B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has rejected a Langley man’s bid to have a doorbell camera at his strata unit.
Brodie Thompson rents a strata lot and had installed a doorbell camera without the strata’s approval.
After a bylaw complaint and a request from the strata, he removed the doorbell camera. He later applied for approval and was denied, tribunal member Micah Carmody said in a Dec. 12 decision.
Thompson claimed the strata is unfairly denying him a doorbell camera that it had allowed for 40 other units. He sought a tribunal order that the strata allow him the device, and if not, he requested a decision ordering all other units to remove their doorbell cameras.
Thompson also asked for $400 for time spent installing and removing the doorbell camera.
Camera no different than others, claims resident
The strata told tribunal it treated Thompson the same way it has treated other strata lot owners who have been the subject of doorbell cameras complaints. It also said Thompson is free to reapply for approval of the doorbell camera.
The strata has no bylaw about surveillance, but claimed the doorbell camera could be used to film children.
“I accept that this is true, but I find it is true of any camera that records common property,” Carmody said.
On Nov. 7, 2022, the strata manager wrote to Thompson saying the doorbell camera infringed on other residents’ privacy and asked him to remove it or face a $200 fine every seven days.
“There is no evidence that the strata imposed any fines,” Carmody said.
Thompson said his doorbell camera was no different from the others. But the manager said bylaw enforcement was a complaint-driven process, and Thompson was free to file complaints about other cameras in the complex.
“The same day, Mr. Thompson filed formal bylaw infraction complaints against 37 other strata lots with doorbell cameras,” Carmody said.
A week later, the strata repeated the request and invited Thompson to submit an alteration request showing that the camera did not capture “any parts of common areas or other units’ door entrances.”
Thompson then removed the doorbell camera and filed his tribunal complaint.
Strata's complaint-driven process reasonable, says tribunal
Carmody found the strata’s complaint driven approach was reasonable, noting the manager had issued warnings about the devices to other owners after Thompson’s complaints.
Still Carmody said, as recently as June 6, the manager told Thompson his camera should “not capture any views beyond the boundaries of the strata lot in which you reside.”
“To only capture views within a strata lot would entirely defeat the purpose of a doorbell camera,” Carmody said. “If the strata is going to allow doorbell cameras, it must allow recording of some common property.”
However, Carmody found the strata’s refusal to give Thompson permission to reinstall the doorbell camera was not significantly unfair.
“I say this because the doorbell camera’s view undisputedly included other strata lot entrances. It was appropriate for the strata to consider the privacy rights of other residents, including the person who complained about Mr. Thompson’s doorbell camera, and balance them against Mr. Thompson’s security concerns,” Carmody said.
“He had no authority to install the doorbell, and the strata was justified in asking him to remove it,” Carmody concluded.
The tribunal member also denied the strata’s claim for $6,500 in legal expenses.
