 Strata responsible for common expenses
165. Contrary to Sections 1 and 91, the Defendant Strata has been misrepresenting
common expenses and failing to take responsibility for repairs at the expense of the
Plaintiff, interfering with the Plaintiffs ability to sell Unit 409 without a damaging
written disclosure of outstanding water damage and structural defects and
inappropriate transfers of responsibility.
166. The Defendant Strata has been misrepresenting its responsibility, underhandedly
shifting responsibility for common expenses onto owners, including, but not limited
to, the following particulars:
a) failing to repair the structure of the shared pipes and wall trespassing on Unit
409s ensuite;
b) repeatedly charging the Plaintiff for plumbers to clear pipes shared by Unit
510;
c) failing to replace defective mirror fasteners causing uncompensated loss from
a broken bathroom mirror and resultant damage to Unit 409s vinyl flooring;
d) failing to replace defective Crane toilet tanks in a timely manner, or at all;
e) failing to provide replacement value repairs of water damage to Unit 409;
f) failing to extend pipes to Unit 409s exterior taps;
g) failing to reinstate trees pursuant to the terms of the building envelope
contract;
h) leaving Unit 409s patio dismantled for over 2 years and leaving it to
deteriorate without paint for over 8 years after fully repairing all the balconies
on other units;
i) failing to extend Unit 409s deck to compensate for significant unfairness
arising out of a 20-year loss of privacy, equity, and enjoyment and a 10-year
loss of use while the Defendant Strata demolished and reconstructed illegally
added extra decking for others at the Plaintiffs expense.
46

167. As a result of the Defendant Stratas failure to take responsibility for common
expenses the Plaintiff has not been able to use Unit 409s ensuite shower for
approximately 20 years due to repeatedly failed seals and resultant mould.
168. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant Strata is responsible for unreasonable
interference with the Plaintiffs life for decades, including the Plaintiff dining with
friends on Unit 409s patio while spilling drinks, taking trips while unable to latch
Unit 409s doors for over 10 years, watering patio flowers while unable to use the
Plaintiffs hose for over 8 years, entertaining visitors while the common property was
in a shambles for approximately 5 years, and decorating when money was available
being obstructed by unrepaired structural damage for over 10 years.
169. As a result of the Defendant Stratas failure to honour its responsibilities the Plaintiff
has incurred many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars of damage in
uncompensated property damage, extra expenses, loss of use, personal injury and
reduced income arising out of strata strife that the Defendant Strata unreasonably
provoked, prolonged, repeated, escalated and imposed on the Plaintiff over the years.
s.94 Depreciation report
170. SECTION 94, the Defendant Strata failed to obtain a depreciation report estimating
the repair and replacement cost for major items in the strata corporation and the
expected life of those items as required by the S.P.A.;
s.96 Expenditures from contingency reserve fund
171. Contrary to Sections 1 and 96, the Defendant Strata has misrepresented common
expenses that usually occur less often than once a year, such as exterior painting, and
has spent money from the contingency reserve fund without 3/4 approval or authority
under section 98 as evidenced by fabricated emergencies such as approximately 5
years of deliberate and corrupt landscaping delays.
s.97 Expenditures from operating fund
172. Contrary to Section 97, the Defendant Strata has a history of spending money from
the operating fund without 3/4 approval or other authority, particulars of which are
evidenced in reports of borrowing or records requested by the Plaintiff but not
received.
s.98 Unapproved expenditures
173. Contrary to Section 98, the Defendant Strata has a history of failing to restrict
expenditures to those put forward for approval in the budget without 3/4 approval or
other authority, misrepresenting expenditures as necessary to ensure safety or prevent
significant loss or damage, particulars of which include, but are not limited to,
significant changes to the use and appearance of the common property, such as
additional decking and removal of landscaping, diverting special levy funds, and
47

matters concealed in undisclosed strata records requested by the Plaintiff but not
received.
s.99 Calculating strata fees
174. The Defendant Strata is acting to keep strata fees deceptively low and is offloading its
responsibility for repairs and maintenance in significantly unfair ways.
175. Contrary to section 99, the Defendant Strata is threatening the Plaintiff with fines for
not paying hidden strata fees of up to an extra 20% a year that are not calculated on
unit entitlement formulas, particulars of which include, but are not limited to,
sectioning off repairs and maintenance of patios from balconies and filing an illicit
painting bylaw to avoid imposing user fees on those who pay less and take more than
their share and the diversion of an approximate half million dollar balance of leaky
condo levies to construct extra decking and unobstructed views for a privileged
minority.
176. The Plaintiff has paid strata fees for repairs and maintenance for over 25 years while
the Defendant Strata has continually deprived the Plaintiff of the proportionate share
of benefits from the Plaintiffs contribution to the operating fund, contingency reserve
fund, and special levies and sabotaged the Plaintiffs property for the illicit benefit of
others, denying the Plaintiff access to and use and enjoyment of common areas,
landscaping, insurance benefits, repairs and maintenance, strata records, equitable
sharing, respectful treatment, and reasonable justice.
s.106 Informing owners of strata fees
177. The Defendant Strata repeatedly delays holding the annual general meeting at which a
budget is passed and does not inform owners of changes to their strata fees in a
reasonable time to avoid hardship. Last year the Defendant Strata advised us in June
that our strata fees increased in the previous January.
s.108 Special levy
178. SECTION 108, the Defendant Strata failed to use the money collected by special levy
for the purpose set out in the resolution. Particulars include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a) the Defendant Strata repaired the balconies promptly, but held back repairs to
the strata plan patios for years
b) repairs of the damage from balconies was more costly and extensive, by far,
than the required reinstatement and repairs to the strata plan patios from
normal wear and tear.
c) and when the money collected was not fully used for the purpose set out in the
resolution failing to pay it back to the owners
48

179. for example, on October 26, 2006, the Defendant Strata surveyed owners asking who
would like an addition to their patio, or if they have a balcony, who would be
interested in putting a deck outside your home, and who is in favour of revising the
strata plan to designate common property for current and future extra decking.
s.110 User fees
180. SECTION 110, the Defendant Strata is failing to impose user fees for the use of
common property by owners as set out in section 6.9 of the regulations and the
intended direction that the owners gave to council at an AGM. Further particulars and
the relief sought are set out later in this Notice of Civil Claim under the heading User
Fees.
s.114 Disputed debt
181. Contrary to section 114, the Defendant Strata allowed Al MacLeod to use the strata
corporation to launder $10,000 that he embezzled from the Halfords 6 years after they
sold him Unit 518.
Part 7 Bylaws and Rules Sections 119 to 138
s.121 Unenforceable bylaws
182. The Defendant Strata filed a painting amendment to bylaw 11 that contravenes the
S.P.A., without regard to ss. 72 (extra decks), 110 (user fees), 128 (bylaw
amendments), 164 (significant unfairness), and 193 (effectively creating sections for
maintenance between units with balconies and units with patios), without 75%
approval or even a single vote cast in favour.
s.128 Bylaw amendment procedures
183. Contrary to Sections 1 and 128 the Defendant Strata filed in the land title office in
August 2013 an amendment to bylaw 11 which was not approved by 75%, not a
single vote was cast in favour.
184. The Defendant Strata fined the Plaintiff on March 1, 2013 for breaching the
amendment before it was ever presented to the owners for approval or had any effect,
concealed the fine in a statement it provided to the Plaintiff in May 2013 and did not
notify the Plaintiff of it until the day before the AGM in June 2013.
s.129 Enforcement options
185. Contrary to Section 129, the Defendant Strata is failing to enforce bylaws, remove
deck additions or plant remedial trees, build a gate and equitable extension, impose
user fees and issue fines or do what is reasonably necessary to remedy contraventions
which have been significantly unfair and a nuisance to the Plaintiff for over 20 years.
49

186. Instead of enforcing the bylaws and remedying contraventions and unfairness the
Defendant Strata is retaliating and abusively denying the innocent Plaintiff access to
common areas taken away for the exclusive use of others contrary to law, depriving
the Plaintiff of privacy, landscaped views, and exclusive use and enjoyment of Unit
409s strata plan patio, causing the Plaintiff loss, reducing the value of the Plaintiffs
property, and increasing the risk of uninsured loss and liability, fire, or injury when
the Plaintiff tries to climb the fence that obstructs the Plaintiff from retrieving chattels
that fall onto the formerly landscaped common property that Unit 407 expropriated.
s.130 Fines
187. On February 8, 2013, the Defendant Strata sent the Plaintiff 3 letters: the first letter
notifies the Plaintiff that Unit 409s deck would be painted in the summer of 2013
at the Defendant Stratas expense, the second letter alleges contravention of a
painting bylaw that did not exist, and the third letter alleges contravention of an email
prohibition bylaw, which the Plaintiff claims deprives owners of confirmation of
delivery or receipt of correspondence that is destroyed by the Defendant Strata or just
silently disappears and inappropriately meddles with personal email replying to a
recipient who initiated the correspondence, provided the delivery address, and
advised the Plaintiff that it was private.
188. The Plaintiff promptly set out her position on the threatened fines in a responding
letter but it was like shouting into an empty room and ignored as usual by the
Defendant Strata; the Defendant Strata did not advise the Plaintiff that a complaint
was received from anyone about anything before threatening her with fines; and no
fines were on the statement that the Defendant Strata provided to the Plaintiff in May
2013.
189. In June on the day before the AGM the Plaintiff received a surprise statement with
fines on it, none of which were seen by the Plaintiff before, or at any time since;
however, at the beginning of the AGM Al MacLeod asked if owners whose strata fees
were not in good standing should be allowed to speak; he received no response, and
the Plaintiff claims that unscrupulous ulterior motives are behind every one of the
Defendant Stratas threats and allegations of fines against the Plaintiff, which are far
beyond fishy and disparaging and go to issues of corruption and unjust enrichment.
190. Particulars of some issues with the email bylaw include:
a) Council ignored facts and correspondence from the Plaintiff, which repeatedly
just disappeared from the Defendant Strata mailbox, and unfairly deprived the
Plaintiff of remedies and responses.
b) Council decided to have Mr. MacLeod tell the Plaintiff that he resigned as
President and send her email from an account which he told her was personal
in a previous email, instead of communicating through the Defendant Strata
secretary, strata manager, or strata council minutes.
50

c) The Defendant Strata concealed evidence of perverse entrapment by failing to
record councils vote or disclose these particular email decisions in the
minutes as required by the S.P.A.
d) The Plaintiff naturally hit Reply, corresponding with Mr. MacLeod in what he
had given her to understood was personal email.
e) Council voted to fine the Plaintiff for allegedly breaching a bylaw which
requires delivery to an address that conflicts with the Defendant Stratas legal
registered and records office mailing and delivery address and is contrary to
the permissive delivery provisions in the S.P.A., including email, and the
Plaintiff claims that as a result the bylaw is void and invalid from the outset.
191. Particulars of some issues associated with the deck painting bylaw include:
a) On February 8, 2013 the Defendant Strata sent the Plaintiff a letter saying that
the Defendant Strata would be painting Unit 409s deck in the summer at the
Defendant Stratas expense.
b) On March 1, 2013, the Defendant Strata fined the Plaintiff for allegedly
breaching a deck painting bylaw that did not exist at the time.
c) In August 2014 the Defendant Strata filed in the land title office a bylaw
amendment for deck painting, which was deemed to be carried at the AGM in
June, 2013, without a single vote having ever been cast in favour of it.
d) The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas alleged painting bylaw is
unenforceable in regard to extra decks and is unfairly imposed on the Plaintiff
who is has been paying more and getting less since 1989 to avoid imposing
user fees on those who are persistently paying less and getting more than their
share.
e) The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant Stratas alleged painting bylaw
effectively creates unfair sections between balconies and patios in regard to
repairs and maintenance contrary to unit entitlement formulas for strata fees
and common expenses and sections 66, 72, 91, 99, 110, 191, and 193 of the
S.P.A. and sections 11.1 and 11.2 of the Regulations.
f) The Plaintiff claims that the alleged painting bylaw is uniquely and
significantly unfair to the Plaintiff as it serves to impose on the Plaintiff a
uniquely unfair, hidden annual increase of up to 20% contrary to S.P.A.
formulas for strata fees, transferring to the Plaintiff damages and nuisances
that the Defendant Strata caused or is responsible for and extra expenses
which arise out of deliberate acts of the Defendant Strata which downgraded
the maintenance-free quality of the Plaintiffs strata plan patio and
gratuitously added annual maintenance requirements and vexatious lattice to
Unit 409 that are an astronomical expense;
51

192. The Plaintiff claims that the persistence of the unfair actions against the Plaintiff by
the Defendant Strata over the years is rising to the level of unconscionable.
S. 134 Denial of access to recreational facility
193. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata governs common property and common
assets such as trees and sundecks in an unfairly ambiguous manner that facilitates the
recreational enjoyment of members of council and other privileged owners and
contrary to Section 134 the Defendant Strata has for an unreasonable length of time,
namely decades, denied the Plaintiff use of and access to the same when the Plaintiff
did not contravene a bylaw or rule relating to such property.
s.135 Complaint, right to answer and notice of decision
194. Contrary to section 135, the Defendant Strata fined the Plaintiff for alleged
contravention of a bylaw or rule prior to considering any answer from the Plaintiff or
giving notice of the decision, or even advising the Plaintiff that it received a
complaint, from anyone in particular, or at all.
195. The Defendant Stratas accounting records show that council issued the fines on
March 1, 2013, but no fines were on the statement that the Defendant Strata provided
to the Plaintiff in May 2013, and the Defendant Strata did not notify the Plaintiff that
the fines were issued until the day before the June AGM.
s.136 Complaint against council member
196. SECTION 136, the Plaintiff made complaints against council members who acted
contrary to the bylaws and the Defendant Strata failed to prevent the council member
from participating in any decision made about the complaint.
197. Particulars of the Plaintiffs complaints against Mr. MacLeod, include, but are not
limited to, for example the Plaintiffs complaints about his parking on a blind hairpin
curve, blocking the Plaintiffs garage, obstructing the fire lane, destroying
landscaping, cutting down trees, advising that he had the right to act against
complainants, advertising unobstructed panoramic views for sale, acting in conflict
for his own self-interest, abusing and defaming the Plaintiff, failing to provide written
notice to the strata corporation that it is not entitled to the same protections applicable
under the Real Estate Services Act to persons who deal with licensees who are not
acting under section 9-3 of the Real Estate Services Act Rules, selling a strata lot to a
buyer despite a medium size pet bylaw and his knowledge that she had a greyhound,
his false and misleading claims of ignorance of the leaky condo problem contrary his
contract of purchase and sale and BC Supreme Court Action No. S91459, laundering
money through the strata corporations bank accounts, failing to make disclosure
pursuant to the Real Estate Act, tampering with strata records, having his fireplace
replaced at the Defendant Stratas expense while depriving the Plaintiff and other
owners of mandatory repairs and maintenance, and retaliating with harmful actions
against the Plaintiff for complaining about inappropriate conduct.
52

Part 8 Rentals Sections 139 to 148
s.143 Rental restriction bylaw does not apply to some
198. The Plaintiff claims that as the first owner of the strata lot other than the owner
developer the Plaintiff is exempt from the strata corporations rental restriction bylaw
pursuant to the registered prospectus and Disclosure Statement filed by International
Land Corporation Ltd. providing for unlimited rentals and no rental restriction bylaw.
s.144 Exemption from rental restriction
199. The Plaintiff claims that contrary to section 144 the Defendant Strata ignored the
Plaintiffs request for approval to rent Unit 409 during building envelope repairs,
routinely left the Plaintiff in limbo and exposed the Plaintiff to toxic fumes for a year,
knowing that the Plaintiff has bad lungs, adding further stress and financial hardship.
200. The Plaintiff further claims that the Plaintiff suffered personal injury and undue
expense as a result.
201. The Plaintiff claims that selling is unreasonable due to the fact that strata
management changes annually and Unit 409 is uniquely suited to the Plaintiffs long-
term needs and the unaffordable estimated $20,000 moving costs attributable to
purchase and sale make a lateral transfer impossible for the Plaintiff.
202. The Plaintiff is demoralized by disrespectful abusive treatment year after year and
would like to be able to rent Unit 409 if the most reasonable escape from intolerable
living conditions in future is to make a home elsewhere.
Part 9 Insurance Sections 149 to 162
s.149 Property insurance required for strata corporation
203. SECTION 149, despite years of requests the Defendant Strata failed to provide proof
that it had the required insurance on the July 23, 2003 date of loss to repair damage to
Unit 409 caused by Unit 510s Crane toilet tank breaking and flooding both units.
204. The deductible for water damage was $1,000 on December 31, 2002 when the owner
of Unit 510 was negotiating for strata insurance with a new carrier, and the Plaintiff
has never been able to access a copy of the new policy to confirm what the deductible
was on July 23, 2003.
205. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata inexplicably failed to report the July 23,
2003 floods or have an insurance investigator attend at the time of loss, obscuring and
confusing the facts and unscrupulously imposing contrived delays, advising the
Plaintiff that the flood revealed structural damage that required major construction
and would be best handled by the Defendant Strata during the building envelope
repair project.
53

206. The Plaintiff claims that it was not until 2013 when the Defendant Strata destroyed
the strata records that it had persistently withheld despite repeated requests that the
Plaintiff suddenly saw the adverse inference in a moment of clarity which raised an
apprehension of the inconceivable - that on July 23, 2003 the Defendant Strata did not
have the required insurance on common property, buildings shown on the strata plan,
and fixtures built or installed on a strata lot by the owner developer as part of the
original construction on the strata lot against major perils and other perils specified in
the bylaws.
207. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata characterized the outstanding damage
to Unit 409 as structural damage to the building in its failure to file an insurance
claim and in delaying its completion of repairs and in that regard the Plaintiff claims
that the Defendant Stratas duty to repair the building is a statutory obligation that is
ongoing in nature.
208. The Plaintiff further claims that as long as the Plaintiff has a mandatory obligation to
continually pay non-refundable strata fees for insurance, repairs, and maintenance the
Defendant has a correspondingly unavoidable ongoing obligation to complete its
repairs of the water damage to Unit 409 on the basis of full replacement value.
209. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas protracted delays and years of
avoiding statutory obligations are a form of deliberate unfairness that becomes
increasingly significant with time.
s.150 Liability insurance required for strata corporation
210. SECTION 150, the Defendant Strata did not utilize liability insurance to protect the
strata corporation against property damage to buildings, trees, landscaping, and
bodily injury to the Plaintiffs hearing, back, lungs, and emotional peace of mind and
made threats against the Plaintiff for making reports of loss and injury, which the
Plaintiff estimates to run into millions of dollars.
s.151 Errors and omissions insurance
211. SECTION 151, the Defendant Strata did not utilize the Defendant Stratas errors and
omissions insurance for expenses and liability for failing to make an insurance claim,
destroying trees, and diverting up to half a million dollars in special levy funds
arising out of council members errors and omissions made in the exercise of their
powers and performance of their duties as council members and transferred the loss
and future loss to innocent owners, and to the Plaintiff in particular.
s.155 Named insureds
212. SECTION 155, the Defendant Strata persistently failed to provide a repeatedly and
continually requested copy of the 2003 insurance policy to the Plaintiff who is a
apparently a named insured in the strata corporations insurance policy regardless of
the stated terms.
54

213. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata concealed material facts that the
Plaintiff had a right to and deprived the Plaintiff of information that could be
reasonably relied on to make informed decisions in a timely manner, if at all.
s.157 Application of insurance money
214. SECTION 157, the Defendant Strata failed to use, or in the alternative to claim and
obtain, insurance money to repair or replace Unit 409s damaged property without
delay, or at all. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas obligations to repair
Unit 409 are ongoing and that it never decided not to make a repair or replacement
pursuant to section 159.
s.158 Insurance deductible
215. SECTION 158, the Defendant Strata failed to pay an insurance deductible as a
common expense in respect of a claim on the strata corporations insurance and
charge back or sue an owner responsible for the loss or damage that gave rise to the
claim in order to recover the deductible portion of an insurance claim; when despite
any other section of this Act or the regulations, strata corporation approval is not
required for an expenditure from the contingency reserve fund to cover an insurance
deductible required to be paid by the strata corporation to repair or replace damaged
property, unless the strata corporation has decided not to repair or replace under
section 159.
s.159 Decision not to repair or replace
216. SECTION 159, the Defendant Strata has not obtained a 3/4 vote to decide not to
repair or replace the Plaintiffs damaged property, and it has failed to distribute any
insurance money and accrued interest to the Plaintiff according to the Plaintiffs
interest in any funds that the Defendant Strata may have obtained.
s.160 Court orders
217. The Plaintiff claims that notwithstanding the strata corporations unreasonable delays
and protracted violations of the Plaintiffs ongoing statutory and common law rights,
the Defendant Strata is in a position to provide for the interests of the Plaintiff on a
just and equitable basis, and the court can make any order it considers advisable in
order to remedy significant unfairness and discharge the repair and maintenance
responsibilities of the strata corporation.
218. The Plaintiff claims that to give effect to the fairness provisions of the Strata Property
Act and to give value to the strata fees that the Plaintiff paid and continues paying for
proportional governance, strata insurance, repairs, and maintenance not received by
the Plaintiff, orders are required that the Defendant Strata:
a) provide a remedial extension of Unit 409s patio to compensate for loss of the
Plaintiffs privacy and proportionate unit entitlement benefits and reinstate the
55

Plaintiffs original use and enjoyment of Unit 409s patio railing space and 8-foot
square outdoor dining area,
b) complete its statutory obligation to repair water damage to Unit 409s water
stained paint, cracked walls, sinking ceilings, warped door systems, rubbed and
flattened carpets, sinking flooring substrate, and failing water soluble support
pillar in the garage,
c) repair the defective structure of the building to correct the misaligned plumbing
and air duct in Unit 409s ensuite so that the ceiling fan and bathtub sealant can
function properly the same as in the main bathroom,
d) pay general damages to the Plaintiff for loss, expense, and injury arising out of
the Defendant Stratas unfair acts or decisions that are inconsistent with the
Defendant Stratas authority or the Plaintiffs statutory and common law rights,
e) undertake to take affirmative action to treat the Plaintiff with the care required to
avoid needless foreseeable harm or significant unfairness to the Plaintiff in
future.
Part 10 Legal Proceedings and Arbitration Sections 163 to 189
s.163 Strata corporation may be sued
219. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata acted in bad faith or a conflict of
interest, inducing the Plaintiff to sue the Defendant Strata. Particulars include, but are
not limited to, the Defendant Strata:
a) misinterpreting the Strata Property Act, Regulations, and strata bylaws or
rules,
b) violating the Plaintiffs statutory and common law rights,
c) wrongly depriving the Plaintiff of access to and benefit of common property
or common assets,
d) interfering with the Plaintiffs reasonable use and enjoyment of Unit 409 and
common property,
e) inappropriately discrediting the Plaintiff, damaging relationships, hurting her
feelings, and subjecting her to disrespect, defamation, threats, and harassment,
f) coercing, abusing and, or in the alternative, oppressing the Plaintiff with rude
treatment, disparaging comments, excruciating delays, and bogus fines, and
g) acting unfairly in ways that caused foreseeable harm to the Plaintiff.
56

s.164 preventing or remedying unfair acts
220. The Plaintiff claims that orders, declarations, and directions from the court are
required to prevent or remedy unfair actions against the Plaintiff arising from the
Defendant Stratas unreasonable failure to comply with or enforce the strata bylaws.
221. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant Strata has acted deliberately to force
the Plaintiff to apply to court to prevent or remedy unfair acts.
222. Particulars of the unfair acts against the Plaintiff arising out of the Defendant Stratas
conduct are set out throughout this Notice of Civil Claim and in summary include,
without limit:
a) a protracted history of oppression which culminated in the past year with the
Defendant Strata:
i. reiterating harmful accusations and threats that are more vexatious
than valid;
ii. filing a painting bylaw in the Land Title Office in 2013 that is
uniquely and blatantly unfair to the Plaintiff without one vote cast in
favour,
iii. acting to cause an indirect increase in the Plaintiffs annual strata fees
of up to 20% over unit entitlement formulas due to the Defendant
Strata failing to maintain common property, replacing bushes with
lattice, and failing to stain new wood for over 6 years after needlessly
creating a 10 to 20 times increase in the historical and comparative
maintenance requirements for strata plan patios;
iv. further provoking the Plaintiff by cutting down another mature vine
maple tree in mid-December 2013, in full knowledge of the value and
importance to the Plaintiffs property and to the privacy, enjoyment,
and peace of mind of the Plaintiff;
v. harassing the Plaintiff with threats of unreasonable fines for
supplementing Unit 409s window coverings with architectural glass
panels to mitigate the trauma and loss that the Defendant Strata caused
to the Plaintiff by cutting down trees essential to the Plaintiffs
property value, privacy and enjoyment;
vi. ignoring facts and bylaws, making damaging misrepresentations at the
AGM on April 8, 2014 which resulted in denial of a remedial
extension of Unit 409s patio and perpetuated a 25-year nuisance and
ever-growing loss to the Plaintiff and unjust enrichment to the speaker
and others;
57

vii. threatening to fine the Plaintiff $200 every 7 days for refusing to
accept responsibility for expense and loss created by the Defendant
Stratas alterations that devalued Unit 409 and for unreasonable
offloading that undermine future sale prospects;
viii. undermining the Plaintiffs credibility at meetings and publishing
minutes that unfairly disparage the Plaintiff, causing damage that on a
balance of probabilities includes without limit scratches on the
Plaintiffs car when it was parked outside Unit 409, vandalism which
probably would not have taken place had the Defendant Strata not
vilified the Plaintiff within the strata corporation.
b) altering the use and appearance of common property on the strata plan in a
manner contrary to section 71 and granting exclusive use for a period of more
than one year in a manner contrary to section 76 of the Strata Property Act;
c) persistently depriving the Plaintiff of reasonable peace and enjoyment as well
as access to and equitable use of common property for decades;
d) continually and persistently depriving the Plaintiff of mandated repairs and
maintenance;
e) refusing to extend Unit 409s exterior pipes to accommodate the new building
envelopes rainscreen assembly;
f) violating approximately half of the S.P.A. since 2003;
g) creating mischief and ambiguity by changing the strata plan word for patios to
decks in minutes and other documents in a manner that creates confusion and
facilitates unfairness, corruption, and unjust enrichment of a persistent nature
that is neither inadvertent nor trivial;
h) offloading strata responsibilities, unfairly sectioning off repair and
maintenance between units with strata plan patios and units with balconies
and extra decking contrary to Part 11 of the Strata Property Act;
i) imposing unfair hardships on the Plaintiff attributable to the Defendant
Stratas misconduct.
223. The Plaintiff claims that it is significantly unfair for the Defendant Strata not to
complete repairs of the water damage to Unit 409 for over 10 years while withholding
and destroying material insurance records, misrepresenting facts, and diverting strata
funds for the unjust enrichment of others; particularly since said damage to Unit 409
was caused by Unit 510 and approximately 1 week later the Defendant Strata
promptly repaired damage to Unit 227 which cost the strata over $25,000 in 2003
dollars for a much less extensive flood which was contained within Unit 227 only and
caused by the negligence of the owners of Unit 227 themselves.
58

224. The Plaintiff seeks an order that penalizes the Defendant Strata for misconduct and
unreasonable failure to provide requested strata records, insurance documents and
other material information since 2003.
225. The Plaintiff seeks an order that regulates the conduct of the Defendant Strata and
requires the Defendant Strata to do one or more of the following:
a) comply with and enforce the strata bylaws,
b) provide strata records as mandated by statute,
c) retract its misrepresentations and publish an apology to the Plaintiff,
d) admit its wrongs, take responsibility and compensate the Plaintiff for damage
that it caused or contributed to,
e) void bylaws that are improper or uniquely unfair to the Plaintiff,
f) impose user fees for exclusive use of common property that is not designated
on the strata plan as limited common property, and
g) take affirmative action to deter future acts of unfairness toward the Plaintiff.
226. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas protracted delays and years of
avoiding statutory obligations serves to promote further unfairness rather than remedy
or prevent it, and accordingly, the Plaintiff relies on the inherent jurisdiction of the
court to remedy unfair acts which become increasingly significant over time.
s.165 Other court remedies
227. The Plaintiff seeks remedies for claims against the Defendant Strata pursua
228. nt to section 165 which include but are not limited to an order that the Defendant
Strata do one or more of the following:
a) perform a duty it is required to perform under the S.P.A. or the strata bylaws;
b) stop contravening the S.P.A., Regulations, bylaws or rules;
and any other orders that the court considers necessary to give effect to an order
under (a) or (b).
Part 11 Sections Sections 190 to 198
s.191 & s.193 Sections
229. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has been effectively creating a form of
sections without the required notice, reporting, and vote contrary to sections 191 and
59

193 of the S.P.A. and sections 11.1 and 11.2 of the Regulations and unit entitlement
formulas for sharing operating expenses and extra fees for exclusive use of the
common property.
230. This form of sections is deviously unfair and mixes the strata plan patios of 3-
bedroom units who pay and own 25% more, with extra decks for owners of 2-
bedroom units who already have balconies and who disproportionately own and pay
much less and take much more than their share at the expense of the 3-bedroom units.
231. Particulars include the Defendant Strata:
a) providing repairs and maintenance to 2-bedroom units with balconies that 3-
bedroom units with patios, who pay a lot more in strata fees and cost a lot less
in repairs, are deprived of
b) promptly and completely repairing strata plan balconies while leaving strata
plan patios dismantled for 2 years, then destroying them, and replacing them
with significantly inferior materials and design and radically increased
maintenance requirements
c) leaving strata plan patios to deteriorate unpainted for over 25 years and then
transferring the damage onto owners with an annual painting bylaw that defies
common sense
d) offloading repairs and maintenance of strata plan patios and diverting strata
fees to demolition, reconstruction, repairs, and maintenance of extra decks for
the use and benefit of owners of 2-bedroom units who pay less, and take so
much more than their share and have balconies that are fully funded by the
strata corporation
e) undermining fair unit entitlement formulas for strata fees by depriving owners
with patios of repairs and maintenance that is provided to owners with
balconies who pay up to 25% less in strata fees than owners with patios, and
by effectively adding a hidden increase in the Plaintiffs annual strata fees of
up to 20% to cover paint damage caused by the Defendant Strata.
s.198 Judgments against strata corporation relating to section
232. The Defendant Strata is avoiding imposing user fees for exclusive use of common
property for extra decking and is protecting those owners from paying their fair share
of any judgment against the Defendant Strata that relates solely to their exclusive use
and enjoyment of common property.
60

Part 14 Land Titles Sections 239 to 256
s.244 Strata plan requirements
233. The Defendant Strata is managing the strata corporation without regard to the
required boundaries of strata lots and the land and location of the buildings on the
strata plan.
Strata Regulations
234. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata also violates or disregards the Strata
Property Regulations, including, but not limited to, the regulation of governance in
Part 4, finances in Part 6, bylaws in Part 7, insurance in Part 9, sections in Part 11,
land titles in Part 14, and general matters in Part 17, as well as various Forms.
235. Particulars are set out throughout this Notice of Civil Claim and further particulars
may be provided prior to trial.
Strata Bylaws
236. The Plaintiff claims that strata bylaws are fundamental to strata management and the
Defendant Strata, legally known as the Owners Strata Plan NW2671, has an
obligation to comply with and enforce the strata bylaws.
237. The Plaintiff claims that the strata bylaws are mutual rights and responsibilities or
reciprocal obligations that bind the Defendant Strata and the residents equally.
238. The Plaintiff claims to have a legitimate expectation that the strata corporation must
obey the law and ensure that all residents, including members of council, comply
strictly with the bylaws.
239. The Plaintiff further claims that nothing, including managing the strata corporation,
negates the obligation of the Defendant Strata, or a resident acting as a member of the
strata council, from complying with the strata bylaws and the law in general.
240. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has a long history of continually failing
to enforce or comply with strata bylaws and this is the cause of persistent corruption
and damage from unjust enrichment and deprivation as well as ongoing property
damage, personal injury, and economic loss that is unique to the Plaintiff, the
unfairness of which grows increasingly significant with time.
Part 5 of the Condominium Act, sections 115 to 132
241. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata was subject to the bylaws under Part 5
of the Condominium Act, sections 115 to 132 inclusive, from May 27, 1988 when the
Plaintiff purchased Unit 409 until the Defendant Strata filed its first amendment to the
bylaws on January 5, 1989, and that the Defendant Strata violated the original strata
bylaws and subsequent amendments, continually.
61

242. With respect to section 115(a), the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata failed to
control, manage and administer the common property of the corporation for the
benefit of all owners, including the Plaintiff, and ignored structural defects, property
lines, and unit entitlements.
243. With respect to section 115(b), the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata failed to
keep in a state of good and serviceable repair and properly maintain plumbing, vents,
ducts, walls and structural supports used in connection with the common property and
common facilities of Building 7.
244. With respect to section 115(g), the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas failure
to respond to or repair hidden structural defects in strict compliance with strata
bylaws caused ever-increasing damage and loss to the Plaintiff.
245. The Plaintiff claims that contrary to section 117 the Defendant Strata persistently
failed to do all things necessary for the enforcement of strata bylaws when the
Plaintiff complained about noncompliance and unfair governance.
246. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has acted deliberately in violation of
strata laws and bylaws, or more recklessly and arrogantly than innocently, to the
unfair and foreseeable detriment of the Plaintiff.
Bylaw Amendment #1
247. The Defendant Stratas first amendment to the standard bylaws in the Condominium
Act was filed in the Land Title Office as Document No. AC3155 on January 6, 1989.
248. The Plaintiff claims that on August 8, 1989, the Defendant Strata violated the bylaws
by approving without notice to Unit 409 an application by Unit 407 to build extra
decking over the common property next to Unit 409 in disregard of fairness, privacy
trees, restrictive covenants, geotechnical security, unit entitlements, loss, and
nuisance.
249. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has a long history of managing the
common property on the basis of unjust enrichment, oppression, and noncompliance
with strata bylaws, particularly concerning rent-free extra decking, destruction of
strata corporation landscaping, offloaded responsibilities, and abuse of the Plaintiff,
and the situation has grown more costly and uniquely damaging to the Plaintiff in a
complex process that is significantly unfair to the Plaintiff and increases in
significance as time passes.
250. The Plaintiff claims that since 1989 the Defendant Strata has continually and
persistently deprived the Plaintiff of use and enjoyment of property that is and has
been at all material times designated on the strata plan for shared use and benefit in
proportion to ownership and strata fees calculated in unit entitlement formulas.
62

251. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata manages the strata corporation in a
manner that disregards bylaws and destroys landscaping in a manner that requires the
Plaintiff to give up exclusive use and space on Unit 409s strata plan patio to
accommodate the removal of a tree and significant changes in the use and appearance
of common property that is by implication of the strata plan intended to be shared but
is taken away for rent-free exclusive use and offloads onto the Plaintiff the damages
and cost of restoring lost privacy, for which the Defendant Strata is responsible.
252. The Defendant Strata persistently fails to enforce the bylaws, effectively allowing
Unit 407 to block off access to an important safety buffer, and expropriate common
property for Unit 407s exclusive use and benefit at the expense of the Plaintiff,
depriving the Plaintiff of privacy, peace, property value, and equitable enjoyment.
253. The Plaintiff claims that Unit 409 pays significantly more and gets significantly less
than the Plaintiff bargained for due to the Defendant Stratas continual violation of,
and failure to enforce, strata bylaws every day since August 8, 1989.
254. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant Strata has engaged in a continual
series of unfair conduct prejudicial to Unit 409 ever since 1989 that adds to the
significance of the unjust enrichment of some and the worsening abuse and loss to the
Plaintiff.
255. The Plaintiff claims that particulars of the Defendant Stratas history of unfairness s
since the first bylaws were filed on January 6, 1989 include, but are not limited to, the
following examples:
a) section 1.2 - making the Plaintiff pay the highest strata fees for benefits denied
to the Plaintiff and bestowed on others who pay less up to 25% less,
b) section 1.3 making the Plaintiff responsible for repair and maintenance of
Unit 409s strata plan patio in a conflict of interest while the strata was
responsible for the extra expenses attributable to extra decking that destroyed
landscaping and were built without permits for a privileged minority, and
strata fees covered repair and maintenance of balconies while strata plan
patios were excluded from strata repair and maintenance.
c) section 1.4 managing the common property in a manner that deprived the
Plaintiff of privacy, equality, and respect and unreasonably interferes with the
use and enjoyment of it by the Plaintiff,
d) section 1.7 failing to comply strictly with or enforce the bylaws, creating
continual unfairness and nuisance, despite the Plaintiffs repeated complaints,
e) section 2.1 disrespecting the Plaintiffs rights and failing to manage the
common property for the benefit of all owners,
63

f) section 2.3 allowing landscaping and trees to be destroyed, failing to
maintain the gardens,
g) section 3.6 failing to provide reasonable notice before granting permission
to make significant changes to the use and appearance of common property to
build extra decking,
h) section 3.7 filing bylaws that are unfair, contradictory, and inconsistent with
the Condominium Act,
i) section 3.9 failing to do all things necessary for the enforcement of the
bylaws, including removing privileges and taking responsibility for its own
violations; shirking the cost for demolition and removal of the extra decking
and reinstatement of the gardens to rectify its impropriety; offloading damage
and loss onto the Plaintiff in perpetuity,
j) section 5.10 levying Unit 409s contributions to strata fees toward common
expenses attributable to the exclusive benefit of others who contribute
proportionately less and require proportionately more decking expense than
Unit 409 has ever required.
256. The Plaintiff claims to have obeyed the strata bylaws for approximately 25 years
while the Defendant Strata and others arrogantly violated strata bylaws with impunity
to the growing detriment of Unit 409.
Bylaw Amendment #
257. The Plaintiff claims that the strata bylaws bind the Defendant Strata and the Plaintiff
equally, each to the same extent pursuant to the preamble in said bylaws.
258. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata breached its covenants with the Plaintiff
to observe and perform the provisions of the strata bylaws by persistently violating
said bylaws, obstructing and delaying reasonable action for decades, and having its
lawyers repeatedly harass the Plaintiff with detrimental misrepresentations and threats
and advice that the Defendant Strata would not respond to the Plaintiffs requests
respecting common property, much less give permission for or grant approval of
requests from the Plaintiff.
259. As a result the Plaintiff begin acting arbitrarily in Unit 409s interests late in 2013 in
an attempt to mitigate the damage and loss arising out of unfair actions of the
Defendant Strata, relying in large part on the advice of the lawyer that the strata hired
telling the Plaintiff that the Defendant Strata would not respond to the Plaintiffs
requests, and the truth of that advice being repeated and hammered home for many
years, the Plaintiff finally decided to disregard bogus bylaws and to respect strata
bylaws in the same degree and manner as the Defendant Strata had, particularly in
regard to sections 7, 11, 35, and 44, and with the same respect as the Defendant Strata
64

gave to complying with and enforcing strata bylaws during decades of destruction,
nuisance, and abuse.
260. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant Strata created nuisance with bylaws
that are uniquely unfair, and it relied on fines as a source of funding in annual
budgets.
261. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata made unusual amendments to the
bylaws that target the Plaintiff and impede mitigation of the Plaintiffs suffering and
the damage arising out of the Defendant Stratas actions against the Plaintiff.
262. The Plaintiff claims that if there are any perceived benefits of oppressive bylaws that
restrict communication, dcor, pets, business, and rentals, they are already covered by
the protective provisions of the Bylaw #4 governing nuisance and use of property and
are outweighed by the detrimental losses, including infringement on legal rights,
privacy rights, sanctity of the home, quality of life, and disproportionately reduced
property values.
263. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas failure to enforce bylaws as required
by the Act creates nuisance and loss and unfairness detrimental to the Plaintiffs
health and welfare.
264. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata refuses to do all things necessary to
enforce the bylaws as required and retaliates against the Plaintiff for protesting
against unfairness and misconduct, or requesting corrective action and pursuing
remedies.
265. The Plaintiff claims that Defendant Strata threatens to force the sale of Unit 409 if the
Plaintiff refuses to cease and desist complaining, while bylaw violations persist
without remedy or enforcement, including but not limited to, the following examples:
65

Bylaw Enforcement Issue Particulars of Noncompliance
Comply Strictly
1. All residents must comply strictly
with the bylaws.
1. Comply Strictly
Residents, and most particularly
members of council, have been violating
bylaw numbers 1, 4, 8, 11, 17, 21, 24, 41,
and 42 with impunity for years to the
detriment of the Plaintiff. (* a residential
unit followed by an asterisk indicates
noncompliance while a member of the
strata council)
Use of Common Property
4. A resident must not use the
common property in a way that causes a
nuisance or hazard to another person:
4. Use of Common Property
At least 5 residents (eg. in 2013, owners
of Units 208, 407, 412*, 508*, 510*, and
518*) have been responsible for causing
ongoing nuisance to the Plaintiff which
includes significant unfairness, abuse,
loss, and hardship arising out of unjust
enrichment and the use of common
property for rent-free extra decking and
views for the exclusive benefit of
particular residents, including without
limit the following examples:
4. Nuisance
4. Nuisance
Use of common property for extra
decking and views that cause abuse of the
Plaintiff and loss of landscaping, repairs
and maintenance and special levy/strata
fee funding, and crushing extra expense
arising out of inequities, stigma, and
disputes over geotechnical security,
credibility, unjust enrichment, diverted
strata fees, devalued property and the loss
of healthy positive relations, trust, peace
and enjoyment; (eg. 208 loss of curb
appeal; 208 and 210 repeated demolition
and reconstruction of extra decking; 407
infringing on the Plaintiffs access to
common property, privacy and outdoor
dining space; 407 loss of use, privacy,
66

Bylaw Enforcement Issue Particulars of Noncompliance
peace and enjoyment; 407, 412*, and
508* extra expenses for demolition and
reconstruction of extra decking; 412*
loss of credibility and positive relations,
discrediting the Plaintiff, wrongfully
contradicting the Plaintiffs right to
proportionate use and benefit of common
property when owners considered a
remedial extension of Unit 409s patio;
508* rudely imposing on Unit 409 years
of unsightly views of large storage tarps
and offensive clutter on a rent-free extra
deck, diverting special levy funds to
avoid user fees, paying less and taking
more than her fair share and then
claiming that a proposed extension of
Unit 409s patio was outrageous when
owners considered remedial action; 510 *
repeatedly benefitting from views for sale
immediately after removal of surrounding
trees, diverting special levy funds to
avoid paying rent or user fees for an extra
deck, *attacking the Plaintiff with vulgar
name calling, threats, and defamatory
accusations, loss of park-like views,
environmental benefits, and enjoyment;
518 *cutting down trees to create and sell
unobstructed views for personal profit,
*offloading strata responsibilities to
*avoid paying rent or user fees for his
own unjust enrichment, *cultivating
character assassination to discredit the
Plaintiff as well as unconscionable
*delays and unfair *sections that deprive
units with strata plan patios of repair and
maintenance standards provided to units
with balconies, altering common property
at the Plaintiffs expense for his own self-
interests instead of shared use and
enjoyment as set out on the strata plan;)
67

Bylaw Enforcement Issue Particulars of Noncompliance
4. Hazards
4. Hazards
Increased risks of liability, fire, injury,
and undeclared insurance issues include
without limit (407 barbeque next to
flammable retaining wall and wooden
patio above, toddler occupying space
below heavy pots on 409s railing above;
508, 510, and 518 etcs air space
projections raising the risk of injury and
resultant liability);
(c) Use and Enjoyment
(c) unreasonably interferes with the
rights of another person to use
and enjoy the common property
or another strata lot.
(c) Use and Enjoyment
(c) unreasonably interferes with the
Plaintiffs right to access, use, enjoy, and
benefit from shared common property
(407 and 510, destruction of trees,
spoiled views, loss of peace and security)
407 blocked access, loss of chattels, loss
of patio space, loss of privacy with
intrusive views straight through adjacent
strata lots, replacing the tree with trellis
planters and over 20 years encroachment
on the seating space of 409s strata plan
patio to accommodate a patio extension
added in violation of the bylaws (407),
replacing attractive landscaping with
years of visual offences (508), replacing
beautiful trees with bare rooftops and
stark buildings, dirt, noise, and heat (510)
reducing the Plaintiffs reasonable use
and enjoyment of Unit 409 and common
property, causing years of stress and loss.
(e)Contrary to Strata Plan
(e) is contrary to a purpose for which
the common property is intended as
shown expressly or by necessary
implication by the strata plan.
(e) Contrary to Strata Plan
(e) unfair exclusive use extra decking is
contrary to the purpose for which the
common property is intended as shown
expressly by the strata plan which
specifies 1) one balcony or patio per
strata lot, 2) the sizes and locations of
68

Bylaw Enforcement Issue Particulars of Noncompliance
limited common property, 3) the
locations of buildings, and 4) the
common property, the shared benefit and
purpose of which the filed Schedule of
Unit Entitlement and strata plan confirm
by necessary implication.



Contrary to Strata Plan
(e) is contrary to a purpose for which
the common property is intended as shown
expressly or by necessary implication by
the strata plan.
Contrary to Strata Plan
(e) unfair exclusive use extra decking is contrary
to the purpose for which the common property is
intended as shown expressly by the strata plan
which specifies 1) one balcony or patio per strata
lot, 2) the sizes and locations of limited common
property, 3) the locations of buildings, and 4) the
common property, the shared benefit and purpose
of which the filed Schedule of Unit Entitlement
and strata plan confirm by necessary implication.
Damage to Common Assets
4.2 A resident must not cause damage to
the common assets.
Damage to Common Assets
Residents, and members of council in particular,
have a persistent history of damaging common
assets, defiling patios and deliberately destroying
trees, plants, and expensive landscape architecture
with impunity.
Responsibility for Damages
4.4 An owner shall indemnify the strata
corporation for any insurance deductible, or
expense for any repair or replacement of
the common assets rendered necessary by
the owners act.
Responsibility for Damages
Owners (particularly owners of Units 227, 510,
and 518 while members of council) did not take
responsibility or indemnify the strata corporation
for the expense for repair or replacements
rendered necessary by their acts, including water
damage or trees cut down to the ever-growing loss
and ongoing damage to the Plaintiff, and many
owners sold without doing so.
69

Pet Size
5.2 Owners cannot keep any pets on their
strata lot other than two medium sized pets,
or 2 caged birds, nor shall they allow any
occupant of their strata lot to do so.
Pet Size
On April 28, 2010, the Plaintiff reported that the
strata secretary was keeping a Greyhound dog and
asked for confirmation that the Plaintiff could also
keep a greyhound, or any dog of similar height,
without violating the medium size restriction of
the pet bylaw and for over 4 years the Defendant
Strata has failed to provide the factual data
required for reasonably informed decision making
and caused foreseeable damage and loss to the
Plaintiff by leaving her in a prolonged state of
limbo during a critical time of life.
Owner Alteration Indemnity
8.3(e) As a condition of such approval the
owner, or subsequent owner, who receives
the benefit of such alteration must
indemnify the strata corporation with
respect to demands that are in any manner
attributable to the alteration, such costs to
be added to the next months strata fees of
that owner.
Owner Alteration Indemnity
Council disregarded the direction of owners,
diverted special levy funds, and continually failed
to add the costs to the next months strata fees of
the respective owners for the extra costs for
landscaping reinstatement, demolitions,
reconstructions, maintenance, and professional
expenses attributable in any manner to alterations
or demand that the owners or subsequent owners
receiving the benefit of extra decks indemnify the
strata corporation for said costs.
Restoring Property to Prior Condition
8.5 An owner who alters common property
without the required approval must at their
sole expense restore the common property
or assets to their condition prior to the
alteration.
Restoring Property to Prior Condition
Owners have been altering common property with
impunity by destroying landscaping without
approval, or any authority at all, but the Defendant
Strata fails to enforce the bylaws, instead of
restoring the condition of the landscaping prior to
the alteration and demanding indemnification for
the attributable expenses.
Repairing Building Structure
11.1 The strata corporation must repair the
structure of the building, patios, balconies,
and railings that enclose them.
Repairing Building Structure
The Defendant Strata failed to repair the structure
of Unit 409 and left incomplete the repairs to
409s damaged doors, floors, and walls from
510s broken toilet that that it started in 2003, and
70

failed to maintain 409s strata plan patio for 25
years.
Notice of Meetings
17.1 Council members must be given
notice of a meeting.
Notice of Meetings
On November 8, 2006, members were appointed
to council with no notice of a meeting to the
absent council members in spite of a procedural
protest by a member of council and illicit
interference by an owner.
Votes Recorded in Minutes
21.3 The results of all votes at a council
meeting must be recorded in the council
meeting minutes.
Votes Recorded in Minutes
Results of votes at meetings are not recorded due
to the fact that unidentified decision makers act
without meetings, votes, minutes, or disclosure
and certain correspondence and reports go
straight into the garbage or otherwise disappear;
decisions at meetings are pronounced arbitrarily
and recorded in the minutes without being voted
on, motions seconded but not voted on,
abstentions, and lack of objection are all recorded
in minutes as carried or unanimous; minutes are
inappropriately altered, unreasonably delayed,
inconsistent with fact or law, meaningless,
incomprehensible, or inappropriately disparaging.
Examples include decisions on the Plaintiffs
complaints, reports, and requests for repairs and
maintenance or information and strata records
made without votes and not recorded in minutes.
Strata Corporation Money
24. A person may not spend the strata
corporations money unless the person has
been delegated the power to do so in
accordance with these bylaws.
Strata Corporation Money
People spent the strata corporations money and
diverted special levy funds contrary of these
bylaws; Al MacLeod (518) and Georgia Title
(320) destroyed valuable trees causing loss and
nuisance contrary to sections 4(c), 5.2, and 42.5
and Mae Reid (510) and Sherrill Berg (508) spent
special levy funds on extra decking contrary to
their stated purpose and the votes and directions
of the owners, causing hardship and loss contrary
to section 8.3(e).
71

Expenditures exceeding $2,000
41.1 A vote of the owners is required for
any expenditures by the strata council that
exceed $2,000 more than what was in the
approved annual budget.
Expenditures exceeding $2,000
Expenditures exceeding $2,000 more than what
was in the annual budget were made, but were not
approved or disclosed as required; eg. Al
MacLeods 2006 fireplace, 2009 snow removal,
2004-2010 landscape alterations and extra
decking.
An owner shall not:
Increased Risks
42.3 do anything that would tend to
increase the risk of fire or the rate of
insurance premiums.

Increased Risks
Unit 407 is taking exclusive use and benefit of
common property and eliminating a safety buffer,
placing a barbeque immediately next to a wooden
upper deck, retaining wall and lattice, raising
apprehensions of fire, and a toddler has been
allowed to play just below heavy flower pots on
409s patio railing 10.5 feet directly overhead, the
Plaintiff has risked injury climbing 407s fence
blocking the common property to retrieve chattels
that fall, and despite 409s complaints about the
fire and safety risks the minutes show no response
from council and no decision to enforce the
bylaws or advise insurers of any change or
potential increase in risk.
Actions Contrary to Law
42.4 do or permit anything to be done on
the common property that is contrary to
any Statute or bylaw.
Actions Contrary to Law
Owners cut down trees and add extra decking
without proper authority, causing damage contrary
to bylaws, permitting significant changes from the
strata plan contrary to section 71 of the Strata
Property Act, taking common property for their
own exclusive use and benefit rent-free in a
conflict of interest, contrary to statutory
provisions for unit entitlements, exclusive use,
and user fees as well as nuisance bylaws,
restrictive covenants, tree protection enactments,
fairness, and prohibition of unjust enrichment or
profit from ones own wrongs.
72

Damage to Trees and Plants
42.5 do or permit anything to be done that
may cause damage to trees, plants, bushes,
or to prevent growth or interfere with the
maintenance of the grounds generally.
Damage to Trees and Plants
Owners have been causing damage and preventing
growth of trees, plants, and bushes by replacing
them with extra decks on the common property,
interfering with maintenance of the grounds
generally with extra decks and depleting strata
funds to cover the extra expenses attributable to
unfunded use of common property for their own
exclusive benefit.
Fines for Contravention
42.15 The strata corporation may levy fines
for contravention of this bylaw and for
each complaint and successive complaint
received by Council and/or Management.
Fines for Contravention
The Defendant Strata corporation fails to enforce
bylaws in fair, reasonable, or even handed ways;
exempting some owners and targeting others. It
does not levy fines for each complaint and
successive complaint made and received for
ongoing contraventions.
266. With particular regard to bylaws #1 and #4 the Plaintiff claims that residents serving
on the strata council are not exempt from complying with the strata bylaws by virtual
of being a strata council, quite the contrary, along with the power granted is a
fiduciary responsibility in managing the strata corporation that exceeds rather than
abrogates the duties of an ordinary owner.
Strata Fees
267. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has spent their strata fees unfairly and
contrary to law diverted building envelope repair special levies from the purpose for
which they were intended for the unjust enrichment of a minority, causing loss and
hardship to the Plaintiff.
268. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant Strata depleted strata funds, destroyed
landscaping, and demolished strata plan patios, leaving the common property like a
derelict war zone for 5 horrific years while owners sold in a long term plan to provide
unobstructed panoramic views and extra decking for the exclusive benefit and unjust
enrichment of a minority acting to avoid user fees.
269. On August 24, 2004, at a meeting of owners, the Plaintiff expressly asked for
clarification of the word decks in the scope of work prior to voting for a special
levy for building envelope repairs and was told that the reference was to strata plan
decks and was assured that the engineering design documents and architectural
73

renderings for the envelope remediation project did not include extra decks or
anything beyond the limited common property.
270. The Plaintiff claims that an amendment to the wording to clarify this was said to be
unnecessary as the motions were drafted by an expert and clarification was further
denied on the grounds that an amendment would add undue costs and delay as any
changes prior to the vote would have to go back to be reviewed and approved by the
lawyer, who the Defendant Stratas representative declined to identify when asked.
271. The Plaintiff claims that a reasonable person would not expect 75% of owners who
were suffering such a devastating financial crisis to take on the additional burden of
undue costs attributable to extra decks for the exclusive use and benefit of a small
minority who already paid about 25% less than others and took so much more than
their unit entitlement but didnt value the privilege or their extra luxuries enough to
cover the extra expenses attributable to their existence.
272. The Plaintiff further claims that extra decks were known to be significantly unfair and
to expect owners in financial crisis to gift a privileged minority with further unjust
enrichment contrary to the bylaws defies common sense.
273. The Plaintiff claims that owners did not vote to approve a special levy to cover extra
decking and if the Defendant Strata had dared to present such a proposal to the
owners 75% would not have voted to approve the added cost, a fact which is
confirmed by the direction the owners gave to council at the AGM in 2007.
274. Certain individuals acted in conflict to create and employ contrived ambiguity and
misrepresentations in a covert plot to divert special levy funds collected for building
envelope repairs and spent the money on reconstructing extra decking and replacing
landscaping for the benefit and unjust enrichment of a minority; subjecting the
Plaintiff to environmental assaults, vandalism, threats, intimidation, misappropriation
of funds, defamatory misrepresentations, harassment, oppression, and unjust attacks.
275. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has violated fundamental justice by
depriving the Plaintiff of protections and entitlements provided to strata owners by
strata fees and law.
276. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is guilty of failing to meet its repair and
maintenance obligations and of unauthorized spending of funds not allocated in the
budget and that it has engaged in persistent delay to avoid being held accountable.
277. The Plaintiff claims the Defendant Strata is responsible for damage to the property
they purchased and is offloading its repair and maintenance obligations to the
growing detriment of the Plaintiff, failing to provide benefits which the Plaintiff paid
for with 25 years of strata fees while getting so much less than bargained for.
74

Strata Records
278. All of the Plaintiffs claims herein are based on information available to the Plaintiff
which is sometimes less than complete or reliable but is accurate to the best of the
Plaintiffs knowledge.
279. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata acted persistently to thwart the
Plaintiffs right to information, misrepresented or avoided disclosure of material facts,
denied the Plaintiff access to strata records and violated Section 35 of the S.P.A.
280. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has deprived the Plaintiff of records
pursuant to Section 35 which the strata corporation must provide, including:
a) minutes of annual and special general meetings and council meetings,
including the results of any votes;
b) lists of council members;
c) lists of owners, with their strata lot addresses, strata lot numbers, and mailing
addresses if different;
d) books of account showing money received and spent and the reason for the
receipt or expenditure;
e) the registered strata plan and any strata plan amendments;
f) strata bylaws and rules;
g) resolutions that deal with changes to common property;
h) written contracts to which the strata corporation is a party;
i) legal opinions obtained by the strata corporation;
j) correspondence sent to or received by the strata corporation, including all
agents;
k) the budget and financial statement for the current year and for previous years;
l) bank statements, cancelled cheques and certificates of deposit;
m) Information Certificates setting out any agreements under which the owner
takes responsibility for expenses relating to alterations to a strata lot, the
common property or the common assets;
n) owner developer Rental Disclosure Statements under section 139;
75

o) reports obtained by the strata corporation respecting repair or maintenance of
major items in the strata corporation, including, without limit, engineers'
reports, risk management reports, sanitation reports, and reports respecting
any items for which information is, under section 94, required to be contained
in a depreciation report;
p) and any other records required by the regulations, including:
i. each council member's telephone number, or a method by which the
council member may be contacted on short notice;
ii. a depreciation report on or before December 14, 2013 from a qualified
person estimating the repair and replacement cost for major items in
the strata corporation and the expected life of those items;
281. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata employs convoluted inefficient record
keeping practices, misrepresentations, doubletalk, obstruction, oppression, and delay
which deprives the Plaintiff of information, evidence, and remedies, and interferes
materially with culpable parties being held accountable for misconduct and damages.
282. The Defendant Strata has repeatedly deprived the Plaintiff of requested records from
2003 to present, including, but not limited to, minutes of meetings, lists of owners;
financial records, insurance policies, contracts with strata management and others,
legal opinions, correspondence, reports of the Defendant Stratas engineers and
information from its landscape architects, and especially records of misconduct and
reliable facts and information required to make reasonably informed decisions.
283. The Plaintiff claims that for at least 10 years the Defendant Strata has been violating
Section 36 of the S.P.A. which requires that the Defendant Strata make strata records
available for inspection by, and provide copies to, an owner within 2 weeks of
receiving a request with payment of no more than 25 cents per page for copies, or no
fee just to inspect the records.
284. The following record of tortuous particulars from 2003 illustrates the nature of the
Defendant Stratas obstruction of the Plaintiffs rights to access strata records for
more than 10 years:
a) January 9, 2003, Please provide me with complete copies of all types of
correspondence involving Strata Plan NW 2671 from January 9, 2002, forward;
b) March 13, 2003, Please ensure that I receive copies of everything from January 1,
2002 to date within 30 days of this request;
c) April 9, 2003, I am paying $8.25 for copies of the correspondence file advise
me of the total cost for any remaining material;
76

d) April 27, 2003, If you have not yet mailed the photocopies I paid for, please bring
them with you to the next council meeting;
e) May 9, 2003, Stratawest has not stated the total amount required for payment of
the copies not provided and refuses to provide the copies as requested I
acknowledge with thanks receipt of 26 pages of 2002 correspondence and 15
pages of contracts for landscaping and management services;
f) May 12, 2003, The minutes do not record any discussion or action to resolve the
problem;
g) May 13, 2003, Please ensure that nothing is held back or omitted from the
records including emails to past and current council members;
h) May 16, 2003, Thanks for the MH reports. How can I get copies of the Rainforest
reports and other strata documents?
i) May 30, 2003, I still want the photocopies I asked for in January. Please tell me
how many pages I have to pay for;
j) June 7, 2003, As stated in my previous letters, I would like copies of strata
documents as requested in accordance to the Act from January 2002 until present.
I am not in a position to travel to and from West Vancouver, so please tell me the
number of pages I have to pay for and do not charge me for anything you
provided me with previously or that is not included in the scope of my request.
PLEASE EXPLAIN the prolonged delay. ...I will pay the strata for the copies in
accordance with the Act. In accordance with your requirement to protect the
owners I will certify my cheque payable to the strata corporation, which I believe
is not a GST registrant. I expect all the Rainforest material and our strata's
monthly landscaping reports to be included. ..If copies of the invoices in support
of the financial statements are not normally included, please advise I do not
wish to continue waiting forever or to pay you $20 an hour for the time and
expense of reviewing 30 administration files and 20 accounting filesI do not
expect to pay for files that are Stratawest's rather than strata corporation's
(August 18, 2003: by that I mean obviously irrelevant internal files.)
k) Thank you for your June 11 email price quote for complete copies of everything
involving Strata Plan NW 2671 from January 1, 2002 to date...please confirm that
your quote has included copies of the following strata documents in accordance
with the Act:

1) books of account showing money received and spent and the reason
for the receipt or expenditure (please do not charge me for copies of
financial statements previously supplied);
77


2) written contracts to which the strata corporation is a party;
3) the registered strata plan and any strata plan amendments as obtained
from the land title office; and
4) all correspondence sent or received by the strata corporation and
council (please ensure that you did not censor it by restricting it to
include individual owners only.)
l) June 15, 2003, I received 93 pages of Morrison Hershfield reports from Peter
with thanks and am hopeful that Stratawest will bring 58 pages of Rainforest
material along with this years landscaping reports to the council meeting on
Monday. I will leave cash with Larry to pay for any photocopies provided
according to my requests...If any copies I have requested are not provided, please
explain the delay;
m) June 28, 2003, Once again, I request copies of our strata corporation documents
from January 1, 2002, to date, as well as a copy of the Rainforest material;
n) July 31, 2003, Once again, I want: copies of all strata corporation records from
January 2002 to present;
o) August 6, 2003, I look forward to your visit ... Please bring copies of the strata
documents with you;
p) August 7, 2003, Please provide me with the copies I have requested in
accordance with the legislation;
q) August 15, 2003, here are the resolutions I would like...Whereas, Stratawest and
some members of council have not been advised of correspondence and reports,
and an owner has complained that Stratawest has not provided requested copies
of strata corporation documents within the required time limits; be it resolved
that: Council will submit to Stratawest copies of all strata records that are, or
have been, in their possession and will obtain the documents itemized in Sections
35 (1) (d), 2 (b), (d), (g), (h), (k), (l), (h), of the Strata Property Act, copies to be
provided to the requesting owner upon receipt of $.25 per page in payment;
r) August 18, 2003, he has not provided requested copies in accordance with the
Act well over a dozen times I asked very clearly for copies of all types of
correspondence from January 9, 2002, forward, mainly because I couldnt find
out what was going on with Pomeroy, Rainforest, and the building envelope by
asking orallypursuant to its implicitly insulting refusal to accept an ordinary
cheque from me, I paid for the requested copies with bills and coins, under
protest, including, again under protest, an additional 7% Wayne censored the
correspondence by restricting it to just some messages to and from owners, still
78

depriving me of the information to figure out whos been making our decisions
and getting our money I gradually expanded my original request to the
documents itemized in Sections 35 (1) (d), 2 (b), (d), (g), (h), (k), (l), (h), of the
Strata Property Act, as the ongoing delays and obstacles to disclosure expanded
my concerns;
s) December 17, 2003, correspondence was not answered and no evidence of it was
in the minutes.
285. The Plaintiff claims that lack of copies, or access to, and no trace of, strata records is
an ongoing violation of S.P.A., and lack of evidence of receipt of correspondence, the
absence of decisions in the minutes on the contents, combined with delays and
misrepresentations raise apprehensions of misconduct.
286. The Plaintiff further claims that strata decisions are made by unidentified parties
without discussion or disclosure; and particularly without motions, votes,
deliberation, or debate, so much so that even when the Plaintiffs took turns serving as
members of council the Plaintiffs were not made aware of and could not access
material documents and information and did not receive copies of correspondence to
council or the factual data required to make reasonably informed decisions.
287. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata even enters contracts pre-emptively
without a vote and holds meetings without notice to all members of council.
288. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata describes electronic strata records as
personal and makes decisions by email under conditions inconsistent with the
requirements of the S.P.A. and that it has become generally accepted practice through
the strata agency industry to misconceive the nature of the requirement under the
S.P.A. to allow owners to observe meetings and to keep and disclose correspondence
sent to and received by the strata corporation, particularly since Kayne v. The
Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2374, 2007 BCSC 1610 was decided in 2007.
289. The Plaintiff claims that despite their continually repeated requests for strata records
the Defendant Strata persistently delayed production for years, such that material
records requested but not produced are incomplete and no longer exist in the strata
records, including, but not limited to, certain insurance records, email, incriminating
correspondence, and strata council minutes.
290. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata violated their rights in a variety of
ways, including but not limited to, deliberately failing to provide requested strata
records at a cost of 25 cents a copy and eroding tax relief for home improvements, by
collaborating with strata agents to charge unreasonable fees that obstruct or defeat the
intended benefits of law.
79

291. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata improperly fined the Plaintiff for
alleged contraventions of the bylaws without recording the decision and complaint in
the minutes.
292. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has wrongly denied access to strata
records, deleted correspondence, tampered with minutes, diverted special levy funds,
and misrepresented or obstructed access to material information by members of
council as well as owners.
293. The deliberate and persistent nature of violations of Section 35 of the S.P.A. that the
Plaintiff knows of raises an apprehension that undisclosed violations exist as well.
294. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has failed to keep and make available
strata records as required pursuant to section 35 of the S.P.A. and that the Plaintiff has
suffered loss as a result of the Defendant Stratas delays and nondisclosure.
295. The Plaintiffs loss includes, but is not limited to, their security and right to make
reasonably informed decisions, trust fiduciaries, and rely on law, as well as the
Plaintiffs time and eroded health arising out of the Defendant Strata frustrating
dozens of requests which she made over more than a 10-year period in attempts to be
fairly informed of the actions and decisions and the money spent by the Defendant
Strata, particularly in circumstances raising apprehensions of unfairness and
misconduct.
296. The Defendant Stratas lack of compliance with Sections 35 and 36 of the S.P.A. is a
serious matter when one in eight Canadian households now lives in a condo and some
85 per cent of new construction in the urban core is multi-family housing where
owners are all in it together even though they may not choose to be and would
actually live in single detached homes if they had the money.
297. The Plaintiff claims that noncompliance with Sections 35 and 36 interferes with the
rights of not just the Plaintiff, but all owners, including members of council, and
impedes the administration of justice and disclosure of corruption, systemic and
personal, historical and current.
Voting
298. With regard to ongoing corruption, the Plaintiff claims that Al MacLeods paint
bylaw legacy is invalid because no vote of any kind was taken on it, and it:
a) was implemented in conflict with sections 27, 40, 50, the S.P.A.,
b) is unenforceable against extra decking on the common property,
c) effectively sections off strata plan patios from strata plan balconies,
d) diverts strata fees so balconies are fully funded and patios are not,
80

e) disregards historical expenses and adds further costs and unfair inequities,
f) results in artificial strata fees not based on unit entitlement formulas or user
fees,
g) acts to hide the Defendant Stratas liabilities for unfunded extra decks from
the financial statements, contingency reserve fund, and depreciation report.
Personal Injury
299. The Plaintiff claims that oppression in strata corporations is an unrecognized form of
domestic abuse that wears people out, insidiously damaging families, health and
productivity, costing a lot of wasted time and money.
300. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata and its lawyers, strata managers,
members of council, owners, and agents ganged up on the Plaintiff and unfairly
deprived, vilified, and discredited her with misrepresentations that caused or
contributed to strata strife and foreseeable personal injury to the Plaintiff.
301. The Plaintiff claims to have found no escape from the humiliation and agony caused
by those bullying and abusing her in her own home and although the Plaintiff is an
adult and not inclined to obtain relief by committing suicide like Amanada Todd the
consequences may be the death of her nevertheless.
302. The Plaintiff claims that stress from strata strife can be a silent killer and that it is
causing her personal injury and endangering her life, not on the basis of scientific
proof, but on the basis of the episodic nature of her migraines, bowel spasms, painful
muscle tension, overwhelming aversion to strata records and all the other reactions
that arise when she addresses strata matters.
303. The Plaintiff further claims to be experiencing novel chest pain and daily headaches
which the Plaintiff didnt experience before the last tree that was destroyed in
December 2014 provoked her to begin preparing for court proceedings.
304. The Plaintiff claims that she is too exhausted and traumatically impaired by stress
arising out the Defendant Stratas unfair treatment of her to be able to submit onerous
research and proof in support of her prayer for relief from personal injury, and she
must rely on the balance of probabilities in the whole of the circumstances, common
sense and the mercy and inherent jurisdiction of the court.
305. The Plaintiff claims that cumulative strata stress over 25 years of compounding
unfairness has become increasingly significant, reduced her capacity to cope,
sickened her physically, emotionally, and functionally, overwhelmed her and
exceeded her endurance.
81

306. The Plaintiff further claims that persistent and prolonged oppression by the Defendant
Strata since 1990 has caused personal injury and/or bodily harm to the Plaintiff,
which includes:
a) damage from months of exposure to toxic sewer gas in disregard of the
Plaintiffs complaints to the Defendant Strata,
b) bruising caused by slipping and falling down stairs on Unit 409s carpet that
the Defendant Strata left saturated with soap and water that took more than 2
days to dry,
c) battery with toxic fumes from exterior sealant that the Defendant Strata
applied throughout the interior of the Plaintiffs home in extraordinary
amounts that took a year to dissipate,
d) back injury that required an ambulance from the Plaintiff falling on extremely
slippery wet patio wood that the Defendant Strata left unmaintained for years,
e) painful defatted skin caused by paint remover the Plaintiff used in repairing
damage the Defendant Strata caused to Unit 409s window sills,
f) repetitive stress, shock and trauma arising out of unspeakable unfairness,
g) social stress and badly strained relationships attributable to defamatory
misrepresentations against the Plaintiff,
h) psychological distress arising from being wrongly discredited, accused,
bullied and threatened,
i) anxiety arising out of threatened fines,
j) anxiety arising from threats of forced sale of the matrimonial home,
k) anxiety arising from the police fining and threatening the Plaintiff,
l) anxiety arising from being deprived of the facts needed to make informed
decisions and reasonable defences,
m) uncertainty and emotional pain arising from being unreasonably ostracized,
n) betrayal of legitimate expectations of rights, responsibilities, and justice,
o) relentless, prolonged pressure,
p) insomnia and sleep deprivation,
q) burn out and exhaustion,
82

r) disabling headaches,
s) anxiety attacks,
t) explosive bowel spasms,
u) excruciating chest pain,
v) torturously painful muscle tension,
w) abnormal changes in appetite,
x) hurt feelings, humiliation, and embarrassment,
y) preoccupation, irritability, and loss of focus,
z) feelings of revulsion when dealing with strata matters,
aa) disabling aversion to strata records,
bb) loss of ability to function efficiently and effectively enough for employment,
cc) unspeakable emotional and psychological pain,
dd) profound loss of enjoyment,
ee) temporary hair loss and inappropriate medication,
ff) poor response and emotional crashing during stress,
gg) increased environmental sensitivity and allergic reactions,
hh) abnormal sweating and achiness,
ii) symptoms of damage to adrenal function from excessive stress, and
jj) depressed feelings of a foreshortened future and reduced life expectancy.
307. In dealing with the Defendant Stratas actions the Plaintiff experiences disabling
reactions, such that she feels hysterical and becomes overwhelmed and must stop
dealing with strata issues until she can recuperate, which takes from minutes to years.
308. Ongoing oppression by the Defendant Strata in the Plaintiffs own home sucks the
life out of the Plaintiff and frequently incapacitates her.
309. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata treated the Plaintiff unfairly, cruelly
resisted the Plaintiffs efforts to resolve matters, and acted deliberately and
83

persistently in ways to provoke court proceedings while the Plaintiff is handicapped
and without competent representation.
Negligence
310. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata, including its wide variety of agents and
representatives, has a duty to act with reasonable care to avoid causing foreseeable
harm to the Plaintiff, the Defendant Strata breached said duty, and as a result the
Plaintiff suffered damage and injury that merits compensation.
311. The Plaintiff claims to have a legitimate expectation that the Defendant Strata owes
the Plaintiff duties of care as a neighbour and as set out in statutory and common law.
312. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata unreasonably shirked said duties.
313. The Plaintiff claims that she suffered foreseeable loss and damage as a result.
314. Particulars of the Defendant Stratas negligence are detailed in this Notice of Civil
Claim and further particulars may be provided prior to trial.
Nuisance
315. The Plaintiff claims that owners, both on and off council, made significant changes to
the use and appearance of the common property that the Plaintiff purchased an
interest in and interfered with the Plaintiffs ability to enjoy her own home,
particulars of which include, but are not limited to, the following complaints.
316. The Defendant Strata has acted to maintain hidden defects rather than repair the
structure of the building, despite chronic mold rendering the Plaintiffs ensuite unfit
for the purpose for which it is intended.
317. Trees that were planted by the developers landscape architect pursuant to restrictive
covenants that run with the land were cut down by owners without authority, permits,
or votes and destroyed by deliberate acts of the Defendant Strata in full knowledge of
the profound loss to the Plaintiff and without due regard to the costs to the strata and
administration of justice.
318. The Defendant Strata unfairly exposed the Plaintiff to decades of significant nuisance
by failing to reinstate a vine maple tree that another owner cut down to extend their
patio, depriving the Plaintiff of use and enjoyment of common property, eliminating
access to and benefit of an important safety buffer, eroding their sense of geotechnical
security, and encroaching on the Plaintiffs patio with trellis planters to replace the
tree and its privacy screen between the windows of the buildings.
319. The Defendant Strata created unobstructed panoramic views by pre-emptively and
persistently destroying landscaping and trees in unreasonable disregard to the stratas
bylaws, section 71 of the Strata Property Act, the building envelope contract,
84

restrictive covenants, sinking buildings, and all of the geotechnical, erosion and slope
issues arising out of said history, and the known and clearly stated nuisance and loss
of enjoyment to the Plaintiff.
320. The Defendant Strata suggests that it has the right to act against dissenting owners,
describing the Plaintiff as vile and despicable and the destruction of valuable
landscaping as a good job and an accomplishment, ridiculing landscaping
concerns with sarcastic cracks in the minutes about doing autopsies, diverting
special levy funds, and hiring professionals to accuse the Plaintiff of harassment
and malice for complaining about unfair acts and decisions.
321. The value to the Plaintiff of the property purchased has been significantly diminished
by years of unfair treatment, lack of repairs and maintenance, loss of use, equity, and
privacy, and increased noise, heat, dirt, and stress, but the home is nevertheless
uniquely suited to the Plaintiffs current and future needs, and as an original owner
the Plaintiff is heavily invested in the home.
322. The Plaintiff claims that there is a strong probability that the market value of the
property is less and Unit 409 will be more difficult to sell than it would be without the
oppressive loss of trees, privacy, outdoor dining space, and equitable maintenance.
323. The Plaintiff further claims that the Real Estate Boards Strata Property Disclosure
Statement, quite rightly requires the Plaintiff to list any unrepaired structural
problems, damage due to water, and problems with the plumbing system during sale
of the property in order to protect potential buyers against hidden defects, and the
Plaintiff claims damages and loss against the Defendant Strata for unrepaired strata
insured water damage to Unit 409 and damage to the building that the Defendant
Strata is responsible for, including defective structures, fixtures, and patio.
Insurance
324. The Plaintiff claims that the unthinkable did not occur to them until 2013 when the
Defendant Strata reported that it had reviewed the strata records and destroyed 8
boxes, and the Plaintiff suddenly connected the Defendant Stratas persistent denial of
access to the insurance policy and other strata records for a decade and concluded that
the Defendant Strata had somehow allowed premiums to lapse during negotiations for
a new carrier and therefore had no insurance on the July 23, 2003 date of loss.
325. The Plaintiff lost sleep for years over the delays and incomplete repair of Unit 409 in
contrast to the prompt and complete repair of Unit 227, trying to make sense of what
happened to the insurance, which was supposed to be in effect on July 23, 2003,
never thinking beyond the interests of Gloria Henderson in escaping liability and Al
MacLeod in keeping deductibles low to facilitate sales and retaliating against the
Plaintiff for criticizing management and questions of causation for the structural
damage to Unit 409 to explain why the Defendant Strata did not report the loss or
85

make a claim for more extensive damage from water escaping for an unknown length
of time on that date from Ms. Hendersons broken toilet tank in Unit 510.
326. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas obligation to complete the repair of
Unit 409 is an ongoing duty and whether the court calls door systems fixtures or part
of the structure of buildings, the doors in Unit 409 are so warped they have been unfit
for the purpose for which they are intended since 2003, and the Defendant Strata left
them damaged and rubbing on the carpet causing ongoing damage and years of stress
and unfair loss to the Plaintiff.
327. Section 149(1) of the S.P.A., requires the Defendant Strata to obtain and maintain
property insurance on buildings shown on the strata plan, and fixtures built or
installed on a strata lot if the fixtures are built or installed by the owner developer as
part of the original construction on the strata lot, and section (4) says the property
insurance must be on the basis of full replacement value, and insure against major
perils, and section 9.1 of the Regulations says "fixtures" means items attached to a
building, including floor and wall coverings and plumbing fixtures, and major perils
includes water escape, vandalism and malicious acts.
328. From July 23, 2003 to April 2009, the Plaintiff made 40 complaints and requests to
the Defendant Strata to provide a copy of the insurance policy or complete the repairs
that it started and promised, but the Defendant Strata failed to provide the requested
records and to complete the repairs.
Water Damage
329. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata failed to properly insure or repair water
damage to Unit 409 caused by floods from Unit 510s bathtub, washing machine,
toilet, and garborator, which resulted in years of ever increasing loss and elusive
whiffs of mould in Unit 409.
330. On or about July 23, 2003, the Crane toilet tank burst in the main bathroom in Unit
510 above the Plaintiffs Unit 409 and flooded both units. Nobody was home in either
unit so the Plaintiff has no way of knowing how long the water had been running
when Mr. Bond came home and reported the flood to Stratawest Management Ltd.,
the Defendant Stratas management company at the time, but it was a major flood.
331. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata failed to act in the interests of the
owners when it had ample evidence to raise a reasonable apprehension that the
Defendant Strata did not have the required replacement value insurance coverage for
water damage on July 23, 2013, or that it was somehow voided, on the basis that:
a) Gloria Henderson, the owner of Unit 510, was in charge of negotiating new
insurance coverage for the Defendant Strata at the time of the flood
b) repairs to Unit 510 where performed by the owners of Unit 510 personally
86

c) the Plaintiff has no evidence of an insurance claim for the date of loss
d) the Defendant Strata failed to take reasonable steps to recover the amount of
the insurance deductible from the owner responsible for the damage
e) from the information available to the Plaintiff the deductible in 2002 was
$1,000 and in 2004 it was $5,000, but the Plaintiff found it impossible to
obtain a copy of the insurance contract from the Defendant Strata or to verify
what the deductible and disclosure was on July 23, 2003
f) the Plaintiff could not find out if the Crane toilet tanks and warned of risk was
disclosed to the insurer
g) the repairs to Unit 409 were inexplicably complicated and never completed
h) requested strata records were persistently denied to the Plaintiff year after year
i) approximately $26,000 was paid by the Defendant Strata for repairs to Unit
227 for a less extensive flood that occurred a week or so after 510 and 409
were flooded
j) the Plaintiff found the $26,000 paid for 227 but no offsetting amount from
either the insurance or the owner
k) the Defendant Stratas management company of 15 years terminated services
to Sunridge Estates after the flood for reasons unknown
332. Mr. MacLeod engaged in corrupt operations over a period of more than 10 years and
his relationship with Ms. Henderson as his only client over a period of years when
there was a record number of sellers.
333. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata failed to act in the interests of the
owners when it had evidence to raise a reasonable apprehension that Mr. MacLeod
played a role in denying the Plaintiff completion of the repairs and access to the
insurance records for years:
334. Ms. Henderson was his only client that year while all other sellers boycotted him
335. Mr. MacLeod commenced vexatious legal proceedings against the only other owner
involved in a real estate transaction with him between 2002 and 2006
336. Mr. MacLeod used the strata as his personal bank in a manner akin to money
laundering the proceeds of crime
337. This was a major flood which spoiled the previous condition of the Plaintiffs strata
lot. It extended from 409s master ensuite all the way into the living room, soaking 3
floor levels, 2 ceiling levels, and all the floor coverings and substrate, framing,
87

drywall, and doors in between, eroding a water soluble cement column in the garage,
causing damage to the structure of the Plaintiffs strata lot, including warped doors,
sinking ceilings and floors, cracked walls, and mold.
338. The loud constant pounding of industrial air movers 24 hours a day was deafening
and the Plaintiff claims her hearing was damaged after about a solid week of it. Mr.
Bond was able to get away from it when he went to work, but the Plaintiff had no job
to escape to, and no relief from noise so loud it was painful.
339. Repairs to the substrate under Unit 510s carpets included the owner pouring out over
$1,600 of flooring compound, in material alone, half of which the Defendant Strata
paid for, and the Plaintiff claims the added weight may be buckling 409s ceiling.
340. 409s floor buckled so badly after the flood that doors were wedged and couldnt
move, things were out of plumb by about .5, doors had to be taken down and cut to
lengths ranging between about 79.25 to 80.25, and no member of council or
insurance investigator ever inspected the damage despite the Plaintiffs ongoing
complaints for over 10 years.
341. The Defendant Strata had 409s doors cut and latch plates adjusted so the doors could
close until replacement value repairs could be completed, but 10 years later the doors
remained unrepaired and still would not stay latched; they were crooked, sticking,
dragging, swinging, warped and out of plumb.
342. The Plaintiff never complained of such problems before July 23, 2003, because no
such problems had been experienced before the flood. None of the unrepaired damage
plaguing the Plaintiff for over 10 years after the flood was previously apparent.
343. After waiting over 10 years for the Defendant Strata to complete the repairs of the
water damage to Unit 409 the Plaintiff hired a door company to reinstate function to
their doors as follows: the master bedroom door rubbed on the carpet and could not
be relied on to stay latched and needed to be cut right at the bottom, the main floor
bathroom door was so crooked it could be pushed open when latched and sometimes
dragged on the floor; the guestroom door was so warped and crooked it could be
pushed open when latched; it needed to be re-hung, and the basement bedroom door
was sticking and needed the casing removed and to be rehung, or to have 1/8" cut off
the hinge side and be re-mortised and sanded.
344. The subsequent smell of mold alerted the Plaintiff that Unit 409s storage cupboard
had been soaked also, and the Plaintiff claims that said problem would have been
discovered and corrected if the defendant Strata had reported the flood and an
insurance investigator had inspected the water damage, at the time of loss, or at all.
345. Since the flood Unit 409 has periodically experienced a series of unexplained
electrical failures, most recently in April 2014.
88

346. At the time of loss the Defendant Strata removed Unit 409s carpets to let the floors
dry and then reinstalled them with lumped up seams which collapsed into a sunken
seam at the living room entrance.
347. The Defendant Strata re-installed the carpets dirty, and when they were finally
shampooed the Defendant Strata left the carpets so saturated with slippery soap and
water that the Plaintiff fell down the stairs; 48 hours later the carpets were still wet,
but the Defendant Strata ignored the Plaintiffs complaints.
348. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata took months to provide substandard
cosmetic repairs to Unit 409 that left what the Defendant Stratas property manager
referred to as the "structural damage" to be repaired later in what was to be a major
construction project but the Plaintiff has been waiting for more than a decade for the
repairs to be completed, with warped doors, which stick shut downstairs and drag on
the floors and wont stay latched upstairs, damaged carpeting, sinking ceilings and
floors, cracked walls, rusted fixtures, and water-stained paint.
349. The Defendant Stratas August 28, 2003 minutes of council report on the Plaintiff
having concerns about the quality of the repairs and state that the flood identified a
structural settlement issue to be addressed as part of, or in conjunction with, the
building envelope remediation project if there is no immediate safety threat.
350. The building envelope remediation project was completed without repairing the water
damaged fixtures and structure of the Plaintiffs strata lot.
351. On March 27, 2007, the Defendant Strata had its engineer, Tam London, conduct an
investigation of the Plaintiffs complaints, and in a report dated May 31, 2007, he
stated that in his opinion the unrepaired damage was consistent with water damage.
352. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has an ongoing duty to repair the
damage to the structure and fixtures of their strata lot, as well as all of the insured
loss; including the crooked, warped doors that stick and wont stay latched, and
cracked walls and sinking ceilings and floors that are flexing, with a distinctive
circular depression and warped substrate under the carpet and above a water soluble
column in the garage.
353. The Plaintiff claims that according to the dictionary and the ordinary meaning of
words, a door is a movable structure used to close off a room, and whether it is called
a structure or a fixture, or whether the damage is due to water, settlement, or some
kind of teeter-totter, if the door system is so damaged that it will not function to close
off or open up the room then it is a problem for the Defendant Strata to repair, along
with the damaged ceilings and floors, and walls in the Plaintiffs strata lot, all of
which were built or installed by the owner developer as part of the original
construction of the strata lot.
89

354. The Plaintiff further claims that if the ceilings, walls, doors and floors in Unit 409 are
not part of the structure of the building then Unit 510 would fall straight through the
Plaintiffs strata lot and land in the garage below.
355. The Plaintiff claims in the alternative that that if the doors are not structures, then
they are fixtures, and the S.P.A. requires replacement value repairs.
356. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has an ongoing obligation to repair the
building and fixtures, and these repair obligations are in no way restricted to
engineering problems that are an immediate threat to safety, whether insured,
structural, or otherwise.
357. Pursuant to section 26 of the S.P.A., the strata council must exercise the powers and
perform the duties of the Defendant Strata, including the enforcement of bylaws and
rules, and the Plaintiff claims that owners should not be sickened and forced to sue all
of their neighbours just to make the strata council do their job.
358. The Plaintiff claims that it is the Defendant Stratas duty pursuant to bylaw 11.1(d)(i)
and insurance premiums that it collected from the Plaintiff pursuant to section 149(1)
of the S.P.A to complete the water damage repairs that it started and promised and
charged strata fees for as an ongoing obligation under the bylaws, and that 10 years of
delay, misrepresentations, and stress is significantly unfair to the Plaintiff.
359. The Plaintiff wanted to replace the floor coverings in Unit 409 for many years but
was prevented from proceeding by the badly damaged substrate and sinking structural
support, leaving the Plaintiffs life in limbo for years.
360. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas failure to complete the required
repairs to Unit 409 caused the Plaintiff to choose between going away on vacation or
having flowers on the patio for nearly 10 years because the Plaintiff needed Unit
409s doors to stay latched when locked to protect the Plaintiffs privacy when letting
others take care of things while away on vacation and they would not stay latched.
361. Since the Plaintiff got pets in 2007 the Plaintiff was further impeded in taking any
extended trip away from home so long as the doors on Unit 409s locked bedrooms
would not stay latched and anyone could just push them open.
362. The Plaintiff had a locksmith try to make adjustments to make the doors stay locked
and he said he couldnt because we would need new doors or a carpenter to make
them stay locked. The Plaintiff hired a carpenter who made them latch but could not
repair the warping.
363. The Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the Defendant Strata to compensate the Plaintiff
for all the repairs and maintenance and responsibilities that the Defendant Strata has
offloaded onto the Plaintiff.
90

364. The unrepaired damage to the Plaintiffs strata lot also interferes with the Plaintiffs
ability to sell the home, particularly with respect to the Real Estate Boards Property
Disclosure Statement for Strata Title Properties that asks, "Are you aware of any
structural problems with any of the buildings on the property?" and "Are you aware
of any leakage or unrepaired damage?"
365. The Plaintiff has performed do-it-yourself repairs to drywall, paint, and sliders on the
closet over the years but repair of the major damage has remained incomplete for over
10 years while the Defendant Stratas statutory duty to repair continues to speak each
and every day.
366. The Plaintiff also replaced most, if not all, of the windows with failed seals, replaced
all the Crane toilets, and repaired or replaced all the window sills that the Defendant
Strata damaged in Unit 409, all at the Plaintiffs own expense, only to have the
Defendant Strata provide others with new windows, doors, floors, balconies, ground
cover, trees, extra decking, and other benefits not provided to the Plaintiff.
367. On March 18, 2003, the Plaintiff complained about a history of water damage arising
out of Unit 510s kitchen, bath, and laundry problems, the Plaintiffs failed window
seals, improperly installed plumbing fixtures and heavy black mold and requested
repairs, but over 10 years later the Plaintiff is still not only unable to use the shower
in their ensuite but have to keep the entire room closed off due to recurring problems
with mildew.
368. The Plaintiff claims that the strata lot boundaries shown on the strata plan separate the
ensuites of strata lot 25 and 26 equally, but the structural portion of the wall of strata
lot 26 extends beyond the strata lot boundary, such that the common property pipes
and vertical support encroach into strata lot 26s ensuite, creating a health hazard and
giving the Plaintiff less than the Plaintiff bargained for contrary to the strata plan and
section 68 of the S.P.A.
369. to ignore the defective installations and the Plaintiffs complaints were not recorded
in the minutes and do not appear to be have made by the required majority vote.
370. The Plaintiff has been sneezing for 25 years in a strata lot with defective ventilation,
during which time the Plaintiff has paid almost $200,000 in strata fees for
maintenance and repairs that the Defendant Strata deprives them of.
371. The Plaintiff replaced the sealant around the tub when the Defendant Strata ignored
the problem, but the mildew promptly returned, repeatedly.
372. When the Defendant Strata continued ignoring the Plaintiffs complaints the Plaintiff
replaced the wall board with cement board and installed new tiles in another attempt
to resolve the problem but the mildew very quickly recurred.
373. The Bathtub Guys told the Plaintiff that their company would not be able to repair the
problem as they guaranteed their work for 5 years and the mildew in Unit 409s
91

ensuite would quickly return as long as the wall and pipes between the strata lots are
off centre the way they are because the alignment makes the joint between the wall
and the tub too difficult to seal effectively. When pressed for other options the only
ones they suggested was to remove the developers 6-foot tub and replace it with a
smaller tub or no tub at all, and the company did not provide a cost estimate for that.
374. The Plaintiffs are both tall and do not want to reduce the size of the original fixtures
or devalue the original specifications in any event.
375. Strata corporation restrictions impede strata owners from repairing the buildings or
doing anything that affects a neighbouring unit and deny the Plaintiff the rights that
owners of single detached homes have to repair construction or plumbing defects, and
most contractors will not do work on common property for an owner without
authorization from the strata corporation.
376. The Plaintiff claims that pursuant to section 69 of the S.P.A. there exists an implied
easement in the Plaintiffs favour for vertical support and for the passage of water
through facilities in the common property at the strata lot boundary to the extent that
the facilities are capable of being used in connection with the enjoyment of Unit 409.
377. The Plaintiff has continually complained to the Defendant Strata about misaligned
plumbing trespassing into their strata lot and a misaligned air duct for the ceiling vent
defeating the intended purpose of Unit 409s ensuite fan but the Defendant Strata has
taken no corrective action and repairs have not been provided.
378. The Plaintiff claims that due to intractable black mildew recurring between the bath
tiles and tub, which Plaintiff is unable to clean away or cure by replacing the backer,
tiles, grout, and sealant, the Plaintiff is unable to use and enjoy the shower or fan in
the ensuite of Unit 409 as intended and after repeating a variety of unsuccessful
attempts to resolve the problem gave up on using that shower well over a decade ago.
379. The Plaintiff claims an order pursuant to section 69 of the S.P.A. that easements
which charge and burden that part of the common property that is causing the 1.5 inch
encroachment into the Plaintiffs ensuite be enforced by the strata corporation to
equalize the ensuite tub and shower apace in Unit 411 and Unit 409 and repair the
defective tub and shower area and ducting in Unit 409 on its own behalf or on behalf
of the Plaintiff.
380. The Defendant Strata failed to inspect or correct the problem and ignored the
Plaintiffs complaints for years, so in or about 2008 the Plaintiff posted photos of the
various water damage on her strata blog hoping to encourage corrective action, which
has yet to come.
381. The Plaintiff is not responsible for the damage in Unit 409, but has suffered the loss
for years while obeying the bylaws in good faith and paying strata fees only see them
92

wasted on destructive special interests for the exclusive benefit and unjust enrichment
of others while the Plaintiff is denied repairs and maintenance mandated by law.
382. Prior to the 2003 flood the Defendant Strata warned owners about the defective Crane
toilet tanks and advised . Unit 227 ignored the warning and their tank burst, costing
approximately $26,000 in repairs to their unit as a result, and the Defendant Strata did
not request, nor receive, any reimbursement from the owners of Unit 227.
383. On March 7, 2007, Mae Reid complained about being disturbed by noisy plumbing,
and the Defendant Strata requested access to the Plaintiffs unit to deal with it
immediately but dropped the matter when the Plaintiff said that access to Unit 409
would be granted to resolve the Plaintiffs complaints first and Mae Reids concerns
should stop taking priority over the Plaintiffs.
384. The Plaintiff claims that the disparity in treatment by the Defendant Strata is
significantly unfair and the Plaintiff does not receive honest, even handed treatment.
385. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is liable for punitive damages for
avoiding structural repairs for decades and depriving the Plaintiff of property that is
fit for the purpose for which it was intended, endangering the Plaintiffs health, and
damaging the Plaintiffs credibility and reputation, making disparaging insinuations
in the minutes, including without limit that the Plaintiff does not properly clean her
bathroom.
386. The Plaintiff claims in addition pursuant to bylaw 11.1(d)i, or in the alternative, an
order that the Defendant Strata is responsible to make the structural repairs required
to allow the Plaintiff to use Unit 409s ensuite safely without being exposed to black
mold or mildew, which is not only a health hazard, but is unsightly and impossible to
clean without premature replacement of the sealant.
Building Structure
387. The supporting pillar in the limited common property below the Plaintiffs strata lot is
apparently composed of water soluble concrete which eroded in 2003 after Unit 409
was flooded by the burst toilet tank in Unit 510.
388. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has failed to repair the damaged
structure and flooring substrate of Unit 409 despite the Plaintiffs continual
complaints and the ongoing statutory requirements of the S.P.A.
389. The Plaintiff further claimS that the Defendant Strata is ignoring the strata lot
boundaries shown on the strata plan and blueprints and failing to recognize its
responsibility to repair the defective structure of the building, despite the Plaintiffs
complaints that common property pipes between the ensuites of Units 409 and 411
are trespassing into the Plaintiffs strata lot with an ascertainable definable
infringement of approximately 1.5 inches resulting in chronic mold in their shower
for over 20 years.
93

390. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is failing to enforce implied easements
and repair the structure of the building to remedy an ongoing nuisance and chronic
mold arising out of the shared pipes and wall are off center and the resultant
transitions between Unit 409s ensuite shower wall and tub result in caulked seals that
repeatedly fail prematurely.
391. The air vent between Unit 409 and Unit 510 that is for Unit 409s ensuite fan is also
installed off center and does not allow the fan to draw enough air to be effective and
despite resultant black mold the Defendant Strata is continually failing to meet its
obligation to repair the structure for proper installation and function of the vent.
392. In or about 2003 the Plaintiff requested an inspection of the mold in Unit 409 and
complained that the building envelope assessment specifically excluded a review of
the interior ventilation and council indicated that ventilation would be considered, but
the vent is still off center.
393. July 6, 2004 the Plaintiff reminded the Defendant Strata that 409s floors buckled
from the flood and the outstanding structural repairs are not the Plaintiffs
responsibility.
394. Section 72(3) of the S.P.A. provides that the Defendant Strata may, by bylaw, take
responsibility for the repair and maintenance of specified portions of a strata lot, and
until recently the strata corporations bylaw 11.1(d) required that the Defendant Strata
must repair and maintain the structure of the strata lot, and fences, railings and similar
structures that enclose patios, balconies and yards, all of which it failed to do for Unit
409, and the Plaintiff claims that new bylaws cannot be used to allow the Defendant
Strata to profit from its own wrongs or avoid responsibility for the damage caused by
its failures.
395. The Plaintiff reies on the Interpretation Act:
a) Section 7(1) every enactment must be construed as always speaking
b) Section 8 every enactment must be construed as being remedial, and must be
given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best
ensures the attainment of its objects
c) Section 29 in an enactment "must" is to be construed as imperative.
396. The Plaintiff claims that the duty to insure the fixtures and repair and maintain the
structure of the strata lot is an ongoing duty that is not restricted beyond the ordinary
meaning of the words to an ordinary owner; but it very easily could be if the objective
was, for example, that the Defendant Stratas duties are restricted to load bearing
damage, problems for an engineer, or a threat to immediate safety.
94

397. The Plaintiff claims that but for the unrepaired damage to the surrounding structure of
the building repairs to the doors in their strata lot would not cost nearly as much, and
it would be possible to simply install pre-hung replacement doors at much less cost.
398. The Plaintiff claims that in their attempts to obtain repairs to the doors in their strata
lot a locksmith could not do anything to make their doors stay latched and a door
company who gave an estimate of $1,000 for door repairs, revised it to an hourly
construction rate, both due to the fact that the damage to 409s door systems cannot
be properly repaired without also repairing the surrounding structure of the building.
399. The Plaintiff claims that the amount of floor levelling compound applied in Unit 510
has created added weight and damage to Unit 409 as evidenced by visible changes to
the Plaintiffs ceilings, in addition to the visible damage to the walls, doors, and
floors since the flood.
Strata Plan Patios and Balconies
400. Each strata lot has a strata plan patio or balcony designated as limited common
property for the exclusive use of the unit it is adjacent to.
401. There is no decking on the strata plan; in general the Defendant Strata adopted the
word decks to refer to strata plan patios in a manner that makes it difficult and
confusing to distinguish between different repair and maintenance obligations for
strata plan patios and extra decks added by owners with balconies.
402. 36 units have strata plan patios, and 36 units have balconies; 8 strata plan patios in
Phase 2, namely strata lots 37, 38, 41, 42, 45, 46, 49, and 58, have patio floors made
of cement, the other 22 strata plan patios and all 36 balconies have floors made of
wood, Over half the units with balconies have extra decks added onto the common
property by owners, and almost all extra decking is built with wood floors.
403. The sizes of strata plan patios and balconies are in general proportionate to the unit
entitlement of each strata lot, whereas extra decking extends to double or triple that,
mostly for the benefit of those with less unit entitlement who pay about 25% less in
strata fees for repairs and maintenance.
404. The Defendant Strata has been referring to strata plan patios as decks which has
acted to confuse patios registered in the Land Title Office as limited common
property and funded by unit entitlement strata fees the same as balconies with extra
decking added without paying rent on the land registered in the Land Title Office as
shared common property or the replacement costs attributable to their existence.
405. The practice of calling patios decks prompted the Plaintiff ask what the reference to
decks in a resolution for a special levy for building envelope repairs meant prior to
the vote for approval. The answer was that the building envelope project covered the
structures on the strata plan only but an amendment to clarify that fact was not
95

possible at that meeting because any amendment to the resolution would have to go
back to the lawyers and cause more delay and expense.
406. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata effectively created illegal sections for
repairs and maintenance when it repaired the strata plan balconies promptly with the
building envelope but inexplicably denied repairs of strata plan patios for years,
destroying millions of dollars of landscaping and imposing horrific conditions and
extraordinary expense and hardship, betraying the trust of the owners who approved
and paid the levy until enough sold to facilitate the diversion of about half a million in
special levy funds for the benefit of those with balconies to demolish and reconstruct
their extra decks and create unobstructed panoramic views for their unjust enrichment
at the expense of others.
407. The Plaintiff claims that truth is stranger than fiction, that the Defendant Strata added
insult to injury by downgrading the replacements of strata plan patios on 3-bedroom
units, transferring further damage onto the 3-bedroom owners with a painting bylaw
that notwithstanding its questionable validity in respect of voting, sections, and
unfairness, is absolutely inapplicable for 2-bedroom units with balconies and
unenforceable for their extra decks which the Defendant Strata remains responsible
for the repair and maintenance or removal of under the Strata Property Act as long as
they are squatting on common property.
408. The Plaintiff claims that they are not opposed to granting exclusive use of common
property with appropriate user fees in accordance with the Strata Property Act, that
imposing user fees pursuant to the legislation is the only fair way to grant exclusive
use of common property, and without user fees owners of 3-bedroom units pay 25%
more in strata fees and get less than they bargained for, while owners of 2-bedroom
units pay and own less and get more than their share - as much as two or three times
more.
409. At a meeting on November 8, 2006, an owner working in the construction industry
warned the Defendant Strata that pressure treated wood that is as high in quality as
the original strata plan patios is no longer available, as the industry had stopped using
arsenic, and the new ACQ wood warps and eats metal fasteners, so everything has to
be screwed down, and prices go way up, and good cedar costs 3 or 4 times more.
410. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata vandalized Unit 409 by destroying the
landscaping and demolishing its strata plan patio which had a 40-year life expectancy
and was of a much higher quality and in much sounder condition after nearly 20 years
without maintenance than the replacement wood is after only 7 years with a life
expectancy of only about a third the original and annual maintenance requirements
made extraordinarily onerous by the Defendant Stratas replacement of surrounding
landscaping with large fields of very expensive to clean and paint wood lattice that it
claims is the Plaintiffs responsibility to clean and paint annually.
96

Extra Decking
411. The Defendant Strata allowed certain owners to build extra decking on the common
property for their own exclusive use and benefit without imposing user fees or
charging any kind of rent to cover the extra expenses and damage to common
property and unfair loss to others.
412. The Plaintiff claims that at the AGM on April 8, 2014, the Defendant Strata unfairly
denied the Plaintiffs request for an extension to Unit 409s patio that would reinstate
its original function and mitigate unfair loss to the Plaintiff when the Defendant Strata
had never previously obtained owner approval for extensions and without exception
had allowed all extra decking added without approval or a vote of any kind in order to
provide extra benefits to others while ignoring the Plaintiffs requests for years.
413. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata kept claiming to be obtaining legal
advice for years, and after obtaining said advice and claiming to have reviewed it the
Defendant Strata ignored the unfairness, diverted special levy funds paid by the
Plaintiff for building envelope repairs into reconstruction of extra decking and then in
conflicts of interest misrepresented the Plaintiff to owners at the 2014 AGM and the
police as some kind of trespasser on extra decking which was falsely held out to be
some kind of exclusive property that the Plaintiff had no entitlement to share in and
no right to access.
414. The strata bylaws require the Defendant Strata to maintain and protect the common
property and common assets from damage and the Plaintiff claims that destruction of
landscaping for extra decking and views has caused damage that includes added
expense, noise, heat, dirt, erosion, and potentially astronomical geotechnical costs,
along with unfair loss of equity, privacy, curb appeal, and property value.
415. Whether an extra deck was added with a signed indemnity contract or not, all of the
existing extra decking exists contrary to nuisance bylaws that prohibit damage to
common property and require expense reimbursement as in every instance extra
decking damaged or destroyed landscaping, including trees, bushes, and ground cover
and demolition and reconstruction costs were unfairly offloaded onto the Plaintiff and
other oppressed or less privileged owners instead of being covered by those who
benefit from unjust enrichment and perpetuate corruption.
416. Due to poor construction and materials the repair and replacement of just a few extra
decks cost far more than all of the strata plan patios combined and despite bylaws,
indemnity agreements, unit entitlement formulas, and directions from owners, the
Defendant Strata diverted special levy funds to build new extra decking for a
corruptly privileged minority persistently refusing to impose user fees.
417. Repairs, maintenance, replacement and professional fees attributable to extra decking
has created significantly more expense than original strata plan patios due to
differences in the quality of original material and construction in addition to their
97

need for demolition and disposal, as well as shameful corruption and vandalism or
sabotage of strata plan patios and devastating losses and inflationary costs during
years of oppression and delay while owners who paid the special levy abandoned
their money and sold in distress under horrific conditions.
418. The Defendant Strata cited the cost at approximately $8,000 to $15,000 for each deck,
and the Plaintiff claims that using strata fees to provide extra decking to some and not
others is significantly unfair and a nuisance that is contrary to strata bylaws and
disproportionate to unit entitlement formulas, causing to the Plaintiff ongoing
hardship, loss, and abuse.
419. The Defendant Strata has failed to enforce the bylaws or protect the landscaping from
damage, comply with the Strata Property Act provisions for exclusive use, or impose
user fees to offset unfairness and extra expenses attributable to extra decking, and this
has been causing unique damage, loss, expense, and hardship to the Plaintiff that has
been continually and persistently increasing since 1989.
420. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has managed extra decking in an unfair
manner that has created decades of strata strife, enduring loss, extra expense, and
protracted stress in the strata corporation and the life of the Plaintiff.
421. The Plaintiff claims that the loss to the Plaintiff is unique and profound and the toll
taken on the Plaintiff by decades of persistently unfair treatment by the Defendant
Strata interferes with the Plaintiffs health and ability to earn a living and raises a
reasonable apprehension of a shortened life expectancy and irreparable damage to the
quality and security of her remaining years.
422. Prior to purchasing Unit 409 the Plaintiff considered buying 407 or 411 but chose 409
based on its southeast exposure and promise of trees and landscaped privacy and
security that the developers landscape architect provided pursuant to restrictive
covenants.
423. The landscaped common property between the buildings hosted 3 vine maple trees
that were essential to screen the views between Unit 409 and the adjacent buildings
and the Plaintiff was shocked when the central tree was cut down by Unit 407 in
violation of the bylaws to build extra decking that unfairly covers the entire expanse
of common property between the 2 patios.
424. The Plaintiff claims that said removal of the central tree dispossessed both buildings
of privacy and quiet enjoyment and exposed the kitchen and dining room windows of
Unit 409 and Unit 508 to intrusive views directly through the entire length of each
strata lot clear into each ensuite; it was cut down unfairly, without permission, and
damaged the Plaintiffs enjoyment of Unit 409 and common property forever after.
98

425. With the destruction of the landscaping and related loss in equity, privacy, beauty,
and access to the common property buffer the Plaintiff was also deprived of a sense
of safety, security, respect, and fair play.
426. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas failure to enforce the bylaws, reinstate
the tree on the common property, or take any other kind of action to maintain the
common assets and restore equity compelled the Plaintiff to provide trellis planters
and space on Unit 409s patio to mitigate the loss of privacy and this alteration
unfairly deprives the Plaintiff of exclusive use and benefit of Unit 409s limited
common property for every year that Unit 407s nuisance decking replaces common
assets to the significantly unfair detriment and loss of enjoyment of the Plaintiff.
427. The Plaintiff claims that a remedial extension of Unit 409s strata plan patio to offset
the space taken by trellis planters from Unit 409s original outdoor dining space is a
much less significant alteration or change in the use and appearance of common
property than the destruction of trees and landscaping or the far more extensive and
unreasonably intrusive added decking that has surrounded Unit 409 and been
constructed by the Defendant Strata all over the complex at the Plaintiffs expense.
428. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has acted unreasonably and unfairly in
failing to mitigate increasingly unfair loss to the Plaintiff or accept any of a wide
variety of remedial proposals that the Plaintiff made over the course of more than 2
decades.
429. The Plaintiff claims that Unit 409s strata plan patio is limited common property
designated for their own exclusive use and using it for the shared benefit of others for
the past 20 years while special levy funds that the Plaintiff paid were spent on
demolition and reconstruction of extra decking for others caused unique and
significant loss to the Plaintiff that merits compensation.
430. The Plaintiff claims that in or about June 2005 the Defendant Strata took away
another 30 inches of usable space for the Plaintiffs patio set with a swing-out patio
door alteration which was uniquely and significantly unfair to the Plaintiff, ruining
what little usable space was left for the Plaintiffs outdoor dining area, and then the
Defendant Strata compounded the damage by unreasonably and persistently blocking
and sabotaging any kind of mitigating or equitable remedy, and the Plaintiff claims
that this caused damage to the Plaintiff and Unit 409 and requires compensation.
431. The Plaintiff claims compensation for damages from the Defendant Strata for
uniquely unfair loss that the Defendant Strata is responsible for in an amount
equivalent to reasonable rent for outdoor dining space in the amount of $100 a month
commencing as of July 1, 2005, and continuing until the Defendant Strata reimburses
the Plaintiff for the cost of reinstating Unit 409s original swing-in style of patio door
and builds a suitable remedial extension to Unit 409s patio in a size that
accommodates the existing trellis planters and privacy screen and fully restores the
Plaintiffs original outdoor dining area and Unit 409s usable railing space.
99

432. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant Strata has a long history of
unreasonably refusing to impose fair user fees for the exclusive use of common
property, causing major expense to the strata, and significant loss and nuisance to the
Plaintiff and others.
433. In response to the Plaintiffs requests for a remedial 16 inch cantilever extension of
Unit 409s patio to accommodate the substitute trellis planter the Defendant Strata
falsely and disparagingly advised owners that: one owner wants to cut down their
neighbours deck to extend their own; and that deck will wait until the legal issue of
wanting to infringe on someone elses is resolved; no sense paying for repairs to be
ripped out; 2 contractors ran away and over 7 years later the Plaintiff is still waiting
for the legal issue to be resolved as promised.
434. The Plaintiff never asked to cut down their neighbours deck to extend their own,
the Plaintiffs proposed extension to Unit 409s patio was a small cantilever in the
airspace above the common property, and none of the remedies that the Plaintiff had
proposed ever involved infringing on 407s strata plan patio in any way at all.
435. What the Plaintiff wanted was fair equitable treatment to restore their own use of their
own property and shared common property that they purchased, owned, and paid for
continually while being relentlessly deprived of use of, access to, and reasonable
enjoyment and benefit of for over 25 years.
436. Despite repeated requests, the Plaintiff has been unable to obtain evidence of any
attempt by the Defendant Strata to resolve the alleged legal issue before it paid for
repairs to Unit 409s patio, which it repeatedly ripped out, or before it repeatedly
ripped out and reconstructed extra decking, or at any time at all.
437. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is guilty of oppression and defamatory
misrepresentation of the Plaintiff for the unjust enrichment of a privileged minority.
438. The Plaintiff claims that the truth is basically the opposite of the Defendant Stratas
allegations, that infringement actually exists on Unit 409s strata plan patio and arose
out of the ongoing nuisance caused by pre-emptive removal of the central vine maple
tree for decking added to Unit 407 without a permit to the detriment of Unit 409s
privacy and equity and the strata corporations unit entitlement formulas.
439. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has addressed the Plaintiffs complaints
about the significant change in use and appearance of the common property from the
alterations made by 407 in no way other than approving the substitute trellis planters
taking up space on the Plaintiffs patio and moving the supporting posts and attaching
them permanently in an area down from the view that they originally screened in a
manner that further destroys usable space on Unit 409s patio, and retaliating against
the Plaintiff for complaining about the Defendant Stratas persistent failure to enforce
the bylaws or remedy the ongoing nuisance caused to the Plaintiff as a result of 407s
destruction of the landscaping and exclusive use of common property that is supposed
100

to be shared in proportion to unit entitlements, and the Plaintiff claims damages
accordingly.
440. At a meeting on April 10, 2007, the Plaintiff was taking notes at a hearing before
council to address issues concerning reinstatement of trees and patios when
Councillor Mae Reid launched into a verbal attack on the Plaintiff that was so
shocking that the Plaintiff was too stunned and traumatized to remember what
sparked it or exactly what Ms. Reid said long enough to write it down. The only
response the Plaintiff could manage was to say "Ditto" at which point Ms. Reid said
among other things "You need psychiatric help" "Don't push me" and "Bitch", all of
which the Plaintiff was able to write down as Ms. Reid spoke and repeatedly reply to
her by stating Ditto. The Defendant Strata did not sanction Ms. Reid, request an
apology, or record the attack in the minutes, and there was no vote supporting any
such decisions.
441. It is the Plaintiffs understanding that Ms. Reid followed up on this attack with some
kind of report along the lines of a false claim that the Plaintiff was stalking her, when
the Plaintiffs actual contact with Ms. Reid is very minimal and without exception
recorded in writing.
442. On May 12, 2007 the Plaintiff wrote to the Defendant Strata to find out among other
things when the trees would be reinstated and why Directors and Officer insurance
was not utilized to compensate for their loss and if the Defendant Strata asked for
permission from Hydro to install siding on the Hydro kiosk.
443. The Plaintiff claims that but for the misrepresentations and misconduct of others,
particularly strata lawyers, agents, and members of council, access to strata records
would be provided in accordance with the law instead of being continually denied and
obstructed, and such misconduct and obstruction is very disruptive and damaging to
the operation of the strata and welfare of the Plaintiff.
444. The repairs to the building envelope and all the balconies were completed in October
2005 and the two year warranty on defective materials and design expired 2 years
later without the
a) pipes to the Plaintiffs taps being extended to accommodate the rainscreen
assembly in accordance with the specifications in the shop drawings and as
required for anyone to screw the Plaintiffs hose onto their taps
b) missing window flashing and defective hardie board siding that is gouged up
above the Plaintiffs window being replaced
c) original as-built inswing patio door style and function of the Plaintiffs patio
being reinstated
d) trees being reinstated in accordance with the terms of the special levy budget
101

e) caused continual and significant unfairness to the Plaintiff and further
nuisance in the strata.
445. Cumulative injustice and added losses over the years have grown increasingly unfair,
such that the Plaintiff now requires much more comprehensive remedies to
compensate for the:
a) ongoing inequity; borrowing shared common property for the exclusive use
and benefit of others at growing expense to the Plaintiff for approximately 20
years,
b) loss of privacy; presenting a clear view between the windows of 409 and 508,
c) shifts in property values; supporting unfair violations and victimizing the
innocent,
d) sinking buildings; costing tens of thousands of dollars in extra strata expense,
e) trespass; for encroaching rent-free on 409s patio for 15 years, borrowing
space on it to replace the lost screen of the Maple with trellis planters,
f) unfair allocation of strata funds; making a mockery of unit entitlement
formulas,
g) attributable stress interfering with the health, occupation, marriage, and life of
the Plaintiff.
446. On November 24, 2013, the Defendant Strata phoned the Plaintiff and had its strata
manager, Jolanta Teszka, ask the Plaintiff to repeat the Plaintiffs requests and wait
until the Annual General Meeting before proceeding further, claiming that the
Plaintiff must ask permission and receive 75% approval from the Owners and the city
wont accept their drawings for a building permit, saying that the Defendant Strata is
standing behind advice of its lawyer.
447. The Plaintiff claims to have been making requests, and asking permission, and
waiting for over 10 years while the Defendant Strata engaged in unreasonable delays
causing the Plaintiff ever increasing damage and hardship.
448. The Plaintiff claims that for years the Defendant Strata ignored and refused to give a
decision on the Plaintiffs request for a remedial extension to Unit 409s patio and
repeatedly refused to put the question on the Annual General Meeting agenda to
allow the Owners an opportunity to vote on the matter.
449. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is transferring onto the Plaintiff costs
attributable to the improper and unfair acts of others and problems that the Defendant
Strata is liable for.
102

450. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is unfair in presenting patio requests
from the Plaintiff as something other than remedial, as if years of oppression, loss,
and injustice was comparable in the whole of the circumstances, or in any reasonable
way at all, to requests from new owners for privileges that are simply for their own
benefit.
451. The Plaintiff advised that she sincerely hoped the Defendant Strata would enforce the
bylaws to settle the matter instead of requiring a judge to do the job and asked Ms.
Teszka to ask the Defendant Stratas lawyer to contact her.
452. The Defendant Strata has created and is continuing to sustain a nuisance which
unfairly spoils the Plaintiffs use and enjoyment of 409, as registered, as built, and as
purchased, and:
a) fails to reinstate trees and landscaping which the Plaintiff paid for that were
needlessly destroyed in disregard of the law and the best interests of the
Plaintiff and the strata as a whole;
b) encroaches on the Plaintiffs patio for over 15 years with a trellis planter as a
way to replace the tree that screened the windows between 409 and 508 to
accommodate 407s patio extension at the expense of the Plaintiff;
c) accommodates patio extensions and extra decks for the exclusive use of
others;
d) unfairly disregards the Plaintiffs years of complaints and loss and tries to
e) shift the Defendant Stratas liability for enforcement of the bylaws onto the
Plaintiff
f) and transfer the damages arising from the actions of others onto the Plaintiff
g) without regard to the detrimental impact of its actions on the Plaintiff.
453. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is managing extra decking in a corrupt
manner that causes easily avoidable damage to the Plaintiff, predictable unjust
enrichment to others, and unfairly foists the burden of damage created by said
misconduct onto the Plaintiff.
454. The Plaintiff claims further that the Defendant Strata alterations to Unit 409s strata
plan patio since 2005, including the defective piping, outswing patio door system,
expansive fields of unmaintained lattice, large mess of concrete supporting an
obstructive addition and installation of posts that cannot be removed by the Plaintiff
and expropriate an additional 9 inches from Unit 409s space for the Plaintiffs patio
umbrella set and outdoor dining create a unique combination of nuisance and
unfairness that contributes to the appearance of a conspiracy to drive the Plaintiff out.
103

455. The Plaintiff claims that not counting the loss of usable railing space and space taken
up on Unit 409s strata plan patio by trellis planters the Defendant Stratas alterations
to said patio left only 56 to 88 inches of air space out of the original 96 inch square
space for the Plaintiffs patio umbrella set after the Plaintiff spent over $3,000
reinstating the inswing style patio door to try to restore the property as purchased and
mitigate the damage flowing from the Defendant Stratas unfair acts.
456. The Plaintiff claims that the limited space that remains usable on Unit 409s strata
plan patio, the extra expense incurred by the Plaintiff to supply and maintain trellis
planters as a privacy substitute for the tree removed from the common property, the
loss attributable to unreasonable delay, sickening stress flowing out of harassment of
the Plaintiff for pursuing statutory and common law rights and complaining about
corrupt conflicts of interest and unjust enrichment attributable to alterations of
common property is unfair and merits compensation.
457. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata persistently ignores the Plaintiffs
requests and failed to rectify the damaging alterations to Unit 409s strata plan patio
and in this regard the Plaintiff feels like she might burst out screaming from
cumulative pressure and frustration from intolerable unfairness, and sometimes
screaming is exactly what she finds herself doing, which in addition to explosively
reactive bowel spasms is more than embarrassing to the Plaintiff.
458. The Plaintiff further claims that cumulative pressure and frustration spawn thoughts
of taking down the offending posts with a machine gun, and the Plaintiff believes it is
a good thing she doesnt have one when she loses control of herself as the Defendant
Strata generates further stress and vilification of the Plaintiff by publishing
disparaging minutes about making reports to the RCMP instead of acting to correct
the problem and move or uninstall said posts.
459. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has prolonged and compounded the
losses to the Plaintiff for approximately 25 years with unreasonable failure to comply
with or enforce the strata bylaws, inappropriate and significantly unfair conduct, and
contrived delays which require exemplary damages to remedy and deter in future.
User Fees
460. The Plaintiff claims that major loss and extra expense to some and unjust enrichment
to others is attributable to exclusive rent-free use of common property and is the
primary cause of decades of corruption and abuse in this strata corporation.
461. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas failure to impose user fees for the
exclusive use of common property in accordance with section 110 of the Strata
Property Act and section 6.9 of the Strata Property Regulations is the primary source
of significant unfairness, and it is a fundamental contributor to an ongoing history of
strata strife.
104

462. Section 6.9 of the Strata Property Regulations makes provision for user fees to be
imposed for the use of common property or common assets if (a) the amount of the
fee is reasonable, and (b) the fee is set out in a bylaw or a ratified rule.
463. The Plaintiff claims that for user fees to be reasonable they must be in an amount that
is fair in the whole of the circumstances, including those that require the Plaintiff to
obtain court orders under section 164 to remedy the persistent history of significant
unfairness and deter any future oppression by the Defendant Strata that is uniquely
harmful or unfair to the Plaintiff.
464. The Plaintiff claims that the stakes are high, as certain owners take over twice their
unit entitlement share for their own exclusive use and offload the extra expenses onto
others without compensating the strata or those who pay more and get less for
decades.
465. The Plaintiff claims that user fees for the exclusive use of shared common property
are required in an amount equivalent to a reasonable rental rate in order to:
i. offset unfairness to others and compensate the strata for periods of
exclusive use of common property over time,
ii. provide an administration fund to cover legal and professional fees,
surveys, contracts, litigation, enforcement, and other attributable
administration expenses
iii. provide a landscaping reinstatement fund to give reasonable effect to
the bylaws,
iv. provide a repair and maintenance fund to cover the extra costs
attributable to demolition, reconstructions, painting, repairs, and
maintenance of alterations to common property, and
v. avoid offloading the costs onto the Defendant Strata and other owners
of any reduction in geotechnical stability attributable to the related loss
of trees and bushes, including sinking buildings, broken underground
services, pavement, sink holes and associated damage.
466. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is covertly manipulating strata fees and
offloading its responsibility for repairs and maintenance in a significantly unfair
manner in lieu of imposing reasonable user fees and has gratuitously added enormous
and needless expenses as a broad form of cover up.
467. The Plaintiff says that for decades the Defendant Strata could very easily take
affirmative action to remedy significant unfairness and persistently failed to do so and
that this history is a material consideration in prescribing an appropriate remedy.
105

468. The Plaintiff has paid strata fees for over 25 years for repairs and maintenance of
common property they have not received, which the Defendant Strata has promptly
and fully provided to all of the units with balconies.
469. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has further abused them with vindictive
misrepresentations, false accusations, and threats, and has responded unreasonably for
years to the Plaintiffs requests for relief from deprivation, nuisance, expense, and
unfair expropriation of common property.
470. The Plaintiff claims that members of council punitively deprive the Plaintiff of fair
treatment and pass off the extra expenses and retaliate when challenged by perversely
twisting notions of trespass and unit entitlement to the opposite of fact and law and
discredit the Plaintiff to maintain the status quo and their own unjust enrichment.
471. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is not acting in good faith as evidenced
by its persistent pattern of favouring wrong doer nuisance makers over the law-
abiding, paying legal fees rather than enforce the bylaws, and paying all kinds of
extra expenses arising out of costly changes to the common property made without
notice, permits, or approval at the unfair expense of the Plaintiff and others.
472. The Plaintiff felt traumatized and had her faith in the law very badly shaken as trees
were removed and extra decking was added to the common property with impunity,
without authorization or regard to tree protection bylaws, building permits, restrictive
covenants, strata bylaws, curb appeal, privacy, security, equity, unit entitlements,
legislative and common law rights or the detriment and expense to the strata, and Unit
409 in particular.
473. The Defendant Strata demolished and reconstructed poorly constructed extra decking,
repeatedly, and then fixed it in cement to further the exclusive use and benefit of a
minority at the expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of sabotage and
delay and horrific detriment to others.
474. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata supports a number of owners unfairly
taking exclusive use and benefit of approximately double the outdoor living area that
they purchased and pay for and has allowed important trees that were vital to the
Plaintiff in particular to be cut down without approval, unfairly depriving the Plaintiff
of reasonable peace and security and use and enjoyment of the property the Plaintiff
purchased.
475. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is acting in an unreasonable manner
that thwarts the concept of fairness in unit entitlement formulas that owners rely on to
most equitably apportion common expenses and liabilities and the right to shares of
common property, costing unreasonable extra expense to the strata and loss to the
Plaintiff, contrary to equity and law.
106

476. The Plaintiff claims that patios and balconies are distinguished from extra decks by
the strata plan, unit entitlements, strata fees, and strata enactments, but the Defendant
Strata refers to and treats patios the same as extra decks to the detriment of almost all
3-bedroom units and several 2-bedroom units, but to the particular detriment of the
Plaintiff, for the unfair benefit of a minority of others.
477. The Defendant Strata has persistently disregarded the Plaintiffs complaints of
unfairness and allowed significant changes to the appearance of the common property
as-built with permits by the developer and shared areas of use as shown on the strata
plan and registered landscape specifications, without the 75% owner approval
required by section 71 of the S.P.A.
478. Contrary to sections 3, 26, 27, 31, 32, 76, of the S.P.A., the Defendant Strata failed to:
operate within the restrictions of the S.P.A., manage and maintain the common
property for the benefit of the Owners, give any owner permission to exclusively use
common property, or comply with the conditions directed by the Owners at an
Annual General Meeting pursuant to section 6.9 of the Regulation.
479. Particulars of the Defendant Stratas unfairness and violations associated with extra
decking and extra views include, but are not limited to:
a) improper destruction of valuable landscaping
b) significant changes to the use and appearance of the common property
c) improper alterations to proportionate rights and responsibilities under unit
entitlement formulas
d) depriving the Plaintiff of full use and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs patio for
years
e) completion of repairs to balconies while patios were left torn apart for over 2
years
f) retaliation against the Plaintiff for complaining including disregarding their
remedial requests, improper name calling, and accusations of harassment
g) vandalizing the Plaintiffs maintenance free patio with a mismatched board
h) sabotaging the Plaintiffs strata plan patio with deliberately destructive and
repeated demolition and reconstruction
i) acting with significant unfairness and conflicts of interest, tampering with
motions, votes, and strata records, disregarding the votes and directions of the
Owners
107

j) bypassing the Plaintiffs requests for remedies while requiring the Plaintiff to
provide extra decking for others
k) diverting special levy funds to demolish and reconstruct improperly added
extra decking
l) installation of low maintenance materials on the balconies like rolled vinyl
and glass and metal enclosures, compared to new extra high maintenance
materials on the Plaintiffs strata plan patio which include large fields of
lattice to paint and bare wood left unpainted for 7 years until it began to rot
contrary to the bylaw 11.1(c)(ii)C requiring the Defendant Strata to repair and
maintain patios no matter how often the repair or maintenance ordinarily
occurs
m) downgrades to the Plaintiffs strata plan patio which reduce the length of
spindles to about half what they were, from approximately 80 inches to 40
inches and expand their on-centre spacing from approximately 3 inches to 4
inches, and reduce floor boards from long unbroken single lengths to pieced
together boards, and replace top quality low maintenance wood that never
needed to be painted or stained with inferior wood which requires annual
painting and has deteriorated more in 6 years than the original wood did in
over 18 years.
n) acting deliberately, without good faith, and in an unfair manner for 10 years to
avoid imposing reasonable user fees for exclusive use of common property, to
the detriment of the Plaintiff and others
o) filing in the Land Title Office a bogus painting bylaw, which among other
offences, improperly offloads the cost of damage caused by members of
council failing to comply with the bylaws and the Defendant Stratas
obligation to repair and maintain common property, and unfairly imposes a
hidden increase in the Plaintiffs annual strata fees of up to 20% and makes a
mockery of voting requirements, unit entitlement formulas, truth, justice, and
fairness.
p) nondisclosure of costs in the contingency reserve fund and depreciation report
q) shifting the costs attributable to improper and unfair acts of others and the
burdens attributable to the Defendant Stratas liabilities onto the Plaintiff
r) presenting requests from the Plaintiff as something other than remedial, as if
the Plaintiffs years of unfair deprivation was comparable in the whole of the
circumstances, or in any fair or reasonable way, to requests from new owners
s) repeated delays and failure to enforce the bylaws, needlessly provoking
litigation that adds significantly to the stress on the Plaintiff and the cost of
remedies
108

480. The Defendant Stratas approved of 407s request to extend their patio did not
mention cutting down the Maple and specified that approval was subject to 409s
agreement, but the Maple was already cut down and the deck building in progress
when the Plaintiff came home and was shocked to discover what was going on. The
Defendant Strata responded to the Plaintiffs objections by saying that it was too late,
the tree was already gone, disregarding the Plaintiffs complaints and steadily
repeated requests for a wide range of remedies, including:
a) reinstate the Maple and the landscaping; or
b) extend 409s patio to share the common property between 407 and 409
equally, or
c) extend 409s patio by 16 inches taken up by a trellis planter replacing the
Maple, or
d) allocate to 409 the exclusive use and benefit of common property between the
extra patios added to 508 and 510,
481. All of the remedies proposed by the Plaintiff were disregarded or refused by the
Defendant Strata, consistently giving 407, and others, more than they bargained for
and the Plaintiff less than the Plaintiff bargained for, for more than 20 years.
482. Trellis planters taking up space on 409's strata plan patio rent-free for over 15 years is
cheap for the Defendant Strata, but it is significantly unfair to 409, as is the loss of
privacy between the windows of 409 and 508.
483. To avoid conflict and facilitate remedies the Plaintiff paid for decorative glass panels
and trellis planters, and gave up use of their patio, and offered a variety of
suggestions for more than 10 years, and offered to pay for a remedial extension, all of
which met with ever-increasing injustice and oppression.
484. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is repeatedly failing to meet its
obligations to enforce the bylaws and act reasonably and deal with the Plaintiff fairly
and in good faith, and the Plaintiff further claims that in response to their concerns the
Defendant Strata has retaliated against them and vandalized their patio and
landscaping in a variety of ways.
485. The Plaintiffs objection to Unit 407s patio extension was, and is, due to the nuisance
arising from the wrongful removal and major loss to Unit 409 of the tree and
equitable use and enjoyment of common property, including the Plaintiffs own patio,
and offloading extra expenses for the unjust enrichment of Unit 407 at the ever-
increasing expense of Unit 409.
486. The Plaintiff claims that they have made a variety of suggestions to remedy the
problem, all of which have been unreasonably ignored and rejected by the Defendant
Strata, and to the best of the Plaintiffs knowledge Unit 407 has adamantly objected
109

to the Plaintiffs remedial suggestions and has not made so much as a single one of
their own.
User Fee Specifications
487. The Plaintiff seeks an order that the Defendant Strata impose users fees pursuant to
section 110 of the Strata Property Act and section 6.9 of the Strata Property
Regulations in amounts calculated as set out under this heading, or as otherwise
ordered by this court.
Calculating strata fees
488. The Strata Property Act provides the following formula for calculating strata fees in
Division 2 Contribution to Expenses
99 (1) Subject to section 100, owners must contribute to the strata corporation their strata
lots' shares of the total contributions budgeted for the operating fund and contingency
reserve fund by means of strata fees calculated in accordance with this section and the
regulations.
(2) Subject to the regulations, the strata fees for a strata lot's share of the contribution to
the operating fund and contingency reserve fund are calculated as follows:

489. To impose user fees council must make a rule or file a bylaw such as in the following
example
a) Be it resolved that user fees be imposed for exclusive use of common property
that provides contributions for:
i. annual rental,
ii. sharing of use and benefits relative to the schedules of unit
entitlements, and
iii. fair distribution of extra expenses and contingencies attributable to:
1. future removal of exclusive use additions and reinstatement of
common property to its original condition,
110

2. historical demolition and reconstruction of extra decks and
patio extensions, and
3. the addition of garage enclosures, skylights and panoramic
views for the benefit of particular strata lots,
in amounts calculated pursuant to the following definitions and formulas:

Definitions Used
490. Contribution means an amount that reflects an expense attributable to a
corresponding benefit
491. Estimated future expense includes maintenance and replacement factors estimated in
the depreciation report or otherwise if not included in said report.
492. Contribution amounts are calculated according to the expenses for the particular
benefits they are attributable to, as follows:
a) extra decking means extra decks and patio extensions beyond what is shown
on the strata plan requiring a reasonable rental amount to offset exclusive
usage disproportionate to unit entitlement and to cover all the extra expenses
that are attributable to extra decking, regardless of the type of flooring,
including professional fees, increased insurance premiums or risk of injury,
the cost to reinstate original landscaping and restore common property to its
original condition, demolition, removal, reconstruction, maintenance and
anything else the strata is responsible for, plus a fund for unpaid user fees,
estimated future expenses, and compensate for unfairness to others who use
proportionately less.
b) added skylights includes all the money spent by the strata corporation
for professional fees, demolition, removal, reconstruction, maintenance, plus
unpaid user fees and the estimated future expense attributable to skylights not
shown in the strata plan or developers blueprints
c) driveways includes all the money spent by the strata corporation for snow
removal services from strata lot driveways on Rambler Way or elsewhere not
provided to all
d) carports the 6 strata lots in Phase 1 that were built with carports,
namely strata lots 3, 4, 11, 12, 15 and 16, all of which owners have altered by
adding walls and doors to turn them into garages are excluded from user fees
as the alterations match unit entitlements and improve the curb appeal and
value of the entire complex
111

e) views includes all the money spent by the strata corporation for professional
fees, tree cutting, stump removal, tree replacements, erosion, soil
replacement, geotechnical reports, and repairs of sinking buildings, damaged
door alignments, cracked pavement, cracked walls, broken underground
pipes, or other repairs attributable to tree removal, plus a fund for unpaid
user fees, the estimated cost to reinstate the common property to its original
condition, estimated future expenses, offsets for detriments to others, and
compensation to the strata corporation for benefits disproportionate to unit
entitlements.
User Fee Formulas
493. Formula for extra decking:
a) the dimensions of the strata lots extra decking
b) divided by the total dimensions of all extra decks and patio extensions
c) multiplied by the total contribution and
d) adjusted to reflect the
i. the initial number of years of cbenefit attributable to the
corresponding payor and
ii. the percentage of benefit over unit entitlement strata fee formulas.
494. View formula:
a) The contribution amount divided by the number of payor units (approximately
20 to 25,the exact number is the number units with owners responsible for loss
of trees, with south views unobstructed by trees, or objecting to reinstatement
of trees planted pursuant to restrictive covenants that run with the land for the
benefit of the rest of the units)
b) adjusted to reflect the
i. the initial number of years of corresponding benefit attributable to the
corresponding payor and
ii. the percentage of benefit over unit entitlement strata fee formulas.
495. Driveway formula:
a) Driveways that are used for pickups from Phase Ones mailboxes (eg. Units
108 and 110) would be excluded from any driveway user fees;
112

b) Calculation of user fees for driveways is otherwise set by an agreed upon
proportionate chargeback for costs of any special requests for services not
universally provided, such as snow removal from the driveway of any
individual unit.
496. Skylight, or other exclusive benefit modification formula:
a) the total dollar amount of extra expenses attributable to
i. the addition of skylights not shown on the strata plan or developers
blueprints,or
ii. modification to the strata plan or developers blueprints not otherwise
specified
b) divided by the years of corresponding product lifespan specified in the
deficiency report or otherwise estimated.
497. The Strata Property Act provides formula for calculating strata fees in Division 2
Contribution to Expenses.
498. STRATA PROPERTY SBC CHAP. 43Division 4 Special Levies and User Fees; 99
Calculating Strata Fees; Strata fees and special levies are calculated in accordance
with section 99 of the Strata Property Act and the regulations based on the
comparative size of the strata lot, divided by total size of all strata lots, multiplied by
the common expense. Strata fees to cover common expenses are apportioned
according to a greater or lesser share of ownership in the common property (called
unit entitlement) based on the size of the strata lot.
499. Unit entitlement calculations for shared ownership, use, enjoyment, and maintenance
of common property are based on the size of the strata lot, meaning the indoor living
space only. This is not proportionate to the expenses attributable to use of the
common property and it is unfair for 4 reasons:
a) First, limited common property ranges in the extreme; from a strata lot with
one of the highest strata fees and greatest unit entitlement ownership having
the least limited common property and attributable expense, at 6.8 square
metres and $1200; to strata lots with the very lowest strata fees and the least
unit entitlements having the very most limited common property, at 13 square
metres, so that those paying 25% less have been getting more than twice as
much for over 25 years. In this case it is not the fault of owners, but it is not
hard to mitigate the unfairness either.
b) Second, and more significantly, extra decks sit on the common property rent-
free for the exclusive use and benefit of those who pay less strata fees and do
not think they should pay for the extra expenses attributable to their added
decks. This allows a minority with lower unit entitlements and higher repair
113

cost balconies to double and triple their exclusive use of common property
beyond their strata plan balcony at the expense of others who pay more, and
get less. The damage to the strata corporation has been devastating and
compounds with time.
c) Third, the strata and most units would benefit if reasonable user fees were
imposed and 25 years have proven that there is no fair alternative.
d) Fourth, the extra expenses and benefits attributable to alterations and
exclusive use of common property that exceeds the limited common property
purchased and set out for the strata lot in the original strata plan can be most
fairly and reasonably covered by user fees.
500. 110 User fees: A strata corporation must not i`mpose user fees for the use of common
property or common assets by owners, tenants or occupants, or their visitors, other
than as set out in the regulations.
501. STRATA PROPERTY REGULATION, PART 6 FINANCES; User fees for the use
of common property or common assets: 6.9 For the purposes of section 110 of the
Act, a strata corporation may impose user fees for the use of common property or
common assets only if all of the following requirements are met:
a) the amount of the fee is reasonable;
b) the fee is set out
i. in a bylaw, or
ii. in a rule and the rule has been ratified under section 125 (6) of the Act.
Proposed User Fees
502. User fees could be calculated on a formula that is similar to section 99 strata fee
formulas. Only 2 amendments would be required.
503. The first would be an initial monetary adjustment attributable to space relative to unit
entitlement and historical use and expense
504. After that, the calculation for user fees would be similar to the existing calculation for
strata fees, except that instead of being based on the amount of interior living spaces,
the user fee formulas would be based on the amount of exclusive use of common
property relative to unit entitlement and the extra expenses attributable to alterations
to the original common property.
114

Monthly User Fees
505. Apply a formula similar to unit entitlement formula in section 99 (i.e. total exclusive
use common property of the units opting in, divided by the amount the strata lot has,
multiplied by the extra expense, divided by 12 months (eg. 680 square metres total/10
square metres x $15,000 = $220/12 months=$18/month)
506. Adjust the answers by corresponding unit entitlement offsets (eg. if Unit A owns and
already pays 25% more strata fees than what Unit B owns and pays, split the
difference for extra expenses attributable to equivalent exclusive use by subtracting
12.5% from A and adding 12.5% to B (eg. reduce A: $220 x .875 = $192.50/12 =
$16.04/month; increase B: $220 x 1.125 = $247.50/12months = $20.62/month)
507. Impose the respective user fees for each unit opting in and demand payment in the
prescribed amount to be added to the next month's strata fees
Implementation Program
508. FIRST council makes a rule or the strata adopts a bylaw imposing user fees:
509. For example: Be it resolved that the strata corporation impose a schedule of user fees
in the attached form to offset any unfair benefit or detriment from exclusive use or
alteration of common property and to provide suitable funding to cover:
a) a reasonable rental rate for exclusive use of altered common property,
b) compensation to others for any resulting erosion of strata plan specifications
and unit entitlement formulas, unfairness, loss, nuisance, or other damage.
c) extra expenses and contingencies attributable to the historical and reasonably
estimated future cost of:
i. demolition, reconstruction, repairs and maintenance of extra decking,
extra skylights, or other added benefits,
ii. removal and reinstatement of landscaping to its original condition,
iii. professional fees, including surveys, legal services, landscape
architects, and geotechnical advice,
iv. any attributable geotechnical damage,
v. attributable risks and insurance, and
vi. administration.
510. SECOND, council offers each owner the option to:
115

a) opt in, and agree to pay users fees imposed by the strata to cover the extra
expenses attributable to common property altered from the original strata plan
which that unit has the exclusive use or unfair benefit of, or
b) opt out, in which case the strata will withdraw its approval for that owners
exclusive use pursuant to Section 76 of the Act, remove the alteration
pursuant to the strata bylaws and restore the landscaping or common property
to its original condition pursuant to contingency reserve and user fee funding.
511. THIRD council obtains estimates for the cost of destruction and reinstatement of
landscaping to the standard of the original landscape architect's design specifications;
the demolition, removal, reconstruction, and maintenance of structural additions, such
as patios, enclosures, or skylights; estimated value of property rental, professional
fees for lawyers, engineers, surveyors, accountants, or contractors; review the strata
records and total the known expenses attributable to the exclusive use and benefit
areas from March 1, 1990 to March 1, 2014 or the date for the first payment of user
fees, circulate the figures to owners for review and correction; or IN THE
ALTERNATIVE simply use the $500,000 surplus from the building envelope special
levy as the estimated total for the extra expenses
a) Divide the total expenses by 24 years from 1990 to 2014 (eg.
$500,000/24yrs=$20,833)
b) Divide the annual average by 68 units (eg. $20,833/68units=$306 per unit)
c) Adjust the answers by corresponding unit entitlement offsets, like for the
monthly user fees
d) Multiply by the number of years of exclusive use and benefit plus the
percentage exceeding the strata lot's LCP
i. for example Unit 510's extra deck is twice the size of the balcony and
Mae Reid has had exclusive use of it for 8 years, so Unit 510 might
come to $5,488 calculated as $343 x 8 years + 200%, had she not sold
fast enough to avoid paying her fair share of the extra expenses
attributable to her and her years of rent-free exclusive use of common
property:
ii. Unit 210 might come to $3,087 calculated as $343 x 3.5 years + 200%
iii. Unit 407 might come to $6,432 calculated at $268 x 12 years + 200%
iv. Unit 409 might come to zero, calculated at $268 x 0 years + 0%
v. Unit 412 might come to $3,087 calculated as $343 x 3.5 years + 200%
vi. Unit 508 might come to 8,232 calculated as $343 x 12 years + 200%
116

vii. Unit 518 might come to $12,348 calculated as $343 x 12 years + 300%
e) and so on... keeping in mind that such estimates are unmeasured
approximations
512. FOURTH council collects user fees in the amounts required to cover all of the extra
expenses attributable to the existence of alterations of common property for the
exclusive use or special benefit of particular individuals as follows:
a) notify owners of how much their user fees will be based on the size of their
exclusive use and their years of benefit;
b) add said user fees to the owners monthly strata fees commencing on the
month following the date the user fees are imposed;
c) execute agreements to grant approval for exclusive use to those who pay their
user fees on time;
d) if the agreement is not signed or the initial and monthly user fees are not paid
within 30 days, treat the strata lot as if the owner opted out, remove the
alteration within 90 days, and reinstate relevant landscaping during the next
spring or fall;
e) Track and record expenses and make appropriate annual adjustments to the
monthly user fee amounts as needed.
513. FIFTH the strata removes any unfunded alterations and restore said common property
to its original condition without undue delay.
Trees
514. In deciding to purchase 409 the Plaintiff relied on advice that trees and plants would
surround 409 for privacy and enjoyable views, that common property and
maintenance were shared fairly and proportionately based on unit entitlement, that
there were no restrictions on rentals in the developers disclosure statement or strata
bylaws, and that reasonable rights and responsibilities were enshrined in law.
515. The Plaintiff claims that these factors were fundamental to the value and enjoyment
of their property and to their peace and security and that during the past 10 years the
Defendant Strata destroyed hundreds of mature trees planted pursuant to restrictive
covenants that run with the land.
516. The Plaintiff claims that the strata corporations trees and landscaping were paid for
by the Plaintiff, not those who removed them or those who enjoyed unjust enrichment
from the resultant unobstructed panoramic views.
117

517. The Plaintiff claims that they cannot rely on protection through strata bylaws or
prohibition of damage to common property and illegal acts when the Defendant Strata
fails to enforce the bylaws and strata agents and members of the strata council are the
offenders destroying trees without authority and offloading the damages and
responsibilities of the Defendant Strata onto the victimized.
518. Restrictive covenants Z123808 and Z123809 are registered in the Land Title Office
against the title of each unit but the Plaintiff claims that without regard to either the
terms of these covenants or the risk of damage to the environment, the Defendant
Strata needlessly and deliberately destroyed the original landscaping that was planted
pursuant to covenants that run with the land.
519. City of Coquitlam Bylaw No. 2169, 1990 required a permit to cut trees in the
designated area around building 7 to ensure that cutting would not create a danger
from erosion, but the designation was disregarded by the Defendant Strata and the
Defendant City, both, most notably while Mae Reid was a member of Coquitlam city
council and one of the first to enjoy the new views.
520. When the Plaintiff purchased Unit 409 in 1988 the developers landscape architect
surrounded it with at least 11 or 12 trees, in the following configuration: 4 to the east,
2 in front and 5 or 6 across from the unit to the south.
521. The northeast corner of Unit 409 sunk approximately 6 inches in the year following
construction, and the development has a history of geotechnical concerns, including
sinking buildings, city stairways sliding down the slope, soil erosion, and chronic
drainage problems.
522. The trees screened intrusive views and stabilized the land for well over a decade, and
the 2004 Building Envelope Project Specifications provided that trees, shrubs, ground
cover, and landscape elements would be protected and preserved during the building
envelope project.
523. The slope around Unit 409 was subject to restrictive covenants and specifically
designated as a tree protection area by the city of Coquitlam, which the Defendant
Strata persistently violated thereby endangering or voiding a 20-year warranty on the
geotechnical stability of Unit 409.
524. On November 19, 2007, Coquitlam city council repealed bylaw 2169 and adopted
Tree Management Bylaw 3855, 2007, which effectively allows trees that interfere
with Ms. Reids interests or a prospective deck site to be removed without a permit.
525. As the roots of the trees decomposed buildings started sinking again amidst rushing
drains, flooded lawns, walls cracking, floors sloping, windows and doors
malfunctioning, breaking underground pipes, water mains, and sewers, cracking
pavement, and numerous sink holes, all of which are costly concerns to the Plaintiff.
118

526. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas disregard of Unit 409s geotechnical
history of sinking and unrepaired structural damage is more than worrisome in view
of a potential earthquake and the death toll from the landslide that hit the Washington
town of Oso on March 22, 2014.
527. Despite the Plaintiffs repeated reminders of environmental and legal issues the
Defendant Strata has removed all but one mature tree from around Unit 409, resulting
in unobstructed panoramic views for Unit 510, which is above Unit 409 and was until
recently owned by the Defendant Citys Ms. Reid.
528. The Plaintiff claims that most of the mature trees on the site were deliberately and
unreasonably destroyed to provide unobstructed panoramic views for others and to
blur retaliation and oppression of the Plaintiff and other dissidents.
529. In her strata President's Report for 2013-2014 Lynda Baker, who also works for the
City of Coquitlam and thanks Al MacLeod for his role in getting us to this point in
our strata history, calls the mature maple which the landscape architect had planted
beside Unit 409 for shared privacy and protection a "problem" tree and describes
cutting it down (just as Ms. Reid listed Unit 510 for sale) as an accomplishment.
530. The Plaintiffs understood that trees in the registered landscape architects design
were planted not only to beautify the complex and stabilize the land for the benefit of
all, but that certain environmental and legal protections were provided pursuant to
restrictive covenants, city tree cutting bylaws, strata bylaws, and provincial
enactments.
531. The developers landscape architect surrounded 409 with trees that stabilized the
land, including 3 vine maple trees and 2 paper birch that screened the views with
natural beauty and privacy. The area was finished with dozens of bushes and a thick
green cover of hundreds of low maintenance plants covering the dirt, and the Plaintiff
claims that the Defendant Strata destroyed all but one vine maple tree despite
evidence of environmental damage in a shocking and costly process that spoiled the
Plaintiffs peace and security and left the Plaintiff severely traumatized.
532. The plans and specifications of the developers landscape architect included
approximately 280 trees, mostly birch, pine, and maple. Considerably more trees
were planted and matured than specified, and most have been lost due to illicit acts
and negligent decisions of the Defendant Strata, and the Plaintiff claims that this has
caused significant damage.
533. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata destroyed, contrary to various laws,
between 200 and 300 mature trees, based on a comparison of the records of the
original landscaping and the nature of the currently existing tree inventory.
119

534. The Plaintiff estimates that about $75,000 give or take about $10,000 was diverted
from special levy funds to pay for tree take downs and stump removals based on a 29-
tree estimate from Davey Tree Expert Co. of Canada Ltd. dated September 19, 2006.
535. The Plaintiff claims a special interest in 4 particular trees in addition to the legal,
financial, and geotechnical issues arising out of the destruction of the trees and
landscaping in general and seek reinstatement of 2 vine maple to the east of Unit 409
between Building 6 and Building 7 and 2 birch in front of Unit 409.
536. The Plaintiff claims that the existence and removal of these particular trees had a
material impact on the value of their property.
537. The Plaintiff claims that said trees provided privacy and beauty in the air space and
between the windows of the buildings and reduced noise, dirt, and heat with beautiful
park-like views that were reflected in every direction throughout the Plaintiffs strata
lot by mirrors in the living room and dining room and hall.
538. The Plaintiff claims that the damage attributable to removal of the trees is indirect as
well as direct with added costs and harassment arising out of the Plaintiffs efforts to
mitigate the loss of privacy and enjoyment with glass privacy screens and trellis
planters, and the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has unfairly oppressed the
Plaintiff and undermined peaceful enjoyment of the Plaintiffs home and use and
benefit of a patio which is designated for Unit 409 exclusively.
539. The 3 maple trees between the buildings provided an important visual screen between
the patios and windows of the buildings. The most important privacy screen between
Unit 409 and Unit 508 was the vine maple tree in the middle.
540. In or about 1990 the middle maple was cut down without authority to double the size
of Unit 407s patio contrary to bylaws and restrictive covenants creating a major
ongoing nuisance to the Plaintiff, exposing Unit 409s windows to a clear and direct
view straight through the entire unit all the way into the Plaintiffs ensuite, screened
by encroaching on Unit 409s patio with trellis planters taking up Unit 409s outdoor
dining space at the unfair expense of the Plaintiff.
541. The Defendant Strata ignored the Plaintiffs complaints and refused to enforce the
strata bylaws even when the Plaintiffs patio sank and Unit 407 required structural
repairs that cost owners tens of thousands of dollars and the Owners gave direction to
do so at an AGM.
542. The benefit to Unit 407 is outweighed by the detriment to the Plaintiff and Unit 409
and the detriment and added expense to the strata in general.
543. The Plaintiff does not know how much extra the Defendant Strata paid in or about
2007 for demolition and reconstruction of Unit 407s extra decking but estimates at
least another $5,000 in extra expense, and much more if a link to the attributable cost
120

of lost landscaping and the inexplicable destruction of top quality strata plan patios is
considered relevant.
544. Unit 409 has south-facing living room windows which were shaded by mature birch
trees, and windows and a patio to the east, which were screened by vine maple trees.
545. One birch tree was cut down in 2005 to accommodate building envelope repairs with
terms provided for its reinstatement, however, when the work was complete and all
the scaffolding was removed in October 2005 the Defendant Strata refused
reinstatement and subsequently destroyed all but one of the trees around 409 that had
been preserved during the building envelope repairs.
546. The Plaintiff claims that the specified landscaping reinstatement budget of $50,000
was more than enough to reinstate the complexs loss of landscaping necessitated by
the building envelope repairs and the Defendant Strata diverted special levy funds to
subsequent removal of trees and landscaping.
547. In February 2006, Al MacLeod had the birch trees in front of 409, one of which had
just been freshly pruned by the strata cut down without authority, not even a vote,
while the Plaintiffs were away on vacation, creating unobstructed panoramic views
for the benefit of 3 major contributors of damage to the Plaintiff, the buyer (Mae
Reid), the seller (Gloria Henderson), and the listing realtor (Al MacLeod), none of
whom paid for the trees, each of whom owned and paid almost 25% less in strata
fees than the Plaintiff for the right to use and enjoy the common property and took
more than double their share, and none of whom lived on the property before the
Plaintiff or for nearly as long as the Plaintiff.
548. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. Macleod cut down the trees in front of 409 without a
vote in full knowledge of the value and importance of the trees to the Plaintiff, in
blatant disregard of slope protection and tree cutting bylaws, restrictive covenants,
ss.32(b) and 71 of the S.P.A., and strata bylaws 1, 4, 8, 42, and the ongoing nuisance
and cost of the extra expense and loss of beauty, privacy, and respect is a hardship on
the Plaintiff and significantly devalues unit 409 for the Plaintiff.
549. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod cut down the trees in front of Unit 409 in a
conflict of interest and then advertised Unit 510 for sale for his client, Gloria
Henderson, with unobstructed panoramic views, and sold it to city councillor and
fellow realtor, Mae Reid, for the unjust enrichment of them all at the expense of the
Plaintiff.
550. Mr. MacLeod knew that Unit 409 had a history of sinking and that cutting down the
surrounding trees would have a profoundly traumatic impact on the Plaintiff and he
told her that he had the right to act against dissidents and that Unit 409 might sink
again.
121

551. Mr. MacLeod knew the importance of the trees because in the summer of 2003 he
visited the Plaintiff and she told him how central the trees were to the Plaintiffs
peace of mind and property value because 409 had sunk right after it was built and
had to be shored up and supported in a bed of concrete and she gave him a tour of the
Plaintiffs home and showed him the park-like views that surrounded Unit 409 and
showed him how all the greenery was reflected in the mirrors she hung and told him
how much joy she took in the beauty of the trees and how much loss of privacy and
enjoyment in the common property she experienced when the middle maple was cut
down and landscaping was replaced by extra decking for 4 units surrounding Unit
409, replacing valuable landscaping with trellis planters on Unit 409s patio,
unsightly storage tarps, summer noise, and unfair nuisance that she has never stopped
complaining about.
552. All of the birch in front of Unit 409 were mature trees whose roots had been firmly
established years before Mr. MacLeod cut them down and were located in the middle
of the complex where the pavement was sound all around and always had been until
Mr. MacLeod cut down the trees and it started cracking as the roots of the trees
decomposed.
553. The Plaintiff experienced traumatic shock when the strata corporations trees were cut
down, and although the Plaintiff could not afford to sue at the time, the Plaintiff
claims that the Defendant Strata has an ongoing responsibility to reinstate the trees in
order to maintain the common property and enforce the strata bylaws and that it was
negligent in failing to pursue reinstatement through its liability insurance or the
accountability provisions of s.33 of the S.P.A.
554. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod vandalized their property and acted against the
Plaintiff in a conflict of interest when he cut down the birch adjacent to Unit 409, and
the Defendant Strata implicitly allows illegal activity and owners to profit from their
own wrong doing.
555. The Plaintiff claims that the trees around Unit 409 were located so they were
particularly valuable to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff claims that they were entirely
viable and destroyed needlessly by individuals who knew, or ought to have known,
the very high value of the trees to the Plaintiff, and who provided unreasonable logic,
and clear evidence of malice, and accordingly, the Plaintiff claims that, with the
exception of one of those trees, removing them amounts to vandalism.
556. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has a history of allowing members of
council to act in a conflict of interest in favour of unobstructed panoramic views and
rent-free extra decking with significant unfairness to the Plaintiff and willful
blindness to Unit 409s history of sinking.
557. The Plaintiff claims that Sunridge Estates was a beautiful urban forest with mature
trees planted in groves which relied on the support of neighbouring trees to support
them at the top and bushes and ground cover at the bottom for root and water table
122

protection, and all of this was destroyed by deliberate acts so the trees were sickened
and lost, or fell down in the wind, because they were never meant to stand alone;
without care, pruning, or pest control; or to have their roots exposed to the heat of the
sun when the ground cover was destroyed; or to have their top halves chopped off; or
to lose the water table, and who knows what else was done to destroy them before the
Defendant Strata cut them down and deliberately replaced them with panoramic
views.
558. The Plaintiff claims that mature trees surrounding the buildings throughout the strata
were covertly sabotaged and pre-emptively cut down without approval of such a
significant change in the use and appearance of the common property pursuant to s.
71 of the S.P.A. at enormous cost which impoverished the strata and continues
flowing.
559. The Plaintiff claims that the cost for replacement of a mature tree runs as high as
$20,000 and the survival rate is questionable, so the Plaintiff estimates that the cost
for reinstatement of hundreds of mature trees is in the millions of dollars.
560. The Plaintiff claims that owners dont have enough money to reinstate mature trees
and are paying indirectly with significantly more expense, heat, noise, and dirt as well
as loss of privacy for damage caused by council members of the Defendant Strata
acting pre-emptively in self-interested conflicts.
561. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata refuses to sue for insured damages just
as persistently as it refuses to enforce the bylaws against culpable owners, take
remedial action to reinstate trees, restore equitable benefit to common property,
impose user fees, or honour its obligations to the Plaintiff, including but not limited to
providing strata records and repairing Unit 409s defective support column,
plumbing, air ducts, taps, siding, sinking floors, cracked walls, and warped doors, and
these failures are a significantly unfair and unique detriment to the Plaintiff.
562. The minutes of the Defendant Strata claim that the repairs of cracks in the buildings
that were suddenly and repeatedly reported in the minutes after most of the trees were
cut down are the responsibility of individual owners, but the Plaintiff claims that the
Defendant Strata is liable for said damage to the structure of the buildings that the
Defendant Strata is responsible for causing by cutting down the trees.
563. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is covertly covering the extra costs with
indirect increases in annual strata fees as high as 20% by shirking its repair and
maintenance obligations, including painting, plumbing, and landscaping that it has
offloaded unfairly onto individuals.
564. The Plaintiff claims that providing unobstructed panoramic views and free extra
decking for a small power alliance left Sunridge Estates devastated, visually, socially,
and financially, and as the Defendant Strata left the common property looking like a
123

war zone for 6 years, its reputation was stigmatized and property values that were
originally above average fell to below average as owners fled in droves.
565. The Plaintiff claims that for over 10 years the Defendant Strata has vilified the
Plaintiff as the Plaintiff made repeated requests for reinstatement of the landscaping,
repairs and maintenance, and approval of a remedial extension of 409s patio.
566. By way of example, the Plaintiff claims that they made 18 requests proposing a
variety of remedial options over a four and a half year period between April 18, 2005
and November 5, 2009, that the Defendant Strata ignored, delayed, misrepresented,
and bypassed.
567. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata unfairly deprived the Plaintiff of shared
use and enjoyment of the common property and the trees to screen the view between
409s windows and the windows of the next building, resulting in over 20 years of
nuisance, loss, and insidious trespass, or worse, vandalism.
568. In or about December 17, 2013 the Defendant Strata deliberately cut down another
mature vine maple tree unreasonably without 75% approval, causing the Plaintiff
further trauma and expense and loss of privacy, and exposing them to further
harassment and another intrusive view into their living room and then accused the
Plaintiff of malice and threatened to involve the RCMP after the Plaintiff complained.
Strata Blogs
569. After attempted hearings before council to seek repairs and maintenance were
commandeered by the strata manger in a shocking manner that accomplished no
remedy the Plaintiff resorted to blogging to share with other owners the issues and
factual data that raise apprehensions of misconduct on the part of the Defendant
Strata.
570. The Plaintiff posted her first strata blog in or about 2007 and immediately notified the
Defendant Strata and all those named in it with a request to be advised of any errors
or objections. She has repeated a similar process each year and to date has been
advised of only post requiring correction, which she acted immediately to rectify.
571. The Plaintiff informed each of the owners just before the next AGM and after the
meeting she changed the address of the blog to limit access as the Defendant Strata
threatened legal action against the Plaintiff for reporting to others.
572. Each year the Plaintiff repeated a similar process for most of the years since 2007.
573. In December 2013 when the Plaintiff blogged about another mature tree being cut
down just as Mae Reid listed Unit 510 for sale with all kinds of views and a large
deck with room for a patio set the Plaintiff received a correction from a named
realtor and an objection from Mae Reid advising that when she advertised a large
deck for sale in addition to her balcony she was selling exactly what she bought. the
124

Plaintiff promptly corrected the realtor information and added Ms. Reids comments
to the post along with her own response. This is the only post that anyone has
specifically objected to from 2007 to 2014.
574. The Plaintiff did not advise the general ownership of the
http://sunridgecoquitlam.blogspot.ca/ address for her blogs before the AGM in 2014
because she was so badly burnt out she was dysfunctional.
575. After the AGM the Plaintiff realized that she must once again let each of the owners
know the current address, which she did, but with the additional disclaimers and new
security warnings on the blogs she decided that she could stop making annual
changes to the blog addresses to limit access in the same way as the past.
576. The Plaintiff determined that there is less benefit in changing her blog addresses and
removing them from the blogger list to make them invisible to search engines to limit
access after each AGM than in leaving them at the same address permanently.
577. In seeking remedies prior to filing this Notice of Civil Claim the Plaintiff asked the
strata council to review the facts and evidence illustrated in the Plaintiffs strata
blogs, and the only response received was from the Defendant Stratas lawyer
demanding that further notice be posted to ensure that the blog cant be assumed to
belong to or officially represent the Defendant Strata, and the Plaintiff promptly
complied.
578. The Plaintiff estimates that she has posted hundreds of photographs over the years
that illustrate the Plaintiff claims in ways that words alone cannot and that said blogs
contain material content for decision makers that is best viewed online or in
electronic format at least.
Harassment
579. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata improperly engaged in harmful conduct
including defamatory acts, comments, or displays, and intimidation, threats, and
deliberately offensive acts directed at the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff in particular, over
a period of years;
580. The Plaintiff was offended and injured by said conduct, feeling demeaned, belittled,
personally humiliated, embarrassed, intimated, threatened and battered, and
harassment of the Plaintiff arising out of the Defendant Stratas treatment negatively
affected the Plaintiffs attitude and function over time.
581. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata knew or reasonably ought to have
known that such behaviour would cause offence and harm to the Plaintiff;
582. The Plaintiff claims that for years the Defendant Strata has maligned and retaliated
against them in a variety of ways in response to the Plaintiffs complaints about
failure to enforce the bylaws, comply with law, and act fairly.
125

583. The Plaintiff claims that some of the most recent examples of harassment on the part
of the Defendant Strata and its agents include, but are not limited to, uniquely unfair
amendments to strata bylaws, claiming that resolutions with no vote cast in approval
are passed, persistently denying access to strata records, advising that emailed
correspondence between strata council members and strata agents is not part of the
strata records and proposing to further deny disclosure by restricting the Owners
right to observe strata council meetings, continually undermining the Plaintiffs
credibility, dismissing the Plaintiffs complaint that AGM notice was not properly
given and advising the Owners that emailed notice 2 weeks before the meeting is
okay, conducting an unduly short 2-hour AGM that denied the time required for the
Owners to make reasonably informed decision on a proposal to extend Unit 409s
patio which the Defendant Strata had refused to put on the agenda for over a decade,
and publishing minutes that are defective and disparage the Plaintiff.
584. The Plaintiff claims that a variety of Strata members and agents distract attention and
disguise corruption, damaging the reputation and credibility of the Plaintiff with
defamatory misrepresentations made with voices of authority and publishing
deliberately disparaging reports in minutes.
585. The Plaintiff claims that vilifying and discrediting the Plaintiff has been, and
continues to be, essential in the development, perpetuation, and acceptance of
significant unfairness, corruption, and unjust enrichment in the strata corporation.
586. The Plaintiff claims that a long series of unfair acts by the Defendant Strata has had a
lasting detrimental impact, particularly on the Plaintiff.
587. Years of nondisclosure of strata records impairs the Plaintiffs ability to defend
themselves and the cumulative social, traumatic, and financial impacts of a history of
prolonged and repeated acts and unfair decisions against them by the Defendant
Strata are overwhelming to the Plaintiff.
588. Continual changes in strata ownership and strata council members results in a
situation akin to a relay for the Defendant Strata, in contrast to an onerous exhausting
marathon for the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff repeatedly exhausts herself attempting to
inform each new council member of the material facts that are required for informed
decisions and corrective remedies.
589. The Plaintiff claims that the legal playing field is not a level one. The effects of one
units comparatively limited resources against the pooled resources and strata fees of
68, which ironically includes the Plaintiffs own money, combined with the severity
of the emotional upset the Plaintiff is in and a demonstrated reluctance of Courts to
interfere with strata management and a corresponding pattern of deference bestowed
on stratas makes proceeding with this law suit the last resort for the Plaintiff.
590. Due to a combination of features that makes the Plaintiffs home uniquely suited to
them, the high cost of moving, the systemic aspects of strata strife, the Plaintiffs
126

commitment to core values, and the obstacles encountered in accessing justice, the
Plaintiff has seen no reasonable escape from the unfair treatment surrounding them on
a daily basis within their own home or the toll taken on their lives and health by the
Defendant Stratas actions against the Plaintiff personally.
591. The Plaintiff prays that the Court will take into consideration the whole of the
circumstances, including the impact of oppression at home on health, society, and the
next generation.
592. The Plaintiff hates having to sue all of the neighbours and is personally sickened by
it.
Claims against the City of Coquitlam
593. The Plaintiff knows that making claims against the powers that be is a high risk
undertaking and her primary motive for doing so is profound concern for the public
interest and basic needs for systemic reform.
594. In the interests of simplicity the Plaintiff has set out the Plaintiffs notice of civil
claim against the city of Coquitlam in the text below this paragraph with a reminder
that the electronic document in Microsoft Word format should allow the reader to
collapse and expand the headings in the navigation browsing tab under Words view
menu.
Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS for claims against the Defendant City
595. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant City owes the Plaintiff a duty of care pursuant
to the Plaintiffs payment of taxes, the landscape design requirements set out in
restrictive covenants with the Defendant Strata and each strata unit holder, and the
Defendant City advertising on the internet its purpose of providing tree and slope
protection in related city enactments.
596. The Plaintiff claims that the system for building, development and subdivision
approval and the issuance of permits and bylaw compliance is a matter of policy
within the sole discretion of the City, and that the City is answerable at law for
negligent or complicit conduct contrary to its policy which caused or contributed to
damage within the strata complex and harm to the Plaintiff.
597. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant City prejudiced the Plaintiffs rights
and favoured the interests of a Defendant City councillor by acting negligently or
with complicity, and allowing removal of trees planted pursuant to restrictive
covenants that run with the land resulting in unobstructed panoramic views for the
benefit of the Defendant Citys councillor, Mae Reid, and damage and loss to the
Plaintiff.
598. The Plaintiff claims that damage within the strata complex that the Defendant City
caused or contributed to includes, but is not limited to, the Plaintiffs home and other
127

buildings sinking repeatedly, destruction of hundreds of mature trees, erosion of top
soil, sudden water run offs, pooling, breaking underground pipes, water mains, and
sewers, cracking pavement, and sink holes.
599. The Plaintiff claims that damage within the strata complex that the Defendant City
caused or contributed to includes, but is not limited to, the Plaintiffs home and patio
sinking repeatedly, removal of trees surrounding the Plaintiffs home, increased
noise, dirt, heat, and expense, and loss of privacy, trust, peace, and security, viewing
enjoyment, and property value.
600. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant City repeatedly failed to exercise all
reasonable care, skill and diligence, and follow all established and required standards,
practices and procedures, and comply with all applicable standard statutory
requirements, building codes, and bylaws for tree and slope protection, which caused
or contributed to damage within the strata complex and harm to the Plaintiff.
601. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant City made a number of decisions over the
years contrary to its own tree and slope protection bylaws and landscaping
requirements in restrictive covenants that run with the land and the Plaintiff has been
prejudiced as a result.
602. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant City violated agreements between the owners
of Sunridge Estates, the District of Coquitlam, and the Plaintiff that are filed in the
Land Title Office as Restrictive Covenants Z123808 and Z123809, which are binding
on the city, strata corporation, and each unit holder and require detailed landscaping
plans for any construction with specifications of plant materials, landscape screening,
and surface treatments for the common property.
603. The first Agreement with the District of Coquitlam was made on June 25, 1986. In
this covenant (Z123808), the district is forever discharged from all claims in respect
to loss or damage to any structure built, except where damage is caused by the
negligence of the District, and the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant City was
negligent in failing to protect the required landscaping, trees or slope, and in advising
that the geotechnical security of the Plaintiffs home was not effected by surrounding
trees and landscaping and the Plaintiffs home could not sink.
604. The second Agreement with the District of Coquitlam made on July 2, 1986
(Z123809) makes the following provisions:
1.The district requested that all future owners of the lands be made aware of
the design control requirements of the district in connection with construction.
2.The grantor agreed to enter into a Restrictive Covenant, which runs with the
lands and includes the following covenants:
a.No structure shall be constructed except upon plans approved by the
District.
128

b.Prior to the commencement of construction, application shall be
made to the District for approval of preliminary plans, which shall
include:
i.an accurate site plan showing the contours of the site and the
proposed siting of all structures;
ii.elevation drawings of all structures proposed to be
constructed;
iii.a preliminary landscaping plan;
iv.a perspective drawing showing all buildings or structures
proposed to be constructed.
3.Upon any application being approved and prior to commencement of
construction the application for the necessary permits shall be made to the
District, and shall include:
a.a detailed and fully dimensioned site plan showing existing contours
and/or spot elevations;
b.detailed landscaping plans, including specifications of all plant
materials, surface treatments and screening, and including an itemized
written statement signed and sealed by a registered Landscape
Architect as to the estimated true costs of the proposed landscaping
works;
c.working drawings and specifications of all structures to be
constructed, including elevation drawings.
4.The District may reject any application that does not contain all required
information.
5.Securities in an amount equal to the estimate of the total cost of landscaping
works were to be held by the District to guarantee performance of such
landscaping works.
6.The covenants run with the Lands under Section 215 of the Land Title Act,
RSBC, 1979, Chapter 219.
7.If any provision is unenforceable, that provision is severable from the
Agreement, and the remaining provisions continue in full force and effect.
8.The Agreement extends to the benefit of and is binding upon the District and
the owners of Sunridge Estates
129

605. Phase One Landscape Development Plan (Stamped Received May 14, 1987) and
Phase Two Landscape Concept Plan (Stamped Received Jan 20, 1989) show that the
developers landscape architects planted approximately 300 trees on the site, most of
which the Plaintiff claims have been removed over the past 10 years, causing or
contributing to damage within the strata complex and harm to the Plaintiff.
606. Trees were further protected in 2004 Building Envelope Project Specifications, which
required:
a) trees, shrubs, ground cover, and landscape elements to be protected and
preserved during the building envelope project
b) at commencement of work to protect all trees, shrubs, and landscape elements
from incidental damage
c) every attempt to preserve the existing mature trees and identify in advance trees
that will interfere with the timely undertaking of the work, and
d) the strata to make arrangements to trim and/or strap these trees whenever
possible;

however, the Defendant Strata violated these terms with impunity, and the Plaintiff
claims it was probably due in part to reliance on the Defendant Citys negligent
enforcement policies for restrictive covenants or tree and slope protection, or in the
alternative, its erroneous advice.
607. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant City circled their home on a map as a
sensitive area for protection and management of trees is further governed by a variety
of enactments governing tree cutting and slope protection which the Defendant City
administered in a manner that failed to provide protection, causing or contributing to
damage within the strata complex and harm to the Plaintiff..
608. City of Coquitlam Bylaw No. 2169, 1990 required a permit to cut trees, a security
deposit, and the restoration of the site to a suitable condition, and it provided penalties
for each day that a violation existed to ensure among other things that cutting would
not create a danger from erosion; however, the Plaintiff says that during the second
phase of the development rivers of mud rushed down the drains, it happened again
when hundreds of trees were removed during the last 10 years, trees died with the loss
of ground cover, and water that used to soak into the earths water table continues to
rush down drains, taking the Plaintiffs topsoil with it.
609. On November 19, 2007, after the Defendant Strata had cut down approximately half
the trees without penalty Coquitlam city council repealed bylaw 2169 and adopted
Tree Management Bylaw 3855, 2007, which the Defendant City claims on the
internet to be designed to protect trees, regulate cutting and ensure replacement of
130

trees removed, and the Plaintiff claims this is a misrepresentation, that when it comes
to unobstructed panoramic views for a city politician the new bylaw is actually
designed to do the opposite of what the Defendant City is claiming.
610. The Plaintiff claims that a Defendant City councillor, Mae Reid, purchased and sold
Unit 510 with views advertised in conjunction with tree removal around the
Plaintiffs home below and a proven history of acting recklessly in a conflict of
interest for her own unjust enrichment at the expense of others, and the Plaintiff more
than anyone.
611. The Plaintiff claims that in the area around the Plaintiffs home restrictive covenants
and tree protection enactments are violated continually without penalty, and in or
about 1989 the first of the homes trees was cut down to build extra decking over
common property, in 2005 the next one was cut down to accommodate scaffolding
for building envelope repairs, in 2006 the next ones were cut down just before Unit
510 above the home was list for sale with unobstructed panoramic views and
purchased by the Defendant City councillor, and in or about December 17, 2013, the
last but one of the homes mature trees was cut down just as Ms. Reid listed and sold
Unit 510, advertising her view off the balcony.
612. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant City councillor also advertised a large deck at
the entrance with room for a patio set, the very things that she deprived the Plaintiff
of while diverting special levy funds paid by others to avoid paying user fees herself
in a pattern of corruption and unjust enrichment that is alarming to the public interest
and an indication that the Defendant City that she represents is also acting in a
conflict of interest.
613. The Plaintiff claims that they relied on restrictive covenants and statutory and
common law rights in good faith and made their best efforts to protect the value of
their home and stop the Defendant Stratas pre-emptive destruction of trees and
landscaping, and the Defendant City is at least partly if not completely responsible for
ongoing damage to the Plaintiff arising out of violation of the Plaintiffs rights and
trust.
614. On May 6, 2014, the Plaintiff attended a meeting with the Defendant City in the
office of Doug Vance, Manager of Building Permits and Inspections, for a discussion
with himself and Erin Gorby, Arborist, and Mr. Vance put the Plaintiff on the
defensive as soon as he shook her hand in the lobby.
615. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. Vance intimated that the meeting should be cancelled
because she made a FOI request, and after an hour of undermining the
appropriateness of said request and the legitimacy of the Plaintiffs concerns
Mr. Vance and Ms. Gorby acting together put the Plaintiff on the further defensive by
aggressively engaging in righteous indignation when the Plaintiff expressed concerns
about contrived obstruction and delays, concerns which were reinforced by the
131

Plaintiffs inability to obtain even a single requested document during the course of
the meeting.
616. In contradiction to the Defendant City claims on the internet to protect trees, regulate
cutting and ensure replacement of trees removed, at the meeting the Defendant City
advised the Plaintiff that:
a) Mr. Vance interprets the restrictive covenants to avoid landscaping requirements
by adding words that are not there,
b) the Defendant City did not address landscaping requirements when it issued
building permits for the site during the last 10 years,
c) the Defendant City has never ticketed the strata corporation for removal of
hundreds of trees, or any at all,
d) the Defendant City does not require replacement or preservation of any of the
homes trees,
e) the strata corporation can continue cutting 5% of trees per year without a permit
or replacement as long as 40 trees are left on the site and after that 2 a year can be
cut without a permit or replacement, presumably until all trees are entirely
removed,
f) geotechnical security of the slope is provided by retaining walls, not trees or
landscaping, and building settlement of an inch per story is acceptable,
g) surrounding trees and landscaping have no impact on the security or stability of
the building,
h) the home is built on concrete foundations on solid ground and cant sink, and
i) copies of requested documents would be provided sometime later.
617. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Citys assertion that the home cant sink is
untrue.
618. The Plaintiff claims that they have been waiting too many months for requested
documents.
619. The Plaintiff further claims that but for the Defendant City acting in a complicit
conflict of interest, its advice and failure to maintain landscaping requirements and
tree replacement for slope protection and stability of the home is inexplicable, as the
home has in fact sunk repeatedly and may do so again in future.
620. .Reports by Sayers Engineering confirm that the building sank approximately 6
inches after construction, photos show it sinking again approximately 20 years later
132

as the roots of recently removed trees decomposed, and flooring substrates in the hall
at the top of the stairs and in the master bedroom over a concrete foundation and
supporting pillar in the garage are currently sunken and require repair.
621. When Mr. Vance indicated at the meeting that landscaping was irrelevant, tree
replacement was not required, and the home could not sink it became clear to the
Plaintiff that erroneous advice given by the Defendant City negligently, or with
complicity, is giving the strata corporation a legitimate expectation that legal rights
can be ignored and hundreds of trees could be cut down without consequence, that the
strata corporation will not be held to any landscaping requirements, and the
Defendant Citys erroneous advice has probably also contributed to the Defendant
Stratas vilification of the Plaintiff as a vile and despicable crazy bullshit
bitch for expecting that the law or restrictive covenants and protective enactments
can be trusted and relied on.
622. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. Vance advised her that the Defendant City does not
involve itself with geotechnical concerns on private property and the Plaintiff claims
that assertion constitutes negligence and is inconsistent with restrictive covenants and
tree and slope protection bylaws.
623. The Plaintiff says that although Mr. Vance repeatedly advised her that such covenants
are rare he declined to provide any records from the development permit or any
other source that would shed light on the reason for them, despite the Plaintiffs
repeated requests, and the Plaintiff claims that this absence of a reason raises an
adverse inference that the covenants exist due to known or foreseeable geotechnical
issues.
624. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Citys actions and failure to act contributed to
destruction of the strata corporations trees and caused foreseeable damage to the
Plaintiff and loss of security of the home to the benefit of a city councillor, contrary
to the Defendant Citys stated purpose of fostering the current and future economic,
social and environmental well-being of its community.
625. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. Vance repeatedly emphasised his claims that the home is
built on concrete foundations over solid ground and cannot sink despite the Plaintiffs
advice to him that the developer over excavated, the Defendant City approved fill,
and the home had already sank twice, 6 inches in the northeast corner the first time,
and a distance unknown to the Plaintiff the second time.
626. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Citys crazy-making advice that the home
cannot sink when the Plaintiff is sitting right there telling them that it sunk repeatedly
is a material misrepresentation that flagrantly and blatantly defies reality and
disparages the Plaintiffs credibility and was probably instrumental in the strata
corporations decision to remove hundreds of trees.
133

627. Although a government or strata corporation with revolving agents does not have the
same capacity for accountability and conscience as a natural person it seems probable
to the Plaintiff that the strata corporation relied on negligent misrepresentations or
erroneous advice from the Defendant City of a similar nature in deciding to remove
hundreds of trees from the site and replace them with panoramic views instead of
honouring its mandatory responsibilities to maintain the property and its assets,
recognize existing damage in photos, reports, and cracked foundations visible to
anyone who walks by and looks, and repair the structure of the home.
628. The Plaintiff incurred loss and damage arising out of tree removals that created
unobstructed panoramic views at the expense of the strata corporation and benefitted
unfairly privileged individuals, including city councillor, Mae Reid, to the unique
detriment of the Plaintiff.
629. The hundreds of trees that have been removed during the Plaintiffs decade of
complaints are visually confirmed by comparing the original landscaping
specification lists in the Defendant Citys file to the number, species, and locations of
mature trees currently remaining on the site.
630. The Plaintiff claims that since 2005 when the roots of the destroyed trees started
decomposing the Defendant Strata shored up the Plaintiffs home after it suddenly
sank again (nearly 20 years after construction), repeatedly shored up their sinking
patio, repeatedly ground off the sides and bottoms of their suddenly sticking patio
door, advising that the Plaintiffs home might sink again.
631. The Plaintiff claims that as the trees were removed the strata minutes all of a sudden
started reporting windows sticking, garage doors needing replacement, pavement
cracking, underground pipes and sewers and water mains breaking, and multiple sink
holes appearing, pavement became scarred and patched with repairs throughout the
entire the complex.
632. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant City gave the strata corporation erroneous or
negligent advice in conflict with restrictive covenants and the citys advertised
intention to support environmental stewardship and protect trees, regulate cutting
and ensure replacement of trees removed.
633. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant City failed to enforce tree, slope, and building
bylaws, and issued building permits without any tree protection or landscaping
requirements and tree cutting permits without any replacement requirements.
634. The Plaintiff further claims that Defendant City violated the stated tree protection
objectives of city bylaws and the binding nature of restrictive covenants with the
Plaintiff and every unit holder.
134

635. The Plaintiff claimss that the Defendant Citys conduct caused or contributed to
foreseeable loss and unfair damage to the Plaintiff and millions of dollars of damage
to the strata corporation.
636. The Plaintiff further claims damage and loss attributable to panoramic views for the
benefit of a Defendant City councillor enjoying priority over tree protection, slope
protection, geotechnical security, fiscal responsibility, environmental benefits, and
law.
637. The Plaintiff is informed by engineering reports that the developer, International
Land, over-excavated the site and the city granted approval of the use of fill on the
slope in the area of the home and that the type of concrete that the builder used in a
supporting pillar seems to be some kind of light duty water soluble concrete not
suited for that purpose, and these facts followed by water damage and tree removal
explain why the substrate and foundation of the home have sank repeatedly since
2003, and may sink again in future.
638. On October 14, 2003 the Plaintiff asked the strata corporation to obtain legal advice
on Coquitlams approval of the use of fill on the slope and requested an engineering
assessment of structural/settlement issues such as the assessment that Morrison
Hershfield offered for approximately $600 but for reasons that the Plaintiff could not
fathom at the time the strata corporation did not think such action was necessary and
rejected Morrison Hershfields offer.
639. The Plaintiff claims that negligent advice from the Defendant City contributed to or
supports unreasonable decisions by the strata corporation causing damage and loss to
the Plaintiff.
640. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant City is vicariously liable to compensate for
damages arising out of its acts and decisions and that while the time allowed to take
action against the city was rapidly expiring it imposed delays and avoided giving the
Plaintiff information requested.
641. On May 12, 2014, Doug Vance provided blueprints of the home to the Plaintiff which
the Plaintiff claims provide evidence of negligence on the part of the Defendant City.
642. Mr. Vance advised the Plaintiff that the blueprints for the unit on the other side of the
wall is an exact mirror of the home; however, the home as built does not match the
blueprints that the city provided, nor is the unit on the other side of the wall an exact
mirror of the Plaintiffs home as claimed, and the Plaintiff lost use of Unit 409s
ensuite due to hidden defects and resultant mold that persistently recurs and
jeopardizes the health of the Plaintiff.
643. On May 12, 2014, Mr.Vance provided to the Plaintiff copies of blueprints that were
too faded to read and a letter from Geopacific Consultants Ltd. on soils investigations
dated February 27, 1987 which says the site slopes downwards from north to south
135

at a moderately steep grade, with an overall elevational change from about 58m at the
northwest corner to about 25m at the south corner. Existing angles vary from about
27 to 31 degrees at the west end of the site to about 8 to 10 degrees at the east end of
the site. and soil and groundwater conditions as site is underlain by a thin layer of
FOREST LITTER and TOPSOIL overlying dense to very dense SANDY glacial
TILL with some silt and some gravel throughouta layer of possible colluvium
(slope wash materials) and a layer of sand and gravel overlies the till in the area of
test pit #1 at the south corner of the site with emphasis added as shown, and
groundwater was encountered as a seepage in those test pits below about elevation
41m (generally test pits 1 to 4 inclusive).
644. Mr. Vance provided Geopacific letters that make no mention of sinking buildings,
and he verbally advised the Plaintiff that the home is built on very solid glacial till
and did not provide a map of the test pits or Geopacifics remainder of the report
where important limitations and conditions are described.
645. The Plaintiff has some understanding of limitation dates, res judicata, restrictions on
the scope of rights and responsibilities, and the need to avoid unnecessary waste of
resources in the court system; however, the Plaintiff also has some understanding of
natural justice and the need to consider systemic unfairness and the fact that the
breadth of the Defendant Citys powers and responsibilities and foreseeable influence
of its advice, discretion, and timing is wide and pervasive.
646. The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant City as the governing authority with
respect to the issuance of development, building and tree cutting permits, inspections,
enforcement of city bylaws, and compliance with restrictive covenants, as follows.
647. The Defendant City owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff to exercise all reasonable
care, skill, diligence and competence in compliance, inspection, and enforcement
relevant to its restrictive covenants, permits, and bylaws.
648. In breach of its duty of care, the Defendant City negligently failed to exercise all
reasonable care, skill and diligence and competence in compliance with restrictive
covenants and, or in the alternative, inspections and issuance of permits with respect
to the home, with said negligence causing or contributing to damages suffered by the
Plaintiff.
649. The Plaintiff claims that on a balance of probabilities the Defendant Citys conduct
caused or materially contributed to:
a) the strata corporation destroying hundreds of trees, creating panoramic views
and leaving the common property looking like a war zone for nearly 6 years
while owners sold under conditions described by the strata lawyer as
horrific,
136

b) Mae Reid, acting to divert special levy funds to demolish and reconstruct
illegally added extra decking under the guise of a work order issued by the
Defendant City contrary to restrictive covenants, strata bylaws, contracts,
votes, and the directions of the Owners,
c) the Plaintiff being discredited and disparaged for complaining and pursuing
legal rights and legitimate expectations.
650. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant City acted negligently in regard to issuing
building permits and performing required inspections and enforcement
responsibilities, which contributed to the strata corporations failure to extend the
pipes to the homes exterior taps to accommodate the rain screen assembly, locate the
homes unit number in the light and approaching line of sight for emergency vehicles,
preserve trees and landscaping, or leave a safety buffer next to the home.
Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT for claims against the Defendant City
651. As a result of the matters aforesaid the Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage,
particulars of which include, but are not limited to:
a) interference with the Plaintiffs ability to carry on with and enjoy life;
b) extra expense - past, present, and future;
c) loss of the park-like views from the homes patio and living areas;
d) loss of privacy from the homes patio and living areas;
e) loss of use and enjoyment of common property;
f) loss of geotechnical security and peace of mind;
g) defectively installed misaligned shared plumbing and air ducts;
h) trespass on the Plaintiffs property;
i) chronic mildew in the Plaintiffs ensuite shower;
j) defective structural support and sinking flooring substrate;
k) over 10 years of lost opportunity to install new floor coverings;
l) over 9 years of interference with use of the Plaintiffs hose;
m) ongoing loss of opportunity to sell Unit 409 in reasonable condition;
n) loss of visibility of unit number to approaching rescue vehicles;
137

o) vilification;
p) stress;
q) such further and other loss and damage as may be advised prior to trial.
652. The Plaintiff claims compensation for damages arising out of the Defendant Citys
misrepresentations and negligent conduct.
653. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant City acted in a conflict of interest for
the unjust enrichment of a city councillor, made misrepresentations and withheld
material documents, and acted contrary to restrictive covenants, and as a result the
strata corporation diverted approximately half a million dollars of special levy funds
to demolish and reconstruct extra decking, destroy landscaping and replace trees with
views, and accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks orders for:
a) drawings, including elevation drawings, and detailed specifications for each
units extra decking, including sizes, materials, and finishings;
b) records of historical dates of construction and approvals, and estimated costs
of demolition, reconstruction, and landscaping reinstatement for each units
extra decking;
c) detailed drawings of the current landscaping, including specifications of all
plant materials, surface treatments and screening, and including an itemized
written statement signed and sealed by a registered Landscape Architect as to
the true costs of the original landscaping specifications, including installation
and removal, and the corresponding cost of the replacement landscaping
works for this site of approximately 5.5 acres;
d) securities in an amount equal to the estimate of the total cost of demolishing
and removing all extra decking and permanently reinstating the original
landscaping to be held in a lawyers trust account to guarantee performance of
such works if an owner fails to pay user fees adequate to cover all of the extra
costs attributable to any alteration or construction not on the strata plan that
exists solely for their own extra benefit;
e) reinstatement of the trees and ground cover removed from around the home
since 2004;
f) extension of the homes patio to accommodate the trellis planters that replace
the tree removed in or about 1990;
g) repair of the structural defects in and around the home.
654. The Plaintiffs prayer for relief is that the court will look to environmental policies,
public interest, fairness and justice to make orders that effectively advance the
138

remedy to the natural person and suppress the mischief that so mercilessly arises out
of artificial entities and professionals with unfairly limited liability.
655. The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant City for:
a) general damages,
b) special damages,
c) pre and post judgment interest,
d) costs under Appendix B Schedule 3 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, and
e) such other remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the
circumstances.
Part 3: LEGAL BASIS for claims against the Defendant City
656. The Plaintiff has a Charter right to carry on with and enjoy life without undue
government influence, including, but not limited to the Defendant City acting
negligently, in conflict, or with complicity for the benefit of a Defendant City
councillor, undermining the Plaintiffs credibility and security, misinterpreting
responsibilities, restrictive covenants, and slope or building stability to the detriment
of the Plaintiff.
657. The Defendant City, including its servants, agents or employees, and/or any one of
them, was at all material times responsible for building and development and
management, maintenance, improvement, operation, control and use of trees and
slopes in the city.
658. The Defendant City owes the Plaintiff a duty of care pursuant to restrictive covenants
with each strata unit holder, the stated tree and slope protection purpose of related
enactments, and the Plaintiffs payment of property taxes.
659. The Defendant City breached its contractual and, or in the alternative, statutory
obligations and, or in the further alternative, fell below a reasonable standard of care,
causing or contributing to damage and loss to the Plaintiff as follows:
a) failing to take adequate measures by way of landscaping requirements,
examination, inspection, enforcement, or otherwise, to comply with restrictive
covenants;
b) failing to take adequate measures by way of examination and inspection to
comply with and enforce city tree and slope protection enactments;
139

c) failing to give reliable advice and, or in the alternative, creating a danger with
misrepresentations which the Defendant City ought to have foreseen would
cause damage and loss to the Plaintiff and, or in the alternative, the home;
d) failing to take any or reasonable measures to prevent damage to the plaintiff
from hazards which the Defendant City knew or ought to have known would
arise from loss of the strata corporations trees;
e) failing to devote adequate resources and personnel to protect the Plaintiffs
Home and prevent harmful destruction of trees;
f) failing to protect the economic, social and environmental well-being arising
out of trees; and, or in the alternative,
g) contributing to hazardous conditions with impunity for an unreasonable period
of time.
660. Actions and decisions of the Defendant Strata as aforesaid have caused and continue
to cause the Plaintiff damage from stress, economic hardship, inconvenience,
emotional pain, traumatic injury, and loss of property value and enjoyment.
661. Further, as a result of the Defendant Stratas actions and decisions, the Plaintiff
claims special damages, loss and expense and will continue to sustain loss and
expense, particulars of which will be delivered as requested and available, prior to
trial.
662. The legal basis that the Plaintiff relies on is further set out in the:
1. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
2. Local Government Act, [RSBC 1996] c 323
3. Interpretation Act, RSBC 1996, c 238
4. Court Order Interest Act, [RSBC 1996] c 79
5. Restrictive Covenants Z123808 and Z123809
6. Coquitlam tree and slope protection bylaws
7. Coquitlam building and, or in the alternative, development permits
8. Supreme Court Civil Rules.
140

Claims against Adrienne Murray
663. The Plaintiff claims that Adrienne Murray is a senior member of the Bar and a well-
known experienced expert in strata law who has a duty to take reasonable care to
avoid causing foreseeable damage and is not likely to make innocent mistakes.
664. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murray played an instrumental and complicit role in
corrupt strata governance and significantly unfair treatment of the Plaintiff.
665. On September 12, 2003, strata president Al MacLeod sent an email threatening to call
the police to press invasion of privacy and criminal harassment charges against the
Plaintiff on the advice of legal counsel who he declined to identify.
666. The Plaintiff claims that in considering the whole of the circumstances the legal
advice cited by Mr. MacLeod constituted professional misconduct, and the
presumptive and most likely identity of said legal counsel was the Defendant Stratas
lawyer, Adrienne Murray.
667. The Plaintiff claims that the references to invasion of privacy and criminal
harassment were fraudulent and fallacious intimidation and bullying in response to
the Plaintiff delivering a second copy of a requested ventilation report, which had
previously disappeared the same as other strata correspondence and records that
council was routinely denied knowledge of.
668. The Plaintiff claims that the threatening defamatory attack on September 12, 2003
was a reasonably consistent precursor to threatening and defamatory letters
Ms. Murray subsequently wrote containing more legal and factual misrepresentations.
669. In one letter, Ms. Murray cites a claim by Tam London, of London Mah & Associates
Ltd., the Defendant Stratas engineer, that responsibility for repairing water damaged
doors in the Plaintiffs strata lot belongs to the Plaintiff.
670. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murray held out Mr. London as an authority for legal
advice he was not qualified to give and misrepresented the Defendant Stratas
responsibility to insure against water damage and repair and maintain the property
and act honestly under the Strata Property Act.
671. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. Tam London was not licensed to practice law, he was
disciplined for professional misconduct before being struck from the engineering
register, and he was never the strata lawyer, Ms. Murray was.
672. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murray didnt care whether the statements she made
were true, consistent with law, or reasonable at the time.
673. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murray had a duty to take reasonable care and that
Ms. Murray knew or ought to have known that Ms. Murray was making statements
that were false or misleading and unreasonably perverse in the circumstances.
141

674. The Plaintiff advised Ms. Murray of errors and misleading defects in her writing and
claims that it was like shouting into an empty room, the silence was deafening.
675. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murray showed no remorse and recklessly failed to
make corrections and caused damage to the Plaintiff that she could easily avoid.
676. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murray wrongly interfered with the Plaintiffs legal
right to access strata records and was complicit in preventing disclosure of
misconduct causing immeasurable and enduring loss and damage.
677. In her letter Ms. Murray advises the Plaintiff that the Defendant Strata will not
respond to requests for strata records unless the Plaintiff pays the strata management
company $60 an hour plus GST in addition to 25 cents a page photocopy charge to
have the strata manager review the documents, make copies, redact personal
information, and have an employee sit with the Plaintiff while the strata records are
reviewed, and if correspondence for a period of time is requested copies of all
correspondence for that time frame will be provided and the Plaintiff will be required
to pay both the hourly rate and the 25 cent a page photocopy charge for each letter or
email whether or not the Plaintiff asked for the documents or take them away. The
Plaintiff claims that this violates the S.P.A.
678. The Plaintiff further claims that Ms. Murray exceeded her jurisdiction and acted as a
judge with crazy-making twisted obfuscation of law and reckless perverse reversals
of fact that deny the Plaintiffs rights and discredit the Plaintiffs claims of corruption
and oppression and contribute to a ruthless campaign of harassment and character
assassination that is continually wrecking havoc on the Plaintiffs health and welfare.
679. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murrays letter retaliates against the Plaintiff with unfair
accusations of harassment for complaining about obvious violations of the Plaintiffs
statutory and common law rights, including unfulfilled repair and maintenance
obligations, undisclosed strata records, and failure to comply with and enforce strata
bylaws, and continues speaking without apology or regret.
680. The Defendant Strata circulated a copy of Ms. Murrays letter in the minutes,
publishing it in the permanent record causing irrevocable loss and damage, and
continued repeatedly delivering it to the Plaintiff for years, most recently in 2013.
681. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murrays misrepresentations materially contributed to
ongoing misconduct, unfairness, and damage, which is devastating to the Plaintiff,
and loss of strata records, which adds undue hardship and detriment to these
proceedings.
682. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas lawyers repeatedly misrepresent and
disparage the Plaintiff and undermine the Plaintiffs credibility and legal rights in
ways that promote or perpetuate unjust enrichment and corruption in the strata
corporation.
142

683. The Plaintiff further claims that the persistence of the Defendant Stratas lawyers in
maintaining claims no matter how false and perverse and Ms. Murray failing to take
easy corrective action or any responsibility for unfair loss and damage arising out of
her defective actions represents unjust enrichment and convenience in the legal
profession.
684. The Plaintiff claims that in the whole of the circumstances Ms. Murrays blindness to
evidence that raises reasonable apprehensions of misconduct on the part of council
members and her persistent failure to take corrective action to remedy written
misrepresentations that continue speaking disparagingly and unfairly against the
Plaintiff in a voice of authority amounts to professional misconduct or conduct
unbecoming a member of the law society.
685. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murrays conduct raises a reasonable apprehension that
she or another lawyer played a role in the Plaintiffs inability for over 10 years to get
information on the insurance policy in effect on July 23, 2003 which in spite of every
effort, including several blank cheques and repeated physical visits, the Defendant
Strata persistently deprived them of along with certain other strata records, including
particular minutes, landscaping plans, incriminating emails, nearly all
correspondence, and who knows what else.
686. The Plaintiff further claims that Ms. Murray acted as a representative of rogue council
members contrary to her duty to act with due diligence in the best interests of all
owners, and is correspondingly responsible for causing or contributing to
significantly unfair treatment of the Plaintiff.
687. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murray acted negligently, or in a conflict of interest, in a
manner that discredits the Plaintiffs claims, shields corruption, attacks the innocent,
exacerbates unfairness, and undermines trust among owners.
688. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata repeatedly persisted in reissuing
Ms. Murrays letter in response to the Plaintiffs requests for strata records until 2014,
at which point it allowed a brief period of severely limited access which wasted 2
days of the Plaintiffs time at the Defendant Stratas Fraser Property Management
offices and spawned fraudulent misrepresentations and repeatedly fruitless trips out of
town.
689. The Plaintiff says that the whole of the circumstances suggest complicity between
strata lawyers and management companies whose inherent interests in their own
profits too often conflict with the best interests of strata corporations and the S.P.A.,
as more profit is made on add-on fees from strata strife than on basic service.
690. The Plaintiff further claims that denying access to strata records is generally accepted
in the strata industry and a penalty is required to give reasonable effect to the law.
143

691. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murrays actions muddy the legal waters, undermine
trust, compromise goodwill, increase conflict and the demand for legal services, none
of which is in the best interest of the strata and all of which causes foreseeable harm
to the Plaintiff.
692. The Plaintiff claims that Adrienne Murray, disregarded the Defendant Stratas
numerous violations of the law and in her letter acts to legitimize allegations that the
Plaintiffs request for material strata records made it necessary for the Plaintiff to
travel out of town to the strata managers office where the Defendant Strata created
900 superfluous copies to provide 5 pages of information and that the Plaintiff was
provided with records which the Defendant Strata wrongfully concealed and
persistently and permanently prevented the Plaintiff from accessing despite many
legally prescribed requests.
693. The Defendant Strata has been sending Ms. Murrays letter to the Plaintiff for over 6
years and the Plaintiff claims that the negligent acts of Adrienne Murray played a key
role in thwarting the S.P.A. guarantees for access to information and that Ms. Murray
is liable for causing or materially contributing to violation of Sections 35 and 36
becoming generally accepted practice, not just by the Defendant Strata, but by BCs
strata agency industry.
694. The Plaintiff further claims that erroneous practice of law without a licence by strata
managers and other professionals has been effectively legitimized and Adrienne
Murray turning a blind eye or endorsing and contributing to it is damaging the
Plaintiff and other BC strata owners.
695. The Plaintiff claims that strata obstacles and the risk of being blacklisted by
management companies is a fundamental concern to various professionals, including
those in the construction, flooring, painting, and landscaping industries who treat
strata jobs more warily and less favourably than single detached housing jobs.
696. Based on over 25 years of direct personal experience as a strata owner the Plaintiff
claims that duplicitous legal advice, non-lawyers practicing law without a licence,
and violations of legislation are becoming generally accepted practice through the
strata industry and evidence of that raises a reasonable apprehension that Ms. Murray
along with other lawyers and judges who fail to put teeth into strata law have likely
contributed to what appears to be growing into a systemic betrayal of trust that is
unspeakably destructive and costly and must be stopped from going further.
697. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murrays advice that the strata council not respond to
the Plaintiffs requests unduly deprived the Plaintiffs of repairs, maintenance,
evidence, respect, peace, and happiness and contributed to years of corruption and
significant unfairness.
698. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murray is vicariously liable for economic damages and
harm to the Plaintiffs reputation, health, and enjoyment of their home.
144

699. The Plaintiff claims that self-evident facts and undeniable history speak for
themselves and that in this regard Ms. Murray knew, or ought to have known, that
statements in her letter were dishonest, deceptive, and harmful.
700. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murray has displayed little or no regard as to whether
allegations against the Plaintiff were true or false or reasonable in the circumstances
and disregarded cold hard facts and evidence cogent enough to raise apprehensions of
misconduct by the Defendant Strata and significantly unfair consequences for the
Plaintiffs status in the community. Ms. Murray disregarded the Plaintiffs response,
not just initially, but repeatedly each time the Plaintiff received another copy of
Ms. Murrays letter.
701. The Plaintiff claims that considering what is at stake lawyers owe the public at large a
standard of care that at least matches strata legislation and assumptions of credibility
that owners trust and rely on, and Ms. Murrays conduct falls below that standard,
brings the administration of law into disrepute, and has imposed trauma and damage
on the life of the Plaintiff.
702. The Plaintiff claims that instead of meeting her fiduciary duty of care to the Plaintiff
who paid strata fees for her services, Ms. Murray fell below the letter and spirit of the
law, and she must not be shielded from responsibility by thresholds of proof against
lawyers that are higher than against others with less privileged status, otherwise strata
owners and the less powerful, including the Plaintiff, are doomed.
703. The Plaintiff claims with respect to jurisdiction and the Legal Profession Act forum
for deciding matters of professional misconduct or unethical behaviour by lawyers
that the Plaintiff is limiting her claims against Ms. Murray to negligence.
704. The Plaintiff claims that more protective restraints are required in regard to lawyers
as a self-governed profession, and acting as a group the Benchers of the Law Society
sitting in judgment on a colleague are more likely to hold the Plaintiff to proof higher
than the civil standard, and this kind of conflict creates a double standard and raises a
real hazard to the Plaintiff, threatens a just result and is diametrically opposed to the
public interest.
705. The Plaintiff claims that when it comes to proof, knowledge is power, and
Ms. Murray has acted deliberately in a manner that has deprived the Plaintiff of
factual data and evidence in violation of law so arrogant that proceeding against the
Defendant Strata and its professional agents feels to the Plaintiff like walking into a
mine field blindfolded.
706. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas delay in using money from the special
levy for the purpose that the owner who paid it intended was supported, directly or
indirectly, by Adrienne Murray.
145

707. The Defendant Strata sent said letter repeatedly in response to requests from the
Plaintiff for more than 6 years.
708. The Plaintiff further claims that Adrienne Murray played an instrumental role in the
diversion of special levy funds to purposes which a reasonable person would not
expect owners to support, much less by 75%, and which the Defendant Strata gave
owners the understanding were excluded at the tune of the vote approving the levy
709. The Plaintiff claims that Adrienne Murray, directly or indirectly, contributed to or
played an inappropriate role as the Defendant Stratas lawyer acting for the exclusive
benefit of a minority of owners engaging in unjust personal enrichment at the unfair
expense of everyone else, and of the Plaintiff in particular, in wanton disregard of
restrictive covenants and geotechnical security, ultimately resulting in the destruction
of millions of dollars of trees and landscaping and many tens of thousands of dollars
in extra expense for demolition and reconstruction of extra decks.
710. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murray gave inappropriate, or no, regard to:
a) evidence of the Defendant Strata unfairly sectioning off repairs and
maintenance of units with strata plan patios from units with balconies,
b) vandalism and destructive sabotage of landscaping and strata plan patios,
c) the Plaintiffs right to remedies for conditions which Ms. Murray described as
horrific,
d) 5 years of common property made derelict, looking like a war zone,
e) obvious unreasonableness in the Defendant Stratas claim that it was
necessary to create 900 copies to provide 5 pages of information, and
f) a history of significant unfairness in the manner that the Defendant Strata
responds to the Plaintiffs requests.
711. The Defendant Strata advised owners at the AGM on April 8, 2014, that a bylaw
limiting strata owners to observing just the first bit of strata council meetings was
proposed in reliance on advice from Ms. Murray and the Defendant Stratas current
legal advisors, Becker & Company and Clark Wilson, that according to the advice of
these 3 lawyers, the proposed bylaw is not inconsistent with the right of owners to
observe council meetings that is explicitly granted in the Strata Property Act without
restriction.
712. The Plaintiff claims that such a bylaw would not only defeat the purpose of giving
owners the right to observe council, which has already been undermined by secret
email meetings that are not disclosed, but it perverts the law to favour a strata council
and prejudice owners contrary to the Strata Property Act, the Interpretation Act, and
the solicitors oath to uphold the and the rights and freedoms of all persons according
146

to the law of British Columbia, not a bunch of lawyers acting in conflict with self-
serving ulterior motives.
713. The Plaintiff further claims that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a guideline
which suggests that it is immoral and against public policy for those with power to
unfairly suppress or discriminate to the detriment of certain less fortunate citizens.
714. The Plaintiff claims that if the Defendant Stratas allegation is true, all 3 of these legal
professionals are acting as judges, and more questionably than ethically, to say the
least, and this is just one example of an industry of professionals acting with
complicity in a power alliance that is a major source of strata strife and significant
corruption in the strata agency industry.
715. Following the AGM the Defendant Stratas new lawyer provided the Plaintiff with a
copy of another letter from Ms. Murray dated March 18, 2013, which is rife with
further evidence of the key role that Ms. Murray has played in contributing to years of
unfairness and potential future unfairness in this troubled Strata, most notably
promoting further strife and unjust enrichment with recommendations to convert
common property to limited common property.
716. The Plaintiff is excruciatingly aware that criticizing the powers that be and making
claims against officers of the court is very high risk and the only reason the Plaintiff
dares to do so is profound concern for the public interest and the need for systemic
reform in a strata agency industry that relies on contrived pleas of innocent mistake
and reasonable procedures to produce unreasonable results with little, if any,
compensation for foreseeable easily avoidable damage, which is significantly unfair.
Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT for claims against the Defendant Lawyer
717. The Plaintiff has sustained loss and damage arising out of the actions of the
Defendant Lawyer, particulars of which include, but are not limited to:
a) permanent loss of strata records;
b) undue loss of reputation;
c) lost trust in the administration of justice;
d) stress that severely handicaps the Plaintiff;
e) such further and other loss and damage as may be set out prior to trial.
718. The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant Lawyer for:
a) a one-week suspension from the practice of law,
b) general damages,
147

c) special damages,
d) pre and post judgment interest,
e) costs under Appendix B Schedule 3 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, and
f) such other remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the
circumstances.
Part 3: LEGAL BASIS for claims against the Defendant Lawyer
719. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Lawyer owes the Plaintiff a duty of care
pursuant to Ms. Murray acting as the lawyer presenting the interests of the owners of
the strata corporation.
720. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Lawyer breached her fiduciary duty, or in the
alternative, fell below a reasonable standard of care, as follows:
a) misrepresenting the Strata Property Act;
b) depriving the Plaintiff of statutory and common law rights;
c) harassing the Plaintiff;
d) defaming the Plaintiff;
e) failing to act honestly in the best interests of the strata corporation;
f) making erroneous statements knowing them to be false, or in disregard to
whether they be true or false;
g) causing foreseeable damage to the Plaintiff;
h) repeatedly failing to make corrections or mitigate ongoing damage to the
plaintiff which she has been told is repeatedly flowing from her writing;
i) turning a blind eye to evidence that would raise a reasonable apprehension of
misconduct of the part of the Defendant Strata;
j) acting in a conflict of interest.
721. The Defendant Lawyers actions have caused and continue to cause the Plaintiff
damage from stress, hardship, loss of reputation, loss of trust, and loss of enjoyment.
722. The legal basis that the Plaintiff relies on is further set out in the:
a. Strata Property Act, SBC 1998, c 43
148

b. Interpretation Act, RSBC 1996, c 238
c. Court Order Interest Act, [RSBC 1996] c 79
d. Tort Law
e. Supreme Court Civil Rules.
Collateral claims against other Authorities, Agents, and Owners
723. The Plaintiff claims that a complex combination of problems involving a variety of
authorities, agents, owners, and people causes or contributes to unfair treatment in
strata corporations.
724. The Plaintiff claims that:
a) legislators have a series of direct and indirect levers they can adjust that impact
the lives of people and society for better or worse and they have a duty to take
care;
b) the legal notion that the result can be unreasonable so long as the process can be
held out as reasonable has spawned the development of an industry of authorities,
agents, and volunteers acting in inherent conflicts of interest that negligently, or
intentionally, contribute to easily avoidable ongoing strife in strata living and
foreseeable damage to strata owners;
c) a power alliance of corrupt professionals and volunteers acting with complicity
are a primary cause or contributor to loss and damage to the Plaintiff and strata
owners, strata corporations, the environment, and society in general;
d) a fundamental sign of corruption is nondisclosure and obstructing access to open
meetings and strata records;
e) leadership responsible only to an uninformed or misinformed group has brought
disaster;
f) one of the worst forms of corruption in this strata corporation is the acceptance of
corruption;
g) the Defendant Strata has a duty to act in the best interests of all owners and has
the combined resources to take remedial action against negligent or corrupt
authorities and agents than the Plaintiff can acting alone.
725. The Plaintiff further claims that it is an unreasonable obstruction of justice to require
the Plaintiff and individual strata home owners to have the legal, financial, and
emotional resources to enforce strata law and defend against misrepresentations,
systemic betrayal, and a long series of violations by proceeding directly against each
149

agent and authority in a court of law to pursue enforcement every time their rights are
violated in an endless campaign of unfair persecution and unjust enrichment.
726. The Plaintiff vents her frustrations by writing and blogging, but claims that other
owners cut their losses and sell to escape oppression, incurring a cost of
approximately $20,000 with each sale.
727. Hardship sales are a devastating loss to many owners and civilized society, but a
profit to realtors and governments who benefit from such transfers.
728. The Plaintiff says that it is likely that there would much less damage to strata owners
but for the oppressive treatment of dissenters.
729. The Plaintiff claims that those who engage in unscrupulous conduct for their own
benefit too easily avoid personal responsibility and rely on protection through liability
insurance, delay, limitation dates and a veil of nondisclosure, misrepresentations, and
complicit acts of strata professionals who are protected in the same way, and such
people must be identified and held accountable in order for the situation to resolve.
730. The Plaintiff says it is unreasonable and an indirect obstruction of justice to expect
strata owners to have the legal and financial resources to enforce strata law by
proceeding directly to seek compensation and remedies from each agent and authority
for every violation in a court of law, particularly when the process is a relay for the
field of agents and a marathon for the individual owner and the damage is too often
trivialized, ignored, or otherwise dismissed by courts.
The Queen
731. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has a cause of action against the Queen
for damages caused by political barriers impeding the ability of owners to access or
rely on the law to prevent damage to the strata corporation and themselves as owners.
732. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant Strata has a duty to represent the best
interests of all owners.
733. Particulars of the Queens contributions to damage include, but are not limited to:
a) permitting leaky condo design and construction and normalizing profit from
ongoing negligence in the construction industry in reckless disregard of the
predictable cost to the victims, environment, and society,
b) further promoting profit from wrong doing and unreasonable delay by enacting
shorter limitation dates,
c) enacting restrictive regulations that deny strata owners the standing required to
file complaints about misconduct in the real estate and strata agency industries,
150

d) enacting legislation and enforcement policies that are so toothless and prejudicial
that the law is routinely violated as generally accepted practice in the strata
agency industry, including over 50 breaches by the Defendant Strata, with
nondisclosure and lack of access to strata records being foundational,
e) failing to actively pursue strata managers and people with professional
designations who practice law without a licence or give erroneous legal advice as
an accepted norm in the strata agent industry to the detriment of owners,
f) creating adverse effect precedents that erode public confidence and reliance on
statutory and common law rights and responsibilities,
g) obstructing access to legislative material by charging taxpayers for crown
publications,
h) allowing a monopoly on the practice of law that arguably obstructs justice and
creates constitutional clashes with charter rights and freedoms,
i) bestowing rights and freedoms on lawyers at the expense of paralegals and
members of the public, effectively denying fair and reasonable access to justice,
734. The Plaintiff claims that although the Defendant Strata is better able to pursue
unusual remedies, the Plaintiff is not crazy or malicious for raising the issues in her
prayer for relief; the Plaintiff is, however, aware that a judge may be offended by the
claims or by the Plaintiffs personal limitations, or that the court may be otherwise
motivated to deter people from presenting difficult or embarrassing challenges, and
accordingly the Plaintiff is proceeding in great fear while clinging desperately to her
faith in the greater good.
Te !"M#
735. The Plaintiff claims that on September 27, 2014, the RCMP issued a ticket to the
Plaintiff for trespass on property owned by the Plaintiff and deprived the Plaintiff of
her legal rights, threatening her with worse if she continued to access the common
property in front of Unit 408 to protest against corruption and abuse as planned.
736. The Plaintiff claims that strata councillor Georgia Title demanded that the complaint
be made, and the investigating officer then unreasonably accepted the claims of
Councillor Title and Property Manager, Jolanta Teszka, who both falsely advised him
that the area in front of Unit 408 is limited common property for the exclusive use of
Unit 408, not shared common property which the Plaintiff owns and has the right to
access as much as, or more than, anyone else as the Plaintiff advised the officer
truthfully.
737. The Plaintiff claims that the RCMP disregarded evidence of abusive conduct on the
part of Councillor Title who suggested that the Plaintiff should sell and admitted to a
151

vulgar name calling attack in a manner that would seem to at least raise a reasonable
apprehension about her credibility.
738. The Plaintiff claims that investigating officer failed to consider the strata
representatives inability to provide relevant minutes or documentary evidence to
validate their claims and disregarded the registered strata plan as filed in the Land
Title Office, the cited section of the Strata Property Act, and the significance of unfair
governance of common property, all shown to them by the Plaintiff, nor did the
officer give due consideration to the relevance of historical unfairness, pending
litigation, or the foreseeable consequences of his conduct.
739. The Plaintiff further claims that the officer disrespected the Plaintiffs rights and the
law, thereby undermining the administration of justice, and having done so and given
her a perverse ticket, added insult to injury by telling the Plaintiff to have a good day.
740. The Plaintiff claims, based on the whole of the circumstances in this experience, that
the RCMP is corrupt, allowing the convenience and ego of officers to override fact
and law, creating a contaminated hierarchy of credibility based on undue deference to
the powers that be and willful blindness in the interests of expediency, and acting
more to avoid difficult, time consuming matters than to properly perform their duties,
which is damaging and skews justice in strata matters, and this is unfair.
Strata Agents
741. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas council provides an example of self-
interested owners acting in conflict , abusing power, and seeking out professionals
willing to support unfair and improper conduct or abuse and prey on the vulnerable.
742. The Plaintiff claims that a corrupt power alliance contributes to and encourages
insidious conflicts of interest, unjust enrichment, scandalous misrepresentations, bias,
discrimination and untold strata strife, all of which is significantly unfair and more
easily controlled from the top than the bottom, and as such needs to be recognized.
743. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is jointly and severally liable for
foreseeable damage to the Plaintiff negligently or intentionally caused or contributed
to, directly or indirectly, by strata agents that include without limit members of
council, property managers, lawyers, engineers, contractors, and others.
744. The Plaintiff further claims that notwithstanding the fact that members of the
Defendant Stratas council seek out hired professionals for support the Defendant
Strata is nevertheless more able than the Plaintiff to commence proceedings to pursue
compensation for foreseeable damage caused to the strata corporation by said agents
failing to act in the best interests of, or fulfil the fiduciary duties owed to, the majority
in a strata.
745. The Plaintiff claims that the strata agent industry power alliance governs over
700,000 strata owners and complicity in the industry is so strong that the
152

consequences of being blacklisted creates biased or contaminated evidence and too
often keeps ethical professionals and service providers from getting involved in strata
matters.
746. The Plaintiff further claims that a reasonable cause of action exists against a variety
of strata managers and property management companies, and perhaps the Strata
Property Agents of British Columbia which represents their interests from a stated
position of prevention of awareness.
747. The Plaintiff claims that the Real Estate Council of BC is the governing body and is
acting with complicity advising that strata owners lack the required standing to file a
complaint about rogue strata managers and real estate agents running strata councils.
748. The Plaintiff claims that strata lawyers and other industry professionals are aware of
this, and the Defendant Stratas lawyers act with apparent complicity.
749. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata and its agents, fall below a reasonable
standard of care, and:
a) give reckless or erroneous advice,
b) misrepresent facts,
c) dismiss history,
d) use deceptively ambiguous words in resolutions,
e) deny the Plaintiffs statutory and common law rights,
f) dismiss the Defendant Stratas repair and maintenance obligations,
g) ignore the fundamental concepts of fairness in strata fee and unit entitlement
formulas,
h) obstruct or prevent owner access to strata records,
i) act to obstruct or prevent owners from observing strata council meetings,
j) criticize the Plaintiff for natural frustration,
k) retaliate with defamatory accusations of harassment and malice when the
Plaintiff challenges the powers that be,
l) ignore evidence that raises a reasonable apprehension of misconduct,
m) demand legal advice at the Plaintiffs expense, and
n) require the Plaintiff to enforce with court orders bylaws that the Defendant
Strata is responsible to enforce and statutes that the Plaintiff has a legitimate
expectation that owners can reasonably rely on.
750. Some examples are set out below, and further particulars will be provided prior to
trial.
153

Unidentified Lawyer
751. The Plaintiff claims that the resolution for the special levy for building envelope
repairs was drafted by a lawyer who interfered with owner rights to make properly
informed decisions by replacing the strata plan word patio with the more ambiguous
word deck when the word deck created confusion, was prone to chicanery, and could
be manipulated.
752. The Plaintiff claims that at the meeting prior to voting the Defendant Strata agent
refused to name the lawyer who drafted the resolution when the Plaintiff expressed
concern that using the word deck in reference to strata plan patios was confusing
and asked who drafted the resolution.
753. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata agent rejected a request at the meeting
prior to voting for an amendment to clarify that only the strata plan patios and
balconies were included claiming it was unnecessary and would only add extra cost
and delay.
754. The Plaintiff claims that those responsible for straying from the strata plan language
for patios acted in a conflict of interest and knew, or ought to have known, that
adopting the word deck to describe patios created confusion contrary to the best
interests of the strata as a whole to deliberately facilitate and perpetuate improper
profiteering by a minority of owners with illegally added decks not on the strata plan.
755. The Plaintiff claims that in fact, or on a balance of probabilities at least, the resolution
for the special levy for building envelope repairs was intentionally drafted to be
ambiguous.
756. The Plaintiff claims that improper intent is evidenced by the fact that rather than
considering a proposed amendment Strata representatives deliberately induced
approval of the defective resolution by misrepresenting the word deck as effectively
irrelevant and making threats of additional delays that would cause unacceptable loss
and expense.
757. The Plaintiff further claims that strata lawyer have a fiduciary duty to each of the
Owners in drafting such resolutions to act honestly and responsibly in the best
interests of the strata corporation and know, or ought to know, the material difference
between limited common property and unit entitlement formulas for strata fee
funding compared to shared common property and the costs attributable to exclusive
use of same for the sole benefit of privileged individuals with illegally added extra
decking.
758. The Plaintiff claims that 75% of reasonably informed owners would not have
approved profiteering by others at the expense of themselves in contradiction to the
strata bylaws, signed contracts, and unit entitlement formulas, and any claim to the
contrary defies common sense.
154

Lisa Frey
759. Lisa Frey, of Becker & Company, is the Defendant Stratas new lawyer.
760. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Frey made false promises and erroneous accusations that
are damaging to the Plaintiff.
761. The Plaintiff is inclined to forgive Ms. Frey to some degree as the Plaintiff believes
that Ms. Freys errors may arise more from innocent mistakes than nefarious
misconduct, arrogance, and gross negligence.
762. The Plaintiff believes that on a balance of probabilities that Ms. Freys errors most
likely arise out of lack of experience and being negatively influenced by the model
that Ms. Murray has provided and defective information provided to her by the
Defendant Strata.
763. The Plaintiff further believes that if Ms. Freys misrepresentations are innocent then
she is too young and inexperienced to deserve to be added as a defendant in these
proceedings at this point in time.
Joan MacDougall
764. Joan MacDougall is a property manager who was employed by Bayside Property
Services Ltd. and Baywest Property Management Services Ltd., now Baywest
Management Corp., as the Defendant Stratas strata manager.
765. On January 1, 2004 Bayside Property Services Ltd. replaced Stratawest Management
Ltd. as the new property management company, and Joan MacDougall replaced
Wayne Sasaki as the Defendant Stratas property manager.
766. The Plaintiff claims that certain factors in Ms. MacDougalls misconduct are
representative of corruption throughout the strata agency industry and in that regard
the Defendant Strata may have a cause of action against Joan MacDougal.
767. Particulars of Ms. MacDougalls misconduct include, but are not limited to, the
following facts.
768. Ms. MacDougall allowed the 1-year limitation date for making a claim for water
damage to Units 409 and 510 arising out of the toilet tank that broke in Unit 510 in
July 23, 2003 to expire without making an insurance claim or completing the repairs
arising out of the water damage to Unit 409 that were previously started.
769. Ms. MacDougall persistently prevented the Plaintiff from accessing requested copies
of strata records and insurance information.
155

770. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. MacDougall supported Al MacLeod and abused the
Plaintiff and anyone who appeared to support the Plaintiff, including Gary Strong, the
strata secretary.
771. The Plaintiff further claims that Ms. MacDougall made defamatory comments about
the Plaintiff to members of a new strata council and destroyed strata records that
contained incriminating evidence of said misconduct.
772. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. MacDougall obstructed access to strata records not just
by the Plaintiff, but by Gary Strong when he was the strata corporation secretary.
773. Mr. Strong became the strata secretary when Al MacLeod was not a member of
council and the strata records were provided to Al MacLeod and withheld from the
strata secretary until Al MacLeod was through with them.
774. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. MacDougall covertly emailed blind copies of
correspondence with the Plaintiff to Al MacLeod when he was not on council.
775. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. MacDougall practiced law without a licence and
interfered with the management of the strata corporation by giving erroneous legal
advice with the voice of authority on a variety of strata matters.
776. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. MacDougall went outside her mandate and took control
pre-empting members of the strata council and effectively acting as strata secretary,
strata president, and strata manager.
777. November 30, 2006, the Plaintiff attended a hearing before council where Joan
MacDougall chaired the meeting at break neck speed, making a series of
proclamations without hearing the Plaintiff and with little, if any, time for objection
by anyone.
a) The Plaintiff claims that Ms. MacDougall wrote the minutes mostly ahead of
time, loading them with misrepresentations and oppression, reporting that
issues that remained outstanding were addressed, vilifying the Plaintiff, and
advising that no further correspondence would be issued to the Plaintiff.
b) The Plaintiff claims that defending against minutes that are persistently
inaccurate and disparaging is so stressful, exhausting, and demoralizing that it
is intolerable and exceeds the human endurance threshold of the Plaintiff.
778. The Plaintiff claims that the following particulars from the minutes of November 30,
2006 are indicative of how strata minutes are drafted and meetings are managed and
strata records are defective, not just on this occasion, but at AGMs and beyond:
a) Landscaping: The minutes say that the Plaintiff could volunteer to assist
Trevor Neuman in Unit 223 who was working with the landscape architect
and contribute to the planning.
156

i. Contrary to the minutes the Plaintiff claims that Ms. MacDougall acted
to ensure that the Plaintiff could not contribute to the planning by
making defamatory accusations that the Plaintiff was impossible to
satisfy, that the Plaintiff did volunteer to assist, and when the Plaintiff
volunteered to contribute to the strata corporation in any way she was
completely shut out.
ii. The Plaintiff further claims that the minutes disparage the Plaintiff and
damage her reputation by creating the false impression that the
Plaintiff either refused to volunteer or assist, or was somehow
involved in the planning of mass destruction of landscaping that was
so covert, devastating, and incomprehensible that the Plaintiff could
not even begin to envision it.
iii. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata failed to maintain the
landscaping for approximately 5 oppressive years while those acting
under the contrived guise of a so-called landscaping committee
wrecked havoc destroying trees and bushes and ground cover at
shocking expense in disregard of restrictive covenants, bylaws,
legislation and law in general in a relentless campaign to create wide
open views for the benefit of a select minority, turning the common
property into a barren weed infested swath of destruction that looked
like a derelict war zone, which Adrienne Murrray described as
horrific and resulted in the landscape architect quitting.
iv. The Plaintiff claims that corrupt interference, unfairness, and
destructive conflicts of interest in the operation of the strata
corporation cause others to feel so uncomfortable that they also quit.
b) Structural damage from 2003: The minutes say that the Plaintiffs
complaints of unrepaired damage to their strata lot are not valid;
i. The Plaintiff claims that this judgment is not valid; it amounts to
unlicensed legal advice, misrepresents facts to prospective purchasers
of units within the strata corporation, and publicly discredits the
Plaintiff in the official permanent record.
ii. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata indicated previously that
the unrepaired damage was so serious that completion of repairs which
didnt pose an immediate threat to safety from structural issues had to
be delayed and completed along with a major building envelope
construction project, and:
iii. water marks, cracked walls, damaged floor coverings, sinking and
buckled flooring substrate, and crooked, sticking, dragging, swinging,
door systems with misaligned latch plates and bottoms cut up as much
157

as an inch are warped and out of plumb is consistent with water
damage, and the Defendant Stratas engineer so indicated in writing;
iv. the unrepaired damage constitutes valid repair obligations of the
Defendant Strata pursuant to the Defendant Stratas obligation to
insure against water damage and the Defendant Stratas ongoing
responsibility under Section 72 of the S.P.A. for repair and
maintenance of the structure of the Plaintiffs strata lot pursuant to
bylaw 11.1 of the strata corporation.
c) Deck Extension: The minutes say that the Plaintiffs want to have a tree
replaced by their unit that they claim was cut down in order to extend the
deck of Unit 407, or alternatively be allowed to modify their deck with an
equivalent extension, and in general deck applications will not be approved
until overall deck issues can be resolved, and a bylaw is passed by a 3/4
vote.
i. The Plaintiff claims that contrary to the minutes the Defendant Strata
approved a deck addition for Unit 516 while simultaneously bypassing
the Plaintiffs request and the fact that vine maple trees between
building 6 and 7 are in the strata records but missing from the property
proves that the tree was cut down and publishing minutes that say that
the Plaintiff claims that it was cut down discredits the Plaintiff in
permanent official records.
ii. The Plaintiff claims that contrary to the minutes the Owners at the next
AGM gave the Defendant Strata directions to resolve deck issues
with user fees but Ms. MacDougall and members of council refused to
comply, and after another 6 years of delay during which the Plaintiffs
requests to put extra decking for Unit 409 on the AGM agenda to be
voted on were refused the Defendant Strata had yet to present a bylaw
proposal to resolve overall deck issues.
d) Compensation: The minutes say that the Plaintiff asked to be compensated
for losses resulting from the Plaintiffs reaction to the caulking used in Unit
409 during the window installation and that this was an old issue and any
compensation was denied.
i. The Plaintiff says that there was nothing old about this issue and the
Defendant Strata denied compensation at the hearing in disregard of
the fact that Heatherbrae applied a sealant formulated for exterior use
around the replacement windows in the interior of Unit 409 throughout
the entire unit in unusually large quantities in full knowledge that the
Plaintiff had lung disease and would have to move elsewhere, and
even after the toxic sealant was removed it took nearly a year with the
windows open for the residual fumes to dissipate. The Plaintiff claims
158

that the Plaintiffs damaged lungs have never healed and the
Defendant Stratas actions against them are more than unfair, they are
criminal, and some of the damage is irreparable and may be deadly.
e) Pipes Not Extended: The minutes say that a hose bib was supplied but the
Plaintiff wants to have the tap adjusted to make it accessible and extension of
exterior taps was done as a time and material billing extra to the contract.
Subject closed.
i. The Plaintiff claims that, contrary to the minutes:
1. the shop drawings which were reviewed by the Defendant
Strata on July 21, 2004 and issued for construction on
December 7, 2004, explicitly state, existing copper pipe
extended to accomodate [sic] rainscreen assembly,
2. the resolution that the Plaintiff voted on for the special levy
that the Plaintiff paid did not provide for billing extra to the
contract,
3. the pipes are common assets which the Defendant Strata is
mandated by statute to maintain,
4. the hose bib supplied by the Defendant Strata just created a
different problem and did nothing to cure the defect, and
5. special levy funds that the Plaintiff paid for extending the pipes
were diverted in a conflict of interest for the unjust enrichment
of others.
ii. The Plaintiff claims that, contrary to the minutes, the hose bib
supplied by the Defendant Strata did not restore use of the taps, quite
the opposite, the Defendant Strata supplied an orange snap on hose
connector which it then removed part of, and when the Plaintiff
requested a replacement for the missing part continually failed to
provide it.
iii. The Plaintiff further claims that a substitute connector, particularly
when it draws attention to the defect, is incomplete, does not work,
and fails to allow the Plaintiffs hose to be screwed onto the taps is
unfair and disregards the building envelope specifications as well as
the Defendant Stratas statutory duty to maintain the common property
and spend special levy funds for the purpose voted on.
iv. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has an ongoing statutory
duty to maintain the common property and common assets which
includes extending pipes as specified in the building envelope
159

drawings and maintaining Unit 409s taps for the purpose for which
they are intended, namely screwing on the Plaintiffs hose.
v. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata failed to extend the pipes
to Unit 409s taps as specified and required and it has been impossible
for anyone to screw the Plaintiffs hose onto Unit 409s taps since
2005.
vi. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is responsible for
fraudulent misrepresentations that unfairly disparage the Plaintiff for
complaining and cause damage and unspeakable stress to the Plaintiff.
f) Cut and Gouged up Material: The minutes say that hardy board that is
gouged up around the Plaintiffs window will be addressed by Heatherbrae
during their site visits if the Defendant Strata agents consider it a deficiency.
i. The Plaintiff claims that, contrary to the minutes, the dented flashing
that Heatherbrae installed was listed as a deficiency and Heatherbrae
removed the flashing and left the unsightly scars on the hardy board
which it had cut up for installation of the flashings that it did not
replace, and 9 years later the damaged board is still there, in a very
prominent location on Unit 409s patio.
ii. The Plaintiff claims to have paid for new undamaged material, along
with a warranty to protect against defects, and new material without
defects is what is shown in the shop drawings and the Plaintiff had a
legitimate expectation that the unblemished aspect and nice
appearance of the original cladding around Unit 409s window would
be maintained.
iii. The Plaintiff claims that the gouged up board is unsightly, worrisome,
and devalues the Plaintiffs property and that the Defendant Stratas
duty to replace the damaged board is an ongoing responsibility
mandated by its statutory obligation to repair and maintain the
building, common property and common assets.
g) Destruction of Trees: The minutes say that the Plaintiff asked to be
compensated for the trees that were removed from around Unit 409 and trees
too close to the building and that dead trees were removed in conjunction with
the city and arborists and building envelope warranty requirements and it is
common property so no compensation would be warranted.
i. The Plaintiff claims that to the contrary:
ii. trees the Plaintiff complained about removal of were not dead and the
time lines and strata records are indicative of the Defendant Strata
acting deliberately to pre-emptively destroy trees;
160

iii. the Defendant Strata destroyed trees in unscrupulous conflicts of
interest, creating unobstructed panoramic views, extra decking, unjust
enrichment, and undue expense;
iv. said trees were removed prior to consulting an arborist or the city and
months after the building envelope repairs were completed;
v. nothing in the envelope warranty requires removal of trees and the
envelope contract explicitly includes terms for the preservation and
protection of trees and the funding for the envelope project provided
for a $50,000 budget to reinstate any trees that were inevitably lost;
vi. city enacted bylaws for tree and slope protection, requirements for
landscaping in restrictive covenants, and the strata developments
history of sinking are all inconsistent with allegations that the
complained of removal of trees was done in conjunction with the city;
vii. the restrictive covenants are agreements between the city, strata
corporation, and each unit holder that run with the land and are
binding, which gives the Plaintiff a legitimate expectation that said
covenants are meaningful;
viii. when the city arborist finally visited the site after the complained
about pre-emptive cutting, less than half a dozen trees were identified
as any risk, none of which were the subject of the Plaintiffs
complaint;
ix. hundreds of the strata corporations trees were pre-emptively
destroyed contrary to the terms of restrictive covenants, bylaws,
section 71 of the S.P.A., the building envelope contract and special
levy;
x. the Plaintiff has reason to believe that Al MacLeod vandalized the
property for his own unjust enrichment in malicious retaliation against
complainants, claiming he had a right to act against others;
xi. since 2003 the Defendant Strata has been managed by certain
individuals who act irresponsibly for the unjust enrichment of a
minority and egotistically abuse power at the expense of the strata
corporation, causing oppression, damage and loss to the Plaintiff
which warrants compensation.
h) Stump at 409s Entrance: The minutes say that stump removal will likely be
addressed as part of the overall landscaping issues.
i. The Plaintiff says that the Defendant Strata left the stump at the front
entrance of Unit 409 for approximately 4 years while it destroyed trees
161

and removed stumps all around the rest of the complex and pre-
emptively created views for special interests that made the property
look like a war zone for 5 years before overall landscaping issues
were addressed in 2010.
i) Deck Issues: The minutes say the Owner was reminded that the deck issue
would be raised with the Owners at the Annual General Meeting.
i. The Plaintiff says that the Owners at the next AGM effectively gave
the Defendant Strata directions to resolve deck issues with user fees
which the Defendant Strata ignored and over 6 years later the
Defendant Strata was still saying that the deck issue would be raised at
the AGM.
ii. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata tried to reverse the
blame by accusing the Plaintiff of harassment for continuing to raise
the outstanding deck issue and complain of unfairness treatment
year after year.
iii. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. MacDougal tampered with the Plaintiffs
motion in the minutes of the 2007 AGM and prewrote a deck repair
contract in a plan to violate the Owners direction to council and
intention for special levy funds.
iv. The Plaintiff claims that the content of the Plaintiffs motion directing
council to require each owner benefitting from extra decking to pay
the extra expenses attributable to the continuing existence of such
decking or the strata would remove that owners extra decking is
unrecognizable in the minutes.
v. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. MacDougall was enmeshed with Al
MacLeod, so much so that the Defendant Strata changed management
companys from Bayside to Baywest after Ms. MacDougalls
employment with Bayside was terminated and she was hired by
Baywest.
Owners
779. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is primarily comprised of the Plaintiffs
neighbours, who have a common law duty to act with reasonable care to avoid
wrongful conduct that causes foreseeable damage to the Plaintiff.
780. The Plaintiff claims that certain owners acted unfairly and wrongfully against the
Plaintiff and knew, or ought to have known, that the Plaintiff would most likely be
harmed or offended by their conduct.
162

781. The Plaintiff claims that persons who acted at times as owners, representatives or
agents of the Defendant Strata breached their duty of care and/or contractual
obligations, and the Defendant Strata is jointly and severally liable for the resultant
damage to the Plaintiff.
782. The Plaintiff claims that certain owners play instrumental roles in defamatory
misrepresentations causing or contributing to significant unfairness, loss and harm to
the Plaintiff which spreads into a mob mentality, and the Plaintiff feels battered,
demeaned, belittled, humiliated, embarrassed, threatened, abused, and afraid of
increasingly unfair treatment.
783. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata did nothing when it should have acted
against violations of enactments, fairness, and reputation, and did too much when it
had no right to attack the Plaintiff, property, or truth.
784. The Plaintiff claims that owners serving on the strata council are in a position of
power and trust and have a duty to respect the law, conduct themselves with
reasonable diligence and personal accountability, be alert to conflicts of interest, and
hold accountable any who act dishonestly or abuse their position on council.
785. The Plaintiff says that owners on the Defendant Strata councils breached their duty
and responded to the Plaintiff reporting violations of the Plaintiffs rights and
negligent or unscrupulous conduct by agents, council members, and lawyers of the
Defendant Strata by retaliating against the Plaintiff in a series of oppressive acts that
go to further the unfairness instead of a remedy.
786. The Plaintiff claims owners and agents engaged in a combination of objectionable
acts inconsistent with the bylaws and Strata Property Act and reasonable care in
neighbour relations, including retaliation, intimidation, and character assassination
with disparaging or defamatory comments and persistent oppression of the Plaintiff.
787. The Plaintiffs claims against strata owners and members of council include without
limit the following particulars.
Al MacLeod
788. Al MacLeod purchased Unit 518 on March 15, 2002; and is the sole owner and
occupant to the best of the Plaintiffs knowledge.
789. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod was a realtor and acted as president of the
strata council in most years since he bought until his health was compromised and he
retired in June 2013.
790. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeods purchase of Unit 518 marked a turning point
in the history of Sunridge Estates, from comparative peace, order, and honest
governance to extraordinary strife, oppression, and corruption directly and indirectly
attributable to Al MacLeod.
163

791. The Plaintiff claims that after 16 years with the same strata management company the
Defendant Strata suddenly had 6 different management companies in 6 years, an
extraordinary turn-over of strata managers, council members, and strata owners, and a
dramatic loss in governance, from strata councils of 7 to Al MacLeod councils of 3.
792. The Plaintiff claims that sometime around his date of purchase Mr. MacLeod
introduced himself to a meeting of Sunridge Estates leaky condo owners as an
experienced, licenced realtor and former union representative.
793. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod asked the meeting if anyone thought that as a
professional realtor he would knowingly buy a leaky condo and claimed to be "as
shocked as anyone."
794. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod advised owners that he was familiar with
Sunridge Estates and had extensive professional knowledge of strata units, repair and
maintenance expenses, and building envelope issues.
795. The Plaintiff further claims that Mr. MacLeod told owners he would act in their best
interests, represent and advise them and ensure that their interests were protected, to
fully explain, report, and take direction from the members, and he claimed to save the
strata corporation money.
796. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod made misrepresentations to induce owners to
accept his actions and decisions in good faith until they gave him their proxy without
question.
797. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod was aware that reliance on misrepresentations
he made expressly or by implication would induce owners to support him without
realizing that he was acting contrary to the best interests of the strata corporation.
798. The Plaintiff claims that for years Al MacLeod took advantage of the high regard in
which he was held by some and did not comply with the requirements that are
normally applicable to a realtor acting on council.
799. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod made misrepresentations, knowingly and
strategically for his own unjust enrichment and caused devastating damage to the
Plaintiff.
800. The Plaintiff further claims that the magnitude, complexity, and duration of
unscrupulous conduct and the degree of planning that Mr. MacLeod injected into his
campaign to avoid user fees, create views, retaliate against complainants, reward
supporters, drive out undesirables, provoke sales, pursue purchase commissions, and
otherwise act for his own unjust enrichment is significant.
801. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod involved himself and was the most primary
player in the Defendant Stratas operations and management, both on and off of the
strata council, directly and indirectly, over a period of approximately 10 years and
164

played an instrumental role in the destruction of hundreds of trees with a replacement
value well in excess of a million dollars and an immeasurable or untold amount of
geotechnical and environmental damage.
802. The Plaintiff claims that Al MacLeod vandalized the Plaintiffs property and cut
down the trees in front of Unit 409 without a vote, which was devastating to the
Plaintiff, telling the Plaintiff that he had the right to act against complainants and then
as the listing agent advertised Unit 510 for sale with unobstructed panoramic views
and sold it to fellow realtor and Coquitlam city councillor, Mae Reid.
803. The Plaintiff claims that pursuant to strata bylaw 25 and sections 26 and 31 of the
S.P.A. it falls to members of the strata council to decide if a particular owner acted
honestly and in good faith in his or her involvement on the strata council and is not
therefore personally liable for consequential damages and to proceed reasonably
against any who act below this standard.
804. The Plaintiff claims that she complained of vandalism to the police but they refused
to act and told the Plaintiff to complain to the strata, and when the Plaintiff
complained the Defendant Strata unreasonably ignored Mr. MacLeods long chain of
misrepresentations and misconduct and did nothing to remedy the damage he caused
in violation of the bylaws.
805. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant Strata improperly allowed
Mr. MacLeod to tamper with and destroy strata records, and the strata manager
covertly provided Mr. MacLeod with blind copies of strata correspondence when he
was not on council, all in blatant violation of the Privacy Act and lawful strata
governance.
806. The Plaintiff claims that the strata records were given to Mr. MacLeod after he left
council and withheld from the new strata secretary for several weeks until
Mr. MacLeod finished what he was doing with them.
807. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod is directly and/or indirectly responsible for
concealment, tampering, or destruction of strata records related to questionable issues
including but not limited to finance, insurance, repairs, and maintenance, particularly
Unit 518s fireplace and driveway, landscaping, and the disbursement of money
laundered through the strata corporation.
808. The Plaintiff claims that Al MacLeods misconduct during a 10-year period covered a
broad spectrum and had a significant adverse impact on a large number of victims,
the financial stability of the strata corporation, property values, purchaser confidence,
and the Plaintiff in particular.
809. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod acted in conflict and placed his own interests
and gain over the best interests of the owners, causing damage and undue extra
expense to the strata corporation and the Plaintiff in particular.
165

810. Particulars include, but are not limited to:
a) in or about March 2002 Mr. MacLeod acted to induce the vendors of Unit 518
to sell the unit to him directly to avoid paying RE/MAX realtor Larrie Forbes
his sales commission and advised the vendors that, if asked, to deny that he
approached them to purchase the property after showing it to a prospective
client and to say that the topic arose when the parties met by chance in a local
mall;
b) Mr. MacLeods contract of purchase of sale for Unit 518 included a $10,000
holdback that in the Plaintiffs opinion was due to the vendors on March 2,
2004;
c) Mr. MacLeod clouded the issues with bogus litigation, vexatious confusion,
and churning strata agents, until the oppressive veil he created induced his
notary, W. Brad VanZant, to transfer the $10,000 to the strata corporations
bank account in 2008, a year when nothing of the stratas $1200 budget for an
annual audit was spent;
d) The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod vilified and retaliated against
complainants and instead of returning the balance of special levy funds to the
owners who paid for leaky condo repairs and taking direction from them
Mr. MacLeod conspired to divert the funds to avoid user fees and create
unobstructed panoramic views, provoking owners to sell under horrific
conditions for his own profit and unjust enrichment and the unfair benefit of a
new group of owners who could be expected to be more loyal to him.
e) The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod wrongfully caused or contributed to
damage to the strata corporation, and the Plaintiff especially, which includes,
but is not limited to, millions of dollars of destruction to hundreds of trees,
thousands of plants, and Unit 409s strata plan patio and geotechnical
stability.
f) The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod wrecked havoc on a scale beyond
belief and left common property vandalized in a horrific shambles for over 5
years with dismantled, derelict decks, sinking buildings, virulent weeds, bare
earth, damage from erosion, and loss of environmental and economic benefits
from the original landscaping.
g) The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod acted pre-emptively and in conflict in a
covert campaign to create unobstructed views and offload onto the strata
corporation major expenses attributable to a privileged minority determined to
avoid paying user fees for their extra decking and panoramic views that are so
costly to others.
166

811. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeods oppressive acts against the Plaintiff include
but are not limited to destroying trees after being told of their extreme importance,
sabotage of Unit 409s landscaping and strata plan patio, telling her that he has the
right to act against her, publishing and distributing disparaging defamatory minutes
and vilifying her in a malicious campaign of character assassination, including
without limit calling her vile and despicable and attacking her with threats and bogus
accusations of criminal harassment and assault and police action.
812. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod acted in the most flagrant blatant conflicts of
interest and instead of giving the strata written notice pursuant to section 9-3 of the
Real Estate Services Act Rules prior to acting on council he sent email to Gord
Matheson dated November 17, 2006 stating:
I was at all times covered by the Real Estate Errors/Omissions insurance, and
ensured the appropriate information was given in minutes, meetings and with all
buyers. I have been trained on full disclosure issues and privacy act etc etc. I more
than anyone else in this complex understands the technicalities.
813. The Plaintiff further claims that after Mr. MacLeod had the Halfords $10,000
transferred to himself through the strata bank account, he arranged for strata
management services from an out of town company in Abbotsford where his
girlfriend, Cindy Norman, worked in the accounting department.
814. Mr. MacLeod acted on council as President every year from 2003 to 2013 except for
2004, and when he was not acting as an agent on the strata council he was acting as
an agent on the building envelope committee and or some other bogus committee
and was most often in attendance at council meetings but he did not give notice to act
on council pursuant to the Real Estate Services Act until 2010.
815. Mr. MacLeod generated so much oppression and corruption that few, if any, would
dare run against him, even when strata management warned owners about Mr.
MacLeods extensive conflicts of interest in the strongest possible way, by resigning
if Mr. MacLeod was elected.
816. In 2010 Angela Uruski-Girard, Property Management Compliance Officer, Real
Estate Council of BC, said that prior to acting on the strata council Mr. MacLeod was
legally obligated to give the strata written notice pursuant to section 9-3 of the Real
Estate Services Act Rules that:
a) even though licensed under the Real Estate Services Act, he is not acting as a
licensee in this case,
b) he is not regulated under the Real Estate Services Act in relation to the strata
management services, and
167

c) the strata corporation is not entitled to the same protections applicable under the
Real Estate Services Act to persons who deal with licensees who are not acting
under this section of the rules.
817. Despite Mr. MacLeod claiming to be covered by the Real Estate Errors/Ommissions
insurance and failing to give the required notice to act and all of the evidence of
fraud, vandalism, theft, money laundering, and tampering with strata funds during his
years on the strata council, owners have no standing to seek a remedy under the Real
Estate Services Act, only the strata council has such standing according to Ms.
Uruski-Girard.
818. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata unreasonably ignored complaints of Al
MacLeod continually violating the law and causing damage and nuisance to others.
819. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod violated the bylaws and section 71 of the
S.P.A. by pre-emptively destroying trees, causing shocking loss and expense, until the
landscape was changed beyond recognition and left in carnage for 5 years, with
geotechnical and corruption issues for at least twice that long.
820. The Plaintiff claims that Al MacLeod owed a duty of care to owners at all material
times and made deliberate representations that he knew to be false, or in the
alternative, without belief in their truth or recklessly not caring whether they were
true or false, and others followed his example.
821. At strata meetings Mr. MacLeod stated that owners are ignorant, which the Plaintiff
claims was true in part due to misrepresentations made to them by Mr. MacLeod. He
made this claim more than once as a blanket statement.
822. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod also said that owners are ungrateful, whack
jobs, and that the Plaintiff is vile and despicable and he had the right to act against
her.
823. The Plaintiff claims that Al MacLeod launched a campaign of character assassination
and oppression against the Plaintiff which the Plaintiff claims includes, but is not
limited to, the following particulars:
a) Mr. MacLeod maligned the Plaintiff in meetings and minutes with a variety of
disparaging remarks and defamatory accusations and innuendos which have a
lasting impact on her reputation and ability to function effectively in the strata
community.
b) When the Plaintiff delivered a ventilation report requested by the Defendant
Strata Mr. MacLeod fraudulently accused her of criminal harassment based on
alleged legal advice and threatened her with police action.
c) When the Plaintiff went out of town Mr. MacLeod had mature trees in front of
Unit 409s window cut down in full knowledge of how extremely important
168

they were to the Plaintiff and her enjoyment of Unit 409, then he advertised
the unit above for sale with unobstructed panoramic views and told the
Plaintiff that he had the right to act against complainants.
d) When the Plaintiff warned Mr. MacLeod about a court judgment holding
members of council accountable for damages he called her vile and despicable
to her face, in writing, and to others.
e) Mr. MacLeod blocked the Plaintiffs driveway obstructing her from getting to
work and when the Plaintiff tousled his curls for acting in such childish and
vexatious ways he filed a malicious police report falsely claiming that she
kicked him and that he had a witness.
f) Mr. MacLeod walked in front of the Plaintiffs travelling car, forcing her to
stop, and when she drove on he flipped her mirror with his hand and falsely
accused her of hitting him with her car.
g) Mr. MacLeod was instrumental in diverting the resources of the Defendant
Strata and money that the Plaintiff paid and the Defendant Strata wrongly
spent on his own special interests and discretionary luxuries for a privileged
minority including himself while depriving the Plaintiff of mandatory repairs
and maintenance and shared access to and reasonable enjoyment of common
property.
h) Mr. MacLeod was instrumental in thwarting the Plaintiffs communications,
contributions, and participation in meetings, and in depriving the Plaintiff of
information, and responses to requests and complaints.
i) Mr. MacLeod subjected the Plaintiff to retaliation, humiliation, defamatory
gossip, and a toxic legacy of character assassination lethal to the Plaintiffs
legitimate concerns, all of which injured the Plaintiff emotionally, making the
Plaintiff feel vilified, discredited, shunned, vulnerable, attacked, oppressed,
and in danger in the Sunridge Estates community.
j) In a 10-year timeline Mr. MacLeod acted unreasonably alone and with others
in ways that would foreseeably harm the Plaintiff and unfairly caused or
materially contributed to undue expense, enduring property damage, bodily
injury, harm to reputation, and loss of security which sickened the Plaintiff
with years of overwhelming stress, incredible isolation, and unspeakable
erosion of dignity.
824. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant Strata disregarded evidence which
would raise a reasonable apprehension that Al MacLeod was dangerous, particulars of
which include, but are not limited to, the following examples:
a) Mr. MacLeod effectively embezzled $10,000 in holdback money on Unit 518
and covertly laundered it through the strata corporations bank account,
169

b) This was a process which took years and included a frivolous and vexatious
lawsuit against the former owners of Unit 518 filed by Al MacLeod,
c) The Plaintiff advised the Defendant Strata that Mr. MacLeods contentions
about being as shocked as anyone and not buying a leaky condo knowingly
were inconsistent with his Writ and Statement of Claim and the Contract of
Purchase and Sale.
d) The Statement of Claim that Mr. MacLeod filed indicates that his Contract of
Purchase and Sale for Unit 518 includes disclosure by the sellers of a
February 4, 2002 vote to have a building envelope study done as "certain
repairs may be required to the building envelope," an extremely low $135,000
sale price, and a $10,000 holdback for any special levies to be "identified,
levied, or due and payable before March 1, 2004.
e) The Plaintiff claims that after the building envelope studies were completed
the vote for the first special levy was on August 23, 2004 and said levy was
not identified and owners were not given notice of it until after
Mr. MacLeods end date.
f) The Plaintiff claims that the $10,000 belonged to the Halfords as of March 1,
2004.
g) The Plaintiff claims that the notary held the $10,000 for over 4 years after the
end date when Mr. MacLeod could not convince him that the money belonged
to Mr. MacLeod, but did manage to prevent the notary from paying the
Halfords when the money was due on the March 1, 2004 end date.
h) The Plaintiff claims that after the notary had been holding the money for over
6 years Mr. MacLeod induced him to dispose of it by paying the money to the
strata corporation in trust.
i) The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod got the Halfords money into his own
pocket through the strata corporations bank account fraudulently in or about
November 2008.
j) The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod exploited the strata corporation and
used it like his own personal bank account in a manner that raises reasonable
apprehensions of theft, money laundering, embezzlement, or other criminal
activity that the Defendant Strata had a duty to report.
k) The Plaintiff claims that the extent of Mr. MacLeods scheming, deceit and
oppression, including a frivolous, vexatious law suit that he filed on March
31, 2005 aberrantly attempting to offload his leaky condo repairs, and years of
churning out multiple changes in strata management until the right amount of
confusion and exhaustion was achieved to transfer the $10,000 holdback is
characteristic of Mr. MacLeod.
170

l) The Plaintiff further claims that Mr. MacLeod was an instrumental player in a
similar process of pre-emptive misconduct, distraction, pressure, and delay in
the creation of unfair repair and maintenance sections between strata lots with
patios and strata lots with balconies, and the diversion of special levy funds
for repair and maintenance of extra decking which allowed Mr. MacLeod to
continue taking common property for his own exclusive use rent-free, at the
expense of others.
m) Mr. MacLeod repeatedly exposed the strata to the risk of litigation, liability,
and loss and acted on the strata council for years but did not give it the
required written notice until 2010 that when the Defendant Strata allowed
Mr. MacLeod to act on council the strata was not entitled to the duty to act
honestly with reasonable care and skill, or the protections applicable under the
Real Estate Services Act to persons who deal with licensees.
n) The Strata negligently accepted without question Mr. MacLeods claim that
he was at all times covered by the Real Estate Errors/Omissions insurance and
that the appropriate information was given in minutes and meetings.
o) The Plaintiff claims that if Mr. MacLeod had not acted to destroy the
landscaping in the interest of selling the views and had put user fees on the
agenda to comply with the provisions of the S.P.A., then most, if not all, of
the approximate half million dollar balance of the leaky condo levy would
have been returned to those who paid it, and the estimated amount of user fees
payable by Mr. MacLeod would total at least $12,000 for his period of
ownership, most likely a whole lot more.
p) The Plaintiff further claims that had Mr. MacLeod not failed to comply with
section 71 of the Strata Property Act hundreds of trees and landscaping valued
in the millions could have been preserved and the strata would not be so
impoverished as to try creating different sections for maintenance of common
property in ways that are corrupt, unfair, and inconsistent with the Strata
Property Act.
q) Mr. MacLeod acted in a conflict of interest in retaining Teamwork Property
Management Ltd., a strata management company in Abbotsford with
comparatively weak connections to local services, but where his girlfriend,
Cindy Norman, was employed in the accounting department.
r) At the AGM in 2010, Dave Hensman, President of Teamwork Property
Management Ltd., warned owners about some of the dangers of having a
realtor on council and advised that Mr. MacLeod was involved in 50% of
sales in the complex over the previous year.
s) The Strata disregarded the risk posed by allowing Mr. MacLeod to act on the
strata council in a clear conflict of interest without protection for the owners
171

harmed when Mr. MacLeod said "you can't stop me from earning a living" in
relation to his request to participate on council under Rule 9-3 of the Real
Estate Services Act.
t) Mr. MacLeod advertised carefree living and landscape restoration to buyers
while sabotaging for years the very things that he advertised and advising
owners at the 2009 AGM that they should "consider moving" instead of
complaining.
u) Mr. MacLeod has been responsible for destroying landscaping, tampering
with strata fees and strata records, withholding repairs and maintenance, and
provoking sales through retaliation, vandalism, geotechnical damage, bylaw
violations, undue expenses, unrepaired water and structural damage, and
significant unfairness to the Plaintiff and others.
v) Mr. MacLeod has been responsible for wrongfully diverting strata funds in a
pattern consistent with a preponderance of benefits to 2-bedroom units,
especially those on Rambler Way such as his own with extra patio, decks,
landscaping, fireplace, snow removal, and panoramic views unobstructed by
trees and corresponding detriments to 3-bedroom units who pay for
subsidizing Mr. MacLeod and others, leaving Unit 409 without trees, views,
patio seating, repairs to interior and exterior structures and fixtures or the
assets, security, and insurance benefits that the Plaintiff purchased.
w) In violation of the S.P.A. Mr. MacLeod rejected without authorization an offer
to settle the leaky condo litigation at the mediation table, depriving owners
and council of any opportunity to make the decision by voting on it as
required.
x) Al MacLeod acted outside his authority, on and off council; shutting out
volunteers, cutting down trees in front of Unit 409, making misrepresentations
and threats, resulting in about 7 strata management companies and about 10
different property managers in 6 years, after the same strata management
company had acted for the strata for about 15 years previously, and the
landscape architect quit, as did more than one management company.
825. The Plaintiff claims that Al MacLeods wrongful actions or decisions also include,
but are not limited to, the following particulars:
a) he was instrumental in the creation of unfair divisions between units for
maintenance and repairs of strata plan patios and balconies contrary to the
Strata Property Act
b) he was instrumental in the unscrupulous creation of inexcusable delays in
reinstating the strata plan patios and landscaping until conditions were so
horrific that enough owners who paid the special levies sold, finally enabling
172

about half a million dollar remainder to be diverted contrary to the Strata
Property Act
c) he was instrumental in allowing a minority, which included himself, to enjoy
extra decks and unobstructed panoramic views and deprive the strata of many
tens of thousands of dollars in reasonable user fees and shift the burden of
extra expenses onto others who got significantly less than himself
d) he acted in a conflict of interest, violated strata bylaws, provoked sales, and
profited from his own wrongs at staggering expense to the strata and others
e) played an instrumental role in corrupt operations of the Defendant Strata and
deprivation, destruction, oppression, nuisance, and retaliation
f) as a member of council he failed to enforce the strata bylaws, or act honestly,
reasonably, and fairly
g) as a member of council he failed to manage and maintain the common
property and common assets of the strata corporation for the benefit of the
owners
h) he violated business restriction and parking bylaws, parking on a hairpin
corner, attracting pedestrian and vehicular traffic to the complex, blocking the
Plaintiffs garage, and blatantly obstructing fire lanes for his own
convenience.
826. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod acted as an agent of the Defendant Strata in
persistent conflicts of interest creating an enduring legacy of detriment to the Plaintiff
and the Defendant Strata is responsible for the associated loss and damage to the
Plaintiff.
Lynda Baker
827. From what the Plaintiff can see Lynda Baker is the sole owner and occupant of Unit
412.
828. The Plaintiff claims that at the AGM on April 8, 2014, the strata president, Lynda
Baker, made false claims about the ownership of extra decking and referred to a non-
extent new rule that effectively defeated the Plaintiffs proposal to extend Unit 409s
strata plan patio.
829. The Plaintiff further claims that President Baker put the Plaintiffs proposal for a
remedial patio extension on the agenda in a way that unfairly confused the Plaintiffs
request that the strata corporation pay back what was unfairly taken at the Plaintiffs
expense for the rent free benefit of others, with requests from others to take twice
their proportionate unit entitlement share, rent-free, at the expense of curb appeal and
fairness to others.
173

830. The Plaintiff claims that when owners were considering approval to extend Unit
409s patio at the 2014 AGM and asked who owns the decking below the Plaintiff
advised truly that its common property designated as shared on the strata plan.
831. The Plaintiff claims that President Baker contradicted the Plaintiff and falsely advised
owners that the deck in front of Unit 412 belongs to President Baker, she bought it, it
belongs to her, and she definitely owns it, pursuant to some recent new rule that
she referred to in a vague way.
832. The Plaintiff further claims that President Baker knew or ought to have known that
her statements were false and misleading and that if the owners accepted and relied
on them they could not approve the proposed extension of Unit 409s patio because
President Bakers statements, if true, would by necessary implication characterize the
Plaintiffs proposal as trespassing.
833. The Plaintiff claims that President Baker is taking more and paying less than the
Plaintiff, who gets much less than she bargained for, and if what President Baker said
was true she would own approximately twice as much limited common property as
she really does.
834. The Plaintiff claims that President Baker is a reasonably sophisticated purchaser of a
strata lot who is acting in a conflict of interest that supports unjust enrichment for
herself to the detriment of the Plaintiff and the betrayal of others.
835. The Plaintiff further claims that President Baker has persisted in making false
representations about her ownership of extra decking in unreasonable disregard of the
facts, including the registered strata plan, Strata Property Act, written legal opinions,
correspondence from the Plaintiff, and other material readily available to her as the
president of the strata corporation.
836. The Plaintiff claims that President Bakers misrepresentations regarding her
ownership of common property, which may have been sold to her by Al MacLeod but
is actually owned more by the Plaintiff than President Baker, has elevated unfair
governance to a more dangerous level of misrepresentation and corruption, which is
fatal to fairness its effect to date.
837. The Plaintiff claims that on September 28, 2014, President Baker falsely advised the
Plaintiff and Councillor Hennan that common property was changed to limited
common property at the AGM on April 8, 2014.
838. The Plaintiff claims that as of September 28, 2014, President Baker persisted in
maintaining that she bought the deck in front of Unit 412 and signed a Form B, and it
is her own property.
839. The Plaintiff claims that despite all the relevant factual evidence President Baker
persists in promoting misrepresentations with intent to mislead, in reckless, willful
blindness to anything that conflicts with her own unjust enrichment.
174

Georgia Title
840. To the best of the Plaintiffs knowledge, Georgia Title and Ben Abbot share
ownership of Unit 320, jointly or beneficially.
841. Ms. Title was a member of the strata council in 2013 and 2014 and was the strata
corporations secretary in 2014.
842. The Plaintiff asked for landscaping quotes as a member of the 2005 landscaping
committee, and Ben Abbot (Georgia Titles partner) said he threw them out because
they were too high instead of presenting them to the committee for review and
filing them in the strata records.
843. Since that one and only meeting in 2005 Ms. Title replaced the Plaintiff on a so-called
committee that functions covertly without members, meetings, votes, minutes, or
responsibility. Without any real committee, Ms. Title has played an instrumental role,
along with Al MacLeod, in the destruction of the stratas landscaping both on and off
of the strata council, directly and indirectly.
844. Based on Georgia Titles statements to a meeting of owners on or about March 23,
2010, actual events, and her role as an agent of the Defendant Strata, the Plaintiffs
claims against Ms. Title include, but are not limited to:
a) failing to notify the Plaintiff of meetings of an alleged landscaping committee
b) failing to provide requested copies of landscaping records
c) failing to reinstate landscaping around the building envelope project to its
original state
d) pre-emptively making significant changes in the use and appearance of
common property without approval votes contrary to section 71 of the
Strata Property Act
e) a persistent 5-year landscaping delay, despite bids from 7 companies since
2005
f) proceeding with landscaping completed in 6 to 8 weeks on an emergency
basis in 2010 without disclosing the landscape architects design
g) spending approximately $131,000 of strata fees in a corruptly manufactured
emergency
h) proposing a vote for another special levy of $55,000 or about $770 per unit
i) increasing maintenance by failing to reinstate the ground cover around Unit
409
175

j) causing a 25% increase in maintenance expense by adding grass around other
units
k) failing to provide requested strata records contrary to section 36 of the S.P.A.
845. Most recently, Councillor Title told owners at the AGM on April 8, 2014 that the
mature vine maple tree that screened the views between the windows of the buildings
and stabilized the land around Unit 409, was cut down in December 2013 when Mae
Reid listed Unit 510 for sale with a view because the tree was too big.
846. The Plaintiff claims that cutting down said tree was worse than negligent, that
Councillor Title knows very well the extreme importance of trees to the Plaintiff and
the impact on the environment around Unit 409, including privacy and security.
847. The tree was planted by the landscape architect pursuant to restrictive covenants, vine
maples can be pruned to any size, it was never pruned, there was nothing wrong with
it, it was an expensive waste, intended to make the Plaintiff feel miserable enough to
move.
848. Instead of reinstating beautiful birch trees that are such a joy to see in windows,
Councillor Title planted a vine maple in front of Unit 409 with leaves that curl up in
the heat, which is unlikely to ever match the previous beauty in windows without the
protective canopy of the birch, but if it gets too big and needs to be pruned it might
be cut down without notice - if the Plaintiff is not dead before then.
849. On or about April 13, 2014, the Plaintiff delivered an information notice to all owners
that the strata lawyer had effectively instructed the Plaintiff to sue the strata
corporation, and Councillor Title told the Plaintiff, Dianne, you have no right to
deliver those to other peoples doors, the Plaintiff asked deliver what? and
Councillor Title said whatever bullshit crap you have. the Plaintiff asked on what
authority? and Councillor Title said Oh for Gods sake, why dont you get a life.
850. When the Plaintiff delivered a copy to Unit 320 a few minutes later Councillor Title
came out and shouted Thanks Dianne for ruining my Sunday, its great to have such
wonderful neighbours and the Plaintiff shouted back, Thanks, Georgia, for ruining
my life; its great to have such wonderful neighbours.
851. On August 28, 2014, Councillor Title shouted a false accusation at the Plaintiff that
she threw a paper at her cat to scare it, repeated yelled asshole at the Plaintiff, and
when the Plaintiff complained claimed that she was not acting as a member of
council.
852. On September 27, 2014, the Plaintiff sat down in protest against shockingly unfair
treatment and told the police that were called on the false claims and strong demands
of Councillor Title, that the Plaintiffs goal in taking a seat was to draw attention to
misrepresentations, unfairness, and abuse, such as Councillor Title calling her an
asshole.
176

853. In response Councillor Title said that she never called the Plaintiff an asshole, she
called the person who delivered the paper an asshole, and she did not know that it was
the Plaintiff, and why dont you just move?
854. The Plaintiff says that Councillor Title is a liar; she called the Plaintiff an asshole
repeatedly, first when the Plaintiff delivered the paper to her and then 3 or 4 times
more when the Plaintiff turned around and returned to talk to her about it.
855. The Plaintiff further claims that Councillor Title gave false and misleading
information to the police with intent to deny the Plaintiffs rights, and made false
accusations against the Plaintiff causing the police to issue a ticket against the
Plaintiff for trespassing, when she knew or ought to have known that the property is
shared common property owned as much by the Plaintiff as anybody else, or more, a
significant 25% more.
856. The Plaintiff will not sell or move away as Councillor Title suggested because the
Plaintiff loves her home, it is uniquely suited to her needs, and moving would cost her
approximately $20,000 and leave corruption and oppression to flourish uncorrected,
which is morally repugnant and worrisome to the Plaintiff.
857. The Plaintiff claims that the agents of the Defendant Strata have been engaging in
vexatious provocations that are damaging to the Plaintiffs reputation and health and
causes the Plaintiff physical and emotional pain that exhausts the Plaintiff, disrupts
her sleep, and interferes with her ability to function efficiently and effectively enough
to support herself in her former occupation, creating the added stress of rapidly
increasing financial strain.
Mae Reid
858. Mae Reid purchased Unit 510 in 2006, sold it in 2014, and to the best of the
Plaintiffs knowledge was the sole owner and occupant.
859. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Reid was a Coquitlam city councillor at all material
times and a member of the strata council in 2007.
860. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Reid gave others to understand that the Defendant City
required the strata to reconstruct extra decking, when that was not what was required,
and she failed to recluse herself on decking issues to avoid acting in conflicts of
interest.
861. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Reid acted deliberately to mislead and divert special
levy funds to avoid paying user fees for a gate addition, expanded view, exclusive use
of common property, and entrenchment of free extra decking for herself at the stratas
expense.
177

862. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Reid acted contrary to the votes and directions of the
owners to require those with extra decking to cover the extra expenses attributable to
their existence.
863. The Plaintiff claims that if user fees were imposed pursuant to the direction of the
owners or the Strata Property Act an approximate half million dollar balance of the
leaky condo levy might have been returned to those who paid it.
864. The Plaintiff further claims that the estimated amount of user fees payable by
Ms. Reid for her approximate 8-year period of taking approximately twice her share
of common property for her own exclusive use could be in excess of $5,000, and if
she had paid in proportion to her use and benefit Ms. Reids unjust enrichment would
have been correspondingly reduced, and the strata corporation would not be too
impoverished to satisfy a fair and reasonable standard of repair and maintenance
obligations.
865. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Reid called the Plaintiff a bitch at a strata council
meeting and made unspeakably shocking threats when the Plaintiff complained about
Ms. Reid acting in unfair conflicts of interest.
866. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Reid then further vilified the Plaintiff with bogus claims
that the Plaintiff was stalking Ms. Reid, when the Plaintiff had not communicated
with Ms. Reid personally about anything other than strata issues, and not more than 2
or 3 times, briefly, and as civilly as the facts would allow.
867. In the middle of December, 2013, one of the last remaining trees was cut down on the
east side of Unit 409 at the same time that Ms. Reid listed Unit 510 for sale,
advertising a view and extra deck.
868. The Plaintiff claims that when the Plaintiff reported on destruction of the tree, unfair
treatment, misrepresentations, and conflicts of interest Ms. Reid accused the Plaintiff
of harassment.
869. The Plaintiff claims that the views and extra deck that Ms. Reid advertised for sale
are attributable to significant changes from the strata plan in the use and appearance
of common property that were not approved by 75% pursuant to the Strata Property
Act, and exclusive use of common property which Ms. Reid did not receive
permission for pursuant to the Strata Property Act, and common property and assets
that are not designated on the strata plan as limited common property do not belong to
a particular strata lot and are not for sale as private property in the way advertised.
870. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Reid and other members of council acting in conflicts of
interest for their own unjust enrichment caused or contributed to unreasonable
detriment, unfair loss, and ever-increasing harm to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant
Strata owes the Plaintiff remedies and compensation for the damages.
178

Vanessa McCann
871. Vanessa McCann resides in Unit 316 and is a member of the strata council.
872. As the strata secretary Councillor McCann repeatedly deprived the Plaintiff of strata
records.
873. On or about February 25, 2013, Councillor McCann yelled out to the Plaintiff as
another owner drove by You are the crazy lady. Councillor McCann advised the
Plaintiff that she was disposing of the letter the Plaintiff wrote to the strata, and
delivered to Councillor McCann as the strata council secretary, directly into
recycling.
874. Most recently, on or about April 13, 2014, Councillor McCann said to the Plaintiff, I
feel sorry for you because you are so crazy and when the Plaintiff said, That is the
second time you have called me crazy. Councillor McCann said, and Ill do it again
if you want me to.
Historical Time Line
875. The Plaintiff claims that a time line of historical events, which is apparent from a
review of a chronological list of documents well over 60 pages long, is material to the
credibility of claims and the significance of the unfairness to the Plaintiff.
876. Certain notable examples include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) Condominium Act [RSBC 1979] Chapter 61, including Part 5 bylaws
b) 1987 Restrictive Covenants for buildings, with landscaping requirements
c) Strata Plan setting out strata lot boundaries, limited common property, and
common property
d) Developers disclosure statement re rentals filed by International Land with the
BC Superintendent of Real Estate Financial Institutions Commission
e) May 14, 1987, Landscape Development Plan filed in Coquitlam City Hall
f) May 27, 1988, conveyance of Unit 409 to the Plaintiff from the developer
g) July 15, 1988, ensuite tub replacement, to Crane CSA approved
h) March 23, 1989, letter from Vickars Development Company Ltd. re
foundation
i) May 9, 1989, NW2671 Deficiency List, page 2, Landscaping: re Vine Maples (3)
between 407 and 409
179

j) June 8, 1989, letter from Stratawest to Unit 510 approving prior installation of a
13x13 foot deck for the strata president
k) August , 1989, letter from Stratawest approving Unit 407s installation of extra
decking
l) City of Coquitlam Bylaw No. 2169, 1990, re tree and slope protection
m) August 12, 1992, letter from Regent Maintenance re structural repairs to Unit 407
n) August 30, 1995, letter from Stratawest re request for grounds improvements to
#518
o) September 10, 19/98 Gas Permit for Unit 510 to convert wood burning fireplace
p) 12/3/00 Invoice to Strata Plan NW2671 from G. Henderson for $825.35 to repair
cracks and level Unit 510s subfloor, paid by cheque
q) December 31, 2002, AXA Strata Package with $1,000 deductible for water
damage
r) June 29, 2003, emails from Lori Mitchell Raines resigning from council and
Dianne Bond attaching a memo on the scope of investigation and assessment of
the building envelope
s) July 3, 2003, Minutes of council Meeting motion by Al MacLeod putting
Stratawest Management on notice due to lack of performance after 15 years
service
t) July 23, 2003, G. Hendersons toilet tank burst and flooded Unit 510 and Unit
409
u) October 14, 2003, the Plaintiffs requests for strata records, a legal opinion on the
use of fill on the slope, and an engineering assessment of structural/settlement
issues
v) December 17, 2003, the Plaintiff complained that no evidence of her
correspondence was in the minutes
w) January 1, 2004, Bayside Property Services Ltd. replaced Stratawest
Management Ltd. as the new property management company and Joan
MacDougall replaced Wayne Sasaki as property manager
x) June 14, 2004, Minutes of Council Meeting re outstanding repairs, saying
normally the Owner is asked to sign a Proof of Loss document once all the work
related to the flood is complete
180

y) July 6, 2004, the Plaintiff reminded the Defendant Strata that 409s doors had to
cut and rehung in order to close when the floors buckled from the flood
z) September 13, 2004, Project Specifications, Building Envelope Rehabilitation
aa) March 30, 2005, legal opinion on decks from Hammerberg Altman Beaton &
Maglio
bb) March 31, 2005, Al MacLeods Statement of Claim in BCSC action No. 91459
cc) June 2005, the Defendant Strata applied Tremco 830 inside Unit 409
dd) July 21, 2005, response to complaint, claiming Tremco 830 was safe, threatening
legal proceedings, with all expenses to be charged to the Plaintiffs account
ee) August 2, 2005, letter from Trow Associates Inc. saying Tremco 830 is typical
for exterior applications, recommending it be removed and replaced with backer
rod and Tremflex 834
ff) September 16, 2005, Morrison Hershfields Survey of Existing Wood Decks
gg) March 6, 2006, stratas report that the 3 firms contacted to review the decks said
that most of the material was still usable
hh) September 27 and November 8, 2006, Terris Constructions quotes for deck
repairs
ii) November 30, 2006, hearing before council
jj) March 10, 2007, Deck Proposal to extend Unit 409s patio by a 16-inch
cantilever
kk) May 10, 2007, letter from Unit 326 re Deck Request
ll) June 19, 2007, letter from Adrienne Murray
mm) November 12, 2008, letter from W.Brad VanZant re: Alexander Stewart
MacLeod
nn) etc., etc, etc
Summary
877. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has caused damage to the Plaintiff and
unfair stress for so long that the Plaintiffs health has been compromised and the
festering nature of ongoing oppression at home interferes with her focus and ability to
work efficiently and effectively enough to earn a living.
181

878. The Plaintiff has been coping for over 20 years with nuisance arising out of other
owners violating the bylaws, as new owners keep moving in and out, destroying trees
and landscaping, spoiling shared use and enjoyment of common property, eroding
geotechnical peace of mind, forcing hardship on others and leaving the Plaintiff
inheriting ever-increasing loss and extra cost that has forced others to move.
879. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata acted contrary to good faith and
perpetuated unjust enrichment for a minority when it ignored 20 years of unfairness
and perversely presented to the 2014 AGM the Plaintiffs repeatedly bypassed
requests for remedies for unfair loss and trespass and extra expense as if they were
equivalent to fresh requests from new owners for extra luxuries and unjust
enrichment.
880. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas failure to accept responsibility for its
unfair treatment of the Plaintiff and its presentation to the 2014 AGM of the
Plaintiffs requests as equal to others when they are the opposite of equal adds insult
and greater inequity to the Plaintiffs ever-increasing loss.
881. The Plaintiff seeks affirmative action to reinstate what was unfairly taken,
compensate for years of deprivation, and offset profit from wrongs. The Plaintiff
finds litigation against the Plaintiffs neighbours extremely distasteful but is so sick of
absorbing the nuisance, disrespect, unfairness, loss, and extra costs arising out of the
Defendant Stratas abuse that the Plaintiff cant stand it anymore.
882. On or about July 23, 2003, Unit 409 was damaged by a flood from Unit 510 above
and repairs to the fixtures and structure of the Plaintiffs strata lot have not been
completed 10 years later.
883. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata must repair the substrate of their floors
and then replace the warped doors and carpets and vinyl flooring damaged by toilet
tank and garburator floods from Unit 510, and the marble tile damaged by structural
settlement.
884. The Plaintiff is sick of absorbing the loss from the Defendant Stratas failure to meet
its ongoing obligations to complete promised repairs of water and structural damage
in Unit 409 under the S.P.A. and strata bylaws, repairs which the Plaintiff has been
paying strata fees for every month without exception in accordance with the law for
over 25 years.
885. The Plaintiff is also sick of absorbing the ever-growing cost of the Defendant Strata
unscrupulously offloading its repair and maintenance obligations onto an increasingly
oppressed minority who have been paying for luxuries for the corruptly privileged
who persistently avoid paying user fees attributable to their exclusive use of common
property that belongs to others, which they have never paid any of us to buy our
share, nor have they paid any of us rent for our share, ever.
182

886. The Plaintiff claims that the unfairness to Unit 409 is extreme and unique, more than
a double whammy, more than a triple whammy:
a) 20 years of unfair oppression and loss of use and enjoyment;
b) loss of money the Plaintiff paid into the half million dollar balance of the
leaky condo special levy funds that the Defendant Strata diverted into special
interests to create views and build extra decking for new owners;
c) prompt, fully funded repairs and maintenance for units with balconies, who
pay less and take more, but not for units with strata plan patios, who pay more
and get less.
887. In 2005 the original in-swing patio doors on 3-bedroom units were changed to out-
swings without owners having a reasonable opportunity to make an informed decision
and without any previous problem with leakage that the Plaintiff could see in Unit
409, and the function of the seating space on the Plaintiffs patio was ruined, such
that the Plaintiff has not been able to use Unit 409s patio set for over 10 years as a
result.
888. In June 2005 building envelope repairs to the Plaintiffs strata lot were completed
without extending the pipes to Unit 409s exterior taps to accommodate the rainscreen
assembly or reinstating the damaged landscaping as specified, and the Plaintiff has
been unable to screw her hose onto Unit 409s taps or enjoy any park-like views in
the windows for approximately 10 years.
889. Mature trees in front of the Plaintiffs windows which were preserved during the
building envelope project were maliciously cut down without a vote by Al MacLeod,
an owner realtor who then sold the unit above with unobstructed panoramic views to
another realtor and told the Plaintiff that he had the right to act against complainants.
890. The Plaintiff claims that in the past 10 years trees worth over a million dollars, which
were supposed to be governed pursuant to city tree cutting bylaws, restrictive
covenants, strata bylaws, the Strata Property Act, and financial budgets were
deliberately destroyed to provide unobstructed views to about half the owners, and as
the roots decomposed, all of a sudden buildings started sinking, walls were cracking,
doors were sticking, dozens of garage doors had to be replaced, pavement started
cracking and was patched up from underground pipes breaking all over the complex
and the common property looked like a war zone for 5 years.
891. The Plaintiff claims that for over a decade the Defendant Strata bypassed the
Plaintiffs requests for a remedial patio extension to the east to allow the trellis
planters to be moved off of the Plaintiffs limited common property and restore the
original function of Unit 409s patio, while special levy funds were diverted to
demolish and reconstruct illegally added extra decks for others who paid less, or
nothing at all to the fund.
183

892. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has a history of negligence and failing
in its obligations to manage the strata in the best interests of the Owners, and that the
Defendant Stratas conduct went from bad to worse over the past 10 years, ignoring
or vilifying and retaliating against complainants, with unfair treatment of the Plaintiff
in particular, which has seriously affected the Plaintiff in and out of her own home in
a manner that is sickening and very disruptive to her life, particulars of which are set
out throughout this Notice of Civil Claim.
893. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata and Defendant Lawyer act in damaging
ways and make decisions that result in toxic conflicts of interest and bad blood, which
is unfair, traumatic, expensive, and emotionally draining to people, and to the
Plaintiff in particular.
894. The Defendant Strata has repeatedly breached its duty to act in good faith, and people
who bought at Sunridge Estates (the Owners) often avoid strata meetings, abstain
from voting, and do not serve on the strata council for many years.
895. The Plaintiff claims that inadequate access to justice results in lack of involvement
from owners who are frustrated, confused, unable to access corrective remedies, and
express dissatisfaction by moving, no matter how devastating the cost.
896. The Defendant Stratas absence of good faith, unreasonable delays and
mismanagement of special levy funds and the strata corporation itself is damaging
and has had devastating effects on the Plaintiff and others, much of it intangible, but
certain particulars are set out throughout this notice of claim.
897. The Defendant Strata continually fails to enforce the bylaws even-handedly, in a
timely manner, or at all, which is a significant detriment to the Plaintiff and others,
including an elderly original member of council who said shortly before he sold in
about 2010 and then died, that remaining in Sunridge Estates was the biggest mistake
of his life.
898. The Plaintiff have resided in 409 since 1988, they are now both in their 60s and
would like a reasonable opportunity to enjoy their retirement and whatever is left of
their lives, and they do not have 25 more years to continue waiting for a decent home.
899. The Plaintiff estimates that the Plaintiff has paid to the Defendant Strata nearly
$100,000 in monthly strata fees over a 25-year period, plus a similar amount in
special levies, and the Plaintiff continues paying these fees as required while
continually receiving much less than bargained for while others receive significantly
more on an ongoing basis, as set out herein, and further particulars may be provided
prior to trial.
900. The Strata has a long history of failing in its duty to act in the best interests of the
Owners.
184

901. For example, on March 18, 2003, the Plaintiff wrote to the Defendant Strata on behalf
of another owner asking the strata to obtain advice from consultants and the strata
invited her to submit research, which an unidentified party decided not to distribute to
the strata council or file with the strata records. The reports on landscaping, electronic
records, management contracts, architectural design, awnings, and ventilation which
the Plaintiff delivered to the strata mailbox on various dates just quietly disappeared.
There is no vote or record in the minutes pursuant to the S.P.A. of scandalous
decisions like these, and unfortunately non-disclosure is standard practice at Sunridge
Estates and probably other strata corporations also.
902. Similar violations of the S.P.A. continue in various forms on an ongoing basis, and
the Defendant Strata has repeatedly responded to the Plaintiffs concerns about
geotechnical, environmental, procedural and equitable issues with disregard,
misrepresentations, confusion, unreasonable advice, threats, intimidation, defamatory
accusations, retaliation, endless delay, and repeated vilification of the Plaintiff in
minutes, meetings, and email.
903. The Plaintiff claims that the damage arising out of the Defendant Stratas delays is
staggering and estimates, for example, the extra cost on a 345,000 home to a certain
owner at close to a years salary; comprised of approximately $22,000 at $1,500 a
month in strata fees, taxes, and interests for more than 15 months since completion of
the building envelope repairs in October 2005 until the owner sold under hardship
conditions on June 20, 2007, after travelling back and forth by ferry for about 3 years
after the purchase of their replacement home, plus at least a comparable amount in
personal expense, property value reduced by stigma and derelict common property
looking like a war zone for 6 years, and the loss of special levy funds withheld for 5
years and diverted to others after oppressed payors eventually gave up and fled.
904. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata fails to act in good faith in the best
interests of the Owners, and the Plaintiff has an apprehension that much of the
damage may be sabotage attributable to or flowing out of cover ups or retaliation,
based on direct personal knowledge of nondisclosure, root weevils, slugs, sewer gas,
deafening sound, wet carpets, doubletalk, defamation, deprivation, threats, insults,
oppression, toxic sealant fumes, destruction of trees, vandalism of strata plan patios,
and unfair allocation of funds.
905. On January 9, 2003, the Plaintiff complained that the building envelope assessment
specifically excluded a review of the interior ventilation design of the complex and
requested an inspection of the indoor air quality and toxic mold in Unit 409.
906. On August 28, 2003, council indicated that ventilation for Phase One would be
considered in the building envelope repairs, however, no vote or decision on the
matter is recorded in the minutes, and to the best of the Plaintiffs knowledge Unit
409 was the only unit to have ventilation added, due to the medical condition of the
Plaintiffs lungs.
185

907. The Plaintiff claims that the cost of a vent was less than $20, but the Defendant Strata
made the Plaintiff pay $500 for it, which the Plaintiff claims was unreasonable and
oppressive.
908. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata added excruciating stress by demanding
that the Plaintiff provide shop drawings which the Plaintiff found impossible to
obtain since a round hole in the wall is not a mechanical device, and which the
Homeowner Protection Office told the Plaintiff was the responsibility of the
Defendant Stratas engineers and contractors to provide if they wanted such a thing.
909. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata acted deliberately to complete the
project without the required number and location of vents for proper ventilation, and
the Plaintiff claims that a vent in the bedroom on the lower level of the unit, the same
as those in Phase 2 of the development, is the minimum requirement to give proper
effect to the ventilation.
910. On September 12, 2003, Mr. MacLeod sent an email to the Plaintiff from
maclal@telus.net making allegations that he was representing the Defendant Strata
and that legal council advised him to call the police, threatening to press criminal
harassment charges for invading his privacy when she emailed a copy of a report on
ventilation to each member of the strata council in response to a request from council
to provide a copy when the report had not been distributed after she delivered it to the
strata mailbox on April 19, 2003.
911. The Stratas actions against the Plaintiffs reputation, most of which Mr. MacLeod
was instrumental in, include but are not limited to the following misrepresentations
and embarrassments:
a) August 28, 2003 minutes claiming disappointment in the Plaintiffs inability
to become an active and constructive participant in strata operations after she
had taken a turn on council, submitted extensive research reports at the
Defendant Stratas request, and offered to serve on the landscaping committee
and fill the position of secretary.
b) September 12, 2003 email copied to the strata council with threats of police
action and accusations of criminal harassment against the Plaintiff for
emailing a requested copy of her ventilation report to council;
c) Allegations that threats against the Plaintiff are justified pursuant to legal
advice;
d) July 30, 2006 email calling the Plaintiff vile and despicable in response to a
request for copies
e) October 26, 2006 email, again calling the Plaintiff vile and despicable with a
copy to the strata manager in response to case law judgments on bad faith and
186

unfairness, claiming that council members have the right to take actions
against those that work so diligently at destroying everything around them;
f) causing a uniformed RCMP officer to come to the Plaintiffs home in a
marked police car at 8:30 a.m. on May 19, 2008 to ask the Plaintiff about Al
MacLeod, advising that Mr. MacLeod had filed police report File #: 08-15558
alleging that the Plaintiff assaulted him, pulled his hair and kicked him, or
attempted to pull his hair and kick him - but there was a witness, and what she
actually did was lightly tousle his curls when he acted like a child and tried to
provoke her by blocking the Plaintiffs driveway when the Plaintiff was trying
to get to work;
g) Repeated and persistent suggestions in strata meetings and strata minutes that
police were charging the Plaintiff with assault, when they did no such thing,
and to the best of the Plaintiffs knowledge they never even considered it for a
moment;
h) Persistently disparaging minutes, eg. June 1, 2010, blaming the Plaintiff for an
overwhelming number of emails and claiming the Defendant Stratas lawyer
advises that the strata council can refuse to acknowledge them so long as no
email is accepted from anyone else either;
i) In 2011 retaliating to the Plaintiffs complaints of black mildew from
improperly installed fixtures in their ensuite by publishing disparaging
insinuations that the Plaintiff unreasonably obstructs access to Unit 409 and
does not properly clean the bathroom;
j) The Defendant Stratas agents and members of council repeatedly make
defamatory misrepresentations against the Plaintiff which damage the
Plaintiffs reputation in the community and have over time vilified her causing
rude treatment from neighbours she has never even met, including for
example without limit, asking the Plaintiff at a meeting, without so much as
an introduction, if she was the one who damaged a gate, which the Plaintiff
did not even know was damaged, and public heckling, to say the least.
k) The Plaintiff further claims that on May 15, 2012, Vanessa McCann of Unit
316, who the Plaintiff has no recollection of ever speaking to previously,
yelled out as another owner drove by, You are the crazy lady! when the
Plaintiff handed her a letter in Ms. McCanns role as the Sunridge Estates
Secretary, and Ms. McCann yelled out further as the Plaintiff was leaving that
Ms. McCann was disposing of the Plaintiffs letter directly into recycling.
912. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata repeatedly allows real estate agents to
act as members of the strata council no matter how damaging the conflict of interest.
Al MacLeod is the main problem; he ran the strata, directly and indirectly, both on
and off council (Mr. MacLeod), and the Defendant Stratas management company
187

warned the Owners about him at an Annual General Meeting in the strongest possible
way, by quitting.
913. Mr. MacLeod cut down an important birch tree in front of 409 and then sold the
upper unit 510 with unobstructed panoramic views to fellow realtor Mae Reid, and
the Plaintiff estimates that at 7% on a $300,000 sale, Mr. MacLeods commission was
about $21,000.
914. The Plaintiff has an apprehension that Mr. MacLeod and his client, the culpable
owner of Unit 510 who was responsible for the water damage to Unit 409 and who
was in charge of the Defendant Stratas insurance at the time, collaborated in playing
an instrumental role in repairs of insured damage to 409 remaining incomplete for
over 10 years during which period the Plaintiff could not get a copy of any insurance
in effect at the time despite repeated requests.
915. Owners who paid the special levy boycotted Mr. MacLeod while they sold in droves
for about a year, but it is the Plaintiffs understanding from one of the stratas
management companies that Mr. MacLeod still managed to involve himself in about
half the sales, presumably by acting for new buyers.
916. There is considerable evidence that Mr. MacLeod was instrumental in provoking
sales during his years on the strata council, particulars of which are set out herein,
during which time the original strata management company quit, the strata landscape
architect quit, and strata manager turnover seemed like a revolving door while quite
often no more than 3 of the 7 positions on the Defendant Stratas council were
occupied.
917. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. MacLeod was instrumental in leaving the common
property looking like a war zone for nearly 6 years to generate panoramic views and
avoid user fees, while many owners sold under conditions described as horrific and
Mae Reid, who is a Coquitlam city councillor as well as a realtor, responded by
having special levy funds diverted to demolish and reconstruct illegally added extra
patios for the benefit of a minority, including Mr. MacLeod and herself, at staggering
expense to the Plaintiff and others, in lieu of paying user fees, contrary to the votes
and directions of the Owners.
918. The Plaintiff estimates that she sent over 100 letters over a 10-year period in attempts
to settle matters with the Defendant Strata and became so sickened and exhausted by
the sheer magnitude and persistence of the actions against her, and so overwhelmed
by the enormity of damage over time that it interfered with the Plaintiffs
employment and compromised her health and ability to function, making it necessary
to give up and rest for a couple of years.
919. Relentless aggravation and lack of remedies drove the Plaintiff to report on the
situation to the strata council and Owners by blogging about it, repeatedly notifying
all concerned around the time of most of the Annual General Meetings since 2007 but
188

the Defendant Strata ignores all of the Plaintiffs strata blogs, as well as the issues
raised and remedies proposed.
920. On May 15, 2012, Mr. MacLeod sent email to the Plaintiff from
sunridge.estates1@gmail.com advising that the messages he was sending her were
from a personal email address and that if she replied to that email address he would
contact the RCMP for harassment.
921. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata breached the terms of the building
envelope contract and the trust of the owners who voted to approve the special levies.
922. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant Strata is wrongfully:
a) failing to extend exterior water taps on Unit 409 to accommodate the new
building envelope cavity;
b) forcing the Plaintiff to attach a hose adapter in disregard of the contractual
specifications for the building envelope;
c) removing half the adapter and failing to replace it as requested, or at all;
d) disrespecting the Plaintiffs private property and the laws of trespass;
e) depriving the Plaintiff of peaceful enjoyment of her home and property;
f) disrespecting the Plaintiffs right to security and privacy;
g) shifting the responsibilities of the Defendant Strata onto the Plaintiff and other
owners;
h) failing to satisfy the Defendant Stratas watering and maintenance obligations;
i) wasting expensive and valuable landscaping;
j) failing to make reasonable efforts to respond to the plaintiffs complaints;
k) depriving the Plaintiff of the information required to make sense of things.
923. The Plaintiff claims that compensation is due and owed to the Plaintiff by the
Defendant Strata, or in the alternative, by each Defendant vicariously by joint and
several liability.
924. The Plaintiff says that each claim against each Defendant Strata is in addition to, or in
the alternative to, her other claims against the Defendant Strata.
925. The Plaintiffs prayer for relief is that the court will make orders to advance the
remedy and suppress the mischief.
189

926. As a result of the Defendant Stratas actions the Plaintiff has sustained loss and
damage, particulars of which include, but are not limited to:
a) more than 20 years loss of unit entitlement shared use and enjoyment of
common property;
b) approximately 15 years loss of use and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs limited
common property;
c) nearly 10 years loss of use in the seating area of the Plaintiffs strata plan
patio;
d) loss of the park-like appearance of the common property from the Plaintiffs
living areas;
e) loss of property value
f) loss of opportunity to sell Unit 409 in reasonably good condition;
g) increased food costs
h) increased electric costs
i) rotting food, wasted money, increased risks, added expenses;
j) loss of personal peace and enjoyment;
k) years of worry, struggle, and stress;
l) such further and other losses as advised prior to trial
927. As a result of the matters aforesaid the Plaintiff has suffered loss and claims
compensation for damages caused by the Defendant Strata.
Costs
928. The Plaintiff claims costs against the Defendant Strata under Appendix B Schedule 3
of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.
929. In addition, or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims special costs against the
Defendant Strata based on:
a) the history of vexatious and persistently unfair behaviour of the Defendant
Strata and Defendant Lawyer;
b) the reasonableness of the Plaintiffs range of requests for remedies;
190

c) the importance, complexity and difficulty of issues for self-represented home
owners;
d) the extra expenses paid by the Plaintiff attributable to the Defendant Stratas
wrongs;
e) the extraordinary amount of time the Plaintiff lost over 20 years, and the last
10 years in particular, due to the persistent nature of the Defendant Stratas
failure to honour its obligations, including, but not limited to:
i. lost use and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs home;
ii. time the Plaintiff has lost from work;
iii. time spent writing letters to strata councils, strata managers, strata
lawyers, legal administrators, owners, the city of Coquitlam, and
others;
iv. time drafting legal documents;
v. time for preparation, hearing, and argument;
vi. time and stress that went into strata blogs and settlement attempts
since 2007;
vii. the time required for legal education and research;
f) the difficulty in preparing a Notice of Civil Claim for complex litigation;
g) the emotional difficulty in taking legal action against 67 neighbours;
h) the fundamental objective of a fair system of justice.
Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT
930. The Plaintiff seeks each of the following claims for relief against the Defendant Strata
in addition to or in the alternative to any other claim for relief.
Orders
931. The Plaintiff seeks an Order that the Defendant Strata compensate the Plaintiff for
whatever damage is attributable to or arises from these proceedings.
932. The Plaintiff also seeks Orders that the Defendant Strata:
a) repair the structure of Unit 409 so that the sunken warped floors are level and
flat, the smell of mold and mildew is eliminated, and air can move through the
ensuite fan efficiently and effectively;
191

b) center the shared plumbing between Unit 411 and Unit 409 so that it does not
protrude into Unit 409 and the walls in Unit 409s ensuite are all flat and
visible mildew or mold is removed and guaranteed not to reappear for 5 years;
c) provide a vent in the bedroom on the lower level of Unit 409, the same as
those in Phase 2 of the strata development, to give effect to the ventilation
required for the health of the Plaintiffs lungs;
d) complete replacement value repairs of Unit 409s door systems, walls, floor
coverings and flooring substrate, and replace the water soluble support pillar
in the garage with concrete that is more suitable for the intended purpose;
e) find and remove or seal off all mold and mildew in Unit 409;
f) extend the pipes to Unit 409s exterior taps so that the Plaintiffs hose can be
screwed onto said taps;
g) replace the gouged up hardy board above Unit 409s patio window with a new
unblemished board that matches the adjacent siding;
h) extend Unit 409s patio by approximately 24 inches from its east edge, paint it
properly, and reinstate the developers closer spacing and longer length of
2x2s for enclosing it;
i) reinstate 3 birch trees in front of Unit 409 and move the vine maple tree back
in position between Unit 409 and Building 6 within 6 months of the date of
this Order,
j) restore the original standard of appearance of the hydro kiosk between Units
407 and 409 by reinstating cladding that matches the adjacent buildings or
wash and paint the kiosk annually on the same painting schedule as in strata
bylaws;
k) prepare an accurate report listing dates, sources and targets, of all
misrepresentations of fact and law made since at least 2012, including the
name of the owner, member of council, strata lawyer, trata property manager,
or police officer, and provide a copy to the Plaintiff;
l) restore the position of unit numbers in the strata complex back to the original
location under the lights on the garages and that all of the unit numbers are
easily visible to approaching rescue vehicles at night;
m) replace all bulbs regularly and ensure that lights on garages are turned on at
night on a light sensor or timer with bulbs burning from 4 pm to 8 am in
winter to at least 9 pm to 5 am in summer with appropriate seasonal
adjustments to light the night effectively, without wasting electricity, or
burning out bulbs in the daytime;
192

n) provide a permanent map of the complex by the mail boxes at the Lansdowne
entrance;
o) reinstate any tree around Unit 409 that in future is cut down, dies, or is
otherwise directly or indirectly neglected, damaged, or lost due to human
conduct within 6 months of the loss, using a mature replacement,
p) pay punitive damages to the Plaintiff of triple the reinstatement costs for any
tree destroyed around Unit 409;
q) pay rent to the Plaintiff within 6 months of the date of this Order in an amount
equal to $200 for each month since the building envelope repairs were
completed with special levy funds in October 2005 to the date of this order
and continuing until Unit 409s patio is extended as stated above;
r) remove the wood lattice installed by the Defendant Strata around Unit 409 and
reinstate and maintain surrounding foliage in accordance with the developers
landscape design or paint the lattice annually on the same painting schedule as
in strata bylaws;
s) permanently remove any structure that protrudes beyond an adjacent garage
into the line of sight of passing traffic;
t) screen extra decking that is in the line of sight of passing traffic or
neighbouring units with evergreen foliage from grade level to approximately
1.5 to 2 metres that restores the curb appeal provided by the developers
landscape architect and protects neighboring property values;
u) repair and maintain strata plan patios with monthly strata fees the same as
balconies, or
i. finish strata plan patios with low maintenance materials that are equal
or equivalent to balcony materials, or
ii. wash, sand, and stain Unit 409s patio and reapply stain as required
each year for at least 4 out of every 5 years that properly applied stain
is said to last; and
v) require the owner to paint Unit 409s strata plan patio no more often than
every 4
th
year;
w) impose users fees for exclusive use of shared common property to be paid
within 6 months of the date of this Order and every month thereafter pursuant
to section 110 of the Strata Property Act and section 6.9 of the Strata Property
Regulations as set out under the User Fee heading in this Notice of Civil
Claim, or as otherwise ordered by this court;
193

x) in the alternative, permanently prohibit and remove owner-added alterations
that are not on the strata plan and reinstate the trees and developers landscape
architecture within 6 months of the date of this Order or that an owner fails to
pay imposed user fees;
y) offset any user fees payable by the Plaintiffs by 100% for each month of their
historical loss of equitable benefit and access to common property since 1989
z) include a term in strata management contracts requiring strata managers to
record or collect, and retain and provide access to strata records as provided in
the S.P.A., without omission, extra charges, or superfluous unrequested
material and ensure that management of strata records, notices, and minutes of
attended meetings comply with the Strata Property Act;
aa) require a nominating committee to record and circulate to all owners prior to
election a resume for each candidate nominated or agreeing to serve on the
strata council prior to each Annual General Meeting;
bb) require each member of council to sign a statutory declaration that he or she
has read Parts 1 and 2, 4 to 11, and 14 inclusive of the Strata Property Act,
and will read any material in question before voting on it and go on the record
when abstaining or reclusing;
cc) require that all votes be called for in a consistent order of those in favour,
against, and abstaining, and be cast by a show of hands or ballot, and counted
with the number of each vote recorded;
dd) answer each issue in correspondence and record each decision in the minutes
so each matter is understandable to the average reader,
ee) provide confirmation of delivery and receipt of all correspondence to all
correspondents in a visible manner that is as reliable, prompt, and effective as
email;
ff) confirm that any fines against the Plaintiff for use of email are inappropriate
and void;
gg) accept email from owners or stop sending it and correspond through the
Defendant Stratas registered office, not the strata box as it is now;
hh) engage in best efforts to obtain a copy of all insurance documentation proving
strata coverage for water damage on July 23, 2003and provide a copy to the
Plaintiff;
ii) engage in best efforts to obtain all documentation sent to or from the
Defendant Stratas landscape architects and arborists since 2003 and provide
copies to the Plaintiff;
194

jj) engage in best efforts to obtain all documentation sent to or from the
Defendant Stratas lawyers and provide access to the Plaintiff in accordance
with her strata ownership rights and the provisions in the S.P.A.;
kk) engage in best efforts to obtain all correspondence sent to or from the
Defendant Strata, prepare a report, and provide access to the Plaintiff ;
ll) immediately on receipt of any strata record containing personal information
copy and redact in accordance with the stated requirements of the Privacy Act
and make all strata records available to owners pursuant to the Strata Property
Act on request until otherwise ordered;
mm) obtain a geotechnical report on the history of sinking buildings, cracking
pavement and walls, breaking water mains, sewers, and underground pipes,
misaligned windows and doors, sink holes, and relevance of the landscaping
specifications in the restrictive covenants and strata history, previous
engineering reports, and the corresponding timing of Unit 409 history of
repeated sinkings, and provide a copy to owners along with the strata
corporations financial statements, depreciation report, or minutes;
nn) identify and itemize all extra expenses attributable to the existence of extra
decking, including estimated costs for demolition, removal, materials,
construction, estimated costs for reinstatement of original landscaping, the
cost of tree and stump removal, strata management add-ons, lawyers,
surveyors, engineers, and other and professionals, recommended insurance,
repairs and maintenance, painting, and provide a comprehensive written report
to owners in the strata corporations financial statements, depreciation report,
or minutes;
oo) obtain a forensic audit for the special levy funds and provide a copy to owners
in the strata corporations financial statements, depreciation report, or
minutes;
pp) obtain an annual financial audit by Reid Hurst Nagy, CGAs, or another
leading strata corporation audit firm; with a copy to the owners;
qq) confirm that pet restriction bylaws are relative to strata history and nuisance
bylaws, and medium size in pet size restrictions in this strata corporation
allows greyhounds and other quiet dogs 30 inches tall at the withers, or 88
pounds;
rr) compensate the Plaintiff for losses, including personal injury, hurt feelings,
loss of reputation, loss of use, loss of time, loss of enjoyment, loss of earnings,
and all extra expenses, including property reinstatement, clerical expenses,
legal expenses and fines;
195

each of which the Plaintiff claims in addition to or in the alternative to any other
orders.
Declarations
933. The Plaintiff seeks determinations and declarations by the court that:
a) the Plaintiff has an unrestricted right to rent Unit 409 and in accordance with
the developers disclosure statement is exempt from the Defendant Stratas
rental bylaws,
b) Unit 409s patio door system was altered by the Defendant Strata and restored
to its original function by the Plaintiff, and any existing fines or indemnity
agreement concerning this matter is void;
c) limited common property means only the property shown on the strata plan
designated for the exclusive use and benefit of the owner of a particular strata
lot such as strata plan patios and balconies, and does not include buildings or
any part of buildings that are not designated for exclusive use, such as extra
decking and buildings that form a boundary between limited common
property and common property that the strata corporation manages or controls
access to, such as fencing between patios and enclosures separating patios or
balconies from air space, and buildings managed and controlled by the strata
corporation for the shared benefit of others, such as decorative lattice built in
place of living landscape.
d) the Defendant Stratas strata box is not a reliable or legal address for delivery
of strata documents and any fine existing against the Plaintiff for using email
is void;
e) votes must be cast by a ballot or show of hands and be counted to be valid;
f) the painting bylaw filed as 3.3 in the Land Title Office in August 2013 is
invalid and unfair; any fine against the Plaintiff concerning this matter is void;
g) action taken by the Defendant Strata which effectively sections off repair and
maintenance obligations in a manner that has the strata corporation
responsible for the repair and maintenance of limited common property for
2-bedroom units and individuals responsible for the repair and maintenance of
limited common property for 3-bedroom units is improper, unfair, and void;
h) the Defendant Stratas maintenance policies for strata plan patios, balconies,
and extra decking are unacceptable, unfair, and inconsistent with
proportionate unit entitlement formulas, exclusive use, and actual costs;
196

i) converting common property to limited common property in this strata
corporation would result in significant unjust enrichment for some and
significant hardship and loss to others, which is unfair and unacceptable;
j) it is unfair to collect strata fees for repairs of damage to buildings that the
strata corporation is responsible to insure and then deprive the innocent victim
of benefits and provide them to others;
k) buildings in a strata corporation include the substrate and structural
boundaries and support for a strata lots walls, floors, and ceilings;
l) the strata corporation is responsible to repair damage to buildings in the strata
corporation and said obligation includes damage arising from defective
construction, defective materials, water damage, or an insured loss;
m) the strata corporations obligation to repair the buildings is mandated by the
S.P.A. which does not limit the obligation to just damage that poses an
immediate threat to safety from an engineering perspective;
n) the Defendant Stratas failure to complete repairs of water damage to Unit 409
for over 10 years is unfair and its failure to obtain a vote not to complete
repairs violates the Strata Property Act;
o) the Defendant Strata unfairly and persistently disregarded its statutory
obligations under the Strata Property Act, including without limit its
obligations in regard to governance, property, finances, bylaws, insurance,
repairs, voting, minutes, strata records and enforcement of strata bylaws;
p) any document to or from strata representatives that relates to the strata
corporation is a strata record whether characterized as email, private,
privileged, or otherwise;
q) no other Act or law denies an owner right to access correspondence under the
Strata Property Act, the strata corporation has a duty to produce all
correspondence, which may be redacted for privacy as reasonably necessary
but cannot be denied.
General Relief
934. The Plaintiff claims for:
a) general damages,
b) special damages,
c) pre and post judgment interest,
197

d) costs under Appendix B Schedule 3 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, and
e) such other remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the
circumstances.
Part 3: LEGAL BASIS
935. The Plaintiff sets out each legal base in addition to or in the alternative to any other
legal base on which they intend to rely in support of the relief sought.
936. The Strata, including its servants, agents or employees, and/or any one of them, was
at all material times responsible for the management, maintenance, improvement,
operation, control and use of the strata corporation.
937. The Plaintiffs loss and, or in the alternative, impaired use or enjoyment of Unit 409
and the common property was caused as a result of the Defendant Stratas negligence
and breach of duty of care as set out in the S.P.A., particulars of which are as follows:
a) failing to take any or reasonable care to ensure that the Plaintiffs reputation,
emotional health, and financial security would not be unreasonably
endangered by the Defendant Strata and Defendant Lawyer actions or
decisions, including unfair treatment, delays, anarchism, ostracism,
accusations, threats, and intimidation, and retaliation;
b) causing or permitting Sunridge Estates to become or to remain in a hazardous
condition; failing to take any or reasonable measures to prevent damage to the
plaintiffs property value from hazards which the Defendant Strata knew or
ought to have known were present in cutting down trees, encroaching on patio
seating; leaving damage with repairs incomplete, and unfair sharing of
common property, services, and expenses.
c) failing to take any reasonable measures to ensure that Unit 409 was
reasonably safe to occupy when the Defendant Strata knew or ought to have
known that slippery wet carpets and slippery wet wood, and outside lights not
working were liable to cause the Plaintiff or other persons to slip and fall; and
poor visibility of address numbers was likely to delay rescue, and toxic sewer
gas and sealant fumes were liable to cause injury to the Plaintiffs lungs, and
prolonged unremitting noise from industrial air movers were liable to cause
injury to the Plaintiffs hearing and failing to give the Plaintiff any sign or
adequate warning of the danger posed by the Defendant Stratas actions and
decisions in dealing with water damage;
d) failing to take any or adequate measures, whether by way of examination,
inspection, removal, or otherwise, to ensure that Unit 409 was in a reasonably
safe condition to be occupied by the Plaintiff and creating an unusual danger
with misrepresentations, betrayal, threats, and intimidation which the
198

Defendant Strata ought to have foreseen could have caused injury to the
Plaintiff.
938. All of the foresaid actions and decisions of the Defendant Strata have caused and
continue to cause without limit damage, expense, and loss of amenities, loss of
credibility and reputation, and loss of enjoyment of the Plaintiffs home and life and,
in particular, threatens the Plaintiffs health and welfare and cause her emotional
distress and physical suffering, loss of sleep, loss of earnings and loss of earning
capacity.
939. The legal basis that the Plaintiff relies on includes the following:
a) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
b) Court Order Interest Act, [RSBC 1996] c 79
c) Interpretation Act, RSBC 1996, c 238
d) Local Government Act, [RSBC 1996] c 323
e) Strata Property Act, SBC 1998, c 43
f) Strata Property Regulation, BC Reg 43/2000
g) Registered Strata Plan filed in the Land Title Office
h) Restrictive Covenants Z123808 and Z123809
i) Disclosure Statement of International Land Corporation Ltd.
j) Bylaws registered in the Land Title Office for The Owners Strata Plan
NW2671
k) Insurance policies of the strata corporation
l) Minutes of the strata corporation
m) Contracts of the strata corporation
n) Inherent jurisdiction of the BC Supreme Court

Plaintiffs address for service: Dianne Bond
Unit 409 1215 Lansdowne Drive
Coquitlam, BC V3E 2P2
199

Fax number address for service (if any):
E-mail address for service (if any):
Place of trial: New Westminster, British Columbia
The address of the registry is: 651 Carnarvon Street
New Westminster, BC V3M 1C9

Date: October 10, 2014

Signature of Dianne Shirley Bond, also known as
Dianne Shirley Matthias, Plaintiff
Rule 7-1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states:
(1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record
to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period,
(a) prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists
(i) all documents that are or have been in the partys possession or control
and that could, if available, be used by any party at trial or prove or disprove a
material fact, and
(ii) all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and
(b) serve the list on all parties of record.
APPENDIX
Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY NATURE OF CLAIM:
Negligence, oppression, and breach of statutory duty
Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING:
[ ] a motor vehicle accident
[X] personal injury, other than one arising from a motor vehicle accident
[X] a dispute about real property (real estate)
[ ] a dispute about personal property
[ ] the lending of money
200

[X] the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters
[ ] an employment relationship
[ ] a dispute about a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate
[X] a matter not listed here
Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES:
Statutory and common law, constitutional law, and conflict of laws
Part 4: PRIMARY ENACTMENTS
1. Interpretation Act, RSBC 1996, c 238
2. Strata Property Act, SBC 1998, c 43
3. Strata Property Regulation, BC Reg 43/2000
Part 5: TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Background .................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Limitation Dates ............................................................................................................................................................. 16
Strata Agents .................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Images 17
Bylaws 19
Exterior Sealant .......................................................................................................................................................... 21
Extra Decking ............................................................................................................................................................. 22
The drawing inserted below this paragraph is an exaple o! signi!i"antl# $n!air "hanges in the $se and appearan"e o!
"oon propert# ade pre%epti&el# witho$t noti"e' perits' or a(orit# appro&al. The Plainti!!
"oplained that tree and lands"ape destr$"tion too) awa# pri&a"#' e*$it#' propert# &al$e' en&ironental
se"$rit# and personal en(o#ent' and strata anageent a"ting in "on!li"t !or their own $n($st enri"hent
re!$sed to reed# the related n$isan"e and responded b# instr$"ting the Plainti!! to p$t trellis planters on
+nit ,-./s patio to repla"e the tree. For de"ades it has $nreasonabl# re!$sed to "opl# with and en!or"e the
b#laws and ignored and $n!airl# denied an# and all re*$ests to itigate attrib$table daage' in"l$ding: 10
red$"e the extra de")ing on +nit ,-1 to reinstate the pri&a"# tree and lands"aped sa!et# and a""ess b$!!er'
20 o&e the trellis planters to the o$tside o! +nit ,-./s patio' 20 pa# rent to the Plainti!! !or the trellis
planters and spa"e ta)en on +nit ,-./s patio' ,0 reib$rse their p$r"hase pri"e' 30 gi&e the Plainti!! air spa"e
abo&e the extra de")ing in the sae or e&en hal! the ao$nt as the "oon propert# ta)en b# +nit ,-1' 40
reinstate the original in%swing door and extend +nit ,-./s patio with a 1.3 !oot "antile&er extension' 10 gi&e
+nit ,-. extra de")ing in a $nit entitleent proportion "oparable to others' 50 p$t a "o$ple o! posts on
the "oon propert# to a""oodate the trellis planter pri&a"# s"reen and loss o! railing spa"e. The
Plainti!! also o!!ered to pa# !or reedial extra de")ing that she re*$ested' and did pa# !or it in 2--1 when
Co$n"illor 6erg a"ting "ontrar# to the dire"tion o! the owners di&erted spe"ial le&# b$ilding en&elope repair
!$nds to deolish and re"onstr$"t extra de")ing that the Plainti!! was $n!airl# depri&ed o!. The Plainti!!
"lais that the 7e!endant Strata is &iolating n$isan"e b#laws' the lands"aping spe"i!i"ations in restri"ti&e
201

"o&enants' $sage restri"tions in the Strata Propert# A"t' and $ser !ee pro&isions in the 8eg$lations and is
isrepresenting ownership o! "oon propert# and assets intended b# ne"essar# ipli"ation o! the strata
plan to be shared in proportion to $nit entitleent and is retaliating against the Plainti!! !or her "ontin$al
re*$ests that "o$n"il "opl# with and en!or"e the b#laws to reed# the n$isan"e and stop $nreasonable
dela#s' $n($st enri"hent' "orr$pt oppression and de!aator# isrepresentations. .................................. 22
Financial Matters ....................................................................................................................................................... 23
Landscaping ................................................................................................................................................................ 25
!isance ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2"
Str!ct!ral De#ects...................................................................................................................................................... 2$
%rees 2&
%respass 29
'ater Da(age ........................................................................................................................................................... 3)
Condominium Act ........................................................................................................................................................... 31
Strata Property Act ......................................................................................................................................................... 33
Part 1 Section 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 3*
Part 2 The Strata Corporation Sections 2 to 4 .................................................................................................... 3*
Part 4 Strata Governance Sections 25-65 ........................................................................................................... 3$
Part 5 Property - Sections 66 to 90 ........................................................................................................................ *1
Part 6 Finances Sections 91 to 118..................................................................................................................... *5
Part 7 Bylaws and Rules Sections 119 to 138 .................................................................................................... *&
Part 8 Rentals Sections 139 to 148 ..................................................................................................................... 52
Part 9 Insurance Sections 149 to 162 ................................................................................................................. 52
Part 10 Legal Proceedings and Arbitration Sections 163 to 189 ........................................................................ 55
Part 11 Sections Sections 190 to 198 ................................................................................................................. 5&
Part 14 Land Titles Sections 239 to 256............................................................................................................. ")
Strata Regulations .......................................................................................................................................................... 60
Strata Bylaws .................................................................................................................................................................. 60
Part 5 of the Condominium Act, sections 115 to 132 ................................................................................................ ")
Bylaw Amendment #1 ............................................................................................................................................... "1
Bylaw Amendment # ................................................................................................................................................. "3
Bylaw Enforcement Issue .......................................................................................................................................... "5
Strata Fees...................................................................................................................................................................... 72
Strata Records ................................................................................................................................................................ 74
Voting 79
Personal Injury ............................................................................................................................................................... 80
Negligence ...................................................................................................................................................................... 83
Nuisance ......................................................................................................................................................................... 83
Insurance ........................................................................................................................................................................ 84
Water Damage ................................................................................................................................................................ 85
Building Structure .......................................................................................................................................................... 92
Strata Plan Patios and Balconies ................................................................................................................................... 94
Extra Decking ................................................................................................................................................................. 96
User Fees...................................................................................................................................................................... 103
202

User Fee Specifications ............................................................................................................................................ 1)9
Calculating strata fees .............................................................................................................................................. 1)9
Definitions Used ...................................................................................................................................................... 11)
Proposed User Fees .................................................................................................................................................. 113
Monthly User Fees ................................................................................................................................................... 11*
Implementation Program .......................................................................................................................................... 11*
Trees 116
Strata Blogs .................................................................................................................................................................. 123
Harassment................................................................................................................................................................... 124
Claims against the City of Coquitlam .......................................................................................................................... 126
Claims against Adrienne Murray ................................................................................................................................. 140
Collateral claims against other Authorities, Agents, and Owners ............................................................................... 148
The Queen ................................................................................................................................................................ 1*9
%+e ,-M. ................................................................................................................................................................. 15)
Strata Agents ............................................................................................................................................................ 151
Owners 1"1
Historical Time Line ..................................................................................................................................................... 178
Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................... 180
Costs 189
Part 2: 8E9:EF SO+;<T ............................................................................................................................................. 1.-
Orders 190
Declarations ................................................................................................................................................................. 195
General Relief .............................................................................................................................................................. 196
Part 2: 9E;A9 6AS:S .................................................................................................................................................. 1.1
APPEN7:= ................................................................................................................................................................. 1..
Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY NATURE OF CLAIM: ................................................................................................. 199
Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING: ......................................................................................... 199
Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES: ............................................................................................................................... 200
Part 4: PRIMARY ENACTMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 200
Part 5: TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... 200