8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

1/202

NO. ________________NEW WESTMINSTER REGISTRY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN

Dianne Shirley Bond, also known asDianne Shirley Matthias

PLAINTIFF

AND

The Owners Strata Plan NW2671,the City of Coquitlam, and

Adrienne Murray, also known as Adrienne Murray Law Corporation

DEFENDANTS

NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM

This action has been started by the plaintiff for the relief set out in Part 2 below.

If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must

(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this courtwithin the time for response to civil claim described below, and

(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the plaintiff.

If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must

(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim describedbelow, and

(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the plaintiff andon any new parties named in the counterclaim.

JUDGEMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file theresponse to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below.

Time for response to civil claim

A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff,

10-Oct-14

New Westminster

Court File No. NEW-S-S-165066

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

2/202

2

(a) if you reside anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after the date on which a copy ofthe filed notice of civil claim was served on you,

(b) if you reside in the United States of America, within 35 days after the date on which a

copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you,

(c) if you reside elsewhere, within 49 days after the date on which a copy of the filednotice of civil claim was served on you, or

(d) if the time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within thattime.

CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF

Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.

The Plaintiff, Dianne Shirley Bond, also known as Dianne Shirley Matthias, (Ms.Bond) is a newspaper carrier and former paralegal residing at 409 - 1215 LansdowneDrive, Coquitlam, BC V3E 2P2 since May 27, 1988.

2. The Defendant Strata, The Owners Strata Plan NW2671, also known as SunridgeEstates, is a strata corporation incorporated under the laws of the Province of BritishColumbia, with its registered and records office located at 1-22374 LougheedHighway, in the City of Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia, V2X 2T5(the Strata.)

3. The Defendant, City of Coquitlam, is a political entity responsible among other thingsfor building and development, slope and tree protection, inspections, environmentalservices, and related enactments and enforcement in Coquitlam, British Columbia,with an address for service at 3000 Guildford Way, Coquitlam BC V3B 7N2.

4. The Defendant, Adrienne Murray, a senior member of the BC Law Society practicingstrata law in an office located at 4-1365 Johnston Rd, White Rock, BC V4B 3Z3, isthe president and only director known to the Plaintiff of Adrienne Murray LawCorporation, whose mailing and delivery address is a single detached house located at5465 181A Street, Surrey, BC V3S7Z2, where the Plaintiff presumes that Ms. Murrayresides.

5. The Plaintiff is married to H. Lawrence Bond (Mr. Bond), a lithographer, and

together they have continually owned and occupied Unit 409 as joint tenants sincethey purchased it from the developer on May 27, 1988.

6. The Plaintiff represents Mr. Bond in home matters generally and the husband andwife have agreed that Ms. Bond will represent Mr. Bonds strata interests and serve asthe Plaintiff in these proceedings to keep the disruption and litigation stress onMr. Bond to a minimum while he earns a living for them both.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

3/202

3

7. The Plaintiff claims that significantly unfair treatment by the Defendant Strata,escalating against the Plaintiff since 1990 and reached a crisis on April 8, 2014, whenowners at the Annual General Meeting approved an extra deck for a member ofcouncil and denied a comparatively modest remedial extension of Unit 409s strata

plan patio to reinstate space taken away with trellis planters after decades ofmisrepresentations and unfair delays for the unjust enrichment of others.

8. The Plaintiff claims that the strata president, Lynda Baker, misrepresented the stratacorporations duty to comply with and enforce the bylaws and discredited the Plaintifffor her own unjust enrichment with emphatically pronounced false statementsadvising owners that Ms. Baker owns an extra deck, which if true would give herapproximately twice as much limited common property as she owns, pays strata feesfor, or purchased and would disallow the Plaintiffs proposed extension of Unit 409spatio in perpetuity.

9. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has a history of deliberatemisrepresentations and significantly unfair governance, routinely violating statutoryand common law rights and acting for decades in a conspiracy of false pretences andprofit from misconduct and abuse that resembles a criminal organization more than ademocratic entity ruled by law, or trust and justice.

10. The Plaintiff further claims that over the years representatives of the Defendant Stratahave tortured the Plaintiff in retaliation for pursuing her statutory and common lawrights, threatened her with further abuse, and attempted to coerce the Plaintiff to stopcomplaining and move.

11. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata committed offences that the Plaintiff

believes constitute vandalism, assault, theft, money laundering, embezzlement,trespass, and fraud which the court might consider indictable, particulars of which areset out in this Notice of Civil Claim and further particulars may be provided prior totrial.

12. The Plaintiff claims that Adrienne Murray plays an instrumental role in contributingto strata strife and is responsible for misleading misrepresentations that disparage thePlaintiff, deny the Plaintiffs rights to strata records as provided by statute, andeffectively thwart the law, shield misrepresentations, corruption, oppression, unjustenrichment, and shirking, particulars of which are set out in this Notice of Civil Claimand further particulars may be provided prior to trial.

13. The Plaintiff is painfully aware that complaints against the powers that be,particularly officers of the court, face a high risk of being deemed scandalous andvexatious by a judge but the Plaintiff nevertheless claims that strata lawyers andpolice are power alliance participants in a strata agency industry motivated byinherent conflicts of interest, and Ms. Murray plays an instrumental role for her ownprofit which contributes to pervasive unfairness, confusion, injustice, and strife thatcontributes to a dysfunctional society.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

4/202

4

14. particularly a letter dated June 19, 2007, which the Defendant Strata published in theminutes and has continued delivering for years, most recently in 2013.

15.

The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murray contributes to a pervasive method of operatingin the strata agency industry that employs false pretences and oppressive bullying todeny statutory and common law rights and crazy-making character assassination todiscredit and deter complainants.

16. and caused undue damage to the Plaintiff and profit to herself.

17. The Plaintiff claims that on or about May 12, 2014, the Defendant City failed toprovide the Plaintiff with requested information and advised the Plaintiff thatrestrictive covenants are not relevant and landscaping does not affect the stability ofthe Plaintiffs home because it was built on solid ground and would not sink and

criticized the Plaintiff for expressing concern, disregarding a history of overexcavation and sinking, indicating that it allowed or encouraged the Defendant Stratato destroy hundreds of trees, discrediting the Plaintiff, resulting in damage to thePlaintiff and unjust enrichment to others, including a long entrenched councillor ofthe Defendant City, as extra decking, unobstructed panoramic views, andgeotechnical concerns replaced the trees and landscaping provided by the developerslandscape architects.

18. The Plaintiff claims that the landscaping sat in ruins for over 5 years as the roots ofhundreds of trees and thousands of bushes decomposed, ground was stripped bare,and soil eroded while all of a sudden rain that used to soak into the earth rushed down

drains, buildings sank, pavement, water mains, sewers, and underground pipes startedcracking and breaking, sink holes developed, foundations separated, walls cracked,windows and doors stuck and malfunctioned throughout the strata complex, and gaslines became an issue, and since new trees and bushes were planted in 2010 problemshave continued, and this history raises geotechnical issues that are inconsistent withthe citys claims that restrictive covenants and landscaping have no effect on thestability of the Plaintiffs home because it is built on solid ground.

19. Further particulars of the Plaintiffs claims against the Defendants and a variety ofagents of the Defendant Strata are set out at the end of Part 1 of this Notice of CivilClaim.

20. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants conduct constitutes negligence that issystemic in nature and will continue unless the court imposes real deterrents.

21. The Plaintiffs goal in commencing these proceedings is to secure the most just,speedy and inexpensive determination of every issue on its merits in a way that isproportionate to the complexity, extent, and importance of the issues in dispute to notjust the Plaintiffs health, employment, relationships, property, and life, past, present,

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

5/202

5

and future, but to the future impact on the strata agency industry and to all BC strataowners.

22. The Plaintiff claims that contrary to acting to advance remedies the Defendant Strata

has acted unreasonably to provoke court proceedings and exploit the Plaintiffsvulnerabilities on a significantly unfair playing field.

23. The Plaintiff claims that legal services which seem reasonable to the Defendant Strataand the elite are well beyond the Plaintiffs reach as a partially disabled semi-retiredlitigant without a pension, particularly when considering the whole of thecircumstances, including the complexity, scope, and persistence of the issues arisingout of the Defendant Stratas ongoing actions against the Plaintiff.

24. The Plaintiff is so afraid of the inherent risks arising out of filing this Notice of CivilClaim while deprived of strata records and handicapped by extreme stress arising outof the Defendant Stratas decades of relentlessly unfair treatment and

misrepresentations that she feels out of control and nearly hysterical.

25. While dealing with strata issues the Plaintiff has become extremely susceptible to lossof focus and mistakes which would not exist but for wrongful actions of theDefendants, and which may put pleadings that she has done her very best to prepareas a near hysterical self-represented litigant at risk of being struck out with costs, andthe Plaintiff claims that this would be unfair and further contribute without mercy tothe damage and mischief caused by the Defendants.

26. The Plaintiff further claims that direct personal knowledge of her physical, emotional,and practical experience creates a feeling of impending doom and shortened life

expectancy, and the Plaintiff offers to make just and reasonable amendments to thisNotice of Civil Claim in the interests of hastening settlement, reducing stress, andliving the remaining years of her life in peace and quiet.

27. The Plaintiff has made her best efforts to resolve the issues fairly and make herclaims comprehensive and correct and claims that her efforts and motives should berespected, but most unfortunately she is completely unable to make this Notice ofCivil Claim succinct and had to file it as is, with apologies for defects, as her rate ofbreak down is escalating, and increased time and effort only made it longer and morehysterically incoherent.

28.

In an attempt to make 202 pages more manageable the Plaintiff added a table ofcontents as Part 5 to the Appendix, and if possible will submit her claims for filingelectronically in Microsoft Word format to allow the receiver to download and clickEnable Editing, View, Navigation Pane, and Browse the Headings.

29. The Plaintiff says she set out many claims based on a perceived need to demonstratethe significance of the unfair acts against her with related history and to addressconcerns about res judicataand future effects on BCs growing population of strata

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

6/202

6

owners, as well as the Plaintiff, of continued unfairness in the power alliance andstrata agency industry.

30. The Plaintiff claims that revolving turnover in strata ownership, strata councils, strata

agents, and strata lawyers is a material contributor to this long protracted series ofinsidious misrepresentations and the intricate complexities of unfair treatment that hasevolved in what is a crushing marathon for the Plaintiff and a reckless relay foreveryone else.

31. Particulars of the Plaintiffs claims against the Defendant Strata are set out first andclaims against others are set out near the end of this Notice of Civil Claim.

32. The main remedies the Plaintiff seeks are that the Defendant Strata:

a) comply with the provisions set out in the Strata Property Act;

b)

comply with and enforce the strata bylaws;

c) extend, repair, and maintain Unit 409s patio to reinstate the Plaintiffs originaloutdoor dining space, privacy, and legitimate expectation of equitable unitentitlement formulas, enjoyment of shared common property, and exclusive useand benefit of Unit 409s strata plan patio;

d) repair and acknowledge in writing that Unit 409s water stained paint, warpeddoor systems, damaged flooring systems, cracked walls, are part of the buildingthat the Defendant Strata is responsible to insure and repair;

e)

repair the gouged siding, eroding support pillar, defectively aligned plumbing, airducts, and exterior taps which are common property next to, under, above, andoutside of Unit 409;

f) reinstate and maintain the birch trees, variegated dogwood, and ground coveraround Unit 409;

g) take affirmative action to eliminate inequitable rules or bylaw amendments,particularly those governing decorating, email, and painting that are nonstandardand uniquely unfair to the Plaintiff, retaliatory, inappropriate, or improperly filed;

h) impose user fees in amounts adequate to comply with the concept of fairness in

unit entitlement to exclusive use, maintenance and repairs of common propertyand rectify a corrupt history of unfair loss and unjust enrichment;

i) undertake to take the care required to avoid future abuse or personal injury to thePlaintiff or harm to Unit 409s property value;

j) compensate for the damage and loss to the Plaintiff attributable the DefendantStratas wrongful or significantly unfair acts or omissions.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

7/202

7

33. The Plaintiff claims with apology that much of the extensive length, redundancies,and potential defects in this Notice of Civil Claim arise out of the Plaintiff beingemotionally impaired and psychologically exhausted by the stress that has beenflowing from, escalating, and accumulating out of significant unfairness since 1989.

34. The Plaintiff claims that said damage to the Plaintiffs health and ability to functionwell under the stress attributable to litigation and the conduct of the Defendant Stratais a material factor that must be recognized to do justice between the parties.

35. The Plaintiff claims that the effect of the unfairness imposed on her over the years isrelentless and devastating in comparison to the impact on artificial bodies imperviousto human thresholds of endurance and pain and others who are correspondinglyenriched or volunteer on a revolving basis and these inconvenient truths need to berecognized by the court in the interest of justice.

36. The Plaintiff is seeking all remedies that she may be entitled to in order to do justice

between the parties so that all matters may be completely and finally determined andthe need for future legal proceedings concerning such matters may be avoided.

37. The Plaintiff claims that as a strata corporation the Defendant Strata owes a duty totake care not to unreasonably cause or perpetuate foreseeable harm or significantunfairness to owners in the neighbourhood, including the Plaintiff.

38. A summary of the Plaintiffs claims against the Defendant Strata, further particularsof which are set out elsewhere, include, but are not limited to the Defendant Strata:

a) failing to comply with or enforce strata bylaws, most especially number 4

b) ignoring city bylaws and binding restrictive covenants that run with the land

c) violating material indemnity agreements and building envelope contracts

d) destroying trees and landscaping

e) engaging in unfair and costly conflicts of interest

f) mismanaging common property and shirking its repair and maintenanceobligations

g)

sabotaging funding and sharing formulas and unit entitlement concepts

h) depriving the Plaintiff of her right to access and fairly share in common property

i) compelling the Plaintiff to give up space on Unit 409s patio to host obstructionsinstalled by the strata in place of the tree removed to accommodate extra deckingfor Unit 407

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

8/202

8

j) compelling the Plaintiff to provide privacy screening which was originallycommon property and which Unit 508 and Unit 407 share the benefits of at thesole expense of the Plaintiff

k)

encroaching on Unit 409s strata plan patio space in ways that have spoiled itsoriginal function as an outdoor dining area

l) persistently ignoring major structural defects that cause mold, property damage,economic loss, and harm to health

m) failing to insure and, or in the alternative, complete replacement value repairs forwater damage to Unit 409 which the member of council in charge of insurancewas responsible for

n) retaliating against the Plaintiff and vilifying her after she complained about unfairtreatment and acts that raise reasonable apprehensions of misconduct

o) entering the Plaintiffs strata lot and causing damage to the windows and doorsand floor coverings

p) persistently refusing to extend the exterior taps on Unit 409 to specifications

q) poisoning the Plaintiff with pesticides and prolonged exposure to sewer gas

r) battering the Plaintiff with toxic fumes from exterior sealant erroneously appliedthroughout the interior of Unit 409

s) causing or contributing to hearing damage, falls, and back injury to the Plaintiff

t) mismanaging strata funds, diverting special levy funds, and misrepresentingexpenses

u) creating extraordinary, unreasonable, devastatingly prolonged, and complicitdelays

v) discrediting and vilifying the Plaintiff with disparaging character assassination

w) instituting frivolous and vexatious bylaws uniquely unfair to the Plaintiff

x)

violating at least 50 sections of legislation without apology

y) creating and perpetuating ever-increasing loss to the Plaintiff and profit andbenefit of those doing the Plaintiff wrong

z) misrepresenting or failing to distribute information required for reasonablyinformed decision-making

aa) practicing decision-making by undisclosed parties without votes or minutes

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

9/202

9

bb)misrepresenting facts and law in a manner preventing a remedial patio extension

cc) persistently characterizing strata plan patios as decks contrary to legal advice

dd)unfairly sectioning off repairs and maintenance of strata plan patios from strataplan balconies contrary to the provisions for sections under the S.P.A.

ee) depriving units with strata plan patios of the prompt attention, inexpensiveregular maintenance, and easy care building material provided to units withbalconies

ff) deleting incriminating email evidence of defamatory misconduct

gg)withholding access to strata records for years contrary to law and thendeliberately destroying them

hh)

tampering with minutes

ii) bypassing the Plaintiff when distributing minutes

jj) persistently refusing to provide requested minutes

kk) failing to maintain common property

ll) destroying strata property worth millions of dollars

mm) impoverishing the strata corporation

nn)

collecting strata fees without providing the corresponding benefits

oo)downgrading owners strata plan patios

pp)diverting special levy funds contrary to law and contract and the direction ofowners

qq)shirking the Defendant Stratas liability for damage arising out the DefendantStratas acts and decisions

rr) offloading the Defendant Stratas responsibility for repairs and maintenance thatowners pay strata fees to cover

ss) offloading repairs of shared plumbing onto lower units

tt) undermining fair and reasonable strata fee and unit entitlement formulas

uu)abusing the Defendant Stratas discretionary powers, acting in unreasonable waysthat are not even-handed

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

10/202

10

vv) inflicting unusual unfairness and stress on the Plaintiff for so long that it impairsthe Plaintiffs ability to function normally

ww) vilifying and intimidating the Plaintiff, fraudulently making

misrepresentations and defamatory accusations of assault, criminal harassment,and malice; calling her vile and despicable for trying to rely on statutory andcommon law rights and curb ever-increasing loss.

39. Facts that are material to the Plaintiffs claims, that only images can reveal, arecontained in a variety of strata blogs that the Plaintiff has posted since 2007 to informother owners and decision makers. The time stamps are arranged to organize thepriorities and flow of the blogger entries rather than any real times and dates.

40. The Plaintiff resists advertising or promoting her strata blogs and promptly advisesthose that she blogs about. The Plaintiff has taken a variety of measures to manageexposure and for quite some time sunridgecoquitlam.blogspot.com displayed a

security warning that discouraged casual visitors.

41. The Plaintiff claims that her blogs have existed since 2007 with knowledge of theDefendant Strata and the content remaining unchallenged and her hopes for remedialaction or some positive effect are undaunted.

42. The Plaintiffs claims against the Defendant Strata include underlying issues specificto common property, limited and exclusive use and benefits, unit entitlement, stratafees, insurance, maintenance and repairs, strata records, and a history of unfairnessand questionable conduct.

43.

The Plaintiff claims that unfair treatment by the Defendant Strata is ongoing andrelentless as evidenced by:

a) members of council taking common property rent-free for their own exclusiveuse and unjust enrichment at the Plaintiffs expense while depriving the Plaintiffof privacy and comparable enjoyment of outdoor patio space and access tocommon property that the Plaintiff owns in proportion to Unit 409s unitentitlement share;

b) needlessly and deliberately cutting down trees in full knowledge that they werefundamental to the Plaintiffs environment, privacy, enjoyment, peace of mind,and property value;

c) disparaging and discrediting the Plaintiff at Annual General Meetings, mostrecently by misrepresenting facts and law on April 8, 2014, which resulted indenial of a remedial extension to Unit 409s strata plan patio and increasedmisrepresentations, unfairness and abuse of the Plaintiff;

d) threatening the Plaintiff with fines of $200 every 7 days in an attempt to coercethe Plaintiff to sign a sign a liability indemnity agreement transferring onto the

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

11/202

11

Plaintiff the Defendant Stratas responsibility and cost of damage to Unit 409caused by the Defendant Strata altering the developers patio door design,landscaping specifications, and use and appearance of the common propertycontrary to section 71 of the Strata Property Act,

e) persistent letters from the Defendant Stratas lawyers denying and, or in thealternative, misrepresenting the Plaintiffs statutory and common law rights andaccusing the Plaintiff of harassment and malice for letters attempting to defendagainst unfairness and misconduct,

f) denying the Plaintiff access to strata records and destroying material evidence ofmisconduct,

g) repeatedly requiring the Plaintiff to travel to other cities to pursue access torecords that are withheld on arrival and forever,

h)

publishing minutes that unfairly vilify the Plaintiff in the permanent record,

i) harassing the Plaintiff so persistently that the trauma is unspeakable.

44. The Plaintiff having served on council herself recognizes and appreciates thatmembers of the strata council are volunteers who are often left ignorant andmisinformed, and claims that negligence and management misconduct in stratagovernance has deprived the Plaintiff of the peaceful home environment that thePlaintiff enjoyed prior to serving on council.

45. The Plaintiff claims that affirmative action is required to deter the Defendant Strata

from continually acting with unfairness and disrespect of the law and peoples lives,so that the Plaintiffs home might be restored to more of a sanctuary than a place ofoppression and abuse.

46. Regardless of varying formats, in her best attempt to facilitate fair and just remediesthe Plaintiff is making each statement as a claim in addition, or in the alternative, toany other claims she is making against the Defendants.

Background

47. On May 27, 1988, the Plaintiff purchased and took possession of the land legallydescribed as Strata Lot 25 District Lot 385 Group 1 New Westminster District Strata

Plan NW2671 together with an interest in the common property in proportion to theunit entitlement of the strata lot as shown on Form 1 (Strata Lot 25), pursuant torestrictive covenants that run with the land and a contract of purchase and sale madewith the developer, International Land Corporation Ltd.

48. May 27 is an anniversary of mixed emotions for the Plaintiff, as one year later, onMay 27, 1989, the Plaintiffs married and were happy, until the Defendant Strataturned the purchase of their new home into the most enduring heartache of their lives.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

12/202

12

49. Strata Lot 25 is civically known and described as Unit 409 - 1215 Lansdowne Drive,Coquitlam, British Columbia (409). The Plaintiffs occupy it as joint tenants.

50. The strata complex is in the city of Coquitlam at the corner of Lansdowne Drive and

Guildford Way on a steep south facing 5-acre slope at the toe of Eagle Mountain.

51. The site has a history of sinking and water seepage. Eagle Mountain is on the northside, Scott Creek is on the west side, a city staircase with a history of sliding is on theeast side, and a swamp which has been built over with pilings for the EagleridgeSecondary School is across from it on the south side of Guildford Way.

52. The slope and Building 7 around Unit 409 was circled on a map of areas designatedby the city of Coquitlam as sensitive tree protection areas.

53. Building 7 and Unit 409 sunk approximately 6 inches after construction.

54.

The initial instability was promptly and effectively remedied with a bed of concrete, a20-year warranty, and a surrounding forest of trees that the developers landscapearchitect planted.

55. The developers landscape architect planted at least 12 trees near Unit 409 in thefollowing configuration: 1 to the northeast, 4 or more to the east, 2 in front and 5 ormore across from the unit.

56. The complex contains 68 townhouses in 17 four-plex buildings, comprised ofapproximately 32 three bedroom units and 36 two bedroom units. Most 2-bedroomunits are single level and 3-bedroom units are 2-level. 409 is a 3-bedroom unit built

directly below a 2-bedroom unit, (Unit 510).

57. The strata complex was built in two phases with the second phase filed in 1990approximately 2 years after the Plaintiff purchased 409.

58. Phase One is distinguished from Phase Two with five floor plans, some withskylights, some with carports, all with wood-burning fireplaces, 4-piece ensuites, robehooks on interior doors, and conveniently located exterior taps. 2-bedroom units haveentrances into the units directly from the garages, and 3-bedroom units havepeninsula kitchens and front stairs of cement.

59. Phase Two was constructed by a different developer using two floor plans, 3-piece

ensuites, and no sky lights or carports, with the 3-bedroom units having front stairs ofpainted wood and no peninsulas in the kitchens.

60. The Defendant Strata further damaged Phase One by cutting up the pavement toinstall gas fireplaces, destroying patios and landscaping, and wasting an opportunityduring building envelope repairs to add ventilation to the roofing and building.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

13/202

13

61. Most 2-bedroom units are upper units with north and south exterior doors which openand provide a cross draft that releases summer heat. As the wind comes mostly fromthe west this is especially so in the southeast facing upper units. 3-bedroom units arelocated below and do not have a cross draft design or upper unit privacy but

surrounding trees and bushes help control the heat with landscaped privacy.

62. Certain plumbing is shared between strata lots with pipes located vertically in thewalls and horizontally in the kitchen of lower units like Strata Lot 25.

63. The back side of the complex has about a dozen north facing 2-bedroom units withlong driveways facing onto Rambler Way (the unit numbers in the 500 series).

64. The strata plan provides for one patio or balcony for each strata lot. These strata planpatios and balconies are defined as limited common property and assigned to adjacentstrata lots. All 2-bedroom units have south balconies and all 3-bedroom units haveeast or west patios.

65. In Building 7, Unit 510s balcony occupies 3rd

story air space to the south and Unit409s patio comes off the 2

ndstory to the east over a retaining wall. In Building 6,

Unit 407s patio comes off the 2ndstory to the west, but due to the steepness of theslope it is at ground level.

66. As an inseparable and simultaneous consequence of the purchase of Unit 409 thePlaintiff entered into legal relationships with rights and responsibilities set out in law,including, but not limited to:

a) agreements between the owners of Sunridge Estates and the District of

Coquitlam filed in the Land Title Office as Restrictive Covenants Z123808and Z123809. These Restrictive covenants run with the land and are bindingon the city, strata, and each unit holder and require detailed landscaping plansfor any construction with specifications of plant materials, landscapescreening, and surface treatments for the common property;

b) the registered strata plan sets out the boundaries of the buildings and eachstrata lot with one patio or balcony per strata lot designated as limitedcommon property for the exclusive use of the owners of the respective stratalot and common property owned and shared as tenants in common;

c) a schedule of unit entitlements sets out each strata lots share of the propertyas well as strata fee formulas which cover property that the Defendant Stratais responsible to insure and maintenance and repair of common property.

d) the design specifications of the developers landscape architect for thecommon property, which included the environmental benefits of over 280trees;

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

14/202

14

e) the registered prospectus and Disclosure Statement of International LandCorporation Ltd. with no rental restrictions;

f) the Condominium Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 61 and RSBC 1996, c 64,

g)

the bylaws in Part 5 of the Condominium Act,

h) bylaws registered in the Land Title Office for The Owners Strata PlanNW2671;

i) the Strata Property Act, SBC 1998, c 43 (the S.P.A.);

j) the Strata Property Regulation, BC Reg 43/2000; and

k) the strata corporations insurance policies.

67.

The Strata Property Act and unit entitlement formulas govern strata fees for repairsand maintenance and the owner of 3-bedroom unit like the Plaintiffs pays up to 25%more in strata fees and has up to 25% more unit entitlement ownership of thecommon property than the owner of certain 2-bedroom units.

68. Each unit has one vote; however, 2-bedroom units outnumber 3-bedroom units by 4votes and usually dominate council by at least 2 to one, sometimes completely.

69. In deciding to purchase Unit 409 the Plaintiff relied on legal relations and protections,and the Defendant Stratas persistent violations of shared rights and responsibilitiesconcerning maintenance and repairs and use and benefit of common propertyshattered the Plaintiffs trust in and ability to rely on the law.

70. From 1989 to 2014 the Defendant Strata allowed individual owners to makesignificant changes to the use and appearance of the common property without a voteat any general meeting, replacing trees and landscaping with added decking andpanoramic views, some of which the Plaintiff claims undermine curb appeal, privacy,peace, and security, and are a cause of significant unfairness and injustice that theDefendant Strata could have easily avoided and, or in the alternative, remedied byenforcing the bylaws.

71. The Defendant Strata allows certain owners to take up to 2 or 3 times more than theirshare of the common property without paying user fees, causing significant loss and

expense to the Plaintiff, destroying landscaping, and creating two classes of owners,with the privileged disproportionately funded by the strata fees of the deprived.

72. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata unreasonably failed to impose user feesand used special levy funds to cover extra expenses attributable to extra decking andpanoramic views for a privileged minority who are perpetuating significant unfairnessin a cycle that is truly vicious in nature.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

15/202

15

73. The Plaintiff claims compensation for a 25-year history of significant unfairness bythe Defendant Strata, which:

a) diverted strata fees to special interests detrimental to the Plaintiff;

b)

failed in its statutory duty to repair and maintain the common property and thestructure and fixtures of the Plaintiffs strata lot and strata plan patio;

c) tampered with and prevented access to strata records, depriving the Plaintiff ofevidence and factual data that the Plaintiff required to make informeddecisions, mitigate damages, and defend themselves against unfair acts anddecisions;

d) pre-emptively and unfairly changed the use and appearance of commonproperty, downgrading the quality and design of the Plaintiffs strata planpatio, exterior water taps, geotechnical security, and the trees, bushes, and

ground cover surrounding Unit 409;

e) diverted strata fees that the Plaintiff paid and the Defendant Strata spent onspecial interests for the benefit of others who paid less and took over twice asmuch as their share;

f) imposed a hidden increase in the Plaintiffs annual strata fees of up to 20%over prescribed unit entitlement formulas to cover extra expenses generatedby detrimental acts and failures of the Defendant Strata that were uniquely andsignificantly unfair to the Plaintiff;

g)

routinely allowed owners and members of council to act in conflicts ofinterest, profit from their own wrongs without colour of right, and actedagainst the Plaintiff for complaining;

h) persistently failed to enforce the nuisance bylaws and repeatedly acted andmade decisions with progressively and foreseeably increasingly severe andprolonged unfair effect which sickened the Plaintiff over a 25-year periodending in serious functional impairment.

74. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata engaged in a series of unfair acts anddecisions, each of which was uniquely detrimental to the Plaintiff, causing thePlaintiff injury, loss, hardship, and damage not experienced by other owners.

75. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata owes common law duties to thePlaintiff and fell below a reasonable standard of care that caused harm to the Plaintiffwhich was foreseeable and would have been avoided by following the provisions ofthe Strata Property Act for repairing structural and water damage, imposing user feesfor exclusive use of common property, obeying the directions of owners to council,obtaining 75% approval prior to destroying landscaping and cutting down trees and

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

16/202

16

making significant changes to common property, restricting the spending of speciallevy funds to their intended purpose, and acting honestly in good faith.

76. The Plaintiff says that the claims set out herein are material to an insidious 20-year

history of unfairness that is protracted, persistent, and ever-increasing.

77. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas acts and decisions have causednuisance, heart break, and loss that the Plaintiff finds unspeakable.

Limitation Dates

78. The Plaintiff claims that the time line of events is material to the credibility of claimsand the significance of unfairness to the Plaintiff, and this historical timeline is shownin part in documents which are in a chronological list well over 65 pages and 2decades long.

79.

The Plaintiff claims that the requirements of strata bylaws and Strata Property Act areongoing obligations and the Plaintiff has a legitimate expectation that the protectionfrom unfairness that increases in significance over time and does not expire due to theDefendant Strata engaging in deliberate delays.

80. The Plaintiff claims that at all material times the Defendants had full and timelynotice of the circumstances of the Plaintiffs claims and the balance of justice fallsheavily against permitting the Defendants to escape liability for acts of unfairness.

81. The Plaintiff further claims that exemplary damages arise out of the long history ofrepetitive abuse of the Plaintiff and unreasonable delays by the strata and the negativesocial impacts of suing your neighbours - all of which make future abuse of thePlaintiff foreseeable, if not predictable.

82. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata and its agents deliberately created yearsof horrific delays in conflicts of interest for the ever increasing unjust enrichment of afew, to the detriment of the Plaintiff, and it would be significantly unfair andunacceptably prejudicial to the Plaintiff for the Defendant Strata to escape liability fordamage arising from such corrupt time management.

83. The Plaintiff further claims that the complex interrelationships and broadcircumstances giving rise to violations of the Plaintiffs statutory and common lawrights are continuing in nature and, to be fair, require a more effective remedy and

practical deterrent than suing for each and every breach.

84. The Plaintiff claims that most of the inequities, misrepresentations, delays, andfailures to honour obligations are deliberately and systemically controlled by theDefendants, and for the Defendants to avoid liability for their own voluntarilydilatory behavior by withholding material records and utilizing limitation dates torestrict the Court's inherent power to remedy injustice would be more mischievous

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

17/202

17

than remedial; it defies common sense and would most significantly create theultimate unfairness to strata owners with little, if any, reasonable access to justice.

85. The Plaintiff claims that ultimately, two wrongs do not make a right.

Strata Agents

86. The Plaintiff refers to the Defendant Strata as including separately or together, past,present, and future agents and owners whose conduct the Defendant Strata isvicariously liable or bears responsibility for, including but not limited to, volunteermembers of strata councils and hired professionals in the industries of strata propertymanagement, construction, engineering, landscaping, and law.

87. The Plaintiff claims that Ms. Murrays actions caused damage which was foreseeableand easily avoidable with reasonable care and is in many ways representative of stratalawyers in general who are influenced by Ms. Murrays conduct, and with all such

lawyers in mind, Ms. Murray may be referred to as the Defendant Lawyer.

88. The Plaintiff claims that certain questions between the Plaintiff and the DefendantStrata may be adjudicated without the addition of the Defendant City or DefendantLawyer, however it is just to join those parties in these proceedings to ensureeffective adjudication of common issues in claims that are substantially connected.

89. The Plaintiff pays taxes and strata fees and claims to have a legitimate expectationthat statutory and common law rights and legal protections can be relied on aswritten, including restrictive covenants, contracts, specifications, strata enactmentsand bylaws.

90.

The Plaintiff further claims that she is entitled to expect certain geotechnical security,respect and privacy, as well as fair, honest dealings and records that she isfundamentally deprived of by the actions of the Defendants.

Images

91. The Plaintiff claims that hundreds of photos speak for themselves, and this evidenceis more quickly, cheaply, and effectively viewed in colour online than in hard copies.

92. By way of example, a representative image is inserted below each of the followingissues: bylaws; exterior sealant; extra decking; financial matters, geotechnical

concerns; landscaping; nuisance; structural defects; trees; trespass; and water damage.

93. The Plaintiff further claims that images posted online in the Plaintiffs strata blogswhich can be accessed by following the links at sunridgecoquitlam.blogspot.comdetail certain claims much better in pictures than words and can be best presented inthe form of electronic discovery.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

18/202

18

The first image starts on the next page.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

19/202

19

Bylaws

94. The photo inserted below this paragraph depicts a window covering bylawamendment as one representative image of several bylaws that the Defendant Strataamended in a manner uniquely unfair to the Plaintiff. The amendment illustratedprohibits window decorationsfollowing which the Defendant Strata beganclaiming that bottles in the Plaintiffs windows and architectural glass panels whichcannot be seen from the street and cost the Plaintiff approximately $7,000 to screeninvasive views imposed by the Defendant Strata violate the bylaw, despite the factthat off white blinds are installed as window coverings in every window in thePlaintiffs strata lot. Making it worse, rather than recluse herself, a member of councilresponsible for ruining Unit 409s views and privacy by pre-emptively cutting downtrees and significantly changing the use and appearance of the common propertycontrary section 71 of the Strata Property Act is threatening the Plaintiff with fineswhile screening bottles in her own Unit 320 kitchen and dining room windows do not

attract similar accusations and threats. The word decorations in the bylawamendment is highly unusual and uniquely targets the Plaintiff for harassment withthreats of punitive fines for acting to mitigate damage and loss that the DefendantStrata caused by exposing intrusive views which go right through Unit 409 clear intothe ensuite and for years invaded the Plaintiffs entire living area with the sight ofstark rooftops and obnoxious storage tarps on extra decking, while the DefendantStrata made the common property look like a war zone for 5 years on a high profilecorner exposed to high volume public traffic and persistently allows highly obtrusiveextra decking to destroy curb appeal and park-like views. The Plaintiff claimspunitive damages against the Defendant Strata arising out wanton destruction ofnatural privacy, peace, and enjoyment and uniquely unfair and persistent harassment

of the Plaintiff.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

20/202

20

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

21/202

21

Exterior Sealant

95. The photo inserted below this paragraph is one representative example of a variety ofassaults and personal injury inflicted on the Plaintiff by the Defendant Strata andillustrates just a little of the toxic sealant that the Defendant Strata applied in copiousquantities throughout Unit 409 in full knowledge that it was formulated for exterioruse and intimidating her with a lawyer when she complained about the attack andtried to protect her bad lungs from ongoing harm from fumes that took approximatelya year to dissipate with Unit 409s windows kept open after the sealant wassupposedly removed when the Plaintiff was forced to move out.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

22/202

22

Extra Decking

The drawing inserted below this paragraph is an example of significantly unfair changes in the use andappearance of common property made pre-emptively without notice, permits, or majority approval.

The Plaintiff complained that tree and landscape destruction took away privacy, equity, property value,environmental security and personal enjoyment, and strata management acting in conflict for their ownunjust enrichment refused to remedy the related nuisance and responded by instructing the Plaintiff toput trellis planters on Unit 409s patio to replace the tree. For decades it has unreasonably refused tocomply with and enforce the bylaws and ignored and unfairly denied any and all requests to mitigateattributable damage, including: 1) reduce the extra decking on Unit 407 to reinstate the privacy treeand landscaped safety and access buffer, 2) move the trellis planters to the outside of Unit 409s patio,3) pay rent to the Plaintiff for the trellis planters and space taken on Unit 409s patio, 4) reimbursetheir purchase price, 5) give the Plaintiff air space above the extra decking in the same or even half theamount as the common property taken by Unit 407, 6) reinstate the original in-swing door and extendUnit 409s patio with a 1.5 foot cantilever extension, 7) give Unit 409 extra decking in a unitentitlement proportion comparable to others, 8) put a couple of posts on the common property toaccommodate the trellis planter privacy screen and loss of railing space. The Plaintiff also offered to

pay for remedial extra decking that she requested, and did pay for it in 2007 when Councillor Bergacting contrary to the direction of the owners diverted special levy building envelope repair funds todemolish and reconstruct extra decking that the Plaintiff was unfairly deprived of. The Plaintiff claimsthat the Defendant Strata is violating nuisance bylaws, the landscaping specifications in restrictivecovenants, usage restrictions in the Strata Property Act, and user fee provisions in the Regulations andis misrepresenting ownership of common property and assets intended by necessary implication of thestrata plan to be shared in proportion to unit entitlement and is retaliating against the Plaintiff for hercontinual requests that council comply with and enforce the bylaws to remedy the nuisance and stopunreasonable delays, unjust enrichment, corrupt oppression and defamatory misrepresentations.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

23/202

23

Financial Matters

The photo inserted below this paragraph illustrates one example of damage arising out ofthe Defendant Strata diverting special levy funds paid by the Plaintiff for buildingenvelope repairs that were not received. The money was spent to cut down trees and buildextra decks for the unjust enrichment of members of council acting contrary to law inblatant conflicts of interest. In this example the Defendant Strata entered Unit 409 andreplaced marine enamel with primer, which cost a dollar to save a dime and causedscreaming pain and personal injury to the Plaintiff when her skin was defatted by paintremover in the do-it-yourself repairs required after the Defendant Strata ignored votesand the direction of owners and blatantly diverted responsibilities.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

24/202

24

Geotechnical Concerns

96. The 7-inch mark on the measuring tape in the photo inserted below this paragraph isone representative image of a sink hole in front of Building 6 in an area repeatedly

repaired by the Defendant Strata after in violation of the bylaws it deliberatelydestroyed trees, bushes, and ground cover planted and specified by the developerslandscape architect pursuant to restrictive covenants that run with the land. ThePlaintiff claims that failing window and door operations and sink holes throughout thecomplex, along with photos posted by the Plaintiff on her blogs of sinking buildings,cracking pavement, cracking walls, breaking sewers, breaking underground pipes andbreaking water mains speak for themselves about geotechnical issues more clearlythan words and that the Defendant Strata has vilified, defamed, and perverselyaccused the Plaintiff of harassment for complaining about persistent and needlessdestruction of hundreds of mature trees and attributable nuisance and financial issues.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

25/202

25

Landscaping

97. The 2014 photo of rhododendron root weevil inserted below this paragraph is onerepresentative image that illustrates landscaping in front of Unit 409 that the Plaintiff

claims the Defendant Strata vandalized in an extremely costly, ongoing cycle ofconflicting interests, sabotage and deliberate retaliation creating years of horrificdegradation, squeezed budgets, negligence, and ongoing loss of trees and groundcover and geotechnical security. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strataunfairly bypasses Unit 409 for gardening services and fails to provide reasonablemaintenance and reinstatement of trees and landscaping that residents deliberatelyand persistently destroyed to unscrupulously create unobstructed panoramic views.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

26/202

26

Nuisance

The photo inserted below this paragraph illustrates a nuisance that landscape architects ofboth the developer and strata tried to screen with privacy trees. Privacy between thebuildings was lost when a vine maple tree was destroyed without authority for extradecking and never reinstated despite continual complaints by the Plaintiff since 1989, andthe Plaintiff claims that the resultant nuisance includes extra expense, personal attacks,oppression, and ever-increasing loss of enjoyment, while substituted privacy screens havebeen encroaching rent-free on Unit 409s patio and outdoor dining area for over 20 yearsin such a manner that Unit 409 gets far less than the Plaintiff bargained for while thosewho pay less take more than double their share at the Plaintiffs expense. In 2005 theDefendant Strata further devalued Unit 409 by further altering the property with a swing-out design of patio door that ruined what was left of Unit 409s outdoor dining area andneeded repeated repairs for nearly 10 years until the Plaintiff reinstated the trouble-freeoriginal patio door system at a personal cost of more than $3,000 and then it

unreasonably interfered with any sale of Unit 409 with threats of a $200 fine every 7 daysuntil the Plaintiff signs an indemnity agreement that offloads the Defendant Stratasrepair and maintenance obligations and transfers to Unit 409 responsibility for costs ofdamage and risk caused by deliberate acts of the Defendant Strata that are uniquely unfairand detrimental to the Plaintiff and have made her life at home miserable for years.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

27/202

27

Structural Defects

98. The photo inserted below this paragraph shows a lamp that stands straight on Unit409s cement porch standing crooked in the master bedroom directly above asupporting pillar made of water soluble concrete illustrating unrepaired damage andstructural defects that are uniquely damaging to the Plaintiff.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

28/202

28

Trees

99. The photo of trees inserted below this paragraph and the mirrors that reflected them inthe living room, dining room, and hallway of Unit 409 illustrate the significance oftrees on the appearance of the property and some of the loss that the Defendant Stratacaused to the Plaintiff by destroying them negligently or maliciously creating unjustenrichment, unreasonable expense, and untold damage without the votes of approvalrequired under the Strata Property Act.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

29/202

29

Trespass

100. The photo of black mold from Unit 409 inserted below this paragraph illustrates thedamage from offset ducting in the common property impeding ventilation andmisaligned common plumbing trespassing into Unit 409, damaging the property tothe extent that the Plaintiffs ensuite shower is unfit for the purpose for which it isintended and a danger to the health of the Plaintiff, for decades.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

30/202

30

Water Damage

The photos inserted below this paragraph show warped door systems identified by theDefendant Stratas engineer as consistent with water damage and the resultant effecton Unit 409s carpet to illustrate some of the unrepaired damage from Unit 510flooding Unit 409 when the Defendant Strata is supposed to have replacement valueinsurance for water damage but persistently deprives the Plaintiff of correspondingbenefits in a particularly unfair method of operating which goes beyond negligence.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

31/202

31

Condominium Act

101.

The Plaintiff claims that since 1989 the Defendant Strata deliberately and continuallyengaged in delays to avoid obligations and responsibilities that are ongoing.

102. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata misrepresented and violated itsobligations under the Condominium Act, [RSBC 1979] Chapter 61,until it wasreplaced by the Strata Property Act, SBC 1998, c 43in or about 2000, and it hascontinued misrepresenting and violating its ongoing obligations under the new S.P.A.and amendments thereto, causing ever-increasing loss to the Plaintiff.

a) The Plaintiffs claims under the Condominium Act include, but are not limited`````````` ````````` ```````to, the following particulars.

103. With respect to the strata plan and section 3(4), the Plaintiff claims that every ownerholds their strata lot and their share in the common property subject to the interests inunit entitlements and the landscaping requirements in restrictive covenants registeredin the Land Title Office, including without limit the landscaping that the Plaintiff paidfor with the purchase of Unit 409 and subsequent strata fees which the DefendantStrata pre-emptively destroyed.

104. With respect to equity and section 4 entitlements, the Plaintiff claims that theDefendant Strata has persistently acted contrary to the Plaintiffs ongoingcontributions to common expenses and deprived the Plaintiff of repairs and

maintenance and use of and access to common property in proportion to Unit 409sunit entitlement such that the Plaintiff has been getting much less than bargained forand others have been getting far more than their share with ever-growing loss andunfairness to the Plaintiff which becomes increasingly significant over the years.

105. With respect to section 6 boundaries, the Plaintiff claims that the boundaries of stratalots are registered in the Land Title Office as shown on the strata plan drawings,

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

32/202

32

indefeasible title, and unit entitlement formulas, all of which distinguishes strata lotboundaries from any common boundaries that were misaligned as built.

106. With respect to section 12 common property, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant

Strata oppressively violated the Plaintiffs rights to use and access common propertyand benefit from common assets of the strata corporation including limited commonproperty and shared landscaping in shares proportional to the unit entitlement of theirstrata lot.

107. With respect to section 13, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is responsiblefor ever-increasing damage from continually complained of bylaw violations,including acts and omissions of original owners and all of their successors.

108. The Plaintiff claims that pursuant to section 28 the Plaintiff had a legitimateexpectation that the strata bylaws are binding on the owners and strata corporationboth to the same extent and the Plaintiff relied on the bylaws as if they were signed

and sealed by the strata corporation and each owner.

109. The Plaintiff claims that strata bylaws effectively create covenants on the part of thestrata corporation with each owner and on the part of each owner with every otherowner and with the corporation to observe and perform their provisions and that theDefendant Strata persistently violated and failed to comply with or enforce particularbylaws to the detriment of the Plaintiff.

110. The Plaintiff claims that contrary to section 34 the Defendant Strata persistently failedin its ongoing obligation to keep the common plumbing and vents in a state ofserviceable repair and to properly maintain the trees and landscaping of the strata

corporation, thereby causing ever-increasing loss to the Plaintiff arising fromstructural defects and unauthorized destruction of trees and landscaping.

111. The Plaintiff claims that contrary to section 34 the strata corporation neverestablished a fund sufficient to discharge its obligations or pay unusual expenses,thereby causing ever-increasing loss to the Plaintiff.

112. With respect to section 35, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata continuallyfailed to use the contingency reserve fund to repair defectively installed pipes, chutes,ducts or other facilities for the passage or provision of water, sewage, drainage, andother services contained within a wall of a building shown on the strata plan, where

the centre of the wall forms the common boundary of a strata lot (Unit 409) withanother strata lot (Unit 411).

113. The Plaintiff claims that the boundaries of the strata lot are defined and illustrated in adrawing on the strata plan which is distinguished as strata lot number 25.

114. The Plaintiff claims that with reference to the common boundary between Unit 409and Unit 411 an ensuite shower wall containing common plumbing is trespassing on

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

33/202

33

the Plaintiffs strata lot resulting in uncharacteristic recurrent mold which arises outof use of Unit 409s ensuite shower.

115. The Plaintiff claims that with reference to the common boundary between Unit 409

and Unit 510 or the common property a duct that goes from Unit 409s ensuite ceilingthrough Unit 510s roof for the provision of air for Unit 409s bathroom fan ismisaligned in a manner that obstructs airflow and renders the duct and fan in thePlaintiffs strata lot unfit for effective ventilation or the purpose for which they areintended, resulting in uncharacteristic recurrent mold which arises out of use of Unit409s ensuite shower.

116. The Plaintiff claims that with reference to the common boundary between the floor ofthe strata lot and the common property below, the flooring substrate is damaged andthe supporting pillar in the garage is defective resulting in sinking floors in Unit 409,and the Defendant Strata is persistently failing to repair the structure of the building.

117.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata failed in its duty to be responsible forthe enforcement of the strata bylaws, the control, management and administration ofthe common property, common facilities and the assets of the strata corporation, andall ancillary rights and obligations reasonably necessary to make easements effectiveenough to preserve the property, its service, and the health and safety of the Plaintiff.

118. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant Strata misrepresented its responsibilityto repair and maintain strata property as mandated by the Condominium Act andstrata bylaws and unfairly denied or offloaded its obligations onto the Plaintiff,including its obligation to comply with and enforce the strata bylaws.

119.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has an ongoing responsibility forcertain work in respect to the Plaintiffs strata lot, including any work to maintaincommon plumbing in serviceable condition to avoid creating property damage or ahealth hazard from chronic mildew, and any work to repair the structure of thebuilding, including misaligned walls between strata lots and air vents and ductsthrough ceilings and the strata lot above as well as sinking flooring substrate andsupporting pillars below the strata lot, and is persistently shirking it.

Strata Property Act

120. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata and its representatives make fallaciousmisrepresentations that depict the Strata Property Act, SBC 1998, c 43 andamendments thereto (the Act or S.P.A.) as legislative guidelines instead of thelaw of the land and betray the Plaintiffs trust in the law and bring disrepute toofficers of the court.

121. Particulars are set out elsewhere in this Notice of Civil Claim and will be furtherrepeated as needed prior to trial..

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

34/202

34

122. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata conducts itself in ways that areinconsistent with the following sections of the Strata Property Act:

Part 1 Section 1

s.1 Definitions and Interpretation

123. The Plaintiff claims that contrary to Section 1 the Defendant Strata has misinterpretedor ignored definitions in the Strata Property Act and is making unfairmisrepresentations, most of which support unjust enrichment of members of council.

124. Particulars include, but are not limited to:

a) redefining common expense that strata fees are paid to cover and offloadingthem as the responsibility of individual owners in minority sections

b)

misrepresenting shared common property as limited common property toowners and police for the unjust enrichment of members of council

c) diverting contingency reserve fund money to fallacious emergencies,insidiously contrived after years of destruction and delays

d) registering a 3/4 vote painting bylaw in the LTO with not a single vote cast

e) routinely reporting a unanimous or majority vote with no vote cast infavour, or at all (and counting the Plaintiff as voting in favour when thePlaintiff abstains in protest from voting in any way at all)

f)

ignoring strata plan boundaries of a strata lot in regard to plumbingtrespassing in 409s ensuite

g) corrupting unit entitlement determinations of a strata lots proportionateshares of common property and common expenses, with rent-free beneficialtransfers of property to the privileged and unfair offloads of expenses ontoowners in the exploited minority section.

Part 2 The Strata Corporation Sections 2 to 4

s.3 Manage and maintain common property

125.

The Plaintiff claims that contrary to Section 3 the Defendant Strata fails to operatewithin restrictions created by the Act as set out in the following particulars.

126. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is failing to manage and maintain thecommon property and common assets of the strata corporation in good faith, and:

a) is responsible for significant changes in the use and appearance of commonproperty without 75% approval, providing unobstructed panoramic views and

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

35/202

35

rent-free extra decking for a minority at the expense of others, mostparticularly the Plaintiff;

b) acts unfairly, transferring use and benefit and offloading expenses to avoid

user fees for the unjust enrichment of some at the expense of the innocent andless privileged and the strata corporation as a whole;

c) destroyed landscaping and patios with a replacement value estimated in themillions; leaving the common property in a horrific shambles, looking like aderelict war zone for approximately 5 years;

d) disregards restrictive covenants, tree and slope protection concerns,geotechnical issues, privacy, noise, heat, esthetics, cost, fairness, and the lawof the land contrary to the best interests of all owners;

e) cost untold extra expense from erosion and loss when the buildings sank,

including:

1. approximately $27,000 in structural repairs to Unit 407,

2. undisclosed thousands shoring up the foundation of Unit 409,

3. undisclosed repair expenses for misaligned windows and doors,including sliders, swing doors, and garage doors, and crackedwalls and driveway repairs offloaded onto individuals,

4. tens or hundreds of thousands in other repairs to buildings,

underground services, pavement, sink holes, and separatingfoundations.

f) this is causing all kinds of extra expense and increases in strata fees that faroutpace inflation, much of it undisclosed.

127. On September 6, 2006, the Defendant Strata advised a meeting of owners that itlacked the money to cover its maintenance obligations, and this continues, mostrecently with the Defendant Stratas claims in the minutes of May 22, 2014 that it stilldoes not have the funds to meet its repair and maintenance obligations.

128. The Plaintiff claims that the funding shortfall is due to the Defendant Strata diverting

strata funds to destroying landscaping and patios to open up views and avoid user feeswhile neglecting its repair and maintenance obligations and that the Defendant Strata:

a) disregarded the strata corporations geotechnical history of sinking buildingsand failed to reinstate trees pursuant to the terms of the building enveloperepair contract

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

36/202

36

b) allowed Al MacLeod and Georgia Title to pre-emptively remove valuablemature trees around Unit 409 and elsewhere, without a 75% vote, contrary tobylaws, restrictive covenants, the building envelope contract, and section 71of the Strata Property Act

c) contrary to the Strata Property Act, diverted special levy funds to demolishand reconstruct derelict extra decking that was added illegally contrary tovotes, contracts, bylaws, and directions from the owners

d) littered the common property with dismantled decks for years and left itlooking like a war zone with bare dirt, virulent weeds, and sinking buildingsfrom about 2004 to 2010

e) continually avoids disclosing the true costs and fails to act reasonably toutilize the Defendant Stratas directors and officers liability insurance

f)

tampers with, destroys, and denies access to strata records

g) shifts responsibility for expenses, forcing deprived owners to subsidize theprivileged

h) repeatedly neglects repairs and maintenance and destroys landscaping atundue expense

i) creates divisions between units with strata plan patios and balconies contraryto fairness and unit entitlement.

129.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata pre-emptively and unfairly changed theshared use and appearance of common property registered on the strata plan and inthe landscape designs existing pursuant to the requirements of binding restrictivecovenant that run with the land

130. The Plaintiff claims that they get far less than they bargained for and pay far morethan others who take far more than their share.

131. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant Strata:

a) denies access to strata records under the S.P.A.,

b)

hides historical damage and costs attributable to geotechnical issues,

c) deprives the Plaintiff of use and enjoyment of common property,

d) deprives the Plaintiff of repairs and maintenance,

e) refuses to impose user fees to cover the extra costs attributable to those usingcommon property for their own exclusive benefit at the expense of others,

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

37/202

37

f) offloads the extra cost from the strata corporations unfair acts onto thevictims,

g) spends strata fees providing extra decking and unobstructed panoramic views

to those who pay less and take more, and

h) discredits, defames, and vilifies the Plaintiff.

s.4 Functions through council

132. Contrary to section 4 governance, the Defendant Strata fails to exercise the powersand perform the duties of the strata corporation through council, routinely allowingacts and decisions by unidentified persons without notice or disclosure in the minutesand the Plaintiff is deprived of information and protections that owners are entitled toand as a result incurs hardship, loss, stress and abuse.

Part 4 Strata Governance Sections 25-65

s.26 Council must enforce bylaws

133. Contrary to Section 26, the Defendant Strata is failing to enforce strata bylaws; forexample, contrary to bylaw 4 the Defendant Strata is failing to remedy a nuisance thathas been ongoing since the early 1990s:

a) continually violating directions from council, strata bylaws, city tree cuttingbylaws, restrictive covenants, geotechnical requirements, and the interests ofothers, including the Plaintiff, by allowing an owner to pre-emptively removea vine maple tree without authority in or about the early 1990s

b) promoting corruption and pre-emptive wrongs in the strata corporation byfailing to reinstate the tree, allowing the tortfeasors to profit from their ownwrongs and double the size of their strata lots patio contrary to councilsdirection and the Plaintiffs continual complaints of loss, increased risk ofliability, and significant unfairness;

c) effectively rewarding the tortfeasors and subsequent owners of Unit 407 withthe privilege of exclusive use and benefit of twice their unit entitlement sharein common property rent-free at the expense of other owners and particularlythe Plaintiff instead of imposing fines and user fees;

d) exposing the windows of Units 409 and 508 to clear and direct views all theway through both strata lots straight into each of the ensuites, unfairlyreducing the Plaintiffs use and enjoyment and value of the property that thePlaintiff purchased;

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

38/202

38

e) trespassing on the Plaintiffs strata plan patio with trellis planters encroachingon its seating area to provide privacy between unit windows in place of thevine maple tree;

f)

interfering with the Plaintiffs access to and use and enjoyment of commonproperty as set out in the strata plan that the Plaintiff relied on at the time ofpurchase;

g) creating over 20 years of loss and cost, increasing stress, and ongoing stratastrife.

s.27 Direction of owners

134. SECTION 27, the Defendant Strata is failing to comply with the direction passed by amajority vote of owners at the 2006 annual general meeting to restrict the council inits exercise of powers to avoid imposing user fees for extra decks and instead of

complying with law and the direction of owners the Defendant Strata acted in aconflict of interest and diverted special levy funds to demolish and reconstruct extradecks that were added to the common property illegally, without votes, permits,authority, or funding.

s.28 Eligibility for council

135. The Defendant Strata violated section 28 when it permitted Al MacLeod to obstructthe Plaintiffs offer to serve on council when she was eligible and transferred thestrata records to Mr. MacLeod instead of to the new strata secretary or any member ofcouncil when Mr. MacLeod was not a member of the strata council.

s.31 Honesty, good faith, best interests, care

136. Contrary to section 31, the Defendant Strata puts owners on council who fail to acthonestly in good faith with a view to the best interests of the strata corporation andfail to exercise the care, diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person inexercising the powers and performing the duties of the strata corporation. Particularsinclude, but are not limited to, the following:

a) failing to report decisions and depriving the Plaintiff of access to stratarecords in disregard of facts and law,

b)

publishing, broadcasting, and repeatedly sending the Plaintiff copies of, mostrecently in 2013, a disparaging 2007 letter from Adrienne Murray containingdamaging and defamatory misrepresentations and accusations instead ofhonouring its statutory obligations to the Plaintiff,

c) depriving Unit 409 of landscaping, fertilizer, pest control, trees and groundcover,

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

39/202

39

d) pre-emptively destroying landscaping and removing mature trees without 75%approval, without need, in full knowledge of the detriment and trauma to thePlaintiff,

e)

pre-emptively destroying and removing thousands of plants, including bushesand ground cover and hundreds of trees, leaving barren dirt and weeds for 5years, with loss and expense beyond belief

f) persistently failing to obtain a geotechnical report or consider restrictivecovenants and evidence of sinking

g) transferring strata responsibility for repairs and maintenance onto owners whopay strata fees for fundamental benefits that the Plaintiff was deprived of toprovide expensive new views and extra decking to others,

h) imposing unreasonable delays, disrespectful treatment, and foreseeable

psychological trauma and unfair expense on the Plaintiff,

i) diverting special levy funds and persistently failing to impose reasonable userfees

j) failing to review material facts and weigh each alternative carefully with anappropriate degree of prudence and diligence prior to making decisions orexercising their vote.

k) Members of council repeatedly perpetuate unfair treatment when they couldeasily choose a course of action more fair and reasonable in the

circumstances.

l) A protracted period of unfair acts and decisions have caused damage and lossincluding without limit persistent stress, exhaustion, and injury to the Plaintiff.

m) Further particulars of oppression, lack of good faith, and conflicts of interestby agents of the Defendant Strata are set out in the Plaintiffs claims againstnamed individuals.

s.32 Disclosure, abstention, conflict

137. SECTION 32, the Defendant Strata is failing to require disclosure of conflicts of

interest or abstention from voting and attendance during discussion of matters ofinterest to council members acting in a conflict. Particulars of historical conflictsinclude extra decking and user responsibilities, trees and views, parking, dogs, realestate commissions, and bylaws that provoke sales.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

40/202

40

S.33 Accountability

138. SECTION 33, the Defendant Strata allowed council members with an interest intransactions to act, and cause damage to the Plaintiff, without full disclosure or

reclusion of that council members vote and failed to ratify the nature and extent ofthe council member's interest by a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote at an annual orspecial general meeting.

139. The Plaintiff claims in particular and without limit that Al MacLeod acted morecorruptly than honestly when without a vote he had valuable mature trees cut down infront of the Unit 409 and that the Defendant Strata was negligent in failing tocommence proceedings to pursue compensation for the loss and expense attributableto those who had strata corporation landscaping destroyed and trees cut downcontrary to the strata bylaws and section 71.

140. The Plaintiff claims that unreasonably costly destruction, conflicts of interest, unjust

enrichment, misrepresentations, vandalism, malice and oppression are attributable toopening views, accommodation of extra decking, and retaliation for complainingabout unfairness and challenging misconduct in the strata agency industry.

s.34 Written decision within one week after a hearing

141. SECTION 34, the Defendant Strata deprived the Plaintiff of written decisions on theissues within one week after a council meeting hearing, or at all.

142. Particulars include the meetings held on November 30, 2006 and April 2007 and thisNotice of Civil Claim.

s.35 Prepare and retain copies of strata records

143. SECTION 35, the Defendant Strata is failing to prepare and retain copies of stratarecords, thereby misinforming purchasers of strata lots, and deleted material records,misrepresented email, correspondence, privacy, facts and law to the detriment of thePlaintiff.

s.36 Records and copies

144. SECTION 36, the Defendant Strata is failing to make the records and documentsreferred to in section 35 available to the Plaintiff and presumably to others also,

including prospective purchasers of strata lots, as required, or at all.

145. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata is avoiding production of strata recordsby claiming privacy rights and claiming that requests are harassment, therebyconcealing facts that reveal evidence of corrupt governance, unrepaired damage,unmet strata obligations, and potential liabilities.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

41/202

41

146. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Strata has a history of wrongfullywithholding, tampering with, manipulating, deleting and denying access to stratarecords, including insurance policies, minutes, contracts, correspondence, facts andinformation, depriving the Plaintiff and others, including the Defendant Stratas

professional advisors, of material evidence or factual data and the opportunity tomake reasonably informed decisions to avoid or mitigate undue harm.

s.40 AGMs no later than 2 months after FYE

147. SECTION 40, the Defendant Strata routinely fails to hold annual general meetings nolater than 2 months after the strata corporations fiscal year end and discredits thePlaintiff when she points out the defect or complains about impact.

s.59 Copies in a requested Information Certificate

148. SECTION 59, the Defendant Strata failed to give the Plaintiff information, disclosure,

and copies as required in requested Information Certificates.

s.61 Notice given by strata corporation

149. SECTION 61, the Defendant Strata violates subsection (3) by failing to allow 4 daysfor deemed delivery of AGM notice after it is mailed, put through the mail slot, faxedor emailed, and damaged the credibility of the Plaintiff to the voting owners at acrucial point in time by falsely claiming that the notice for the AGM held on April 8,2014 was in order when the Plaintiff pointed out the error.

Part 5 Property - Sections 66 to 90

s.66 Share equal to unit entitlement

150. SECTION 66, the Defendant Strata is depriving the Plaintiff of shared use and benefitof common property equal to, or even proportionate to, unit entitlement ownership, orfair and reasonable enjoyment proportionate to their strata fees; particulars include,but are not limited to the Defendant Strata:

a) effectively allowing others to cut down trees thereby providing forunobstructed panoramic views and extra decks added to the common propertyfor the benefit of tortfeasors in breach of city and strata bylaws to thesignificantly unfair detriment of the Plaintiff;

b)

unreasonably withholding approval, for over 25 years, of the Plaintiffs manyrequests for nuisance remedies to restore equitable sharing of commonproperty;

c) significantly depriving the Plaintiff of access to and use and benefit ofcommon property that the Plaintiff pays more for and get less use and benefitof than others who pay less and take more, a great deal more;

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

42/202

42

d) unreasonably ignoring and refusing approval of the Plaintiffs variousproposed remedies made over 25 years to reinstate either the original Mapleprivacy screen or the dining space taken up on Unit 409s patio by trellisplanters encroaching on the Plaintiffs limited common property in place of a

maple tree the landscape architect placed on the common property betweenthe windows of the buildings which was cut down with impunity in breach ofcity and strata bylaws;

e) replacing Unit 409s original trouble-free space-saving swing-in style of patiodoor with a defective swing-out design that kept sticking and had to berepeatedly ground down, with locks that broke, and handles that repeatedlyloosened, and foreseeably and uniquely deprived the Plaintiff of use of Unit409s patio and outdoor dining space, without compensation;

f) ignoring and refusing approval for over 10 years of the Plaintiffs requests fora variety of proposed remedies to reinstate the Plaintiffs original use andenjoyment and right to exclusive benefit of the space on Unit 409s strata planpatio and proportionate enjoyment of the common property;

g) effectively creating repair and maintenance divisions between units with strataplan patios and units with balconies, ignoring the Defendant Stratas duty torepair and maintain the Plaintiffs strata plan patio for approximately 25 yearsand spending the Plaintiffs strata fees to repair and maintain balconies anddemolish and reconstruct extra decks for those same owners who paid up to25% less than the Plaintiff but took and cost up to 2 or 3 times more at thePlaintiffs expense;

h)

imposing unique and significant hardship on the Plaintiff with an underhandedeffective annual increase in costs to the Plaintiff amounting to up to 20% overthe prescribed unit entitlement formula for proportionate sharing of commonproperty and repairs and maintenance to cover painting inferior wood that theDefendant Strata unscrupulously installed and damaged through neglect alongwith large fields of extremely high maintenance wooden lattice, which itreplaced Unit 409s low maintenance and much higher quality original strataplan patio and landscaping with while providing upgraded balconies and fullyfunded maintenance to those with extra decks built at the Plaintiffs expense;

i) failing to paint the new construction while it deteriorated with no maintenance

for years until it now requires annual painting and costs well over 10 times themaintenance of the Plaintiffs original patio;

j) offloading the responsibility for repairing the damage and paying the ongoingextra costs from the Defendant Strata onto the Plaintiff;

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

43/202

43

k) depriving the Plaintiff of legal rights and quiet enjoyment with damaging loss,oppression, trespass, and delay along with retaliation, defamation and falseaccusations of harassment and malice for complaining.

151.

The Plaintiff claims to own an undivided proportionate interest in the commonproperty as tenants in common and says that the Defendant Strata abuses the wordsundivided and proportionate in an ambiguous manner that effectively divides sharedproperty and grants disproportionate use, access, and possession to individuals for theunjust enrichment of members of council to the detriment of the Plaintiff who paysmore and get less than half as much benefit as more privileged individuals.

152. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Stratas retaliation against the Plaintiff forcomplaining is more abusive than remedial, and it is significantly unfair for theDefendant Strata to deprive the Plaintiff of benefits proportionate to the repairs andmaintenance, patio extensions, and enjoyable views it created and perpetuates for thebenefit of other unit holders using the Plaintiffs strata fees.

153. The Plaintiff claims that designations of common property for the exclusive use ofcertain unit holders without appropriate user fees is contrary to their proportionateinterest as tenants in common, whether defacto or on title, and significantly unfair, aconflict of interest, and inconsistent with prima facie unit entitlement rights andprinciples of proportionate partition.

154. The Plaintiff claims that all of this is significantly unfair and good consciencerequires a remedy to unjust enrichment that restores integrity to the Defendant Strata.

155. The Plaintiff further claims that the imposition of user fees based on a constructive

trust formula is required to do justice between unit holders whose beneficial use ofcommon property and strata fees has been inconsistent with proportionate unitentitlement during years of unconscionable unfairness and calculated confusion.

s.68 Strata lot boundaries on strata plan

156. The Plaintiff claims that pursuant to Sections 1, 31, 68,69, and 72, the DefendantStrata has an ongoing duty to repair the structure of the building in accordance withthe strata lot boundaries shown on the strata plan and building blueprints.

157. The Plaintiff claims that shared pipes are trespassing into the boundaries of Plaintiffsstrata lot with an ascertainable definable infringement of approximately 1.5 x40x88

cubic inches, causing damage and loss to the Plaintiff.

158. The Plaintiff claims that mold issues and legal restrictions on the Plaintiffs right toalter common property impose a further duty on the Defendant Strata to repair thestructure of the building to correct the misaligned roof venting and misaligned pipesand flatten the wall between the ensuites of Units 409 and 411 to conform with properstrata lot boundaries.

8/10/2019 S165066 Filed Nocc

44/202

44

159. The Plaintiff claims they have lost years of use of their ensuite shower due to healthhazards associated with chronic black mold or mildew arising out of the defectivealignment of pipes and offset ducts that inhibit airflow making the air vents andshower system unfit for the purpose for which they are intended.

s.69 Implied easements

160. SECTION 69, the Defendant Strata fails to enforce implied easements to repair thestructure of the building to end unfair trespass into the Plaintiffs ensuite and remedyan ongoing source of repeatedly failed seals and chronic mould arising out ofdefective transitions between Unit 409s overcrowded shower wall and tub.

s.71 Significant changes in use and appearance of common property

161. The Plaintiff claims that contrary to Section 71 the Defendant Strata continually actspre-emptively causing and perpetuating damage and loss attributable to significant

changes in the use and appearance of common property without approval as required,or at all, and the ultimate damage attributable to the loss of landscaping and removalof hundreds of mature trees along with the cost of extra decking equates to millions ofdollars.

s.72 Repair and maintain common property and structure of strata lo