Archive for September, 2022

0.16 acres retail in Kelowna sells for $1.80 million

Thursday, September 1st, 2022

Kelowna 4,320 square feet of retail sells for $1.8 million

MCL Real Estate Group
Western Investor

Retail building with three units on a 0.16-acre lot in Rutland community sold for nearly $800K over its BC Assessment value.

Property type: Retail

Location: 205-209 Asher Road, Kelowna, B.C.

Number of units: 3

Property size: 4,320 square feet

Land size: 7,086 square feet

Land size in acres: 0.16 acres

Zoning: C4 (Urban Centre Commercial)

BC Assessment value: $1.09 million

List price: $1.89 million

Sale price: $1.80 million

Date of sale: August 12, 2022

Brokerage: MCL Real Estate Group – Re/Max Kelowna, Kelowna B.C.

Broker: Kris McLaughlin

© 2022 Western Investor

B.C Supreme Court Justice Nitya Iyer found that Ginther was not a credible witness and he had not proven the allegations.

Thursday, September 1st, 2022

Customer who defamed company on Google and Yelp ordered to pay $90K

https://rem.ax/3B9J3fy
The Province

A disgruntled customer who was found to have defamed a B.C. wood products company in his Google and Yelp reviews has been ordered by a judge to pay $90,000 in damages.

Tyler Ginther posted the online reviews about Longhouse Specialty Forest Products, claiming that the company was fraudulent and deceitful.

In November 2015, Ginther had met a sales representative from the company who was doing cold calls in the White Rock area.

Ginther, who had built several homes over the years, was constructing a house and the two men discussed his plans and the products of the Parksville company, which specializes in custom cut and stained cedar, fir and hemlock building supplies.

Ginther said in subsequent online reviews that the company defrauded, scammed or deceived him by charging him for cedar siding it knew he had not ordered. He argued at trial that what he had said was true.

But in a ruling on the case, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Nitya Iyer found that Ginther was not a credible witness and he had not proven the allegations.

“I conclude that the defendant defamed the plaintiffs in his Google and Yelp reviews,” said the judge.

Longhouse, a family business, claimed that Ginther had damaged their reputation and caused them economic loss, and that he had acted with malice. They sought general, aggravated and punitive damages totalling $675,000, as well as special costs.

But the judge said the amount for general damages being sought, $125,000 each for Brian and Moila Jenkins, the two named principals of the company, was excessive because there was no evidence that anyone who knew them and read the reviews believed Ginther’s accusations.

“The ubiquity of internet reviews is now a fact of business life. While negative reviews may deter potential customers, a range of reviews is common, and a reasonable reader will exercise judgment in assessing them.”

The judge awarded the Jenkins plaintiffs a total of $60,000 in general damages and another $20,000 in general damages for the company itself.

I find that Mr. Ginther acted with malice when he posted the Yelp review,” said the judge. “As noted, he admitted that his intention was to harm the plaintiffs’ business.”

The judge awarded the Jenkins $5,000 each for the aggravated damages, but declined to award punitive damages or special costs.

Bernard Lau, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an email that his clients were “very pleased” with the outcome and are grateful for the courts in vindicating their names and reputations.

“They can finally breathe a sigh of relief and put this matter behind them,” Lau said in the statement. “It was a very difficult time for them when the posts came out, particularly as they come from a close-knit community in Parksville and the false allegations about them and their integrity put them through a lot of unnecessary stress and impacted their business and personal lives greatly.”

Lau said he hopes the case serves as a reminder that posting comments online, even in the context of an “innocuous” Google review, has real-world consequences and possibly even significant financial ramifications.

Greg Allen, a Vancouver defamation lawyer, said that if you want to review a business on Google or Yelp, you should be mindful to keep your language measured and careful.

“The issue in this case is that the defendant took the position at trial that everything he said was true but he just wasn’t believed by the trial judge,” he said.

“So in that circumstance where you make allegations that are sort of incendiary in nature, you run the risk of having the business owner pursue you in defamation, and your main defence in that circumstance is that what you said is true.”

Allen said $90,000 in damages is not one of the larger awards for defamation in general, but in the particulars of the case does seem to be at the higher end of the range.

© 2022 The Province

Service agreement to approve a rate and provision for rush fees until council agree.

Thursday, September 1st, 2022

Condo Smarts: Fees for forms set out in service agreement

Tony Gioventu
The Province

Any fees charged for the production of forms and documents are fees being charged by your strata corporation

 Dear Tony:

Our strata council is in dispute with our management company over the fees collected and charged for the production of forms when there is the sale of a strata lot. The source of the complaint started when a buyer was forced to pay $750.00 in rush fees for a Form F Payment Certificate and Form B Information Certificate. We have read our service agreement closely, and the standard fees of $15 and $35 plus copying apply, plus our strata agree to compensate the company for the $75 per hour required to research and complete the forms. We challenged the rush fees and how they are reported, and the manager simply advised it was an industry standard, and management companies make up their costs when a law office or notary requests the forms in less than seven days. As a strata council, we don’t see a monthly invoice because the company pays itself directly from our accounts. How do we control or account for the fees charged to our strata corporation, buyers and sellers? As a large strata, we have several sales every month.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

— Kevin W., Burnaby

Dear Kevin:

Any fees charged for the production of forms and documents are fees being charged by your strata corporation. The strata management company is an agent of the corporation. Under their agency agreement, they are permitted to charge the fees prescribed by the Strata Property Act and Regulations, as defined and agreed within your service agreement.

If the service agreement does not permit rush fees and the amount is not prescribed, the management company does not have the authority to represent as your agent to impose those fees.

Both a Form B and Form F require accuracy and review, for which the management company and the strata corporation will assume liability. It is critical to provide accuracy in financial and property matters in the forms because buyers will rely on this information when purchasing.

It is also essential to complete the Form F Payment Certificate accurately to verify funds owing to the strata corporation are collected when there is a sale.

Rush fees are not uncommon as a designated staff person(s) will be required to service that request; however, rush fees are included in many management service agreements. The fees permitted by the Act are drastically insufficient to meet the staffing requirements and time required for production.

Any forms produced by the management company are part of the records of the strata corporation. Your treasurer and council may request copies of all forms (without attachments) along with a detailed monthly invoice to cross-reference to the monthly financial reports the management company is required to provide.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Until your council agrees to an amendment to the service agreement to approve a rate and provision for rush fees, the management company needs to be advised they are not authorized to charge any such fees.

It may be time for your strata corporation to renegotiate your service agreement and define who is really paying for the production of forms and under what circumstances.

Registration is now open for CHOA’s Fall 2022 Education Program. Course highlights this season focus on Council Meetings, BC Human Rights Tribunal, The CRT, The Accessibility Act and Alterations. Go to: choa.bc.ca/seminars/.

Tony Gioventu is executive director of the Condominium Home Owners Association. Email [email protected].

© 2022 The Province

0.52 acres office building in Campbell BC sells for $1.96 million

Thursday, September 1st, 2022

Single-tenant office building sells in Campbell River

Royal LePage Nanaimo Realty
Western Investor

With a long-term B.C. government lease in place, the 7,440-square-foot property sold for $1.87 million.

Property type: Office

Location: 929 Ironwood Street, Campbell River, B.C.

Size of property: 7,440 square feet

Land size: 22,766 square feet

Land size in acres: 0.52 acres

Parking spaces: 25

List price: $1.96 million

Sale price: $1.87 million

Brokerage: Royal LePage Nanaimo Realty (Commercial), Nanaimo, B.C.

Broker: Lee Robinson

© 2022 Western Investor

0.38 acres office in Courtenay BC sells for $1.5 million

Thursday, September 1st, 2022

Courtenay 5,140-square-foot office building trades at $1.5 million

Royal LePage Nanaimo Realty
Western Investor

The single-tenant property under a government lease is on a 16,988-square-foot lot in downtown Courtenay, B.C.

Property type: Office

Location: 310 Puntledge Road, Courtenay, BC

Size of property: 5,140 square feet

Land size: 16,988 square feet

Land size in acres: 0.38 acres

Sale price: $1.5 million

Brokerage: Royal LePage Nanaimo Realty (Commercial), Nanaimo, B.C.

Broker: Lee Robinson

© 2022 Western Investor

B.C. Supreme Court quashes Vancouver bylaws that limit rent increases between single-occupancy housing tenancies

Thursday, September 1st, 2022

City of Vancouver appeals court ruling quashing vacancy control bylaws

Keith Fraser
The Vancouver Sun

“It’s definitely worth the fight,” Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart said. “I can’t imagine losing 3,000, 3,500 low-income units in the city.”

 Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart. Photo by Arlen Redekop

The City of Vancouver is appealing a court decision that quashed city bylaws that were passed with the aim of limiting rent increases between single-occupancy housing tenancies, and preventing more people from ending up homeless.

“It’s definitely worth the fight,” Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart said Thursday. “I can’t imagine losing 3,000, 3,500 low-income units in the city.”

On Aug. 3, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Karen Douglas found that the city under its Vancouver Charter didn’t have the power to impose rent controls on privately owned, single room accommodations.

“Only one reasonable interpretation is possible here and the city relied on an unreasonable interpretation of its own power to regulate business in relation to rent control,” said the judge.

The judge declared the bylaws invalid and ordered them quashed. The city was also ordered to destroy any information and documents it had collected pursuant to the bylaws.

The city passed the bylaws after a report found that the single-room accommodations play an important role in the city’s low-income housing stock and act as the housing of last resort before homelessness for many marginalized residents.

 

The report prepared by city staff found that provincial income assistance hadn’t kept pace over time with rent increases, putting a higher burden on low-income renters, and vacancy control would limit the allowable rent increases between vacancies.

But several property owners filed a court petition to challenge the bylaws and argued the bylaws were unreasonable because they failed to consider the limitations of the Vancouver Charter. Rent controls were seen to be the jurisdiction of the provincial government.

One of the petitioners, only identified as 073 Ltd., owns and manages a single-room building in Gastown that contains 60 “micro-suites” with small, high-end, self-contained living spaces and rents generally from $800 to $1,200 a month.

 

Tenants in those units were typically students, young professionals and workers temporarily based in the downtown.

Stewart said that during his whole term in office, especially with COVID-19, many more people have been forced onto the streets, and the city is losing its lowest rent housing.

He said that some companies are buying-up single-room-occupancy hotels and, once a tenant leaves and the room becomes vacant, they’re increasing the rent, putting many people at risk of losing their housing.

On the issue of whether the city or the province has the jurisdiction to impose rent controls, Stewart said it was a “grey area” to him.

“I think this is worth appealing. One court may say one thing but on a more detailed look by a more senior court, you might get a different ruling.”

 

He added: I”m not a lawyer so our legal team will make the appropriate arguments, but my gut tells me this is within our jurisdiction and I think it’s worth a second look by the courts.”

Stewart said the city will also seek a stay-of-proceedings of the court’s requirement to destroy data collected from property owners.

He said that given the amount of legal paperwork that needs to be filed, he doubts whether the B.C. Court of Appeal will hear the matter before the municipal elections in October.

 

© 2022 Vancouver Sun