A Burnaby townhouse owner has won a battle against her strata over three leaky skylights above her unit.
When Hui Jie moved into her Coronado Drive townhome in 2006, it featured three skylights that had been added by a previous owner, according to a recent B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal ruling.
In the summer of 2021, however, one of them started leaking and Jie informed the strata, which hired a roofing company to investigate.
The roofing company reported one skylight was leaking but warned problems with how the roof membrane was installed around the other two skylights could lead them to leak too.
The skylights were covered with a tarp, but the roofing company said that would soon deteriorate.
Jie and the strata disagreed on who was responsible for the skylight repairs, according to the CRT ruling.
In March 2023, the strata told Jie she would have to repair and maintain them or the strata would remove them and "reinstate the roof."
Jie argued the skylights are common property and the strata's responsibility to repair.
She said replacing them with a roof would be unfair, and she appealed to the CRT for an order compelling the strata to replace the skylights.
To support its position, the strata said the skylights were an addition to the unit and thus the owner's responsibility.
It pointed to a 1990 letter that gave permission to a previous owner to install one of the skylights under the condition that owner assumed "full responsibility for any future maintenance and/or repairs resulting from the skylight installation."
But CRT vice chair Kate Campbell noted the letter specifically said the owner in 1990 assumed full responsibility for future skylight maintenance and repairs.
"The letter did not say or suggest that future owners would be responsible, or that (the owner in 1990) had an obligation to inform future owners about skylight responsibility," Campbell wrote in her ruling.
Campbell pointed to earlier CRT rulings that found owners are not bound by unit alteration agreements signed by previous owners unless the agreements make it clear that they are – and unless each new owner is made aware of their responsibilities when they buy the unit.
"In this case, the owner says she was unaware any agreement about skylight maintenance when she bought (her unit)," Campbell said. "There is no evidence that the strata communicated this agreement to the owner at the time of the purchase or in the years after."
As for the strata replacing the skylights with a roof, Campbell ruled that would be "significantly unfair" to Jie, especially since the strata had presented no evidence about the relative cost of both options or about safety or building integrity.
Campbell said the strata had allowed the skylights to be installed and to remain for a long time, never informing Jie they were not original to the building.
"Therefore, I find the owner had a reasonable expectation that (her unit) would have three skylights," Campbell said. "As noted above, the strata has not proved that its decision to remove the skylights is reasonable."
The strata was ordered to replace the skylights within 60 days and to pay Jie’s tribunal fees of $225.
The CRT is an online, quasi-judicial tribunal that hears strata property disputes and small claims cases.
