The Owners, Strata Plan VR 812 v. Yu

2019 BCSC 2340 The Owners, Strata Plan VR 812 v. Yu

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: The Owners, Strata Plan VR 812 v. Yu, 2019 BCSC 2340 Date: 20191209 Docket: L180151 Registry: Vancouver Between: The Owners, Strata Plan VR 812 Applicant And Emily Yu Respondent Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Davies Oral Reasons for Judgment In Chambers Counsel for the Applicant: G.S. Hamilton The Respondent, appearing in person: E. Yu Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. December 9, 2019 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. December 9, 2019 [1] THE COURT: This application comes before me as a consequence of many previous applications that arose because of Ms. Yu's use of her property as an Airbnb rental contrary to strata corporation bylaws. [2] The matter has been before the Court on many occasions and those many attendances have resulted in, amongst other things, findings of contempt of court against Ms. Yu by reason of her failure to comply with the orders of the Civil Resolution Tribunal and also the orders of this Court. [3] The contempt of which she has been found guilty has been cured because Ms. Yu paid the $5,000 fine for her contemptuous conduct at the last minute when application was made by the strata corporation for the sale of her unit so that their costs and the $5,000 fine for contempt would be paid. [4] When Ms. Yu paid that $5,000 fine for her contempt on November 6, 2019, I adjourned

the strata corporation's application to sell her unit until today's date. [5] The present application to sell Ms. Yu's unit is brought pursuant to the provisions of the Court Order Enforcement Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 78 [CEA]. [6] A judgment has now been registered against Ms. Yu's strata unit for those costs that were incurred by the strata corporation and assessed by a Registrar of this Court in an amount in excess of $50,000. [7] After a judgment for debt is entered and an application for the sale of property to satisfy that judgment is made by the judgment creditor under s. 92 of the CEA the Court must determine whether the debtor has shown cause as to why the property against which the judgment is registered should not be sold to satisfy the debt. [8] Ms. Yu has argued that her property should not be sold for four reasons. [9] Firstly, she referred to one order in the many processes that were before the Court in which the Court ordered both parties to bear their own costs. Ms. Yu now says that by application of the principles of res judicata that order precludes the making of the many subsequent orders for the payment of costs by her on other applications. That argument cannot succeed. It is a collateral attack on existing orders of this Court [10] Secondly, Ms. Yu submits that based upon the provisions of the Strata Property Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 43, s. 144, that in 2017

and 2018 when she claimed the right to have outstanding issues of her rental use of her unit waived by the strata corporation because of hardship, the strata corporation failed to comply with the Act by having a hearing within time. She says that all of the orders made subsequent to that time concerning her breach of the rental restrictions are not enforceable [11] That application is also fundamentally flawed. It concerns a matter which occurred well before all of the matters that have been before this Court that resulted in the findings of contempt and the orders for costs of which enforcement is now sought. It is another collateral attack on orders made by this Court and cannot succeed. [12] Thirdly, Ms. Yu submits that she voluntarily shut down the rental of her unit in October 2018 and accordingly, there was no need to proceed with the applications that gave rise to the many subsequent proceedings and orders made by this Court. [13] I must observe that I cannot accept there was any voluntary shutdown by Ms. Yu. What did occur was that the rentals stopped, only as a consequence of the orders of this Court that prohibited that conduct. The position she advances is a further collateral attack on existing orders of this Court and cannot succeed. [14] Fourthly, Ms. Yu makes another hardship argument that she says she also made prior to the assessment of costs by the Registrar

in August 2019. That hardship application could not succeed. There was no basis upon which the Registrar could have granted that relief. [15] This matter is now before this Court concerning valid monetary judgments that have been entered that have not been appealed and remain unpaid. [16] I see no basis upon which I could now deny the order sought by the strata corporation to have the reference to the Registrar for which it has applied. [17] I accordingly, order that there be a reference to the District Registrar of this Court to: (1) find what land is liable to be sold under the applicant's judgment; (2) find the nature and particulars of the interest of the respondent in the land and of the respondent's title thereto; (3) find what judgments form a lien and charge against the land and the priorities between the judgments; (4) determine how the proceeds of the sale of the land are to be distributed; and (5) report all such findings to the court. [18] I also order that: (1) The report of the District Registrar be subject to confirmation by this Court. (2) All necessary accounts and references for inquiries will be taken. (3) A certificate of pending litigation against Ms. Yu's property will be filed. (4) The parties will have liberty to apply for further directions. [19] I further order that the respondent shall pay the applicant's costs of this application on a Scale B basis

with respect to this hearing as well as the hearing that was adjourned on November 6, 2019. [20] I am not going to order that the costs be paid on the reasonable costs basis that applied to previous orders under the Strata Property Act because the applicant is now proceeding under the CEA. [21] I will not require the respondent's signature on this order because this matter has to be dealt with expeditiously. "Davies, J."