A downtown condo owner who was issued a utility bill for services he didn’t use is planning to take the District of Squamish to court. At a council meeting this Tuesday, council decided 5-2 to charge the utility fees to the 18 residents who were issued a utility bill for the year before they bought their unit.
Tyler Clements is one among the 18 condo owners of The Main at 37881 Cleveland Avenue who have received a $726 utility bill. Clements is talking to others and planning legal action against the District.
“Ideally we would be going for a class action suit against the district. At this point, we are in the planning stages only. I will know our position a little better after my consult with the lawyer on Monday afternoon,” he said.
Tyler and Jenna Clements bought a condo at the Main in Spring last year. He said they did their due diligence and pulled a tax certificate from the District and even did a follow up phone call to confirm there were no outstanding payment. The District tax certificate showed no outstanding property taxes, utility bills or other debts on the property. In September this year, they received a letter from the District titled “Reminder Notice” stating they had an outstanding utility bill of $726.
This is the first and only correspondence the Clements have received from the district on this issue, which left them confused as to how it can be called a reminder. The letter goes on to state that the District has discussed the outstanding utilities with their Lawyers and Notaries and the latter agreed with the debt.
Clements calls this a ‘blatant lie’ as their notary have confirmed they never had any discussions with the District on this matter and there has been no agreement on utilities.
“We have attempted several times to reach out to the District to understand the situation and to try to work with the District to resolve the issue with little to no cooperation from the District,” he says. “For quite some time the District refused to reply to emails and phone calls went to voicemail and were not returned.”
In a written statement , District said it empathizes with the owners of the 18 units in The Main building who did not own their property in 2020, and understands their frustration.
Below is the statement issued by the District:
“The District has a statutory obligation to collect utility balances owing from the current strata unit owners regardless of whether they were the beneficiary of those utilities in 2020. Ultimately, the property has a responsibility to ensure utilities are paid.
Council was presented with the only legislative options available to the District, which were to proceed with utilities collection, or to seek a ministerial order not to for all 96 units in the building (the outstanding amount would then need to be absorbed by all other Squamish property owners).
As the District cannot request a ministerial order to write-off only those owners who did not own their unit in 2020, in fairness to all other property owners in Squamish it was Council’s decision to move forward with the collection of the utilities billings.
Council also brought forward a motion at the December 6, 2022 meeting to address the issue of utility and taxation billing at the next Lower Mainland Local Government Association (LMLGA) or Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) advocacy discussions in hopes that new tools will be developed.”
D Patrick says
Just another flag for those going into a Strata Plan with a tail of expenses during the selling period, someone has to be responsible (owner of the project?) for the operating costs from the end of construction to the end of the selling period other than the future unit owners. Just another commune living exercise …. love your neighbour.
Wanda says
Who was the developer? It should be them paying bills that accummulate before a place is sold. The developer is in business afterall and these expenses are written off against profits.
brian hughes says
In Canadian criminal law there is a defense that is triggered by the doctrine of an ” officially induced error “, that provides a defendant an exception to the doctrine of law that says ignorance of the law is not a defense. The elements required to fall within this exception are: 1. the person must have turned their mind to the legal issue at hand, 2. the person must seek and obtain advice about the issue from an appropriate authority, 3. the advice received must be wrong, 4. the person must rely on the erroneous advice, 5. and the reliance on the advice must be reasonable in the circumstances, In criminal law this can be a defense to a regulatory or criminal charge. The question is whether there is a similar doctrine/defense in civil / municipal / administrative law in canada? I am a retired lawyer and have used this defense in criminal trials. Might be an avenue for these homeowners to look into in this utility/taxation situation with the District of Squamish.
Tyler Clements says
Hi Brian. Thank you very much for your advice. Would you be willing to discuss a little further? If you would we’d greatly appreciate it and if not we completely understand.
Cheers.
Tyler
David Lassmann says
It looks like some District employee has made a mistake and falsely indicated that no fees were due when the District’s bookkeeping records should have indicated otherwise. The new owners now have to pay fees that should have been settled by way if adjustment when the property sales were completed. Can the District be held legally responsible for an employee’s mistake? A simple solution would be for the sellers to admit that they should have paid the fees and do so now. Otherwise it will be a field day for the lawyers.