British Columbia

We have found 301 items matching your search query.

British Columbia

Jurisdiction:

Kabatoff v. Strata Corp. NW 2767 (British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal)

Second hand smoke MAY give grounds for human rights complaint against strata corporation
Jurisdiction:

Srata Plan NW971 v. Daniels (British Columbia Supreme Court)

Strata corporation entitled to sell strata lots of owner in default
Jurisdiction:

Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada (Supreme Court of Canada - Leave to Appeal Granted) (August 27, 2009)

Question as to insurers duty to defend under commercial general liability policies. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada granted
Jurisdiction:

Gordon v. AWM-Alliance and the Owners, Strata Plan BCS 1461 (British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal)

No discrimination in termination of strata corporation caretaker
Jurisdiction:

Dwane v. Bastion Coast Homes Ltd. (Supreme Court of British Columbia)

Purchaser did not receive proper disclosure, therefore entitled to rescind purchase agreement
Jurisdiction:

Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada (British Columbia Court of Appeal)

Insurer not having duty to defend under commercial general liability policies
Jurisdiction:

Bigleaf Ventures Ltd. v. Marine Drive Properties Ltd. (British Columbia Supreme Court)

Developer’s disclosure statement contained material fact that was false or misleading.
Jurisdiction:

Strata Plan LMS 3904 v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. (British Columbia Supreme Court)

23/09/13 – Jurisdiction British Columbia Part 27 published on 01/08/09 Court considers the following questions: How many occurrences? How many deductibles? In 2005, the strata corporation discovered that about one-third of the units were being used for marijuana grow-operations.  Damage to the property (as a result of the grow-ops) was close to $500,000.  The corporation’s insurance provided coverage for this type of loss, but was subject to a $50,000 deductible for each occurrence.  The insurer took the position that each grow-op, in each unit, was a separate occurrence, triggering a separate deductible in each case.  The insurer said: “Because a separate deductible applies to each apartment that was the location of a grow-op, and the repair [cost] in respect of each apartment is less than the deductible, the insurers’ position is that there is no indemnity due under the policy.” The strata corporation asserted that all of the grow-ops were part of one overall operat
Jurisdiction:

Cambridge Plumbing Systems Ltd. v. Owners, Strata Plan VR 1632 (British Columbia Supreme Court)

Contractor claims against strata corporation for damages due to alleged improper tendering process. Claim dismissed.
Jurisdiction:

Binichakis v. Smitherman (British Columbia Provincial Court)

Owners claim for unjust enrichment dismissed.
Jurisdiction:

McMillan v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (Supreme Court of Canada)

Application for leave to appeal dismissed by Supreme Court of Canada. No basis for claim against CMHC.
Jurisdiction:

Azura Management (Kelowna) Corp. v. Strata Plan KAS 2428 (British Columbia Supreme Court)

No oppression. Procedural irregularities generally did not merit Court intervention