report on governance issues for stratas - bcli.org · report on governance issues for stratas this...

Report onGovernance Issues for Stratas

A report published as part of the Strata Property Law Project—Phase Two

Report on Governance Issues

for Stratas

A Report Prepared for the British Columbia Law Institute by the Members of the

Strata Property Law (Phase Two) Project Committee

BCLI Report no. 85 January 2019

Disclaimer Theinformationandcommentaryinthispublicationisnotofferedaslegaladvice.Itrefersonlytothelawatthetimeofpubli-cation,andthelawmayhavesincechanged.BCLIdoesnotundertaketocontinuallyupdateorreviseeachofitspublicationstoreflectpost-publicationchangesinthelaw.TheBritishColumbiaLawInstituteanditsdivision,theCanadianCentreforElderLaw,disclaimanyandallresponsibilityfordamageorlossofanynaturewhatsoeverthatanypersonorentitymayincurasaresultofrelyinguponinformationorcom-mentaryinthispublication.Youshouldnotrelyoninformationinthispublicationindealingwithanactuallegalproblemthataffectsyouoranyoneelse.Instead,youshouldobtainadvicefromaqualifiedlegalprofessionalconcerningtheparticularcircumstancesofyoursituation.______________________________________________©2019BritishColumbiaLawInstituteTheBritishColumbiaLawInstituteclaimscopyrightinthispublication.Youmaycopy,download,distribute,display,andoth-erwisedealfreelywiththispublication,butonlyifyoucomplywiththefollowingconditions:

1. Youmustacknowledgethesourceofthispublication;

2. Youmaynotmodifythispublicationoranyportionofit;

3. YoumustnotusethispublicationforanycommercialpurposewithoutthepriorwrittenpermissionoftheBritishCo-lumbiaLawInstitute.

CoverphotographbySpencerWatsononUnsplash.CoverdesignbyShaunaNicholson.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:

• thebestinscholarlylaw-reformresearchandwriting;and

• thebestinoutreachrelatingtolawreform.

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

ThomasL.Spraggs(Chair) AndreaL.Rolls(Vice-chair)MargaretH.Mason,QC(Treasurer) OliverA.Fleck(Secretary)Dr.ElizabethAdjin-Tettey Hon.MarionJ.AllanEmilyL.Clough Dr.TeshW.DagneJenniferA.Davenport MathewP.GoodTejasB.V.Madhur DylanT.MazurSusanM.Mercer BrentB.OlthuisLisaA.Peters,QC Dr.JanisP.Sarra

ThemembersemeritusoftheInstituteare:

Prof.JoostBlom,QC ArthurL.Close,QCProf.RobertG.Howell D.PeterRamsay,QC

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

ThisprojectwasmadepossiblewiththesustainingfinancialsupportoftheLawFoundationofBritishColumbiaandtheMinistryofJusticeforBritishColumbia.TheInstitutegratefully

acknowledgesthesupportoftheLawFoundationandtheMinistryforitswork.

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

Introductory Note

Report on Governance Issues for Stratas ThisreportisthethirdreportpublishedinBCLI’sStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwo.BCLI’sworkonstrata-propertylawreachesbacktophaseoneofthisproject,whichconcludedin2012withrecommendationstoexamineselectedareasofstrata-propertylawandtomakerecommendationsforlegislativereformthatwillsupportthenextgenerationoftheStrataPropertyAct.Governanceisthenamegiventoastratacorporation’smethodorsystemofman-agement.Strata-corporationgovernanceisconcernedwithcoordinatingstrata-lotownerssotheycanmakeeffectivedecisionsregardingpressingtopicssuchasprop-erty,financialplanning,andbylaws.Thereportcontains81recommendationsforreform.Theserecommendationsad-dressawiderangeofsubjects,fromrelocatingstandardbylawstothebodyoftheact,enhancingmeetingprocedures,improvingenforcementofbylaws,tointroduc-ingnewstatutorydefinitionsforcontestedterms.Thereportcontainsdraftlegisla-tionandregulations,whichillustratehowthecommittee’srecommendationscouldbeimplemented.OnbehalfoftheboardofdirectorsoftheBritishColumbiaLawInstitute,IwanttothankthemembersoftheStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)Committeefortheirhardworkonthisreportandtheirongoingcommitmenttotheproject.BCLIfullysupportstheirrecommendationsandendorsesthisreport.

ThomasL.SpraggsChair,BritishColumbiaLawInstituteJanuary2019

Strata Property Law (Phase Two) Project Committee

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

PatrickWilliams—chair (Partner,ClarkWilsonLLP)

VeronicaBarlee(Jul.2014–present) (SeniorPolicyAdvisor,HousingPolicyBranch,MinistryofNaturalGasDevelop-mentandResponsibleforHousing)

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)

SusanMercer(Sep.2016–present) (NotaryPublic)

DougPage(Oct.2013–Jul.2014) (DirectorofLegislation,HousingPolicyBranch,MinistryofNaturalGasDevelop-mentandResponsibleforHousing)

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

Report on Governance Issues for Stratas

British Columbia Law Institute vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements............................................................................................................xviiExecutiveSummary..............................................................................................................xix

Chapter1.Introduction.........................................................................................................1AnOverviewofthisReport’sSubject................................................................................................................1AbouttheStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwo.................................................................................2ThePhase-TwoProject’sSupporters................................................................................................................4TheStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)ProjectCommittee......................................................................4AboutthePublicConsultationonStrataGovernance................................................................................4OtherLaw-ReformProjects...................................................................................................................................6AnOverviewofthisReport....................................................................................................................................8Chapter2.TheBuildingBlocksofStrataGovernance..............................................11Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................11TheEssentialElementsofaStrataProperty...............................................................................................11StrataPropertyAct.................................................................................................................................................12TheOwner-Developer...........................................................................................................................................13CreationofaStrataPropertybyDepositofaStrataPlan......................................................................13StrataLots..................................................................................................................................................................14Commonproperty,LimitedCommonProperty,andCommonAssets.............................................15

Commonproperty.........................................................................................................................................................15Limitedcommonproperty........................................................................................................................................16Commonassets..............................................................................................................................................................17

TheStrataCorporation.........................................................................................................................................17CommonExpenses..................................................................................................................................................18UnitEntitlement......................................................................................................................................................18

Whatisunitentitlementandhowisitused?....................................................................................................18Howisunitentitlementdetermined?..................................................................................................................19Whenisunitentitlementdeterminedandwhereisitfound?...................................................................20

TheGeneralRuleforSharingCommonExpenses.....................................................................................21ChangingtheGeneralRule:UsingSomethingOtherthanUnitEntitlementasaBasisforCost

Sharing...............................................................................................................................................................21DisputeResolutionandtheCivilResolutionTribunal............................................................................22Chapter3.BylawsandRules.............................................................................................25Background................................................................................................................................................................25

Natureofbylaws............................................................................................................................................................25Amendingbylaws..........................................................................................................................................................26Enforcingbylaws...........................................................................................................................................................27Natureofrules................................................................................................................................................................29Adoptingrules................................................................................................................................................................30


viii British Columbia Law Institute

IssuesforReform.....................................................................................................................................................30IssuesforReform—RelocatingProvisionsfromtheStandardBylawstotheAct......................31

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................................31Shouldsection1oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?..................................33

Thecontentofthebylaw..............................................................................................................................33Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................33

Shouldsection2oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?..................................34Thecontentofthebylaw..............................................................................................................................34Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................34

Shouldsection3oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?..................................35Thecontentofthebylaw..............................................................................................................................35Thecommittee’srecommendationsforreform.................................................................................35






Shouldsections9–22oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?........................43Thecontentofthebylaws............................................................................................................................43Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................43

Shouldsection19oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?...............................43Thecontentofthebylaws............................................................................................................................43Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................43

Shouldsection20(4)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?.......................44Thecontentofthebylaw..............................................................................................................................44Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................44

Shouldsection22oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?...............................45Thecontentofthebylaw..............................................................................................................................45Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................45




Shouldsection26oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsberelocatedtotheact?...............................48


British Columbia Law Institute ix

Thecontentofthebylaw..............................................................................................................................48Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................48





ShouldanewstandardbylawbeadoptedallowingastratacorporationtoproceedundertheSmallClaimsActagainstanownerorotherpersontocollectmoneyowingtothestratacorporation,includingmoneyowingasafine,withoutrequiringauthorizationbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote?.................................................................................................................52Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................52Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................52

IssuesforReform—Enforcement:ExpandingtheLien..........................................................................53Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................53ShouldtheStrataPropertyActenableastratacorporationtoregisteralienonanowner’s

stratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttofines?............................................................................54Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................54Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................55Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................55

IfacourtortheCivilResolutionTribunalfindsthatafineisvalid,thenshouldtheStrataPropertyActenableastratacorporationtoregisteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttothatfine?................................................................................................55Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................55Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................56Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................56

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActenableastratacorporationtoregisteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttoaninsurancedeductibleorexpensesincurredduetodamagewhicharelessthananinsurancedeductible?.....................................56Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................56Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................57Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................57

IfacourtortheCivilResolutionTribunalfindsthatachargebackforaninsurancedeductibleorexpensesincurredduetodamagewhicharelessthananinsurancedeductibleisvalid,thenshouldtheStrataPropertyActenableastratacorporationtoregisteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespectthatchargeback?.......................................58Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................58Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................58Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................58

IssuesforReform—OtherEnforcementTools...........................................................................................59Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................59


x British Columbia Law Institute

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainaprovisionrequiringcompliancewithbylawsandrulesoranoffenceandpenaltyprovisionapplicabletoacontraventionofabylaworarule?..60Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................60Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................61Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................63

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActmakefailuretopaystratafeessubjecttoanimmediatefinewithouttheneedtocomplywiththeproceduressetoutinsection135?.................................64Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................64Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................64Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................65

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActprohibitastratacorporationfrombothapplyingafineandcharginginterestforfailuretopaystratafees?.....................................................................................65Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................65Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................66Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................67

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainprovisionsregardingtheinabilitytovoteimposedonastrata-lotownerifthestratacorporationisentitledtoregisteralienontheowner’sstratalot?.............................................................................................................................................................................67Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................67Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................68Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................69

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainprovisionsregardingbylawsthat,ineffect,adopttheruleinClayton’sCase—thatis,providethatanypaymenttodischargepartofadebtisappliedtotheoldestpartofthedebt,unlessthedebtorspecifiesotherwise?.......................69Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................69Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................70Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................71

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActexpresslyenableastratacorporationtofineanownerforfailuretopayaspeciallevy?..........................................................................................................................72Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................72Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................72Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................74

IssuesforReform—OtherIssues......................................................................................................................74ShouldtheStrataPropertyAct’sdelayingprovisionsforrentalrestrictionsnotapplywhena

stratacorporationisamendingbylawsthatalreadycontainrentalrestrictions?.................74Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................74Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................75Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................78

Chapter4.StatutoryDefinitions......................................................................................79Background................................................................................................................................................................79

Theadvantagesofstatutorydefinitions.............................................................................................................79Twonotesofcaution...................................................................................................................................................79

IssuesforReform.....................................................................................................................................................80ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainadefinitionof“continuingcontravention”?.....................80

Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................80Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................82Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................83

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainadefinitionof“stratamanager”?...........................................83


British Columbia Law Institute xi

Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................83Summaryofoptionsforreform................................................................................................................83Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................86

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainadefinitionof“rent”?.................................................................86Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................86Summaryofoptionsforreform................................................................................................................87Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................89

ShouldtheStrataPropertyAct’sdefinitionof“residentialstratalot”berevised?..........................90Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................90Summaryofoptionsforreform................................................................................................................90Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................94

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainadefinitionof“nonresidentialstratalot”?........................94Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................94Summaryofoptionsforreform................................................................................................................95Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................96

Chapter5.GeneralMeetingsandStrata-CouncilMeetings....................................97Background................................................................................................................................................................97

Scopeofthischapter....................................................................................................................................................97Generalmeetings—definitionandpurpose......................................................................................................98Kindsofgeneralmeetings.........................................................................................................................................99

IssuesforReform..................................................................................................................................................100Generalobservations................................................................................................................................................100

IssuesforReform—Proxies..............................................................................................................................101Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................101ShouldtheStrataPropertyActrequireadefinedformofproxyappointment?............................104

Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................104Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................105Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................108

HowshouldtheStrataPropertyActdealwithnon-compliancewiththestandardformofproxyappointmentoranyformalrequirementsprescribedforproxyappointments?................109Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................109Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................109Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................110

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActlimitthenumberofproxyappointmentsthatapersonmayhold?......................................................................................................................................................................111Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................111Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................111Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................113

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActprovidethatcertainpersonsmaynotbeaproxy?......................115Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................115Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................115Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................117

IssuesforReform—ConductofMeetings...................................................................................................118Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................118ShouldtheStrataPropertyActprovidedefaultrulesoforderforgeneralmeetings?................120



xii British Columbia Law Institute

IssuesforReform—Quorum...........................................................................................................................123Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................123ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontainprovisionsspellingoutwhathappenswhenaquorum

isn’tpresentatthestartofageneralmeeting?...................................................................................124Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................124Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................124Thecommittee’srecommendationsforreform..............................................................................126

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActaddresswhenaquorummustbepresentduringageneralmeeting?...............................................................................................................................................................127Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................127Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................128Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................128

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActaddresswhetherquorumatastrata-councilmeetingisaffectedbyamember’srecusalonanissueduetoaconflictofinterest?................................................129Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................129Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................129Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................130

IssuesforReform—Voting...............................................................................................................................131Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................131ShouldtheScheduleofStandardBylawstotheStrataPropertyActbeamendedtoclarifythe

effectofanabstentioninvotingatastrata-councilmeeting?......................................................132Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................132Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................132Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................133

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActallowthepresident(orthevicepresident)whenactingasmeetingchairtohaveacastingvote?.....................................................................................................133Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................133Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................134Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................136

Shouldthevotingthresholdforaresolutionpassedbya3/4votebechanged?..........................136Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................136Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................138Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................140

Shouldthereferencetoa“secretballot”insection27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsbechangedtoa“writtenballot”?....................................................................................................................140Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................140Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................141Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................142

Shouldsection27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsrequirethatavotebetakenbywrittenballotonlyifaresolutionauthorizingsuchavoteisapprovedbyamajorityvote?..........143Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................143Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................143Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................143

IssuesforReform—Strata-CouncilElections...........................................................................................144Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................144ShouldtheStrataPropertyActexpresslyprovidethatelectiontoastratacouncilrequiresa

majorityoftheballotscast?........................................................................................................................144Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................144Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................145


British Columbia Law Institute xiii

Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................146ShouldtheStrataPropertyActaddressthenumberofcouncilmembersrequired?..................147


ShouldtheStrataPropertyActestablishstatutoryqualificationsforcouncilmembers?.........149Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................149Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................149Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................151

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActallowastratacorporationtoelectacouncilmemberatanyspecialgeneralmeeting?..............................................................................................................................152Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................152Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................153Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................153

IssuesforReform—AgendaandMeetingMinutes.................................................................................154Shouldtheorderofagendaitemsforannualandspecialgeneralmeetingsbeamended?.......154


ShouldtheStrataPropertyActrequirecirculationofgeneral-meetingminutes?........................156Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................156Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................156Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................157

Shouldsection106oftheStrataPropertyActbeamendedtoprovidethreeweeksinwhichtoinformownersofchangestotheirstratafeesresultingfromanewbudget?.......................158Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................158Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................158Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................158

Chapter6.Finances............................................................................................................159Background..............................................................................................................................................................159

Backgroundinformationonstrata-corporationfinances........................................................................159Scopeofthischapter.................................................................................................................................................159

IssuesforReform—OperatingFund.............................................................................................................161Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................161ShouldtheStrataPropertyActadoptsomecriterionotherthanthecurrenttimingruleasa

waytodefinethepurposeofastratacorporation’soperatingfund?.......................................161Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................161Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................162Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................166

IssuesforReform—SpecialLevies................................................................................................................166Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................166Shouldsection108oftheStrataPropertyActbeamendedtoallowastratacorporationto

depositinitscontingencyreservefundanymoneycollectedinexcessoftheamountrequired?.............................................................................................................................................................167Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................167Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................168Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................168

IssuesforReform—Budgets............................................................................................................................169


xiv British Columbia Law Institute

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................169ShouldtheStrataPropertyActauthorizeastratacorporationtoinitiatethebudget-approval

processoramendabudgetataspecialgeneralmeeting?.............................................................170Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................170Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................170Thecommittee’srecommendationsforreform..............................................................................171

IssuesforReform—FinancialStatements.................................................................................................172Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................172ShouldtheStrataPropertyRegulationbeamendedtoprovideaprescribedformforfinancial

statements?........................................................................................................................................................172Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................172Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................173Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................174

IssuesforReform—Contracts.........................................................................................................................175Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................175ShouldtheStrataPropertyActgiveastratacorporationtheenhancedpowertoterminateany

contractenteredintobeforeitsfirstannualgeneralmeeting?...................................................176Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................176Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................176Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................178

Shouldsection39oftheStrataPropertyActcontainatimelimitona3/4voteresolutionauthorizingcancellationofastrata-managementcontract?........................................................179Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................179Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................180Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................180

IssuesforReform—RegulatoryProvisionsonFinesandFees.........................................................181Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................181ShouldtheStrataPropertyRegulationbeamendedtoincreasethemaximumfines?................181


ShouldtheStrataPropertyRegulationbeamendedtoincreasethemaximumfeesforanInformationCertificate(FormB)andaCertificateofPayment(FormF)?............................183Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................183Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................183Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................183

ShouldtheStrataPropertyRegulationprovideforafeefortheinspectionofstrata-corporationrecords?................................................................................................................................................................184Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................184Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................185Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................186

ShouldtheStrataPropertyRegulationprovideforafeeforaccessingrecordselectronically?..................................................................................................................................................................................187Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................187Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................187Thecommittee’srecommendationsforreform..............................................................................188

IssuesforReform—LimitationPeriodandCollections.......................................................................188Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................188


British Columbia Law Institute xv

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActprovidestratacorporationswithalimitationperiodthatislongerthanthebasiclimitationperiodoftwoyearsinwhichtoenforceclaimsformoneyowingfromastrata-lotownertothestratacorporation?.............................................................190Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................190Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................191Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................192

Chapter7.NoticesandCommunications....................................................................195Background..............................................................................................................................................................195

Theact’sgeneralnoticeprovisions....................................................................................................................195Scopeofthischapter.................................................................................................................................................201

IssuesforReform..................................................................................................................................................201Shouldsection65oftheStrataPropertyActbeamended?....................................................................201


ShouldanyoftheStrataPropertyAct’snoticeperiodsberevised?....................................................203Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................203Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................203Thecommittee’srecommendationsforreform..............................................................................203

Chapter8.DraftLegislationandRegulations...........................................................205Draftlegislation...........................................................................................................................................................205Draftregulations........................................................................................................................................................234

Chapter9.Conclusion........................................................................................................237AppendixA—ListofRecommendations......................................................................239AppendixB—BiographiesofProject-CommitteeMembers.................................249

PrincipalFundersin2018...............................................................................................257


British Columbia Law Institute xvii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TheBritishColumbiaLawInstitutethanksthemembersoftheStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)ProjectCommittee,withoutwhoseongoingdedicationthisprojectwouldnothavebeenpossible.Committeemembershavegenerouslysharedtheirtimeandexpertiseoverthecourseoftheproject.AdditionalacknowledgmentisduetoPatrickWilliams,whohastakenontheaddedresponsibilityofservingascommit-teechair.BCLIalsothanksallthoseindividualsandorganizationsthatparticipatedinthepub-licconsultationthatprecededthisreport.Theirresponsesandcommentshelpedthecommitteeinshapingandevaluatingthefinalrecommendationscontainedinthisreport.Forpublicizingtheconsultationpaperthatprecededthisreport,BCLIthankstheAdvocate,theCanadianBarAssociation—BCBranch,Clicklaw,theCondominiumHomeOwnersAssociation,theprogram“LegalHotline”onAM1320radio,andtheVancouverIslandStrataOwnersAssociation.TheStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)ProjecthasbeenmadepossiblebysupportfromtheRealEstateFoundationofBritishColumbia,theNotaryFoundationofBrit-ishColumbia,theMinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousingforBritishColumbia,theRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia,theRealEstateInstituteofBritishColumbia,StrataPropertyAgentsofBritishColumbia,theAssociationofBritishColumbiaLandSurveyors,theVancouverIslandStrataOwnersAssociation,andtheCondominiumHomeOwnersAssociation.BCLIthanksalltheseorganizationsfortheirgenerouscontributionstotheproject.BCLIalsothankstheVancouverlawfirmClarkWilsonLLPforhostingcommitteemeetings.Finally,thestaffofBCLIhaveplayedakeyroleindesigning,managing,andexecut-ingtheworkleadinguptothisreport.JimEmmerton(executivedirectortoJune2015)andKathleenCunningham(executivedirectorJune2015topresent)havebothprovidedexecutiveplanningandmanagementfortheproject.KevinZakreski(stafflawyer)istheprojectmanager,andwasalsoresponsiblefordraftingthisreportandtheconsultationpaperthatprecededit.He,GregBlue,QC(seniorstafflawyer),andValerieLeBlanc(stafflawyer)havecontributedtosupportingpro-ject-committeemeetings.Andthefollowingstaffmembershavealsocontributedtotheresearchandadministrationforthisproject:EmilyAmirkhani(UniversityofVic-toriaLawCoopstudent),AlexandreBlondin(researchlawyer),GurinderCheema(summerlawstudent),AllisonCurley(summerlawstudent),RaissaDickinson(manager,communityengagement),EricHou(summerlawstudent),RachelKelly


xviii British Columbia Law Institute

(researchlawyer),ShaunaNicholson(legalassistant),SergioOrtega(UniversityofVictoriaLawCoopstudent),ElizabethPinsent(officeadministrator),andBénédicteSchoepflin(socialmediacoordinator).


British Columbia Law Institute xix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction ThisisthethirdreportpublishedinBCLI’sStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwo.Thephase-twoprojectbuildsontheconsultationandresearchcarriedoutinphaseoneoftheproject.ItaddresseslegislativereformoftheStrataPropertyAct,withthegoalofpromotingthedevelopmentofthenextgenerationoftheact.Previousre-portshaveconsideredterminatingastrataandcomplexstratas.Thisreportexaminesselectedgovernanceissues.Theseareissuesconcerningthemethodorsystemofastratacorporation’smanagement.Thehallmarkofgovern-anceiseffectivedecision-making.Strata-corporationgovernanceentailscoordinat-ingadiverserangeofindividualstrata-lotownerstomakeeffectivedecisionsonmattersofcommonconcern.Thisreport’sfocusisonhowtheStrataPropertyActandtheStrataPropertyRegulationenablethatprocessthroughprovisionsonby-lawsandrules,statutorydefinitions,generalmeetingsandstrata-councilmeetings,finances,andnoticesandcommunications.Thereportcontains81recommendationsforreformoftheStrataPropertyAct(in-cludingtheScheduleofStandardBylaws)andtheStrataPropertyRegulation.Theserecommendationsrepresentthepolicypositionsthatareproposedtoguidedevel-opmentofstrata-corporationgovernance.Theyshowthatthelawneedssomesig-nificantfine-tuningandimprovementbutnotradicalchange.Thereportincludesdraftlegislationandregulationsasanillustrationofhowtherecommendationscouldbeimplemented.Butthereport’srecommendations,draftlegislation,anddraftregulationsdon’thavetheforceoflaw.ThepassageoflegislationbytheLegis-lativeAssemblyofBritishColumbiaortheadoptionofregulationsbytheLieutenantGovernorinCouncilisneededtofullyimplementthisreport’srecommendations.Our supporters and the project committee TheStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwohasbeenmadepossiblebyprojectfundingfromtheRealEstateFoundationofBritishColumbia,theNotaryFoundationofBritishColumbia,theMinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousingforBritishCo-lumbia,theRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia,theRealEstateInstituteofBrit-ishColumbia,StrataPropertyAgentsofBritishColumbia,theAssociationofBritishColumbiaLandSurveyors,theVancouverIslandStrataOwnersAssociation,andtheCondominiumHomeOwnersAssociation.


xx British Columbia Law Institute

BCLIiscarryingouttheStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwowiththeassistanceofavolunteerprojectcommittee.Thecommitteeismadeupofadiverserangeofexpertsinthestrata-propertyfield.Its13currentmembershailfromthelegalandnotarialprofessions,owners’organizations,thestrata-managementandreal-estateprofessions,andthepublicsector.Consultation Paper on Governance Issues for Stratas Thisreportwasprecededbythecommittee’sConsultationPaperonGovernanceIs-suesforStratas,whichwaspublishedinMarch2018.TheconsultationpaperwasmadeavailableviatheBCLIwebsite.Itattractedoneofthehighestlevelsofre-sponseforaBCLIlaw-reformconsultation.Boththevolumeofresponsesandthequalityofthecommentshelpedtheprojectcommitteeinrefiningitsproposalsanddecidingonthefinalrecommendationscontainedinthisreport.Content of the report Overview Thereportcontainsninechapters.Theintroductorychaptergivesanoverviewoftheprojectandtheconsultationprocess.Thesecondchapterprovidesasummaryofthebuildingblocksofstratagovernance.Thereportendswithachaptersettingoutdraftlegislationanddraftregulationsandabriefconcludingchapter.Thecentralfivechaptersformthebulkofthereport.Theyeachtacklethebroadar-easofthelawthathavegeneratedissuesforreform.Sincestratagovernanceisavasttopic,oneofthefirstdecisionstakenbythecommitteewastoidentifyarangeofareasthatcontainedtheissuesmostinneedofconsiderationbyalaw-reformbody.Inthecommittee’sview,theseareasare:

• bylawsandrules;

• statutorydefinitions;

• generalmeetingsandstrata-councilmeetings;

• finances;and

• noticesandcommunications.Eachoftheseareasformsthesubjectofadedicatedchapter.


British Columbia Law Institute xxi

Bylaws and rules Thisisthereport’slongestchapter,containing38recommendationsforreform.Thechapteropenswithabriefdiscussionofthecurrentlawonbylawsandrules.ThenitmovesintoaconsiderationofeachofthesectionscurrentlyfoundintheScheduleofStandardBylawstotheStrataPropertyAct.Thegoalofthisreviewistoconsiderwhetheranyofthebylawsshouldberelocatedfromthescheduletothemainbodyoftheact.Theeffectofsuchamoveisthatitwouldplacethetextofthe(former)by-lawbeyondthereachofamendmentbythestratacorporation.Inthecommittee’sview,12standardbylaws(orpartsofastandardbylaw)shouldbegiventhistreat-ment.Theremainderofthischapterexaminesthetoolsstratacorporationshaveundertheacttoenforcetheirbylaws.Thecommitteeconsiders—butultimatelydoesn’trec-ommend—expandingthereachofthestratacorporation’slientoencompassde-faultsinthepaymentoffines.Thecommitteedoesrecommendthatthelienbeex-pandedtoembraceamountsowingwithrespecttoachargebackforaninsurancedeductibleorexpensesincurredduetodamagewhicharelessthananinsurancedeductible,ifthechargebackhasbeenfoundvalidbyacourt,anarbitrator,ortheCivilResolutionTribunal.Thecommitteealsolooksatanddoesn’tendorsethecrea-tionofanewstatutorypenaltyoroffenceprovisionapplicabletoacontraventionofabylaworrule.Finally,thecommitteedoesrecommendanewstatutoryprovisionaimedatbylawsthatadopttheruleinClayton’sCasetoreassignmoneyintendedforthepurposesofstratafees,speciallevies,reimbursementofthecostofworkdoneunderafailuretocomplywithaworkorder,orastratalot’sshareofajudgment.Statutory definitions ThisshortchapterexaminestheadditionofspecificstatutorydefinitionstotheStra-taPropertyAct,asawaytoclarifyimportantconceptsortoaidastratacorporationintheadministrationofitsobligationsundertheact.Inthecommittee’sview,thetermscontinuingcontraventionandrentshouldbedefinedinthelegislation.Thecommitteealsoconsidered,butdidn’trecommend,proposeddefinitionsofstratamanager,residentialstratalot,andnonresidentialstratalot.General meetings and strata-council meetings Thechapterongeneralmeetingsandstrata-councilmeetingsisanotherlengthychapter,containing20recommendations.Itfocusesonthefollowingsubjects:

• proxies;

• conductofmeetings;


xxii British Columbia Law Institute

• quorum;

• voting;

• strata-councilelections;and

• agendaandmeetingminutes.Thecommitteeinvestedaconsiderableamountoftimeonproxies,whichhaveprovedtobeafraughtissueinstrata-corporationgovernance.Onthistopic,thecommitteerecommendsthatamandatory,standardformofproxyappointmentcomeintouseinBritishColumbia.Thecommitteealsogivesextendedconsiderationtolimitingthenumberofproxyappointmentsthatonepersonmayholdforagen-eralmeeting,ultimatelydecidingnottorecommendalimit.Thechapteralsocontainsrecommendationsclarifyingthatelectiontothestratacouncilentailscommandingamajorityoftheballotscast,settingoutthatquorumforageneralmeetingmustonlybepresentatthestartofthemeeting,establishingstatutoryqualificationsforcouncilmembersmodelledontheprovisionsofthenewSocietiesAct,andclarifyingtheorderofagendaitemsforannualandspecialgeneralmeetings.Finances Whilethischapterdoesn’tpresentacomprehensivesurveyofallthefinancialissuesthataffectastratacorporation,itdoesexaminesomefundamentalissuesandmake12recommendationsconcerningthem.Thecommitteelargelyconfirmsthattheex-istingframeworkforastratacorporation’soperatingfund,budgets,andfinancialstatementsshouldremainasis.Thecommitteedoesrecommendupdatinganumberofregulatoryprovisionsconcerningthemaximumamountsoffinesandfees.Thechapterconcludeswithanexaminationofapressingissueforcollectionofmoneyowingtothestratacorporation—theapplicationofatwo-yearlimitationpe-riodtostrata-corporationclaims.Thecommitteerecommendscreatingaspeciallimitationperiodforclaimsthatmaybethesubjectofthestratacorporation’slienundersection116oftheact,whichwouldbesetatfouryears.Notices and communications Thisbriefchapterexaminesahandfulofanomalousnoticeprovisionsandperiodsandrecommendssomeupdatesinlightofpracticeissues.


British Columbia Law Institute xxiii

Conclusion Thisreport’sfinalrecommendationswillbesubmittedtotheprovincialgovernment.TheprovinceofBritishColumbiaregularlyupdatesstratalegislation.


British Columbia Law Institute 1

Chapter 1. Introduction An Overview of this Report’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.”7Thisreportisaresponsetooneaspectofthatcall.ItcontainsrecommendationstoreformhowtheStrataPropertyActandtheStrataPropertyRegulation8dealwiththemethodorsystemofastrata’smanagement—thatis,withitsgovernance.91. WilliamSchwartz,“Condominium:AHybridCastleintheSky”(1964)44:2BULRev137at144.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. SBC1998,c43.

5. ShawCablesystemsLtdvConcordPacificGroupInc,2007BCSC1711atpara6[ShawCablesys-temsSC],LeaskJ(quoting2475813NovaScotiaLtdvRodgers,2001NSCA12atpara5[Rogers],CromwellJA).

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

7. ShawCablesystemsLtdvConcordPacificGroupInc,2008BCCA234atpara22,HuddartJA.

8. BCReg43/2000.

9. SeeJohnSimpson&EdmundWeiner,eds,TheOxfordEnglishDictionary,2nded(Oxford:Claren-donPress,1989)subverbo“governance”(“Themannerinwhichsomethingisgovernedorregu-lated;methodofmanagement,systemofregulations.”).


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?Thesekindsofquestionsareattheheartofthisreport.TheStrataPropertyActhasahighlydevelopedandsophisticatedsetofresponsestothesequestions.Aswillberevealedinthepagesthatfollow,thethemeofthisreportisthatsomesignificantworkisneededtoupgradetheact’ssetofresponses,whichisitsframeworkforstra-tagovernance.Whilethisreportisn’tcallingforafundamentalreorientationofthatframework,itdoesproposethattheframework’sdetailsshouldbeenhancedandimproved,asawaytoensurethecontinuedsuccessofstratas’“experimentingroupliving.”

About the Strata Property Law Project—Phase Two ThisReportonGovernanceIssuesforStratasispartoftheBritishColumbiaLawIn-stitute’songoingStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwo.BCLIbegantheStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwoinsummer2013.Theproject’sgoalsaretostudysevenareasofstrata-propertylaw,identifyissuescallingforreformofthelaw,andrecommendchangestotheStrataPropertyActtoaddressthoseissues.

10. TheOwnersStrataPlanLMS2768vJordison,2013BCCA484atpara25,DonaldJA.

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



Thephase-twoprojectbuildsonBCLI’sStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseOne,whichwascompletedin2012.Overthecourseofthephase-oneproject,BCLIcar-riedoutinitiallegalresearchandfocusedconsultationwithleadingexpertsinthestrata-propertyfield.TheresultsofthisresearchandconsultationwerepublishedinBCLI’sReportonStrataPropertyLaw:PhaseOne,12whichrecommendedthatBCLIundertakealaw-reformprojecttoexaminethefollowingsubjects:(1)fundamentalchangestoastrata;(2)complexstratas;(3)selectedgovernanceissues;(4)commonproperty;(5)selectedland-titleissues;(6)selectedinsuranceissues;(7)leaseholdstratas.Amajorcomponentofthefirstsubjectinthephase-twoprojectwasaddressedintheproject’sfirsttwopublications,theConsultationPaperonTerminatingaStrata13andtheReportonTerminatingaStrata.14TheLegislativeAssemblyofBritishCo-lumbiaimplementedthisreport’srecommendationsinfall2015.15Complexstratas(thatis,thereviewofsections,types,andphasesthatformedtheproject’ssecondsubject)werethefocusoftheConsultationPaperonComplexStra-tas16andtheReportonComplexStratas.17BCLIhasalsopublishedaConsultationPaperonInsuranceIssuesforStratas18andaConsultationPaperonCommonProperty,LandTitles,andFundamentalChangesforStratas.19

12. Report70(2012),online:<www.bcli.org/sites/default/files/2012-11-

30_BCLI_Report_on_Strata_Property_Law--Phase_One.pdf>[perma.cc/FBV8-J9C7].

13. (2014),online:<www.bcli.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2014-05-15_BCLI-Consultation-Paper-on-Terminating-a-Strata-FINAL.pdf>[perma.cc/XK58-9PLF].

14. Report79(2015),online:<www.bcli.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-02-20_BCLI-SPL-Ph2-Report-on-Terminating-a-Strata-FINAL.pdf>[perma.cc/GW7W-VCBX].

15. SeeNaturalGasDevelopmentStatutesAmendmentAct,2015,SBC2015,c40,ss37–55(inforce28July2016).

16. (2016),online:<www.bcli.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08-31_BCLI-Consultation-Paper-on-Complex-Stratas-FINAL.pdf>[perma.cc/A43A-3NN7].

17. Report81(2017),online:<www.bcli.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-06-19_BCLI-SPL-Ph2-Report-on-Complex-Stratas-FINAL.pdf>[perma.cc/NZZ8-JQMP].

18. (2018),online:<www.bcli.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2018-09-14_BCLI-Consultation-Paper-on-Insurance-Issues-For-Stratas-FINAL.pdf>[perma.cc/S84T-3JYK].

19. (2018),online:<www.bcli.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018-12-07_BCLI-CP-on-Common-Property-Land-Titles-and-Fundamental-Changes-for-Stratas-FINAL-reduced.pdf>[perma.cc/A2EQ-H5XB].



Unfortunately,thetimeandresourcesavailabletotheprojecthaveruledouttheplannedreviewofitsseventhsubject,leaseholdstrataplans.

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.BriefbiographiesofcommitteemembersmaybefoundatappendixB.20

About the Public Consultation on Strata Governance

Thisreportwasprecededbyaconsultationpaper,whichwaspublishedinMarch2018.21TheConsultationPaperonGovernanceIssuesforStratassetout83tentativerecommendationsforreformforpublicreviewandcomment.Inadditiontothefullconsultationpaper,asummaryconsultationwasalsomadeavailabletoreaders.Thesummaryconsultationhighlightedthreeproposalsfromthefullconsultationpaper,whichwereselectedasameanstofocusreaders’atten-tiononbig-pictureissues.Thesummaryconsultationwassparinginprovidingbackgroundinformationanddetail.Itsgoalwastofacilitateparticipationinthecon-sultationbythosereaderswhodidn’thavethetimeorinclinationtopursuethefullconsultation.Readerswhoweremoreinterestedindelvingintothedetailsofthe20. See,below,at257–264.

21. SeeBritishColumbiaLawInstitute,ConsultationPaperonGovernanceIssuesforStratas(2018),online:<www.bcli.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018-03-13_BCLI-Consultation-Paper-on-Governance-Issues-For-Stratas-CONSULTATION-FINAL.pdf>[per-ma.cc/3A57-2889].



committee’stentativerecommendationswereencouragedtotakeupthefullconsul-tation.Thepublicationoftheconsultationpaperopenedathree-monthconsultationperi-od.TheconsultationpaperwasdistributedprimarilyviafreedownloadfromBCLI’swebsite.BCLIpublicizedtheconsultationwiththeassistanceoftheCanadianBarAssociation—BCBranch,theCondominiumHomeOwnersAssociation,theVancou-verIslandStrataOwnersAssociation,andClicklaw.Atotalof290responseswerereceivedinthepublicconsultation.Amongthesere-sponses,138weremadetothefullconsultationand152tothesummaryconsulta-tion.ThislevelofresponseisamongthehighesteverreceivedinaBCLIlaw-reformconsultation.Consultationresponseswerefullyconsideredattwoproject-committeemeetings.Whileconsultationrespondentsgenerallyagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendations(oftenbysizablemargins),thereweresomeareasthatattractedsignificantdisagreement.Thecommitteegavespecialattentiontotheseareasinitsdeliberationsleadinguptothisreport.Whileitdidn’talwaysdecidetochangeaten-tativerecommendationinthefaceofdisapprovingconsultationresults,thoseresultsdidgivethecommitteesomeoccasiontorethinkitsproposals.Furtherthoughtledtotherefinementofsometentativerecommendationsthatweresupportedbycon-sultationrespondents.Intheend,thecommitteedecidedtoreviseninetentativerecommendations.Thecommitteealsodecidedtodeletetwotentativerecommendations.Onewasde-letedasaconsequenceofotherrecommendedchanges.22Theotherwasatentativerecommendationregardingfinesforcontraventionofashort-termaccommodationbylaw.Thistentativerecommendationwaseffectivelyovertakenbyeventsaftertheconsultationperiodclosed.InJuly2018,theprovincialgovernmentannouncedplanstoamendtheStrataPropertyRegulationtorespondtoconcernsaboutshort-termaccommodationinstrataproperties.23Thecommitteesupportstheamend-

22. Thiswastentativerecommendationno.(49),whichreadTheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbe

amendedtoaddresswhomayactaschairofanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeet-ing.

23. Thesalientfeaturesoftheamendmentaretocreateanewcategoryofbylaw,assigninganewmaximumfinethatmaybeappliedtoabreachofthatcategoryofbylaw,andreducingtheperiodinwhichthisfinemaybeimposedincasesofacontinuingcontravention.Usingthelanguageoftheamendment,“themaximumamountthatastratacorporationmaysetoutinitsbylawsasafineforthecontraventionofabylaworruleis...inthecaseofabylawthatprohibitsorlimitsuseofallorpartofaresidentialstratalotforremunerationasvacation,travelortemporaryac-



ment,whichcameintoforceasthisreportwasbeingpreparedforpublication.Inviewofthesedevelopments,thecommitteedecidedthatitwasnolongernecessarytomakeitsownrecommendationonthissubject.

Other Law-Reform Projects EveryprovinceandterritoryinCanadahaslegislationthatistheequivalenttoBrit-ishColumbia’sStrataPropertyAct.24BCLI’sStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwoisn’ttheonlyreformprojectonstrata-propertylawthathasbeentakenoninrecentyears.25BeyondCanada,therealsohavebeenanumberofmajorprojectscarriedoutinAustralia(whosestateshavelegislationthatissimilartotheStrataPropertyAct).26

commodation,$1000foreachcontraventionofthebylaw”and“themaximumfrequencythatastratacorporationmaysetoutinitsbylawsfortheimpositionofafineforacontinuingcontra-ventionofabylaworruleis...[inthecaseofabylawthatprohibitsorlimitsuseofallorpartofaresidentialstratalotforremunerationasvacation,travel,ortemporaryaccommodation]dai-ly.”SeeOIC418/2018,(2018)BCGazII,448(amendingStrataPropertyRegulation,s7.1—inforce30November2018).

24. 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).

25. SeeYukon,DepartmentofJustice,TheCondominiumActReview:ADiscussionPaper(Fall2012),online:<www.justice.gov.yk.ca/pdf/Condo_Discussion_Paper_Final.pdf>[perma.cc/H5UU-KWJE];NewfoundlandandLabrador,GovernmentServices,CondominiumActofNewfoundlandandLabrador:ConsultationDiscussionPaper(2008),online:<www.servicenl.gov.nl.ca/consultation/pdf/condominium_act_of_newfoundland_labrador.pdf>[perma.cc/K4JX-72KM].

26. SeeNewSouthWales,NSWFairTrading,StrataTitleLawReform:Strata&CommunityTitleLawReformPositionPaper(Parramatta:NSWFairTrading,2013),online:<www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au>[perma.cc/8PZU-JK43];QueenslandUniversityofTechnologyLaw,CommercialandPropertyLawResearchCentre,LotEntitlementsundertheBodyCorporateandCommunityManagementAct,QueenslandGovernmentPropertyLawReview,IssuesPaper2(February2014),online:<www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/224875/property-law-review-ip2-lot-entitlements-bccm.pdf>[perma.cc/4JUJ-JPEN];QueenslandUniversityofTechnologyLaw,CommercialandPropertyLawResearchCentre,BodyCorporateGovernanceIssues:By-laws,DebtRecovery,andSchemeTermination,QueenslandGovernmentPropertyLawReviewOptionsPa-per(December2014),online:<www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/508714/qut-recommendations-by-laws-debt-recovery-and-scheme-termination.pdf>[perma.cc/2CZ8-WMA5];QueenslandUniversityof



WhileitwasconsideringgovernanceissuesforBritishColumbiastratas,thecom-mitteekepttabsonthesereformprojects,withparticularattentionpaidtoprojectsinOntario27andAlberta,28bothofwhichhaveledtomajorstatutoryreforms.29Theseotherlaw-reformprojectstendednottoinspireidenticalproposalsforBritishColumbia,asdifferencesinlegislativehistoryandthestrata-propertymarketmakeitdifficulttoadoptareformdevelopedinonejurisdictionandapplyitwithoutsig-nificantchangesinanother.Butprojectsinotherjurisdictionsdidhelpthecommit-teeingrapplingwithbroadthemesthattendtoemergeinconsideringstratagov-ernance.Onetheme,inparticular,wastheneedtobalancewhattheAmericanUni-formLawCommissionhascalled“theperceptionthatindividualunitownerswereunfairlydisadvantagedintheirdealingswiththeelecteddirectorsandemploy-ee/managersofunitownerassociations”30withthesensethatsomeprovisions

TechnologyLaw,CommercialandPropertyLawResearchCentre,FinalRecommendations:Pro-ceduralIssuesundertheBodyCorporateandCommunityManagementAct1997(2017),online:<www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/529784/final-recommendations-procedural-issues-paper.pdf>[perma.cc/QJ2Y-ADKW];WesternAustralia,Landgate,StrataTi-tlesActDiscussionPaper(June2014),online:<www0.landgate.wa.gov.au/titles-and-surveys/strata-reform>[perma.cc/ZG8R-24YN].

27. SeeCanada’sPublicPolicyForum,GrowingUp:Ontario’sCondominiumCommunitiesEnteraNewEra:CondominiumActReviewStageTwoSolutionsReport(Ottawa:Canada’sPublicPolicyForum,2013),online:<www.ppforum.ca>[perma.cc/2N5D-7VXN];Canada’sPublicPolicyForum,On-tario’sCondominiumActReview:StageOneFindingsReport(Ottawa:Canada’sPublicPolicyFo-rum,2013),online:<www.ppforum.ca>[perma.cc/Q5NV-6MRL].

28. SeeServiceAlberta,CondominiumPropertyActReview:ConsultationAnalysisReport(June2013),online:<open.alberta.ca>[perma.cc/874W-JPUE].

29. SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyAmendmentAct,2014,SA2014,c10;Ontario:ProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,SO2015,c28.Asthisreportwasbeingpreparedforpublication,AlbertaannouncedplanstobringthebulkoftheprovisionsoftheCondominiumPropertyAmendmentAct,2014,withassociatedregulations,intoforcevariouslyon1July2019and1Jan-uary2020.SeeAlberta,NewsRelease,“Makingcondosabetterplacetolive:Newruleswillin-creasetransparencyandimprovecondominiumgovernanceinAlberta”(14December2018),online:<www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=62241C77ECC2B-ED28-41CB-20BBFFBAB3B1DB03>[perma.cc/5ZG4-MEUX].

30. UniformCommonInterestOwnershipAct(2008),prefatorynote.SeealsoGrowingUp:Ontario’sCondominiumCommunitiesEnteraNewEra:CondominiumActReviewStageTwoSolutionsRe-port,supranote27at15(describingoneofthe“mainthemes”ofthereviewas“thepowerim-balancebetweenboardsandowners”);CondominiumPropertyActReview:ConsultationAnalysisReport,supranote27at60(“Ageneralthemethatemergedfromthissectionoftheconsultationsurveyistheimportanceofaresponsive,transparentandaccountableboardintheoverallgov-ernanceofacondominium.”).OntariopointedlynamedthelegislationthatimplementstheirCondominiumActReviewtheProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015.



couldbestreamlinedorenhancedtoallowforthebettermanagementandoperationofthestrataandtheenforcementofthewishesofamajorityofitsowners.31

An Overview of this Report Strata-propertygovernanceisavast,potentiallyunendingtopic.Thisreportdoesn’tpurporttoexhaustthetopic.Instead,it’sfocusedonthefollowingsubjects,whichthecommitteedecidedearlyinitsdeliberationsasformingtheareasmostinneedofattentionfromalaw-reformbody:

• bylawsandrules;

• statutorydefinitions;

• generalmeetingsandstrata-councilmeetings;

• finances;

• noticesandcommunications.Thecommitteewasassistedinmakingthisdecision—andinselectingissuesforre-formforthesesubjects—bycommentsfromconsultationparticipantsinphaseoneofthisprojectandbycorrespondencereceivedduringphasetwofromprofessionalsinthestrata-propertysectorandmembersofthegeneralpublic.Eachofthelistedsubjectsgetsitsownchapterinthereport.Thesesubstantivechaptersaredistinctiveinsomeways,buttheydoconformtoabroad,generalpat-tern.Thechapteropenswithanoverviewofthecurrentlawandadiscussionofthechapter’sscope—thatis,theissuesforreformthatthecommitteehaschosentocon-sider.Aftertheoverview,theissuesthemselvesaresetoutanddiscussed.Thegoalofeachdiscussionisarecommendationforreform,whichisthecommittee’sexpres-sionofthepolicystatementthatitbelievestobethebestresponsetotheissue.Thesubstantivechaptersaredetailedanddiverse,buthereareafewhighlightsdrawnfromeachofthem:

31. SeeBodyCorporateGovernanceIssues:By-laws,DebtRecovery,andSchemeTermination,supra

note26at9(“thereisawidespreadperceptionamongstrataindustrygroups,bodycorporatemanagersandlotownersthatthebodycorporateisa‘toothlesstiger’whenitcomestoenforc-ingitsownrules”).



• bylawsandrules:thechapteropenswithareviewofeachofthestandardbylaws,32consideringwhetherthebylawshouldberelocatedtotheact(andtherebyplacedbeyondthereachofthestratacorporationtoamend);fromthere,itmovesontoconsiderwaystoenhancethestratacorporation’sen-forcementtools;

• statutorydefinitions:thischapterexaminesthepotentialtoassiststratacorporationsdealingwithsomevexinggovernanceissuesbyclarifyingkeytermsusedintheact,recommendingnewlegislativedefinitionsofcontinu-ingcontraventionandrent;

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

• finances:amongthischapter’shighlightsareareviewandupdatingofregulatoryprovisionsgoverningthemaximumfeesandfinesandarecom-mendednewlimitationperiodformoneyowingtoastratacorporationthatmaybesubjecttothestratacorporation’slien;33

• noticesandcommunications:thischaptercontainsabriefreviewofthelittle-usedprovisionfornoticebypostingonbulletinboardandrecom-mendslengtheningspecificnoticeperiods.

32. SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws.

33. Seeibid,s116.



Chapter 2. The Building Blocks of Strata Governance

Introduction Thebulkofthecommittee’sresearchintothecurrentlawappearsinthechaptersthatfollow,eachofwhichcontainsbackgroundinformationgearedtotheissuesforreformconsideredinthechapter.Thischapterfillsinthepicturewithbasicinfor-mationaboutstratapropertiesthatmaybeseenasformingthebackdropforthechaptersthatfollow.Thisdiscussionofthebasicsofstrata-propertylawinthischapterisn’tintendedtobecomprehensive.34Instead,itoffersjustenoughinformationtoallowreaderswhoarenewtothesubjecttofindtheirwaythroughthechaptersthatfollow.

The Essential Elements of a Strata Property Strataproperties35arealegaldevicethataccommodatesindividualownershipofaninterestinlandwithinacollective,multi-unitstructure.Thelawcontainsmanysuchdevices.Whatsetsastratapropertyapartfrom,say,acooperative,ajointtenancy,atenancyincommon,oralong-termlease,arethefollowing“twoessentialelements”:

34. 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-leaf2018update)(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).

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



• thedivisionofpropertyintounits,tobeindividuallyowned,andcommonelements,tobeownedincommonbytheownersoftheunits;and

• anadministrativeframeworktoenabletheownerstomanagetheproperty.36InBritishColumbia,theseessentialelementsareenabledbylegislation.Thislegisla-tioniscalledtheStrataPropertyAct,37anditisconstructedlargelyfromprovisionsdrawnfromolder,moreestablishedbodiesoflaw—especially,real-estatelaw,easements,andcorporatelaw.38

Strata Property Act Sometimescalledthethirdgenerationofstrata-propertylegislation,39theStrataPropertyActwasenactedin1998.40TheStrataPropertyActwasonlybroughtintoforceafteratransitionalperiod,whichlasteduntil1July2000.Althoughitpreservesmuchoftheframeworkinplaceinthefirsttwogenerationsofthelegislation,theStrataPropertyActisafarmorecomprehensivestatutethanitstwopredecessors.PartsoftheStrataPropertyActhavebeensignificantlyamendedin2009,412012,42and2015.43Thesechangesprimarilyrelatetofinancialplanning,disputeresolution,andtermination;theydon’thavemuchbearingonthisreport’smainsubjects.TheStrataPropertyActisprobablythemostdetailedandsophisticatedlegislationofitskindinCanada.Itcontainsanarrayofprovisionsonsubjectsthataren’tad-dressedinequivalentstatutesfoundintheotherprovincesorterritories.Buttheactwasalsoconsciouslydraftedtoprovideenhancedflexibilitytocertainkindsofstra-tas.Thesequalitiescanmakeitdifficulttodiscusstheact’sprovisions,asit’soften36. OntarioLawReformCommission,ReportontheLawofCondominium(Toronto:Departmentof

theAttorneyGeneral,1967)at3.

37. Supranote4.

38. SeeShawCablesystemsSC,supranote5atpara6.

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

40. Supranote4.

41. SeeStrataPropertyAmendmentAct,2009,SBC2009,c17.

42. SeeCivilResolutionTribunalAct,SBC2012,c25.

43. SeeNaturalGasDevelopmentStatutesAmendmentAct,2015,supranote15.



necessarytonotebothageneralruleandaseriesofexceptions.Forthesakeofsim-plicity,thepagesthatfollowwillfocusonthegeneralrulesandwilltouchonexcep-tions,wherenecessary,infootnotes.

The Owner-Developer Theindividualwhoor(moretypically)corporationorpartnershipthatstartsthestratificationprocessiscalledanowner-developer.Beforesomeonebecomesanowner-developer,thatpersonisanownerofland44whowantstodevelopitasastrataproperty.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.”45Itisadocu-mentpreparedbyaqualifiedlandsurveyor,whichisrequiredtocontainspecificde-tailsandmeetexactingtechnicalstandards.46

44. Andhere’sthefirstexceptiontonote:insomecases,itisn’tthelandownerbutratheralessee

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

45. ChowvTheOwners,StrataPlanNW3243,2015BCSC1944atpara5,SmithJ.

46. SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s244.



ThereareessentiallytwokindsofstrataplansundertheStrataPropertyAct.Oneiscalledabare-landstrataplan.Itconcernsthesubdivisionofland.47Theotherkindofstrataplanisn’tnamedintheact,butit’scommonlycalledabuild-ingorconventionalstrataplan.48Thiskindofstrataplandealswiththesubdivisionofabuilding.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.”49Stratalotsusedforanyotherpurposearereferredtoasnonresidentialstratalots.Whetherastratalotisaresi-dentialstratalotoranonresidentialstratalotcanhaveabearingonhowcertainrulesrelatingtoproperty,expenses,andgovernanceareappliedtoit.Thecombinationofresidentialandnonresidentialstratalotsinasinglestrataprop-ertygivesrisetowhatiscolloquiallycalledamixed-usestrata.

47. Seeibid,s1(1)“barelandstrataplan”(“means(a)astrataplanonwhichtheboundariesofthe

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

48. SeeMurray,supranote34at1.13;Mangan,supranote34at17;BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§1.14.

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



Common property, Limited Common Property, and Common Assets

Common property TheStrataPropertyActcontainsamulti-layereddefinitionofcommonproperty.Inthefirstlayer,theactsimplydefinescommonpropertyas“thatpartofthelandandbuildingsshownonastrataplanthatisnotpartofastratalot.”50Thisisabroad,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”).51Thesethingsmaybecommonpropertybydefinition,dependingonthelocationofthethingortheusageofthething.52Andit’satthispointthatthesecondlayeroftheact’sdefinitionofcommonpropertysplitsintotwobranches.Thefirstbranchdealswithlocation.It’sconcernedwithboundarycases.Thedefini-tionfocusesattentiononwhetherthecomponentorsystemlistedearlierislocated“withinafloor,wallorceiling”thatitselfformsaboundary

• betweenastratalotandanotherstratalot,

• betweenastratalotandthecommonproperty,or

• betweenastratalotorcommonpropertyandanotherparcelofland.53

50. Ibid,s1(1)“commonproperty.”

51. Ibid,s1(1)“commonproperty.”

52. SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§3.2(“Whetheraparticu-larpartofasystemorservice,suchasawire,pipe,orduct,constitutespartofthecommonpropertyisdeterminedbythelocationofthepartorbytheusageofthepart.”).

53. Supranote4,s1(1)“commonproperty.”



Theeffectofthisbranchofthedefinitionistobringtheseboundarycaseswithinthescopeofcommonproperty.Thesecondbranchdealswithuse.Evenifanyofthethingslistedabove(pipes,wires,etc.)findsitself“whollyorpartiallywithinastratalot,”itisstillwithinthedefinitionofcommonpropertyifitis“capableofbeingandintendedtobeusedinconnectionwiththeenjoymentofanotherstratalotorthecommonproperty.”Courtdecisionsconsideringthisbranchofthedefinitionhaveconcludedthatifthecom-ponentorsystemis“connected”toothercomponentsorsystemsthatserviceotherstratalots54orisotherwisepartofan“integratedwhole,”55thenitshouldbeconsid-eredcommonproperty.Asaleadingpracticeguidehasnoted,thisapproach“leave[s]veryfewsuchfacilitieswithinacondominiumoutsideofthe‘commonproperty’ofthatcomplex.”56Limited common property Withinthescopeofcommonproperty,theactembedstheconceptoflimitedcom-monproperty.Thisiscommonpropertythathasbeen“designatedfortheexclusiveuseoftheownersofoneormorestratalots.”57Sometypicalexamplesofthingsthatmightbelimitedcommonpropertyareabalconyforanapartmentinahigh-risetower,apatioforatownhouseorground-floorapartment,andaparkingspaceinaparkinglot.Butitshouldbeborneinmindthattheseitemsarenotnecessarilylimitedcommonpropertyandtheydon’texhaustthecategoryoflimitedcommonproperty.Thedefi-nitionofthetermisgeneralandopen-ended.Thekeytoknowingwhethercommonpropertyislimitedcommonpropertyisthedesignation.Therearetwowaystomakethisdesignation.Itmaybemadeontheoriginalstrataplanoranamendmenttothatstrataplan.58Oritmaybemadebyaresolutionofthestratacorporation,passedbya3/4vote,andfiledinthelandtitleofficealongwithasketchplan.5954. TaychukvOwners,StrataPlanLMS744,2002BCSC1638atpara28,GrayJ.

55. FudgevOwners,StrataPlanNW2636,2012BCPC409atpara48,WoodsProvCtJ.

56. BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§3.2.

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

58. Ibid,s73(a)–(b).

59. 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.”60Examplesofthiscategoryincludeitemsofpropertylikefurnitureinalobbyorexerciseequipmentinagym.Thesecondcategoryis“landheldinthenameoforonbehalfofastratacorporation,thatis(i)notshownonthestrataplan,or(ii)shownasastratalotonthestrataplan.”61Anexampleof(i)isanyoffsitelandownedorheldonbehalfofthestrata.Anexampleof(ii)isacaretak-er’ssuiteinaresidentialbuildingwhichisastratalot.

The Strata Corporation Inadditiontodividinglandintostratalotsandcommonproperty,depositingastra-taplaninthelandtitleoffice“establishes”astratacorporation.62Thisstratacorpo-rationisthethirdimportantpiece(alongwiththestratalotsandcommonproperty)inthemakeupofastrataproperty.Itisthevehiclebywhichstrata-lotownersareabletoadministertheirstrataproperty.Assuch,thestratacorporationisthemainfocusofstrata-propertygovernance.Theactsaysthatthepurposeofastratacorporationistotakeresponsibilityfor“managingandmaintainingthecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporationforthebenefitoftheowners.”63Ownershipofcommonpropertyandcommonassetsisinthehandsofthestrata-lotowners,collectively.64Themember-shipofthestratacorporationismadeupof“theownersofthestratalotsinthestra-taplan.”65Thestratacorporationisthemeansforcoordinatingtheseownerstomakeeffectiveandtimelycollectivedecisions.

60. Ibid,s1(1)“commonasset.”

61. Ibid,s1(1)“commonasset.”

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

63. Ibid,s3.

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

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



Common Expenses Manyofthedecisionsthatastratacorporationhastomakeconcernspendingmon-eytopayforexpenses.Theactmakesthestrata-lotownerscollectivelyresponsibleforwhatitcallscommonexpenses,whichitdefinesasexpenses

• relatingtothecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporation,or

• requiredtomeetanyotherpurposeorobligationofthestratacorporation.66Commonexpensesoftenrelatetothefirstbulletpointandare,ineffect,theflipsideofowningpropertyincommon.Thestratacorporationhasalegalobligationto“re-pairandmaintaincommonpropertyandcommonassets.”67Althoughthestratacorporationisresponsibleforcommonexpenses,68payingforrepairs—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.66. Supranote4,s1(1)“commonexpenses.”

67. 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)).

68. Seeibid,s91.



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

• commonproperty;

• commonassets;

• commonexpenses;and

• liabilitiesofthestratacorporation.69How 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);70

• fornonresidentialstratalots:oneof(a)thetotalareaofthestratalot,(b)awholenumberthatisthesameforallnonresidentialstratalots,or(c)anumberthat“allocatesafairportionofthecommonexpensestotheownerofthestratalot,”intheopinionofthesuperintendentofrealestate,whomustapproveanyuseofoption(c);71

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

69. Ibid,s1(1).SomejurisdictionsgoevenfurtherthanBritishColumbiaanduseunitentitlement

todetermineastratalot’svotingrightsanditsshareofresidualpropertyaftertermination.

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

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



ownersoftheresidentialstratalotsandtheownersofthenonresidentialstratalots.”72

Forresidentialandnonresidentialstratalots,inmostcasesunitentitlementisde-terminedusingoption(a).Ineffect,thismeansthatthesizeofthestratalotdeter-minesitsunitentitlement.Itisslightlymorecomplicatedthanthat,becausetheactreliesontwodifferentstandardsfordeterminingthesizeofastratalot.Forresidentialstratalots,thesizeofastratalotisdeterminedbymeasuringitshab-itablearea.Thisisadefinedterm,73whicheffectivelylimitsunitentitlementtolivingareasinastratalot,excludingthingslike“patios,balconies,garages,parkingstallsorstorageareasotherthanclosetspace.”74Fornonresidentialstratalots,sizeisdeter-minedbythetotalareaofthestratalot.75Inbothcases,option(a)requiresunitentitlementtobe“determinedbyaBritishCo-lumbialandsurveyor.”76Theserulesonlyapplywhenthestrataplanisaconventional(building)strataplan.Forbare-landstrataplans,aspecialrulecomesintoplay.77When is unit entitlement determined and where is it found? Theunitentitlementofastratalotmustbedeterminedattheoutsetofthestratifica-tionprocess.Theactrequiresthe“personapplyingtodepositastrataplan”toin-cludetheunitentitlementsofthestratalotsinthestrataplan.78Theseunit-entitlementnumbersaregroupedtogetherasascheduletothestrataplan,called

72. Ibid,s246(5).

73. Seeibid,s246(4).

74. StrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,s14.2.

75. Totalareaisn’tadefinedterm;itsimplytakesitseverydaymeaning.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§2.39(“‘totalarea’includesallofthoseareaslistedasexcludedfrom‘habitablearea’ofaresidentialstratalot”).

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

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

78. Ibid,s246(2).



theScheduleofUnitEntitlement.79Thisscheduleisthedefinitivesourceoftheunitentitlementofastratalotinthatstrataplan.

The General Rule for Sharing Common Expenses Asaleadingcaseputsit,whenitcomestocommonexpenses,“[t]hegeneralruleun-derthe[StrataPropertyAct]isthatwithinastratacorporation‘youareallinitto-gether.’”80Theactimplementsthisgeneralrulebyaseriesofprovisionsrequiringownerstosharecommonexpensesbymeansofaformulabasedontheunitentitle-mentofanowner’sstratalot.Foranimportantexampleofhowtheactusesunitentitlementtoimplementthegeneralruleofstrata-lotowners“allbeinginittogether,”considertheact’srulesoncalculatingstratafees.81Stratafees,whichmakeupcontributionstoastratacorpo-ration’soperatingfundanditscontingencyreservefund,aretobecalculatedusingthefollowingformula:82

unitentitlementofstratalotx totalcontribution

totalunitentitlementofallstratalotsThisformulaalsoapplieswhenastratacorporationraisesfundsbywayofaspeciallevy.83

Changing the General Rule: Using Something Other than Unit Entitlement as a Basis for Cost Sharing

TheStrataPropertyActallowsstrata-lotownerstoagreeto“changethebasisforcalculationofacontribution”tothestratacorporation’soperatingfundorcontin-

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

note8,FormV.

80. TheOwners,StrataPlanLMS1537vAlvarez,2003BCSC1085atpara35,BaumanJ.

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

82. Ibid,s99(2).

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



gencyreservefund.84Thisagreementmayonlybemadeat“anannualorspecialgeneralmeetingheldafterthefirstannualgeneralmeeting.”85Theactalsoallowsforstrata-lotownerstochangethegeneralrulefor“calculat[ing]eachstratalot’sshareofaspeciallevy.”86Thischangemustresultina“waythates-tablishesafairdivisionofexpensesforthatparticularlevy.”87Bothrulesimplicitlyallowstrata-lotownerstosharecommonexpensesbyrefer-encetosomestandardotherthanunitentitlement.Theyappeartogivestratacor-porationsahighdegreeofflexibilityinstructuringtheiraffairs.Butthisflexibilityisratherillusory,becauseinbothcasesthechangesrequireap-provalbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.88Aunanimousvotemeans“avoteinfavourofaresolutionbyallthevotesofalltheeligiblevoters.”89Thisisaveryhighhurdletoclear.Itrequiresthateverystrata-lotownerconsenttothereso-lution.Inallbutthesmalleststratasitisverydifficulttoreachunanimityonamodi-fiedruleforcostsharing.Sotheseprovisionshavelimitedutilityinpractice.

Dispute Resolution and the Civil Resolution Tribunal Finally,resolutionofdisputesisanimportantpartofstratagovernance.Whileotherlaw-reformprojectshavemaderecommendationsondisputeresolution,90thisre-portdoesn’tdirectlyaddressthetopic.ThisisbecauseBritishColumbiahasrecentlyembarkedonanewapproachtostratadisputeresolution.ThecentrepieceofthisnewapproachistheCivilResolutionTribunal.Thetribunal’smandateis“toprovidedisputeresolutionservicesinrelationtomattersthatarewithinitsauthority,inamannerthat”:

• isaccessible,speedy,economical,informalandflexible,

84. Seeibid,s100.

85. Ibid,s100(1).

86. Ibid,s108(2).

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

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

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

90. Seee.g.GrowingUp:Ontario’sCondominiumCommunitiesEnteraNewEra:CondominiumActRe-viewStageTwoSolutionsReport,supranote27at30–35.



• appliesprinciplesoflawandfairness,andrecognizesanyrelationshipsbetweenpar-tiestoadisputethatwilllikelycontinueafterthetribunalproceedingisconcluded,

• useselectroniccommunicationtoolstofacilitateresolutionofdisputesbroughttothetribunal,and

• accommodates,sofarasthetribunalconsidersreasonablypracticable,thediversityofcircumstancesofthepersonsusingtheservicesofthetribunal.91

Sinceitsinception,thetribunal’sauthorityhasextendedtomostkindsofstratadis-putes.92Thetribunalhasbeenacceptingstrata-disputeclaimssince2016.Giventhatit’sstillearlydaysforthetribunal,thisprojecthasn’ttriedtoaddressre-formsconcerningdisputeresolution.Butthetribunal’sexistencedoesplayintosev-eralrecommendationsinthisreport.93

91. CivilResolutionTribunalAct,supranote42,s2(2).

92. Seeibid,s3.6.

93. Seee.g.,below,at55–56.



Chapter 3. Bylaws and Rules Background Nature of bylaws Bylawshavebeendescribedasstratas’“secondlegislativeelement”94(aftertheStra-taPropertyAct)andas“astratacorporation’sconstitution,”which“reflect[s]eachstratacommunity’svalues.”95Ineffect,bylawsarethegoverningstatementthatsetsouthowmostcommonissuesaffectingstrataswillberesolved.Theyareattheheartofastratacorporation’sgovernance.TheStrataPropertyActrequiresastratacorporationtohavebylaws.96Thescopeofwhatmaybeaddressedinbylawsismainlydefinedbytwoprovisionsintheact.Theactholdsthat“bylawsmayprovideforthecontrol,management,maintenance,useandenjoymentofthestratalots,commonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporationandfortheadministrationofthestratacorporation.”97Butanybylaw“isnotenforceabletotheextentthatit”:

• contravenesthisAct,theregulations,theHumanRightsCodeoranyotherenactmentorlaw,

• destroysormodifiesaneasementcreatedundersection69,or

• prohibitsorrestrictstherightofanownerofastratalottofreelysell,lease,mort-gageorotherwisedisposeofthestratalotoraninterestinthestratalot.98

Athirdpotentiallimitonthescopeofbylawscomesintheformoftheact’ssectionaimedat“preventingorremedyingunfairacts.”99Therearecasesholdingtheadop-tionofabylawtobean“actionorthreatenedactionby,or[a]decisionof,thestratacorporation,”whichisreviewableunderthissection.100Theleadingcasesonthis94. Fanaken,supranote34at97.

95. Mangan,supranote34at297.

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

97. Ibid,s119(2).

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

99. Ibid,s164.SeealsoCivilResolutionTribunalAct,supranote42,s48.1.

100.Seee.g.ChanvOwners,StrataPlanVR-151,2010BCSC1725atpara21,SmithJ.



sectionhavesaidthat“acourtshouldnotinterferewiththeactionsofastratacoun-cilunlesstheactionsresultinsomethingmorethanmereprejudiceortriflingun-fairness.”101Thistypeofactionhasbeendescribedas“conductthatisburdensome,harsh,wrongful,lackinginprobityorfaildealing”or“conductthatisunjustorineq-uitable.”102ThisislikelyhowabylawwouldhavetobecharacterizedifacourtortheCivilResolutionTribunalweretosetitasideasbeingsignificantlyunfairtoanownerorowners.Amending bylaws ThereisastandardsetofbylawsattachedasascheduletotheStrataPropertyAct.Whenastrataplanisfiledinthelandtitleoffice,thesestandardbylawsapplybyde-faulttothestratacorporationthatcomesintobeingonthefilingofthestrataplan.103Anyofthedefaultstandardbylawscanbedisplaced“totheextentthatdif-ferentbylawsarefiledinthelandtitleoffice.”104Therearetwoactorsthatmayfile“differentbylaws”inthelandtitleoffice:(1)theowner-developerand(2)thestratacorporation.Theowner-developer’spowertodothisislimitedbyatimingrequirement.Itmayonlyfiledifferentbylaws“[o]ndepos-itofthestrataplan.”105Thestratacorporation’spowertoamendbylawsislimitedbytherequirementsinsections126–128oftheact.

101.ReidvStrataPlanLMS2503,2003BCCA126atpara27[Reid],RyanJASeealsoDollanvThe

Owners,StrataPlanBCS1589,2012BCCA44atparas25–30[Dollan],GarsonJA(HallJAconcur-ring)(“Inthecaseofastrataunitownerseekingredressunders.164,Iwouldadaptthetest,suggestedbyGreyellJ.[inGoldenPheasantHoldingCorpvSynergyCorporateManagementLtd,2011BCSC173],slightlytothecontextofs.164andarticulateitinthismanner:1.Examinedob-jectively,doestheevidencesupporttheassertedreasonableexpectationsofthepetitioner?2.Doestheevidenceestablishthatthereasonableexpectationofthepetitionerwasviolatedbyac-tionthatwassignificantlyunfair?”);TheOwners,StrataPlanBCS1721vWatson,2017BCSC763atpara28,KentJ(Thetestunders.164oftheStrataPropertyActalsoinvolvesobjectiveas-sessment.[Dollan]requiresseveralquestionstobeansweredinthatregard:1)Whatisorwastheexpectationoftheaffectedownerortenant?2)Wasthatexpectationonthepartoftheown-erortenantobjectivelyreasonable?3)Ifso,wasthatexpectationviolatedbyanactionthatwassignificantlyunfair?”).

102.Reid,supranote101atpara26.

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

104.Ibid,s120(1).

105.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.106

Anamendmentonlytakeseffectafteritisfiledinthelandtitleoffice,107andthe“stratacorporationmustinformownersandtenantsofanyamendmenttotheby-lawsassoonasfeasibleaftertheamendmentisapproved.”108Enforcing bylaws Inenforcingitsbylaws,theactsaysastratacorporation“maydooneormoreofthefollowing”:

• imposeafineundersection130;

• remedyacontraventionundersection133;

106.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)).

107.Ibid,s128(2).

108.Ibid,s128(4).



• denyaccesstoarecreationalfacilityundersection134.109Astratacorporationmayonlydothesethingsifithas:

• receivedacomplaintaboutthecontravention,

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

• ifthepersonisatenant,givennoticeofthecomplainttotheperson’slandlordandtotheowner.110

Ageneralprovisionearlyintheactsaysthatthestratacouncil“mustexercisethepowersandperformthedutiesofthestratacorporation,includingtheenforcementofbylawsandrules.”111Thisenforcementpowercan’tbeoverriddenbythepoweroftheownersto“directorrestrictthecouncilinitsexerciseofpowersandperfor-manceofdutiesbyaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvoteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting.”112Theamountofafineistobesetoutinthebylawsthemselves.Theregulationestab-lishesa“maximumamountthatastratacorporationmaysetoutinitsbylawsasafineforthecontraventionofabylaw.”113Itis“$200foreachcontraventionofaby-law,”114unlessthebylawisonethat“prohibitsorlimitsrentals”andthecontraven-tionrelatesto“therentalofaresidentialstratalot.”115Inthesecases,themaximumamountis“$500foreachcontraventionofthebylaw.”116

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

tothesection”(ibid,s194(2)(f)).

110.Ibid,s135(1).

111.Ibid,s26.

112.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.”).

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

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

115.Ibid,s7.1(2).

116.Ibid,s7.1(2).



Althoughtheact’slistofenforcementmechanismsdoesn’tmentionobtaininganin-junctiontorequirecompliancewithabylaworarule,courtdecisions117andcom-mentarymakeitclearthatinjunctivereliefisanotherviablemeansforastratacor-porationtoenforceitsbylawsandrules.Thepowertoissueaninjunctionmaybeimplicitincertainprovisionsoftheact.118Nature of rules Astratacorporationmusthavebylaws;itmayhaverules.Rulesareoptional.Thereisnodefaultsetofstandardrulesthatapplyifastratacorporationtakesnoactiontoadoptrules.Rulescoveramorelimitedrangeofsubjectsthanbylaws.Theactprovidesthatthepurposeofaruleisto“[govern]theuse,safetyandconditionofthecommonproper-tyandcommonassets.”119Likeabylaw,aruleisn’tenforceableifit

• contravenesthisAct,theregulations,theHumanRightsCodeoranyotherenactmentorlaw,

• destroysormodifiesaneasementcreatedundersection69,or

• prohibitsorrestrictstherightofanownerofastratalottofreelysell,lease,mort-gageorotherwisedisposeofthestratalotoraninterestinthestratalot.120

117.Seee.g.TheOwners,StrataPlanNW498vPederson,1999BCCA224;TheOwnersvGrabarczyk,

2006BCSC1960.

118.SeeTheOwnersStrataPlanLMS2768vJordison,2012BCCA303atparas14–15,HallJA(“Itap-pearstomethatthelanguagecontainedinss.173(a)and(b)oftheActempowersacourttoor-dermandatoryorprohibitoryreliefofaninjunctivenature.Thestructureofthesection,andinparticularthewordingofs.173(c),seemstopositamodifierinterrelationshipbetweens.173(c)andtheothertwosubsections.Inotherwords,subsection(c)appearstobedesignedtoenhancetheefficacyofthetwoprecedingsubsections,(a)and(b).Iconsiderthatss.173(a)and(b)au-thorizeacourttomakemandatoryorprohibitoryordersagainstapartyconcerningobligationsimposedbytheActorbylawsofastratacorporation.Afailuretoabidebyanysuchordercouldfound,interalia,contemptproceedings.”).SeealsoBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§9.46(“[Section]133statesthestratacorporationmaydowhatisrea-sonablynecessarytoremedyacontraventionofitsbylawsandrules.Thatshouldincludeanin-junction.”).

119.Supranote4,s125(1).

120.Ibid,s125(2).



Arulealsocan’tbeinconflictwithabylaw;ifitis,“thebylawprevails.”121Althoughthepointhasn’tcomeupinacourtdecision,rulesareinalllikelihoodsub-jecttoreviewfor“significantunfairness”inthesamemannerasbylawsare.Adopting rules Theprocedureforadoptingrulesdiffersfromtheprocedureforadoptingoramend-ingbylaws.Initially,thestratacouncildecideswhetherornottoadoptarule.122Therulecomesintoforceifthestratacouncilchoosestoadoptit,buttheactprovidesthatit“ceasestohaveeffectatthefirstannualgeneralmeetingheldafteritismade,unlesstheruleisratifiedbyaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvote”:

• atthatannualgeneralmeeting,or

• ataspecialgeneralmeetingheldbeforethatannualgeneralmeeting.123Whenastratacounciladoptsaruleitalso“mustinformownersandtenantsof[the]newrulesassoonasfeasible.”124Unlikebylaws,rulesaren’tregisteredinthelandtitleoffice.Butrulesaresubjecttoaspecialpublicationrequirement,whichholdsthat“[a]llrules,includingthosepost-edonsigns,mustbesetoutinawrittendocumentthatiscapableofbeingphotocop-ied.”125

Issues for Reform Whilethecommitteedidn’texhausteverypossibleconcernthatcouldbeidentifiedinconnectionwithbylawsandrules,itdididentifyabroadrangeofissuesforcon-sideration.Theseissuestendnottodirectlyaddressthecorefeaturesofthelegalframeworkforbylawsandrules,whichwerediscussedinthepreviouspages.In-121.Ibid,s125(5).

122.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)).

123.Ibid,s125(6).

124.Ibid,s125(4).

125.Ibid,s125(3).



stead,theissuesthatfollowarelargelyaimedatwaystorefineandbolsterthatlegalframework.

Issues for Reform—Relocating Provisions from the Standard Bylaws to the Act

Introduction BoththerequirementtohavebylawsandtheexistenceofadefaultstatutorysetofbylawshavebeenfacetsofBritishColumbia’sstrata-propertylawsinceitsearliestdays.126CommentatorshaveremarkedthattheadventoftheStrataPropertyActmarkedasea-changeintheapproachtotheact’sstandardbylawsbyconvertingmanyprovisionsthatwerepreviouslypartofthestandardbylawsintolegislativeprovisionsthatcannotbeamendedbyastratacorporation.127TherehavebeencallstorepeattheprocessthattookplaceintheleaduptotheStra-taPropertyActandreviewthestandardbylawsonceagain.Thispointcameupintheconsultationsduringphaseoneofthisproject.Inaddition,somecommentatorshavemadegeneralstatementsaboutthetypesofbylawsthatshouldbeconsideredforrelocationtotheact.Forinstance,onecommentatorhaspointedtobylawsthat“maybeacousintoaprovisionintheAct.”128Anothercommentatorhassuggestedthatthetesttoapplyisasfollows:“Whenlegislatedbylawsprovidedirectionand/or

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

(statutorybylaws).SeealsoCondominiumAct,supranote6,ss26(requirementtohavebylaws),115–132(default“Part5bylaws”).

127.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§9.1(“Thekeydifference[betweentheCondominiumAct,supranote6,andtheStrataPropertyAct,supranote4]wasthatagreatnumberofprovisionsthathadcomprisedthePart5BylawsoftheCondominiumActwereincorporatedintothesubstantiveprovisionsoftheStrataPropertyActandthereforecouldnotbeamendedbytheownersunderanycircumstances.”).

128.BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§9.19(“AnexampleisStand-ardBylaw6,whichstatesthatanownermustnotmakeanalterationtocommonpropertywith-outwrittenapprovalfromthestratacorporation,whichis,forthispurpose,essentiallythestra-tacouncil.Section71oftheActprovidesthatasignificantchangeintheuseorappearanceofcommonpropertyrequirestheapprovalbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote—thatis,approvalofasubstantialnumberoftheowners.Howcanthebylawands.71bereconciled?”).Inanswer-ingthequestiontheyposed,theauthorspointedtothefollowingcourtcasesasshowingtherea-soningtofollow:ChanvTheOwners,StrataPlanVR677(2February2012),VancouverS115516(BCSC);FoleyvTheOwners,StrataPlanVR387,2014BCSC1333.



prescriptiontoallstratacorporationsandareessentiallyconsumerprotectionpub-licpolicies,theyshouldnotbebylawswhichcanbeamendedbytheowners.”129OthercommentatorshavesuggestedthattheStrataPropertyActhasalreadygonetoofarinthedirectionofrelocatingbylawprovisionsintotheact.Onepracticeguidehassaidthattheactshows“amarkeddeparturefromtheoldlegislativeschemeandremovedagreatdealofgoverningpowerfromtheownerscollectively.”130Movingstillmorebylawsintotheactcouldbeseenasanti-democratic,undercutting“theex-tenttowhichtheownerscomprisingstratacorporations—theverypersonssubjecttogovernancebythebylaws—couldwiththeappropriatedemocraticmajorityandprocess,amendtheverybylawsthatgovernthem.”131Takingthesepointsintoaccount,thecommitteefollowedthroughonthesuggestionmadeinphaseoneofthisprojectandreviewedeachofthestandardbylaws.Sincetheissue(shouldtheprovisionberelocatedtotheact?)andtheoptions(relocateorretainthestatusquo)areessentiallythesameforthesectionsthatfollowinthisportionofthereport,thesesectionsdepartsomewhatfromtheorganizationusedelsewhereinthisreport.Inplaceofabriefstatementoftheissueandalayingoutofmultipleoptionsforreform,thesectionsthatfollowsimplydescribethecontentofthebylawandthenmoveintothecommittee’stentativerecommendationforre-form.Consultationrespondentsgenerallygavestrongsupporttothecommittee’stenta-tiverecommendationsintheconsultationpaperregardingthestandardbylaws.Butarecurringcommentamongthosewhoquestionedthecommittee’sproposalswasthattheseproposalswouldamounttorelocatingalargenumberofstandardbylawstotheact,whichwouldhavetheeffectofrobbingstratacorporationsofasignificantamountofflexibilityintheirgovernance.Thecommitteegavethispointextensiveconsideration.Itdecided,ultimately,nottoaccedetoit.Thecommitteenotedthatitsrecommendationswillraisetransitionalissues.Educa-tioninthenatureofthereformswillhavetobepursued.Thecommitteealsoobservedthatmanystratacorporationsamendthestandardby-laws.Forthisreason,it’salwaysriskyforanobservertoattempttorelyonthe

129.Fanaken,supranote34at157[emphasisinoriginal](citingsections1,2,4,5,6,8,and30ofthe

ScheduleofStandardBylawsasexamplesofbylawsthatmeetthistest).

130.BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§9.1.

131.Ibid.



standardbylawsasgivinganythinglikeacompletepictureofastratacorporation’sgoverningprovisions.Thecommitteenotedthatthesetwopointsmaybeaddressedinsomestratacorpo-rationsbyadoptingbylawsthatsupplementorexpandonthenewlyrelocatedpro-visions.Thiscourseofactionisacceptable,solongastheamendedbylawsaren’tinconflictwithaprovisionoftheStrataPropertyAct,itsregulations,oranyotheren-actment.Anotherpointraisedrepeatedlyintheconsultationwasthatrelocatingstandardby-lawstotheactwouldcreateenforcementproblems.Whiletheactprovidesen-forcementoptionsforthecontraventionofabylaw,132similaroptionsdon’texistforthebreachofastatutoryprovision.Thecommitteeconsideredthispointandnotedthatthebulkofthestandardbylawsthatitrecommendsrelocatingtotheactdealwithsubjectslikeresponsibilityforrepairsandadministrativematters.Inmostcas-es,theysetoutthingsthatastratacorporationisresponsiblefordoing.Thisreducestheconcernaboutenforcement,sincetheseprovisionswouldn’tbeenforcedbyastratacorporationtakingenforcementactionagainstitself.Should section 1 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section1providesthat“[a]nownermustpaystratafeesonorbeforethefirstdayofthemonthtowhichthestratafeesrelate.”133The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteenotedthatsection99oftheactalreadyeffectivelyrequiresastrata-lotownertopaystratafees.134Thebylawreallyjustservesaschedulingfunction.Itsetsoutwhenanownerisrequiredtopay.Differentkindsofstratacorporationsmighthavedifferentapproachestohowtoschedulepaymentofstratafees.Forexample,astratacorporationforabare-landstrataplanmightfavourannualpaymentofstratafees.Whileitmakessensetohave132.Seesupranote4,s129.

133.StrataPropertyAct,ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s1.

134.Seeibid,s99(1)(“ownersmustcontributetothestratacorporationtheirstratalots’sharesofthetotalcontributionsbudgetedfortheoperatingfundandcontingencyreservefundbymeansofstratafeescalculatedinaccordancewiththissectionandtheregulations”).



adefaultprovisionrequiringmonthlypaymentofstratafees,stratacorporationsshouldbeallowedtoretaintheabilitytoamendthisprovision.Thecommitteealsoconsideredthecontentofthisprovision.Itdecidedthatitwouldbehelpfultoclarifythestandardbylawbyextendingitsreachtospecialleviesap-provedbythestratacorporation.Thecommitteerecommends: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.135The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthisstandardbylawshouldn’tberelocatedtotheact.Thecommitteewasconcernedthatcreatingastandardprovisionforrepairandmaintenancecouldenduphamperingsomestratacorporations.Asanexample,thecommitteeconsideredastratapropertythatcateredtoolderadults.Itmaybenec-essaryforsuchastratapropertytoamendthisbylaw,inviewoftheageofthestra-ta-lotownersandtheobligationsofthecomplexunderhealth-and-safetylegislation.

135.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s2(“(1)Anownermustrepairandmaintaintheowner’s

stratalot,exceptforrepairandmaintenancethatistheresponsibilityofthestratacorporationunderthesebylaws.(2)Anownerwhohastheuseoflimitedcommonpropertymustrepairandmaintainit,exceptforrepairandmaintenancethatistheresponsibilityofthestratacorporationunderthesebylaws.”).



Thecommitteerecommends:

2.Section2oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Should section 3 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section3setsoutalengthybylawdealingwithanarrayofissuesconnectedtotheuseofproperty.136The committee’s recommendations for reform Thecommitteehadconcernsaboutstratacorporationsthathaveamended,orinsomecasesevenrepealed,section3(1)ofthestandardbylaws.Itunderstandsthatsomestratacorporationshavemadethisdecisionbecausetheywanttosidestepen-forcingbylawsdealing,inparticular,withnuisance.Repealingthebylawisappar-entlyseenasawaytorecharacterizedisputesovernoiseandnuisanceasmattersbetweenresidentsinwhichthestratacorporationplaysnopart.Thecommitteealsounderstandsthatsomestratacorporationshavemodifiedsection3(1)ineclecticways.GiventhediversityofBritishColumbia’sstratacorporations,revisionstosec-tion3(1)mightbeimportantinsomecases.Butoverallthecommitteedecidedtherewasmuchtobegainedbyrelocatingsection3(1)totheact,placingitbeyondthereachofamendmentorrepeal.

136.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.”).



Inthecommittee’sview,part5oftheact,whichdealsgenerallywithproperty,isanaturalhomeforsection3(1).Thecommitteerecommends:3.Section3(1)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtopart5oftheStrataPropertyAct.Inthecommittee’sview,theotherprovisionsofsection3shouldremainpartofthestandardbylaws.Thecommitteerecommends: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.137The committee’s recommendations for reform Thecommitteegavethisprovisionextensiveconsideration.Itwasconcernedthatrelocatingthisprovisiontotheactmightreduceawarenessofit.Newownersaretypicallygivenacopyofthestratacorporation’sbylawswhentheymoveintoastra-taproperty.Thesameisn’ttruefortheact.Therewerealsoconcernsaboutthediffi-cultythatastratacorporationcouldhaveinenforcingalegislativeprovisionbasedonthisbylaw.Thatsaid,thecommitteewasawarethatthelegalissuesaddressedbythisprovisionareimportantones,whichmayonlyincreaseinimportanceastimegoeson.Thecommitteefeltthatthecurrentprovisionfailedtoaddresssomeemergingissuesre-gardinginformationflowfromanownertothestratacorporation.Inparticular,theprovisionshouldrequirethatthestratacorporationbeinformedwhenanowner

137.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s4(“(1)Within2weeksofbecominganowner,anowner

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



appointsalegalrepresentativeorgrantspowerofattorneyconcerningthestratalot,orwhenthereisatransmissionoftitletotheowner’spersonalrepresentativeundertheWills,EstatesandSuccessionAct.138Theseissueswilllikelybecomemorepro-nouncedasthepopulationages.Thecommitteerecommends:

5.Section4(1)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.Thecommitteerecommends:6.Uponrelocationofsection4(1)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawstotheStrataPropertyActtheprovisionshouldbeamendedtorequirethatwithintwoweeksofbe-cominganowner’srepresentativewithrespecttothestratalot,asdefinedintheregu-lations,anowner’srepresentativemustinformthestratacorporationofthenumberofthestratalotthattherepresentativeisrepresentingandtherepresentative’scontactinformation.Intheconsultationpaper,thecommitteeproposedrepealingsection4(2)ofthestandardbylaws,notingcriticismofitasbeingaredundantprovision.139Asthecommitteevieweditatthetime,thischangewouldalsoeffectivelybeaconsequen-tialamendmentthatfollowedfromthecommittee’sproposalsforsection4(1).Thecommitteeacceptedtheviewthatthesechanges,alongwiththeexistingrequire-mentinthesecircumstancestoprovideaFormK(NoticeofTenant’sResponsibili-ties)essentiallymadethisprovisionredundant.Thistentativerecommendationattractedararelevelofdisapprovalintheconsulta-tion.Amajorityofrespondentsdisagreedwiththecommittee’sproposal.Commen-taryfromsomeoftherespondentswhoopposedthistentativerecommendationpointedtodifferencesbetweenwhatthisprovisionandtheFormKrequire.Inthecommentators’views,repealingsection4(2)woulddeprivestratacorporationsofamechanismforlearningabouttenants.Onfurtherreflection,thecommitteehastakenthepointsraisedintheconsultation.Itnowviewsthesectionasperformingafunctionthatisn’tduplicatedbyanyotherprovision.

138.SBC2009,c13.

139.SeeFanaken,supranote34at160.SeealsoStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,FormK(NoticeofTenant’sResponsibilities).




7.Section4(2)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestand-ardbylaws.Should section 5 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section5oftheScheduleofStandardBylawssetsouttheoccasionsonwhichanownermustreceivetheapprovalofastratacorporationbeforealteringastratalot.140The committee’s 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.Thecommitteerecommends:8.Section5(1)and(2)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.140.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.”).




9.Section5(3)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberepealed.Should section 6 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section6oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsdescribeswhenanownermustobtaintheconsentofthestratacorporationbeforealteringcommonproperty.141The committee’s recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,section6goeshand-in-handwithsection5.Oncethedeci-sionwastakentorelocatesection5totheact,itwaslogicalthatsection6wouldhavetofollow.Thecommitteerecommends: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.142141.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s6(“(1)Anownermustobtainthewrittenapprovalof

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

142.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.”).



The committee’s recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,section7setsoutbasicstandardsthatshouldappearinthelegislation.Thecommitteerecommends:

11.Section7oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.Should section 8 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section8oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsisalengthyandimportantprovisiondealingwithrepairandmaintenanceofpropertybyastratacorporation.143The committee’s recommendations for reform Thecommitteeviewedthisprovisionasbeingakeyprovisionofthestandardby-laws.Itgaveextensiveconsiderationtowhetheritshouldbecomepartofthelegisla-tion.Thecommitteenotedthatthereareanumberofchallengestotacklingthisprovi-sion.Section8hasprovedtobeverydifficulttounderstandandapplyinpractice.Somestratacorporationshaveamendedtheprovision,adevelopmentwhichhasof-tenonlyaddedtotheconfusion.Thatsaid,aone-size-fits-allapproachtorepairsandmaintenanceraisesitsownconcerns.143.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.”).



Thecommitteefeltthatsection8hadtobediscussedalongsidesection72oftheact,whichcoverssimilarterritory.144Section8appearstosetouttheminimumstand-ardsforrepairsandmaintenance.Sosection8couldberelocatedtotheactandastratacorporationthatwassoinclinedcould,possiblyinrelianceonsection72oftheact,takeonadditionalobligationsbyadoptingbylawssettingthoseobligationsout.Thisapproachmighthelptoallayconcernsthatsomestratacorporationscouldhaveaboutrelocatingaprovisioninthestandardbylawstotheact.Whileastrongmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendationonthispoint,therewassomeconcernexpressedthatthecommittee’sproposalwouldcreateaone-size-fits-allprovisionthatcouldhampersomestratacorporations.Thecommitteegaveextendedconsiderationtothispoint.Ultimately,itdecidedthatitwasmoreimportanttoguardagainstthepossibilityofstratacorporationspurportingtomakeindividualownersresponsibletocarryoutrepairstocommonpropertyandthebuildingenvelope.Experiencehasshownthatindividualownersaren’twell-placedormotivatedtocarryoutsuchrepairs.Often,theysimplyaren’tdone,tothedetrimentofthestratacorporationasawhole.Thecommitteerecommends:

12.Section8oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtobecomenewsection72(3)oftheStrataPropertyAct.Thecommitteealsodecidedtoclarifyoneaspectofthewordingofsection8,whichhasledtosomeuncertaintyinpractice.Whiletheexistingprovisionrefersto“bal-conies,”itdoesn’tmentionpatios,whichinpracticeareviewedasbeingdistinctfrombalconies.Inthecommittee’sview,addingareferencetopatioswouldhelptoclarifytheprovision.Thecommitteerecommendsthat:13.Whensection8oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsisrelocatedtobecomenewsec-tion72(3)oftheStrataPropertyAct,“patios”shouldbeaddedtothelistoflimitedcommonpropertythatthestratacorporationhasthedutytorepairandmaintainnomatterhowoftentherepairormaintenanceordinarilyoccurs.

144.Seeibid,s72(“(1)Subjecttosubsection(2),thestratacorporationmustrepairandmaintain

commonpropertyandcommonassets.(2)Thestratacorporationmay,bybylaw,makeanown-erresponsiblefortherepairandmaintenanceof(a)limitedcommonpropertythattheownerhasarighttouse,or(b)commonpropertyotherthanlimitedcommonpropertyonlyifidenti-fiedintheregulationsandsubjecttoprescribedrestrictions.(3)Thestratacorporationmay,bybylaw,takeresponsibilityfortherepairandmaintenanceofspecifiedportionsofastratalot.”).



Thecommitteeisawarethatrelocatingsection8totheacttobecomepartofsec-tion72willresultinaneedtomakesomeconsequentialamendmentstosection72.Thefirstsuchconsequentialamendmentconcernsthedispositionofexistingsec-tion72(3).Thecommitteerecommends:

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-wise,theactwillappeartosay,illogically,thatastratacorporation“may,bybylaw,makeanownerresponsiblefortherepairandmaintenanceoflimitedcommonpropertythattheownerhasarighttouse.”145Butifastratacorporationweretoactonthisinvitationandadoptabylawthatpurportedtomakeanownerresponsiblefortherepairandmaintenanceofanitemoflimitedcommonpropertylistedinthenewsection72(3)oftheact,thatbylawwouldbeunenforceable.146Thelegislationwillhavetobeamendedtomakeitclearthatthestratacorporation’sabilitytoadoptsuchabylawissubjecttocompliancewithnewsection72(3).Second,existingsection72(2)(b)willhavetobeaddressed.Currently,thisprovi-sionissomethingofadeadletter,becauseitallowsastratacorporationto“makeanownerresponsiblefortherepairandmaintenanceofcommonpropertyotherthanlimitedcommonpropertyonlyifidentifiedintheregulationsandsubjecttopre-scribedrestrictions.”147Sincenoenablingregulationshaveeverbeenadopted,stratacorporationsaren’tabletotakeadvantageofthisprovision.Whensection8ofthestandardbylawsisrelocated,theprovisionwillloseanypossiblerationale,becauseatthattimenewsection72(3)oftheactwillprovidethatthe“stratacorporationmustrepairandmaintainallofthefollowing:...commonpropertythathasnotbeendesignatedaslimitedcommonproperty.”148Soastratacorporationwillhavenoscopeinwhichtomakeanownerresponsiblefortherepairandmaintenanceof

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

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

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

148.Ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s8(b).



commonpropertythathasn’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.149The committee’s recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,allofdivision3(withthethreeexceptionsnotedbelow)shouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Thedivision’smixofprovisionsdeal-inglargelywiththecompositionofcouncilandmeetingproceduresrepresentthekindofprovisionsthatshouldremaininthebylaws,wheretheywillremainsubjecttoamendmentbyastratacorporation.Thecommitteerecommends: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.150The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthetimingruleusedinthisprovisionshouldalignwithaproposednewtimingruleforcirculationofgeneral-meetingminutes.151Thecom-

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

150.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s19(“Thecouncilmustinformownersoftheminutesofallcouncilmeetingswithin2weeksofthemeeting,whetherornottheminuteshavebeenap-proved.”).

151.See,below,at160–162.



mitteewasalsooftheviewthattheprovisionshouldbesetinlegislation,placingitbeyondthereachofstrata-corporationamendment.Thecommitteerecommends:16.Section19oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyActandrevisedtoread“Thestratacorporationmustcirculateminutesofstrata-councilmeetingswithinthreeweeksofthemeeting,whetherornottheminuteshavebeenapproved.”Should section 20 (4) of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section20(4)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawscontainsspecificprohibitionsondelegationofstrata-councilpowersandduties.152The committee’s recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,thissubsectiondealswithabaselinerequirementthatshouldn’tbesubjecttoamendment.Thecommitteerecommends:17.Section20(4)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.

152.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]).



Should section 22 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section22providesforthelimitationofliabilityforastrata-councilmember.153The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatsection22dealswithasubjectthatismoreappropri-atelyfoundinlegislation,ratherthaninabylawthatcouldbeamended.Thecommitteerecommends:18.Section22oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtobecomepartofsection31oftheStrataPropertyAct.Should section 23 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section23oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsdealswiththemaximumfinesthatastratacorporationmaylevyintheeventofacontraventionofabylaworarule.154The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteefavouredleavingthisprovisioninthestandardbylaws.Thediversityofstratacorporationshastobeconsideredhere.Relocatingtheprovisiontotheleg-islationcouldendupconstrainingsomestratacorporations.Thecommitteealsonotedthatfewstratacorporationshaveretainedthestandardbylawonthisissue.Thebulkofthemhavereplaceditwithacustom-madebylaw,whichincreasesthemaximumfines.155153.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s22(“(1)Acouncilmemberwhoactshonestlyandin

goodfaithisnotpersonallyliablebecauseofanythingdoneoromittedintheexerciseorintend-edexerciseofanypowerortheperformanceorintendedperformanceofanydutyofthecouncil.(2)Subsection(1)doesnotaffectacouncilmember’sliability,asanowner,forajudgmentagainstthestratacorporation.”).

154.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s23(“Thestratacorporationmayfineanownerortenantamaximumof(a)$50foreachcontraventionofabylaw,and(b)$10foreachcontraventionofarule.”).

155.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,s7.1(1)(“Forthepurposesofsection132oftheAct,themaximumamountthatastratacorporationmaysetoutinitsbylawsasafineforthe



Thecommitteehasaddressedthelevelofthesemaximumfineslaterinthisre-port.156Thecommitteerecommends:19.Section23oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Should section 24 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section24dealswithenforcementofabylaworruleinthefaceofacontinuingcon-traventionofthatbylaworrule.157The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteenotedthatapplyingthisbylawhasprovedtobeachallengeforstratacouncils.Thecommitteewasoftheviewthatsomeclaritycouldbeprovidedbyre-locatingthisprovisiontotheact.Thecommitteedecidedthatsection132158wouldprovideanaturalhomeforthesubjectofthisprovision.Thecommitteealsonotedthatthereappearstobesomeslippagebetweenthispro-visionandsection7.1(3)oftheregulation.159Theregulationfailstoincludethewordswithoutinterruption,whichinthecommittee’sviewformanintegralpartof

contraventionofabylaworruleis(a)$200foreachcontraventionofabylaw,and(b)$50foreachcontraventionofarule.”).


157.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s24(“Ifanactivityorlackofactivitythatconstitutesacontraventionofabylaworrulecontinues,withoutinterruption,forlongerthan7days,afinemaybeimposedevery7days.”).

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

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



theconceptofacontinuingcontravention.Relocatingtheprovisiontothelegislationandrepealingtheregulationwoulddealwiththisslippage.Thecommitteedealswithaproposeddefinitionofcontinuingcontraventionlaterinthisreport.160Thecommitteerecommends:20.Section24oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtoformpartofsection132oftheStrataPropertyActandsection7.1(3)oftheStrataPropertyRegu-lationshouldberepealed.Should section 25 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section25oftheScheduleofStandardBylawssetsouttheprovisionsgoverningwhoistochairanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeetingofthestratacorporation.161The committee’s recommendation for reform Intheconsultationpaper,thecommitteetentativelyrecommendedleavingsec-tion25asapartofthestandardbylaws.Whilethistentativerecommendationwasstronglysupportedbyconsultationrespondents,thecommitteegavethisproposalsomesecondthoughtinconnectionwithanotherproposedchange.Thecommitteedecidedtoextendthereachofrecommendationno.(41),whichdealswithclassesofpeoplewhoaren’teligibletoholdaproxy,tocover“contractors.”Inthecommittee’sview,thischangewillbegenerallybeneficial.Butitwasconcernedaboutonepoten-tialunintendedconsequence.Sometimes,stratacorporationsaskalawyerorothertrustedprofessionaltoactaschairofageneralmeeting.Thisisdonewithaviewtoloweringthetemperatureincontestedcircumstancesandhelpingthemeetingbeaproductiveone.Theappoint-


161.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s25(“(1)Annualandspecialgeneralmeetingsmustbechairedbythepresidentofthecouncil.(2)Ifthepresidentofthecouncilisunwillingorunabletoact,themeetingmustbechairedbythevicepresidentofthecouncil.(3)Ifneitherthepresidentnorthevicepresidentofthecouncilchairsthemeeting,achairmustbeelectedbytheeligiblevoterspresentinpersonorbyproxyfromamongthoseper-sonswhoarepresentatthemeeting.”).



mentasmeetingchairisfacilitatedbygivingtheprofessionalaproxyappointmentandthenrelyingsubsection(3)ofsection25ofthestandardbylaws.162Butmanystratacorporationshaveamendedthisstandardbylaw,deletingthewordsorbyproxy.Ifthecommittee’srecommendationno.(41)isimplementedwithnofurtherchanges,thenthesestratacorporationswouldnolongerbeabletoaskaprofession-alwhoisacontractorwiththestratacorporationtoactasmeetingchair.Toaddressthisconcern,thecommitteerecommendsrelocatingsection25totheact.Thiswillhavetheeffectofensuringthatthepracticeofallowingalawyerorotherprofes-sionaltoactasmeetingchairmaycontinue.Thecommitteerecommends:21.Section25oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.Should section 26 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section26dealswithparticipationinanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeetingbypeoplewhoaren’teligiblevoters.163The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthisprovision,whichdealsbroadlywithmeetingpro-cedure,shouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Thecommitteerecommends:22.Section26oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.

162.“Ifneitherthepresidentnorthevicepresidentofthecouncilchairsthemeeting,achairmustbe

electedbytheeligiblevoterspresentinpersonorbyproxyfromamongthosepersonswhoarepresentatthemeeting.”

163.Seesupranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s26(“(1)Tenantsandoccupantsmayattendan-nualandspecialgeneralmeetings,whetherornottheyareeligibletovote.(2)Personswhoarenoteligibletovote,includingtenantsandoccupants,mayparticipateinthediscussionatthemeeting,butonlyifpermittedtodosobythechairofthemeeting.(3)Personswhoarenoteligi-bletovote,includingtenantsandoccupants,mustleavethemeetingifrequestedtodosobyaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvoteatthemeeting.”).Seealsoibid,s1(1)“eligiblevoters”(“meanspersonswhomayvoteundersections53to58”).



Should section 27 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsdealswithvotingatanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeeting.164The committee’s recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,thisprovisiondealswiththerighttovote,acornerstoneofstrata-propertydemocracy.Forthisreason,itshouldberelocatedtotheact.Thecommitteeexaminessubstantiveaspectsofthisprovisionlaterinthisreport.165Thecommitteerecommends:

23.Section27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.Should section 28 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section28oftheScheduleofStandardBylawssetsouttheorderofbusinessforan-nualgeneralmeetingsandspecialgeneralmeetings.166

164.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.”).


166.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s28(“Theorderofbusinessatannualandspecialgeneralmeetingsisasfollows:(a)certifyproxiesandcorporaterepresent-ativesandissuevotingcards;(b)determinethatthereisaquorum;(c)electapersontochair



The committee’s recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,itisappropriateforthisprovisiontoremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Thecommitteeproposeschangestotheitemslistedinthisprovisionlaterinthisre-port.167Thecommitteerecommends:24.Section28oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.Should section 29 of the Schedule of Standard Bylaws be relocated to the act? The content of the bylaw Section29setsoutavoluntarydisputeresolutionprocedure.168

themeeting,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.”).


168.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s29(“(1)Adisputeamongowners,tenants,thestratacorporationoranycombinationofthemmaybereferredtoadisputeresolutioncommitteebyapartytothedisputeif(a)allthepartiestothedisputeconsent,and(b)thedisputeinvolvestheAct,theregulations,thebylawsortherules.(2)Adisputeresolutioncommitteeconsistsof(a)oneownerortenantofthestratacorporationnominatedbyeachofthedisputingpartiesandoneownerortenantchosentochairthecommitteebythepersonsnominatedbythedisputingparties,or(b)anynumberofpersonsconsentedto,orchosenbyamethodthatisconsentedto,byallthedisputingparties.(3)Thedisputeresolutioncommitteemustattempttohelpthedisputingpartiestovoluntarilyendthedispute.”).



The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteeunderstandsthatthisprovisionisrarelyused.TheadventoftheCivilResolutionTribunalhaseffectivelymadeitredundant.Thecommitteerecommends:

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.169The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthisprovisionshouldn’tberelocatedtotheStrataProp-ertyAct.Initsview,theowner-developershouldn’thaveanunconditionalrighttocontinuemarketingstratalots.Marketingactivityismoreofaprivilege,whichmaybelost,forexample,inaphasedstrataplaninaccordancewithsection13.3(2)oftheregulation.170Thisprovisionshouldremainpartofthestandardbylaws,soitwillremainopenforstratacorporationstoamendit.Thecommitteerecommends:26.Section30oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.

169.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s30(“(1)Anownerdeveloperwhohasanunsoldstrata

lotmaycarryonsalesfunctionsthatrelatetoitssale,includingthepostingofsigns.(2)Anown-erdevelopermayuseastratalot,thattheownerdeveloperownsorrents,asadisplaylotforthesaleofotherstratalotsinthestrataplan.”).

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



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.171Thisau-thorizationmustcomeintheformofaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote.Thesectionprovidesanexceptionforcollectionproceedingsinsmall-claimscourt.172Thisexceptionisonlyavailableifastratacorporationhasadoptedabylawenablingit.ShouldthisenablingbylawbemadeapartoftheScheduleofStandardBylaws?The committee’s recommendation for reform AspartofitsreviewoftheScheduleofStandardBylaws,thecommitteeconsideredanyadditionsthatitwouldproposeaddingtothestandardbylaws.Initsview,anauthorizationtosustainproceedingsinsmall-claimscourtforcollectingmoneyow-ingtothestratacorporationisalogicaladditiontothestandardbylaws.Thisnewbylawwouldenhanceefficiencyofcollectingmoneyowingtothestratacorporation.Astratacorporationthatdisagreedwiththecontentofthisstandardbylawcouldalwaysacttorepealit.Thecommitteerecommends:

27.Thefollowingshouldbeadoptedasanewstandardbylaw:“Theauthorityrequiredinsection171(2)oftheactisnotrequiredforaproceedingundertheSmallClaimsAct

171.Seesupranote4,s171(2)(“Beforethestratacorporationsuesunderthissection,thesuitmust

beauthorizedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting.”).

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



againstanownerorotherpersontocollectmoneyowingtothestratacorporation,in-cludingmoneyowingasafine.”

Issues for Reform—Enforcement: Expanding the Lien

Introduction Amajorenforcementtoolforstratacorporationsisthestatutorylien173onastratalot.Thislienisapowerfultoolbecauseitgivesthestratacorporationpriorityoverothercreditorsforspecifieddebtsowingtothestratacorporation.Andthisqualityhasledtorestrictionsonitsscope.Currently,thelienhaslittletodowiththebylaw-enforcementprocess.Theissuesthatfollowexplorewaystopotentiallyexpandthescopeofthelienintothatprocess.Intheconsultationpaper,thecommitteeshowedawarinesstoexpandthereachofthelien.Inresponsetofourissuesforreformitofferedfourtentativerecommenda-tionsnottoexpandthelien.Inadeparturefromtheirresponsestothebulkofthecommittee’sproposals,consultationrespondentsdisagreedwitheachofthesetenta-tiverecommendations.Insomecases,thatdisagreementcouldbecharacterizedasstrongdisagreement.Inviewoftheconsultationresponses,thecommitteereconsideredeachofthefol-lowingfourissuesforreform.Aswillbeseen,thecommitteecontinuestobewarytoexpandthereachofthelien.Itremainsconcernedaboutthepotentialforabuseandtheimpactonothercreditors.Butitdiddecidetochangeoneofitstentativerec-ommendations,ultimatelyrecommendingalimitedexpansiontothescopeofthelien.

173.SeeBryanAGarner,ed,Black’sLawDictionary,10thed(St.Paul:ThomsonReuters)subverbo

“lien”(“Alegalrightorinterestthatacreditorhasinanother’sproperty,lastingusu.untiladebtordutythatitsecuresissatisfied.Typically,thecreditordoesnottakepossessionoftheproper-tyonwhichthelienhasbeenobtained.”).



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.174Registeringalienunderthisprovisionallowsastratacorporationtosecurerepay-mentofamountsowinginanyofthesefourcategoriesagainsttheowner’sstratalot.Inadditiontothesecurityinterest,thelegislationgivesthestratacorporation,throughitslien,anenhancedprioritypositionvis-à-vismostoftheothercreditorsthattheownermayhave.175Italsogivesthestratacorporationaccesstoalegislativeremedythatallowsfortheforcedsaleoftheowner’sstratalottocollecttheamountowing.176Conspicuousbyitsabsencefromthislististheamountofanyfinesleviedduetoacontraventionofthebylaws.177Shouldastratacorporationbeabletosecuresuchamountsbyregisteringalienagainstthecontraveningowner’sstratalot?


175.Seeibid,s116(5)(“Thestratacorporation’slienranksinprioritytoeveryotherlienorregis-teredchargeexcept(a)totheextentthatthestratacorporation’slienisforastratalot’sshareofajudgmentagainstthestratacorporation,(b)iftheotherlienorchargeisinfavouroftheCrownandisnotamortgageofland,or(c)iftheotherlienorchargeismadeundertheBuildersLienAct.”).

176.Seeibid,s117.

177.Seeibid,s116(3)(c)(“Subsections(1)and(2)donotapplyif...theamountowingisinrespectofafineorthecostsofremedyingacontravention.”).SeealsoTheOwners,StrataPlanLMS3259vSzeHangHoldingInc,2016BCSC32atpara146,HarrisJ.



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 recommendation for reform Thecommitteewaswaryofexpandingthescopeofthelienascontemplatedbythisissueforreform.Inthecommittee’sview,toomanystratacorporationshaveshownthemselvestobeinconsistentorworsewhenitcomestodealingwithfines.Handingthemthepowertoregisteralienforamountsowingwithrespecttofineswouldbeopeningthedoortoabuses.Thecommitteerecommends: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 recommendation for reform Atfirstglance,thecommitteefeltthattheadditionofcourtortribunalreviewpro-videdalevelofcomfortaboutthisproposal.Butthecommitteecontinuedtohaveseriousconcernsabouttheeffectthisproposalwouldhaveonthird-partycreditors(suchasmortgagees).Finesarepunitive,notcompensatory.Inaddition,afineismadeagainstaperson,notastratalot.Thesetwopointsmakeitdifficulttosupportgivingamountsforfinesthesuperpriorityaffordedbythestratacorporation’slien.Inthisway,thecommittee’srecommendationisinaccordwiththerationalefornotincludingfineswithinthescopeofthelieninthefirstplace.Thecommitteerecommends:

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)causes



concerns,canthoseconcernsbeallayedbyaproposalthat’smorelimitedinitsreach?Discussion of options for reform Themainadvantageofthisproposedreformisitsmore-focusedrange,whichmightservetocheckpotentialabusesofanenhancedlienpower.Thisproposalcouldalsobeseenasareasonableextensionoftheact’sexistingprovisionforalienincasesinwhichthestratacorporationobtainsaworkorderandtheownerfailstocomplywithit.178Butthisproposedreformsharesmanyofthedownsidesoftheproposalsconsideredintheprecedingpages.Itstillextendsthelienintofar-less-certainterritory,openingthedoortopotentialabuses.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidednottoendorsethisproposedreform.Althoughit’smorelim-itedthanthepreviousproposals,itstillcreatestheconditionsforabuse.Thecom-mitteewasparticularlyconcernedabouttheuncertaintycreatedbyextendingthelientocoverexpensesincurredinrespectofdamages.Thecommitteerecommends:30.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuenottoenableastratacorporationtoreg-isteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttoaninsurancedeductibleorexpensesincurredduetodamagewhicharelessthananinsurancede-ductible.

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



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,iftheywere,asaresult,tofinditmoredifficulttoobtainfinancingfromfinancialinstitutions.The committee’s recommendation for reform Inconsideringtheissuesforitsconsultationpaper,thecommitteegavethisissueex-tendedconsideration.While(atthattime)somecommitteememberswereattractedtoitasapracticalextensionofthelienthatcouldsolvesomeenforcementproblems,otherswereconcernedaboutitspotentialimpactonothercreditorsand,indirectly,strata-lotowners.Othercommitteemembersnotedthatastratacorporationalreadyhasthepowertobringitselfwithintheconfinesofthelieninsimilarcases,ifitob-tainsaworkorder.179Ultimately,thecommitteedecidednottoendorsethispro-posalintheconsultationpaper.Astrongmajorityofrespondentstotheconsultationpaperdisagreedwiththecom-mittee’stentativerecommendation.Uponfurtherreflectionofthepointsraisedintheconsultation,thecommitteedecidedtochangethistentativerecommendation.179.Seeibid,s85.



Thecommittee’sdecisiononthisissuewasalsobolsteredbydiscussionsithadwithinsuranceprofessionalsaspartofitsdevelopmentofthecommittee’sConsultationPaperonInsuranceIssuesforStratas.180Whilethecommitteeremainswaryofcallstodramaticallyextendthereachofthelien,ithascometoviewalimitedextensionasjustified.Initsview,aninsurancede-ductibleissignificantlydifferentfrom,say,bylawfines.Extendingthelientocoverthelatterwouldsignificantlyopenupthepossibilityofabuse.Butalimitedexten-siontocoverjustinsurancedeductibleswouldn’tcreatesogreatariskforabuseandwouldhelptosupportotherproposedreformsforadifficultareaoftheact.Thecommitteerecommends:31.TheStrataPropertyActshouldenableastratacorporationtoregisteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttoachargebackforaninsurancedeductibleorexpensesincurredduetodamagewhicharelessthananinsurancede-ductible,ifthechargebackhasbeenfoundvalidbyacourt,anarbitrator,ortheCivilResolutionTribunal.

Issues for Reform—Other Enforcement Tools Introduction Theissuesthatfollowgrapplewithspecificideastoenhancethetraditionaltoolsforenforcingbylawsandrules.

180.Seesupranote18.



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;181(2)remedyingacontra-vention;182(3)denyingaccesstoarecreationalfacility.183Thesoleoffenceprovisionintheactdoesn’tmentionbylaws;itrelatestoanyonewho“knowinglymakesafalsestatementinaCertificateofStrataCorporation.”184Otherprovincesprovidemoretoolsforbylawenforcement.Alberta’sactcontainsaremedyfor“improperconduct.”185Inmanyrespects,thisprovisionistheequivalentofBritishColumbia’sremedyforsignificantlyunfairacts,186butAlberta’slegislationgoesfurtherandincludes“non-compliancewiththisAct,theregulationsortheby-lawsbyadeveloper,acorporation,anemployeeofacorporation,amemberofaboardoranowner”withinthedefinitionof“improperconduct.”187Thisopensthedoortoawiderangeofjudicialremedies.188Ontario’slegislationallowsacourtto

181.Seeibid,ss129(1)(a),130–32.

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

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

184.Ibid,s290.

185.CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote24,s67.

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

187.Supranote24,s67(1)(a)(i)[emphasisadded].

188.Seeibid,s67(2)(“WhereonanapplicationbyaninterestedpartytheCourtissatisfiedthatim-properconducthastakenplace,theCourtmaydooneormoreofthefollowing:(a)directthataninvestigatorbeappointedtoreviewtheimproperconductandreporttotheCourt;(b)directthatthepersoncarryingontheimproperconductceasecarryingontheimproperconduct;(c)givedirectionsastohowmattersaretobecarriedoutsothattheimproperconductwillnotreoccurorcontinue;(d)iftheapplicantsufferedlossduetotheimproperconduct,awardcom-



makea“complianceorder.”189Onceagain,ananalogousprovisionexistsinBritishColumbia’sstatute.190ButthisBritishColumbiaprovisionismorenarrowlyframedthantheOntarioequivalent,anditdoesn’tmentionbylaws.ShouldBritishColumbiafollowtheleadofAlbertaandOntario?ShouldBritishCo-lumbiagoevenfurtherandprovidethatcontraventionofthebylawsisanoffenceundertheact?Discussion of options for reform Theideaofadoptingaprovisionrequiringcompliancewiththebylawswasfirstraisedduringphaseoneofthisproject.191SeveralconsultationparticipantspointedtotheAlbertaandOntarioprovisionsasmodelstoconsider.Anexpresslegislativeprovisionrequiringcompliancewithastratacorporation’sby-lawswouldservetoensurethataremedymaybeavailableinadifficultcase.Alber-ta’sprovisionactsasakindofcatch-allsection.Itessentiallyfillsinanygapsinthelegislativeframework,allowingthecourttomakeabroadrangeoforderstoserveasremediesinanycasesofnon-compliancewiththebylaws.OneAlbertacourthascharacterizedtheprovisionas“akindofCondominiumlawall-terrainvehicle.”192Suchaprovisioncouldalsoclarifyboththeactandthedutiesandobligationsofstra-ta-lotowners.TheAlbertaprovisionhasbeencitedincasesinvolvingunauthorized

pensationtotheapplicantinrespectofthatloss;(e)awardcosts;(f)giveanyotherdirectionsormakeanyotherorderthattheCourtconsidersappropriateinthecircumstances.”).

189.CondominiumAct,1998,supranote24,s134(1)(“anowner,anoccupierofaproposedunit,acorporation,adeclarant,alessorofaleaseholdcondominiumcorporationoramortgageeofaunitmaymakeanapplicationtotheSuperiorCourtofJusticeforanorderenforcingcompliancewithanyprovisionofthisAct,thedeclaration,theby-laws,therulesoranagreementbetweentwoormorecorporationsforthemutualuse,provisionormaintenanceorthecost-sharingoffa-cilitiesorservicesofanyofthepartiestotheagreement.”).SeealsoProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,supranote29,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).

190.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s165.

191.SeeReportonStrataPropertyLaw:PhaseOne,supranote12at24.

192.LeesonvCondominiumPlanNo9925923,2014ABQB20atpara20,MasterSchlosser[italicsinoriginal].



alterationstoastratalotthataffectedcommonproperty,193accesstoanduseofastratalot,194andevictionofanownerfromastratalot.195AlthoughOntario’sprovisiondiffersinwordinganddetailfromAlberta’s,itcoverslargelythesameterritory.Onecommentatorhasnotedthat“[t]hevastmajorityofcompliancecasesareabout‘people,petsandparking’andarisefrominfringementofthedeclaration,by-lawsandrulesofthecondominiumcorporation.”196Thecourt’spowersundertheprovisionarediscretionary.Anearlycaseunderapredecessorprovisionhaslistedsomeofthecriteriausuallyappliedinconsideringwhethertoexercisethatdiscretion.197Argumentscouldbeadvancedagainsttheadoptionofthistypeofprovision.ItcouldbepossibletoholdthatBritishColumbia’scourtshaveusedtheirinherentjurisdic-tionandcontemptpowertofillinanygapsinthelegislativeframework.198Soitmightnotbestrictlynecessarytoamendthelegislation.Anotherpotentialdrawbackofstatingbluntlyintheactthatcourtremediesareavailableforfailuretocomplywiththebylawsisthatitcouldbringwithitahostofillscommonlyassociatedwithcivillitigation.Theseillsincludethecostofproceedinginthecourtandthepotential

193.SeeMaverickEquitiesIncvOwners:CondominiumPlan9422336,2008ABCA221atpara1,the

court(“Thisappealconcernstherightsoftheownerofacondominiumunittomakealterationstothatunit,andthedutyofthatownertorespectrulesandregulationsadoptedbytheBoardofthecondominiumcorporation.”).

194.SeeCondominiumPlanNo7720093vRathbone,2010ABQB69atpara1,MasterSmart(applica-tionfor“solicitor-clientcostsoftheapplicationbroughtbyitagainstMs.Rathboneinwhichitsoughtaccesstohercondominiumunitinordertoinspectandreplaceherunitwindows”).

195.SeeOwners:CondominiumPlanNo0221347vN.Y.,2003ABQB790atpara2,LeeJ(“Ihavede-cidedthatanownerofacondominiumresidencecanbeevictedbytheCondominiumAssocia-tionforsubstantialbreachesoftheCondominiumBylaws,justasifshewasatenant.”).

196.SeeAudreyMLoeb,CondominiumLawandAdministration,2nded,vol3(Toronto:Carswell,1998)(loose-leafrelease2010–1)atON134§1.

197.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?”).

198.SeeTheOwnersStrataPlanLMS2768vJordison,2013BCSC487;BeavTheOwners,StrataPlanLMS2138,2015BCCA31.



toinflamemarginaldisputesintocourtcases.Suchprovisioncouldalso,dependingonhowitisinterpreted,shiftthebalanceofpowerbetweenownersandthestratacorporation.Adoptinganoffenceprovision(orexpandingthecurrentoffenceprovision)tocovercontraventionsofbylawsandruleswouldhavesimilarbenefitstotheAlbertaandOntarioprovisions.Itwouldencouragecompliancewithbylawsandrules.Anditwouldgivestratacorporationsandownersanotherplacetoturninthefaceofabreachofabylaworarule.Thepublicnatureofsuchaprovisionpresentsatwo-edgedsword.Itcouldbeseenasanadvantagetohaveanoutsidebodyreviewingallegedcontraventionsofbylawsandrulesanddecidingwhethertoproceedwithprosecution.Butitcouldalsobeasignificantdisadvantage,asthesuccessofsuchasystemdependstoalargedegreeontheamountofpublicresourcesassignedtoit.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteegavethisissuecarefulconsideration,ultimatelydecidingnottopro-poseanyamendmentstotheact.Inthecommittee’sview,theadventoftheCivilResolutionTribunalhaseffectivelyaddressedtheconcernsnotedinthepreviouspages.Thetribunalhasbroadauthorityinstrata-propertyclaimstomake“anorderrequiringapartytodosomething”or“anorderrequiringapartytorefrainfromdo-ingsomething.”199Suchordersmaybeenforcedbyfilingtheminthesupremecourt.200Theseprovisionsgivepeopleasimple,expeditiousmeanstoaddresscom-pliancewithabylaworarule.Astimegoeson,theexpectationisthatpeoplewillturntotheCivilResolutionTri-bunalandnotthecourtsforbylawenforcement.Thisreducestheneedforthestat-utetobeamendedtohandnewpowerstothecourts.Butit’sworthwhiletokeeptabsondevelopmentswiththetribunal.Ifthingsdon’tunfoldasexpected,thenleg-islatorsmaywishtorevisitthedecisiononthisissue.Eventhoughamajorityofconsultationrespondentsdisagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendationforthisissue,thecommitteehasdecidedtoconfirmit.ThecommitteecontinuestobelievethattheexistenceoftheCivilResolutionTribu-nalinBritishColumbiahaslessenedtheneedforthisprovincetofollowtheleadofotherprovincesindevelopingnew,court-basedproceduresandremedies.

199.CivilResolutionTribunalAct,supranote42,s48.1(1)(a)–(b).

200.Seeibid,s57.



Thecommitteerecommends: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.”201Section135setsouttheprocedurethatmustbefollowedbeforeoneofthethreestatute-approvedpenaltiesmaybeappliedtoabylawcontravention.Theheadingforthesectionneatlysummarizestheprocedureasrequiringa“complaint,righttoanswer,andnoticeofdecision.”202Shouldanexceptiontotheserequirementsbemadeforfailuretopaystratafees?Discussion of options for reform Thisproposalwillhelptoprotectastratacorporation’scashflowfromstratafees.Stratafeesmakeupthemajorcomponentofthiscashflow,soanyinterruptioninthepaymentofstratafeesisaseriousconcernforastratacorporation.Thispro-posalwillalsosimplifyadministrationofastratacorporation.Non-paymentofstra-tafeesisoftenastraightforwardaccountingquestion,withallthefactsalreadyinthestratacorporation’spossession.Layeringonadditionalproceduralprotectionsfordelinquentownerscanseemlikeaneedlesscomplicationofthecollectionpro-cess.Thedownsideofthisproposalisthatitbeginstounderminethegoalssection135ismeanttoachieve.Thesectionencouragesastratacounciltohearallsidesofthesto-rybeforemakingadecisiononanallegedbylawcontravention.Althoughit’slesslikelyincasesofnon-paymentofstratafeesthaninothercasesofbylawcontraven-201.Supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s1.See,above,at31–32(committee’srecommenda-

tionregardingsection1ofthestandardbylaws).

202.Supranote4,s135.



tions,it’sstillpossiblethatastratacouncilmaybeproceedingonthebasisofdefec-tiveinformation,whichcouldbeclearedupbyconsultingtheowner.Movingdirect-lytoadecisiononabylawcontraventionwithoutmakingthisinquirycouldinflameamisunderstandingintoamoreheateddispute.203The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteegaveextensiveconsiderationtothisissue.Committeemembersex-pressedarangeofviews.Somenotedthattheprocedureundersection135canbeoverlyintricateforopen-and-shutcasesofnon-payment.Othersmadethepointthatstratacorporationsalreadyhaveanumberoftoolstodealwithnon-payment.Ultimately,thecommitteewaswarytoendorsethisproposedreform.Itappearedtoturnonasensethatallcasesofnon-paymentwereblackandwhite.Buttherecouldbesomeshadesofgrayintheprocess.Stratacorporations’accountingisn’tinfallible.Somecommitteememberswerealsoconcernedthatthisproposalcouldbethethinedgeofthewedge,whichwouldleadtomorecallstolimittheapplicationofthesec-tion135process.Consultationrespondentsweredividedonthisissue,withasmallmajorityfavour-ingthecommittee’stentativerecommendation.Thecommitteerecommends: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]nownermustpay

203.SeeFanaken,supranote34at107(“Alltoooftenthesesteps[setoutinsection135]arenotfol-

lowedandthestratacouncildiscussesanallegedviolationatacouncilmeetingandthenimme-diatelyfinestheowner.ThelevyingofafinebeforetheprescribedprocessisnotonlyaviolationoftheAct,italsosuggestsveryconvincinglythattheallegedperson’ssubsequentresponseanddefenseisnotrelevant.”).



stratafeesonorbeforethefirstdayofthemonthtowhichthestratafeesrelate.”204Failuretomakethisrequiredpaymentwouldplacethestratacorporationinapositiontofinetheownerforbreachofthebylaw.205Theactalsoenablesastratacorporationtoadoptabylawprovidingforinteresttobechargedwhenanownerfailstopaystratafees.206Shouldtheactrequireastratacorporationtoapplyoneortheother—butnotboth—oftheseenforcementtoolsinthefaceofnon-paymentofstratafees?Discussion of options for reform Thisproposedreformwasdiscussedasawaytoaddressanumberofconcerns.Pilingonfinesandinterestfornon-paymentofstratafeescanbeharshincases.Thereisoftensomeadministrativeandaccountingawkwardnessinstratacorporations’applicationofinterest.Charginginterestonsmallamountscanbeadministrativelytricky.Finally,somecommitteemembershadalurkingconcernthatcombiningfinesandinterestcouldleavestratacorporationsvulnerable,incertaincircumstances,tofloutingtherulesagainstcriminalinterestrates.207Restrictingstratacorporationstoachoiceofoneortheotherenforcementtoolwasseenaswaytoprotectagainstthesedangers.Thedownsideofthisproposedreformisthatitcouldinhibitstratacorporations’abilitytocollectstratafees.Despitetheadministrativeburdensconnectedwith

204.Supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s1.

205.Seeibid,ss129,130.Notethatthispowertofinerequiresthestratacorporationtofirstcomplywiththeproceduresetoutinsection135.

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

207.SeeCriminalCode,RSC1985,cC-46,s347(2)(“interestmeanstheaggregateofallchargesandexpenses,whetherintheformofafee,fine,penalty,commissionorothersimilarchargeorex-penseorinanyotherform,paidorpayablefortheadvancingofcreditunderanagreementorarrangement,byoronbehalfofthepersontowhomthecreditisoristobeadvanced,irrespec-tiveofthepersontowhomanysuchchargesandexpensesareoraretobepaidorpayable,butdoesnotincludeanyrepaymentofcreditadvancedoranyinsurancecharge,officialfee,over-draftcharge,requireddepositbalanceor,inthecaseofamortgagetransaction,anyamountre-quiredtobepaidonaccountofpropertytaxes”).



charginginterest,interestdoesstillfunctionasaneffectivedeterrentagainstfailuretopaystratafees.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidednottoendorsethisproposedreformbecauseitwascon-cernedaboutitspotentialtoimpairstratacorporations’abilitytocollectstratafees.Consultationrespondentsstronglysupportedthecommittee’stentativerecommen-dation.Thecommitteerecommends:

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.”208Thisbaselinepositionissubjecttoanumberofexceptions.Theexceptionthatisthefocusofthisissueforreformreadsasfollows:“astratacorporationmay,bybylaw,providethatthevoteforastratalotmaynotbeexercised,exceptonmattersrequiringan80%voteorunani-mousvote,ifthestratacorporationisentitledtoregisteralienagainstthatstratalotundersection116(1).”209Concernshavebeenexpressedthatstratacorporationsarefailingtoadministerthisprovisionproperly.Simplybeinginarrearsofstratafeesisn’tenoughtoengagesuchabylaw.210Asonetextbookhasnoted,“[t]hestratacorporationcannotenforceaby-lawthatprohibitsvotingbecauseofarrearsuntilthecorporationhascompliedwithalloftheprerequisitesforfilingalien.”211Aleadingpracticeguidespellsoutthose


209.Ibid,s53(2).

210.SeeAzuraManagement(Kelowna)CorpvOwnersoftheStrataPlanKAS2428,2009BCSC506atparas97–98[AzuraManagement],BurnyeatJ,varied,2010BCCA474.

211.Mangan,supranote34at154.



prerequisitesasfollows:“Inorderforthestratacorporationtobe‘entitledtoregis-teralien’unders.116(1),noticemusthavebeengivenunders.112(2)andatleasttwoweeksmusthavepassed....”212Apparently,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-ered.Oneoptionwouldbetofinethestratacorporation.Theadvantageofthisap-proachisthatitwouldbemorelikelytomotivatestratacorporationstocomplywiththestrictprerequisitesofthesection,ifitknewthattherewouldbeacosttofailingtocomplywiththoseprerequisites.Thedownsideofthisapproachisthatitdependsonanoutsidebodydecidingthattheprovisionhasbeenbreachedandthatafineisanappropriatepenalty.Itisn’tclearthatpublicresourceswouldbegiventosuchabody.Withoutproperenforce-ment,suchaprovisionwouldbelittlemorethanadeadletter.




The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteeconsideredtheseoptionsbutdecidednottoendorsethem.Instead,itfavouredamendingtheacttoremovetherequirementtoenablethisprovisionbyenactingabylaw.Thecommitteenotedthatstratacorporationshaveavarietyofdif-ferentbylawsonthispoint.Alegislativeprovisionwouldstandardizethings.Consultationrespondentsstronglysupportedthecommittee’stentativerecommen-dation.Onecommentreceivedintheconsultationmadethepointthatthecommit-tee’sproposalcouldbeimprovedbylimitingthescopeoftheprovisiontocasesinwhichastratacorporationhasalreadyregisteredalienagainstastratalot.Thecommitteeagreedwiththispoint,notingthatsuchachangewouldservetoclarifyaprovisionthathasprovedtobechallengingtoapplyinpractice.Thecommitteerecommends:35.Section53(2)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoread“Despitesub-section(1),thevoteforastratalotmaynotbeexercised,exceptonmattersrequiringan80%voteorunanimousvote,ifthestratacorporationhasregisteredalienagainstthatstratalotundersection116(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’sCase213provides:

Inthecaseofacurrentaccountbetweendebtorandcreditorthereis,intheabsenceofagreementtothecontrary,apresumptionthatthefirstitemonthecreditsideoftheac-countisintendedtobeappliedinthepaymentofthefirstitemonthedebitsideoftheaccount.Onacurrentbankingaccount,therefore,theearlierdrawings,intheabsenceofspecificappropriation,areattributedtoanddeductedfromtheearlierpayments-in.214

213.(1816),1Mer572,35ER781.

214.RossGibsonIndustriesLtdvGreaterVancouverHousingCorp(1985),21DLR(4th)481,67BCLR55at60(CA),EssonJA(forthecourt).



Theruleissometimesgivenina“shortformstatement”as“firstin,firstout.”215“Somestratacorporations,”notesacommentator,haveadoptedbylawsrelyingonthisrule“tocircumventtherestrictionagainstliensforunpaidfines”:

Bearinginmindthatastratacorporationmayfilealienforunpaidstratafees,somestratacorporationsamendtheirbylawstostatethatwheneveranownerpayshisorherstratafees,thepaymentisfirstappliedtooutstandingfines,thentostratafees.216

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-fect,acompromisethatletsstratacorporationsthatwanttopursuethispolicydosowiththeheightenedawarenessofstrata-lotowners.

215.ReOntarioSecuritiesCommissionandGreymacCreditCorp(1986),55OR(2d)673at677,

30DLR(4th)1(CA),MordenJA,aff’d(subnomGreymacTrustCovOntario(SecuritiesCommis-sion))[1988]2SCR172,65OR(2d)479.

216.Mangan,supranote34at354(“Suppose,forexample,thatthemonthlystratafeesforanown-er’sstratalotare$225andtheownerhasanunpaid$100fine.Whentheownermakeshisorhernextmonthlypaymentof$225,thestratacorporationallocatesthefirst$100ofthatpay-menttowardstheunpaidfine,andtheremaining[$125]towardsstratafees.Ofcourse,thatleavesanunpaidbalanceof$100inthepaymentoftheowner’smonthlystratafees.Subjecttocertainproceduralrequirementsforfilingalien,thestratacorporationmayfilealienagainsttheowner’sstratalotfor$100,representingarrearsforstratafees.”).



Thecompromisenatureofthisoptionpointstosomepotentialdisadvantages.First,thisisamorecomplicatedapproachtotheissue.It’salsoalessdirectwaytoaddresstheissue.Thereisapossibilitythatnoonewillbesatisfiedwiththisoption.Peoplewhoviewthesebylawsasinherentlyabusivecouldnotethattheyarestillpermittedunderthisoption,solongascertainproceduresareobserved.Otherpeople,whomightseetheuseofsuchabylawasjustifiedonoccasion,couldnotethatthetestforwhetherthebylawmaybereliedonhasshiftedawayfromwhetheroritisabusivetowhetherornotcertainprocedureshavebeenfollowed.Athirdoptionwouldbetoretainthestatusquo.Thesebylawsrelyonanexistingle-galrule.Inmostcases,suchabylawwouldonlybeadoptedafterastratacorpora-tionpassesaresolutionbya3/4vote.217Anargumentcouldbemadethatthereisnoreasontotreatthismatterasbeinganythingoutoftheordinary.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthisissueposesaseriousproblem,whichneedstobeaddressedbylegislation.Inthecommittee’sview,thesebylawsshouldbeclassifiedwiththeotherunenforceablebylawsdealtwithintheact.218Thecommitteealsoconsideredwhetheritsrecommendationshouldbesubjecttoatransitionalrule.Intheend,thecommitteedecidedthatatransitionalruleisn’tap-propriateinthiscase.Thetypicalapproachinstrata-propertylawisnottoprovideasafeharbourforbylawsthatbecomeunenforceablebecauseofachangetothelegis-lation.Asthecommitteesawnoreasontodepartfromthisruleinthiscase,itspro-posalshouldapplytoexistingaswellasfuturebylaws.Consultationrespondentsweregenerallyinfavourofthecommittee’sproposedre-form.Thecommitteerecommends:

36.Section121oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatabylawisnotenforceabletotheextentthatitreassignsmoneyintendedforthepurposesof

217.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s120(2)(allowingowner-developerto“filebylawsthat

differfromtheStandardBylaws”—whichmeansthatthebylawunderdiscussioncouldenterastratacorporation’sbylawsupondepositofthestrataplanandwithoutadoptionofaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote).

218.Seeibid,s121.



(a)stratafees,(b)aspeciallevy,(c)areimbursementofthecostofworkreferredtoinsection85,or(d)thestratalot’sshareofajudgmentagainstthestratacorporation.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,219noneofthemappearstobeanauthorizationtofineanownerfordoingorfailingtodosomething.Forexample,theonlymentionintheactoffinesinconnectionwithstratafeesisabriefprovisionthatmakesthepointthat“interestpayableonalatepaymentofstratafees...isnotafine.”220Therealsodoesn’tappeartobeanycourtdecisionthathassetasideafineagainstanownerforfailingtopayaspeciallevyonthebasisthattheactdoesn’texpresslyau-thorizesuchafine.(Onecasehascitedstrata-corporationbylawsthatprovidedforboththepaymentofinterestandafineforfailuretopayaspeciallevy,butthecourt

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

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

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



madenocommentonthebylaw.)221Finally,practiceguidesandothercommentaryeitherdon’ttouchonthisissue222ormentionitinpassing,implyingthattherearenoproblemswiththecurrentstateofthelaw.223Soifthestatusquoprovidessomeimplicitsupportforastratacorporationthatfinesanownerwhofailstopayaspeciallevy,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.

221.SeeStrataPlanNW499vKirk,2015BCSC1487atpara20,ArmstrongJ(“Ifanownerfailstopay

aspeciallevy,theinterestrateonarrearsis10%perannumandthefinerisesto$50permonth.”).

222.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34;Mangan,supranote34.

223.SeeFanaken,supranote34at89(“Itiscertainlyappropriateforastratacorporationtopenalizeownersforbeinglatewiththeirspeciallevyobligations,ornotpayingatall.Some3/4votereso-lutionsprovideforalateornon-paymentfine;some3/4voteresolutionsprovideforaninterestcharge(usuallyat10%perannumcompoundedannually);someresolutionsprovideforboth.”).



The committee’s recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,thecurrentlawisadequate.Itdoesn’tpreventastratacor-porationfromusingafineinthecaseofafailuretopayaspeciallevy.Itcomesdowntowhetheragivenstratacorporation’sbylawsallowforit.Thecommitteerecommends: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.224Theacttightlycontrolshowastratacorporationmayrestrictrent-als.Underthegoverningprovision,astratacorporation“mayonlyrestricttherentalofastratalotbyabylawthat”:

• prohibitstherentalofresidentialstratalots,or

• limitsoneormoreofthefollowing:

o thenumberorpercentageofresidentialstratalotsthatmayberented;

o theperiodoftimeforwhichresidentialstratalotsmayberented.225Whenastratacorporationadoptsarental-restrictionbylaw,thebylawissubjecttotheact’sdelayingprovisions.(Somecommentatorsrefertotheseprovisionsascre-atinga“graceperiod”226ora“waitingperiod.”)227Thedelayingprovisionssaythat“abylawthatprohibitsorlimitsrentalsdoesnotapplytoastratalotuntilthelaterof”

224.Seesupranote4,s141.

225.Ibid,s141(2).

226.SeeMangan,supranote34at332.

227.SeeFanaken,supranoteat34at113.



• oneyearafteratenantwhoisoccupyingthestratalotatthetimethebylawispassedceas-estooccupyitasatenant,and

• oneyearafterthebylawispassed.228Althoughafull-scalereviewoftheact’srentalrestrictionsisnotpartofthemandateforthisproject,thecommitteedecidedtorespondtoanarrowlyframedissuethatwasbroughttoitsattentionincorrespondence.Thisissueinvolvesconcernsthattheact’sdelayingprovisionsaredifficulttoadministerwhenastratacorporationisamendinganexistingrental-restrictionbylaw.229Shouldtheactbeamendedtopro-videthatthedelayingprovisionseitherdon’tapplytoastratacorporationthatisamendinganexistingrental-restrictionbylaw,ordon’tapplyincertaincircumstanc-eswhenastratacorporationamendsbylawscontainingarental-restrictionbylaw?Discussion of options for reform Thebroadestwaytoapproachthisissuewouldbetoconsiderwhethertheact’sde-layingprovisionsshouldapplyatallifastratacorporationisamendinganexistingrental-restrictionbylaw.Thisoptionwouldhavetheadvantageofclearlyanddirect-lyaddressingtheproblem.Theadministrativeawkwardnessthatnowcropsupwhenbylawscontainingarentalrestrictionareamendedwould,inalllikelihood,disappear.Thedrawbackofthisapproachisthatitsbreadthcouldopenthedoortootherawkwardandpotentiallytroublingconsequences.Forexample,astratacorporationcouldhaveabylawthatlimitsthenumberorpercentageofresidentialstratalotsthatmayberented.Then,thestratacorporationcouldamendthisbylawandreplaceitwithonethatprohibitstherentalofresidentialstratalots.Thiscouldleaveastra-ta-lotownerwhohadrentedastratalotunderthepreviousbylawonthehornsofadilemma:eitherimmediatelyterminatethetenancy,likelycausingabreachofthetenancyagreement,orfacetheconsequencesofcontraveningthenewbylaw.228.Supranote4,s143(1).Thisgraceperiod“doesnotapplytoabylawthatispassedundersec-

tion8bytheownerdeveloper”(ibid,s143(4)).Suchabylawisonepassedbytheownerdevel-operbeforethefirstconveyanceofastratalottoapurchaser.

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



Similarconcernscouldariseifastratacorporationamendedarental-restrictionby-lawthatlimitedthenumberofstratalotsthatcouldberentedtoprovidethatanew,lowernumberofstratalotscouldberented(going,forexample,fromtenstratalotsthatmayberentedtofive).Inthisexample,thestratacorporationwouldbefacedwiththeadditionaldilemmaofdecidingwhichstratalotsmaycontinuetoberentedandwhichmaynot.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)setsofdocumentstogetacompletepictureofthebylaws.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.230Thedelayingprovisionscanbeseenaspartofthisdelicatebalance.Onecommentatorhasdescribedtheirpurposeinthebroaderrental-restrictionschemeasaffordingastrata-lotowner“afairopportunitytodisposeofthestratalotortomovein.”231Changinghowthedelayingprovisionsoperatecouldupsetthebalancethatthelegislationcurrentlystrikes.Inotherwords,itcouldbeseenassettingbacktheinterestsofindividualownersinfavourofallow-ingforsmootheradministrationofthecollectivestratacorporation.

230.Seee.g.TheOwners,StrataPlanVR2122vWake,2017BCSC2386atpara77,LooJ(“Astrataop-

eratesasademocraticsocietyinwhicheachownerhasmanyoftherightsassociatedwithsoleownershipofrealproperty,butinwhich,havingregardtotheirco-ownershipwiththeothers,someofthoserightsaresubordinatedtothewillofthemajority.Anequitablebalancemustexistbetweentheindependenceoftheindividualownersandtheinterdependenceofthemallinaco-operativecommunity.”[citationomitted]).

231.Fanaken,supranote34at113.



The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteegaveextensiveconsiderationtotheseoptionsforreform.Itdecideditfavouredanapproachthatwouldhavethedelayingprovisionsapplyonlytostratalotsthatwererentedinaccordancewiththepriorrentalbylaw.Ownersofstratalotsthatweren’tvalidlyrentedunderthepriorbylawshouldn’tbeabletoreapthebenefitsofagraceperiodjustbecausethestratacorporationhasdecidedtoamenditsrental-restrictionbylaw.Consultationrespondentsstronglyagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecom-mendationforthisissue.Thecommitteerecommends: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.232

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

232.HrushkavCanada(ForeignAffairs),2009FC69atpara16,HansenJ.



Itiswell-establishedthatstatutorydefinitionsshouldnotbedraftedsoastocontainsubstantivelaw.Theirpurposeislimitedtoindicatingtheintendedmeaningorrangeofmeaningsattachingtoawordorexpressioninaparticularlegislativecontext.233

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

Definitionsmaybefurnishedtoaddagreatermeasureofprecisionbuttheoppositeisoftentheresult:“Themorewordsthereare,themorewordsthereareaboutwhichdoubtsmaybeentertained.”234

Withthesetwopointsinmind,thediscussionthatfollowsemphasizeshowthepro-poseddefinedtermsarecurrentlyusedintheStrataPropertyActanditsregula-tions.235Ifaproposedstatutorydefinitionalreadyexistsasadefinedterminanoth-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.”236TheStrataPropertyRegulationsetsthe“maximumfrequency”thebylawsmaysetforimpositionofafineforacontinuingcontraventionat“every7days.”237

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

2014)at§4.32[footnoteomitted].

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

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

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

237.Supranote8,s7.1(3).



Asonecommentatorhasputit,decidingwhetheracontinuingcontraventionhasoc-curred“canbeabittricky.”238Neithertheactnortheregulationdefinescontinuingcontraventionorsetsoutanycriteriathatastratacouncilmayuseindeterminingwhetheracontinuingcontraventionisoccurring.Onerecentcase239turnedtohu-man-rightslaw(whichalsoemploysthisconcept)240foraworkingdefinitionoftheterm:

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).241

238.Fanaken,supranote34at108(“Whatisthedifferencebetweenacontraventionandacontinu-

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

239.SeeZaidivTheOwners,StrataPlanLMS3464,2016BCSC731[Zaidi].

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

241.Zaidi,supranote239atpara32,GropperJ(citingBritishColumbiaSecuritiesCommissionvBap-ty,2006BCSC638;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.Thiswouldprovidesomeguidanceforstratacorporationswiththeflexibilitytoaccommodatenewandunusualcases.Wherethisapproachwouldbelessdesirablewouldbeintermsofcertainty.Sincethelistwouldbeopenended,therewouldstillbeasignificantneedtoexerciseindi-vidualjudgmentinapplyingit.Anotherchallengewouldbeactuallyidentifyingthecriteriatobesetoutinthelist.Giventhewiderangeoffactpatternsthatcouldgiverisetoacontinuingcontravention,itwouldbedifficulttoidentifytellingdetailsthatwouldapplyacrossaspectrumofconduct.



The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteenotedthatstratacorporationshavestruggledtoapplytheconceptofacontinuingcontravention.Initsview,astatutorydefinitionwouldclarifythelawandwouldassiststratacorporationsinenforcingtheirbylaws.Consultationrespondentsstronglyagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecom-mendationforreform.Inpreparingthefinalreport,though,thecommitteedecidedthatitwasnecessarytoamendthisproposeddefinition,tomakeitclearthatitwouldalsoapplytoasinglecontinuousact.Thecommitteerecommends:39.TheStrataPropertyActshoulddefine“continuingcontravention”tomean“(a)asinglecontinuousact,or(b)asuccessionorrepetitionofseparateactsofthesamecharacter.”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:

• intheheadnotetosection37,242whichrequiresapersonprovidingstrata-managementservicestoreturnastratacorporation’srecordswithinfourweeksoftheconclusionofastrata-managementcontract;and

242.Supranote4,s37(“Stratamanagertoreturnrecords:(1)Ifastratamanagementcontractends,

thepersonprovidingthestratamanagementservicesmust,within4weeks,givethestratacor-porationanyrecordsreferredtoinsection35thatareintheperson’spossessionorcontrol.



• insection179(8),whichcontainsalistofpeoplewhomaynotactasanar-bitratorinanarbitrationinvolvingthestratacorporation,unlessallthepar-tiestothearbitrationconsent.243

Strictlyspeaking,theexpressiononlyappearsonceinthesubstanceoftheact,sinceaheadnoteisconsideredtobejustareferenceaid.244Stratamanageralsocropsupintheregulations,onahandfulofprescribedforms.245Historically,stratamanagerappearedinsection56(3)oftheStrataPropertyActasoriginallyenactedin1998.246ThisprovisionwasamendedbeforetheStrataProper-tyActcameintoforcein2000.Alsoofhistoricalnote,theHomeownerProtectionAmendmentAct,2001,247containedadefinitionofstratamanager.248Thisactwasneverbroughtintoforce.Itwasrepealedin2004.249

(2)Apersonwhofailstocomplywithsubsection(1)mustpaytothestratacorporationanamountcalculatedaccordingtotheregulations.”).

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

244.SeeInterpretationAct,supranote235,s11(1)(“Inanenactment,aheadnotetoaprovisionorareferenceaftertheendofasectionorotherdivision(a)isnotpartoftheenactment,and(b)mustbeconsideredtohavebeenaddededitoriallyforconvenienceofreferenceonly.”)

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

246.“Subjecttotheregulations,anypersonmaybeaproxyexceptthestratamanagerorotherem-ployeeofthestratacorporation.”

247.SBC2001,c14.

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

249.SeeRealEstateServicesAct,SBC2004,c42,s143.



It’ssomewhatmorecommontoseeastratamanagerdescribedinlegislationasapersonwhoprovidesstrata-managementservices.Thisexpression(orslightvaria-tionsonit)appearsfourtimesintheStrataPropertyAct250andonceintheStrataPropertyRegulation.251Strata-managementservicesisdefinedasfollowsintheRealEstateServicesAct:

“stratamanagementservices”meansanyofthefollowingservicesprovidedtooronbehalfofastratacorporation:

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

(b) exercisingdelegatedpowersanddutiesofastratacorporationorstratacouncil,including

(i) makingpaymentstothirdpartiesonbehalfofthestratacorporation,

(ii) negotiatingorenteringintocontractsonbehalfofthestratacorpora-tion,

(iii) supervisingemployeesorcontractorshiredorengagedbythestratacorporation,or

(iv) enforcingbylawsorrulesofthestratacorporation,

250.Seesupranote4,ss24(1)(“Acontractenteredintobeforethefirstannualgeneralmeetingby

oronbehalfofthestratacorporationfortheprovisionofstratamanagementservicestothestratacorporationends,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.”).

251.Seesupranote8,s4.3(“Forthepurposesofsection37(2)oftheAct,apersonprovidingstratamanagementserviceswhofailstogivethestratacorporationanyoftherecordsrequiredtobegivenundersection37(1)oftheActmustpaytothestratacorporation$1000.”).



butdoesnotincludeanactivityexcludedbyregulation.252The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedidnotethatsomeconfusionarisesoccasionallyaroundmanage-mentroles.Butthisconfusionrarelyleadstoanydisputesoverthemeaningofstra-tamanagerinpractice.Thispoint,andthefactthattheexpressionissolittleusedintheact,ledthecommitteenottofavouraddingadefinitionofstratamanagertotheact.EventhoughamajorityofconsultationrespondentsfavouredaddingadefinitiontotheStrataPropertyAct,thecommitteecontinuestodoubttheneedforsuchadefini-tion.Thecommitteerecommends: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?Somepeoplepreyontheconfusioncreatedbytheabsenceofadefinitionofrent,usingthatconfusionasmeanstogetaroundastratacorporation’srentalre-strictions.Eventhoughdefiningrentwon’tpreventalldisputesoverrentalre-strictions,wouldaddingadefinitionofthetermimprovetheoperationofrental-restrictionbylaws?

252.Supranote249,s1.SeealsoRealEstateServicesRegulation,BCReg506/2004,ss2.17(exemp-

tionforstrata-lotowners),2.18(exemptionforstratacaretakersemployedbystratacorpora-tionorbrokerage),2.19(exemptionforownerdevelopers).



Summary of options for reform Thewordrent(andderivativesofit)appearsfrequentlyintheStrataPropertyAct.253Theactdoesn’tdefinerent.Itappearstorelyontheordinarymeaningoftheword.Renthasmultiplemeaningsineverydayspeech.TheStrataPropertyActappearstouserentconsistentlyasaverbdefinedinthefollowingway:“let(property)forrentorpayment;hireout.”254Forexample,rentappearsintheact’sdefinitionsoflandlordandtenant:

“landlord”meansanownerwhorentsastratalottoatenantandatenantwhorentsastratalottoasubtenant,butdoesnotincludealeaseholdlandlordinaleaseholdstrataplanasdefinedinsection199;

***

“tenant”meansapersonwhorentsallorpartofastratalot,andincludesasubtenantbutdoesnotincludealeaseholdtenantinaleaseholdstrataplanasdefinedinsec-tion199oratenantforlifeunderaregisteredlifeestate.255

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

Anownerdeveloperwhorentsorintendstorentoneormoreresidentialstratalotsmust

(a) filewiththesuperintendentbeforethefirstresidentialstratalotisofferedforsaletoapurchaser,orconveyedtoapurchaserwithoutbeingofferedforsale,aRentalDisclosureStatementintheprescribedform,and

253.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).

254.LesleyBrown,ed,TheNewShorterOxfordEnglishDictionary(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1993)subverbo“rent.”SeealsoKatherineBarber,ed,CanadianOxfordDictionary,2ded(DonMills,ON:OxfordUniversityPress,2004)subverbo“rent”(“occupyoruse(property,equipment,etc.)forafixed,usu.temporaryperiod,inreturnforpayment”).

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



(b) giveacopyofthestatementtoeachprospectivepurchaserbeforethepro-spectivepurchaserentersintoanagreementtopurchase.256

Andhereisrentusedinaprovisionconcerningrestrictingtherentalofstratalots:

Thestratacorporationmayonlyrestricttherentalofastratalotbyabylawthat

(a) prohibitstherentalofresidentialstratalots,or

(b) limitsoneormoreofthefollowing:

(i) thenumberorpercentageofresidentialstratalotsthatmayberented;

(ii) theperiodoftimeforwhichresidentialstratalotsmayberented.257Sometimesrentappearsinothercontexts;forexample,herethetermisusedincon-nectionwithfines:

Thestratacorporationmayfineanownerifabylaworruleiscontravenedby

(a) theowner,

(b) apersonwhoisvisitingtheownerorwasadmittedtothepremisesbytheownerforsocial,businessorfamilyreasonsoranyotherreason,or

(c) anoccupant,ifthestratalotisnotrentedbytheownertoatenant.258Rent,usedasanoun,hasatechnicalmeaninginthelaw.TheleadingCanadiantext-bookonlandlord-and-tenantlawdefinesrentinthissenseasfollows:

Rentisacertainprofitissuingperiodicallyoutoflandsandtenementscorporeal,oroutofthemandtheirfurnitureinretribution(redditus)forthelandthatpasses;itmustal-waysbeaprofit,butneednotnecessarilybeasumofmoney;itmaybepaidinkindorbytheperformanceofservicesorpartlyinonewayandpartlyinanother.259

Aplain-languageversionofthissenseofrentappearsinadefinitionfoundintheResidentialTenancyAct:

“rent”meansmoneypaidoragreedtobepaid,orvalueorarightgivenoragreedtobegiven,byoronbehalfofatenanttoalandlordinreturnfortherighttopossessa

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



259.ChristopherAWBentley,JohnHMcNair,&MavisJButkus,eds,Williams&RhodesCanadianLawofLandlordandTenant,6thed,vol1(loose-leafrelease2018–3)(Toronto:Carswell,1998)at§6:1:1.



rentalunit,fortheuseofcommonareasandforservicesorfacilities,butdoesnotin-cludeanyofthefollowing:

(a) asecuritydeposit;

(b) apetdamagedeposit;

(c) afeeprescribedundersection97(2)(k)[regulationsinrelationtofees].260Rent,usedasanoun,doesn’tappearintheStrataPropertyAct.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteenotedthatthereareconcernsaboutpeopleexploitingthelackofcer-taintyintheact’suseofthewordrent.Initsview,alegislativedefinitionwouldhelptoclarifythesituation.Theseconcernsreartheirheadsmostofteninstratacorporationsthathaverentalrestrictions.Thequestionthatoftentripsupenforcementofthoserestrictionsiswhetherthepeopleoccupyingthestratalotarepayingrent.Theactusesthiswordbutdoesn’tdefineit.Thefocusofdisputesisoftenonwhetherconsiderationbeingpaidforoccupyingthestratalotisrent.Thecommitteedecidedthatadefinitionofrentthatistailoredtothemonetaryas-pectofthelandlord-tenantrelationshipwouldhelptoclarifytheact.Itmayalsohelptokeepdisputesfromgettingintothehandsofadjudicatorsforresolution,allowingstratacorporationsandstrata-lotownerstoavoidthecostsassociatedwithadjudi-cateddisputeresolution.Thecommittee’stentativerecommendationwasstronglysupportedinthepublicconsultation.Thecommitteerecommends:

41.TheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtodefine“rent”as“meanstopaymon-etaryconsiderationorothervaluetooccupyastratalot.”

260.SBC2002,c78,s1“rent.”



Should the Strata Property Act’s definition of “residential strata lot” be revised? Brief description of the issue TheStrataPropertyActdefinesresidentialstratalottomean“astratalotdesignedorintendedtobeusedprimarilyasaresidence.”261Arecentcourtdecisionhascharac-terizedthislanguageascreating“uncertainty.”262Isthedefinitioninneedofrevisionandclarification?Summary of options for reform Residentialstratalotcropsupfrequentlyintheact.Theexpressionappearsin15sections.Thesesectionscanbesortedintotwogroups.Thefirstgroupismadeupofsectionsdealingwithrentalrestrictions.263Thesecondconcernsthecompositionandamendmentofstrataplans,particularlyinrelationtounitentitlement,votingrights,and“parkingstalls,garageareas,storageareasandsimilarareasorspac-es.”264

261.Ibid,s1(1)“residentialstratalot.”

262.EastBarriereResortLtdvTheOwners,StrataPlanKAS1819,2017BCCA183atpara46[EastBarriereCA],BaumanCJ(TysoeandSavageJJAconcurring).

263.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”).

264.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—“anamendmenttothestrataplantodividearesidentialstratalotinto2ormorestratalotsmustbeapprovedbyaresolution



Residentialstratalotalsoappearsthreetimesintheregulations265andontwopre-scribedforms.266AlegislativedefinitionofresidentialstratalotfirstappearedwiththeenactmentoftheStrataPropertyAct.Onecommentatorhassaidthattheadditionofthislegisla-tivedefinitionwasanimprovementonthepriorlegislation,whichusedthetermbutdidn’tprovideadefinition.267Thedefinitionhadn’treceivedmuchjudicialconsideration,untiltherecentEastBar-rierecase.268InWinchesterResortsIncvStrataPlanKAS2188(Owners),269acasede-cidedshortlyaftertheStrataPropertyActcameintoforce,thecourtdrewonthedef-initionindeterminingthatuseofastratalotasafishinglodgewas“notresidentialgiventhetransientnatureoftheguests’visitswhichrenderstheuseofthelodgeasmoreakintoamotelthantoaresidence.”270InAzuraManagement(Kelowna)CorpvOwnersoftheStrataPlanKAS2428,271thedefinitionwascitedinthecontextofadis-puteoverbylawamendmentsandcompliancewithsection128oftheact.272

passedbya3/4voteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting”),261(amendingScheduleofUnitEntitlement),264(calculationofunitentitlementandvotingrightsfollowingamendment).

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

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

267.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(“caretaker’ssuitedidnotqualifyasaresidentialstratalotbecauseitwasnotdefinedassuchinthestrataplan”).

268.EastBarriereResortLtdvTheOwners,StrataPlanKAS1819,2016BCSC1609,[EastBarriereSC],rev’dinpartEastBarriereCA,supranote262.

269.2002BCSC1165.

270.Ibidatpara16,BlairJ.

271.AzuraManagement,supranote210.

272.Ibidatpara74.SeealsoSmythe&Vogt,supranote267atSPA-7(“althoughafishinglodgewasnotaresidentialuse,thedeveloper’sstatutorydeclarationthatthestrataplanwasentirelyforresidentialusedidnotrestrictcommercialusesexpresslypermittedbyaregisteredbuildingscheme”).



EastBarrierealsoinvolvedadisputeoverthevalidityofamendedbylawsinlightoftheruleslaiddowninsection128.Thecasedealtwithabare-landstrataplanthathadbeendevelopedinfourphases.273Theadvancedisclosureandzoningofthepropertygavesomehintsastoitsintendeduses:

DeclarationsfiledintheLandTitlesofficewiththeStrataPlandescribephases1and3asresidential,phase2asresidential/commercial.Nosuchdeclarationwasfiledwithphase4.

Phases1,2and4arewithinareaszoned“C-4recreational,commercial”andphase3iszoned“CR-1countryresidential.”274

Butdespiteallthis,ownersultimatelyusedtheirstratalotssolelyforresidentialpurposes.275Fromtimetotime,thestratacorporationadoptedbylawamendmentsinamannerconsistentwiththissensethatitwascomposedsolelyofresidentialstratalots(thatis,byownersvotingcollectivelyonasingleresolutiontobepassedbya3/4vote).276Eventually,adisputeoverrentalrestrictionsandtheuseofcommonproperty(docksandboatslips)ledagroupofownerstochallengethisapproachtoamendingbylaws.TheseownerslaunchedapetitioninBCSupremeCourtseeking

declarationsthatthelotsinphases1,2and4arenotresidentialandthatthoseinphase3areresidential.Theythenseekdeclarationsthats.128oftheStrataPropertyAct,S.B.C.1998,c.43,shouldoperatetorequireseparatethree-quartermajorityvotesforproposedbylawamendments.277

Section128(1)oftheStrataPropertyActprovides:

Subjecttosection197,amendmentstobylawsmustbeapprovedatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting,

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

273.EastBarriereSC,supranote268atpara2,BettonJ.

274.Ibidatparas7–8.

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

276.SeeEastBarriereCA,supranote262atpara32(“Since1996,thestratacorporationhasconsid-eredthestrataplantobecomposedentirelyofresidentialstratalotsandownershavevotedcol-lectivelyonbylaws.”).

277.EastBarriereSC,supranote268atpara15.



(b) inthecaseofastrataplancomposedentirelyofnonresidentialstratalots,byaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteorasotherwiseprovidedinthebylaws,or

(c) inthecaseofastrataplancomposedofbothresidentialandnonresidentialstratalots,bybotharesolutionpassedbya3/4voteoftheresidentialstratalotsandaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteofthenonresidentialstratalots,orasotherwiseprovidedinthebylawsforthenonresidentialstratalots.278

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

thedefinitionof“residentialstratalot”referencesonlydesignandintention.Itdoesnotincorporateanyotherconsiderationssuchaszoningordisclosurestatements.Itdoesnotclarifywhethertheintentionreferencedisthatoftheoriginaldevelopersortheowners.279

Thisconsiderationledthejudgetoconclude“[t]hereisadistinctiontobedrawnbe-tweenthehopesandaspirationsofcertainowners,inthiscasethepetitioners[,]andtheactualnatureanduseofthelots.”280Sincethestratalotswereactuallyusedforresidentialpurposes,theywereresidentialstratalots.Thecourtofappealrejectedthisconclusion.Initsview,“theappropriateapproachmustbetoassessthedesignandintentionatandaroundthetimeoftheinceptionofthedevelopment”:281

“design”and“intention”mustbedeterminedbythedocumentspreparedandfiledatandaroundtheinceptionofthedevelopment.Otherwise,therewouldbeuncertaintyconcerningthepropervotingprocedures,filingrequirements,andtheapplicabilityofnumerousotherprovisionsintheSPAthatrelyonthedefinitionof“residentialstratalot.”282

Criticallyforthecommittee,thecourtofappealalsolamentedwhatitsawastheun-derdevelopedstateofthelegislationasplayingaroleinfosteringthisdispute:


279.EastBarriereSC,supranote268atpara37.

280.Ibidatpara45.

281.EastBarriereCA,supranote262atpara13.

282.Ibidatpara46.



ItistoberegrettedthattheSPAdoesnotputthisissuebeyonddebatebyrequiringbindingdeclarationstobemadeatthetimeofthefilingofthestrataplansinsteadofcreatingtheuncertaintythrownupbyaphraselike“designedorintendedtobeusedprimarilyasaresidence”inthedefinitionof“residentialstratalot.”283

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

283.Ibid.TheauthorsoftheBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34,alsoap-

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



Summary of options for reform TheexpressionnonresidentialstratalotappearsafewtimesintheStrataPropertyAct:insections128(1)(bylawamendmentprocedures),284139(3)(rentaldisclo-surebyowner-developer),285191(1)(enablingcreationofsections),286197(3.1)(bylawsandrulesforasection),287245–48(SchedulesofUnitEntitlementandVot-ingRights),288and264(calculationofunitentitlementandvotingrightsfollowingstrata-planamendment).289Whiletheseprovisionscanbedetailedandcomplex,theiruseofnonresidentialstra-talottendstobeasapointofcontrasttoresidentialstratalot.Nonresidentialstratalotisoftenusedtoemphasizethesepoints:(1)theproceduresforamendingbylawsthatapplytoresidentialstratalotsapplyindifferentwaystononresidentialstratalots(ownersofnonresidentialstratalotsmayapproveabylawamendmentbyaresolutionpassedwithavotingthresholdotherthana3/4vote)and(2)ownersofresidentialandnonresidentialstratalotsinvariablyhavedifferentinterests,andthesedifferentinterestswillresultinrequiringseparateresolutionswhenbylawsareamended,may(ifanowner-developerorstratacorporationchooses)formthe

284.Seesupranote4,128(1)(“Subjecttosection197,amendmentstobylawsmustbeapprovedat

anannualorspecialgeneralmeeting,(a)inthecaseofastrataplancomposedentirelyofresi-dentialstratalots,byaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote,(b)inthecaseofastrataplancomposedentirelyofnonresidentialstratalots,byaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteorasotherwisepro-videdinthebylaws,or(c)inthecaseofastrataplancomposedofbothresidentialandnonresi-dentialstratalots,bybotharesolutionpassedbya3/4voteoftheresidentialstratalotsandaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteofthenonresidentialstratalots,orasotherwiseprovidedinthebylawsforthenonresidentialstratalots.”[emphasisadded]).

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

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

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

288.Seeibid,ss245–248.SeealsoStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,FormV(ScheduleofUnitEntitlement),FormW(ScheduleofVotingRights).

289.Seesupranote4,s264.



basisofseparatesections,andwillcallfordifferentapproachesindeterminingunitentitlementandvotingrights.Theredoesn’tappeartobeanycriticismofthelackofadefinitionofnonresidentialstratalottobefoundineitherthecaselaworthecommentary.Sothisissueisprob-ablybestapproachedasamatteroffirstprinciples.Wouldtheactbeimprovedbyalegislativedefinitionofnonresidentialstratalot?Isthereanydangertoconfiningthistermwithinclearerormorepreciselimits—specifically,coulditresultinastratalotbeingneitheraresidentialstratalotnoranonresidentialstratalot?The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedidn’tseeapressingneedtoaddadefinitionofnonresidentialstratalottotheact.Instead,itwasmoreconcernedaboutthepotentialthatsuchadefini-tionmighthaveforcreatingmischief.Totakeoneexample,thecommitteepointedtotheconcernswithshort-termrentals,suchasthosefacilitatedbyAirbnb.290Inthesecases,itwouldn’tbedesirableforanowneroperatingashort-termrentalpropertytobeabletopointtoastatutorydefinitionandclaimthatthestratalotisreallyanonresidentialstratalot.Iftheownercouldmakethiscase,thenitwouldbecomeimpossibletoamendthestratacorporation’sbylawstoaddressconcernsaboutshort-termrentals,asbylawamendmentswouldnowrequirethatowner’sconsent.291Eventhoughabaremajorityofconsultationrespondentsfavouredaddingadefini-tionofnonresidentialstratalottotheact,thecommitteedecidedtoconfirmitsten-tativerecommendation.Thecommitteerecommends:43.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotcontainadefinitionof“nonresidentialstratalot.”

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

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

291.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.292Most,butnotall,ofthesesubjectsarecoveredinthischapter.Thisisbecausethechapterfocusesontopicsthecommitteehasidentifiedasissuesforreform,ratherthansimplyworkingthrougheverysectioninthisdivisionoftheact.Asaresult,thischapterdoesn’taddresssometopicscoveredbytheact(becausetheydon’traisepressingissuesforreform)anddoesaddresssometopicsnotcoveredbytheact.Thechapter’sfocusisonthefollowingsubjects:

• proxies;

• conductofmeetings;

292.Ibid,ss40–52.



• quorum;

• voting;

• strata-councilelections;

• agendaandmeetingminutes.Whilethebulkofthischapterconcernsgeneralmeetings,acoupleofissuesinvolveconsiderationofstrata-councilmeetings.Finally,anoteonterminology:thischapterfollowstheStrataPropertyActandcallsthepeoplewhoareentitledtoattend,participateinthediscussion,andvoteatageneralmeetingeligiblevoters.293General meetings—definition and purpose WhilemanyoftheprinciplesincorporatedintotheStrataPropertyActaredrawnfromreal-propertylaw,whenitcomestogeneralmeetingscorporatelawdominatestheact’slegalframework.294Corporatelawclassifiescorporatemeetingsintotwokinds:directors’meetingsandshareholders’meetings.295Shareholders’meetingsareoftencalledgeneralmeetings,atermwhichispickedupintheStrataPropertyAct.Generalmeetingisn’tatermofart,meritingitsownspeciallegislativedefinition.296It’satermthat’smeanttobeunderstoodinitseverydaysenseasameetingthat’sopentoallshareholders.297

293.Seeibid,s1(1)“eligiblevoters.”

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

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

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

297.SeeTheOxfordEnglishDictionary,supranote9subverbo“generalmeeting”(“ameetingwhichallmembersofasocietyorotherorganizationmayattend”).



Thepurposeofgeneralmeetingsincorporatelawistoprovideavehicleformakingcollectivedecisions.298AccordingtoaleadingtextbookonCanadiancorporatelaw,thereare“threeimportantrolesforgeneralmeetings”:

• decidingcertainroutinemattersonanongoingbasis;

• decidingcertainspecialmeasuresorsteps;

• allowingforproposalsfromindividualshareholders,whichprovideaforumforvoicingconcernsandgivingdirectionstothecorporation’sdirectors.299

AllthreerolescropupintheStrataPropertyAct.300Kinds of general meetings TheStrataPropertyActdistinguishesbetweentwokindsofgeneralmeetings:annu-algeneralmeetingsandspecialgeneralmeetings.Unlessastratacorporationmeetsthehighbartowaivethelegislativerequire-ment,301itmustholdanannualgeneralmeetingeachyear“nolaterthan2monthsafterthestratacorporation’sfiscalyearend.”302Certainbusinessmustbedealtwithateachannualgeneralmeeting,suchasreceivingreportsoninsurancecoverage303andonstrata-councilactivitiesanddecisionssincethelastannualgeneralmeet-

298.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote295at1-1(“Atcommonlaw,allcorporatedecisionshadtobe

arrivedatbymeansofavalidlyconstitutedmeeting.”).

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

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

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

302.Ibid,s40(2).

303.Seeibid,s154.



ing,304approvingabudgetforthestratacorporation,305andelectingastratacoun-cil.306Incontrasttoannualgeneralmeetings,specialgeneralmeetingsaren’trequiredun-dertheStrataPropertyAct.Thatsaid,astratacorporationmaydecidetoholdanynumberofspecialgeneralmeetings“atanytime.”307Andtheactalsocontainsapro-cedurewherebyagroupofvotersmaydemandthatthestratacorporationholdaspecialgeneralmeetingtoconsidersomespecifieditemofbusiness.308Specialgeneralmeetingstendtobeusedforthesecondofgeneralmeetings’threeroles(“decidingcertainspecialmeasuresorsteps”).Oftenthefocalpointofthemeetingisauthorizationofamajorrepairorrenovationprojectorasignificantchangeincorporategovernance,suchastheamendmentofbylaws.Thatsaid,thereareroutineitemsofbusinessthataredealtwithatanygeneralmeeting,beitanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeeting.Theseitemsincludeapprovingminutesofthelastgeneralmeetingandratifyinganynewrulesmadebythestratacorporation.309

Issues for Reform General observations Mostoftheissuesthatfollowconcernprocedurallaws.Theseproceduresoftenaren’tfoundintheStrataPropertyAct.It’susuallynecessarytolookatcorporateby-laws,pastpractices,andcourtcases310togetafixonwhataprocedureatameetingshouldbe.

304.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s28(h).

305.Seeibid,s103.

306.Seeibid,s25.

307.Ibid,s42.

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

309.Seeibid,s125.

310.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§6.38(“Inlegalproceed-ings,theextensivecommonlawapplicabletocorporateproceedingscanbeexpectedtogov-ern.”).



Thisbodyofprocedurecanseemdetailedandrulebound,butcommentatorsusuallyinterpretitastryingtofurtherafewbroadgoals.Thesegoalsincludepromotingareasonableexchangeofideas,treatingminorityinterestsfairly,encouragingpartici-pation,andmakingdecisionstransparentlyanddemocratically.311Meetingchairsandparticipantsareoftensaidtobethebestjudgesofwhetheragiv-enmeetingisachievingthesegoals.Courtstypicallyapplyalighttouchtoenforcingprocedurallaws.312Evenifacorporationhasfailedtocomplystrictlywithaproce-dure,acourtisoftenunwillingtoinvalidateameetingifthesegoalsaremetandnoonehassufferedanyprejudicefromtheirregularity.Butdifferentconsiderationsmayapplyiftheprocedurehasbecomeastatutoryprovision.313Likelyoutofadesiretopreservecorporateflexibility,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)

311.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote295at19-1;HartleyRNathan,Nathan’sCompanyMeetingsIn-

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

312.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote295at1-12.1(“Irregularitiesintheholdingofmeetingsdonotnecessarilyinvalidatethem.”).

313.SeeNathan,supranote311at4;BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§6.38.



tovotehissharesinacompany(orhisinterestinalimitedpartnership).Itmayalsobeusedtodesignatetheinstrumentbywhichapersonisappointedtovotetheshares(orinterest)ofanother.314

TheStrataPropertyActusesproxytorefertoaperson.315Thisusagebucksthetrendofmostcorporate-lawlegislation,whichusesproxyinthesecondsense,torefertoadocument.316WhilethisreportfollowstheStrataPropertyActandusesproxytore-fertoapersonandproxyappointmenttorefertoadocumentappointingaproxy,readersshouldbeawarethatsomeofthecommentaryquotedusesproxytorefertoadocument.Whicheverwaythewordisused,thekeytounderstandingthelegalconceptionofaproxyappointmentisthatitcreatesanagencyrelationshipbetweensomeonewhohasvotingrightsinacorporationandanotherpersonwhoisauthorizedtoexercisethoserightsonbehalfofthefirstperson.Atcorporatelaw,asaleadingtextbookex-plainsit,“[a]proxyisanauthoritygivenbyonepersontoanotherwhichauthorizesthepersontowhomitisgiven(the‘proxyholder’)toexerciseavotingrightorrightsofthedonor.”317TheStrataPropertyActclearlyadoptsthisconceptionofproxy.Astheactputsit,aproxy“standsintheplaceofthepersonappointingtheproxy,andcandoanythingthatpersoncando,includingvote,proposeandsecondmotionsandparticipateinthediscussion,unlesslimitedintheappointmentdocument.”318

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

HindsJ.

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

316.SeeBusinessCorporationsAct,supranote296,s1(1)“proxy”(“meansarecordbywhichashareholderappointsapersonasthenomineeoftheshareholdertoattendandactforandonbehalfoftheshareholderatameetingofshareholders”);SecuritiesAct,RSBC1996,c418,s116“formofproxy”(“meansawrittenorprintedformthat,oncompletionandexecutionbyoronbehalfofasecurityholder,becomesaproxy”),“proxy”(“meansacompletedandexecutedformofproxybywhichasecurityholderhasappointedapersonasthesecurityholder’snomineetoattendandactforthesecurityholderandonthesecurityholder’sbehalfatameetingofsecurityholders”).

317.McGuiness,supranote299at§12.134.




Legislationenablingandregulatingtheappointmentofproxiesfirstappearedincorporatestatutesintheearlytwentiethcentury.319Thislegislationwasprimarilyaimedatlargepubliccorporations.Itessentiallyhadtwopurposes:(1)tofacilitateshareholderparticipationincorporatedecision-making;320and(2)tohelpcorpora-tionsmeetthequorumneededtoholdavalidgeneralmeeting.321Whilethereareimportantdifferencesbetweenlargepubliccorporationsandstratacorporationsandsignificantvariationsinthelegalframeworksapplicabletoproxiesforbothtypesoforganizations,thesesametwopurposesalsounderlieproxylegisla-tionforstratacorporations.322Buttherehavebeenconcernsthatproxylegislationforstratacorporationsisn’tworkingoutasplanned.Ratherthandeepeningopenanddemocraticinvolvementinmakingdecisions,ithasbeen(accordingtosomecomplaints)leadingtotheoppositeresult:entrenchingcontrolbyunrepresentativefactionsthatmanipulateowners’apathyandproxylawstokeepthemselvesinpower.323

319.Whileshareholdersdidn’tautomaticallyhavearighttoappointproxiesatcommonlaw,corpo-

rationscouldadoptbylawsenablingproxyappointments.Statutesreversedthisdefaultposition.Nowshareholdershaveastatutoryrighttoappointproxies,unlessacorporation’sbylawstakethisrightaway.

320.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).

321.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote295at18-14(“Ofcourse,thesolicitationofproxiesbymanage-mentisveryoftennecessaryinanycasewherethecorporationislargeandmanagementneedstoobtainacertainquorumorlevelofshareholderapproval.”).

322.SeeGrowingUp:Ontario’sCondominiumCommunitiesEnteraNewEra:CondominiumActReviewStageTwoSolutionsReport,supranote27at39(“[P]roxiesareavalidexpressionofanowner’svotingrights.Proxiescanallowthoseunabletoattendameetingtotakeameaningfulpartinit,orthosewhofeelunqualifiedtomakeajudgmentontheissuestonominatesomeonemorequal-ifiedtoactintheirinterest.”);StrataTitleLawReform:Strata&CommunityTitleLawReformPo-sitionPaper,supranote26at9(“itisacknowledgedthatmanyschemesfinditdifficulttoreachaquorumatmeetingsandtheproxyvotingsystemhelpsthemtodoso”).

323.Seee.g.HamiltonvTheOwners,StrataPlanNWS1018,2017BCCRT141atpara16(“Theown-er’srequestsforrecordsstemfromherconcernthatthestratacouncilsince2012hasbeendom-inatedby2ownersholdingover51%ofvotes,giventheproxiestheyheldatgeneralmeet-ings.”);SeymourvAllen,2018BCCRT742atpara38(“theownersaysunverifiedproxiesarere-lieduponatmeetings”).



Thecommitteehasheardversionsofthesecomplaintsincorrespondenceithasre-ceivedoverthecourseoftheprojectfrommembersofthegeneralpublic.324Criti-cismsofproxylawshavealsocroppedupfromtimetotimeinstoriesintheme-dia.325Theseconcernshavemovedotherlaw-reformprojectstostudyproxylawsandmakerecommendationsforreform.326Thetenoroftheserecommendationstendstobetoreinintheuseofproxies,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

324.SeeBitaBayanpour,emailmessagetoStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)ProjectCommittee,

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

325.Seee.g.JohnLancaster&MichaelSmee,“QuestionableproxiesshutdownCharlesStreetcondoelection,sourcessay”(17May2017),online:CBCNews<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.”).

326.SeeGrowingUp:Ontario’sCondominiumCommunitiesEnteraNewEra:CondominiumActReviewStageTwoSolutionsReport,supranote27at39(“Proxyabusewasatopicofmuchdiscussionduringstageoneofthereviewprocess.”);StrataTitleLawReform:Strata&CommunityTitleLawReformPositionPaper,supranote26at9.



andbesignedbythepersonappointingtheproxy.”327Thereisaprescribedproxy-appointmentform,butitsuseis“optional.”328Ithasbeensuggestedthatrequiringtheuseofaspecificformorrequiringthataproxyappointmentmeetstringentformalitiesisonewaytocutdownonabusesbyclearlydefiningtheagencyrelationshipattheheartofaproxyappointment.ShouldtheStrataPropertyActadoptthisapproachtoproxyappointments?Discussion of options for reform Ontario’srecentCondominiumActreviewrecommendedtheadoptionof“astand-ardized,pre-printedproxyform.”329Therationaleforthisrecommendationwasspelledoutinanearlierpublication,whichsaidthegoalofaprescribedformisto“minimizeopportunitiesformanipulationbyensuringtheroleassignedtotheproxyholderisclear.”330TheOntariogovernmenthasacceptedthisrecommendation.Aspartofapackageofreformspassedin2015,331therelevantprovisionintheCondominiumAct,1998,wasrepealedandreplacedwiththefollowing:“Aninstrumentappointingaproxyshallbeinwritingunderthehandoftheappointerortheappointer’sattorney,shallbeforoneormoreparticularmeetingsofowners,shallcomplywiththeregulationsandshallbeintheprescribedform.”332Thisprovisioncameintoforceon1Novem-ber2017,atwhichdatethenewproxyformwasmadeavailableonanOntariogov-ernmentwebsite.333

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

328.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,FormA(ProxyAppointment).

329.GrowingUp:Ontario’sCondominiumCommunitiesEnteraNewEra:CondominiumActReviewStageTwoSolutionsReport,supranote27at39.

330.Ontario’sCondominiumActReview:StageOneFindingsReport,supranote27at17.

331.SeeProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,supranote29.

332.Supranote24,s52(4),asambyProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,supranote29,Schedule1,s48(3)[emphasisadded].

333.See,online:OntarioGovernment—searchlandregistrationdocuments<www.ontario.ca/search/land-registration?sort=desc&field_forms_act_tid=condominium>.



LikeBritishColumbia,Ontariopreviouslyhadanoptionalproxy-appointmentformthatitscondominiumcorporationswereallowedtochoosetoadopt.334Theotherprovincesandterritoriesimposefewtonoformalitiesonproxyappointments.335Anotherapproachtothisissueforreformis,inplaceofprescribingaspecificform,tospelloutrequirementsinanyproxyappointmentthatmaybeused.Forexample,aregulationundertheCanadaNot-for-profitCorporationsAct336requiresaproxyappointmentthatis“createdbyapersonotherthanthemember”tomeetalonglistofformalrequirements.337334.SeeForm9(ProxyforGeneralMattersandfortheElectionofDirectors).

335.SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote24,Appendix1(bylawsofthecorporation),s29(“Aninstrumentappointingaproxyshallbeinwritingunderthehandofthepersonmakingtheappointmentorthatperson’sattorney,andmaybeeithergeneralorforaparticularmeeting,butaproxyneednotbeanowner.”);seealsoproposedamendmentstotheCondominiumProp-ertyRegulation,AltaReg168/2000,online:<www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/condominium-property-regulation.pdf>[perma.cc/7W79-7GP9],ss31.201–31.202(proposednewwrittenre-quirementsandrestrictionsforproxies—projectedtobeinforceon1July2019)[ProposedAmendmentstotheCondominiumPropertyRegulation];Saskatchewan:TheCondominiumProp-ertyAct,1993,supranote24,s41.1(imposeswritingrequirement;mustbeforspecificmeetingorresolution,or“astandingappointmentthatisvalidforamaximumofsixmonthsfromthedateitisexecuted”);Manitoba:TheCondominiumAct,supranote24,s128(writingrequire-ment);Québec:arts1087–1103CCQ(generalmeetingofownersofsyndicate;noformalitiesforproxyappointmentsprescribed);NewBrunswick:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote24(noformalitiesprescribed);PrinceEdwardIsland:CondominiumAct,supranote24(noformalitiesprescribed);NovaScotia:CondominiumAct,supranote24(noformalitiesprescribed);New-foundlandandLabrador:CondominiumAct,2009,supranote24(noformalitiesprescribed);Yu-kon:CondominiumAct,supranote24(noformalitiesprescribed);NorthwestTerritoriesandNunavut:CondominiumAct,supranote24(noformalitiesprescribed).

336.SC2009,c23.

337.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-



Athirdoptiontoconsideristoretainthestatusquo.Underthecurrentlaw,stratacorporationsandeligiblevotershaveanoptionalformofproxyappointment(FormA)thattheymaychoosetoemploy.Buttheyaren’tboundtothisform;anyregularproxyappointment338maybeused.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.Themainadvantagethis

cordingly”).SeealsoProposedAmendmentstotheCondominiumPropertyRegulation,supranote335,s31.201(1)(“Aproxyisinvalidunlessitisinanelectronicorhardcopyformatandcontainsatleastthefollowingelements:(a)thenameandunitnumberoftheownerormortga-geegivingtheproxy;(b)thenameoftheindividualtowhomtheproxyisgiven;(c)thedatetheproxyisgiven;(d)thesignatureoftheownerormortgageegivingtheproxy,orinthecaseofanownerormortgageethatisnotanindividual,thesignatureofapersonauthorizedtosignforthatownerormortgagee.”—projectedtobeinforceon1July2019).

338.Thatis,onethatmeetstheact’sformalrequirementsthataproxyappointmentbeinwritingandsignedbythepersonappointingtheproxy.



optionappearstohaveoverthefirstoneisthatitwouldgivestratacorporationsandeligiblevotersabitmoreflexibilityincraftingproxyappointmentsforspecificmeetingsandcircumstances.Onepotentialdrawbackofboththefirstandthesecondoptionsishowtotreatwhatwouldbeotherwiseregularproxyappointmentsthatfaileithertousethestandardformortocomplywiththeprescribedcriteria.Thisconcernraisessomecomplexquestionsthatareworthexploringinaseparateissueforreform,whichappearsaf-terthisissue.Thethirdoptiontoconsiderisretainingthestatusquo.Thecurrentlawhasthead-vantageofavoidingtheproblemthatnon-compliancewithformalitiescouldleadtodisqualificationofproxyappointments.Itoffersaformofproxyappointmentasanoptionalmodel,ratherthanasarigidmandatoryrequirement.Thedownsideofre-tainingthestatusquoonthispointisthatitofferslittletocombatperceivedabusesofthesystem.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteefavouredtheadoptionofamandatorystandardform.Astandardformmayhelptoclarifytherelationshipbetweenaneligiblevoterandthepersonidentifiedasthatowner’sproxy.Alltoooftenwhendisputesariseaboutaproxyap-pointmentthepartieslooktothestratacorporationtotakeapositiononthem,eventhoughthisisn’tthestratacorporation’srole.Adefinedformshouldcutdownonthenumberofdisputesbymakingitclearwhatisavalidproxyappointment.Consultationrespondentsinboththefullandsummaryconsultationsstronglysup-portedthecommittee’sproposaltocreateastandardformofproxyappointment.Thecommitteerecommends: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,339butitistooearlyforthatformtohavebeenthesubjectofjudicialcomment.Sonooneknowsyetwhichstandardacourtwouldadoptinthefaceofnon-compliance.Someguidancecanbetakenfromthegeneralcorporatelawofmeetings,whichhasaddressedthisissue.Whilethereisnoguaranteethatacourthearingastrata-propertycasewouldapplythisbodyoflaw,commentatorsgeneral-lyagreethatitwouldlikelybeconsideredintheabsenceofanyapplicablestrata-propertyprovisions.340Thecorporatelawongeneralmeetingsappearstohaveadoptedasubstantial-compliancestandard.Whenitcomestoformalitiesforproxyappointments,asale-galtextbookongeneralmeetingsexplains:

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

339.Seesupranote332.

340.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§6.38.



cabletovotingataparticularmeeting,theseinstructionsareonlydirectoryinnatureanddonotinvalidateaproxywhichauthorizesvotingatanymeeting.341

Thispassageseemstoindicatethatsubstantialcompliancewithformalrequire-mentsisthestandard,unlessthegoverninglegislationadoptsadifferentone.Whywouldthelegislationadoptastrict-compliancestandard?Thisstandardmaybeseenasthesurestwaytoachievethebenefitsthattheformalrequirementsaresup-posedtoprovide.Iftherationalefortheserequirementsistocurbabusebyclarify-ingtheagencyrelationshipattheheartofaproxyappointment,thenthisrationalemaybeundercutbyvalidatingproxyappointmentsthatfailtomeetformalrequire-ments.Thedisadvantagewiththestrict-standardapproachisthatitwillleadtoproxyappointmentsbeinginvalidatedforthesmallestofdeviationsfromtheformalrequirements.Thismayenduperodingthebroaderadvantagesoftheproxysystemtoencourageparticipationinstrata-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 recommendation for reform Thecommitteefavouredadoptingastrict-compliancestandard.Initsview,selectinganyotheroptionwouldendupundercuttingtheutilityoftheform.Consultationrespondentsstronglyfavouredthecommittee’stentativerecommenda-tionforreform.

341.Nathan&Voore,supranote295at18-30[footnotesomitted].



Thecommitteenotedthatamendmentstosection56oftheact342wouldbeneces-sarytoimplementitsproposal.Thecommitteerecommends: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“whereanindividualorsmallgroupofownersgatherlargenumbersofproxyvotesinordertogaincontrolofthedecisionmakingprocess.”343Amongtheillsattributedtoproxyfarmingarethatitbreedsresentmentandapathy,andresultsinunrepresentativedecisions.344TheStrataPropertyAct(likeallotherstrata-propertylegislationinCanada)placesnolimitsonthenumberofproxyappointmentsthatapersonmayholdforageneralmeeting.So,intheoryatleast,stratacorporationsinBritishColumbiaarevulnerabletothreatsposedbyproxyfarming.Shouldtheactbeamendedtostampoutproxyfarmingbylimitingthenumberofproxyappointmentsonepersonmayhold?Discussion of options for reform Placingalimitonholdingproxyappointmentsclearlyandeffectivelyaddressestheconcernsraisedbyproxyfarming.Ifthenumberofproxyappointmentsthatasinglepersonorasmallgroupisallowedtoholdislimitedtoalownumber,thenitishardforthatpersonorgrouptoholddecision-makingauthorityfortheentirestratacor-porationinitshands.Legislationsettingsuchalimitcouldalsobeseenassupport-

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

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

343.StrataTitleLawReform:Strata&CommunityTitleLawReformPositionPaper,supranote26at9.

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



ingthebroadergoaloftheproxysystemofencouragingparticipationinthedemo-craticaffairsofthestratacorporation.Butsuchlegislationwouldalsomakeithardertousetheproxysystem.Eligiblevot-erscouldfeelthatsuchaprovisionwouldundulyrestraintheirvotingrights.345Itcouldendupbackfiring,leadingtogreaterapathyandmoredifficultyinreachingquorum.Anditcouldalsomakeadministeringageneralmeetingamoredemandinganddifficulttask.Sooneoptionforthisissuewouldbeconfirmingthestatusquoanditslackofalimitonproxyappointments.Thecurrentsystemhasthebenefitofmakingitcompara-tivelyeasytomakeproxyappointments.Thelegislationmightwanttoputapremi-umonthisquality,asawayofaffirmingthevalueofproxyappointmentsasanex-pressionofvotingrightsandasamechanismtoachievequorum.Theotheroptionwouldbetoproposealegislativelimit.Anintegralpartofthisop-tionisthenumberatwhichthatlimitisset.Thereisnecessarilyanarbitraryele-menttothischoice.Nothinglogicallycompelsthechoiceofonenumberoveranoth-er.Someguidancemaybefoundintheexperienceofotherjurisdictions:

• NewSouthWaleshasproposedsomethingofaslidingscale,“[l]imit[ing]thenumberofproxiesabletobeheldbyanypersonto5percentofthelotsifthescheme[strataplan]hasmorethan20lots,oroneiftheschemehasfewerthan20lots.”346

• Queensland,whichadoptsahub-and-spokemodeltostratalegislation,347hasasimilarsliding-scalelimit.348ThenumbersareidenticaltotheNewSouthWalesproposalforstratacorporationsthatcomewithinits“standardmodule.”349“Accommodationmodule”stratasallowforapersontoholdproxyappointmentsuptoanumberequalto10percentofthestratalots,if

345.SeeFanaken,supranote34at47(“Somestratacorporationshaveattemptedtocontrolproxy

votingbyintroducingbylawsthatlimitthenumberofproxiesanyonepersoncanhold.Itdoesnothappenveryoften.Surprisingly,whenacouncildoesattempttointroducesuchabylaw,ownersrejecttheproposition:thereisusuallyasensethatdemocracyisbeingthwarted.”).


347.SeeBodyCorporateandCommunityManagementAct1997(Qld),1997/28,s122(regulationmodule).

348.Seeibid,s103.

349.SeeBodyCorporateandCommunityManagement(StandardModule)Regulation2008(Qld),2008/273,s107(4).



thestratacorporationhas20ormorestratalots.350(Ifthenumberisfewerthan20stratalots,thenthelimitisone.)351Therearenolimitsfor“com-mercialmodule”or“smallschemesmodule”stratas.352

• ThereisoneBritishColumbiacorporatestatutethatsetsahardlimitonproxyappointments.TheCooperativeAssociationActprovidesthat“[a]membermaynotvotemorethan3membershipproxies.”353

Adrawbacktosettingalegislativelimitisthatitmightbringwithitsomeadminis-trativeproblems.Forexample,whathappensifonepersoncollectsmoreproxyap-pointmentsthanisallowedunderthelegislation?Someproxyappointmentsmayprovideforalternates.Thiscouldbringthepersonbackunderthelimit.Butifthepersonremainsoverthelimit,thenpresumablythepersonwillonlybeallowedtovoteundersomeoftheproxyappointments.Thosethatdon’tmakethecutwillef-fectivelyresultinalossofvotingrightsfortheeligiblevoterwhogavetheproxyap-pointment.Inthissituation,whogetstodecidewhichproxyappointmentswillbeexercisedandwhichwon’t?Shouldsomekindoflegislativerule,suchasfirstintime,apply?Shoulditbelefttotheprospectiveproxytochoose?Orshoulditbesubjecttothechair’sjudgment?The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteewasacutelyawarethatproxyfarmingisaseriousproblem.Butitwasalsoawareoftheneedtostrikeabalancebetweentwogeneralconcernsinfor-mulatingitsrecommendation.First,thereareconcernsabouttheabusivecollectionoflargenumbersofproxyappointments,whichcanallowasmall,unrepresentativeminoritytohijackastratacorporation’sgovernance.Asecond,andcountervailing,considerationistheroleproxiesplayinfacilitatingdemocraticdecision-making.Whiletherewouldbeadvantagestohavingalegislativelimitoncollectingproxyap-pointments,itcouldalsocreateatechnicalnightmare.Ifapersonturnedupata

350.SeeBodyCorporateandCommunityManagement(AccommodationModule)Regulation2008

(Qld),2008/270,s105(4)(a).

351.Seeibid,s105(4)(b).

352.SeeBodyCorporateandCommunityManagement(CommercialModule)Regulation2008(Qld),2008/271,s73–77;BodyCorporateandCommunityManagement(SmallSchemesModule)Regu-lation2008(Qld),2008/272,ss54–57.

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



generalmeetingwithahandfulofproxyappointmentsinexcessofthelimit,thenthissituationcoulddevolveintoagameofgofish,withtheproxyandthemeetingchairtakingturnsselectingproxyappointmentsthatwillorwillnotbevoted.Thecommitteewasalsoawareoftheneedtoconsiderthevarietyofstratacorpora-tions.Somerecreationalstratacorporations,forexample,mayhavedevelopedthepracticeofgivingmanyproxyappointmentstothestrata-councilpresident,asawaytoensurethatbusinessgetsdoneatthegeneralmeeting.Thereisnoabuseinthisscenario.Thesestratacorporationscouldbeharmedbyalegislativelimit.Thisspecificpointleadstoabroaderconcernthataffectedthecommittee’sthinkingonthisissue.Whenitcomestolimitingproxyappointments,thediversityofBritishColumbia’sstratacorporationshastobetakenintoaccount.Forexample,corporateandcommercialstrata-lotownersrelyonproxiestomaketheirvoicesheardatstra-ta-corporationmeetings.Limitingproxyappointmentscouldhaveanadverseimpactontheirinterests.Discussionsoflimitingproxyappointmentsoftenfocusmainlyonstratacorporationsmadeupofownersofresidentialstratalots.It’simportanttobearinmindhowanyproposedlimitationonproxyappointmentswouldaffectownersofnonresidentialstratalots,corporateowners,andotherclassesofstrata-lotowners.Thecommitteealsonotedthat,whilelegislationcouldalleviateconcernsintheshortterm,thereisnoguaranteethatproxyfarmerswon’tultimatelyfindwaysaroundit.Proxyfarmerstendtobealoneindividual.Facedwithalegislativelimit,thisindi-vidualmightrespondbyconscriptinghisorherspouseandchildrentobeproxies.Ultimately,theonlyeffectivewaytofixtheproblemwouldbetostampoutthein-timidationandabusesthatproxyfarmersuse.Alimitoncollectingproxyappoint-mentswouldn’taddresstheseconcerns,becauseproxyfarmerswilljustcontinuetouseabusivepracticestocircumventthelimit.Whileamajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendation,asubstantiveminoritydisagreed.Thisminoritytendedtobequitepassionateinitscomments.Thesecommentsledthecommitteetogivefurthercon-siderationtoitsdecisionnottoproposeacaponproxyappointments.Intheend,thecommitteecontinuedtobelievethatalegislativecapwouldn’tbethemosteffectivetooltodealwiththegovernanceproblemsidentifiedinthecommentsandwouldlikelyhavetheeffectofharmingthegovernanceofsomestratacorporations.




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.354Theeffectofthisabsenceofregulationis:

• anemployeeofastratacorporationcan’tbeaproxy;

• apersonwhoprovidesstrata-managementservicestothestratacorpora-tioncan’tbeaproxy;and

• 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-354.Withtheexceptionoftheprescriptionofanoptionalproxy-appointmentform.SeeStrataProp-

ertyRegulation,supranote8,FormA(ProxyAppointment).



halfofanownercouldbeinaperceivedconflictofinterest.355Sincethelimitationscanbereversedbyregulation,confidenceintheserationalesmayhavebeenweakerthanusual.BritishColumbiaissomethingofanoutlierinplacingrestrictionsonwhomaybeaproxy.OnlySaskatchewanandManitobahavesimilarlegislation.356Saskatchewan’sprovisionissubstantiallysimilartoBritishColumbia’s,inthatittargetsemployeesandstratamanagersandisexpressedasbeing“subjecttotheregulations.”357ManitobahasgonesomewhatfurtherthanBritishColumbiaandSaskatchewan.358Likethosetwoprovinces,itplacesrestrictionsonemployeesandstratamanagers.Manitobaalsorestrictsanowner-developerfrombeinganowner’sproxy.And,un-likeBritishColumbia’sorSaskatchewan’s,Manitoba’srestrictionsaren’tsubjecttotheregulations.Infact,thelegislationflatlydeclaresthatanyproxyappointmentthatappointssomeonefromarestrictedclassis“void.”359EveryotherCanadianprovinceandterritoryplacesnolegislativeorregulatorylim-itsonwhomaybeaproxy.Notably,Ontariohasrecentlypassedmajoramendments355.SeeStrataTitleLawReform:Strata&CommunityTitleLawReformPositionPaper,supranote26

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

356.AlbertahasrecentlyannouncedplanstojoinSaskatchewanandManitobabyrestrictingwhomaybeaproxy.SeeProposedAmendmentstotheCondominiumPropertyRegulation,supranote335,s31.2(“(1)Subjecttosubsections(2)and(3),aproxymaybegiventoanyindividualbyanownerormortgageewhohasgivenwrittennoticeundersection26(3)oftheAct.(2)Aproxyisinvalidifitisgiventoaminororapersonotherthananindividual.(3)Aproxyisinva-lidifitisgiventoamanageroremployeeofeitherthecorporationoramanagementcompanyretainedbythecorporation,unlesstheproxycontainsalimitationthatitwasgivenonlyforthepurposesofestablishingquorumforameeting.”—projectedtobeinforceon1July2019).

357.SeeTheCondominiumPropertyAct,supranote24,s41.1(3)(“Subjecttotheregulations,anypersonmaybeappointedasaproxyexceptthepropertymanageroranyotheremployeeofthecorporation.”).LikeBritishColumbia,Saskatchewanhasn’tpromulgatedanyregulationsonpoint.

358.SeeTheCondominiumAct,supranote24,s128(5)(“Thefollowingpersonsmaynotbeaproxyofaunitownerwhoisnotadeclarantorowner-developer:(a)anemployeeoragentofthecon-dominiumcorporation;(b)adeclarantoranemployeeoragentofthedeclarantorapersonwhodoesnotdealwiththedeclarantatarm’slength;(c)anowner-developeroranemployeeoragentoftheowner-developerorapersonwhodoesnotdealwiththeowner-developeratarm’slength;(d)apersonwhoprovidesmanagementservicestothecondominiumcorporationunderapropertymanagementagreementorthatperson’semployeeoragent.Anyproxydocumentappointingsuchapersonisvoid.”)

359.Ibid.



toitslegislation.360Theseamendmentsdon’tcontainalimitonwhomaybeaproxy.Therationaleforthishands-offapproachappearstobethatitsupportsthebroaderpurposesofallowingproxyappointmentsasameanstoencouragegreaterpartici-pationinthestratacorporation’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-sosupporttheviewthatopenaccesstotheproxysystemisstillavaluablewaytoencourageeligible-voterparticipationandhelpstratacorporationsreachtheirquorumrequirements.Butthedisadvantageofthisoptionandthepreviousoneisthatitdoeslittletonothingtoaddressthecomplaintsabouttheproxysystemthathavebuiltupinrecentyears.The committee’s recommendation for reform ThecommitteeinitiallyfavouredtheapproachManitobahastaken.Inparticular,thecommitteeapprovedextendingthereachoftheprohibitiontoowner-developers.360.SeeProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,supranote29.



Whilethistentativerecommendationwasstronglysupportedbyconsultationre-spondents,someofthecommentsonitledthecommitteetoreflectonitsscope.Thecommitteedecidedthatitwouldbebeneficialtoextendtherecommendationtocov-ercontractors.Inthecommittee’sview,contractsbelongwithinthescopeofthisprovisionforthesamereasonsastheotherlistedgroups.Thepotentialforconflictsofinterestwouldraisequestionsabouttheircapacitytoactasaproxy.Thecommitteerecommends:47.Section56(3)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatthefol-lowingpersonsmaynotbeproxiesforaneligiblevoterwhoisnotanowner-developer:(a)anemployee,anagent,oracontractorofthestratacorporation;(b)anowner-developeroranemployeeoragentoftheowner-developerorapersonwhodoesnotdealwiththeowner-developeratarm’slength;(c)apersonwhoprovidesstrataman-agementservicestothestratacorporationorthatperson’semployeeoragent.Inviewofthisrevisedrecommendation,thecommitteehasalsoamendedrecom-mendation(21)toaddressthesituationinwhichalawyertakesaproxyappoint-mentforthepurposeofactingasachairofastratacorporation’sgeneralmeeting.

Issues for Reform—Conduct of Meetings Introduction Theproceduresusedtogoverntheconductofgeneralmeetingsarecalledrulesoforder.Thistermdoesn’thavealegislativedefinitionorevenaprecisemeaninginthelaw.Somesenseofwhatconstitutesrulesofordercanbeobtainedbylookingatthetop-icscoveredbymajorpublicationsonthesubject.Robert’sRulesofOrderfocusesprimarilyonwhatitcalls“motions,”whichareroughlyequivalenttotheStrataPropertyAct’sresolutions.361Itclassifiesmotionsanddealswithdiscussingandvot-ingonmotions.Italsohaschaptersaddressingtopicssuchasquorum,orderofbusiness,nominationsandelections,officers,committees,bylaws,anddisciplinaryprocedures.TwoCanadianguidebookscoverthesametopicsfoundinRobert’sRulesofOrder,alongwithsomeothersubjects.Bourinot’sRulesofOrderalsoaddressesreportsand

361.HenryMRobertIIIetal,Robert’sRulesofOrderNewlyRevised,11thed(Philadelphia:DaCapo

Press,2011).



records,362whileWainberg’sSocietyMeetingscontainspracticaladvicefor“inexpe-riencedchairs”and“strategicmanoeuvers”membersmaytakeadvantageofinbringingforwardmotions.363AlthoughtheStrataPropertyActhasbeendescribedasbeing“silent”onrulesofor-derandhavinga“gap”onmeetingprocedures,364itisapparentthattheactandthestandardbylawscontainsomeprovisionsonthesubjectsaddressedintheseguides.Whattheactandstandardbylawsdon’tdoisaddressthesemattersinthecompre-hensivedetailfoundincommerciallypublishedrulesoforder.Intheabsenceofprovisionsinthegoverninglegislation,regulations,andbylaws,astratacorporation(likeanyotherkindofcorporation)mayadoptitsownrulesoforder.365Thismaybedonebyarticulatingitsowncodeofrulesorbyadoptingonealreadyinexistence(suchasoneoftheguidebooksmentionedabove).366Ifacorpo-rationhasn’tadoptedrulesoforder,thenthecommonlawwouldapply.367Rulesoforderhavebeendescribedasbeing“firstandforemostpurposive.”368Theirpurposeistoadvance“thebasicprinciplewithrespecttomeetings,”whichisthat“theymustbeconductedfairlyandreasonably.”369Courtshavedisdainedstricten-

362.JohnGeorgeBourinot,Bourinot’sRulesofOrder,3rdedbyGeoffreyHStanford(Toronto:McClel-

landandStewart,1977).

363.JMWainberg&MarkIWainberg,Wainberg’sSocietyMeetingsIncludingRulesofOrder(DonMills,ON:CCHCanadian,1992).SeealsoNathan,supranote311(parallelpublicationwithafo-cusonfor-profitcorporations).

364.TheOwners,StrataPlanNW971vDaniels,2010BCCA584atpara35[DanielsCA],SmithJA,aff’gTheOwners,StrataPlanNW971vDaniels,2009BCSC1235[DanielsSC].SeealsoFanaken,supranote34at184(“TheStrataPropertyActdoesnotprescribeormandatespecificrulesoforderfortheconductofcouncilmeetingsorgeneralmeetingsoftheowners.”);BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§6.38(“TheActcontainsonlyafewprovisionsgov-erningconductofgeneralmeetings.”).

365.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote295at19-2;DanielsSC,supranote364atpara24,HyslopJ.

366.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote295at19-2.

367.SeeNathan&Voore,ibidat19-3;DanielsSC,supranote364atpara25.

368.Nathan&Voore,supranote295at19-4.

369.Nathan&Voore,ibidat19-1.SeealsoNathan,supranote311atxxv(“Theparamountpurposeofparliamentaryprocedureistodemocraticallyascertainthewillofthemajorityandtoseethattheirwilliscarriedout,butwithfairnessandgoodfaith.Whenthemajoritydecisionhasbeendeterminedbyavote,thatvotebecomesthedecisionoftheassembly.Itisthenthedutyoftheminoritytoacceptandabidebythatdecision....Thissubmissiontothewillofthemajorityisconditionaluponthefairnessofthemajorityandutilizationofdemocraticprinciples.”).



forcementof“technical”rulesifstrictenforcementisdeterminedtoviolatethisbasicprincipleandcauseprejudicetosomeoneatthemeeting.370Should 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.370.DanielsSC,supranote364atparas51–55.



Prescribingrulesofordermayhavedisadvantages.Forone,anygainsincertaintyabouttheruleswouldinevitablycomeattheexpenseoftheflexibilitythatisthehallmarkofthecurrentsystem.Currently,stratacorporationsarefreetochoosethebulkoftheirmeetingprocedures,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,371andevencorporatebylawstendnottohaveprovisionsdealingwithmeeting

371.SeeNicholas&Voore,supranote295at19-2(“Corporatelawstatutesaregenerallysilentwith

respecttorulesoforder.”).



procedures.372Legislatorsandpolicymakersrarelygivereasonsforwhytheyaren’tdoingsomething,andthispatternholdstruefortheabsenceofrulesoforderinBrit-ishColumbia’sstrata-propertyframework.Nevertheless,itispossibletodiscernarationaleforthestatusquo:itessentiallyisthemirror-imagepositiononthedisad-vantageslistedearlier.Thestatusquopreservesflexibilityforstratacorporationstoadopttheirownrulesofprocedure.Itavoidstheneedtocompilealengthy,detailed,andcomplexsetofstatutoryorregulatoryprovisionsonproceduralmatters.Anditalsoavoidspoten-tialenforcementissues.Thedisadvantagesofthecurrentapproacharethatitleavesthelawinarelativelyuncertainandinaccessiblestate.Thisplacesaburdenonstratacorporationstoadoptandapplyrulesoforder.Somestratacorporationsmayturntocommercialsourcesthataren’tcompatiblewiththeStrataPropertyAct.373Othersmaysimplyfailtospelloutrulesoforder,whichcouldleadtoconfusionandprotracteddisputesoverprocedure.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedidn’tfavourproposingthattheactprescribeacomprehensivesetofrulesoforder.Initsview,inpractice,retainingorderallcomesdowntothechair.Mostmeetingchairsarecompetentandabletocontrolthemeeting.Thosewhoaren’ttendtoperceivetheirweaknessesandturnthechairingdutiesovertosome-onewithexperience,suchasthestratamanager.Puttinginplaceasetofrigidrulesoforderwouldlikelycausemoreproblemsthanitcouldsolve.Thecommitteewasalsoconcernedthatestablishingacomprehensivesetofrulesofordercouldtransformcomplaintsabouttheoutcomeofvotesintodisputesoverwhethermeetingprocedureswerestrictlyfollowed.Abaremajorityofconsultationrespondentssupportedthecommittee’stentativerecommendation.Eventhoughasubstantialminorityofconsultationrespondentsexpressedapreferenceforprescribingacomprehensivesetofrulesoforder,thecommitteecontinuedtostandbehinditsoriginaldecision.372.Seeibid(“itusuallyprovesimpracticaltoadoptformalrulesoforderintheby-laws”[footnote

omitted]).

373.SeeFanaken,supranote34at185(“WithallduerespecttoRobert’s[RulesofOrder],thatsourceshouldnotbefullyrelieduponandutilizedforstratacorporationmeetingsalthoughcer-tainbasicaspectscanbeusedforapplicationinastratacorporationenvironment.”).



Despiteitsskepticismabouttheneedforaprescribed,comprehensivesetofrulesoforder,thecommitteedidnotethattherearespecificareasinwhichmeetingproce-durescouldbenefitfromlegislativereform.Thecommitteerecommends:48.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotprescribeacomprehensivesetofrulesoforderforstrata-corporationgeneralmeetings.

Issues for Reform—Quorum Introduction Asatextbookoncorporatemeetingsexplains,aquorumis“theminimumnumberofshareholdersthatmustbepresentinorderthatthebusinessofthemeetingmaybevalidlytransacted.”374Thepurposeofalegislativequorumrequirementis“toavoidtheusurpingofdecisionmakingbyasmallandpotentiallyunrepresentativegroup.”375TheStrataPropertyActimplementsaquorumrequirementbyprovidingthat“[b]usinessmustnotbeconductedatanannualorspecialgeneralmeetingunlessaquorumispresent.”376Formoststratacorporationsquorumatageneralmeetingisreachedbyattendanceof“eligiblevotersholding1/3ofthestratacorporation’svotes,presentinpersonorbyproxy.”377Butstratacorporationsarefreetochangewhattheirquorumforgeneralmeetingswillbebyspellingoutadifferentquorumintheirbylaws.378


375.Ibid.


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

378.Seeibid,s48(2).



Should 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.379

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

379.Ibid,s48(3).



Anotherapproachwouldbetotakethenumbersoutofthestatutealtogether.TheSocietiesActtakesthisapproach.Itsequivalenttosection48(3)oftheStrataProp-ertyActreads“[t]hebylawsofasocietymayprovidethatifageneralmeetingisad-journeduntilalaterdatebecauseaquorumisnotpresent,andif,atthecontinuationoftheadjournedmeeting,aquorumisagainnotpresent,thevotingmemberspre-sentconstituteaquorumforthepurposesofthatmeeting.”380Thisprovisionleavesthetimelinesuptothebylawsofasociety,givingthesocietytheflexibilitytocomeupwithatimetablethatmakessensetoitsmembers.Thedownsidewiththisapproachisthatitprobablywouldn’trepresentmuchofachangefromthecurrentStrataPropertyActprovision.Thatprovisionalreadyoper-atesasadefaultchoice(“unlessotherwiseprovidedinthebylaws”).Athirdoptionwouldbetotightenupthelegislativerequirement.Theprovisionhasbeencriticizedasbeingunclearandallowingstratacorporationstomanipulatethetimelimitssetoutintheactbyamendingtheirbylaws.381Restrictingtheextenttowhichbylawscanamendthetimelimitswouldgiveaddedsupporttothequorumrequirement.Butitwouldalsohampermeetingefficiencyandeaseofadministra-tion.Finally,itcouldbearguedthattheprovisionshouldcomeoutoftheact.Theactre-quiresaquorumtotransactbusinessatageneralmeeting,andthisprovisioncanbeseenasundercuttingthatpolicy.Thedownsideisthat,intheabsenceofthisprovi-sion,somestratacorporationsmaylapseintodeadlock,andmayenduprequiringradicalintervention(suchastheappointmentofanadministrator)tomakeneces-sarydecisions.


381.SeeFanaken,supranote34at41(“[S]omeinventivebylawsprovidethat,ifaquorumisnotes-tablishedina1/2hour,themeetingstandsadjournedforafurther1/2houratwhichtimethoseownerswhoarepresentwillconstituteaquorum.Thissavesallthehassleofsendingoutnewnoticesandreturningaweeklater.Itcertainlyworksveryefficientlybutisitwhatthelegisla-torsintended?Perhapsnot.Itseemsthatthelegislatorsconcededthatatimethresholdoflessthan1/2anhourwouldbeacceptablebutdidtheycontemplateandalsoconcedethattheone-weekpostponementprovisioncouldbeavoidedbyacleverbylawamendment?Somestratacorporationbylawshavequorumrequirements(waitingtimes)ofjustfifteenminutes.Thelegis-latorsneedtoreconsiderthismatter.Iftheintentwastoprovideafairopportunitytoallownerstoexerciseparticipatorydemocracy,theinterpretationof‘unlessotherwiseprovidedintheby-laws’surelymeansonlythelevel(1/2,1/3,1/5)notthetime(oneweek).”).



The committee’s recommendations for reform Thecommitteeperceivedtheretobetwoissueslinkedtogetherunderthisheading.Thefirstisthetimingissuewiththecurrentprovision.Inthecommittee’sview,therequirementtoadjournthemeetingforsevendayscausesmischiefinpractice.Forexample,thecommitteenotedconcernsabouttwoaspectsoftheexistingprovision:itscalltoholdthemeetinginthesamelocationanditslackofdirectiononnoticefortheadjournedmeeting.Inthecommittee’sview,theprovisioncouldbeimprovedbysimplyexcisingtheref-erencetoadjourningthemeeting.Astrongmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’sproposal.Thecommitteerecommends:49.Section48(3)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingoutthewords“themeetingstandsadjournedtothesamedayinthenextweekatthesameplaceandtimebut,ifonthedaytowhichthemeetingisadjournedaquorumdescribedinsubsection(2)isnotpresentwithin1/2hourfromthetimeappointedforthemeet-ing.”Thesecondissuearisesinconnectionwithmeetingsrequisitionedbyagroupofeli-giblevoters.382Inthiscase,thevotersrequisitioningthemeetingmaybetheonlyoneswhoshowup.Thismeansthattheycanultimatelybedeemedtoconstituteaquorum,withtheresultbeingthatanunrepresentativegroupmakesdecisionsonbehalfofthestratacorporation.Amajorityofconsultationrespondentssupportedthecommittee’sproposedreformtoaddressthisissue.Thecommitteerecommends:50.Section48oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbyaddinganewsubsec-tionthatreads“Subsection(3)doesnotapplytoaspecialgeneralmeetingcalledbyvotersundersection43.”

382.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s43.



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.383Moresupportfortheargumentthataquorummustbecontinuouslypresentcanbefoundinthecommonlawofcorporatemeetings.384Butthecommonlawhasacou-pleofwrinklesthatcancomplicatetheanswertothisquestion.First,itappearsthatacorporationcouldvarythiscommon-lawrulebyadoptingbylawssettingoutadif-ferentrule.InacasedecidedunderBritishColumbia’soldCompanyAct,385thesu-premecourtupheldavotetakenatageneralmeetingthatbeganwithaquorumofshareholdersbutthathadbeenreducedtooneshareholder’sproxyatthetimeofthevote,onthestrengthofabylawthatprovidedthat“thequorumneednotbepre-sentthroughoutthemeeting.”386Second,“courtshavebeenreluctanttoinvalidatecorporateproceedingswhereashareholderhaswithdrawnfromameetingforthesolepurposeofbreakingthequorum.”387

383.Foranexampleofaprovisionthatdirectlyaddressesthisissue,seeSocietiesRegulation,

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

384.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote295at16-14to16-14.1(“[W]hereaquorumwasrepresentedatthecommencementofameeting,butcertainshareholderssubsequentlywithdrewwiththatre-sultthat,atthetimeofthemeeting,therewasnolongeraquorum,itwasheldthatthemeetingfailedforlackofquorumandwasthereforeanullity.”[citationsomitted]).

385.RSBC1979,c59.

386.MocoManagementLtdvLlernamHoldingsLtd(1985),68BCLR128at133,35ACWS(2d)441(SC),CatliffLJSC.Thecourtfoundsupportforthecompany’sbylawinaprovisionoftheCompa-nyActthatsetthequorumforgeneralmeetings,butmadethenumbersubjecttoacompany’sbylaws—similartosection48(2)oftheStrataPropertyAct(seeibidat133–34).

387.Nathan&Voore,supranote295at16-15[citationomitted].Nathan&Voorequalifythisstate-mentbynotingthatit’s“U.S.”courtsthathavegoneontherecordmakingthispoint,buttheirbroaderdiscussionoftheissueindicatesthatCanadiancourtswouldlikely,iffacedwiththesamesetoffacts,ruleinthesamewayastheirAmericancounterparts.



Somecorporate-lawstatuteshavegoneastepfurtherandadoptedastheirdefaultposition(subjecttothebylaws)that“openingquorum[is]sufficient.”388ShouldtheStrataPropertyActbeamendedtofollowtheleadofthisothercorporatelegislation?Discussion of options for reform Themainadvantageofadoptingaprovisionthatonlyrequiresaquorumtobepre-sentatthebeginningofageneralmeetingisthatitwouldstreamlinebusinessatameeting.Leavingtheissueopenalsoleavesopenthepossibilitythatameetingchairwillhavetomakeajudgmentonamember’smotivesforwithdrawingfromameet-ing.Thiscouldbeadifficultdecision.Finally,theprovisionwouldservetoclarifythelaw.Thedrawbackofthisproposalisthatitcouldservetounderminethequorumre-quirement.Attendanceatameetingcoulddwindleawayandimportantdecisionsmightendupbeingmadebyasmall,unrepresentativegroup.Inaddition,thispro-posalisn’tonethathasbeenembracedinstrata-propertylegislation.OnlyNewBrunswick389andNovaScotia390haveenactedlegislativeversionsofthisproposal,whichisfoundmorecommonlyingeneralcorporatestatutes.Finally,ifthereisadesiretoclarifythelaw,thenthatgoalcouldbeaccomplishedbyadoptingaprovi-sionthatdirectlystatesthataquorummustbecontinuouslypresentthroughoutageneralmeeting.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteefavouredaclearrulestatingthataquorummustonlybepresentatthestartofageneralmeeting.Initsview,thisoptionisthemostpracticalapproachtotheissue.Astrongmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommit-tee.

388.Seee.g.CanadaBusinessCorporationsAct,RSC1985,cC-44,s139(2)(“Ifaquorumispresentat

theopeningofameetingofshareholders,theshareholderspresentmay,unlesstheby-lawsoth-erwiseprovide,proceedwiththebusinessofthemeeting,notwithstandingthataquorumisnotpresentthroughoutthemeeting.”);CanadaNot-for-profitCorporationsAct,supranote336,s164(3).

389.SeeCondominiumPropertyAct,supranote24,s26(2)(“Nobusinessshallbetransactedatanowners’meetingunlessaquorumispresentatthebeginningofbusiness.”).

390.SeeCondominiumAct,supranote24,s14A(2)(“Nobusinessshallbetransactedatameetingofthemembersofthecorporationunlessaquorumispresentatthecommencementofbusiness.”).




51.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.391Neithertheactnorthestandardbylawsdirectlyaddressestheeffectonquorumwhenacouncilmembercomplieswiththeact’sconflict-of-interestprovisionand“leave[s]thecouncilmeeting(i)whilethecontract,transactionormatterisdiscussed,unlessaskedbycounciltobepresenttoprovideinformation,and(ii)whilethecouncilvotesonthecontract,transactionormatter.”392Implicitly,thecouncilmembermightnotbeconsideredpartofthequorumbecause“[c]ouncilmembersmustbepresentinpersonatthecouncilmeetingtobecountedinestablishingquorum.”393Butitisn’tclearhowthisgeneralprovisionwouldapplytothespecificcaseofacouncilmemberleavingameetingduetoaconflictofinterest.Astratacouncilinthesecircumstancescouldfinditselfinatightspot:amemberormembershavetoleavethemeetingtocomplywiththeconflict-of-interestprovisionandthisresultsinthecouncillackingquorumtotransactbusiness.Shouldtheactcontainaprovisionthataddressesthisconcern?Discussion of options for reform OneoftheothercorporatestatutesinBritishColumbiahasaprovisionthatdirectlyaddressesthisissue,andwhichcouldbeusedasamodelfortheStrataPropertyAct.TheBusinessCorporationsActprovidesthat“adirectorwhohasadisclosableinter-estinacontractortransactionandwhoispresentatthemeetingofdirectorsatwhichthecontractortransactionisconsideredforapprovalmaybecountedinthe

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

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

392.Seeibid,s32(e).

393.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s16(2).



quorumatthemeetingwhetherornotthedirectorvotesonanyoralloftheresolu-tionsconsideredatthemeeting.”394Thisprovisionwouldensurethatstratacouncilsdon’tgetcaughtinanawkwardspotbytheoperationofthequorumandconflict-of-interestprovisions.Itmightalsogivesomesupporttotheconflict-of-interestprovision,asitwouldensurethatadec-larationofaconflictorapotentialconflictwouldn’tplacethecouncilinapositioninwhichitcouldn’tactduetoalossofquorum.And,finally,thisproposalwouldclarifythelawbysettingoutintheactaprovisionthatdirectlyaddressestheissue.Theonedrawbackofthisproposalisthatitcouldbeseenasunderminingthequor-umrequirement.Theproposalwillallowstratacouncilstomakedecisionswhentheydon’thaveenoughmemberspresenttoreachaquorum.Thisresultraisescon-cernsthatquorumrequirementsweremeanttoaddress.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthattheactshouldaddressthisissue.Itpreferredtheoptionofallowingacouncilmembertobecountedinthequoruminthesecircumstances.Thevastmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’sproposalonthisissue.Thecommitteerecommends:52.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatastrata-councilmemberwhohasadi-rectorindirectinterestin(a)acontractortransactionwiththestratacorporation,or(b)amatterthatisoristobethesubjectofconsiderationbythecouncil,ifthatinter-estcouldresultinthecreationofadutyorinterestthatmateriallyconflictswiththatcouncilmember’sdutyorinterestasacouncilmember,andwhoispresentatacouncilmeetinginwhichthecontract,transaction,ormatterisconsideredforapprovalmaybecountedinthequorumatthemeetingevenifthecouncilmemberleavesthecouncilmeetingwhilethecontract,transaction,ormatterisdiscussedandwhilethecouncilvotesonthecontract,transaction,ormatter.

394.Supranote296,s149(4).Notethatthislegislativeprovisionisadefaultrule;itapplies“[u]nless

thememorandumorarticlesprovideotherwise.”



Issues for Reform—Voting Introduction Part4,division5oftheactdealswiththevotingrights,eligibilitytovote,andthemechanicsofvoting.395Votingisthewaytodeterminethecollective’sdecisiononanissueputtoit.Decisionstakenatgeneralmeetingsareformalizedintoresolutions,whichareagreed-uponexpressionsofthewillofthegeneralmeeting.Theactclassifiesresolutionsbyreferencetothevotingmarginneededtoadopttheresolution.Bythissystem,therearefourkindsofresolutions:

• aresolutionpassedbyamajorityvote,which“meansavoteinfavourofaresolutionbymorethan1/2ofthevotescastbyeligiblevoterswhoarepre-sentinpersonorbyproxyatthetimethevoteistakenandwhohavenotabstainedfromvoting”;396

• aresolutionpassedbya3/4vote,which“meansavoteinfavourofaresolu-tionbyatleast3/4ofthevotescastbyeligiblevoterswhoarepresentinpersonorbyproxyatthetimethevoteistakenandwhohavenotabstainedfromvoting”;397

• aresolutionpassedbyan80%vote,which“meansavoteinfavourofareso-lutionbyatleast80%ofthevotesofalltheeligiblevoters”;398

• aresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote,which“meansavoteinfavourofaresolutionbyallthevotesofalltheeligiblevoters.”399

395.Supranote4,ss53–58.

396.Ibid,s1(1)“majorityvote.”

397.Ibid,s1(1)“3/4vote.”

398.Ibid,s1(1)“80%vote.”

399.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.”400Thecommitteeunderstandsthattherehasbeensomeconfu-sioninapplyingthisbylawwhenacouncilmemberabstainsfromvoting.Shouldthebylawbeamendedtoaddressthisconfusion?Discussion of options for reform Oneoptionwouldbetoamendthisbylawtobringitswordingmoreintolinewiththeact’sdefinitionsof“majorityvote”401and“3/4vote.”402Thesedefinitions,whichsetoutthevotingthresholdsforstrata-corporationresolutions,bothclearlyspelloutthatanabstainingvoterisn’tincludedinthecounttodeterminewhetheravotehasreacheditsthreshold.Inadditiontoclarity,thisoptionwouldhavethead-vantageofaligningvotingatstrata-councilmeetingswithvotingonthebulkofreso-lutionsthatwouldappearinastrata-corporationgeneralmeeting.403Anotheroptionwouldbetoamendthebylawtomakeitclearthatabstentionsdocounttowardthevotetotal.Thiswouldputvotingatstrata-councilmeetingsatoddswithvotingatgeneralmeetingswhenitcomestoabstentions,aresultthatcouldbejustifiedbypointingtodifferencesbetweenthetwokindsofmeetings.

400.Ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s18(1).

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

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

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



Finally,athirdoptionwouldbetoleavethebylawasis.Anargumentcouldbemadethatitisbeingappliedadequatelyandthereisnoneedforamendingthebylawatthistime.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthestandardbylaw’spositiononabstentionsshouldbeclarified.Leavingthewordingofthebylawinitscurrentstatewouldruntheriskofitbeingmisapplied.Thecommitteefavouredaligningthebylaw’sapproachtoab-stentionstothatfoundinthedefinitionsofmajorityvoteand3/4vote.Initsview,thisapproachwouldalsoalignwiththeexpectationsofstrata-councilmembers.Themajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’sproposalbyawidemargin.Thecommitteerecommends:53.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.”404Thisprovisiondoesn’tsetoutthedefaultpositionforstratacorporations.Theprovisiononlycomesintoeffect“ifthebylawssoprovide.”405

404.Ibid,s53(4).

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



Whatthisprovisionisreferringtoiscommonlycalledthemeetingchair’scastingvote.406Whilethecastingvoteisn’tafeatureofthecommonlaw,407itisregularlyen-abledbycorporatelegislation.Itspurposeisto“resolvedisputes”408and“remedyoccasional,orevenfrequent,tievotes.”409Thecastingvoteoperatesas“asecondvoteexercisableinadditiontothevotesthatthechairpersonallyhasasashare-holder.”410Itismeanttobeexercisedin“goodfaith,”411and“nottopromotetheper-sonalinterestsofthechair.”412Shouldtheactcontinuetoenablethiscastingvote,ordoesitsuseraiseenoughcon-cernstocallforitsabolition?Discussion of options for reform Thereareessentiallytwooptionsforthisissue,withonewrinkle.Themainoptionsaretorecommendabolishingthecastingvoteorretainingthestatusquo.Thewrin-kleisthat,despitenotbeingmentionedinthelegislation,thestandardbylawsmakereferencetoapresidenthavingacastingvoteatstrata-councilmeetings.413Strata-councilmeetingsaren’tgeneralmeetings,soit’spossibletoviewthemasbeingout-sidethescopeofthisissue.Butit’sequallypossibletofairlydecidethattheyshouldbeaddressedaspartofthisissue.Anditcouldbearguedthatthecastingvoteshouldbetreateddifferentlyforgeneralmeetingsandstrata-councilmeetings.Eventhoughtherehasbeenlittle-to-nocommentarysuggestingthatthecastingvoteiscausingproblemsforstratacorporations,it’sstillpossibletomakeoutacaseforabolition.Commentatorsonthelawofgeneralmeetingsconcedethat“thechairmay

406.NotethattheStrataPropertyActandthestandardbylawimplementalimitedversionofthe

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

407.SeeNathan&Voore,supranote295at2-11.

408.Ibidat11-18.

409.Ibidat2-11.

410.Ibid.

411.Ibidat11-18.1.

412.Ibidat11-18.

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



beputinadifficultpositiontocastthedecidingvote.”414Whilethecastingvoteismeanttobetakeningoodfaith,itmaybedifficultforastrata-corporationpresident(orvicepresident)toavoidtheperceptionofactingtofurtherhisorherowninter-ests,particularlyifthecastingvoteisusedtograntapprovalofaresolutionthepres-ident(orvicepresident)supports.Commentatorsnotethat“itistraditionalforchairstovoteagainstthemotion”whenexercisingthecastingvote,presumablyasawaytopreservethestatusquoandtoinsulatetheirconductagainstchargesofself-dealing.415Butthistraditionundercutsmuchoftherationaleforacastingvote,asitsuggeststhatthepresident(orvicepresident)shouldusethispowertoreachthesameresultthatwouldhaveoccurredintheabsenceofacastingvote.Theexistenceofsuchatraditionpointstoanevenmoreworryingconcern.Insteadofcreatingtheperceptionofself-interestedacting,thecastingvotecouldactuallybeavehicleforabuseandself-dealing.Whilebad-faithuseofthecastingvotedoesn’tappeartohavecomeupinanystrata-propertycases,thereisatleastonecompany-lawjudgmentthathasoverriddencorporatebylawsallowingtheuseofacastingvoteinacompanywithasmallnumberofshareholders.416Similarconcernscouldmakeacastingvoteproblematicinsmallstratacorporationsorinstratacorpora-tionswithequal-sizedvotingblocs.Finally,apartfromanyissueswithbadfaithorself-dealing,theexistenceofacastingvoteaddsalevelofcomplexitytogeneralmeetingsandpotentiallyplacesanaddi-tionalburdenonastrata-corporationpresident.Thecastingvoteissomethingofacounterintuitiveconcept.Italsorunssomewhatinoppositiontotheone-vote-per-strata-lotstandardthatprevailsinresidentialstratacorporations.Usingthecastingvoteinsuchawaythateveryoneagreesismanifestlytransparentandfaircouldbeatallorder,particularlyinfraughtcircumstances.Therewouldbedownsidestoeliminatingthecastingvote.Thesedisadvantagestieintotheproblemthatthecastingvoteismeanttoaddress,whichisthattievotesde-featresolutionsandmaythwartthestratacorporationintakingactionthatitneedstotake.


415.Ibid.

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



Theremaybeotheradvantagestomaintainingthestatusquo.Itcouldbearguedthatthecurrentprovisionstrikesahelpfulbalance.Becausethecastingvotemustbeenabledinastratacorporation’sbylaws,anystratacorporationthatwasopposedtoallowingthecastingvotecouldsimplydoawaywithitfortheirgeneralmeetingsbyamendingtheirbylaws.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteewasoftheviewthatitneededtoaddressthecastingvoteforbothgeneralmeetingsandstrata-councilmeetings.Thecommitteeperceivedadistinc-tionbetweenthetwokindsofmeetings.Itnotedthatthecastingvoteisrarelyusedforgeneralmeetings.Whenitisused,ithasthepotentialtocauseconfusion.Butforstrata-councilmeetingsthecastingvoteisusedmoreoftenandappearstoserveamoreusefulpurpose.Giventhesmallnumbersatplayincouncilmeetings,havingacastingvoteisimportanttoavoiddeadlock.Amajorityofconsultationrespondentsfavouredthecommittee’sapproachtothisissue.Thecommitteerecommends:54.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,417canbetracedbacktothecommittee’sReportonTerminatingaStrata.418

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

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

418.Seesupranote14.



Thethirdvotingthresholdappliestoresolutionspassedbyamajorityvote.Thisthresholdimplementsthebasicdemocraticprincipleofmajorityrule.It’sdifficulttoseehowthisprinciplecouldberemovedfromtheactinfavourofsomeotherap-proach.Thatleavesthefourthvotingthreshold,whichisforresolutionspassedbya3/4vote.Thisvotingthresholdisusedforresolutionsauthorizingmajor,long-rangechangestoastratacorporation’sgovernanceorimportant,far-reachingrepairstoandrenewalofproperty.Someexamplesofactionsrequiringauthorizationbyares-olutionpassedbya3/4voteare:

• amendingbylawsinastrataplanexclusivelycomposedofresidentialstratalots;419

• payingfundsoutofthecontingencyreservefund;420

• approvingaspeciallevy;421

• borrowingmoney;422

• changingthefiscalyearend;423

• approvingasignificantchangeintheuseorappearanceofcommonproper-ty;424

• authorizingalawsuitasrepresentativeoftheowners;425

• cancellingastrata-managementcontract;426

• amalgamatingwithanotherstratacorporation.427

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

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

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

422.Seeibid,s111(1).


424.Seeibid,s71.


426.Seeibid,s39(1).




A2014amendmenttotheStrataPropertyActhasplacedaqualifierononeoftheitemsonthislist.428Someexpendituresfromthecontingencyreservefundmaynowbeauthorizedbyaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvote.429Whileitcontinuestomakesensetorequiregreater-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-profit430andnot-for-profit431legislation.Wherethistrendislessinevidenceisinstrata-propertylegislation.AcrossCanada,Saskatchewanistheonlydirectlycomparableexampleofusingthe2/3thresholdincaseswhereBritishColumbiacallsforaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote.432NewBrunswick,PrinceEdwardIsland,NovaScotia,NewfoundlandandLabrador,Yukon,theNorthwestTerritories,andNunavutalluseeither2/3or60percentastheirvot-

428.SeeNaturalGasDevelopmentStatutesAmendmentAct,2014,SBC2014,c10,s43(inforce

9April2014).

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

430.Seee.g.BusinessCorporationsAct,supranote296,s1(1)“specialmajority”;CanadaBusinessCorporationsAct,supranote388,s2(1)“specialresolution.”

431.Seee.g.SocietiesAct,supranote296,s1(1)“specialresolution”;CooperativeAssociationAct,su-pranote353,s1(1)“specialresolution”;CanadaNot-for-profitCorporationsAct,supranote336,s2(1)“specialresolution.”

432.SeeTheCondominiumPropertyAct,supranote24,s2(1)(z).



ingthreshold.ButthethresholdisappliedagainstadifferentvotingpoolthantheoneusedinBritishColumbia.UndertheStrataPropertyAct,a3/4voteisonethatachieves3/4ofthevotescastonaresolutionatageneralmeeting(notcountingab-stentions).433Intheseotherjurisdictions,thethresholdisappliedto“ownershipofthecommonelements”—aconceptequivalenttoBritishColumbia’sunitentitle-ment.434ItcouldbearguedthatthecurrentlawinBritishColumbiaoperateswellbysettingahighbutnotimpossible-to-reachhurdle,whicheffectivelyprotectsminorityrights.Thereissomesupportforusinga3/4votethresholdinotherprovinces.Alberta,435Manitoba,436andQuébec437useversionsofthisthreshold.438Thecurrentthresholdalsohasthebenefitoffamiliarity.Inconsideringthisissue,thecommitteealsopaidheedtothe2014amendment.439Thesignificanceofthisamendmentcouldbeseentoweighinfavourofeitherre-formingthecurrentthresholdorretainingit.Ontheonehand,theamendmentcouldbeevidencethatthethresholdistoohighandisimpedingstratacorporationsfromcarryingoutnecessaryrenewalsandrepairs.Ontheother,itcouldbeseenasfixingthemostpressingproblem,leavingbehindamoreflexibleapproachthatcapturesthebestofahighthresholdformostresolutionsandapracticalwaytoresolvecon-cernsaboutrenewalandrepair.

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

434.SeeNewBrunswick:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote24,ss19(7),27(13),32(3)(60per-cent);PrinceEdwardIsland:CondominiumAct,supranote24,ss13(1),19(662/3percent);NovaScotia:CondominiumAct,supranote24,ss14(1C),14(3A)(662/3percent),23(1)(60percent);NewfoundlandandLabrador:CondominiumAct,2009,supranote24,ss18(3),35(1)(66percent);Yukon:CondominiumAct,supranote24,ss12(1),16(1),19(2),22(1)(662/3percent);NorthwestTerritoriesandNunavut:CondominiumAct,supranote24,s17(1)“specialresolution”(662/3percent).

435.SeeCondominiumPropertyAct,supranote24,s1(1)(x).SeealsoCondominiumPropertyAmendmentAct,2014,supranote29,ss2(a)(xiii)(amendingCondominiumPropertyAct,s1(1)(x)),17(addingnews26.4)(bothretainingcurrentthreshold—notinforce).

436.SeeTheCondominiumAct,supranote24,s1(1)“specifiedpercentage”(b).

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

438.Ontario’slegislationappearstolackanyintermediatethresholdbetweenamajorityvoteandan80-percentvote.

439.Seesupranote428.



The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteebelievesthatthecurrent3/4-votethresholdworksreasonablywellinpractice.Itwasreluctanttoendorsewhatcouldbeadisruptivechangetoit.Astrongmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendation.Thecommitteerecommends:55.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotchangethevotingthresholdforallresolutionsrequiringpassagebya3/4vote.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.440Oneprovisioninthissectionaddressesvotingbyballot.Itallowsaneli-giblevotertocompelastratacorporationtoholdavotebysecretballot:“[d]espiteanythinginthissection,anelectionofcounciloranyothervotemustbeheldbyse-cretballot,ifthesecretballotisrequestedbyaneligiblevoter.”Asupreme-courtdecisionhasinterpretedthisprovisionascallingforvotingproce-duresthatareanalogoustothoseusedbylabourunions.441Afternotingtheabsenceofvotingbooths,442andagenerallackofprivacyincastingvotes,443thecourtcon-cludedthat“thevotewasnotconductedbysecretballotandthepetitionersareenti-tledtoadeclarationthatthevote...isnullandvoid....”444

440.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s27.

441.SeeImbeauvOwnersStrataPlanNW971,2011BCSC801atpara22[Imbeau],TruscottJ(“Iseenomaterialdifferencebetweentheimportanceofasecretballotataunionelectionandtheim-portanceofasecretballotforaspecialresolutionatastratacorporationmeeting,wherethatmethodofvotingwasrequiredbytheChairofthemeeting.”).SeealsoTheOwners,StrataPlanNW2243vCole,2018BCCRT823atparas113–116(recentexampleofdisputeoverholdingavotebysecretballot).

442.Seeibidatpara24.

443.Seeibidatpara26.

444.Ibidatpara28.



Itcouldbearguedthattheunionmodelforholdingsecretballotsplacestoomanyadministrativeburdensonastratacorporationandisoutofstepwithvotingproce-dureincorporategeneralmeetings.Shouldsection27ofthestandardbylawsbeamendedtodoawaywiththereferencetosecretbeforeballot?Discussion of options for reform Eliminatingsecretinsection27wouldrelieveadefaultrequirementthathasthepo-tentialtoimposesignificantcostsandadministrativeburdensonastratacorpora-tion.FewstratacorporationswouldbepreparedtomeetthestandardforasecretballotsetoutintheImbeaucase.But,sinceaslittleasonevotercaninvokethere-quirementtoholdasecretballot,intheoryastratacorporationshouldalwaysbereadytomeetthisstandard;otherwise,itrunstheriskofacourtdeclaringanyvotetakentobenullandvoid.Thismeansthat,inordertoensurecompliancewiththestandardbylaw,stratacorporationsshouldeitherconductgeneralmeetingsorbereadytoconductgeneralmeetingswiththehighlevelofformalityandvotingpriva-cythatmarkslabour-unionvotes.Asecondconcernaboutthereferencetoasecretballotisthatit’soutofstepwithordinarypracticeforcorporatemeetings.Typically,corporatelegislationandbylawsallowashareholderormembertodemandthatavotebetakenbyapoll.445(Apollis“[t]hecastingorrecordingofvotesbyballotofshareholdersatameeting.”)446Asatextbookoncorporatemeetingsnotes,themeetingchairhasdiscretiontodeterminethemechanicsofvotingbypoll.447Usually,ballotsareusedforthepoll,butevenmoreinformalprocedures(suchasvotinglists)areacceptable.448Votingbypolldoesn’timplythelevelofformalityandprivacythathasbeenheldbythecourtstoapplytovotingbysecretballot.Theotherstrata-propertystatutesinCanadathat

445.Seee.g.BusinessCorporationsAct,supranote296,s173(2).ButnotethatBritishColumbia’stwo

othercorporatestatutesdorefertosecretballotsatgeneralmeetings.Themodelbylawspre-scribedundertheSocietiesAct,supranote296,allow“2ormorevotingmembers”orthemeet-ingchairtorequirevotingbysecretballot(seeSocietiesRegulation,supranote383,Schedule1ModelBylaws,s3.13).TheformofrulesprescribedbytheCooperativeAssociationActcontainsreferencestoboth:seesupranote353,ScheduleB,ss82–86(votingbypoll),s109(“Ifthenum-berofnomineesinanelectionfordirectorsexceedsthenumberofdirectorstobeelectedattheelection,theelectionofdirectorsmustbebysecretballot.”).

446.Nathan&Voore,supranote295atcix.

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

448.Seeibidat21-55to21-59.



addressthisissuerefertovotingbypollorananalogousterm,notbysecretbal-lot.449Allthatsaid,theremaybedisadvantagestoproposingthischange.Thesedisad-vantagestieintotheintereststhatasecretballotismeanttoprotect.Therationaleforrequiringasecretballotisthatstrata-corporationgovernancecanfunctionbetterifvotersknowtheirprivacycanbeprotected.Votersmightfeelin-hibitedandreluctanttocastapublicvoteonsensitiveissues.Initsdiscussionofstrata-propertyreforms,NSWFairTradingrecognizedthat“[s]omeownersmaychoosenottovoteonmotionsratherthanriskbeingostracisediftheyareseentovoteinacertainway.”450ItrecommendedamendingNewSouthWales’slegislationto“introduceoptionsforconductingsecretballots.”451The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthestandardbylaw,asithasbeeninterpreted,placestoogreatanadministrativeburdenonstratacorporations.Thebylawshouldbeamendedtobringitmoreintolinewithcorporatevotingpractices.Consultationrespondentsstronglyagreedwiththecommittee’sproposedreform.Thecommitteerecommends:56.Section27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldbeamendedbystrikingouttheword“secret”whereveritappearsandreplacingitwiththeword“written.”

449.SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote24,Appendix1,ss23–24(“poll”),Appen-

dix2,ScheduleA,ss21–22(“poll”);Saskatchewan,TheCondominiumPropertyRegulations,2001,RRScC-26.1,Reg2,Appendix,PartII(bylaws),ss24–25(“votebyunitfactors”);Manitoba,TheCondominiumAct,supranote24,s121(“recordedvote”);Ontario,CondominiumAct,1998,supranote24,s52(1)(“recordedvote”)(asamendedbyProtectingCondominiumVotersAct,2015,su-pranote29,Schedule1,s48(1)).


451.Ibid.



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.”452Ifsection27isamendedtorefertowrittenballots,thenshoulditrequiretheapprovalofamajorityofvoterstoauthor-izeawrittenballot?Discussion of options for reform Therationalefortheproposedchangeisthatitwouldensurethatamajoritysup-portsthechoicetouseawrittenballot.Theproposedchangewouldalsolimitthepossibilityofvoters’requestingsecretballotsforspitefulorfrivolousreasons.Butrequiringaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvotetoauthorizeawrittenballotwouldalsosignificantlyundercutonerationaleforhavingballots.Voterstendtocallforballotswhentheyfearthattheirpositiononaresolutionmaycausefrictionwithothervoters.Theballotprotectstheirprivacy,lettingthemvotetheirconsciencewithoutfearofreprisal.AcompromiseoptionbetweenthesetwowouldbetofollowtheapproachtakenintheSocietiesActmodelbylawsandrequirethatatleasttwoeligiblevotersorthemeetingchairmustrequestavotebywrittenballot.453Thisoptionwouldaddressconcernsaboutprotectingminorityinterests.Itwouldalsoservetocutdownonfrivolousrequests.Butitsdrawbackisthatitmightnotprovideenoughprotectionagainstfrivolousdemandsforaballot.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatcallingforavotebywrittenballotshouldrequiretheauthorizationofamajorityofeligiblevoters,unlessthevoterelatestoastrata-councilelection.Amajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendationforthisissue.452.StrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s27(7).

453.SeeSocietiesRegulation,supranote383,Schedule1ModelBylaws,s3.13.




57.Section27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatastratacorporationisonlyrequiredtoholdavotebywrittenballotifitisauthorizedtodosobyaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvote,unlessthevoteisanelectiontothestratacouncil.Thecommitteenotedthatimplementingthesetworecommendationswouldrequireaconsequentialamendmenttosection27(7)oftheScheduleofStandardBylaws,454strikingoutthewords“oranyothervote.”

Issues for Reform—Strata-Council Elections Introduction Oneofthemajordecisionseligiblevotersmakeatageneralmeetingisdecidingwhoisgoingtoserveonthestratacouncil.Thestratacorporationmustmakethisdeci-sionbyholdinganelectionforcouncilateachannualgeneralmeeting.455Apartfromthisrequirementtoholdanannualelectionforcouncilandsomebasicprovisionsoneligibilityforcouncil,456theacthaslittleelsetosayaboutstrata-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.”457TheSupremeCourtofBritishColumbiahasheldthat,sinceelectionisn’tadefinedterm,it“canin-cludechoosinganindividualorindividualsbyacclamation”and,despitesec-

454.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s27(7)(“Despiteanything

inthissection,anelectionofcounciloranyothervotemustbeheldbysecretballot,ifthesecretballotisrequestedbyaneligiblevoter.”).

455.SeeStrataPropertyAct,ibid,s25.

456.Seeibid,s28.

457.Ibid,s25.



tion50(1)oftheact,458avalidelectiondoesn’trequirepassingaresolutionbyama-jorityvote.459Thepracticeofelectingindividualstoastratacouncilbyacclama-tion460hasbeencriticizedasunderminingstrata-corporationgovernance,entrench-ingcontrolbyunrepresentativecliques.Shouldtheactrequirevotingoneachcandidateforstratacouncil?Discussion of options for reform Themainadvantageofthisproposedreformisthatitensureseligibleownersgetanopportunitytoevaluateeachcandidateforstratacouncil.Theproposalactsasasafeguardagainstanentiregroupbeingacclaimedasthecouncilwithoutindividualconsideration.Thissituationhasthepotentialtoentrenchacliqueinpowerortoal-lowpeopleontocouncilwhomtheownersmightfeelpressuredtosupportinordertoretainotherpeopleinthegroup.Theproposalmightalsohelptopromoteac-countabilityofindividualcouncilmemberstotheowners.461Thelastpointintheprecedingparagraphcameupinarecentlaw-reformprojectconsideringamendmentstothefederalfor-profitcorporatestatute.Thisprojecten-dorsedindividualelectionofdirectors,requiringmajorityapprovalforeach.Legisla-

458.Seeibid,s50(1)(“Atanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting,mattersaredecidedbymajorityvote

unlessadifferentvotingthresholdisrequiredorpermittedbytheActortheregulations.”).

459.YangvRe/MaxCommercialRealtyAssociates(482258BCLtd),2016BCSC2147atpara114,PunnettJ.

460.=“Electionofaslateofdirectorswherethenumberofnomineesisequalto(orlessthan)thenumberofdirectorstobeelected.”SeeNathan,supranote311atxi.

461.SeeIndustryCanada,Corporate,Insolvency,andCompetitionLawPolicy,ConsultationontheCanadaBusinessCorporationsAct(December2013)at6,online:<www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cilp-pdci.nsf/vwapj/CBCA_Consultation.pdf/$file/CBCA_Consultation.pdf>[perma.cc/ZEC3-MFG8].



tiveamendmentstoimplementthisproposalforpubliclytradedcorporations462wererecentlyadoptedbyparliament.463Thisfederallaw-reformprojectalsonotedadownsidetothisproposal.Theproject’sconsultationpaperpointedoutthat“concernhasbeenexpressedthatsuchprovi-sionsmayresultin‘failedelections,’whereinnocandidatereceivesamajorityandtheboardofdirectorsdoesnotachievethenecessaryquorumtoconductcorporatebusiness.”464Asimilarconcernwithfailedelectionscouldariseforstratacorpora-tions,particularlysmallerstratacorporations.Theproposalwouldalsomakecoun-cilelectionsmarginallymorecomplicated.Theywouldtakeupmoretimeatagen-eralmeeting.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteewasinfavourofamendingtheacttoclarifyelectionofstrata-councilmembers.Itwasconcernedaboutthepotentialforabusesandirregularitiestoarisefromthecurrentlaw.Thecommitteeconsideredthemechanicsofproposedreform.Itdecidednottogoasfarasrecommendationsmadeforbusinesscorporationsatthefederallevel.Adopt-ingthoserecommendationsforstratacorporationswouldrequirearesolutionpassedbyamajorityvoteforeachcouncilmember.Inthecommittee’sview,requir-ingseparateresolutionsforeachstrata-councilmemberwouldcreatedifficulties,couldbogdownmeetings,andcouldfosterconflict.Thecommitteefavouredrequir-ingsimplythatcouncilmemberscommandthemajorityofballotscast.Thisap-proachwouldaddsufficientclaritytocouncilelections.

462.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).

463.SeeAnActtoamendtheCanadaBusinessCorporationsAct,theCanadaCooperativesAct,theCan-adaNot-for-profitCorporationsActandtheCompetitionAct,SC2018,c8,s13(1)(amendingCanadaBusinessCorporationsAct,supranote388,toadds106(3.3)and(3.4)—notinforce).

464.SeeConsultationontheCanadaBusinessCorporationsAct,supranote461at6.



Sizablemajoritiesofconsultationrespondents,inboththefullandsummaryconsul-tations,agreedwiththecommittee’sproposalonthisissue.Thecommitteerecommends:58.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirethateachstrata-councilmembermustbeelectedbyamajorityoftheballotscast.Should the Strata Property Act address the number of council members required? Brief description of the issue TheStrataPropertyActdoesn’taddressthenumberofstrata-councilmembersastratacorporationmusthave.Thestandardbylawsdoprovidethat“thecouncilmusthaveatleast3andnotmorethan7members.”465Butthisisadefaultprovi-sion,whichastratacorporationisfreetoamend.466Shouldtheactprovidemoreguidanceonthenumberofcouncilmembersthatastratacorporationmustelect?Discussion of options for reform Theoptionsforthisissuearemoreopenendedthanthoseforpreviousissues.Oneoptiontoconsideriswhetherthenumbersintherangeshouldbechanged.Forexample,smallstratacorporationsmayfindithardtorecruitthreememberstocouncilandendupoperating(inbreachoftheirbylaws)withjusttwocouncilmem-bers.Amemberofthepublichasaskedthecommitteetoconsiderrecommendingthattherequirednumberofmembersbeloweredtotwo.467

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

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

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

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



NSWFairTradinghaslookedattheothernumberintherange.468Afternotingthatthe“Actcurrentlysetsanupperlimitofnineforthenumberofpeoplewhocanbeappointedtothecommittee,”itsuggested“thereisnoclearreasonwhyanupperlimitneedstobeprovidedforinthelaw.”469Initsview,removingtheupperlimitwouldreflectthediversityofstratacorporationsandhandsomepowerbacktoowners.470Thepositionpaperendeduprecommendingallowingstratacorporations“toappointasmanypeopleastheywishtothecommitteeprovidedthatatleastthreepeopleareappointedtothecommitteeinlargeschemes.”471Therearedisadvantagestoconsiderforallthreeproposals.Loweringtheminimumnumberofcouncilmemberswouldmakeitslightlyeasierforasmall,unrepresenta-tivegrouptowieldpower.Itmightalsobeseenasastepbackingovernancestand-ards,asitwouldmeanfewereyesprovidingoversightandfeweropinionstoconsid-erinmakingdecisions.Andremovingtheupperlimitonthenumberofcouncilmembersthatmaybeelectedcouldresultinsomestratacorporationsendingupwithlarge,unwieldycouncils.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedidnotfavourmakinganychangestoaddressthenumberofmem-bersthatmustbeelectedtoastratacouncil.Astrongmajorityofconsultationre-spondentsagreedwiththecommittee.Thecommitteerecommends:59.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoaddressthenumberofmembersthatmustbeelectedtocouncil.

468.SeeStrataTitleLawReform:Strata&CommunityTitleLawReformPositionPaper,supranote26

at7–8.InNewSouthWales’sterminology,acommitteeiswhatBritishColumbiacallsastratacouncilandaschemeisastrataplan.

469.Ibidat7–8.

470.Ibidat8(“Therearemanydifferenttypesofstrataschemeandownerscorporationsshouldbeabletoappointasmanycommitteemembersasisnecessarytoeffectivelyadministertheschemeandtoprovidesuitablerepresentation.”).

471.Ibidat7.



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;[and](c)tenantswho...havebeenassignedalandlord’srighttostandforcoun-cil.”472Giventheresponsibilitiesofstrata-councilmembers,473shouldtheactestablishqualificationsthemustbemetbyapersonwhowantstobeacouncilmember?Discussion of options for reform Settingoutstatutoryqualificationsforstrata-councilmemberswasonepartofama-jorsetofreformsproposedinOntario’sCondominiumActreview.474Thereview’sfi-nalreportsetoutthefollowingreasonsforthisrecommendation:

Becausecondoownerscomefromallwalksoflife,manyhavelittleornoexperienceservingonaboardofdirectorsordealingwiththeissuesthataboardmustaddress.Boardinexperiencecreatesrisksforcondocommunities.Itcanleadtopoordecisionsonrepairs,investmentsorinsurancecoverage.Itcanalsomakedirectorsvulnerabletomoresavvymanagers,lawyers,contractorsorevenotherdirectorswhomaytrytotakeadvantageoftheirinexperience.475

Statutoryqualificationscanalsoprotectstratacorporationsfromhavingunscrupu-louspeopletakepositionsontheircouncils.Ontarioacceptedthisrecommendationandincludedaprovisiononstatutoryquali-ficationsinitsProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015.476Whenthebulkofthe

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

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

473.Seeibid,s31.

474.SeeGrowingUp:Ontario’sCondominiumCommunitiesEnteraNewEra:CondominiumActReviewStageTwoSolutionsReport,supranote27at41–42.Inadditiontostatutoryqualifications,thereportalsorecommendedtrainingforcouncilmembersandtermlimits.

475.Ibidat41.

476.Supranote29.



provisionsofthatactcameintoforceon1November2017,thisprovisionbecameapartofOntario’sCondominiumAct,1998:

Qualifications

29. (1) Nopersonshallbeadirectorif,

(a) thepersonisnotanindividual;

(b) thepersonisunder18yearsofage;

(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.477

477.Ibid,s27(repealss29oftheCondominiumAct,1998,supranote24andreplacesitwiththisnew

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-



WhiletheOntarioprovisionbreaksnewgroundforstratacorporations,similarpro-visionsarecommonlyfoundinCanadianfor-profit478andnot-for-profit479corporatestatutes.Themaindisadvantageofsuchstatutoryqualificationsisthattheycanmakeitthatmuchhardertorecruitpeopletoserveoncouncil.And,asthestage-tworeportforOntario’sCondominiumActreviewnoted,“thereisalsoariskofmakingtheroleofadirectorsodemandingthatownersarediscouragedfromstandingforoffice.”480The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteewasawareofneedingtowalkafinelineonthisissue.Theabsenceofstatutoryqualificationsforstrata-councilmembersopensthedoortoahostofpo-tentialproblemsforstrata-corporationgovernance.Butatoo-ambitioussetofquali-ficationswouldlikelyimpairtherecruitmentofcouncilmembers,whichwouldcauseitsownsetofconcerns.Forthecommittee,thebalanceisbeststruckbytakingacautiousapproachandusingestablishedcriteriafromotherBritishColumbiacor-poratestatutes.Inthisvein,thecommitteehasmodelleditsproposalsonthequalifi-cationsfordirectorsfoundintherecentlyenactedSocietiesAct.Thevastmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendationonthisissue.

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

478.Seee.g.BusinessCorporationsAct,supranote296,s124.

479.Seee.g.SocietiesAct,supranote296,s44.

480.Supranote27at41.




60.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-ardBylaws481issubjecttocompliancewiththestatutoryqualificationsforcouncilmembers.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.482Sometimesthiselectiondoesn’tresultinacouncilthathasthemaximumnumberofcouncilmembersallowedforthestratacorporation.483Inothercases,councilmem-bersareremovedbytheowners484ortheyresignbetweenannualgeneralmeet-ings.485Whenthesethingsoccur,thereisonlyalimitedpowertoelectanewcouncilmem-berataspecialgeneralmeeting.Thispoweronlyappliesifacouncilmemberisre-movedataspecialgeneralmeetingandthestratacorporationhasn’tamendedthestandardbylawthatreads:“[a]fterremovingacouncilmember,thestratacorpora-tionmustholdanelectionatthesameannualorspecialgeneralmeetingtoreplace

481.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s9(2)(“Ifthestrataplanhas

fewerthan4stratalotsorthestratacorporationhasfewerthan4owners,alltheownersareonthecouncil.”).

482.SeeStrataPropertyAct,ibid,s25.

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

484.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s11.

485.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s12.



thecouncilmemberfortheremainderoftheterm.”486If“acouncilmemberresignsorisunwillingorunabletoactforaperiodof2ormoremonths,”thenthestandardbylawprovidesthat“theremainingmembersofthecouncilmayappointareplace-mentcouncilmemberfortheremainderoftheterm.”487Thereisnoprovisionintheactorthestandardbylawsforholdingacouncilelectionataspecialgeneralmeetingtofillplacesleftunoccupiedaftertheelectionheldattheannualgeneralmeeting.Shouldtheactbeamendedtogivestratacorporationsmorepowertoelectcouncilmembersatspecialgeneralmeetings?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 recommendation for reform Thecommitteefavouredgivingstratacorporationstheflexibilitytoelectadditionalcouncilmembersataspecialgeneralmeeting.Suchareformwouldsolvesomeproblems.Forexample,astratacorporation’sbylawsmightprovidethatitmusthavefourcouncilmembers,butduetoanoversightorconfusionattheannualgen-eralmeetingthestratacorporationmighthaveonlyelectedonlythreecouncilmem-bers.Havingtheoptiontoelectcouncilmembersataspecialgeneralmeetingwouldgivethestratacorporationawaytofixthisproblem.Thecommitteeisawarethattheproposedreformwouldmakeitsomewhathardertoidentifycouncilmembersfor,forexample,thepurposesofclientidentification486.Ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s11(2).

487.Ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s12(1).



(forlawyers)andlendingtransactions.Properidentificationwouldrequireproduc-ingminutesofanyspecialgeneralmeeting,inadditiontominutesofthelastannualgeneralmeeting.Inthecommittee’sview,theadvantagesoftheproposaloutweighitsdisadvantages.Astrongmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’spro-posal.Thecommitteerecommends:

61.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.488Astheremaybeconcernsaboutthecontentsandorderofthislist,isthereaneedtoamendanypartofit?Discussion of options for reform Thisispotentiallyanopen-endedissue,butatfirstglanceitcomesdowntoastraightforwardyes-or-noquestion:shouldsection28ofthestandardbylawsbeamended?Theanswertothisquestionturnsonwhetheramendmentswouldpro-videpracticalbenefitsforgeneralmeetings.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteereviewedsection28indetailandfoundittobeinneedofimprove-ment.Inthecommittee’sview,thesectioncanbeimprovedbyamendingitswordinganditssequencing.Thecommontermthatisusedtodescribetheorderofbusinessatanannualorspe-cialgeneralmeetingisagenda.Whilethebylawincludestheapprovaloftheagenda,theagendaisreferredtoastheorderofbusiness,whichisasequenceofproceduresstratacorporationsarerequiredtofollow,unlesstheyhaveamendedthebylaw.Inthecommittee’sview,thispointshouldbeclarifiedbyreferringinthebylawtoagenda.Thecommitteeisalsooftheviewthatre-orderingthesequenceofagendaitemswillbetterreflectbestpracticesforgeneralmeetings.Consultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendationbyawidemargin.Thecommitteerecommends:62.Section28oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldbeamendedsothattheagendaatanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeetingisasfollows:(a)registereligiblevotersandissuevotingcards;(b)callthemeetingtoorder;(c)electapersontochairthemeeting,ifnecessary;(d)certifyproxies;(e)determinethatthereisaquorum;(f)presentproofofnoticeofmeeting;(g)approvetheorderoftheagenda;(h)approvetheminutesofthemostrecentgeneralmeetingorwaiverof

488.Ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s28.



noticeofmeeting;(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.Should the Strata Property Act require circulation of general-meeting minutes? Brief description of the issue WhilethereisaprovisionintheScheduleofStandardBylawsthatcallsfordistribu-tionoftheminutesofstrata-councilmeetings,489noequivalentrequirementexistsintheactorthestandardbylawsforminutesofgeneralmeetings.490Shouldtheactbeamendedtomakeitclearthatthereisarequirementtocirculategeneral-meetingminutes?Discussion of options for reform Thereareessentiallytwooptionsforthisissue.Eithertheactshouldbeamendedoritshouldbeleftasis.Makingcirculationofgeneral-meetingminutesalegislativerequirementwouldsup-porttransparencyandgoodgovernance.Itwouldalsoaddressapotentialanomalyinwhichdistributionofstrata-councilmeetingminutesisrequiredwhilenoparallelrequirementexistsforgeneral-meetingminutes.Thepotentialdownsidetothisoptionwouldbethatit’spossiblynotnecessary.Gen-eral-meetingminutestendtobecirculatedinmoststratacorporations.Iftheywere

489.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s19(“Thecouncilmustinformownersoftheminutesof

allcouncilmeetingswithin2weeksofthemeeting,whetherornottheminuteshavebeenap-proved.”).Seealso,above,at42–43(committee’srecommendationforreformregardingsec-tion19).

490.SeeMichaelsvTheOwners,StrataPlanNW526,2018BCCRT917atpara15.



notinagivencase,thenastrata-lotownerwouldbeentitledtorequirethestratacorporationtograntaccesstothem.491The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteereviewedanumberofpointsaspartofitsconsiderationofthisissue.First,itdecidedthattheterminologyof“informing”ownersandothersofminutesthatappearselsewhereintheact492wouldbetoovagueanduncertainforwhatithasinmindhere.Thecommitteepreferredanyprovisionitproposedtousethetermcirculated.Inthecommittee’sview,circulatehasabroadmeaning,whichwouldembraceeverythingfrompostingonawebsitetoemailtoslippingapapercopyoftheminutesunderadoor.Second,thecommitteewasconcernedaboutthetimingrequirement.Itdecidedthatthreeweekswouldbeanappropriateperiodinwhichtocirculatethemeetingminutes.Thisperiodwouldbeharmonizedwiththecommittee’srecommendationforstrata-council-meetingminutes.493Finally,thecommitteeconsideredwhetherthisrequirementshouldbeastandardbylaworalegislativeprovision.Thecommitteepreferredthattherequirementbesetoutinlegislation.Onereasonforthispreferencewastoensurethatitsstandardperiodforcirculatingminuteswouldn’tbevaried.Themajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’sproposalforthisissue.Thecommitteerecommends:63.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirecirculationofminutesofageneralmeetingwithinthreeweeksofthemeeting,whetherornottheminuteshavebeenapproved.491.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,ss35(1)(“[t]hestratacorporationmustprepareallofthe

followingrecords:(a)minutesofannualandspecialgeneralmeetingsandcouncilmeetings,in-cludingtheresultsofanyvotes”),36(1)(“Onreceivingarequest,thestratacorporationmustmaketherecordsanddocumentsreferredtoinsection35availableforinspectionby,andpro-videcopiesofthemto,(a)anowner,(b)atenantwho,undersection147or148,hasbeenas-signedalandlord'srighttoinspectandobtaincopiesofrecordsanddocuments,or(c)apersonauthorizedinwritingbyanownerortenantreferredtoinparagraph(a)or(b).”).

492.Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s19(“Thecouncilmustinformownersoftheminutesofallcouncilmeetings....”).

493.See,above,at42–43.



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.”494Inlightoftheprecedingdiscussion,doanyaspectsofthisprovisioncallforchanges?Discussion of options for reform Theoptionsforreformaretoharmonizesection106withthecommittee’sproposalforcirculationofgeneral-meetingminutesortoleaveitasis.The committee’s recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,section106isastraightforwardcaseofneedingaconse-quentialamendment.Leavingthesection’scurrenttimingruleinplacewouldsetupaconflictwiththecommittee’sproposedrequirementtodistributegeneral-meetingminutes.Themajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendation.Thecommitteerecommends:64.Section106oftheStrataPropertyAct,whichdealswithinformingownersofchangestostratafees,shouldbeamendedbystrikingout“2weeksfollowingtheannu-alorspecialgeneralmeetingatwhichabudgetispassed”andreplacingitwith“3weeksfollowingtheannualorspecialgeneralmeetingatwhichabudgetispassed.”

494.Supranote4,s106.



Chapter 6. Finances Background Background information on strata-corporation finances ThewellspringofmostfinancialissuesundertheStrataPropertyAct495istheact’sallocationtothestratacorporationofresponsibility“formanagingandmaintainingthecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporationforthebenefitoftheowners.”496Asaconsequenceofthisresponsibility,the“stratacorporationisre-sponsibleforthecommonexpensesofthestratacorporation.”497Theactdefinescommonexpensesbroadlytomeanexpenses

• relatingtothecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporation,or

• requiredtomeetanyotherpurposeorobligationofthestratacorporation.498Asonecommentatorhasplainlysaid,payingforcommonexpensesmeansthatastratacorporation“spendsalotofmoney.”499Andastratacorporation“raisesthatmoneymostlythroughthemonthlycontributions(‘stratafees’)paidbyitsmem-bers—‘owners.’”500TheStrataPropertyActandtheStrataPropertyRegulation501containanarrayofprovisionsthatgovernhowastratacorporationcollectsmoneyfromstrata-lotown-ersandhowitspendsthatmoney.Scope of this chapter Part6oftheStrataPropertyActdealswith“finances,”settingoutthefollowingdivi-sions:

• operatingfundandcontingencyreservefund;

495.Supranote4.

496.Ibid,s3.

497.Ibid,s91.

498.Ibid,s1(1)“commonexpenses.”


500.Ibid.

501.Supranote8.



• contributiontoexpenses;

• budgets;

• specialleviesanduserfees;

• borrowingpowersofstratacorporation;

• moneyowingtostratacorporation.Commentatorsdiscussingfinancialissueshavetackledsubjectssuchasprovisionsonastratacorporation’stworequiredfunds(operatingandcontingencyreserve),speciallevies,borrowing,userfees,collectionofmoneyowingtoastratacorpora-tion,andexpenseallocation.502Thecommitteehasalreadypaidextensiveattentiontoexpenseallocation,whichwasafundamentalpartofthecommittee’sReportonComplexStratas,publishedin2017.503Othertopics,suchasborrowinganduserfees,weren’tidentifiedaspress-ingconcerns.Drawingonthecommittee’sassessmentofpressingreformissues,thischaptercon-sidersthefollowingcategoriesofissuesforitsdiscussionofstrata-corporationfi-nances:

• operatingfund;

• speciallevies;

• budgets;

• financialstatements;

• contracts;

• regulatoryprovisionsonfinesandfees;

• limitationperiodandcollections.

502.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§§7.1–7.53;Fanaken,su-

pranote34at67–95;Mangan,supranote34at167–223.

503.Supranote17.



Issues for Reform—Operating Fund Introduction TheStrataPropertyActrequiresastratacorporationtohaveatleasttwofunds:anoperatingfundandacontingencyreservefund.504Theactrequireseachstratacor-porationto“establish”andeachstrata-lotownerto“contribute,bymeansofstratafees,”tothisoperatingfund.505Thepurposeoftheoperatingfundistopayfor“commonexpensesthat”:

• usuallyoccureitheronceayearormoreoftenthanonceayear,or

• arenecessarytoobtainadepreciationreportundersection94.506Inotherwords,theoperatingfund“isintendedtopayforroutineexpensesofastra-tacorporation[;]thecourtshavegenerallyheldthatextraordinaryexpensesshouldbepaidoutofthecontingencyreservefundoraspeciallevy.”507Thispointisunder-scoredlaterintheactbyasectionthatprovidesthatastratacorporation“mustnotspendmoneyfromtheoperatingfundunlesstheexpenditureisconsistentwiththepurposesofthefund.”508Should 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-

504.Supranote4,s92.

505.Ibid,s92.

506.Ibid,s92(a).


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



ingatimingrulemaynotbethebestwaytodefinetheseexpenses.509Istherean-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.”Alberta510andSas-katchewan511dohaveprovisionssettingoutthepurposesoftheirequivalentstothe

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

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

510.SeeCondominiumPropertyAct,supranote24,s39(1):“InadditiontoitsotherpowersunderthisAct,thepowersofacorporationincludethefollowing:(a)toestablishafundforadministra-tiveexpensessufficient,intheopinionofthecorporation,forthecontrol,managementandad-ministrationofthecommonproperty,forthepaymentofanypremiumsofinsuranceandforthedischargeofanyotherobligationofthecorporation”).SeealsoCondominiumPropertyAmend-mentAct,2014,supranote29,s30(“Section39isrepealedandthefollowingissubstituted:38.1Subjecttotheregulations,acorporationshall,fromfundsleviedundersection39(1)(a)or(b),establishandmaintainanoperatingaccounttobeusedtoprovidesufficientfundsfor(a)thecontrol,managementandadministrationoftherealandpersonalpropertyofthecorporation,thecommonpropertyandmanagedproperty,and(b)thepaymentofanyotherobligationofthecorporation,thatarenotrequiredtobepaidoutofthereservefund.”[notinforce]).

511.SeeTheCondominiumPropertyAct,1993,supranote24,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.512Theirlegislationsimplyrequiresastratacorporationtohaveanoperatingfund.513Legisla-tivepurposesareonlyappliedtothecontingencyreservefund.514Sobydefaulttheoperatingfundistheresidualfundunderthesestatutes,inthesensethatitcanbe

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

512.TheexceptionsareNewBrunswickandPrinceEdwardIsland.NewBrunswick’slegislationonlycontainsasimpleenablingprovision,clearingthewayforastratacorporationtohaveacontin-gencyreservefund,ifitwantsone.SeeCondominiumPropertyAct,supranote24,s41(“Acorpo-rationmayestablishacontingencyfundtobeusedforthepurposesspecifiedintheby-laws.”).PrinceEdwardIsland’sCondominiumAct,supranote24,doesn’thaveanyprovisionsdealingwithastratacorporation’sfunds.

513.SeeManitoba:TheCondominiumAct,supranote24,s138(2)(“Thecondominiumcorporationmustestablishandmaintainafundforthepaymentofcommonexpenses,referredtoasthe‘commonexpensesfund.’”);Ontario:CondominiumAct,1998,supranote24,s115(2)(“Acorpo-rationshallmaintainoneormoreaccountsinitsnamedesignatedasgeneralaccountsandoneormoreaccountsinitsnamedesignatedasreservefundaccounts.”),ProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,supranote29,Sched1,s101(2)(amendss115(2)—notinforce);Québec:art1064CCQ(“Eachco-ownercontributesinproportiontotherelativevalueofhisfractiontotheexpensesarisingfromtheco-ownershipandfromtheoperationoftheimmovableandthecontingencyfundestablishedunderarticle1071....”);NovaScotia:CondominiumAct,supranote24,s31(1)(“Thecorporation(a)shallestablishanoperatingfundforthepaymentofthecommonexpensestowhichfundtheownersshallcontributeinproportionsspecifiedinthedec-laration”);NewfoundandLabrador:CondominiumAct,2009,supranote24,s48(“Thecorpora-tion(a)shallestablishanoperatingfundforthepaymentofthecommonexpensesandtheown-ersshallcontributetothatfundinproportionsspecifiedinthedeclaration”);Yukon:Condomini-umAct,supranote24,s14(1):“Thecorporationshall(a)establishafundforthepaymentofcommonexpenses,towhichfundownersshallcontributeinproportionsspecifiedinthedecla-ration”);NorthwestTerritoriesandNunavut:CondominiumAct,supranote24,s19.9(1)(“Acorporation(a)shallestablishandmaintainfundsforthepaymentofthecommonexpensestowhichtheownersshallcontributeintheproportionsspecifiedinthedeclaration”).

514.SeeManitoba:TheCondominiumAct,supranote24,s143;Ontario:CondominiumAct,1998,su-pranote24,s93(2),ProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,supranote29,Sched1,s84(1)(repealss93(2)andreplacesitwithanewprovision—notinforce);Québec:art1071CCQ;No-vaScotia:CondominiumAct,supranote24,s31(1A);NewfoundandLabrador:CondominiumAct,2009,supranote513,s49(1);NorthwestTerritoriesandNunavut:CondominiumAct,supranote24,s19.10(2).



usedforallexpensesofthestratacorporation,exceptforthoseexpresslyearmarkedforpaymentoutofthecontingencyreservefund.BritishColumbiaisalsouniqueinapplyingatimingruletotheoperatingfund.Otherprovincesdoadoptasimilartimingrule(basedonwhethertheexpensearisesmoreoftenthanonceayear),buttheyuseitinadifferentway.Intheseprovinces,thetim-ingruleispartofaseriesofcriteriathatdefinethepurposesofthecontingencyre-servefund.515Indeed,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.516

And,asanexampleofthisapproachwithoutthetimingrule,hereisNewfoundlandandLabrador’sprovision:

Thecorporationshallestablishandmaintainareservefundformajorrepairandre-placementofthecommonelementsandassetsofthecorporationincluding,whereap-

515.SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote24,s38(1);Saskatchewan:TheCondomini-

umPropertyAct,1993,supranote24,s55(3);Manitoba:TheCondominiumAct,supranote24,s143.

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



plicable,roofs,exteriorsofbuildings,roads,sidewalks,sewers,heating,electricalandplumbingsystems,elevators,laundry,recreationalandparkingfacilities.517

DoesthislegislationprovideanyguidanceforreformsinBritishColumbia?Theleg-islationmayhavesomeadvantagesthatarelackingintheStrataPropertyAct’spro-visions.First,identifyingtheoperatingfundasaresidualfund—or,toputitinthenegativetermsusedinmostCanadianstatutes,notplacingarestrictiononhowtheoperatingfundmaybeused—couldhelpstratacorporationsthatarestrugglingwithborder-linecases.Aleadingpracticeguidehasnotedsomelitigationoverwhethermoneywaspaidoutoftheoperatingfundforexpensesthatwereconsistentwiththefund’sstatutorypurpose.518Theseborderlinecaseshaveinvolvedlegalexpenses519andwaterleaks.520Iftheoperatingfundwereclearlyidentifiedasthestratacorpora-tion’sresidualfund,thentherewouldn’tbecasesofexpensesfallingintogapsbe-tweentheoperatingfundandcontingencyreservefund.Thiswouldlikelyhelptoaddressanyconfusionoverwhetheranexpenseshouldbepaidforoutoftheoperat-ingfundorthecontingencyreservefund.AnotheradvantageoftheapproachusedelsewhereinCanadaisthatitmayprovidemoreguidanceforstratacorporations.AlthoughlegislationelsewhereinCanadatendstobewordierandthereforemorecomplexonthisissue,theadditionaldetailsfoundinthislegislationmighthelpstratacorporationsindeterminingwhetheranexpenseshouldbepaidforoutofthecontingencyreservefund.Thelegislationisof-tenwordierbecauseitprovidesconcreteexamples,whichmaybeaneffectiveaidtounderstandingtheprovision.Theremayalsobedownsidestothisapproach.Itsimplementationwouldresultinamorecomplicatedlegislativeprovision.Thisapproachalsoretainsanelementofjudgmentinitsapplication,asstratacorporationswouldhavetodeterminewhetherarepairqualifiedasa“major”repair.Thesequalitiesopenthequestionwhetherre-517.SeeCondominiumAct,2009,supranote24,s49(1).

518.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§7.4.

519.SeeDocksideBrewingCovTheOwners,StrataPlanLMS3837,2005BCSC1209atpara42,Ed-wardsJ(“Section97(a)oftheSPAprovidesthatastratacorporationmustnotspendmoneyfromtheoperatingfundunlessitisconsistentwiththepurposesofthefundsetoutins.92(a).PaymentofextraordinarylegalfeeslikelitigationexpenseincurredatthebehestoftheStrataCouncilisnotsuchapurpose.”),aff’d2007BCCA183,leavetoappealtoSCCrefused,[2007]SCCANo262(QL).

520.SeeStrataCorpLMS509vAndresen,2001BCSC201atpara51,SkippJ;NicolsonvSection1oftheOwnersStrataPlanVIS1098,2003BCSC1108.



formingthelegislationonoperatingfundswould,intheend,amounttomuchofagainforstratacorporations.Itisn’tclearthatthereisapressingproblemwiththecurrentprovision;atleast,thereappearstobenocommentarysuggestingthatitneedsreform.Changingthecurrentlegislationwouldcreatealearningcurveforstratacorporations,which,attheendofit,mightleavethemwonderingwhetherre-formwasworthwhile.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteewasawareofsomeconcernsaboutinterpretingandapplyingtheleg-islationdealingwiththestratacorporation’soperatingfund.Inthecommittee’sview,oneoftheconsoftheproposedreformshadparticularsali-ence.Thiswastheideathatanewprovisionwouldbringwithitalearningcurveforstratacorporations.Thisweighedsignificantlyagainstconsideringalegislativesolu-tiontoaproblemthatthecommitteeviewswithambivalence.Astrongmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’sap-proachtothisissue.Thecommitteerecommends:65.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtochangethepurposeofandcrite-riaforusingfundsinastratacorporation’soperatingfund.

Issues for Reform—Special Levies Introduction Theactallowsastratacorporationto“raisemoneyfromtheownersbymeansofaspeciallevy.”521Intheusualcase,aspeciallevymustbeapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote.522Inoneexceptionalcircumstance—inwhichastratacorpora-tionwantstoadoptamethodofcalculatingeachstratalot’sshareofthelevybysomeformulathatdiffersfromthedefaultformulabasedonunitentitlement523—thelevymustbeapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.524Inboth


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

523.Seeibid,ss99,100,195.

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



cases,theresolutiontoapprovethespeciallevymustdiscloseadetailedsetofin-formationaboutthelevy.525Theactalsosetssomegroundrulesformanagingthemoneycollected526onaspe-ciallevy.Thesegroundrulescoverissuesthatincludeaccountingfor,investing,andusingthemoneycollected.527Oneofthesegroundrules,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.”528Thereisanexceptiontothisprovi-sion.“[I]fnoownerisentitledtoreceivemorethan$100intotal,”then“thestratacorporationmaydeposittheexcessinthecontingencyreservefund.”529Thisone-size-fits-allprovisioncouldbeseenasbeingtoorigid.Shouldtheactbeamendedtogivestratacorporationsanotheroption—namely,depositingtheexcess

525.Seeibid,s108(3)(“Theresolutiontoapproveaspeciallevymustsetoutallofthefollowing:(a)

thepurposeofthelevy;(b)thetotalamountofthelevy;(c)themethodusedtodetermineeachstratalot’sshareofthelevy;(d)theamountofeachstratalot’sshareofthelevy;(e)thedatebywhichthelevyistobepaidor,ifthelevyispayableininstalments,thedatesbywhichthein-stalmentsaretobepaid.”).

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

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





intotheircontingencyreservefunds—fordealingwithanexcessofmoneycollect-ed?Discussion of options for reform Reformingtheactwouldhaveafewadvantages.Ifastratacorporationcouldplaceanyexcessmoneycollectedonaspeciallevyinitscontingencyreservefund,thenthiswouldgivethestratacorporationgreaterflexibilityindealingwiththatmoney.Itwouldalsostreamlineadministrationofspecialleviesinsomecases.Finally,alt-houghmostotherCanadianjurisdictionsdon’thavelegislationspecificallydirectingthestratacorporationonwhattodowithexcessmoneycollectedonaspeciallevy,Alberta’srecentreformstoitslegislationincludeaprovisiondirectingstratacorpo-rationsinthesecasestopaythemoneyintothecontingencyreservefund.530Thisisanindicationthatanotherjurisdictionhasconsideredtheissueandconcludedthattransferringexcessmoneycollectedonaspeciallevytothecontingencyreservefundisanacceptablepolicyoutcome.Buttheremayalsobedisadvantagestothisproposal.Strata-lotownerscouldfeelthatittakessomethingawayfromtheirbasketofindividualrightsinthecorpora-tion.Thepossibilitythatexcessmoneycollectedmightnotberefundedtotheown-erscouldmakeitmarginallyhardertopassaresolutionauthorizingaspeciallevyinthefirstplace.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteeviewedthecurrentlimitof$100asarchaic.Itpreferredtoaddressconcernsaboutthisprovisionbyraisingthelimit.Inthecommittee’sview,thefigureshouldbeprescribedbyregulation,whichwouldallowforittobemore-easilyup-datedtokeeppacewithchangingtimes.Itfavouredhavingtheregulationsetthefigureinitiallyat$500.Thecommitteewasawareoftheneedtostriketherightbalanceonthisissue.Set-tingtoohighafigureorgoingevenfurtherandtakingawaytheprospectofarefundmightleadstratacorporationstorejectneededspeciallevies.Themajorityofcon-sultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.530.SeeCondominiumPropertyAmendmentAct,2014,supranote29,s30(addingnewsec-

tion39.1(5)totheCondominiumPropertyAct,supranote24,whichreads:“Iftheamountcol-lectedexceedstheamountrequiredorforanyotherreasonisnotfullyusedforthepurposesetoutintheresolutionreferredtoinsubsection(1),thecorporationmustpaythemoneyintothereservefund.”[notinforce]).




66.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequire,ifthemoneycollectedonaspeciallevyex-ceedstheamountrequired,orforanyotherreasonisnotfullyusedforthepurposesetoutintheresolution,thestratacorporationtopaytoeachownerofastratalottheportionoftheunusedamountofthespeciallevythatisproportionaltothecontribu-tionmadetothespeciallevyinrespectofthatstratalot,unlessnoownerwouldbeen-titledtoreceivemorethananamountprescribedbyregulation(whichshouldinitiallybesetat$500)intotal,inwhichcasethestratacorporationmaydeposittheexcessinitscontingencyreservefund.

Issues for Reform—Budgets Introduction Astratacorporationmusthaveanannualbudget.531Amongotherthings,thebudgetguidesastratacorporation’sspendingintheupcomingfiscalyear.Italsosetsoutthetotalcontributiontothestratacorporation’soperatingfundandcontingencyre-servefund,andlistseachstratalot’smonthlycontributiontothosefunds.532Inordertotakeeffect,astratacorporation’sbudgetmustbeapprovedbythestrata-lotowners,byaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvote.(ThisisanotherinstanceinwhichBritishColumbia’slegislationstandsapartfromstrata-propertylegislationintherestofCanada.OutsideBritishColumbia,approvingabudgetanddealingwithfinancialmatterssuchassettingstratafeesis,asarecentSaskatchewancaseputit,“ataskfortheboard,nottheassociationasawhole.”)533Theactcontemplatesthatthisapprovaltakeplaceateachannualgeneralmeeting.534Theact’sprovisionforapprovalatanannualgeneralmeetinggeneratesthesoleissueforthispartofthechapter.

531.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s103(1).

532.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,s6.6.

533.SmookevRosemontEstateCondoCorp101222494,2017SKQB201atpara39,DanyliukJ(“Theplainwordsofss.57and58showthatthedeterminationofcondominiumfeesisataskfortheboard,nottheassociationasawhole.”).ButnotethatQuébec’slegislationcallsonasyndicate’sboardofdirectorstosetfees“afterconsultationwiththegeneralmeetingoftheco-owners.”Seeart1072CCQ.

534.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.”535Thisprovisionappearstosetarigidre-quirementthatthebudgetcanonlybepassedatanannualgeneralmeeting.Infact,theactalreadygivesstratacorporationssomeleewaytodealwiththebudgetataspecialgeneralmeeting.Mostnotably,ifthestratacorporationfailstopassabudgetatanannualgeneralmeeting,then“thestratacorporationmustwithin30days,orsuchlongerperiodasapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteatthemeeting,prepareanewbudgetandplaceitbeforeaspecialgeneralmeetingforap-provalbyaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvote.”536Andthereisnothingintheactthatappearstopreventastratacorporationfromamendingitsbudgetataspecialgeneralmeeting,apracticethatsomestratacorporationshaveapparentlyadoptedfromtimetotime.537Theonlyprocedurethatappearstobeoffsidetheactwouldbetobegintheprocessofapprovingabudgetatageneralmeetingthatwasn’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.

535.Ibid,s103(1).

536.Ibid,s104(1).

537.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§7.7(“Somestratacorpo-rationconvenespecialgeneralmeetingstoamendtheoperatingbudgetduringthefiscalyear.”).



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

67.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetorequirestratacorporationstoinitiatethebudget-approvalprocessonlyatanannualgeneralmeeting.Thecommitteewasn’tinfavourofhavingtheactexpresslyaddresswhetherabudg-etcouldbeamendedataspecialgeneralmeeting.Initsview,anexpressprovisioncouldendupactinglikeagreenlighttosomestratacorporationstoamendtheirbudgetsrepeatedlythroughoutthefinancialyear.Havingtheactremainsilentonthispointstruckthecommitteeasthebestoutcome.Whilethemajorityofconsultationrespondentsfavouredthecommittee’sapproachtothisissue,asignificantminoritypreferredlegislativereformtoexpresslyaddressthisissue.Thecommitteerecommends:68.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtopermitbudgetstobeamendedataspecialgeneralmeeting.



Issues for Reform—Financial Statements Introduction Astratacorporationmustdistributeafinancialstatementwiththe“noticeofthean-nualgeneralmeeting.”538Therequirementsforputtingtogetherthisfinancialstate-mentarefoundintheStrataPropertyRegulation.539Should the Strata Property Regulation be amended to provide a prescribed form for financial statements? Brief description of the issue Theactprovidesthatabudgetandfinancialstatement“mustcontaintheinfor-mationrequiredbytheregulations.”540Forfinancialstatements,thecentrepieceoftheregulation’srequirementsisthefollowinglistofinformationthatastratacorpo-ration’sannualfinancialstatementsmustcontain:

• theopeningbalanceintheoperatingfundandthecurrentbalance;

• theopeningbalanceinthecontingencyreservefundandthecurrentbalance;

• thedetailsofthestratacorporation’sincomefromallsources,exceptspeciallevies;

• thedetailsofexpendituresoutoftheoperatingfund,includingdetailsofanyunap-provedexpendituresundersection98oftheAct;

• thedetailsofexpendituresoutofthecontingencyreservefund,includingdetailsofanyunapprovedexpendituresundersection98oftheAct;

• incomeandexpenditures,ifany,byspeciallevyundersection108oftheAct.541(Aparallellistexistsintheregulationforbudgets.)542Theactalsoprovidesthatthebudgetandfinancialstatements“maybeintheformsetoutintheregulations.”543Butasaleadingpracticeguidehasnoted,“[a]tthepre-

538.StrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s103(2).

539.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,s6.7.

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


542.Seeibid,s6.6(1).

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



senttime,thereisnospecificformsetoutintheRegulation.”544Shouldthepowerenabledbythisprovisionbeexercisedbycreatingaprescribedformforstrata-corporationfinancialstatements?Discussion of options for reform Creatingaprescribedformforfinancialstatementscouldhelpstratacorporationsinmeetingtheirobligationsundersection103oftheact.Atleastonecommentatorhasnotedsomeconcernsaboutstratacorporations’meetingtheirobligationsundertheregulationtoincludespecificinformationinfinancialstatements.545Aprescribedformcouldhelptocombatthisproblem.Oneofthefunctionsoftheformcouldbetoguideoreducatestratacorporationsontheinformationthatmustbeincludedinfi-nancialstatements.This,inturn,couldleadtogreaterunderstandingbystrata-lotowners.Standardizingtheformatoffinancialstatementscouldalsomakeiteasiertocomparethefinancesofmultiplestratacorporations.Buttherewouldbedownsidestocreatingaprescribedform.Underthecurrentlaw,asaleadingpracticeguideobserved,“astratacorporationhasmuchflexibilityinthelayoutof[required]informationforpresentationtothestratalotowners.”546Creat-ingaprescribedformwouldrobstratacorporationsofthisflexibility.Aprescribedformisinevitablygoingtobeaone-size-fits-allsolutiontothisissue.Giventhedi-versityofstratacorporationsinBritishColumbia,thiscouldmeanthatsomestratacorporationswillhavetoforcetheirfinancialreportingintoaformatthatmightmakelittlesenseforthem.Inadditiontoconcernsaboutrigidity,creatingapre-scribedformislikelytobeadifficultdraftingexercise.ThesetworeasonslikelyexplainwhythepowertocreateaprescribedformthatisfoundintheStrataPropertyActhasn’tbeenexercised.Theyalsolikelyexplainwhystrata-propertylegislationelsewhereinCanadashiesawayfromcreatingapre-scribedformforfinancialstatements.Whenthatbodyoflegislationaddressestheissueoffinancialstatements,ittendstodosoinawaythatissimilartothecurrentapproachoftheStrataPropertyAct,whichistosetoutalistofrequirementsinthe


545.SeeFanaken,supranote34at82–83.SeealsoLinkvTheOwners,StrataPlanKAS828,2017BCCRT128atparas28–37(exampleofstratacorporationfailingtocomplywiththeactandtheregulationinthepreparationofitsfinancialstatements).




regulations.547BritishColumbiaandfederalcorporate-lawlegislationalsotakethisapproachtofinancialstatements.548Finally,creatingaprescribedformwouldraisetheconsequentialissueofwhattodoaboutbreachesoftheform.Useoftheformcouldbestrictlyenforced,butthiswouldresultinquestionsaboutthevalidityoffinancialstatementsthatmightcontainfor-malirregularities.Ontheotherhand,theformcouldbemadeanoptionalform,butthiscouldcallthewholereformeffortintoquestion.Exertingtheeffortneededtocreateaprescribedformthatstratacorporationsweren’trequiredtousecouldbeseenasresultinginlittleimprovementtothelaw,whichalreadyspellsoutindetailtheinformationthatisrequiredforfinancialstatements.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteewasn’tinfavourofcreatingaprescribedformoffinancialstate-ments.Inthecommittee’sview,thisproposedreformwouldtaketoorigidanap-proachtofinancialreporting.Whileasizableminorityofconsultationrespondentsdisagreedwiththecommitteeandfavouredthecreationofprescribedfinancialstatements,themajorityofre-spondentsdidsidewiththecommitteeonthisissue.547.SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote24,s30(3)(a);CondominiumProperty

AmendmentAct,2014,supranote29,s21(amendingsection30andaddingapowertolistre-quirementsforfinancialstatementsintheregulations—notinforce);Saskatchewan:TheCon-dominiumPropertyAct,1993,supranote24,s39(2);TheCondominiumPropertyRegulations,2001,supranote449,s53.1(b)(“financialstatementsmustbepreparedinaccordancewithgenerallyacceptedaccountingprinciplespublishedbyCharteredProfessionalAccountantsofCanada,asamendedfromtimetotime”);Manitoba:TheCondominiumAct,supranote24,s150(1);CondominiumRegulation,ManReg164/2014,ss31–32(additionaldisclosurere-quiredforfinancialstatements);Ontario:CondominiumAct,1998,supranote24,s66;GeneralRegulation,supranote477,s16(3);ProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,supranote29,s59(3)(amendingsection66—notinforce);Québec:art1087CCQ;NewBrunswick:Condomin-iumPropertyAct,supranote24,s34(1);GeneralRegulation,NBReg2009-169,s21;NovaSco-tia:CondominiumAct,supranote24,s24A;CondominiumRegulations,NSReg60/71,s72B;NewfoundlandandLabrador:CondominiumAct,2009,supranote24,s37(1);NorthwestTerri-toriesandNunavut:CondominiumRegulations,NWTReg098-2008,s6(2).PrinceEdwardIs-landandYukondon’thaveanyprovisionsaddressingfinancialstatements.

548.SeeBusinessCorporationsAct,supranote296,s198(4);BusinessCorporationsRegulation,BCReg65/2004,s21(1);CooperativeAssociationAct,supranote353,s153(1)(a);SocietiesAct,supranote296,s35(3).SeealsoCanadaBusinessCorporationsAct,supranote296,s155(1)(a);CanadaBusinessCorporationsRegulations,2001,supranote462,s72;CanadaNot-for-profitCorporationsAct,supranote336,s172(1)(a);CanadaNot-for-profitCorporationsRegulations,supranote337,s79(1).




69.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldnotcontainaprescribedformforstrata-corporationfinancialstatements.

Issues for Reform—Contracts Introduction TheStrataPropertyActhaslittletosayaboutthepowerofastratacorporationtoenterintocontracts.Theactconfirmsthat“astratacorporationhasthepowerandcapacityofanaturalpersonoffullcapacity.”549Thisincludesthepowerandcapacitytoenterintoacontract.Thereisoneareawheretheacthasplacedarestrictiononastratacorporation’scontractingpowers.Thisrestrictionappliesduringtheearlylifeofastratacorpora-tion,whentheowner-developeriseffectivelyabletodominateit.Therelevantprovisionpreventsthestratacorporation,beforeitsfirstannualgen-eralmeeting,fromenteringintoacontractwiththeowner-developerorapersonwhoisn’toperatingatarm’slengthfromtheowner-developer.550Buttheownersdoretaintheabilitytoratifyanysuchcontract,byaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvoteataspecialgeneralmeeting.Therationaleforthisrestrictionisaconcernoverwhatonecommentatorhascalled“sweetheartdeals.”551Thesearecontractsthatcontainfavourableprovisionsfortheowner-developerandtheothercontractingpartybutthataren’tinthelong-termin-terestsofthestratacorporation.Anotherspecialareaofconcernisstrata-managementcontracts.Theacthastwoprovisionsthatapplytothesekindsofcontracts.Bothprovisionshavetheeffectofgivingthestratacorporationanenhancedpowertoterminatethecontract.


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




Thefirstprovisionconcernsastrata-managementcontractthatwas“enteredintobeforethefirstannualgeneralmeeting.”552It’sdescribedinmoredetailbelowaspartoftheoptionsforreformforthefirstissueinthispartofthechapter.Thesec-ondprovisionhasageneralapplicationtotheissueofcancellingastrata-managementcontract.553Thisprovisionisdiscussedinconnectionwiththesecondissueinthispartofthechapter.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.Manitobahaslegislationinforcethatallowsastratacorporation,“within12monthsaftertheturn-overmeeting,[to]terminate,withoutpenalty”anyofaseriesoflistedcontracts.554(A“turn-overmeeting”isameetingthat“mustbecalledbythedeclar-


553.Seeibid,s39.

554.TheCondominiumAct,supranote24,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),thecondominiumcorporationmustgivewrittennoticeofthe



ant’s[theroughequivalentofaBritishColumbiaowner-developer]boardnolaterthansixmonthsafterthedeclarantceasestobetheownerofamajorityoftheexist-ingunits”atwhichthe“declarant’sboard”[theequivalenttoastratacouncil]isre-placedwith“anewboardofthecondominiumcorporationelectedbyunitowners”andmustturnovercondominiumrecordstothatnewboard.)555Albertahasrecentlyimplementedasimilarprovision.TheAlbertaprovisionisbroaderinscopethantheManitobaprovision.Insteadofapplyingtoalistedsetofcontracts,itwillapplyto“anagreement”enteredintoduringtherelevanttime.Thistimeis“within12monthsafterthetimeatwhichitsboardfirstconsistsofdirectorswhowereelectedwhenpersonswhowereatarm’slengthfromthedeveloperownedorheldunitsrepresentingmorethan50%ofthetotalunitfactors[theAlber-taequivalentofBritishColumbia’sunitentitlement]foralltheunits.”556Thereisn’tmuchdifferencebetweenthesetwooptions.ItcouldbearguedthatAl-berta’sapproachgivesstratacorporationsthegreatestflexibility,whileManitoba’slegislationismorefocusedonspecifickindsofcontractsthatmayposethegreatestconcerns.Themaindownsideofbothapproachesisthattheysuspendnormalcon-tractlawonterminationandmaycreateuncertaintyforpartiescontractingwithstratacorporationsduringtheearlyperiodoftheirexistence.AnotheroptiontoconsiderisadaptinganexistingprovisionintheStrataPropertyAct.Section24appliestothecancellationofstrata-managementcontracts“enteredintobeforethefirstannualgeneralmeeting.”557Undersection24,suchastrata-

terminationdatetotheotherpartytotheagreementatleast30days,oranyshorterperiodspecifiedintheagreement,beforethatdate.(4)Nothinginthissectionpermitstheterminationofaneasementcreatedbyanagreementexceptinaccordancewiththatagreement.(5)Thissec-tiondoesnotapplytoamutualuseagreement.”).

555.Ibid,s75.

556.CondominiumPropertyAmendmentAct,2014,supranote29,s12(addingnews17.1totheCon-dominiumPropertyAct,supranote24:“(1)Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinsection17andtheregulations,acorporationmayterminateanagreementwithin12monthsafterthetimeatwhichitsboardfirstconsistsofdirectorswhowereelectedwhenpersonswhowereatarm’slengthfromthedeveloperownedorheldunitsrepresentingmorethan50%ofthetotalunitfac-torsforalltheunits.(2)Subsection(1)appliesdespiteanytermtothecontraryintheagree-menttobeterminated.(3)Toterminateanagreementunderthissection,thecorporationmustgivewrittennoticeoftheterminationdatetotheotherpartytotheagreementatleast60days,oranyshorterperiodspecifiedintheagreement,beforetheterminationdate.(4)Whereacor-porationterminatesanagreementunderthissection,thecorporationisnotliabletotheotherpartytotheagreementbyreasononlyoftheterminationoftheagreementunderthissection.”).




managementcontractends“regardlessofanyprovisionofthecontracttothecon-trary,ontheearlierof”:

• thedatethatis4weeksafterthedateofthesecondannualgeneralmeeting,

• theterminationdatecontainedinthecontractoragreedtobytheparties,and

• thecancellationdateestablishedinaccordancewithsection39.558(Section39setsoutaprocedureforcancellingstrata-managementcontractsontwomonths’notice.)Althoughthecontractispresumptivelyterminated,thelegislationallowsastratacorporationtosustainitinforce“byaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvoteatthesecondannualgeneralmeeting.”559Thisexistingprovisionoftheactcouldbeexpandedtocoverothertypesofcon-tracts—orevenallcontracts—thatastratacorporationentersintowithinitseffec-tivetime(“beforethefirstannualgeneralmeeting”).Theadvantageofthisoptionisitsfamiliarity;stratacorporationswouldalreadybeusedtoapplyingthisprocedureforstrata-managementcontracts.Thedownsideisthatitcould,inpractice,provetobeacumbersomeprocedure.Thestratacorporation’ssecondannualgeneralmeet-ingcouldbetakenupwithreviewingmanycontracts,involvingthebroadmassoftheownershipinmakingfinancialjudgments.Finally,anotheroptiontoconsiderisretainingthestatusquo.Thisoptionwouldhavetheadvantageofaffirmingordinarycontractualprinciplesontermination,whichwouldbenefitpartiescontractingwithstratacorporationsandmayalsobene-fitstratacorporationsbymakingiteasiertoenterintocontractsduringtheirearlyexistence.Butitwouldalsoleavestratacorporationsvulnerabletosweetheartdeals.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteeacknowledgedthatsomecontractsaretiltedinfavouroftheowner-developer.Butgivingstratacorporationsaliberalpowertoterminatethemwouldcauseawholehostofotherproblems,includingproblemsthatwouldimpairtheop-erationofastratacorporationinitsearlylife.

558.Ibid,s24(1).

559.Ibid,s24(2).



Themajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’scautiousap-proachtothisissue.Butasignificantminoritydidfavourlegislativereformtoad-dresstheconcernsraisedhere.Thecommitteerecommends:70.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoprovideanynewenhancedter-minationpowertoastratacorporationforcontractsitentersintobeforeitsfirstan-nualgeneralmeeting.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.560Section39(2)establishesthescopeofthisprocedure:itappliesincasesotherthanthoseinwhichastrata-managementcontractistermi-nated“inaccordancewithitsterms”orwhentheagreement“expires.”561Akeycomponentofthisprocedureistherequirementthatthecancellationbe“firstap-provedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeet-ing.”562Incorrespondencedrawingthisissuetothecommittee’sattention,anemergingtrendwasnotedinwhichstratacouncilsare“proposingtohavea3/4voteresolu-tiontoterminatethestratamanagementcontractoneveryAGMagenda.”Theeffectofsucharesolutionwouldbethat“councilwillperpetuallyhavethepowertoter-minatethecontractatanytimethroughouttheyear.”563Thispracticeraisesthecon-cernthatthedecisiontoterminateastrata-managementagreementmaybeeffec-tivelytakenoutoftheowners’handsandplacedatthediscretionofthestratacoun-560.Ibid,s39(1)(“Acontractenteredintobyoronbehalfofthestratacorporationfortheprovision

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

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

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

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



cil.Tocombatthisconcern,shouldtheactbeamendedtoplaceatimelimitontheowners’authorizationtocancelastrata-managementcontract?Discussion of options for reform Amendingtheacttoprovideatimelimitonaresolutionauthorizingcancellationofastrata-managementcontractcouldhelptosupportoneofthepurposesofsection39.Thatpurposeisrequiringownerscrutinyofadecisiontoterminateastrata-managementcontractthatistakenwithinthescopeofsection39(1).Ifthisdecisionbecomesaroutineitematannualgeneralmeetings,thenthatpurposemaybeerod-ed.Atimelimitwouldservetoshoreupthisaspectofsection39(1).Itwouldhelptoensurethatanydecisionstakenundertheprovisioninvolvetheownersandfocusonactualissueswithastrata-managementcontractandnotaroutinetransferofpowertothestratacouncil.Therearelikelyfewdrawbackstoamendingtheactandinstitutingatimelimit.Theonlysignificantdownsidetothisproposalisthatitcouldbesaidthatthetimeisnotyetripetopursueit.Itisn’tclearhowwidespreadthetrendtoroutinelyadoptingaresolutionundersection39(1)is.Itcouldbearguedthatmorestudyisneededbe-foreproposingtoamendthelegislation.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteenotedthatthereareexamplesinwhichastratacorporationpassesaresolutiontoterminateastrata-managementcontractanditjuststaysthere,asanimpliedthreattothestrata-managementcompany.Thecommitteedecidedthattheactshouldbeamendedtoaddressthisissue.Astrongmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendationforreform.Thecommitteerecommends:

71.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatastratacorporationmustactonaresolutionauthorizingthecancellationofastrata-managementcontractandprovidenoticeofthecancellationwithin90days.



Issues for Reform—Regulatory Provisions on Fines and Fees

Introduction TheStrataPropertyRegulationcontainsahandfulofprovisionsthatsetthemone-tarylimitsonfinesforbylaworrulecontraventionsandfeesthatthestratacorpora-tionmaychargeforcertificatesitmustprovideorcopiesofrecordsitmustretain.Theseprovisionscoverthefollowingissues:

• maximumfeesforrecords;564

• maximumfeeforanInformationCertificate(FormB);565

• maximumfeeforaCertificateofPayment(FormF);566

• maximumfines.567Should the Strata Property Regulation be amended to increase the maximum fines? Brief description of the issue Theactholdsthat“[t]hestratacorporationmustsetoutinitsbylawsthemaximumamountitmayfineanownerortenantforeachcontraventionofabylaworrule.”568Butthismaximumamountcan’texceedthemaximumprovidedforintheregula-tion.569Theregulationgenerallysetsthemaximumfinesatthefollowinglevels:

• $200foreachcontraventionofabylaw,and

• $50foreachcontraventionofarule.570564.StrataPropertyRegulation,supranote8,s4.2.

565.Ibid,s4.4.

566.Ibid,s6.10.

567.Ibid,s7.1.


569.StrataPropertyAct,ibid,s132(3).




Aspecialmaximumlevelappliestoonespecificcase.Ifthefineisfor“therentalofaresidentialstratalotincontraventionofabylawthatprohibitsorlimitsrentals,”then“themaximumamountthatastratacorporationmaysetoutinitsbylawsasafine...is$500foreachcontraventionofthebylaw.”571Discussion of options for reform Thesemaximumshaven’tchangedsincetheadventoftheStrataPropertyActinJu-ly2000.Anargumentcouldbemadethat,after17years,themaximumlevelshavefailedtokeeppacewithinflationandarenowsettoolow.Thiscoulderodethede-terrenteffectoffinesandhamperstratacorporationsindealingwithbylawcontra-ventions.Buttherecouldalsobedrawbackstoraisingthemaximumfines.Complaintsarefrequentaboutstratacouncilsharshlyusingtheirbylaw-enforcementpowerstofineownersrepeatedlyatthemaximumlevels.Commentators572andcourts573haveof-tencalledforrestraintinthesecircumstances.Raisingthemaximumfinescouldex-acerbateconcernsoverenforcementofbylaws.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthatthecurrentmaximumfinescontinuetobeacceptable,withoneexception.Inthecommittee’sview,themaximumfineforacontraventionofarental-restrictionbylawshouldberaised.Thiswouldaddressconcernsthatthedeterrentvalueofthisfinehassignificantlyerodedinthefaceofatightrentalmar-ket.Consultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’sproposedchangesbyawidemargin.

571.Ibid,s7.1(2).

572.SeeMangan,supranote34at351(“Wherebylawsandrulesestablishamaximumfine,astratacouncilshouldconsiderallthefactorsinvolved,includingbothaggravatingandmitigatingfac-tors.Insteadofstartingwithamaximumfine,thebetterapproachistoconsiderwhatfineistheleastamountnecessarytoreasonablysanctionthebehaviourinquestionanddetertheindivid-ual,aswellasothers,frombreachingthebylaworruleinthefuture.”).SeealsoFanaken,supranote34at105.

573.SeeDrummondvStrataPlanNW2654,2004BCSC1405atparas15,39,McKinnonJ.SeealsoCondominiumCorporationNo0729313(TrailsofMillCreek)vSchultz,2016ABQB338atpa-ra33,MasterSchlosser.




72.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldbeamendedtosetthemaximumfinesat:(a)$200foreachcontraventionofabylaw;(b)$50foreachcontraventionofarule;and(c)$2000foreachcontraventionofarental-restrictionbylaw.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.”574ThemaximumfeeforaCertificateofPaymentis$15.575ThesefigureshaveremainedthesamesincetheadventoftheStrataProp-ertyActin2000.Shouldtheyberevisedupward?Discussion of options for reform Thisissuepresentedthecommitteewithasimilardecisionaswascalledforinthepreviousissue.Anargumentcouldbemadethat,aftermorethan17yearsatthesamelevel,thetimeisrighttoraisethefeesforthetwoformstoalevelthatac-countsforinflation.Ontheotherhand,itcouldbearguedthatthecurrentfeescon-tinuetoreflectareasonablefeeforofficialdocumentsthatareessentiallyarequiredelementofstrata-lotconveyancesandthataren’tintendedtobeasourceofprofit.The committee’s recommendation for reform Intheconsultationpaper,thecommitteeproposedthatthesemaximumsshouldbeincreased.Anincreasehasn’tbeenimplementedsincetheactwasbroughtintoforce,duringwhichtimethestrata-propertysectorhasgrownsignificantlylargerandmorecomplex.Whileamajorityofconsultationrespondentssupportedthistentativerecommenda-tion,asignificantminoritydisagreedwiththecommittee’sproposal.Inviewoftheircomments,thecommitteegavefurtherthoughttothemaximumfeesthatitwishedtorecommend.ThecommitteefocuseditsattentiononboththebasefeeforanIn-

574.Supranote8,s4.4.

575.Seeibid,s6.10.



formationCertificate(FormB)andthefeesforcopiesofrecordsprovidedbyelec-tronicmeans.ThecommitteenotedthatseveralconsultationrespondentshadmadethepointthatthebasefeefortheInformationCertificateshouldstrictlyadheretotheactualcostsofpreparingthecertificate.Whilethecommitteeacceptedthispoint,initsviewthemaximumfeeithadproposedintheconsultationpaper($300)doesmeetthisideal.Thecostsofpreparingthecertificatewill,ofcourse,varywiththecircumstancesofthestratacorporation.Therewillalwaysbesomelevelofarbitrarinessinwhateverfigureischosenasthemaximumfee.But,thatsaid,inthecommittee’sviewcompil-ingtheinformationforthecertificatehasincreasinglybecomeacomplextask.Ontheotherhand,thecommitteedecideduponfurtherreflectionthatthereisarea-sonablecasetobemadeforsettingthemaximumfeeforcopiesofrecordsprovidedbyelectronicmeansatalowerlevelthanthemaximumfeeforcopiesprovidedbyothermeans.Inthecommittee’sview,amaximumfeeof$0.15perpage(asopposedto$0.25)wouldbetterreflecttherealitiesofprovidingcopiesofrecordsbyelec-tronicmeans.Thecommitteerecommends:73.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldbeamended(a)toraisethemaximumfeethatastratacorporationmaychargeforanInformationCertificateto$300plus(i)upto$0.25perpage,forthecostofcopiesofrecordsprovidedbyanymeansotherthanelectronicmeans,or(ii)upto$0.15perpage,forthecostofcopiesofrecordsprovidedbyelectronicmeansand(b)toraisethemaximumfeeforaCertificateofPaymentto$50.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].576

Theregulationprovidesthat“[n]ofeemaybechargedtoanowner,atenantorapersonauthorizedbyanownerortenantfortheinspectionofarecordordocumentundersection36oftheAct.”577Frequently,astratacorporationwillauthorizesomeonetosuperviseaninspectionofrecordsundersection36.Astratacorpora-tionmayincurothercostsinthesecircumstances.Inlightofthesecosts,shouldthestratacorporationbeabletoapplyafeetotheinspectionofrecords?Discussion of options for reform Therearetwoapproachesthatmaybetakentothisissue.ThefirstistonotethattheStrataPropertyRegulationisoutofstepwithBritishColumbia’sothercorporatelawsonthispoint.BoththeBusinessCorporationsRegulation578andtheSocietiesRegulation579allowchargingafeeofuptotendollarsperdayforinspectionofcor-poraterecords.Theseregulationsrecognizethatgrantingaccesstorecordsimposesacostonacompanyorsociety.Sincestratacorporationsaresimilartocompaniesandsocieties,anargumentmaybemadethattheyshouldbetreatedconsistentlyonthisscore.Adownsideofthefirstapproachisthatitreallyonlyauthorizesanominalfeeforin-spectionofcorporaterecords.Theactualcostofsupervisinganinspectionwouldfarexceedthisamount.Thispointgivesrisetothesecondapproach,whichwouldbetosetthemaximumfeeatalevelthatapproximates(oratleastmovesinthedirectionofapproximating)theactualcost.Therationaleforthisapproachwouldbetocause

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

tenants.

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

578.SeeBusinessCorporationsRegulation,supranote548,s12(“Thefeeprescribedundersec-tion46(5)oftheActfortheinspectionofrecordsis$10perday.”).SeealsoBusinessCorpora-tionsAct,supranote296,s46(4)(allowinganyonetoinspect“withoutcharge”therecordsofthefollowingkindsofcompanies:“apubliccompany,acommunitycontributioncompany,afi-nancialinstitutionorapre-existingreportingcompany”).

579.SeeSocietiesRegulation,supranote383,s4(“Themaximumfeethatasocietymaychargeforaninspectionundersection24(5)[inspectionofrecords]oftheActis$10perday,regardlessofthenumberofrecordsinspected.”).



thepersonrequestingaccesstobeartheburden(orsomeoftheburden)ofthecostoffacilitatingthataccess.580Finally,itisalsoworthwhileconsideringwhethertoretainthestatusquo.Anargu-mentcouldbemadethatfreeandopenaccesstoinspectingrecordsmakessenseforstratacorporations,andthepolicyshouldbecontinued.Stratacorporationscouldbeseenasbeingclosertogovernmentbodies,whichdonotchargeforanin-personviewingofrecords,581thanprivatecorporationslikecompaniesorsocieties.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteeobservedthatinspectionsofstrata-corporationrecordscomeupin-frequently.Thisareadoesn’tseemtohavewitnessedmanyabuses.Thecommitteealsobelievesthatrequestsforin-personinspectionswilldecline,asmoreandmorepeoplecometofavourelectronicaccesstorecords.Inlightofthesepoints,thecom-mitteedecidednottoproposeanewfeeforthismethodofaccesstorecords.Astrongmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendation.Thecommitteerecommends:74.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldcontinuetoprovidethatastratacorpora-tionmaynotchargeafeefortheinspectionofarecordordocumentundersection36oftheStrataPropertyAct.

580.Ontariohastakenaversionofthisapproachinrecentlyamendedregulation.SeeGeneralRegu-

lation,supranote477,s13.3(8)5(“Iftherequestistoexamineacopyofacorerecord,thecor-porationshallnotchargeanyfeefortherequestifitmakesacopyoftherecordavailableforex-aminationinpaperform,otherthanafeefortheactuallabourcoststhatthecorporationincursduringtheexaminationandtheprintingandphotocopyingchargesestablishedunderpara-graph3”).

581.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.582Nosimilarauthorizationexistsforaccessingrecordselectronically.Sincepeoplearein-creasinglydemandingelectronicaccesstorecords,shouldtheregulationbeamend-edtoallowastratacorporationtochargeforthataccess?Discussion of options for reform Aswasthecaseforthepreviousissue,thisissuepresentsanexampleinwhichthefeessetoutintheStrataPropertyRegulationmayhavefallenbehindthefeesappli-cableinsimilarsituationsforotherkindsofcorporations.Inthiscase,it’sworth-whileconsideringtheSocietiesRegulation,whichwasdevelopedin2015.Underthisregulation,themaximumfeethatasocietymaychargeforacopyofarecordtowhichitisrequiredtoprovideaccessis“$0.10perpageforacopyprovidedbyemail.”583(Themaximumfeesocietiesmaychargeforcopiesprovidedbyanymeansotherthanemailis$0.50perpage.)584Thisfeeallowsnot-for-profitsocietiessomerecoveryforprovidingcopiesofrecordsinelectronicform.Italsoreflectsthelowercostofprovidingcopiesbyemailasopposedtoanothermethod.Similarconsidera-tionscouldeasilybeseentoapplytostratacorporations.Thatsaid,therecouldbeanargumentthatstratacorporationsaresufficientlydif-ferentfromsocietiestocallforadifferentapproach.Stratacorporationscouldbeseenashavingsomethingmoreofagovernmentalorpubliccharacterthansocieties.Thischaractercouldjustifycontinuingfreeelectronicaccesstostrata-corporationrecords.OfnoteonthispointisthatOntariohasrecentlyreviseditsstrata-corporationregulations.Ontario’snewregulationprovidesthat“[i]ftherequestistoexamineorobtainacopyofacorerecord,thecorporationshallnotchargeanyfeefortherequestifitdeliversthecopytotherequesterinelectronicform.”585

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

rationmaychargeforacopyofarecordordocumentprovidedundersection36oftheActis25centsperpage.”).

583.Supranote579,s5(b).

584.Seeibid,s5(a).

585.SeeGeneralRegulation,supranote477,s13.3(8)4.



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

75.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldnotallowastratacorporationtochargeafeeforaninspectionofarecordordocumentundersection36oftheStrataPropertyActbyelectronicmeans.Whileamajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendationtosetthemaximumfeeforcopiesofrecordsprovidedbyelectron-icmeansat$0.25perpage,asignificantminoritydisagreed.Thecommitteegavefur-therthoughttothefigureinviewofcommentsonitsproposalanddecidedthatamaximumfeeof$0.15wouldbeabetterchoice.Thismaximumfeecorrespondstothemaximumfeethatthecommitteehasrecommendedforcopiesofrecordspro-videdbyelectronicmeansthataccompanyanInformationCertificate(FormB).586Thecommitteerecommends:

76.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldallowastratacorporationtochargeafeeofupto$0.15perpageforacopyofarecordordocumentprovidedundersection36oftheStrataPropertyActbyelectronicmeans.

Issues for Reform—Limitation Period and Collections

Introduction Whenastratacorporationhasmoneyowingtoitfromastrata-lotowneritmusttakestepstocollectthatmoney.Giventherangeofastratacorporation’sresponsi-

586.See,above,at191–192.



bilities,itiscriticalthatitdoesn’tfinditselfinarrearsduetoafailureofownerstopayrequiredsums.TheStrataPropertyActgivesstratacorporationsanumberoftoolswithwhichtocollectmoneyowingtoit.Acommentatorhashelpfullypulledthesetoolstogetherintoausefullist.

Dependingonthecircumstances,astratacorporationmayenforcepaymentofmoneyduetothecorporationby:

• interestonarrears,

• finesforlatepayments,

• demandnotices,

• liensagainstthetitleofastratalot,

• withholdingaCertificateofPayment(FormF),

• courtactions[orapplicationstotheCivilResolutionTribunal],or

• arbitration.587Thisreportdoesn’texaminecollectionsissuesincomprehensivedetail.It’sonlyin-terestedinoneissue,whichinvolvestheinteractionofcollectionswithlimitationperiods.Alimitationperiodis“[a]statutoryperiodafterwhichalawsuitorprosecutioncan-notbebroughtincourt.”588Inotherwords,itisastatutoryrulethatmayresult,bythemerepassageoftime,inapersonbeingbarredfromenforcinganotherwise-validclaimformoneyorsomeotherremedy.ThereisavastarrayoflimitationperiodsdistributedthroughoutBritishColumbia’sstatutes.Forthepurposesofthisreport,relevantclaimsarethoseinvolvingpro-ceedingsbyoragainstastratacorporation.Inparticular,thefocusisonclaimsinwhichastratacorporationistryingtocollectmoneyowingtoit.TheStrataPropertyActhasnothingtosayaboutlimitationperiodsapplicabletothesekindsofclaims.589

587.Mangan,supranote34at200.

588.Black’sLawDictionary,supranote173subverbo“limitation.”

589.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote34at§10.26(“The[StrataProperty]Actdoesnotsetoutanyspecificlimitationperiodsapplyingtoclaimsbyoragainstastratacorporation.Asaresult,thelimitationperiodappliesthatisrelatedtotherelevanttypeofcauseofactionassetoutintheLimitationActorotherapplicablelegislation.”).



Sotograsptheapplicablelimitationperiodforthemit’snecessarytoturntoBritishColumbia’sgenerallimitationsstatute,theLimitationAct.590TheLimitationActsetsoutthefollowingbasiclimitationperiod:“acourtproceedinginrespectofaclaimmustnotbecommencedmorethan2yearsafterthedayonwhichtheclaimisdiscovered.”591Thisbasiclimitationperiodappliestoanyclaimthatastratacorporationhasformoneyowingtoitfromastrata-lotowner.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.592

Themainconcernwiththenew,shorterlimitationperiodispointedtoattheendofthispassage,whichcallsonstratacorporationstobe“proactiveincollectingamountsowing.”And,whilethepassagerefersexpresslytoastratacorporation’sCertificateofLien,itisalsoclearthatsimilarconsiderationswouldapplytomoneyowingthatcouldn’tbesecuredbythestatutorylien.593Thepracticalconcernisthatatwo-yearlimitationperiodmaybetooshortforstratacorporations,significantly590.SBC2012,c13.

591.Ibid,s6(1).Theactdefinesclaimtomean“aclaimtoremedyaninjury,lossordamagethatoc-curredasaresultofanactoromission”(ibid,s1“claim”).SeealsoCivilResolutionTribunalAct,supranote42,s13(LimitationActappliestoclaimbeforeCivilResolutionTribunal).


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



curtailingtheirflexibilityindealingwithmoneyowingfromstrata-lotowners.(Andnotethat,whilelimitationslawisfocusedoncourtproceedings,thenewactalsohastheeffectofbarring“self-helpremedies”thatstratacorporationsoftenemployincollectioncases.)594ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcreateaspecial,longerlimitationperiodforthesecases?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-594.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.”).



mentwouldbeinclinedtorevisitittostartmakingexceptionsforcertaincreditors,unlessparticularlystrongevidencecouldbemarshalledtoprovethatchangesneedtobemade.Itisn’tclearthatthisevidenceisinplaceforstratacorporations.AfterasmallburstofcommentaryinanticipationofthecomingintoforceofthenewLimi-tationAct,thissubjecthaslargelydisappearedfrompublishedwritingonstrata-propertyissues.Thiscouldmeanthatstratacorporationsaremanagingtolivewiththenewlimitationperiod.IftheStrataPropertyActshouldcontainaspeciallimitationperiod,thenthenextquestionthatarisesishowlongthatlimitationperiodshouldbe.Thereispotentiallyawiderangeofnumbersthatcouldbeconsideredhere.Inselectingalimitationperiod,it’snecessarytobearinmindthepurposesoflimita-tionlaw.Itspurposesincludepromotingcertaintyandfinalityandrestrainingtheadjudicationofstaleclaims.Thelongerthelimitationperiod,thegreaterthelikeli-hoodthatstaleclaimswillcomebeforeacourt.Claimsgostalethroughfadingmem-oriesandlostordisposed-ofrecords.Further,alongerlimitationperiodbringswithittheriskoflosingevidence.Changingmembershipinstratacouncils,problemswithaccuracyofmeetingminutes,andchangingstratamanagersallincreasetheriskthatreceivableswillnotbecollected.Theseconcernsmayarisewithlongerlim-itationperiods,buttheymaynotcometotheforeinshorterlimitationperiods.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteegrappledwiththisissueoveranextendedtime.Ontheonehand,itacceptsthegeneralpointsoftheimportanceofconsistencytolimitationslawandtheneedtogivearelativelynewactsometimetobeconsideredinpractice.Ontheother,itwasawareofproblemsbeingcausedbythenew,shorterlimitationperiod.Concernsovertheeffectoflimitationlawonstrata-corporationadministrationcancutintwodirections.Alongerlimitationperiodcanincreasetheriskoflostevi-dence.Itcanalsoleadtoaslackeningofdebt-collectionpractices.Butthetwo-yearlimitationperioddoescreatearealhardshipforstratacorpora-tions.Financially,itdoesn’tmakesenseforastratacorporationtomovequicklytocommencecourtproceedingstoenforceaclaimagainstanowner.Inmostcasesthedebtissmallearlyon(butitoftenpilesupovertime),andtheup-frontcostsofen-forcementarehigh.Becausetheindebtednesstendstoincreaseastimegoeson,itmakesfinancialsenseforstratacorporationstowaitbeforebeginningcourtpro-ceedings.



Further,therelationshipbetweenastratacorporationandadelinquentownerissignificantlydifferentfromthestandardcreditor-debtorrelationship.Whenoneownerfailstopaystratafeesorotheramountsduetothestratacorporation,theharmultimatelyfallsonotherowners,whomustpickuptheslackorseethevalueoftheirownstratalotsdecline.Thecommitteeexaminedmanywaystoadjustthecurrentlawtoreflectthesetwopoints.Intheend,thesimplestandbestwayinitsviewwouldbetocreateaspecial,longerlimitationperiodintheStrataPropertyAct.Thecommitteealsodecidedthatthislimitationperiodshouldhavearestrictedapplicationtojustthosedebtsthatmaybemadethesubjectofalienundersection116oftheact.Whileamajorityofconsultationrespondents(inboththefullandsummaryconsul-tations)agreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendationonthisissue,asiz-ableminoritydisagreed.Commentsfromconsultationrespondentsshowedtherewasasplitonthereasonsfordisagreeingwiththetentativerecommendation.Somerespondentsdisagreedbecausetheyfavouredthecurrenttwo-yearlimitationperi-od.Othersexpressedapreferenceforalongerlimitationperiod—orevennolimita-tionperiod—inthesecircumstances.Thecommitteerecommends:77.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovideforaspeciallimitationperiodforclaimsofmoney,capableofbeingsubjecttoalienundersection116,owingfromastrata-lotownertoastratacorporation,offouryears.



Chapter 7. Notices and Communications Background The act’s general notice provisions TheStrataPropertyActoftenrequiresorauthorizesastratacorporationoranotherpersontogiveanotice,record,ordocumenttosomeoneelse.Theactanditsregula-tionscontainalargenumberofreferencestothewordnotice.595TheStrataPropertyActdoesn’tcontainadefinitionofnotice.Buttheactdoeshaveadedicateddivision,withsixsectionsdescribinghowanotice,record,ordocumentistobegivenincertaincircumstancesortocertainpersons.596Forthepurposesofgeneralbackground,thetwomostimportantsectionsinthisdi-visionconcernthemechanicsofgivinganotice,record,ordocumentthatapplytothestratacorporationandthatapplywhensomeoneelsewantstogiveanotice,rec-ord,ordocumenttothestratacorporation.597First,herearetheact’sdetailedprovisionsapplyingtoanotice,record,ordocumentgivenbythestratacorporation:

Notice given by strata corporation

61 (1) Anoticeorotherrecordordocumentthatthestratacorporationisre-quiredorpermittedtogivetoapersonunderthisAct,thebylawsortherulesmustbegiventotheperson,

(a) ifthepersonhasprovidedthestratacorporationwithanad-dressoutsidethestrataplanforreceivingnoticesandotherrec-ordsordocuments,

(i) byleavingitwiththeperson,or

(ii) bymailingittotheaddressprovided,or595.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,supranote235,ss2,2.1;FormBL-A;StrataPropertyRegula-tion,supranote8,ss4.1,6.7,14.12;FormB,FormC,FormK,FormL,FormM,FormN,FormY.

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

597.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.598

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

598.Supranote4,s61.



(d) byputtingitthroughthemailslot,orinthemailbox,usedbythestratacorporationforreceivingnotices,recordsanddocuments.

(2) Anoticeorotherrecordordocumentthatisgiventothestratacorpo-rationundersubsection(1)(b)to(d)isconclusivelydeemedtobegiv-en4daysafteritismailed,faxed,emailedorputthroughthemailslotorinthemailbox.599

Bothsectionshavefeaturesincommon.Theybeginbysettingouttheirreach.Thesectionsapplytoanotice,record,600ordocumentthatisrequiredorpermittedtobegiveneitherbythestratacorporationortothestratacorporation:

• undertheStrataPropertyAct—includingitsregulations;601

• 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

599.Ibid,s63.

600.SeeInterpretationAct,supranote235,s29“record”(“includesbooks,documents,maps,draw-ings,photographs,letters,vouchers,papersandanyotherthingonwhichinformationisrecord-edorstoredbyanymeanswhethergraphic,electronic,mechanicalorotherwise”).

601.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.602Whilethesetwosectionsdealwithscope,methodofgivinganotice,record,ordoc-ument,anddeemednotice,theydon’taddressonecomponentofeffectivenotice:thetimeinwhichapersonhastogiveanotice,record,ordocument.Todeterminethis,it’snecessarytolookataspecificsectionoftheactthatauthorizesthegivingofano-tice,record,ordocument.Takingasanexampleaprovisionthatcomesupfrequentlyinpractice,hereisthepartoftheact’sgeneralnoticesectionforannualandspecialgeneralmeetingsthatdealswithtiming:

602.SeeSullivan,supranote233at§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.603

Thesetwoprovisionsgivereadersanoticeperiod—twoweeksinsubsection(1)andfourweeksinsubsection(1.1)—buttheydon’tcontainaformulaforcalculatingthatperiod.Thisisadeliberatedraftingchoice.Thegovernmenthascreatedstandard-izedprovisionsforcalculatingtime,whichapplybydefaultto“anenactmentandtoadeed,conveyanceorotherlegalinstrument.”604TheInterpretationAct’sdefaultprovisionforcalculatingtimeis“thefirstdaymustbeexcludedandthelastdayincluded.”605ButmanyenactmentscontainlanguagethatengagesaspecialprovisionintheInterpretationAct:603.Supranote4,s45(1)–(1.1)[emphasisadded].

604.InterpretationAct,supranote235,s25(1).Thesestandardizedprovisionsareonlydisplacedbyexpresslanguageintheenactmentorotherinstrument.AstheInterpretationActputsit,itspro-visionsapply“unlessspecificallyprovidedotherwiseinthedeed,conveyanceorotherlegalin-strument”(ibid,s25(1)).Butnotethat,onadatetobesetbyregulationoftheLieutenantGov-ernorinCouncil,section25willberepealedandreplacedwithanewsection25andsec-tions25.1–25.5.SeeMiscellaneousStatutesAmendmentAct,2018,SBC2018,c5,s3(enactingnewsection25(2),whichwillprovide“[t]hissectionandsections25.1to25.5alsoapplytoadeed,conveyanceorotherlegalinstrumentunlessspecificallyprovidedotherwiseinthedeed,conveyanceorotherlegalinstrument”—notinforce).

605.InterpretationAct,supranote235,s25(5).SeealsoMiscellaneousStatutesAmendmentAct,2018,supranote604,s3(enactingnewsection25(1),whichwilldefinereferencedayasmeaning“anyofthefollowingbyreferencetowhichthebeginningorendofaperiodoftimemustbede-termined:(a)aspecifiedorimpliedday;(b)adayonwhichaspecifiedorimpliedeventoractoccurs;(c)adayonwhichadifferentperiodbeginsorends,”andnewsection25.2(2),whichwillprovide“[s]ubjecttosubsection(3),thebeginningorendofaperiodofonedayorconsecu-tivedaysorofoneweekorconsecutiveweeks,expressedinrelationtoareferenceday,istobe



(4) Inthecalculationoftimeexpressedascleardays,weeks,monthsoryears,oras“at

least”or“notlessthan”anumberofdays,weeks,monthsoryears,thefirstandlastdaysmustbeexcluded.606

Section45oftheStrataPropertyAct(quotedabove)isanexampleofsuchanenact-ment,asitreferstogiving“atleast”twoweeks’orfourweeks’writtennotice.ManynoticeprovisionsintheStrataPropertyActusethewordsatleast,effectivelygivingtherecipientthebenefitofanextradayincalculatingthenoticeperiod.Finally,theInterpretationActprovides“[i]fthetimefordoinganactfallsorexpiresonaholiday,thetimeisextendedtothenextdaythatisnotaholiday.”607TheInter-pretationActdefinesholidaytoincludeallofthefollowing:

(a) Sunday,ChristmasDay,GoodFridayandEasterMonday,

(b) CanadaDay,VictoriaDay,BritishColumbiaDay,LabourDay,RemembranceDay,FamilyDayandNewYear’sDay,

(c) December26,and

(d) adaysetbytheParliamentofCanadaorbytheLegislature,orappointedbyproc-lamationoftheGovernorGeneralortheLieutenantGovernor,tobeobservedasadayofgeneralprayerormourning,adayofpublicrejoicingorthanksgiving,adayforcelebratingthebirthdayofthereigningSovereign,orasapublicholiday.608

Soifanoticeperiodendsononeofthesedays,thenthatperiodisextendedtothenextdaythatisn’taholiday.

determinedasfollows:(a)ifthereferencedayisbeforetheperiod,bycountingforwardfromandincludingthedayafterthereferenceday;(b)ifthereferencedayisaftertheperiod,bycountingbackwardfromandincludingthedaybeforethereferenceday”—notinforce).

606.InterpretationAct,supranote235,s25(4).SeealsoMiscellaneousStatutesAmendmentAct,2018,supranote604,s3(enactingnewsection25.2(3),whichwillprovide“[i]faperioddescribedinsubsection(2)isexpressedas‘clear’daysorweeksor‘atleast’or‘notlessthan’anumberofdaysorweeks,(a)thebeginningorendoftheperiod,asdeterminedundersubsection(2)(a),isonedaylater,and(b)thebeginningorendoftheperiod,asdeterminedundersubsec-tion(2)(b),isonedayearlier”—notinforce).

607.InterpretationAct,supranote235,s25(2).SeealsoMiscellaneousStatutesAmendmentAct,2018,supranote604,s3(enactingnewsection25.5(1),whichwillprovide“[i]fadaythatisspecifiedfordoinganactfallsonaholiday,thedayfallsonthenextdaythatisnotaholiday”—notinforce).

608.InterpretationAct,supranote235,s29“holiday.”



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.”609Thisexceptionalmethodofnoticemayonlybeusedtoinformresidentownersandtenantsaboutunapprovedexpenditures,610changestostratafeesbroughtinbyanewbudget,611expenditureofmoneycollectedbyspeciallevy,612theadoptionofnewrules,613amendmentstobylaws,614alawsuitagainstthestratacorporation,615orunder“anyregulationsthatrequirethestratacorporationtoinformownersortenantsofcertainmatters.”616Shouldthisexceptionalprovisionfornoticebeamended?609.Supranote4,s65.

610.Seeibid,s98(6).

611.Seeibid,s106.





616.Ibid,s65.



Discussion of options for reform Thisissueisratheropenended.Thecommitteefocuseditsattentionononeofitsqualities:itsrelianceonalow-techmeansofprovidingnotice.Thisapproachmayhavemadesomesenseinthe1990s,whenthisprovisionwasbeingdeveloped,butdoitsassumptionscontinuetoholdtruetoday?Thereareprivacyandotherconcernsaboutpostinginformationinthemannercon-sideredbysection65.It’salsopossibletoconsiderthesection’srelevance.Peoplemaynowbemoreaccustomedtoreceivinginformationonline,causingadeclineinthissection’sbulletin-boardapproach.Ontheotherhand,thesectionisprimarilyanenablingprovision.Evenifonlyasmallnumberofstratacorporationsrelyonit,itmaystillbeprovidingabenefittothosestratacorporationswithoutimposinganyburdensonotherstratacorpora-tions.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteewrestledwiththisissue,whichhasimplicationsthatarenotreadilyapparentatfirstsight.Thecommitteewasstruckbytheseeminganachronismofthesection’sapproachtogivingnotices.Butasitlookedforwaystomodernizethesec-tion,itcontinuallyranintohurdlesthatpreventeditseasyextensiontomodernmeansofcommunication.Forexample,thecommitteewasconcernedabouteffec-tivelyimposinganonusonowners,tenants,andothertoregularlycheckastrata-corporationwebsitetobenotifiedaboutdevelopments.617Thisonuswouldbepar-ticularlyheavyonthosewho,forwhateverreason,don’thavein-homeaccesstotheInternet.Intheend,thecommitteedecidedthatthenatureofthesection,asanenablingpro-vision,wasreasonenoughtoproposeleavingitasis.Inaddition,whilethecommit-teeisn’topposedinpracticetodistributingnoticesviawebsites(whereappropri-ate),itdidn’tthinkitwasnecessaryatthistimetoprovidealegislativeframeworkforthispractice.Thecommitteeisinterestedinpubliccommentonbothdimensionsofthisissue—thatis,thecontinuedutilityofsection65andthepossibleneedforlegislationregardingnoticesviaawebsite.

617.SeeTheOwners,StrataPlanLMS2706vMorrell,2018BCCRT28atparas11–14(exampleofdis-

tributionofnoticesby“propertymanagementcompany’swebportal”indisputeovermissedno-tice).



Amajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerec-ommendation.Thecommitteerecommends:

78.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-noticeprovisionfoundinsection61.618Asdiscussedearlier,thedeemed-noticeprovisionhasbeenincludedinthelegisla-tiontodealwithevidentiaryissuesaroundthegivingofnotice.Butapplicationoftheprovisionmayalsohavetheeffectofshorteningsomenoticeperiodstothepointwhereitbecomesonerousforastratacorporationtocomplywiththem.The committee’s recommendations for reform Whilethedeemed-noticeprovisiondoesserveausefulpurpose,inthecommittee’sviewitalsohastheside-effectofcreatinganadministrativeburdenforstratacorpo-rations.Thecommitteedecidedtolessenthisburdenbyextendingthenoticeperi-odsforcaseinwhichtheburdenisheaviest.Theseareprovisionscallingfornoticeofawrittendecisionofstratacouncilinresponsetoahearing619oradecisionre-gardinganexemptionfromarental-restrictionbylaw.620618.Seesupranote4,s61(4)(“Anoticeorotherrecordordocumentthatisgiventoapersonunder

subsection(1)(a)(ii)or(b)(ii)to(vii)isconclusivelydeemedtohavebeengiven4daysafteritisleftwithanadultoccupant,putunderthedoor,mailed,putthroughthemailslotorinthemailbox,faxedoremailed.”).Seealso,above,at205–206(generaldiscussionofthedeemed-noticeprovision).

619.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote4,s34.1(3).

620.Seeibid,s144(4)(a).



Astrongmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’spro-posalsforthisissue.Thecommitteerecommends:

79.Section34.1(3)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingout“oneweek”andreplacingitwith“twoweeks.”Thecommitteerecommends:80.Section144(4)(a)(i)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingout“oneweek”andreplacingitwith“twoweeks.”Thecommitteerecommends:

81.Section144(4)(a)(ii)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingout“twoweeks”andreplacingitwith“threeweeks.”



Chapter 8. Draft Legislation and Regulations

Draft legislation

StrataProperty(GovernanceIssues)AmendmentAct,2018

HERMAJESTY,byandwiththeadviceandconsentoftheLegislativeAssemblyoftheProvinceofBritishColumbia,enactsasfollows:1 Section1(1)oftheStrataPropertyAct,S.B.C.1998,c.42,isamendedby

addingthefollowingdefinitions:“continuingcontravention”means

(a) asinglecontinuousact,or(b) asuccessionorrepetitionofseparateactsofthesame

character;

recommendationno.(39)Comment: Determining when a breach of a strata corporation’s bylaw amounts to a con-tinuing contravention (as opposed to a disconnected series of discrete violations) has proved to be a challenge for strata councils. This definition is intended to clarify the con-cept. Its wording is based on court judgments that have considered the expression.

“rent”meanstopaymonetaryconsiderationorothervaluetooccu-pyastratalot;.

recommendationno.(41)

Comment: The addition of a definition of rent is intended to clarify the application of the act’s rental-restriction provisions (sections 139–148). There have been disputes over whether a person who occupies a strata lot and pays monetary consideration to its own-er is actually paying rent, which may trigger the application of a rental restriction bylaw. By defining rent broadly, this legislative definition is intended to forestall such disputes. 2 Section25isamended

(a) byrenumberingthesectionassection25(1),and



(b) byaddingthefollowingsubsections:(2) Ifthenumberofpersonsoncouncilislessthanthemaximum

numberdeterminedbythebylaws,ataspecialgeneralmeetingtheeligiblevoterswhoarepresentinpersonorbyproxyatthemeetingmayelectacouncilmemberorcouncilmembersuptothemaximum.


Comment: This proposed amendment to section 25 would give strata corporations greater flexibility in electing strata-council members at special general meetings. While some scope already exists to do this, the current legislation only goes so far, potentially frustrating strata corporations in certain cases.

(3) Eachcandidateforthecounciliselectedonlyifthenumberofballotscastinfavourofthecandidaterepresentsamajorityoftheballotscastforandagainstthatcandidatebytheeligiblevot-erswhoarepresentinpersonorbyproxy.


Comment: This proposed subsection, which is modelled on a recent amendment to the Canada Business Corporations Act, implements the committee’s recommendation re-quiring that a majority of the ballots cast support the election of each strata-council member. This reform is intended to foster greater individual accountability of council members. It will also strike a blow against the practice of acclaiming a set of council members, which in certain cases may result in the election to council of persons who might not have been elected, had they not been considered part of the group to be ac-claimed. 3 ThefollowingsectionisaddedtoDivision1ofPart4:

Delegation of certain powers not permitted

27.1 Thecouncilmaynotdelegateitspowerstodetermine,basedonthefactsofaparticularcase,

(a) whetherapersonhascontravenedabylaworrule,

(b) whetherapersonshouldbefined,andtheamountofthefi-ne,or

(c) whetherapersonshouldbedeniedaccesstoarecreationalfacility.



recommendationno.(17)Comment: This amendment relocates section 20 (4) of the Schedule of Standard By-laws to the body of the Strata Property Act. The provision deals with a bedrock govern-ance requirement that shouldn’t be subject to a strata corporation’s amendment. 4 Section28(3)isamendedbystrikingout“astratacorporationmay,byby-

law,providethat”andbystrikingout“isentitledtoregister”substituting“hasregistered”.

recommendationno.n/a

Comment: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that section 28 (3) of the act remains consistent with section 53 (2), which the committee has recommended amend-ing (see section 15, below). Even though the two sections deal with separate subjects (eligibility for council, in section 28, and voting rights, in section 53), the committee de-cided that it is important for the language of the sections to be harmonized, to avoid con-fusion in practice. 5 Thefollowingsectionsareadded:

Council members must be qualified

29.1 (1) Apersonmustnotbeamemberofthecouncilifthepersonisnotqualifiedundereithersection29.2orthebylawstobeacouncilmember.

(2) Amemberofthecouncilwhoisnot,orwhoceasestobe,quali-fiedundereithersection29.2orthebylawstobeacouncilmem-bermustpromptlyresign.

Persons qualified to be council members

29.2 (1) Apersonisqualifiedtobeamemberofthecouncilonlyifthepersonisanindividualwhoisatleast18yearsofage.

(2) Despitesubsection(1),anindividualisnotqualifiedtobeamemberofthecounciliftheindividualis(a) foundbyanycourt,inCanadaorelsewhere,tobeincapable

ofmanagingtheindividual’sownaffairs,

(b) anundischargedbankrupt,or(c) convictedinoroutofBritishColumbiaofanoffenceincon-

nectionwiththepromotion,formationormanagementofa



corporationorunincorporatedentity,orofanoffencein-volvingfraud,unless

(i) theSupremeCourtordersotherwise,(ii)5yearshaveelapsedsincethelasttooccurof

(A) theexpirationoftheperiodsetforsuspensionofthepassingofsentencewithoutasentencehavingbeenpassed,

(B) theimpositionofafine,(C) theconclusionofthetermofanyimprisonment,

and(D) theconclusionofthetermofanyprobationim-

posed,or

(iii)apardonwasgrantedorissued,orarecordsuspen-sionwasordered,undertheCriminalRecordsAct(Canada)andthepardonorrecordsuspension,asthecasemaybe,hasnotbeenrevokedorceasedtohaveeffect.


Comment: These proposed sections set out the baseline qualifications that anyone should have to meet in order to become a member of a strata council. The minimum standards set out in these sections would require council members to meet defined standards in terms of age, mental capacity, financial management, and honesty and in-tegrity. The amendment is modelled on similar provisions in the Societies Act. 6 Thefollowingsectionisadded:

Limitation on liability of council member

31.1 (1) Acouncilmemberwhoactshonestlyandingoodfaithisnotper-sonallyliablebecauseofanythingdoneoromittedintheexerciseorintendedexerciseofanypowerortheperformanceorintend-edperformanceofanydutyofthecouncil.

(2) Subsection(1)doesnotaffectacouncilmember’sliability,asanowner,forajudgmentagainstthestratacorporation.




Comment: This amendment relocates section 22 of the standard bylaws to the act, plac-ing it beyond amendment by the strata corporation. 7 Section32isamended

(a) byrenumberingthesectionassection32(1),and

(b) byaddingthefollowingsubsection:(2) Thequorumforacouncilmeetingmayincludeacouncilmember

whoisrequiredtoleavethemeetingundersubsection(1)(e).

recommendationno.(52)Comment: This proposed section is intended to allow a strata council to overcome a practical problem: sometimes enough council members are required to leave a meeting due to their potential conflicts of interest that the quorum for the meeting is placed in doubt. This provision ensures that the remaining, non-conflicted council members can act in these circumstances. The provision is based on a similar provision found in the Business Corporations Act. 8 Section34.1(3)isamendedbystrikingout“oneweek”andsubstituting

“2weeks”.

recommendationno.(79)Comment: The purpose of this amendment is to give strata councils a more realistic time frame in which to render a written decision to an issue raised in a council hearing. 9 Thefollowingsectionisadded:

Strata corporation to circulate minutes of council meeting

34.2 Thestratacorporationmustcirculateminutesofcouncilmeetingswithin3weeksofthemeeting,whetherornottheminuteshavebeenapproved.


Comment: This proposed section relocates section 19 of the standard bylaws to the act and makes two changes to the provision. First, it substitutes the word circulate for the term currently used in the bylaws, inform. Circulate is the word typically used in both le-gal and informal contexts to refer to distribution of the minutes. Second, the proposed section changes the time frame in which minutes are to be circulated from two weeks to three weeks.



10 Section39(1)(a)isamendedbyadding“heldnoearlierthan90daysbefore

thenoticeisgiven”after“meeting”.

recommendationno.(71)Comment: This amendment deals with cancellation of strata-management contracts. Under section 39 as it currently stands, a strata corporation is allowed to give two months’ notice to cancel a strata-management contract “if the cancellation is first ap-proved by a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote at an annual or special general meeting.” There is growing concern that these resolutions are being acted upon only after the pas-sage of a considerable time or that they are being treated as a routine item for each an-nual general meeting. This creates uncertainty in the relationship between the strata cor-poration and its strata manager. The amendment would effectively place a time limit on the effectiveness of the resolution, by requiring it to be passed at a meeting held no ear-lier than 90 days before the notice of cancellation is given. 11 Section48isamended

(a) byaddingthefollowingsubsection:(2.1) Ifaquorumispresentattheopeningofanannualorspecialgen-

eralmeeting,theeligiblevoterspresentinpersonorbyproxymay,unlessotherwiseprovidedinthebylaws,proceedwiththebusinessofthemeeting,evenifaquorumisnotpresentthroughoutthemeeting.


Comment: The proposed amendment is intended to clarify when a quorum is present at an annual general meeting or a special general meeting. It takes the practical approach of only requiring the assessment of quorum at the start of the meeting. The provision is based on a subsection found in the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act.

(b) insubsection(3)bystrikingout“themeetingstandsadjournedtothesamedayinthenextweekatthesameplaceandtimebut,ifonthedaytowhichthemeetingisadjournedaquorumdescribedinsubsection(2)isnotpresentwithin1/2hourfromthetimeappointedforthemeeting,”,and


Comment: This proposed amendment revises section 48 (3) to read “Unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, if within 1/2 hour from the time appointed for an annual or special



general meeting a quorum is not present, the eligible voters present in person or by proxy constitute a quorum.” The amendment is intended to allow strata corporations greater efficiencies in conducting their business and to avoid practical problems that have tended to occur following the wake of adjourning a meeting for seven days.

(c) byaddingthefollowingsubsection:

(4) Subsection(3)doesnotapplytoaspecialgeneralmeetingcalledbythevotersundersection43.


Comment: This proposed subsection is a consequential amendment, inserted to make it clear that the new rule regarding quorum does not apply to a meeting requisitioned by voters under section 43 of the act. 12 ThefollowingsectionisaddedtoDivision4ofPart4:

Person to chair meeting

49.1 (1) Annualandspecialgeneralmeetingsmustbechairedbythepresidentofthecouncil.

(2) Ifthepresidentofthecouncilisunwillingorunabletoact,themeetingmustbechairedbythevicepresidentofthecouncil.

(3) Ifneitherthepresidentnorthevicepresidentofthecouncilchairsthemeeting,achairmustbeelectedbytheeligiblevoterspresentinpersonorbyproxyfromamongthosepersonswhoarepresentatthemeeting.


Comment: This proposed section relocates section 25 of the standard bylaws to the act. It is intended to address a consequence of recommendation no. (47) (see, below, sec-tion 16 (c)). That recommendation limits who may serve as a proxy. One limitation is placed on contractors with the strata corporation. Standing alone, the recommendation could have the effect of thwarting a strata corporation’s decision to have a trusted pro-fessional (such as a lawyer or strata manager) act as chair of a strata corporation’s gen-eral meeting. By specifically stating in the act that a chair “must be elected . . . from among those persons who are present at the meeting,” this proposed section will over-come that problem.



13 Section50isamendedbyaddingthefollowingsubsections:(3) Atanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting,votingcardsmustbeis-

suedtoeligiblevoters.(4) Atanannualorspecialgeneralmeetingavoteisdecidedona

showofvotingcards,unlessaneligiblevoterrequestsaprecisecount.

(5) Ifaprecisecountisrequested,thechairmustdecidewhetheritwillbebyshowofvotingcardsorbyrollcall,writtenballotorsomeothermethod.

(6) Theoutcomeofeachvote,includingthenumberofvotesforandagainsttheresolutionifaprecisecountisrequested,mustbeannouncedbythechairandrecordedintheminutesofthemeet-ing.

(7) Subjecttosubsection(8),avotedoesnotneedtobeheldbywrit-tenballot,unlessthewrittenballotisauthorizedbyaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvote.

(8) Despiteanythinginthissection,ifavoteisfortheelectionofacouncilmember,thenitmustbeheldbywrittenballot.

recommendationnos.(23),(54),(56),and(57)

Comment: These proposed amendments relocate section 27 of the standard bylaws to the body of the act. The provisions deal with the process of voting, setting out proce-dures that shouldn’t be subject to amendment. Subsection (5), which provides that “[i]f there is a tie vote at an annual or special general meeting, the president, or, if the presi-dent is absent or unable or unwilling to vote, the vice president, may break the tie by casting a second, deciding vote,” isn’t carried forward into the legislation in view of the committee’s recommendation to do away with this concept of a casting vote at general meetings. Subsections (7) and (8) contain amendments to one aspect of section 27. They eliminate the requirement to hold a secret ballot on the request of as little as one eligible voter. The courts have interpreted this requirement as requiring a level of secrecy and formality that places too great a burden on strata corporations. Under the proposed amendment, the references to secret ballot are changed to references to written ballot. Further, a meeting chair may only be compelled to hold a vote by written ballot if a reso-lution is passed by a majority vote, subject to one exception. The exception concerns strata-council elections, which must be held by written ballot.



14 Thefollowingsectionisadded:Strata corporation to circulate minutes of general meeting

52.1 Thestratacorporationmustcirculateminutesofannualandspecialgeneralmeetingswithin3weeksofthemeeting,whetherornottheminuteshavebeenapproved.


Comment: This proposed section creates a requirement for the strata corporation to cir-culate minutes of an annual general meeting or a special general meeting. It parallels a requirement to circulate minutes of a strata-council meeting. In both cases, the draft leg-islation requires circulation within three weeks of the meeting. 15 Section53isamended

(a) byrepealingsubsection(2)andsubstitutingthefollowing:(2) Despitesubsection(1),thevoteforastratalotmaynotbeexer-

cised,exceptonmattersrequiringan80%voteorunanimousvote,ifthestratacorporationhasregisteredalienagainstthatstratalotundersection116(1).;

(b) insubsection(3)bystrikingout“abylawpassedunder”;

recommendationno.(35)Comment: Section 53 (2) of the Strata Property Act currently provides, “[d]espite sub-section (1), a strata corporation may, by bylaw, provide that the vote for a strata lot may not be exercised, except on matters requiring an 80% vote or unanimous vote, if the stra-ta corporation is entitled to register a lien against that strata lot under section 116 (1).” The proposed new subjection changes two aspects of this subsection, with the intent of clarifying its application in practice. First, it does away with the requirement that the sub-jection be enabled by a bylaw amendment. Second, it requires that a lien already be reg-istered against a strata lot before that strata-lot owner’s voting rights are suspended. The current provision allows suspension of voting rights when the strata corporation is “enti-tled” to register a lien, creating a situation in which the application of the provision turns on a judgment call. The provision will be simpler to apply when that judgment call is elim-inated. The proposed revision to subsection (3) is needed as a consequence of the change proposed for subsection (2).



(c) byrepealingsubsection(4)andsubstitutingthefollowing:(4) Despiteanyotherprovisionintheact,regulationsorbylaws,a

chairofanannualorspecialgeneralmeetingmaynotbreakatieinvotingonaresolutionbycastingasecond,decidingvote.


Comment: This proposed section would eliminate the use of the chair’s casting vote at a strata corporation’s annual general meeting or special general meeting. The casting vote is rarely used in practice and has caused confusion when it is asserted in contested cir-cumstances. The section doesn’t address strata-council meetings. By implication, the casting vote could be used in those meetings (so long as a strata corporation’s bylaws didn’t take its use away). Strata-council meetings are invariably composed of smaller groups of individuals and are thereby more prone to deadlock. The casting vote may have some value for them. 16 Section56isamended

(a) byaddingthefollowingparagraphtosubsection(2):(a.1)mustbeintheprescribedform,,

(b) byaddingthefollowingsubsection:(2.1) Adocumentappointingaproxythatisnotintheprescribedform

isinvalid.,and

recommendationnos.(44)and(45)Comment: These two amendments allow for the creation of a prescribed form of proxy appointment and make use of that form mandatory. A prescribed, mandatory form should help to combat the abuse and misuse of proxy appointments by clarifying the terms of the proxy relationship.

(c) byrepealingsubsection(3)andsubstitutingthefollowing:(3) Subjecttosubsection(3.1)andtheregulations,anypersonmay

beaproxy.(3.1) Thefollowingpersonsmaynotbeaproxyforaneligiblevoter

whoisnotanownerdeveloper:

(a) anemployee,agentorcontractorofthestratacorporation;(b) anownerdeveloperoremployeeoragentofanownerde-

veloperorapersonwhodoesnotdealwiththeownerde-veloperatarm’slength;



(c) apersonwhoprovidesstratamanagementservicestothestratacorporationorthatperson’semployeeoragent.


Comment: This amended provision spells out the categories of people who may not be a proxy. It expands on the current provision by listing employees and agents of the strata corporation, owner-developers and their employees and agents, people who don’t deal at arm’s length with an owner-developer, and employees and agents of strata managers among the categories of people who can’t be proxies. This presents a more complete picture of who might potentially be in a conflict of interest as a proxy and who therefore shouldn’t be allowed to play that role. The amended provision is based on a provision in the The Condominium Act of Manitoba. 17 ThefollowingsectionisaddedtoDivision7ofPart4:

Inform strata corporation

64.1 (1) Within2weeksofbecominganowner,anownermustinformthestratacorporationoftheowner’sname,stratalotnumberandmailingaddressoutsidethestrataplan,ifany.


Comment: This proposed section relocates section 4 (1) of the schedule of standard by-laws to the body of the act.

(2) Iftheownerhasarepresentative,asdefinedintheregulations,thentherepresentativemustinformthestratacorporationofthenumberofthestratalotthattherepresentativeisrepresentingandtherepresentative’scontactinformation,bythelatertooc-curofthefollowing:(a) within2weeksoftheownerbecominganowner;(b) within2weeksoftherepresentativebecomingtheowner’s

representative.

recommendationno.(6)Comment: This proposed subsection deals with an emerging issue in strata-property law. As the population ages, it’s becoming increasingly common to encounter strata-lot owners who have appointed representatives to deal with their property. An example of such a representative is an attorney appointed under an enduring power of attorney. If an owner has such a representative, then this section obligates the representative to ad-



vise the strata corporation of the strata-lot number that the representative is representing (to ensure clarity on this point) and the representative’s contact information (to facilitate communication with the owner’s representative). 18 ThefollowingsectionisaddedtoDivision1ofPart5:

Use of property

66.1 Anowner,tenant,occupantorvisitormustnotuseastratalot,thecommonpropertyorcommonassetsinawaythat

(a) causesanuisanceorhazardtoanotherperson,

(b) causesunreasonablenoise,(c) unreasonablyinterfereswiththerightsofotherpersonsto

useandenjoythecommonproperty,commonassetsoran-otherstratalot,

(d) isillegal,or

(e) iscontrarytoapurposeforwhichthestratalotorcommonpropertyisintendedasshownexpresslyorbynecessaryimplicationonorbythestrataplan.


Comment: This proposed section relocates section 3 (1) of the standard bylaws to the body of the act. 19 Thefollowingsectionsareadded:

Obtain approval before altering a strata lot

70.1 (1) Anownermustobtainthewrittenapprovalofthestratacorpora-tionbeforemakinganalterationtoastratalotthatinvolvesanyofthefollowing:

(a) thestructureofabuilding;

(b) theexteriorofabuilding;(c) chimneys,stairs,balconiesorotherthingsattachedtothe

exteriorofabuilding;(d) doors,windowsorskylightsontheexteriorofabuilding,or

thatfrontonthecommonproperty;(e) fences,railingsorsimilarstructuresthatencloseapatio,

balconyoryard;



(f) commonpropertylocatedwithintheboundariesofastratalot;

(g) thosepartsofthestratalotwhichthestratacorporationmustinsureundersection149.

(2) Thestratacorporationmustnotunreasonablywithholditsap-provalundersubsection(1),butmayrequireasaconditionofitsapprovalthattheowneragree,inwriting,totakeresponsibilityforanyexpensesrelatingtothealteration.


Comment: This proposed section relocates section 5 (1) and (2) of the standard bylaws to the body of the act. Current subsection (3), which provides “[t]his section does not ap-ply to a strata lot in a bare land strata plan,” isn’t brought forward.

Permit entry to strata lot

70.2 (1) Anowner,tenant,occupantorvisitormustallowapersonau-thorizedbythestratacorporationtoenterthestratalot(a) inanemergency,withoutnotice,toensuresafetyorpre-

ventsignificantlossordamage,and(b) atareasonabletime,on48hours’writtennotice,toinspect,

repairormaintaincommonproperty,commonassetsandanyportionsofastratalotthataretheresponsibilityofthestratacorporationtorepairandmaintainundertheseby-lawsorinsureundersection149.

(2) Thenoticereferredtoinsubsection(1)(b)mustincludethedateandapproximatetimeofentry,andthereasonforentry.


Comment: This proposed section relocates section 7 of the standard bylaws to the body of the act. 20 Thefollowingsectionisadded:

Obtain approval before altering common property

71.1 (1) Anownermustobtainthewrittenapprovalofthestratacorpora-tionbeforemakinganalterationtocommonproperty,includinglimitedcommonproperty,orcommonassets.



(2) Thestratacorporationmayrequireasaconditionofitsapprovalthattheowneragree,inwriting,totakeresponsibilityforanyexpensesrelatingtothealteration.


Comment: This proposed section relocates section 6 of the standard bylaws to the body of the act. 21 Section72isamended

(a) byrepealingsubsection(2)andsubstitutingthefollowing:(2) Thestratacorporationmay,bybylaw,makeanownerresponsi-

blefortherepairandmaintenanceoflimitedcommonpropertythattheownerhasarighttouseandthatisnotanitemoflim-itedcommonpropertylistedinsubsection(3)(c).

(b) byaddingthefollowingsubsection:(3) Thestratacorporationmustrepairandmaintainallofthefol-

lowing:

(a) commonassetsofthestratacorporation;(b) commonpropertythathasnotbeendesignatedaslimited

commonproperty;(c) limitedcommonproperty,butthedutytorepairandmain-

tainitisrestrictedto(i) repairandmaintenancethatintheordinarycourseof

eventsoccurslessoftenthanonceayear,and

(ii) thefollowing,nomatterhowoftentherepairormaintenanceordinarilyoccurs:(A) thestructureofabuilding;

(B) theexteriorofabuilding;(C) chimneys,stairs,balconiesandotherthingsat-

tachedtotheexteriorofabuilding;

(D)patios;(E) doors,windowsandskylightsontheexteriorof

abuildingorthatfrontonthecommonproper-ty;



(F) fences,railingsandsimilarstructuresthaten-closepatios,balconiesandyards;

(d) astratalotinastrataplanthatisnotabarelandstrataplan,butthedutytorepairandmaintainitisrestrictedto

(i) thestructureofabuilding,

(ii) theexteriorofabuilding,(iii)chimneys,stairs,balconiesandotherthingsattached

totheexteriorofabuilding,(iv)doors,windowsandskylightsontheexteriorofa

buildingorthatfrontonthecommonproperty,and(v) fences,railingsandsimilarstructuresthatenclosepa-

tios,balconiesandyards.,and

(c) byrenumberingsubsection(3)assubsection(4)andadding“Despitesubsection(3),the”before“stratacorporation”.

recommendationnos.(12),(13),and(14)

Comment: The proposed amendment in paragraph (b) relocates section 8 of the stand-ard bylaws to become part of section 72 of the act, with one change in wording. This change is the addition of patios to the provision (in clause (3) (c) (ii) (D)). The addition of this term is intended to clarify the scope of the new provision. The proposed amend-ments in paragraphs (a) and (c) are essentially consequential amendments that are needed to ensure the seamless integration section 8 of the standard bylaws into sec-tion 72 of the act. Paragraph (b) contains two changes to section 72 (2). First, it clarifies that the limited common property that a strata corporation may, by bylaw, make a strata-lot owner responsible for must not include an item of limited common property listed in new subsection (3) (c). Without this clarification, subsection (2) could be read as inviting a strata corporation to adopt a bylaw that purports to make an owner responsible for the repair and maintenance of such an item of property. But such a bylaw would invariably be unenforceable because it is inconsistent with a provision of the act. Second, the amendment effectively repeals existing section 72 (2) (b) by not carrying it forward into the proposed new subsection (2). The existing provision holds that a “strata corporation may, by bylaw, make an owner responsible for the repair and maintenance of . . . com-mon property other than limited common property only if identified in the regulations and subject to prescribed restrictions.” Since the enabling regulations for this provision have never been adopted, it is essentially a dead letter. Section 72 would be clearer if it this provision ceased to exist. The proposed amendment in paragraph (c) is intended to clari-fy the relationship between the proposed new subsection (3) and what will become sub-section (4).



22 Section106isamendedbystrikingout“2weeks”andsubstituting“3weeks”.


Comment: Section 106 deals with informing strata-lot owners of an increase in strata fees (“[w]ithin 2 weeks following the annual or special general meeting at which a budget is passed, the strata corporation must inform owners of any changes to their strata fees resulting from the new budget”). The proposed amendment changes the time frame that the strata corporation has in which to inform owners from two weeks to three weeks. This change will make the section consistent with proposed changes dealing with the circula-tion of minutes of strata-council meetings and general meetings. 23 Section108(6)isamendedbystrikingout“$100”andsubstituting“the

prescribedamount”.

recommendationno.(66)Comment: Section 108 of the Strata Property Act sets out the mechanics for a strata corporation to raise funds by special levy. Subsections (5) and (6) describe what must happen when a strata corporation raises more funds then are ultimately needed to com-plete an identified project. In these cases (that is, when “the money collected exceeds the amount required, or for any other reason is not fully used for the purpose set out in the resolution” authorizing the special levy), the general rule is that “the strata corpora-tion must pay to each owner of a strata lot the portion of the unused amount of the spe-cial levy that is proportional to the contribution made to the special levy in respect of that strata lot.” This general rule is subject to the exception spelled out in subsection (6), which allows the strata corporation to “deposit the excess [funds] in the contingency re-serve fund,” so long as “no owner is entitled to receive more than $100 in total.” The pro-posed amendment replaces the pat reference to $100 with a reference to an amount that is prescribed by regulation. Since the process for changing regulations is simpler and less time-consuming than the process for changing legislation, it is common to see legis-lation allowing things like dollar values to be spelled out in a regulation. Using this ap-proach would make sense for section 108, which has seen inflation erode the $100 amount that was established when the act came into force nearly 20 years ago. It is nec-essary to strike a balance in selecting the dollar figure for this provision. A better balance between the needs of strata-lot owners and the administrative demands on the strata corporation would be struck by raising this figure to $500. 24 Section116(1)isamendedbyaddingthefollowingparagraph:

(e) achargebackforaninsurancedeductibleorexpensein-curredduetodamagewhichislessthananinsurancede-



ductible,ifthechargebackhasbeenfoundvalidbyacourt,anarbitratorortheCivilResolutionTribunal.


Comment: Section 116 of the act sets out the provisions governing the strata corpora-tion’s lien, which is a statutory security interest in an owner’s strata lot that the strata corporation may benefit from in the circumstances described in section 116. One of these circumstances limits the scope of the lien to securing certain kinds of debts. These debts are listed in subsection (1), which provides that the strata corporation may only register (in the land title office) a lien against a strata lot if its “owner fails to pay the stra-ta corporation any of the following with respect to that strata lot: (a) strata fees; (b) a special levy; (c) a reimbursement of the cost of work referred to in section 85; (d) the strata lot’s share of a judgment against the strata corporation.” The proposed amend-ment adds a new item to this list, relating to insurance deductibles. The change is part of a series of reforms—set out in this report and in the committee’s separate work on insur-ance issues—that is intended to improve the operation of section 158 of the act. 25 ThefollowingsectionisaddedtoDivision6ofPart6:

Limitation period

116.1 Aproceedingbyastratacorporationinrespectofaclaimformoneythatiscapableofbeingsubjecttoalienundersection116mustnotbecommencedlaterthan4yearsaftertheclaimisdiscovered.


Comment: In the absence of a special limitation period set out in the Strata Property Act, suits by a strata corporation are subject to the general two-year limitation period found in the Limitation Act. A strong case can be made that some claims by a strata cor-poration have enough differences from typical debt claims to justify a longer limitation pe-riod. This proposed section creates that special, longer limitation period for claims by a strata corporation that are capable of being subject to the strata corporation’s lien under section 116 of the Strata Property Act. Discoverability is a concept used in limitations law. A claim is discovered in accordance with the rules set out in sections 8–11 of the Limitation Act. 26 Section121(1)isamended

(a) inparagraph(b)bystrikingout“or”thesecondtimeitappears,(b) inparagraph(c)bystrikingout“inthestratalot.”andsubstituting“in

thestratalot,or”,and



(c) byaddingthefollowingparagraph:(d) reassignsmoneypaidbyanownertothestratacorporation

thatwasintendedforthepurposesof(i) stratafees,

(ii)aspeciallevy,(iii)areimbursementofthecostofworkreferredtoin

section85,or

(iv) thestratalot’sshareofajudgmentagainstthestratacorporation.


Comment: This proposed amendment adds a new paragraph to section 121 (1) to ad-dress the phenomenon of strata corporations adopting bylaws that purport to reassign funds received from strata-lot owners based on the rule in Clayton’s Case. Section 121 of the Strata Property Act sets out the circumstances in which a strata corporation’s by-law isn’t enforceable. The rule in Clayton’s Case is a rule, typically applied in banking law, which can be summarized as “first in, first out.” Some strata corporations have relied on this rule when they are in disputes with strata-lot owners over payments for fines. The owner may dispute the fine and continue regularly paying strata fees. On the strength of a bylaw adopting the rule in Clayton’s Case, the strata corporation may then reassign the payment on account of strata fees first against the older outstanding item (the disputed fine), leaving a deficit in the payment of strata fees. The significance of this is that while an amount owning on account of a fine isn’t within the scope of the strata corporation’s statutory lien, an amount owning for strata fees is, which gives the strata corporation sig-nificantly increased leverage in the dispute. The proposed amendment is aimed at stamping out this practice, by making it clear that such a bylaw is unenforceable. 27 Section132isamended

(a) intheheadingbyadding“andcontinuingcontraventions”after“Maximumfines”,

(b) byrepealingsubsection(2)andsubstitutingthefollowing:(2) Thestratacorporationmaysetoutinitsbylawsdifferentmaxi-

mumamountsoffinesfordifferentbylawsandrules.,

(c) insubsection(3)bystrikingout“andthemaximumfrequencyofimpo-sitionoffines”,

(d) byaddingthefollowingsubsection:



(4) Ifanactivityorlackofactivitythatconstitutesacontraventionofabylaworrulecontinues,withoutinterruption,forlongerthan7days,afinemaybeimposedevery7days.


Comment: Paragraph (d) of the proposed amendment relocates section 24 of the standard bylaws to become a part of section 132 of the Strata Property Act. Para-graphs (a) to (c) are consequential amendments, which are needed to integrate the relo-cated bylaw within the section. Paragraph (a) clarifies the section’s subjects by making it clear in the heading that the section deals with both maximum fines and continuing con-traventions. Paragraphs (b) and (c) remove references to a strata corporation setting in its bylaws “the frequency at which fines may be imposed for a continuing contravention of a bylaw or rule,” so long as the frequency doesn’t exceed the maximum frequency found in the regulations. These references will be inappropriate once section 24 of the standard bylaws is relocated to the act. A bylaw that purports to depart from the new leg-islative provision would be unenforceable. And a regulation setting out a maximum fre-quency for such bylaws is no longer necessary, and so may be repealed. 28 Section143isamended

(a) insubsection(1)bystrikingout“subsection”andsubstituting“subsec-tions(1.1)and”,

(b) byaddingthefollowingsubsection:

(1.1) Subjecttosubsection(4),ifthestratacorporationhasanexistingbylawthatprohibitsorlimitsrentalsandthatbylawisamended,thentheamendedbylawappliesasfollows:(a) theamendedbylawdoesnotapplytoastratalotthatwas

validlyrentedunderthebylawthatexistedimmediatelypriortotheamendmentuntilthelaterof(i) oneyearafteratenantwhoisoccupyingthestratalot

atthetimetheamendedbylawispassedceasestooc-cupyitasatenant,and

(ii)oneyearaftertheamendedbylawispassed;(b) inanyothercase,theamendedbylawappliesupontheby-

lawtakingeffectinaccordancewiththisact.,(c) insubsection(2)bystrikingout“subsection(1)”andsubstituting

“subsections(1)and(1.1)”,and



(d) insubsection(4)bystrikingout“Subsection(1)(b)”andsubstituting“Subsections(1)(b)and(1.1)(a)(ii)”.


Comment: This proposed amendment makes a limited change to the Strata Property Act’s provisions on rental-restriction bylaws. The change relates to the so-called grace period, which strata-lot owners benefit from when a strata corporation adopts a rental-restriction bylaw. The provision generally provides that the rental restrictions don’t take effect “until the later of (a) one year after a tenant who is occupying the strata lot at the time the bylaw is passed ceases to occupy it as a tenant, and (b) one year after the by-law is passed.” These provisions are necessary when a strata lot is validly rented under a rental-restriction bylaw or when a strata corporation is bringing in rental restrictions for the first time. What the proposed amendment does is to make it clear that the grace pe-riod won’t apply to a strata lot that wasn’t validly rented under an existing rental re-striction bylaw. There is no rationale for giving the owner of such a strata lot a grace pe-riod in which to rent it out, simply because the strata corporation has made some chang-es to an existing rental-restriction bylaw. 29 Section144(4)(a)isamended

(a) insubparagraph(i)bystrikingout“oneweek”andsubstituting“2weeks”,and

(b) insubparagraph(ii)bystrikingout“2weeks”andsubstituting“3weeks”.

recommendationnos.(80)and(81)

Comment: These proposed amendments give the strata corporation the benefit of more time in which to render a decision in writing on a strata-lot owner’s application for an ex-emption from a rental-restriction bylaw. 30 TheScheduleofStandardBylawsisrepealedandthefollowingsubstituted:

SCHEDULE OF STANDARD BYLAWS Division 1 — Duties of Owners, Tenants, Occupants and Visitors





(2) Anownermustpayaspeciallevyasapprovedbythestratacorpora-tion.


Comment: Subsection (1) carries forward existing section 1 of the standard bylaws. Subsection (2) is new. It is intended to make it clear that a strata-lot owner must pay a special levy, just as an owner is obligated to pay strata fees. Repair and maintenance of property by owner

2 (1) Anownermustrepairandmaintaintheowner’sstratalot,exceptforrepairandmaintenancethatistheresponsibilityofthestratacorpora-tionunderthesebylaws.

(2) Anownerwhohastheuseoflimitedcommonpropertymustrepairandmaintainit,exceptforrepairandmaintenancethatistherespon-sibilityofthestratacorporationunderthesebylaws.


Comment: This section carries forward section 2 of the standard bylaws, without chang-es. Use of property

3 (1) Anowner,tenant,occupantorvisitormustnotcausedamage,otherthanreasonablewearandtear,tothecommonproperty,commonas-setsorthosepartsofastratalotwhichthestratacorporationmustre-pairandmaintainunderthesebylawsorinsureundersection149oftheAct.

(2) Anowner,tenant,occupantorvisitormustensurethatallanimalsareleashedorotherwisesecuredwhenonthecommonpropertyoronlandthatisacommonasset.

(3) Anowner,tenantoroccupantmustnotkeepanypetsonastratalototherthanoneormoreofthefollowing:(a) areasonablenumberoffishorothersmallaquariumanimals;

(b) areasonablenumberofsmallcagedmammals;

(c) upto2cagedbirds;(d) onedogoronecat.



recommendationno.(4)Comment: The section carries forward section 3 (2) to (4) of the standard bylaws, with-out changes. Section 3 (1) will be relocated to the body of the Strata Property Act; see, above, at section 18 of this draft amending act. Tenant must inform strata corporation

4 Onrequestbythestratacorporation,atenantmustinformthestratacor-porationofhisorhername.


Comment: The section carries forward section 4 (2) of the standard bylaws, without changes. Section 4 (1) will be relocated to the body of the Strata Property Act; see, above, at section 17 of this draft amending act.

Division 2 — Council Council size

5 (1) Subjecttosubsection(2),thecouncilmusthaveatleast3andnotmorethan7members.

(2) Ifthestrataplanhasfewerthan4stratalotsorthestratacorporationhasfewerthan4owners,alltheownersareonthecouncil.

Council members’ terms

6 (1) Thetermofofficeofacouncilmemberendsattheendoftheannualgeneralmeetingatwhichthenewcounciliselected.

(2) Apersonwhosetermascouncilmemberisendingiseligibleforreelection.

Removing council member

7 (1) Unlessalltheownersareonthecouncil,thestratacorporationmay,byaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvoteatanannualorspecialgen-eralmeeting,removeoneormorecouncilmembers.

(2) Afterremovingacouncilmember,thestratacorporationmustholdanelectionatthesameannualorspecialgeneralmeetingtoreplacethecouncilmemberfortheremainderoftheterm.



Replacing council member

8 (1) Ifacouncilmemberresignsorisunwillingorunabletoactforaperiodof2ormoremonths,theremainingmembersofthecouncilmayap-pointareplacementcouncilmemberfortheremainderoftheterm.

(2) Areplacementcouncilmembermaybeappointedfromanypersonel-igibletositonthecouncil.

(3) Thecouncilmayappointacouncilmemberunderthissectioneveniftheabsenceofthememberbeingreplacedleavesthecouncilwithoutaquorum.

(4) Ifallthemembersofthecouncilresignorareunwillingorunabletoactforaperiodof2ormoremonths,personsholdingatleast25%ofthestratacorporation’svotesmayholdaspecialgeneralmeetingtoelectanewcouncilbycomplyingwiththeprovisionsoftheAct,theregulationsandthebylawsrespectingthecallingandholdingofmeet-ings.

Officers

9 (1) Atthefirstmeetingofthecouncilheldaftereachannualgeneralmeet-ingofthestratacorporation,thecouncilmustelect,fromamongitsmembers,apresident,avicepresident,asecretaryandatreasurer.

(2) Apersonmayholdmorethanoneofficeatatime,otherthantheoffic-esofpresidentandvicepresident.

(3) Thevicepresidenthasthepowersanddutiesofthepresident

(a) whilethepresidentisabsentorisunwillingorunabletoact,or(b) fortheremainderofthepresident’stermifthepresidentceases

toholdoffice.(4) Ifanofficerotherthanthepresidentisunwillingorunabletoactfora

periodof2ormoremonths,thecouncilmembersmayappointare-placementofficerfromamongthemselvesfortheremainderoftheterm.

Calling council meetings

10 (1) Anycouncilmembermaycallacouncilmeetingbygivingtheothercouncilmembersatleastoneweek’snoticeofthemeeting,specifyingthereasonforcallingthemeeting.

(2) Thenoticedoesnothavetobeinwriting.



(3) Acouncilmeetingmaybeheldonlessthanoneweek’snoticeif(a) allcouncilmembersconsentinadvanceofthemeeting,or(b) themeetingisrequiredtodealwithanemergencysituation,and

allcouncilmemberseither

(i) consentinadvanceofthemeeting,or(ii)areunavailabletoprovideconsentafterreasonableat-

temptstocontactthem.

(4) Thecouncilmustinformownersaboutacouncilmeetingassoonasfeasibleafterthemeetinghasbeencalled.

Quorum of council

11 (1) Aquorumofthecouncilis(a) 1,ifthecouncilconsistsofonemember,

(b) 2,ifthecouncilconsistsof2,3or4members,

(c) 3,ifthecouncilconsistsof5or6members,and(d) 4,ifthecouncilconsistsof7members.

(2) Councilmembersmustbepresentinpersonatthecouncilmeetingtobecountedinestablishingquorum.

Council meetings

12 (1) Attheoptionofthecouncil,councilmeetingsmaybeheldbyelectron-icmeans,solongasallcouncilmembersandotherparticipantscancommunicatewitheachother.

(2) Ifacouncilmeetingisheldbyelectronicmeans,councilmembersaredeemedtobepresentinperson.

(3) Ownersmayattendcouncilmeetingsasobservers.(4) Despitesubsection(3),noobserversmayattendthoseportionsof

councilmeetingsthatdealwithanyofthefollowing:

(a) bylawcontraventionhearingsundersection135oftheAct;(b) rentalrestrictionbylawexemptionhearingsundersection144of

theAct;(c) anyothermattersifthepresenceofobserverswould,inthe

council’sopinion,unreasonablyinterferewithanindividual’sprivacy.



Voting at council meetings

13 (1) Atcouncilmeetings,decisionsmustbemadebyamajorityofcouncilmemberspresentinpersonatthemeetingandwhohavenotab-stainedfromvoting.

(2) Unlessthereareonly2stratalotsinthestrataplan,ifthereisatievoteatacouncilmeeting,thepresidentmaybreakthetiebycastingasecond,decidingvote.

(3) Theresultsofallvotesatacouncilmeetingmustberecordedinthecouncilmeetingminutes.


Comment: This provision includes a change from its original source, what is now sec-tion 18 of the standard bylaws. In subsection (1) the words “and who have not abstained from voting” have been added to clarify the implications of abstaining from a vote at a council meeting. In this case, an abstention is treated in the same way as an eligible vot-er’s abstention on a vote at an annual general meeting or a special general meeting.Delegation of council’s powers and duties

14 (1) Subjecttosubsections(2)and(3),thecouncilmaydelegatesomeorallofitspowersanddutiestooneormorecouncilmembersorper-sonswhoarenotmembersofthecouncil,andmayrevokethedelega-tion.

(2) Thecouncilmaydelegateitsspendingpowersorduties,butonlybyaresolutionthat(a) delegatestheauthoritytomakeanexpenditureofaspecific

amountforaspecificpurpose,or

(b) delegatesthegeneralauthoritytomakeexpendituresinaccord-ancewithsubsection(3).

(3) Adelegationofageneralauthoritytomakeexpendituresmust

(a) setamaximumamountthatmaybespent,and(b) indicatethepurposesforwhich,ortheconditionsunderwhich,

themoneymaybespent.



Spending restrictions

15 (1) Apersonmaynotspendthestratacorporation’smoneyunlessthepersonhasbeendelegatedthepowertodosoinaccordancewiththesebylaws.

(2) Despitesubsection(1),acouncilmembermayspendthestratacorpo-ration’smoneytorepairorreplacecommonpropertyorcommonas-setsiftherepairorreplacementisimmediatelyrequiredtoensuresafetyorpreventsignificantlossordamage.


Comment: These sections carry forward what is currently division 3 of the standard by-law (with only the slight change noted in the comment after section 13), with the excep-tion of sections 19, 20 (4), and 22, which are relocated to the body of the Strata Property Act (see, above, at sections 4, 6, and 9 of this draft amending act).

Division 3 — Enforcement of Bylaws and Rules Maximum fine

16 Thestratacorporationmayfineanownerortenantamaximumof

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


Comment: This section carries forward section 23 of the standard bylaws, without changes.

Division 4 — Annual and Special General Meetings Participation by other than eligible voters

17 (1) Tenantsandoccupantsmayattendannualandspecialgeneralmeet-ings,whetherornottheyareeligibletovote.

(2) Personswhoarenoteligibletovote,includingtenantsandoccupants,mayparticipateinthediscussionatthemeeting,butonlyifpermittedtodosobythechairofthemeeting.

(3) Personswhoarenoteligibletovote,includingtenantsandoccupants,mustleavethemeetingifrequestedtodosobyaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvoteatthemeeting.




Comment: This section carries forward section 26 of the standard bylaws, without changes. Order of business

18 Theorderofbusinessatannualandspecialgeneralmeetingsisasfollows:

(a) registereligiblevotersandissuevotingcards;

(b) callthemeetingtoorder;(c) electapersontochairthemeeting,ifnecessary;

(d) certifyproxies;(e) determinethatthereisaquorum;

(f) presentproofofnoticeofmeeting;

(g) approvetheorderoftheagenda;(h) approvetheminutesofthemostrecentgeneralmeetingorwaiv-

erofnoticeofmeeting;

(i) dealwithanyunfinishedbusiness;(j) ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting,receivereportsof

councilactivitiesanddecisionssincethepreviousannualgeneralmeeting;

(k) ratifyanynewrulesmadebythestratacorporationundersec-tion125oftheact,includinganynewuserfees;

(l) ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting,reportoninsurancecoverageinaccordancewithsection154oftheact,includingthecertificateofinsurancepreparedbytheinsurancebrokerageandthedateofthemostrecentappraisal;

(m) ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting,approvethebudgetforthecomingyearinaccordancewithsection103oftheact;

(n) dealwithmattersundersection46oftheactoraboutwhichno-ticehasbeengivenundersection45oftheact;

(o) ifthemeetingisanannualgeneralmeeting,electacouncil;(p) ifthemeetingisaspecialgeneralmeeting,electacouncilmem-

berifnecessary;



(q) terminatethemeeting.

recommendationnos.(24)and(62)Comment: This section carries forward section 28 of the standard bylaws, and substan-tially revises it. The revisions are intended to provide a clearer and more logical picture of the order of business at a general meeting.

Division 5 — Legal Proceedings Authorization to proceed under Small Claims Act

19 Theauthorityrequiredinsection171(2)oftheactisnotrequiredforaproceedingundertheSmallClaimsActagainstanownerorotherpersontocollectmoneyowingtothestratacorporation,includingmoneyowingasafine.


Comment: This section creates a new section for the standard bylaws. This section is linked to section 171 (4) of the act, which reads “[t]he authorization referred to in subsec-tion (2) is not required for a proceeding 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, if the strata corporation has passed a bylaw dispensing with the need for authori-zation, and the terms and conditions of that bylaw are met.” The “authorization referred to in subsection (2)” involves authorizing legal proceedings “by a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote at an annual or special general meeting.” The proposed new bylaw will, by de-fault, give strata corporations the authority to launch proceedings under the Small Claims Act in collections matters without obtaining a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote. A strata corporation could change this by amending or repealing this proposed standard bylaw.

Division 6 — Marketing Activities by Owner Developer Display lot

20 (1) Anownerdeveloperwhohasanunsoldstratalotmaycarryonsalesfunctionsthatrelatetoitssale,includingthepostingofsigns.

(2) Anownerdevelopermayuseastratalot,thattheownerdeveloperownsorrents,asadisplaylotforthesaleofotherstratalotsinthestrataplan.




Comment: This section carries forward section 30 of the standard bylaws, without changes. Commencement

31 ThisActcomesintoforcebyregulationoftheLieutenantGovernorinCouncil.

recommendationno.n/a

Comment: This is a standard provision found in British Columbia legislation. It gives the cabinet (formally designated as the “Lieutenant Governor in Council”) the power to con-trol the timing of when the legislation comes into force. A transitional period would help to ensure that people in the strata sector are prepared for the changes that this legislation will bring.



Draft regulations Ontherecommendationoftheundersigned,theLieutenantGovernor,byandwiththeadviceandconsentoftheExecutiveCouncil,ordersthattheStrataPropertyRegulation,B.C.Reg.43/2000,isamendedassetoutintheattachedschedule.

SCHEDULE 1 Section4.2(1)oftheStrataPropertyRegulation,B.C.Reg.43/2000,isre-

pealedandfollowingsubstituted:(1) Themaximumfeethatthestratacorporationmaychargefora

copyofarecordordocumentprovidedundersection36oftheActis

(a) $0.25perpage,otherthanforacopyprovidedbyelec-tronicmeans,or

(b) $0.15perpageforacopyprovidedbyelectronicmeans.

recommendationno.(76)Comment: This proposed amendment creates two classes of maximum fees for copies of records that a strata corporation must retain. It preserves the existing fee for copies of records ($0.25 per page) provided by any means other than electronic. Records provided by electronic means are subject to a new, lower maximum fee ($0.15 per page). 2 Section4.4isamendedbystrikingout“$35”andsubstituting“$300”andby

strikingout“25centsperpage”andsubstitutingthefollowing:

(a) $0.25perpage,otherthanforacopyprovidedbyelec-tronicmeans,or

(b) $0.15perpageforacopyprovidedbyelectronicmeans.

recommendationno.(73)Comment: The proposed amendment makes two changes to the fees that may be charged for an Information Certificate (Form B). First, it raises the maximum for the base fee from $35 to $300. Second, it creates two classes of maximum fees for copies of rec-ords, which are consistent with the two classes created in the previous section.



3 ThefollowingsectionisaddedtoPart4:4.6 Forthepurposesofsection64.1(2)oftheAct,“representative”

means,inrelationtoastratalotowner,(a) apersongrantedpoweroverfinancialaffairsunderthe

PatientsPropertyAct,(b) anattorneyactingunderanenduringpowerofattorney

asdescribedinPart2ofthePowerofAttorneyAct,

(c) arepresentativeactingunderarepresentationagreementmadeundersection7(1)(b)oftheRepresentationAgreementAct,

(d) apersonalrepresentativeactingundertheWills,EstatesandSuccessionAct,or

(e) apersonauthorizedinwritingbytheowner.

recommendationno.(6)Comment: This proposed amendment defines the term representative for the proposed new section 64.1 (see, above, section 17 (2) of the draft amending act). A representative will be required under that new provision to inform a strata corporation of the strata-lot number that is being represented and the representative’s contact information. 4 ThefollowingsectionisaddedtoPart6:

6.09 Forthepurposesofsection108(6)oftheAct,theprescribedamountis$500.


Comment: This proposed amendment will establish when a strata corporation is entitled to deposit any excess money collected on a special levy in the contingency reserve fund. Under this provision and proposed amendments to section 108 (6) of the act, so long as no owner is entitled to receive more than $500 in total as a refund of the unused amount of the special levy that is proportional to the contribution made to the special levy in re-spect of that strata lot, then the strata corporation may deposit the excess money col-lected in the contingency reserve fund. This represents an increase from the current statutory figure of $100. See, above, at section 23 of the draft legislation for the pro-posed amendment to section 108 (6) of the act.



5 Section6.10isamendedbystrikingout“$15”andsubstituting“$50”.

recommendationno.(73)Comment: This proposed amendment raises the maximum fee payable for a Certificate of Payment (Form F) from $15 to $50. 6 Section7.1isamended

(a) insubsection(2)bystrikingout“$500”andsubstituting“$2000”,and(b) byrepealingsubsection(3).

recommendationnos.(20)and(72)

Comment: This proposed amendment changes the regulation governing maximum fines for a bylaw contravention in two ways. First, it raises the maximum fine for contravention of a bylaw that prohibits or limits rentals from $500 to $2000. Second, the amendment repeals current section 7.1 (3), which reads “[f]or the purposes of section 132 of the Act, the maximum frequency that a strata corporation may set out in its bylaws for the imposi-tion of a fine for a continuing contravention of a bylaw or rule is every 7 days.” This pro-vision is repealed as a consequence of the decision to relocate section 24 of the stand-ard bylaws (which deals with the frequency that a strata corporation may set for the im-position of a fine for a continuing contravention of a bylaw or rule) to the body of the Stra-ta Property Act.



Chapter 9. Conclusion Inthecommittee’sview,implementingtherecommendationscontainedinthisre-portwouldrepresentaconsiderableadvanceinpromotingclarityandaccountabil-itywithinstratacorporations.Whiletheserecommendationsdon’tfundamentallyrewritetheframeworkforgovernancefoundintheStrataPropertyActandtheStra-taPropertyRegulation,theydosignificantlyreformmanyimportantaspectsofthatframework.Thisreportcontainsatop-to-bottomreviewoftheScheduleofStandardBylaws.Itrecommendsthat13standardbylaws(orpartsofstandardbylaws)shouldberelo-catedtotheStrataPropertyAct.Doingsowillplacetheseformerbylawsbeyondthereachofamendmentbyastratacorporation.Asaresult,importantgovernanceis-suestouchingonresponsibilityforrepairs,useofproperty,andcertainmeetingprocedureswillbecapableofbeinganalyzedwithgreatercertainty.Thereportalsocontainsrecommendationstoenhanceenforcementofthestratacorporation’sby-laws.Thereport’srecommendationsincludenewstatutorydefinitions,whichshouldlendclarityinapplyingimportantprovisionsoftheact.Thereportalsoclarifiesthemajoraspectsofmeetingprocedure:proxies,quorum,voting,elections,agendas,andmeetingminutes.Finally,thisreportcontainsrecommendationsthataddressfinancialconsiderationsforstratacorporations.Thecommittee’srecommendationsinthisreportdon’tyethavetheforceoflaw.ThiswillonlyoccurwhentheLegislativeAssemblyofBritishColumbiapassesnewlegislationorwhentheexecutivecounciladoptsnewregulations.Thecommitteecallsonthesebodiestoactandtoimplementthisreport’srecommendations,there-bysettingacoursefortheimprovementofstratagovernance.



APPENDIX A

ListofRecommendationsBylaws and rules—relocating provisions from the standard by-laws to the act 1.Section1oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylawsandshouldbeamendedtoreadasfollows:



(2) Anownermustpayaspeciallevyasapprovedbythestratacorpora-tion.(33–34)

2.Section2oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.(34–35)3.Section3(1)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtopart5oftheStrataPropertyAct.(35–36)4.Section3(2)–(4)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.(35–36)5.Section4(1)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.(36–37)6.Uponrelocationofsection4(1)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawstotheStrataPropertyActtheprovisionshouldbeamendedtorequirethatwithintwoweeksofbe-cominganowner’srepresentativewithrespecttothestratalot,asdefinedintheregu-lations,anowner’srepresentativemustinformthestratacorporationofthenumberofthestratalotthattherepresentativeisrepresentingandtherepresentative’scontactinformation.(36–37)7.Section4(2)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestand-ardbylaws.(36–38)



8.Section5(1)and(2)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.(38)9.Section5(3)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberepealed.(38–39)10.Section6oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.(39)11.Section7oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.(39–40)12.Section8oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtobecomenewsection72(3)oftheStrataPropertyAct.(40–41)13.Whensection8oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsisrelocatedtobecomenewsec-tion72(3)oftheStrataPropertyAct,“patios”shouldbeaddedtothelistoflimitedcommonpropertythatthestratacorporationhasthedutytorepairandmaintainnomatterhowoftentherepairormaintenanceordinarilyoccurs.(40–41)14.Existingsection72(3)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldberenumberedassubsec-tion(4)andshouldapplydespitenewsubsection(3)(previouslysection8oftheScheduleofStandardBylaws).(40–42)15.Withtheexceptionofsections19,20(4),and22,allofdivision3oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.(43)16.Section19oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyActandrevisedtoread“Thestratacorporationmustcirculateminutesofstrata-councilmeetingswithinthreeweeksofthemeeting,whetherornottheminuteshavebeenapproved.”(43–44)17.Section20(4)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.(44)18.Section22oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtobecomepartofsection31oftheStrataPropertyAct.(45)19.Section23oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.(45–46)



20.Section24oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtoformpartofsection132oftheStrataPropertyActandsection7.1(3)oftheStrataPropertyRegu-lationshouldberepealed.(46–47)21.Section25oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.(47–48)22.Section26oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.(48)23.Section27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberelocatedtotheStrataPropertyAct.(49)24.Section28oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.(49–50)25.Section29oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldberepealed.(50–51)26.Section30oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldremainapartofthestandardbylaws.(51)27.Thefollowingshouldbeadoptedasanewstandardbylaw:“Theauthorityrequiredinsection171(2)oftheactisnotrequiredforaproceedingundertheSmallClaimsActagainstanownerorotherpersontocollectmoneyowingtothestratacorporation,in-cludingmoneyowingasafine.”(52–53)Bylaws and rules—enforcement: expanding the lien 28.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuenottoenableastratacorporationtoreg-isteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttofines.(54–55)29.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotenableastratacorporationtoregisteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespectafine,evenifthefinehasbeenfoundvalidbyacourtortheCivilResolutionTribunal.(55–56)30.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuenottoenableastratacorporationtoreg-isteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttoaninsurancedeductibleorexpensesincurredduetodamagewhicharelessthananinsurancede-ductible.(56–57)



31.TheStrataPropertyActshouldenableastratacorporationtoregisteralienonanowner’sstratalotforamountsowingwithrespecttoachargebackforaninsurancedeductibleorexpensesincurredduetodamagewhicharelessthananinsurancede-ductible,ifthechargebackhasbeenfoundvalidbyacourt,anarbitrator,ortheCivilResolutionTribunal.(58–59)Bylaws and rules—other enforcement tools 32.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoaddeitheraprovisionrequiringcompliancewithastratacorporation’sbylawsandrules(whichwouldgivethecourtawiderangeofdiscretionaryremediesthatmaybeorderedincasesofnon-compliance)oraprovisionthatcreatesanoffenceofnon-compliancewithastratacorporation’sbylawsandrules.(60–64)33.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotmakefailuretopaystratafeessubjecttoanimmediatefinewithouttheneedtocomplywiththeproceduressetoutinsec-tion135.(64–65)34.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetoallowastratacorporationbothtoap-plyafineandtochargeinterestifastrata-lotownerfailstopaystratafees.(65–67)35.Section53(2)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoread“Despitesub-section(1),thevoteforastratalotmaynotbeexercised,exceptonmattersrequiringan80%voteorunanimousvote,ifthestratacorporationhasregisteredalienagainstthatstratalotundersection116(1).”(67–69)36.Section121oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatabylawisnotenforceabletotheextentthatitreassignsmoneyintendedforthepurposesof(a)stratafees,(b)aspeciallevy,(c)areimbursementofthecostofworkreferredtoinsection85,or(d)thestratalot’sshareofajudgmentagainstthestratacorpora-tion.(69–72)37.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetobesilentonwhetherastratacorpora-tionmayfineanownerforfailuretopayaspeciallevy.(72–74)Bylaws and rules—other issues 38.TheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethat,whenastratacorpora-tionamendsabylawthatrestrictstherentalofstratalots,then(a)inthecaseofastratalotthatwasvalidlyrentedundertherental-restrictionbylawthatexistedim-mediatelypriortotheamendment,thenewrental-restrictionbylawdoesnotapplytothestratalotuntilthelaterofoneyearafteratenantwhoisoccupyingthestratalot



atthetimethebylawispassedceasestooccupyitasatenant,andoneyearafterthebylawispassed;and(b)inthecaseofanyotherstratalot,thenewrental-restrictionbylawappliesuponthebylawtakingeffectinaccordancewiththeact.(74–78)Statutory definitions 39.TheStrataPropertyActshoulddefine“continuingcontravention”tomean“(a)asinglecontinuousact,or(b)asuccessionorrepetitionofseparateactsofthesamecharacter.”(80–83)40.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoaddadefinitionof“strataman-ager.”(83–86)41.TheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtodefine“rent”as“meanstopaymon-etaryconsiderationorothervaluetooccupyastratalot.”(86–89)42.TheStrataPropertyAct’sdefinitionof“residentialstratalot”shouldnotbeamend-ed.(90–94)43.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotcontainadefinitionof“nonresidentialstratalot.”(94–96)General meetings and strata-council meetings—proxies 44.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequiretheappointmentofaproxytobemadeus-ingastandardformwiththefollowingfeatures:(a)awarningthatthestratacorpora-tionhasnoobligationtoensurethattheproxyvotesinaccordancewithanyinstruc-tionssetoutinthisproxyappointment;(b)aspacetorecordeitherthegrantor’sstra-ta-lotnumberorunitnumberandstreetaddress;(c)checkboxestoindicatewhethertheproxyappointmentisageneralappointmentoranappointmentforaspecificmeeting;(d)aspacetorecordthedateonwhichtheproxyappointmentissigned;(e)asignatureblock;(f)aspacetorecordanyvotinginstructions,labelled“optional.”(104–108)45.Section56(2)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethat(a)adocumentappointingaproxymustbeintheprescribedform,and(b)adocumentap-pointingaproxythatisnotintheprescribedformisinvalid.(109–111)46.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotlimitthenumberofproxyappointmentsthatmaybeheldforageneralmeeting.(111–115)



47.Section56(3)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatthefol-lowingpersonsmaynotbeproxiesforaneligiblevoterwhoisnotanowner-developer:(a)anemployee,anagent,oracontractorofthestratacorporation;(b)anowner-developeroranemployeeoragentoftheowner-developerorapersonwhodoesnotdealwiththeowner-developeratarm’slength;(c)apersonwhoprovidesstrataman-agementservicestothestratacorporationorthatperson’semployeeoragent.(115–118)General meetings and strata-council meetings—conduct of meetings 48.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotprescribeacomprehensivesetofrulesoforderforstrata-corporationgeneralmeetings.(120–123)General meetings and strata-council meetings—quorum 49.Section48(3)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingoutthewords“themeetingstandsadjournedtothesamedayinthenextweekatthesameplaceandtimebut,ifonthedaytowhichthemeetingisadjournedaquorumdescribedinsubsection(2)isnotpresentwithin1/2hourfromthetimeappointedforthemeet-ing.”(124–126)50.Section48oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbyaddinganewsubsec-tionthatreads“Subsection(3)doesnotapplytoaspecialgeneralmeetingcalledbyvotersundersection43.”(124–126)51.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatifaquorumispresentattheopeningofanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeeting,theeligiblevoterspresentmay,unlessthebylawsotherwiseprovide,proceedwiththebusinessofthemeeting,evenifaquorumisnotpresentthroughoutthemeeting.(127–129)52.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatastrata-councilmemberwhohasadi-rectorindirectinterestin(a)acontractortransactionwiththestratacorporation,or(b)amatterthatisoristobethesubjectofconsiderationbythecouncil,ifthatinter-estcouldresultinthecreationofadutyorinterestthatmateriallyconflictswiththatcouncilmember’sdutyorinterestasacouncilmember,andwhoispresentatacouncilmeetinginwhichthecontract,transaction,ormatterisconsideredforapprovalmaybecountedinthequorumatthemeetingevenifthecouncilmemberleavesthecouncilmeetingwhilethecontract,transaction,ormatterisdiscussedandwhilethecouncilvotesonthecontract,transaction,ormatter.(129–130)



General meetings and strata-council meetings—voting 53.Section18(1)oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldbeamendedbyadding“andwhohavenotabstainedfromvoting”after“majorityofcouncilmemberspresentinpersonatthemeeting.”(132–133)54.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotallowanypersonwhoischairofanannualgen-eralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeetingtobreakatieonaresolutionatthegeneralmeetingbycastingasecond,decidingvote,butshouldcontinuetoallowapresident(or,ifthepresidentisabsentorunableorunwillingtovote,thevicepresident)tobreakatievoteatastrata-councilmeetingbycastingasecond,decidingvote.(133–136)55.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotchangethevotingthresholdforallresolutionsrequiringpassagebya3/4vote.(136–140)56.Section27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldbeamendedbystrikingouttheword“secret”whereveritappearsandreplacingitwiththeword“written.”(140–142)57.Section27oftheScheduleofStandardBylawsshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatastratacorporationisonlyrequiredtoholdavotebywrittenballotifitisauthorizedtodosobyaresolutionpassedbyamajorityvote,unlessthevoteisanelectiontothestratacouncil.(143–144)General meetings and strata-council meetings—strata-council elections 58.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirethateachstrata-councilmembermustbeelectedbyamajorityoftheballotscast.(144–147)59.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoaddressthenumberofmembersthatmustbeelectedtocouncil.(147–148)60.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirethatastrata-councilmember(a)mustbeanindividualwhoisatleast18yearsofage,and(b)despiteitem(a),anindividualisnotqualifiedtobeastrata-councilmemberiftheindividualis(i)foundbyanycourt,inCanadaorelsewhere,tobeincapableofmanagingtheindividual’sownaffairs,(ii)anundischargedbankrupt,or(iii)convictedinoroutofBritishColumbiaofanoffenceinconnectionwiththepromotion,formation,ormanagementofacorporationorunin-corporatedentity,orofanoffenceinvolvingfraud.(149–152)



61.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatadditionalstrata-councilmembersmaybeelectedataspecialgeneralmeeting.(152–154)General meetings and strata-council meetings—agenda and meeting minutes 62.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.(154–156)63.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirecirculationofminutesofageneralmeetingwithinthreeweeksofthemeeting,whetherornottheminuteshavebeenap-proved.(156–157)64.Section106oftheStrataPropertyAct,whichdealswithinformingownersofchangestostratafees,shouldbeamendedbystrikingout“2weeksfollowingtheannu-alorspecialgeneralmeetingatwhichabudgetispassed”andreplacingitwith“3weeksfollowingtheannualorspecialgeneralmeetingatwhichabudgetispassed.”(158)Finances—operating fund 65.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtochangethepurposeofandcrite-riaforusingfundsinastratacorporation’soperatingfund.(161–166)



Finances—special levies 66.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequire,ifthemoneycollectedonaspeciallevyex-ceedstheamountrequired,orforanyotherreasonisnotfullyusedforthepurposesetoutintheresolution,thestratacorporationtopaytoeachownerofastratalottheportionoftheunusedamountofthespeciallevythatisproportionaltothecontribu-tionmadetothespeciallevyinrespectofthatstratalot,unlessnoownerwouldbeen-titledtoreceivemorethananamountprescribedbyregulation(whichshouldinitiallybesetat$500)intotal,inwhichcasethestratacorporationmaydeposittheexcessinitscontingencyreservefund.(167–169)Finances—budgets 67.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetorequirestratacorporationstoinitiatethebudget-approvalprocessonlyatanannualgeneralmeeting.(170–171)68.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtopermitbudgetstobeamendedataspecialgeneralmeeting.(170–171)Finances—financial statements 69.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldnotcontainaprescribedformforstrata-corporationfinancialstatements.(172–175)Finances—contracts 70.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamendedtoprovideanynewenhancedter-minationpowertoastratacorporationforcontractsitentersintobeforeitsfirstan-nualgeneralmeeting.(176–179)71.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatastratacorporationmustactonaresolutionauthorizingthecancellationofastrata-managementcontractandprovidenoticeofthecancellationwithin90days.(179–180)Finances—regulatory provisions on fines and fees 72.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldbeamendedtosetthemaximumfinesat:(a)$200foreachcontraventionofabylaw;(b)$50foreachcontraventionofarule;and(c)$2000foreachcontraventionofarental-restrictionbylaw.(181–183)73.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldbeamended(a)toraisethemaximumfeethatastratacorporationmaychargeforanInformationCertificateto$300plus(i)up



to$0.25perpage,forthecostofcopiesofrecordsprovidedbyanymeansotherthanelectronicmeans,or(ii)upto$0.15perpage,forthecostofcopiesofrecordsprovidedbyelectronicmeansand(b)toraisethemaximumfeeforaCertificateofPaymentto$50.(183–184)74.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldcontinuetoprovidethatastratacorpora-tionmaynotchargeafeefortheinspectionofarecordordocumentundersection36oftheStrataPropertyAct.(184–186)75.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldnotallowastratacorporationtochargeafeeforaninspectionofarecordordocumentundersection36oftheStrataPropertyActbyelectronicmeans.(187–188)76.TheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldallowastratacorporationtochargeafeeofupto$0.15perpageforacopyofarecordordocumentprovidedundersection36oftheStrataPropertyActbyelectronicmeans.(187–188)Finances—limitation period and collections 77.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovideforaspeciallimitationperiodforclaimsofmoney,capableofbeingsubjecttoalienundersection116,owingfromastrata-lotownertoastratacorporation,offouryears.(190–193)Notices and communications 78.Section65oftheStrataPropertyActshouldnotbeamended.(201–203)79.Section34.1(3)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingout“oneweek”andreplacingitwith“twoweeks.”(203–204)80.Section144(4)(a)(i)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingout“oneweek”andreplacingitwith“twoweeks.”(203–204)81.Section144(4)(a)(ii)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbystrikingout“twoweeks”andreplacingitwith“threeweeks.”(203–204)



APPENDIX B

BiographiesofProject-CommitteeMembersPatrickWilliamsisapartneroftheVancouverlawfirmClarkWilsonLLPandamemberofthefirm’sStrataPropertyGroup.HeisalsoamemberoftheAlternativeDisputeResolutionPracticeGroup.Patrick’spracticefocusesonassistingstratacor-porations,developers,andstrata-lotownerswithdisputeresolution.Heisanexpe-riencedandqualifiedarbitratorandmediatorwhohasmanagednumerousstrata-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,Tonyhaswrittenover1000columnsandinformationbulletinsdedicatedtostratalivingand



istheco-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”usedfortheRelicensingEducationProgramforstrata



managers.ShealsofrequentlydeliversseminarsfortheCondominiumHomeOwn-ers’AssociationofBritishColumbiaandhaswrittenmanyarticlesfortheCHOANews.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,includingstintswiththeUrbanInstitutein



Washington,DC,theUSDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment,BC’sTreasuryBoardstaff,andwithalargeprivatedeveloperandmanagerofapartmentbuildings.DoughasaBAfromDartmouthCollegeandanMAinurbangeographyandadiplomainurbanlandeconomics,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.Garretthaspreviouslybeenasubcommitteememberof



the2009StrataPropertyActReviewthatwasheadedbyAdrienneMurray.GarretthasbeenanMLSMedallionClubmemberfor18yearswiththeRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouver.Garrettisapastdirector(threeterms)fortheVancouverWestsideDivisionoftheRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouver.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’sstratapropertycommitteethatworkedwithgovernmentindevelopingthecurrentStrataPropertyAct.EdhasbeenactivelyinvolvedwiththeContinuingLegalEduca-tionSocietyofBritishColumbia.Hehastaughtmorethan15CLEBCcourses,includ-ingcoursesonstrata-propertylaw,resortdevelopment,real-estatedevelopment,anddepreciationreportsforstratacorporations.EdisalsoamemberoftheUrbanDevelopmentInstitute’slegalissuescommittee.



PRINCIPAL FUNDERS IN 2018 TheBritishColumbiaLawInstituteexpressesitsthankstoitsfundersin2018:• LawFoundationofBritishColumbia

• MinistryofAttorneyGeneralforBritishColumbia

• NotaryFoundationofBritishColumbia

• RealEstateFoundationofBritishColumbia

• RealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia

• RealEstateInstituteofBritishColumbia

• StrataPropertyAgentsofBritishColumbia

• AssociationofBritishColumbiaLandSurveyors

• VancouverIslandStrataOwnersAssociation

• CondominiumHomeOwnersAssociation

• MinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousingforBritishColumbia

• CoalitionofBCBusinesses

• BCGovernmentEmployeesUnion

• HealthEmployeesUnion

• MinistryofLabourforBritishColumbia

• LawFoundationofOntarioAccesstoJusticeFund

• AGE-WELLNCE(AgingGracefullyacrossEnvironmentsusingTechnologytoSupportWellness,EngagementandLongLifeNCEInc.)

• MinistryofSocialandFamilyDevelopment,AdultProtectionService,Singa-pore

BCLIalsoreiteratesitsthankstoallthoseindividualsandorganizationswhohaveprovidedfinancialsupportforitspresentandpastactivities.

Supported by

report on governance issues for stratas - bcli.org · report on governance issues for stratas this...

Documents