A resident's objection to scented laundry was serious to her, but it didn't establish that her strata had failed to enforce its bylaws. In Gariepy v. Residential Section of the Owners, Strata Plan EPS2689, 2026 BCCRT 1481, the Civil Resolution Tribunal considered years of complaints about odours near a balcony, the steps taken by a strata section to trace them, and the proof needed to establish a legal nuisance or hazard.
Marilynne Gariepy complained that strong laundry scents prevented her from opening windows or enjoying her balcony. Investigators considered dryer vents serving several nearby units. The strata manager sent a general notice asking residents to stop using scented laundry products, and a committee visited neighbouring apartments. In September 2023 it found scented products in one unit, whose occupants agreed to stop. Later complaints attributed the smell to different units, but visits and inquiries didn't establish an ongoing source. The strata section considered the complaints, spoke with residents and took practical steps rather than simply ignoring them.
The Tribunal found the investigation reasonable and accepted that the unit initially associated with the smell was no longer the source. It also considered the bylaw prohibiting nuisance and unreasonable interference. The legal test was objective and required substantial or more than trivial interference, assessed with ordinary tolerance for neighbouring uses. On the evidence, the scent of ordinary laundry products hadn't been shown to meet that threshold. A doctor's letter described Gariepy's chemical sensitivity, but there was no reliable evidence that the air around the balcony contained the identified compounds at harmful concentrations or that they came from a particular neighbour's dryer vent.
Gariepy also provided material generated by ChatGPT. The Tribunal gave that material no weight because it wasn't reliable evidence of the underlying facts. That wasn't a ruling that a strata may disregard an owner's actual condition. It was a finding about what the evidence in this record could establish. The Tribunal separately noted that the strata section's informal name didn't comply with the section naming requirements of the Strata Property Act, but the naming issue didn't determine the nuisance claim.
The claim for bylaw enforcement and reimbursement of Tribunal fees was dismissed. The strata remained subject to section 189.4 of the Act, which prevents passing its dispute expenses to Gariepy. For boards and property managers, the useful distinction is between investigating a complaint and guaranteeing its preferred outcome. A documented, proportionate inquiry matters, while owners seeking enforcement need evidence that links a continuing, objectively significant interference to an identifiable bylaw breach.