Consultation Paper...Call for Responses We are interested in your response to this consultation paper. It would be helpful if your re-sponse directly addressed the tentative recommendations

BRITISH COLUMBIA

LAW INSTITUTE 1822 East Mall University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6T 1Z1 Voice: (604) 822 0142 Fax: (604) 822 0144 E-mail: [email protected] Website: https://www.bcli.org

Consultation Paper on

Governance Issues for Stratas

Prepared by the Strata Property Law (Phase Two) Project

Committee

March 2018

SupportedBy:

Disclaimer Theinformationandcommentaryinthispublicationisnotofferedaslegaladvice.Itrefersonlytothelawatthetimeofpubli-cation,andthelawmayhavesincechanged.BCLIdoesnotundertaketocontinuallyupdateorreviseeachofitspublicationstoreflectpost-publicationchangesinthelaw.TheBritishColumbiaLawInstituteanditsdivision,theCanadianCentreforElderLaw,disclaimanyandallresponsibilityfordamageorlossofanynaturewhatsoeverthatanypersonorentitymayincurasaresultofrelyinguponinformationorcom-mentaryinthispublication.Youshouldnotrelyoninformationinthispublicationindealingwithanactuallegalproblemthataffectsyouoranyoneelse.Instead,youshouldobtainadvicefromaqualifiedlegalprofessionalconcerningtheparticularcircumstancesofyoursituation._____________________________________________©2018BritishColumbiaLawInstituteTheBritishColumbiaLawInstituteclaimscopyrightinthispublication.Youmaycopy,download,distribute,display,andoth-erwisedealfreelywiththispublication,butonlyifyoucomplywiththefollowingconditions:

1. Youmustacknowledgethesourceofthispublication;

2. Youmaynotmodifythispublicationoranyportionofit;

3. YoumustnotusethispublicationforanycommercialpurposewithoutthepriorwrittenpermissionoftheBritishCo-lumbiaLawInstitute.

ThesematerialscontaininformationthathasbeenderivedfrominformationoriginallymadeavailablebytheProvinceofBrit-ishColumbiaat:http://www.bclaws.ca/andthisinformationisbeingusedinaccordancewiththeQueen’sPrinterLicense—BritishColumbiaavailableat:http://www.bclaws.ca/standards/2014/QP-License_1.0.html.Theyhavenot,however,beenproducedinaffiliationwith,orwiththeendorsementof,theProvinceofBritishColumbiaandTHESEMATERIALSARENOTANOFFICIALVERSION.

British Columbia Law Institute

1822EastMall,UniversityofBritishColumbia,Vancouver,BC,CanadaV6T1Z1

Voice:(604)822-0142Fax:(604)822-0144E-mail:[email protected]:https://www.bcli.org

-----------------------------------------------

TheBritishColumbiaLawInstitutewascreatedin1997byincorporationundertheprovin-cialSocietyAct.Itsstrategicmissionistobealeaderinlawreformbycarryingout:

• thebestinscholarlylawreformresearchandwriting;and

• thebestinoutreachrelatingtolawreform.

-----------------------------------------------ThemembersoftheInstituteare:

LisaA.Peters,QC(Chair) ThomasL.Spraggs(Vice-chair)MargaretH.Mason,QC(Treasurer) JanChristiansenDr.TeshW.Dagne R.C.(Tino)DiBellaOliverA.Fleck MathewP.GoodProf.RobertG.Howell Hon.KennethC.Mackenzie,QCDylanT.Mazur SusanM.MercerBrentB.Olthuis AndreaL.RollsDr.JanisP.Sarra

ThemembersemeritusoftheInstituteare:

ArthurL.Close,QC D.PeterRamsay,QC

-----------------------------------------------

ThisprojectwasmadepossiblewiththesustainingfinancialsupportoftheLawFoundationofBritishColumbiaandtheMinistryofJusticeforBritishColumbia.TheInstitutegratefully

acknowledgesthesupportoftheLawFoundationandtheMinistryforitswork.

-----------------------------------------------

Strata Property Law (Phase Two) Project Committee

TheStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)ProjectCommitteewasformedinfall2013.Thisvol-unteerprojectcommitteeismadeupofleadingexpertsinstrata-propertylawandpracticeinBritishColumbia.Thecommittee’smandateistoassistBCLIindevelopingrecommenda-tionstoreformstrata-propertylawinthesevenareasselectedforstudyinthisphase-twoproject.Theserecommendationswillbesetoutinfinalreportsforeacharea.TheprojectasawholewillcompleteinJune2018.Themembersofthecommitteeare:

PatrickWilliams—chair (Partner,ClarkWilsonLLP)

VeronicaBarlee(Jul.2014–present) (SeniorPolicyAdvisor,HousingPolicyBranch,MinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousing)

LarryButtress(Oct.2013–Jun.2016) (DeputyExecutiveOfficer,RealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia)

GarthCambrey (RealEstateInstituteofBritishColumbia)

TonyGioventu (ExecutiveDirector,CondominiumHomeOwnersAssociation)

IanHolt(Oct.2016–Apr.2017) (Realtor,Re/MaxRealEstateServices)

TimJowett (SeniorManager,E-BusinessandDeputyRegistrar,LandTitleandSurveyAuthority)

AlexLongson(Jul.2016–present) (SeniorComplianceOfficer,RealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia)

JudithMatheson(Oct.2013–Oct.2016) (Realtor,ColdwellBankerPremierRealty)

ElaineMcCormack (Partner,WilsonMcCormackLawGroup)

SusanM.Mercer(Sep.2016–present) (NotaryPublic)

DougPage(Oct.2013–Jul.2014) (DirectorofLegislation,HousingPolicyBranch,MinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousing)

DavidParkin (AssistantCitySurveyor,CityofVancouver)

AllenRegan (Vice-President,BaysidePropertyServicesLtd.)

GarrettRobinson(Apr.2017–present) (Realtor,Re/MaxCrestRealty—Westside)

StanleyRule(Oct.2013–Sep.2016) (Lawyer,SabeyRuleLLP)

SandyWagner (PresidentoftheBoardofDirectors,Van-couverIslandStrataOwnersAssociation)

EdWilson (Partner,LawsonLundellLLP)

KevinZakreski(stafflawyer,BritishColumbiaLawInstitute)istheprojectmanager.

Formoreinformation,visitusontheWorldWideWebat:https://www.bcli.org/project/strata-property-law-phase-two

Call for Responses Weareinterestedinyourresponsetothisconsultationpaper.Itwouldbehelpfulifyourre-sponsedirectlyaddressedthetentativerecommendationssetoutinthisconsultationpaper,butitisnotnecessary.Generalcommentsonreformofstrata-corporationgovernancearealsowelcome.Thebestwaytosubmitaresponseistousearesponsebooklet.YoumayobtainaresponsebookletbycontactingtheBritishColumbiaLawInstituteorbydownloadingoneathttps://www.bcli.org/project/strata-property-law-phase-two.Youdonothavetousearesponsebooklettoprovideuswithyourresponse.Responsesmaybesenttousinoneoffourways—

bymail: BritishColumbiaLawInstitute1822EastMallUniversityofBritishColumbiaVancouver,BCV6T1Z1

Attention:KevinZakreski

byfax: (604)822-0144

byemail: [email protected]

byonlinesurvey: linkfromwww.bcli.org/project/strata-property-law-phase-twoIfyouwantyourresponsetobeconsideredbyusasweprepareourreportongovernanceissuesforstratas,thenwemustreceiveitby15June2018.Privacy YourresponsewillbeusedinconnectionwiththeStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)Project.Itmayalsobeusedaspartoffuturelaw-reformworkbytheBritishColumbiaLawInstituteoritsinternaldivisions.Allresponseswillbetreatedaspublicdocuments,unlessyouex-presslystateinthebodyofyourresponsethatitisconfidential.Respondentsmaybeidenti-fiedbyname,title,andorganizationinthefinalreportfortheproject,unlesstheyexpresslyadviseustokeepthisinformationconfidential.Anypersonalinformationthatyousendtousaspartofyourresponsewillbedealtwithinaccordancewithourprivacypolicy.Copiesofourprivacypolicymaybedownloadedfromourwebsiteat:https://www.bcli.org/privacy.

Consultation Paper on Governance Issues for Stratas

British Columbia Law Institute vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY.............................................................................................xviiCHAPTER1.INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1

AnOverviewofthisConsultationPaper’sSubject.............................................................................1AboutthePublicConsultationonStrataGovernance......................................................................2AbouttheStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwo.......................................................................3ThePhase-TwoProject’sSupporters........................................................................................................4TheStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)ProjectCommittee...........................................................4AnOverviewofthisConsultationPaper..................................................................................................5OtherLaw-ReformProjects............................................................................................................................6

CHAPTER2.THEBUILDINGBLOCKSOFSTRATAGOVERNANCE.................................................9Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................9TheEssentialElementsofaStrataProperty.........................................................................................9StrataPropertyAct..........................................................................................................................................10TheOwner-Developer....................................................................................................................................11CreationofaStrataPropertybyDepositofaStrataPlan............................................................11StrataLots............................................................................................................................................................12Commonproperty,LimitedCommonProperty,andCommonAssets..................................13

Commonproperty...............................................................................................................................13Limitedcommonproperty..............................................................................................................14Commonassets.....................................................................................................................................15

TheStrataCorporation..................................................................................................................................15CommonExpenses...........................................................................................................................................16UnitEntitlement................................................................................................................................................16

Whatisunitentitlementandhowisitused?........................................................................16Howisunitentitlementdetermined?.......................................................................................17Whenisunitentitlementdeterminedandwhereisitfound?.....................................18

TheGeneralRuleforSharingCommonExpenses...........................................................................19ChangingtheGeneralRule:UsingSomethingOtherthanUnitEntitlementasaBasis

forCostSharing.......................................................................................................................................19DisputeResolutionandtheCivilResolutionTribunal..................................................................20

CHAPTER3.BYLAWSANDRULES............................................................................................23Background..........................................................................................................................................................23

Natureofbylaws..................................................................................................................................23Amendingbylaws................................................................................................................................24Enforcingbylaws.................................................................................................................................25Natureofrules......................................................................................................................................27Adoptingrules.......................................................................................................................................28


viii British Columbia Law Institute

IssuesforReform..............................................................................................................................................28IssuesforReform—RelocatingProvisionsfromtheStandardBylawstotheAct..........29

Introduction...........................................................................................................................................29Shouldsection1oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?...30

Thecontentofthebylaw....................................................................................................30Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................31

Shouldsection2oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?...31Thecontentofthebylaw....................................................................................................31Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................32

Shouldsection3oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?...32Thecontentofthebylaw....................................................................................................32Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationsforreform.................................32






Shouldsections9–22oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?.....................................................................................................................................................39Thecontentofthebylaws..................................................................................................39Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................40

Shouldsection19oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?40Thecontentofthebylaws..................................................................................................40Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................40

Shouldsection20(4)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?.....................................................................................................................................................41Thecontentofthebylaw....................................................................................................41Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................41

Shouldsection22oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?41Thecontentofthebylaw....................................................................................................41Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................42


Shouldsection24oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?43Thecontentofthebylaw....................................................................................................43


British Columbia Law Institute ix

Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................43Shouldsection25oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?44

Thecontentofthebylaw....................................................................................................44Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................44






ShouldanewstandardbylawbeadoptedallowingastratacorporationtoproceedundertheSmallClaimsActagainstanownerorotherpersontocollectmoneyowingtothestratacorporation,includingmoneyowingasafine,withoutrequiringauthorizationbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote?.............................................................................................................................................................48Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................48Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................48

IssuesforReform—Enforcement:ExpandingtheLien................................................................49Introduction...........................................................................................................................................49ShouldtheStrataPropertyActenableastratacorporationtoregisteralienon

anowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttofines?.......................49Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................49Discussionofoptionsforreform....................................................................................50Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................50

IfacourtortheCivilResolutionTribunalfindsthatafineisvalid,thenshouldtheStrataPropertyActenableastratacorporationtoregisteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttothatfine?......................51Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................51Discussionofoptionsforreform....................................................................................51Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................51

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActenableastratacorporationtoregisteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttoaninsurancedeductibleorexpensesincurredduetodamagewhicharelessthananinsurancedeductible?.............................................................................................................52Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................52Discussionofoptionsforreform....................................................................................52Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................52


x British Columbia Law Institute

IfacourtortheCivilResolutionTribunalfindsthatachargebackforaninsurancedeductibleorexpensesincurredduetodamagewhicharelessthananinsurancedeductibleisvalid,thenshouldtheStrataPropertyActenableastratacorporationtoregisteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespectthatchargeback?........................................................53Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................53Discussionofoptionsforreform....................................................................................53Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................53

IssuesforReform—OtherEnforcementTools..................................................................................54Introduction...........................................................................................................................................54ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainaprovisionrequiringcompliancewith

bylawsandrulesoranoffenceandpenaltyprovisionapplicabletoacontraventionofabylaworarule?..................................................................................54Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................54Discussionofoptionsforreform....................................................................................56Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................58

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActmakefailuretopaystratafeessubjecttoanimmediatefinewithouttheneedtocomplywiththeproceduressetoutinsection135?..................................................................................................................................58Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................58Discussionofoptionsforreform....................................................................................59Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................59

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActprohibitastratacorporationfrombothapplyingafineandcharginginterestforfailuretopaystratafees?...................................60Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................60Discussionofoptionsforreform....................................................................................60Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................61

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainprovisionsregardingtheinabilitytovoteimposedonastrata-lotownerifthestratacorporationisentitledtoregisteralienontheowner’sstratalot?.......................................................................61Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................61Discussionofoptionsforreform....................................................................................62Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................63

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainprovisionsregardingbylawsthat,ineffect,adopttheruleinClayton’sCase—thatis,providethatanypaymenttodischargepartofadebtisappliedtotheoldestpartofthedebt,unlessthedebtorspecifiesotherwise?.................................................................................................63Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................63Discussionofoptionsforreform....................................................................................64Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................65

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActexpresslyenableastratacorporationtofineanownerforfailuretopayaspeciallevy?..........................................................................66Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................66Discussionofoptionsforreform....................................................................................66Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................67

IssuesforReform—OtherIssues..............................................................................................................68


British Columbia Law Institute xi

ShouldtheStrataPropertyAct’sdelayingprovisionsforrentalrestrictionsnotapplywhenastratacorporationisamendingbylawsthatalreadycontainrentalrestrictions?....................................................................................................................68Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................68Discussionofoptionsforreform....................................................................................69Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................71

CHAPTER4.STATUTORYDEFINITIONS...................................................................................73Background..........................................................................................................................................................73

Theadvantagesofstatutorydefinitions..................................................................................73IssuesforReform..............................................................................................................................................74

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainadefinitionof“continuingcontravention”?..........................................................................................................................74Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................74Discussionofoptionsforreform....................................................................................76Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................76

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainadefinitionof“stratamanager”?............77Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................77Summaryofoptionsforreform......................................................................................77Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................79

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainadefinitionof“rent”?....................................79Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................79Summaryofoptionsforreform......................................................................................80Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................82

ShouldtheStrataPropertyAct’sdefinitionof“residentialstratalot”berevised?.............................................................................................................................................................83Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................83Summaryofoptionsforreform......................................................................................83Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................87

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainadefinitionof“nonresidentialstratalot”?...................................................................................................................................................87Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................87Summaryofoptionsforreform......................................................................................87Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform...................................89

CHAPTER5.GENERALMEETINGSANDSTRATA-COUNCILMEETINGS......................................91Background..........................................................................................................................................................91

Scopeofthischapter..........................................................................................................................91Generalmeetings—definitionandpurpose..........................................................................92Kindsofgeneralmeetings...............................................................................................................93

IssuesforReform..............................................................................................................................................94Generalobservations.........................................................................................................................94

IssuesforReform—Proxies........................................................................................................................95Introduction...........................................................................................................................................95ShouldtheStrataPropertyActrequireadefinedformofproxyappointment?98

Briefdescriptionoftheissue............................................................................................98


xii British Columbia Law Institute

Discussionofoptionsforreform....................................................................................99Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................102

HowshouldtheStrataPropertyActdealwithnon-compliancewiththestandardformofproxyappointmentoranyformalrequirementsprescribedforproxyappointments?.............................................................................................................102Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................102Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................102Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................104

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActlimitthenumberofproxyappointmentsthatapersonmayhold?.....................................................................................................................104Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................104Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................105Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................107

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActprovidethatcertainpersonsmaynotbeaproxy?...........................................................................................................................................................108Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................108Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................109Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................111

IssuesforReform—ConductofMeetings..........................................................................................111Introduction.........................................................................................................................................111ShouldtheStrataPropertyActprovidedefaultrulesoforderforgeneral

meetings?.....................................................................................................................................113Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................113Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................113Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................115

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainprovisionsonwhocanchairageneralmeeting?.......................................................................................................................................116Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................116Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................116Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................117

IssuesforReform—Quorum.....................................................................................................................117Introduction.........................................................................................................................................117ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainprovisionsspellingoutwhathappens

whenaquorumisn’tpresentatthestartofageneralmeeting?....................118Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................118Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................119Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationsforreform...............................120

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActaddresswhenaquorummustbepresentduringageneralmeeting?..................................................................................................................121Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................121Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................122Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................123

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActaddresswhetherquorumatastrata-councilmeetingisaffectedbyamember’srecusalonanissueduetoaconflictofinterest?........................................................................................................................................123Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................123


British Columbia Law Institute xiii

Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................124Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................124

IssuesforReform—Voting........................................................................................................................125Introduction.........................................................................................................................................125ShouldtheScheduleofStandardBylawstotheStrataPropertyActbeamended

toclarifytheeffectofanabstentioninvotingatastrata-councilmeeting?...........................................................................................................................................................126Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................126Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................126Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................127

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActallowthepresident(orthevicepresident)whenactingasmeetingchairtohaveacastingvote?.......................................................127Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................127Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................128Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................130

Shouldthevotingthresholdforaresolutionpassedbya3/4votebechanged?...........................................................................................................................................................130Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................130Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................132Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................133

Shouldthereferencetoa“secretballot”insection27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsbechangedtoa“writtenballot”?...............................................134Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................134Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................134Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................136

Shouldsection27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsrequirethatavotebetakenbywrittenballotonlyifaresolutionauthorizingsuchavoteisapprovedbyamajorityvote?............................................................................................136Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................136Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................136Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................137

IssuesforReform—Strata-CouncilElections...................................................................................137Introduction.........................................................................................................................................137ShouldtheStrataPropertyActexpresslyprovidethatelectiontoastratacouncil

requiresamajorityoftheballotscast?........................................................................138Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................138Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................138Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................139

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActaddressthenumberofcouncilmembersrequired?......................................................................................................................................140Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................140Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................140Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................141

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActestablishstatutoryqualificationsforcouncilmembers?....................................................................................................................................141Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................141


xiv British Columbia Law Institute

Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................142Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................144

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActallowastratacorporationtoelectacouncilmemberatanyspecialgeneralmeeting?....................................................................145Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................145Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................146Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................146

IssuesforReform—AgendaandMeetingMinutes........................................................................147Shouldtheorderofagendaitemsforannualandspecialgeneralmeetingsbe

amended?.....................................................................................................................................147Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................147Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................147Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................148

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActrequirecirculationofgeneral-meetingminutes?...........................................................................................................................................................149Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................149Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................149Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................149

Shouldsection106oftheStrataPropertyActbeamendedtoprovidethreeweeksinwhichtoinformownersofchangestotheirstratafeesresultingfromanewbudget?................................................................................................................150Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................150Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................150Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................151

CHAPTER6.FINANCES..........................................................................................................153Background........................................................................................................................................................153

Backgroundinformationonstrata-corporationfinances............................................153Scopeofthischapter........................................................................................................................153

IssuesforReform—OperatingFund.....................................................................................................155Introduction.........................................................................................................................................155ShouldtheStrataPropertyActadoptsomecriterionotherthanthecurrent

timingruleasawaytodefinethepurposeofastratacorporation’soperatingfund?.........................................................................................................................155Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................155Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................156Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................160

IssuesforReform—SpecialLevies........................................................................................................160Introduction.........................................................................................................................................160Shouldsection108oftheStrataPropertyActbeamendedtoallowastrata

corporationtodepositinitscontingencyreservefundanymoneycollectedinexcessoftheamountrequired?..................................................................................161Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................161Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................162Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................162

IssuesforReform—Budgets.....................................................................................................................163


British Columbia Law Institute xv

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................163ShouldtheStrataPropertyActauthorizeastratacorporationtoinitiatethe

budget-approvalprocessoramendabudgetataspecialgeneralmeeting?...........................................................................................................................................................164Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................164Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................164Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationsforreform...............................165

IssuesforReform—FinancialStatements.........................................................................................166Introduction.........................................................................................................................................166ShouldtheStrataPropertyRegulationbeamendedtoprovideaprescribedform

forfinancialstatements?......................................................................................................166Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................166Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................167Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................168

IssuesforReform—Contracts..................................................................................................................169Introduction.........................................................................................................................................169ShouldtheStrataPropertyActgiveastratacorporationtheenhancedpowerto

terminateanycontractenteredintobeforeitsfirstannualgeneralmeeting?...........................................................................................................................................................170Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................170Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................170Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................172

Shouldsection39oftheStrataPropertyActcontainatimelimitona3/4voteresolutionauthorizingcancellationofastrata-managementcontract?.....173Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................173Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................173Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................174

IssuesforReform—RegulatoryProvisionsonFinesandFees...............................................174Introduction.........................................................................................................................................174ShouldtheStrataPropertyRegulationbeamendedtoincreasethemaximum

fines?..............................................................................................................................................175Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................175Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................175Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................176

ShouldtheStrataPropertyRegulationcreateanewmaximumfineforcontraventionofashort-termaccommodationbylaw?......................................176Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................176Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................177Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................177

ShouldtheStrataPropertyRegulationbeamendedtoincreasethemaximumfeesforanInformationCertificate(FormB)andaCertificateofPayment(FormF)?.....................................................................................................................................178Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................178Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................178Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................178


xvi British Columbia Law Institute

ShouldtheStrataPropertyRegulationprovideforafeefortheinspectionofstrata-corporationrecords?...............................................................................................179Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................179Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................179Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................180

ShouldtheStrataPropertyRegulationprovideforafeeforaccessingrecordselectronically?............................................................................................................................181Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................181Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................181Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationsforreform...............................182

IssuesforReform—LimitationPeriodandCollections..............................................................182Introduction.........................................................................................................................................182ShouldtheStrataPropertyActprovidestratacorporationswithalimitation

periodthatislongerthanthebasiclimitationperiodoftwoyearsinwhichtoenforceclaimsformoneyowingfromastrata-lotownertothestratacorporation?...............................................................................................................................184Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................184Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................185Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................186

CHAPTER7.NOTICESANDCOMMUNICATIONS......................................................................187Background........................................................................................................................................................187

Theact’sgeneralnoticeprovisions..........................................................................................187Scopeofthischapter........................................................................................................................192

IssuesforReform............................................................................................................................................192Shouldsection65oftheStrataPropertyActbeamended?........................................192

Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................192Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................193Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.................................193

ShouldanyoftheStrataPropertyAct’snoticeperiodsberevised?.......................194Briefdescriptionoftheissue..........................................................................................194Discussionofoptionsforreform..................................................................................194Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationsforreform...............................195

CHAPTER8.CONCLUSION......................................................................................................197

APPENDIXA—LISTOFTENTATIVERECOMMENDATIONS...................................199APPENDIXB—SUMMARYCONSULTATION...........................................................209APPENDIXC—BIOGRAPHIESOFPROJECT-COMMITTEEMEMBERS...................221PRINCIPALFUNDERSIN2017..............................................................................229


British Columbia Law Institute xvii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction ThisisthethirdconsultationpaperpublishedinBCLI’sStrataPropertyLawPro-ject—PhaseTwo.Thephase-twoprojectbuildsontheconsultationandresearchcarriedoutinphaseoneoftheproject.ItaddresseslegislativereformoftheStrataPropertyAct,withthegoalofpromotingthedevelopmentofthenextgenerationoftheact.Previousconsultationpapershaveconsideredterminatingastrataandcom-plexstratas.Thisconsultationpaperexaminesselectedgovernanceissues.Theseareissuescon-cerningthemethodorsystemofastratacorporation’smanagement.Thehallmarkofgovernanceiseffectivedecision-making.Strata-corporationgovernanceentailscoordinatingadiverserangeofindividualstrata-lotownerstomakeeffectivedeci-sionsonmattersofcommonconcern.Thisconsultationpaper’sfocusisonhowtheStrataPropertyActandtheStrataPropertyRegulationenablethatprocessthroughprovisionsonbylawsandrules,statutorydefinitions,generalmeetingsandstrata-councilmeetings,finances,andnoticesandcommunications.Theconsultationpapercontains83proposalsforreformoftheStrataPropertyActandtheStrataPropertyRegulation.Readersmaygivetheirviewsontheseproposalsbyavarietyofmeans—fillingoutallorpartofaresponsebooklet,sendingalettertoBCLI,orcompletinganonlinesurvey.BCLIwillconsiderreaderresponsesincraftingitsfinalrecommendationsforreform.Foraresponsetobeconsideredinthispro-cess,BCLImustreceiveitby15June2018.Summary and full consultations Therearetwoversionsoftheconsultationpaperavailableforpubliccomment.Asummaryconsultationsetsouthighlightsfromthefullslateofproposalsmadeonstratagovernance.Itcontainslittleinthewayofbackgroundinformationandnoci-tationofsources.ThesummaryconsultationislocatedatappendixBtotheconsul-tationpaper.Afreestandingcopymaybedownloadedfromhttps://www.bcli.org.Thefullconsultationpapercontainsall83proposalsmadeonreformingstratagov-ernance.Italsoprovidesthedetailedresearchthatwasreliedoninmakingthoseproposals.


xviii British Columbia Law Institute

Theremainderofthisexecutivesummarydescribesonlythefullconsultation.Our supporters and the project committee TheStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwohasbeenmadepossiblebyprojectfundingfromtheRealEstateFoundationofBritishColumbia,theNotaryFoundationofBritishColumbia,theMinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousingforBritishCo-lumbia,theRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia,theRealEstateInstituteofBrit-ishColumbia,StrataPropertyAgentsofBritishColumbia,theAssociationofBritishColumbiaLandSurveyors,theVancouverIslandStrataOwnersAssociation,andtheCondominiumHomeOwnersAssociation.BCLIiscarryingouttheStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwowiththeassistanceofavolunteerprojectcommittee.Thecommitteeismadeupofadiverserangeofexpertsinthestrata-propertyfield.Its13currentmembershailfromthelegalandnotarialprofessions,owners’organizations,thestrata-managementandreal-estateprofessions,andthepublicsector.Content of the consultation paper Overview Theconsultationpapercontainseightchapters.Theintroductorychaptergivesanoverviewoftheprojectandtheconsultationprocess.Thesecondchapterprovidesasummaryofthebuildingblocksofstratagovernance.Theconsultationpaperendswithabriefconcludingchapter.Theremainingfivechaptersformthebulkoftheconsultationpaper.Theyeachtack-lethebroadareasofthelawthathavegeneratedissuesforreform.Sincestratagov-ernanceisavasttopic,oneofthefirstdecisionstakenbythecommitteewastoiden-tifyarangeofareasthatcontainedtheissuesmostinneedofconsiderationbyalaw-reformbody.Inthecommittee’sview,theseareasare:

• bylawsandrules;

• statutorydefinitions;

• generalmeetingsandstrata-councilmeetings;

• finances;and

• noticesandcommunications.Eachoftheseareasformsthesubjectofadedicatedchapter.


British Columbia Law Institute xix

Bylaws and rules Thisistheconsultationpaper’slongestchapter,containing38tentativerecommen-dationsforreform.Thechapteropenswithabriefdiscussionofthecurrentlawonbylawsandrules.Thenitmovesintoaconsiderationofeachofthesectionscurrent-lyfoundintheScheduleofStandardBylawstotheStrataPropertyAct.Thegoalofthisreviewistoconsiderwhetheranyofthebylawsshouldberelocatedfromthescheduletothemainbodyoftheact.Theeffectofsuchamoveisthatitwouldplacethetextofthe(former)bylawbeyondthereachofamendmentbythestratacorpo-ration.Inthecommittee’sview,11standardbylaws(orpartsofastandardbylaw)shouldbegiventhistreatment.Theremainderofthischapterexaminesthetoolsstratacorporationshaveundertheacttoenforcetheirbylaws.Thecommitteeconsiders—butultimatelydoesn’ttenta-tivelyrecommend—expandingthereachofthestratacorporation’slientoencom-passdefaultsinthepaymentoffines.Thecommitteealsolooksatanddoesn’ten-dorsethecreationofanewstatutorypenaltyoroffenceprovisionapplicabletoacontraventionofabylaworrule.Finally,thecommitteedoesproposeanewstatuto-ryprovisionaimedatbylawsthatadopttheruleinClayton’sCasetoreassignmoneyintendedforthepurposesofstratafees,speciallevies,reimbursementofthecostofworkdoneunderafailuretocomplywithaworkorder,orastratalot’sshareofajudgment.Statutory definitions ThisshortchapterexaminestheadditionofspecificstatutorydefinitionstotheStra-taPropertyAct,asawaytoclarifyimportantconceptsortoaidastratacorporationintheadministrationofitsobligationsundertheact.Inthecommittee’sview,thetermscontinuingcontraventionandrentshouldbedefinedinthelegislation.Thecommitteealsoconsidered,butdidn’tendorse,proposeddefinitionsofstrataman-ager,residentialstratalot,andnonresidentialstratalot.General meetings and strata-council meetings Thechapterongeneralmeetingsandstrata-councilmeetingsisanotherlengthychapter,containing21tentativerecommendations.Itfocussesonthefollowingsub-jects:

• proxies;

• conductofmeetings;

• quorum;


xx British Columbia Law Institute

• voting;

• strata-councilelections;and

• agendaandmeetingminutes.Thecommitteeisparticularlyinterestedincommentsonproxies,whichhaveprovedtobeafraughtissueinstrata-corporationgovernance.Onthistopic,thecommitteetentativelyrecommendsthatamandatory,standardformofproxyap-pointmentcomeintouseinBritishColumbia.Thecommitteealsogivesextendedconsiderationtolimitingthenumberofproxyappointmentsthatonepersonmayholdforageneralmeeting,ultimatelydecidingnottoproposealimit.Thechapteralsocontainstentativerecommendationsclarifyingthatelectiontothestratacouncilentailscommandingamajorityoftheballotscast,settingoutthatquorumforageneralmeetingmustonlybepresentatthestartofthemeeting,es-tablishingstatutoryqualificationsforcouncilmembersmodelledontheprovisionsofthenewSocietiesAct,andclarifyingtheorderofagendaitemsforannualandspe-cialgeneralmeetings.Finances Whilethischapterdoesn’tpresentacomprehensivesurveyofallthefinancialissuesthataffectastratacorporation,itdoesexaminesomefundamentalissuesandmake13tentativerecommendationsconcerningthem.Thecommitteelargelyconfirmsthattheexistingframeworkforastratacorporation’soperatingfund,budgets,andfinancialstatementsshouldremainasis.Thecommitteedoestentativelyrecom-mendupdatinganumberofregulatoryprovisionsconcerningthemaximumamountsoffinesandfees.Thechapterconcludeswithanexaminationofapressingissueforcollectionofmoneyowingtothestratacorporation—theapplicationofatwo-yearlimitationpe-riodtostrata-corporationclaims.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommendscreatingaspeciallimitationperiodforclaimsthatmaybethesubjectofthestratacorpora-tion’slienundersection116oftheact,whichwouldbesetatfouryears.Notices and communications Thisbriefchapterexaminesahandfulofanomalousnoticeprovisionsandperiodsandrecommendssomeupdatesinlightofpracticeissues.


British Columbia Law Institute xxi

Conclusion Thecommitteeencouragesresponsestoitsproposals.Commentsfromreaderswillbefullyconsideredbythecommittee,astheyplayanimportantpartintheprocessofcraftingthisproject’sfinalrecommendations.Thosefinalrecommendationswillbesubmittedtotheprovincialgovernment.TheprovinceofBritishColumbiaregu-larlyupdatesstratalegislation.


British Columbia Law Institute 1

Chapter 1. Introduction An Overview of this Consultation Paper’s Subject Stratapropertieshavebeencalled“anexperimentingroupliving.”1They’veearnedthistitlefortworeasons:(1)astrataproperty“bringstogetheragroupofindividu-alswithdiversepersonalitiesandattitudesandimposesuponthemthetaskoflivingharmoniouslyincloseproximitytooneanother”;2and(2)inastrataproperty“theseindividualsalsoassumetheresponsibilityofcollectivelymanagingthecommonare-asandfacilities.”3ThelegalbasisforthisexperimentistheStrataPropertyAct.4Thisactisitselfexper-imentalinnature.Ajudgehasdescribeditasbeinglegislationthat“reflectsthecombinationofseverallegalconceptsandrelieson,andtoadegreeincorporatesbyreference,principlesdrawnfromseveraldifferentareasoflaw.”5Since“suchlegisla-tionwouldnotbetheproductofamaster-mind,”theStrataPropertyActanditspre-decessorstatutes6have,overtheir50-plusyearsofexistence,placedcontinualde-mandsonbothstrata-lotowners,whomustgoverntheirstrataswith“aspiritofco-operationamongmembersofthestratacorporation,”andonlegislatorsandpolicy-makers,whomustheedthecall“forconstantstatutorychangestodealwithunfore-seeableproblems.”7Thisconsultationpaperisaresponsetooneaspectofthatcall.ItcontainsproposalstoreformhowtheStrataPropertyActandtheStrataPropertyRegulation8dealwiththemethodorsystemofastrata’smanagement—thatis,withitsgovernance.91. WilliamSchwartz,“Condominium:AHybridCastleintheSky”(1964)44:2BULRev137at144.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. SBC1998,c43.

5. ShawCablesystemsLtdvConcordPacificGroupInc,2007BCSC1711atpara6,288DLR(4th)252[ShawCablesystems—BCSC],LeaskJ(quoting2475813NovaScotiaLtdvRodgers,2001NSCA12atpara5,41RPR(3d)129[Rogers],CromwellJA).

6. SeeStrataTitlesAct,SBC1966,c40[1966act];StrataTitlesAct,SBC1974,c89[1974act];Stra-taTitlesAmendmentAct,1977(No2),SBC1977,c64;CondominiumAct,RSBC1996,c64.

7. ShawCablesystemsLtdvConcordPacificGroupInc,2008BCCA234atpara22,82BCLR(4th)285,HuddartJA(forthecourt).

8. BCReg43/2000.

9. SeeTheOxfordEnglishDictionary,3rded,subverbo“governance”(“Themannerinwhichsome-thingisgovernedorregulated;methodofmanagement,systemofregulation.”).


2 British Columbia Law Institute

Strata-propertygovernanceisallaboutfosteringeffectivedecision-making.Themainpointofcontentioncanbetracedbacktothedistinctivenatureofastrataproperty.Stratascombineindividualownershipofstratalotswithcollectiverespon-sibilityforcommonproperty,commonassets,andcommonexpenses.Therearisesfromthiscombinationaneedtostrikeabalancebetweenindividualautonomyandthedecisionsofthecollective.Asaleadingcasehasputit,“[t]heoldadage‘aman’shomeishiscastle’issubordinatedbytheexigenciesofmodernliving”10inastrataproperty,which“necessarilyinvolvesasurrenderofsomedegreeofproprietaryin-dependence.”11Howareeffectivedecisionsmadebythecollectivebodyofstrata-lotowners?Aretherewaystoimprovethisdecision-makingprocess?Inparticular,cantheprovi-sionsandproceduresgoverningmeetingsofthisgroupbemadeclearerandmoreefficacious?Whencanadecisionbemadebyasimplemajorityandwhenisagreatermajoritycalledfor?Howarethepeoplechargedwithimplementingthesedecisionsmadeaccountabletothebroadermassofowners?Aretherewaystostreamlineandenhancethisaccountability?Whathappenswhenanownerdefiesthewillofthegroup?Doesthestratahavetherighttoolstoenforceitsdecisions?Thesekindsofquestionsareattheheartofthisconsultationpaper.TheStrataProp-ertyActhasahighlydevelopedandsophisticatedsetofresponsestotheseques-tions.Aswillberevealedinthepagesthatfollow,thethemeofthisconsultationpa-peristhatsomesignificantworkisneededtoupgradetheact’ssetofresponses,whichisitsframeworkforstratagovernance.Whilethisconsultationpaperisn’tcallingforafundamentalreorientationofthatframework,itdoesproposethattheframework’sdetailsshouldbeenhancedandimproved,asawaytoensurethecon-tinuedsuccessofstratas’“experimentingroupliving.”

About the Public Consultation on Strata Governance TheconsultationpaperisthekeydocumentforBCLI’spublicconsultationongov-ernanceissuesforstratas.Itsetsoutall83tentativerecommendationsforreformoftheStrataPropertyActandtheStrataPropertyRegulation,forreaderstoreviewandtoprovidetheircomments.Italsocontainstheresearchuponwhichthosetentativerecommendationsarebased.10. TheOwnersStrataPlanLMS2768vJordison,2013BCCA484atpara25,52BCLR(5th)245,

DonaldJA(forthecourt).

11. Ibid(quotingBruceZiff,PrinciplesofPropertyLaw,5thed(Toronto:Carswell,2010)at366).



Forreaderswhopreferashorteroverviewofthissubject,asummaryconsultationisavailableatappendixBtothisconsultationpaper.12Afreestandingcopyofthesummaryconsultationmayalsobedownloadedfrom<https://www.bcli.org/>.Thesummaryconsultationpresentsahigh-leveldiscussionofthreehighlightedissuesinstratagovernance.Thepublicconsultationongovernanceissuesforstratasisopenuntil15June2018.Readersmaysubmittheirresponsesbyavarietyofelectronicandtraditionalmeans.13Aftertheconsultationperiodcloses,responsestotheconsultationpaperwillbetak-enintoaccountinpreparingareportthatwillcontainthefinalrecommendationsongovernanceissuesforstratas.BCLIprojectspublishingthisreportinsummer2018.

About the Strata Property Law Project—Phase Two ThisConsultationPaperonGovernanceIssuesforStratasispartoftheBritishColum-biaLawInstitute’songoingStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwo.BCLIbegantheStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwoinsummer2013.Theproject’sgoalsaretostudysevenareasofstrata-propertylaw,identifyissuescallingforreformofthelaw,andrecommendchangestotheStrataPropertyActtoaddressthoseissues.Thephase-twoprojectbuildsonBCLI’sStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseOne,whichwascompletedin2012.Overthecourseofthephase-oneproject,BCLIcar-riedoutinitiallegalresearchandfocussedconsultationwithleadingexpertsinthestrata-propertyfield.TheresultsofthisresearchandconsultationwerepublishedinBCLI’sReportonStrataPropertyLaw:PhaseOne,14whichrecommendedthatBCLIundertakealaw-reformprojecttoexaminethefollowingsubjects:(1)fundamentalchangestoastrata;(2)complexstratas;(3)selectedgovernanceissues;(4)commonproperty;(5)selectedland-titleissues;(6)selectedinsuranceissues;(7)leaseholdstratas.

12. See,below,at209–19.

13. See,above,nearthebeginningofthisconsultationpaperatthepageheaded“callforresponses”(unnumberedpagev).

14. BCLIrepno70(Vancouver:TheInstitute,2012),online:<https://www.bcli.org/publication/report-strata-property-law-phase-one>.



Thefirstsubjectinthephase-twoprojectwasaddressedintheproject’sfirsttwopublications,theConsultationPaperonTerminatingaStrata15andtheReportonTerminatingaStrata.16TheLegislativeAssemblyofBritishColumbiaimplementedthisreport’srecommendationsinfall2015.17Complexstratas,theproject’ssecondsubject,werethefocusoftheConsultationPa-peronComplexStratas18andtheReportonComplexStratas.19Whiletheconsultationonstratagovernanceisunderway,workoncommon-propertyandland-titleissuesisongoing,withapublicationaddressingthosesub-jectsprojectedfor2018.

The Phase-Two Project’s Supporters TheStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwohasbeenmadepossiblebyprojectgrantsfromtheRealEstateFoundationofBritishColumbia,theNotaryFoundationofBritishColumbia,theMinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousingforBritishCo-lumbia,theRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia,theRealEstateInstituteofBrit-ishColumbia,StrataPropertyAgentsofBritishColumbia,theAssociationofBritishColumbiaLandSurveyors,theVancouverIslandStrataOwnersAssociation,andtheCondominiumHomeOwnersAssociation.

The Strata Property Law (Phase Two) Project Committee Incarryingoutthephase-twoproject,BCLIisgratefultohavetheassistanceofanexpertprojectcommittee.BriefbiographiesofcommitteemembersmaybefoundatappendixC.20

15. (Vancouver:TheInstitute,2014),online:<https://www.bcli.org/publication/consultation-

paper-on-terminating-a-strata>.

16. BCLIrepno79(Vancouver:TheInstitute,2015),online:<https://www.bcli.org/publication/79-report-on-terminating-a-strata>.

17. SeeNaturalGasDevelopmentStatutesAmendmentAct,2015,SBC2015,c40,ss37–55[inforce28July2016].

18. (Vancouver:TheInstitute,2016),online:<https://www.bcli.org/publication/consultation-paper-on-complex-stratas>.

19. BCLIrepno81(Vancouver:TheInstitute,2017),online:<https://www.bcli.org/publication/report-on-complex-stratas>.

20. See,below,at221.



An Overview of this Consultation Paper Strata-propertygovernanceisavast,potentiallyunendingtopic.Thisconsultationpaperdoesn’tpurporttoexhaustthetopic.Instead,it’sfocussedonthefollowingsubjects,whichthecommitteedecidedearlyinitsdeliberationsasformingtheareasmostinneedofattentionfromalaw-reformbody:

• bylawsandrules;

• statutorydefinitions;

• generalmeetingsandstrata-councilmeetings;

• finances;

• noticesandcommunications.Thecommitteewasassistedinmakingthisdecision—andinselectingissuesforre-formforthesesubjects—bycommentsfromconsultationparticipantsinphaseoneofthisprojectandbycorrespondencereceivedduringphasetwofromprofessionalsinthestrata-propertysectorandmembersofthegeneralpublic.Eachofthelistedsubjectsgetsitsownchapterintheconsultationpaper.Thesesub-stantivechaptersaredistinctiveinsomeways,buttheydoconformtoabroad,gen-eralpattern.Thechapteropenswithanoverviewofthecurrentlawandadiscussionofthechapter’sscope—thatis,theissuesforreformthatthecommitteehaschosentoconsider.Aftertheoverview,theissuesthemselvesaresetoutanddiscussed.Thegoalofeachdiscussionisatentativerecommendationforreform,whichisthecom-mittee’sexpressionofthepolicystatementthatitbelievestobethebestresponsetotheissue.Thesubstantivechaptersaredetailedanddiverse,buthereareafewhighlightsdrawnfromeachofthem:

• bylawsandrules:thechapteropenswithareviewofeachofthestandardbylaws,21consideringwhetherthebylawshouldberelocatedtotheact(andtherebyplacedbeyondthereachofthestratacorporationtoamend);fromthere,itmovesontoconsiderwaystoenhancethestratacorporation’sen-forcementtools;

21. SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws.



• statutorydefinitions:thischapterexaminesthepotentialtoassiststratacorporationsdealingwithsomevexinggovernanceissuesbyclarifyingkeytermsusedintheact,proposingnewlegislativedefinitionsofcontinuingcontraventionandrent;

• generalmeetingsandstrata-councilmeetings:proxies,conductofmeet-ings,quorum,voting,strata-councilelections,andmeetingagendaandminutesmakeupthischapter,whichproposesanewdefinedproxy-appointmentform,aquorummustonlybepresentatthestartofameeting,clarificationthatthoseelectedtoastratacouncilmusteachcommandama-jorityofthevotescast,andaneworderofbusinessforthegeneral-meetingagenda;

• finances:amongthischapter’shighlightsareareviewandupdatingofregulatoryprovisionsgoverningthemaximumfeesandfinesandapro-posednewlimitationperiodformoneyowingtoastratacorporationthatmaybesubjecttothestratacorporation’slien;22

• noticesandcommunications:thischaptercontainsabriefreviewofthelittle-usedprovisionfornoticebypostingonbulletinboardandproposeslengtheningspecificnoticeperiods.

Other Law-Reform Projects EveryprovinceandterritoryinCanadahaslegislationthatistheequivalenttoBrit-ishColumbia’sStrataPropertyAct.23BCLI’sStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwoisn’ttheonlyreformprojectonstrata-propertylawthathasbeentakenoninrecentyears.24BeyondCanada,therealsohavebeenanumberofmajorprojectscarriedout

22. Seeibid,s116.

23. SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyAct,RSA2000,cC-22;Saskatchewan:TheCondominiumPropertyAct,1993,SS1993,cC-26.1;Manitoba:TheCondominiumAct,SM2011,c30,CCSMcC170;Ontario:CondominiumAct,1998,SO1998,c19;Québec:arts1038–1109CCQ;NewBrunswick:CondominiumPropertyAct,SNB2009,cC-16.05;PrinceEdwardIsland:Condomini-umAct,RSPEI1988,cC-16;NovaScotia:CondominiumAct,RSNS1989,c85;NewfoundlandandLabrador:CondominiumAct,2009,SNL2009,cC-29.1;Yukon:CondominiumAct,RSY2002,c36;NorthwestTerritoriesandNunavut:CondominiumAct,RSNWT1988,cC-15(duplicatedforNu-navutbys29oftheNunavutAct,SC1993,c28).

24. SeeYukon,DepartmentofJustice,TheCondominiumActReview:ADiscussionPaper(Fall2012),online:<https://perma.cc/H5UU-KWJE>;NewfoundlandandLabrador,GovernmentServices,CondominiumActofNewfoundlandandLabrador:ConsultationDiscussionPaper(2008),online:<https://perma.cc/K4JX-72KM>.



inAustralia(whosestateshavelegislationthatissimilartotheStrataPropertyAct).25WhileitwasconsideringgovernanceissuesforBritishColumbiastratas,thecom-mitteekepttabsonthesereformprojects,withparticularattentionpaidtoprojectsinOntario26andAlberta,27bothofwhichhaveledtomajorstatutoryreforms.28Theseotherlaw-reformprojectstendednottoinspireidenticalproposalsforBritishColumbia,asdifferencesinlegislativehistoryandthestrata-propertymarketmakeitdifficulttoadoptareformdevelopedinonejurisdictionandapplyitwithoutsig-nificantchangesinanother.Butprojectsinotherjurisdictionsdidhelpthecommit-teeingrapplingwithbroadthemesthattendtoemergeinconsideringstratagov-ernance.Onetheme,inparticular,wastheneedtobalancewhattheAmericanUni-formLawCommissionhascalled“theperceptionthatindividualunitownerswereunfairlydisadvantagedintheirdealingswiththeelecteddirectorsandemploy-ee/managersofunitownerassociations”29withthesensethatsomeprovisions

25. SeeNewSouthWales,NSWFairTrading,StrataTitleLawReform:Strata&CommunityTitleLaw

ReformPositionPaper(Parramatta:NSWFairTrading,2013),online:<https://perma.cc/8PZU-JK43>;QueenslandUniversityofTechnologyLaw,CommercialandPropertyLawResearchCen-tre,LotEntitlementsundertheBodyCorporateandCommunityManagementAct(QueenslandGovernmentPropertyLawReview,IssuesPaper2)(February2014),online:<https://perma.cc/4JUJ-JPEN>;QueenslandUniversityofTechnologyLaw,CommercialandPropertyLawResearchCentre,BodyCorporateGovernanceIssues:By-laws,DebtRecovery,andSchemeTermination(QueenslandGovernmentPropertyLawReviewOptionsPaper)(Decem-ber2014),online:<https://perma.cc/2CZ8-WMA5>;QueenslandUniversityofTechnologyLaw,CommercialandPropertyLawResearchCentre,FinalRecommendations:ProceduralIssuesundertheBodyCorporateandCommunityManagementAct1997(2017),online:<https://perma.cc/QJ2Y-ADKW>;WesternAustralia,Landgate,StrataTitlesActDiscussionPaper(DiscussionDraft30June2014),online:<https://perma.cc/ZG8R-24YN>.

26. SeeCanada’sPublicPolicyForum,GrowingUp:Ontario’sCondominiumCommunitiesEnteraNewEra:CondominiumActReviewStageTwoSolutionsReport(Ottawa:Canada’sPublicPolicyForum,2013),online:<https://perma.cc/2N5D-7VXN>;Canada’sPublicPolicyForum,Ontario’sCon-dominiumActReview:StageOneFindingsReport(Ottawa:Canada’sPublicPolicyForum,2013),online:<https://perma.cc/Q5NV-6MRL>.

27. ServiceAlberta,CondominiumPropertyActReview:ConsultationAnalysisReport(June2013),online:<https://perma.cc/874W-JPUE>.

28. SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyAmendmentAct,2014,SA2014,c10[notinforce];Ontario:ProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,SO2015,c28.

29. UniformCommonInterestOwnershipAct(2008),prefatorynote.SeealsoGrowingUp:Ontario’sCondominiumCommunitiesEnteraNewEra:CondominiumActReviewStageTwoSolutionsRe-port,supranote26at15(describingoneofthe“mainthemes”ofthereviewas“thepowerim-balancebetweenboardsandowners”);CondominiumPropertyActReview:ConsultationAnalysisReport,supranote26at60(“Ageneralthemethatemergedfromthissectionoftheconsultationsurveyistheimportanceofaresponsive,transparentandaccountableboardintheoverallgov-



couldbestreamlinedorenhancedtoallowforthebettermanagementandoperationofthestrataandtheenforcementofthewishesofamajorityofitsowners.30

ernanceofacondominium.”).OntariopointedlynamedthelegislationthatimplementstheirCondominiumActReviewtheProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015.

30. SeeBodyCorporateGovernanceIssues:By-laws,DebtRecovery,andSchemeTermination,supranote25at9(“thereisawidespreadperceptionamongstrataindustrygroups,bodycorporatemanagersandlotownersthatthebodycorporateisa‘toothlesstiger’whenitcomestoenforc-ingitsownrules”).



Chapter 2. The Building Blocks of Strata Governance

Introduction Thebulkofthecommittee’sresearchintothecurrentlawappearsinthechaptersthatfollow,eachofwhichcontainsbackgroundinformationgearedtotheissuesforreformconsideredinthechapter.Thischapterfillsinthepicturewithbasicinfor-mationaboutstratapropertiesthatmaybeseenasformingthebackdropforthechaptersthatfollow.Thisdiscussionofthebasicsofstrata-propertylawinthischapterisn’tintendedtobecomprehensive.31Instead,itoffersjustenoughinformationtoallowreaderswhoarenewtothesubjecttofindtheirwaythroughthechaptersthatfollow.

The Essential Elements of a Strata Property Strataproperties32arealegaldevicethataccommodatesindividualownershipofaninterestinlandwithinacollective,multi-unitstructure.Thelawcontainsmanysuchdevices.Whatsetsastratapropertyapartfrom,say,acooperative,ajointtenancy,atenancyincommon,oralong-termlease,arethefollowing“twoessentialelements”:

31. SeeGerryFanaken,UnderstandingtheCondominiumConcept:AnInsightfulGuidetotheStrata

PropertyAct(Coquitlam,BC:PaigeCondominiumServices,2013);MikeMangan,TheCondomini-umManual:AComprehensiveGuidetoStrataLawinBritishColumbia,3rded(Vancouver:StrataPublishing,2010)(comprehensivegeneralpublicationsonstrata-propertylawinBritishCo-lumbia);ContinuingLegalEducationSocietyofBritishColumbia,ed,BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual(Vancouver:ContinuingLegalEducationSocietyofBritishColumbia,2008)(loose-leaf2017update)(leadinglegal-practiceguideonstratapropertiesinBritishCo-lumbia).SeealsoAdrienneMMurray,“TheBasicsofStrataPropertyLaw,”inContinuingLegalEducationSocietyofBritishColumbia,ed,StrataProperty—2006Update:MaterialspreparedfortheContinuingLegalEducationseminar,StrataPropertyFundamentalsforLawyers,heldinVan-couver,B.C.,onOctober20,2006(Vancouver:ContinuingLegalEducationSocietyofBritishCo-lumbia,2006)1.1(articlediscussingmanyfundamentalconceptsinstrata-propertylaw).

32. Formanypeoplethenamestratapropertyitselfisthefirststumblingblockthat’sencounteredinadiscussionofthisareaofthelaw.BritishColumbiaistheonlyjurisdictioninCanadathatusesthisname.Itssignificanceismainlyhistorical:itreflectstheoriginsofthisprovince’slawinleg-islationthatwasenactedfirstinAustralia.OtherCanadianprovincesandterritoriesdrewonAmericanlawtocreatetheirlegislation.SotheyadoptedtheleadingAmericanword,condomini-um.Thetwotermsactuallydescribethesameconcept.Nothinginlawturnsontheuseofoneortheother.



• thedivisionofpropertyintounits,tobeindividuallyowned,andcommonelements,tobeownedincommonbytheownersoftheunits;and

• anadministrativeframeworktoenabletheownerstomanagetheproperty.33InBritishColumbia,theseessentialelementsareenabledbylegislation.Thislegisla-tioniscalledtheStrataPropertyAct,34anditisconstructedlargelyfromprovisionsdrawnfromolder,moreestablishedbodiesoflaw—especially,real-estatelaw,easements,andcorporatelaw.35

Strata Property Act Sometimescalledthethirdgenerationofstrata-propertylegislation,36theStrataPropertyActwasenactedin1998.37TheStrataPropertyActwasonlybroughtintoforceafteratransitionalperiod,whichlasteduntil1July2000.Althoughitpreservesmuchoftheframeworkinplaceinthefirsttwogenerationsofthelegislation,theStrataPropertyActisafarmorecomprehensivestatutethanitstwopredecessors.PartsoftheStrataPropertyActhavebeensignificantlyamendedin2009,382012,39and2015.40Thesechangesprimarilyrelatetofinancialplanning,disputeresolution,andtermination;theydon’thavemuchbearingonthisconsultationpaper’smainsubjects.TheStrataPropertyActisprobablythemostdetailedandsophisticatedlegislationofitskindinCanada.Itcontainsanarrayofprovisionsonsubjectsthataren’tad-dressedinequivalentstatutesfoundintheotherprovincesorterritories.Buttheactwasalsoconsciouslydraftedtoprovideenhancedflexibilitytocertainkindsofstra-

33. OntarioLawReformCommission,ReportontheLawofCondominium(Toronto:Departmentof

theAttorneyGeneral,1967)at3.

34. Supranote4.

35. SeeShawCablesystems—BCSC,supranote5atpara6.

36. See1966act,supranote6(first-generationact)and1974act,supranote6(second-generationact).Thesecond-generationactwasrenamedtheCondominiumActin1979andismorecom-monlyknownbythatname.

37. Supranote4.

38. SeeStrataPropertyAmendmentAct,2009,SBC2009,c17.

39. SeeCivilResolutionTribunalAct,SBC2012,c25.

40. SeeNaturalGasDevelopmentStatutesAmendmentAct,2015,supranote17.



tas.Thesequalitiescanmakeitdifficulttodiscusstheact’sprovisions,asit’softennecessarytonotebothageneralruleandaseriesofexceptions.Forthesakeofsim-plicity,thepagesthatfollowwillfocusonthegeneralrulesandwilltouchonexcep-tions,wherenecessary,infootnotes.

The Owner-Developer Theindividualwhoor(moretypically)corporationorpartnershipthatstartsthestratificationprocessiscalledanowner-developer.Beforesomeonebecomesanowner-developer,thatpersonisanownerofland41whowantstodevelopitasastrataproperty.Thatpersonisresponsibleforshep-herdingtheprojectthroughtheprocedureforstratifyingland.Afterthisprocessiscomplete,theowner-developerholdsalltitlesinthedevelopment,whicharegradu-allysoldofftopurchasers.Theowner-developercanhaveadecisiveinfluenceoverboththeoriginalconcep-tionandtheongoingoperationofastrataproperty.Manyofthekeydecisionsthataremadeinsettingupastrataoriginatewiththeowner-developer.Thesedecisionscanreverberatelongaftertheowner-developerhasleftthescene.

Creation of a Strata Property by Deposit of a Strata Plan Thestratificationprocessbeginswiththedepositinthelandtitleofficeofastrataplan.Thestrataplanhasbeendescribedas“thefundamentaldocumentthatdividespropertyintostratalotsandcreatestitleineachofthosestratalots.”42Itisadocu-mentpreparedbyaqualifiedlandsurveyor,whichisrequiredtocontainspecificde-tailsandmeetexactingtechnicalstandards.43

41. Andhere’sthefirstexceptiontonote:insomecases,itisn’tthelandownerbutratheralessee

underalong-termgroundleasewhoactsastheowner-developer.Theactcallsthesecasesleaseholdstrataplans.Forsimplicity’ssake,thisconsultationpaperwillfocusonthemuchmorecommoncaseofalandownerdevelopingastratapropertyandwilldownplaytherarerlease-holdstrataplan.Thatsaid,thereisnothinginlawthatpreventsthecommittee’sproposalsfromextendingtoleaseholdstrataplans.

42. ChowvTheOwners,StrataPlanNW3243,2015BCSC1944atpara5,[2015]BCJNo2306(QL),SmithJ.

43. SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s244.



ThereareessentiallytwokindsofstrataplansundertheStrataPropertyAct.Oneiscalledabare-landstrataplan.Itconcernsthesubdivisionofland.44Theotherkindofstrataplanisn’tnamedintheact,butit’scommonlycalledabuild-ingorconventionalstrataplan.45Thiskindofstrataplandealswiththesubdivisionofabuilding.Thisisthemorecommonkindofstrataplan.Amongthethingsthatastrataplandoes,oneofthemostimportantistodistinguishbetweenthetwobasicbuildingblocksofastrataproperty:stratalotsandcommonproperty.

Strata Lots Astratalotisthelegislation’snamefortheunitinastratapropertythatisindividu-allytitledandowned.Acommonexampleofastratalotisanapartmentinaresiden-tialstrataproperty.Butitisimportanttobearinmindthatnothinginstrata-propertylawrestrictsstratalotstoapartmentsorresidentialuses.Stratalotsmaybetownhouses,shopsusedforcommercialpurposes,industrialplants,recreationalcottages,orparkinglots.Solongastheyareidentifiedassuchonastrataplan,stratalotsmaybealmostanythingwithintheingenuityofanowner-developer.But,thatsaid,theactdoes,inmanyplaces,distinguishbetweenstratalotsbasedontheiruses.Thisdistinctionturnsonwhetherornotthestratalotisusedforresiden-tialpurposes.Residentialstratalotisadefinedterm,meaning“astratalotdesignedorintendedtobeusedprimarilyasaresidence.”46Stratalotsusedforanyotherpurposearereferredtoasnonresidentialstratalots.Whetherastratalotisaresi-dentialstratalotoranonresidentialstratalotcanhaveabearingonhowcertainrulesrelatingtoproperty,expenses,andgovernanceareappliedtoit.Thecombinationofresidentialandnonresidentialstratalotsinasinglestrataprop-ertygivesrisetowhatiscolloquiallycalledamixed-usestrata.44. Seeibid,s1(1)“barelandstrataplan”(“means(a)astrataplanonwhichtheboundariesofthe

stratalotsaredefinedonahorizontalplanebyreferencetosurveymarkersandnotbyreferencetothefloors,wallsorceilingsofabuilding,or(b)anyotherstrataplandefinedbyregulationtobeabarelandstrataplan.”).Regardingparagraph(b),notethattodatenoregulationsonthispointhavebeenadopted.

45. SeeMurray,supranote31at1.13;Mangan,supranote31at17;BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§1.14.

46. Supranote4,s1(1)“residentialstratalot.”



Common property, Limited Common Property, and Common Assets Common property TheStrataPropertyActcontainsamulti-layereddefinitionofcommonproperty.Inthefirstlayer,theactsimplydefinescommonpropertyas“thatpartofthelandandbuildingsshownonastrataplanthatisnotpartofastratalot.”47Thisisabroad,open-endeddefinition,whichmightnotbesimpletograsponfirstreading.Someconcreteexamplesofcommonpropertytothinkofarehallways,lobbies,elevators,courtyards,gardens,roads,andrecreationalfacilities.Ofcourse,commonpropertyisn’tlimitedtothosethings;that’swhyit’sdefinedinsuchgeneralterms.Thesecondlayeroftheact’sdefinitiontacklescasesinwhichitwouldbedifficulttoapplyasimpleandclear-cutdistinctionbetweenbeingpartofastratalotorpartofthecommonproperty.Itisaimedatalonglistofspecificbuildingcomponentsandsystemsforservices(“pipes,wires,cables,chutes,ductsandotherfacilitiesforthepassageorprovisionofwater,sewage,drainage,gas,oil,electricity,telephone,radio,television,garbage,heatingandcoolingsystems,orothersimilarservices”).48Thesethingsmaybecommonpropertybydefinition,dependingonthelocationofthethingortheusageofthething.49Andit’satthispointthatthesecondlayeroftheact’sdefinitionofcommonpropertysplitsintotwobranches.Thefirstbranchdealswithlocation.It’sconcernedwithboundarycases.Thedefini-tionfocussesattentiononwhetherthecomponentorsystemlistedearlierislocated“withinafloor,wallorceiling”thatitselfformsaboundary

• betweenastratalotandanotherstratalot,

• betweenastratalotandthecommonproperty,or

• betweenastratalotorcommonpropertyandanotherparcelofland.50

47. Ibid,s1(1)“commonproperty.”

48. Ibid,s1(1)“commonproperty.”

49. SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§3.2(“Whetheraparticu-larpartofasystemorservice,suchasawire,pipe,orduct,constitutespartofthecommonpropertyisdeterminedbythelocationofthepartorbytheusageofthepart.”).

50. Supranote4,s1(1)“commonproperty.”



Theeffectofthisbranchofthedefinitionistobringtheseboundarycaseswithinthescopeofcommonproperty.Thesecondbranchdealswithuse.Evenifanyofthethingslistedabove(pipes,wires,etc.)findsitself“whollyorpartiallywithinastratalot,”itisstillwithinthedefinitionofcommonpropertyifitis“capableofbeingandintendedtobeusedinconnectionwiththeenjoymentofanotherstratalotorthecommonproperty.”Courtdecisionsconsideringthisbranchofthedefinitionhaveconcludedthatifthecom-ponentorsystemis“connected”toothercomponentsorsystemsthatserviceotherstratalots51orisotherwisepartofan“integratedwhole,”52thenitshouldbeconsid-eredcommonproperty.Asaleadingpracticeguidehasnoted,thisapproach“leave[s]veryfewsuchfacilitieswithinacondominiumoutsideofthe‘commonproperty’ofthatcomplex.”53Limited common property Withinthescopeofcommonproperty,theactembedstheconceptoflimitedcom-monproperty.Thisiscommonpropertythathasbeen“designatedfortheexclusiveuseoftheownersofoneormorestratalots.”54Sometypicalexamplesofthingsthatmightbelimitedcommonpropertyareabalconyforanapartmentinahigh-risetower,apatioforatownhouseorground-floorapartment,andaparkingspaceinaparkinglot.Butitshouldbeborneinmindthattheseitemsarenotnecessarilylimitedcommonpropertyandtheydon’texhaustthecategoryoflimitedcommonproperty.Thedefi-nitionofthetermisgeneralandopen-ended.Thekeytoknowingwhethercommonpropertyislimitedcommonpropertyisthedesignation.Therearetwowaystomakethisdesignation.Itmaybemadeontheoriginalstrataplanoranamendmenttothatstrataplan.55Oritmaybemadebyaresolutionofthestratacorporation,passedbya3/4vote,andfiledinthelandtitleofficealongwithasketchplan.56

51. TaychukvOwners,StrataPlanLMS744,2002BCSC1638atpara28,7RPR(4th)302,GrayJ.

52. FudgevOwners,StrataPlanNW2636,2012BCPC409atpara48,[2012]BCJNo2358(QL),WoodsProvCtJ.

53. BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§3.2.

54. Supranote4,s(1)(1)“limitedcommonproperty.”

55. Ibid,s73(a)–(b).

56. Ibid,ss73(c),74.Thesketchplanreferredtointhetextmustbeonethat“(a)satisfiestheregis-trar[oflandtitles],(b)definestheareasoflimitedcommonproperty,and(c)specifieseachstra-talotwhoseownersareentitledtotheexclusiveuseofthelimitedcommonproperty”(ibid,s73(2)).



Common assets Finally,theactalsocharacterizessomepropertyascommonassets.Thedefinitionofcommonassetscontainstwocategories.Thefirstis“personalpropertyheldbyoronbehalfofastratacorporation.”57Examplesofthiscategoryincludeitemsofpropertylikefurnitureinalobbyorexerciseequipmentinagym.Thesecondcategoryis“landheldinthenameoforonbehalfofastratacorporation,thatis(i)notshownonthestrataplan,or(ii)shownasastratalotonthestrataplan.”58Anexampleof(i)isanyoffsitelandownedorheldonbehalfofthestrata.Anexampleof(ii)isacaretak-er’ssuiteinaresidentialbuildingwhichisastratalot.

The Strata Corporation Inadditiontodividinglandintostratalotsandcommonproperty,depositingastra-taplaninthelandtitleoffice“establishes”astratacorporation.59Thisstratacorpo-rationisthethirdimportantpiece(alongwiththestratalotsandcommonproperty)inthemakeupofastrataproperty.Itisthevehiclebywhichstrata-lotownersareabletoadministertheirstrataproperty.Assuch,thestratacorporationisthemainfocusofstrata-propertygovernance.Theactsaysthatthepurposeofastratacorporationistotakeresponsibilityfor“managingandmaintainingthecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporationforthebenefitoftheowners.”60Ownershipofcommonpropertyandcommonassetsisinthehandsofthestrata-lotowners,collectively.61Themember-shipofthestratacorporationismadeupof“theownersofthestratalotsinthestra-taplan.”62Thestratacorporationisthemeansforcoordinatingtheseownerstomakeeffectiveandtimelycollectivedecisions.

57. Ibid,s1(1)“commonasset.”

58. Ibid,s1(1)“commonasset.”

59. Ibid,s2(1)(a).

60. Ibid,s3.

61. Seeibid,s66(“Anownerownsthecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorpora-tionasatenantincommoninashareequaltotheunitentitlementoftheowner’sstratalotdi-videdbythetotalunitentitlementofallthestratalots.”).

62. Ibid,s2(1)(b).



Common Expenses Manyofthedecisionsthatastratacorporationhastomakeconcernspendingmon-eytopayforexpenses.Theactmakesthestrata-lotownerscollectivelyresponsibleforwhatitcallscommonexpenses,whichitdefinesasexpenses

• relatingtothecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporation,or

• requiredtomeetanyotherpurposeorobligationofthestratacorporation.63Commonexpensesoftenrelatetothefirstbulletpointandare,ineffect,theflipsideofowningpropertyincommon.Thestratacorporationhasalegalobligationto“re-pairandmaintaincommonpropertyandcommonassets.”64Althoughthestratacorporationisresponsibleforcommonexpenses,65payingforrepairs—asforallcommonexpenses—ultimatelycomesfromcontributionsfromstrata-lotowners.Howthesecontributionsaredeterminedleadstoconsiderationofoneoftheact’sfoundationalconcepts,unitentitlement.

Unit Entitlement What is unit entitlement and how is it used? Atbottom,unitentitlementisanumber.Eachstratalotinastratapropertyisas-signeditsownunit-entitlementnumber.Theactusesunitentitlementinawaythattiesthisconceptintooneofthedefiningcharacteristicsofastrata.Thisdefiningcharacteristicistheuniquestrataproperty–ownershipmodel,whichcombinesindividualownershipofstratalotswithsharedownership,amongstrata-lotowners,ofastrata’scommonpropertyandcommonassets,andsharedresponsibilityforthedebtsandliabilitiesofthestratacorpora-tion.63. Supranote4,s1(1)“commonexpenses.”

64. Ibid,s72(1).Thisobligationissubjecttotwoexceptions,whichallowthestratacorporationtoadoptabylawto“makeanownerresponsiblefortherepairandmaintenanceof(a)limitedcommonpropertythattheownerhasarighttouse,or(b)commonpropertyotherthanlimitedcommonpropertyonlyifidentifiedintheregulationsandsubjecttoprescribedrestrictions”(ibid,s72(2)).Thesecondexceptioniscurrentlyadeadletter,astherearenoregulationsena-blingitsapplication.Strata-lotownersaregenerallyresponsiblefortherepairandmaintenanceoftheirstratalots,buttheactdoesallowthestratacorporationtoadoptabylawto“takere-sponsibilityfortherepairandmaintenanceofspecifiedportionsofastratalot”(ibid,s72(3)).

65. Seeibid,s91.



Specifically,unitentitlementisusedin“calculations”that“determine”eachstratalot’sshareof:

• commonproperty;

• commonassets;

• commonexpenses;and

• liabilitiesofthestratacorporation.66How is unit entitlement determined? Theacthasadetailedsetofrulesonhowtodeterminetheunitentitlementofastra-talot.Whichrulesapplyinagivencasedependson(1)theuseofthestratalotand(2)thekindofstrataplanatissue.Theactdistinguishesbetweenresidentialandnonresidentialuses,andcontainsaspecialruleformixed-usestratas.Themethodsfordeterminingtheunitentitlementofastratalotare:

• forresidentialstratalots:oneof(a)thehabitableareaofthestratalot,(b)awholenumberthatisthesameforallresidentialstratalots,or(c)anumberthat“allocatesafairportionofthecommonexpensestotheownerofthestratalot,”intheopinionofthesuperintendentofrealestate,whomustapproveanyuseofoption(c);67

• fornonresidentialstratalots:oneof(a)thetotalareaofthestratalot,(b)awholenumberthatisthesameforallnonresidentialstratalots,or(c)anumberthat“allocatesafairportionofthecommonexpensestotheownerofthestratalot,”intheopinionofthesuperintendentofrealestate,whomustapproveanyuseofoption(c);68

• formixed-usestratas:“[i]fthestrataplanconsistsofbothresidentialandnonresidentialstratalots,”thenunitentitlement“mustbeapprovedbythesuperintendentasfairlydistributingthecommonexpensesbetweenthe

66. Ibid,s1(1).SomejurisdictionsgoevenfurtherthanBritishColumbiaanduseunitentitlement

todetermineastratalot’svotingrightsanditsshareofresidualpropertyaftertermination.

67. Ibid,s246(3)(a).

68. Ibid,s246(3)(b).



ownersoftheresidentialstratalotsandtheownersofthenonresidentialstratalots.”69

Forresidentialandnonresidentialstratalots,inmostcasesunitentitlementisde-terminedusingoption(a).Ineffect,thismeansthatthesizeofthestratalotdeter-minesitsunitentitlement.Itisslightlymorecomplicatedthanthat,becausetheactreliesontwodifferentstandardsfordeterminingthesizeofastratalot.Forresidentialstratalots,thesizeofastratalotisdeterminedbymeasuringitshab-itablearea.Thisisadefinedterm,70whicheffectivelylimitsunitentitlementtolivingareasinastratalot,excludingthingslike“patios,balconies,garages,parkingstallsorstorageareasotherthanclosetspace.”71Fornonresidentialstratalots,sizeisdeter-minedbythetotalareaofthestratalot.72Inbothcases,option(a)requiresunitentitlementtobe“determinedbyaBritishCo-lumbialandsurveyor.”73Theserulesonlyapplywhenthestrataplanisaconventional(building)strataplan.Forbare-landstrataplans,aspecialrulecomesintoplay.74When is unit entitlement determined and where is it found? Theunitentitlementofastratalotmustbedeterminedattheoutsetofthestratifica-tionprocess.Theactrequiresthe“personapplyingtodepositastrataplan”toin-cludetheunitentitlementsofthestratalotsinthestrataplan.75Theseunit-entitlementnumbersaregroupedtogetherasascheduletothestrataplan,called

69. Ibid,s246(5).

70. Seeibid,s246(4).

71. StrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,s14.2.

72. Totalareaisn’tadefinedterm;itsimplytakesitseverydaymeaning.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§2.39(“‘totalarea’includesallofthoseareaslistedasexcludedfrom‘habitablearea’ofaresidentialstratalot”).

73. Supranote4,s246(3)(a),(b).

74. Ibid,s246(6)(“Theunitentitlementofastratalotinabarelandstrataplanmustbe(a)awholenumberthatisthesameforallofthestratalotsinthestrataplan,or(b)anumberthatisap-provedbythesuperintendentandthatinthesuperintendent’sopinionallocatesafairportionofthecommonexpensestotheownerofthestratalot.”).

75. Ibid,s246(2).



theScheduleofUnitEntitlement.76Thisscheduleisthedefinitivesourceoftheunitentitlementofastratalotinthatstrataplan.

The General Rule for Sharing Common Expenses Asaleadingcaseputsit,whenitcomestocommonexpenses,“[t]hegeneralruleun-derthe[StrataPropertyAct]isthatwithinastratacorporation‘youareallinitto-gether.’”77Theactimplementsthisgeneralrulebyaseriesofprovisionsrequiringownerstosharecommonexpensesbymeansofaformulabasedontheunitentitle-mentofanowner’sstratalot.Foranimportantexampleofhowtheactusesunitentitlementtoimplementthegeneralruleofstrata-lotowners“allbeinginittogether,”considertheact’srulesoncalculatingstratafees.78Stratafees,whichmakeupcontributionstoastratacorpo-ration’soperatingfundanditscontingencyreservefund,aretobecalculatedusingthefollowingformula:79

unitentitlementofstratalotx totalcontribution

totalunitentitlementofallstratalotsThisformulaalsoapplieswhenastratacorporationraisesfundsbywayofaspeciallevy.80

Changing the General Rule: Using Something Other than Unit Entitlement as a Basis for Cost Sharing TheStrataPropertyActallowsstrata-lotownerstoagreeto“changethebasisforcalculationofacontribution”tothestratacorporation’soperatingfundorcontin-

76. Seeibid,s246(2).Thescheduleisaprescribedform.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supra

note8,FormV.

77. TheOwners,StrataPlanLMS1537vAlvarez,2003BCSC1085atpara35,17BCLR(4th)63,BaumanJ.

78. Seesupranote4,s99(1)(“ownersmustcontributetothestratacorporationtheirstratalots’sharesofthetotalcontributionsbudgetedfortheoperatingfundandcontingencyreservefundbymeansofstratafeescalculatedinaccordancewiththissectionandtheregulations”).

79. Ibid,s99(2).

80. Seeibid,s108(2)(a).



gencyreservefund.81Thisagreementmayonlybemadeat“anannualorspecialgeneralmeetingheldafterthefirstannualgeneralmeeting.”82Theactalsoallowsforstrata-lotownerstochangethegeneralrulefor“calculat[ing]eachstratalot’sshareofaspeciallevy.”83Thischangemustresultina“waythates-tablishesafairdivisionofexpensesforthatparticularlevy.”84Bothrulesimplicitlyallowstrata-lotownerstosharecommonexpensesbyrefer-encetosomestandardotherthanunitentitlement.Theyappeartogivestratacor-porationsahighdegreeofflexibilityinstructuringtheiraffairs.Butthisflexibilityisratherillusory,becauseinbothcasesthechangesrequireap-provalbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.85Aunanimousvotemeans“avoteinfavourofaresolutionbyallthevotesofalltheeligiblevoters.”86Thisisaveryhighhurdletoclear.Itrequiresthateverystrata-lotownerconsenttothereso-lution.Inallbutthesmalleststratasitisverydifficulttoreachunanimityonamodi-fiedruleforcostsharing.Sotheseprovisionshavelimitedutilityinpractice.

Dispute Resolution and the Civil Resolution Tribunal Finally,resolutionofdisputesisanimportantpartofstratagovernance.Whileotherlaw-reformprojectshavemaderecommendationsondisputeresolution,87thiscon-sultationpaperdoesn’tdirectlyaddressthetopic.ThisisbecauseBritishColumbiahasrecentlyembarkedonanewapproachtostratadisputeresolution.ThecentrepieceofthisnewapproachistheCivilResolutionTribunal.Thetribunal’smandateis“toprovidedisputeresolutionservicesinrelationtomattersthatarewithinitsauthority,inamannerthat”:

• isaccessible,speedy,economical,informalandflexible,

81. Seeibid,s100.

82. Ibid,s100(1).

83. Ibid,s108(2).

84. Ibid,s108(2)(b).

85. Seeibid,ss100(2),108(2)(b).

86. StrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s1(1)“unanimousvote.”

87. Seee.g.GrowingUp:Ontario’sCondominiumCommunitiesEnteraNewEra:CondominiumActRe-viewStageTwoSolutionsReport,supranote26at30–35.



• appliesprinciplesoflawandfairness,andrecognizesanyrelationshipsbetweenpar-tiestoadisputethatwilllikelycontinueafterthetribunalproceedingisconcluded,

• useselectroniccommunicationtoolstofacilitateresolutionofdisputesbroughttothetribunal,and

• accommodates,sofarasthetribunalconsidersreasonablypracticable,thediversityofcircumstancesofthepersonsusingtheservicesofthetribunal.88

Sinceitsinception,thetribunal’sauthorityhasextendedtomostkindsofstratadis-putes.89Thetribunalhasbeenacceptingstrata-disputeclaimssince2016.Giventhatit’sstillearlydaysforthetribunal,thisprojecthasn’tmadeanattempttoaddressreformsconcerningdisputeresolution.Butthetribunal’sexistencedoesplayintoseveraltentativerecommendationsinthisconsultationpaper.90

88. CivilResolutionTribunalAct,supranote39,s2(2).

89. Seeibid,s3.6.

90. Seee.g.,below,at51.



Chapter 3. Bylaws and Rules Background Nature of bylaws Bylawshavebeendescribedasstratas’“secondlegislativeelement”91(aftertheStra-taPropertyAct)andas“astratacorporation’sconstitution,”which“reflect[s]eachstratacommunity’svalues.”92Ineffect,bylawsarethegoverningstatementthatsetsouthowmostcommonissuesaffectingstrataswillberesolved.Theyareattheheartofastratacorporation’sgovernance.TheStrataPropertyActrequiresastratacorporationtohavebylaws.93Thescopeofwhatmaybeaddressedinbylawsismainlydefinedbytwoprovisionsintheact.Theactholdsthat“bylawsmayprovideforthecontrol,management,maintenance,useandenjoymentofthestratalots,commonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporationandfortheadministrationofthestratacorporation.”94Butanybylaw“isnotenforceabletotheextentthatit”:

• contravenesthisAct,theregulations,theHumanRightsCodeoranyotherenactmentorlaw,

• destroysormodifiesaneasementcreatedundersection69,or

• prohibitsorrestrictstherightofanownerofastratalottofreelysell,lease,mort-gageorotherwisedisposeofthestratalotoraninterestinthestratalot.95

Athirdpotentiallimitonthescopeofbylawscomesintheformoftheact’ssectionaimedat“preventingorremedyingunfairacts.”96Therearecasesholdingtheadop-tionofabylawtobean“actionorthreatenedactionby,or[a]decisionof,thestratacorporation,”whichisreviewableunderthissection.97Theleadingcasesonthissec-91. Fanaken,supranote31at97.

92. Mangan,supranote31at297.

93. Supranote4,s119(1)(“Thestratacorporationmusthavebylaws.”).

94. Ibid,s119(2).

95. Ibid,s121(1).Thesectiongoesontoqualifythethirdbulletpoint,sayingthatthisprovisiondoesn’tapplyto“(a)abylawundersection141thatprohibitsorlimitsrentals,(b)abylawun-dersection122relatingtothesaleofastratalot,or(c)abylawrestrictingtheageofpersonswhomayresideinastratalot”(ibid,s121(2)).

96. Ibid,s164.SeealsoCivilResolutionTribunalAct,supranote39,s48.1.

97. Seee.g.ChanvOwners,StrataPlanVR-151,2010BCSC1725atpara21,98RPR(4th)309,



tionhavesaidthat“acourtshouldnotinterferewiththeactionsofastratacouncilunlesstheactionsresultinsomethingmorethanmereprejudiceortriflingunfair-ness.”98Thistypeofactionhasbeendescribedas“conductthatisburdensome,harsh,wrongful,lackinginprobityorfaildealing”or“conductthatisunjustorineq-uitable.”99ThisislikelyhowabylawwouldhavetobecharacterizedifacourtortheCivilResolutionTribunalweretosetitasideasbeingsignificantlyunfairtoanown-erorowners.Amending bylaws ThereisastandardsetofbylawsattachedasascheduletotheStrataPropertyAct.Whenastrataplanisfiledinthelandtitleoffice,thesestandardbylawsapplybyde-faulttothestratacorporationthatcomesintobeingonthefilingofthestrataplan.100Anyofthedefaultstandardbylawscanbedisplaced“totheextentthatdif-ferentbylawsarefiledinthelandtitleoffice.”101Therearetwoactorsthatmayfile“differentbylaws”inthelandtitleoffice:(1)theowner-developerand(2)thestratacorporation.Theowner-developer’spowertodothisislimitedbyatimingrequirement.Itmayonlyfiledifferentbylaws“[o]ndepos-itofthestrataplan.”102Thestratacorporation’spowertoamendbylawsislimitedbytherequirementsinsections126–28oftheact.

SmithJ.

98. ReidvStrataPlanLMS2503,2003BCCA126atpara27,12BCLR(4th)67,RyanJA[Reid].Seeal-soDollanvTheOwners,StrataPlanBCS1589,2012BCCA44atparas25–30,27BCLR(5th)68,GarsonJA(HallJAconcurring)[Dollan](“Inthecaseofastrataunitownerseekingredressun-ders.164,Iwouldadaptthetest,suggestedbyGreyellJ.[inGoldenPheasantHoldingCorpvSyn-ergyCorporateManagementLtd,2011BCSC173,85BLR(4th)122],slightlytothecontextofs.164andarticulateitinthismanner:1.Examinedobjectively,doestheevidencesupporttheassertedreasonableexpectationsofthepetitioner?2.Doestheevidenceestablishthattherea-sonableexpectationofthepetitionerwasviolatedbyactionthatwassignificantlyunfair?”);TheOwners,StrataPlanBCS1721vWatson,2017BCSC763atpara28,[2017]BCJNo881(QL),KentJ(Thetestunders.164oftheStrataPropertyActalsoinvolvesobjectiveassessment.[Dol-lan]requiresseveralquestionstobeansweredinthatregard:1)Whatisorwastheexpectationoftheaffectedownerortenant?2)Wasthatexpectationonthepartoftheownerortenantob-jectivelyreasonable?3)Ifso,wasthatexpectationviolatedbyanactionthatwassignificantlyunfair?”).

99. Reid,supranote98atpara26.

100.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s120(1).Bylaw5(obtainapprovalbeforealteringastratalot)andbylaw8(d)(repairandmaintenanceofpropertybystratacorporation)don’tapplytoastratalotinabare-landstrataplan(seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,ss5and8(d)).

101.Ibid,s120(1).

102.Ibid,s120(2).



Section126isashortenablingprovision.Section127dealswiththespecialcaseofamendingbylawsbeforethestratacorporation’ssecondannualgeneralmeeting.Section128setsoutthegeneralprocedures,whichareclassifiedbythecompositionofthestratacorporation.Inallcases,“amendmentstobylawsmustbeapprovedatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting,”butthenatureofthatapprovalvariesasfol-lows:

• inthecaseofastrataplancomposedentirelyofresidentialstratalots,byaresolu-tionpassedbya3/4vote,

• inthecaseofastrataplancomposedentirelyofnonresidentialstratalots,byareso-lutionpassedbya3/4voteorasotherwiseprovidedinthebylaws,or

• inthecaseofastrataplancomposedofbothresidentialandnonresidentialstratalots,bybotharesolutionpassedbya3/4voteoftheresidentialstratalotsandares-olutionpassedbya3/4voteofthenonresidentialstratalots,orasotherwisepro-videdinthebylawsforthenonresidentialstratalots.103

Anamendmentonlytakeseffectafteritisfiledinthelandtitleoffice,104andthe“stratacorporationmustinformownersandtenantsofanyamendmenttotheby-lawsassoonasfeasibleaftertheamendmentisapproved.”105Enforcing bylaws Inenforcingitsbylaws,theactsaysastratacorporation“maydooneormoreofthefollowing”:

• imposeafineundersection130;

• remedyacontraventionundersection133;

103.Ibid,s128(1).Thisprovisionisintroducedbythewords“subjecttosection197,”whichdirects

readerstospecialprovisionsthatapplyifthestratacorporationhasasection.Thesespecialprovisionsare:“(1)Thestratacorporation’sbylawsapplytothesectionunlesstheyhavebeenamendedbythesection.(2)Thebylawsmayonlybeamendedbythesectionifthebylawamendmentisinrespectofamatterthatrelatessolelytothesection.(3)Subjecttosec-tion127(4)(a),anamendmenttothebylawsrespectingamatterthatrelatessolelytothesec-tionmustbeapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeet-ingofthesection.(3.1)Despitesubsection(3),ifasectioniscomposedentirelyofnonresidentialstratalots,anamendmenttothebylawsrespectingamatterthatrelatessolelytothesectionmustbeapprovedbyaresolutionpassed(a)bya3/4vote,or(b)ifadifferentvotingthresholdisprovidedforinthebylawsofthesection,bythatvotingthresholdatanannualorspecialgen-eralmeetingofthesection”(ibid,s197(1)–(3.1)).

104.Ibid,s128(2).

105.Ibid,s128(4).



• denyaccesstoarecreationalfacilityundersection134.106Astratacorporationmayonlydothesethingsifithas:

• receivedacomplaintaboutthecontravention,

• giventheownerortenanttheparticularsofthecomplaint,inwriting,andareasona-bleopportunitytoanswerthecomplaint,includingahearingifrequestedbytheownerortenant,and

• ifthepersonisatenant,givennoticeofthecomplainttotheperson’slandlordandtotheowner.107

Ageneralprovisionearlyintheactsaysthatthestratacouncil“mustexercisethepowersandperformthedutiesofthestratacorporation,includingtheenforcementofbylawsandrules.”108Thisenforcementpowercan’tbeoverriddenbythepoweroftheownersto“directorrestrictthecouncilinitsexerciseofpowersandperfor-manceofdutiesbyaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvoteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting.”109Theamountofafineistobesetoutinthebylawsthemselves.Theregulationestab-lishesa“maximumamountthatastratacorporationmaysetoutinitsbylawsasafineforthecontraventionofabylaw.”110Itis“$200foreachcontraventionofaby-law,”111unlessthebylawisonethat“prohibitsorlimitsrentals”andthecontraven-tionrelatesto“therentalofaresidentialstratalot.”112Inthesecases,themaximumamountis“$500foreachcontraventionofthebylaw.”113

106.Ibid,s129(1).Asectionmayalsodothesethings“[w]ithrespecttoamatterthatrelatessolely

tothesection”(ibid,s194(2)(f)).

107.Ibid,s135(1).

108.Ibid,s26.

109.Ibid,s27(1),(2)(b)(whichprovidesthat“[t]hestratacorporationmaynotdirectorrestrictthecouncilundersubsection(1)ifthedirectionorrestriction...(b)interfereswiththecouncil’sdiscretiontodetermine,basedonthefactsofaparticularcase,(i)whetherapersonhascontra-venedabylaworrule,(ii)whetherapersonshouldbefined,andtheamountofthefine,(iii)whetherapersonshouldbedeniedaccesstoarecreationalfacility,(iv)whetherapersonshouldberequiredundersection133(2)topaythereasonablecostsofremedyingacontraven-tionofthebylawsorrules,or(v)whetheranownershouldbeexemptedundersection144fromabylawthatprohibitsorlimitsrentals.”).

110.StrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,s7.1(1).

111.Ibid,s7.1(1)(a).

112.Ibid,s7.1(2).

113.Ibid,s7.1(2).



Althoughtheact’slistofenforcementmechanismsdoesn’tmentionobtaininganin-junctiontorequirecompliancewithabylaworarule,courtdecisions114andcom-mentarymakeitclearthatinjunctivereliefisanotherviablemeansforastratacor-porationtoenforceitsbylawsandrules.Thepowertoissueaninjunctionmaybeimplicitincertainprovisionsoftheact.115Nature of rules Astratacorporationmusthavebylaws;itmayhaverules.Rulesareoptional.Thereisnodefaultsetofstandardrulesthatapplyifastratacorporationtakesnoactiontoadoptrules.Rulescoveramorelimitedrangeofsubjectsthanbylaws.Theactprovidesthatthepurposeofaruleisto“[govern]theuse,safetyandconditionofthecommonproper-tyandcommonassets.”116Likeabylaw,aruleisn’tenforceableifit

• contravenesthisAct,theregulations,theHumanRightsCodeoranyotherenactmentorlaw,

• destroysormodifiesaneasementcreatedundersection69,or

• prohibitsorrestrictstherightofanownerofastratalottofreelysell,lease,mort-gageorotherwisedisposeofthestratalotoraninterestinthestratalot.117

114.Seee.g.TheOwners,StrataPlanNW498vPederson,1999BCCA224,64BCLR(3d)8;TheOwners

vGrabarczyk,2006BCSC1960,(subnomStrataPlanVR2000vGrabarczyk)55RPR(4th)36.

115.SeeTheOwnersStrataPlanLMS2768vJordison,2012BCCA303atparas14–15,35BCLR(5th)36,HallJA(forthecourt)(“Itappearstomethatthelanguagecontainedinss.173(a)and(b)oftheActempowersacourttoordermandatoryorprohibitoryreliefofaninjunctivenature.Thestructureofthesection,andinparticularthewordingofs.173(c),seemstopositamodifierinterrelationshipbetweens.173(c)andtheothertwosubsections.Inotherwords,subsection(c)appearstobedesignedtoenhancetheefficacyofthetwoprecedingsubsections,(a)and(b).Iconsiderthatss.173(a)and(b)authorizeacourttomakemandatoryorprohibitoryordersagainstapartyconcerningobligationsimposedbytheActorbylawsofastratacorporation.Afailuretoabidebyanysuchordercouldfound,interalia,contemptproceedings.”).SeealsoBrit-ishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§9.46(“s.133statesthatastratacorporationmaydowhatisnecessarytoremedyacontraventionofitsbylawsandrules.Thatshouldincludeaninjunction.”).

116.Supranote4,s125(1).

117.Ibid,s125(2).



Arulealsocan’tbeinconflictwithabylaw;ifitis,“thebylawprevails.”118Althoughthepointhasn’tcomeupinacourtdecision,rulesareinalllikelihoodsub-jecttoreviewfor“significantunfairness”inthesamemannerasbylawsare.Adopting rules Theprocedureforadoptingrulesdiffersfromtheprocedureforadoptingoramend-ingbylaws.Initially,thestratacouncildecideswhetherornottoadoptarule.119Therulecomesintoforceifthestratacouncilchoosestoadoptit,buttheactprovidesthatit“ceasestohaveeffectatthefirstannualgeneralmeetingheldafteritismade,unlesstheruleisratifiedbyaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvote”:

• atthatannualgeneralmeeting,or

• ataspecialgeneralmeetingheldbeforethatannualgeneralmeeting.120Whenastratacounciladoptsaruleitalso“mustinformownersandtenantsof[the]newrulesassoonasfeasible.”121Unlikebylaws,rulesaren’tregisteredinthelandtitleoffice.Butrulesaresubjecttoaspecialpublicationrequirement,whichholdsthat“[a]llrules,includingthosepost-edonsigns,mustbesetoutinawrittendocumentthatiscapableofbeingphotocop-ied.”122

Issues for Reform Whilethecommitteedidn’texhausteverypossibleconcernthatcouldbeidentifiedinconnectionwithbylawsandrules,itdididentifyabroadrangeofissuesforcon-sideration.Theseissuestendnottodirectlyaddressthecorefeaturesofthelegalframeworkforbylawsandrules,whichwerediscussedinthepreviouspages.In-

118.Ibid,s125(5).

119.Seeibid,s125(1).Theprovisionactuallysaysa“stratacorporationmaymakerules.”Butagen-eralprovisionearlierintheactsaysthatastratacouncil“mustexercisethepowersandperformthedutiesofthestratacorporation”(ibid,s26).Whenitcomestosections,“[t]heexecutiveofasectionmaymakerulesgoverningtheuse,safetyandconditionof(a)landandotherpropertyacquiredundersection194(2)(e),and(b)limitedcommonpropertydesignatedfortheexclu-siveuseofallthestratalotsinthesection.”(ibid,s197(4)).

120.Ibid,s125(6).

121.Ibid,s125(4).

122.Ibid,s125(3).



stead,theissuesthatfollowarelargelyaimedatwaystorefineandbolsterthatlegalframework.

Issues for Reform—Relocating Provisions from the Standard Bylaws to the Act Introduction BoththerequirementtohavebylawsandtheexistenceofadefaultstatutorysetofbylawshavebeenfacetsofBritishColumbia’sstrata-propertylawsinceitsearliestdays.123CommentatorshaveremarkedthattheadventoftheStrataPropertyActmarkedasea-changeintheapproachtotheact’sstandardbylawsbyconvertingmanyprovisionsthatwerepreviouslypartofthestandardbylawsintolegislativeprovisionsthatcannotbeamendedbyastratacorporation.124TherehavebeencallstorepeattheprocessthattookplaceintheleaduptotheStra-taPropertyActandreviewthestandardbylawsonceagain.Thispointcameupintheconsultationsduringphaseoneofthisproject.Inaddition,somecommentatorshavemadegeneralstatementsaboutthetypesofbylawsthatshouldbeconsideredforrelocationtotheact.Forinstance,onecommentatorhaspointedtobylawsthat“maybeacousintoaprovisionintheAct.”125Anothercommentatorhassuggestedthatthetesttoapplyisasfollows:“Whenlegislatedbylawsprovidedirectionand/or

123.See1974act,supranote6,s13(1)(requirementtohavebylaws),FirstandSecondSchedules

(statutorybylaws).SeealsoCondominiumAct,supranote6,ss26(requirementtohavebylaws),115–32(default“Part5bylaws”).

124.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§9.1(“Thekeydifference[betweentheCondominiumAct,supranote6,andtheStrataPropertyAct,supranote4]wasthatagreatnumberofprovisionsthathadcomprisedthePart5BylawsoftheCondominiumActwereincorporatedintothesubstantiveprovisionsoftheStrataPropertyActandthereforecouldnotbeamendedbytheownersunderanycircumstances.”).

125.BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§9.19(“AnexampleisStand-ardBylaw6,whichstatesthatanownermustnotmakeanalterationtocommonpropertywith-outwrittenapprovalfromthestratacorporation,whichis,forthispurpose,essentiallythestra-tacouncil.Section71oftheActprovidesthatasignificantchangeintheuseorappearanceofcommonpropertyrequirestheapprovalbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote—thatis,approvalbyasubstantialnumberofowners.Howcanthebylawands.71bereconciled?”).Inansweringthequestiontheyposed,theauthorspointedtothefollowingcourtcasesasshowingthereason-ingtofollow:ChanvTheOwners,StrataPlanVR677(2February2012),VancouverS115516(BCSC);FoleyvTheOwners,StrataPlanVR387,2014BCSC1333,[2014]BCJNo1867(QL).



prescriptiontoallstratacorporationsandareessentiallyconsumerprotectionpub-licpolicies,theyshouldnotbebylawswhichcanbeamendedbytheowners.”126OthercommentatorshavesuggestedthattheStrataPropertyActhasalreadygonetoofarinthedirectionofrelocatingbylawprovisionsintotheact.Onepracticeguidehassaidthattheactshows“amarkeddeparturefromtheoldlegislativeschemeandremovedagreatdealofgoverningpowerfromtheownerscollectively.”127Movingstillmorebylawsintotheactcouldbeseenasanti-democratic,undercutting“theex-tenttowhichtheownerscomprisingstratacorporations—theverypersonssubjecttogovernancebythebylaws—couldwiththeappropriatedemocraticmajorityandprocess,amendtheverybylawsthatgovernthem.”128Takingthesepointsintoaccount,thecommitteefollowedthroughonthesuggestionmadeinphaseoneofthisprojectandreviewedeachofthestandardbylaws.Sincetheissue(shouldtheprovisionberelocatedtotheact?)andtheoptions(relocateorretainthestatusquo)areessentiallythesameforthesectionsthatfollowinthisportionoftheconsultationpaper,thesesectionsdepartsomewhatfromtheorgani-zationusedelsewhereinthisconsultationpaper.Inplaceofabriefstatementoftheissueandalayingoutofmultipleoptionsforreform,thesectionsthatfollowsimplydescribethecontentofthebylawandthenmoveintothecommittee’stentativerec-ommendationforreform.Should section 1 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section1providesthat“[a]nownermustpaystratafeesonorbeforethefirstdayofthemonthtowhichthestratafeesrelate.”129

126.Fanaken,supranote31at157[emphasisinoriginal](citingsections1,2,4,5,6,8,and30ofthe

ScheduleofStandardBylawsasexamplesofbylawsthatmeetthistest).

127.BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§9.1.

128.Ibid.

129.StrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s1.



The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteenotedthatsection99oftheactalreadyeffectivelyrequiresastrata-lotownertopaystratafees.130Thebylawreallyjustservesaschedulingfunction.Itsetsoutwhenanownerisrequiredtopay.Differentkindsofstratacorporationsmighthavedifferentapproachestohowtoschedulepaymentofstratafees.Forexample,astratacorporationforabare-landstrataplanmightfavourannualpaymentofstratafees.Whileitmakessensetohaveadefaultprovisionrequiringmonthlypaymentofstratafees,stratacorporationsshouldbeallowedtoretaintheabilitytoamendthisprovision.Thecommitteealsoconsideredthecontentofthisprovision.Itdecidedthatitwouldbehelpfultoclarifythestandardbylawbyextendingitsreachtospecialleviesap-provedbythestratacorporation.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:1.Section1oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylawsandshouldbeamendedtoreadasfollows:

Payment of strata fees and special levies

1 (1) Anownermustpaystratafeesonorbeforethefirstdayofthemonthtowhichthestratafeesrelate.

(2) Anownermustpayaspeciallevyasapprovedbythestratacorpora-tion.

Should section 2 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section2oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsdealswithrepairandmaintenanceofpropertybyastrata-lotowner.131

130.Seeibid,s99(1)(“ownersmustcontributetothestratacorporationtheirstratalots’sharesof

thetotalcontributionsbudgetedfortheoperatingfundandcontingencyreservefundbymeansofstratafeescalculatedinaccordancewiththissectionandtheregulations”).

131.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s2(“(1)Anownermustrepairandmaintaintheowner’sstratalot,exceptforrepairandmaintenancethatistheresponsibilityofthestratacorporationunderthesebylaws.(2)Anownerwhohastheuseoflimitedcommonpropertymustrepairandmaintainit,exceptforrepairandmaintenancethatistheresponsibilityofthestratacorporationunderthesebylaws.”).



The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthisstandardbylawshouldn’tberelocatedtotheact.Thecommitteewasconcernedthatcreatingastandardprovisionforrepairandmaintenancecouldenduphamperingsomestratacorporations.Asanexample,thecommitteeconsideredastratapropertythatcateredtoolderadults.Itmaybenec-essaryforsuchastratapropertytoamendthisbylaw,inviewoftheageofthestra-ta-lotownersandtheobligationsofthecomplexunderhealth-and-safetylegislation.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

2.Section2oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Should section 3 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section3setsoutalengthybylawdealingwithanarrayofissuesconnectedtotheuseofproperty.132The committee’s tentative recommendations for reform Thecommitteehadconcernsaboutstratacorporationsthathaveamended,orinsomecasesevenrepealed,section3(1)ofthestandardbylaws.Itunderstandsthatsomestratacorporationshavemadethisdecisionbecausetheywanttosidestepen-forcingbylawsdealing,inparticular,withnuisance.Repealingthebylawisappar-entlyseenasawaytorecharacterizedisputesovernoiseandnuisanceasmatters

132.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s3(“(1)Anowner,tenant,occupantorvisitormustnot

useastratalot,thecommonpropertyorcommonassetsinawaythat(a)causesanuisanceorhazardtoanotherperson,(b)causesunreasonablenoise,(c)unreasonablyinterfereswiththerightsofotherpersonstouseandenjoythecommonproperty,commonassetsoranotherstratalot,(d)isillegal,or(e)iscontrarytoapurposeforwhichthestratalotorcommonpropertyisintendedasshownexpresslyorbynecessaryimplicationonorbythestrataplan.(2)Anowner,tenant,occupantorvisitormustnotcausedamage,otherthanreasonablewearandtear,tothecommonproperty,commonassetsorthosepartsofastratalotwhichthestratacorporationmustrepairandmaintainunderthesebylawsorinsureundersection149oftheAct.(3)Anowner,tenant,occupantorvisitormustensurethatallanimalsareleashedorotherwisesecuredwhenonthecommonpropertyoronlandthatisacommonasset.(4)Anowner,tenantoroccu-pantmustnotkeepanypetsonastratalototherthanoneormoreofthefollowing:(a)area-sonablenumberoffishorothersmallaquariumanimals;(b)areasonablenumberofsmallcagedmammals;(c)upto2cagedbirds;(d)onedogoronecat.”).



betweenresidentsinwhichthestratacorporationplaysnopart.Thecommitteealsounderstandsthatsomestratacorporationshavemodifiedsection3(1)ineclecticways.GiventhediversityofBritishColumbia’sstratacorporations,revisionstosec-tion3(1)mightbeimportantinsomecases.Butoverallthecommitteedecidedtherewasmuchtobegainedbyrelocatingsection3(1)totheact,placingitbeyondthereachofamendmentorrepeal.Inthecommittee’sview,part5oftheact,whichdealsgenerallywithproperty,isanaturalhomeforsection3(1).Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:3.Section3(1)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtopart5oftheStrataPropertyAct.Inthecommittee’sview,theotherprovisionsofsection3shouldremainpartofthestandardbylaws.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:4.Section3(2)–(4)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Should section 4 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section4oftheScheduleofStandardBylawscreatesanobligationonastrata-lotownertoinformthestratacorporationofcertaininformation.133The committee’s tentative recommendations for reform Thecommitteegavethisprovisionextensiveconsideration.Itwasconcernedthatrelocatingthisprovisiontotheactmightreduceawarenessofit.Newownersaretypicallygivenacopyofthestratacorporation’sbylawswhentheymoveintoastra-taproperty.Thesameisn’ttruefortheact.Therewerealsoconcernsaboutthediffi-133.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s4(“(1)Within2weeksofbecominganowner,anowner

mustinformthestratacorporationoftheowner’sname,stratalotnumberandmailingaddressoutsidethestrataplan,ifany.(2)Onrequestbythestratacorporation,atenantmustinformthestratacorporationofhisorhername.”).



cultythatastratacorporationcouldhaveinenforcingalegislativeprovisionbasedonthisbylaw.Thatsaid,thecommitteewasawarethatthelegalissuesaddressedbythisprovisionareimportantones,whichmayonlyincreaseinimportanceastimegoeson.Thecommitteefeltthatthecurrentprovisionfailedtoaddresssomeemergingissuesre-gardinginformationflowfromanownertothestratacorporation.Inparticular,theprovisionshouldrequirethatthestratacorporationbeinformedwhenanownerappointsalegalrepresentativeorgrantspowerofattorneyconcerningthestratalot,orwhenthereisatransmissionoftitletotheowner’spersonalrepresentativeundertheWills,EstatesandSuccessionAct.134Theseissueswilllikelybecomemorepro-nouncedasthepopulationages.Thecommitteealsoacceptedcriticismofsubsection(2)asbeingaredundantprovi-sionthatshouldberepealed.135Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:5.Section4(1)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:6.Uponrelocationofsection4(1)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawstotheStrataPropertyActtheprovisionshouldbeamendedtorequirethatwithintwoweeksofbe-cominganowner’srepresentativewithrespecttothestratalot,asdefinedintheregu-lations,anowner’srepresentativemustinformthestratacorporationoftheowner’srepresentative’sname,strata-lotnumber,andmailingaddressoutsidethestrataplan,ifany.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:7.Section4(2)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberepealed.

134.SBC2009,c13.

135.SeeFanaken,supranote31at160.SeealsoStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,FormK(NoticeofTenant’sResponsibilities).



Should section 5 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section5oftheScheduleofStandardBylawssetsouttheoccasionsonwhichanownermustreceivetheapprovalofastratacorporationbeforealteringastratalot.136The committee’s tentative recommendations for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthebulkofthisprovisionshouldbesetinlegislation.Itwasconcernedaboutstratacorporationsalteringthestandardofconsideringdeci-sionsundersubsection(2).Thecommitteealsohadconcernsaboutwhetheralegis-lativeprovisionwouldbetoorigidforcertainkindsofstratacorporations.Toad-dressthisconcern,thecommitteeproposesrepealingsubsection(3).Thisdecisionalsotiedintoproposalsforsection8ofthestandardbylaws,whicharediscussedbe-low.Undersection8,astratacorporationforabare-landstrataplancouldtakere-sponsibilityfortherepairandmaintenanceofastratalot.Thiscouldleadtotheanomaloussituationinwhichastratacorporationwereresponsiblefortherepairandmaintenanceofastratabuthadnomechanismtoconsiderwhethertoapprove(or,moretothepoint,toreject)requeststoalterthatstratalot.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

8.Section5(1)and(2)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:9.Section5(3)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberepealed.

136.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s5(“(1)Anownermustob-

tainthewrittenapprovalofthestratacorporationbeforemakinganalterationtoastratalotthatinvolvesanyofthefollowing:(a)thestructureofabuilding;(b)theexteriorofabuilding;(c)chimneys,stairs,balconiesorotherthingsattachedtotheexteriorofabuilding;(d)doors,windowsorskylightsontheexteriorofabuilding,orthatfrontonthecommonproperty;(e)fences,railingsorsimilarstructuresthatencloseapatio,balconyoryard;(f)commonprop-ertylocatedwithintheboundariesofastratalot;(g)thosepartsofthestratalotwhichthestratacorporationmustinsureundersection149oftheAct.(2)Thestratacorporationmustnotun-reasonablywithholditsapprovalundersubsection(1),butmayrequireasaconditionofitsap-provalthattheowneragree,inwriting,totakeresponsibilityforanyexpensesrelatingtotheal-teration.(3)Thissectiondoesnotapplytoastratalotinabarelandstrataplan.”).



Should section 6 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section6oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsdescribeswhenanownermustobtaintheconsentofthestratacorporationbeforealteringcommonproperty.137The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,section6goeshand-in-handwithsection5.Oncethedeci-sionwastakentorelocatesection5totheact,itwaslogicalthatsection6wouldhavetofollow.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:10.Section6oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.Should section 7 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section7setsoutwhena“apersonauthorizedbythestratacorporation”mustbeal-lowedtoenterastratalot.138The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,section7setsoutbasicstandardsthatshouldappearinthelegislation.137.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s6(“(1)Anownermustobtainthewrittenapprovalof

thestratacorporationbeforemakinganalterationtocommonproperty,includinglimitedcom-monproperty,orcommonassets.(2)Thestratacorporationmayrequireasaconditionofitsapprovalthattheowneragree,inwriting,totakeresponsibilityforanyexpensesrelatingtothealteration.”).

138.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s7(“(1)Anowner,tenant,occupantorvisitormustallowapersonauthorizedbythestratacorporationtoenterthestratalot(a)inanemergency,with-outnotice,toensuresafetyorpreventsignificantlossordamage,and(b)atareasonabletime,on48hours’writtennotice,toinspect,repairormaintaincommonproperty,commonassetsandanyportionsofastratalotthataretheresponsibilityofthestratacorporationtorepairandmaintainunderthesebylawsorinsureundersection149oftheAct.(2)Thenoticereferredtoinsubsection(1)(b)mustincludethedateandapproximatetimeofentry,andthereasonforen-try.”).



Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:11.Section7oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.Should section 8 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section8oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsisalengthyandimportantprovisiondealingwithrepairandmaintenanceofpropertybyastratacorporation.139The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteeviewedthisprovisionasbeingakeyprovisionofthestandardby-laws.Itgaveextensiveconsiderationtowhetheritshouldbecomepartofthelegisla-tion.Thecommitteenotedthatthereareanumberofchallengestotacklingthisprovi-sion.Section8hasprovedtobeverydifficulttounderstandandapplyinpractice.Somestratacorporationshaveamendedtheprovision,adevelopmentwhichhasof-tenonlyaddedtotheconfusion.Thatsaid,aone-size-fits-allapproachtorepairsandmaintenanceraisesitsownconcerns.Thecommitteefeltthatsection8hadtobediscussedalongsidesection72oftheact,whichcoverssimilarterritory.140Section8appearstosetouttheminimumstand-139.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s8(“Thestratacorporationmustrepairandmaintainall

ofthefollowing:(a)commonassetsofthestratacorporation;(b)commonpropertythathasnotbeendesignatedaslimitedcommonproperty;(c)limitedcommonproperty,butthedutytore-pairandmaintainitisrestrictedto(i)repairandmaintenancethatintheordinarycourseofeventsoccurslessoftenthanonceayear,and(ii)thefollowing,nomatterhowoftentherepairormaintenanceordinarilyoccurs:(A)thestructureofabuilding;(B)theexteriorofabuilding;(C)chimneys,stairs,balconiesandotherthingsattachedtotheexteriorofabuilding;(D)doors,windowsandskylightsontheexteriorofabuildingorthatfrontonthecommonproperty;(E)fences,railingsandsimilarstructuresthatenclosepatios,balconiesandyards;(d)astratalotinastrataplanthatisnotabarelandstrataplan,butthedutytorepairandmaintainitisrestrictedto(i)thestructureofabuilding,(ii)theexteriorofabuilding,(iii)chimneys,stairs,balconiesandotherthingsattachedtotheexteriorofabuilding,(iv)doors,windowsandskylightsontheexteriorofabuildingorthatfrontonthecommonproperty,and(v)fences,railingsandsimilarstructuresthatenclosepatios,balconiesandyards.”).

140.Seeibid,s72(“(1)Subjecttosubsection(2),thestratacorporationmustrepairandmaintaincommonpropertyandcommonassets.(2)Thestratacorporationmay,bybylaw,makeanown-



ardsforrepairsandmaintenance.Sosection8couldberelocatedtotheactandastratacorporationthatwassoinclinedcould,possiblyinrelianceonsection72oftheact,takeonadditionalobligationsbyadoptingbylawssettingthoseobligationsout.Thisapproachmighthelptoallayconcernsthatsomestratacorporationscouldhaveaboutrelocatingaprovisioninthestandardbylawstotheact.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:12.Section8oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtobecomenewsection72(3)oftheStrataPropertyAct.Thecommitteealsodecidedtoclarifyoneaspectofthewordingofsection8,whichhasledtosomeuncertaintyinpractice.Whiletheexistingprovisionrefersto“bal-conies,”itdoesn’tmentionpatios,whichinpracticeareviewedasbeingdistinctfrombalconies.Inthecommittee’sview,addingareferencetopatioswouldhelptoclarifytheprovision.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommendsthat:13.Whensection8oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsisrelocatedtobecomenewsec-tion72(3)oftheStrataPropertyAct,“patios”shouldbeaddedtothelistoflimitedcommonpropertythatthestratacorporationhasthedutytorepairandmaintainnomatterhowoftentherepairormaintenanceordinarilyoccurs.Thecommitteeisawarethatrelocatingsection8totheacttobecomepartofsec-tion72willresultinaneedtomakesomeconsequentialamendmentstosection72.Thefirstsuchconsequentialamendmentconcernsthedispositionofexistingsec-tion72(3).Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:14.Existingsection72(3)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldberenumberedassubsec-tion(4)andshouldapplydespitenewsubsection(3)(previouslysection8oftheScheduleofStandardBylaws).Inthecommittee’sview,therewillalsoneedtobeconsequentialamendmentstosection72(2).First,thescopeofsection72(2)(a)willneedtobelimitedtothoseitemsoflimitedcommonpropertythataren’tlistedincurrentsection8(c)(ii)ofthestandardbylaws(whichwillbecomepartofnewsection72(3)oftheact).Other-

erresponsiblefortherepairandmaintenanceof(a)limitedcommonpropertythattheownerhasarighttouse,or(b)commonpropertyotherthanlimitedcommonpropertyonlyifidenti-fiedintheregulationsandsubjecttoprescribedrestrictions.(3)Thestratacorporationmay,bybylaw,takeresponsibilityfortherepairandmaintenanceofspecifiedportionsofastratalot.”).



wise,theactwillappeartosay,illogically,thatastratacorporation“may,bybylaw,makeanownerresponsiblefortherepairandmaintenanceoflimitedcommonpropertythattheownerhasarighttouse.”141Butifastratacorporationweretoactonthisinvitationandadoptabylawthatpurportedtomakeanownerresponsiblefortherepairandmaintenanceofanitemoflimitedcommonpropertylistedinthenewsection72(3)oftheact,thatbylawwouldbeunenforceable.142Thelegislationwillhavetobeamendedtomakeitclearthatthestratacorporation’sabilitytoadoptsuchabylawissubjecttocompliancewithnewsection72(3).Second,existingsection72(2)(b)willhavetobeaddressed.Currently,thisprovi-sionissomethingofadeadletter,becauseitallowsastratacorporationto“makeanownerresponsiblefortherepairandmaintenanceofcommonpropertyotherthanlimitedcommonpropertyonlyifidentifiedintheregulationsandsubjecttopre-scribedrestrictions.”143Sincenoenablingregulationshaveeverbeenadopted,stratacorporationsaren’tabletotakeadvantageofthisprovision.Whensection8ofthestandardbylawsisrelocated,theprovisionwillloseanypossiblerationale,becauseatthattimenewsection72(3)oftheactwillprovidethatthe“stratacorporationmustrepairandmaintainallofthefollowing:...commonpropertythathasnotbeendesignatedaslimitedcommonproperty.”144Soastratacorporationwillhavenoscopeinwhichtomakeanownerresponsiblefortherepairandmaintenanceofcommonpropertythathasn’tbeendesignatedaslimitedcommonproperty.Asare-sult,whensection8ofthestandardbylawsisrelocatedtotheact,existingsec-tion72(2)(b)shouldberepealed.Should sections 9–22 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaws Division3contains13provisionsdealingwiththestratacouncil.145

141.Ibid,s72(2)(a)[emphasisadded].

142.Seeibid,s121(1)(a)(“Abylawisnotenforceabletotheextentthatit(a)contravenesthisAct....”).

143.Ibid,s72(2)(b)[emphasisadded].

144.Ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s8(b).

145.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,ss9–22.Notethatformersection15hasbeenrepealed.



The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,allofdivision3(withthethreeexceptionsnotedbelow)shouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Thedivision’smixofprovisionsdeal-inglargelywiththecompositionofcouncilandmeetingproceduresrepresentthekindofprovisionsthatshouldremaininthebylaws,wheretheywillremainsubjecttoamendmentbyastratacorporation.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:15.Withtheexceptionofsections19,20(4),and22,allofdivision3oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Should section 19 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaws Section19setsoutarequirementtoinformownersoftheminutesofstrata-councilmeetings.146The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthetimingruleusedinthisprovisionshouldalignwithaproposednewtimingruleforcirculationofgeneral-meetingminutes.147Thecom-mitteewasalsooftheviewthattheprovisionshouldbesetinlegislation,placingitbeyondthereachofstrata-corporationamendment.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:16.Section19oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyActandrevisedtoread“Thestratacorporationmustcirculateminutesofstrata-councilmeetingswithinthreeweeksofthemeeting,whetherornottheminuteshavebeenapproved.”

146.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s19(“Thecouncilmustinformownersoftheminutesof

allcouncilmeetingswithin2weeksofthemeeting,whetherornottheminuteshavebeenap-proved.”).

147.See,below,at149–50.



Should section 20 (4) of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section20(4)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawscontainsspecificprohibitionsondelegationofstrata-councilpowersandduties.148The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,thissubsectiondealswithabaselinerequirementthatshouldn’tbesubjecttoamendment.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:17.Section20(4)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.Should section 22 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section22providesforthelimitationofliabilityforastrata-councilmember.149

148.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s20(“(1)Subjecttosubsec-

tions(2)to(4),thecouncilmaydelegatesomeorallofitspowersanddutiestooneormorecouncilmembersorpersonswhoarenotmembersofthecouncil,andmayrevokethedelega-tion.(2)Thecouncilmaydelegateitsspendingpowersorduties,butonlybyaresolutionthat(a)delegatestheauthoritytomakeanexpenditureofaspecificamountforaspecificpurpose,or(b)delegatesthegeneralauthoritytomakeexpendituresinaccordancewithsubsection(3).(3)Adelegationofageneralauthoritytomakeexpendituresmust(a)setamaximumamountthatmaybespent,and(b)indicatethepurposesforwhich,ortheconditionsunderwhich,themoneymaybespent.(4)Thecouncilmaynotdelegateitspowerstodetermine,basedonthefactsofaparticularcase,(a)whetherapersonhascontravenedabylaworrule,(b)whetherapersonshouldbefined,andtheamountofthefine,or(c)whetherapersonshouldbedeniedaccesstoarecreationalfacility.”[emphasisadded]).

149.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s22(“(1)Acouncilmemberwhoactshonestlyandingoodfaithisnotpersonallyliablebecauseofanythingdoneoromittedintheexerciseorintend-edexerciseofanypowerortheperformanceorintendedperformanceofanydutyofthecouncil.(2)Subsection(1)doesnotaffectacouncilmember’sliability,asanowner,forajudgmentagainstthestratacorporation.”).



The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatsection22dealswithasubjectthatismoreappropri-atelyfoundinlegislation,ratherthaninabylawthatcouldbeamended.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

18.Section22oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtobecomepartofsection31oftheStrataPropertyAct.Should section 23 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section23oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsdealswiththemaximumfinesthatastratacorporationmaylevyintheeventofacontraventionofabylaworarule.150The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteefavouredleavingthisprovisioninthestandardbylaws.Thediversityofstratacorporationshastobeconsideredhere.Relocatingtheprovisiontotheleg-islationcouldendupconstrainingsomestratacorporations.Thecommitteealsonotedthatfewstratacorporationshaveretainedthestandardbylawonthisissue.Thebulkofthemhavereplaceditwithacustom-madebylaw,whichincreasesthemaximumfines.151Thecommitteehasaddressedthelevelofthesemaximumfineslaterinthisconsul-tationpaper.152Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:19.Section23oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.150.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s23(“Thestratacorporationmayfineanownerortenant

amaximumof(a)$50foreachcontraventionofabylaw,and(b)$10foreachcontraventionofarule.”).

151.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,s7.1(1)(“Forthepurposesofsection132oftheAct,themaximumamountthatastratacorporationmaysetoutinitsbylawsasafineforthecontraventionofabylaworruleis(a)$200foreachcontraventionofabylaw,and(b)$50foreachcontraventionofarule.”).




Should section 24 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section24dealswithenforcementofabylaworruleinthefaceofacontinuingcon-traventionofthatbylaworrule.153The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteenotedthatapplyingthisbylawhasprovedtobeachallengeforstratacouncils.Thecommitteewasoftheviewthatsomeclaritycouldbeprovidedbyre-locatingthisprovisiontotheact.Thecommitteedecidedthatsection132154wouldprovideanaturalhomeforthesubjectofthisprovision.Thecommitteealsonotedthatthereappearstobesomeslippagebetweenthispro-visionandsection7.1(3)oftheregulation.155Theregulationfailstoincludethewordswithoutinterruption,whichinthecommittee’sviewformanintegralpartoftheconceptofacontinuingcontravention.Relocatingtheprovisiontothelegislationandrepealingtheregulationwoulddealwiththisslippage.Thecommitteedealswithaproposeddefinitionofcontinuingcontraventionlaterinthisconsultationpaper.156Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:20.Section24oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtoformpartofsection132oftheStrataPropertyActandsection7.1(3)oftheStrataPropertyRegu-lationshouldberepealed.

153.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s24(“Ifanactivityorlackof

activitythatconstitutesacontraventionofabylaworrulecontinues,withoutinterruption,forlongerthan7days,afinemaybeimposedevery7days.”).

154.Seeibid,s132(“(1)Thestratacorporationmustsetoutinitsbylawsthemaximumamountitmayfineanownerortenantforeachcontraventionofabylaworrule.(2)Thestratacorpora-tionmaysetoutinitsbylaws(a)differentmaximumamountsoffinesfordifferentbylawsandrules,and(b)thefrequencyatwhichfinesmaybeimposedforacontinuingcontraventionofabylaworrule.(3)Themaximumamountofafineandthemaximumfrequencyofimpositionoffinesmustnotexceedthemaximumssetoutintheregulations.”).

155.Seesupranote8,s7.1(3)(“Forthepurposesofsection132oftheAct,themaximumfrequencythatastratacorporationmaysetoutinitsbylawsfortheimpositionofafineforacontinuingcontraventionofabylaworruleisevery7days.”).




Should section 25 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section25oftheScheduleofStandardBylawssetsouttheprovisionsgoverningwhoistochairanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeetingofthestratacorporation.157The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,thesubjectmatterofthisprovisionisappropriateforinclu-sioninthestandardbylaws.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

21.Section25oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Should section 26 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section26dealswithparticipationinanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeetingbypeoplewhoaren’teligiblevoters.158

157.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s25(“(1)Annualandspecial

generalmeetingsmustbechairedbythepresidentofthecouncil.(2)Ifthepresidentofthecouncilisunwillingorunabletoact,themeetingmustbechairedbythevicepresidentofthecouncil.(3)Ifneitherthepresidentnorthevicepresidentofthecouncilchairsthemeeting,achairmustbeelectedbytheeligiblevoterspresentinpersonorbyproxyfromamongthoseper-sonswhoarepresentatthemeeting.”).

158.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s26(“(1)Tenantsandoccupantsmayattendannualandspecialgeneralmeetings,whetherornottheyareeligibletovote.(2)Personswhoarenoteligi-bletovote,includingtenantsandoccupants,mayparticipateinthediscussionatthemeeting,butonlyifpermittedtodosobythechairofthemeeting.(3)Personswhoarenoteligibletovote,includingtenantsandoccupants,mustleavethemeetingifrequestedtodosobyaresolu-tionpassedbyamajorityvoteatthemeeting.”).Seealsoibid,s1(1)“eligiblevoters”(“meanspersonswhomayvoteundersections53to58”).



The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthisprovision,whichdealsbroadlywithmeetingpro-cedure,shouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

22.Section26oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Should section 27 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsdealswithvotingatanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeeting.159The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,thisprovisiondealswiththerighttovote,acornerstoneofstrata-propertydemocracy.Forthisreason,itshouldberelocatedtotheact.Thecommitteeexaminessubstantiveaspectsofthisprovisionlaterinthisconsulta-tionpaper.160Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:23.Section27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.

159.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s27(“(1)Atanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting,voting

cardsmustbeissuedtoeligiblevoters.(2)Atanannualorspecialgeneralmeetingavoteisde-cidedonashowofvotingcards,unlessaneligiblevoterrequestsaprecisecount.(3)Ifaprecisecountisrequested,thechairmustdecidewhetheritwillbebyshowofvotingcardsorbyrollcall,secretballotorsomeothermethod.(4)Theoutcomeofeachvote,includingthenumberofvotesforandagainsttheresolutionifaprecisecountisrequested,mustbeannouncedbythechairandrecordedintheminutesofthemeeting.(5)Ifthereisatievoteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting,thepresident,or,ifthepresidentisabsentorunableorunwillingtovote,thevicepresident,maybreakthetiebycastingasecond,decidingvote.(6)Ifthereareonly2stratalotsinthestrataplan,subsection(5)doesnotapply.(7)Despiteanythinginthissection,anelec-tionofcounciloranyothervotemustbeheldbysecretballot,ifthesecretballotisrequestedbyaneligiblevoter.”).




Should section 28 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section28oftheScheduleofStandardBylawssetsouttheorderofbusinessforan-nualgeneralmeetingsandspecialgeneralmeetings.161The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,itisappropriateforthisprovisiontoremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Thecommitteeproposeschangestotheitemslistedinthisprovisionlaterinthisconsultationpaper.162Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:24.Section28oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Should section 29 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section29setsoutavoluntarydisputeresolutionprocedure.163161.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s28(“Theorderofbusiness

atannualandspecialgeneralmeetingsisasfollows:(a)certifyproxiesandcorporaterepresent-ativesandissuevotingcards;(b)determinethatthereisaquorum;(c)electapersontochairthemeeting,ifnecessary;(d)presenttothemeetingproofofnoticeofmeetingorwaiverofno-tice;(e)approvetheagenda;(f)approveminutesfromthelastannualorspecialgeneralmeet-ing;(g)dealwithunfinishedbusiness;(h)receivereportsofcouncilactivitiesanddecisionssincethepreviousannualgeneralmeeting,includingreportsofcommittees,ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting;(i)ratifyanynewrulesmadebythestratacorporationundersec-tion125oftheAct;(j)reportoninsurancecoverageinaccordancewithsection154oftheAct,ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting;(k)approvethebudgetforthecomingyearinaccord-ancewithsection103oftheAct,ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting;(l)dealwithnewbusiness,includinganymattersaboutwhichnoticehasbeengivenundersection45oftheAct;(m)electacouncil,ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting;(n)terminatethemeeting.”).


163.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s29(“(1)Adisputeamongowners,tenants,thestratacorporationoranycombinationofthemmaybereferredtoadisputeresolutioncommitteebyapartytothedisputeif(a)allthepartiestothedisputeconsent,and



The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteeunderstandsthatthisprovisionisrarelyused.TheadventoftheCivilResolutionTribunalhaseffectivelymadeitredundant.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:25.Section29oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberepealed.Should section 30 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section30addressesthedisplaylot,whichmaybeusedaspartofthemarketingac-tivitiesoftheowner-developer.164The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthisprovisionshouldn’tberelocatedtotheStrataProp-ertyAct.Initsview,theowner-developershouldn’thaveanunconditionalrighttocontinuemarketingstratalots.Marketingactivityismoreofprivilege,whichmaybelost,forexample,inaphasedstrataplaninaccordancewithsection13.3(2)oftheregulation.165Thisprovisionshouldremainpartofthestandardbylaws,soitwillremainopenforstratacorporationstoamendit.

(b)thedisputeinvolvestheAct,theregulations,thebylawsortherules.(2)Adisputeresolutioncommitteeconsistsof(a)oneownerortenantofthestratacorporationnominatedbyeachofthedisputingpartiesandoneownerortenantchosentochairthecommitteebythepersonsnominatedbythedisputingparties,or(b)anynumberofpersonsconsentedto,orchosenbyamethodthatisconsentedto,byallthedisputingparties.(3)Thedisputeresolutioncommitteemustattempttohelpthedisputingpartiestovoluntarilyendthedispute.”).

164.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s30(“(1)Anownerdeveloperwhohasanunsoldstratalotmaycarryonsalesfunctionsthatrelatetoitssale,includingthepostingofsigns.(2)Anown-erdevelopermayuseastratalot,thattheownerdeveloperownsorrents,asadisplaylotforthesaleofotherstratalotsinthestrataplan.”).

165.Seesupranote8,s13.3(2)(“DespiteanyprovisionoftheAct,ifanownerdeveloperisincom-pliancewiththedatesforthebeginningofconstructionofeachphaseassetoutinthePhasedStrataPlanDeclarationoramendedPhasedStrataPlanDeclaration,astratacorporationestab-lishedbythedepositofaphasedstrataplanmaynotcreate,change,repeal,replace,addtoorotherwiseamendanybylawsdealingwithanyofthefollowingmattersuntiltheannualgeneralmeetingheldfollowingthedepositofthefinalphaseoruntilanelectionnottoproceedundersection235or236(2)oftheAct,unlessthestratacorporationobtainsthewrittenconsentoftheownerdeveloper:(a)thekeepingorsecuringofpets;(b)therestrictionofrentals;(c)theageofoccupants;(d)themarketingactivitiesoftheownerdeveloperwhichrelatetothesaleofstrata



Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:26.Section30oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Should a new standard bylaw be adopted allowing a strata corporation to proceed under the Small Claims Act against an owner or other person to collect money owing to the strata corporation, including money owing as a fine, without requiring authorization by a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote? Brief description of the issue Section171oftheactdealswithwhenastratacorporationmaysueasarepresenta-tiveofstrata-lotowners.Asadefaultrule,thesectionrequiresthattheownersgivethestratacorporationpriorauthorizationbeforecommencingalawsuit.166Thisau-thorizationmustcomeintheformofaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote.Thesectionprovidesanexceptionforcollectionproceedingsinsmall-claimscourt.167Thisexceptionisonlyavailableifastratacorporationhasadoptedabylawenablingit.ShouldthisenablingbylawbemadeapartoftheScheduleofStandardBylaws?The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform AspartofitsreviewoftheScheduleofStandardBylaws,thecommitteeconsideredanyadditionsthatitwouldproposeaddingtothestandardbylaws.Initsview,anauthorizationtosustainproceedingsinsmall-claimscourtforcollectingmoneyow-ingtothestratacorporationisalogicaladditiontothestandardbylaws.Thisnewbylawwouldenhanceefficiencyofcollectingmoneyowingtothestratacorporation.Astratacorporationthatdisagreedwiththecontentofthisstandardbylawcouldalwaysacttorepealit.

lotsinthestrataplan.”).

166.Seesupranote4,s171(2)(“Beforethestratacorporationsuesunderthissection,thesuitmustbeauthorizedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting.”).

167.Seeibid,s171(4)(“Theauthorizationreferredtoinsubsection(2)isnotrequiredforaproceed-ingundertheSmallClaimsActagainstanownerorotherpersontocollectmoneyowingtothestratacorporation,includingmoneyowingasafine,ifthestratacorporationhaspassedabylawdispensingwiththeneedforauthorization,andthetermsandconditionsofthatbylawaremet.”).



Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:27.Thefollowingshouldbeadoptedasanewstandardbylaw:“Theauthorityrequiredinsection171(2)oftheactisnotrequiredforaproceedingundertheSmallClaimsActagainstanownerorotherpersontocollectmoneyowingtothestratacorporation,in-cludingmoneyowingasafine.”

Issues for Reform—Enforcement: Expanding the Lien Introduction Amajorenforcementtoolforstratacorporationsisthestatutorylien168onastratalot.Thislienisapowerfultoolbecauseitgivesthestratacorporationpriorityoverothercreditorsforspecifieddebtsowingtothestratacorporation.Andthisqualityhasledtorestrictionsonitsscope.Currently,thelienhaslittletodowiththebylaw-enforcementprocess.Theissuesthatfollowexplorewaystopotentiallyexpandthescopeofthelienintothatprocess.Should the Strata Property Act enable a strata corporation to register a lien on an owner’s strata lot for amounts owing with respect to fines? Brief description of the issue Theactallowsastratacorporationto“registeralienagainstanowner’sstratalot”if“theownerfailstopaythestratacorporationanyofthefollowingwithrespecttothatstratalot”:

• stratafees;

• aspeciallevy;

• areimbursementofthecostofworkreferredtoinsection85;

• thestratalot’sshareofajudgmentagainstthestratacorporation.169

168.SeeBlack’sLawDictionary,10thed,subverbo“lien”(“Alegalrightorinterestthatacreditorhas

inanother’sproperty,lastingusu.untiladebtordutythatitsecuresissatisfied.Typically,thecreditordoesnottakepossessionofthepropertyonwhichthelienhasbeenobtained.”).




Registeringalienunderthisprovisionallowsastratacorporationtosecurerepay-mentofamountsowinginanyofthesefourcategoriesagainsttheowner’sstratalot.Inadditiontothesecurityinterest,thelegislationgivesthestratacorporation,throughitslien,anenhancedprioritypositionvis-à-vismostoftheothercreditorsthattheownermayhave.170Italsogivesthestratacorporationaccesstoalegislativeremedythatallowsfortheforcedsaleoftheowner’sstratalottocollecttheamountowing.171Conspicuousbyitsabsencefromthislististheamountofanyfinesleviedduetoacontraventionofthebylaws.172Shouldastratacorporationbeabletosecuresuchamountsbyregisteringalienagainstthecontraveningowner’sstratalot?Discussion of options for reform Expandingthescopeofthestratacorporation’slientoembracefinescouldhaveanumberofadvantages.Itwouldbeanothermeanstoencouragecompliancewiththebylaws.Itwouldenhancethestratacorporation’sabilitytoensurecompliancewiththebylaws.Thiscouldhavewidespreadsignificanceforthestrataproperty.Dealingswiftlyanddecisivelywithonedisputemaystemotherdisputesbeforetheygetoutofhand.Buttheremaybedownsidestoexpandingthescopeofthelien.Ownerssometimescomplainthatfinesareappliedcapriciouslyormaliciously.Iftheseabusivepracticesweretooccur,thenhavingalienavailableforenforcementwouldamplifytheirillef-fects.Alsoworthyofconsiderationistheeffectthatbroadeningthelienwouldhaveonotherparties.Thisproposalwouldgiveastratacorporation’sfinespriorityovertheclaimsofmostothercreditorsofastrata-lotowner.Thiscouldhaverippleef-fects.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteewaswaryofexpandingthescopeofthelienascontemplatedbythisissueforreform.Inthecommittee’sview,toomanystratacorporationshaveshown170.Seeibid,s116(5)(“Thestratacorporation’slienranksinprioritytoeveryotherlienorregis-

teredchargeexcept(a)totheextentthatthestratacorporation’slienisforastratalot’sshareofajudgmentagainstthestratacorporation,(b)iftheotherlienorchargeisinfavouroftheCrownandisnotamortgageofland,or(c)iftheotherlienorchargeismadeundertheBuildersLienAct.”).

171.Seeibid,s117.

172.Seeibid,s116(3)(c)(“Subsections(1)and(2)donotapplyif...theamountowingisinrespectofafineorthecostsofremedyingacontravention.”).SeealsoTheOwners,StrataPlanLMS3259vSzeHangHoldingInc,2016BCSC32atpara146,[2016]BCJNo35(QL),HarrisJ.



themselvestobeinconsistentorworsewhenitcomestodealingwithfines.Handingthemthepowertoregisteralienforamountsowingwithrespecttofineswouldbeopeningthedoortoabuses.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:28.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuenottoenableastratacorporationtoreg-isteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttofines.If a court or the Civil Resolution Tribunal finds that a fine is valid, then should the Strata Property Act enable a strata corporation to register a lien on an owner’s strata lot for amounts owing with respect to that fine? Brief description of the issue Thisissueisavariationontheprecedingone.Section116doesn’tprovideanexter-nalcheckonregisteringalienagainstastratalot.Ifalienisimproperlyregistered,thenit’suptothestrata-lotownertotakestepstohaveitremoved.Ifastratacorpo-rationisgiventheauthoritytoregisteralienthatwillsecurepaymentoffinesas-sessedduetoabylawcontravention,thenshouldthisreformgohand-in-handwitharequirementthatthefinefirstbefoundtobevalidbyanexternalbody?Discussion of options for reform Thisoptionpresentssomethingofacompromisebetweenthetwooptionsdiscussedfortheprecedingissue.Bylimitingthestratacorporation’spowertoregisteralienfornon-paymentoffinestojustthosetimeswhenthefineshavebeenupheldbyacourtortheCivilResolutionTribunalitguardsagainstpotentialabusesoftheen-hancedpowertoregisteralien.Apotentialdownsideofthisoptionisthatitdoesn’tdoanythingtoaddresswhatex-pandingthescopeofthestratacorporation’slienwilldototheclaimsofothercredi-tors.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Atfirstglance,thecommitteefeltthattheadditionofcourtortribunalreviewpro-videdalevelofcomfortaboutthisproposal.Butthecommitteecontinuedtohaveseriousconcernsabouttheeffectthisproposalwouldhaveonthird-partycreditors(suchasmortgagees).Finesarepunitive,notcompensatory.Inaddition,afineismadeagainstaperson,notastratalot.Thesetwopointsmakeitdifficulttosupport



givingamountsforfinesthesuperpriorityaffordedbythestratacorporation’slien.Inthisway,thecommittee’stentativerecommendationisinaccordwiththera-tionalefornotincludingfineswithinthescopeofthelieninthefirstplace.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:29.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotenableastratacorporationtoregisteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespectafine,evenifthefinehasbeenfoundvalidbyacourtortheCivilResolutionTribunal.Should the Strata Property Act enable a strata corporation to register a lien on an owner’s strata lot for amounts owing with respect to an insurance deductible or expenses incurred due to damage which are less than an insurance deductible? Brief description of the issue Thisissueforreformisbestseeninlightoftheprecedingissues.Ifextendingthelientocoverfines(whetherornotenabledbyanexternaldecision-maker)causesconcerns,canthoseconcernsbeallayedbyaproposalthat’smorelimitedinitsreach?Discussion of options for reform Themainadvantageofthisproposedreformisitsmore-focussedrange,whichmightservetocheckpotentialabusesofanenhancedlienpower.Thisproposalcouldalsobeseenasareasonableextensionoftheact’sexistingprovisionforalienincasesinwhichthestratacorporationobtainsaworkorderandtheownerfailstocomplywithit.173Butthisproposedreformsharesmanyofthedownsidesoftheproposalsconsideredintheprecedingpages.Itstillextendsthelienintofar-less-certainterritory,openingthedoortopotentialabuses.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidednottoendorsethisproposedreform.Althoughit’smorelim-itedthanthepreviousproposals,itstillcreatestheconditionsforabuse.Thecom-mitteewasparticularlyconcernedabouttheuncertaintycreatedbyextendingthelientocoverexpensesincurredinrespectofdamages.

173.Seesupranote4,ss84,85,116(1)(c).



Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:30.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuenottoenableastratacorporationtoreg-isteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttoaninsurancedeductibleorexpensesincurredduetodamagewhicharelessthananinsurancede-ductible.If a court or the Civil Resolution Tribunal finds that a charge back for an insurance deductible or expenses incurred due to damage which are less than an insurance deductible is valid, then should the Strata Property Act enable a strata corporation to register a lien on an owner’s strata lot for amounts owing with respect that charge back? Brief description of the issue Thisissueforreformisanextensionoftheprevioustwo.Itrepresentsanotherat-tempttorespondtoenforcementconcernsbygivingalimitedexpansionoftherangeofthelien.WouldsuchanexpansionbeacceptableifitwerelimitedtochargebacksapprovedbyacourtortheCivilResolutionTribunal?Discussion of options for reform Theprincipaladvantageofthisproposalisitslimitedscope.Itwouldextendthelientoacompensatory(asopposedtoapunitive)amount,somethingthatisconsistentwiththelien’sexistingpurposes.Thedownsideofthisproposalisthatitwouldhavetheeffectofsubstantivelyreor-deringprioritiesamongcompetingcreditors.Thiscouldharmthirdparties,whichcouldhaveknock-oneffectsforstrata-lotowners,iftheywereasaresulttofinditmoredifficulttoobtainfinancingfromfinancialinstitutions.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteegavethisissueextendedconsideration.Whilesomecommitteememberswereattractedtoitasapracticalextensionofthelienthatcouldsolvesomeenforcementproblems,otherswereconcernedaboutitspotentialimpactonothercreditorsand,indirectly,strata-lotowners.Othercommitteemembersnoted



thatastratacorporationalreadyhasthepowertobringitselfwithintheconfinesofthelieninsimilarcases,ifitobtainsaworkorder.174Ultimately,thecommitteedecidednottoendorsethisproposal.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

31.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotenableastratacorporationtoregisteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttoachargebackforaninsurancedeductibleorexpensesincurredduetodamagewhicharelessthananinsurancede-ductible,evenifthechargebackhasbeenfoundvalidbyacourtortheCivilResolutionTribunal.

Issues for Reform—Other Enforcement Tools Introduction Theissuesthatfollowgrapplewithspecificideastoenhancethetraditionaltoolsforenforcingbylawsandrules.Should the Strata Property Act contain a provision requiring compliance with bylaws and rules or an offence and penalty provision applicable to a contravention of a bylaw or a rule? Brief description of the issue TheStrataPropertyActexpresslymentionsthreeoptionsthatmaybeusedinen-forcingastratacorporation’sbylaws:(1)imposingafine;175(2)remedyingacontra-vention;176(3)denyingaccesstoarecreationalfacility.177Thesoleoffenceprovision

174.Seeibid,s85.

175.Seeibid,ss129(1)(a),130–32.

176.Seeibid,ss129(1)(b),133(“(1)Thestratacorporationmaydowhatisreasonablynecessarytoremedyacontraventionofitsbylawsorrules,including(a)doingworkonortoastratalot,thecommonpropertyorcommonassets,and,(b)removingobjectsfromthecommonpropertyorcommonassets.(2)Thestratacorporationmayrequirethatthereasonablecostsofremedyingthecontraventionbepaidbythepersonwhomaybefinedforthecontraventionundersec-tion130.”).

177.Seeibid,ss129(1)(c),134.Thereisalsotheprospectofobtaininganinjunction,whichmaybeimplicitinsection173(1)(othercourtremedies).



intheactdoesn’tmentionbylaws;itrelatestoanyonewho“knowinglymakesafalsestatementinaCertificateofStrataCorporation.”178Otherprovincesprovidemoretoolsforbylawenforcement.Alberta’sactcontainsaremedyfor“improperconduct.”179Inmanyrespects,thisprovisionistheequivalentofBritishColumbia’sremedyforsignificantlyunfairacts,180butAlberta’slegislationgoesfurtherandincludes“non-compliancewiththisAct,theregulationsortheby-lawsbyadeveloper,acorporation,anemployeeofacorporation,amemberofaboardoranowner”withinthedefinitionof“improperconduct.”181Thisopensthedoortoawiderangeofjudicialremedies.182Ontario’slegislationallowsacourttomakea“complianceorder.”183Onceagain,ananalogousprovisionexistsinBritishColumbia’sstatute.184ButthisBritishColumbiaprovisionismorenarrowlyframedthantheOntarioequivalent,anditdoesn’tmentionbylaws.178.Ibid,s290.

179.CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote23,s67.

180.Supranote4,s164.Seealsoibid,s165,whichsetsout“othercourtremedies,”includingareme-dythatacourtmay“orderthestratacorporationtostopcontraveningthisAct,theregulations,thebylawsortherules”[emphasisadded].

181.Supranote23,s67(1)(a)(i)[emphasisadded].

182.Seeibid,s67(2)(“WhereonanapplicationbyaninterestedpartytheCourtissatisfiedthatim-properconducthastakenplace,theCourtmaydooneormoreofthefollowing:(a)directthataninvestigatorbeappointedtoreviewtheimproperconductandreporttotheCourt;(b)directthatthepersoncarryingontheimproperconductceasecarryingontheimproperconduct;(c)givedirectionsastohowmattersaretobecarriedoutsothattheimproperconductwillnotreoccurorcontinue;(d)iftheapplicantsufferedlossduetotheimproperconduct,awardcom-pensationtotheapplicantinrespectofthatloss;(e)awardcosts;(f)giveanyotherdirectionsormakeanyotherorderthattheCourtconsidersappropriateinthecircumstances.”).

183.CondominiumAct,1998,supranote23,s134(1)(“anowner,anoccupierofaproposedunit,acorporation,adeclarant,alessorofaleaseholdcondominiumcorporationoramortgageeofaunitmaymakeanapplicationtotheSuperiorCourtofJusticeforanorderenforcingcompliancewithanyprovisionofthisAct,thedeclaration,theby-laws,therulesoranagreementbetweentwoormorecorporationsforthemutualuse,provisionormaintenanceorthecost-sharingoffa-cilitiesorservicesofanyofthepartiestotheagreement.”).SeealsoProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,supranote28,Schedule1,s116(1)(amendingthisprovisiontoread“anowner,anoccupierofaproposedunit,acorporation,adeclarant,alessorofaleaseholdcondo-miniumcorporationoramortgageeofaunitmaymakeanapplicationtotheSuperiorCourtofJusticeforanorderenforcingcompliancewithanyprovisionof,(a)thisAct,thedeclaration,theby-lawsortherules;or(b)anagreementthattwoormorecorporationshaveenteredintotoshareintheprovision,use,maintenance,repair,insurance,operationoradministrationofanyland,anypartofapropertyorproposedproperty,anyassetsofacorporationoranyfacilitiesorservices”—notinforce).

184.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s165.



ShouldBritishColumbiafollowtheleadofAlbertaandOntario?ShouldBritishCo-lumbiagoevenfurtherandprovidethatcontraventionofthebylawsisanoffenceundertheact?Discussion of options for reform Theideaofadoptingaprovisionrequiringcompliancewiththebylawswasfirstraisedduringphaseoneofthisproject.185SeveralconsultationparticipantspointedtotheAlbertaandOntarioprovisionsasmodelstoconsider.Anexpresslegislativeprovisionrequiringcompliancewithastratacorporation’sby-lawswouldservetoensurethataremedymaybeavailableinadifficultcase.Alber-ta’sprovisionactsasakindofcatch-allsection.Itessentiallyfillsinanygapsinthelegislativeframework,allowingthecourttomakeabroadrangeoforderstoserveasremediesinanycasesofnon-compliancewiththebylaws.OneAlbertacourthascharacterizedtheprovisionas“akindofCondominiumlawall-terrainvehicle.”186Suchaprovisioncouldalsoclarifyboththeactandthedutiesandobligationsofstra-ta-lotowners.TheAlbertaprovisionhasbeencitedincasesinvolvingunauthorizedalterationstoastratalotthataffectedcommonproperty,187accesstoanduseofastratalot,188andevictionofanownerfromastratalot.189AlthoughOntario’sprovisiondiffersinwordinganddetailfromAlberta’s,itcoverslargelythesameterritory.Onecommentatorhasnotedthat“[t]hevastmajorityofcompliancecasesareabout‘people,petsandparking’andarisefrominfringementof

185.SeeReportonStrataPropertyLaw:PhaseOne,supranote14at24.

186.LeesonvCondominiumPlanNo9925923,2014ABQB20atpara20,8AltaLR(6th)75,MasterSchlosser[italicsinoriginal].

187.SeeMaverickEquitiesIncvOwners:CondominiumPlan9422336,2008ABCA221atpara1,168ACWS(3d)419,thecourt(“Thisappealconcernstherightsoftheownerofacondominiumunittomakealterationstothatunit,andthedutyofthatownertorespectrulesandregulationsadoptedbytheBoardofthecondominiumcorporation.”).

188.SeeCondominiumPlanNo7720093vRathbone,2010ABQB69atpara1,184ACWS(3d)352,MasterSmart(applicationfor“solicitor-clientcostsoftheapplicationbroughtbyitagainstMs.Rathboneinwhichitsoughtaccesstohercondominiumunitinordertoinspectandreplaceherunitwindows”).

189.SeeOwners:CondominiumPlanNo0221347vN.Y.,2003ABQB790atpara2,22AltaLR(4th)166,LeeJ(“IhavedecidedthatanownerofacondominiumresidencecanbeevictedbytheCondominiumAssociationforsubstantialbreachesoftheCondominiumBylaws,justasifshewasatenant.”).



thedeclaration,by-lawsandrulesofthecondominiumcorporation.”190Thecourt’spowersundertheprovisionarediscretionary.Anearlycaseunderapredecessorprovisionhaslistedsomeofthecriteriausuallyappliedinconsideringwhethertoexercisethatdiscretion.191Argumentscouldbeadvancedagainsttheadoptionofthistypeofprovision.ItcouldbepossibletoholdthatBritishColumbia’scourtshaveusedtheirinherentjurisdic-tionandcontemptpowertofillinanygapsinthelegislativeframework.192Soitmightnotbestrictlynecessarytoamendthelegislation.Anotherpotentialdrawbackofstatingbluntlyintheactthatcourtremediesareavailableforfailuretocomplywiththebylawsisthatitcouldbringwithitahostofillscommonlyassociatedwithcivillitigation.Theseillsincludethecostofproceedinginthecourtandthepotentialtoinflamemarginaldisputesintocourtcases.Suchprovisioncouldalso,dependingonhowitisinterpreted,shiftthebalanceofpowerbetweenownersandthestratacorporation.Adoptinganoffenceprovision(orexpandingthecurrentoffenceprovision)tocovercontraventionsofbylawsandruleswouldhavesimilarbenefitstotheAlbertaandOntarioprovisions.Itwouldencouragecompliancewithbylawsandrules.Anditwouldgivestratacorporationsandownersanotherplacetoturninthefaceofabreachofabylaworarule.Thepublicnatureofsuchaprovisionpresentsatwo-edgedsword.Itcouldbeseenasanadvantagetohaveanoutsidebodyreviewingallegedcontraventionsofbylawsandrulesanddecidingwhethertoproceedwithprosecution.Butitcouldalsobeasignificantdisadvantage,asthesuccessofsuchasystemdependstoalargedegreeontheamountofpublicresourcesassignedtoit.190.SeeAudreyMLoeb,CondominiumLawandAdministration,2nded,vol3(Toronto:Carswell,

1998)(loose-leafrelease2010–1)atON134§1.

191.SeeMetropolitanTorontoCondominiumCorpNo850vOikle(1994),44RPR(2d)55atpara25;52ACWS(3d)447(OntGenDiv),LissamanJ(“SomeofthefactorsaCourtwillconsiderinexer-cisingitsdiscretionunderSection49oftheCondominiumActare:(1)Thenatureofthetotalde-velopment.(2)Whatarethereasonableexpectationsoftheotheroccupantsofthedevelop-ment?(3)Howseriouslydootheroccupantstakethisparticularissueasopposedtootheris-sues?(4)Doestheconductoftheunitownerinquestioninterferewithothers?(5)Havetherebeenanycomplaintsbyotherunitowners?(6)Whatistherelationshipbetweenoramongstthevariousinterestedparties?(7)Whatistheactualwordingofthecovenantwhichisbeingen-forced—aresimilarpetsallowed,forexample,whiledogsaredisallowed?(8)Whatarethead-vantagesofrequiringcompliancecomparedtotheadvantagesofpermittingnon-compliance?”).

192.SeeTheOwnersStrataPlanLMS2768vJordison,2013BCSC487,[2013]BCJNo550(QL);BeavTheOwners,StrataPlanLMS2138,2015BCCA31,73BCLR(5th)219.



The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteegavethisissuecarefulconsideration,ultimatelydecidingnottopro-poseanyamendmentstotheact.Inthecommittee’sview,theadventoftheCivilResolutionTribunalhaseffectivelyaddressedtheconcernsnotedinthepreviouspages.Thetribunalhasbroadauthorityinstrata-propertyclaimstomake“anorderrequiringapartytodosomething”or“anorderrequiringapartytorefrainfromdo-ingsomething.”193Suchordersmaybeenforcedbyfilingtheminthesupremecourt.194Theseprovisionsgivepeopleasimple,expeditiousmeanstoaddresscom-pliancewithabylaworarule.Astimegoeson,theexpectationisthatpeoplewillturntotheCivilResolutionTri-bunalandnotthecourtsforbylawenforcement.Thisreducestheneedforthestat-utetobeamendedtohandnewpowerstothecourts.Butit’sworthwhiletokeeptabsondevelopmentswiththetribunal.Ifthingsdon’tunfoldasexpected,thenleg-islatorsmaywishtorevisitthedecisiononthisissue.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:32.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoaddeitheraprovisionrequiringcompliancewithastratacorporation’sbylawsandrules(whichwouldgivethecourtawiderangeofdiscretionaryremediesthatmaybeorderedincasesofnon-compliance)oraprovisionthatcreatesanoffenceofnon-compliancewithastratacorporation’sbylawsandrules.Should the Strata Property Act make failure to pay strata fees subject to an immediate fine without the need to comply with the procedures set out in section 135? Brief description of the issue Section1ofthestandardbylawsprovidesthat“[a]nownermustpaystratafeesonorbeforethefirstdayofthemonthtowhichthestratafeesrelate.”195Section135setsouttheprocedurethatmustbefollowedbeforeoneofthethreestatute-approvedpenaltiesmaybeappliedtoabylawcontravention.Theheadingforthesectionneatlysummarizestheprocedureasrequiringa“complaint,righttoanswer,

193.CivilResolutionTribunalAct,supranote39,s48.1(1)(a)–(b).

194.Seeibid,s57.

195.Supranote4,Schedule1,s1.See,above,at30–31(committee’stentativerecommendationre-gardingsection1ofthestandardbylaws).



andnoticeofdecision.”196Shouldanexceptiontotheserequirementsbemadeforfailuretopaystratafees?Discussion of options for reform Thisproposalwillhelptoprotectastratacorporation’scashflowfromstratafees.Stratafeesmakeupthemajorcomponentofthiscashflow,soanyinterruptioninthepaymentofstratafeesisaseriousconcernforastratacorporation.Thispro-posalwillalsosimplifyadministrationofastratacorporation.Non-paymentofstra-tafeesisoftenastraightforwardaccountingquestion,withallthefactsalreadyinthestratacorporation’spossession.Layeringonadditionalproceduralprotectionsfordelinquentownerscanseemlikeaneedlesscomplicationofthecollectionpro-cess.Thedownsideofthisproposalisthatitbeginstounderminethegoalssection135ismeanttoachieve.Thesectionencouragesastratacounciltohearallsidesofthesto-rybeforemakingadecisiononanallegedbylawcontravention.Althoughit’slesslikelyincasesofnon-paymentofstratafeesthaninothercasesofbylawcontraven-tions,it’sstillpossiblethatastratacouncilmaybeproceedingonthebasisofdefec-tiveinformation,whichcouldbeclearedupbyconsultingtheowner.Movingdirect-lytoadecisiononabylawcontraventionwithoutmakingthisinquirycouldinflameamisunderstandingintoamoreheateddispute.197The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteegaveextensiveconsiderationtothisissue.Committeemembersex-pressedarangeofviews.Somenotedthattheprocedureundersection135canbeoverlyintricateforopen-and-shutcasesofnon-payment.Othersmadethepointthatstratacorporationsalreadyhaveanumberoftoolstodealwithnon-payment.Ultimately,thecommitteewaswarytoendorsethisproposedreform.Itappearedtoturnonasensethatallcasesofnon-paymentwereblackandwhite.Buttherecouldbesomeshadesofgrayintheprocess.Stratacorporations’accountingisn’tinfallible.Somecommitteememberswerealsoconcernedthatthisproposalcouldbethethinedgeofthewedge,whichwouldleadtomorecallstolimittheapplicationofthesec-tion135process.196.Supranote4,s135.

197.SeeFanaken,supranote31at107(“Alltoooftenthesesteps[setoutinsection135]arenotfol-lowedandthestratacouncildiscussesanallegedviolationatacouncilmeetingandthenimme-diatelyfinestheowner.ThelevyingofafinebeforetheprescribedprocessisnotonlyaviolationoftheAct,italsosuggestsveryconvincinglythattheallegedperson’ssubsequentresponseanddefenseisnotrelevant.”).



Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:33.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotmakefailuretopaystratafeessubjecttoanimmediatefinewithouttheneedtocomplywiththeproceduressetoutinsection135.Should the Strata Property Act prohibit a strata corporation from both applying a fine and charging interest for failure to pay strata fees? Brief description of the issue Thisissueflowedfromthecommittee’sconsiderationofthepreviousissue.Section1oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsprovidesthat“[a]nownermustpaystratafeesonorbeforethefirstdayofthemonthtowhichthestratafeesrelate.”198Failuretomakethisrequiredpaymentwouldplacethestratacorporationinapositiontofinetheownerforbreachofthebylaw.199Theactalsoenablesastratacorporationtoadoptabylawprovidingforinteresttobechargedwhenanownerfailstopaystratafees.200Shouldtheactrequireastratacorporationtoapplyoneortheother—butnotboth—oftheseenforcementtoolsinthefaceofnon-paymentofstratafees?Discussion of options for reform Thisproposedreformwasdiscussedasawaytoaddressanumberofconcerns.Pilingonfinesandinterestfornon-paymentofstratafeescanbeharshincases.Thereisoftensomeadministrativeandaccountingawkwardnessinstratacorporations’applicationofinterest.Charginginterestonsmallamountscanbeadministrativelytricky.Finally,somecommitteemembershadalurkingconcernthatcombiningfinesandinterestcouldleavestratacorporationsvulnerable,in

198.Supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s1.

199.Seeibid,ss129,130.Notethatthispowertofinerequiresthestratacorporationtofirstcomplywiththeproceduresetoutinsection135.

200.Seeibid,s107(“(1)Abylawthatestablishesascheduleforthepaymentofstratafeesmaysetoutarateofinterest,nottoexceedtheratesetoutintheregulations,tobepaidifanownerislateinpayinghisorherstratafeesunderthatschedule.(2)Theinterestpayableonalatepay-mentofstratafeesinaccordancewithabylawreferredtoinsubsection(1)isnotafine,andformspartofthestratafeesforthepurposesofsection116.”).SeealsoStrataPropertyRegula-tion,supranote8,s6.8(1)(“Forthepurposesofsection107(1)oftheAct,themaximumrateofinterestthatastratacorporationmaysetoutinitsbylawsforthelatepaymentofstratafeesis10%perannumcompoundedannually.”).



certaincircumstances,tofloutingtherulesagainstcriminalinterestrates.201Restrictingstratacorporationstoachoiceofoneortheotherenforcementtoolwasseenaswaytoprotectagainstthesedangers.Thedownsideofthisproposedreformisthatitcouldinhibitstratacorporations’abilitytocollectstratafees.Despitetheadministrativeburdensconnectedwithcharginginterest,interestdoesstillfunctionasaneffectivedeterrentagainstfailuretopaystratafees.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidednottoendorsethisproposedreformbecauseitwascon-cernedaboutitspotentialtoimpairstratacorporations’abilitytocollectstratafees.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:34.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetoallowastratacorporationbothtoap-plyafineandtochargeinterestifastrata-lotownerfailstopaystratafees.Should the Strata Property Act contain provisions regarding the inability to vote imposed on a strata-lot owner if the strata corporation is entitled to register a lien on the owner’s strata lot? Brief description of the issue Theact’sbaselinepositiononvotingatanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgen-eralmeetingisthat“eachstratalothasonevote.”202Thisbaselinepositionissubjecttoanumberofexceptions.Theexceptionthatisthefocusofthisissueforreformreadsasfollows:“astratacorporationmay,bybylaw,providethatthevoteforastratalotmaynotbeexercised,exceptonmattersrequiringan80%voteorunani-

201.SeeCriminalCode,RSC1985,cC-46,s347(2)(“interestmeanstheaggregateofallchargesand

expenses,whetherintheformofafee,fine,penalty,commissionorothersimilarchargeorex-penseorinanyotherform,paidorpayablefortheadvancingofcreditunderanagreementorarrangement,byoronbehalfofthepersontowhomthecreditisoristobeadvanced,irrespec-tiveofthepersontowhomanysuchchargesandexpensesareoraretobepaidorpayable,butdoesnotincludeanyrepaymentofcreditadvancedoranyinsurancecharge,officialfee,over-draftcharge,requireddepositbalanceor,inthecaseofamortgagetransaction,anyamountre-quiredtobepaidonaccountofpropertytaxes”).




mousvote,ifthestratacorporationisentitledtoregisteralienagainstthatstratalotundersection116(1).”203Concernshavebeenexpressedthatstratacorporationsarefailingtoadministerthisprovisionproperly.Simplybeinginarrearsofstratafeesisn’tenoughtoengagesuchabylaw.204Asonetextbookhasnoted,“[t]hestratacorporationcannotenforceaby-lawthatprohibitsvotingbecauseofarrearsuntilthecorporationhascompliedwithalloftheprerequisitesforfilingalien.”205Aleadingpracticeguidespellsoutthoseprerequisitesasfollows:“Inorderforastratacorporationtobe‘entitledtoregisteralienunders.116(1),’noticemusthavebeengivenunders.112(2)andatleasttwoweeksmusthavepassed....”206Apparently,somestratacorporationshavedeniedownerstherighttovote,eventhoughthestratacorporationhasn’tcompliedwiththeprerequisitesforfilingalien.Canthelegislationbeclarifiedorbolsteredasawaytoaiditsadministration?Discussion of options for reform Therearetwooptionstoconsiderinresponsetothisissue.Oneoptionwouldbetoclarifythelanguageofsection53(2).Rightnow,thesectiononlypointstothere-quirementsforfilingalienbyusingacross-reference(“entitledtoregisteralienagainstthatstratalotundersection116(1)”).Thesectioncouldbeamendedtospelloutwhatprerequisitesastratacorporationwouldhavetofulfilinordertofilealien.Moreexplicitlanguageshouldhelptoreducemisunderstandingsabouttheintentandscopeofthisprovision.Thedrawbackofthisapproachisthatitwouldmaketheactlongerandmorecom-plex.Italsoturnsontheassumptionthatpeopleadministeringastratacorporation’sgeneralmeetingwouldturntotheactbeforedenyinganownertherighttovote.Inotherwords,thisapproachislesslikelytoworkifsomethingmorethanasimplemisunderstandingofthewordsoftheactisbehindthefailuretoadministerthepro-visioncorrectly.Thisiswherethesecondapproachcomesin.Itwouldbetocreateapenaltyformis-applyingthisprovision.Thenatureofthepenaltywouldhavetobecarefullyconsid-

203.Ibid,s53(2).

204.SeeAzuraManagement(Kelowna)CorpvOwnersoftheStrataPlanKAS2428,2009BCSC506atparas97–98,95BCLR(4th)358,BurnyeatJ,varied,2010BCCA474,10BCLR(5th)300.

205.Mangan,supranote31at154.




ered.Oneoptionwouldbetofinethestratacorporation.Theadvantageofthisap-proachisthatitwouldbemorelikelytomotivatestratacorporationstocomplywiththestrictprerequisitesofthesection,ifitknewthattherewouldbeacosttofailingtocomplywiththoseprerequisites.Thedownsideofthisapproachisthatitdependsonanoutsidebodymakingade-terminationthattheprovisionhasbeenbreachedandthatafineisanappropriatepenalty.Itisn’tclearthatpublicresourceswouldbegiventosuchabody.Withoutproperenforcement,suchaprovisionwouldbelittlemorethanadeadletter.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteeconsideredtheseoptionsbutdecidednottoendorsethem.Instead,itfavouredamendingtheacttoremovetherequirementtoenablethisprovisionbyenactingabylaw.Thecommitteenotedthatstratacorporationshaveavarietyofdif-ferentbylawsonthispoint.Alegislativeprovisionwouldstandardizethings.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:35.Section53(2)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoread“Despitesub-section(1),thevoteforastratalotmaynotbeexercised,exceptonmattersrequiringan80%voteorunanimousvote,ifthestratacorporationisentitledtoregisteralienagainstthatstratalotundersection116(1).”Should the Strata Property Act contain provisions regarding bylaws that, in effect, adopt the rule in Clayton’s Case—that is, provide that any payment to discharge part of a debt is applied to the oldest part of the debt, unless the debtor specifies otherwise? Brief description of the issue TheruleinClayton’sCase207provides:

Inthecaseofacurrentaccountbetweendebtorandcreditorthereis,intheabsenceofagreementtothecontrary,apresumptionthatthefirstitemonthecreditsideoftheac-countisintendedtobeappliedinthepaymentofthefirstitemonthedebitsideoftheaccount.Onacurrentbankingaccount,therefore,theearlierdrawings,intheabsenceofspecificappropriation,areattributedtoanddeductedfromtheearlierpayments-in.208

207.(1816),1Mer572,35ER781.

208.RossGibsonIndustriesLtdvGreaterVancouverHousingCorp(1985),21DLR(4th)481,67BCLR



Theruleissometimesgivenina“shortformstatement”as“firstin,firstout.”209“Somestratacorporations,”notesacommentator,haveadoptedbylawsrelyingonthisrule“tocircumventtherestrictionagainstliensforunpaidfines”:

Bearinginmindthatastratacorporationmayfilealienforunpaidstratafees,somestratacorporationsamendtheirbylawstostatethatwheneveranownerpayshisorherstratafees,thepaymentisfirstappliedtooutstandingfines,thentostratafees.210

Shouldstratacorporationsbeallowedtoadoptsuchbylaws?Shouldspecialre-quirementshavetobemetifastratacorporationwantstoadoptsuchabylaw?Discussion of options for reform Thereareacoupleoflegislativeoptionstoconsiderinthefaceofsuchbylaws.Oneoptionwouldbesimplytohavethelegislationoutlawthispractice.Iftheseby-lawsareseenasbeingabusive,thenthisresponsewouldbethesimplestandmostdirect.Thedownsideisthatitwouldbelikelybeseenasanimposition.Thisisanis-suethathasbeeninthehandsofstratacorporationstodeterminedemocratically.Legislationwillforceallstratacorporationstoadoptthesameapproach.Anotheroptionwouldbetocontinuetoallowstratacorporationstoadoptsuchby-laws,buttohavethelegislationputinplacesomeproceduralprotectionsaroundthebylaw’sadoptionoruse.Thisisamoreopen-endedapproachthantheonereliedoninthepreviousoption.Someexamplesofsuchprotectionswouldbeenhancedno-ticerequirements,whichcouldapplyeitherwhenthebylawisproposedforadop-tionorwhenitisreliedupon,orahighervotingmajorityrequiredtoadoptsuchabylaw.Thisapproachcouldbeseenasensuringthatastratacorporationthatadoptsandreliesuponsuchabylawdoessowithitsanditsowners’eyesopen.Itis,inef-

55at60(CA),EssonJA(forthecourt).

209.ReOntarioSecuritiesCommissionandGreymacCreditCorp(1986),55OR(2d)673at677,30DLR(4th)1(CA),MordenJA(forthecourt),aff’d(subnomGreymacTrustCovOntario(Secu-ritiesCommission))[1988]2SCR172,[1988]SCJNo77(QL).

210.Mangan,supranote31at354(“Suppose,forexample,thatthemonthlystratafeesforanown-er’sstratalotare$225andtheownerhasanunpaid$100fine.Whentheownermakeshisorhernextmonthlypaymentof$225,thestratacorporationallocatesthefirst$100ofthatpay-menttowardstheunpaidfine,andtheremaining[$125]towardsstratafees.Ofcourse,thatleavesanunpaidbalanceof$100inthepaymentoftheowner’smonthlystratafees.Subjecttocertainproceduralrequirementsforfilingalien,thestratacorporationmayfilealienagainsttheowner’sstratalotfor$100,representingarrearsforstratafees.”).



fect,acompromisethatletsstratacorporationsthatwanttopursuethispolicydosowiththeheightenedawarenessofstrata-lotowners.Thecompromisenatureofthisoptionpointstosomepotentialdisadvantages.First,thisisamorecomplicatedapproachtotheissue.It’salsoalessdirectwaytoaddresstheissue.Thereisapossibilitythatnoonewillbesatisfiedwiththisoption.Peoplewhoviewthesebylawsasinherentlyabusivecouldnotethattheyarestillpermittedunderthisoption,solongascertainproceduresareobserved.Otherpeople,whomightseetheuseofsuchabylawasjustifiedonoccasion,couldnotethatthetestforwhetherthebylawmaybereliedonhasshiftedawayfromwhetheroritisabusivetowhetherornotcertainprocedureshavebeenfollowed.Athirdoptionwouldbetoretainthestatusquo.Thesebylawsrelyonanexistingle-galrule.Inmostcases,suchabylawwouldonlybeadoptedafterastratacorpora-tionpassesaresolutionbya3/4vote.211Anargumentcouldbemadethatthereisnoreasontotreatthismatterasbeinganythingoutoftheordinary.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthisissueposesaseriousproblem,whichneedstobeaddressedbylegislation.Inthecommittee’sview,thesebylawsshouldbeclassifiedwiththeotherunenforceablebylawsdealtwithintheact.212Thecommitteealsoconsideredwhetheritstentativerecommendationshouldbesubjecttoatransitionalrule.Intheend,thecommitteedecidedthatatransitionalruleisn’tappropriateinthiscase.Thetypicalapproachinstrata-propertylawisnottoprovideasafeharbourforbylawsthatbecomeunenforceablebecauseofachangetothelegislation.Asthecommitteesawnoreasontodepartfromthisruleinthiscase,itsproposalshouldapplytoexistingaswellasfuturebylaws.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:36.Section121oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatabylawisnotenforceabletotheextentthatitreassignsmoneyintendedforthepurposesof(a)stratafees,(b)aspeciallevy,(c)areimbursementofthecostofworkreferredtoinsection85,or(d)thestratalot’sshareofajudgmentagainstthestratacorporation.211.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s120(2)(allowingowner-developerto“filebylawsthat

differfromtheStandardBylaws”—whichmeansthatthebylawunderdiscussioncouldenterastratacorporation’sbylawsupondepositofthestrataplanandwithoutadoptionofaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote).

212.Seeibid,s121.



Should the Strata Property Act expressly enable a strata corporation to fine an owner for failure to pay a special levy? Brief description of the issue IthasbeennotedthattheStrataPropertyActdoesn’texpresslyallowastratacorpo-rationtofineanownerwhohasfailedtopayaspeciallevy.Eventhoughtheactmaybesilentonthispoint,itmaybearguedthatitimplicitlyauthorizesastratacorpora-tionlevyingafineinthesecircumstances.Shouldtheactbeamendedtoaddanex-pressprovisionthatauthorizesastratacorporationtofineanownerforfailingtopayaspeciallevy?Discussion of options for reform Amendingtheactbyaddingaprovisionauthorizingastratacorporationtofineanownerwhohasfailedtopayaspeciallevywouldhaveanumberofbenefits.Itwouldclarifythelegislationonthisissue.Itwouldalsoprovidecertaintytostratacorpora-tionsthatwanttouseafinetoenforcetheobligationtopayaspeciallevy.Anex-presslegislativeprovisionwouldremoveanydoubtsonthispoint.Potentialdownsidestothisoptionalltendtoturnonwhetherthereareanyrealdoubtsaboutthelegitimacyoffininganownerforfailingtopayaspeciallevy.Eventhoughtheacthasalargenumberofprovisionsthatmakereferencestofines,213noneofthemappearstobeanauthorizationtofineanownerfordoingorfailingtodosomething.Forexample,theonlymentionintheactoffinesinconnectionwithstratafeesisabriefprovisionthatmakesthepointthat“interestpayableonalatepaymentofstratafees...isnotafine.”214Therealsodoesn’tappeartobeanycourtdecisionthathassetasideafineagainstanownerforfailingtopayaspeciallevyonthebasisthattheactdoesn’texpresslyau-thorizesuchafine.(Onecasehascitedstrata-corporationbylawsthatprovidedforboththepaymentofinterestandafineforfailuretopayaspeciallevy,butthecourtmadenocommentonthebylaw.)215Finally,practiceguidesandothercommentary

213.Seee.g.ibid,ss27(controlofcouncil),115(certificateofpayment),116(certificateoflien),

147(assignmentofpowersanddutiestotenant),148(long-termlease),171(stratacorporationmaysueasrepresentativeofallowners),177(disputesthatcanbearbitrated).

214.Ibid,s107(2).Anidenticalprovisionexistsforspeciallevies(seeibid,s108(4.2)).

215.SeeStrataPlanNW499vKirk,2015BCSC1487atpara20,(subnomStrataPlanNW499vLouisEstate)59RPR(5th)65,ArmstrongJ(“Ifanownerfailstopayaspeciallevy,theinterestrateonarrearsis10%perannumandthefinerisesto$50permonth.”).



eitherdon’ttouchonthisissue216ormentionitinpassing,implyingthattherearenoproblemswiththecurrentstateofthelaw.217Soifthestatusquoprovidessomeimplicitsupportforastratacorporationthatfinesanownerwhofailstopayaspeciallevy,thenamendingtheactcouldhavesomedrawbacks.Onewouldbeusinglegislativetimeandresourcestoaddressaproblemthatmostobserversdon’tseeasaproblem.Anotherdrawbackisthatcreatinganexpresslegislativeauthorizationforapplyingafineinthiscasecouldstarttodrawpeopletotheconclusionthatsuchalegislativeauthorizationmightbenecessaryforothercasesinwhichastratacorporationwantstofineanowner.Theseconsiderationsleadtotheothertwooptionsforreform.Oneoptionwouldbesimplytoproposenoamendmenttotheactinresponsetothisissue.Thisapproachwouldretainthestatusquo,soitsstrengthsandweaknessesareprobablyareflec-tionofhowsomeoneseesthecurrentstateofthelaw.Ifthecurrentlawisn’tcausingproblemsinpractice,thenitmaybebesttostaywithit.Butifitiscreatinguncer-taintyanddifficulties,thenproposingnochangestotheactiseffectivelyallowingtheseproblemstopersist.Finally,anotherapproachtoconsiderisproposingtoamendtheactbyaddingaprovisionthatwouldpreventastratacorporationfromfininganownerforfailingtopayaspeciallevy.Likethefirstoption,thisapproachwouldclarifythelawonthisissueanditwouldalsobringcertaintytostratacorporationsandowners.Somepeoplecouldarguethatstratacorporationsshouldbereinedinontheirabilitytofi-neowners,andsuchanamendmentwouldhelpinthattask.Butthisoptionwouldhavedownsides.Itcouldbeseenasasignificantreductioninthetoolsavailabletostratacorporationsforenforcingpaymentofaspeciallevy.Itcouldalsobeseenasamajorchangeinthelaw,whichwouldrequireademonstrat-edpublicrecordofabusesasevidenceofaneedforsuchachange.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,thecurrentlawisadequate.Itdoesn’tpreventastratacor-porationfromusingafineinthecaseofafailuretopayaspeciallevy.Itcomesdowntowhetheragivenstratacorporation’sbylawsallowforit.

216.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31;Mangan,supranote31.

217.SeeFanaken,supranote31at89(“Itiscertainlyappropriateforastratacorporationtopenalizeownersforbeinglatewiththeirspeciallevyobligations,ornotpayingatall.Some3/4votereso-lutionsprovideforalateornon-paymentfine;some3/4voteresolutionsprovideforaninterestcharge(usuallyat10%perannumcompoundedannually);someresolutionsprovideforboth.”).



Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:37.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetobesilentonwhetherastratacorpora-tionmayfineanownerforfailuretopayaspeciallevy.

Issues for Reform—Other Issues Should the Strata Property Act’s delaying provisions for rental restrictions not apply when a strata corporation is amending bylaws that already contain rental restrictions? Brief description of the issue TheStrataPropertyActallowsastratacorporationtorestricttherentalofresiden-tialstratalots.218Theacttightlycontrolshowastratacorporationmayrestrictrent-als.Underthegoverningprovision,astratacorporation“mayonlyrestricttherentalofastratalotbyabylawthat”:

• prohibitstherentalofresidentialstratalots,or

• limitsoneormoreofthefollowing:

o thenumberorpercentageofresidentialstratalotsthatmayberented;

o theperiodoftimeforwhichresidentialstratalotsmayberented.219Whenastratacorporationadoptsarental-restrictionbylaw,thebylawissubjecttotheact’sdelayingprovisions.(Somecommentatorsrefertotheseprovisionsascre-atinga“graceperiod”220ora“waitingperiod.”)221Thedelayingprovisionssaythat“abylawthatprohibitsorlimitsrentalsdoesnotapplytoastratalotuntilthelaterof”

• oneyearafteratenantwhoisoccupyingthestratalotatthetimethebylawispassedceas-estooccupyitasatenant,and

• oneyearafterthebylawispassed.222

218.Seesupranote4,s141.

219.Ibid,s141(2).

220.SeeMangan,supranote31at332.

221.SeeFanaken,supranoteat31at113.

222.Supranote4,s143(1).Thisgraceperiod“doesnotapplytoabylawthatispassedundersec-tion8bytheownerdeveloper”(ibid,s143(4)).Suchabylawisonepassedbytheownerdevel-



Althoughafull-scalereviewoftheact’srentalrestrictionsisnotpartofthemandateforthisproject,thecommitteedecidedtorespondtoanarrowlyframedissuethatwasbroughttoitsattentionincorrespondence.Thisissueinvolvesconcernsthattheact’sdelayingprovisionsaredifficulttoadministerwhenastratacorporationisamendinganexistingrental-restrictionbylaw.223Shouldtheactbeamendedtopro-videthatthedelayingprovisionseitherdon’tapplytoastratacorporationthatisamendinganexistingrental-restrictionbylaw,ordon’tapplyincertaincircumstanc-eswhenastratacorporationamendsbylawscontainingarental-restrictionbylaw?Discussion of options for reform Thebroadestwaytoapproachthisissuewouldbetoconsiderwhethertheact’sde-layingprovisionsshouldapplyatallifastratacorporationisamendinganexistingrental-restrictionbylaw.Thisoptionwouldhavetheadvantageofclearlyanddirect-lyaddressingtheproblem.Theadministrativeawkwardnessthatnowcropsupwhenbylawscontainingarentalrestrictionareamendedwould,inalllikelihood,disappear.Thedrawbackofthisapproachisthatitsbreadthcouldopentothedoortootherawkwardandpotentiallytroublingconsequences.Forexample,astratacorporationcouldhaveabylawthatlimitsthenumberorpercentageofresidentialstratalotsthatmayberented.Then,thestratacorporationcouldamendthisbylawandreplaceitwithonethatprohibitstherentalofresidentialstratalots.Thiscouldleaveastra-ta-lotownerwhohadrentedastratalotunderthepreviousbylawonthehornsofadilemma:eitherimmediatelyterminatethetenancy,likelycausingabreachofthetenancyagreement,orfacetheconsequencesofcontraveningthenewbylaw.Similarconcernscouldariseifastratacorporationamendedarental-restrictionby-lawthatlimitedthenumberofstratalotsthatcouldberentedtoprovidethatanew,lowernumberofstratalotscouldberented(going,forexample,fromtenstratalotsthatmayberentedtofive).Inthisexample,thestratacorporationwouldbefaced

operbeforethefirstconveyanceofastratalottoapurchaser.

223.SeeAdrianLipsey,emailmessagetoStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)ProjectCommittee,6Sep-tember2016(“Whenstratacorporationsareupdating,revisingorreplacingtheirbylaws,andthereisalreadyabylawinplacewhichrestrictsrentals,thedelayingprovisionsundertheActshouldnotapplywhentheupdated,revised,orreplacedbylawsalsocontainrentalre-striction(s).Thiseliminatestheneedforconvolutedbylawwordingwhichreferstopreviouslyapprovedrentalrestrictionbylaws.Thedelayingprovisionmakessensewhentherearenocur-rentrestrictionsonrentalsbutitcreateshavocwhenbylawsareamendedinthecaseofexistingrentalrestrictions.”).



withtheadditionaldilemmaofdecidingwhichstratalotsmaycontinuetoberentedandwhichmaynot.Thereareotheroptionsthatcouldaddresstheseconcernsbynarrowingthescopeoftheproposedamendment.Oneapproachwouldbetoretainadelayingprovisionforthelengthofanytenancyagreementexistingatthetimeofthebylawamend-ment.Thiswouldensurethatanownerwhoenteredintoatenancyagreementonthestrengthoftheearlierbylawwouldn’tbeplacedinbreachofeitherthetenancyagreementorthenewbylaw.Butadrawbackofthisapproachisthatitsmorelim-itedreachcouldleavesomeoftheadministrativeawkwardnessthatiscurrentlycomplainedaboutinplace.Anothernarrowerapproachwouldbetoproposeanamendmentthatwouldliftthedelayingprovisionsiftheamendmentresultsinasubstantiallysimilarrental-restrictionbylawastheoneinexistencebeforethebylawamendment.Thisap-proachcouldbeseenasadoptingamoretailoredresponsetotheadministrativeproblemsthatmayarisewhenbylawscontainingrentalrestrictionsareamended.Ifthereisnochangeinthesubstanceofarental-restrictionbylaw—forexample,nochangeinthenatureoftherestrictionsorinthenumberofstratalotsthatmayberented—thenthereshouldbenoreasontoengagethedelayingprovisions.Ontheotherhand,iftheamendmentdoesresultinasubstantivechangeinhowthestratacorporationrestrictsrentals,thentheownersshouldhavethebenefitofdelayingtheapplicationofthatnewapproach.Thedrawbacktothisapproachisthatinaddressingonesourceofadministrativeproblemsitmightcreateanewsourceofproblems.Administrationunderthisap-proachwoulddependonstratacorporationsmakingajudgmentonwhetheraby-lawamendmentamountstoasubstantivechangetoarental-restrictionbylaw.Thismaybeasimplecallinsomecases—forexample,ifthestratacorporationwereswitchingfromarestrictionbasedonthenumberofstratalotsthatmayberentedtoanoutrightprohibition—butitcouldbetrickierinothers.Thiscouldcauseconfu-sionandpossiblydisputes.Anevennarrowerapproachwouldbetosuspendtheoperationofthedelayingpro-visionsonlyincaseswhereanamendedsetofbylawsretainsarental-restrictionby-lawthatisidenticaltotheonefoundinthebylawsimmediatelybeforetheamend-ment.Thisapproachcouldbehelpfulinaspecifictypeofcase.Astratacorporationmaydecidetomakeextensiverevisionstoitsbylaws,affectingawholehostofpro-visionsbutleavingtherental-restrictionbylawunchanged.Stratacorporationsinthispositionareoftenadvisedtosimplyadoptawholenewsetofbylaws.Thisad-viceisusuallygivenforthesakeofclarityandcertainty.Itavoidstheneedforacomplexamendingresolution.Italsoavoidstheneedtoreviewtwo(ormore)sets



ofdocumentstogetacompletepictureofthebylaws.Butitdoespotentiallyexposethestratacorporationtoaliteral-mindedargumentthatithasadopteda“new”rental-restrictionbylawanditshouldallowthedelayingprovisionstooperate.Thisapproachwouldtakeawaythatargumentanddispelanyuncertaintyinthisspecificcase.Thedownsidetothisapproachisthatitdoeslittlemorethanrespondtoaveryspe-cificproblemthatmaycropupinonetypeofcase.Iftherearemoregeneralcon-cernsabouttheoperationofthedelayingprovisions,thenthisapproachwon’tad-dressthem.Itsscopeissomodestthatsomemayquestiontheneedofamendingthelegislationtomakesuchasmall-scalechange.Finally,thelastoptionthatshouldbeconsideredisretainingthestatusquo.BritishColumbiaistheonlyCanadianjurisdictionthatenablesstratacorporationstore-stricttherentalofresidentialstratacorporationsandthathasextensivelegislationregulatinghowstratacorporationsmayachievethisgoalthroughtheirbylaws.Thelegislationrepresents,byandlarge,adelicatebalancebetweentwobroadpolicies.Ontheonehand,strata-lotownersarepropertyownersandshouldbeabletodealwiththeirpropertyastheyseefit.Ontheotherhand,strata-lotownersaremembersofacommunitygovernedbythestratacorporationandshouldrespectthedemo-craticchoicesofthatstratacorporation.224Thedelayingprovisionscanbeseenaspartofthisdelicatebalance.Onecommentatorhasdescribedtheirpurposeinthebroaderrental-restrictionschemeasaffordingastrata-lotowner“afairopportunitytodisposeofthestratalotortomovein.”225Changinghowthedelayingprovisionsoperatecouldupsetthebalancethatthelegislationcurrentlystrikes.Inotherwords,itcouldbeseenassettingbacktheinterestsofindividualownersinfavourofallow-ingforsmootheradministrationofthecollectivestratacorporation.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteegaveextensiveconsiderationtotheseoptionsforreform.Itdecideditfavouredanapproachthatwouldhavethedelayingprovisionsapplyonlytostratalotsthatwererentedinaccordancewiththepriorrentalbylaw.Ownersofstratalotsthatweren’tvalidlyrentedunderthepriorbylawshouldn’tbeabletoreapthe

224.Seee.g.TheOwners,StrataPlanVR2122vWake,2017BCSC2386atpara77,[2017]BCJNo2644

(QL),LooJ(“Astrataoperatesasademocraticsocietyinwhicheachownerhasmanyoftherightsassociatedwithsoleownershipofrealproperty,butinwhich,havingregardtotheirco-ownershipwiththeothers,someofthoserightsaresubordinatedtothewillofthemajority.Anequitablebalancemustexistbetweentheindependenceoftheindividualownersandtheinter-dependenceofthemallinaco-operativecommunity.”[citationomitted]).

225.Fanaken,supranote31at113.



benefitsofagraceperiodjustbecausethestratacorporationhasdecidedtoamenditsrental-restrictionbylaw.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:38.TheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethat,whenastratacorpora-tionamendsabylawthatrestrictstherentalofstratalots,then(a)inthecaseofastratalotthatwasvalidlyrentedundertherental-restrictionbylawthatexistedim-mediatelypriortotheamendment,thenewrental-restrictionbylawdoesnotapplytothestratalotuntilthelaterofoneyearafteratenantwhoisoccupyingthestratalotatthetimethebylawispassedceasestooccupyitasatenant,andoneyearafterthebylawispassed;and(b)inthecaseofanyotherstratalot,thenewrental-restrictionbylawappliesuponthebylawtakingeffectinaccordancewiththeact.



Chapter 4. Statutory Definitions Background The advantages of statutory definitions Thischapterstandsapartfromtheothersinthatitdealsprimarilyinwordchoices,asopposedtopolicychoices.Theimplicationsofthisdistinctionarereadilyappar-entinthediscussionofoptionsforaddressingtheissuesforreformsetoutbelow.Ineffect,thereareonlytwooptionsforeachissue—eitheraddastatutorydefinitiontotheStrataPropertyActordonot.Makingthischoiceentailsacloseexaminationofhowagivenwordisusedintheactanditsregulations.Thatsaid,thischoiceisn’tneutralintermsofpolicy.Inconsideringthischoiceineachcasethecommitteeremainedawareofthemainadvantageofstatutorydefini-tionsinthisbranchofthelaw,whichisthatstrata-lotownersoftencravethecer-taintyprovidedbystatutorydefinitionsasapracticalaidintheadministrationofstratacorporations.Asubsidiaryadvantageisthatstatutorydefinitionscanperformausefulroleinclarifyinglegislationandregulations.Two notes of caution Thecommitteealsoboreinmindapairofcountervailingdisadvantagesoforlimita-tionstostatutorydefinitions.Commentatorsfrequentlyraisetwonotesofcautionaboutdraftingstatutorydefinitions.First,statutorydefinitionsshouldn’tbeusedtodealwiththesubstantivecontentofanenactment.Asonejudgeputit:

theinclusionofsubstantivecontentinadefinitionisviewedasadraftingerror.Asstat-edbyFrancisBennioninStatutoryInterpretation:

DefinitionswithsubstantiveeffectItisadraftingerror(lessfrequentnowthanformerly)toincorporateasubstantiveenactmentinadefinition.Adefinitionisnotexpectedtohaveoperativeeffectasanindependenten-actment.Ifitiswordedinthatway,thecourtswilltendtoconstrueitre-strictivelyandconfineittotheproperfunctionofadefinition.226

Inotherwords,legislativedraftersaren’tsupposedtousestatutorydefinitionsasavehicleformakingpolicychoices.AstheleadingCanadiantextbookonstatutoryin-terpretationexplains,statutorydefinitionshaveamuchmorelimitedpurpose:

226.HrushkavCanada(ForeignAffairs),2009FC69atpara16,340FTR81,HansenJ.



Itiswell-establishedthatstatutorydefinitionsshouldnotbedraftedsoastocontainsubstantivelaw.Theirpurposeislimitedtoindicatingtheintendedmeaningorrangeofmeaningsattachingtoawordorexpressioninaparticularlegislativecontext.227

Second,evenwithacarefulfocusonthelimitedpurposeofstatutorydefinitions,theymaybackfire.Ascommentatorshavenoted,astatutorydefinitionthatisin-tendedtoclarifythemeaningofawordusedinanenactmentmayenduphavingtheoppositeeffect:

Definitionsmaybefurnishedtoaddagreatermeasureofprecisionbuttheoppositeisoftentheresult:“Themorewordsthereare,themorewordsthereareaboutwhichdoubtsmaybeentertained.”228

Withthesetwopointsinmind,thediscussionthatfollowsemphasizeshowthepro-poseddefinedtermsarecurrentlyusedintheStrataPropertyActanditsregula-tions.229Ifaproposedstatutorydefinitionalreadyexistsasadefinedterminanoth-erenactment,thenthatfactisnotedinthediscussion.

Issues for Reform Should the Strata Property Act contain a definition of “continuing contravention”? Brief description of the issue Theactprovidesthat“[t]hestratacorporationmaysetoutinitsbylaws...thefre-quencyatwhichfinesmaybeimposedforacontinuingcontraventionofabylaworrule.”230TheStrataPropertyRegulationsetsthe“maximumfrequency”thebylawsmaysetforimpositionofafineforacontinuingcontraventionat“every7days.”231

227.RuthSullivan,SullivanontheConstructionofStatutes,6thed(Markham,ON:LexisNexisCanada,

2014)at§4.32[footnoteomitted].

228.Pierre-AndréCôté,TheInterpretationofLegislationinCanada,4thed,translatedandrevisedbyStevenSacks(Toronto:Carswell,2011)at68(quotingLordHalsbury,TheLawsofEngland(London:Butterworths,1907)atccxvi).

229.SeeBareLandStrataPlanCancellationRegulation,BCReg556/82;BareLandStrataRegulations,BCReg75/78;StrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8.SeealsoInterpretationAct,RSBC1996,c238,s13(“Anexpressionusedinaregulationhasthesamemeaningasintheenactmentau-thorizingtheregulation.”).

230.Supranote4,s132(2)(b).

231.Supranote8,s7.1(3).



Asonecommentatorhasputit,decidingwhetheracontinuingcontraventionhasoc-curred“canbeabittricky.”232Neithertheactnortheregulationdefinescontinuingcontraventionorsetsoutanycriteriathatastratacouncilmayuseindeterminingwhetheracontinuingcontraventionisoccurring.Onerecentcase233turnedtohu-man-rightslaw(whichalsoemploysthisconcept)234foraworkingdefinitionoftheterm:

Finally,inrespectoftheassertionofacontinuingcontraventionIreturntoBaptyatpa-ra.40:

Theconceptofa“continuingcontravention”mustbecontrastedwiththeconceptof“continuingill-effects”ofapastillegalact.Thelattercannotex-tendalimitationperiodindefinitelyasthelimitationperiodistriggeredbythecompletionoftheoffenceeventhoughtheongoingeffectsarisingfromtheoriginalbreachmaycontinue....In[Lynchv.BritishColumbia(HumanRightsCommission),2000BCSC1419atpara.35]HutchinsonJ.citedwithapprovalthefollowingpassagefromManitobaHumanRightsCommission,supra,wherePhilipJ.A.onbehalfoftheCourtstated:

Whatemergesfromallofthedecisionsisthatacontinuingviolation(oracontinuinggrievance,discrimination,offenceorcauseofactionisonethatarisesfromasuccession(orrepetition)ofseparateviolations(orseparateacts,omis-sions,discriminations,offencesoractions)ofthesamechar-acter(orofthesamekind)....Tobea“continuingcontra-vention,”theremustbeasuccessionorrepetitionofseparateactsofdiscriminationofthesamecharacter.TheremustbepresentactsofdiscriminationwhichcouldbeconsideredasseparatecontraventionsoftheAct,andnotmerelyoneactofdiscriminationwhichmayhavecontinuingeffectsorconse-quences(atp.764).235

232.Fanaken,supranote31at108(“Whatisthedifferencebetweenacontraventionandacontinu-

ingcontravention?Theanswerisopentointerpretation.Ifanownertransportshisbikethroughthelobby,contrarytoabylaw,ononeoccasionandisfinedforthatviolation,andthendoesthesamethingthreemonthslater,areasonableinterpretationwouldsuggestthatthetwoeventsarefarenoughapartthateachoneconstitutesaseparatebylawcontravention....Butwhatiftheownerviolatedthebylawoneweeklater?Wouldthatbeaseparateviolation?Whatifitisthenextday?Obviouslythecloserthedatesofviolationsthatoccur,theeasieritistoconcludethataviolationisnotanewoneandcanbeviewedas‘continuing.’Itissubjective....”).

233.SeeZaidivTheOwners,StrataPlanLMS3464,2016BCSC731,67RPR(5th)138[Zaidi].

234.SeeHumanRightsCode,RSBC1996,c210,s22(2).

235.Zaidi,supranote233atpara32,GropperJ(citingBritishColumbiaSecuritiesCommissionvBap-ty,2006BCSC638,150ACWS(3d)246;ReTheQueeninRightofManitobaandManitobaHumanRightsCommission(1983),2DLR(4th)759at764,(subnomManitobavManitoba(HumanRightsCommission))25ManR(2d)117(CA))[ellipsesandbracketsinoriginal].



Shouldtheactbeamendedtodefineacontinuingcontraventionas“asuccessionorrepetitionofseparateactsofthesamecharacter”?Shoulditsetoutalistofcriteriaorguidelinesfordeterminingwhetheracontinuingcontraventionhasoccurred?Discussion of options for reform Themainadvantagesofaddingalegislativedefinitionwouldbetoclarifytheactandtomakeitsapplicationmorecertain.Continuingcontraventiondoesn’trefertoasimple,everydayconcept.Stratacorporationsthathavetoapplytheconceptwouldlikelybenefitfromaclearer,moredirectapproachtosettingoutitsboundariesintheact.Thisapproachwouldalsoaidintheadministrationofstratacorporationsandtheenforcementoftheirbylaws.Thedisadvantageofprovidingalegislativedefinitionisthatitcould,inanyformittakes,beseenasconstrainingtheconceptofacontinuingcontravention.Determin-ingwhetheracontinuingcontraventionhasoccurredisadecisionthatrequirestheapplicationofjudgmenttoasetoffacts.Anylegislativedefinitionhasthepotentialtocircumscribethatjudgment.Further,adefinitionbasedonarecentcourtcasecouldbeseenasonethatreliesonaprematuresenseofwhatacontinuingcontra-ventioncouldbe.Veryfewcaseshavegrappledwithdefiningacontinuingcontra-vention.Anargumentcouldbemadethatthetimeisn’tripetodefinetheterm.Adefinitionshouldwaituntilalargerbodyofcaselawcomesintoexistence.Giventhelimitationsofalegislativedefinition,anotherapproachtothisissuewouldbetotrytodescribetheterminamoreopen-endedway.Thiscouldbedonebyset-tingoutsomeguidelinesorcriteriafordecidingonwhetheracontinuingcontraven-tionhasoccurred.Suchanapproachwouldallowforbroader,moredescriptivein-formationtobeconveyedtoreaders.Thiswouldprovidesomeguidanceforstratacorporationwiththeflexibilitytoaccommodatenewandunusualcases.Wherethisapproachwouldbelessdesirablewouldbeintermsofcertainty.Sincethelistwouldbeopenended,therewouldstillbeasignificantneedtoexerciseindi-vidualjudgmentinapplyingit.Anotherchallengewouldbeactuallyidentifyingthecriteriatobesetoutinthelist.Giventhewiderangeoffactpatternsthatcouldgiverisetoacontinuingcontravention,itwouldbedifficulttoidentifytellingdetailsthatwouldapplyacrossaspectrumofconduct.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteenotedthatstratacorporationshavestruggledtoapplytheconceptofacontinuingcontravention.Initsview,astatutorydefinitionwouldclarifythelawandwouldassiststratacorporationsinenforcingtheirbylaws.



Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:39.TheStrataPropertyActshoulddefine“continuingcontravention”tomean“asuc-cessionorrepetitionofseparateactsofthesamecharacter.”Should the Strata Property Act contain a definition of “strata manager”? Brief description of the issue Stratamanagersarekeyplayersinthestrata-propertysector,havinganimportantmanagementroleinmanystrataproperties.Theactlacksadefinitionofstrataman-ager.Shouldsuchadefinitionbeaddedtoit?Summary of options for reform Themainargumentinfavourofaddingadefinitionofstratamanageristhatitwouldprovideclarity.Thismaybeacase,though,ofclaritycominglesstothewordsoftheactandmoretoidentifyingapersonasastratamanagerinpractice.Theactitselfusestheexpressionsparingly.StratamanagerappearsjusttwiceintheStrataPropertyAct:

• intheheadnotetosection37,236whichrequiresapersonprovidingstrata-managementservicestoreturnastratacorporation’srecordswithinfourweeksoftheconclusionofastrata-managementcontract;and

• insection179(8),whichcontainsalistofpeoplewhomaynotactasanar-bitratorinanarbitrationinvolvingthestratacorporation,unlessallthepar-tiestothearbitrationconsent.237

Strictlyspeaking,theexpressiononlyappearsonceinthesubstanceoftheact,sinceaheadnoteisconsideredtobejustareferenceaid.238236.Supranote4,s37(“Stratamanagertoreturnrecords:(1)Ifastratamanagementcontractends,

thepersonprovidingthestratamanagementservicesmust,within4weeks,givethestratacor-porationanyrecordsreferredtoinsection35thatareintheperson’spossessionorcontrol.(2)Apersonwhofailstocomplywithsubsection(1)mustpaytothestratacorporationanamountcalculatedaccordingtotheregulations.”).

237.Ibid,s179(8)(“Apersonwhoisanowner,tenantoroccupantinthestratacorporation,orthestratamanagerorotheremployeeofthestratacorporation,maynotbeanarbitratorunlessallthepartiesconsent.”).

238.SeeInterpretationAct,supranote229,s11(1)(“Inanenactment,aheadnotetoaprovisionora



Stratamanageralsocropsupintheregulations,onahandfulofprescribedforms.239Historically,stratamanagerappearedinsection56(3)oftheStrataPropertyActasoriginallyenactedin1998.240ThisprovisionwasamendedbeforetheStrataProper-tyActcameintoforcein2000.Alsoofhistoricalnote,theHomeownerProtectionAmendmentAct,2001,241containedadefinitionofstratamanager.242Thisactwasneverbroughtintoforce.Itwasrepealedin2004.243It’ssomewhatmorecommontoseeastratamanagerdescribedinlegislationasapersonwhoprovidesstrata-managementservices.Thisexpression(orslightvaria-tionsonit)appearsfourtimesintheStrataPropertyAct244andonceintheStrataPropertyRegulation.245

referenceaftertheendofasectionorotherdivision(a)isnotpartoftheenactment,and(b)mustbeconsideredtohavebeenaddededitoriallyforconvenienceofreferenceonly.”)

239.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,FormB(InformationCertificate),FormD(StrataCorporationChangeofMailingAddress),FormF(CertificateofPayment),FormG(CertificateofLien),andFormH(AcknowledgmentofPayment).

240.“Subjecttotheregulations,anypersonmaybeaproxyexceptthestratamanagerorotherem-ployeeofthestratacorporation.”

241.SBC2001,c14.

242.Seeibid,s1“stratamanager”(“meansapersonwhoperformsstratamanagementservicesinre-turnfororinexpectationofremuneration”).

243.SeeRealEstateServicesAct,SBC2004,c42,s143.

244.Seesupranote4,ss24(1)(“Acontractenteredintobeforethefirstannualgeneralmeetingbyoronbehalfofthestratacorporationfortheprovisionofstratamanagementservicestothestratacorporationends,regardlessofanyprovisionofthecontracttothecontrary,ontheearli-erof(a)thedatethatis4weeksafterthedateofthesecondannualgeneralmeeting,(b)theterminationdatecontainedinthecontractoragreedtobytheparties,and(c)thecancellationdateestablishedinaccordancewithsection39.”),37(1)(“Ifastratamanagementcontractends,thepersonprovidingthestratamanagementservicesmust,within4weeks,givethestratacor-porationanyrecordsreferredtoinsection35thatareintheperson'spossessionorcontrol.”),39(1)(“Acontractenteredintobyoronbehalfofthestratacorporationfortheprovisionofstratamanagementservicestothestratacorporationmaybecancelled,withoutliabilityorpen-alty,despiteanyprovisionofthecontracttothecontrary,(a)bythestratacorporationon2months’noticeifthecancellationisfirstapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteatanan-nualorspecialgeneralmeeting,or(b)bytheotherpartytothecontracton2months’notice.”),56(3)(“Thefollowingpersonsmaybeproxies(a)onlyifpermittedbyregulationandsubjecttoprescribedrestrictions,anemployeeofthestratacorporation;(b)onlyifpermittedbyregula-tionandsubjecttoprescribedrestrictions,apersonwhoprovidesstratamanagementservicestothestratacorporation;(c)subjecttotheregulations,anyotherperson.”).

245.Seesupranote8,s4.3(“Forthepurposesofsection37(2)oftheAct,apersonprovidingstratamanagementserviceswhofailstogivethestratacorporationanyoftherecordsrequiredtobe



Strata-managementservicesisdefinedasfollowsintheRealEstateServicesAct:

“stratamanagementservices”meansanyofthefollowingservicesprovidedtooronbehalfofastratacorporation:

(a) collectingorholdingstratafees,contributions,leviesorotheramountslev-iedby,ordueto,thestratacorporationundertheStrataPropertyAct;

(b) exercisingdelegatedpowersanddutiesofastratacorporationorstratacouncil,including

(i) makingpaymentstothirdpartiesonbehalfofthestratacorporation,

(ii) negotiatingorenteringintocontractsonbehalfofthestratacorpora-tion,

(iii) supervisingemployeesorcontractorshiredorengagedbythestratacorporation,or

(iv) enforcingbylawsorrulesofthestratacorporation,

butdoesnotincludeanactivityexcludedbyregulation.246The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedidnotethatsomeconfusionarisesoccasionallyaroundmanage-mentroles.Butthisconfusionrarelyleadstoanydisputesoverthemeaningofstra-tamanagerinpractice.Thispoint,andthefactthattheexpressionissolittleusedintheact,ledthecommitteenottofavouraddingadefinitionofstratamanagertotheact.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:40.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoaddadefinitionof“strataman-ager.”Should the Strata Property Act contain a definition of “rent”? Brief description of the issue Disputesoverrental-restrictionbylawsoftenturnonwhetherconsiderationbeingpaidforoccupyingthestratalotisrent.Forexample,ifapersonoccupiesastratalot,paysforutilities,andmakesnootherpaymentstotheowner,isthatpersonpay-ingrent?Somepeoplepreyontheconfusioncreatedbytheabsenceofadefinitionof

givenundersection37(1)oftheActmustpaytothestratacorporation$1000.”).

246.Supranote243,s1.SeealsoRealEstateServicesRegulation,BCReg506/2004,ss2.17(exemp-tionforstrata-lotowners),2.18(exemptionforstratacaretakersemployedbystratacorpora-tionorbrokerage),2.19(exemptionforownerdevelopers).



rent,usingthatconfusionasmeanstogetaroundastratacorporation’srentalre-strictions.Eventhoughdefiningrentwon’tpreventalldisputesoverrentalre-strictions,wouldaddingadefinitionofthetermimprovetheoperationofrental-restrictionbylaws?Summary of options for reform Thewordrent(andderivativesofit)appearsfrequentlyintheStrataPropertyAct.247Theactdoesn’tdefinerent.Itappearstorelyontheordinarymeaningoftheword.Renthasmultiplemeaningsineverydayspeech.TheStrataPropertyActappearstouserentconsistentlyasaverbdefinedinfollowingway:“let(property)forrentorpayment;hireout.”248Forexample,rentappearsintheact’sdefinitionsoflandlordandtenant:

“landlord”meansanownerwhorentsastratalottoatenantandatenantwhorentsastratalottoasubtenant,butdoesnotincludealeaseholdlandlordinaleaseholdstrataplanasdefinedinsection199;

***

“tenant”meansapersonwhorentsallorpartofastratalot,andincludesasubtenantbutdoesnotincludealeaseholdtenantinaleaseholdstrataplanasdefinedinsec-tion199oratenantforlifeunderaregisteredlifeestate.249

Part8oftheact,whichdealswith“rentals,”istheplacewhererent(anditsderiva-tives,suchasrental)cropsupmostfrequently.Forexample,hereisthetermusedinrelationtodisclosurebytheowner-developer:

247.Seesupranote4,ss1“landlord,”“tenant”,59(InformationCertificate),130(fines),139(rental

disclosurebyowner-developer),141(restrictionofrentalsbystratacorporation),142(limitstorentalrestrictionbylaws),145(rentalagreementincontraventionofrentalrestrictionbylaw),146(landlordtogivebylaws,rulesandNoticeofTenant’sResponsibilitiestotenant),211(re-newalterms).RentisalsofoundintheScheduleofStandardBylaws,ss17(4)(councilmeet-ings),30(displaylot).SeealsoStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,FormB(InformationCertificate),FormJ(RentalDisclosureStatement).

248.TheNewShorterOxfordEnglishDictionary,subverbo“rent.”SeealsoCanadianOxfordEnglishDictionary,subverbo“rent”(“occupyoruse(property,equipment,etc.)forafixed,usu.tempo-raryperiod,inreturnforpayment”).

249.Supranote4,s1“landlord,”“tenant”[emphasisadded].



Anownerdeveloperwhorentsorintendstorentoneormoreresidentialstratalotsmust

(a) filewiththesuperintendentbeforethefirstresidentialstratalotisofferedforsaletoapurchaser,orconveyedtoapurchaserwithoutbeingofferedforsale,aRentalDisclosureStatementintheprescribedform,and

(b) giveacopyofthestatementtoeachprospectivepurchaserbeforethepro-spectivepurchaserentersintoanagreementtopurchase.250

Andhereisrentusedinaprovisionconcerningrestrictingtherentalofstratalots:

Thestratacorporationmayonlyrestricttherentalofastratalotbyabylawthat

(a) prohibitstherentalofresidentialstratalots,or

(b) limitsoneormoreofthefollowing:

(i) thenumberorpercentageofresidentialstratalotsthatmayberented;

(ii) theperiodoftimeforwhichresidentialstratalotsmayberented.251Sometimesrentappearsinothercontexts;forexample,herethetermisusedincon-nectionwithfines:

Thestratacorporationmayfineanownerifabylaworruleiscontravenedby

(a) theowner,

(b) apersonwhoisvisitingtheownerorwasadmittedtothepremisesbytheownerforsocial,businessorfamilyreasonsoranyotherreason,or

(c) anoccupant,ifthestratalotisnotrentedbytheownertoatenant.252Rent,usedasanoun,hasatechnicalmeaninginthelaw.TheleadingCanadiantext-bookonlandlord-and-tenantlawdefinesrentinthissenseasfollows:

Rentisacertainprofitissuingperiodicallyoutoflandsandtenementscorporeal,oroutofthemandtheirfurnitureinretribution(redditus)forthelandthatpasses;itmustal-waysbeaprofit,butneednotnecessarilybeasumofmoney;itmaybepaidinkindorbytheperformanceofservicesorpartlyinonewayandpartlyinanother.253

250.Ibid,s139(1)[emphasisadded].



253.ChristopherAWBentley,JohnHMcNair,&MavisJButkus,eds,Williams&RhodesCanadianLawofLandlordandTenant,6thed,vol1(loose-leafrelease2017–9)(Toronto:Carswell,1998)at§6:1:1.



Aplain-languageversionofthissenseofrentappearsinadefinitionfoundintheResidentialTenancyAct:

“rent”meansmoneypaidoragreedtobepaid,orvalueorarightgivenoragreedtobegiven,byoronbehalfofatenanttoalandlordinreturnfortherighttopossessarentalunit,fortheuseofcommonareasandforservicesorfacilities,butdoesnotin-cludeanyofthefollowing:

(a) asecuritydeposit;

(b) apetdamagedeposit;

(c) afeeprescribedundersection97(2)(k)[regulationsinrelationtofees].254Rent,usedasanoun,doesn’tappearintheStrataPropertyAct.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteenotedthatthereareconcernsaboutpeopleexploitingthelackofcer-taintyintheact’suseofthewordrent.Initsview,alegislativedefinitionwouldhelptoclarifythesituation.Theseconcernsreartheirheadsmostofteninstratacorporationsthathaverentalrestrictions.Thequestionthatoftentripsupenforcementofthoserestrictionsiswhetherthepeopleoccupyingthestratalotarepayingrent.Theactusesthiswordbutdoesn’tdefineit.Thefocusofdisputesisoftenonwhetherconsiderationbeingpaidforoccupyingthestratalotisrent.Thecommitteedecidedthatadefinitionofrentthatistailoredtothemonetaryas-pectofthelandlord-tenantrelationshipwouldhelptoclarifytheact.Itmayalsohelptokeepdisputesfromgettingintothehandsofadjudicatorsforresolution,allowingstratacorporationsandstrata-lotownerstoavoidthecostsassociatedwithadjudi-cateddisputeresolution.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:41.TheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtodefine“rent”as“meanstopaymon-etaryconsiderationorothervaluetooccupyastratalot.”

254.SBC2002,c78,s1“rent.”



Should the Strata Property Act’s definition of “residential strata lot” be revised? Brief description of the issue TheStrataPropertyActdefinesresidentialstratalottomean“astratalotdesignedorintendedtobeusedprimarilyasaresidence.”255Arecentcourtdecisionhascharac-terizedthislanguageascreating“uncertainty.”256Isthedefinitioninneedofrevisionandclarification?Summary of options for reform Residentialstratalotcropsupfrequentlyintheact.Theexpressionappearsin15sections.Thesesectionscanbesortedintotwogroups.Thefirstgroupismadeupofsectionsdealingwithrentalrestrictions.257Thesecondconcernsthecompositionandamendmentofstrataplans,particularlyinrelationtounitentitlement,votingrights,and“parkingstalls,garageareas,storageareasandsimilarareasorspac-es.”258

255.Ibid,s1(1)“residentialstratalot.”

256.EastBarriereResortLtdvTheOwners,StrataPlanKAS1819,2017BCCA183atpara46,[2017]BCJNo912(QL)[EastBarriere—BCCA],BaumanCJ(TysoeandSavageJJAconcurring).

257.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ss137(evictionbylandlord—“repeatedorcontinuingcon-traventionofareasonableandsignificantbylaworrulebyatenantofaresidentialstratalot”),138(evictionbystratacorporation—“repeatedorcontinuingcontraventionofareasonableandsignificantbylaworrulebyatenantofaresidentialstratalotthatseriouslyinterfereswithan-otherperson’suseandenjoymentofastratalot,thecommonpropertyorthecommonassets”),139(rentaldisclosurebyowner-developer—requiredfromowner-developer“whorentsorin-tendstorentoneormoreresidentialstratalots”),140(contraventionofdisclosurerequire-ments),142(4)(limitstorental-restrictionbylaws),145(rentalagreementincontraventionofrental-restrictionbylaw),146(landlordtogivebylaws,rulesandNoticeofTenant’sResponsibil-itiestotenant),148(2)(long-termlease—“ifaresidentialstratalotisleasedunderalongtermlease,thetenantisassignedthepowersanddutiesofthelandlordunderthisAct,thebylawsandtherulesforthetermofthelease”).

258.Seeibid,ss70(4)(changestostratalot—amendmenttoScheduleofUnitEntitlementrequired“ifanownerwishestoincreaseordecreasethehabitablepartoftheareaofaresidentialstratalot”),244(2)(strataplanrequirements—“parkingstalls,garageareas,storageareasandsimilarareasorspacesintendedtobeusedinconjunctionwitharesidentialstratalotmustnotbedes-ignatedasseparatestratalotsbutmustbeincludedaspartofastratalotoraspartofthecom-monproperty”),246(ScheduleofUnitEntitlement—calculationandapproval),259(4)(amend-ingstrataplantoaddto,consolidateordivideastratalot—“anamendmenttoastrataplanun-derthissectionmayresultinaresidentialstratalothavinglessthanoneormorethanonevote”),260(4)(exceptionstorequirementforunanimousvote—“anamendmenttothestrataplantodividearesidentialstratalotinto2ormorestratalotsmustbeapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting”),261(amendingScheduleofUnit



Residentialstratalotalsoappearsthreetimesintheregulations259andontwopre-scribedforms.260AlegislativedefinitionofresidentialstratalotfirstappearedwiththeenactmentoftheStrataPropertyAct.Onecommentatorhassaidthattheadditionofthislegisla-tivedefinitionwasanimprovementonthepriorlegislation,whichusedthetermbutdidn’tprovideadefinition.261Thedefinitionhadn’treceivedmuchjudicialconsideration,untiltherecentEastBar-rierecase.262InWinchesterResortsIncvStrataPlanKAS2188(Owners),263acasede-cidedshortlyaftertheStrataPropertyActcameintoforce,thecourtdrewonthedef-initionindeterminingthatuseofastratalotasafishinglodgewas“notresidentialgiventhetransientnatureoftheguests’visitswhichrenderstheuseofthelodgeasmoreakintoamotelthantoaresidence.”264InAzuraManagement(Kelowna)CorpvOwnersoftheStrataPlanKAS2428,265thedefinitionwascitedinthecontextofadis-puteoverbylawamendmentsandcompliancewithsection128oftheact.266EastBarrierealsoinvolvedadisputeoverthevalidityofamendedbylawsinlightoftheruleslaiddowninsection128.Thecasedealtwithabare-landstrataplanthat

Entitlement),264(calculationofunitentitlementandvotingrightsfollowingamendment).

259.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,ss5.1(minorchangestostratalotsize),7.1(2)(maximumfines—forrentalofresidentialstratalot),14.2(definitionofhabitableareaforsec-tion246oftheact).

260.Seeibid,FormV(ScheduleofUnitEntitlement),FormW(ScheduleofVotingRights).

261.SeeScottDSmythe&EM(Lisa)Vogt,eds,McCarthyTétrault’sAnnotatedBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyAct(Toronto:CanadaLawBook,2002)(loose-leafreleaseno19,October2016)atSPA-7(“ThisdefinitionclarifiesformeruncertaintyundertheCondominiumAct,whichdidnotdefine‘residentialstratalot.’”).Toillustratethis“uncertainty,”theauthorscitedthefollowingcasede-cidedundertheCondominiumAct,supranote6:ButterfieldvTheOwners,StrataPlanNW3214,2000BCSC1110,98ACWS(3d)481(“caretaker’ssuitedidnotqualifyasaresidentialstratalotbecauseitwasnotdefinedassuchinthestrataplan”).

262.EastBarriereResortLtdvTheOwners,StrataPlanKAS1819,2016BCSC1609,[2016]BCJNo1840(QL)[EastBarriere—BCSC],rev’dinpartEastBarriere—BCCA,supranote256.

263.2002BCSC1165,4BCLR(4th)390.

264.Ibidatpara16,BlairJ.

265.Supranote204.

266.Ibidatpara74.SeealsoSmythe&Vogt,supranote261atSPA-7(“althoughafishinglodgewasnotaresidentialuse,thedeveloper’sstatutorydeclarationthatthestrataplanwasentirelyforresidentialusedidnotrestrictcommercialusesexpresslypermittedbyaregisteredbuildingscheme”).



hadbeendevelopedinfourphases.267Theadvancedisclosureandzoningofthepropertygavesomehintsastoitsintendeduses:

DeclarationsfiledintheLandTitlesofficewiththeStrataPlandescribephases1and3asresidential,phase2asresidential/commercial.Nosuchdeclarationwasfiledwithphase4.

Phases1,2and4arewithinareaszoned“C-4recreational,commercial”andphase3iszoned“CR-1countryresidential.”268

Butdespiteallthis,ownersultimatelyusedtheirstratalotssolelyforresidentialpurposes.269Fromtimetotime,thestratacorporationadoptedbylawamendmentsinamannerconsistentwiththissensethatitwascomposedsolelyofresidentialstratalots(thatis,byownersvotingcollectivelyonasingleresolutiontobepassedbya3/4vote).270Eventually,adisputeoverrentalrestrictionsandtheuseofcommonproperty(docksandboatslips)ledagroupofownerstochallengethisapproachtoamendingbylaws.TheseownerslaunchedapetitioninBCSupremeCourtseeking

declarationsthatthelotsinphases1,2and4arenotresidentialandthatthoseinphase3areresidential.Theythenseekdeclarationsthats.128oftheStrataPropertyAct,S.B.C.1998,c.43,shouldoperatetorequireseparatethree-quartermajorityvotesforproposedbylawamendments.271

Section128(1)oftheStrataPropertyActprovides:

Subjecttosection197,amendmentstobylawsmustbeapprovedatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting,

(a) inthecaseofastrataplancomposedentirelyofresidentialstratalots,byareso-lutionpassedbya3/4vote,

(b) inthecaseofastrataplancomposedentirelyofnonresidentialstratalots,byaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteorasotherwiseprovidedinthebylaws,or

267.EastBarriere—BCSC,supranote262atpara2,BettonJ.

268.Ibidatparas7–8.

269.Seeibidatpara9(“Ownershaveconstructeddetachedsingle-familyhomesusedasvacationres-idences.Someownersrenttheirunitssomeofthetime,butallhavebeendevelopedandusedasresidentiallotssince1996.”).

270.SeeEastBarriere—BCCA,supranote256atpara32(“Since1996,thestratacorporationhasconsideredthestrataplantobecomposedentirelyofresidentialstratalotsandownershavevotedcollectivelyonbylaws.”).

271.EastBarriere—BCSC,supranote262atpara15.



(c) inthecaseofastrataplancomposedofbothresidentialandnonresidentialstratalots,bybotharesolutionpassedbya3/4voteoftheresidentialstratalotsandaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteofthenonresidentialstratalots,orasotherwiseprovidedinthebylawsforthenonresidentialstratalots.272

Thispetitionputthedefinitionofresidentialstratalotsquarelybeforethecourt,asthedeterminationofwhetherthestratalotswereresidentialstrataslotswouldde-cidewhetherparagraph(a)orparagraph(c)appliedtothestratacorporation’sby-lawamendments.Atfirstinstance,thechambersjudgebeganbynoting

thedefinitionof“residentialstratalot”referencesonlydesignandintention.Itdoesnotincorporateanyotherconsiderationssuchaszoningordisclosurestatements.Itdoesnotclarifywhethertheintentionreferencedisthatoftheoriginaldevelopersortheowners.273

Thisconsiderationledthejudgetoconclude“[t]hereisadistinctiontobedrawnbe-tweenthehopesandaspirationsofcertainowners,inthiscasethepetitioners[,]andtheactualnatureanduseofthelots.”274Sincethestratalotswereactuallyusedforresidentialpurposes,theywereresidentialstratalots.Thecourtofappealrejectedthisconclusion.Initsview,“theappropriateapproachmustbetoassessthedesignandintentionatandaroundthetimeoftheinceptionofthedevelopment”:275

“design”and“intention”mustbedeterminedbythedocumentspreparedandfiledatandaroundtheinceptionofthedevelopment.Otherwise,therewouldbeuncertaintyconcerningthepropervotingprocedures,filingrequirements,andtheapplicabilityofnumerousotherprovisionsintheSPAthatrelyonthedefinitionof“residentialstratalot.”276

Criticallyforthecommittee,thecourtofappealalsolamentedwhatitsawastheun-derdevelopedstateofthelegislationasplayingaroleinfosteringthisdispute:

ItistoberegrettedthattheSPAdoesnotputthisissuebeyonddebatebyrequiringbindingdeclarationstobemadeatthetimeofthefilingofthestrataplansinsteadof


273.EastBarriere—BCSC,supranote262atpara37.

274.Ibidatpara45.

275.EastBarriere—BCCA,supranote256atpara13.

276.Ibidatpara46.



creatingtheuncertaintythrownupbyaphraselike“designedorintendedtobeusedprimarilyasaresidence”inthedefinitionof“residentialstratalot.”277

The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteeconsideredwhetherthedefinitionofresidentialstratalotcouldbeimprovedorwhetherthecourt’scallforsubstantivereformstotheStrataPropertyAct(“requiringbindingdeclarationstobemadeatthetimeofthefilingofthestrataplans”)wouldbeabetterapproachtoimprovingthelaw.Intheend,itwasn’tcon-vincedthatEastBarrierewasanythingmorethanananomalouscase.Ifthecasewerepartofatrendshowingdifficultywithapplyingthecurrentdefinition,thentherewouldbeareasontoamendthatdefinition.Butadoptingasolutiontofixananomalouscasecouldjustcreatemoreproblemsforthelaw.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

42.TheStrataPropertyAct’sdefinitionof“residentialstratalot”shouldnotbeamend-ed.Should the Strata Property Act contain a definition of “nonresidential strata lot”? Brief description of the issue Thisissueissomethingofasequeltothepreviousone.Unlikeresidentialstratalot,nonresidentialstratalotisn’tdefinedintheStrataPropertyAct.Thetermdoestendtobeusedintheactinarelativelystraightforwardway,aseffectivelymeaning“astratalotthatisn’taresidentialstratalot.”Still,theabsenceofalegislativedefinitionraisesthequestionwhethernonresidentialstratalotmeritsitsownlegislativedefi-nition.Summary of options for reform TheexpressionnonresidentialstratalotappearsafewtimesintheStrataPropertyAct:insections128(1)(bylawamendmentprocedures),278139(3)(rentaldisclo-

277.Ibid.TheauthorsoftheBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31,alsoap-

peartocriticizethedefinitionofresidentialstratalotwhentheynote“[i]tslegalmeaningisbare-lysketchedoutintheStrataPropertyAct”(at§4.1).

278.Seesupranote4,128(1)(“Subjecttosection197,amendmentstobylawsmustbeapprovedatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting,(a)inthecaseofastrataplancomposedentirelyofresi-dentialstratalots,byaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote,(b)inthecaseofastrataplancomposedentirelyofnonresidentialstratalots,byaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteorasotherwisepro-videdinthebylaws,or(c)inthecaseofastrataplancomposedofbothresidentialandnonresi-



surebyowner-developer),279191(1)(enablingcreationofsections),280197(3.1)(bylawsandrulesforasection),281245–48(SchedulesofUnitEntitlementandVot-ingRights),282and264(calculationofunitentitlementandvotingrightsfollowingstrata-planamendment).283Whiletheseprovisionscanbedetailedandcomplex,theiruseofnonresidentialstra-talottendstobeasapointofcontrasttoresidentialstratalot.Nonresidentialstratalotisoftenusedtoemphasizethesepoints:(1)theproceduresforamendingbylawsthatapplytoresidentialstratalotsapplyindifferentwaystononresidentialstratalots(ownersofnonresidentialstratalotsmayapproveabylawamendmentbyaresolutionpassedwithavotingthresholdotherthana3/4vote)and(2)ownersofresidentialandnonresidentialstratalotsinvariablyhavedifferentinterests,andthesedifferentinterestswillresultinrequiringseparateresolutionswhenbylawsareamended,may(ifanowner-developerorstratacorporationchooses)formthebasisofseparatesections,andwillcallfordifferentapproachesindeterminingunitentitlementandvotingrights.Theredoesn’tappeartobeanycriticismofthelackofadefinitionofnonresidentialstratalottobefoundineitherthecaselaworthecommentary.Sothisissueisprob-ablybestapproachedasamatteroffirstprinciples.Wouldtheactbeimprovedbyalegislativedefinitionofnonresidentialstratalot?Isthereanydangertoconfiningthistermwithinclearerormorepreciselimits—specifically,coulditresultinastratalotbeingneitheraresidentialstratalotnoranonresidentialstratalot?

dentialstratalots,bybotharesolutionpassedbya3/4voteoftheresidentialstratalotsandaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteofthenonresidentialstratalots,orasotherwiseprovidedinthebylawsforthenonresidentialstratalots.”[emphasisadded]).

279.Seeibid,s139(3)(“Forthepurposesofthe3/4votereferredtoinsubsection(2),thefollowingpersonsarenoteligiblevoters:(a)apersonvotinginrespectofanonresidentialstratalot;(b)apersonvotinginrespectofaresidentialstratalotwhichiscurrentlyrented;(c)theownerde-veloper.”[emphasisadded]).

280.Seeibid,s191(1)(“Astratacorporationmayhavesectionsonlyforthepurposeofrepresentingthedifferentinterestsof(a)ownersofresidentialstratalotsandownersofnonresidentialstratalots,(b)ownersofnonresidentialstratalots,iftheyusetheirstratalotsforsignificantlydifferentpurposes,or(c)ownersofdifferenttypesofresidentialstratalots.”[emphasisadded]).

281.Seeibid,s197(3.1)(“Despitesubsection(3),ifasectioniscomposedentirelyofnonresidentialstratalots,anamendmenttothebylawsrespectingamatterthatrelatessolelytothesectionmustbeapprovedbyaresolutionpassed(a)bya3/4vote,or(b)ifadifferentvotingthresholdisprovidedforinthebylawsofthesection,bythatvotingthreshold[,]atanannualorspecialgeneralmeetingofthesection.[emphasisadded]).

282.Seeibid,ss245–48.SeealsoStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,FormV(ScheduleofUnitEntitlement),FormW(ScheduleofVotingRights).

283.Seesupranote4,s264.



The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedidn’tseeapressingneedtoaddadefinitionofnonresidentialstratalottotheact.Instead,itwasmoreconcernedaboutthepotentialthatsuchadefini-tionmighthaveforcreatingmischief.Totakeoneexample,thecommitteepointedtotheconcernswithshort-termrentals,suchasthosefacilitatedbyAirbnb.284Inthesecases,itwouldn’tbedesirableforowneroperatingashort-termrentalproper-tytobeabletopointtoastatutorydefinitionandclaimthatthestratalotisreallyanonresidentialstratalot.Iftheownercouldmakethiscase,thenitwouldbecomeimpossibletoamendthestratacorporation’sbylawstoaddressconcernsaboutshort-termrentals,asbylawamendmentswouldnowrequirethatowner’scon-sent.285Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:43.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotcontainadefinitionof“nonresidentialstratalot.”

284.See,online:<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbnb>(“Airbnbisanonlinemarketplaceand

hospitalityservice,enablingpeopletoleaseorrentshort-termlodgingincludingvacationrent-als,apartmentrentals,homestays,hostelbeds,orhotelrooms.Thecompanydoesnotownanylodging;itismerelyabrokerandreceivespercentageservicefees(commissions)frombothguestsandhostsinconjunctionwitheverybooking.”[footnotesomitted]).

285.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s128(1)(c)(“amendmentstobylawsmustbeapprovedatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting,...(c)inthecaseofastrataplancomposedofbothresi-dentialandnonresidentialstratalots,bybotharesolutionpassedbya3/4voteoftheresiden-tialstratalotsandaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteofthenonresidentialstratalots,orasoth-erwiseprovidedinthebylawsforthenonresidentialstratalots.”).



Chapter 5. General Meetings and Strata-Council Meetings

Background Scope of this chapter TheStrataPropertyActhasadedicateddivisionon“annualgeneralmeetingsandspecialgeneralmeetings.”It’sdivision4ofpart4(“stratacorporationgovernance”)oftheact,whichcontains13sectionsthataddressthefollowingsubjects:

• requirementtoholdannualgeneralmeeting;authorizationtowaiveannualgeneralmeeting;

• authorizationtocallspecialgeneralmeeting—stratacorporation;authori-zationtocallspecialgeneralmeeting—20percentofvoters;waiverofspe-cialgeneralmeeting;

• noticerequirementsandsafe-harbourprovision;

• agendaandresolutions;

• quorum;

• electronicattendance;

• voting;

• reconsiderationofresolutionpassedby3/4vote;

• unanimousvotes.286Most,butnotall,ofthesesubjectsarecoveredinthischapter.Thisisbecausethechapterfocussesontopicsthecommitteehasidentifiedasissuesforreform,ratherthansimplyworkingthrougheverysectioninthisdivisionoftheact.Asaresult,thischapterdoesn’taddresssometopicscoveredbytheact(becausetheydon’traisepressingissuesforreform)anddoesaddresssometopicsnotcoveredbytheact.Thechapter’sfocusisonthefollowingsubjects:

• proxies;

• conductofmeetings;

286.Ibid,ss40–52.



• quorum;

• voting;

• strata-councilelections;

• agendaandmeetingminutes.Whilethebulkofthischapterconcernsgeneralmeetings,acoupleofissuesinvolveconsiderationofstrata-councilmeetings.Finally,anoteonterminology:thischapterfollowstheStrataPropertyActandcallsthepeoplewhoareentitledtoattend,participateinthediscussion,andvoteatageneralmeetingeligiblevoters.287General meetings—definition and purpose WhilemanyoftheprinciplesincorporatedintotheStrataPropertyActaredrawnfromreal-propertylaw,whenitcomestogeneralmeetingscorporatelawdominatestheact’slegalframework.288Corporatelawclassifiescorporatemeetingsintotwokinds:directors’meetingsandshareholders’meetings.289Shareholders’meetingsareoftencalledgeneralmeetings,atermwhichispickedupintheStrataPropertyAct.Generalmeetingisn’tatermofart,meritingitsownspeciallegislativedefinition.290It’satermthat’smeanttobeunderstoodinitseverydaysenseasameetingthat’sopentoallshareholders.291

287.Seeibid,s1(1)“eligiblevoters.”

288.SeeRodgers,supranote5atpara5(“Thelawrelatingtocorporationsisalsoofimportancebe-causethecondominiumisadministeredbythecondominiumcorporationinwhichtheunitholdersareinapositionanalogoustoshareholders”).

289.SeeHartleyRNathan&MihkelEVoore,CorporateMeetings:LawandPractice(Toronto:Car-swell,1995)(loose-leafrevision2010–1)at1-1.

290.TheStrataPropertyActdoesn’tcontainadefinitionofgeneralmeeting.BritishColumbiacorpo-ratelegislationalsotendstorelyontheordinarymeaningofgeneralmeeting,byusingatautolo-gytodefinetheterm.SeeBusinessCorporationsAct,SBC2002,c57,s1(1)“generalmeeting”(“meansageneralmeetingofshareholders”);SocietiesAct,SBC2015,c18,s1“generalmeeting”(“meansageneralmeetingofthemembersofasociety”).

291.SeeTheOxfordEnglishDictionary,3rded,subverbo“generalmeeting”(“ameetingwhichallmembersofasocietyorotherorganizationmayattend”).



Thepurposeofgeneralmeetingsincorporatelawistoprovideavehicleformakingcollectivedecisions.292AccordingtoaleadingtextbookonCanadiancorporatelaw,thereare“threeimportantrolesforgeneralmeetings”:

• decidingcertainroutinemattersonanongoingbasis;

• decidingcertainspecialmeasuresorsteps;

• allowingforproposalsfromindividualshareholders,whichprovideaforumforvoicingconcernsandgivingdirectionstothecorporation’sdirectors.293

AllthreerolescropupintheStrataPropertyAct.294Kinds of general meetings TheStrataPropertyActdistinguishesbetweentwokindsofgeneralmeetings:annu-algeneralmeetingsandspecialgeneralmeetings.Unlessastratacorporationmeetsthehighbartowaivethelegislativerequire-ment,295itmustholdanannualgeneralmeetingeachyear“nolaterthan2monthsafterthestratacorporation’sfiscalyearend.”296Certainbusinessmustbedealtwithateachannualgeneralmeeting,suchasreceivingreportsoninsurancecoverage297andonstrata-councilactivitiesanddecisionssincethelastannualgeneralmeet-

292.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote289at1-1(“Atcommonlaw,allcorporatedecisionshadtobe

arrivedatbymeansofavalidlyconstitutedmeeting.”).

293.KevinPatrickMcGuiness,CanadianBusinessCorporationsLaw,2nded(Markham,ON:LexisNex-isCanada,2007)at§12.38.

294.Seee.g.supranote4,ss154(b)(stratacorporationrequiredtogivereportoninsurancecover-ageateachannualgeneralmeeting),128(1)(requiringamendmentstostrata-corporationby-lawsbeapprovedateitheranannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeeting),43(allow-ingeligiblevoterstocallspecialgeneralmeeting).

295.Seeibid,s41(1)(“Thestratacorporationdoesnothavetoholdanannualgeneralmeetingif,be-forethelastdatebywhichthemeetingmustbeheld,alleligiblevoterswaive,inwriting,theholdingofthemeetingandconsent,inwriting,toresolutionsthat(a)approvethebudgetforthecomingfiscalyear,(b)electacouncilbyacclamation,and(c)dealwithanyotherbusiness.”).

296.Ibid,s40(2).

297.Seeibid,s154.



ing,298approvingabudgetforthestratacorporation,299andelectingastratacoun-cil.300Incontrasttoannualgeneralmeetings,specialgeneralmeetingsaren’trequiredun-dertheStrataPropertyAct.Thatsaid,astratacorporationmaydecidetoholdanynumberofspecialgeneralmeetings“atanytime.”301Andtheactalsocontainsapro-cedurewherebyagroupofvotersmaydemandthatthestratacorporationholdaspecialgeneralmeetingtoconsidersomespecifieditemofbusiness.302Specialgeneralmeetingstendtobeusedforthesecondofgeneralmeetings’threeroles(“decidingcertainspecialmeasuresorsteps”).Oftenthefocalpointofthemeetingisauthorizationofamajorrepairorrenovationprojectorasignificantchangeincorporategovernance,suchastheamendmentofbylaws.Thatsaid,thereareroutineitemsofbusinessthataredealtwithatanygeneralmeeting,beitanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeeting.Theseitemsincludeapprovingminutesofthelastgeneralmeetingandratifyinganynewrulesmadebythestratacorporation.303

Issues for Reform General observations Mostoftheissuesthatfollowconcernprocedurallaws.Theseproceduresoftenaren’tfoundintheStrataPropertyAct.It’susuallynecessarytolookatcorporateby-laws,pastpractices,andcourtcases304togetafixonwhataprocedureatameetingshouldbe.

298.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s28(h).

299.Seeibid,s103.

300.Seeibid,s25.

301.Ibid,s42.

302.Seeibid,s43(1)(“Personsholdingatleast20%ofthestratacorporation’svotesmay,bywrittendemand,requirethatthestratacorporationholdaspecialgeneralmeetingtoconsideraresolu-tionorothermatterspecifiedinthedemand.”).

303.Seeibid,s125.

304.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§6.38(“[i]nlegalpro-ceedings,theextensivecommonlawapplicabletocorporateproceedingscanbeexpectedtogovern”).



Thisbodyofprocedurecanseemdetailedandrulebound,butcommentatorsusuallyinterpretitastryingtofurtherafewbroadgoals.Thesegoalsincludepromotingareasonableexchangeofideas,treatingminorityinterestsfairly,encouragingpartici-pation,andmakingdecisionstransparentlyanddemocratically.305Meetingchairsandparticipantsareoftensaidtobethebestjudgesofwhetheragiv-enmeetingisachievingthesegoals.Courtstypicallyapplyalighttouchtoenforcingprocedurallaws.306Evenifacorporationhasfailedtocomplystrictlywithaproce-dure,acourtisoftenunwillingtoinvalidateameetingifthesegoalsaremetandnoonehassufferedanyprejudicefromtheirregularity.Butdifferentconsiderationsmayapplyiftheprocedurehasbecomeastatutoryprovision.307Likelyoutofadesiretopreservecorporateflexibility,mostcorporate-lawstatutescontainnext-to-noproceduralprovisions.TheStrataPropertyActfollowsthebasiccorporatepattern,butitanditsstandardbylawsdohaveslightlymoreproceduraldetailthanotherBritishColumbiacorporatestatutes.Thismaybeduetoadesiretoprovidesomeguidancetostratacorporations,whichareoftenadministeredbyvol-unteerswithouttraininginthelawandcorporateprocedure.Whiletheissuesthatfollowtackleadiverserangeoftopics,onethemecomesupre-peatedly.Againandagain,thecommitteewasaskedtostrikeabalancebetweenpre-servingflexibilityforstratacorporations(attheriskthattheywillusethisflexibilitytodosomethingthatcanbroadlybecalledundesirable)andamendingtheacttogivemoredirectiontostratacorporations(attheriskthatthisdirectionwillleadtobroadlyacceptablemeetingsbeingheldtobeinvalid).

Issues for Reform—Proxies Introduction Thewordproxyiscapableofcreatingsomeconfusion.Thisisbecauseitcanbeusedtorefereithertoapersonortoadocument.AsaBCjudgeonceexplained:

[I]tisappropriatetoacknowledgethattheword“proxy”isoftenusedintwosenses.Itmaybeusedtodesignatethepersonappointedbyashareholder(oralimitedpartner)

305.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote289at19-1;HartleyRNathan,Nathan’sCompanyMeetingsIn-

cludingRulesofOrder,9thed(Toronto:CCHCanadian,2011)atxxv.

306.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote289at1-12.1(“Irregularitiesintheholdingofmeetingsdonotnecessarilyinvalidatethem.”).

307.SeeNathan,supranote305at4;BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§6.38.



tovotehissharesinacompany(orhisinterestinalimitedpartnership).Itmayalsobeusedtodesignatetheinstrumentbywhichapersonisappointedtovotetheshares(orinterest)ofanother.308

TheStrataPropertyActusesproxytorefertoaperson.309Thisusagebucksthetrendofmostcorporate-lawlegislation,whichusesproxyinthesecondsense,torefertoadocument.310WhilethisconsultationpaperfollowstheStrataPropertyActandusesproxytorefertoapersonandproxyappointmenttorefertoadocumentappointingaproxy,readersshouldbeawarethatsomeofthecommentaryquotedusesproxytorefertoadocument.Whicheverwaythewordisused,thekeytounderstandingthelegalconceptionofaproxyappointmentisthatitcreatesanagencyrelationshipbetweensomeonewhohasvotingrightsinacorporationandanotherpersonwhoisauthorizedtoexercisethoserightsonbehalfofthefirstperson.Atcorporatelaw,asaleadingtextbookex-plainsit,“[a]proxyisanauthoritygivenbyonepersontoanotherwhichauthorizesthepersontowhomitisgiven(the‘proxyholder’)toexerciseavotingrightorrightsofthedonor.”311TheStrataPropertyActclearlyadoptsthisconceptionofproxy.Astheactputsit,aproxy“standsintheplaceofthepersonappointingtheproxy,andcandoanythingthatpersoncando,includingvote,proposeandsecondmotionsandparticipateinthediscussion,unlesslimitedintheappointmentdocument.”312

308.BeattyvFirstExplorationFund1987andCo(1988),25BCLR(2d)377at381,40BLR90(SC),

HindsJ.

309.Whiletheactdoesn’tcontainalegislativedefinitionofproxy,it’sclearthattheactusesthewordtorefertoaperson.Seee.g.StrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s56(3)(“Thefollowingpersonsmaybeproxies....”).

310.SeeBusinessCorporationsAct,supranote290,s1(1)“proxy”(“meansarecordbywhichashareholderappointsapersonasthenomineeoftheshareholdertoattendandactforandonbehalfoftheshareholderatameetingofshareholders”);SecuritiesAct,RSBC1996,c418,s116“formofproxy”(“meansawrittenorprintedformthat,oncompletionandexecutionbyoronbehalfofasecurityholder,becomesaproxy”),“proxy”(“meansacompletedandexecutedformofproxybywhichasecurityholderhasappointedapersonasthesecurityholder’snomineetoattendandactforthesecurityholderandonthesecurityholder’sbehalfatameetingofsecurityholders”).

311.McGuiness,supranote293at§12.134.




Legislationenablingandregulatingtheappointmentofproxiesfirstappearedincorporatestatutesintheearlytwentiethcentury.313Thislegislationwasprimarilyaimedatlargepubliccorporations.Itessentiallyhadtwopurposes:(1)tofacilitateshareholderparticipationincorporatedecision-making;314and(2)tohelpcorpora-tionsmeetthequorumneededtoholdavalidgeneralmeeting.315Whilethereareimportantdifferencesbetweenlargepubliccorporationsandstratacorporationsandsignificantvariationsinthelegalframeworksapplicabletoproxiesforbothtypesoforganizations,thesesametwopurposesalsounderlieproxylegisla-tionforstratacorporations.316Buttherehavebeenconcernsthatproxylegislationforstratacorporationsisn’tworkingoutasplanned.Ratherthandeepeningopenanddemocraticinvolvementinmakingdecisions,ithasbeen(accordingtosomecomplaints)leadingtotheoppositeresult:entrenchingcontrolbyunrepresentativefactionsthatmanipulateowners’apathyandproxylawstokeepthemselvesinpower.317

313.Whileshareholdersdidn’tautomaticallyhavearighttoappointproxiesatcommonlaw,corpo-

rationscouldadoptbylawsenablingproxyappointments.Statutesreversedthisdefaultposition.Nowshareholdershaveastatutoryrighttoappointproxies,unlessacorporation’sbylawstakethisrightaway.

314.SeeMontrealTrustCoofCanadavCall-NetEnterprisesInc(2002),57OR(3d)775at781,20BLR(3d)279(SCJ),LaxJ(“Therelationshipbetweenaproxyholderandashareholderisoneofagen-cy.Itisessentiallyanadministrativemechanismtofacilitateshareholderparticipationinthecorporatedecision-makingprocess....TheproxyframeworkestablishedundertheCanadaBusinessCorporationsAct,andOntario’sSecuritiesActreinforcesthis.”[citationsomitted]),aff’d(2004),70OR(3d)90,40BLR(3d)108(CA).

315.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote289at18-14(“Ofcourse,thesolicitationofproxiesbymanage-mentisveryoftennecessaryinanycasewherethecorporationislargeandmanagementneedstoobtainacertainquorumorlevelofshareholderapproval.”).

316.SeeGrowingUp:Ontario’sCondominiumCommunitiesEnteraNewEra:CondominiumActReviewStageTwoSolutionsReport,supranote26at39(“[P]roxiesareavalidexpressionofanowner’svotingrights.Proxiescanallowthoseunabletoattendameetingtotakeameaningfulpartinit,orthosewhofeelunqualifiedtomakeajudgmentontheissuestonominatesomeonemorequal-ifiedtoactintheirinterest.”);StrataTitleLawReform:Strata&CommunityTitleLawReformPo-sitionPaper,supranote25at9(“itisacknowledgedthatmanyschemesfinditdifficulttoreachaquorumatmeetingsandtheproxyvotingsystemhelpsthemtodoso”).

317.Seee.g.HamiltonvTheOwners,StrataPlanNWS1018,2017BCCRT141atpara16(“Theown-er’srequestsforrecordsstemfromherconcernthatthestratacouncilsince2012hasbeendom-inatedby2ownersholdingover51%ofvotes,giventheproxiestheyheldatgeneralmeet-ings.”).



Thecommitteehasheardversionsofthesecomplaintsincorrespondenceithasre-ceivedoverthecourseoftheprojectfrommembersofthegeneralpublic.318Criti-cismsofproxylawshavealsocroppedupfromtimetotimeinstoriesintheme-dia.319Theseconcernshavemovedotherlaw-reformprojectstostudyproxylawsandmakerecommendationsforreform.320Thetenoroftheserecommendationstendstobetoreinintheuseofproxies,typi-callybystandardizingtheformofproxyappointment,settinglimitsonthenumberofproxyappointmentsapersonmayholdatageneralmeeting,orplacingre-strictionsonwhomaybeaproxy.Thechallengeistoensurethattheseproposalsdon’tendupcompletelyunderminingthetwingoalsoffacilitatingparticipationandhelpingtoreacharequiredquorum.Should the Strata Property Act require a defined form of proxy appointment? Brief description of the issue TheStrataPropertyActplacesfewlimitsontheformofproxyappointment.Theon-lyformalitiesthattheactrequiresarefortheproxyappointmentto“beinwriting

318.SeeBitaBayanpour,emailmessagetoStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)ProjectCommittee,

7April2015(askingforrestrictionsonwhomaybeaproxyandforlimitsonthenumberofproxiesallowedatageneralmeeting:“webelievethenumberofproxiesshouldnotexceedthepeoplewhoareattendingthemeeting”);DaveNelson,emailmessagetoStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)ProjectCommittee,23April2015(concernsaboutthenumberofproxiesandtheformofproxyused);MarkLatham,emailmessagetoStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)ProjectCommittee,6May2015(“auniversalproxyformforcondominiums”).

319.Seee.g.JohnLancaster&MichaelSmee,“QuestionableproxiesshutdownCharlesStreetcondoelection,sourcessay,”CBCNews(17May2017),online:<www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/questionable-proxies-shut-down-charles-street-condo-election-sources-say-1.4118643>(“Blanchardallegedlyhandedstaff91proxieshewantedtoregister....Asubsequentreviewoftheproxieshandedinallegedlyrevealedmanyofthesigna-turesdidn’tmatch.Infact,morethanadozenownerssignedaffidavitsclaimingtheirsignatureshadbeenforged.”);JoeFriesen&TuThanhHa,“DirectorselectedtoseveralTorontocondossparkoutrage,”TheGlobeandMail(15May2017)A.1(“Scrutineers’documentsshowhere-ceived99votes,allofthemfromproxies.Intriguedbythehighnumberofproxies,someunitownerslateraskedtoseethem,buttheyweretoldthatafloodhaddamagedthem.”).

320.SeeGrowingUp:Ontario’sCondominiumCommunitiesEnteraNewEra:CondominiumActReviewStageTwoSolutionsReport,supranote26at39(“Proxyabusewasatopicofmuchdiscussionduringstageoneofthereviewprocess.”);StrataTitleLawReform:Strata&CommunityTitleLawReformPositionPaper,supranote25at9.



andbesignedbythepersonappointingtheproxy.”321Thereisaprescribedproxy-appointmentform,butitsuseis“optional.”322Ithasbeensuggestedthatrequiringtheuseofaspecificformorrequiringthataproxyappointmentmeetstringentformalitiesisonewaytocutdownonabusesbyclearlydefiningtheagencyrelationshipattheheartofaproxyappointment.ShouldtheStrataPropertyActadoptthisapproachtoproxyappointments?Discussion of options for reform Ontario’srecentCondominiumActreviewrecommendedtheadoptionof“astand-ardized,pre-printedproxyform.”323Therationaleforthisrecommendationwasspelledoutinanearlierpublication,whichsaidthegoalofaprescribedformisto“minimizeopportunitiesformanipulationbyensuringtheroleassignedtotheproxyholderisclear.”324TheOntariogovernmenthasacceptedthisrecommendation.Aspartofapackageofreformspassedin2015,325therelevantprovisionintheCondominiumAct,1998,wasrepealedandreplacedwiththefollowing:“Aninstrumentappointingaproxyshallbeinwritingunderthehandoftheappointerortheappointer’sattorney,shallbeforoneormoreparticularmeetingsofowners,shallcomplywiththeregulationsandshallbeintheprescribedform.”326Thisprovisioncameintoforceon1Novem-ber2017,atwhichdatethenewproxyformwasmadeavailableonanOntariogov-ernmentwebsite.327

321.Seesupranote4,s56(2)(a).

322.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,FormA(ProxyAppointment).

323.GrowingUp:Ontario’sCondominiumCommunitiesEnteraNewEra:CondominiumActReviewStageTwoSolutionsReport,supranote26at39.

324.Ontario’sCondominiumActReview:StageOneFindingsReport,supranote26at17.

325.SeeProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,supranote28.

326.Supranote23,s52(4),asambyProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,supranote28,Schedule1,s48(3)[emphasisadded].

327.See,online:<https://www.ontario.ca/search/land-registration?sort=desc&field_forms_act_tid=condominium>.



LikeBritishColumbia,Ontariopreviouslyhadanoptionalproxy-appointmentformthatitscondominiumcorporationswereallowedtochoosetoadopt.328Theotherprovincesandterritoriesimposefewtonoformalitiesonproxyappointments.329Anotherapproachtothisissueforreformis,inplaceofprescribingaspecificform,tospelloutrequirementsinanyproxyappointmentthatmaybeused.Forexample,aregulationundertheCanadaNot-for-profitCorporationsAct330requiresaproxyappointmentthatis“createdbyapersonotherthanthemember”tomeetalonglistofformalrequirements.331Athirdoptiontoconsideristoretainthestatusquo.Underthecurrentlaw,stratacorporationsandeligiblevotershaveanoptionalformofproxyappointment328.SeeForm9(ProxyforGeneralMattersandfortheElectionofDirectors).

329.SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote23,Appendix1(bylawsofthecorporation),s29(“Aninstrumentappointingaproxyshallbeinwritingunderthehandofthepersonmakingtheappointmentorthatperson’sattorney,andmaybeeithergeneralorforaparticularmeeting,butaproxyneednotbeanowner.”);Saskatchewan:TheCondominiumPropertyAct,1993,supranote23,s41.1(imposeswritingrequirement;mustbeforspecificmeetingorresolution,or“astandingappointmentthatisvalidforamaximumofsixmonthsfromthedateitisexecuted”);Manitoba:TheCondominiumAct,supranote23,s128(writingrequirement);Québec:arts1087–1103CCQ(generalmeetingofownersofsyndicate;noformalitiesforproxyappointmentspre-scribed);NewBrunswick:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote23(noformalitiesprescribed);PrinceEdwardIsland:CondominiumAct,supranote23(noformalitiesprescribed);NovaScotia:CondominiumAct,supranote23(noformalitiesprescribed);NewfoundlandandLabrador:Con-dominiumAct,2009,supranote23(noformalitiesprescribed);Yukon:CondominiumAct,supranote23(noformalitiesprescribed);NorthwestTerritoriesandNunavut:CondominiumAct,su-pranote23(noformalitiesprescribed).

330.SC2009,c23.

331.SeeCanadaNot-for-profitCorporationsRegulations,SOR/2011-223,s74(2)(d)(“ifaformofproxyiscreatedbyapersonotherthanthemember,theformofproxyshall(i)indicate,inbold-facetype,(A)themeetingatwhichitistobeused,(B)thatthemembermayappointaproxy-holder,otherthanapersondesignatedintheformofproxy,toattendandactontheirbehalfatthemeeting,and(C)instructionsonthemannerinwhichthemembermayappointtheproxy-holder,(ii)containadesignatedblankspaceforthedateofthesignature,(iii)provideameansforthemembertodesignatesomeotherpersonasproxyholder,iftheformofproxydesignatesapersonasproxyholder,(iv)provideameansforthemembertospecifythatthemembershipreg-isteredintheirnameistobevotedfororagainsteachmatter,orgroupofrelatedmatters,iden-tifiedinthenoticeofmeeting,otherthantheappointmentofapublicaccountantandtheelec-tionofdirectors,(v)provideameansforthemembertospecifythatthemembershipregisteredintheirnameistobevotedorwithheldfromvotinginrespectoftheappointmentofapublicac-countantortheelectionofdirectors,and(vi)statethatthemembershiprepresentedbytheproxyistobevotedorwithheldfromvoting,inaccordancewiththeinstructionsofthemember,onanyballotthatmaybecalledforandthat,ifthememberspecifiesachoiceundersubpara-graph(iv)or(v)withrespecttoanymattertobeactedon,themembershipistobevotedac-cordingly”).



(FormA)thattheymaychoosetoemploy.Buttheyaren’tboundtothisform;anyregularproxyappointment332maybeused.Thethreeoptionshavethefollowingadvantagesanddisadvantages.Astandardformhelpstoaddressconcernsaboutabuseofproxyappointments.Oneaspectofthisproblemistheexploitationofuncertaintiesorgapsinthedocumentestablishingtheproxy’sagencyrelationship.Astandardformclarifiesthetermsofthatrelationship.Astandardformmayalsofosterandsupportoneofthemaingoalsoftheproxysystem,whichistofacilitateaneligiblevoter’sparticipationincollec-tivedecision-makinginthestratacorporation.Moreclearlydefiningthescopeoftheproxy’sauthoritymakestheproxyappointmentmoreofaconduitforthegrantor’swishesandlessofavehiclethatcouldbenefitsomeunrepresentativefactioninthestratacorporation.And,finally,astandardformcould,inthelongrun,turnouttobeeasiertoadministerandcouldhelptocutdownondisputesoverthevalidityofproxyappointments.Whereastandardformcouldcauseproblemsisintheshortterm.Stratacorpora-tionsandstratamanagerswouldhavetobeeducatedontheexistenceanduseoftheform.Whilethelearningcurvewouldlikelyberelativelysimple,someconfusionandconflictcouldresult.Itcouldalsobeachallengetodesignaformthatwasbothsim-pletouseandrelevantforthediversityofgeneralmeetings.Restrictingtheformofproxyappointmentcouldalsotendtomakeitlessattractivetoauthorizeproxiesforgeneralmeetings.Thiscouldleadtoeligible-voterapathyanddifficultiesforstratacorporationsinmeetingquorumrequirements.Thesecondoption—spellingoutalistofprescribedcriteriaforanyproxyappoint-menttomeet—hasasimilarsetofadvantagesanddisadvantagesasthefirstoption.Thisapproachwouldalsoclarifytheagencyrelationshipbetweenproxyandgran-tor,therebyhelpingtocombatabuseoftheproxysystem.Themainadvantagethisoptionappearstohaveoverthefirstoneisthatitwouldgivestratacorporationsandeligiblevotersabitmoreflexibilityincraftingproxyappointmentsforspecificmeetingsandcircumstances.Onepotentialdrawbackofboththefirstandthesecondoptionsishowtotreatwhatwouldbeotherwiseregularproxyappointmentsthatfaileithertousethestandardformortocomplywiththeprescribedcriteria.Thisconcernraisessomecomplexquestionsthatareworthexploringinaseparateissueforreform,whichappearsaf-terthisissue.332.Thatis,onethatmeetstheact’sformalrequirementsthataproxyappointmentbeinwritingand

signedbythepersonappointingtheproxy.



Thethirdoptiontoconsiderisretainingthestatusquo.Thecurrentlawhasthead-vantageofavoidingtheproblemthatnon-compliancewithformalitiescouldleadtodisqualificationofproxyappointments.Itoffersaformofproxyappointmentasanoptionalmodel,ratherthanasarigidmandatoryrequirement.Thedownsideofre-tainingthestatusquoonthispointisthatitofferslittletocombatperceivedabusesofthesystem.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteefavouredtheadoptionofamandatorystandardform.Astandardformmayhelptoclarifytherelationshipbetweenaneligiblevoterandthepersonidentifiedasthatowner’sproxy.Alltoooftenwhendisputesariseaboutaproxyap-pointmentthepartieslooktothestratacorporationtotakeapositiononthem,eventhoughthisisn’tthestratacorporation’srole.Adefinedformshouldcutdownonthenumberofdisputesbymakingitclearwhatisavalidproxyappointment.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:44.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequiretheappointmentofaproxytobemadeus-ingastandardformwiththefollowingfeatures:(a)awarningthatthestratacorpora-tionhasnoobligationtoensurethattheproxyvotesinaccordancewithanyinstruc-tionssetoutinthisproxyappointment;(b)aspacetorecordeitherthegrantor’sstra-ta-lotnumberorunitnumberandstreetaddress;(c)checkboxestoindicatewhethertheproxyappointmentisageneralappointmentoranappointmentforaspecificmeeting;(d)aspacetorecordthedateonwhichtheproxyappointmentissigned;(e)asignatureblock;(f)aspacetorecordanyvotinginstructions,labelled“optional.”How should the Strata Property Act deal with non-compliance with the standard form of proxy appointment or any formal requirements prescribed for proxy appointments? Brief description of the issue Thisissueflowsfromthepreviousone.Therearetwodimensionstothisissue:(1)settlingwhattheconsequencesshouldbeforanotherwiseregularandvalidproxyappointmentthatisn’tinthestandardform;and(2)decidingwhethertheactneedstospellouttheseconsequences.Discussion of options for reform Thereareessentiallytwostandardstodeterminewhattheconsequencesshouldbeforanotherwisevalidproxyappointmentthatdoesn’tcomplywitharequiredfor-



mality.Oneapproachistoconcludethatanynon-compliancerenderstheproxyin-valid.Thissetsstrictcomplianceasthestandard.Theotherapproachistoallowforsomeflexibilitytodepartfromtherequiredformality.Thismakessubstantialcom-pliancethestandard.Untilveryrecently,nostrata-propertyactorregulationinCanadarequiredproxyappointmentstomeetastringentsetofformalities.LatelastyearOntarioadoptedastandardform,333butitistooearlyforthatformtohavebeenthesubjectofjudicialcomment.Sonooneknowsyetwhichstandardacourtwouldadoptinthefaceofnon-compliance.Someguidancecanbetakenfromthegeneralcorporatelawofmeetings,whichhasaddressedthisissue.Whilethereisnoguaranteethatacourthearingastrata-propertycasewouldapplythisbodyoflaw,commentatorsgeneral-lyagreethatitwouldlikelybeconsideredintheabsenceofanyapplicablestrata-propertyprovisions.334Thecorporatelawongeneralmeetingsappearstohaveadoptedasubstantial-compliancestandard.Whenitcomestoformalitiesforproxyappointments,asale-galtextbookongeneralmeetingsexplains:

Anyformofproxymustobviouslycomplywiththeproxyregulations.However,wheretheproxyhasbeensignedandisotherwiseregular,suchnon-complianceisnotgroundsforrefusalbythescrutineersinsofarasthismatterisaquestionproperlyfortheregula-torsandthecourts.Ithasbeenheldthat,wherethearticlesofassociationprovidethataformofproxybeasnearlyaspossiblein“thefollowingform”andspecifyaformappli-cabletovotingataparticularmeeting,theseinstructionsareonlydirectoryinnatureanddonotinvalidateaproxywhichauthorizesvotingatanymeeting.335

Thispassageseemstoindicatethatsubstantialcompliancewithformalrequire-mentsisthestandard,unlessthegoverninglegislationadoptsadifferentone.Whywouldthelegislationadoptastrict-compliancestandard?Thisstandardmaybeseenasthesurestwaytoachievethebenefitsthattheformalrequirementsaresup-posedtoprovide.Iftherationalefortheserequirementsistocurbabusebyclarify-ingtheagencyrelationshipattheheartofaproxyappointment,thenthisrationalemaybeundercutbyvalidatingproxyappointmentsthatfailtomeetformalrequire-ments.Thedisadvantagewiththestrict-standardapproachisthatitwillleadtoproxyappointmentsbeinginvalidatedforthesmallestofdeviationsfromtheformalrequirements.Thismayenduperodingthebroaderadvantagesoftheproxysystem

333.Seesupranote326.

334.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§6.38.

335.Nathan&Voore,supranote289at18-30[footnotesomitted].



toencourageparticipationinstrata-corporationgovernance.Itcouldalsobeseenasbeingharshandoverbearing.Asubstantial-compliancestandardwouldavoidthesedisadvantages.Whatismeantbysubstantialcompliancecouldbespelledoutinthelegislation.Thiswouldhavetheadvantageofclarity.Thedownsideofthisapproachisthatitmaybedifficulttode-finesubstantialcomplianceinlegislativelanguage.Inaddition,usingaliberalhandtodealwithnon-compliancecould,atsomepoint,endupundercuttingtherationaleforhavingformalrequirements.Athirdapproachwouldbetoleavetheactsilentonthispoint.Allsignsappeartopointtothecourtsapplyingcommonsensetonon-compliancewithformalrequire-ments.Anargumentcouldbemadethatitisn’tnecessarytotrytospellthisoutinthestatute,anddoingsomightjustenduprobbingthecourtsofsomeoftheirflexi-bilityindealingwiththeissuecasebycase.Thedisadvantagewithleavingthestat-utesilentonthispointisthatitrisksuncertaintyandunexpectedoutcomes.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteefavouredadoptingastrict-compliancestandard.Initsview,selectinganyotheroptionwouldendupundercuttingtheutilityoftheform.Thecommitteenotedthatamendmentstosection56oftheact336wouldbeneces-sarytoimplementitsproposal.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:45.Section56(2)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethat(a)adocumentappointingaproxymustbeintheprescribedform,and(b)adocumentap-pointingaproxythatisnotintheprescribedformisinvalid.Should the Strata Property Act limit the number of proxy appointments that a person may hold? Brief description of the issue Oneoftheperennialcomplaintsaboutstrata-propertyproxylegislationisthatithasencouragedwhatonelaw-reformbodycolourfullyreferredtoas“proxyfarming,”whichis“whereanindividualorsmallgroupofownersgatherlargenumbersof

336.Seesupranote4,s56(2)(“Adocumentappointingaproxy(a)mustbeinwritingandbesigned

bythepersonappointingtheproxy,(b)maybeeithergeneralorforaspecificmeetingoraspe-cificresolution,and(c)mayberevokedatanytime.”).



proxyvotesinordertogaincontrolofthedecisionmakingprocess.”337Amongtheillsattributedtoproxyfarmingarethatitbreedsresentmentandapathy,andresultsinunrepresentativedecisions.338TheStrataPropertyAct(likeallotherstrata-propertylegislationinCanada)placesnolimitsonthenumberofproxyappointmentsthatapersonmayholdforageneralmeeting.So,intheoryatleast,stratacorporationsinBritishColumbiaarevulnerabletothreatsposedbyproxyfarming.Shouldtheactbeamendedtostampoutproxyfarmingbylimitingthenumberofproxyappointmentsonepersonmayhold?Discussion of options for reform Placingalimitonholdingproxyappointmentsclearlyandeffectivelyaddressestheconcernsraisedbyproxyfarming.Ifthenumberofproxyappointmentsthatasinglepersonorasmallgroupisallowedtoholdislimitedtoalownumber,thenitishardforthatpersonorgrouptoholddecision-makingauthorityfortheentirestratacor-porationinitshands.Legislationsettingsuchalimitcouldalsobeseenassupport-ingthebroadergoaloftheproxysystemofencouragingparticipationinthedemo-craticaffairsofthestratacorporation.Butsuchlegislationwouldalsomakeithardertousetheproxysystem.Eligiblevot-erscouldfeelthatsuchaprovisionwouldundulyrestraintheirvotingrights.339Itcouldendupbackfiring,leadingtogreaterapathyandmoredifficultyinreachingquorum.Anditcouldalsomakeadministeringageneralmeetingamoredemandinganddifficulttask.Sooneoptionforthisissuewouldbeconfirmingthestatusquoanditslackofalimitonproxyappointments.Thecurrentsystemhasthebenefitofmakingitcompara-tivelyeasytomakeproxyappointments.Thelegislationmightwanttoputapremi-umonthisquality,asawayofaffirmingthevalueofproxyappointmentsasanex-pressionofvotingrightsandasamechanismtoachievequorum.

337.StrataTitleLawReform:Strata&CommunityTitleLawReformPositionPaper,supranote25at9.

338.Seeibid(“Proxyfarmingcanleadtodecisionsthatarenotalwaysinthebestinterestofthestra-tacommunityasawhole.Thepracticealsobuildsresentmentandfurtherdiscouragesparticipa-tionbyowners.”).

339.SeeFanaken,supranote31at47(“Somestratacorporationshaveattemptedtocontrolproxyvotingbyintroducingbylawsthatlimitthenumberofproxiesanyonepersoncanhold.Itdoesnothappenveryoften.Surprisingly,whenacouncildoesattempttointroducesuchabylaw,ownersrejecttheproposition:thereisusuallyasensethatdemocracyisbeingthwarted.”).



Theotheroptionwouldbetoproposealegislativelimit.Anintegralpartofthisop-tionisthenumberatwhichthatlimitisset.Thereisnecessarilyanarbitraryele-menttothischoice.Nothinglogicallycompelsthechoiceofonenumberoveranoth-er.Someguidancemaybefoundintheexperienceofotherjurisdictions:

• NewSouthWaleshasproposedsomethingofaslidingscale,“[l]imit[ing]thenumberofproxiesabletobeheldbyanypersonto5percentofthelotsifthescheme[strataplan]hasmorethan20lots,oroneiftheschemehasfewerthan20lots.”340

• Queensland,whichadoptsahub-and-spokemodeltostratalegislation,341hasasimilarsliding-scalelimit.342ThenumbersareidenticaltotheNewSouthWalesproposalforstratacorporationsthatcomewithinits“standardmodule.”343“Accommodationmodule”stratasallowforapersontoholdproxyappointmentsuptoanumberequal10percentofthestratalots,ifthestratacorporationhas20ormorestratalots.344(Ifthenumberisfewerthan20stratalots,thenthelimitisone.)345Therearenolimitsfor“commercialmodule”or“smallschemesmodule”stratas.346

• ThereisoneBritishColumbiacorporatestatutethatsetsahardlimitonproxyappointments.TheCooperativeAssociationActprovidesthat“[a]membermaynotvotemorethan3membershipproxies.”347

Adrawbacktosettingalegislativelimitisthatitmightbringwithitsomeadminis-trativeproblems.Forexample,whathappensifonepersoncollectsmoreproxyap-pointmentsthanisallowedunderthelegislation?Someproxyappointmentsmayprovideforalternates.Thiscouldbringthepersonbackunderthelimit.Butifthe340.StrataTitleLawReform:Strata&CommunityTitleLawReformPositionPaper,supranote25at9.

341.SeeBodyCorporateandCommunityManagementAct1997(Qld),s122(regulationmodule).

342.SeeBodyCorporateandCommunityManagementAct1997(Qld),s103.

343.SeeBodyCorporateandCommunityManagement(StandardModule)Regulation2008(Qld),s107(4).

344.SeeBodyCorporateandCommunityManagement(AccommodationModule)Regulation2008(Qld),s105(4)(a).

345.SeeBodyCorporateandCommunityManagement(AccommodationModule)Regulation2008(Qld),s105(4)(b).

346.SeeBodyCorporateandCommunityManagement(CommercialModule)Regulation2008(Qld),s73–77;BodyCorporateandCommunityManagement(SmallSchemesModule)Regulation2008(Qld),ss54–57.

347.SBC1999,c28,s43(7).Notethat“[p]roxiesunderthissectionmaybegivenonlytoamemberoftheassociation”(ibid,s43(6)).



personremainsoverthelimit,thenpresumablythepersonwillonlybeallowedtovoteundersomeoftheproxyappointments.Thosethatdon’tmakethecutwillef-fectivelyresultinalossofvotingrightsfortheeligiblevoterwhogavetheproxyap-pointment.Inthissituation,whogetstodecidewhichproxyappointmentswillbeexercisedandwhichwon’t?Shouldsomekindoflegislativerule,suchasfirstintime,apply?Shoulditbelefttotheprospectiveproxytochoose?Orshoulditbesubjecttothechair’sjudgment?The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteestruggledwiththisissue.It’sparticularlyinterestedinpubliccom-mentsontheissue.Thecommitteewasacutelyawarethatproxyfarmingisaseriousproblem.Butitwasalsoawareoftheneedtostrikeabalancebetweentwogeneralconcernsinfor-mulatingitstentativerecommendation.First,thereareconcernsabouttheabusivecollectionoflargenumbersofproxyappointments,whichcanallowasmall,unrep-resentativeminoritytohijackastratacorporation’sgovernance.Asecond,andcountervailing,considerationistheroleproxiesplayinfacilitatingdemocraticdeci-sion-making.Whiletherewouldbeadvantagestohavingalegislativelimitoncollectingproxyap-pointments,itcouldalsocreateatechnicalnightmare.Ifapersonturnedupatageneralmeetingwithahandfulofproxyappointmentsinexcessofthelimit,thenthissituationcoulddevolveintoagameofgofish,withtheproxyandthemeetingchairtakingturnsselectingproxyappointmentsthatwillorwillnotbevoted.Thecommitteewasalsoawareoftheneedtoconsiderthevarietyofstratacorpora-tions.Somerecreationalstratacorporations,forexample,mayhavedevelopedthepracticeofgivingmanyproxyappointmentstothestrata-councilpresident,asawaytoensurethatbusinessgetsdoneatthegeneralmeeting.Thereisnoabuseinthisscenario.Thesestratacorporationscouldbeharmedbyalegislativelimit.Thisspecificpointleadstoabroaderconcernthataffectedthecommittee’sthinkingonthisissue.Whenitcomestolimitingproxyappointments,thediversityofBritishColumbia’sstratacorporationshastobetakenintoaccount.Forexample,corporateandcommercialstrata-lotownersrelyonproxiestomaketheirvoicesheardatstra-ta-corporationmeetings.Limitingproxyappointmentscouldhaveanadverseimpactontheirinterests.Discussionsoflimitingproxyappointmentsoftenfocusmainlyonstratacorporationsmadeupofownersofresidentialstratalots.It’simportantto



bearinmindhowanyproposedlimitationonproxyappointmentswouldaffectownersofnonresidentialstratalots,corporateowners,andotherclassesofstrata-lotowners.Thecommitteealsonotedthat,whilelegislationcouldalleviateconcernsintheshortterm,thereisnoguaranteethatproxyfarmerswon’tultimatelyfindwaysaroundit.Proxyfarmerstendtobealoneindividual.Facedwithalegislativelimit,thisindi-vidualmightrespondbyconscriptinghisorherspouseandchildrentobeproxies.Ultimately,theonlyeffectivewaytofixtheproblemwouldbetostampoutthein-timidationandabusesthatproxyfarmersuse.Alimitoncollectingproxyappoint-mentswouldn’taddresstheseconcerns,becauseproxyfarmerswilljustcontinuetouseabusivepracticestocircumventthelimit.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:46.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotlimitthenumberofproxyappointmentsthatmaybeheldforageneralmeeting.Should the Strata Property Act provide that certain persons may not be a proxy? Brief description of the issue Section56(3)oftheactdealswithpersonswhomaybeproxies.Thedefaultposi-tionisthatanyoneatallcanbeaproxy,solongasthatpersoncomplieswithanyregulationsonproxies.Thispositionissubjecttotwoexceptions,onefor“anem-ployeeofthestratacorporation”andtheotherfor“apersonwhoprovidesstratamanagementservicestothestratacorporation.”Apersonwhofallsintoeitherofthesecategoriesisallowedtobeaproxy“onlyifpermittedbyregulation”(and,inbothcases,incompliancewithanythingelsethoseregulationsmightsay).Thecatchisthatnoregulationsonproxieshavebeenadopted.348Theeffectofthisabsenceofregulationis:

• anemployeeofastratacorporationcan’tbeaproxy;

• apersonwhoprovidesstrata-managementservicestothestratacorpora-tioncan’tbeaproxy;and

348.Withtheexceptionoftheprescriptionofanoptionalproxy-appointmentform.SeeStrataProp-

ertyRegulation,supranote8,FormA(ProxyAppointment).



• anyoneelsecanbeaproxy,subjecttonorestrictions.Despitehavingthelegislativemachineryinplacetoregulateinamoreactivewaywhomaybeproxy,thismachineryremainsunused.Shouldtheactortheregulationstakeadifferentapproachtowhomaybeaproxy?Discussion of options for reform BritishColumbia’slegislativelimitationsonwhomaybeaproxyfirstappearedintheStrataPropertyAct.Unfortunately,there’snopublicrecordthatexplainsthera-tionalefortheact’slimitations.Itmaybepossibletodivinearationalejustbylook-ingcloselyatwhoiscaughtbytheprovision.Theyseemtobeaimedatpeople(em-ployeesandstratamanagers)whocanbeseenashavingaspecialpositioninthestratacorporationthatcouldbeexploitedtocollectproxyappointments.Itcouldal-sobearguedthatemployeesandstratamanagerswhoexercisevotingrightsonbe-halfofanownercouldbeinaperceivedconflictofinterest.349Sincethelimitationscanbereversedbyregulation,confidenceintheserationalesmayhavebeenweakerthanusual.BritishColumbiaissomethingofanoutlierinplacingrestrictionsonwhomaybeaproxy.OnlySaskatchewanandManitobahavesimilarlegislation.Saskatchewan’sprovisionissubstantiallysimilartoBritishColumbia’s,inthatittargetsemployeesandstratamanagersandisexpressedasbeing“subjecttotheregulations.”350ManitobahasgonesomewhatfurtherthanBritishColumbiaandSaskatchewan.351Likethosetwoprovinces,itplacesrestrictionsonemployeesandstratamanagers.

349.SeeStrataTitleLawReform:Strata&CommunityTitleLawReformPositionPaper,supranote25

at7(“Thecurrentstratalawscontainonlyafewprovisionsdealingwithconflictsofinterest.Forexample,astratamanagingagentorcaretakercannotuseaproxyvoteonamotionfromwhichtheymaygainamaterialbenefit.”).

350.SeeTheCondominiumPropertyAct,supranote23,s41.1(3)(“Subjecttotheregulations,anypersonmaybeappointedasaproxyexceptthepropertymanageroranyotheremployeeofthecorporation.”).LikeBritishColumbia,Saskatchewanhasn’tpromulgatedanyregulationsonpoint.

351.SeeTheCondominiumAct,supranote23,s128(5)(“Thefollowingpersonsmaynotbeaproxyofaunitownerwhoisnotadeclarantorowner-developer:(a)anemployeeoragentofthecon-dominiumcorporation;(b)adeclarantoranemployeeoragentofthedeclarantorapersonwhodoesnotdealwiththedeclarantatarm’slength;(c)anowner-developeroranemployeeoragentoftheowner-developerorapersonwhodoesnotdealwiththeowner-developeratarm’slength;(d)apersonwhoprovidesmanagementservicestothecondominiumcorporationunderapropertymanagementagreementorthatperson’semployeeoragent.Anyproxydocumentappointingsuchapersonisvoid.”)



Manitobaalsorestrictsanowner-developerfrombeinganowner’sproxy.And,un-likeBritishColumbia’sorSaskatchewan’s,Manitoba’srestrictionsaren’tsubjecttotheregulations.Infact,thelegislationflatlydeclaresthatanyproxyappointmentthatappointssomeonefromarestrictedclassis“void.”352EveryotherCanadianprovinceandterritoryplacesnolegislativeorregulatorylim-itsonwhomaybeaproxy.Notably,bothAlbertaandOntariohaverecentlypassedmajoramendmentstotheirlegislation.353Neitherstatutecontainedalimitonwhomaybeaproxy.Therationaleforthishands-offapproachappearstobethatitsup-portsthebroaderpurposesofallowingproxyappointmentsasameanstoencour-agegreaterparticipationinthestratacorporation’sdemocraticdecision-makingandasameanstohelpstratacorporationsreachtheirquorumrequirements.Thisallyieldsasizablerangeofoptionstoconsider.Atoneendwouldberetainingthecurrentlimitsandaddinganewclassorclassesofpeoplewhoshouldbere-strictedfrombeingaproxy.Thesenewrestrictionscouldbejustifiedasreducingperceivedconflictsofinterestorpreventingsomeonefromtakingadvantageofaprivilegedpositiontocollectproxyappointmentsandundulyinfluencethegovern-anceofthestratacorporation.OneexampletoconsiderwouldbetofollowManito-ba’sleadandpreventanowner-developeroranemployeeoragentofanowner-developerfrombeingaproxyforanyoneotherthantheowner-developer.Thedownsideofplacingfurtherrestrictionsonproxyappointmentsisthattheymaketheproxysystemhardertouseandmayintheirownwayexacerbateapathyanddysfunction.Inaddition,theserestrictionsarelittle-usedinCanada,sotherearen’tmanymodelstopointtoforpotentialreformsinBritishColumbia.Anotheroptionwouldbetoconsiderliberalizingthecurrentrestrictions.Forexam-ple,restrictionsonstrata-corporationemployeesorstratamanagerscouldbemadeonlytoapplytoavoteonamatterfromwhichtheemployeeorstratamanagermaygainamaterialbenefit.Thisoptionwouldfocustherestrictiononclearercasesofpotentialconflictsofinterest.Movingevenfurtherinthisdirection,anotheroptionwouldbetodoawaywithleg-islativerestrictionsaltogether.Thiswouldleaveituptotheeligiblevotertopicktheproxythattheeligiblevoterfeelscanbestrepresenthisorherinterests.Itwouldal-sosupporttheviewthatopenaccesstotheproxysystemisstillavaluablewayto

352.Ibid.

353.SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyAmendmentAct,2014,supranote28[notinforce];Ontario:ProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,supranote28.



encourageeligible-voterparticipationandhelpstratacorporationsreachtheirquorumrequirements.Butthedisadvantageofthisoptionandthepreviousoneisthatitdoeslittletonothingtoaddressthecomplaintsabouttheproxysystemthathavebuiltupinrecentyears.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform ThecommitteefavouredtheapproachManitobahastaken.Inparticular,thecom-mitteeapprovedextendingthereachoftheprohibitiontoowner-developers.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

47.Section56(3)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatthefol-lowingpersonsmaynotbeproxiesforaneligiblevoterwhoisnotanowner-developer:(a)anemployeeoragentofthestratacorporation;(b)anowner-developeroranem-ployeeoragentoftheowner-developerorapersonwhodoesnotdealwiththeowner-developeratarm’slength;(c)apersonwhoprovidesstrata-managementservicestothestratacorporationorthatperson’semployeeoragent.

Issues for Reform—Conduct of Meetings Introduction Theproceduresusedtogoverntheconductofgeneralmeetingsarecalledrulesoforder.Thistermdoesn’thavealegislativedefinitionorevenaprecisemeaninginthelaw.Somesenseofwhatconstitutesrulesofordercanbeobtainedbylookingatthetop-icscoveredbymajorpublicationsonthesubject.Robert’sRulesofOrderfocussesprimarilyonwhatitcalls“motions,”whichareroughlyequivalenttotheStrataPropertyAct’sresolutions.354Itclassifiesmotionsanddealswithdiscussingandvot-ingonmotions.Italsohaschaptersaddressingtopicssuchasquorum,orderofbusiness,nominationsandelections,officers,committees,bylaws,anddisciplinaryprocedures.TwoCanadianguidebookscoverthesametopicsfoundinRobert’sRulesofOrder,alongwithsomeothersubjects.Bourinot’sRulesofOrderalsoaddressesreportsandrecords,355whileWainberg’sSocietyMeetingscontainspracticaladvicefor“inexpe-354.HenryMRobertIIIetal,Robert’sRulesofOrderNewlyRevised,11thed(Philadelphia:DaCapo

Press,2011).

355.JohnGeorgeBourinot,Bourinot’sRulesofOrder,3rdedbyGeoffreyHStanford(Toronto:McClel-landandStewart,1977).



riencedchairs”and“strategicmanoeuvers”membersmaytakeadvantageofinbringingforwardmotions.356AlthoughtheStrataPropertyActhasbeendescribedasbeing“silent”onrulesofor-derandhavinga“gap”onmeetingprocedures,357itisapparentthattheactandthestandardbylawscontainsomeprovisionsonthesubjectsaddressedintheseguides.Whattheactandstandardbylawsdon’tdoisaddressthesemattersinthecompre-hensivedetailfoundincommerciallypublishedrulesoforder.Intheabsenceofprovisionsinthegoverninglegislation,regulations,andbylaws,astratacorporation(likeanyotherkindofcorporation)mayadoptitsownrulesoforder.358Thismaybedonebyarticulatingitsowncodeofrulesorbyadoptingonealreadyinexistence(suchasoneoftheguidebooksmentionedabove).359Ifacorpo-rationhasn’tadoptedrulesoforder,thenthecommonlawwouldapply.360Rulesoforderhavebeendescribedasbeing“firstandforemostpurposive.”361Theirpurposeistoadvance“thebasicprinciplewithrespecttomeetings,”whichisthat“theymustbeconductedfairlyandreasonably.”362Courtshavedisdainedstricten-forcementof“technical”rulesifstrictenforcementisdeterminedtoviolatethisbasicprincipleandcauseprejudicetosomeoneatthemeeting.363356.JMWainberg&MarkIWainberg,Wainberg’sSocietyMeetingsIncludingRulesofOrder(Don

Mills,ON:CCHCanadian,1992).SeealsoNathan,supranote305(parallelpublicationwithafo-cusonfor-profitcorporations).

357.TheOwners,StrataPlanNW971vDaniels,2010BCCA584atpara35,13BCLR(5th)7,SmithJA(forthecourt)[Daniels(CA)],aff’gTheOwners,StrataPlanNW971vDaniels,2009BCSC1235,86RPR(4th)241[Daniels(SC)].SeealsoFanaken,supranote31at184(“TheStrataPropertyActdoesnotprescribeormandatespecificrulesoforderfortheconductofcouncilmeetingsorgeneralmeetingsoftheowners.”);BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§6.38(“TheActcontainsonlyafewprovisionsgoverningconductofgeneralmeet-ings.”).

358.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote289at19-2;Daniels(SC),supranote357atpara24,HyslopJ.

359.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote289at19-2.

360.SeeNathan&Voore,ibidat19-3;Daniels(SC),supranote357atpara25.

361.Nathan&Voore,supranote289at19-4.

362.Nathan&Voore,ibidat19-1.SeealsoNathan,supranote305atxxv(“Theparamountpurposeofparliamentaryprocedureistodemocraticallyascertainthewillofthemajorityandtoseethattheirwilliscarriedout,butwithfairnessandgoodfaith.Whenthemajoritydecisionhasbeendeterminedbyavote,thatvotebecomesthedecisionoftheassembly.Itisthenthedutyoftheminoritytoacceptandabidebythatdecision....Thissubmissiontothewillofthemajorityisconditionaluponthefairnessofthemajorityandutilizationofdemocraticprinciples.”).

363.Daniels(SC),supranote357atparas51–55.



Should the Strata Property Act provide default rules of order for general meetings? Brief description of the issue WhiletheStrataPropertyAct,StrataPropertyRegulation,andstandardbylawseachcontainprovisionsthatdealwithselectedaspectsofmeetingprocedure,takento-getherthesesourcesdon’tprovideacomprehensivesetofrulesoforderforgeneralmeetings.Theabsenceofrulesofordercouldbecalledagapinthelegislation,whichmaycauseuncertaintyandneedlessconflict.ShouldtheStrataPropertyActpre-scriberulesoforderforgeneralmeetings?Discussion of options for reform Thisissuecomesdowntoayes-or-noquestion:shouldtheactprescribeacompletesetofrulesoforder?Or,shoulditretainthestatusquo(whichseestheact,regula-tion,andstandardbylawsaddresscertainaspectsofmeetingprocedurewhileleav-ingsomespaceforstratacorporationstoadopttheirownrulesonthesubjectsthataren’taddressed)?Themainargumentsinfavourofprescribedrulesoforderarethatitwouldbringgreatercertaintyandaccessibilitytothisareaofthelaw.Asitstands,rulesoforderappearinahostofdifferentplaces.Ahandfularefoundintheactandtheregulation;afewmoreshowupinthestandardbylaws.Somestratacorporationsmayhaveadoptedrulesoforderfromacommerciallypublishedsource,butmanylikelyhavenot.Forthesestratacorporations,manyproceduralquestionscanonlybedecidedbyreferencetothestratacorporation’scustomsandpastpracticesandthecommonlawoncorporatemeetings.Theselattertwosourcesarenotsimpletostateandap-ply.Turningtothemmayexacerbatedisputesincontestedgeneralmeetings.Havingacompletesetofwrittenrulesoforderinoneplacemayovercometheseproblems.Havingrulesoforderprescribedbylawwouldreducethescopefordis-putesoverthecontentoftherules.Itwouldalsomaketherulesmoreaccessible,particularlyforvolunteerstrata-corporationeligiblevoterswholikelywon’thavethetimeortrainingtopursuerulesinavoluminousbodyofcaselawandpracticalguidebooks.Aclearerandmore-accessiblebodyofrulesofordercouldalsocontrib-utetobetterdecision-makingatstratacorporationmeetings.Prescribingrulesofordermayhavedisadvantages.Forone,anygainsincertaintyabouttheruleswouldinevitablycomeattheexpenseoftheflexibilitythatisthehallmarkofthecurrentsystem.Currently,stratacorporationsarefreetochoosethe



bulkoftheirmeetingprocedures,subjecttoafewprovisionsthataresetoutintheactandtheregulation.Movingtoaprescribedsetofrulesoforderwouldmeanmov-ingtosomethingmorelikeaone-size-fits-allapproachtomeetingprocedure.GiventhediversityofstratacorporationsinBritishColumbia,thisapproachcouldproducerulesthatarefelttobetoorigidandformalforsomestratacorporationsorproce-duresthatareinconsistentwithotherstratacorporations’pastpractices.Enforcementofprescribedrulesofordermightalsocreateproblems.Thecourtscurrentlyapplysomethingofalighttouchinenforcingproceduralrules,makingthemsubjecttobroadgoalsofensuringfairandreasonabletreatmentofmeetingparticipants.Thiscouldchangeiftherulesoforderwerespelledoutinlegislationoraregulation.Evenifthecourtsgenerallykepttheircurrentapproachtoenforcingproceduralrules,theexistenceofaprescribedsetofrulesoforderwould,initself,createalearningcurveforstratacorporations.Generalmeetingswouldhavetobroadlyad-heretothestandardssetbytheprescribedrules.Responsibilityforachievingthisresultwouldbeplacedinthehandsofthosewhorunstrata-corporationgeneralmeetings.Finally,anyprescribedsetofrulesoforderwouldlikelyhavetobemuchlongerandmoredetailedthanthecurrentstandardbylaws.Commercialpublicationstendtoruntohundredsofpages,alengththatisfelttobenecessarytoaddressthesitua-tionsandconcernsthatmaycropupduringageneralmeeting.Aprescribedsetofrulesoforderwouldlikelyhavetomatchthislevelofcomplexityanddetail.Other-wise,peoplewouldperceivegapsintheprescribedrulesandwouldhavetoturntocommercialpublicationsorthecommonlawtofillinthosegaps.Theotheroptiontoconsiderisretainingthestatusquobyproposingthattheactnotprescribeacomprehensivesetofrulesoforder.TheStrataPropertyAct’scurrentapproachtorulesoforderisconsistentwiththeapproachtakenbyotherstrata-propertyandcorporateacts.Corporatelegislationrarelydealswithrulesofor-der,364andevencorporatebylawstendnottohaveprovisionsdealingwithmeetingprocedures.365Legislatorsandpolicymakersrarelygivereasonsforwhytheyaren’tdoingsomething,andthispatternholdstruefortheabsenceofrulesoforderinBrit-ishColumbia’sstrata-propertyframework.Nevertheless,itispossibletodiscerna

364.SeeNicholas&Voore,supranote289at19-2(“Corporatelawstatutesaregenerallysilentwith

respecttorulesoforder.”).

365.Seeibid(“itusuallyprovesimpracticaltoadoptformalrulesoforderintheby-laws”[footnoteomitted]).



rationaleforthestatusquo:itessentiallyisthemirror-imagepositiononthedisad-vantageslistedearlier.Thestatusquopreservesflexibilityforstratacorporationstoadopttheirownrulesofprocedure.Itavoidstheneedtocompilealengthy,detailed,andcomplexsetofstatutoryorregulatoryprovisionsonproceduralmatters.Anditalsoavoidspoten-tialenforcementissues.Thedisadvantagesofthecurrentapproacharethatitleavesthelawinarelativelyuncertainandinaccessiblestate.Thisplacesaburdenonstratacorporationstoadoptandapplyrulesoforder.Somestratacorporationsmayturntocommercialsourcesthataren’tcompatiblewiththeStrataPropertyAct.366Othersmaysimplyfailtospelloutrulesoforder,whichcouldleadtoconfusionandprotracteddisputesoverprocedure.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedidn’tfavourproposingthattheactprescribeacomprehensivesetofrulesoforder.Initsview,inpracticeretainingorderallcomesdowntothechair.Mostmeetingchairsarecompetentandabletocontrolthemeeting.Thosewhoaren’ttendtoperceivetheirweaknessesandturnthechairingdutiesovertosome-onewithexperience,suchasthestratamanager.Puttinginplaceasetofrigidrulesoforderwouldlikelycausemoreproblemsthanitcouldsolve.Thecommitteewasalsoconcernedthatestablishingacomprehensivesetofrulesofordercouldtransformcomplaintsabouttheoutcomeofvotesintodisputesoverwhethermeetingprocedureswerestrictlyfollowed.Despiteitsskepticismabouttheneedforaprescribed,comprehensivesetofrulesoforder,thecommitteedidnotethattherearespecificareasinwhichmeetingproce-durescouldbenefitfromlegislativereform.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:48.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotprescribeacomprehensivesetofrulesoforderforstrata-corporationgeneralmeetings.

366.SeeFanaken,supranote31at185(“WithallduerespecttoRobert’s[RulesofOrder],that

sourceshouldnotbefullyrelieduponandutilizedforstratacorporationmeetingsalthoughcer-tainbasicaspectscanbeusedforapplicationinastratacorporationenvironment.”).



Should the Strata Property Act contain provisions on who can chair a general meeting? Brief description of the issue Theactitselfdoesn’taddresswhoisentitledtochairageneralmeeting.Aprovisionisfoundinthestandardbylaws,whichsays:

(1) Annualandspecialgeneralmeetingsmustbechairedbythepresidentofthecoun-cil.

(2) Ifthepresidentofthecouncilisunwillingorunabletoact,themeetingmustbechairedbythevicepresidentofthecouncil.

(3) Ifneitherthepresidentnorthevicepresidentofthecouncilchairsthemeeting,achairmustbeelectedbytheeligiblevoterspresentinpersonorbyproxyfromamongthosepersonswhoarepresentatthemeeting.367

Becausethisprovisionisfoundinthebylaws,astratacorporationmayamendit.Underthecurrentlaw,stratacorporationshaveconsiderableflexibilityandlittledi-rectiononwhomayactaschairofageneralmeeting.Shouldtheactbeamendedtogivestratacorporationsmoredirectiononthisissue?Discussion of options for reform Therearetwooptionsforreformtoaddressthisissue.Oneistohavetheactgiveamorecertainpictureonwhothechairofthemeetingmustbe.Thereiscurrentlyadefaultprovisioninthebylawsthatsetsoutwhomaybechair,butthisprovisionmaybeamended.Alegislativeprovisioncouldestablishwhomustactasmeetingchairinallcases,withnoindividualvariationspossible.Thebenefitsofsuchaprovi-sionincludeenhancingthecertaintyandconsistencyofthelaw.Thedisadvantageofthisproposalisthatitwouldn’trepresentmuchofanadvanceonthecurrentlaw.Thestandardbylawspresentalogicalorderfordeterminingwhoshouldactasmeetingchair.It’snotlikelythatastatutoryamendmentwouldbeneededtoconfirmthisorder.Further,anylegislationwouldneedtorelyonsomevariationofallowingthemeetingitselftopickthechaironceitbecameclearthatstrata-councilofficerswereunableorunwillingtoserveasmeetingchair.Withoutsucharesidualprovision,thelegislationwouldriskderailingotherwise-acceptablegeneralmeetingsbecausethestratacorporationwasunabletocomplywithaclosedlistofpeoplewhocouldactasmeetingchair.

367.StrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s25.



Thesecondoptionforlegislativereformwouldbetohavetheactlistcertaincatego-riesofpeoplewhocan’tactasmeetingchair.Forexample,thelegislationcouldpro-videthatameetingchairmustbedrawnfromtheranksofeligiblevotersatagen-eralmeeting.Therationaleforlimitingwhomayactaschairisthatthepositionisimportanttothefunctioningofthemeeting.Selectingachairfromoutsidethegroupofeligiblevoterscouldbeawaytoallowotherabusestogounchecked,suchasal-lowinganunrepresentativefactiontodominatethemeeting.Thedownsideofthisoptionisthatitcouldprovetobetoorigid.Somestratacorpo-rationsmightwanttohaveanoutsiderchairageneralmeeting.Theymightfeelthatsuchapersonwouldbringimpartialitytocontestedcircumstances.Almostanyleg-islativeprovisionwouldrunintotheproblemofbeingaone-size-fits-allsolutionthatmightnotworkinthefaceofthediversityofBritishColumbia’sstratacorpora-tions.MostCanadianjurisdictionshavenolegislativeorregulatoryprovisionsonthisissue,likelyforthisreason.Ofthetwoprovincesthatdoaddressthisissue,theirapproachissimilartothecurrentprovisionsinBritishColumbia:Albertasetsoutadefaultprovisioninitsversionofthestandardbylaws;368Saskatchewandealswiththeissueinaregulation.369The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,thecurrentlawisworkingwellanddoesn’tposeanydiffi-cultiesinpractice.Legislativereformisn’tneededforthisissue.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:49.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoaddresswhomayactaschairofanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeeting.

Issues for Reform—Quorum Introduction Asatextbookoncorporatemeetingsexplains,aquorumis“theminimumnumberofshareholdersthatmustbepresentinorderthatthebusinessofthemeetingmaybe368.SeeCondominiumPropertyAct,supranote23,Appendix1,s22(1)(“Thepresidentor,inthe

eventofthepresident’sabsenceordisability,thevice-presidentorotherpersonelectedatthemeeting,shallactaschairofanannualgeneralmeetingorageneralmeeting.”

369.SeeTheCondominiumPropertyRegulations,2001,RRScC-26.1,Reg2,s23(1)(“Thepresident,orintheeventofhisorherabsenceordisability,thevice-presidentorotherpersonelectedatthemeetingshallactaschairpersonofanannualmeetingorageneralmeeting.”).



validlytransacted.”370Thepurposeofalegislativequorumrequirementis“toavoidtheusurpingofdecisionmakingbyasmallandpotentiallyunrepresentativegroup.”371TheStrataPropertyActimplementsaquorumrequirementbyprovidingthat“[b]usinessmustnotbeconductedatanannualorspecialgeneralmeetingunlessaquorumispresent.”372Formoststratacorporationsquorumatageneralmeetingisreachedbyattendanceof“eligiblevotersholding1/3ofthestratacorporation’svotes,presentinpersonorbyproxy.”373Butstratacorporationsarefreetochangewhattheirquorumforgeneralmeetingswillbebyspellingoutadifferentquorumintheirbylaws.374Should the Strata Property Act contain provisions spelling out what happens when a quorum isn’t present at the start of a general meeting? Brief description of the issue Theactcontainsadetailedprocedurethatappliesbydefaultwheneverageneralmeetingissettobeginbutaquorumisn’tpresent:

Unlessotherwiseprovidedinthebylaws,ifwithin1/2hourfromthetimeappointedforanannualorspecialgeneralmeetingaquorumisnotpresent,themeetingstandsad-journedtothesamedayinthenextweekatthesameplaceandtimebut,ifonthedaytowhichthemeetingisadjournedaquorumdescribedinsubsection(2)isnotpresentwithin1/2hourfromthetimeappointedforthemeeting,theeligiblevoterspresentinpersonorbyproxyconstituteaquorum.375

Provisionslikethisonearecommonlyfoundinstrata-propertyandothercorporate-lawstatues.Theycreateakindofsafetyvalve,allowingastratacorporationtogetonwithitsbusiness,evenifitisrepeatedlyunabletoattainaquorumforageneralmeeting.


371.Ibid.


373.Ibid,s48(2)(a).Aspecialprovisionappliestoverysmallstratacorporations:“iftherearefewerthan4stratalotsorfewerthan4owners,[thenquorumis]eligiblevotersholding2/3ofthestratacorporation’svotes,presentinpersonorbyproxy”(ibid,s48(2)(b)).

374.Seeibid,s48(2).

375.Ibid,s48(3).



TheStrataPropertyAct’sprovisionisn’ttheonlywaytoaddressthisissue.Forex-ample,thetimelimitsintheprovisioncouldbechanged.Itcouldalsobearguedthattheprovisionshouldn’tbeintheact.Shouldanychangesbemadetothisprovision?Discussion of options for reform Thecurrentprovisionrequiresstratacorporationstowait30minutesfromthestartofameeting,thenadjournthemeetingforsevendays,thenwaitanother30minutesbeforegettingonwithbusiness.Thesenumbersare,atsomelevel,arbitrarilycho-sen.Itcouldbearguedthattheyendupdraggingouttheprocesswellpastthetimewhenithasbecomeclearthataquorumwillnotbereached.Stratacorporationswouldbenefitfromshortertimelines,whichwouldallowthemtoreachdecisionsmorequicklyandcarryontheirbusinessmoreefficiently.Thedangerofthisproposalisthatitgoestoofarinthedirectionofefficiencyandendsupunderminingthequorumrequirement.Ifastratacorporationisabletomovetooquicklyfromdeclaringalackofquorumtovalidlytransactingbusiness,thenthismightempowersmall,unrepresentativefactionstomakedecisionsonbe-halfofthewholecollective.Anotherapproachwouldbetotakethenumbersoutofthestatutealtogether.TheSocietiesActtakesthisapproach.Itsequivalenttosection48(3)oftheStrataProp-ertyActreads“[t]hebylawsofasocietymayprovidethatifageneralmeetingisad-journeduntilalaterdatebecauseaquorumisnotpresent,andif,atthecontinuationoftheadjournedmeeting,aquorumisagainnotpresent,thevotingmemberspre-sentconstituteaquorumforthepurposesofthatmeeting.”376Thisprovisionleavesthetimelinesuptothebylawsofasociety,givingthesocietytheflexibilitytocomeupwithatimetablethatmakessensetoitsmembers.Thedownsidewiththisapproachisthatitprobablywouldn’trepresentmuchofachangefromthecurrentStrataPropertyActprovision.Thatprovisionalreadyoper-atesasadefaultchoice(“unlessotherwiseprovidedinthebylaws”).Athirdoptionwouldbetotightenupthelegislativerequirement.Theprovisionhasbeencriticizedasbeingunclearandallowingstratacorporationstomanipulatethetimelimitssetoutintheactbyamendingtheirbylaws.377Restrictingtheextentto


377.SeeFanaken,supranote31at41(“[S]omeinventivebylawsprovidethat,ifaquorumisnotes-tablishedina1/2hour,themeetingstandsadjournedforafurther1/2houratwhichtimethoseownerswhoarepresentwillconstituteaquorum.Thissavesallthehassleofsendingoutnew



whichbylawscanamendthetimelimitswouldgiveaddedsupporttothequorumrequirement.Butitwouldalsohampermeetingefficiencyandeaseofadministra-tion.Finally,itcouldbearguedthattheprovisionshouldcomeoutoftheact.Theactre-quiresaquorumtotransactbusinessatageneralmeeting,andthisprovisioncanbeseenasundercuttingthatpolicy.Thedownsideisthat,intheabsenceofthisprovi-sion,somestratacorporationsmaylapseintodeadlock,andmayenduprequiringradicalintervention(suchastheappointmentofanadministrator)tomakeneces-sarydecisions.The committee’s tentative recommendations for reform Thecommitteeperceivedtheretobetwoissueslinkedtogetherunderthisheading.Thefirstisthetimingissuewiththecurrentprovision.Inthecommittee’sview,therequirementtoadjournthemeetingforsevendayscausesmischiefinpractice.Forexample,thecommitteenotedconcernsabouttwoaspectsoftheexistingprovision:itscalltoholdthemeetinginthesamelocationanditslackofdirectiononnoticefortheadjournedmeeting.Inthecommittee’sview,theprovisioncouldbeimprovedbysimplyexcisingtheref-erencetoadjourningthemeeting.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:50.Section48(3)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingoutthewords“themeetingstandsadjournedtothesamedayinthenextweekatthesameplaceandtimebut,ifonthedaytowhichthemeetingisadjournedaquorumdescribedinsubsection(2)isnotpresentwithin1/2hourfromthetimeappointedforthemeet-ing.”Thesecondissuearisesinconnectionwithmeetingsrequisitionedbyagroupofeli-giblevoters.378Inthiscase,thevotersrequisitioningthemeetingmaybetheonly

noticesandreturningaweeklater.Itcertainlyworksveryefficientlybutisitwhatthelegisla-torsintended?Perhapsnot.Itseemsthatthelegislatorsconcededthatatimethresholdoflessthan1/2anhourwouldbeacceptablebutdidtheycontemplateandalsoconcedethattheone-weekpostponementprovisioncouldbeavoidedbyacleverbylawamendment?Somestratacorporationbylawshavequorumrequirements(waitingtimes)ofjustfifteenminutes.Thelegis-latorsneedtoreconsiderthismatter.Iftheintentwastoprovideafairopportunitytoallownerstoexerciseparticipatorydemocracy,theinterpretationof‘unlessotherwiseprovidedintheby-laws’surelymeansonlythelevel(1/2,1/3,1/5)notthetime(oneweek).”).

378.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s43.



oneswhoshowup.Thismeansthattheycanultimatelybedeemedtoconstituteaquorum,withtheresultbeingthatanunrepresentativegroupmakesdecisionsonbehalfofthestratacorporation.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:51.Section48oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbyaddinganewsubsec-tionthatreads“Subsection(3)doesnotapplytoaspecialmeetingcalledbyvotersun-dersection43.”Should the Strata Property Act address when a quorum must be present during a general meeting? Brief description of the issue Mustaquorumbepresentthroughoutthemeeting?NeithertheStrataPropertyActnorthestandardbylawsdirectlyanswersthisquestion.Section48(1)oftheact(“[b]usinessmustnotbeconductedatanannualorspecialgeneralmeetingunlessaquorumispresent”)couldbereadasimplicitlyendorsingtheneedtohaveaquor-umpresentcontinuouslyatageneralmeeting,orattheveryleastwhenanyvotesaretaken.379Moresupportfortheargumentthataquorummustbecontinuouslypresentcanbefoundinthecommonlawofcorporatemeetings.380Butthecommonlawhasacou-pleofwrinklesthatcancomplicatetheanswertothisquestion.First,itappearsthatacorporationcouldvarythiscommon-lawrulebyadoptingbylawssettingoutadif-ferentrule.InacasedecidedunderBritishColumbia’soldCompanyAct,381thesu-premecourtupheldavotetakenatageneralmeetingthatbeganwithaquorumofshareholdersbutthathadbeenreducedtooneshareholder’sproxyatthetimeofthevote,onthestrengthofabylawthatprovidedthat“thequorumneednotbepre-sentthroughoutthemeeting.”382Second,“courtshavebeenreluctanttoinvalidate379.Foranexampleofaprovisionthatdirectlyaddressesthisissue,seeSocietiesRegulation,

BCReg216/2015,Schedule1,ModelBylaws,s3.9(“If,atanytimeduringageneralmeeting,thereceasestobeaquorumofvotingmemberspresent,businesstheninprogressmustbesus-pendeduntilthereisaquorumpresentoruntilthemeetingisadjournedorterminated.”).

380.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote289at16-14to16-14.1(“[W]hereaquorumwasrepresentedatthecommencementofameeting,butcertainshareholderssubsequentlywithdrewwiththatre-sultthat,atthetimeofthemeeting,therewasnolongeraquorum,itwasheldthatthemeetingfailedforlackofquorumandwasthereforeanullity.”[citationsomitted]).

381.RSBC1979,c59.

382.MocoManagementLtdvLlernamHoldingsLtd(1985),68BCLR128at133,35ACWS(2d)441(SC),CatliffLJSC.Thecourtfoundsupportforthecompany’sbylawinaprovisionoftheCompa-



corporateproceedingswhereashareholderhaswithdrawnfromameetingforthesolepurposeofbreakingthequorum.”383Somecorporate-lawstatuteshavegoneastepfurtherandadoptedastheirdefaultposition(subjecttothebylaws)that“openingquorum[is]sufficient.”384ShouldtheStrataPropertyActbeamendedtofollowtheleadofthisothercorporatelegislation?Discussion of options for reform Themainadvantageofadoptingaprovisionthatonlyrequiresaquorumtobepre-sentatthebeginningofageneralmeetingisthatitwouldstreamlinebusinessatameeting.Leavingtheissueopenalsoleavesopenthepossibilitythatameetingchairwillhavetomakeajudgmentonamember’smotivesforwithdrawingfromameet-ing.Thiscouldbeadifficultdecision.Finally,theprovisionwouldservetoclarifythelaw.Thedrawbackofthisproposalisthatitcouldservetounderminethequorumre-quirement.Attendanceatameetingcoulddwindleawayandimportantdecisionsmightendupbeingmadebyasmall,unrepresentativegroup.Inaddition,thispro-posalisn’tonethathasbeenembracedinstrata-propertylegislation.OnlyNewBrunswick385andNovaScotia386haveenactedlegislativeversionsofthisproposal,whichisfoundmorecommonlyingeneralcorporatestatutes.Finally,ifthereisadesiretoclarifythelaw,thenthatgoalcouldbeaccomplishedbyadoptingaprovi-sionthatdirectlystatesthataquorummustbecontinuouslypresentthroughoutageneralmeeting.

nyActthatsetthequorumforgeneralmeetings,butmadethenumbersubjecttoacompany’sbylaws—similartosection48(2)oftheStrataPropertyAct(seeibidat133–34).

383.Nathan&Voore,supranote289at16-15[citationomitted].Nathan&Voorequalifythisstate-mentbynotingthatit’s“U.S.”courtsthathavegoneontherecordmakingthispoint,buttheirbroaderdiscussionoftheissueindicatesthatCanadiancourtswouldlikely,iffacedwiththesamesetoffacts,ruleinthesamewayastheirAmericancounterparts.

384.Seee.g.CanadaBusinessCorporationsAct,RSC1985,cC-44,s139(2)(“Ifaquorumispresentattheopeningofameetingofshareholders,theshareholderspresentmay,unlesstheby-lawsoth-erwiseprovide,proceedwiththebusinessofthemeeting,notwithstandingthataquorumisnotpresentthroughoutthemeeting.”);CanadaNot-for-profitCorporationsAct,supranote330,s164(3).

385.SeeCondominiumAct,supranote23,s26(2)(“Nobusinessshallbetransactedatanowners’meetingunlessaquorumispresentatthebeginningofbusiness.”).

386.SeeCondominiumAct,supranote23,s14A(2)(“Nobusinessshallbetransactedatameetingofthemembersofthecorporationunlessaquorumispresentatthecommencementofbusiness.”).



The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteefavouredaclearrulestatingthataquorummustonlybepresentatthestartofageneralmeeting.Initsview,thisoptionisthemostpracticalapproachtotheissue.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:52.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatifaquorumispresentattheopeningofanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeeting,theeligiblevoterspresentmay,unlessthebylawsotherwiseprovide,proceedwiththebusinessofthemeeting,evenifaquorumisnotpresentthroughoutthemeeting.Should the Strata Property Act address whether quorum at a strata-council meeting is affected by a member’s recusal on an issue due to a conflict of interest? Brief description of the issue Thestandardbylawsaddressquorumforstrata-councilmeetings.387Neithertheactnorthestandardbylawsdirectlyaddressestheeffectonquorumwhenacouncilmembercomplieswiththeact’sconflict-of-interestprovisionand“leave[s]thecouncilmeeting(i)whilethecontract,transactionormatterisdiscussed,unlessaskedbycounciltobepresenttoprovideinformation,and(ii)whilethecouncilvotesonthecontract,transactionormatter.”388Implicitly,thecouncilmembermightnotbeconsideredpartofthequorumbecause“[c]ouncilmembersmustbepresentinpersonatthecouncilmeetingtobecountedinestablishingquorum.”389Butitisn’tclearhowthisgeneralprovisionwouldapplytothespecificcaseofacouncilmemberleavingameetingduetoaconflictofinterest.Astratacouncilinthesecircumstancescouldfinditselfinatightspot:amemberormembershavetoleavethemeetingtocomplywiththeconflict-of-interestprovisionandthisresultsinthecouncillackingquorumtotransactbusiness.Shouldtheactcontainaprovisionthataddressesthisconcern?

387.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s16(1)(“Aquorumofthe

councilis(a)1,ifthecouncilconsistsofonemember,(b)2,ifthecouncilconsistsof2,3or4members,(c)3,ifthecouncilconsistsof5or6members,and(d)4,ifthecouncilconsistsof7members.”).

388.Seeibid,s32(e).

389.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s16(2).



Discussion of options for reform OneoftheothercorporatestatutesinBritishColumbiahasaprovisionthatdirectlyaddressesthisissue,andwhichcouldbeusedasamodelfortheStrataPropertyAct.TheBusinessCorporationsActprovidesthat“adirectorwhohasadisclosableinter-estinacontractortransactionandwhoispresentatthemeetingofdirectorsatwhichthecontractortransactionisconsideredforapprovalmaybecountedinthequorumatthemeetingwhetherornotthedirectorvotesonanyoralloftheresolu-tionsconsideredatthemeeting.”390Thisprovisionwouldensurethatstratacouncilsdon’tgetcaughtinanawkwardspotbytheoperationofthequorumandconflict-of-interestprovisions.Itmightalsogivesomesupporttotheconflict-of-interestprovision,asitwouldensurethatadec-larationofaconflictorapotentialconflictwouldn’tplacethecouncilinapositioninwhichitcouldn’tactduetoalossofquorum.And,finally,thisproposalwouldclarifythelawbysettingoutintheactaprovisionthatdirectlyaddressestheissue.Theonedrawbackofthisproposalisthatitcouldbeseenasunderminingthequor-umrequirement.Theproposalwillallowstratacouncilstomakedecisionswhentheydon’thaveenoughmemberspresenttoreachaquorum.Thisresultraisescon-cernsthatquorumrequirementsweremeanttoaddress.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthattheactshouldaddressthisissue.Itpreferredtheoptionofallowingacouncilmembertobecountedinthequoruminthesecircumstances.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:53.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatastrata-councilmemberwhohasadi-rectorindirectinterestin(a)acontractortransactionwiththestratacorporation,or(b)amatterthatisoristobethesubjectofconsiderationbythecouncil,ifthatinter-estcouldresultinthecreationofadutyorinterestthatmateriallyconflictswiththatcouncilmember’sdutyorinterestasacouncilmember,andwhoispresentatacouncilmeetinginwhichthecontract,transaction,ormatterisconsideredforapprovalmaybecountedinthequorumatthemeetingevenifthecouncilmemberleavesthecouncilmeetingwhilethecontract,transaction,ormatterisdiscussedandwhilethecouncilvotesonthecontract,transaction,ormatter.

390.Supranote290,s149(4).Notethatthislegislationprovisionisadefaultrule;itapplies“[u]nless

thememorandumorarticlesprovideotherwise.”



Issues for Reform—Voting Introduction Part4,division5oftheactdealswiththevotingrights,eligibilitytovote,andthemechanicsofvoting.391Votingisthewaytodeterminethecollective’sdecisiononanissueputtoit.Decisionstakenatgeneralmeetingsareformalizedintoresolutions,whichareagreed-uponexpressionsofthewillofthegeneralmeeting.Theactclassifiesresolutionsbyreferencetothevotingmarginneededtoadopttheresolution.Bythissystem,therearefourkindsofresolutions:

• aresolutionpassedbyamajorityvote,which“meansavoteinfavourofaresolutionbymorethan1/2ofthevotescastbyeligiblevoterswhoarepre-sentinpersonorbyproxyatthetimethevoteistakenandwhohavenotabstainedfromvoting”;392

• aresolutionpassedbya3/4vote,which“meansavoteinfavourofaresolu-tionbyatleast3/4ofthevotescastbyeligiblevoterswhoarepresentinpersonorbyproxyatthetimethevoteistakenandwhohavenotabstainedfromvoting”;393

• aresolutionpassedbyan80%vote,which“meansavoteinfavourofareso-lutionbyatleast80%ofthevotesofalltheeligiblevoters”;394

• aresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote,which“meansavoteinfavourofaresolutionbyallthevotesofalltheeligiblevoters.”395

391.Supranote4,ss53–58.

392.Ibid,s1(1)“majorityvote.”

393.Ibid,s1(1)“3/4vote.”

394.Ibid,s1(1)“80%vote.”

395.Ibid,s1(1)“unanimousvote.”



Should the Schedule of Standard Bylaws to the Strata Property Act be amended to clarify the effect of an abstention in voting at a strata-council meeting? Brief description of the issue Thestandardbylawscontainthefollowingprovisionforvotingatstrata-councilmeetings:“decisionsmustbemadebyamajorityofcouncilmemberspresentinper-sonatthemeeting.”396Thecommitteeunderstandsthattherehasbeensomeconfu-sioninapplyingthisbylawwhenacouncilmemberabstainsfromvoting.Shouldthebylawbeamendedtoaddressthisconfusion?Discussion of options for reform Oneoptionwouldbetoamendthisbylawtobringitswordingmoreintolinewiththeact’sdefinitionsof“majorityvote”397and“3/4vote.”398Thesedefinitions,whichsetoutthevotingthresholdsforstrata-corporationresolutions,bothclearlyspelloutthatanabstainingvoterisn’tincludedinthecounttodeterminewhetheravotehasreacheditsthreshold.Inadditiontoclarity,thisoptionwouldhavethead-vantageofaligningvotingatstrata-councilmeetingswithvotingonthebulkofreso-lutionsthatwouldappearinastrata-corporationgeneralmeeting.399Anotheroptionwouldbetoamendthebylawtomakeitclearthatabstentionsdocounttowardthevotetotal.Thiswouldputvotingatstrata-councilmeetingsatoddswithvotingatgeneralmeetingswhenitcomestoabstentions,aresultthatcouldbejustifiedbypointingtodifferencesbetweenthetwokindsofmeetings.

396.Ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s18(1).

397.Seeibid,s1(1)“majorityvote”(“meansavoteinfavourofaresolutionbymorethan1/2ofthevotescastbyeligiblevoterswhoarepresentinpersonorbyproxyatthetimethevoteistakenandwhohavenotabstainedfromvoting”).

398.Seeibid,s1(1)“3/4vote”(“meansavoteinfavourofaresolutionbyatleast3/4ofthevotescastbyeligiblevoterswhoarepresentinpersonorbyproxyatthetimethevoteistakenandwhohavenotabstainedfromvoting”).

399.Butnotethatresolutionspassedbyan80-percentvoteoraunanimousvotetreatabstentionsdifferently.Seeibid,s1(1)“80%vote”(“meansavoteinfavourofaresolutionbyatleast80%ofthevotesofalltheeligiblevoters”),“unanimousvote”(“meansavoteinfavourofaresolutionbyallthevotesofalltheeligiblevoters”).Thatsaid,thesevotingthresholdsapplytoexceptionalresolutionsthatarerarelyupforavoteinmoststratacorporations.



Finally,athirdoptionwouldbetoleavethebylawasis.Anargumentcouldbemadethatitisbeingappliedadequatelyandthereisnoneedforamendingthebylawatthistime.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthestandardbylaw’spositiononabstentionsshouldbeclarified.Leavingthewordingofthebylawinitscurrentstatewouldruntheriskofitbeingmisapplied.Thecommitteefavouredaligningthebylaw’sapproachtoab-stentionstothatfoundinthedefinitionsofmajorityvoteand3/4vote.Initsview,thisapproachwouldalsoalignwiththeexpectationsofstrata-councilmembers.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:54.Section18(1)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldbeamendedbyadding“andwhohavenotabstainedfromvoting”after“majorityofcouncilmemberspresentinpersonatthemeeting.”Should the Strata Property Act allow the president (or the vice president) when acting as meeting chair to have a casting vote? Brief description of the issue Ifthereisatievoteonaresolutionatageneralmeeting,thentheStrataPropertyActmakesitpossiblefor“thepresident,or,ifthepresidentisabsentorunableorun-willingtovote,thevicepresident”to“breakthetiebycastingasecond,decidingvote.”400Thisprovisiondoesn’tsetoutthedefaultpositionforstratacorporations.Theprovisiononlycomesintoeffect“ifthebylawssoprovide.”401Whatthisprovisionisreferringtoiscommonlycalledthemeetingchair’scastingvote.402Whilethecastingvoteisn’tafeatureofthecommonlaw,403itisregularlyen-

400.Ibid,s53(4).

401.Ibid,s53(4).Theact’sstandardbylawsenabletheoperationofthisprovision.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,ss18(2)(applicabletostrata-councilmeetings),27(5)(applicabletogen-eralmeetings).

402.NotethattheStrataPropertyActandthestandardbylawimplementalimitedversionofthecastingvote.Itonlyappliesifthepresident(or,ifthepresidentisabsentorunableorunwillingtovote,thevicepresident)isactingasmeetingchair.Ifanyoneelseisactingasmeetingchair,thenthatpersondoesn’thavethecastingvote.

403.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote289at2-11.



abledbycorporatelegislation.Itspurposeisto“resolvedisputes”404and“remedyoccasional,orevenfrequent,tievotes.”405Thecastingvoteoperatesas“asecondvoteexercisableinadditiontothevotesthatthechairpersonallyhasasashare-holder.”406Itismeanttobeexercisedin“goodfaith,”407and“nottopromotetheper-sonalinterestsofthechair.”408Shouldtheactcontinuetoenablethiscastingvote,ordoesitsuseraiseenoughcon-cernstocallforitsabolition?Discussion of options for reform Thereareessentiallytwooptionsforthisissue,withonewrinkle.Themainoptionsaretorecommendabolishingthecastingvoteorretainingthestatusquo.Thewrin-kleisthat,despitenotbeingmentionedinthelegislation,thestandardbylawsmakereferencetoapresidenthavingacastingvoteatstrata-councilmeetings.409Strata-councilmeetingsaren’tgeneralmeetings,soit’spossibletoviewthemasbeingout-sidethescopeofthisissue.Butit’sequallypossibletofairlydecidethattheyshouldbeaddressedaspartofthisissue.Anditcouldbearguedthatthecastingvoteshouldbetreateddifferentlyforgeneralmeetingsandstrata-councilmeetings.Eventhoughtherehasbeenlittle-to-nocommentarysuggestingthatthecastingvoteiscausingproblemsforstratacorporations,it’sstillpossibletomakeoutacaseforabolition.Commentatorsonthelawofgeneralmeetingsconcedethat“thechairmaybeputinadifficultpositiontocastthedecidingvote.”410Whilethecastingvoteismeanttobetakeningoodfaith,itmaybedifficultforastrata-corporationpresident(orvicepresident)toavoidtheperceptionofactingtofurtherhisorherowninter-ests,particularlyifthecastingvoteisusedtograntapprovalofaresolutionthepres-ident(orvicepresident)supports.Commentatorsnotethat“itistraditionalforchairstovoteagainstthemotion”whenexercisingthecastingvote,presumablyasawaytopreservethestatusquoandtoinsulatetheirconductagainstchargesofself-

404.Ibidat11-18.

405.Ibidat2-11.

406.Ibid.

407.Ibidat11-18.1.

408.Ibidat11-18.

409.Supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s18(2)(“Unlessthereareonly2stratalotsinthestrataplan,ifthereisatievoteatacouncilmeeting,thepresidentmaybreakthetiebycastingasecond,decidingvote.”).




dealing.411Butthistraditionundercutsmuchoftherationaleforacastingvote,asitsuggeststhatthepresident(orvicepresident)shouldusethispowertoreachthesameresultthatwouldhaveoccurredintheabsenceofacastingvote.Theexistenceofsuchatraditionpointstoanevenmoreworryingconcern.Insteadofcreatingtheperceptionofself-interestedacting,thecastingvotecouldactuallybeavehicleforabuseandself-dealing.Whilebad-faithuseofthecastingvotedoesn’tappeartohavecomeupinanystrata-propertycases,thereisatleastonecompany-lawjudgmentthathasoverriddencorporatebylawsallowingtheuseofacastingvoteinacompanywithasmallnumberofshareholders.412Similarconcernscouldmakeacastingvoteproblematicinsmallstratacorporationsorinstratacorpora-tionswithequal-sizedvotingblocs.Finally,apartfromanyissueswithbadfaithorself-dealing,theexistenceofacastingvoteaddsalevelofcomplexitytogeneralmeetingsandpotentiallyplacesanaddi-tionalburdenonastrata-corporationpresident.Thecastingvoteissomethingofacounterintuitiveconcept.Italsorunssomewhatinoppositiontotheone-vote-per-strata-lotstandardthatprevailsinresidentialstratacorporations.Usingthecastingvoteinsuchawaythateveryoneagreesismanifestlytransparentandfaircouldbeatallorder,particularlyinfraughtcircumstances.Therewouldbedownsidestoeliminatingthecastingvote.Thesedisadvantagestieintotheproblemthatthecastingvoteismeanttoaddress,whichisthattievotesde-featresolutionsandmaythwartthestratacorporationintakingactionthatitneedstotake.Theremaybeotheradvantagestomaintainingthestatusquo.Itcouldbearguedthatthecurrentprovisionstrikesahelpfulbalance.Becausethecastingvotemustbeenabledinastratacorporation’sbylaws,anystratacorporationthatwasopposedtoallowingthecastingvotecouldsimplydoawaywithitfortheirgeneralmeetingsbyamendingtheirbylaws.

411.Ibid.

412.SeeDanielsvFielder(1998),65OR(2d)629at632,[1988]OJNo1592(QL),EberleJ(“Ifurtherorderthecancellationnuncprotuncofarts.11and46oftheby-lawswhichprovideforthechairmanofthemeetingtohaveacastingvote.TheexistenceofacastingvoteisinimicaltoandinconsistentwiththepartnershipbasisuponwhichthiscompanywascommencedandoperateduntilDaniels’death.”).



The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteewasoftheviewthatitneededtoaddressthecastingvoteforbothgeneralmeetingsandstrata-councilmeetings.Thecommitteeperceivedadistinc-tionbetweenthetwokindsofmeetings.Itnotedthatthecastingvoteisrarelyusedforgeneralmeetings.Whenitdoes,ithasthepotentialtocauseconfusion.Butforstrata-councilmeetingsthecastingvoteisusedmoreoftenandappearstoserveamoreusefulpurpose.Giventhesmallnumbersatplayincouncilmeetings,havingacastingvoteisimportanttoavoiddeadlock.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

55.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotallowanypersonwhoischairofanannualgen-eralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeetingtobreakatieonaresolutionatthegeneralmeetingbycastingasecond,decidingvote,butshouldcontinuetoallowapresident(or,ifthepresidentisabsentorunableorunwillingtovote,thevicepresident)tobreakatievoteatastrata-councilmeetingbycastingasecond,decidingvote.Should the voting threshold for a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote be changed? Brief description of the issue Thereareessentiallyfourvotingthresholdsforpassingstrata-corporationresolu-tions.Oneofthesethresholds,theunanimous-votethreshold,appliestofundamen-talchangestoastratathatarerarelyencounteredinpractice.Asecondthreshold,the80-percent-votethresholdforwinding-upresolutions,413canbetracedbacktothecommittee’sReportonTerminatingaStrata.414Thethirdvotingthresholdappliestoresolutionspassedbyamajorityvote.Thisthresholdimplementsthebasicdemocraticprincipleofmajorityrule.It’sdifficulttoseehowthisprinciplecouldberemovedfromtheactinfavourofsomeotherap-proach.Thatleavesthefourthvotingthreshold,whichisforresolutionspassedbya3/4vote.Thisvotingthresholdisusedforresolutionsauthorizingmajor,long-rangechangestoastratacorporation’sgovernanceorimportant,far-reachingrepairsto

413.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s1(1)“winding-upresolution”(“meansaresolutionre-

ferredtoin(a)section272(1)[votetocancelstrataplanandbecometenantsincommon],or(b)section277(1)[appointmentofliquidator]”).

414.Seesupranote16.



andrenewalofproperty.Someexamplesofactionsrequiringauthorizationbyares-olutionpassedbya3/4voteare:

• amendingbylawsinastrataplanexclusivelycomposedofresidentialstratalots;415

• payingfundsoutofthecontingencyreservefund;416

• approvingaspeciallevy;417

• borrowingmoney;418

• changingthefiscalyearend;419

• approvingasignificantchangeintheuseorappearanceofcommonproper-ty;420

• authorizingalawsuitasrepresentativeoftheowners;421

• cancellingastrata-managementcontract;422

• amalgamatingwithanotherstratacorporation.423A2014amendmenttotheStrataPropertyActhasplacedaqualifierononeoftheitemsonthislist.424Someexpendituresfromthecontingencyreservefundmaynowbeauthorizedbyaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvote.425

415.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s128(1)(a).

416.Seeibid,s96(b)(i)(B).

417.Seeibid,s108(2)(a).

418.Seeibid,s111(1).


420.Seeibid,s71.


422.Seeibid,s39(1).


424.SeeNaturalGasDevelopmentStatutesAmendmentAct,2014,SBC2014,c10,s43(inforce9April2014).

425.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s96(b)(i)(A)(“theexpenditureisfirstapprovedbyares-olutionpassedby(A)amajorityvoteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeetingiftheexpenditureis(I)necessarytoobtainadepreciationreportundersection94,or(II)relatedtotherepair,maintenanceorreplacement,asrecommendedinthemostcurrentdepreciationreportobtainedundersection94,ofcommonproperty,commonassetsortheportionsofastratalotforwhichthestratacorporationhastakenresponsibilityundersection72(3)”).



Whileitcontinuestomakesensetorequiregreater-than-majority-voteapprovalforthelisteditemsandsimilarones,argumentscanbemadethatthevotingthresholdshouldn’tbesetashighasa3/4vote.Shouldtheactbeamendedtoprovideanewvotingthreshold,replacingthe3/4vote?Discussion of options for reform Settingavotingthresholdforresolutionsisallaboutstrikingtherightbalance.Thegoalistohaveasubstantialnumber(greaterthanamajority)ofvotersinagreementwithadecisionwhilenotmakingthatnumbersohighastomakereachingthethresholdtoodifficultinpractice.Theargumentinfavourofalowerthresholdisthatitwoulddoabetterjobofreach-ingthisgoal.Whileanynumberselectedforthethresholdcouldbecalledarbitrary,thereisacleartrendincorporatelegislationawayfromusingthe3/4thresholdandtowardusinga2/3threshold.Thistrendisevidentinbothfor-profit426andnot-for-profit427legislation.Wherethistrendislessinevidenceisinstrata-propertylegislation.AcrossCanada,Saskatchewanistheonlydirectlycomparableexampleofusingthe2/3thresholdincaseswhereBritishColumbiacallsforaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote.428NewBrunswick,PrinceEdwardIsland,NovaScotia,NewfoundlandandLabrador,Yukon,theNorthwestTerritories,andNunavutalluseeither2/3or60percentastheirvot-ingthreshold.ButthethresholdisappliedagainstadifferentvotingpoolthantheoneusedinBritishColumbia.UndertheStrataPropertyAct,a3/4voteisonethatachieves3/4ofthevotescastonaresolutionatageneralmeeting(notcountingab-stentions).429Intheseotherjurisdictions,thethresholdisappliedto“ownershipofthecommonelements”—aconceptequivalenttoBritishColumbia’sunitentitle-ment.430426.Seee.g.BusinessCorporationsAct,supranote290,s1(1)“specialmajority”;CanadaBusiness

CorporationsAct,supranote384,s2(1)“specialresolution.”

427.Seee.g.SocietiesAct,supranote290,s1(1)“specialresolution”;CooperativeAssociationAct,su-pranote347,s1(1)“specialresolution”;CanadaNot-for-profitCorporationsAct,supranote330,s2(1)“specialresolution.”

428.SeeTheCondominiumPropertyAct,supranote23,s2(1)(z).

429.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s1(1)“3/4vote.”

430.SeeNewBrunswick:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote23,ss19(7),27(13),32(3)(60per-cent);PrinceEdwardIsland:CondominiumAct,supranote23,ss13(1),19(662/3percent);NovaScotia:CondominiumAct,supranote23,ss14(1C),14(3A)(662/3percent),23(1)(60percent);NewfoundlandandLabrador:CondominiumAct,2009,supranote23,ss18(3),35(1)



ItcouldbearguedthatthecurrentlawinBritishColumbiaoperateswellbysettingahighbutnotimpossible-to-reachhurdle,whicheffectivelyprotectsminorityrights.Thereissomesupportforusinga3/4votethresholdinotherprovinces.Alberta,431Manitoba,432andQuébec433useversionsofthisthreshold.434Thecurrentthresholdalsohasthebenefitoffamiliarity.Inconsideringthisissue,thecommitteealsopaidheedtothe2014amendment.435Thesignificanceofthisamendmentcouldbeseentoweighinfavourofeitherre-formingthecurrentthresholdorretainingit.Ontheonehand,theamendmentcouldbeevidencethatthethresholdistoohighandisimpedingstratacorporationsfromcarryingoutnecessaryrenewalsandrepairs.Ontheother,itcouldbeseenasfixingthemostpressingproblem,leavingbehindamoreflexibleapproachthatcapturesthebestofahighthresholdformostresolutionsandapracticalwaytoresolvecon-cernsaboutrenewalandrepair.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteebelievesthatthecurrent3/4-votethresholdworksreasonablywellinpractice.Itwasreluctanttoendorsewhatcouldbeadisruptivechangetoit.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

56.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotchangethevotingthresholdforallresolutionsrequiringpassagebya3/4vote.

(66percent);Yukon:CondominiumAct,supranote23,ss12(1),16(1),19(2),22(1)(662/3percent);NorthwestTerritoriesandNunavut:CondominiumAct,supranote23,s17(1)“specialresolution”(662/3percent).

431.SeeCondominiumPropertyAct,supranote23,s1(1)(x).SeealsoCondominiumPropertyAmendmentAct,2014,supranote28,s2(a)(xiii)(amendingCondominiumPropertyAct,s1(1)(x)),17(addingnews26.4)(bothretainingcurrentthreshold)[notinforce].

432.SeeTheCondominiumAct,supranote23,s1(1)“specifiedpercentage”(b).

433.Seeart1098CCQ(requiringforspecifieddecisions“amajorityofthree-quartersoftheco-ownersrepresenting90%ofthevotesofalltheco-owners”).

434.Ontario’slegislationappearstolackanyintermediatethresholdbetweenamajorityvoteandan80-percentvote.

435.Seesupranote424.



Should the reference to a “secret ballot” in section 27 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be changed to a “written ballot”? Brief description of the issue WhiletheStrataPropertyActdoesn’taddresshowvoterscasttheirvotesatagen-eralmeeting,theScheduleofStandardBylawsdoeshaveasectiononthemechanicsofvoting.436Oneprovisioninthissectionaddressesvotingbyballot.Itallowsaneli-giblevotertocompelastratacorporationtoholdavotebysecretballot:“[d]espiteanythinginthissection,anelectionofcounciloranyothervotemustbeheldbyse-cretballot,ifthesecretballotisrequestedbyaneligiblevoter.”Asupreme-courtdecisionhasinterpretedthisprovisionascallingforvotingproce-duresthatareanalogoustothoseusedbylabourunions.437Afternotingtheabsenceofvotingbooths,438andagenerallackofprivacyincastingvotes,439thecourtcon-cludedthat“thevotewasnotconductedbysecretballotandthepetitionersareenti-tledtoadeclarationthatthevote...isnullandvoid....”440Itcouldbearguedthattheunionmodelforholdingsecretballotsplacestoomanyadministrativeburdensonastratacorporationandisoutofstepwithvotingproce-dureincorporategeneralmeetings.Shouldsection27ofthestandardbylawsbeamendedtodoawaywiththereferencetosecretbeforeballot?Discussion of options for reform Eliminatingsecretinsection27wouldrelieveadefaultrequirementthathasthepo-tentialtoimposesignificantcostsandadministrativeburdensonastratacorpora-tion.FewstratacorporationswouldbepreparedtomeetthestandardforasecretballotsetoutintheImbeaucase.But,sinceaslittleasonevotercaninvokethere-quirementtoholdasecretballot,intheoryastratacorporationshouldalwaysbereadytomeetthisstandard;otherwise,itrunstheriskofacourtdeclaringanyvotetakentobenullandvoid.Thismeansthat,inordertoensurecompliancewiththestandardbylaw,stratacorporationsshouldeitherconductgeneralmeetingsorbe436.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s27.

437.SeeImbeauvOwnersStrataPlanNW971,2011BCSC801atpara22,88BLR(4th)270,TruscottJ[Imbeau](“Iseenomaterialdifferencebetweentheimportanceofasecretballotataunionelec-tionandtheimportanceofasecretballotforaspecialresolutionatastratacorporationmeeting,wherethatmethodofvotingwasrequiredbytheChairofthemeeting.”).

438.Seeibidatpara24.

439.Seeibidatpara26.

440.Ibidatpara28.



readytoconductgeneralmeetingswiththehighlevelofformalityandvotingpriva-cythatmarkslabour-unionvotes.Asecondconcernaboutthereferencetoasecretballotisthatit’soutofstepwithordinarypracticeforcorporatemeetings.Typically,corporatelegislationandbylawsallowashareholderormembertodemandthatavotebetakenbyapoll.441(Apollis“[t]hecastingorrecordingofvotesbyballotofshareholdersatameeting.”)442Asatextbookoncorporatemeetingsnotes,themeetingchairhasdiscretiontodeterminethemechanicsofvotingbypoll.443Usually,ballotsareusedforthepoll,butevenmoreinformalprocedures(suchasvotinglists)areacceptable.444Votingbypolldoesn’timplythelevelofformalityandprivacythathasbeenheldbythecourtstoapplytovotingbysecretballot.Theotherstrata-propertystatutesinCanadathataddressthisissuerefertovotingbypollorananalogousterm,notbysecretbal-lot.445Allthatsaid,theremaybedisadvantagestoproposingthischange.Thesedisad-vantagestieintotheintereststhatasecretballotismeanttoprotect.Therationaleforrequiringasecretballotisthatstrata-corporationgovernancecanfunctionbetterifvotersknowtheirprivacycanbeprotected.Votersmightfeelin-hibitedandreluctanttocastapublicvoteonsensitiveissues.Initsdiscussionofstrata-propertyreforms,NSWFairTradingrecognizedthat“[s]omeownersmaychoosenottovoteonmotionsratherthanriskbeingostracisediftheyareseento441.Seee.g.BusinessCorporationsAct,supranote290,s173(2).ButnotethatBritishColumbia’stwo

othercorporatestatutesdorefertosecretballotsatgeneralmeetings.Themodelbylawspre-scribedundertheSocietiesAct,supranote290,allow“2ormorevotingmembers”orthemeet-ingchairtorequirevotingbysecretballot(seeSocietiesRegulation,supranote379,Schedule1ModelBylaws,s3.13).TheformofrulesprescribedbytheCooperativeAssociationActcontainsreferencestoboth:seesupranote347,ScheduleB,ss82–86(votingbypoll),s109(“Ifthenum-berofnomineesinanelectionfordirectorsexceedsthenumberofdirectorstobeelectedattheelection,theelectionofdirectorsmustbebysecretballot.”).

442.Nathan&Voore,supranote289atcix.

443.SeeNathan&Voore,ibidat21-55(“Intheabsenceofaspecificprovision,onecouldarguethat,becausetheresponsibilityofdeclaringapollnormallyrestswiththechairofthemeeting,itshouldalsobethechair’stasktodeterminethearrangementsforthepoll.”).

444.Seeibidat21-55to21-59.

445.SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote23,Appendix1,ss23–24(“poll”),Appen-dix2,ScheduleA,ss21–22(“poll”);Saskatchewan,TheCondominiumPropertyRegulations,2001,supranote369,Appendix,PartII(bylaws),ss24–25(“votebyunitfactors”);Manitoba,TheCon-dominiumAct,supranote23,s121(“recordedvote”);Ontario,CondominiumAct,1998,supranote23,s52(1)(“recordedvote”)(asamendedbyProtectingCondominiumVotersAct,2015,su-pranote28,Schedule1,s48(1)).



voteinacertainway.”446ItrecommendedamendingNewSouthWales’slegislationto“introduceoptionsforconductingsecretballots.”447The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthestandardbylaw,asithasbeeninterpreted,placestoogreatanadministrativeburdenonstratacorporations.Thebylawshouldbeamendedtobringitmoreintolinewithcorporatevotingpractices.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:57.Section27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldbeamendedbystrikingouttheword“secret”whereveritappearsandreplacingitwiththeword“written.”Should section 27 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws require that a vote be taken by written ballot only if a resolution authorizing such a vote is approved by a majority vote? Brief description of the issue Thisissueisconnectedwiththepreviousone.Itcontemplatesfurtherchangestosection27ofthestandardbylaws.Section27permitsasinglevotertocallforase-cretballot.Currently,ifavoterasksforasecretballot,then“anelectionofcounciloranyothervotemustbeheldbysecretballot.”448Ifsection27isamendedtorefertowrittenballots,thenshoulditrequiretheapprovalofamajorityofvoterstoauthor-izeawrittenballot?Discussion of options for reform Therationalefortheproposedchangeisthatitwouldensurethatamajoritysup-portsthechoicetouseawrittenballot.Theproposedchangewouldalsolimitthepossibilityofvoters’requestingsecretballotsforspitefulorfrivolousreasons.Butrequiringaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvotetoauthorizeawrittenballotwouldalsosignificantlyundercutonerationaleforhavingballots.Voterstendtocallforballotswhentheyfearthattheirpositiononaresolutionmaycausefrictionwithothervoters.Theballotprotectstheirprivacy,lettingthemvotetheirconsciencewithoutfearofreprisal.

446.StrataTitleLawReform:Strata&CommunityTitleLawReformPositionPaper,supranote25at6.

447.Ibid.

448.StrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s27(7).



AcompromiseoptionbetweenthesetwowouldbetofollowtheapproachtakenintheSocietiesActmodelbylawsandrequirethatatleasttwoeligiblevotersorthemeetingchairmustrequestavotebywrittenballot.449Thisoptionwouldaddressconcernsaboutprotectingminorityinterests.Itwouldalsoservetocutdownonfrivolousrequests.Butitsdrawbackisthatitmightnotprovideenoughprotectionagainstfrivolousdemandsforaballot.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatcallingforavotebywrittenballotshouldrequiretheauthorizationofamajorityofeligiblevoters,unlessthevoterelatestoastrata-councilelection.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:58.Section27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatastratacorporationisonlyrequiredtoholdavotebywrittenballotifitisauthorizedtodosobyaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvote,unlessthevoteisanelectiontothestratacouncil.Thecommitteenotedthatimplementingthesetwotentativerecommendationswouldrequireaconsequentialamendmenttosection27(7)oftheScheduleofStandardBylaws,450strikingoutthewords“oranyothervote.”

Issues for Reform—Strata-Council Elections Introduction Oneofthemajordecisionseligiblevotersmakeatageneralmeetingisdecidingwhoisgoingtoserveonthestratacouncil.Thestratacorporationmustmakethisdeci-sionbyholdinganelectionforcouncilateachannualgeneralmeeting.451

449.SeeSocietiesRegulation,supranote379,Schedule1ModelBylaws,s3.13.

450.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s27(7)(“Despiteanythinginthissection,anelectionofcounciloranyothervotemustbeheldbysecretballot,ifthesecretballotisrequestedbyaneligiblevoter.”).

451.SeeStrataPropertyAct,ibid,s25.



Apartfromthisrequirementtoholdanannualelectionforcouncilandsomebasicprovisionsoneligibilityforcouncil,452theacthaslittleelsetosayaboutstrata-councilelections.Should the Strata Property Act expressly provide that election to a strata council requires a majority of the ballots cast? Brief description of the issue Theactprovidesthat“[a]teachannualgeneralmeetingtheeligiblevoterswhoarepresentinpersonorbyproxyatthemeetingmustelectacouncil.”453TheSupremeCourtofBritishColumbiahasheldthat,sinceelectionisn’tadefinedterm,it“canin-cludechoosinganindividualorindividualsbyacclamation”and,despitesec-tion50(1)oftheact,454avalidelectiondoesn’trequirepassingaresolutionbyama-jorityvote.455Thepracticeofelectingindividualstoastratacouncilbyacclama-tion456hasbeencriticizedasunderminingstrata-corporationgovernance,entrench-ingcontrolbyunrepresentativecliques.Shouldtheactrequirevotingoneachcandidateforstratacouncil?Discussion of options for reform Themainadvantageofthisproposedreformisthatitensureseligibleownersgetanopportunitytoevaluateeachcandidateforstratacouncil.Theproposalactsasasafeguardagainstanentiregroupbeingacclaimedasthecouncilwithoutindividualconsideration.Thissituationhasthepotentialtoentrenchacliqueinpowerortoal-lowpeopleontocouncilwhomtheownersmightfeelpressuredtosupportinordertoretainotherpeopleinthegroup.Theproposalmightalsohelptopromoteac-countabilityofindividualcouncilmemberstotheowners.457

452.Seeibid,s28.

453.Ibid,s25.

454.Seeibid,s50(1)(“Atanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting,mattersaredecidedbymajorityvoteunlessadifferentvotingthresholdisrequiredorpermittedbytheActortheregulations.”).

455.YangvRe/MaxCommercialRealtyAssociates(482258BCLtd),2016BCSC2147atpara114,[2016]BCJNo2422(QL),PunnettJ.

456.=“Electionofaslateofdirectorswherethenumberofnomineesisequalto(orlessthan)thenumberofdirectorstobeelected.”SeeNathan,supranote305atxi.

457.SeeIndustryCanada,Corporate,Insolvency,andCompetitionLawPolicy,ConsultationontheCanadaBusinessCorporationsAct(December2013),online:<perma.cc/ZEC3-MFG8>at6.



Thelastpointintheprecedingparagraphcameupinarecentlaw-reformprojectconsideringamendmentstothefederalfor-profitcorporatestatute.Thisprojecten-dorsedindividualelectionofdirectors,requiringmajorityapprovalforeach.Legisla-tiveamendmentstoimplementthisproposalforpubliclytradedcorporations458arecurrentlybeingconsideredbyparliament.459Thisfederallaw-reformprojectalsonotedadownsidetothisproposal.Theproject’sconsultationpaperpointedoutthat“concernhasbeenexpressedthatsuchprovi-sionsmayresultin‘failedelections,’whereinnocandidatereceivesamajorityandtheboardofdirectorsdoesnotachievethenecessaryquorumtoconductcorporatebusiness.”460Asimilarconcernwithfailedelectionscouldariseforstratacorpora-tions,particularlysmallerstratacorporations.Theproposalwouldalsomakecoun-cilelectionsmarginallymorecomplicated.Theywouldtakeupmoretimeatagen-eralmeeting.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteewasinfavourofamendingtheacttoclarifyelectionofstrata-councilmembers.Itwasconcernedaboutthepotentialforabusesandirregularitiestoarisefromthecurrentlaw.Thecommitteeconsideredthemechanicsofproposedreform.Itdecidednottogoasfarasrecommendationsmadeforbusinesscorporationsatthefederallevel.Adopt-ingthoserecommendationsforstratacorporationswouldrequirearesolutionpassedbyamajorityvoteforeachcouncilmember.Inthecommittee’sview,requir-ingseparateresolutionsforeachstrata-councilmemberwouldcreatedifficulties,couldbogdownmeetings,andcouldfosterconflict.Thecommitteefavouredrequir-458.Thetechnicaltermforthekindofcorporationthattheamendmentsapplytoisdistributingcor-

poration,whichisdefinedtomean“(a)acorporationthatisareportingissuerunderanylegisla-tionthatissetoutincolumn2ofanitemofSchedule1;or(b)inthecaseofacorporationthatisnotareportingissuerreferredtoinparagraph(a),acorporation(i)thathasfiledaprospectusorregistrationstatementunderprovinciallegislationorunderthelawsofajurisdictionoutsideCanada,(ii)anyofthesecuritiesofwhicharelistedandpostedfortradingonastockexchangeinoroutsideCanada,or(iii)thatisinvolvedin,formedfor,resultingfromorcontinuedafteranamalgamation,areorganization,anarrangementorastatutoryprocedure,ifoneofthepartici-patingbodiescorporateisacorporationtowhichsubparagraph(i)or(ii)applies.”SeeCanadaBusinessCorporationsRegulations,2001,SOR/2001-512,s2(1).

459.SeeBillC-25,AnActtoamendtheCanadaBusinessCorporationsAct,theCanadaCooperativesAct,theCanadaNot-for-profitCorporationsAct,andtheCompetitionAct,42ndParl,1stSess,2016,cl13(1)(aspassedbytheHouseofCommons21June2017;referredtocommitteeintheSenate23November2017;committeereportadopted7February2018)(amendingCanadaBusinessCorporationsAct,supranote384,s106(3)).

460.SeeConsultationontheCanadaBusinessCorporationsAct,supranote457at6.



ingsimplythatcouncilmemberscommandthemajorityofballotscast.Thisap-proachwouldaddsufficientclaritytocouncilelections.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:59.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirethateachstrata-councilmembermustbeelectedbyamajorityoftheballotscast.Should the Strata Property Act address the number of council members required? Brief description of the issue TheStrataPropertyActdoesn’taddressthenumberofstrata-councilmembersastratacorporationmusthave.Thestandardbylawsdoprovidethat“thecouncilmusthaveatleast3andnotmorethan7members.”461Butthisisadefaultprovi-sion,whichastratacorporationisfreetoamend.462Shouldtheactprovidemoreguidanceonthenumberofcouncilmembersthatastratacorporationmustelect?Discussion of options for reform Theoptionsforthisissuearemoreopenendedthanthoseforpreviousissues.Oneoptiontoconsideriswhetherthenumbersintherangeshouldbechanged.Forexample,smallstratacorporationsmayfindithardtorecruitthreememberstocouncilandendupoperating(inbreachoftheirbylaws)withjusttwocouncilmem-bers.Amemberofthepublichasaskedthecommitteetoconsiderrecommendingthattherequirednumberofmembersbeloweredtotwo.463

461.StrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s9(1).Thisbylawdoesn’tapply

toverysmallstratacorporations,because“ifthestrataplanhasfewerthan4stratalotsorthestratacorporationhasfewerthan4owners,alltheownersareonthecouncil”(ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s9(2)).

462.Seee.g.ClaytonvChantler,2017BCCRT18(decisionincaseinwhichstratacouncilhadactedwithfewerthannumberofcouncilmembersprescribedinitsbylaws).

463.SeeInaMcMillan,EmailmessagetotheStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)ProjectCommittee,6July2017(“WhatIhavefoundisthatmanysmallstratashavenotpassedabylawastothenumberoncouncil&fileditinthelandtitlesoffice.Eveniftheyhavepassedsuchabylaw.Smallstratashaveahardtimegetting3oncouncil.Myexperiencehasbeenthattheyarerunningwith2members,contrarytotheact—inotherwordsanillegalcouncilwithnolegalclout.”).



NSWFairTradinghaslookedattheothernumberintherange.464Afternotingthatthe“Actcurrentlysetsanupperlimitofnineforthenumberofpeoplewhocanbeappointedtothecommittee,”itsuggested“thereisnoclearreasonwhyanupperlimitneedstobeprovidedforinthelaw.”465Initsview,removingtheupperlimitwouldreflectthediversityofstratacorporationsandhandsomepowerbacktoowners.466Thepositionpaperendeduprecommendingallowingstratacorporations“toappointasmanypeopleastheywishtothecommitteeprovidedthatatleastthreepeopleareappointedtothecommitteeinlargeschemes.”467Therearedisadvantagestoconsiderforallthreeproposals.Loweringtheminimumnumberofdirectorswouldmakeitslightlyeasierforasmall,unrepresentativegrouptowieldpower.Itmightalsobeseenasastepbackingovernancestandards,asitwouldmeanfewereyesprovidingoversightandfeweropinionstoconsiderinmakingdecisions.Andremovingtheupperlimitonthenumberofcouncilmembersthatmaybeelectedcouldresultinsomestratacorporationsendingupwithlarge,unwieldycouncils.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedidnotfavourmakinganychangestoaddressthenumberofmem-bersthatmustbeelectedtoastratacouncil.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:60.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoaddressthenumberofmembersthatmustbeelectedtocouncil.Should the Strata Property Act establish statutory qualifications for council members? Brief description of the issue TheStrataPropertyAct’sprovisionon“eligibilityforcouncil”onlylimitsstrata-councilmembersto“(a)owners;(b)individualsrepresentingcorporateowners;464.SeeStrataTitleLawReform:Strata&CommunityTitleLawReformPositionPaper,supranote25

at7–8.InNewSouthWales’sterminology,acommitteeiswhatBritishColumbiacallsastratacouncilandaschemeisastrataplan.

465.Ibidat7–8.

466.Ibidat8(“Therearemanydifferenttypesofstrataschemeandownerscorporationsshouldbeabletoappointasmanycommitteemembersasisnecessarytoeffectivelyadministertheschemeandtoprovidesuitablerepresentation.”).

467.Ibidat7.



[and](c)tenantswho...havebeenassignedalandlord’srighttostandforcoun-cil.”468Giventheresponsibilitiesofstrata-councilmembers,469shouldtheactestablishqualificationsthemustbemetbyapersonwhowantstobeacouncilmember?Discussion of options for reform Settingoutstatutoryqualificationsforstrata-councilmemberswasonepartofama-jorsetofreformsproposedinOntario’sCondominiumActreview.470Thereview’sfi-nalreportsetoutthefollowingreasonsforthisrecommendation:

Becausecondoownerscomefromallwalksoflife,manyhavelittleornoexperienceservingonaboardofdirectorsordealingwiththeissuesthataboardmustaddress.Boardinexperiencecreatesrisksforcondocommunities.Itcanleadtopoordecisionsonrepairs,investmentsorinsurancecoverage.Itcanalsomakedirectorsvulnerabletomoresavvymanagers,lawyers,contractorsorevenotherdirectorswhomaytrytotakeadvantageoftheirinexperience.471

Statutoryqualificationscanalsoprotectstratacorporationsfromhavingunscrupu-louspeopletakepositionsontheircouncils.Ontarioacceptedthisrecommendationandincludedaprovisiononstatutoryquali-ficationsinitsProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015.472Whenthebulkoftheprovisionsofthatactcameintoforceon1November2017,thisprovisionbecameapartofOntario’sCondominiumAct,1998:

Qualifications

29. (1) Nopersonshallbeadirectorif,

(a) thepersonisnotanindividual;

(b) thepersonisunder18yearsofage;

468.Supranote4,s28(1).Thesectiongoesontosaythat“thestratacorporationmay,byabylaw

passedatanannualorspecialgeneralmeetingheldafterthefirstannualgeneralmeeting,allowclassesofpersons,otherthanthosereferredtoinsubsection(1),tobecouncilmembers”(ibid,s28(2)).

469.Seeibid,s31.

470.SeeGrowingUp:Ontario’sCondominiumCommunitiesEnteraNewEra:CondominiumActReviewStageTwoSolutionsReport,supranote26at41–42.Inadditiontostatutoryqualifications,thereportalsorecommendedtrainingforcouncilmembersandtermlimits.

471.Ibidat41.

472.Supranote28.



(c) thepersonhasthestatusofbankrupt;

(d) thepersonhasbeenfound,undertheSubstituteDecisionsAct,1992ortheMentalHealthAct,tobeincapableofmanagingproperty;

(e) subjecttotheregulations,thepersonhasbeenfoundtobeincapa-blebyanycourtinCanadaorelsewhere;or

(f) thepersonhasnotcompliedwiththeprescribeddisclosureobliga-tionswithintheprescribedtime.

Disqualification

(2) Apersonimmediatelyceasestobeadirectorif,

(a) thepersonhasthestatusofbankrupt;

(b) thepersonhasbeenfound,undertheSubstituteDecisionsAct,1992ortheMentalHealthAct,tobeincapableofmanagingproperty;

(c) subjecttotheregulations,thepersonhasbeenfoundtobeincapa-blebyanycourtinCanadaorelsewhere;

(d) acertificateoflienhasbeenregisteredundersubsection85(2)againstaunitownedbythepersonandthepersondoesnotobtainadischargeofthelienundersubsection85(7)within90daysoftheregistrationofthecertificateoflien;

(e) thepersonhasnotcompletedtheprescribedtrainingwithintheprescribedtime;or

(f) thepersonhasnotcompliedwiththeprescribeddisclosureobliga-tionswithintheprescribedtime.473

473.Ibid,s27(repealss29oftheCondominiumAct,1998,supranote23andreplacesitwiththisnew

section29).SeealsoGeneralRegulation,OReg48/01,s11.6(“Forthepurposeofclause29(1)(f)oftheAct,apersonshallprovidethefollowingstatementsandinformationinaccordancewiththissection:1.Ifthepersonmentionedinthatclauseisapartytoanylegalactiontowhichthecorporationisaparty,astatementofthatfactandabriefgeneraldescriptionoftheaction.2.Ifthespouse,childorparentoftheperson,orthechildorparentofthespouseoftheperson,isapartytoanylegalactiontowhichthecorporationisaparty,astatementofthatfact,thenameofthespouse,childorparentandabriefgeneraldescriptionoftheaction.3.Ifanoccupierofaunitthatthepersonortheperson’sspouseownsorthatthepersonoccupieswiththeoccu-pierisapartytoanylegalactiontowhichthecorporationisaparty,astatementofthatfact,thenameoftheoccupierandabriefgeneraldescriptionoftheaction.4.Ifthepersonhasbeencon-victedofanoffenceundertheActorundertheregulationswithinthepreceding10years,astatementofthatfactandabriefgeneraldescriptionoftheoffence.5.Subjecttosubsection(3),ifthepersonhas,directlyorindirectly,aninterestinacontractortransactiontowhichthecor-porationisaparty,inacapacityotherthanasapurchaser,mortgagee,owneroroccupierofaunit,astatementofthatfactandastatementofthenatureandextentoftheinterest.6.Subjecttosubsection(3),ifthepersonhas,directlyorindirectly,aninterestinacontractortransactiontowhichthedeclarantordeclarantaffiliateisaparty,inacapacityotherthanasapurchaser,mortgagee,owneroroccupierofaunit,astatementofthatfactandastatementofthenatureandextentoftheinterest.7.Ifthepersonisanownerinthecorporationandifthecontributionstothecommonexpensespayablefortheperson’sunitareinarrearsfor60daysormore,a



WhiletheOntarioprovisionbreaksnewgroundforstratacorporations,similarpro-visionsarecommonlyfoundinCanadianfor-profit474andnot-for-profit475corporatestatutes.Themaindisadvantageofsuchstatutoryqualificationsisthattheycanmakeitthatmuchhardertorecruitpeopletoserveoncouncil.And,asthestage-tworeportforOntario’sCondominiumActreviewnoted,“thereisalsoariskofmakingtheroleofadirectorsodemandingthatownersarediscouragedfromstandingforoffice.”476The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteewasawareofneedingtowalkafinelineonthisissue.Theabsenceofstatutoryqualificationsforstrata-councilmembersopensthedoortoahostofpo-tentialproblemsforstrata-corporationgovernance.Butatoo-ambitioussetofquali-ficationswouldlikelyimpairtherecruitmentofcouncilmembers,whichwouldcauseitsownsetofconcerns.Forthecommittee,thebalanceisbeststruckbytakingacautiousapproachandusingestablishedcriteriafromotherBritishColumbiacor-poratestatutes.Inthisvein,thecommitteehasmodelleditsproposalsonthequalifi-cationsfordirectorsfoundintherecentlyenactedSocietiesAct.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

61.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirethatastrata-councilmember(a)mustbeanindividualwhoisatleast18yearsofage,and(b)despiteitem(a),anindividualisnotqualifiedtobeastrata-councilmemberiftheindividualis(i)foundbyanycourt,inCanadaorelsewhere,tobeincapableofmanagingtheindividual’sownaffairs,(ii)anundischargedbankrupt,or(iii)convictedinoroutofBritishColumbiaofanoffenceinconnectionwiththepromotion,formation,ormanagementofacorporationorunin-corporatedentity,orofanoffenceinvolvingfraud.Thecommitteeisawarethatimplementingthisproposalwouldlikelyrequireacon-sequentialamendmentthatmadeitclearthatsection9(2)oftheScheduleofStand-

statementofthatfact.8.Ifthepersonisnotanownerofaunitinthecorporation,astatementofthatfact.9.Ifthepersonisnotanoccupierofaunitinthecorporation,astatementofthatfact.10.Allotherinformationthataby-lawofthecorporationrequiresthepersontodisclose.”).

474.Seee.g.BusinessCorporationsAct,supranote290,s124.

475.Seee.g.SocietiesAct,supranote290,s44.

476.Supranote26at41.



ardBylaws477issubjecttocompliancewiththestatutoryqualificationsforcouncilmembers.Should the Strata Property Act allow a strata corporation to elect a council member at any special general meeting? Brief description of the issue Astratacorporationmustelectastratacouncilateachannualgeneralmeeting.478Sometimesthiselectiondoesn’tresultinacouncilthathasthemaximumnumberofcouncilmembersallowedforthestratacorporation.479Inothercases,councilmem-bersareremovedbytheowners480ortheyresignbetweenannualgeneralmeet-ings.481Whenthesethingsoccur,thereisonlyalimitedpowertoelectanewcouncilmem-berataspecialgeneralmeeting.Thispoweronlyappliesifacouncilmemberisre-movedataspecialgeneralmeetingandthestratacorporationhasn’tamendedthestandardbylawthatreads:“[a]fterremovingacouncilmember,thestratacorpora-tionmustholdanelectionatthesameannualorspecialgeneralmeetingtoreplacethecouncilmemberfortheremainderoftheterm.”482If“acouncilmemberresignsorisunwillingorunabletoactforaperiodof2ormoremonths,”thenthestandardbylawprovidesthat“theremainingmembersofthecouncilmayappointareplace-mentcouncilmemberfortheremainderoftheterm.”483Thereisnoprovisionintheactorthestandardbylawsforholdingacouncilelectionataspecialgeneralmeetingtofillplacesleftunoccupiedaftertheelectionheldattheannualgeneralmeeting.Shouldtheactbeamendedtogivestratacorporationsmorepowertoelectcouncilmembersatspecialgeneralmeetings?477.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s9(2)(“Ifthestrataplanhas

fewerthan4stratalotsorthestratacorporationhasfewerthan4owners,alltheownersareonthecouncil.”).

478.SeeStrataPropertyAct,ibid,s25.

479.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s9(“(1)Subjecttosubsection(2),thecouncilmusthaveatleast3andnotmorethan7members.(2)Ifthestrataplanhasfewerthan4stratalotsorthestratacorporationhasfewerthan4owners,alltheownersareonthecouncil.”).

480.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s11.

481.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s12.





Discussion of options for reform Theadvantageofliberalizingtheactonthisissueisthatitwouldprovidestratacor-porationswithanaddedbitofflexibility.Stratacorporationsmightprefertohavemoreoptionsforchoosingwhencouncilmembersareelected.Amendingtheactwouldsupporttheseoptions.Itmightalsoservetoclarifythelaw.Nowmuchofthatlawisfoundinthestandardbylaws,whichstratacorporationsmayamend.Amend-ingtheacttomakeitclearthatastrata-councilmembermaybeelectedataspecialgeneralmeetingwouldaddcertaintytothepracticeandensurethatitcouldn’tbeat-tackedasanirregularity.Therewouldlikelybedownsidestoamendingtheact.Forone,itwouldmaketheactsomewhatmorecomplex.Inaddition,itisn’tclearthatthecurrentlawiscausingmanyproblems.Sincemuchofthatlawiscontainedinstandardbylaws,anargu-mentcouldbemadethatitisalreadyflexibleenoughtoallowstratacorporationstoaccomplishwhattheywishinthisarea,solongastheyamendtheirbylaws.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteefavouredgivingstratacorporationstheflexibilitytoelectadditionalcouncilmembersataspecialgeneralmeeting.Suchareformwouldsolvesomeproblems.Forexample,astratacorporation’sbylawsmightprovidethatitmusthavefourcouncilmembers,butduetoanoversightorconfusionattheannualgen-eralmeetingthestratacorporationmighthaveonlyelectedonlythreecouncilmem-bers.Havingtheoptiontoelectcouncilmembersataspecialgeneralmeetingwouldgivethestratacorporationawaytofixthisproblem.Thecommitteeisawarethattheproposedreformwouldmakeitsomewhathardertoidentifycouncilmembersfor,forexample,thepurposesofclientidentification(forlawyers)andlendingtransactions.Properidentificationwouldrequireproduc-ingminutesofanyspecialgeneralmeeting,inadditiontominutesofthelastannualgeneralmeeting.Inthecommittee’sview,theadvantagesoftheproposaloutweighitsdisadvantages.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

62.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatadditionalstrata-councilmembersmaybeelectedataspecialgeneralmeeting.



Issues for Reform—Agenda and Meeting Minutes Should the order of agenda items for annual and special general meetings be amended? Brief description of the issue Section28oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsprovidesthatthe“orderofbusinessatannualandspecialgeneralmeetings”ofthestratacorporationmustbeasfollows:

• certifyproxiesandcorporaterepresentativesandissuevotingcards;

• determinethatthereisaquorum;

• electapersontochairthemeeting,ifnecessary;

• presenttothemeetingproofofnoticeofmeetingorwaiverofnotice;

• approvetheagenda;

• approveminutesfromthelastannualorspecialgeneralmeeting;

• dealwithunfinishedbusiness;

• receivereportsofcouncilactivitiesanddecisionssincethepreviousannualgeneralmeet-ing,includingreportsofcommittees,ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting;

• ratifyanynewrulesmadebythestratacorporationundersection125oftheAct;

• reportoninsurancecoverageinaccordancewithsection154oftheAct,ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting;

• approvethebudgetforthecomingyearinaccordancewithsection103oftheAct,ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting;

• dealwithnewbusiness,includinganymattersaboutwhichnoticehasbeengivenundersection45oftheAct;

• electacouncil,ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting;

• terminatethemeeting.484Astheremaybeconcernsaboutthecontentsandorderofthislist,isthereaneedtoamendanypartofit?Discussion of options for reform Thisispotentiallyanopen-endedissue,butatfirstglanceitcomesdowntoastraightforwardyes-or-noquestion:shouldsection28ofthestandardbylawsbe

484.Ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s28.



amended?Theanswertothisquestionturnsonwhetheramendmentswouldpro-videpracticalbenefitsforgeneralmeetings.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteereviewedsection28indetailandfoundittobeinneedofimprove-ment.Inthecommittee’sview,thesectioncanbeimprovedbyamendingitswordinganditssequencing.Thecommontermthatisusedtodescribetheorderofbusinessatanannualorspe-cialgeneralmeetingisagenda.Whilethebylawincludestheapprovaloftheagenda,theagendaisreferredtoastheorderofbusiness,whichisasequenceofproceduresstratacorporationsarerequiredtofollow,unlesstheyhaveamendedthebylaw.Inthecommittee’sview,thispointshouldbeclarifiedbyreferringinthebylawtoagenda.Thecommitteeisalsooftheviewthatre-orderingthesequenceofagendaitemswillbetterreflectbestpracticesforgeneralmeetings.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:63.Section28oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldbeamendedsothattheagendaatanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeetingisasfollows:(a)registereligiblevotersandissuevotingcards;(b)callthemeetingtoorder;(c)electapersontochairthemeeting,ifnecessary;(d)certifyproxies;(e)determinethatthereisaquorum;(f)presentproofofnoticeofmeeting;(g)approvetheorderoftheagenda;(h)approvetheminutesofthemostrecentgeneralmeetingorwaiverofnoticeofmeeting;(i)dealwithanyunfinishedbusiness;(j)ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting,receivereportsofcouncilactivitiesanddecisionssincethepreviousannualgeneralmeeting;(k)ratifyanynewrulesmadebythestratacorporationundersec-tion125oftheact,includinganynewuserfees;(l)ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting,reportoninsurancecoverageinaccordancewithsection154oftheact,in-cludingthecertificateofinsurancepreparedbytheinsurancebrokerageandthedateofthemostrecentappraisal;(m)ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting,approvethebudgetforthecomingyearinaccordancewithsection103oftheact;(n)dealwithmattersundersection46oftheactoraboutwhichnoticehasbeengivenundersec-tion45oftheact;(o)ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting,electacouncil;(p)ifthemeetingisaspecialgeneralmeeting,electacouncilmemberifnecessary;(q)ter-minatethemeeting.



Should the Strata Property Act require circulation of general-meeting minutes? Brief description of the issue WhilethereisaprovisionintheScheduleofStandardBylawsthatcallsfordistribu-tionoftheminutesofstrata-councilmeetings,485noequivalentrequirementexistsintheactorthestandardbylawsforminutesofgeneralmeetings.Shouldtheactbeamendedtomakeitclearthatthereisarequirementtocirculategeneral-meetingminutes?Discussion of options for reform Thereareessentiallytwooptionsforthisissue.Eithertheactshouldbeamendedoritshouldbeleftasis.Makingcirculationofgeneral-meetingminutesalegislativerequirementwouldsup-porttransparencyandgoodgovernance.Itwouldalsoaddressapotentialanomalyinwhichdistributionofstrata-councilmeetingminutesisrequiredwhilenoparallelrequirementexistsforgeneral-meetingminutes.Thepotentialdownsidetothisoptionwouldbethatit’spossiblynotnecessary.Gen-eral-meetingminutestendtobecirculatedinmoststratacorporations.Iftheywerenotinagivencase,thenastrata-lotownerwouldbeentitledtorequirethestratacorporationtograntaccesstothem.486The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteereviewedanumberofpointsaspartofitsconsiderationofthisissue.

485.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s19(“Thecouncilmustinformownersoftheminutesof

allcouncilmeetingswithin2weeksofthemeeting,whetherornottheminuteshavebeenap-proved.”).Seealso,above,at40(committee’stentativerecommendationforreformregardingsection19).

486.SeeStrataPropertyAct,ibid,ss35(1)(“[t]hestratacorporationmustprepareallofthefollowingrecords:(a)minutesofannualandspecialgeneralmeetingsandcouncilmeetings,includingtheresultsofanyvotes”),36(1)(“Onreceivingarequest,thestratacorporationmustmaketherec-ordsanddocumentsreferredtoinsection35availableforinspectionby,andprovidecopiesofthemto,(a)anowner,(b)atenantwho,undersection147or148,hasbeenassignedaland-lord'srighttoinspectandobtaincopiesofrecordsanddocuments,or(c)apersonauthorizedinwritingbyanownerortenantreferredtoinparagraph(a)or(b).”).



First,itdecidedthattheterminologyof“informing”ownersandothersofminutesthatappearselsewhereintheact487wouldbetoovagueanduncertainforwhatithasinmindhere.Thecommitteepreferredanyprovisionitproposedtousethetermcirculated.Inthecommittee’sview,circulatehasabroadmeaning,whichwouldembraceeverythingfrompostingonawebsitetoemailtoslippingapapercopyoftheminutesunderadoor.Second,thecommitteewasconcernedaboutthetimingrequirement.Itdecidedthatthreeweekswouldbeanappropriateperiodinwhichtocirculatethemeetingminutes.Thisperiodwouldbeharmonizedwiththecommittee’stentativerecom-mendationforstrata-council-meetingminutes.488Finally,thecommitteeconsideredwhetherthisrequirementshouldbeastandardbylaworalegislativeprovision.Thecommitteepreferredthattherequirementbesetoutinlegislation.Onereasonforthispreferencewastoensurethatitsstandardperiodforcirculatingminuteswouldn’tbevaried.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:64.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirecirculationofminutesofageneralmeetingwithinthreeweeksofthemeeting,whetherornottheminuteshavebeenapproved.Should section 106 of the Strata Property Act be amended to provide three weeks in which to inform owners of changes to their strata fees resulting from a new budget? Brief description of the issue Section106oftheactprovidesthat“[w]ithin2weeksfollowingtheannualorspe-cialgeneralmeetingatwhichabudgetispassed,thestratacorporationmustinformownersofanychangestotheirstratafeesresultingfromthenewbudget.”489Inlightoftheprecedingdiscussion,doanyaspectsofthisprovisioncallforchanges?Discussion of options for reform Theoptionsforreformaretoharmonizesection106withthecommittee’sproposalforcirculationofgeneral-meetingminutesortoleaveitasis.487.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s19(“Thecouncilmustinformownersoftheminutesof

allcouncilmeetings....”).

488.See,above,at40.

489.Supranote4,s106.



The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,section106isastraightforwardcaseofneedingaconse-quentialamendment.Leavingthesection’scurrenttimingruleinplacewouldsetupaconflictwiththecommittee’sproposedrequirementtodistributegeneral-meetingminutes.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:65.Section106oftheStrataPropertyAct,whichdealswithinformingownersofchangestostratafees,shouldbeamendedbystrikingout“2weeksfollowingtheannu-alorspecialgeneralmeetingatwhichabudgetispassed”andreplacingitwith“3weeksfollowingtheannualorspecialgeneralmeetingatwhichabudgetispassed.”



Chapter 6. Finances Background Background information on strata-corporation finances ThewellspringofmostfinancialissuesundertheStrataPropertyAct490istheact’sallocationtothestratacorporationofresponsibility“formanagingandmaintainingthecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporationforthebenefitoftheowners.”491Asaconsequenceofthisresponsibility,the“stratacorporationisre-sponsibleforthecommonexpensesofthestratacorporation.”492Theactdefinescommonexpensesbroadlytomeanexpenses

• relatingtothecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporation,or

• requiredtomeetanyotherpurposeorobligationofthestratacorporation.493Asonecommentatorhasplainlysaid,payingforcommonexpensesmeansthatastratacorporation“spendsalotofmoney.”494Andastratacorporation“raisesthatmoneymostlythroughthemonthlycontributions(‘stratafees’)paidbyitsmem-bers—‘owners.’”495TheStrataPropertyActandtheStrataPropertyRegulation496containanarrayofprovisionsthatgovernhowastratacorporationcollectsmoneyfromstrata-lotown-ersandhowitspendsthatmoney.Scope of this chapter Part6oftheStrataPropertyActdealswith“finances,”settingoutthefollowingdivi-sions:

• operatingfundandcontingencyreservefund;

490.Supranote4.

491.Ibid,s3.

492.Ibid,s91.

493.Ibid,s1(1)“commonexpenses.”


495.Ibid.

496.Supranote8.



• contributiontoexpenses;

• budgets;

• specialleviesanduserfees;

• borrowingpowersofstratacorporation;

• moneyowingtostratacorporation.Commentatorsdiscussingfinancialissueshavetackledsubjectssuchasprovisionsonastratacorporation’stworequiredfunds(operatingandcontingencyreserve),speciallevies,borrowing,userfees,collectionofmoneyowingtoastratacorpora-tion,andexpenseallocation.497Thecommitteehasalreadypaidextensiveattentiontoexpenseallocation,whichwasafundamentalpartofthecommittee’sReportonComplexStratas,publishedin2017.498Othertopics,suchasborrowinganduserfees,weren’tidentifiedaspress-ingconcerns.Drawingonthecommittee’sassessmentofpressingreformissues,thischaptercon-sidersthefollowingcategoriesofissuesforitsdiscussionofstrata-corporationfi-nances:

• operatingfund;

• speciallevies;

• budgets;

• financialstatements;

• contracts;

• regulatoryprovisionsonfinesandfees;

• limitationperiodandcollections.

497.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§§7.1–7.53;Fanaken,su-

pranote31at67–95;Mangan,supranote31at167–223.

498.Supranote19.



Issues for Reform—Operating Fund Introduction TheStrataPropertyActrequiresastratacorporationtohaveatleasttwofunds:anoperatingfundandacontingencyreservefund.499Theactrequireseachstratacor-porationto“establish”andeachstrata-lotownerto“contribute,bymeansofstratafees,”tothisoperatingfund.500Thepurposeoftheoperatingfundistopayfor“commonexpensesthat”:

• usuallyoccureitheronceayearormoreoftenthanonceayear,or

• arenecessarytoobtainadepreciationreportundersection94.501Inotherwords,theoperatingfund“isintendedtopayforroutineexpensesofastra-tacorporation[;]thecourtshavegenerallyheldthatextraordinaryexpensesshouldbepaidoutofthecontingencyreservefundoraspeciallevy.”502Thispointisunder-scoredlaterintheactbyasectionthatprovidesthatastratacorporation“mustnotspendmoneyfromtheoperatingfundunlesstheexpenditureisconsistentwiththepurposesofthefund.”503Should the Strata Property Act adopt some criterion other than the current timing rule as a way to define the purpose of a strata corporation’s operating fund? Brief description of the issue TheheartoftheStrataPropertyAct’sprovisionontheoperatingfundisthetimingrulethatdefinesthepurposeofthefund(topayfor“commonexpensesthatusuallyoccureitheronceayearormoreoftenthanonceayear”).Thistimingruleisalsothedefiningcharacteristicofwhatmaycolloquiallybecalled“operatingexpenses.”Us-

499.Supranote4,s92.

500.Ibid,s92.

501.Ibid,s92(a).


503.Seesupranote4,s97(“Thestratacorporationmustnotspendmoneyfromtheoperatingfundunlesstheexpenditureis(a)consistentwiththepurposesofthefundassetoutinsection92(a),and(b)firstapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeet-ing,orauthorized(i)inthebudget,or(ii)undersection98or104(3).”).



ingatimingrulemaynotbethebestwaytodefinetheseexpenses.504Istherean-otherapproachthatshouldbeconsidered?Discussion of options for reform Atimingruleisonevalidcriterionforguidingstratacorporationsonwhenfundsshouldbepaidoutoftheoperatingfundoroutofthecontingencyreservefund.Butitisn’ttheonlyapproachthatcouldbeadopted.Thereis(potentially)alimitlessnumberofcriteriathatcouldbeadopted.OnewaytonarrowthefieldofoptionstoconsideristolookathowotherCanadianjurisdictionshavehandledthisissue.Acomparativeexaminationofstrata-propertylegislationrevealsthatBritishColumbiais,insomerespects,anoutlierinitslegisla-tionontheoperatingfund.TwoqualitiesmakeBritishColumbia’slegislationanoutlier.First,itismorerigidthanotherstatutes.Second,it’stheonlystatutethatreliessolelyonatimingruleasthecriterionfordeterminingwhenmoneycanbespentfromtheoperatingfund.TheStrataPropertyActisuniqueinCanadaincontainingaprovisionthatrestrictsstratacorporationsinexpendingmoneyfromtheoperatingfundtoonlythoseex-pendituresthatare“consistentwiththepurposesofthefund.”Alberta505andSas-katchewan506dohaveprovisionssettingoutthepurposesoftheirequivalentstothe

504.Seee.g.TheOwners,StrataPlanVR942vThompson,2018BCCRT4;PerryvTheOwners,Strata

PlanLMS180,2017BCCRT135(recentdecisionsinvolving,inpart,characterizationofexpens-es).

505.SeeCondominiumPropertyAct,supranote23,s39(1):“InadditiontoitsotherpowersunderthisAct,thepowersofacorporationincludethefollowing:(a)toestablishafundforadministra-tiveexpensessufficient,intheopinionofthecorporation,forthecontrol,managementandad-ministrationofthecommonproperty,forthepaymentofanypremiumsofinsuranceandforthedischargeofanyotherobligationofthecorporation”).SeealsoCondominiumPropertyAmend-mentAct,2014,supranote28,s30(“Section39isrepealedandthefollowingissubstituted:38.1Subjecttotheregulations,acorporationshall,fromfundsleviedundersection39(1)(a)or(b),establishandmaintainanoperatingaccounttobeusedtoprovidesufficientfundsfor(a)thecontrol,managementandadministrationoftherealandpersonalpropertyofthecorporation,thecommonpropertyandmanagedproperty,and(b)thepaymentofanyotherobligationofthecorporation,thatarenotrequiredtobepaidoutofthereservefund.”[notinforce]).

506.SeeTheCondominiumPropertyAct,1993,supranote23,s55(“(1)Thecorporationshallestab-lishthefollowingfundsforthepurposessetoutinsubsections(2)and(3):(a)acommonex-pensesfund;...(2)Acommonexpensesfundisestablishedforthepurposeofprovidingforthepaymentofthefollowingexpenses,otherthanexpensesthataretobepaidoutofthereservefund:(a)expensesincurredinthecontrol,managementandadministrationofthecommonproperty,commonfacilitiesandservicesunits,enforcementofthebylawsofthecorporationand



operatingfundthatareanalogoustoBritishColumbia’sprovision,butthoseprov-incesdon’tgotheextrastepofrequiringexpenditurestobeconsistentwiththosepurposes.Thisarguablyconstitutestheirversionsoftheoperatingfundasthestra-ta-corporation’sresidualfund,whichisavailabletopayforallexpensesthataren’tfundedoutoftheirequivalentsofthecontingencyreservefund.Andthisapproachismoreclearlytheoneadoptedbymostoftheotherprovincesandterritories.507Theirlegislationsimplyrequiresastratacorporationtohaveanoperatingfund.508Legisla-tivepurposesareonlyappliedtothecontingencyreservefund.509Sobydefaulttheoperatingfundistheresidualfundunderthesestatutes,inthesensethatitcanbe

additionofadditionalcommonproperty,commonfacilitiesandservicesunits;(a.1)expensesin-curredinthecontrol,managementandadministrationofanyunitsorportionsofunitsdesignat-edinanybylawpassedpursuanttoclauses47(1)(f.1)and(i.1)[bylawsrespectingsectors];(b)premiumsofinsurance;and(c)expensesincurredinthedischargeofanyotherobligationofthecorporation.”).

507.TheexceptionsareNewBrunswickandPrinceEdwardIsland.NewBrunswick’slegislationonlycontainsasimpleenablingprovision,clearingthewayforastratacorporationtohaveacontin-gencyreservefund,ifitwantsone.SeeCondominiumPropertyAct,supranote23,s41(“Acorpo-rationmayestablishacontingencyfundtobeusedforthepurposesspecifiedintheby-laws.”).PrinceEdwardIsland’sCondominiumAct,supranote23,doesn’thaveanyprovisionsdealingwithastratacorporation’sfunds.

508.SeeManitoba:TheCondominiumAct,supranote23,s138(2)(“Thecondominiumcorporationmustestablishandmaintainafundforthepaymentofcommonexpenses,referredtoasthe‘commonexpensesfund.’”);Ontario:CondominiumAct,1998,supranote23,s115(2)(“Acorpo-rationshallmaintainoneormoreaccountsinitsnamedesignatedasgeneralaccountsandoneormoreaccountsinitsnamedesignatedasreservefundaccounts.”),ProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,supranote28,Sched1,s101(2)(amendss115(2)—notinforce);Québec:art1064CCQ(“Eachco-ownercontributesinproportiontotherelativevalueofhisfractiontotheexpensesarisingfromtheco-ownershipandfromtheoperationoftheimmovableandthecontingencyfundestablishedunderarticle1071....”);NovaScotia:CondominiumAct,supranote23,s31(1)(“Thecorporation(a)shallestablishanoperatingfundforthepaymentofthecommonexpensestowhichfundtheownersshallcontributeinproportionsspecifiedinthedec-laration”);NewfoundandLabrador:CondominiumAct,2009,supranote23,s48(“Thecorpora-tion(a)shallestablishanoperatingfundforthepaymentofthecommonexpensesandtheown-ersshallcontributetothatfundinproportionsspecifiedinthedeclaration”);Yukon:Condomini-umAct,supranote23,s14(1):“Thecorporationshall(a)establishafundforthepaymentofcommonexpenses,towhichfundownersshallcontributeinproportionsspecifiedinthedecla-ration”);NorthwestTerritoriesandNunavut:CondominiumAct,supranote23,s19.9(1)(“Acorporation(a)shallestablishandmaintainfundsforthepaymentofthecommonexpensestowhichtheownersshallcontributeintheproportionsspecifiedinthedeclaration”).

509.SeeManitoba:TheCondominiumAct,supranote23,s143;Ontario:CondominiumAct,1998,su-pranote23,s93(2),ProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,supranote28,Sched1,s84(1)(repealss93(2)andreplacesitwithanewprovision—notinforce);Québec:art1071CCQ;No-vaScotia:CondominiumAct,supranote23,s31(1A);NewfoundandLabrador:CondominiumAct,2009,supranote508,s49(1);NorthwestTerritoriesandNunavut:CondominiumAct,supranote23,s19.10(2).



usedforallexpensesofthestratacorporation,exceptforthoseexpresslyearmarkedforpaymentoutofthecontingencyreservefund.BritishColumbiaisalsouniqueinapplyingatimingruletotheoperatingfund.Otherprovincesdoadoptasimilartimingrule(basedonwhethertheexpensearisesmoreoftenthanonceayear),buttheyuseitinadifferentway.Intheseprovinces,thetim-ingruleispartofaseriesofcriteriathatdefinethepurposesofthecontingencyre-servefund.510Indeed,thebulkoftherestofCanadaisconsistentinusingtwoele-mentstodefinethatfund:(1)aqualitativecriterionisadopted,limitingtheuseofthecontingencyreservefundformajorrepairs,and(2)thelegislationsetsoutalistofbuildingcomponentsillustratingthetypeofrepairsthatpresumptivelycouldbeconsidered“majorrepairs.”Foranexampleofthisapproach,withatimingrule,hereisManitoba’slegislation:

Thetypesofrepairsandreplacementsthatmaybefundedbythereservefundareonesthatmayreasonablybeexpectedtobenecessaryovertimebutthatarenotnormallyre-quiredonanannualbasis.Thefollowingareexamplesofsuchrepairsandreplacements:

(a) majorrepairstotherooforitsreplacement;

(b) majorrepairsto,orreplacementof,thestructureorexteriorofabuildingontheproperty;

(c) majorrepairsto,orreplacementof,theheating,airconditioning,electricalorplumbingsystems;

(d) majorrepairsto,orreplacementof,anelevator;

(e) majorrepairsto,orreplacementof,thelaundry,recreationalorparkingfacilities;

(f) majorrepairsto,orreplacementof,thesidewalksorroads;

(g) majorrepairsto,orreplacementof,thesewersystemorutilityserviceconnec-tiontotheproperty.511

And,asanexampleofthisapproachwithoutthetimingrule,hereisNewfoundlandandLabrador’sprovision:

Thecorporationshallestablishandmaintainareservefundformajorrepairandre-placementofthecommonelementsandassetsofthecorporationincluding,whereap-

510.SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote23,s38(1);Saskatchewan:TheCondomini-

umPropertyAct,1993,supranote23,s55(3);Manitoba:TheCondominiumAct,supranote23,s143.

511.Seeibid,s143(2)[emphasisadded].



plicable,roofs,exteriorsofbuildings,roads,sidewalks,sewers,heating,electricalandplumbingsystems,elevators,laundry,recreationalandparkingfacilities.512

DoesthislegislationprovideanyguidanceforreformsinBritishColumbia?Theleg-islationmayhavesomeadvantagesthatarelackingintheStrataPropertyAct’spro-visions.First,identifyingtheoperatingfundasaresidualfund—or,toputitinthenegativetermsusedinmostCanadianstatutes,notplacingarestrictiononhowtheoperatingfundmaybeused—couldhelpstratacorporationsthatarestrugglingwithborder-linecases.Aleadingpracticeguidehasnotedsomelitigationoverwhethermoneywaspaidoutoftheoperatingfundforexpensesthatwereconsistentwiththefund’sstatutorypurpose.513Theseborderlinecaseshaveinvolvedlegalexpenses514andwaterleaks.515Iftheoperatingfundwereclearlyidentifiedasthestratacorpora-tion’sresidualfund,thentherewouldn’tbecasesofexpensesfallingintogapsbe-tweentheoperatingfundandcontingencyreservefund.Thiswouldlikelyhelptoaddressanyconfusionoverwhetheranexpenseshouldbepaidforoutoftheoperat-ingfundorthecontingencyreservefund.AnotheradvantageoftheapproachusedelsewhereinCanadaisthatitmayprovidemoreguidanceforstratacorporations.AlthoughlegislationelsewhereinCanadatendstobewordierandthereforemorecomplexonthisissue,theadditionaldetailsfoundinthislegislationmighthelpstratacorporationsindeterminingwhetheranexpenseshouldbepaidforoutofthecontingencyreservefund.Thelegislationisof-tenwordierbecauseitprovidesconcreteexamples,whichmaybeaneffectiveaidtounderstandingtheprovision.Theremayalsobedownsidestothisapproach.Itsimplementationwouldresultinamorecomplicatedlegislativeprovision.Thisapproachalsoretainsanelementofjudgmentinitsapplication,asstratacorporationswouldhavetodeterminewhetherarepairqualifiedasa“major”repair.Thesequalitiesopenthequestionwhetherre-

512.SeeCondominiumAct,2009,supranote23,s49(1).

513.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§7.4.

514.SeeDocksideBrewingCovTheOwners,StrataPlanLMS3837,2005BCSC1209atpara42,46BCLR(4th)153,EdwardsJ(“Section97(a)oftheSPAprovidesthatastratacorporationmustnotspendmoneyfromtheoperatingfundunlessitisconsistentwiththepurposesofthefundsetoutins.92(a).Paymentofextraordinarylegalfeeslikelitigationexpenseincurredatthebe-hestoftheStrataCouncilisnotsuchapurpose.”),aff’d,2007BCCA183,59RPR(4th)12,leavetoappealtoSCCrefused,[2007]SCCANo262(QL).

515.SeeStrataCorpLMS509vAndresen,2001BCSC201atpara51,102ACWS(3d)1007,SkippJ;NicolsonvSection1oftheOwnersStrataPlanVIS1098,2003BCSC1108,124ACWS(3d)1015.



formingthelegislationonoperatingfundswould,intheend,amounttomuchofagainforstratacorporations.Itisn’tclearthatthereisapressingproblemwiththecurrentprovision;atleast,thereappearstobenocommentarysuggestingthatitneedsreform.Changingthecurrentlegislationwouldcreatealearningcurveforstratacorporations,which,attheendofit,mightleavethemwonderingwhetherre-formwasworthwhile.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteewasawareofsomeconcernsaboutinterpretingandapplyingtheleg-islationdealingwiththestratacorporation’soperatingfund.Inthecommittee’sview,oneoftheconsoftheproposedreformshadparticularsali-ence.Thiswastheideathatanewprovisionwouldbringwithitalearningcurveforstratacorporations.Thisweighedsignificantlyagainstconsideringalegislativesolu-tiontoaproblemthatthecommitteeviewswithambivalence.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:66.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtochangethepurposeofandcrite-riaforusingfundsinastratacorporation’soperatingfund.

Issues for Reform—Special Levies Introduction Theactallowsastratacorporationto“raisemoneyfromtheownersbymeansofaspeciallevy.”516Intheusualcase,aspeciallevymustbeapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote.517Inoneexceptionalcircumstance—inwhichastratacorpora-tionwantstoadoptamethodofcalculatingeachstratalot’sshareofthelevybysomeformulathatdiffersfromthedefaultformulabasedonunitentitlement518—thelevymustbeapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.519Inbothcases,theresolutiontoapprovethespeciallevymustdiscloseadetailedsetofin-formationaboutthelevy.520516.Supranote4,s108(1).

517.Seeibid,s108(2)(a).

518.Seeibid,ss99,100,195.

519.Seeibid,s108(2)(b).

520.Seeibid,s108(3)(“Theresolutiontoapproveaspeciallevymustsetoutallofthefollowing:(a)thepurposeofthelevy;(b)thetotalamountofthelevy;(c)themethodusedtodetermineeachstratalot’sshareofthelevy;(d)theamountofeachstratalot’sshareofthelevy;(e)thedateby



Theactalsosetssomegroundrulesformanagingthemoneycollected521onaspe-ciallevy.Thesegroundrulescoverissuesthatincludeaccountingfor,investing,andusingthemoneycollected.522Oneofthesegroundrules,concerningmoneycollectedinexcessoftheamountneededtocompletethetaskpaidforbythespeciallevy,istheonlyissueforreformidentifiedforthispartofthechapter.Should section 108 of the Strata Property Act be amended to allow a strata corporation to deposit in its contingency reserve fund any money collected in excess of the amount required? Brief description of the issue “Ifthemoneycollectedexceedstheamountrequired,orforanyotherreasonisnotfullyusedforthepurposesetoutintheresolution,”thensection108oftheactdi-rects,“thestratacorporationmustpaytoeachownerofastratalottheportionoftheunusedamountofthespeciallevythatisproportionaltothecontributionmadetothespeciallevyinrespectofthatstratalot.”523Thereisanexceptiontothisprovi-sion.“[I]fnoownerisentitledtoreceivemorethan$100intotal,”then“thestratacorporationmaydeposittheexcessinthecontingencyreservefund.”524Thisone-size-fits-allprovisioncouldbeseenasbeingtoorigid.Shouldtheactbeamendedtogivestratacorporationsanotheroption—namely,depositingtheexcessintotheircontingencyreservefunds—fordealingwithanexcessofmoneycollect-ed?

whichthelevyistobepaidor,ifthelevyispayableininstalments,thedatesbywhichthein-stalmentsaretobepaid.”).

521.Thisisadefinedterm.Seeibid,s108(7)(“Insubsections(4)and(5),‘moneycollected’meansthemoneycollectedonaspeciallevyandincludesanyinterestorincomeearnedonthatmon-ey.”).

522.Seeibid,s108(4)(Thestratacorporationmust(a)accountforthemoneycollectedseparatelyfromothermoneyofthestratacorporation,(b)investallofthemoneycollectedinoneorbothofthefollowing:(i)investmentspermittedbytheregulations;(ii)insuredaccountswithsavingsinstitutionsinBritishColumbia,(c)usethemoneycollectedforthepurposesetoutinthereso-lution,and(d)informownersabouttheexpenditureofthemoneycollected.”).





Discussion of options for reform Reformingtheactwouldhaveafewadvantages.Ifastratacorporationcouldplaceanyexcessmoneycollectedonaspeciallevyinitscontingencyreservefund,thenthiswouldgivethestratacorporationgreaterflexibilityindealingwiththatmoney.Itwouldalsostreamlineadministrationofspecialleviesinsomecases.Finally,alt-houghmostotherCanadianjurisdictionsdon’thavelegislationspecificallydirectingthestratacorporationonwhattodowithexcessmoneycollectedonaspeciallevy,Alberta’srecentreformstoitslegislationincludeaprovisiondirectingstratacorpo-rationsinthesecasestopaythemoneyintothecontingencyreservefund.525Thisisanindicationthatanotherjurisdictionhasconsideredtheissueandconcludedthattransferringexcessmoneycollectedonaspeciallevytothecontingencyreservefundisanacceptablepolicyoutcome.Buttheremayalsobedisadvantagestothisproposal.Strata-lotownerscouldfeelthatittakessomethingawayfromtheirbasketofindividualrightsinthecorpora-tion.Thepossibilitythatexcessmoneycollectedmightnotberefundedtotheown-erscouldmakeitmarginallyhardertopassaresolutionauthorizingaspeciallevyinthefirstplace.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteeviewedthecurrentlimitof$100asarchaic.Itpreferredtoaddressconcernsaboutthisprovisionbyraisingthelimit.Inthecommittee’sview,thefigureshouldbeprescribedbyregulation,whichwouldallowforittobemore-easilyup-datedtokeeppacewithchangingtimes.Itfavouredhavingtheregulationsetthefigureinitiallyat$500.Thecommitteewasawareoftheneedtostriketherightbalanceonthisissue.Set-tingtoohighafigureorgoingevenfurtherandtakingawaytheprospectofarefundmightleadstratacorporationstorejectneededspeciallevies.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:67.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequire,ifthemoneycollectedonaspeciallevyex-ceedstheamountrequired,orforanyotherreasonisnotfullyusedforthepurposesetoutintheresolution,thestratacorporationtopaytoeachownerofastratalotthe

525.SeeCondominiumPropertyAmendmentAct,2014,supranote28,s30(addingnewsec-

tion39.1(5)totheCondominiumPropertyAct,supranote23,whichreads:“Iftheamountcol-lectedexceedstheamountrequiredorforanyotherreasonisnotfullyusedforthepurposesetoutintheresolutionreferredtoinsubsection(1),thecorporationmustpaythemoneyintothereservefund.”[notinforce]).



portionoftheunusedamountofthespeciallevythatisproportionaltothecontribu-tionmadetothespeciallevyinrespectofthatstratalot,unlessnoownerwouldbeen-titledtoreceivemorethananamountprescribedbyregulation(whichshouldinitiallybesetat$500)intotal,inwhichcasethestratacorporationmaydeposittheexcessinitscontingencyreservefund.

Issues for Reform—Budgets Introduction Astratacorporationmusthaveanannualbudget.526Amongotherthings,thebudgetguidesastratacorporation’sspendingintheupcomingfiscalyear.Italsosetsoutthetotalcontributiontothestratacorporation’soperatingfundandcontingencyre-servefund,andlistseachstratalot’smonthlycontributiontothosefunds.527Inordertotakeeffect,astratacorporation’sbudgetmustbeapprovedbythestrata-lotowners,byaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvote.(ThisisanotherinstanceinwhichBritishColumbia’slegislationstandsapartfromstrata-propertylegislationintherestofCanada.OutsideBritishColumbia,approvingabudgetanddealingwithfinancialmatterssuchassettingstratafeesis,asarecentSaskatchewancaseputit,“ataskfortheboard,nottheassociationasawhole.”)528Theactcontemplatesthatthisapprovaltakeplaceateachannualgeneralmeeting.529Theact’sprovisionforapprovalatanannualgeneralmeetinggeneratesthesoleissueforthispartofthechapter.

526.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s103(1).

527.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,s6.6.

528.SmookevRosemontEstateCondoCorp101222494,2017SKQB201atpara39,[2017]SJNo326(QL),DanyliukJ(“Theplainwordsofss.57and58showthatthedeterminationofcondominiumfeesisataskfortheboard,nottheassociationasawhole.”).ButnotethatQuébec’slegislationcallsonasyndicate’sboardofdirectorstosetfees“afterconsultationwiththegeneralmeetingoftheco-owners.”Seeart1072CCQ.

529.Seesupranote4,s103(1).



Should the Strata Property Act authorize a strata corporation to initiate the budget-approval process or amend a budget at a special general meeting? Brief description of the issue “Thestratacorporationmustprepareabudgetforthecomingfiscalyear,”accordingtosection103oftheact,“forapprovalbyaresolutiontobepassedbyamajorityvoteateachannualgeneralmeeting.”530Thisprovisionappearstosetarigidre-quirementthatthebudgetcanonlybepassedatanannualgeneralmeeting.Infact,theactalreadygivesstratacorporationssomeleewaytodealwiththebudgetataspecialgeneralmeeting.Mostnotably,ifthestratacorporationfailstopassabudgetatanannualgeneralmeeting,then“thestratacorporationmustwithin30days,orsuchlongerperiodasapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteatthemeeting,prepareanewbudgetandplaceitbeforeaspecialgeneralmeetingforap-provalbyaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvote.”531Andthereisnothingintheactthatappearstopreventastratacorporationfromamendingitsbudgetataspecialgeneralmeeting,apracticethatsomestratacorporationshaveapparentlyadoptedfromtimetotime.532Theonlyprocedurethatappearstobeoffsidetheactwouldbetobegintheprocessofapprovingabudgetatageneralmeetingthatwasn’tanannu-algeneralmeeting.Shouldtheactgivestratacorporationsthisadditionalleeway,al-lowingthemtoinitiatethebudget-approvalprocessataspecialgeneralmeeting?Discussion of options for reform Amendingtheacttoallowstratacorporationstoseek,forthefirsttime,approvalofanannualbudgetataspecialgeneralmeetingwouldgivestratacorporationssomeaddedflexibilityinmanagingtheirfinancialaffairs.Eventhoughmoststratacorpo-rationswouldprefernottoincurtheexpenseofholdingtwogeneralmeetingsinayear,somestratacorporationsmightfavoursplittingbudgetapprovalofffromtheothertopicsthatmustbeconsideredinanannualgeneralmeeting.Thereisremark-ablediversityamongBritishColumbia’sstratacorporations,and,forsomeofthem,holdingaspecialgeneralmeetingtoapproveabudgetmightmakeadministrativesense.Forexample,therequirementtopassabudgetatanannualgeneralmeetingeffectivelytiesthetimingofthatmeetingtoastratacorporation’sfiscalyearend.

530.Ibid,s103(1).

531.Ibid,s104(1).

532.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§7.7(“Somestratacorpo-rationconvenespecialgeneralmeetingstoamendtheoperatingbudgetduringthefiscalyear.”).



Somestratacorporationsmightprefertohavetheoptiontoholdaspecialgeneralmeeting,focussedonthebudget,inconjunctionwiththefiscalyearend,andtoholdtheannualgeneralmeetingatsomeothertimeduringtheyear.Thatsaid,theremayalsobedisadvantagestoamendingtheact.Buildingmoreop-tionsandgreaterflexibilityintotheactwillalsohavethesideeffectofmakingtheactmorecomplex.Thiscomplexitycouldconfusesomestratacorporations.Itcouldpotentiallyleadtosomeerosionofthefiscaldisciplinethattheactinstillsinstratacorporationsbyitsbudget-approvalprovisions.Finally,itisn’tclearthatmanypeo-pleseeaproblemwiththecurrentlegislationorarecallingforthischangetoit.The committee’s tentative recommendations for reform Thecommitteewasconcernedaboutdetachingapprovalofabudgetfromthere-quiredfinancialreportingatanannualgeneralmeeting.Forthisreason,itfavouredtheexistingprovisions,whichrequirethebudget-approvalprocessto(atleast)beginattheannualgeneralmeeting.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

68.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetorequirestratacorporationstoinitiatethebudget-approvalprocessonlyatanannualgeneralmeeting.Thecommitteewasn’tinfavourofhavingtheactexpresslyaddresswhetherabudg-etcouldbeamendedataspecialgeneralmeeting.Initsview,anexpressprovisioncouldendupactinglikeagreenlighttosomestratacorporationstoamendtheirbudgetsrepeatedlythroughoutthefinancialyear.Havingtheactremainsilentonthispointstruckthecommitteeasthebestoutcome.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:69.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtopermitbudgetstobeamendedataspecialgeneralmeeting.



Issues for Reform—Financial Statements Introduction Astratacorporationmustdistributeafinancialstatementwiththe“noticeofthean-nualgeneralmeeting.”533Therequirementsforputtingtogetherthisfinancialstate-mentarefoundintheStrataPropertyRegulation.534Should the Strata Property Regulation be amended to provide a prescribed form for financial statements? Brief description of the issue Theactprovidesthatabudgetandfinancialstatement“mustcontaintheinfor-mationrequiredbytheregulations.”535Forfinancialstatements,thecentrepieceoftheregulation’srequirementsisthefollowinglistofinformationthatastratacorpo-ration’sannualfinancialstatementsmustcontain:

• theopeningbalanceintheoperatingfundandthecurrentbalance;

• theopeningbalanceinthecontingencyreservefundandthecurrentbalance;

• thedetailsofthestratacorporation’sincomefromallsources,exceptspeciallevies;

• thedetailsofexpendituresoutoftheoperatingfund,includingdetailsofanyunap-provedexpendituresundersection98oftheAct;

• thedetailsofexpendituresoutofthecontingencyreservefund,includingdetailsofanyunapprovedexpendituresundersection98oftheAct;

• incomeandexpenditures,ifany,byspeciallevyundersection108oftheAct.536(Aparallellistexistsintheregulationforbudgets.)537Theactalsoprovidesthatthebudgetandfinancialstatements“maybeintheformsetoutintheregulations.”538Butasaleadingpracticeguidehasnoted,“[a]tthepre-

533.StrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s103(2).

534.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,s6.7.

535.StrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s103(3)(a).


537.Seeibid,s6.6(1).

538.Supranote4,s103(3)(b).



senttime,thereisnospecificformsetoutintheRegulation.”539Shouldthepowerenabledbythisprovisionbeexercisedbycreatingaprescribedformforstrata-corporationfinancialstatements?Discussion of options for reform Creatingaprescribedformforfinancialstatementscouldhelpstratacorporationsinmeetingtheirobligationsundersection103oftheact.Atleastonecommentatorhasnotedsomeconcernsaboutstratacorporations’meetingtheirobligationsundertheregulationtoincludespecificinformationinfinancialstatements.540Aprescribedformcouldhelptocombatthisproblem.Oneofthefunctionsoftheformcouldbetoguideoreducatestratacorporationsontheinformationthatmustbeincludedinfi-nancialstatements.This,inturn,couldleadtogreaterunderstandingbystrata-lotowners.Standardizingtheformatoffinancialstatementscouldalsomakeiteasiertocomparethefinancesofmultiplestratacorporations.Buttherewouldbedownsidestocreatingaprescribedform.Underthecurrentlaw,asaleadingpracticeguideobserved,“astratacorporationhasmuchflexibilityinthelayoutof[required]informationforpresentationtothestratalotowners.”541Creat-ingaprescribedformwouldrobstratacorporationsofthisflexibility.Aprescribedformisinevitablygoingtobeaone-size-fits-allsolutiontothisissue.Giventhedi-versityofstratacorporationsinBritishColumbia,thiscouldmeanthatsomestratacorporationswillhavetoforcetheirfinancialreportingintoaformatthatmightmakelittlesenseforthem.Inadditiontoconcernsaboutrigidity,creatingapre-scribedformislikelytobeadifficultdraftingexercise.ThesetworeasonslikelyexplainwhythepowertocreateaprescribedformthatisfoundintheStrataPropertyActhasn’tbeenexercised.Theyalsolikelyexplainwhystrata-propertylegislationelsewhereinCanadashiesawayfromcreatingapre-scribedformforfinancialstatements.Whenthatbodyoflegislationaddressestheissueoffinancialstatements,ittendstodosoinawaythatissimilartothecurrentapproachoftheStrataPropertyAct,whichistosetoutalistofrequirementsinthe


540.SeeFanaken,supranote31at82–83.SeealsoLinkvTheOwners,StrataPlanKAS828,2017BCCRT128atparas28–37(exampleofstratacorporationfailingtocomplywiththeactandtheregulationinthepreparationofitsfinancialstatements).




regulations.542BritishColumbiaandfederalcorporate-lawlegislationalsotakethisapproachtofinancialstatements.543Finally,creatingaprescribedformwouldraisetheconsequentialissueofwhattodoaboutbreachesoftheform.Useoftheformcouldbestrictlyenforced,butthiswouldresultinquestionsaboutthevalidityoffinancialstatementsthatmightcontainfor-malirregularities.Ontheotherhand,theformcouldbemadeanoptionalform,butthiscouldcallthewholereformeffortintoquestion.Exertingtheeffortneededtocreateaprescribedformthatstratacorporationsweren’trequiredtousecouldbeseenasresultinginlittleimprovementtothelaw,whichalreadyspellsoutindetailtheinformationthatisrequiredforfinancialstatements.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteewasn’tinfavourofcreatingaprescribedformoffinancialstate-ments.Inthecommittee’sview,thisproposedreformwouldtaketoorigidanap-proachtofinancialreporting.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

70.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldnotcontainaprescribedformforstrata-corporationfinancialstatements.542.SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote23,s30(3)(a);CondominiumProperty

AmendmentAct,2014,supranote28,s21(amendingsection30andaddingapowertolistre-quirementsforfinancialstatementsintheregulations—notinforce);Saskatchewan:TheCon-dominiumPropertyAct,1993,supranote23,s39(2);TheCondominiumPropertyRegulations,2001,supranote369,Reg2,s53.1(b)(“financialstatementsmustbepreparedinaccordancewithgenerallyacceptedaccountingprinciplespublishedbyCharteredProfessionalAccountantsofCanada,asamendedfromtimetotime”);Manitoba:TheCondominiumAct,supranote23,s150(1);CondominiumRegulation,ManReg164/2014,ss31–32(additionaldisclosurere-quiredforfinancialstatements);Ontario:CondominiumAct,1998,supranote23,s66;GeneralRegulation,supranote473,s16(3);ProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,supranote28,s59(3)(amendingsection66—notinforce);Québec:art1087CCQ;NewBrunswick:Condomin-iumPropertyAct,supranote23,s34(1);GeneralRegulation,NBReg2009-169,s21;NovaSco-tia:CondominiumAct,supranote23,s24A;CondominiumRegulations,NSReg60/71,s72B;NewfoundlandandLabrador:CondominiumAct,2009,supranote23,s37(1);NorthwestTerri-toriesandNunavut:CondominiumRegulations,NWTReg098-2008,s6(2).PrinceEdwardIs-landandYukondon’thaveanyprovisionsaddressingfinancialstatements.

543.SeeBusinessCorporationsAct,supranote290,s198(4);BusinessCorporationsRegulation,BCReg65/2004,s21(1);CooperativeAssociationAct,supranote347,s153(1)(a);SocietiesAct,supranote290,s35(3).SeealsoCanadaBusinessCorporationsAct,supranote290,s155(1)(a);CanadaBusinessCorporationsRegulations,2001,supranote458,s72;CanadaNot-for-ProfitCorporationsAct,supranote330,s172(1)(a);CanadaNot-for-profitCorporationsRegulations,supranote331,s79(1).



Issues for Reform—Contracts Introduction TheStrataPropertyActhaslittletosayaboutthepowerofastratacorporationtoenterintocontracts.Theactconfirmsthat“astratacorporationhasthepowerandcapacityofanaturalpersonoffullcapacity.”544Thisincludesthepowerandcapacitytoenterintoacontract.Thereisoneareawheretheacthasplacedarestrictiononastratacorporation’scontractingpowers.Thisrestrictionappliesduringtheearlylifeofastratacorpora-tion,whentheowner-developeriseffectivelyabletodominateit.Therelevantprovisionpreventsthestratacorporation,beforeitsfirstannualgen-eralmeeting,fromenteringintoacontractwiththeowner-developerorapersonwhoisn’toperatingatarm’slengthfromtheowner-developer.545Buttheownersdoretaintheabilitytoratifyanysuchcontract,byaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvoteataspecialgeneralmeeting.Therationaleforthisrestrictionisaconcernoverwhatonecommentatorhascalled“sweetheartdeals.”546Thesearecontractsthatcontainfavourableprovisionsfortheowner-developerandtheothercontractingpartybutthataren’tinthelong-termin-terestsofthestratacorporation.Anotherspecialareaofconcernisstrata-managementcontracts.Theacthastwoprovisionsthatapplytothesekindsofcontracts.Bothprovisionshavetheeffectofgivingthestratacorporationanenhancedpowertoterminatethecontract.Thefirstprovisionconcernsastrata-managementcontractthatwas“enteredintobeforethefirstannualgeneralmeeting.”547It’sdescribedinmoredetailbelowaspartoftheoptionsforreformforthefirstissueinthispartofthechapter.Thesec-ondprovisionhasageneralapplicationtotheissueofcancellingastrata-


545.Ibid,s10(“Intheperiodafterthefirstconveyanceofastratalottoapurchaserbutbeforethefirstannualgeneralmeeting,nocontractortransactionmaybeenteredintobyoronbehalfofthestratacorporationwitheithertheownerdeveloperorapersonwhoisnotatarm’slengthtotheownerdeveloper,unlessthecontractortransactionisapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvoteataspecialgeneralmeeting.”).





managementcontract.548Thisprovisionisdiscussedinconnectionwiththesecondissueinthispartofthechapter.Should the Strata Property Act give a strata corporation the enhanced power to terminate any contract entered into before its first annual general meeting? Brief description of the issue Owner-developershaveeffectivecontroloverastratacorporationfromitsinceptiontothetimewhen50percentofthestratalotshavebeensoldofftopurchasers.Dur-ingthistime,theymaycausethestratacorporationtoenterintoallkindsofcon-tracts.Anargumentcouldbemadethatcontractswiththeowner-developerorwithnon-arm’slengthpartiesandstrata-managementcontractsaren’ttheonlycontractsinwhichstratacorporationsmightfallpreytosweetheartdealsorchestratedbytheowner-developer.Shouldtheactgivestratacorporationsanenhancedpowertoterminatesuchcontracts?Discussion of options for reform Twoprovinceshaveenactedlegislationthatgivesastratacorporationenhancedpowerstoterminateacontractenteredintowhentheowner-developerdominatesthestratacorporation.Thislegislationmayprovidesomeoptionstoconsider.Manitobaalreadyhaslegislationinforcethatallowsastratacorporation,“within12monthsaftertheturn-overmeeting,[to]terminate,withoutpenalty”anyofaseriesoflistedcontracts.549(A“turn-overmeeting”isameetingthat“mustbecalledbythedeclarant’s[theroughequivalentofaBritishColumbiaowner-developer]boardnolaterthansixmonthsafterthedeclarantceasestobetheownerofamajorityofthe

548.Seeibid,s39.

549.TheCondominiumAct,supranote23,s82(“(1)Acondominiumcorporationmay,within12monthsaftertheturn-overmeeting,terminate,withoutpenalty,anyofthefollowingagreementsenteredintobythecorporationbeforetheturn-overmeeting:(a)anagreementtoprovidegoodsandservicestothecondominiumcorporationonacontinuingbasis;(b)anagreementtoprovidefacilitiestothecondominiumcorporationonafor-profitbasis;(c)acommercialleaseforpartsofthecommonelements;(d)aninsurancetrustagreement.(2)Subsection(1)appliesdespiteanytermtothecontraryintheagreementtobeterminated.(3)Toterminateanagree-mentreferredtoinsubsection(1),thecondominiumcorporationmustgivewrittennoticeoftheterminationdatetotheotherpartytotheagreementatleast30days,oranyshorterperiodspecifiedintheagreement,beforethatdate.(4)Nothinginthissectionpermitstheterminationofaneasementcreatedbyanagreementexceptinaccordancewiththatagreement.(5)Thissec-tiondoesnotapplytoamutualuseagreement.”).



existingunits”atwhichthe“declarant’sboard”[theequivalenttoastratacouncil]isreplacedwith“anewboardofthecondominiumcorporationelectedbyunitown-ers”andmustturnovercondominiumrecordstothatnewboard.)550Albertaisalsoplanningtoimplementasimilarprovision.Itappearsinlegislationthathasbeenenactedbuthasn’tyetbeenbroughtintoforce.TheAlbertaprovisionisbroaderinscopethantheManitobaprovision.Insteadofapplyingtoalistedsetofcontracts,itwillapplyto“anagreement”enteredintoduringtherelevanttime.Thistimeis“within12monthsafterthetimeatwhichitsboardfirstconsistsofdirectorswhowereelectedwhenpersonswhowereatarm’slengthfromthedeveloperownedorheldunitsrepresentingmorethan50%ofthetotalunitfactors[theAlber-taequivalentofBritishColumbia’sunitentitlement]foralltheunits.”551Thereisn’tmuchdifferencebetweenthesetwooptions.ItcouldbearguedthatAl-berta’sapproachgivesstratacorporationsthegreatestflexibility,whileManitoba’slegislationismorefocussedonspecifickindsofcontractsthatmayposethegreatestconcerns.Themaindownsideofbothapproachesisthattheysuspendnormalcon-tractlawonterminationandmaycreateuncertaintyforpartiescontractingwithstratacorporationsduringtheirearlyperiodoftheirexistence.AnotheroptiontoconsiderisadaptinganexistingprovisionintheStrataPropertyAct.Section24appliestothecancellationofstrata-managementcontracts“enteredintobeforethefirstannualgeneralmeeting.”552Undersection24,suchastrata-managementcontractends“regardlessofanyprovisionofthecontracttothecon-trary,ontheearlierof”:

• thedatethatis4weeksafterthedateofthesecondannualgeneralmeeting,

• theterminationdatecontainedinthecontractoragreedtobytheparties,and

550.Ibid,s75.

551.CondominiumPropertyAmendmentAct,2014,supranote28,s12(addingnews17.1—notinforce—“(1)Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinsection17andtheregulations,acorporationmayterminateanagreementwithin12monthsafterthetimeatwhichitsboardfirstconsistsofdi-rectorswhowereelectedwhenpersonswhowereatarm’slengthfromthedeveloperownedorheldunitsrepresentingmorethan50%ofthetotalunitfactorsforalltheunits.(2)Subsec-tion(1)appliesdespiteanytermtothecontraryintheagreementtobeterminated.(3)Toter-minateanagreementunderthissection,thecorporationmustgivewrittennoticeofthetermi-nationdatetotheotherpartytotheagreementatleast60days,oranyshorterperiodspecifiedintheagreement,beforetheterminationdate.(4)Whereacorporationterminatesanagree-mentunderthissection,thecorporationisnotliabletotheotherpartytotheagreementbyrea-sononlyoftheterminationoftheagreementunderthissection.”).




• thecancellationdateestablishedinaccordancewithsection39.553(Section39setsoutaprocedureforcancellingstrata-managementcontractsontwomonths’notice.)Althoughthecontractispresumptivelyterminated,thelegislationallowsastratacorporationtosustainitinforce“byaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvoteatthesecondannualgeneralmeeting.”554Thisexistingprovisionoftheactcouldbeexpandedtocoverothertypesofcon-tracts—orevenallcontracts—thatastratacorporationentersintowithinitseffec-tivetime(“beforethefirstannualgeneralmeeting”).Theadvantageofthisoptionisitsfamiliarity;stratacorporationswouldalreadybeusedtoapplyingthisprocedureforstrata-managementcontracts.Thedownsideisthatitcould,inpractice,provetobeacumbersomeprocedure.Thestratacorporation’ssecondannualgeneralmeet-ingcouldbetakenupwithreviewingmanycontracts,involvingthebroadmassoftheownershipinmakingfinancialjudgments.Finally,anotheroptiontoconsiderisretainingthestatusquo.Thisoptionwouldhavetheadvantageofaffirmingordinarycontractualprinciplesontermination,whichwouldbenefitpartiescontractingwithstratacorporationsandmayalsobene-fitstratacorporationsbymakingiteasiertoenterintocontractsduringtheirearlyexistence.Butitwouldalsoleavestratacorporationsvulnerabletosweetheartdeals.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteeacknowledgedthatsomecontractsaretiltedinfavouroftheowner-developer.Butgivingstratacorporationsaliberalpowertoterminatethemwouldcauseawholehostofotherproblems,includingproblemsthatwouldimpairtheop-erationofastratacorporationinitsearlylife.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:71.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoprovideanynewenhancedter-minationpowertostratacorporationforcontractsitentersintobeforeitsfirstannualgeneralmeeting.

553.Ibid,s24(1).

554.Ibid,s24(2).



Should section 39 of the Strata Property Act contain a time limit on a 3/4 vote resolution authorizing cancellation of a strata-management contract? Brief description of the issue Section39(1)oftheStrataPropertyActsetsoutaprocedureforcancellingastrata-managementcontract.555Section39(2)establishesthescopeofthisprocedure:itappliesincasesotherthanthoseinwhichastrata-managementcontractistermi-nated“inaccordancewithitsterms”orwhentheagreement“expires.”556Akeycomponentofthisprocedureistherequirementthatthecancellationbe“firstap-provedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeet-ing.”557Incorrespondencedrawingthisissuetothecommittee’sattention,anemergingtrendwasnotedinwhichstratacouncilsare“proposingtohavea3/4voteresolu-tiontoterminatethestratamanagementcontractoneveryAGMagenda.”Theeffectofsucharesolutionwouldbethat“councilwillperpetuallyhavethepowertoter-minatethecontractatanytimethroughouttheyear.”558Thispracticeraisesthecon-cernthatthedecisiontoterminateastrata-managementagreementmaybeeffec-tivelytakenoutoftheowners’handsandplacedatthediscretionofthestratacoun-cil.Tocombatthisconcern,shouldtheactbeamendedtoplaceatimelimitontheowners’authorizationtocancelastrata-managementcontract?Discussion of options for reform Amendingtheacttoprovideatimelimitonaresolutionauthorizingcancellationofastrata-managementcontractcouldhelptosupportoneofthepurposesofsection39.Thatpurposeisrequiringownerscrutinyofadecisiontoterminateastrata-managementcontractthatistakenwithinthescopeofsection39(1).Ifthisdecisionbecomesaroutineitematannualgeneralmeetings,thenthatpurposemaybeerod-555.Ibid,s39(1)(“Acontractenteredintobyoronbehalfofthestratacorporationfortheprovision

ofstratamanagementservicestothestratacorporationmaybecancelled,withoutliabilityorpenalty,despiteanyprovisionofthecontracttothecontrary,(a)bythestratacorporationon2months’noticeifthecancellationisfirstapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteatanan-nualorspecialgeneralmeeting,or(b)bytheotherpartytothecontracton2months’notice.”).

556.Ibid,s39(2)(“Thestratacorporationdoesnotneedanypriorapprovaltocancelthecontractinaccordancewithitstermsortorefusetorenewthecontractwhenitexpires.”).

557.Ibid,s39(1)(a).

558.AllenRegan,emailmessagetoStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)ProjectCommittee,17Febru-ary2017.



ed.Atimelimitwouldservetoshoreupthisaspectofsection39(1).Itwouldhelptoensurethatanydecisionstakenundertheprovisioninvolvetheownersandfocusonactualissueswithastrata-managementcontractandnotaroutinetransferofpowertothestratacouncil.Therearelikelyfewdrawbackstoamendingtheactandinstitutingatimelimit.Theonlysignificantdownsidetothisproposalisthatitcouldbesaidthatthetimeisnotyetripetopursueit.Itisn’tclearhowwidespreadthetrendtoroutinelyadoptingaresolutionundersection39(1)is.Itcouldbearguedthatmorestudyisneededbe-foreproposingtoamendthelegislation.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteenotedthatthereareexamplesinwhichastratacorporationpassesaresolutiontoterminateastrata-managementcontractanditjuststaysthere,asanimpliedthreattothestrata-managementcompany.Thecommitteedecidedthattheactshouldbeamendedtoaddressthisissue.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

72.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatastratacorporationmustactonaresolutionauthorizingthecancellationofastrata-managementcontractandprovidenoticeofthecancellationwithin90days.

Issues for Reform—Regulatory Provisions on Fines and Fees Introduction TheStrataPropertyRegulationcontainsahandfulofprovisionsthatsetthemone-tarylimitsonfinesforbylaworrulecontraventionsandfeesthatthestratacorpora-tionmaychargeforcertificatesitmustprovideorcopiesofrecordsitmustretain.Theseprovisionscoverthefollowingissues:

• maximumfeesforrecords;559

• maximumfeeforanInformationCertificate(FormB);560

559.StrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,s4.2.

560.Ibid,s4.4.



• maximumfeeforaCertificateofPayment(FormF);561

• maximumfines.562Should the Strata Property Regulation be amended to increase the maximum fines? Brief description of the issue Theactholdsthat“[t]hestratacorporationmustsetoutinitsbylawsthemaximumamountitmayfineanownerortenantforeachcontraventionofabylaworrule.”563Butthismaximumamountcan’texceedthemaximumprovidedforintheregula-tion.564Theregulationgenerallysetsthemaximumfinesatthefollowinglevels:

• $200foreachcontraventionofabylaw,and

• $50foreachcontraventionofarule.565Aspecialmaximumlevelappliestoonespecificcase.Ifthefineisfor“therentalofaresidentialstratalotincontraventionofabylawthatprohibitsorlimitsrentals,”then“themaximumamountthatastratacorporationmaysetoutinitsbylawsasafine...is$500foreachcontraventionofthebylaw.”566Discussion of options for reform Thesemaximumshaven’tchangedsincetheadventoftheStrataPropertyActinJu-ly2000.Anargumentcouldbemadethat,after17years,themaximumlevelshavefailedtokeeppacewithinflationandarenowsettoolow.Thiscoulderodethede-terrenteffectoffinesandhamperstratacorporationsindealingwithbylawcontra-ventions.Buttherecouldalsobedrawbackstoraisingthemaximumfines.Complaintsarefrequentaboutstratacouncilsharshlyusingtheirbylaw-enforcementpowerstofine

561.Ibid,s6.10.

562.Ibid,s7.1.


564.StrataPropertyAct,ibid,s132(3).


566.Ibid,s7.1(2).



ownersrepeatedlyatthemaximumlevels.Commentators567andcourts568haveof-tencalledforrestraintinthesecircumstances.Raisingthemaximumfinescouldex-acerbateconcernsoverenforcementofbylaws.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthecurrentmaximumfinescontinuetobeacceptable,withoneexception.Inthecommittee’sview,themaximumfineforacontraventionofarental-restrictionbylawshouldberaised.Thiswouldaddressconcernsthatthedeterrentvalueofthisfinehassignificantlyerodedinthefaceofatightrentalmar-ket.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:73.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldbeamendedtosetthemaximumfinesat:(a)$200foreachcontraventionofabylaw;(b)$50foreachcontraventionofarule;and(c)$2000foreachcontraventionofarental-restrictionbylaw.Should the Strata Property Regulation create a new maximum fine for contravention of a short-term accommodation bylaw? Brief description of the issue Dealingwithshort-term,hotel-likerentalsofresidentialstratalotshasbecomeanemergingconcernonthestrata-propertyscene.569Commentatorsagreethatthecaselawonthisissuehastakendealingwithitoutsidethescopeofarental-restrictionbylaw,sothat“astratacorporationthatwishestoprohibithotel-typeac-commodationshoulddosobywayofabylawgoverningtheuseofastratalot,and

567.SeeMangan,supranote31at351(“Wherebylawsandrulesestablishamaximumfine,astrata

councilshouldconsiderallthefactorsinvolved,includingbothaggravatingandmitigatingfac-tors.Insteadofstartingwithamaximumfine,thebetterapproachistoconsiderwhatfineistheleastamountnecessarytoreasonablysanctionthebehaviourinquestionanddetertheindivid-ual,aswellasothers,frombreachingthebylaworruleinthefuture.”).SeealsoFanaken,supranote31at105.

568.SeeDrummondvStrataPlanNW2654,2004BCSC1405atparas15,39,34BCLR(4th)359,McKinnonJ.SeealsoCondominiumCorporationNo0729313(TrailsofMillCreek)vSchultz,2016ABQB338atpara33,[2016]AJNo622(QL),MasterSchlosser.

569.SeeVeronicaFranco,“BanningAirBnb,VRBO,andShort-TermRentals:WhatStrataCorpora-tionsNeedtoKnow,”CHOAJournal(Fall2015)33at33(“RarelydoesaweekgobythatIdon’tgetacalloremailaboutshort-termrentals.”).SeealsoTheOwners,StrataPlanVR812vYu,2017BCCRT82(exampleofrecentdisputeoveruseofastratalotforshort-termaccommoda-tion).



notbywayofarentallimitationbylaw.”570Hasthetimecometobringthemaximumfineforcontraventionofashort-termaccommodationbylawintolinewiththemax-imumfineforcontraventionofarental-restrictionbylaw?Discussion of options for reform Althoughtheyaren’taddressedbyrental-restrictionbylaws,short-termrentalsraisemanyofthesameconcernsthatmotivatestratacorporationstoadoptrental-restrictionbylaws.Theseconcernsincludeissuesrelatingtocontrolofproperty,se-curity,andbuildingcharacter.Thesimilarrationalesforthesetypesofbylawsisanargumentinfavourofharmonizingthemaximumfinesapplicabletothem.Anotherargumentinfavouroftheproposalisthatthecurrentmaximumfinemightnotbeprovidingmuchofadeterrenttoshort-termrentals.Asadvancesincommu-nicationsandtechnologyhavemadeshort-termrentalsmorewidespreadandlucra-tive,thepenaltiesforengaginginthemhaven’tkeptpace.Butretainingthestatusquoisanotheroptiontoconsider.Short-termrentalsarearapidlychangingsubject,whichmightbebetteraddressedbysomeotherpolicytool.Inaddition,anargumentcouldbemadethatshort-term-rentalbylawsaren’ttheequivalentofrental-restrictionbylaws.Thelatteraresubjecttoanelaboratelegalframework,571whichdoesn’tapplytoashort-term-rentalbylawbasedontheuseofastratalot.572The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,thetimeisrighttocreateanewcategoryofmaximumfineforcontraventionofshort-termaccommodationbylaws.Theamountofthatmaxi-mumfineshouldbesetatthesameamountforcontraventionofarental-restrictionbylaw.Todootherwisewouldbetoriskerodingthedeterrentvalueofbylawsre-strictingshort-termrentals.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:74.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldprovideforanewmaximumfinetobesetat$2000foreachcontraventionofashort-termaccommodationbylaw.570.BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§11.6(citingTheOwners

StrataPlanVR2213vDuncan,2010BCPC123,190ACWS(3d)288).SeealsoHighStreetAccom-modationsLtdvTheOwners,StrataPlanBCS2478,2017BCSC1039,[2017]BCJNo1212(QL)[HighStreetAccommodations].

571.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ss139–48.

572.SeeHighStreetAccommodations,supranote570atpara54,SharmaJ.



Should the Strata Property Regulation be amended to increase the maximum fees for an Information Certificate (Form B) and a Certificate of Payment (Form F)? Brief description of the issue TheregulationsetsthemaximumfeeastratacorporationmaychargeforanInfor-mationCertificateat“$35plusthecostofphotocopying,orothermeansofrepro-duction,upto25centsperpage.”573ThemaximumfeeforaCertificateofPaymentis$15.574ThesefigureshaveremainedthesamesincetheadventoftheStrataProp-ertyActin2000.Shouldtheyberevisedupward?Discussion of options for reform Thisissuepresentedthecommitteewithasimilardecisionaswascalledforinthepreviousissue.Anargumentcouldbemadethat,aftermorethan17yearsatthesamelevel,thetimeisrighttoraisethefeesforthetwoformstoalevelthatac-countsforinflation.Ontheotherhand,itcouldbearguedthatthecurrentfeescon-tinuetoreflectareasonablefeeforofficialdocumentsthatareessentiallyarequiredelementofstrata-lotconveyancesandthataren’tintendedtobeasourceofprofit.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,thesemaximumsshouldbeincreased.Anincreasehasn’tbeenimplementedsincetheactwasbroughtintoforce,duringwhichtimethestra-ta-propertysectorhasgrownsignificantlylargerandmorecomplex.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:75.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldbeamended(a)toraisethemaximumfeeastratacorporationmaychargeforanInformationCertificateto$300plusthecostofphotocopying,orothermeansofreproduction,upto25centsperpageand(b)toraisethemaximumfeeforaCertificateofPaymentto$50.

573.Supranote8,s4.4.

574.Seeibid,s6.10.



Should the Strata Property Regulation provide for a fee for the inspection of strata-corporation records? Brief description of the issue Section36oftheStrataPropertyActcreatesarightofaccesstostrata-corporationrecordsfor

• anowner,

• atenantwho,undersection147or148,hasbeenassignedalandlord’srighttoin-spectandobtaincopiesofrecordsanddocuments,or

• apersonauthorizedinwritingbyanownerortenantreferredto[inthetwobulletpointsabove].575

Theregulationprovidesthat“[n]ofeemaybechargedtoanowner,atenantorapersonauthorizedbyanownerortenantfortheinspectionofarecordordocumentundersection36oftheAct.”576Frequently,astratacorporationwillauthorizesomeonetosuperviseaninspectionofrecordsundersection36.Astratacorpora-tionmayincurothercostsinthesecircumstances.Inlightofthesecosts,shouldthestratacorporationbeabletoapplyafeetotheinspectionofrecords?Discussion of options for reform Therearetwoapproachesthatmaybetakentothisissue.ThefirstistonotethattheStrataPropertyRegulationisoutofstepwithBritishColumbia’sothercorporatelawsonthispoint.BoththeBusinessCorporationsRegulation577andtheSocietiesRegulation578allowchargingafeeofuptotendollarsperdayforinspectionofcor-poraterecords.Theseregulationsrecognizethatgrantingaccesstorecordsimposesacostonacompanyorsociety.Sincestratacorporationsaresimilartocompanies

575.Supranote4,s36(1).Seealsos36.1(ibid)foraparallelrightforformerownersandformer

tenants.

576.Supranote8,s4.2(2).Astratacorporationmaycharge25centsperpageforcopiesofrecords(ibid,s4.2(1)).

577.SeeBusinessCorporationsRegulation,supranote543,s12(“Thefeeprescribedundersec-tion46(5)oftheActfortheinspectionofrecordsis$10perday.”).SeealsoBusinessCorpora-tionsAct,supranote290,s46(4)(allowinganyonetoinspect“withoutcharge”therecordsofthefollowingkindsofcompanies:“apubliccompany,acommunitycontributioncompany,afi-nancialinstitutionorapre-existingreportingcompany”).

578.SeeSocietiesRegulation,supranote379,s4(“Themaximumfeethatasocietymaychargeforaninspectionundersection24(5)[inspectionofrecords]oftheActis$10perday,regardlessofthenumberofrecordsinspected.”).



andsocieties,anargumentmaybemadethattheyshouldbetreatedconsistentlyonthisscore.Adownsideofthefirstapproachisthatitreallyonlyauthorizesanominalfeeforin-spectionofcorporaterecords.Theactualcostofsupervisinganinspectionwouldfarexceedthisamount.Thispointgivesrisetothesecondapproach,whichwouldbetosetthemaximumfeeatalevelthatapproximates(oratleastmovesinthedirectionofapproximating)thatactualcost.Therationaleforthisapproachwouldbetocausethepersonrequestingaccesstobeartheburden(orsomeoftheburden)ofthecostoffacilitatingthataccess.579Finally,itisalsoworthwhileconsideringwhethertoretainthestatusquo.Anargu-mentcouldbemadethatfreeandopenaccesstoinspectingrecordsmakessenseforstratacorporations,andthepolicyshouldbecontinued.Stratacorporationscouldbeseenasbeingclosertogovernmentbodies,whichdonotchargeforanin-personviewingofrecords,580thanprivatecorporationslikecompaniesorsocieties.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteeobservedthatinspectionsofstrata-corporationrecordscomeupin-frequently.Thisareadoesn’tseemtohavewitnessedmanyabuses.Thecommitteealsobelievesthatrequestsforin-personinspectionswilldecline,asmoreandmorepeoplecometofavourelectronicaccesstorecords.Inlightofthesepoints,thecom-mitteedecidednottoproposeanewfeeforthismethodofaccesstorecords.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:76.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldcontinuetoprovidethatastratacorpora-tionmaynotchargeafeefortheinspectionofarecordordocumentundersection36oftheStrataPropertyAct.

579.Ontariohastakenaversionofthisapproachinrecentlyamendedregulation.SeeGeneralRegu-

lation,supranote473,s13.3(8)5(“Iftherequestistoexamineacopyofacorerecord,thecor-porationshallnotchargeanyfeefortherequestifitmakesacopyoftherecordavailableforex-aminationinpaperform,otherthanafeefortheactuallabourcoststhatthecorporationincursduringtheexaminationandtheprintingandphotocopyingchargesestablishedunderpara-graph3”).

580.ButseeFreedomofInformationandProtectionofPrivacyRegulation,BCReg155/2012,s13,Schedule1(authorizingandlisting“managementfees”forgovernmentbodies,someofwhicharen’tavailabletoprivatecorporations).



Should the Strata Property Regulation provide for a fee for accessing records electronically? Brief description of the issue Astratacorporationisallowedtochargeafeeforpapercopiesofitsrecords.581Nosimilarauthorizationexistsforaccessingrecordselectronically.Sincepeoplearein-creasinglydemandingelectronicaccesstorecords,shouldtheregulationbeamend-edtoallowastratacorporationtochargeforthataccess?Discussion of options for reform Aswasthecaseforthepreviousissue,thisissuepresentsanexampleinwhichthefeessetoutintheStrataPropertyRegulationmayhavefallenbehindthefeesappli-cableinsimilarsituationsforotherkindsofcorporations.Inthiscase,it’sworth-whileconsideringtheSocietiesRegulation,whichwasdevelopedin2015.Underthisregulation,themaximumfeethatasocietymaychargeforacopyofarecordtowhichitisrequiredtoprovideaccessis“$0.10perpageforacopyprovidedbyemail.”582(Themaximumfeesocietiesmaychargeforcopiesprovidedbyanymeansotherthanemailis$0.50perpage.)583Thisfeeallowsnot-for-profitsocietiessomerecoveryforprovidingcopiesofrecordsinelectronicform.Italsoreflectsthelowercostofprovidingcopiesbyemailasopposedtoanothermethod.Similarconsidera-tionscouldeasilybeseentoapplytostratacorporations.Thatsaid,therecouldbeanargumentthatstratacorporationsaresufficientlydif-ferentfromsocietiestocallforadifferentapproach.Stratacorporationscouldbeseenashavingsomethingmoreofagovernmentalorpubliccharacterthansocieties.Thischaractercouldjustifycontinuingfreeelectronicaccesstostrata-corporationrecords.OfnoteonthispointisthatOntariohasrecentlyreviseditsstrata-corporationregulations.Ontario’snewregulationprovidesthat“[i]ftherequestistoexamineorobtainacopyofacorerecord,thecorporationshallnotchargeanyfeefortherequestifitdeliversthecopytotherequesterinelectronicform.”584

581.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,s4.2(1)(“Themaximumfeethatthestratacorpo-

rationmaychargeforacopyofarecordordocumentprovidedundersection36oftheActis25centsperpage.”).

582.Supranote578,s5(b).

583.Seeibid,s5(a).

584.SeeGeneralRegulation,supranote473,s13.3(8)4.



The committee’s tentative recommendations for reform Thecommitteeproposedmakingthefeesforelectronicaccessparalleltothefeesforotherkindsofaccesstorecords.Ifapersoninspectsstrata-corporationrecordsbyelectronicmeans,thenitshouldbefree.Ifthatpersonrequestsanelectroniccopyofarecord—say,inPortableDocumentFormat(PDF)—thenitshouldbeprovidedsubjecttoacharge.Thecommitteealsodecidedthatafinancialincentiveisn’tneed-edtosteerpeopletowardelectroniccopies.Mostpeoplealreadyprefertheconven-ienceofelectroniccopies.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:

77.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldnotallowastratacorporationtochargeafeeforaninspectionofarecordordocumentundersection36oftheStrataPropertyActbyelectronicmeans.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:78.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldallowastratacorporationtochargeafeeofupto$0.25perpageforcopyofarecordordocumentprovidedundersection36oftheStrataPropertyActbyelectronicmeans.

Issues for Reform—Limitation Period and Collections Introduction Whenastratacorporationhasmoneyowingtoitfromastrata-lotowneritmusttakestepstocollectthatmoney.Giventherangeofastratacorporation’sresponsi-bilities,itiscriticalthatitdoesn’tfinditselfinarrearsduetoafailureofownerstopayrequiredsums.TheStrataPropertyActgivesstratacorporationsanumberoftoolswithwhichtocollectmoneyowingtoit.Acommentatorhashelpfullypulledthesetoolstogetherintoausefullist.

Dependingonthecircumstances,astratacorporationmayenforcepaymentofmoneyduetothecorporationby:

• interestonarrears,

• finesforlatepayments,

• demandnotices,

• liensagainstthetitleofastratalot,



• withholdingaCertificateofPayment(FormF),

• courtactions[orapplicationstotheCivilResolutionTribunal],or

• arbitration.585Thisconsultationpaperdoesn’texaminecollectionsissuesincomprehensivedetail.It’sonlyinterestedinoneissue,whichinvolvestheinteractionofcollectionswithlimitationperiods.Alimitationperiodis“[a]statutoryperiodafterwhichalawsuitorprosecutioncan-notbebroughtincourt.”586Inotherwords,itisastatutoryrulethatmayresult,bythemerepassageoftime,inapersonbeingbarredfromenforcinganotherwise-validclaimformoneyorsomeotherremedy.ThereisavastarrayoflimitationperiodsdistributedthroughoutBritishColumbia’sstatutes.Forthepurposesofthisconsultationpaper,relevantclaimsarethosein-volvingproceedingsbyoragainstastratacorporation.Inparticular,thefocusonclaimsinwhichastratacorporationistryingtocollectmoneyowingtoit.TheStrataPropertyActhasnothingtosayaboutlimitationperiodsapplicabletothesekindsofclaims.587Sotograsptheapplicablelimitationperiodforthemit’snecessarytoturntoBritishColumbia’sgenerallimitationsstatute,theLimitationAct.588TheLimitationActsetsoutthefollowingbasiclimitationperiod:“acourtproceedinginrespectofaclaimmustnotbecommencedmorethan2yearsafterthedayonwhichtheclaimisdiscovered.”589Thisbasiclimitationperiodappliestoanyclaimthatastratacorporationhasformoneyowingtoitfromastrata-lotowner.

585.Mangan,supranote31at200.

586.Black’sLawDictionary,10thed,subverbo“limitation.”

587.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote31at§10.26(“The[StrataProperty]Actdoesnotsetoutanyspecificlimitationperiodsapplyingtoclaimsbyoragainstastratacorporation.Asaresult,thelimitationperiodappliesthatisrelatedtotherelevantcauseofactionassetoutintheLimitationActorotherapplicablelegislation.”).

588.SBC2012,c13.

589.Ibid,s6(1).Theactdefinesclaimtomean“aclaimtoremedyaninjury,lossordamagethatoc-curredasaresultofanactoromission”(ibid,s1“claim”).SeealsoCivilResolutionTribunalAct,supranote39,s13(LimitationActappliestoclaimbeforeCivilResolutionTribunal).



Should the Strata Property Act provide strata corporations with a limitation period that is longer than the basic limitation period of two years in which to enforce claims for money owing from a strata-lot owner to the strata corporation? Brief description of the issue BritishColumbia’slimitationlawwasrecentlyoverhauled,withanewLimitationActcomingintoforceon1June2013.Theeffectofthischangeforstratacorporationswasexplainedincommentaryfromaleadingpracticeguide:

OnJune1,2013,theLimitationAct,S.B.C.2012,c.13,cameintoforce,changingthelimi-tationperiodforanactionindebtfromsixyearstotwoyears(s.6).Therearetransi-tionalprovisionsthatmakealldebtsowinguptoandincludingMay31,2013,subjecttothesix-yearlimitationperiod(s.30).AlldebtsthataccrueonorafterJune1,2013aresubjecttothenewtwo-yearlimitationperiod.Asaresult,stratacorporationswillhavetobeproactiveincollectingamountsowingundertheCertificateofLientoavoidexpiryofthelimitationperiod.590

Themainconcernwiththenew,shorterlimitationperiodispointedtoattheendofthispassage,whichcallsonstratacorporationstobe“proactiveincollectingamountsowing.”And,whilethepassagerefersexpresslytoastratacorporation’sCertificateofLien,itisalsoclearthatsimilarconsiderationswouldapplytomoneyowingthatcouldn’tbesecuredbythestatutorylien.591Thepracticalconcernisthatatwo-yearlimitationperiodmaybetooshortforstratacorporations,significantlycurtailingtheirflexibilityindealingwithmoneyowingfromstrata-lotowners.(Andnotethat,whilelimitationslawisfocussedoncourtproceedings,thenewactalsohastheeffectofbarring“self-helpremedies”thatstratacorporationsoftenemployincollectioncases.)592ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcreateaspecial,longerlimita-tionperiodforthesecases?


591.Seeibidat§8.11(“Ifthestratacorporationfailstocommenceanactiontocollectnon-lienableamountswithinthelimitationperiod,thestratacorporationwillbebarredfromrecoveringthedebt.”).

592.MatthewDFischer,“StrataCorporationLienandCollectionIssues,”inContinuingLegalEduca-tionSocietyofBritishColumbia,ed,StrataProperty—2013Update:MaterialspreparedfortheContinuingLegalEducationseminar,StrataProperty2013Update,heldinVancouver,B.C.,onApril18,2013(Vancouver:ContinuingLegalEducationSocietyofBritishColumbia,2013)6.1at6.13(“Importantlyforstratacorporations,s.27ofthenewLimitationActclarifiesthattheexpi-ryofthebasiclimitationperiodwillbarcourtactionstorecoverdebts,aswellasself-helprem-edies—preventingtheplacementofastratalien,orthewithholdingofaFormFCertificateofPaymentbythestratacorporationwithrespecttoexpiredunpaidamounts.”).



Discussion of options for reform Thisissuepresentsreadersfirstwithayes-or-noquestion.Iftheanswertothisquestionis“yes,theStrataPropertyActshouldcreateaspeciallimitationperiod,”thenafollow-upquestionemerges.Thisquestionconcernsthelengthofthatlimita-tionperiod.It’saquestionthatismuchmoreopen-ended,aspotentiallyanynumbercouldbeprovidedasananswer.Onthebasicquestion,thecaseforaspeciallimitationperiodwouldhavetobebasedoncharacteristicsofthestratacorporationandstrata-lotownerrelationshipthatsetitapartfromothercreditor-debtorrelationships.Itcouldbearguedthat,unlikemostcreditor-debtorcases,thepartiesinvolvedinastratacasewillusuallycarryontheirrelationshipafterthedebtissettled.Moststrata-corporationdebtclaimsdon’tendwiththeforcedsaleofthedebtor’sstratalot.Thismeansthatthedebtorwillremainanownerinacollectiveresidentialorcommercialproperty.Anargumentmaybemadethatthelegislativeframeworkshouldcarefullybalancetheneedsofthedebt-collectionprocesswiththegoaloffosteringatleastasemblanceoflong-termharmonybetweenownersandstratacorporations.Thisbalancingactmaycallforalongerlimitationperiod,whichwouldgivethestratacorporationaddedflexi-bilitytodealwithdebtsandnotcompelittotakeearlyenforcementaction,whichcouldbeseenasaggressive,toavoiditsclaimbecomingstatute-barred.Thedifficultywiththeseargumentsisthattheremaynotbeenoughspecialcharac-teristicsinthestratacorporationandstrata-lotownerrelationship,whichwouldwarrantspecialtreatmentunderlimitationlaw.Afterall,mostcreditorswouldpre-fertohavethebenefitofmoretimeandflexibility.Mostcreditorswouldalsoprefernottohavetheiroptionscurtailedbecausetheirclaimsarecomingupagainstthelimitationperiod.TheLimitationActisrelativelynew.It’sunlikelythatthegovern-mentwouldbeinclinedtorevisitittostartmakingexceptionsforcertaincreditors,unlessparticularlystrongevidencecouldbemarshalledtoprovethatchangesneedtobemade.Itisn’tclearthatthisevidenceisinplaceforstratacorporations.AfterasmallburstofcommentaryinanticipationofthecomingintoforceofthenewLimi-tationAct,thissubjecthaslargelydisappearedfrompublishedwritingonstrata-propertyissues.Thiscouldmeanthatstratacorporationsaremanagingtolivewiththenewlimitationperiod.IftheStrataPropertyActshouldcontainaspeciallimitationperiod,thenthenextquestionthatarisesishowlongthatlimitationperiodshouldbe.Thereispotentiallyawiderangeofnumbersthatcouldbeconsideredhere.



Inselectingalimitationperiod,it’snecessarytobearinmindthepurposesoflimita-tionlaw.Itspurposesincludepromotingcertaintyandfinalityandrestrainingtheadjudicationofstaleclaims.Thelongerthelimitationperiod,thegreaterthelikeli-hoodthatstaleclaimswillcomebeforeacourt.Claimsgostalethroughfadingmem-oriesandlostordisposed-ofrecords.Theseconcernsmayarisewithlongerlimita-tionperiods,buttheymaynotcometotheforeinshorterlimitationperiods.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteegrappledwiththisissueoveranextendedtime.Ontheonehand,itacceptsthegeneralpointsoftheimportanceofconsistencytolimitationslawandtheneedtogivearelativelynewactsometimetobeconsideredinpractice.Ontheother,itwasawareofproblemsbeingcausedbythenew,shorterlimitationperiod.Thetwo-yearlimitationperioddoescreatearealhardshipforstratacorporations.Financially,itdoesn’tmakesenseforastratacorporationtomovequicklytocom-mencecourtproceedingstoenforceaclaimagainstanowner.Inmostcasesthedebtissmallearlyon(butitoftenpilesupovertime),andtheup-frontcostsofenforce-mentarehigh.Becausetheindebtednesstendstoincreaseastimegoeson,itmakesfinancialsenseforstratacorporationstowaitbeforebeginningcourtproceedings.Further,therelationshipbetweenastratacorporationandadelinquentownerissignificantlydifferentfromthestandardcreditor-debtorrelationship.Whenoneownerfailstopaystratafeesorotheramountsduetothestratacorporation,theharmultimatelyfallsonotherowners,whomustpickuptheslackorseethevalueoftheirownstratalotsdecline.Thecommitteeexaminedmanywaystoadjustthecurrentlawtoreflectthesetwopoints.Intheend,thesimplestandbestwayinitsviewwouldbetocreateaspecial,longerlimitationperiodintheStrataPropertyAct.Thecommitteealsodecidedthatthislimitationperiodshouldhavearestrictedapplicationtojustthosedebtsthatmaybemadethesubjectofalienundersection116oftheact.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:79.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovideforaspeciallimitationperiodforclaimsofmoney,capableofbeingsubjecttoalienundersection116,owingfromastrata-lotownertoastratacorporation,offouryears.



Chapter 7. Notices and Communications Background The act’s general notice provisions TheStrataPropertyActoftenrequiresorauthorizesastratacorporationoranotherpersontogiveanotice,record,ordocumenttosomeoneelse.Theactanditsregula-tionscontainalargenumberofreferencestothewordnotice.593TheStrataPropertyActdoesn’tcontainadefinitionofnotice.Buttheactdoeshaveadedicateddivision,withsixsectionsdescribinghowanotice,record,ordocumentistobegivenincertaincircumstancesortocertainpersons.594Forthepurposesofgeneralbackground,thetwomostimportantsectionsinthisdi-visionconcernthemechanicsofgivinganotice,record,ordocumentthatapplytothestratacorporationandthatapplywhensomeoneelsewantstogiveanotice,rec-ord,ordocumenttothestratacorporation.595First,herearetheact’sdetailedprovisionsapplyingtoanotice,record,ordocumentgivenbythestratacorporation:

Notice given by strata corporation

61 (1) Anoticeorotherrecordordocumentthatthestratacorporationisre-quiredorpermittedtogivetoapersonunderthisAct,thebylawsortherulesmustbegiventotheperson,

(a) ifthepersonhasprovidedthestratacorporationwithanad-dressoutsidethestrataplanforreceivingnoticesandotherrec-ordsordocuments,

(i) byleavingitwiththeperson,or

(ii) bymailingittotheaddressprovided,or

593.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ss16,17,21,24,39,42,43,45,46,47,51,54,59,60,61,

63,64,65,76,83,84,85,103,112,113,114,135,137,138,145,146,147,148,173,178.1,179,182,193,210,212,234,235,292;ScheduleofStandardBylaws,ss7,14,28.SeealsoBareLandStrataPlanCancellationRegulation,supranote229,ss2,2.1;FormBL-A;StrataPropertyRegula-tion,supranote8,ss4.1,6.7,14.12;FormB,FormC,FormK,FormL,FormM,FormN,FormY.

594.Seesupranote4,ss60–65(part4,division7).

595.Theothersectionsinthedivisiondealwiththefollowingtopics:noticetomortgagee(sec-tion60);addressofstratacorporation(section62);legalserviceonstratacorporation(sec-tion64);informingresidentownersandtenants(section65).



(b) ifthepersonhasnotprovidedthestratacorporationwithanad-dressoutsidethestrataplanforreceivingnoticesandotherrec-ordsordocuments,

(i) byleavingitwiththeperson,

(ii) byleavingitwithanadultoccupantoftheperson’sstratalot,

(iii) byputtingitunderthedooroftheperson’sstratalot,

(iv) bymailingittothepersonattheaddressofthestratalot,

(v) byputtingitthroughamailslotorinamailboxusedbythepersonforreceivingmail,

(vi) byfaxingittoafaxnumberprovidedbytheperson,or

(vii) byemailingittoanemailaddressprovidedbythepersonforthepurposeofreceivingthenotice,recordordocu-ment.

(2) Thenotice,recordordocumentmaybeaddressedtothepersonbyname,ortothepersonasownerortenant.

(3) Anoticeorotherrecordordocumentthatisgiventoapersonundersubsection(1)(a)(ii)or(b)(ii)to(vii)isconclusivelydeemedtohavebeengiven4daysafteritisleftwithanadultoccupant,putunderthedoor,mailed,putthroughthemailslotorinthemailbox,faxedoremailed.596

Second,herearetheprovisionsthatapplywhenanotice,record,ordocumentisgiventothestratacorporation:

Notice given to strata corporation

63 (1) Anoticeorotherrecordordocumentthatisrequiredorpermittedun-derthisAct,thebylawsortherulestobegiventothestratacorpora-tionmustbegiventothestratacorporation

(a) byleavingitwithacouncilmember,

(b) bymailingittothestratacorporationatitsmostrecentmailingaddressonfileinthelandtitleoffice,

(c) byfaxingitoremailingitto

(i) thestratacorporationusingthestratacorporation’sfaxnumberoremailaddress,or

(ii) afaxnumberoremailaddressprovidedbyacouncilmemberforthepurposeofreceivingthenotice,recordordocument,or

596.Supranote4,s61.



(d) byputtingitthroughthemailslot,orinthemailbox,usedbythestratacorporationforreceivingnotices,recordsanddocuments.

(2) Anoticeorotherrecordordocumentthatisgiventothestratacorpo-rationundersubsection(1)(b)to(d)isconclusivelydeemedtobegiv-en4daysafteritismailed,faxed,emailedorputthroughthemailslotorinthemailbox.597

Bothsectionshavefeaturesincommon.Theybeginbysettingouttheirreach.Thesectionsapplytoanotice,record,598ordocumentthatisrequiredorpermittedtobegiveneitherbythestratacorporationortothestratacorporation:

• undertheStrataPropertyAct—includingitsregulations;599

• underthestratacorporation’sbylaws;or

• underthestratacorporation’srules.Then,thesectionslistthemeansbywhichsuchanotice,record,ordocumentmaybegiven:

• byleavingitwiththerecipient—thisiseffectivelypersonalservice;

• byleavingitwithsomeonewhocanbetrustedtogiveittotherecipient;

• bymailingittoaspecifiedaddress;

• byfaxingoremailingittoaspecifiedfaxnumberoremailaddress;

• byvariouslyplacingitinadesignatedmailslotorundertherecipient’sdoor.

Finally,thesectionsendwithsomethingknownasa“deemed-notice”provision.Tounderstandthepurposeofthisprovision,beginbythinkingabouttheonemethodofgivinganotice,record,ordocumenttosomeonetowhichitdoesn’tapply.Thismethodis“leaving”anotice,record,ordocumentwiththerecipient.Inthiscase,thereisadirecttransmissionofthenotice,record,ordocumentfromthesenderto

597.Ibid,s63.

598.SeeInterpretationAct,supranote229,s29“record”(“includesbooks,documents,maps,draw-ings,photographs,letters,vouchers,papersandanyotherthingonwhichinformationisrecord-edorstoredbyanymeanswhethergraphic,electronic,mechanicalorotherwise”).

599.SeeInterpretationAct,ibid,s33(6)(“Ifanenactmentreferstoamatter‘under’anamedorun-namedAct,anActinthatreferenceincludesregulationsenactedundertheauthorityofthatAct.”).



therecipient.Thesenderjusthandsitover.It’sasimplemattertoestablishactualnoticeinthesecircumstances.Alltheothermethodseitherrelyonanintermediarytoconveythenotice,record,ordocumentfromsendertorecipient(mail,fax,email,leavingitwithsomeoneelsetogivetotherecipient)orallowforsometimetoelapsebetweensendingandreceipt(placingitinamailslotorunderadoor).Ifthereisadisputeovernotice,thenthesesituationscreatethepotentialforathornyevidentiaryproblemthatcanmakeitdif-ficulttoestablishactualnotice.Consideranotice,record,ordocumentsentbymail,forexample.Inadispute,asenderwillsaythatthenotice,record,ordocumentwasplacedinamailboxandarecipientwillsaythenotice,record,ordocumentwasneverreceived(orwasre-ceivedatsuchatimeastoplaceitoffsidethenoticeperiod).Thepartybearingtheburdenofprovingnoticemustprovidesomeevidenceofwhatoccurredduringtransmission.But,givenboththevolumeofmailandthelackofdistinguishingfea-turesforanyindividualpieceofmail,thisevidencewillbevirtuallyimpossibletoobtain.Thisiswherethedeemed-noticeprovisioncomesintoplay.Itrelievesthesenderfromhavingtoproveactualnoticeby“conclusivelydeeming”thatnoticeoccursaspecificnumberofdays(four)afterthenotice,record,ordocumentissent.600Whilethesetwosectionsdealwithscope,methodofgivinganotice,record,ordoc-ument,anddeemednotice,theydon’taddressonecomponentofeffectivenotice:thetimeinwhichapersonhastogiveanotice,record,ordocument.Todeterminethis,it’snecessarytolookataspecificsectionoftheactthatauthorizesthegivingofano-tice,record,ordocument.Takingasanexampleaprovisionthatcomesupfrequentlyinpractice,hereisthepartoftheact’sgeneralnoticesectionforannualandspecialgeneralmeetingsthatdealswithtiming:600.SeeSullivan,supranote227at§4.114(“Useof‘deem’(or‘consider’)tocreatepresumptions.

Thepurposeofapresumptionistoestablishsomethingasafactwithoutthebenefitofevidence.Presumptionsarerebuttedbytenderingevidencethattendstoshowthatthepresumptionisfalse.Ifapresumptionisnotrebuttableinthisway,itisindistinguishablefromalegalfiction.”[footnoteomitted;emphasisinoriginal]).Usingconclusivelytomodifydeemedwillbeinterpret-edbythecourtsasevidenceofalegislature’sintentiontocreateapresumptionthatcan’tbere-butted.SeeSkalbania(Trusteeof)vWedgewoodVillageEstatesLtd(1989),60DLR(4th)43,37BCLR(2d)88atpara80(CA),WallaceJA(dissenting),leavetoappealtoSCCrefused,[1989]SCCANo274(QL).



Notice requirements for annual or special general meeting

45 (1) Subjecttosubsection(1.1),thestratacorporationmustgiveatleast2weeks’writtennoticeofanannualorspecialgeneralmeetingtoallofthefollowing:

(a) everyowner,whetherornotanoticemustalsobesenttotheowner’smortgageeortenant;

(b) everymortgageewhohasgiventhestratacorporationaMortga-gee’sRequestforNotificationundersection60;

(c) everytenantwhohasbeenassignedalandlord’srighttovoteundersection147or148,ifthestratacorporationhasreceivednoticeoftheassignment.

(1.1) Thestratacorporationmustgiveatleast4weeks’writtennoticeundersubsection(1)ofanannualorspecialgeneralmeetingatwhichawind-ing-upresolutionwillbeconsidered.601

Thesetwoprovisionsgivereadersanoticeperiod—twoweeksinsubsection(1)andfourweeksinsubsection(1.1)—buttheydon’tcontainaformulaforcalculatingthatperiod.Thisisadeliberatedraftingchoice.Thegovernmenthascreatedstandard-izedprovisionsforcalculatingtime,whichapplybydefaultto“anenactmentandtoadeed,conveyanceorotherlegalinstrument.”602TheInterpretationAct’sdefaultprovisionforcalculatingtimeis“thefirstdaymustbeexcludedandthelastdayincluded.”603ButmanyenactmentscontainlanguagethatengagesaspecialprovisionintheInterpretationAct:

(4) Inthecalculationoftimeexpressedascleardays,weeks,monthsoryears,oras“atleast”or“notlessthan”anumberofdays,weeks,monthsoryears,thefirstandlastdaysmustbeexcluded.604

Section45oftheStrataPropertyAct(quotedabove)isanexampleofsuchanenact-ment,asitreferstogiving“atleast”twoweeks’orfourweeks’writtennotice.ManynoticeprovisionsintheStrataPropertyActusethewordsatleast,effectivelygivingtherecipientthebenefitofanextradayincalculatingthenoticeperiod.601.Supranote4,s45(1)–(1.1)[emphasisadded].

602.InterpretationAct,supranote229,s25(1).Thesestandardizedprovisionsareonlydisplacedbyexpresslanguageintheenactmentorotherinstrument.AstheInterpretationActputsit,itspro-visionsapply“unlessspecificallyprovidedotherwiseinthedeed,conveyanceorotherlegalin-strument”(ibid,s25(1)).

603.Ibid,s25(5).

604.Ibid,s25(4).



Finally,theInterpretationActprovides“[i]fthetimefordoinganactfallsorexpiresonaholiday,thetimeisextendedtothenextdaythatisnotaholiday.”605TheInter-pretationActdefinesholidaytoincludeallofthefollowing:

(a) Sunday,ChristmasDay,GoodFridayandEasterMonday,

(b) CanadaDay,VictoriaDay,BritishColumbiaDay,LabourDay,RemembranceDay,FamilyDayandNewYear’sDay,

(c) December26,and

(d) adaysetbytheParliamentofCanadaorbytheLegislature,orappointedbyproc-lamationoftheGovernorGeneralortheLieutenantGovernor,tobeobservedasadayofgeneralprayerormourning,adayofpublicrejoicingorthanksgiving,adayforcelebratingthebirthdayofthereigningSovereign,orasapublicholiday.606

Soifanoticeperiodendsononeofthesedays,thenthatperiodisextendedtothenextdaythatisn’taholiday.Scope of this chapter Thecommitteeconsideredthisgeneralbackgroundandotheraspectsofnoticesandcommunicationsforstratasindeterminingtheissuesforreformforthischapter.Itdecidedtofocusitsattentionontwoissues:(1)theact’sprovisionsforinformingresidentownersandtenants;and(2)specificnoticeperiods.

Issues for Reform Should section 65 of the Strata Property Act be amended? Brief description of the issue Section65setsoutanexceptiontothegeneralnoticeprovisionsdiscussedinthepreviouspages.Thisexceptionmaybecolloquiallyunderstoodasthebulletin-boardexception,eventhoughit’sactuallyalittlebroaderinscope.Thesectionallowsastratacorporationto“informresidentownersandtenantsbyoneormoreofthefol-lowingmethodsorbyanyothermethod:(a)leavingadocumentcontainingthein-formationatalocationdesignatedbythestratacorporationforthedistributionofsuchinformation;(b)postingadocumentcontainingtheinformationinapartofthecommonpropertydesignatedbythestratacorporationforthepostingofsuchin-formation.”607605.Ibid,s25(2).

606.Ibid,s29“holiday.”

607.Supranote4,s65.



Thisexceptionalmethodofnoticemayonlybeusedtoinformresidentownersandtenantsaboutunapprovedexpenditures,608changestostratafeesbroughtinbyanewbudget,609expenditureofmoneycollectedbyspeciallevy,610theadoptionofnewrules,611amendmentstobylaws,612alawsuitagainstthestratacorporation,613orunder“anyregulationsthatrequirethestratacorporationtoinformownersortenantsofcertainmatters.”614Shouldthisexceptionalprovisionfornoticebeamended?Discussion of options for reform Thisissueisratheropenended.Thecommitteefocusseditsattentionononeofitsqualities:itsrelianceonalow-techmeansofprovidingnotice.Thisapproachmayhavemadesomesenseinthe1990s,whenthisprovisionwasbeingdeveloped,butdoitsassumptionscontinuetoholdtruetoday?Thereareprivacyandotherconcernsaboutpostinginformationinthemannercon-sideredbysection65.It’salsopossibletoconsiderthesection’srelevance.Peoplemaynowbemoreaccustomedtoreceivinginformationonline,causingadeclineinthissection’sbulletin-boardapproach.Ontheotherhand,thesectionisprimarilyanenablingprovision.Evenifonlyasmallnumberofstratacorporationsrelyonit,itmaystillbeprovidingabenefittothosestratacorporationswithoutimposinganyburdensonotherstratacorpora-tions.The committee’s tentative recommendation for reform Thecommitteewrestledwiththisissue,whichhasimplicationsthatarenotreadilyapparentatfirstsight.Thecommitteewasstruckbytheseeminganachronismofthesection’sapproachtogivingnotices.Butasitlookedforwaystomodernizethesec-tion,itcontinuallyranintohurdlesthatpreventeditseasyextensiontomodern608.Seeibid,s98(6).

609.Seeibid,s106.





614.Ibid,s65.



meansofcommunication.Forexample,thecommitteewasconcernedabouteffec-tivelyimposinganonusonowners,tenants,andothertoregularlycheckastrata-corporationwebsitetobenotifiedaboutdevelopments.615Thisonuswouldbepar-ticularlyheavyonthosewho,forwhateverreason,don’thavein-homeaccesstotheInternet.Intheend,thecommitteedecidedthatthenatureofthesection,asanenablingpro-vision,wasreasonenoughtoproposeleavingitasis.Inaddition,whilethecommit-teeisn’topposedinpracticetodistributingnoticesviawebsites(whereappropri-ate),itdidn’tthinkitwasnecessaryatthistimetoprovidealegislativeframeworkforthispractice.Thecommitteeisinterestedinpubliccommentonbothdimensionsofthisissue—thatis,thecontinuedutilityofsection65andthepossibleneedforlegislationregardingnoticesviaawebsite.Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:80.Section65oftheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamended.Should any of the Strata Property Act’s notice periods be revised? Brief description of the issue Theactprovidesforawidearrayofnoticeprovisions.Areanyoftheminneedofupdating?Discussion of options for reform Thecommitteereviewednoticeprovisionsingeneralanddecidedtofocusitsatten-tionononeaspectofthelegalframework.Thiswastheimpactofthedeemed-noticeprovisionfoundinsection61.616Asdiscussedearlier,thedeemed-noticeprovisionhasbeenincludedinthelegisla-tiontodealwithevidentiaryissuesaroundthegivingofnotice.Butapplicationof

615.SeeTheOwners,StrataPlanLMS2706vMorrell,2018BCCRT28atparas11–14(exampleofdis-

tributionofnoticesby“propertymanagementcompany’swebportal”indisputeovermissedno-tice).

616.Seesupranote4,s61(4)(“Anoticeorotherrecordordocumentthatisgiventoapersonundersubsection(1)(a)(ii)or(b)(ii)to(vii)isconclusivelydeemedtohavebeengiven4daysafteritisleftwithanadultoccupant,putunderthedoor,mailed,putthroughthemailslotorinthemailbox,faxedoremailed.”).Seealso,above,at189–90(generaldiscussionofthedeemed-noticeprovision).



theprovisionmayalsohavetheeffectofshorteningsomenoticeperiodstothepointwhereitbecomesonerousforastratacorporationtocomplywiththem.The committee’s tentative recommendations for reform Whilethedeemed-noticeprovisiondoesserveausefulpurpose,inthecommittee’sviewitalsohastheside-effectofcreatinganadministrativeburdenforstratacorpo-rations.Thecommitteedecidedtolessenthisburdenbyextendingthenoticeperi-odsforcaseinwhichtheburdenisheaviest.Theseareprovisionscallingfornoticeofawrittendecisionofstratacouncilinresponsetoahearing617oradecisionre-gardinganexemptionfromarental-restrictionbylaw.618Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:81.Section34.1(3)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingout“oneweek”andreplacingitwith“twoweeks.”Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:82.Section144(4)(a)(i)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingout“oneweek”andreplacingitwith“twoweeks.”Thecommitteetentativelyrecommends:83.Section144(4)(a)(ii)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingout“twoweeks”andreplacingitwith“threeweeks.”

617.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s34.1(3).

618.Seeibid,s144(4)(a).



Chapter 8. Conclusion Thecommitteehopestoreceiveawiderangeofresponsestoitstentativerecom-mendations.Publiccommentisanintegralpartoftheprocessofdevelopinglaw-reformrecommendations.Finalrecommendationsareoftenshapedbyinputre-ceivedattheconsultationstage.ThecommitteeisproposingahostofchangestotheStrataPropertyActandtheStrataPropertyRegulation,onwhichitwouldliketore-ceiveadditionalconsiderationbeforetheyaremadefinalrecommendations.



APPENDIX A

ListofTentativeRecommendationsBylaws and rules—relocating provisions from the standard by-laws to the act 1.Section1oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylawsandshouldbeamendedtoreadasfollows:

Payment of strata fees and special levies

1 (1) Anownermustpaystratafeesonorbeforethefirstdayofthemonthtowhichthestratafeesrelate.

(2) Anownermustpayaspeciallevyasapprovedbythestratacorpora-tion.(30–31)

2.Section2oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.(31–32)3.Section3(1)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtopart5oftheStrataPropertyAct.(32–33)4.Section3(2)–(4)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.(32–33)5.Section4(1)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.(33–34)6.Uponrelocationofsection4(1)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawstotheStrataPropertyActtheprovisionshouldbeamendedtorequirethatwithintwoweeksofbe-cominganowner’srepresentativewithrespecttothestratalot,asdefinedintheregu-lations,anowner’srepresentativemustinformthestratacorporationoftheowner’srepresentative’sname,strata-lotnumber,andmailingaddressoutsidethestrataplan,ifany.(33–34)7.Section4(2)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberepealed.(33–34)



8.Section5(1)and(2)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.(35)9.Section5(3)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberepealed.(35)10.Section6oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.(36)11.Section7oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.(36–37)12.Section8oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtobecomenewsection72(3)oftheStrataPropertyAct.(37–38)13.Whensection8oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsisrelocatedtobecomenewsec-tion72(3)oftheStrataPropertyAct,“patios”shouldbeaddedtothelistoflimitedcommonpropertythatthestratacorporationhasthedutytorepairandmaintainnomatterhowoftentherepairormaintenanceordinarilyoccurs.(37–38)14.Existingsection72(3)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldberenumberedassubsec-tion(4)andshouldapplydespitenewsubsection(3)(previouslysection8oftheScheduleofStandardBylaws).(37–38)15.Withtheexceptionofsections19,20(4),and22,allofdivision3oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.(39–40)16.Section19oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyActandrevisedtoread“Thestratacorporationmustcirculateminutesofstrata-councilmeetingswithinthreeweeksofthemeeting,whetherornottheminuteshavebeenapproved.”(40)17.Section20(4)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.(41)18.Section22oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtobecomepartofsection31oftheStrataPropertyAct.(41–42)19.Section23oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.(42)



20.Section24oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtoformpartofsection132oftheStrataPropertyActandsection7.1(3)oftheStrataPropertyRegu-lationshouldberepealed.(43)21.Section25oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.(44)22.Section26oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.(44–45)23.Section27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.(45)24.Section28oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.(46)25.Section29oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberepealed.(46–47)26.Section30oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.(47–48)27.Thefollowingshouldbeadoptedasanewstandardbylaw:“Theauthorityrequiredinsection171(2)oftheactisnotrequiredforaproceedingundertheSmallClaimsActagainstanownerorotherpersontocollectmoneyowingtothestratacorporation,in-cludingmoneyowingasafine.”(48–49)Bylaws and rules—enforcement: expanding the lien 28.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuenottoenableastratacorporationtoreg-isteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttofines.(49–51)29.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotenableastratacorporationtoregisteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespectafine,evenifthefinehasbeenfoundvalidbyacourtortheCivilResolutionTribunal.(51–52)30.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuenottoenableastratacorporationtoreg-isteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttoaninsurancedeductibleorexpensesincurredduetodamagewhicharelessthananinsurancede-ductible.(52–53)31.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotenableastratacorporationtoregisteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttoachargebackforaninsurance



deductibleorexpensesincurredduetodamagewhicharelessthananinsurancede-ductible,evenifthechargebackhasbeenfoundvalidbyacourtortheCivilResolutionTribunal.(53–54)Bylaws and rules—other enforcement tools 32.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoaddeitheraprovisionrequiringcompliancewithastratacorporation’sbylawsandrules(whichwouldgivethecourtawiderangeofdiscretionaryremediesthatmaybeorderedincasesofnon-compliance)oraprovisionthatcreatesanoffenceofnon-compliancewithastratacorporation’sbylawsandrules.(54–58)33.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotmakefailuretopaystratafeessubjecttoanimmediatefinewithouttheneedtocomplywiththeproceduressetoutinsec-tion135.(58–60)34.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetoallowastratacorporationbothtoap-plyafineandtochargeinterestifastrata-lotownerfailstopaystratafees.(60–61)35.Section53(2)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoread“Despitesub-section(1),thevoteforastratalotmaynotbeexercised,exceptonmattersrequiringan80%voteorunanimousvote,ifthestratacorporationisentitledtoregisteralienagainstthatstratalotundersection116(1).”(61–63)36.Section121oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatabylawisnotenforceabletotheextentthatitreassignsmoneyintendedforthepurposesof(a)stratafees,(b)aspeciallevy,(c)areimbursementofthecostofworkreferredtoinsection85,or(d)thestratalot’sshareofajudgmentagainstthestratacorpora-tion.(63–65)37.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetobesilentonwhetherastratacorpora-tionmayfineanownerforfailuretopayaspeciallevy.(66–68)Bylaws and rules—other issues 38.TheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethat,whenastratacorpora-tionamendsabylawthatrestrictstherentalofstratalots,then(a)inthecaseofastratalotthatwasvalidlyrentedundertherental-restrictionbylawthatexistedim-mediatelypriortotheamendment,thenewrental-restrictionbylawdoesnotapplytothestratalotuntilthelaterofoneyearafteratenantwhoisoccupyingthestratalotatthetimethebylawispassedceasestooccupyitasatenant,andoneyearafterthe



bylawispassed;and(b)inthecaseofanyotherstratalot,thenewrental-restrictionbylawappliesuponthebylawtakingeffectinaccordancewiththeact.(68–72)Statutory definitions 39.TheStrataPropertyActshoulddefine“continuingcontravention”tomean“asuc-cessionorrepetitionofseparateactsofthesamecharacter.”(74–77)40.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoaddadefinitionof“strataman-ager.”(77–79)41.TheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtodefine“rent”as“meanstopaymon-etaryconsiderationorothervaluetooccupyastratalot.”(79–82)42.TheStrataPropertyAct’sdefinitionof“residentialstratalot”shouldnotbeamend-ed.(83–87)43.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotcontainadefinitionof“nonresidentialstratalot.”(87–89)General meetings and strata-council meeting—proxies 44.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequiretheappointmentofaproxytobemadeus-ingastandardformwiththefollowingfeatures:(a)awarningthatthestratacorpora-tionhasnoobligationtoensurethattheproxyvotesinaccordancewithanyinstruc-tionssetoutinthisproxyappointment;(b)aspacetorecordeitherthegrantor’sstra-ta-lotnumberorunitnumberandstreetaddress;(c)checkboxestoindicatewhethertheproxyappointmentisageneralappointmentoranappointmentforaspecificmeeting;(d)aspacetorecordthedateonwhichtheproxyappointmentissigned;(e)asignatureblock;(f)aspacetorecordanyvotinginstructions,labelled“option-al.”(98–102)45.Section56(2)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethat(a)adocumentappointingaproxymustbeintheprescribedform,and(b)adocumentap-pointingaproxythatisnotintheprescribedformisinvalid.(102–04)46.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotlimitthenumberofproxyappointmentsthatmaybeheldforageneralmeeting.(104–08)47.Section56(3)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatthefol-lowingpersonsmaynotbeproxiesforaneligiblevoterwhoisnotanowner-developer:(a)anemployeeoragentofthestratacorporation;(b)anowner-developeroranem-



ployeeoragentoftheowner-developerorapersonwhodoesnotdealwiththeowner-developeratarm’slength;(c)apersonwhoprovidesstrata-managementservicestothestratacorporationorthatperson’semployeeoragent.(108–11)General meetings and strata-council meeting—conduct of meet-ings 48.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotprescribeacomprehensivesetofrulesoforderforstrata-corporationgeneralmeetings.(113–15)49.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoaddresswhomayactaschairofanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeeting.(116–17)General meetings and strata-council meeting—quorum 50.Section48(3)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingoutthewords“themeetingstandsadjournedtothesamedayinthenextweekatthesameplaceandtimebut,ifonthedaytowhichthemeetingisadjournedaquorumdescribedinsubsection(2)isnotpresentwithin1/2hourfromthetimeappointedforthemeet-ing.”(118–20)51.Section48oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbyaddinganewsubsec-tionthatreads“Subsection(3)doesnotapplytoaspecialmeetingcalledbyvotersun-dersection43.”(118–21)52.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatifaquorumispresentattheopeningofanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeeting,theeligiblevoterspresentmay,unlessthebylawsotherwiseprovide,proceedwiththebusinessofthemeeting,evenifaquorumisnotpresentthroughoutthemeeting.(121–23)53.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatastrata-councilmemberwhohasadi-rectorindirectinterestin(a)acontractortransactionwiththestratacorporation,or(b)amatterthatisoristobethesubjectofconsiderationbythecouncil,ifthatinter-estcouldresultinthecreationofadutyorinterestthatmateriallyconflictswiththatcouncilmember’sdutyorinterestasacouncilmember,andwhoispresentatacouncilmeetinginwhichthecontract,transaction,ormatterisconsideredforapprovalmaybecountedinthequorumatthemeetingevenifthecouncilmemberleavesthecouncilmeetingwhilethecontract,transaction,ormatterisdiscussedandwhilethecouncilvotesonthecontract,transaction,ormatter.(123–24)



General meetings and strata-council meeting—voting 54.Section18(1)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldbeamendedbyadding“andwhohavenotabstainedfromvoting”after“majorityofcouncilmemberspresentinpersonatthemeeting.”(126–27)55.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotallowanypersonwhoischairofanannualgen-eralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeetingtobreakatieonaresolutionatthegeneralmeetingbycastingasecond,decidingvote,butshouldcontinuetoallowapresident(or,ifthepresidentisabsentorunableorunwillingtovote,thevicepresident)tobreakatievoteatastrata-councilmeetingbycastingasecond,decidingvote.(127–30)56.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotchangethevotingthresholdforallresolutionsrequiringpassagebya3/4vote.(130–33)57.Section27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldbeamendedbystrikingouttheword“secret”whereveritappearsandreplacingitwiththeword“written.”(134–36)58.Section27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatastratacorporationisonlyrequiredtoholdavotebywrittenballotifitisauthorizedtodosobyaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvote,unlessthevoteisanelectiontothestratacouncil.(136–37)General meetings and strata-council meeting—strata-council elections 59.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirethateachstrata-councilmembermustbeelectedbyamajorityoftheballotscast.(138–40)60.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoaddressthenumberofmembersthatmustbeelectedtocouncil.(140–41)61.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirethatastrata-councilmember(a)mustbeanindividualwhoisatleast18yearsofage,and(b)despiteitem(a),anindividualisnotqualifiedtobeastrata-councilmemberiftheindividualis(i)foundbyanycourt,inCanadaorelsewhere,tobeincapableofmanagingtheindividual’sownaffairs,(ii)anundischargedbankrupt,or(iii)convictedinoroutofBritishColumbiaofanoffenceinconnectionwiththepromotion,formation,ormanagementofacorporationorunin-corporatedentity,orofanoffenceinvolvingfraud.(141–45)



62.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatadditionalstrata-councilmembersmaybeelectedataspecialgeneralmeeting.(145–46)General meetings and strata-council meeting—agenda and meeting minutes 63.Section28oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldbeamendedsothattheagendaatanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeetingisasfollows:(a)registereligiblevotersandissuevotingcards;(b)callthemeetingtoorder;(c)electapersontochairthemeeting,ifnecessary;(d)certifyproxies;(e)determinethatthereisaquorum;(f)presentproofofnoticeofmeeting;(g)approvetheorderoftheagenda;(h)approvetheminutesofthemostrecentgeneralmeetingorwaiverofnoticeofmeeting;(i)dealwithanyunfinishedbusiness;(j)ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting,receivereportsofcouncilactivitiesanddecisionssincethepreviousannualgeneralmeeting;(k)ratifyanynewrulesmadebythestratacorporationundersection125oftheact,includinganynewuserfees;(l)ifthemeetingisanannualgen-eralmeeting,reportoninsurancecoverageinaccordancewithsection154oftheact,includingthecertificateofinsurancepreparedbytheinsurancebrokerageandthedateofthemostrecentappraisal;(m)ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting,ap-provethebudgetforthecomingyearinaccordancewithsection103oftheact;(n)dealwithmattersundersection46oftheactoraboutwhichnoticehasbeengivenundersection45oftheact;(o)ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting,electacouncil;(p)ifthemeetingisaspecialgeneralmeeting,electacouncilmemberifneces-sary;(q)terminatethemeeting.(147–48)64.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirecirculationofminutesofageneralmeetingwithinthreeweeksofthemeeting,whetherornottheminuteshavebeenap-proved.(149–50)65.Section106oftheStrataPropertyAct,whichdealswithinformingownersofchangestostratafees,shouldbeamendedbystrikingout“2weeksfollowingtheannu-alorspecialgeneralmeetingatwhichabudgetispassed”andreplacingitwith“3weeksfollowingtheannualorspecialgeneralmeetingatwhichabudgetispassed.”(150–51)Finances—operating fund 66.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtochangethepurposeofandcrite-riaforusingfundsinastratacorporation’soperatingfund.(155–60)



Finances—special levies 67.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequire,ifthemoneycollectedonaspeciallevyex-ceedstheamountrequired,orforanyotherreasonisnotfullyusedforthepurposesetoutintheresolution,thestratacorporationtopaytoeachownerofastratalottheportionoftheunusedamountofthespeciallevythatisproportionaltothecontribu-tionmadetothespeciallevyinrespectofthatstratalot,unlessnoownerwouldbeen-titledtoreceivemorethananamountprescribedbyregulation(whichshouldinitiallybesetat$500)intotal,inwhichcasethestratacorporationmaydeposittheexcessinitscontingencyreservefund.(161–63)Finances—budgets 68.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetorequirestratacorporationstoinitiatethebudget-approvalprocessonlyatanannualgeneralmeeting.(164–65)69.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtopermitbudgetstobeamendedataspecialgeneralmeeting.(164–65)Finances—financial statements 70.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldnotcontainaprescribedformforstrata-corporationfinancialstatements.(166–68)Finances—contracts 71.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoprovideanynewenhancedter-minationpowertostratacorporationforcontractsitentersintobeforeitsfirstannualgeneralmeeting.(170–72)72.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatastratacorporationmustactonaresolutionauthorizingthecancellationofastrata-managementcontractandprovidenoticeofthecancellationwithin90days.(173–74)Finances—regulatory provisions on fines and fees 73.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldbeamendedtosetthemaximumfinesat:(a)$200foreachcontraventionofabylaw;(b)$50foreachcontraventionofarule;and(c)$2000foreachcontraventionofarental-restrictionbylaw.(175–76)74.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldprovideforanewmaximumfinetobesetat$2000foreachcontraventionofashort-termaccommodationbylaw.(176–77)



75.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldbeamended(a)toraisethemaximumfeeastratacorporationmaychargeforanInformationCertificateto$300plusthecostofphotocopying,orothermeansofreproduction,upto25centsperpageand(b)toraisethemaximumfeeforaCertificateofPaymentto$50.(178)76.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldcontinuetoprovidethatastratacorpora-tionmaynotchargeafeefortheinspectionofarecordordocumentundersection36oftheStrataPropertyAct.(179–80)77.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldnotallowastratacorporationtochargeafeeforaninspectionofarecordordocumentundersection36oftheStrataPropertyActbyelectronicmeans.(181–82)78.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldallowastratacorporationtochargeafeeofupto$0.25perpageforcopyofarecordordocumentprovidedundersection36oftheStrataPropertyActbyelectronicmeans.(181–82)Finances—limitation period and collections 79.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovideforaspeciallimitationperiodforclaimsofmoney,capableofbeingsubjecttoalienundersection116,owingfromastrata-lotownertoastratacorporation,offouryears.(184–86)Notices and communications 80.Section65oftheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamended.(192–94)81.Section34.1(3)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingout“oneweek”andreplacingitwith“twoweeks.”(194–95)82.Section144(4)(a)(i)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingout“oneweek”andreplacingitwith“twoweeks.”(194–95)83.Section144(4)(a)(ii)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingout“twoweeks”andreplacingitwith“threeweeks.”(194–95)



APPENDIX B

SummaryConsultationIntroduction ThepurposeofthissummaryconsultationistohighlightthreeproposalsfromtheBritishColumbiaLawInstitute’sConsultationPaperonGovernanceIssuesforStratas.Intheinterestofbrevity,backgroundinformationanddiscussionoftheseproposalshasbeenkepttoabareminimum.Citationsandfootnotesforthetexthavenotbeenprovided.Ifyouwishtoreadabouttheissuesraisedinthissummaryconsultationindepth,orifyouwanttocommentonallofthisconsultation’s83tentativerecom-mendations(oragreaterrangeofthosetentativerecommendationsthanisofferedinthissummaryconsultation),thenyouareencouragedtoobtainacopyofthefullConsultationPaperonGovernanceIssuesforStratasbydownloadingitforfreefromhttps://www.bcli.orgorbycontactingBCLIandaskingustosendahardcopytoyou.How to respond to this summary consultation Youmayrespondtothissummaryconsultationbyemailsenttostrata@bcli.org.Al-ternatively,youmaysendyourresponsebymailto1882EastMall,UniversityofBritishColumbia,Vancouver,BCV6T1Z1,byfaxto(604)822-0144,orbylinkingtoanonlinesurveythroughourwebsitehttps://www.bcli.org.Ifyouwantyourcommentstobeconsideredinthepreparationofthefinalreportongovernanceissuesforstratas,thenwemustreceivethemby15June2018.BCLIexpectstopublishthisreportinmid-2018.About the British Columbia Law Institute TheBritishColumbiaLawInstituteisBritishColumbia’sindependentlaw-reformagency.Incorporatedasanot-for-profitsocietyin1997,BCLI’sstrategicmissionistobealeaderinlawreformbycarryingoutthebestinscholarlylaw-reformre-searchandwritingandthebestinoutreachrelatingtolawreform.Afterpubliccon-sultations,BCLImakesrecommendationsforlegislativechangestotheprovincialgovernment.BCLI’srecommendationscanonlybeimplementedbyBritishColum-bia’slegislativeassembly,whichisresponsiblefortheenactmentoflegislation.



About the Strata Property Law (Phase Two) Project ThisconsultationformspartofabroaderBCLIprojectonstrata-propertylaw.TheStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwobuildsontheresearchandconsultationcarriedoutinthephase-oneproject.PhasetwoisconcernedwithmakinglegislativerecommendationstoreformtheStrataPropertyActinthefollowingsevenmajorar-eas:(1)fundamentalchangestoastrata;(2)complexstratas;(3)selectedgovern-anceissues;(4)commonproperty;(5)selectedland-titleissues;(6)selectedinsur-anceissues;(7)leaseholdstratas.Workonphasetwobeganinsummer2013andwillcarryonuntiltheconclusionoftheproject,whichisprojectedforJune2018.BCLIiscarryingoutthephase-twoprojectwiththeassistanceofanexpertprojectcommittee.Themembersofthecommitteeare:PatrickWilliams—chair (Partner,ClarkWilsonLLP)

VeronicaBarlee(Jul.2014–present) (SeniorPolicyAdvisor,HousingPolicyBranch,MinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousing)

LarryButtress(Oct.2013–Jun.2016) (DeputyExecutiveOfficer,RealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia)

GarthCambrey (RealEstateInstituteofBritishColumbia)

TonyGioventu (ExecutiveDirector,CondominiumHomeOwnersAssociation)

IanHolt(Oct.2016–Apr.2017) (Realtor,Re/MaxRealEstateServices)

TimJowett (SeniorManager,E-BusinessandDep-utyRegistrar,LandTitleandSurveyAuthority)

AlexLongson(Jul.2016–present) (SeniorComplianceOfficer,RealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia)

JudithMatheson(Oct.2013–Oct.2016) (Realtor,ColdwellBankerPremierRe-alty)

ElaineMcCormack (Partner,WilsonMcCormackLawGroup)

SusanM.Mercer(Sep.2016–present) (NotaryPublic)

DougPage(Oct.2013–Jul.2014) (DirectorofLegislation,HousingPolicyBranch,MinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousing)

DavidParkin (AssistantCitySurveyor,CityofVan-couver)

AllenRegan (Vice-President,BaysidePropertyServicesLtd.)



GarrettRobinson(Apr.2017–present) (Realtor,Re/MaxCrestRealty—Westside)

StanleyRule(Oct.2013–Sep.2016) (Lawyer,SabeyRuleLLP)

SandyWagner (PresidentoftheBoardofDirectors,VancouverIslandStrataOwnersAsso-ciation)

EdWilson (Partner,LawsonLundellLLP)

Our supporters TheStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwohasbeenmadepossiblebyprojectfundingfromtheRealEstateFoundationofBritishColumbia,theNotaryFoundationofBritishColumbia,theMinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousingforBritishCo-lumbia,theRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia,theRealEstateInstituteofBrit-ishColumbia,StrataPropertyAgentsofBritishColumbia,theAssociationofBritishColumbiaLandSurveyors,theVancouverIslandStrataOwnersAssociation,andtheCondominiumHomeOwnersAssociation.About strata-property law Whenalandownerwantstodevelopastratapropertythisowner-developermusthaveaprofessionallandsurveyorcreateastrataplan.Theowner-developerdepos-itsthisstrataplaninthelandtitleoffice.Thisactgivesrisetothethreedefiningcharacteristicsofastrataproperty:

(1) Theunitsinastrataproperty—inBritishColumbiatheseunitsarecalledstratalots—areownedoutrightbyindividualowners.Eachstratalotgetsaseparatetitleinthelandtitleoffice.Forstratalots,thinkofapartmentsinamulti-unitresidentialbuilding—thoughtheycouldalsobeofficesinanof-ficetower,commercialspacesinabusinesspark,orevenroomsinahotel.

(2) Thisindividualownershipofstratalotsiscombinedwithcollectiveowner-shipofthestrata’scommonpropertyandassets.Thesecommonelementscanincludethingslikelobbies,hallways,pipesandotherbuildingcompo-nentsinstalledbetweenstratalots,andelevators.Allthestrata-lotownersownthesecommonelementsthroughaformofsharedownershipcalledtenancyincommon.Inadditiontosharedownershipofpropertyandas-sets,strata-lotownersalsoshareliabilityforthestrata’sdebts.

(3) Finally,depositingastrataplanresultsinthecreationofastratacorpora-tion,whichisgiventheresponsibilitytomanageandmaintainthestrata’scommonpropertyandassetsforthebenefitofallstrata-lotowners.Eachstrata-lotownerisamemberofthestratacorporation.



InBritishColumbia,legislationcalledtheStrataPropertyActprovidesforthesedis-tinctivecharacteristicsandsetsouttherulesforgovernanceofstrataproperties.TheStrataPropertyActislargelymadeupofideas,concepts,andrulesdrawnfromolderbodiesoflaw,suchaspropertylaw,contractlaw,andcorporatelaw.About strata-property governance Strata-propertygovernanceisconcernedwiththethirditemonthelistfromthepreviouspage:thestratacorporation.Thestratacorporationisthelaw’svehicleforcoordinatingtheviewsofadiversegroupofpropertyowners.Whenitisfunctioningasplanned,thestratacorporationallowsthoseownerstograpplewithissuesfacingthestratapropertyandtomaketimelyandeffectivedecisions.Inplainterms,governancecanbedefinedasanorganization’ssystemormethodofmanagingitself.Assuch,itisahuge,potentiallynever-ending,topicforstratacorpo-rations.TheStrataPropertyActnarrowsitsrangesomewhatbycontainingadedi-catedparton“StrataCorporationGovernance.”Buteventhispart(whichcomesinatalengthy40sections)doesn’tfullycapturetheissuesatstakeinthispubliccon-sultation.Inthecommittee’sview,theareasofstrata-corporationgovernancethatcalledforimmediatereviewandpotentialreformwere:

• bylawsandrules,whicharethethirdpillarsupportingthelegalframeworkforstratacorporations(aftertheStrataPropertyActanditsregulations)andwhichoftenspelloutcrucialprovisionsfortheoperationandmanage-mentofthestratacorporation;

• statutorydefinitions,whichmaybeusedtoclarifythatlegalframework;

• generalmeetingsandstrata-councilmeetings,wheredecisionsgetmadeandmuchofthebusinessofoperatingandmanagingthestrataisdone;

• finances,includingbothstrata-corporationfinancesandthepublicsystemoffeessetoutintheregulations;and

• noticesandcommunicationsbetweenthestratacorporationanditsmem-bers.

Steppingbacktotakeinthebroadview,thecommitteeisinterestedinanumberofbig-picturequestions.Cantheproceduresgoverningstratameetingsbemadeclear-er,asawaytomakethosemeetingsamoreeffectivevehicleofcollectivedecision-making?Aretherewaystofurtherempowereligiblevoters’participationinmeet-



ingsanddecision-making?Cantheactenhancetheaccountabilityofthepeoplegiv-entheresponsibilitytoimplementthecollective’sdecisions?Doesthestratacorpo-rationhavetherightlegaltoolstoenforceitsdecisions?Thethreeproposalsinthissummaryconsultationhighlightaspectsoftheseques-tions.Theytackleclarifyinganimportantdocumentoftenusedinstrata-corporationmeetings,confirminganeffectivemethodtoelectstrata-councilmembers,anden-hancingonepartofthestratacorporation’stoolkitforenforcingitsdecisions.Should the Strata Property Act require a defined form of proxy appointment? TheStrataPropertyActcallsapersonwhostandsinforanabsentstrata-lotowneratastratacorporation’sgeneralmeetingaproxy.Thedocumentthatgivestheproxytheauthoritytorepresenttheowneriscalledaproxyappointment.Whenanownersignsaproxyappointmentthatexecuteddocumentcreateswhatthelawreferstoasanagencyrelationshipbetweentheownerandtheproxy.ThebroadoutlinesofthisrelationshiparedefinedbytheStrataPropertyAct,whichsaysthat“aproxystandsintheplaceofthepersonappointingtheproxy,andcandoany-thingthatpersoncando,includingvote,proposeandsecondmotionsandpartici-pateinthediscussion,unlesslimitedintheappointmentdocument.”Thepresenceofproxyappointmentsintheacthasbeenjustifiedfortworeasons.First,they’reseenasawaytoencouragegreaterownerparticipationincollectivedecision-making.Second,they’refelttobeneededtohelpstratacorporationsmeet-ingtheirquorumrequirements.(Aquorumistheminimumnumberofownerswhomustbepresenttoconstituteavalidmeeting.)Inrecentyears,manypeoplehavebeguntocriticizeaspectsoftheproxy-appointmentsystem.Ratherthandeepeningopenanddemocraticinvolvementinthestratacorporation,proxyappointments(inthecritics’view)havebeenleadingtotheoppositeresult.Theyhavebeenentrenchingcontrolbyunrepresentativefac-tionsthatmanipulatebothowners’apathyandproxylawstokeepthemselvesinpower.Thefullconsultationpaperexploresissuesconcerningproxyappointmentsintheirfulldimensions.Theproposalhighlightedinthissummaryconsultationtacklesoneaspectofamultifacetedproblem.Thisaspectconcernstheproxy-appointmentdocumentitself.Thisdocumentplaysacriticalroleindefiningtheagencyrelationshipbetweenanownerandaproxy.But



thedocumentissubjecttofewrequirements.Theactonlyholdsthatthedocumentmustbeinwritingandthatitmustbesignedbytheownerappointingtheproxy.Thereisaformofproxyappointmentprescribedintheregulation,butitsuseis“op-tional.”Intheeyesofsomecritics,thisapproachtothecentraldocumentdefiningtheagen-cyrelationshipcreatesagreyareathatcanbeexploited.Butevenintheabsenceofexploitation,vaguenessonthetermsoftheproxyappointmentcanleadtomisun-derstandingsanddisputes,erodingtheeffectivenessofageneralmeeting.Theproposaltoaddresstheseconcernsistocreateastandardformofproxyap-pointment.Astandardformwouldclarifythetermsoftheagencyrelationship,fill-ingingapsandclarifyinguncertainties.Inthisway,itwouldcutdownonexploita-tion.Andastandardformmayhaveotherbenefits.Byclearlydefiningthescopeoftheproxy’sauthority,astandardformcouldhelptofosterandsupportowners’partici-pationinmakingcollectivedecisions.Astandardformwouldgiveowners’greaterconfidencethattheproxyappointmentisbeingusedinaccordancewiththeirwish-es,andnotasameanstoentrenchsomeunrepresentativefactioninthestratacor-poration’sgovernance.Astandardformcouldalsoresultinaproxysystemthat,inthelongrun,wouldbeeasierforstratacorporationstoadministerandwouldbelesssusceptibletodisputes.Buttheremightalsobedrawbackstorequiringtheuseofastandardproxyap-pointment.BritishColumbiahasavastnumberofstratacorporations.Thesestratacorporationscandiffergreatlyintheircomposition.Designingastandardproxyap-pointmentthatwouldbesimpletouseandthatwouldrespecttherangeanddiversi-tyofBritishColumbia’sstratacorporationscouldbeaconsiderablechallenge.Therecouldalsobeimplementationissueswithastandardproxyappointment.Stra-tacorporationsandstratamanagerswouldhavetobeeducatedontheexistenceanduseoftheform.Whiletheirlearningcurvewouldprobablynotbesteep,theycouldstillencountersomeconfusionandconflict,particularlyintheshortterm.Finally,limitingproxyappointmentstoonestandardformcouldmakeitlessattrac-tiveforownerstoauthorizeproxiesforgeneralmeetings.Thiscouldleadtoapathyanddifficultiesforstratacorporationsinmeetingtheirquorumrequirements.ThecommitteeconsideredtheseadvantagesanddisadvantagesanddecidedthatBritishColumbiashouldmovetowardastandardformofproxyappointmentforstratacorporations.Astandardproxyappointmentshouldhelptoclarifytheagency



relationshipbetweenanownerandaproxy.Clarityonthisrelationshipshould,inturn,helptoallaytheconcernsofcriticsoftheproxysystem.Adoptingastandardformalsocreatesanopportunitytoclarifytheroleofthestratacorporationinthatsystem.Whendisputesoverproxyappointmentsarise,oftenpeoplelooktothestratacorporationtotakeapositiononthemortoresolvethem.Butthisisn’tthestratacorporation’srole.Finally,aclearlydefinedformshouldreducethenumberofdisputesoverproxyap-pointments,byspellingoutwhatconstitutesavalidproxyappointment.Inthecommittee’sview,thisbenefitwillflowfrommakinguseoftheformmandatory.Proposal(1)TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequiretheappointmentofaproxytobemadeusingastandardformwiththefollowingfeatures:(a)awarningthatthestratacorporationhasnoobligationtoensurethattheproxyvotesinaccordancewithanyinstructionssetoutinthisproxyappointment;(b)aspacetorecordeitherthegrantor’sstrata-lotnumberorunitnumberandstreetad-dress;(c)checkboxestoindicatewhethertheproxyappointmentisageneralappointmentoranappointmentforaspecificmeeting;(d)aspacetorecordthedateonwhichtheproxyappointmentissigned;(e)asignatureblock;(f)aspacetorecordanyvotinginstructions,labelled“optional.”

❑agree ❑disagreecomments: Should the Strata Property Act expressly provide that election to a strata council requires a majority of the ballots cast? Oneofthemostimportantthingsthattheownersdoateachannualgeneralmeetingiselectastratacouncil.AccordingtotheStrataPropertyAct,andunlesstheact,itsregulations,orastrata’sbylawssayotherwise,“thecouncilmustexercisethepow-ersandperformthedutiesofthestratacorporation,includingtheenforcementofbylawsandrules.”Giventheimportantresponsibilitiesofthestratacouncil,it’ssomewhatsurprisingthattheactdoesn’tclearlydefinewhatelectiontocouncilentails.Intuitively,peoplemayhaveasenseofwhatanelectionisabout—it’sessentiallyacontesttoattract



votes.Butthecourtshaveheldthat,intheabsenceoflegislationthatspellsthisintu-itivesenseout,themeaningofelectioninthiscontextisactuallymuchbroaderinscope.Thisrulingopensthedoortopracticessuchaselectingacouncilbyacclama-tion(whichisessentiallytheappointmentofaslateorgroupofindividualsascoun-cilmemberswithouttheownersvotingonanyofthem,becausetheslateorgroupissmallerthanthenumberofavailablecouncilslots).Electingacouncilbyacclamation,andother,similarpractices,havebeencriticizedastendingtounderminetheaccountabilityofthestratacouncilandthedemocraticspiritofthestratacorporation.Proposalsthatforgeaclearerlinkbetweenthevot-ersatanannualgeneralmeetingandtherepresentativestheyareelectinghavecomeupinstrata-propertylaw,andincorporatelawgenerally.Theseproposalsareintendedtoactasasafeguardagainstanentiregroupbeingac-claimedasastratacouncilwithouttheopportunityforindividualconsideration.Themainadvantagesoftheproposalarethatitclarifiestheprocessofelectionanditgivesownersachancetoevaluateeachcandidate.Inthisway,ablowmaybestruckagainstacommongovernanceproblemforstratas,whichishavingacliqueentrenchitselfinpower.Inaddition,becausethereisaclearerconnectionbetweenownersvotingattheannualgeneralmeetingandentryontocouncil,itmayalsofosteragreatersenseofaccountabilityamongstrata-councilmembers.Therearedownsidestothisapproach.Itcouldslowdownelections,makingthemmoreruleboundanddifficulttoadminister.Attheextremeend,itcouldresultinfailedelections,wherenocandidateisabletoattractamajority.Thecommitteedecidedthatthecurrentlawisratheropen-endedandsomewhatvague.Thiscouldleadtoirregularitiesandevenabuses.Tighteningupwhatismeantbeastrata-councilelectionwouldbebeneficial.Incomingtothisdecision,thecommitteedidtakesomepauseoverthedownsidestothisapproach.Itwasn’twillingtogoasfarassomeproposalsbeingconsideredinthecorporatesector,whichwouldinsistonindividualelectionofcorporatedirec-torsbyseparateresolutions,eachpassedbyamajorityvote.Inthecommittee’sview,simplyhavingalegislativeprovisionthatrequiresthateachstrata-councilmembermustbeelectedbyamajorityoftheballotscastwouldstriketherightbal-ance.Manywell-runstratacorporationsalreadyusethisprocedure,soitsimple-mentationlikelywouldn’tcausesignificantdisruptionatthelevelofpractice.Butitwouldclarifythelegislationandwouldgiveownersanothertooltorootoutprob-lems.



Proposal(2)TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirethateachstrata-councilmembermustbeelectedbyamajorityoftheballotscast.

❑agree ❑disagreecomments: Should the Strata Property Act provide strata corporations with a limitation period that is longer than the basic limitation period of two years in which to enforce claims for money owing from a strata-lot owner to the strata corporation? Alimitationperiodisaperiodoftime,setoutinlegislation,thatbarsapersonfrombringingproceedingsinacourtortribunal.Whenalimitationperiodhaselapsed,apersonwithanotherwisevalidlegalclaimmaybeleftwithnolegalmeanstoen-forcethatclaim.TheStrataPropertyActhasnothingtosayaboutlimitationperiods.Whenastratacorporationwantstofindoutaboutalimitationperiodthatappliestoaclaimitmayhave,ithastoturntoastatuteofgeneralapplicationcalledtheLimitationAct.Stratacorporationsrelyonaconstantflowofmoneyfromstrata-lotownerstomeetthedutiesandobligationstheyhaveundertheStrataPropertyAct.Ifthatflowisin-terrupted,evenbyoneownerrefusingorfailingtopay,thenitiscriticalthatthestratacorporationactonitslegalrightsandenforceitsclaimagainstthedelinquentowner.Otherwise,thestratacorporationmayfallintodefaultortheotherownerswillhavetopickuptheslackleftbythedebtorowner.Inrecognitionoftheimportanceofthiscashflowfromownertothestratacorpora-tion,theStrataPropertyActgivesstratacorporationssomeenhancedenforcementtools.Themostimportantofthesetoolsisthelienthatastratacorporationmayplaceontitletoadelinquentowner’sstratalot.Whenanownerfailstomakecertainspecifiedpayments(forstratafees,speciallevies,areimbursementofthecostofdo-ingworkunderaworkorder,orashareofjudgmentagainstastratacorporation),thenthestratacorporationmaysecurethisdebtagainstthevalueofthestratalot.Andifthestratalotisultimatelysoldunderacourtorder,thenthestratacorpora-tionhasaprivilegedprioritypositioninclaimingtheproceedsofthatsalevis-à-visanyothercreditors.



ButallthisissubjecttoproceedingwithintheLimitationAct’sbasiclimitationperi-odoftwoyears(“acourtproceedinginrespectofaclaimmustnotbecommencedmorethan2yearsafterthedayonwhichtheclaimisdiscovered”).Somecommenta-torshavesaidthatthisrelativelyshortlimitationperiodcreateshardshipsforstratacorporations.Theup-frontcostsofenforcingmoststrata-corporationclaimsarehigh.Proceedingwithintwoyearsoftenmakeslittlefinancialsense.Sotherehavebeencallsforaspeciallimitationperiod,whichwouldbeapplicablejusttostrata-corporationclaims.Therationaleforaspeciallimitationperiodisthatitwouldreflectthespecialposi-tionofstratacorporations.Therelationshipbetweenastratacorporationandade-linquentownerisfundamentallydifferentfromthestandardcreditor-debtorrela-tionship.Thatstandardrelationshipisbestseeninaconsensuallendingtransaction,inwhichacreditoragreestolendmoneytoadebtor.Inastrata,ontheotherhand,thereisnosuchloan,simplyanownerwhorefusesorfailstopayrequiredfees,lev-ies,orthelike.Whenoneownerfailstopaytheharmultimatelyfallsontheotherowners,whomusteithermakeupforthelostfundsthemselvesorruntheriskofhavingthevalueoftheirownstratalotsdecline.Thedifficultywiththeseargumentsisthattheremightnotbeenoughthatsetsstratacorporationsapartfromothercreditorsandwarrantsspecialtreatmentunderthelaw.Afterall,mostcreditorswouldprefertohavethebenefitofmoretimeandgreaterflexibilityinpursuingtheirclaims.TheLimitationActisarelativelynewstatute.It’sonlybeeninforcesince2013.Oneofitshallmarkswasamovetoanew,shorterbasiclimitationperiod(cuttingwhathadpreviouslybeenasix-yearperioddowntotwoyears).It’slikelythatthegov-ernmentwillneedparticularlystrongreasonstostartcarvingoutexceptionstothisnewbasiclimitationperiod.Ingeneral,limitationperiodsareintendedtopromotecertaintyandfinalityincourtandtribunalproceedings.They’realsointendedtoguardagainststaleclaimscomingbeforeacourtortribunal.Thelongerthelimitationperiod,thegreaterthelikeli-hoodofastaleclaim.Thiscanforcethecourtortribunaltohavetomakedecisionsinthefaceoflostordisposed-ofrecordsorfadingmemories.Staleclaimsareonemoreburdenonanalreadyoverburdenedjusticesystem.Intheend,thecommitteedecidedtoproposeaspecial,four-yearlimitationperiodforstrata-corporationclaimsthatcomewithintheStrataPropertyAct’slien.Inthecommittee’sview,theseclaimshaveenoughspecialcharacteristicstosetthemapartfromthebroadrunofcreditor-debtorcases.Thecurrentlawhascausedproblems



forstratacorporations,andthesimplestwaytoalleviatethoseproblemsiswithadedicated,longerlimitationperiod.Proposal(3)TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovideforaspeciallimitationpe-riodforclaimsofmoney,capableofbeingsubjecttoalienundersection116,owingfromastrata-lotownertoastratacorporation,offouryears.

❑agree ❑disagreecomments: Conclusion Thecommitteeisinterestedinyourthoughtsontheseproposals.Andifyouwishtopursueanyoftheideasraisedinthissummaryconsultationingreaterdetailordepth,thecommitteeencouragesyoutoreadandrespondtothefullconsultationpaper.Responsestothefullandsummaryconsultationsreceivedbefore15June2018willbetakenintoaccountinpreparingthefinalreportongovernanceissuesforstratas,whichBCLIplanstopublishin2018.



APPENDIX C

BiographiesofProject-CommitteeMembersPatrickWilliamsisapartneroftheVancouverlawfirmClarkWilsonLLPandamemberofthefirm’sStrataPropertyGroup.HeisalsoamemberoftheAlternativeDisputeResolutionPracticeGroup.Patrick’spracticefocussesonassistingstratacorporations,developers,andstrata-lotownerswithdisputeresolution.Heisanex-periencedandqualifiedarbitratorandmediatorwhohasmanagednumerousstrata-property,real-estate,andconstructiondisputes.Patrickhaswrittenandpublishedmanyarticlesonissuesimpactingthestrata-propertyindustry,includingconstruction-relatedproblemsexperiencedbyowners,propertymanagers,anddevelopers.Heisaregularcontributortoindustryperiodi-calsandregularlydeliverspresentationsandseminarstoindustrygroups,stratacorporations,andpropertymanagers.Hehasalsopublishedarticlesregardingtheuseandbenefitofarbitrationandmediationasanalternativetocourtandisafre-quentguestinstructorforthemediationcomponentoftheProfessionalLegalTrain-ingCourserequiredtobetakenbyallarticledstudentsinBritishColumbia.PatrickreceivedhisdisputeresolutiontrainingthroughtheContinuingLegalEduca-tionSocietyofBritishColumbiaandtheBritishColumbiaArbitrationandMediationInstitute.HeobtainedhisBachelorofCommercedegreein1973andhisBachelorofLawsdegreein1974,fromtheUniversityofBritishColumbia.VeronicaBarlee(committeememberJuly2014–present)isaseniorpolicyadvi-sorwiththeprovincialgovernment’sOfficeofHousingandConstructionStandards.Forthepastsevenyears,Veronicahasworkedonstratalegislation,regulations,pol-icies,andissues.StratahousingisavitaleconomicdriverandakeyhousingchoiceinBritishColumbia,providingalmost25%oftheprovince’shousingstock.Veroni-ca’sprofessionalbackgroundincludesextensivepolicy-developmentandmanage-mentexperienceintheprivate,public,andnot-for-profitsectors,includingsmallbusiness,fundraising,forest-firefighting,andcommunityservices.HerMBAfromtheUniversityofAlbertaisaugmentedbyongoingprofessionaldevelopmentinpoli-cydevelopment,stakeholderconsultation,publicengagement,andinformationmanagement.



LarryButtress(committeememberOctober2013–June2016)wasfirstlicensedundertheRealEstateActinBritishColumbiain1980.Workingforhisfamily’ssmall,independentreal-estatecompany,hesoldresidentialandmulti-familyrealestate,assistedinthecompany’sproperty-managementportfolio,andachievedhisagent’squalificationsin1982.ThatsameyearhebeganworkingwiththeRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouverasthemanagerofitsMultipleListingService.In1986,heearnedhisDiplomainUrbanLandEconomicsandbecameamemberoftheRealEs-tateInstituteofBritishColumbiaandtheRealEstateInstituteofCanada.In1988,hewasappointedasREBGV’sexecutiveofficer,apositionhehelduntil1995.In1995,hejoinedJCITechnologiesInc.asdirectorofreal-estateservices.Hesuccessfullyne-gotiatedthatcompany’spreferredsupplieragreementwiththeCanadianRealEstateAssociationthatledtothedevelopmentofmls.ca,nowREALTOR.ca,thelargestandmostfrequentlyvisitedreal-estatewebsiteinCanada.LarryjoinedstaffattheRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbiain1998asitsman-ager,industrypractice.HehasbeenanactiveparticipantintheCanadianRegulatorsGroupaschairofitsInternetAdvertisingGuidelinesTaskForce,chairofitsElec-tronicTransactionsTaskForce,andvice-chairofitsAgencyTaskForce.In2003–04,Larryalsoservedasthedistrictvice-presidentoftheCanadianDistrictofARELLO,theAssociationofRealEstateLicenceLawOfficials.LarryrecentlyretiredasthedeputyexecutiveofficeroftheRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia.J.GarthCambreyhasover28yearsofexperienceintheproperty-managementin-dustryinBritishColumbia.GarthcurrentlysitsontheRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia,wasthefoundingdirectorandpastvice-presidentofStrataPropertyAgentsofBCandwasapastdirectorandvice-presidentoftheProfessionalAssocia-tionofManagingAgents(PAMA).HeisanactivememberoftheRealEstateInstituteofBritishColumbiaandisinvolvedwithvariousindustryassociationsandcommit-tees.GarthhasbeenappointedbytheSupremeCourtofBritishColumbiaasanad-ministratorundertheStrataPropertyActon17occasionsandholdsaCharteredAr-bitratordesignationwiththeADRInstituteofCanada,actingasanarbitratorinstra-tadisputes.GarthisalsoinvolvedinvariousadvisorygroupswiththeBritishCo-lumbiagovernment,providingsupportandadvicewithrespecttoprovinciallegisla-tion,includingtheCivilResolutionsTribunalAct.TonyGioventuistheexecutivedirectoroftheCondominiumHomeOwnersAssoci-ationofBritishColumbia(CHOA),aconsumerassociationinBritishColumbiawithover200000memberscomprisingstratacorporations,owners,andbusinessmem-berswhoservethestrataindustry.TonyistheweeklyCondoSmartscolumnistforTheProvince,TheTimesColonist,and24HoursVancouver.Since2002,Tonyhaswrittenover1000columnsandinformationbulletinsdedicatedtostratalivingandistheco-authorofAPracticalGuidetoBylaws:TheStrataPropertyAct,andUnder-



standingGovernance:StrataRulesoforderandproceduresinBritishColumbia.Tonyhasservedasadirector/committeememberfortheHomeownerProtectionOffice,BCBuildingEnvelopeCouncil,CanadianStandardsAssociation,theRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia,andcontinuestoplayanactiveroleinresearchandde-velopmentofbuildingstandards,legislationforstratacorporations,andconsumerprotection.WithofficesinNewWestminster,Victoria,andKelowna,CHOAprovidesservicetoitsmembersthroughouttheprovince,promotinganunderstandingofstrataliving,andtheinterestsofstrata-propertyowners.Onaveragetheassociationfields300inquiriesadayfromowners,strata-councilmembers,managersandagents,andde-liversover100seminarsannuallyonavarietyofstrata-relatedtopicsincludinggov-ernance,operations,andadministration.IanHolt(committeememberOctober2016–April2017)startedhiscareerinre-al-estatesalesin1993.Heiscurrentlyareal-estateagentwithRe/MaxRealEstateServicesinVancouver.Ianspecializesandhassoldmanystratapropertiesthrough-outhiscareer.IanisamemberoftheRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouverandtheCanadianRealEstateAssociationandislicensedwiththeRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia.IanhasbeenanMLSMedallionClubmemberfor19yearswiththeRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouver.From2006to2008,IanwasaVancouverWestsideDivisionboardmemberoftheRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouver.From2008tothepresent,IanhasbeenanactivememberoftheGovernmentRela-tionsCommitteeattheRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouver.TimJowettstartedwiththeVancouverlandtitleofficein1988andhasprogressedthroughtheyearsfromanexamineroftitleintohiscurrentpositionofseniorman-ager,E-businessanddeputyregistrarwiththeNewWestminsterlandtitleofficeattheLandTitleandSurveyAuthorityofBritishColumbia.TimcurrentlyoverseestheE-businessteam,agroupofspecialistexaminerswhoareresponsibleforthepublishedpractices,statutoryproceduresandfunctionalityre-latedtotheelectronicfilingsystem.Theteam’sworkinvolvesvariousenhance-ments,changes,andupdatestothesystemsandprocessesthatarebeingdoneinanefforttosupporttheneedsofstakeholders.Hisrolealsoentailsansweringquestionsfromavarietyofstakeholders,primarilylawyers,notaries,landsurveyors,andemployeeswithlocalgovernments.Timhaspresentedandisakeyparticipantatvariousmeetingsandconferencesonland-titleissueswiththesestakeholders.



AlexLongson(committeememberJuly2016–present)startedhiscareerinrealestatein2005,shortlyafteremigratingfromtheUnitedKingdom,wherehehad20years’experienceintheautomotive-engineeringindustryworkingasatestengineerforFordMotorCompany.Hebecamelicensedforstratamanagementin2006withabrokerageintheOkanagan,andsubsequentlybecamelicensedforrentalmanage-mentandasamanagingbrokerin2009.In2012,hejoinedthestaffoftheRealEs-tateCouncilofBritishColumbiaandinhisroleasseniorcomplianceofficerheinves-tigatescomplaints,advisesandeducateslicenseesontherequirementsofthelegis-lation,andsupportstherealestatecouncil’sStrataManagementAdvisoryGroup.HehasalsobeenaguestspeakertotheStrataPropertyAgentsofBritishColumbiaandtheBritishColumbiaRealEstateAssociation,andiscurrentlyaresourcetotheRealEstateCouncilofAlbertafortheCondominiumManagersImplementationAdvisoryCommittee.JudithMatheson(committeememberOctober2013–October2016)startedhercareerinrealestatein1980.Sheiscurrentlyareal-estateagentwithColdwellBankerPremierRealty.Judithhassoldthousandsofstratapropertiesasresales,aswellashavingworkedformanyofthetopstratadevelopersinBritishColumbia.SheisrankedinthetopsevenpercentofrealtorsworldwidewithColdwellBanker,andisaColdwellBankerPremierRealtyTopProducer.JudithisamemberoftheRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouverandtheCanadianRealEstateAssociation,andislicensedwiththeRealEstateCouncilofBritishCo-lumbia.SheisanMLSMedallionClubMember,RealEstateBoardofGreaterVancou-verQuarterCenturyClubMember,andanAffiliateMemberofLuxuryHomes.com.JudithhasbeenawardedtheColdwellBankerUltimateServiceAward,theColdwellBankerPresidentsCircle,theColdwellBankerDiamondSociety,theColdwellBankerSterlingSociety,andtheColdwellBankerTop50inWesternCanada.ElaineMcCormackisafoundingmemberofthelawfirmWilsonMcCormackLawGroup.Forover20yearsshehasassistedstratacorporations,individualowners,andmanagementcompaniesinthegovernanceanddispute-resolutionprocessesofstratalife.Shepreparesbylawsandprivacypolicies,resolutions,andcontracts.Shehasalsorepresentedclientsincourtandinhuman-rightsmatters.Elaineisactivelyinvolvedineducatingmembersofthestratacommunity.Shefre-quentlydesignsanddeliversseminarsfortheProfessionalAssociationofManagingAgentsandpresentlyservesontheeducationcommitteeofPAMA.Shehaswrittenanddeliveredthelatestfull-daycourseentitled“RealEstateE&OInsuranceLegalUpdateforStrataManagers”usedfortheRelicensingEducationProgramforstratamanagers.ShealsofrequentlydeliversseminarsfortheCondominiumHomeOwn-ers’AssociationofBritishColumbiaandhaswrittenmanyarticlesfortheCHOA



News.SheisapastdirectoroftheBritishColumbiaArbitrationandMediationInsti-tute(BCAMI)andcurrentlysitsontheaccreditationcommitteeofBCAMIfortheQArbdesignation.AsaCharterArbitrator,Elainefrequentlyadjudicatesdisputesandusesthisexperi-enceinturnwhenadvocatingforclientsbeforefellowarbitrators.SheisamemberoftheMediateBCCivilRosterandhasreceivedmediationtrainingthroughtheBrit-ishColumbiaJusticeInstitute,theContinuingLegalEducationSocietyofBritishCo-lumbia,andMediateBC.ElainehasalsobeencounselinseveralseminalSupremeCourtofBritishColumbiadecisionsinvolvingsuchdiversestrataissuesastheen-forcementandvalidityofagebylawsandrentalbylaws,thetransitionalprovisionsbetweentheCondominiumActandtheStrataPropertyActwithrespecttoallocationofrepaircosts,andclaimingdamagesforimproperlycalculatedstratafees.Elaine’sdegreesanddesignationsincludeaBAwithamajorinEnglish,minorinLawandtheLiberalArtsfromtheUniversityofCalgaryin1988,anLLBfromtheUniver-sityofBritishColumbia,andaCArbdesignationfromtheADRInstituteofCanadaInc.in1998.SusanMercer(committeememberSeptember2016–present)startedhercareerasanotarypublicin1986inSidney,BC.Duringheryearsofpractice,shespecializedinreal-estatetransactions,whichincludedmanystrataproperties.Asaresult,sheisveryawareofvariousissuesfacedbystrata-propertyowners,aswellasbystrata-propertymanagers.Shehasalsobeeninvolvedinstrata-propertydevelopment.Susanhasservedvariouscommunityandprofessionalboardsandfoundations.ShealsoservedontheBCLIRealPropertyReformProjectCommitteefrom2008–12.In1986,SusanreceivedhercertificationasanotarypublicfromtheUniversityofBritishColumbia.Atthattime,shebecamethefirstrecipientoftheannualBernardHoeterAwardforhighestmarksachievedontheBCNotarystatutoryexams.SheisalsoagraduateoftheUBCUrbanLandEconomicsDiplomaProgram(2002),receiv-ingtwobursariesrecognizingherexcellentmarksuponcompletionoftheprogram.DougPage(committeememberOctober2013–July2014)isthemanagerofhousingpolicyintheBritishColumbiagovernment’sOfficeofHousingandConstruc-tionStandardsandisaformercondoowner.BritishColumbia’sstratalegislationandregulationsarenowoneofhismainresponsibilities.Hehasworkedfor25yearsinvariousaspectsofthehousingfield,includingstintswiththeUrbanInstituteinWashington,DC,theUSDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment,BC’sTreasuryBoardstaff,andwithalargeprivatedeveloperandmanagerofapartmentbuildings.DoughasaBAfromDartmouthCollegeandanMAinurbangeography



andadiplomainurbanlandeconomics,bothfromtheUniversityofBritishColum-bia.HeisamemberoftheRealEstateInstituteofBritishColumbia.DavidParkinistheassistantcitysurveyorfortheCityofVancouver.Hehasbeenworkinginthelandsurveyingprofessionforover30yearsindifferentcapacitiesinWhistlerandtheVancouverLowerMainland.HeobtainedhisBachelorofScienceinSurveyingEngineeringfromtheUniversityofCalgaryin1992andwascommis-sionedasaBritishColumbiaLandSurveyorin1995.HeisapractisingmemberoftheAssociationofBritishColumbiaLandSurveyors.DavidwasemployedbyUnderhillGeomaticsLtd.for15yearsandworkedasapro-jectlandsurveyorandwasresponsibleformanagingandsupervisingtheday-to-dayoperationsandprojectsoftheVancouveroffice.HispreferredareasofpracticewhilewithUnderhill’swerelargerdevelopmentprojectsthatincludedtheprepara-tionofair-spacesubdivisionsandstrataplans.Inhiscurrentcapacityastheassistantcitysurveyor,Davidreviewsconventionalandair-spacesubdivisionapplications,subdivisionsofexistingstrataplansandstatutoryrightofwayplans,andagreementsrelatedtocommercialandresidentialdevelopments.AllenReganisthevicepresidentandmanagingbrokerforBaysidePropertySer-vicesLtd.HehasbeenwithBaysidesinceApril1999.Baysideprovidesmanagementservicestoapproximately145stratacorporationsthroughoutthelowermainland,aswellasapproximately40rental-apartmentbuildings.Intotal,Baysidemanagesabout12000strataandrentalunits.PriortoworkingatBayside,Allenheldposi-tionsinthecommercialreal-estatefieldwithGWLRealtyAdvisorsasregionaldirec-torforBritishColumbiaandwithO&YEnterpriseasgeneralmanagerforBritishColumbia.AllenhasaBCommfromtheUniversityofBritishColumbiainurbanlandeconomics(1979)andislicensedinBritishColumbiafortrading,rental,andstratamanagement,allasamanagingbroker.AllenisalsoontheboardofdirectorsoftheStrataPropertyAgentsofBritishColumbia.GarrettRobinson(committeememberApril2017–present)startedhiscareerinreal-estatesalesin1993.HeiscurrentlyarealtorwithRe/MaxCrestRealtyWestsideinVancouver.GarrettisamemberoftheRealEstateBoardofGreaterVan-couverandtheCanadianRealEstateAssociationandislicensedwiththeRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia.Garretthaspreviouslybeenasubcommitteememberofthe2009StrataPropertyActReviewthatwasheadedbyAdrienneMurray.GarretthasbeenanMLSMedallionClubmemberfor18yearswiththeRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouver.Garrettisapastdirector(threeterms)fortheVancouver



WestsideDivisionoftheRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouver.Garrettisastrata-propertyownerandactiveinday-to-daystrata-councilactivity.StanRule(committeememberOctober2013–September2016)isapartnerattheKelownalawfirmofSabeyRuleLLP.HehasbeenpracticinginKelownasinceshortlyafterhewascalledtothebarin1989.Hispreferredareasofpracticearewills,trusts,estates,andestatelitigation.Stanwritesalegalblogentitled“RuleofLaw.”HehasbeenaguestspeakerattheTrialLawyersAssociationofBritishColumbia,theCanadianBarAssociationOkana-ganwillsandtrustsandtheVictoriawillsandtrustssubsections,theOkanaganfami-lylawsubsection,theKelownaEstatePlanningSociety,theVernonEstatePlanningSociety,andhehaspresentedpapersateightcontinuinglegaleducationcourses.StanisadirectoroftheBritishColumbiaLawInstitute.Heisthetreasurerofthena-tionalwillsandestatessubsectionoftheCanadianBarAssociation.HeisamemberandformerchairoftheOkanaganwillsandtrustssubsection,andamemberandaformerpresidentoftheKelownaEstatePlanningSociety.HeisalsoamemberoftheSocietyofTrustandEstatePractitioners.HerecentlyparticipatedasamemberoftheBritishColumbiaLawInstituteProjectCommitteeonRecommendedPracticesforWillsPractitionersRelatingtoPotentialUndueInfluence.SandyWagnerrepresentsstrataownersinmanyareasofpublicconcernaspresi-dentoftheboardofdirectorsoftheVancouverIslandStrataOwnersAssociation.VISOA’smandateiseducation,empowerment,andassistanceforBritishColumbiastrataowners,andhasprovidedfront-lineservicetothemfor45years.ShehasbeenadirectorofVISOAsince2007andhasledtheassociationaspresidentforthepastsevenyears,duringwhichtimeithasgrownsignificantlybothinmem-bershipandinvisibility.SandycurrentlyeditstheVISOABulletin,aquarterlynewsmagazinedistributedtonearly10000VISOAmembers,andleadsVISOA’sworkshopgroup,providingeducationalfull-dayworkshopsonstratabestpractices.SheisalsopartoftheCivilResolutionTribunalstaff.Previously,SandywasamemberoftheCivilResolutionTribunalWorkingGroup(acommitteeworkingonproceduralmattersfortheCRT)andavolunteerontheStra-taManagementAdvisoryGroup(workingwiththeRealEstateCouncilofBritishCo-lumbiatoprovideeducationandinformationforstratamanagers).EdWilsonisapartnerwiththeVancouverlawfirmLawsonLundellLLPandhaspracticedinthereal-estateandmunicipal-lawfields,withaspecialtyinreal-estatedevelopment,forover30years.EdwasamemberoftheCanadianBarAssociation’s



stratapropertycommitteethatworkedwithgovernmentindevelopingthecurrentStrataPropertyAct.EdhasbeenactivelyinvolvedwiththeContinuingLegalEduca-tionSocietyofBritishColumbia.Hehastaughtmorethan15CLEBCcourses,includ-ingcoursesonstrata-propertylaw,resortdevelopment,real-estatedevelopment,anddepreciationreportsforstratacorporations.EdisalsoamemberoftheUrbanDevelopmentInstitute’slegalissuescommittee.



PRINCIPAL FUNDERS IN 2017 TheBritishColumbiaLawInstituteexpressesitsthankstoitsfundersin2017:

• LawFoundationofBritishColumbia• MinistryofAttorneyGeneralforBritishColumbia

• NotaryFoundationofBritishColumbia• RealEstateFoundationofBritishColumbia

• RealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia

• RealEstateInstituteofBritishColumbia• StrataPropertyAgentsofBritishColumbia

• AssociationofBritishColumbiaLandSurveyors

• VancouverIslandStrataOwnersAssociation• CondominiumHomeOwnersAssociation

• MinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousingforBritishColumbia• EmploymentandSocialDevelopmentCanada

• VancouverFoundation

• CoalitionofBCBusinesses• BCGovernmentEmployeesUnion

• HealthEmployeesUnion

• MinistryofLabourforBritishColumbia• eHealthSaskatchewan(VitalStatistics)

• ServiceNewBrunswick(VitalStatistics)• StatisticsCanada

• GovernmentofNunavut(VitalStatistics)

• OntarioLawFoundationAccesstoJusticeFund• CanadianWomen’sFoundation• CanadianHumanRightsCommission

BCLIalsoreiteratesitsthankstoallthoseindividualsandorganizationswhohaveprovidedfinancialsupportforitspresentandpastactivities.

Documents

Consultation Paper...Call for Responses We are interested in your response to this consultation paper. It would be helpful if your re-sponse directly addressed the tentative recommendations