The homeowner complained to the strata multiple times over 14 months about cigarette and marijuana smoke entering their living room and a baby’s room
Not having a specific smoking bylaw did not mean a Coquitlam townhouse strata could avoid a judgment awarded against it.
The BC Civil Resolution Tribunal recently awarded an owner in the complex $2,803, including damages, because his strata did not act on his complaints about a neighbour’s smoking.
The strata does not have a non-smoking bylaw.
However, it does have relevant bylaws which state a resident or visitor must not use a strata lot, common property or common assets in a way that causes a nuisance or hazard to other residents, visitors or persons, unreasonably interferes with the rights of residents, visitors or persons to use and enjoy common property, common assets or another strata lot, or will result in any unusual or objectionable odour to emanate from a strata lot.
The strata was also ordered to enforce its bylaws.
The strata did not dispute the complainant’s neighbour smokes regularly on a patio. However, not every whiff of smoke will constitute a nuisance, and the strata argued the smoke is an annoyance rather than a nuisance.
The strata also argued owners have a right to smoke and enjoy their property, and it cannot regulate smoking on strata property because it does not have a smoking bylaw.
Having sought $5,000 in damages for loss of enjoyment of his home, nuisance and health risks, Marco Olovrap said a number of strata council members smoke, including his neighbour. In submissions, Olovrap claimed that his neighbour directly affected the strata’s decisions.
Filing numerous complaints about cigarette and marijuana smoke, Olovrap and his spouse moved into their unit in August 2024, and their baby was born approximately four months later.
He said his neighbour smokes multiple times daily on an upstairs balcony and the back patio. He said second-hand smoke frequently enters his unit and the smell lingers.
He also said they cannot open doors or windows or use the yard with their baby, and second-hand smoke is a health risk, especially to their baby.
The strata alleged Olovrap used his doorbell camera as a private surveillance system, and he does not have authority to monitor common property for his own purposes. It also argued there is no evidence the smoke entered his unit or caused a substantial interference with his use and enjoyment of his property.
The tribunal found his evidence reliable and persuasive and that his complaints were frequent, consistent and made at the time the events occurred.
The tribunal also noted how the strata did not dispute that the neighbour smoked regularly nearby, and the layout and proximity of the patios support the complainant’s account.
The tribunal also found the neighbour breached bylaws by creating a hazard and nuisance, unreasonably interfering with Olovrap’s use and enjoyment of his strata lot and limited common property, and causing an objectionable odour.
The strata has a duty to enforce its bylaws consistently but the strata is not required to act unless it receives a complaint, according to the tribunal ruling.