A BC Tribunal has ruled that a Kamloops strata acted \u201csignificantly unfairly\u201d after it ordered a condo to remove its enclosed balcony, 25 years after it had given the resident permission to build it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to a Feb. 24 BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, Kamloops condo owner Nicole Marie Bremner enclosed the balcony at her home on Summit Drive more than two decades ago and matched the colour of the trim board with the building’s siding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, almost 25 years after getting permission from the strata to enclose two of her balconies, Strata Plan KAS815 changed its mind and ordered that she get the structures removed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bremner fought back, taking the strata to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal and while the strata pushed back, she won.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI find the strata\u2019s decision to remove the balcony enclosure was significantly unfair because it has not shown it had a good reason to do so,” the Tribunal ruled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The decision says Bremner started the work to enclose the balcony in 2002, and didn\u2019t obtain permission from the strata, but later that year it was granted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Everything appeared to have been fine until 2019, when the condo owners voted to remove all balcony enclosures and restore the balconies at the strata\u2019s expense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nothing happened for a few years, but in 2022, the strata began asking those who enclosed their balconies to provide permits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bremner got an electrical and structural engineering report saying everything was above board.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, condo owners voted unanimously to have the enclosed balconies removed and agreed to spend $2.6-million renovate the building\u2019s exterior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bremner argued she\u2019d been granted permission back in 2002.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The strata argued an array of reasons why Bremner had to remove her balcony enclosure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In one argument, the Strata said the structure enclosed the unit\u2019s habitable area by more than 10%, which required unanimous approval from the owners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the Tribunal ruled basic math showed that this wasn\u2019t true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It’s next reason for getting rid of the structure was that it was more than a basic enclosure and a \u201chabitable space\u201d which exceeded the scope of its original approval, but the Tribunal didn\u2019t buy it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The strata also argued the enclosure violated the BC Building Code, however, it failed to present any evidence for this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Its next card was that the structure had to be removed because it was unpermitted. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Strata presented a 2022 email from the city, but the Tribunal said it had provided no context\u00a0for the email.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe strata asserting that the balcony enclosure must be removed because it is unpermitted (but)\u2026 provided no direct evidence from the municipality or any other persuasive evidence,\u201d the Tribunal ruled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It also argued the enclosure was a \u201csignificant change in the use or appearance,\u201d but the Tribunal ruled that photographic evidence showed otherwise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The strata kept on with its arguments saying the enclosure would interfere and cause issues during the upcoming building renovation, but even the renovation company doing the work said it wouldn\u2019t be an issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Finally, the Tribunal struck down all of the Strata\u2019s arguments and ruled that it was being \u201csignificantly unfair.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ultimately, Bremner was allowed to keep her enclosed balconies, and the strata was likely left with hefty legal bills.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Strata had originally approved the change 25 years ago, but then changed it’s mind.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":292,"featured_media":7845,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"guid":"","source":"","byline":"","published":"","updated":"","_infotelid":"","_prepressid":"","_multisite_post_sync":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1680,541,543],"tags":[],"region":[322,323,324,325],"class_list":["post-7844","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-featured","category-local","category-topnews","region-kamloops","region-kelowna","region-penticton","region-vernon"],"blocksy_meta":[],"parsely":{"version":"1.1.0","canonical_url":"https:\/\/infonews.ca\/inhome\/news\/7844\/kamloops-condo-owner-fights-back-after-strata-orders-enclosed-balcony-removed\/","smart_links":{"inbound":0,"outbound":0},"traffic_boost_suggestions_count":0,"meta":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","headline":"Kamloops condo owner fights back after strata orders enclosed balcony removed","url":"http:\/\/infonews.ca\/inhome\/news\/7844\/kamloops-condo-owner-fights-back-after-strata-orders-enclosed-balcony-removed\/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/infonews.ca\/inhome\/news\/7844\/kamloops-condo-owner-fights-back-after-strata-orders-enclosed-balcony-removed\/"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/infonews.ca\/inhome\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/inhome-Screenshot-2026-02-27-at-11.39.49-AM.png?w=150&h=150&crop=1","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https:\/\/infonews.ca\/inhome\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/inhome-Screenshot-2026-02-27-at-11.39.49-AM.png"},"articleSection":"Featured","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Ben Bulmer"}],"creator":["Ben Bulmer"],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"iNhome","logo":""},"keywords":[],"dateCreated":"2026-03-01T12:00:00Z","datePublished":"2026-03-01T12:00:00Z","dateModified":"2026-03-01T12:00:00Z"},"rendered":"