A Vancouver roof-top patio dispute has waded into the BC Supreme Court, with both sides debating on whether a inflatable hot tub was allowed.
B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, on Tuesday December 11, 2018. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck
A dispute over whether an inflatable patio hot tub was allowed on a Vancouver roof-top patio has waded into the BC Supreme Court.
According to a BC Supreme Court document, an inflatable hot tub was set up in a “limited common property” area on a roof-top balcony at a building on Hamilton Steet.
Strata council members had tried to argue the hot tub wasn’t allowed per the bylaws. However, the apartment owners claimed the strata was misinterpreting what was written in those very rules.
The case went to the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) in August 2022, which ruled the hot tub was fine because, per the bylaws, the item counted as patio furniture.
Related article:
Now, a BC Supreme Court justice is agreeing with the previous findings.
Justice Michael Tammen writes evidence and submissions to the CRT included a report from a structural engineer saying the patio could support the hot tub, as well as “a second engineering report that addressed the risk of flooding in the event of catastrophic failure.”
Evidence and arguments were presented by both sides, but Tammen found submissions from the strata were “patently unreasonable,” “based on no evidence,” and “inadequate.”
He further debated on how important specific points submitted by the strata council were. Video evidence from the hot tub’s owners showed the Tribunal and later BC Supreme Court how quickly the inflatable hot tub could be inflated, emptied, and deflated — Tammen pointed to this as evidence the hot tub was portable rather than stationary, which the strata council had argued against in both instances.
Tammen dismissed the strata council’s petition and awarded costs of the court proceedings to the hot tub owners, noting there is “no reason to interfere” with the CRT’s decision with any further review.