Tribunal orders B.C. strata to scrap fixed EV-charging fee

A strata complex in White Rock, B.C., has been instructed to cease charging residents for the use of electric vehicle (EV) chargers after a dispute over the fees.

The decision came after resident John Curtis filed a claim with the Civil Resolution Tribunal, arguing that the strata corporation at Miramar Village, located at 1425 Johnston Rd., was overcharging him for EV charging. Curtis contended that the $35 monthly fee did not reflect his actual electricity usage and requested that his charge be lowered to $14 per month, along with reimbursement for the overpayment.

In a ruling released on Thursday, the tribunal concluded that the strata had not demonstrated that the fee was reasonable and should stop enforcing it. Although the tribunal acknowledged the strata's right to charge for services under the Strata Property Regulation (SPR), it found no evidence explaining how the $35 fee was determined.

"There was no evidence presented regarding relevant factors, such as average usage, prevailing market rates, or the costs incurred for EV charging," the tribunal noted in its decision.

While Curtis had the responsibility to prove his claim, the tribunal stated that since the strata was imposing the fee, it carried the burden of proving its reasonableness. As a result, the strata was ordered to reimburse Curtis $280 for EV charging fees paid from February to September, as well as tribunal fees and interest.

Proposal for Individualized Fees

The dispute arose after the strata passed a bylaw at its 2023 annual general meeting, setting a $35 monthly fee for any resident using an EV charger in their parking spot. Curtis, however, calculated that his monthly electricity consumption averaged $13.71 based on his annual driving of 6,000 kilometres.

He proposed that the strata charge individualized fees based on each resident’s power consumption, arguing this would be feasible, given there were only around 10 EV charger users in the complex.

The tribunal acknowledged that Curtis’s calculations were accurate and that the strata did not dispute them. However, the strata argued that it was not practical to impose user fees based on actual consumption and maintained that a flat rate for all owners was the most suitable approach. The tribunal accepted this argument, noting that the SPR allows strata corporations to charge both fixed and consumption-based fees.

Nonetheless, the tribunal found that the minutes from the meeting where the $35 fee was approved did not provide any explanation or justification for the figure. Without further evidence to support the fee’s reasonableness, the tribunal concluded that the strata had not established the $35 charge as fair in the given circumstances.