Strata Property Act
The Strata Property Act, Regulation and the strata corporation’s bylaws and rules provide the legal framework under which all strata corporations must operate in British Columbia. Even though stratas are self-governed, all strata owners and residents must use the legislative framework to inform their decisions and actions.
The Strata Property Act also contains a Schedule of Standard Bylaws for every strata to use. A strata corporation can amend its bylaws and make additions. The strata’s bylaws must not contravene the Strata Property Act/Regulation. Bylaw amendments do not take effect until they are registered with the Land Titles Office.
In 2000, the Strata Property Act replaced the Condominium Act enacted due to Barrett Commission Part I & II. It was introduced to the Legislature as a consumer protection law. Restoring Confidence – Protecting Consumers
- Read amendments to the Strata Property Act
- Search the Strata Property Act : click on the Advanced Search button and enter your search term.
In June 2019 , the BC Law Institute (BCLI) concluded a six year review of the Strata Property Act and Regulations. Of the 206 recommendations presented by the review, only one has been implemented in legislation.
The purpose of the Strata Property Act is consumer protection
Owners, who purchase a strata lot become members of a strata corporation are ‘consumers’.
On July 13, 1998, the Honourable J. Kwan, who introduced the new Strata Property Act, said this regarding the object and purpose of the legislation:
“The new Strata Property Act builds upon and improves the current Condominium Act without altering the fundamental scheme of condominium ownership. It is an important step in ensuring consumer protection in strata ownership. It forms part of the government’s comprehensive response to the report of the Barrett commission on condominium construction, incorporating many of the commission’s recommendations, which are intended to assist purchasers and owners in dealing with leaky-condo problems.”
In addition to responding to the recommendations of the Barrett commission, this legislation is intended to accomplish three primary objectives.
First, the current act is extremely complex and can be difficult to understand. The act has been restructured and rewritten using plain language, and ambiguities and gaps in the legislation have been addressed to provide a more complete code for condominium development and governance.
Second, condominium legislation must balance the interests of various parties such as municipalities, developers, strata corporations and individual owners. The new act redefines and clarifies the rights and obligations of these parties.
Third, the amendments provide strata corporations, which must regulate diverse types of strata complexes in ever-changing circumstances, with greater flexibility so that they can adapt to changes and better meet the needs of their owners.
Justice Pearlman, in W Redevelopment Group, Inc. v. Allan Window Technologies Inc., 2010 BCSC 1601 confirmed the object and purpose of the SPA was protection for strata property owners.
[134] The objects of the SPA as expressed by the Minister in Hansard included, in addition to the enhancement of protection for strata property owners, the provision of a complete code for condominium development and governance, and balancing the interests of municipalities, developers, strata corporations and individual owners.
Consider the Civil Resolution Tribunal when reading the following, also from W Redevelopment Group, Inc. v. Allan Window Technologies Inc., 2010 BCSC 1601 :
[137] A court interpreting legislation may consider whether the consequences or effects of a particular interpretation are incompatible with the object of the statute. An interpretation can be considered absurd if it leads to ridiculous or frivolous consequences, is extremely unreasonable or inequitable, is illogical or incoherent, or is incompatible with other provisions or with the object of the Act. An interpretation which defeats the purpose of the statute will be absurd: Rizzo at para. 27.”
SPA s.31 Strata Council Standard of Care
The Civil Resolution Tribunal has jurisdiction over SPA s. 31 regarding council members statutory duty of care and s.32, disclosure of conflict of interest according to the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, does not have jurisdiction over SPA s.33 which addresses accountability for conflicts of interest under s.32.
Dockside Brewing Co. Ltd. v. Strata Plan LMS 3837, 2007 BCCA 183 found that
[59] Section 33 provides remedies for breaches of ss. 31 and 32. A strata corporation or an owner may apply for an order under s. 33(3) “if a council member who has an interest in a contract or transaction fails to comply with section 32.…” Under s. 33(3), the court may make an order, if it “finds that the contract or transaction was unreasonable or unfair to the strata corporation at the time it was entered into….” Under s. 33(3)(b), “if the council member has not acted honestly and in good faith, [the court may] require the council member to compensate the strata corporation or any other person for a loss arising from the contract or transaction….”
SPA s.33 only refers to SPA s.32, it does not refer to SPA s.31. Dockside Brewing Co. Ltd. v. Strata Plan LMS 3837, 2007 BCCA 183 refers to accountability of council members when they do not disclose their interest in a contract or transaction under s.32 and makes no mention of accountability for council members that do not perform the other duties of the strata corporation under s.31 unrelated to disclosures of conflicts of interest such as bylaw enforcement, repairs and maintenance or access to documents.
CRT tribunal member Kathleen Mell claims in Crozier et al v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 4582 [42], that the CRT does not have jurisdiction to remedy breaches of s.31 in her decision on issues regarding meetings, minutes and compliance with the SPA—nothing to do with SPA s.32, disclosure of conflict of interest.
42. I also note that although the tribunal has jurisdiction to determine if the strata may have breached their standard of care under section 31 of the SPA, I do not agree the tribunal has jurisdiction to address a requested remedy for such a finding. I rely on Dockside Brewing Co. Ltd. v. Strata Plan LMS 3837, 2007 BCCA 183, in which the court found, at paragraph 59, that remedies for breaches of sections 31 and 32 of the SPA are found in section 33 of the SPA. Section 3.6(2)(a) of the Act expressly states matters under section 33 of the SPA are outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal and must be dealt with by the BC Supreme Court. Accordingly, even if I had found a breach of section 31, it would be outside my jurisdiction to provide a remedy.
Both the Dockside and Crozier decisions have been used by the CRT to abdicate their jurisdiction to remedy breaches of SPA s.31 that do not relate to s.32 disclosure of conflicts of interest.
Council member’s standard of care
31 In exercising the powers and performing the duties of the strata corporation, each council member must
(a) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the strata corporation, and
(b) exercise the care, diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person in comparable circumstances.
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
32 A council member who has a direct or indirect interest in
(a) a contract or transaction with the strata corporation, or
(b) a matter that is or is to be the subject of consideration by the council, if that interest could result in the creation of a duty or interest that materially conflicts with that council member’s duty or interest as a council member,
must
(c) disclose fully and promptly to the council the nature and extent of the interest,
(d) abstain from voting on the contract, transaction or matter, and
(e) leave the council meeting
(i) while the contract, transaction or matter is discussed, unless asked by council to be present to provide information, and
(ii) while the council votes on the contract, transaction or matter.
Accountability
33 (1) If a council member who has an interest in a contract or transaction fails to comply with section 32, the strata corporation or an owner may apply for an order under subsection (3) of this section to a court having jurisdiction unless, after full disclosure of the nature and extent of the council member’s interest in the contract or transaction, the contract or transaction is ratified by a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote at an annual or special general meeting.
(2) For the purposes of the 3/4 vote referred to in subsection (1), a person who has an interest in the contract or transaction is not an eligible voter.
(3) If, on application under subsection (1), the court finds that the contract or transaction was unreasonable or unfair to the strata corporation at the time it was entered into, the court may do one or more of the following:
(a) set aside the contract or transaction if no significant injustice will be caused to third parties;
(b) if the council member has not acted honestly and in good faith, require the council member to compensate the strata corporation or any other person for a loss arising from the contract or transaction, or from the setting aside of the contract or transaction;
(c) require the council member to pay to the strata corporation any profit the council member makes as a consequence of the contract or transaction.