It's a crazy making experience for an innocent victim relying on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, to try to defend themselves against an irresponsible, unconscionable relay team who misrepresents facts and acts in contravention of the law with impunity. It's even more traumatic when that team is perversely supported by systemic deference from professionals, insurers, lawyers, and worst of all, the police and judges.
After decades of relentless oppression and overwhelming injustice, one of 3 things seems to happen. 1) the victim is defeated by frustration and exhaustion, 2) hysteria takes over and produces a crazy fool 3) festering rage triggers a killing rampage. What seldom, if ever, happens is any effective deterrent or compensation to make the victim whole again.
To a person who trusted in statutory promises, and relied on the law for protection, the barriers that deny access to justice are traumatic shocks, to say the least.
It's not a level playing field. The law as written sounds protective, but in application it is discrimination, elitism, and oppression based on power and money protecting the Plutocracy. Legal fiction, litigation privilege, and limitation periods are employed to hide the truth and obstruct justice. At least, that's been my experience.
From what I've seen the biggest problem with administrative law is legislation that says something like, "Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this Act or to the regulations." Section 5 of said Act says, "A person who contravenes an enactment by doing an act that it forbids,
or omitting to do an act that it requires to be done, commits an offence
against the enactment."
Too many people who are responsible for enforcement of governing enactments (including members of strata councils, property management companies, lawyers, the Law Society, judges, and the police force) are bringing the law into disrepute by causing foreseeable harm to others, or profiting from their own wrongs, without being held accountable.
Too many are acting in inherent conflicts of interest like it's an occupational requirement to deceive people and steal their time and well being, as if the laws and moral imperatives that apply to their victims don't apply them or their psychopathic methods of operating in an adversarial system.
Too many lawyers are charging the vulnerable top dollar for shoddy service, as shown by CBC investigators for the Fifth Estate in "Betrayal of Trust" broadcast on February 17, 2017.
I think that the adversarial system needs to be balanced with a duty of care that is in harmony with truth, law, and justice. As it is, lawyers act the opposite and claim to be magically exempt from owing anyone but their clients a duty of care. Limitation periods are strategically exploited by rogues to escape liability for wrong doing. The notion of privilege is employed to hide evidence of the truth. Police and the judiciary exercise power recklessly, without responsibility. Needless costs corrupt the law and obstruct justice. No family could ever operate that way, without becoming just as dysfunctional.
Legal fiction is expeditious for courts, but skips over discomforting facts. Some examples include:
Full Capacity
The Strata Property Act purports to provide a strata corporation with the "full capacity of a natural person." That is legal fiction. It's obvious that an artificial person doesn't have the capacity of a natural person to feel, go to jail, or die, yet the folly of equating artificial capacity with natural is too seldom recognized by the courts. It's perverse.
A strata corporation doesn't have the capacity to feel pain, die of old age, have memories, conscience, go to jail, go hungry, lie awake at night, be sickened by abuse, or have feelings of any kind at all. No artificial being has a capacity for empathy and conscience, and that complete lack in a natural person is the characteristic of a psychopath. In a gang it's called a mob, in a strata it's called democracy, and in a company it's called "limited liability" or hiding behind the "corporate veil." http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/
Majority Rule
Courts purport that majority rules and government of the strata community is democratic. That is legal fiction. It is obvious that a majority is not an individual, nor is a council of 3 to 7 out of 68 owners. What is NOT obvious is that if a general quorum is a third, and they ALL cast a vote, 11 of 68 owners are called a "majority." What is SHOCKING is that in Sunridge Estates ZERO owners casting a vote is held out to be a majority, 75%, or unanimous approval - DESPITE objections. Not a single vote was cast as required by legislation, they were just assumed by the chair who merely asked who's opposed when nobody knew what was happening. Making it worse, when votes ARE cast, multiple proxies repeatedly collected by power mongers for their own interests interfere with the true majority of those who care enough to attend a meeting.
Ballot Box
Courts defer to those governing. The recourse of the owners who are dissatisfied with the conduct of the council is at the ballot box, so they say, but that is legal fiction. An annual general meeting at Sunridge Estates omits the ballot box, nominations, votes, and irregularities in the minutes - DESPITE objections. It's corruption that I'm afraid runs rampant throughout BC's strata agency industry, which it couldn't do without systemic deference by the courts.
Some examples of Privilege include:
Inherent conflicts of interest
Conflict is fundamental to legal professionals being able to make a living. Easily avoidable conflict in strata law is systemic and speaks for itself.
Example #1. Section 121 of the Strata Property Act provides that with the exception of age and rental restrictions a bylaw is not enforceable to the extent that it prohibits or "restricts" the right of an owner to "freely" sell. Standard Bylaw 3(1) in the Act imposes bona fide prohibitions on causing unreasonable nuisance, noise, or interference with use and enjoyment of property. Since section 121 is paramount over strata bylaws it can't be reasonably maintained that the Legislature did not contemplate conflict arising out of redundant or conflicting restrictions in the Standard Bylaws for others less privileged.
I find it hard to imagine that highly privileged judges would find no "restriction" on "freely" selling their own property if they were forced to automatically turn away half a dozen categories of prospective buyers when the time came to move: the first category because of their age, the second because of they want a rental, the third because of their pets, the fourth because of their clients, the fifth because of their window coverings, the sixth because of their floor coverings, the seventh because they were not prepared to accept the unreasonable interference with their use and enjoyment, and last but not least, anyone and everyone not in agreement with indemnity agreements that offload the responsibility of authorities.
In view of the existence of comprehensive nuisance prohibitions most judges would probably find many automatically accepted Standard Bylaws unenforceable if they affected themselves personally. I, at least, find some bylaws a sign of negligence, which comes from strata lawyers who purport to owe no duty of care to strata owners, and bylaws more absurd than protective or necessary are fodder for conflict and legal disputes.
Example #2. Monopoly unreasonably obstructing public access to legal services
to be continued...
Example #3. Factual misrepresentations
to be continued...
Example #4. Withholding evidence.
to be continued...
Some examples of Limitations include:
Unconscionable delays
Ruinous costs
Profit from wrongs
