After initially agreeing to a settlement over water damage caused by a leak, a strata resident was forced to take legal action against the BC homeowners he claimed ghosted him and failed to make the agreed payout.
According to a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, Esmail Shoolestani claimed that the homeowners living in the unit above his caused damage after a leak and agreed to pay $3,000 in a settlement.
He told the tribunal that after agreeing, they have refused to pay, and he asked the tribunal for an additional $2,000 for “wasting his time and causing his health to deteriorate.”
The respondents, Dan Zhu and Jianye Si, disagreed, saying an agreement was never reached. They also told the tribunal they believed Shoolestani’s claim was a “deliberate scheme” or a “rip-off.”
The leak occurred in 2023, and its source was Zhu and Si’s strata lot. In January 2024, Shoolestani asked for compensation for the damage he claimed was caused by the leak. Zhu and Si claimed that Shoolestani inflated his initial claim.
On February 1, 2024, Si emailed Shoolestani and offered $3,000 to settle the dispute. The same day, he emailed back and accepted the offer, which had no conditions. Shoolestani asked to be paid via e-transfer.
Later that same day, Si emailed him back to say he would only make the $3,000 payment in person via bank draft. The offer also would’ve required Shoolestani to present photo identification.
Shoolestani emailed back the next day, saying he didn’t believe a signed agreement was necessary since both parties exchanged detailed emails.
“He said that if Mr. Si insisted on a signed agreement, Mr. Shoolestani would need to hire a lawyer and, in that case, would require another $1,000 to cover those costs. He reiterated his preference [for] receiving the settlement funds by e-transfer. However, he said his son could meet with the respondents in person. He said his health was too poor to do it himself,” the tribunal decision states.
On February 4, Shoolestani agreed to a meeting at 1:15 pm on February 5 between the homeowners and his son. However, that same day, Si sent two emails requesting the son’s full legal name, or, as Si said, “the meeting cannot happen.”
Shoolestani did not respond to those emails, and his son waited for the respondents on February 5, but they didn’t show up. Over the next couple weeks, he sent the homeowners a couple more communications about the settlement but didn’t get a response.
Zhu was identified as the sole owner of the lot from which the leak originated. She said she never authorized Si to make any settlement offers to Shoolestani on her behalf, despite her and Si being spouses.
“I do not accept Ms. Zhu’s evidence on this point. I find that her decision to have Mr. Si represent her in this dispute undermines any suggestion that he dealt with Mr. Shoolestani without explicit or implicit authority from Ms. Zhu,” the tribunal said.
The tribunal ultimately determined the two parties had reached a settlement agreement. While it dismissed Shoolestani’s claim for $2,000 for the impact the situation had on his health, it did order Si and Zhu to pay Shoolestani for the agreed-upon settlement.
They were ordered to pay Shoolestani $3,110.18, which included tribunal fees.
Click here to read the full decision posted online.