Report on Common Property, Land Titles, and Fundamental ...€¦ · Report on Common Property, Land...

Report onCommon Property, Land Titles, and Fundamental Changes for StratasA report published as part of the Strata Property Law Project—Phase Two

Report on Common Property,

Land Titles, and Fundamental

Changes 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. 87 June 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.

CoverphotographbyWesHicksonUnsplash.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:

• thebestinscholarlylawreformresearchandwriting;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

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

ThisprojectwasmadepossiblewiththesustainingfinancialsupportoftheLawFoundationofBritishColumbiaandtheMinistryofAttorneyGeneralforBritishColumbia.TheInstitutegrate-

fullyacknowledgesthesupportoftheLawFoundationandtheMinistryforitswork.

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

Introductory Note

Report on Common Property, Land Titles, and Fundamental Changes for Stratas

Thisreportcoversthreesubjectsthateachhaveamajorbearingonthenatureofstratapropertiesasinterestsinland.Thereport’ssubjectscropupatcrucialmo-mentsinastrataproperty’slifecycle.Astratapropertyiscreatedbydepositofastrataplaninthelandtitleoffice.Fromthisfirstinteractionwiththeland-titlesys-tem,itisimportantthatprovisionsforstratapropertiesandlandtitlesaresymbioticandmutuallysupporting.Commonpropertyisanessentialelementintheuniquestrata-propertyconceptionoflandownership.Amongotherlegalissues,manyoper-ationalconcernsforstratapropertiesturnonanunderstandingofcommonproper-ty.Finally,somematurestratapropertiesfindthemselvesatacrossroads,whererewritingthelegalorfinancialmakeupofthestratapropertybecomesanoptiontoconsider.Thesestratapropertiesmustengagewiththelegislation’ssystemforman-agingfundamentalchanges.ThisreportcontainsrecommendationstoamendtheStrataPropertyActandtheStrataPropertyRegulationthataddressthedefinitionofcommonproperty,transac-tionsinvolvingcommonproperty,parkingstallsascommonproperty,emergingis-suesinsubdivisioncontrol,amendmentstothestrataplananditsaccompanyingdocuments,andamalgamationofstratacorporations.Thereportalsocontainsdraftlegislationandregulations,illustratinghowtheserecommendationscouldbeim-plemented.OnbehalfoftheboardofdirectorsoftheBritishColumbiaLawInstitute,IwanttothankthemembersoftheStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)Committeefortheirhardworkonthisreportandtheirsteadfastcommitmenttothisproject.,whichhastackledasubjectofincreasingimportance,asmoreandmoreBritishColumbianshavefoundthemselveshousedordoingbusinesswithinastrataproperty.Asthefifthandfinalreportintheproject,thisreportmarksamilestonefortheproject.BCLIfullysupportsthecommittee’srecommendationsandendorsesthisreport.

ThomasL.SpraggsChair,BritishColumbiaLawInstituteJune2019

Strata Property Law (Phase Two) Project Committee

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

PatrickWilliams—chair (Partner,ClarkWilsonLLP)

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

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

GarthCambrey (RealEstateInstituteofBritishColumbia)

TonyGioventu (ExecutiveDirector,CondominiumHomeOwnersAssociation)

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

TimJowett (SeniorManager,E-BusinessandDeputyRegistrar,LandTitleandSurveyAuthority)

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

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

ElaineMcCormack (Partner,WilsonMcCormackLawGroup)

SusanMercer(Sep.2016–present) (NotaryPublic)

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

DavidParkin (AssistantCitySurveyor,CityofVancouver)

AllenRegan (Vice-President,BaysidePropertyServicesLtd.)

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

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

SandyWagner (PresidentoftheBoardofDirectors,Van-couverIslandStrataOwnersAssociation)

EdWilson (Partner,LawsonLundellLLP)

KevinZakreski(stafflawyer,BritishColumbiaLawInstitute)istheprojectmanager.

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


British Columbia Law Institute vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................xiiiExecutiveSummary..............................................................................................................xv

Chapter1.Introduction.........................................................................................................1AnOverviewofthisReport’sSubjects..............................................................................................................1AbouttheStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)Project.................................................................................2ThePhase-TwoProject’sSupporters................................................................................................................3TheStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)ProjectCommittee......................................................................3ConsultationPaperonCommonProperty,LandTitles,andFundamentalChangesforStratas

...................................................................................................................................................................................4AnOverviewofthisReport....................................................................................................................................4Chapter2.Strata-PropertyBasics......................................................................................7Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................7TheEssentialElementsofaStrataProperty..................................................................................................7TheThreeGenerationsofStrata-PropertyLegislation.............................................................................8

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................8StrataTitlesAct1966–74.............................................................................................................................................8StrataTitlesAct/CondominiumAct1974–2000...............................................................................................8StrataPropertyAct2000–present...........................................................................................................................9

TheOwner-Developer...........................................................................................................................................10CreationofaStrataPropertybyDepositofaStrataPlan......................................................................10KindsofStrataPlans..............................................................................................................................................11StrataLots..................................................................................................................................................................11CommonProperty,LimitedCommonProperty,andCommonAssets.............................................12

Commonproperty........................................................................................................................................................12Limitedcommonproperty........................................................................................................................................12Commonassets..............................................................................................................................................................13

TheStrataCorporation.........................................................................................................................................13TheFundamentalsofStrata-CorporationGovernance...........................................................................14

Bylawsandrules...........................................................................................................................................................14Annualgeneralmeetingsandspecialgeneralmeetings..............................................................................15Thestratacouncil.........................................................................................................................................................17Budgetsandfunds........................................................................................................................................................17

CommonExpenses..................................................................................................................................................18UnitEntitlement......................................................................................................................................................19

Whatisunitentitlementandhowisitused?...................................................................................................19Howisunitentitlementdetermined?..................................................................................................................19Whenisunitentitlementdeterminedandwhereisitfound?..................................................................21

TheDutytoRepairandMaintainProperty.................................................................................................21Commonpropertyandcommonassets..............................................................................................................21Stratalots.........................................................................................................................................................................23


viii British Columbia Law Institute

DisputeResolutionandtheCivilResolutionTribunal............................................................................24Chapter3.CommonProperty...........................................................................................25ScopeofthisChapter.............................................................................................................................................25BackgroundInformationonCommonProperty........................................................................................26

Definitionof“commonproperty”..........................................................................................................................26Rightstouse,ownershipof,andadministrationofcommonproperty................................................28Definitionandnatureoflimitedcommonproperty......................................................................................29Howtodesignatecommonpropertyaslimitedcommonproperty.......................................................30Short-termexclusiveuseofcommonproperty...............................................................................................31

IssuesforReform—DefiningCommonProperty.......................................................................................31Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................31Shouldthedefinitionof“commonproperty”beamended?.......................................................................32

Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................32Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................32Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................34

Shouldthedefinitionof“limitedcommonproperty”beamended?.......................................................35Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................35Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................36Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................36

IssuesforReform—TransactionsInvolvingCommonProperty.........................................................37Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................37ShouldtheStrataPropertyActprovidethataleaseofafixturethatiscommonpropertyorofa

commonassetenteredintobytheowner-developermaynotexceedfiveyears?................40Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................40Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................41Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................42

Howshould“fixtures”bedefinedforaprovisionapplyingtoaleaseofafixturethatiscommonpropertyorofacommonassetenteredintobytheowner-developer?.....................................43Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................43Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................43Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................44

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActprovidethatthesuperintendentofrealestatemayapprovealeaseofafixturethatiscommonpropertyorofacommonassetenteredintobytheowner-developerwithatermthatexceedsfiveyears?.....................................................................45Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................45Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................45Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................45

IssuesforReform—ParkingStallsandStorageLockers........................................................................46ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontinuetoallowleasesandlicencesofparkingstallsand

storagelockers?..................................................................................................................................................48Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................48Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................48Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................49

Shouldtheperiodinwhichanowner-developermayamendthestrataplantodesignateparkingstallsandstoragelockersaslimitedcommonpropertyfortheexclusiveuseofownersofstratalotsinthestrataplanbeextended?.........................................................................50Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................50Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................50


British Columbia Law Institute ix

Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................51ShouldtheStrataPropertyActprovidethatanyparkingstallsorstoragelockersthathavenot

beendesignatedaslimitedcommonpropertybytheowner-developerundersection258remaincommonproperty?............................................................................................................................52Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................52Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................52Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................52

Chapter4.LandTitles..........................................................................................................55BackgroundInformationonLand-TitleIssues..........................................................................................55ScopeofthisChapter.............................................................................................................................................56IssuesforReform—EmergingIssuesinSubdivisionControl..............................................................57

Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................57Shouldallstrataplansrequiretheapprovalofanapprovingofficer?..................................................63


Shouldastrataplanthatdepictstheboundariesofstratalotsastheexteriorsurfaceofafloor,wall,orceiling,orasapointexternaltoabuilding,beheldtothesameapprovalrequirementsthatapplytoabare-landstrataplan?..........................................................................66Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................66Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................67Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................68

Shouldthedefinitionof“previouslyoccupied”insection14.1oftheStrataPropertyRegulationbeamendedtoexcludetemporaryconstructionpurposes?...........................................................69Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................69Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................70Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................70

IssuesforReform—DepictingCommonPropertyforStrataPlans...................................................71Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................71ShouldtheStrataPropertyActexpresslyrequireastrataplantoincludeadepictionofpartof

thelandsorbuildingascommonproperty?...........................................................................................73Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................73Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................73Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................73

IssuesforReform—DepictingtheVerticalLimitsofLimitedCommonPropertyforStrataPlans....................................................................................................................................................................74Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................74ShouldtheStrataPropertyActrequirestrataplanstoincludeacross-section?.............................75


ShouldtheStrataPropertyRegulationrequirestrataplanstoincluderepresentationstoidentifylimitedcommonproperty?...........................................................................................................76Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................76Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................76Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................77


x British Columbia Law Institute

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActrequirethat,whenlimitedcommonpropertyisdesignatedbya3/4vote,thesketchplanthatmustbefiledinthelandtitleofficemustbepreparedbyaBritishColumbialandsurveyor?.................................................................................................................77Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................77Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................78Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................78

IssuesforReform—CertificateofPayment..................................................................................................78Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................78ShouldaFormF(CertificateofPayment)berequiredwhenatransferofastratalottakesplace

underacourtorder?.........................................................................................................................................82Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................82Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................82Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................83

Chapter5.FundamentalChanges....................................................................................85Meaningof“FundamentalChanges”...............................................................................................................85TransactionsClassifiedasFundamentalChanges.....................................................................................85

Transactionsrequiringauthorizationbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote......................85Othertransactions........................................................................................................................................................87

ScopeofthisChapter.............................................................................................................................................88IssuesforReform—AmendingaStrataPlan...............................................................................................88

Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................88OverviewoftheStrataPropertyAct’sprovisionsonamendingastrataplan...................................89

Introduction......................................................................................................................................................89Commonproceduralelements..................................................................................................................90Designatinglimitedcommonproperty.................................................................................................91Addingto,consolidating,ordividingastratalot..............................................................................93Makinglandheldbythestratacorporationintoanewstratalot.............................................95Addingastratalottocommonproperty..............................................................................................96Makingcommonpropertyintolandheldbythestratacorporation........................................96Addinglandheldbythestratacorporationtothecommonproperty....................................97

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontinuetorequirearesolutionpassedbyaunanimousvotetoauthorizeamendingastrataplantodesignatelimitedcommonproperty?............................98Briefdescriptionoftheissue.....................................................................................................................98Discussionofoptionsforreform..............................................................................................................98Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform...................................................................................99

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontinuetorequirearesolutionpassedbyaunanimousvotetoauthorizeamendingastrataplantoremoveadesignationoflimitedcommonproperty?.................................................................................................................................................................................100Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................100Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................100Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................101

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActContinuetoRequireaResolutionPassedbyaUnanimousVotetoAuthorizeAmendingaStrataPlantoAddto,Consolidate,orDivideaStrataLot?.......101Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................101Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................102Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................102

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActContinuetoRequireaResolutionPassedbyaUnanimousVotetoAuthorizeAmendingaStrataPlantoAddaStrataLottoCommonProperty?...............103Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................103


British Columbia Law Institute xi

Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................103Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................104

IssuesforReform—SchedulestotheStrataPlan....................................................................................104Accompanyingdocumentstothestrataplan................................................................................................104AmendingtheScheduleofUnitEntitlement..................................................................................................105

Amendmentbyresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote............................................................105Amendmentasaconsequenceofastrata-planamendment....................................................107Amendmentbyapplicationtosupremecourt.................................................................................107Correctionoferrorsinaregisteredstrataplan..............................................................................109Significantunfairness.................................................................................................................................109LandTitleAct.................................................................................................................................................110

Changingthebasisofcontributiontosharedexpenses...........................................................................111Changetobasisforcalculationofcontributiontooperatingfundandcontingency

reservefund.........................................................................................................................................112Changetobasisforcalculationofcontributiontospeciallevy................................................112

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontinuetorequirearesolutionpassedbyaunanimousvotetoauthorizeamendingaScheduleofUnitEntitlementtoreflectachangeinthehabitableareaofaresidentialstratalotinastrataplaninwhichtheunitentitlementofthestratalotiscalculatedonthebasisofhabitablearea?.................................................................................113Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................113Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................114Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................114

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontinuetorequirearesolutionpassedbyaunanimousvotetoauthorizechangingthebasisonwhichastratalot’sshareofthecontributiontothestrata’soperatingfundandcontingencyreservefundiscalculated?......................................115Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................115Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................115Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................116

ShouldtheStrataPropertyActcontinuetorequirearesolutionpassedbyaunanimousvotetoapproveaspeciallevywheneachstratalot’sshareofthespeciallevyiscalculatedinawayotherthaninaccordancewithsections99,100,or195oftheact?................................117Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................117Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................117Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................118

ShouldaScheduleofVotingRightsberequiredtoaccompanydepositofastrataplancontainingatleastonenonresidentialstratalot?.............................................................................118Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................118Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................119Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................119

IssuesforReform—Amalgamation...............................................................................................................120Amalgamationgenerally.........................................................................................................................................120Developmentofthelaw..........................................................................................................................................121AmalgamationundertheStrataPropertyAct...............................................................................................122Reasonsforamalgamating.....................................................................................................................................124ShouldtheStrataPropertyActrequirearesolutionpassedbyan80-percentvotetoapprove

anamalgamationagreement?....................................................................................................................125Briefdescriptionoftheissue..................................................................................................................125Discussionofoptionsforreform...........................................................................................................125Thecommittee’srecommendationforreform................................................................................126


xii British Columbia Law Institute

Chapter6.DraftLegislationandRegulations............................................................127Draftlegislation..........................................................................................................................................................127Draftregulations........................................................................................................................................................137

Chapter7.Conclusion........................................................................................................141AppendixA—ListofRecommendations......................................................................143

AppendixB—BiographiesofProject-CommitteeMembers.................................147PrincipalFundersin2018...............................................................................................155


British Columbia Law Institute xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TheBritishColumbiaLawInstitutethanksthemembersoftheStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)ProjectCommittee,withoutwhoseongoingdedicationthisprojectwouldnothavebeenpossible.Committeemembershavegenerouslysharedtheirtimeandexpertiseoverthecourseoftheproject.AdditionalacknowledgmentisduetoPatrickWilliams,whohastakenontheaddedresponsibilityofservingascommit-teechair.BCLIalsothanksallthoseindividualsandorganizationsthatparticipatedinthepub-licconsultationthatprecededthisreport.Theirresponsesandcommentshelpedthecommitteeinshapingandevaluatingthefinalrecommendationscontainedinthisreport.Forpublicizingtheconsultationpaperthatprecededthisreport,BCLIthankstheAdvocate,theCanadianBarAssociation—BCBranch,theCondominiumHomeOwnersAssociation,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(researchlawyer),ShaunaNicholson(legalassistant),SergioOrtega(Universityof


xiv British Columbia Law Institute

VictoriaLawCoopstudent),ElizabethPinsent(officeadministrator),andBénédicteSchoepflin(socialmediacoordinator).


British Columbia Law Institute xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An overview of the report Thisreporttacklesselectedlegalissuesinthreedistinctareasofstrata-propertylaw.Itcontains25recommendationstoreformtheStrataPropertyActandtheStra-taPropertyRegulation.Theserecommendationsaddresssomeofthebasicbuildingblocksofastrataproperty,manyofwhichservetodefinethenatureofastratapropertyasaninterestinland.Thereportexaminesissuesthatariseoverthecourseofastrataproperty’slifecycle:fromtheearlyplanningandconceptionofastrata-propertydevelopment,throughitsday-to-dayoperation,andtothemajor,deeplyalteringcrossroadsthatsomema-turestratapropertiesencounter.Manyoftheseissuesrelatetothestrataplan,afoundationaldocumentforastratapropertythatshapesanddefinesthestratapropertyasaninterestinland.Thereportfirstconsiderscommonproperty:howitisdefined,long-termleasesofit,andthespecialcaseofparkingstallsandstoragelockersascommonproperty.ThenitlooksattheinteractionoftheStrataPropertyActwithBritishColumbia’sleadingreal-propertystatute,theLandTitleAct.Hereitexaminesemergingissuesinthesubdivisionoflandandwaysinwhichthedepictionofcommonpropertyonastrataplancanbeimproved.Finally,thereportgrappleswithfundamentalchangestoastrataproperty.Thesearethesortsofmajortransactionsthateffectivelyreorderthelegalinterestsinastratapropertyorthewaysinwhichfinancialresponsibilitieswithinastratapropertyareallocated.Theytendtorequireauthorizationbyaunan-imousvoteofthestrata-lotowners.Theoverridingquestionforthispartofthere-portiswhetherthisvotingthresholdshouldbeloweredtoan80-percentvote,whichwouldmirrorrecentlegislativechangesrespectingterminatingastrataprop-erty.About the Strata Property Law Project—Phase Two ThisisthefifthandfinalreporttobepublishedinBCLI’sStrataPropertyLawPro-ject—PhaseTwo.Thephase-twoprojectbuildsontheconsultationandresearchcarriedoutinphaseoneoftheproject.ItaddresseslegislativereformoftheStrataPropertyAct,withthegoalofpromotingthedevelopmentofthenextgenerationoftheact.Previousreportshaveconsideredterminatingastrata,complexstratas,gov-ernanceissuesforstratas,andinsuranceissuesforstratas.


xvi British Columbia Law Institute

Our supporters and the project committee TheStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwohasbeenmadepossiblebyprojectfundingfromtheRealEstateFoundationofBritishColumbia,theNotaryFoundationofBritishColumbia,theMinistryofMunicipalAffairsandHousingforBritishCo-lumbia,theRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia,theRealEstateInstituteofBrit-ishColumbia,StrataPropertyAgentsofBritishColumbia,theAssociationofBritishColumbiaLandSurveyors,theVancouverIslandStrataOwnersAssociation,andtheCondominiumHomeOwnersAssociation.BCLIiscarryingouttheStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwowiththeassistanceofavolunteerprojectcommittee.Thecommitteeismadeupofadiverserangeofexpertsinthestrata-propertyfield.Its13currentmembershailfromthelegalandnotarialprofessions,owners’organizations,thestrata-managementandreal-estateprofessions,andthepublicsector.Consultation Paper on Common Property, Land Titles, and Fundamental Changes for Stratas Thisreportwasprecededbythecommittee’sConsultationPaperCommonProperty,LandTitles,andFundamentalChangesforStratas.PublishedinDecember2018,theconsultationpaperwasthecentrepieceofathree-monthpublicconsultation.Duringthepublicconsultation,respondentshadtheoptionofmakingsubmissionsonthefull25tentativerecommendationsintheconsultationoronasummaryconsulta-tion,whichcontainedthreehighlightedproposals(oneeachforcommonproperty,landtitles,andfundamentalchanges).Theconsultationgenerated51responses(with41oftheseresponsesbeingmadetothefullconsultationpaperand10tothesummaryconsultation).Aftertheconsulta-tionperiodclosed,thecommitteemettoconsidertheseresponses,whichhelpedthecommitteeinrefiningitsthinkingonthefinalrecommendationsinitsreport.Content of the report Introduction Thereportcontainssevenchapters,includingitsbriefintroductoryandconcludingchapters.Theintroductorychaptergivesanoverviewoftheprojectandtheconsul-tationprocess.Italsoprovidesasummaryofthereport’srecommendations.


British Columbia Law Institute xvii

Strata-property basics Thereport’ssecondchaptercontainsageneraloverviewofstrata-propertylaw.Thisdiscussionispitchedatreaderswhoareunfamiliarwiththedistinctivetermsandconceptsfoundinthisbodyoflaw.It’sintendedtoprovidethesereaderswithjustenoughinformationaboutthecreationandoperationofstratapropertiestoallowthemtoworktheirwaythroughthechaptersthatfollow.Common property Insimpleterms,anythingdepictedonastrataplanthatisn’tastratalotisconsid-eredtobecommonproperty.Butthereareahandfulofareaswhereit’sdifficulttodrawastraightforward,black-and-whitedistinctionbetweenstratalotsandcom-monproperty.Thesecasesinvolvecertainkindsofpropertythat(1)arelocatedinaboundaryzoneor(2)formpartofanintegratedsystem,whichitselfmaybelocatedwithineithercommonpropertyorastratalot,orboth.Eventhoughcommonpropertyisafoundationalpartofthestrata-propertyconcept,someaspectsofitsdefinitioncontinuetovexparticipantsinthestratasector.Inthischapter,thecommitteeconsidersamendingthedefinitionsofcommonpropertyanditssubsetlimitedcommonpropertytoaddressfrustrationsthathavecroppedupinpractice.Afterwrestlingwiththeissuesthatarisefromthecurrentdefinitionofcommonproperty,thecommitteedeterminedthatretainingthestatusquoisthesaf-estandbestoption.Thecommitteedoesrecommendaclarifyingamendmenttothedefinitionoflimitedcommonproperty.Then,thechapterexaminesapracticethathasalsocausedfrustrations—long-termleasesofcommonpropertyenteredintobyastrataproperty’sowner-developer.Thecommitteerecommendsreininginthispractice,bylimitingthetermsofsuchleasestofiveyears,whenthecommonpropertyatissueisafixture.Finally,thechapterlooksatparkingstallsandstoragelockers,withaparticularfo-cusontheproceduresetoutinsection258oftheStrataPropertyAct.Thisproce-dureallowsanowner-developertoamendastrataplanafterithasbeendepositedinthelandtitleoffice.Thecommitteerecommendsreformingtheprocedurebygiv-inganowner-developeruntilthefifthannualgeneralmeetingtoamendthestrataplananddesignateparkingstallsandstoragelockersaslimitedcommonproperty.Inaddition,thecommitteerecommendsdoingawaywiththepracticeofallowingleasesorlicencesofparkingstallsandstoragelockers.


xviii British Columbia Law Institute

Land titles TheStrataPropertyActwasintendedtoworkinharmonywithBritishColumbia’ssystemforregisteringinterestsinlandundertheLandTitleAct.Thecommitteeex-aminedtherelationshipbetweenthetwoactsandmaderecommendationstoad-dresstwoareaswhereconflictshaveemerged.Thefirstconcernssubdivisionofland.InBritishColumbia,subdivisioniscontrolledbyadetailedlegalframework.Thedepositofastrataplaninthelandtitleofficeisconsideredtobeasubdivision.Howthisactistreateddependsonthekindofstrataplanbeingdeposited.Onekind,commonlyreferredtoasabuildingorconventionalstrataplan,subdividesabuildingandissubjecttoalightregulatorytouchifthebuildinghasn’tbeenpreviouslyoccupied.Theotherkind,calledabare-landstrataplan,subdividesland.Itissubjecttothekindofdetailedreviewandapprovalre-quirementsthatapplytoanyothertypeofsubdivisionofland.Thisdifferentialtreatmenthasled,insomecases,toabusivepracticesinwhichwhatisfunctionallyabare-landstrataplanischaracterizedasabuildingstrataplaninor-dertobenefitfromthelighterregulatoryrequirements.ThecommitteerecommendstargetedchangestotheStrataPropertyActtostampoutthispractice.Thesetarget-edchangeswillalsopreservethecurrentregulatorystructurefortruebuildingstra-taplans.Theotherareaconsideredinthischapterinvolvesthedepictionofcommonproper-tyonaregisteredstrataplan.Thecommitteerecommendsarangeofspecificre-formsthatwouldclarifythisarea.Theserecommendationsareintendedtoprovidecertaintyforstrata-lotownersandthebroaderland-titlesystem.Fundamental changes Thischapterexaminesthevotingthresholdforauthorizingfar-reachingchangestoastrataproperty,suchasamendingthestrataplantodesignatelimitedcommonproperty,amendingaScheduleofUnitEntitlement,andamalgamatingstratacorpo-rations.Ineachcase,thecommitteeconsideredwhethertheexistingthresholdshouldbechangedtoaresolutionpassedbyan80-percentvote.Thecommitteehadamixedresponsetotheissuesforreforminthischapter.Initsview,circumstancesjustifyloweringthevotingthresholdinsomecasesbutnotinothers.Forexample,thecommitteerecommendsloweringthethresholdforauthor-izinganamendmenttoastrataplantodesignatelimitedcommonproperty.Thecommitteefavoursthisapproachinthiscasebecauseitwillgivestratacorporationsaddedflexibilityandisunlikelytoprejudicetheinterestsofastrata-lotowner.Butthecommitteefavoursretainingthecurrentvotingthresholdfortheconversecase,


British Columbia Law Institute xix

inwhichastrataplanisamendedtoremoveadesignationoflimitedcommonprop-erty.Initsview,thiscasepresentsagreaterdangeroftheprocedurebeingusedforabusivereasons.Draft legislation and regulations ThereportalsocontainsachaptersettingouthowtheserecommendationsmaybeimplementedbyamendmentstotheStrataPropertyActandStrataPropertyRegula-tion.Thedraftlegislativeandregulatoryprovisionsareeachaccompaniedbybriefcomments.Conclusion Thisreport’sfinalrecommendationswillbesubmittedtotheprovincialgovernment.TheprovinceofBritishColumbiaregularlyupdatesstratalegislation.


British Columbia Law Institute 1

Chapter 1. Introduction An Overview of this Report’s Subjects “Strataplansareamechanismbywhichthelandissubdividedintoindividualstratalots”andcommonproperty.1Bycausingthisresult,“strataplan[s]andtheaccom-panyingdocumentsdepositedinthelandtitleofficedeterminethelegalstructureofthestratacorporationandthephysicalstructureofthestratadevelopment.”2Forthisreason,strataplansarecommonlydescribedas“fundamental”3and“essential”4documentsforstrataproperties.Strataplansareattheheartofthisreport,whichexaminesthreesubjects.Thisre-portcontainsrecommendationstoreformtheStrataPropertyAct5andtheStrataPropertyRegulation6toaddresslegalissuesconcerningcommonproperty,land-titleissues,andfundamentalchangesforstrataproperties.Eventhoughthereachofthisreportismoreexpansivethanasystematicexaminationofstrataplans,asthereportconsiderscommonproperty,landtitles,andfundamentalchangesforstrataproper-ties,itendsupspendingmuchofitstimelookingatlegalissuesinthosethreesub-jectsfromthestandpointoftheissues’effectsonstrataplans.Thereportincludesrecommendationsaddressingthedefinitionofcommonproper-ty,transactionsinvolvingcommonproperty,andparkingstallsandstoragelockers.Amongtheland-titleissuesitconsidersareemergingissuesinsubdivisioncontrol,whichcanflowfromdifferencesinkindsofstrataplans.Finally,thereportexamineswide-rangingfundamentalchangestoastrataproperty,suchasamendingastrataplan,amendingtheScheduleofUnitEntitlement,oramalgamatingstratacorpora-tions.

1. TerminalCityClubTowervBritishColumbia(AssessorofAreaNo9—Vancouver),2004BCCA466

atpara37,SaundersJA,dissenting(quotingdecisionofthePropertyAssessmentAppealBoardofBritishColumbia).

2. ContinuingLegalEducationSocietyofBritishColumbia,ed,BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual(Vancouver:ContinuingLegalEducationSocietyofBritishColumbia,2008)(loose-leaf2019update)at§3.1.

3. ChowvTheOwners,StrataPlanNW3243,2015BCSC1944atpara5,SmithJ.

4. MikeMangan,TheCondominiumManual:AComprehensiveGuidetoStrataLawinBritishColum-bia,3rded(Vancouver:StrataPublishing,2010)at7.

5. SBC1998,c43.

6. BCReg43/2000.


2 British Columbia Law Institute

About the Strata Property Law (Phase Two) Project ThisReportonCommonProperty,LandTitles,andFundamentalChangesforStratasispartoftheBritishColumbiaLawInstitute’songoingStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwo.BCLIbegantheStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseTwoinsummer2013.Theproject’sgoalsaretostudysevenareasofstrata-propertylaw,identifyis-suescallingforreformofthelaw,andrecommendchangestotheStrataPropertyActtoaddressthoseissues.Thephase-twoprojectbuildsonBCLI’sStrataPropertyLawProject—PhaseOne,whichwascompletedin2012.Overthecourseofthephase-oneproject,BCLIcar-riedoutinitiallegalresearchandfocussedconsultationwithleadingexpertsinthestrata-propertyfield.TheresultsofthisresearchandconsultationwerepublishedinBCLI’sReportonStrataPropertyLaw:PhaseOne,7whichrecommendedthatBCLIundertakealaw-reformprojecttoexaminethefollowingsubjects:(1)fundamentalchangestoastrata;(2)complexstratas;(3)selectedgovernanceissues;(4)commonproperty;(5)selectedland-titleissues;(6)selectedinsuranceissues;(7)leaseholdstratas.Thefirstsubjectinthephase-twoprojectwasaddressedintheproject’sfirsttwopublications,theConsultationPaperonTerminatingaStrata8andtheReportonTerminatingaStrata.9TheLegislativeAssemblyofBritishColumbiaimplementedthisreport’srecommendationsinfall2015.10Complexstratas,theproject’ssecondsubject,werethefocusoftheConsultationPa-peronComplexStratas11andtheReportonComplexStratas.12

7. 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].

8. (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].

9. 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].

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

11. (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].

12. 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].



Governance,theproject’sthirdsubject,wasaddressedintheConsultationPaperonGovernanceIssuesforStratas13andtheReportonGovernanceIssuesforStratas.14Finally,insuranceissueshavebeenthesubjectoftheConsultationPaperonInsur-anceIssuesforStratas15andtheReportonInsuranceIssuesforStratas.16Unfortunately,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.BriefbiographiesofcommitteemembersmaybefoundinappendixC.17

13. (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].

14. Report85(2019),online:<www.bcli.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Report-on-Governance-issues-final-report-WEB.pdf>[perma.cc/BRQ5-L6ZB].

15. (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].

16. Report86(2019),online:<www.bcli.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Insurance-Issues-for-Stratas_Report.pdf>[perma.cc/L5LD-3GET].

17. See,below,at137–144.



Consultation Paper on Common Property, Land Titles, and Fundamental Changes for Stratas

Thisreportwasprecededbythecommittee’sConsultationPaperonCommonProper-ty,LandTitles,andFundamentalChangesforStratas.18PublishedinDecember2018,thisconsultationpaperwasthecentrepieceofthecommittee’spublicconsultation,whichranto28February2019.Thepublicconsultationgaverespondentstwooptionsforprovidingtheirresponses.Thefullconsultationpapersetout25tentativerecommendationsforreform,forpublicreviewandcomment.Respondentswhofavouredengagingwithashorterdocumentweregiventheoptiontorespondtothesummaryconsultation,whichcontainedthreehighlightedproposals(oneeachforthesubjectsofcommonproper-ty,landtitles,andfundamentalchanges).Intotal,theconsultationreceived51responses.Amongtheseresponses,41weremadetothefullconsultationpaperand10tothesummaryconsultation.Thecom-mitteeconsideredresponsesatameetingheldaftertheconsultationperiodclosed,whichhelpedthecommitteeinformingandrefiningthefinalrecommendationssetoutinthisreport.

An Overview of this Report Apartfromitsbriefintroductoryandconcludingchapters,andachapterprovidinganoverviewofthebasicsofstrata-propertylaw,thisreportdividesneatlyintothreesubstantivechapters:

• commonproperty:thischaptercontainsthecommittee’sextensivecon-siderationofpotentialchangestothedefinitionofcommonproperty,anditsproposedreformstothedefinitionoflimitedcommonproperty,tolimitthetermsofaleaseofcommon-propertyfixturesenteredintobytheowner-developeronbehalfofthestratacorporation,andtotheallocationofpark-ingstallsandstoragelockersundersection258oftheact;

• landtitles:thischapterexaminestheintersectionoftheStrataPropertyActwiththeLandTitleAct,19containingrecommendationsonemergingissues

18. (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].

19. RSBC1996,c250.



insubdivisioncontrolinvolvingstrataplans,depictingcommonpropertyandtheverticallimitsofcommonpropertyonstrataplans,andonrequiringaFormF(CertificateofPayment)whenastratalotistransferredunderacourtorder;

• fundamentalchanges:thischapterconsidersfar-reachingchangestostra-taplansandstratacorporations,suchasamendingastrataplanoramend-ingaScheduleofUnitEntitlementandchangingthebasisforcalculatingcontributionstostrataexpenses,withafocusonwhetherthevotingthresh-oldforresolutionsauthorizingsuchfundamentalchangesmaybeloweredfromaunanimousvote20toan80-percentvote.21

20. SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s1(1)“unanimousvote”(“meansavoteinfavourofares-

olutionbyallthevotesofalltheeligiblevoters”).

21. Seeibid,s1(1)“80%vote”(“meansavoteinfavourofaresolutionbyatleast80%ofthevotesofalltheeligiblevoters”).



Chapter 2. Strata-Property Basics Introduction Thisreportdealswithsomeofthefoundationalpiecesofstrata-propertylaw:strataplans,commonproperty,unitentitlement.Adetailedintroductiontothelegalissuesfacingthesesubjectscomesinthechaptersthatfollow.Butreadersmaystillhavesomequestionsaboutthebasicfunctionsofstrata-propertylaw.Whatisastratapropertyatlaw?Howisitestablished?Whatareitsessentialelements?Howaredecisionsmadeamongacollectiveofpropertyowners?Howdothoseownersdivideupcommonexpenses?Who’sresponsibleforrepairs?And,ifthereisaconflictonalegalissue,whoresolvesit?Thischapterisdevotedtogivinganswerstothesequestions.Theanswersaredelib-eratelyconcise,asthesequestionsdon’tformthecoreofthisreport.Butit’sstillim-portanttohavesomegraspofhowthelawoperatesonthislevel.Thisinformationformsnecessarybackgroundtothemorein-depthdiscussionsthatdominatethefol-lowingchapters.

The Essential Elements of a Strata Property Strataproperties22arealegaldevicethataccommodatesindividualownershipofaninterestinlandwithinacollective,multi-unitstructure.Thelawcontainsmanysuchdevices.Whatsetsastratapropertyapartfrom,say,acooperative,ajointtenancy,atenancyincommon,oralong-termlease,arethefollowing“twoessentialelements”:

• thedivisionofpropertyintounits,tobeindividuallyowned,andcommonelements,tobeownedincommonbytheownersoftheunits;and

• anadministrativeframeworktoenabletheownerstomanagetheproperty.23

22. Formanypeoplethenamestratapropertyitselfisthefirststumblingblockthat’sencounteredin

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

23. OntarioLawReformCommission,ReportontheLawofCondominium(Toronto:DepartmentoftheAttorneyGeneral,1967)at3.



Theseessentialelementsexistwithinabodyoflawthat“reflectsthecombinationofseverallegalconcepts”—especiallyconceptsdrawnfromreal-estatelaw,easements,andcorporatelaw.24

The Three Generations of Strata-Property Legislation

Introduction Itmightbepossibletoachievethiscombinationofrulesandessentialelementsbycarefullyexecutedeasementsandagreements.ButthroughoutCanada,theUnitedStates,andAustralia,stratapropertieshavebeenfosteredbylegislation.BritishColumbiaisnoexceptiontothisapproach.Thisprovincehassupportedthecreationandadministrationofstratapropertiesbylegislation,whichcanbeseenasdevelopinginthreedistinctgenerations.Strata Titles Act 1966–74 InApril1966,BritishColumbiabecamethefirstjurisdictioninCanadatoenactstra-ta-propertylegislation.Thefirst-generationact,calledtheStrataTitlesAct,camein-toforceinSeptemberofthatyear.25Thefirst-generationactwasskeletallegislation.Itdidlittlemorethanenablepeopletocreateandadministerstrataproperties.Strata Titles Act/Condominium Act 1974–2000 In1974,thesecondgenerationofthelegislationappeared.26Thesecond-generationactretainedtheframeworksetoutinthefirst-generationactandenhanceditbyaddingnewprovisionsdedicatedtoconsumerprotectionandaddressingconcernsabouttheadministrationofstrataproperties.

24. ShawCablesystemsvConcordPacificGroup,2007BCSC1711atpara6,LeaskJ(quoting2475813

NovaScotiaLtdvRodgers,2001NSCA12atpara5,CromwellJA).

25. SBC1966,c40.

26. StrataTitlesAct,SBC1974,c89.SeealsoStrataTitlesAmendmentAct,1977(No2),SBC1977,c64(containingamajorsetofamendmentstothe1974act).



In1979,thenameofthelegislationwaschangedtoCondominiumAct.27Thesecond-generationactiscommonlyknownbythisname.28Strata Property Act 2000–present Thethirdgenerationofstrata-propertylegislation,theStrataPropertyAct,wasen-actedinJuly1998.29TheStrataPropertyActwasonlybroughtintoforceafteratransitionalperiod,whichlasteduntil1July2000.Althoughitpreservesmuchoftheframeworkputinplacebythefirsttwogenera-tionsofthelegislation,theStrataPropertyActalsocontainsalargenumberofprovi-sionsnotfoundinpreviousacts,makingitafarmorecomprehensivestatutethanitstwopredecessors.PartsoftheStrataPropertyActhavebeensignificantlyamendedin2009,302012,31and2015.32Thesechangesprimarilyrelatetofinancialplanning,disputeresolution,andtermination.TheStrataPropertyActisprobablythemostdetailedandsophisticatedlegislationofitskindinCanada.Itcontainsanarrayoflawsonsubjectsthataren’taddressedinequivalentstatutesfoundintheotherprovincesorterritories.33Buttheactwasalsoconsciouslydraftedtoprovideenhancedflexibilitytocertainkindsofstratas.Thisqualitycanmakeitdifficulttodiscusstheact’sprovisions,asit’softennecessarytonotebothageneralruleandaseriesofexceptions.Forthesakeofsimplicity,the

27. RSBC1979,c61.

28. SeeCondominiumAct,RSBC1996,c64.

29. Supranote5.

30. SeeStrataPropertyAmendmentAct,2009,SBC2009,c17.

31. SeeCivilResolutionTribunalAct,SBC2012,c25.

32. SeeNaturalGasDevelopmentStatutesAmendmentAct,2015,supranote10.

33. SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyAct,RSA2000,cC-22(seealsoCondominiumPropertyAmendmentAct,2014,SA2014,c10,s55[partiallyinforce]);Saskatchewan:TheCondominiumPropertyAct,1993,SS1993,cC-26.1;Manitoba:TheCondominiumAct,SM2011,c30,CCSMcC170;Ontario:CondominiumAct,1998,SO1998,c19(seealsoProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,SO2015,c28,Schedule1[partlyinforce]);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).



pagesthatfollowwillfocusonthegeneralprovisionsandwilltouchonexceptions,wherenecessary,infootnotes.

The Owner-Developer Thepersonwhostartsthestratificationprocessiscalledanowner-developer.Beforesomeonebecomesanowner-developer,thatpersonisanownerofland34whowantstodevelopitasastrataproperty.Thatpersonisresponsibleforshep-herdingtheprojectthroughtheprocedureforstratifyingland.Afterthisprocessiscomplete,theowner-developerholdsalltitlesinthedevelopment,whicharegradu-allysoldofftopurchasers.Theowner-developercanhaveadecisiveinfluenceoverboththeoriginalconcep-tionandtheongoingoperationofastrataproperty.Manyofthekeydecisionsthataremadeinsettingupastratapropertyoriginatewiththeowner-developer.Thesedecisionscanreverberatelongaftertheowner-developerhasleftthescene.

Creation of a Strata Property by Deposit of a Strata Plan

Thestratificationprocessbeginswiththedepositinthelandtitleofficeofastrataplan.Astrataplanisadocumentpreparedbyaqualifiedlandsurveyor,whichisre-quiredtocontainspecificdetailsandmeetexactingtechnicalstandards.35Themajorlegaleffectofdepositingastrataplaninthelandtitleofficeistosubdividelandintotwoormorestratalots,withassociatedcommonproperty.36

34. Andhere’sthefirstexceptiontonote:insomecases,itisn’tthelandownerbutratheralessee

underalong-termgroundleasewhoactsastheowner-developer.Theactcallsthesecasesleaseholdstrataplans.Forsimplicity’ssake,thediscussionthatfollowswillfocusonthemuchmorecommoncaseofalandownerdevelopingastratapropertyandwilldownplaytherarerleaseholdstrataplan.

35. SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s244.

36. Seeibid,s239(1).



Kinds of Strata Plans ThereareessentiallytwokindsofstrataplansundertheStrataPropertyAct.Oneiscalledabare-landstrataplan.Itconcernsthesubdivisionofland.37Theotherkindofstrataplanisn’tnamedintheact,butit’scommonlycalledabuild-ingorconventionalstrataplan.38Thiskindofstrataplandealswiththesubdivisionofabuilding.Thisisthemorecommonkindofstrataplan.Amongthethingsthatastrataplandoes,oneofthemostimportantistodistinguishbetweenthetwobuildingblocksofastrataproperty:stratalotsandcommonprop-erty.

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.”39Stratalotsusedforanyotherpurposearereferredtoasnonresidentialstratalots.Whetherastratalotisaresi-

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

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

38. SeeAdrienneMMurray,“TheBasicsofStrataPropertyLaw,”inContinuingLegalEducationSo-cietyofBritishColumbia,ed,StrataProperty—2006Update:MaterialspreparedfortheContinu-ingLegalEducationseminar,StrataPropertyFundamentalsforLawyers,heldinVancouver,B.C.,onOctober20,2006(Vancouver:ContinuingLegalEducationSocietyofBritishColumbia,2006)1.1at1.13;Mangan,supranote4at17;BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§2.15.

39. Supranote5,s1(1)“residentialstratalot.”SeealsoEastBarriereResortLtdvTheOwners,StrataPlanKAS1819,2017BCCA183.



dentialstratalotoranonresidentialstratalotcanhaveabearingonhowcertainprovisionsrelatingtoproperty,expenses,andgovernanceareappliedtoit.

Common Property, Limited Common Property, and Common Assets

Common property Initssimplestterms,commonpropertyiseverythingshownonastrataplanthatisn’tpartofastratalot.Someconcreteexamplesofcommonpropertyincludethingslikehallways,stairwells,lobbies,elevators,parkingstalls,balconies,andpatios.Thevastmajorityofpropertydepictedonstrataplanscanbeanalyzedusingthissimple,clear-cutdichotomyofbeingeitherastratalotorcommonproperty.Buttherealitiesofconstructingmulti-unitbuildingsentailthattherewillalsobesomegreyareasthatcomplicatethispicture.Thesegreyareasgeneratemostofthelegalissuesinthisarea.Theyarediscussedindetailinthenextchapter.40Limited common property It’sobviousfromthenamethatcommonpropertyispropertythat’sheldincom-mon,meaningthatit’ssomethingallthestrata-lotownersshare.41ButtheStrataPropertyActdoesn’tstopthere.Itallows,insomecases,forindividualstrata-lotownersorgroupsofstrata-lotownerstohaveenhancedrightstoaccessandusese-lectitemsofcommonproperty.Themostimportantexampleofanownerhavinganenhancedrighttocommonpropertyisthecategoryoflimitedcommonproperty.Limitedcommonpropertyiscommonpropertythathasbeen“designatedfortheexclusiveuseoftheownersofoneormorestratalots.”42Sometypicalexamplesofthingsthatmightbelimitedcommonpropertyareabalconyforanapartmentinahigh-risetower,apatioforatownhouseorground-floorapartment,andaparkingspaceinaparkinglot.


41. SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s66(“Anownerownsthecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporationasatenantincommoninashareequaltotheunitentitlementoftheowner’sstratalotdividedbythetotalunitentitlementofallthestratalots.”).

42. Ibid,s(1)(1)“limitedcommonproperty.”



Thenextchaptercontainsmoredetailonthelegalnatureoflimitedcommonprop-ertyandhowitisdesignated.43Common assets Finally,theactalsocharacterizessomepropertyascommonassets.Thedefinitionofcommonassetscontainstwocategories.Thefirstis“personalpropertyheldbyoronbehalfofastratacorporation.”44Examplesofthiscategoryincludeitemsofpropertylikefurnitureinalobbyorexerciseequipmentinagym.Thesecondcategoryis“landheldinthenameoforonbehalfofastratacorporation,thatis(i)notshownonthestrataplan,or(ii)shownasastratalotonthestrataplan.”45Anexampleof(i)isanyoffsitelandownedorheldonbehalfofthestratacorporation.Anexampleof(ii)isacaretaker’ssuiteinaresidentialbuildingwhichisastratalot.

The Strata Corporation Inadditiontosubdividinglandintostratalotsandcommonproperty,depositingastrataplaninthelandtitleoffice“establishes”astratacorporation.46Thisstratacorporationisthemajorcomponentofthesecondessentialelementofastrataproperty(“anadministrativeframeworktoenabletheownerstomanagetheprop-erty”).47Itisthevehiclebywhichstrata-lotownersareabletoadministertheirstra-taproperty.Theactsaysthatthepurposeofastratacorporationistotakeresponsibilityfor“managingandmaintainingthecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporationforthebenefitoftheowners.”48Ownershipofcommonpropertyandcommonassetsisinthehandsofthestrata-lotowners,collectively.49Themember-shipofthestratacorporationismadeupof“theownersofthestratalotsinthestra-


44. Supranote5,s1(1)“commonasset.”

45. Ibid,s1(1)“commonasset.”

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

47. SeeOntarioLawReformCommission,supranote23at3.

48. Supranote5,s3.

49. Seeibid,s66.Theactdoesn’tallowthelinkbetweenownershipofastratalotandownershipofashareinthecommonpropertytobebroken.Seeibid,s251(2)(“Anownermustnotdealwiththeowner’sshareinthecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporationsepa-ratelyfromtheowner’sstratalotexceptasexpresslyallowedbythisAct.”).



taplan.”50Thestratacorporationisthemeansforcoordinatingtheseownerstomakeeffectiveandtimelycollectivedecisions.

The Fundamentals of Strata-Corporation Governance

Bylaws and rules Astratacorporationisrequiredtohavebylaws.51Bylawsareathird-ordersetoflawstogovernstrataproperties,rankinginprioritybelowtheactanditsregula-tions.52Thatsaid,formanyissues,the“bylaws,morethananyotherdocument,di-recttheconductofowners,tenantsandoccupants”andvisitors.53Bydefault,thelegislationprovidesstratacorporationswithasetofstandardby-laws.54Butstratacorporationsarefreetoamendthesestandardbylawsortocreatetheirownbylaws,solongasthesebylawamendmentsareapprovedbya3/4vote,arefiledinthelandtitleoffice,anddonotconflictwiththeStrataPropertyAct,theStrataPropertyRegulation,oranyotherenactmentorlaw.55Bylawsmayaddressthefollowingtopics:

• “thecontrol,management,maintenance,useandenjoymentofthestratalots,commonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporation”;56

• “theadministrationofthestratacorporation.”57

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

51. Seeibid,s119(1).

52. Seeibid,s121.

53. Murray,supranote38at1.1.2.

54. Seesupranote5,s120.

55. Seeibid,ss126–28(rulesonbylawamendment),120(1)(filingamendmentsinthelandtitleof-fice),121(unenforceablebylaws).Onthelastpoint,inadditiontobeingunenforceableduetoaconflictwithanenactmentoralaw,abylawisunenforceabletotheextentit“destroysormodi-fies”oneoftheeasementsforsupport,services,orsheltercreatedundertheactor“prohibitsorrestrictstherightofanownerofastratalottofreelysell,lease,mortgageorotherwisedisposeofthestratalotoraninterestinthestratalot”(ibid,s121(1)(b)–(c)).Ofcourse,thereareex-ceptionstothelastpoint,whichallowastratacorporationtoputinplacerentalrestrictions,re-strictionsonthesaleofastratalot,oragerestrictions,allofwhichmustconformstrictlytode-tailedrequirementscontainedintheact(seeibid,s121(2)).

56. Ibid,s119(2).



Unlikebylaws,rulesareoptionalforastratacorporation.Rulesarealsomorelim-itedinscopethanbylaws,astheymayonlygovern“theuse,safetyandconditionofthecommonpropertyandcommonassets.”58Rulescan’tbeusedtogovernstratalotsortoaddresstheadministrationofastratacorporation.Annual general meetings and special general meetings Theactrequiresmanystrata-corporationdecisionstobemadebytheownerscollec-tively.Thesedecisionsaretypicallyidentifiedasonescallingfora“resolution”asev-idenceofthedecision.Resolutionsareconsideredandeitheradoptedorrejectedatgeneralmeetingsofthestratacorporation.Stratacorporationsarerequiredtohaveatleastonegeneralmeetingayear—called,appropriately,anannualgeneralmeeting.59Thestandardbylawscontaintheorderofbusinessfortheannualgeneralmeeting’sagenda.60Stratacorporationsmayalsohaveanynumberofspecialgeneralmeetings.61Theactcontainsadetailedandexactingsetofprovisionsonthecallingandconductofgeneralmeetings.62Forthepurposesofthisdiscussion,it’sonlynecessarytotakesomenoticeofhowtheactdealswithvoting.Votesareultimatelyhowdecisionsatgeneralmeetingsgetmade.Thebasicpositionismajorityrule—whattheactcallsmajorityvote.63Aresolutionpassedbyamajorityvoteisonethatwasapprovedbymorethanhalfofthevotescastbyowners—or

57. Ibid,s119(2).

58. Seeibid,s125.

59. Seeibid,s40.Thereisanexceptiontothisrequirement:ifalleligiblevotersagree,theymayconsentinwritingtothemainbusinessofthemeeting(namelypassingabudgetandelectingastratacouncil)andmaywaive,eachbyawrittendocument,theholdingofanannualgeneralmeeting(seeibid,s41).

60. Seeibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s28.

61. Seeibid,s42.

62. Seeibid,ss45–50,53–58.SeealsoReportonTerminatingaStrata,supranote9at63–71;GerryFanaken,UnderstandingtheCondominiumConcept:AnInsightfulGuidetotheStrataPropertyAct(Coquitlam,BC:PaigeCondominiumServices,2013)at36–48,52–55;Mangan,supranote4at101–114;BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§§7.37–7.76.

63. Seesupranote5,s1(1)“majorityvote”(“meansavoteinfavourofaresolutionbymorethan1/2ofthevotescastbyeligiblevoterswhoarepresentinpersonorbyproxyatthetimethevoteistakenandwhohavenotabstainedfromvoting”).



theirproxyholders,ifthereareany—atthegeneralmeeting.64Inotherwords,thequestionisdecidedbythemajorityofowners(andproxyholders)presentatthemeetingandnotabstainingfromvoting.Somedecisionsrequireapprovalbymorethanamajorityofvoters.Themostcom-monformofthiskindofapprovaliswhattheactcallsa3/4vote.65Aresolutionispassedbya3/4votewhenatleast75percentofthevotescastatageneralmeetingareinfavourofit.66Incertainexceptionalcases,theactdemandsthataresolutionbesupportedbyaunanimousvoteinorderforittobeapproved.67Aresolutiononlymeetsthisthresholdwhenallstrata-lotownersvoteforit.So,unlikeresolutionspassedbyamajorityvoteora3/4vote,aresolutioncan’tbepassedbyaunanimousvoteifitissupportedjustbyalltheownerswhoturnuptothegeneralmeetingandvoteforitifthereareotherownerswhodon’tattendthemeeting(inpersonorbyproxy)orwhoabstainfromvoting.Finally,ifthevoteisonwhattheactcallsa“winding-upresolution”68(toterminatethestrata—thatis,thecancelthestrataplan

64. Theactdoesn’tactuallyrefertoownersvoting;itstermiseligiblevoters.Thistermreflectstwo

concerns:(1)sometimesanowner’svoteforastratalotmaybeexercisedbysomeoneotherthananowner,suchasatenant(seeibid,s54(b)),amortgagee(seeibid,s54(c)),aparent,guardian,orotherrepresentative(seeibid,s55),oracourt-appointedvoter(seeibid,s58);and(2)insomecases,anownermaylosetherighttovoteiftheownerisindefaultofcertainpay-mentsowingtothestratacorporationandthestratacorporationistherebyentitledtofilealienagainstthatowner’sstratalot(seeibid,ss53(2),116(1)).Theseareallexceptionalcases,soforbrevity’ssakethetextwillsimplyrefertoownersvoting.

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

66. Aspecialrulecomesintoplayif“aresolutionrequiredtobepassedbya3/4voteispassedatanannualorspecialgeneralmeetingbypersonsholdinglessthan50%ofthestratacorporation’svotes”(ibid,s51(1)).Underthisrule,“[w]ithintheoneweekfollowingthevote,personsholdingatleast25%ofthestratacorporation’svotesmay,bywrittendemand,requirethatthestratacorporationholdaspecialgeneralmeetingtoreconsidertheresolution”(ibid,s51(3)).Ifthatspecialgeneralmeetingattractsaquorumofowners,andiftheresolutionisnotpassedagainbya3/4voteatthatmeeting,thenthestratacorporationmaynotimplementtheresolution(seeibid,s51(10)).

67. Seeibid,s1(1)“unanimousvote”(“meansavoteinfavourofaresolutionbyallthevotesofalltheeligiblevoters”).Transactionsthatmustbeauthorizedbyaresolutionpassedbyaunani-mousvotearethemajorfocusofchapter5,whichdealswithfundamentalchanges.See,below,at81–130.

68. Ibid,s1(1)“winding-upresolution”(“meansaresolutionreferredtoin(a)section272(1),or(b)section277(1).”).



andwindupthestratacorporationunderpart16),69thenitmaybepassedbyan80-percentvote.70The strata council Astratacorporationmusthaveastratacouncil.71Thestratacounciliselectedateachannualgeneralmeeting,withitsmembersusuallycomingfromthestrata-lotowners.72Thestratacouncilhasbeendescribedasbeing“effectivelyaboardofdirectors”73and“somewhatanalogoustoafourthlevelofgovernment.”74Thesedescriptionsre-flecttheact’sbasicposition,whichisthatthe“powersanddutiesofthestratacor-porationmustbeexercisedandperformedbya[strata]council.”75Asaruleofthumb,thismeansthatthestratacouncilhastheauthoritytomakedecisionsre-spectingthestratacorporation,exceptforthosedecisionswheretheactcallsforaresolutionatageneralmeeting.76Budgets and funds Theactrequiresthestratacorporationto“establish,”andthestrata-lotownersto“contribute,bymeansofstratafees,”tothefollowingtwofunds:

69. Seeibid,ss272–89.

70. Seeibid,s1(1)“80%vote”(“meansavoteinfavourofaresolutionbyatleast80%ofthevotesofalltheeligiblevoters”).

71. SeeStrataPropertyAct,ibid,s25.

72. Seeibid,s28(1).Whilestrata-councilmembersareinfactdrawnoverwhelminglyfromtheranksofowners,thelegislationactuallyallowsthreegroupspresumptivelytobestrata-councilmembers:(1)owners;(2)individualswhorepresentcorporateowners;and(3)tenantswhohavebeenassignedanowner’srighttovote(seeibid,s28(1)).Further,theactallowsstratacorporationstoadoptbylawsthatallowotherclassesofpeopletobestrata-councilmembers(seeibid,s28(2)).

73. Mangan,supranote4at39.

74. Fanaken,supranote62at21.

75. Supranote5,s4.

76. SeeMurray,supranote38at1.1.4(“WheretheActdoesnotreferenceavotebytheowners...theactivityordutymaybeperformedbythestratacouncilwithoutinputfromtheowners.However,wheretheActrequiresavoteoftheowners,thedecisiontobemadeisnotoneforthestratacouncilaloneandcanonlybemadewiththeapprovaloftheownersbasedonthevotingthresholdsetoutinthatsection.”).



• “anoperatingfundforcommonexpensesthat(i)usuallyoccureitheronceayearormoreoftenthanonceayear,or(ii)arenecessarytoobtainadepre-ciationreport”;77and

• “acontingencyreservefundforcommonexpensesthatusuallyoccurlessof-tenthanonceayearorthatdonotusuallyoccur.”78

Theactaddressestheestablishmentofthesefunds,raisingoftheircontributions,expendituresfromthem,andaccountingforthoseexpenditures.79Atthecentreofthesefunctionsisthestratacorporation’sannualbudget.80Amongotherthings,theannualbudgetmustcontain“theestimatedexpendituresoutoftheoperatingfund,itemizedbycategoryofexpenditure;thetotalofallcontributionstotheoperatingfund;thetotalofallcontributionstothecontingencyreservefund;eachstratalot’smonthlycontributiontotheoperatingfund;[and]eachstratalot’smonthlycontri-butiontothecontingencyreservefund.”81

Common Expenses Manyofthedecisionsthatastratacorporationhastomakeconcernspendingmon-eytopayforexpenses.Theactmakesthestrata-lotownerscollectivelyresponsibleforwhatitcallscommonexpenses,whichitdefinesasexpenses

• relatingtothecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporation,or

• requiredtomeetanyotherpurposeorobligationofthestratacorporation.82Commonexpensesoftenrelatetothefirstbulletpointandare,ineffect,theflipsideofowningpropertyincommon.Thestratacorporationhasalegalobligationto“re-pairandmaintaincommonpropertyandcommonassets.”83Althoughthestratacorporationisresponsibleforcommonexpenses,84payingforrepairs—asforallcommonexpenses—ultimatelycomesfromcontributionsfrom

77. Supranote5,s92(a).

78. Ibid,s92(b).

79. Seeibid,ss92,93,95–100,103–109.

80. Seeibid,s103.

81. StrataPropertyRegulation,supranote6,s6.6(1)(c)–(g).

82. Supranote5,s1(1)“commonexpenses.”

83. Ibid,s72(1).See,below,at21–24(furtherdiscussionofthedutytorepairandmaintainproper-ty).



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

• commonproperty;

• commonassets;

• commonexpenses;and

• liabilitiesofthestratacorporation.85How is unit entitlement determined? Theacthasadetailedsetofrulesonhowtodeterminetheunitentitlementofastra-talot.Whichrulesapplyinagivencasedependson(1)theuseofthestratalotand(2)thekindofstrataplanatissue.Theactdistinguishesbetweenresidentialandnonresidentialuses,andcontainsaspecialruleformixed-usestratas.Themethodsfordeterminingtheunitentitlementofastratalotare:

84. Seesupranote5,s91.

85. Ibid,s1(1).SomejurisdictionsgoevenfurtherthanBritishColumbiaanduseunitentitlementtodetermineastratalot’svotingrightsanditsshareofresidualpropertyaftertermination.



• forresidentialstratalots:oneof(a)thehabitableareaofthestratalot,(b)awholenumberthatisthesameforallresidentialstratalots,or(c)anumberthat“allocatesafairportionofthecommonexpensestotheownerofthestratalot,”intheopinionofthesuperintendentofrealestate,whomustapproveanyuseofoption(c);86

• fornonresidentialstratalots:oneof(a)thetotalareaofthestratalot,(b)awholenumberthatisthesameforallnonresidentialstratalots,or(c)anumberthat“allocatesafairportionofthecommonexpensestotheownerofthestratalot,”intheopinionofthesuperintendentofrealestate,whomustapproveanyuseofoption(c);87

• formixed-usestratas:“[i]fthestrataplanconsistsofbothresidentialandnonresidentialstratalots,”thenunitentitlement“mustbeapprovedbythesuperintendentasfairlydistributingthecommonexpensesbetweentheownersoftheresidentialstratalotsandtheownersofthenonresidentialstratalots.”88

Forresidentialandnonresidentialstratalots,inmostcasesunitentitlementisde-terminedusingoption(a).Ineffect,thismeansthatthesizeofthestratalotdeter-minesitsunitentitlement.Itisslightlymorecomplicatedthanthat,becausetheactreliesontwodifferentstandardsfordeterminingthesizeofastratalot.Forresidentialstratalots,thesizeofastratalotisdeterminedbymeasuringitshab-itablearea.Thisisadefinedterm,89whicheffectivelylimitsunitentitlementtolivingareasinastratalot,excludingthingslike“patios,balconies,garages,parkingstallsorstorageareasotherthanclosetspace.”90Fornonresidentialstratalots,sizeisdeter-minedbythetotalareaofthestratalot.91Inbothcases,option(a)requiresunitentitlementtobe“determinedbyaBritishCo-lumbialandsurveyor.”92

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

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

88. Ibid,s246(5).

89. Seeibid,s246(4).SeealsoBarrettvTheOwners,StrataPlanLMS3265,2017BCCA414[Barrett].

90. StrataPropertyRegulation,supranote6,s14.2.

91. Totalareaisn’tadefinedterm;itsimplytakesitseverydaymeaning.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§3.39(“‘totalarea’includesallofthoseareaslistedasexcludedfrom‘habitablearea’ofaresidentialstratalot”).

92. Supranote5,s246(3)(a),(b).



Theserulesonlyapplywhenthestrataplanisaconventional(building)strataplan.Forbare-landstrataplans,aspecialrulecomesintoplay.93When is unit entitlement determined and where is it found? Theunitentitlementofastratalotmustbedeterminedattheoutsetofthestratifica-tionprocess.Theactrequiresthe“personapplyingtodepositastrataplan”toin-cludetheunitentitlementsofthestratalotsinthestrataplan.94Theseunit-entitlementnumbersaregroupedtogetherasascheduletothestrataplan,calledtheScheduleofUnitEntitlement.95Thisscheduleisthedefinitivesourceoftheunitentitlementofastratalotinthatstrataplan.

The Duty to Repair and Maintain Property Strata-propertylawhasadetailedframeworkforallocatingresponsibilitytorepairandmaintainproperty.Thissystemdependsontheinterplayoflegislation,regula-tions,andstrata-corporationbylaws.Common property and common assets Eventhoughthestrata-lotownerscollectivelyownthecommonpropertyandcom-monassets,theStrataPropertyActmakesthestratacorporationresponsiblefortheirrepairandmaintenance.Astheactprovides,“thestratacorporationmustre-pairandmaintaincommonpropertyandcommonassets.”96Theactgoesontosetouttwoexceptionstothisbasicduty.97Theseexceptionsallowastratacorporationtomakeastrata-lotownerresponsibleforthemaintenanceofcommonproperty.Inbothcases,theactrequiresthestratacorporationtoadoptabylawthatmakestheownerresponsibleforrepairandmaintenancetothecommonproperty.

93. Ibid,s246(6)(“Theunitentitlementofastratalotinabarelandstrataplanmustbe(a)awhole

numberthatisthesameforallofthestratalotsinthestrataplan,or(b)anumberthatisap-provedbythesuperintendentandthatinthesuperintendent’sopinionallocatesafairportionofthecommonexpensestotheownerofthestratalot.”).

94. Ibid,s246(2).

95. Seeibid,s246(2).Thescheduleisaprescribedform.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote6,FormV.

96. Supranote5,s72(1).

97. Seeibid,s72(2).



Thefirstcasedealswith“limitedcommonpropertythattheownerhasarighttouse.”98Thestandardbylawsthatapplybydefaulttoastratacorporationgiveanex-ampleofhowresponsibilitytorepairandmaintainlimitedcommonpropertymaybedividedbetweenthestratacorporationandastrata-lotownerwhohastherighttousethelimitedcommonproperty.Thestandardbylawsprovide,asageneralproposition,that“[a]nownerwhohastheuseoflimitedcommonpropertymustre-pairandmaintainit,exceptforrepairandmaintenancethatistheresponsibilityofthestratacorporationunderthesebylaws.”99Thebylawsgoontodealwiththeexception,byprovidingthatthestratacorporationmustrepairandmaintainlimitedcommonpropertyintwodefinedcircumstances.Thefirstcircumstanceconcernsthefrequencyoftherepairormaintenance.Ifit’srepairsormaintenancethat“intheordinarycourseofeventsoccurslessoftenthanonceayear,”thenit’sthestratacorporation’sresponsibilitytocarryitout.100Thesecondcircumstanceconcernsthetypeofpropertythatmustberepairedormain-tained.Thestratacorporationmustrepairandmaintainlimitedcommonpropertyinallcases(“nomatterhowoftentherepairormaintenanceordinarilyoccurs”)ifthepropertyisanyofthefollowing:

• thestructureofabuilding;

• theexteriorofabuilding;

• chimneys,stairs,balconiesandotherthingsattachedtotheexteriorofabuilding;

• doors,windowsandskylightsontheexteriorofabuildingorthatfrontonthecom-monproperty;

• fences,railingsandsimilarstructuresthatenclosepatios,balconiesandyards.101Becausethislistiscontainedinabylawitcanbeamendedbyastratacorporation.Thesecondcaseinvolves“commonpropertyotherthanlimitedcommonproper-ty.”102Similartothefirstcase,forthesecondcasethelegislationsaysthatastratacorporationmayassigntheresponsibilitytorepairandmaintainsuchcommonpropertytoastrata-lotownerifthestratacorporationisenabledtodosobyaby-law.Butthelegislationalsoattachesanimportantconditiontothesecondcase.It98. Ibid,s72(2)(a).

99. Ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s2(2).

100.Ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s8(c)(i).

101.Ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s8(c)(ii).

102.Ibid,s72(2)(b).



providesthatthestratacorporationmayadoptsuchabylawforcommonpropertyotherthanlimitedcommonproperty“onlyif[thecommonpropertyis]identifiedintheregulationsandsubjecttoprescribedrestrictions.”103Inpractice,thisconditionhasturnedthesecondcaseintoadeadletter.Thisisbecausethenecessaryenablingregulationhasneverbeenadopted.Strata lots Thebasicpresumptionofstrata-propertylawisthatstrata-lotownersareresponsi-bletorepairandmaintaintheirstratalots.Thispresumptionflowsfromtheirown-ershipinterestinthestratalots.ButtheStrataPropertyActallowsforthispresump-tiontobedisplaced.Itprovidesthata“stratacorporationmay,bybylaw,takere-sponsibilityfortherepairandmaintenanceofspecifiedportionsofastratalot.”104Thestandardbylawsthatapplybydefaulttoastratacorporationgiveanexampleoftheextenttowhichastratacorporationmayberesponsibletorepairandmaintainastratalot.Asastartingplace,thestandardbylawsprovidethat“[a]nownermustre-pairandmaintaintheowner’sstratalot,exceptforrepairandmaintenancethatistheresponsibilityofthestratacorporationunderthesebylaws.”105Thebylawsgoontoidentifyspecifiedportionsofastratalotthatastratacorporationmustrepairandmaintain.Theyprovidethatastratacorporationmustrepairandmaintainastratalot—solongasthatstratalotis“inastrataplanthatisnotabarelandstrataplan”106—butthatduty“isrestrictedto”thefollowingportionsofastratalot:

• thestructureofabuilding,

• theexteriorofabuilding,

• chimneys,stairs,balconiesandotherthingsattachedtotheexteriorofabuilding,

• doors,windowsandskylightsontheexteriorofabuildingorthatfrontonthecom-monproperty,and

• fences,railingsandsimilarstructuresthatenclosepatios,balconiesandyards.107Becausethislistiscontainedinabylawitcanbeamendedbyastratacorporation.

103.Ibid,s72(2)(b).

104.Ibid,s72(3).

105.Ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s2(1).

106.Ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s8(d).

107.Ibid,ScheduleofStandardBylaws,s8(d).



Dispute Resolution and the Civil Resolution Tribunal Finally,resolutionofdisputesisanimportantpartofstrata-propertylaw.InBritishColumbiaitisparticularlyimportantbecausetheprovincehasrecentlyembarkedonanewapproachtostratadisputeresolution.ThecentrepieceofthisnewapproachistheCivilResolutionTribunal.Thetribunal’smandateis“toprovidedisputeresolutionservicesinrelationtomattersthatarewithinitsauthority,inamannerthat”:

• isaccessible,speedy,economical,informalandflexible,

• appliesprinciplesoflawandfairness,andrecognizesanyrelationshipsbetweenpar-tiestoadisputethatwilllikelycontinueafterthetribunalproceedingisconcluded,

• useselectroniccommunicationtoolstofacilitateresolutionofdisputesbroughttothetribunal,and

• accommodates,sofarasthetribunalconsidersreasonablypracticable,thediversityofcircumstancesofthepersonsusingtheservicesofthetribunal.108

Sinceitsinception,thetribunal’sauthorityhasextendedtomostkindsofstratadis-putes.109Thetribunalhasbeenacceptingstrata-disputeclaimssince2016.Butit’simportanttonotethatwhendisputesariseinconnectionthesubjectsofthisreporttheywilltendtorelatetoissuesthataren’twithinthescopeoftheCivilReso-lutionTribunal.110TheBritishColumbiaSupremeCourtismuchmorelikelytobethedecision-makerinthekindsofdisputesthatrelatetothisreport.

108.CivilResolutionTribunalAct,supranote31,s2(2).SeealsoTheOwners,StrataPlanBCS1589v

Nacht,2018BCSC455atpara9,FuntJ(descriptionoftheCivilResolutionTribunal).

109.SeeCivilResolutionTribunalAct,supranote31,s3.6.

110.Seeibid,s3.6(2).



Chapter 3. Common Property Scope of this Chapter TheStrataPropertyActhasapart(part5)dedicatedto“property.”111Thepartcon-tainsthefollowingdivisions:

• generalpropertymatters;

• limitedcommonpropertyandexclusiveuseofcommonproperty;

• propertyacquisitionanddisposal;

• workorders;

• buildersliensandothercharges.Asthislistmakesplain,part5addressescommonproperty,butitsreachisactuallymuchbroader,bringinginallsortsofothertopicswithabearingonproperty.Somecommentatorshavesaidthatmorethanpart5needstobeconsideredwhensomeoneistryingtounderstandacommon-propertyissue.Asaleadingpracticeguideadvises,112lawyersandotherstryingtogetahandleoncommon-propertyis-suesshouldbecomefamiliarwiththefollowingotherpartsoftheact:

• part1—definitionsandinterpretation(wherethedefinitionofcommonpropertyislocated);

• part2—thestratacorporation(setsoutthefundamentalresponsibilityofstratacorporationtomanageandmaintaincommonproperty);

• part7—bylawsandrules(andthebylawsthemselvescontain“importantprovisionsgoverningtheuse,alteration,andmaintenanceofcommonprop-erty”);113

111.Seesupranote5,ss66–90.

112.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§4.1.

113.Ibid.



• part14—landtitles(“regulatesthemannerinwhichdealingswithcommonpropertyandassetsofthestratacorporationareregisteredundertheLandTitleAct”);114

• part15—strataplanamendmentandamalgamation(relevantforsomedes-ignationsoflimitedcommonpropertyandtransactionsinvolvingcommonproperty).

Whilethischaptertouchesonsomeoftheprovisionsinpart5andtheseotherlistedpartsoftheact,itsgoalisn’ttosetoutacomprehensivenarrativeofthem.Instead,thechapterfocusesonthelaw-reformissuesthatthecommitteehasidentifiedforcommonproperty.Theseselectedissuesmaybegroupedintothefollowingsubjects:

• definingcommonproperty;

• responsibilitytorepairandmaintaincommonproperty;

• transactionsinvolvingcommonproperty;

• parkingstallsandstoragelockers.Finally,readersshouldnotethatthereissomeinevitableoverlapbetweentheseis-suesforreformandtheissuesconsideredinthenextchapter(whichdealswithlandtitles).

Background Information on Common Property Definition of “common property” Commonpropertyhasbeencalled“auniquefeatureofthestrataconcept.”115Thereisreallynothingelselikeitinreal-propertylaw.Itsuniquenatureisreflectedinitscomplexstatutorydefinition.TheStrataPropertyActessentiallytakesatwo-prongedapproachtodefiningcom-monproperty.116Thefirstprongclassifieseverythingshownonastrataplanthatisn’tpartofastratalotascommonproperty:“‘commonproperty’means(a)thatpartofthelandandbuildingsshownonastrataplanthatisnotpartofastratalot.”Thisprongofthe

114.Ibid.

115.Ibid.

116.Seesupranote5,s1(1)“commonproperty.”



definitionisfairlyeasytograspintheabstract.Examplesofthingsthatcouldfitthisdefinitioninclude“hallways,stairwells,roofs,balconies,attics,elevators,patios,parkingstalls,”andeventheunderlyinglandinabuildingstrataplan(butnotinabare-landstrataplan).117Thesecondprongofthedefinitiontacklescasesinwhichitwouldbedifficulttoap-plyasimpleandclear-cutdistinctionbetweenbeingpartofastratalotorpartofthecommonproperty.Itisaimedatalonglistofspecificbuildingcomponentsandsys-temsforservices(“pipes,wires,cables,chutes,ductsandotherfacilitiesforthepas-sageorprovisionofwater,sewage,drainage,gas,oil,electricity,telephone,radio,television,garbage,heatingandcoolingsystems,orothersimilarservices”).118Thesethingsmaybecommonpropertybydefinition,dependingonthelocationofthethingortheusageofthething.119Andit’satthispointthatthesecondprongoftheact’sdefinitionofcommonpropertysplitsintotwobranches.Thefirstbranchdealswithlocation.It’sconcernedwithboundarycases.Thedefini-tionfocusesattentiononwhetherthecomponentorsystemlistedearlierislocated“withinafloor,wallorceiling”thatitselfformsaboundary:

• betweenastratalotandanotherstratalot,

• betweenastratalotandthecommonproperty,or

• betweenastratalotorcommonpropertyandanotherparcelofland.120Theeffectofthisbranchofthedefinitionistobringtheseboundarycaseswithinthescopeofcommonproperty.

117.BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§4.2.Regardingtheunderlying

landinabare-landstrataplan,“partsofthelandaredividedintoseparatestratalots,andthestrataplanwillnottypicallyshowthebuildingsoneachstratalot.Inthiscase,theentirebuild-ing,whetherconstructedbytheownerdeveloperorbythestratalotowner,onthebarelandstratalot(includingtheexteriorportionsofthebuildingandtheinteriorpipes,wiring,andoth-ermechanicalsystems)willformpartofthestratalot.Thecommonpropertywillbelimitedtoaccessroads,sidewalks,andrecreationalfacilitiesshownonthestrataplan,aswellasanyoftheundergroundservicesandthephysicalplantifcapableofservicingmorethanonestratalot.”(Ibid.)

118.StrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s1(1)“commonproperty.”

119.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§4.2(“Whetheraparticu-larpartofasystemorservice,suchasawire,pipe,orduct,constitutespartofthecommonpropertyisdeterminedbythelocationofthepartorbytheusageofthepart.”).

120.Supranote5,s1(1)“commonproperty.”



Thesecondbranchdealswithuse.Evenifanyofthethingslistedabove(pipes,wires,etc.)findsitself“whollyorpartiallywithinastratalot,”itisstillwithinthedefinitionofcommonpropertyifitis“capableofbeingandintendedtobeusedinconnectionwiththeenjoymentofanotherstratalotorthecommonproperty.”Courtdecisionsconsideringthisbranchofthedefinitionhaveconcludedthatifthecom-ponentorsystemis“connected”toothercomponentsorsystemsthatserviceotherstratalots121orisotherwisepartofan“integratedwhole,”122thenitshouldbecon-sideredcommonproperty.Asaleadingpracticeguidehasnoted,thisapproach“leave[s]veryfewsuchfacilitieswithinacondominiumoutsideofthe‘commonproperty’ofthatcomplex.”123Rights to use, ownership of, and administration of common property Commonpropertyhasbeenseenas“afrequentflashpointfordisputesbetweenstratalotownersandstratacorporations.”124Thesedisputestendtorevolvearoundeithertheresponsibilitytorepairandmaintainortherighttousetheproperty.125Theresponsibilitytorepairandmaintainwillbediscussedlater,inconjunctionwithapairofissuesforreformthatrelatetoit.Asforrightstousecommonproperty,thestartingplaceistolookatownershipofcommonproperty.Theactprovidesthat“[a]nownerownsthecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporationasatenantincommoninashareequaltotheunitentitlementoftheowner’sstratalotdividedbythetotalunitentitlementofallthestratalots.”126Thisownershipinterestpresumptivelygivestheownersthe

121.TaychukvOwners,StrataPlanLMS744,2002BCSC1638atpara28,GrayJ[Taychuk].

122.FudgevOwners,StrataPlanNW2636,2012BCPC409atpara48,WoodsProvCtJ[Fudge].

123.BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§4.2.

124.Ibidat§4.1.

125.Seeibid.SeealsoMangan,supranote4at288.

126.Supranote5,s66.Asmaybeseenatworkinthissection,theactoftenpairstogetherthetermscommonpropertyandcommonassets.Commonassetsisadefinedterm,meaning“(a)personalpropertyheldbyoronbehalfofastratacorporation,and(b)landheldinthenameoforonbe-halfofastratacorporation,thatis(i)notshownonthestrataplan,or(ii)shownasastratalotonthestrataplan”(ibid,s1(1)“commonasset”).Seealso,above,at19–21(generaldiscussionofunitentitlement).



rightstoenjoyandusethecommonproperty,127subjecttoanylimitsplacedonthoserightsbytheact,theregulation,128andthebylawsandrules.Butitmustalsobeborneinmindthattheactgivesthestratacorporationthelegalresponsibility“formanagingandmaintainingthecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporationforthebenefitoftheowners.”129So,asacommenta-torhaspointedout,“[t]hemerefactthataparticularstratalotownerownsafrac-tionofthecommonpropertyandthecommonassetsdoesnotgivethatownertherighttocontrol,administeroruseit.”130Asthiscommentatorelaborates,“itwouldbechaoticandriskytogiveeveryownerthekeystothemechanicalserviceroom,ortheboilerroomortheyardtractor.”131Thesecommentspointtothebalanceatplayintheconceptofcommonproperty.Whileitmakes“perfectsense”132todenyownersthekeystotheboilerroom,italsomakessensetogenerallygiveownersfreeaccesstoacommon-propertycourtyardintendedfortheirenjoyment.Definition and nature of limited common property Theactalsoallowsstratastotipthatbalanceinsomecasesinfavourofgivingastra-ta-lotowner,oragroupofstrata-lotowners,enhancedrightstousecommonprop-erty.Themostimportantoftheseenhancedrightsisadesignationoflimitedcom-monproperty.Astheactdefinesit,limitedcommonpropertyis“commonpropertydesignatedfortheexclusiveuseoftheownersofoneormorestratalots.”133Courtcaseshaveconsideredthenatureofastrata-lotowner’sinterestinadesigna-tionoflimitedcommonproperty.Aleadingcasehasdescribedit“asaspecialcate-goryofpropertyoverwhichtheunitownerhasasubstantialdegreeofcontrolandsomethingapproachingabeneficialinterest.”134Thekeywordinthispassagemight

127.SeeMangan,supranote4at274(“Everyownerisentitledtousethecommonproperty,unless

itsuseisotherwiserestrictedtocertainpersons.”).

128.Seesupranote6.

129.Supranote5,s3.

130.Fanaken,supranote62at57.

131.Ibid.

132.Ibid.

133.Supranote5,s1(1)“limitedcommonproperty”[emphasisadded].

134.MourevTheOwners,StrataPlanNW2099,2003BCSC1364atpara22,GrobermanJ.



beapproaching,asalatercasehasemphasizedthebalancebetweentheownerben-efitingfromadesignationandtheotherstrata-lotowners:

Itisclear,however,thattheunitholderisnotthebeneficialownerofthelimitedcom-monproperty.Theotherownersretainmorethansimplelegaltitle.Theyretainabun-dleofrightsandresponsibilitiesassetout,interalia,inss.71–75oftheStrataPropertyAct.Thisisconsistentwiththecommunalnatureofcommonproperty.135

Acommentatorhasconcludedthat,onthestateofthecaselaw,“[a]nowner’sinter-estin[limitedcommonproperty]isnoteasilydefinedwithintheparametersoftra-ditionalpropertylaw.”136How to designate common property as limited common property Theactprovidesthreewaystodesignatelimitedcommonproperty.137Thefirsttwoinvolvethestrataplan.First,theowner-developermaydesignatelimitedcommonpropertyonthestrataplan“whenitisdepositedinthelandtitleoffice”138orbyamendingthestrataplanbeforethefirstannualgeneralmeetingofthestratacorpo-rationusingaspecialprocedurejustforparkingstalls.139Second,thestratacorpora-tionmayamendthestrataplantodesignatelimitedcommonproperty.140(Thisre-quires,amongotherthings,approvalbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.)141Third,astratacorporationmaydesignatelimitedcommonpropertybyaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote.142Adesignationoflimitedcommonpropertyinthestrataplanismoredurablethanadesignationeffectedbya3/4-voteresolution.Removingalimited-common-property

135.YestalvNewWestminster(Cityof),2012BCSC925atpara28,MasterMuir.


137.Seesupranote5,s73.

138.Ibid,s73(a)(i).

139.Seeibid,s258.Seealso,below,at47–51(discussionofoptionsforreformandtentativerecom-mendationsregardingsection258).

140.Seesupranote5,s73(b).Seealso,below,at94–97(considerationofoptionsforreformandten-tativerecommendationstoreformamendingastrataplantodesignatelimitedcommonproper-tyandtoremovethedesignation).

141.Seesupranote5,s257.Seealso,below,at94–96(considerationoftentativerecommendationtolowervotingthresholdtoan80-percentvoteforamendingastrataplantodesignatelimitedcommonproperty).

142.Seesupranote5,ss73(c),74.



designationfromastrataplanentailsamendingthestrataplan,143whichrequiresclearingthehighhurdleofobtainingaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.144Removingalimited-common-propertydesignationeffectedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote,ontheotherhand,basicallyinvolvespassinga3/4voteresolutioncallingfortheremovalofthedesignation.145Short-term exclusive use of common property Theactallowsastratacorporationotherwaystogivestrata-lotownersrightsincommonproperty,shortofadesignationoflimitedcommonproperty.Astratacor-poration“maygiveanownerortenantpermissiontoexclusivelyuse,oraspecialprivilegeinrelationto,commonassetsorcommonpropertythatisnotdesignatedaslimitedcommonproperty.”146Thisgrantmaybeprovidedonconditionssetbythestratacorporation.Grantsofshort-termexclusiveusemaybemadeforatermofuptooneyear,thoughthattermmayberenewed.Theymaybecancelledon“rea-sonablenotice”totheownerortenant.147

Issues for Reform—Defining Common Property Introduction BCLIfirstheardconcernsaboutthedefinitionofcommonpropertyduringthecon-sultationsforphaseoneofthisproject.148Atthattime,theissuesraisedtendedtobebroadandgeneralinscope.Consultationparticipantspointedto“uncertainties”inthelegislationandtherewasadesirefor“clarification”ofsomeaspectsofthedefini-tion.149Inparticular,oneconsultationparticipantobservedthatthequestion“where143.Seeibid,s75(1).

144.Seeibid,s257.Seealso,below,at96–97(considerationoftentativerecommendationtoretainunanimous-votevotingthresholdforamendingastrataplantoremoveadesignationoflimitedcommonproperty).

145.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s75(2).Notethatthe3/4-voteresolution“doesnothaveeffectuntilitisfiledinthelandtitleoffice”(ibid,s75(3)).

146.Ibid,s76(1)(notethatthisprovisionisqualifiedasbeingsubjecttotheprocedureformakingasignificantchangeintheuseorappearanceofcommonproperty,whichissetoutinsection71).SeealsoZanattavKedgley,2018BCCRT140[Zanatta],leavetoappealtoBCSCrefused,2018BCSC1969;HalesvTheOwners,StrataPlanNW2924,2018BCCRT91(examplesofrecentdecisionsoftheCivilResolutionTribunalinvolvingshort-termexclusiveuseofcommonproper-ty).

147.Ibid,s76(4).

148.SeeReportonStrataPropertyLaw:PhaseOne,supranote7at23.

149.Ibid.



doescommonpropertybeginandend”canoftenbedifficulttoanswer.150Acom-mentatorhasraisedasimilarconcern.151Should the definition of “common property” be amended? Brief description of the issue Thecommitteebeganitsconsiderationofthisissuebynarrowingits(potentially)wide-openscope.Inpractice,manyofthechallengesinapplyingthedefinitionofcommonpropertyrelatethesecondbranchofthesecondprongofthedefinition,whichclassifiesspecifiedbuildingcomponentsascommonpropertybasedontheiruse.Thecommitteedecidedtofocusitsattentiononthisaspectofthedefinition.Shouldthedefinitionofcommonpropertyberevisedtoclarifyitsintentinthesedif-ficultcases?Discussion of options for reform Thereisstillpotentiallyarangeofoptionsatplayeveninafocusedconsiderationofthisissue.Thisportionofthedefinitioncouldbesimplifiedbyreducingitsscope.Al-ternatively,itslanguagecouldbebolsteredbytheadditionofmore-concreteterms.Finally,thelegislation’sstatusquocouldjustberetained.Onequalityaboutthedefinitionthatstandsoutinevenacausalreadingisitscom-plexity.Thedefinitionhasevolvedovertheyears,addingdetailwitheachiteration.Thefirstprongofthedefinition(broadlydefiningcommonpropertyasanythingthatisn’tpartofastratalot)goesbacktotheverybeginningofstrata-propertylawinBritishColumbia.152Thefirstbranchofthesecondprong(pipes,wires,etc.locatedinaboundary)firstappearedin1977.153Thesecondbranch(pipes,wires,etc.used

150.Ibid.

151.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§3.28(“Theinterfacebe-tweencomponentslocatedinsideandoutsideastratalotcanposesomechallengesindetermin-ingwherethecommonpropertyelementsbeginandend.”).

152.SeeStrataTitlesAct,supranote25,s2“commonproperty”(“meanssomuchofthelandforthetimebeingcomprisedinastrataplanthatisnotcomprisedinanystratalotshownintheplan”).

153.SeeStrataTitlesAmendmentAct,1977(No.2),supranote26,s1(f)(“‘commonproperty’meanssomuchofthelandandbuildingscomprisedinastrataplanthatisnotcomprisedinastratalotshowninthestrataplan,andincludespipes,wires,cables,chutes,ducts,orotherfacilitiesforthepassageorprovisionofwater,sewage,drainage,gas,oil,electricity,telephone,radio,televi-sionservices,garbage,heatingandcoolingsystemsandotherservicescontainedwithinafloor,wall,orceilingofabuildingshownonthestrataplan,wherethecentreofthefloor,wall,orceil-ingformsthecommonboundaryofastratalotwithanotherstratalotorwithcommonproper-ty”).



orcapableofbeingusedinconnectionwithenjoymentofanotherstratalotorcom-monproperty)wasaddedwhentheStrataPropertyActwasenacted.Asnoted,theconcernsaboutclarifyingthedefinitionofcommonpropertytomakeitmorecertainwherecommonpropertybeginsandendsappeartoinvolvethesecondbranchofthesecondprongofthedefinition.Thisisthenewestpartofthedefinition,andit’salsothepartthathasattractedsomejudicialconsideration.154Whilethestrata-propertysectorvariesacrossthecountryanddirectcomparisonsbetweenBritishColumbiaandotherjurisdictionshavetobetreatedwithcaution,itisnote-worthythatthisprovince’sdefinitionofcommonpropertyisfarmoredetailedandcomplexthananyanalogousdefinition.Alltheotherprovincesandterritoriessimp-lydefinethetermbyusingavariationonthefirstprongofBritishColumbia’sdefini-tion,avoidingthewordysecondprong.155Anargumentcouldbemadethatthissim-plerapproachisthebetterapproach.Itwouldmaketheacteasiertoreadandfol-low,andwouldavoidacommonproblemwithlegislativedefinitionsinwhichpilingwordsontopofwordsendsupcomplicatingratherthanclarifyingthelegalissuesthedefinitionismeanttoaddress.156Butanotherargumentcouldberaisedthatsimplifyingthedefinitionofcommonpropertywon’tdoanythingtoaddresstherealunderlyingproblems.Thedefinition154.SeeTaychuk,supranote121;Fudge,supranote122.

155.SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote33,s1(1)(f)(“‘commonproperty’meanssomuchoftheparcelasisnotcomprisedinaunitshowninacondominiumplan,butdoesnotin-cludelandshownonthecondominiumplanthathasbeenprovidedforthepurposesofroads,publicutilitiesandreservelandunderPart17oftheMunicipalGovernmentAct”);Saskatchewan:TheCondominiumPropertyAct,1993,supranote33,s2(1)(h)(“‘commonproperty’meansthepartofthelandandbuildingsincludedinacondominiumplanthatisnotincludedinanyunitshowninthecondominiumplan”);Manitoba:TheCondominiumAct,supranote33,s1(1)“commonelements”(“meansallthepropertyexceptfortheunits”);Ontario:CondominiumAct,1998,supranote33,s1(1)“commonelements”(“meansallthepropertyexcepttheunits”);NewBrunswick:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote33,s1(1)“commonelements”(“meansallthecondominiumpropertyexcepttheunits”);PrinceEdwardIsland:CondominiumAct,supranote33,s1(1)(e)(“‘commonelements’meansallthepropertyexcepttheunits”);NovaScotia:CondominiumAct,supranote33,s3(1)(f)(“‘commonelements’meansallthepropertyexcepttheunits”);NewfoundlandandLabrador:CondominiumAct,2009,supranote33,s2(1)(e)(“‘commonelements’meansthewholepropertywiththeexceptionoftheunits”);Yukon:Con-dominiumAct,RSY2002,c36,s1“commonelements”(“meansallthepropertyexcepttheunits”);NorthwestTerritoriesandNunavut:CondominiumAct,supranote33,s1(1)“commonelements”(“meansallthepropertyexcepttheunits”).

156.SeePierre-AndréCôté,TheInterpretationofLegislationinCanada,4thed,translatedandrevisedbyStevenSacks(Toronto:Carswell,2011)at68(“Definitionsmaybefurnishedtoaddagreatermeasureofprecisionbuttheoppositeisoftentheresult:“Themorewordsthereare,themorewordsthereareaboutwhichdoubtsmaybeentertained.”)(quotingLordHalsbury,TheLawsofEngland(London:Butterworths,1907)atccxvi).



mayhavegrownmoredetailedandcomplexbecausestrata-propertylawhasin-creasinglyhadtotacklemorecomplicatedsituations.Revertingtoasimplerdefini-tionwouldjustmasktheconcernsraisedbythesecomplexsituations.Itwouldn’thelppractitionerswhohavetoaddresstheissuesraisedbycomplicatedcases.Thebetterapproach,inthisview,wouldbetocraftamoredetailedandconcretedefini-tion.Butitcouldbedifficulttocraftthekindofdetailedlegislativelanguagethatwouldtakethegreyareasoutofthecurrentdefinition.Thosegreyareasappeartoresultfromhavingtoapplyausagetestthatturnsoncase-by-casejudgments.Further,addingtothedefinitioncouldmakeitevenmorecomplicatedtoapply.Itwouldcre-atethepossibilityoffurthergreyareasdeveloping.Afinaloptionforconsiderationwouldbetoretainthestatusquo.Thecurrentdefini-tionisdetailedandsophisticated.Anargumentcouldbemadethatitstrikestherightbalance.Butretainingthestatusquowouldleaveanyconcernsaboutthedefi-nitionofcommonpropertyunaddressed.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteegavethisissueextensiveconsideration.Itconsideredbothsweepingchangesandtargetedamendmentstothedefinition’swording.Butintheenditde-cidedtoproposeretainingthestatusquo.Thecommitteeunderstandsthattherehasbeencriticismofthedefinition.Theus-agetest,inparticular,hasdevelopedthroughthelanguageofthedefinitioninthein-terpretationsfoundinthecaselawandhasprovedtobeachallengetoapplyinpractice.Thecommitteeissympathetictothischallenge.ButthecommitteewasgivenpausebytherangeofstratapropertiesinBritishCo-lumbiathatwouldbeaffectedbychangingthedefinitionofcommonproperty.Forexample,somestratapropertieshaveadvancedfire-suppressionequipmentthatislocatedwhollywithinastratalot.Otherstratapropertiesofferextended-careser-vicestoolderadults,whichrequiresthemtolocatespecializedfacilitieswithinstra-talots.Underthecurrentinterpretationoftheusagetest,thesetypesofpropertyaremorelikelythannotconsideredtobecommonproperty.Thecommitteewaswaryofalteringthedefinitionofcommonpropertyandinadvertentlyaffectingpropertythatiscriticalforhealthandpublicsafetywithincertainstrataproperties.Thecommitteealsowrestledwiththeproblemsthatcanarisefromapplyingthedef-initionofcommonpropertytopipesandplumbingsystems.Disputesoverrepairstothispropertycommonlyplaguestrataproperties.Thecommitteeunderstandsthe



frustrationsthatcanresultwhenanownerletsareadilyapparentproblempersist,resultinginwaterleaksthatdamageothercommonpropertyandstratalots.Butthecommitteewasreluctanttomovefromthisexpressionofsympathytoalegalrulethatwouldholdsuchstrataresponsibletorepairandmaintainpipes,eveniftheyarelocatedwithinastratalot.Inthecommittee’sview,sucharulewouldendupcreatingmoreproblemsthanitsolved.Thecommitteeconsideredassigninglegalre-sponsibilitytorepairandmaintainaspectsofplumbingsystemstoindividualstrata-lotownerstobeanalogoustorequiringownerstorepairandmaintainwindowsinahighrise.ExperiencebeforetheadventoftheStrataPropertyActprovedthat,inthelattercase,ownerswereunableorunwillingtodothenecessarywork.Thecommit-teewasconcernedthatalteringthedefinitionofcommonpropertycouldcreateareplayofthoseearlierproblemswithwindowsandbuildingexteriorsforpipesandplumbingsystems.Finally,whilethecommitteehadsomeinterestinsimplifyingthedefinitionofcom-monproperty,itultimatelydecidedthatsimplicityofexpressionhadtoyieldtooth-erconsiderations.BritishColumbia’sstrata-propertysectoriscomplexandsophisti-cated.Asimpledefinitiononpaperisoflittlehelpifitfailstoprovideadequateguidanceinpractice.Intheend,over-emphasizingsimplicityinthisarearunstheriskofleadingtomoredisputesintheCivilResolutionTribunalandthecourts.Asolidmajorityofconsultationrespondentssupportedthecommittee’sapproachtothisissue.Thecommitteerecommends:1.TheStrataPropertyAct’sdefinitionof“commonproperty”shouldnotbeamended.Should the definition of “limited common property” be amended? Brief description of the issue Thisissuearoseasaconsequenceofthecommittee’sconsiderationofthepreviousissue.Whiletheact’sdefinitionoflimitedcommonproperty157appearstobeclearonpaper,itwasnotedthatpeople—especiallypeoplewithoutlegaltraining—canstrugglewithoneaspectofthatdefinition.Theproblemconsistsinspellingouttherelationshipoflimitedcommonpropertytocommonproperty.Eventhoughithasbeenwell-establishedinthelawthatlimitedcommonpropertyisaformofcommon

157.Seesupranote5,s1(1)“limitedcommonproperty”(“meanscommonpropertydesignatedfor

theexclusiveuseoftheownersofoneormorestratalots”).



property,thispointoftenseemstoeludepeopleinpractice.158Shouldthedefinitionoflimitedcommonpropertybeclarifiedtoemphasizethispoint?Discussion of options for reform Amendingthedefinitionwouldprovidetheopportunitytoclarifywhathasappar-entlybecomeasourceofconfusioninpractice.Thiswouldhavetheadvantageofde-creasingfrustrationwithapplyingtheact.Itmightalsoeliminateapotentialsourceofdisputeswithinastrataproperty.Butitcouldbearguedthatanamendmentisn’tneeded.Asalegalmatter,it’sclearthatlimitedcommonpropertyisasubsetofthebroadercategoryofcommonprop-erty.Amendingtheact’sdefinitionwouldn’tchangethisresult.Anamendmentwouldn’tbeguaranteedtosolvewhatappearstobeaproblemofperceptionandin-terpretation.Itmightevenopenupnewinterpretativeproblems.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteefavoursaddressingthispracticalconcernwithalegislativeamend-ment.Inthecommittee’sview,thewordingofthestatutorydefinitionisthesourceofconfusionoverthestatusoflimitedcommonproperty.Thisconfusioncanbepro-ductivelyaddressedbyamendingtheact’sdefinitiontounderscorethepointthatlimitedcommonpropertyisaformofcommonproperty.Suchanamendmentisun-likelytoproduceanyuntowardeffects.Thevastmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendationonthisissueforreform.Thecommitteerecommends:2.TheStrataPropertyAct’sdefinitionof“limitedcommonproperty”shouldbeamend-edtoreadasfollows:“‘limitedcommonproperty’meansaformofcommonproperty,designatedfortheexclusiveuseoftheownersofoneormorestratalots.”

158.Thecommitteereceivedcorrespondencethatnotedconfusioninapplyingthedefinition.See

BLynnInouye,emailmessagetoStrataPropertyLaw(PhaseTwo)ProjectCommittee,25Octo-ber2017.



Issues for Reform—Transactions Involving Common Property

Introduction TheStrataPropertyActhasaraftofprovisionsdealingwithtransactionsinvolvingcommonproperty,includingprovisionsaddressingthefollowingtopics:

• changeinuseofcommonproperty;159

• disposalofcommonproperty;160

• subdivisionofcommonproperty;161

• amendingthestrataplantoaddastratalottocommonproperty;162

• amendingthestrataplantomakecommonpropertyintolandheldbythestratacorporation;163

• amendingthestrataplantoaddlandheldbystratacorporationtothecommonproperty.164

Section71,whichdealswithchangesinuseofcommonproperty,istheoutlieronthislist.Unliketheotherprovisions,itdoesn’tenableatransactioninvolvingcom-monproperty.Butitshouldbeborneinmind,becausemanysuchtransactionswillalsocomeintotherangeofsection71,whichmustbeaddressedwheneverastratacorporationplanstomakea“significantchangeintheuseorappearanceofcommonproperty.”165Theothersectionsareweightedheavilytowardaddressingproceduralrequire-ments,approvalsfromeligiblevoters,andfilingsinthelandtitleoffice.Whilethecommitteehasreviewedthesesections,initsviewreformeffortsshouldn’tbeaimedatacomprehensiveoverhaulofthem.Instead,thecommitteehasdecidedtofocus


160.Seeibid,s80.

161.Seeibid,s253.

162.Seeibid,s263.

163.Seeibid,s265.

164.Seeibid,s266.

165.Ibid,s71.



thispartofthereportontheareathatitseesascreatingthemostpressingissues:leases.Asastartingplace,notethattwoproceduresareavailableforaleaseofcommonproperty.Knowingwhichonetouseturnsonthelengthofthetermoftheproposedlease.Iftheleasewillbe“foratermexceeding3years,”166thenitisconsideredtobeasubdivisionofland.167Thismeansthatthefollowingrequirementsfrompart7oftheLandTitleActapply:

• asubdivisionplanisrequired;168

• thesubdivisionplanmustbeapprovedbyanapprovingofficer;169

• thesubdivisionplan“mustbesignedbyeachownerofthelandsubdivid-ed.”170

Butiftheleaseisforatermofthreeyearsorsomelesserperiod,thenitisclassifiedasa“disposalofcommonproperty”undersection80.171Inthiscase,thestratacor-poration“mustensurethatthefollowingrequirementsaremet”:172

• aresolutionapprovingtheleasemustbepassedbya3/4vote;173

• “holdersoffinancialchargesnotedonthecommonpropertyrecordmustconsentinwritingtotheproposeddispositionunlessintheregistrar’sopin-

166.Ibid,s253(1)(b).

167.Seeibid,s253(1).

168.Seesupranote19,s74.Buttheregistrarmayacceptanothermethodofdescribingthelandincertaincircumstances(seeibid,s99).

169.Seeibid,s91(1).

170.Ibid,s97(1).TheLandTitleAct’sdefinitionofownerincludesaregisteredownerofacharge(seeibid,s1(1)“owner”).ButtheLandTitleActalsoprovidesthat“[t]heregistrarmayacceptaplanthathasnotbeensignedbyalltheownersif,intheregistrar’sopinion,theinterestsoftheownerswhohavenotsignedarenotaffectedbythedepositoftheplan”(ibid,s97(3)).

171.SeeInterpretationAct,RSBC1996,c238,s29“dispose”(“meanstotransferbyanymethodandincludesassign,give,sell,grant,charge,convey,bequeath,devise,lease,divest,releaseandagreetodoanyofthosethings”[emphasisadded]).

172.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s80(2).

173.Seeibid,s80(2)(a).



iontheinterestsofthepersonswhohavenotconsentedinwritingarenotadverselyaffectedbythedisposition”;174

• “anydocumentneededtoeffectthedispositionmustbeexecutedbythestratacorporationanddeliveredtothelandtitleofficeaccompaniedby”175

o aCertificateofStrataCorporationcertifyingthattheresolutionreferredtoearlierhasbeenpassedandthedocumentconformstoit;176

o thewrittenconsentsoftheholdersoffinancialchargesreferredtoear-lier.177

Whiletheseproceduresareimportant,thepressingissuesarisingfromleasesofcommonpropertytendnottoarisefromthem.Instead,thetimingofenteringintoaleasehasemergedasakeyconcern.Theconcernisthatanowner-developermayusethetimeduringtheearlyexistenceofastratapropertywheniteffectivelydomi-natesthestratacorporationtoenterintoleasesthatmaynotbeintheinterestsoflaterstrata-lotowners.178Thereareexistingprovisionsoftheactthathaveabearingonthisproblem.Theactprovidesthattheowner-developermustmeetadefinedstandardofcare179duringtheperiodwhenitiseffectivelyincontrolofthestratacorporation.180Thisstandardexpresslyincludesacting“withaviewtothebestinterestsofthestratacorpora-tion.”181Further,theactplacesrestrictionsontheowner-developer’scontractingpowers,thoughtherestrictionsonlyextendasfarascontractswith“apersonwhoisnotatarm’slengthtotheownerdeveloper.”182

174.Ibid,s80(2)(b).

175.Ibid,s80(2)(c).

176.Seeibid,s80(2)(c)(i).

177.Seeibid,s80(2)(c)(ii).

178.SeeFanaken,supranote62at10.

179.Seesupranote5,s6(1)(“Inexercisingthepowersandperformingthedutiesofacouncil,theownerdevelopermust(a)acthonestlyandingoodfaithwithaviewtothebestinterestsofthestratacorporation,and(b)exercisethecare,diligenceandskillofareasonablyprudentpersonincomparablecircumstances.”).

180.Seeibid,s5(1)(“Theownerdevelopermustexercisethepowersandperformthedutiesofacouncilfromthetimethestratacorporationisestablisheduntilacounciliselectedatthestratacorporation'sfirstannualgeneralmeeting.”).

181.Ibid,s6(1)(a).

182.Ibid,s10(Intheperiodafterthefirstconveyanceofastratalottoapurchaserbutbeforethefirstannualgeneralmeeting,nocontractortransactionmaybeenteredintobyoronbehalfof



Provisionsinotherlegislationmayalsoprovidearemedy.ThedisclosureprovisionsintheRealEstateDevelopmentMarketingActareoftenengagedindisputesoverwhethertheowner-developerhasactedinthestratacorporation’sbestinterests.183Should the Strata Property Act provide that a lease of a fixture that is common property or of a common asset entered into by the owner-developer may not exceed five years? Brief description of the issue Despitegeneralprovisionsimposingdutiesandrestrictionsonowner-developers,therearestillspecificconcernsabouttransactionsinvolvingcommonproperty.Theseconcernsrelatetolong-termleasestyingupastrata’scommonproperty(itemssuchasenterphonesandsecuritycamerasoftenfigureasexamples)aftertheowner-developerhasleftthescene.Sometimes,theconcernsextendtoservicecon-tractsenteredintoonthestrata’sbehalfbytheowner-developer.Otherprovinceshaveenactedlegislationthatreinsinthesetransactions.184ShouldBritishColumbia

thestratacorporationwitheithertheownerdeveloperorapersonwhoisnotatarm’slengthtotheownerdeveloper,unlessthecontractortransactionisapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvoteataspecialgeneralmeeting.”).

183.SeeSBC2004,c41,ss14–15.

184.SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote33,s17.1(“(1)Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinsection17andtheregulations,acorporationmayterminateanagreementwithin12monthsafterthetimeatwhichitsboardfirstconsistsofdirectorswhowereelectedwhenpersonswhowereatarm’slengthfromthedeveloperownedorheldunitsrepresentingmorethan50%ofthetotalunitfactorsforalltheunits.(2)Subsection(1)appliesdespiteanytermtothecontraryintheagreementtobeterminated.(3)Toterminateanagreementunderthissection,thecorpora-tionmustgivewrittennoticeoftheterminationdatetotheotherpartytotheagreementatleast60days,oranyshorterperiodspecifiedintheagreement,beforetheterminationdate.(4)Whereacorporationterminatesanagreementunderthissection,thecorporationisnotlia-bletotheotherpartytotheagreementbyreasononlyoftheterminationoftheagreementun-derthissection.”);Manitoba:TheCondominiumAct,supranote33,s82(“(1)Acondominiumcorporationmay,within12monthsaftertheturn-overmeeting,terminate,withoutpenalty,anyofthefollowingagreementsenteredintobythecorporationbeforetheturn-overmeeting:(a)anagreementtoprovidegoodsandservicestothecondominiumcorporationonacontinuingbasis;(b)anagreementtoprovidefacilitiestothecondominiumcorporationonafor-profitbasis;(c)acommercialleaseforpartsofthecommonelements;(d)aninsurancetrustagreement.(2)Sub-section(1)appliesdespiteanytermtothecontraryintheagreementtobeterminated.(3)Toterminateanagreementreferredtoinsubsection(1),thecondominiumcorporationmustgivewrittennoticeoftheterminationdatetotheotherpartytotheagreementatleast30days,oranyshorterperiodspecifiedintheagreement,beforethatdate.”);Ontario:CondominiumAct,1998,supranote33,s112(“Subjecttosubsection(4),acorporationmay,byresolutionoftheboardwithin12monthsfollowingtheelectionofanewboardatameetingheldinaccordance



followtheirleadandamendtheStrataPropertyActtodirectlyaddressthesecon-cerns?Discussion of options for reform Thereisarangeofoptionsthatcouldbeconsideredinresponsetothisissue,whichwouldrunfromproposingarobustpowerfortheincomingstratacounciltotermi-nateleasesenteredintobytheowner-developertoretainingthestatusquo.Enactinglegislationthatwouldcreateanenhancedterminationpowerforleasesen-teredintobytheowner-developerwoulddirectlyaddressconcernsraisedaboutsuchleasesbindingstratacorporationstounfavourabletermsfarintothefuture.Itwouldalsobeasimplermechanismtoexercisethanlitigationoverwhetheranown-er-developerhasfailedinitsdutytoactinthebestinterestsofthestratacorpora-tion.Butsuchanamendmentwouldalsohavedownsides.Themaindownsideofabroad-lyframedterminationpoweristhatitwouldcastachilloverallcontractsthattheowner-developerwouldattempttoenterintoonthestratacorporation’sbehalf.Contractingpartiescoulddecidethattheuncertaintycreatedbysuchapowerwouldmakeitnotworththeirwhiletoenterintocontractswiththeowner-developer.Ortheycouldinsistonconcessionstomakeupfortheperceivedlossofcontractualcer-

withsubsection43(1),terminateanagreementmentionedinsubsection(2)thatthecorpora-tionhasenteredintowithapersonotherthananothercorporationbeforetheelectionofthenewboard.(2)Subsection(1)appliestothefollowingagreements:1.Anagreementforthepro-visionofgoodsorservicesonacontinuingbasis.2.Anagreementfortheprovisionoffacilitiestothecorporationonotherthananon-profitbasis.3.Aleaseofallorpartofthecommonelementsforbusinesspurposes.(3)Subsection(1)doesnotapplytoatelecommunicationsagreementwithinthemeaningofsection22.(4)Toterminateanagreement,theboardshallgiveatleast60daysnoticeinwritingofthedateofterminationtothepersonwithwhomthecorporationen-teredintotheagreement.”);ProtectingCondominiumOwnersAct,2015,supranote33,s98(2)(“(1)Subsection112(1)oftheActisrepealedandthefollowingsubstituted:(1)Subjecttosub-section(4)andtheregulationsanddespiteanythinginthedeclaration,aby-law,anagreementoraninstrument,acorporationmay,byresolutionoftheboardwithin12monthsfollowingtheelec-tionofanewboardatameetingheldinaccordancewithsubsection43(1),terminateanagree-mentdescribedinsubsection(2)thatthecorporationhasenteredintowithapersonbeforetheelectionofthenewboard,otherthananagreementmentionedinsection21.1.(2)Section112oftheActisamendedbyaddingthefollowingsubsection:(4.1)Ifacorporationterminatesanagreementunderthissection,thecorporationanditsdirectors,officersandownersarenotliablefor,(a)anyobligationsinrespectofthetermination,includingobligationspurportingtobein-curredascancellationcharges,administrationcharges,acceleratedpaymentsoranyothercharg-es,penaltiesorfees;(b)anymonetaryobligationsundertheagreementrespectinganyperiodaftertheterminationtakeseffect,unlesstheregulationsprovideotherwise;or(c)anyotherprescribedconsequences.”[notinforce]).



tainty.Eitherdevelopmentcouldhavesignificantlong-termeconomicconsequencesforthestratacorporation.Thesedisadvantagescouldleadtotheconclusiontoretainthestatusquo.Itcouldbearguedthatthecurrentlegislationstrikestherightbalance.Itgivesstratacorpora-tionssometoolstocombattheworstabusesbutdoesn’tgosofarastocreatecon-tractualuncertainty.Thedrawbackofthisapproachisthatitleavesanyconcernsaboutthecurrentlawunaddressed.Thereareindicationsoffrustrationwithinthestratasectoraboutleasesofcommonproperty.Thecurrentlawappearstolackananswertothisfrus-tration.Betweenthesetwoendsofthespectrumthereisanynumberofintermediateop-tionsthatcouldbeconsidered.Itmaybepossibletocraftanarrowlytailoredprovi-sionthatwouldweedoutconcerningleaseswhilenotdoingmuchtounsettlecon-tractualcertainty.Butthedownsideofsuchanapproachisthatitmightonlypro-videtemporaryrelief.Frustrationscouldre-emergeifsomenewpractice,relatedtobutdistinctfromthecurrentapproach,weretogrowupasawaytogetaroundanarrowlytailoredprovision.The committee’s recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,thereareseriousconcernsarisingfromthisissue,whichshouldbemetwithalegislativeresponse.Butthecommitteewasunwillingtogosofarastoproposeanenhancedpowertoterminateleasesofcommonproperty.Theadvantagesofsuchapowerareoutweighedbyitsdisadvantages.Inthecommittee’sview,thereareproblemsarisingfromcertainleasesofcommonpropertyandcommonassets.Theseproblemscanbeaddressedbyatailoredprovi-sion.Suchaprovisionshouldbedirectedatthetermofthelease.Inthecommittee’sview,therealproblemsarisefromleasesthatstretchoutfarintothefuture,bindingthestratacorporationlongaftertheowner-developerhasleftthescene.Aprovisionthatlimitsthetermofsuchleaseswouldclearupmuchofthecurrentfrustration.Consultationrespondentssupportedthecommittee’sproposalonthisissue,byasolidmajority.Thecommitteefavoursfiveyearsasthelengthofastatutorylimitationonleaseterms.Somearbitrarinesswouldattachtoanynumberselectedhere.Fiveyearsisacommonleaseterm,andwouldappeartostrikethebestbalancebetweenbeingareasonablelengthandnotexcessivelybindingthestratacorporation.Buttoaddress



casesinwhichsomeflexibilitywouldbedesired,thecommitteealsofavoursbuild-ingamechanismintothelegislation,allowingforalongerterm.Thecommitteealsofavourslimitingthereachofthisproposedprovisiontocommonpropertythatcanbeclassifiedasfixturesandtocommonassets.Thespecificsoftheselasttwopointsareaddressedinthefollowingissuesforre-form.Thecommitteerecommends:3.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatanylease,enteredintobytheowner-developer,ofafixturethatiscommonpropertyorofacommonassetmustnothaveatermthatexceedsfiveyears.How should “fixtures” be defined for a provision applying to a lease of a fixture that is common property or of a common asset entered into by the owner-developer? Brief description of the issue Fixturesisatermofart,withacomplexmeaninginthecommonlaw.It’salsoade-finedterminBritishColumbiastrata-propertylaw,withameaningassignedbytheregulation185foruseinconnectionwithtwoprovisionsdealingwithinsuranceis-sues.186Shouldthisexistingdefinitionbeextendedtothecommitteeproposedpro-visiondealingwithleasesofcommonpropertyandcommonassets?Discussion of options for reform Thereareseveraloptionstoconsiderforthisissue.Fixturescouldbedefinedbythecommonlaw,bytheexistingdefinitionintheStrataPropertyRegulation,orbyanewstatutorydefinition.Fixturesisatermwithanestablishedmeaningatcommonlaw.Ifaspecificlegisla-tivedefinitionwerenotassignedtothetermintheproposedprovision,thencourtswouldlikelydrawonthecommonlawtoestablishitsmeaning.Butthecommon-law

185.Seesupranote6,s9.1(1).

186.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote5,ss149(1)(d),152(b).



testfordeterminingwhetherpropertyisafixtureiscomplex.187Commentatorshavecriticizeditslackofcertainty.188Theregulation’sdefinitionoffixturesisclearbycomparisontothecommonlaw,re-lyingonalistofspecificitemsofproperty:“‘fixtures’meansitemsattachedtoabuilding,includingfloorandwallcoveringsandelectricalandplumbingfixtures,butdoesnotinclude,iftheycanberemovedwithoutdamagetothebuilding,refrigera-tors,stoves,dishwashers,microwaves,washers,dryersorotheritems.”189Extendingthisdefinitiontotheproposedprovisionwouldensurecertaintyaboutthemeaningofthetermandwouldpromoteconsistencyacrossthelegislation.Buttheregulation’sdefinitioncouldhavedrawbacks.Itwasdevelopedforprovi-sionsthatregulateinsurancecoverage.Itcouldbeseenasapoorfitforaprovisionintendedtoregulatethetermsofleases.Thisdisadvantagewouldbeaddressedbyalegislativedefinitioncraftedspecificallyfortheproposedprovision.Butadifferentlegislativedefinitionwouldcreateanin-consistencywithintheact.The committee’s recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,theexistingdefinitionoffixturesisadequateforthepur-posesoftheproposedprovision.Usingitwouldpromoteconsistencyacrosstheact,whichisaworthwhilegoal.Astrongmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommitteeonthisissue.

187.SeeBruceZiff,PrinciplesofPropertyLaw,7thed(Toronto:ThomsonReuters,2018)at136(“The

determinationofwhetherachattelhasbeentransformedintoafixtureisamatterofintention,objectivelydetermined.Thatintentionisascertainedbyexaminingthedegreeandobject(some-timescalledpurpose)oftheannexation.Whenachattelisattachedtotheland,howeverslightly,arebuttablepresumptionisraisedthattheitemhasbecomeafixture.Theextentoftheattach-menttendstoaffectthestrengthofthatpresumption.Thepresumptionisreversedifthechattelisrestingonitsownweight;here,itwillbepresumedtoremainachattel.Thesolegroundfortherebuttalofthesetwopresumptionsistheobject/purposeofannexation.Thetestiswhetherthepurposeofattachmentwas(a)toenhancetheland(whichleadstoaconclusionthatafixtureexists)havingregardtotheland’sintendeduse;or(b)forthebetteruseofthechattelasachat-tel.”[footnotesomitted]).

188.Seeibidat137(“Attemptstoreconcilethemyriadcasesrelatingtotheapplicationofthelawoffixturesseempointless.”[footnoteomitted]).

189.Supranote6,s9.1(1).



Thecommitteerecommends:

4.Forthepurposeofthepreviousrecommendation,thedefinitionof“fixtures”foundinsection9.1oftheStrataPropertyRegulation(“‘fixtures’meansitemsattachedtoabuilding,includingfloorandwallcoveringsandelectricalandplumbingfixtures,butdoesnotinclude,iftheycanberemovedwithoutdamagetothebuilding,refrigerators,stoves,dishwashers,microwaves,washers,dryersorotheritems”)shouldapply.Should the Strata Property Act provide that the superintendent of real estate may approve a lease of a fixture that is common property or of a common asset entered into by the owner-developer with a term that exceeds five years? Brief description of the issue Whileageneralrulerestrictingthetermsofleasesofcommonpropertyorcommonassetsmaybedesirable,theremayalsobesomecasesinwhichtherestrictioncouldprovetobeharmful.Shouldthelegislationcontainamechanismtoaccountforsuchcases?Discussion of options for reform Includingamechanismtoallowleasesthathavetermsexceedingfiveyearswouldgivethelegislationgreaterflexibility.Itwouldalsogiveitscopetoensurethatthegeneralreachoftheprovisiondoesn’tendupcausingharminspecialcases.Butincludingsuchaprovisionwouldalsomakethelegislationmorecomplex.Anditwouldrunupagainstthechallengeofdesigninganappropriatemechanism.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteewasconcernedthattheremaybecasesthatcouldbeaffectedbyitsgeneralprovision.Itnotedthatdistrictenergyleasescouldbeoneexample,depend-ingonthetermsofthelease.Whiletherearechallengesindesigninganappropriatemechanism,inthecommit-tee’sviewthebestapproachwouldbetorelyontheoversightofthesuperintendentofrealestate.Thesuperintendenthasaconsumer-protectionmandateandhasac-cesstoarangeoftools.Thereareanumberofwaysinwhichthesuperintendentmaygrantapprovalofaleasewithatermexceedingfiveyears—forexample,byis-suingapolicystatementorbyaspecificexemption.



ThisproposalwastheonlyoneintheConsultationPaperonCommonProperty,LandTitles,andFundamentalChangesforStratasthatmetwithdisapprovalfromamajori-tyofconsultationrespondents.Eventhoughtheresultsfromtheconsultationwereveryclose(onlyabaremajoritydisagreedwiththeproposal),thecommitteedecid-edtogivethisproposalasecondlookasitwaspreparingthisreport.Muchoftheconcernexpressedintheconsultationregardingthisproposalques-tionedtheneedforthismechanism.But,evenonasecondlook,thecommitteewasoftheviewthatthismechanismisanintegralpartofthepackageofreformsthatitisrecommendingforthisareaofthelaw.Therearecases—notablythoseinvolvingdistrictenergyleases—inwhichaleaseofafixtureforatermofmorethanfiveyearsiseffectivelymandatedbyagovernment.Withoutamechanismtoaddressthosecases,thelawcouldputsomestratacorporationsinanuntenableposition,caughtbetweenaprovisioninastatuteholdingthatleasesmaynotexceedfiveyearsandagovernmentdemandingthataleasedojustthat.Thecommitteerecommends:5.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethattheSuperintendentofRealEstateforBritishColumbiahastheauthoritytoapprovealeaseofafixturethatiscommonpropertyorofacommonassetenteredintobytheowner-developerwithatermthatexceedsfiveyears.

Issues for Reform—Parking Stalls and Storage Lockers

TheStrataPropertyActdoesn’trequireastratapropertytohaveparkingstalls.Thisissueislefttothelocalgovernmentforthemunicipalityinwhichthestratapropertyislocated.Butinthevastmajorityofcases,thelocalgovernmentwillrequirethatthestratapropertyhaveparkingstalls.While“[m]unicipalbylawsspecifythenumberofparkingstallsrequiredforadevel-opment,”aleadingpracticeguidenotes,they“donotdeterminehowtheownerde-veloperallocatesthosestalls.”190ThisiswheretheStrataPropertyActfocusesitsat-tention.Theactprovidesarangeofoptionsfororganizingastrataproperty’sparkingstalls.Parkingstallsmaybe:




• designatedaslimitedcommonpropertyfortheexclusiveuseofastratalotatthetimethestrataplanisdepositedinthelandtitleoffice;191

• designatedaslimitedcommonpropertyfortheexclusiveuseofastratalot,afterdepositofthestrataplan,atanytimebeforethestratacorporation’sfirstannualgeneralmeeting;192

• commonproperty;193

• commonpropertysubjecttoaleaseoralicence,194oreven,insomecases,ashort-termexclusiveusearrangement;195

• partofastratalot;

• aseparatestratalot(ifthestrataplanismadeupofnonresidentialstratalots).

Parking“isoftenacontentiousissueinastratadevelopment.”196Inresponsetocon-cerns,theStrataPropertyActwasamendedin2009.197Theamendedprovisioncameintoforceon1January2014.198Itsmainpurposewasenhanceddisclosure.

191.Seeibidat§3.31(“Thisapproachiscommoninsmallerresidentialdevelopments,wheremore

sophisticatedmechanismsarenotviable.”).

192.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s258.

193.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§3.30(“Ifparkingiscom-monproperty...itisunderthecontrolofthestratacorporationandcanbeallocatedbythestratacouncil,subjecttothebylaws....Thismechanismdoesnotpermittheownerdevelopertoselladditionalstallsandtendstobecommononlyinsmalldevelopmentsorinmarketswhereparkinghaslimitedvalue.”).

194.Seeibidat§3.33(“Itisrelativelycommoninlargerdevelopmentsinlocalitieswhereparkingstallshavesignificantmarketvalueforownerdeveloperstomaximizeflexibilityandsalesreve-nuethrougharrangementsstyledasleasesorlicences.Typically,theparkingfacilityorparkingstallsareleasedtoanentitycontrolledbytheownerdeveloperfora99-yearterm.Concurrentlywithcompletionofastratalotpurchase,theownerdeveloperpartiallyassignstheleasetothepurchaserastooneormorestalls,orgrantslicencesofthosestallstothepurchaser.Futurepur-chasersofastratalotmustthenreceiveafurtherassignmentoftheparkingstallleaseorlicence,oranewlicence,inadditiontoatransferofthestratalot.”).

195.SeeMangan,supranote4at284.

196.BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§4.20.SeealsoC.2KHoldingsLtdvTheOwners,StrataPlanK577,2018BCCRT236atparas51–57;TheOwners,StrataPlanVIS3437vTownsiteMarinaLtd,2018BCCRT166;ZengvTheOwners,StrataPlanVR55,2018BCCRT190atparas57–66;Zanatta,supranote146atparas33–52(examplesofrecentdisputesbeforetheCivilResolutionTribunalinvolvingallocationofparkingstalls).

197.SeeStrataPropertyAmendmentAct,2009,supranote30,s12(a).

198.SeeBCReg238/2011,para(d).



Thispurposewaseffectedbyrequiringastratacorporation,aspartofanInfor-mationCertificate(FormB)todisclose“whichparkingstallsandstoragelockers,ifany,havebeenallocatedtothestratalot.”199Butthereremainissuesbeyonddisclosure.Asaleadingpracticeguideputsit,“[m]ostdifficultparkingstallissuesinstratacorporationsarisefromthemecha-nismsusedbyownerdeveloperstoallocatestallssothattheycanselladditionalstallstopurchaserswillingtopayapremiumforthem.”200Broadlysimilarconsiderationsapplytostoragelockers,whichareoftengroupedto-getherwithparkingstallsinlegislationandregulations.201But,itmustalsobesaid,thatmostoftheconflictsinthisareahaveconcernedparking.Thisrelativelynarrowconcernengagessomeoftheoverridingthemesofthisreport,suchasstrata-planamendmentandcommonproperty.Whilethecommitteehasde-cidedthatacomprehensiverewritingoftheact’sapproachtoparkingstallsandstoragelockersshouldn’tformpartofthisreport,ithasdecidedtotackleaseriesofissuesrelatingtotheprovisionenablingtheseleases,section258.Should the Strata Property Act continue to allow leases and licences of parking stalls and storage lockers? Brief description of the issue Amongthemanyoptionsforallocatingparkingstallsandstoragelockersinastrataproperty,leasesandlicencesappeartohavebeenthesourceofthemostconcerns.Shouldtheactbeamendedtopreventthismethodofallocatingparkingstallsandstoragelockers?Discussion of options for reform Themainargumentinfavouroftheproposedreformisthattheuseofleasesandli-cenceshavecreatedconfusioninmanystratapropertiesandsowntheseedsofcon-flictinothers.202Becauseleasesandlicencesareprivatecontracts,thereisoftenless199.StrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s59(l.1).


201.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s59(3)(l.1);StrataPropertyRegulation,supranote6,FormB(InformationCertificate).

202.Seee.g.OneWestHoldingsLtdvTheOwners,StrataPlanLMS2995,2019BCSC707atparas7–8,SkolroodJ(“Thecentralissueinthisactioniswhichof[theplaintiff]andthe[defendant]hastherightstopossess,controlandprofitfromtheCommercialParkingStalls.Thisissueturnsonthe



ofarecordofthesetransactionsthanisthecasefortheotheroptionsforallocatingparkingspacesandstoragelockers.Astheyearsgobyandthestratalotassociatedwiththespaceorstallistransferred,stratacorporationscanlosetrackofthesear-rangements.Aleasemayberegisteredinthelandtitleoffice,whichwouldprovidesomelevelofcertainty.Butitisn’tclearthatregistrationisfrequentlyoccurringinpractice.Afurtherconcernisthatthisapproachtoallocatingparkingspaces(inparticular)andstoragelockersoftenseemstobenefittheowner-developer’sshort-terminter-ests,whilecontributinglittletothelong-terminterestsofthestratacorporation.Insomecities,thereisalucrativemarketinparkingspaces.Usingleasesandlicencesasthemeansofallocatingparkingspacescanallowowner-developerstoparticipateinthismarket.Butparticipationinthismarketoftenonlybreedslong-termfrustra-tionforstrata-lotowners.Thedownsidetopreventingthispracticeisthatitcouldlimitflexibilityinallocatingparkingspacesandstoragelockersandunsettlecurrentpractices.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteeisconcernedaboutthepotentialofleasesandlicencestocausecon-fusion.Itfavourseliminatingthisoption.Butthisproposalshouldbecoupledwithotherreforms,whichwillbesetoutintheproceedingissues,asameanstore-balancethesystemofallocatingparkingspacesandstoragelockers.Whileamajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee,asignifi-cantminoritywereoftheviewthatleasesandlicencesofparkingstallsandstoragelockersshouldbeallowedtocontinue.Theserespondentstoutedtheflexibilityofsuchlegaldevicesinallocatingparkingstallsandstoragelockers.Thecommitteegaveextendedconsiderationtothepointsraisedintheconsultationresponses.Itcontinuestobeoftheviewthatanybenefitsflowingfromleasesandlicencesareoutweighedbytheirdisadvantages,particularlytheirabilitytobreedconfusionandconflict.Inthecommittee’sview,theyshouldnolongerhaveaplaceinthelegalframework.Butthecommitteewasopentopursuingothersuggestionsinthere-sponsesforthatlegalframework.Thesesuggestionsappearintherecommendationfortheissuethatfollows.

validityofaleasestructureputinplaceby[theowner-developer]priortothedepositofthestrataplanpursuanttowhich[theowner-developer]purportedtoretaincontroloveralloftheparkingstallsandstoragelockersintheDevelopment,includingtheCommercialParkingStalls.[Theplaintiff]submitsthatthisstructureiscommontomanysimilarstratadevelopments.”).




6.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatanyleaseorlicenceofaparkingstallorstoragelockerenteredintobeforeorafterthedepositofastrataplanbytheowner-developerisvoid.Should the period in which an owner-developer may amend the strata plan to designate parking stalls and storage lockers as limited common property for the exclusive use of owners of strata lots in the strata plan be extended? Brief description of the issue Section258currentlygivestheowner-developerapowertoamendthestrataplaninrespectofparkingstalls.Underthisprovisiontheowner-developermayamendtheplantodesignateparkingstallsaslimitedcommonproperty.Thispowermaybeexercised“atanytimebeforethefirstannualgeneralmeetingofthestratacorpora-tion.”203Shouldthisperiodbeextended?Discussion of options for reform Themainrationaleforextendingthisperiodispractical:itcanbedifficultforown-er-developerstosettleparkingallocationsovertheperiodbeforethestratacorpora-tion’sfirstannualgeneralmeeting.Extendingthisperiodtoalaterannualgeneralmeetingwouldprovideamorerealisticperiodforworkingoutparkingarrange-ments.Asecondaryrationaleistosupportthereformsetoutinthepreviousrec-ommendation.Losingtheabilitytoallocateparkingstallsbyleaseorlicencemaybeoffsetbyalongerperiodtoamendthestrataplanundersection258.Buttheremaybedownsidestothisapproach.Whiletheremaybesomearbitrari-nessinselectingtheperiodbeforethefirstannualgeneralmeetingastheapplicableperiodundersection258,thatperioddoestieintootherdutiesandresponsibilitiesoftheowner-developerduringtheearlylifeofastrataproperty.204

203.Supranote5,s258(1).

204.Seeibid,s5(1)(“Theownerdevelopermustexercisethepowersandperformthedutiesofacouncilfromthetimethestratacorporationisestablisheduntilacounciliselectedatthestratacorporation’sfirstannualgeneralmeeting.”).



The committee’s recommendation for reform Intheconsultationpaper,thecommitteegenerallyfavouredextendingtheperiodundersection258tothethirdannualgeneralmeeting.Initsview,thischangewouldhelptoaddresssomepracticalproblemsandwillsupportthebroaderefforttore-formtheallocationofparkingstalls.Butthecommitteewasconcernedthatextendingthisperiodcouldleadtoanowner-developerthatnolongerhasanyinterestinthestratapropertystillhavingthepow-ertoamendthestrataplan.Thecommitteedecidedthatthispossibilityshouldbeforeclosedbylimitingthispowertoowner-developerswhocontinuetoholdtitletoatleastonestratalot.Finally,thecommitteenotedthatthisproposalextendsbeyondthetransitionpointfromcontrolbytheowner-developertocontrolbyanelectedstratacouncil,whichisthefirstannualgeneralmeeting.205Oneimplicationofthisisthatthestratacorpora-tionshouldbekeptinformedofchangesthatmaybecarriedoutbytheowner-developerunderthisproposedprovision.Whileamajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’stentativerecommendation,asignificantminoritydisagreed.Someofthoserespondentsurgedthecommitteetoconsideralongerperiodundersection258andtoexpandthesec-tion’sreachtoembraceparkingstalls.Afterconsideration,thecommitteeagreedwiththesepoints.Inthecommittee’sview,extendingtheperiodinwhichsec-tion258applieswillgivefurthersupporttoitsbroaderreformsinthisarea,particu-larlyendingtheuseofleasesandlicences.Thecommitteedecidedthatitalsomakessensetoexpandthesection’sscopetotakeinstoragelockers.Whilestoragelockershaven’tbeenthesourceofnearlyasmanycomplaintsasparkingstalls,thepotentialdoesexistforthemtobecometroublesome.Bringingthemundersection258mayhelptoallayanypotentialconcerns.Itwouldalsobeconsistentwithotherlegisla-tiveandregulatoryprovisions(notablythoseregardingInformationCertificates)thatsubjectparkingstallsandstoragelockerstoequivalentrequirements.206Thecommitteerecommends:7.Section258oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedby:(a)strikingoutthewords“firstannualgeneralmeeting”wherevertheyappearandreplacingthemwith“fifthannualgeneralmeeting”;(b)addinganewsubsectionthatreads“Thissection

205.Seeibid,s20.

206.StrataPropertyAct,ibid,s59(3)(l.1);StrataPropertyRegulation,supranote6,FormB(Infor-mationCertificate).



onlyapplieswhentheowner-developerhasnotconveyedallthestratalots”;(d)amendingsubsection(6)toread“Adesignationofparkingstallsorstoragelockersundersubsections(1)or(3):(a)doesnotrequireapprovalbyaresolutionatanannu-algeneralmeetingorspecialgeneralmeeting;(b)theowner-developermustgivethestratacorporationwrittennoticeofanamendmentofthestrataplan”;and(e)makingsuchamendmentsasarenecessarytoexpandthescopeofthesectiontoembracestor-agelockers.Should the Strata Property Act provide that any parking stalls or storage lockers that have not been designated as limited common property by the owner-developer under section 258 remain common property? Brief description of the issue Section258oftheStrataPropertyActcurrentlydoesn’tspellouttheconsequencesifanowner-developerusesthesectiontoamendthestrataplananddesignatesomeparkingstallsorstoragelockersaslimitedcommonproperty.Shouldthesectionad-dresstheconsequencesfortheother,undesignatedparkingstallsorstoragelock-ers?Ifso,whatshouldtheactprovideinthesecases?Discussion of options for reform Amendingsection258oftheacttospellouttheconsequencesofnotdesignatingparkingstallsorstoragelockersaslimitedcommonpropertywoulddispelanyun-certaintiesaboutthestatusofthosestallsorlockers.Thiswouldbebeneficialinit-self,andwouldsupportthebroaderthrustoftheproposedreformsinthispartofthereport.Thedownsideofthisproposedamendmentisthatitcouldleavestratacorporationswithanallocationofparkingstallsorstoragelockersthatmightnotreflecttheirin-tentions.Throughinadvertenceorinaction,astratacorporationmayendupwithaswathofitsparkingstallsorstoragelockersdeclaredtobecommonproperty.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteefavoursamendingsection258toclearlyestablishthestatusofpark-ingstallsorstoragelockersthathaven’tbeendesignatedaslimitedcommonproper-tywhentheprocesssetoutinthatsectionisengaged.Inthecommittee’sview,thelogicalchoiceisfortheseparkingstallsorstoragelockerstoretainthestatusofcommonproperty.Asolidmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’sproposalonthisissue.



Thecommitteerecommends:8.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatatthestratacorporation’sfifthannualgeneralmeetinganyparkingstallsorstoragelockersthathavenotbeendesignatedaslimitedcommonpropertyundersection258remaincommonproperty.



Chapter 4. Land Titles Background Information on Land-Title Issues TheStrataPropertyActisarelativelynewstatute—dating,throughitspredecessoracts,onlytothemid-1960s.207Itsoverarchingpurposeistoenableaspecifickindofreal-estatedevelopment.Incontrast,theLandTitleAct208isalongstandingstatuteofgeneralapplicationtoreal-propertylaw.TheoriginalLandTitleActactuallypre-datesBritishColumbia’sentryintotheCanadianconfederation.209ThegoalsoftheLandTitleActhavealwaysbeentoprovidealegalframeworkforestablishingsecu-rityoftitletolandandforfacilitatingtransfersofinterestsinland.210Overtheyears,though,theLandTitleActhasgrownconsiderablyinsizeandscope.Itnowcontainsover400sections,whichtouchonawiderangeoftopicsofconcernforreal-estatelaw.211AnacademiccommenthasdescribedtheidealrelationshipbetweentheStrataProp-ertyActandtheLandTitleActasonethatis“symbiotic—amutuallybeneficialpart-nershipbetweendifferentorganisms.”212Thischapter’smainconcerniswithprob-ingthatrelationship,inanefforttoensurethatitismeetingthisstandard.

207.See,above,at8–10(summarizingevolutionofstrata-propertylawthroughthreegenerationsof

legislation).

208.Supranote19.

209.TheoldestlegislationonlandtitlesinwhatisnowtheprovinceofBritishColumbiadatestoatimewhenitwastwoBritishcolonies,VancouverIslandandthemainland.SeeVancouverIslandLandRegistryAct,RSBC1860,no3;BritishColumbiaLandRegistryAct,1861,RSBC1871,no20(appendix).

210.SeeVictorJDiCastri,RegistrationofTitletoLand,vol1(Calgary:Carswell,1987)(loose-leafre-lease2010–2)atpara13(“Theobjectsofthe[land-title]systemare:thecreationbythestateofanindefeasibletitleintheregisteredowner;simplificationinthetransferofland;certaintyandfacilityintheproofoftitlebyreferencetoacertificateissuedbyagovernmentofficialandmadeconclusivebylaw;andfinally,thesavingtothecommunityofthecostofanewexaminationoftitleinconnectionwitheachtransferortransactionaffectingtheland.”[footnoteomitted]).SeealsoGibbsvMesser,[1891]AC248at254(UKPC);ReShotbolt(1888),1BCR(Pt2)337(SC).

211.Seee.g.supranote19,part5(attestationandproofofexecutionofinstruments),part7(descrip-tionsandplans),part10.1(electronicfiling).

212.JackHWatson&PeterJGrimes,“TheStrataTitlesofNewSouthWales,Australia”(1965)30:4SaskBarRev265at269.



Scope of this Chapter AstartingplaceistonotethattherearemanypointsofcontactbetweentheStrataPropertyActandtheLandTitleAct.Themostobviouspointofintersectionbetweenthetwoactsispart14oftheStrataPropertyAct,whichisdedicatedto“landti-tles.”213Thepartcontains17sections,dealingwitharangeoftopicsthataredifficulttogroupintobroaderthemes.Anattempt,usingsubthemes,wouldlooklikethis:

• subdividinglandbydepositingastrataplaninthelandtitleoffice:o titlerequirementsfordepositofstrataplan;o surveyor’sendorsementofnonoccupancyforbuildingstrataplans;o whenspecialapprovalisrequired—applicabletobare-landstrataplans(approvingofficer)andtobuildingstrataplansthatinvolveaconver-sionofapreviouslyoccupiedbuilding(approvingauthority);

• strataplans:o requirementsandaccompanyingdocuments;o ScheduleofUnitEntitlement;o ScheduleofVotingRights(whenapprovedornotapprovedbysuperin-tendentofrealestate);

o requirementonregistraroflandtitlestodepositstrataplanandac-companyingdocumentsthatmeetlegislativerequirements;

• establishingageneralindex,includingareferencetocommon-propertyownershipontitle,andestablishingacommon-propertyrecord;

• subdividingcommonproperty;

• conclusiveeffectofaCertificateofStrataCorporation;

• describingthetransfereewhenastratacorporationacquiresland;

• whenaCertificateofPaymentisrequired.Whilethecommitteehasreviewedpart14,ithasfocuseditsrecommendationsonthemostpressingareaswheretheinterplayoftheStrataPropertyActandtheLandTitleActappearstobecausingthemostconcernsinpractice.Inthecommittee’sview,theseareasarethefollowing:

213.Seesupranote5,ss239–256.



• emergingissuesinsubdivisioncontrol;

• depictingcommonpropertyforstrataplans;

• depictingtheverticallimitsoflimitedcommonpropertyforstrataplans;

• requiringaCertificateofPaymentonatransmissionoftitle.

Issues for Reform—Emerging Issues in Subdivision Control

Introduction Aleadingcommentatorhasobservedthat“thecontrolofsubdivisionistheprincipalmeansbywhichlanddevelopmentisregulated.”214Subdivisioncontrolistheregula-tionof“whatwasonce,butisnolonger,acommonlawrightincidentaltoownershipofland:therighttodivideitintofragmentsandtransferthosefragmentstooth-ers.”215Therearetwomajorelementstothesystemofsubdivisioncontrol:legislativeprovi-sionsandoversightbyapublicofficial.Thispublicofficialiscalledtheapprovingof-ficer.ApprovingofficerisadefinedtermundertheLandTitleAct.216Thedefinitionincorporatesawiderangeoflocalofficials.“Forlandwithinamunicipality,”theLandTitleActprovidesthat“themunicipalcouncilmustappointapersonasanap-provingofficer,”217choosingfromthefollowinglist:

• themunicipalengineer,

• thechiefplanningofficer,

• someotheremployeeofthemunicipalityappointedbythemunicipalcouncil,or

• apersonwhoisundercontractwiththemunicipality.218214.WilliamBuholzer,inassociationwiththePlanningInstituteofBritishColumbia,BritishColumbia

PlanningLawandPractice(Toronto:LexisNexisCanada,2001)(loose-leafreleaseno50Decem-ber2018)at§13.1.

215.Ibidat§13.42.

216.Seesupranote19,s1(1)“approvingofficer”(“means,asapplicable,(a)themunicipalapprovingofficerundersection77,(b)theregionaldistrictapprovingofficerundersection77.1,(c)theis-landstrustapprovingofficerundersection77.1,(d)theProvincialapprovingofficerundersec-tion77.2,(e)theNisga’aapprovingofficerundersection77.3,or(f)thetreatyfirstnationap-provingofficerappointedundersection77.21.”)

217.Ibid,s77(1).

218.Ibid,s77(2).



Thereareequivalentlistsforregionaldistrictsandislandtrusts,219treatyfirstna-tions,220andNisga’aLands.221Ifthelandisa“ruralarea”notcoveredbyaregionaldistrictoranislandtrust,thentheapprovingofficeristheprovincialapprovingof-ficer.222Theapprovingofficerhasbeendescribedasbeing“atthefocus”ofBritishColum-bia’ssubdivision-controlsystem,223becausethisofficialretainsthediscretiontoap-proveordenyanapplicationforsubdivision.224Whiletheapprovingofficermakestheultimatecallonwhetherornotasubdivisiongoesahead,theofficer’sdiscretionoperateswithinwhatonejudgehascalleda“thicket”ofprovincial,regional,andlocallaws.225Forthepurposesofthisreportacomprehensivediscussionoftheselawsisn’tnecessary;226it’ssufficientsimplytonotetheinterplayoftwoprovincialstatutes.ThefoundationalstatuteforsubdivisioncontrolistheLandTitleAct.Historically,itwastheactthatcontainedtheonlylegislativeframeworkforsubdivisioncontrol.Itstillcontainsaframework,setoutinfourdivisionsofpart7(descriptionsand

219.Seeibid,s77.1.

220.Seeibid,s77.21.

221.Seeibid,s77.3

222.Ibid,s77.2(“(1)Ifanapprovingofficerisnotappointedundersection77.1foraruralarea,theapprovingofficersfortheareaare(a)thedeputyministertotheministerchargedwiththead-ministrationoftheTransportationAct,and(b)approvingofficersappointedundersubsec-tion(2).(2)TheLieutenantGovernorinCouncilmayappointapersonasanapprovingofficerforaruralareareferredtoinsubsection(1).”).

223.Buholzer,supranote214at§13.42.

224.Seeibid.

225.ARAHoldingsLtdvBritishColumbia(ProvincialApprovingOfficer),2001BCCA397atpara6,NewburyJA(“Theseprovisions[oftheBareLandStrataRegulations]andthebalanceoftheRegulationsarepartofathicketoflocalandregionalrequirementsfacedbyaproperty-ownerseekingtosubdivideland.And,whilstthedecisiontograntorwithholdtheapprovalisthatoftheapprovingofficeralone,thatofficialmustinpracticeseektheadviceandinputofvariousmunicipal,regionalandprovincialofficialsand,insomeinstances,besatisfiedthatparticularfeaturesoftheproposedsubdivisionwillcomplywithotherbylawsorcodesoreventhatitbeapprovedbyanotherapprovingofficer.Thusitisnotsurprisingthatasamatterofcourse,anapprovingofficeronreceiptofasubdivisionapplicationroutinelymakesvarious‘checks’with,andseeksthecommentsof,themanybranchesofgovernmentnowinvolvedinlanduseregula-tion.”[citationsomitted]).

226.SeeBuholzer,supranote214atch13forsuchadiscussion.



plans),227andapplyingtowhatacommentatorhascalled“conventionalsubdivi-sions.”228But,justasreal-estatedevelopmenthasevolvedoverthecourseofthe20thand21stcenturies,sotoohaslegislationenablingdifferentkindsofsubdivisionsprolif-erated.“BritishColumbiahaskeptpacewithotherNorthAmericanjurisdictions,”acommentatorhasobserved,“increatingenablinglegislationforthefullrangeofrealestate‘products’thatthepropertydevelopmentindustryhasdevised....[Newlegis-lationhasallowed]subdivisionsoflandtocreateairspaceparcelsandseveraltypesofstrataplansarepossible.”229Asthedepositofastrataplaninthelandtitleofficecanbeseenasaformofsubdivi-sion,230sotheStrataPropertyActhasemergedalongsidetheLandTitleActasanimportantpieceoflegislationforsubdivisioncontrol.231TheStrataPropertyAct’srequirements232forregisteringstrataplans“aresimilartotherequirementsfortheregistrationofothersubdivisionplans”:strataplans“mustbepreparedbyaBritishColumbialandsurveyor”;theyalsomustinclude“theboundariesofthelandandthestratalots,thelocationofthebuildings,ifany,andtheidentificationofthestratalotsbynumbersorletters.”233Eventhoughtherequirementsofthetwoactsarebroadlysimilar,therearesomewrinklesthatgiverisetolegalissues.UnderstandingtheissuesthatarisefromtheStrataPropertyAct’sapproachtosubdivisioncontrolentailsappreciatingfirstthat227.Seesupranote19,ss73–98(containingpart7,division2(subdivisionofland),division3(ap-

pointment,powersanddutiesofapprovingofficers),division4(approvalofsubdivisionplans),division5(depositofsubdivisionplans)).

228.SeeBuholzer,supranote214at§13.3.(describing“conventionalsubdivisions”as“simplesub-divisionsofparcelsoflandintendedtobeheldindependentlyofotherlandbyanownerinfeesimple”).

229.Ibid.

230.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s239(1)(“Landmaybesubdividedinto2ormorestratalotsbythedepositofastrataplaninalandtitleoffice.”).

231.SeeBuholzer,supranote214at§13.2(“TheprincipalstatutoryrestrictionsonthesubdivisionoflandaresetoutintheLandTitleActandtheStrataPropertyActandassociatedRegulations.TheRealEstateDevelopmentMarketingActimposescertainrestrictionsonthemarketingofrealpropertythatrelyonthedecisionsofapprovingofficersandapprovingauthorities.”[footnotesomitted]).


233.ContinuingLegalEducationSocietyofBritishColumbia&LandTitleandSurveyAuthorityofBritishColumbia,eds,LandTitlePracticeManual,3rded,vol3(Vancouver:ContinuingLegalEducationSocietyofBritishColumbia,2007)(loose-leaf2018update)at§53.2.



theactdistinguishesbetweentwotypesofstrataplans:“onesubdividesbuildingsandtheothersubdividesland.”234Buildingstrataplans235havebeenpartofBritishColumbia’sstrata-propertylegisla-tionsincethebeginning.236Theactprovidesthat“[i]fapersonapplyingtodepositastrataplanwishestoincludeinthestrataplanapreviouslyoccupiedbuilding,”thenthatpersonmustfirstobtainapprovalforconvertingthispreviouslyoccupiedbuild-ingintoastrataproperty.237Thisapprovalisgrantedorwithheldbyanapprovingauthority,238incompliancewiththeconsiderationssetoutintheact.239Significantly,ifthestrataplandoesn’tinvolveconversionofapreviouslyoccupiedbuilding(andmostofthemdon’t),thentheplanonly“mustbeendorsedbyaBritishColumbia

234.Mangan,supranote4at17.SeealsoBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supra

note2at§§3.4–3.5.See,above,at10–11(generaldiscussionofstrataplans).

235.Buildingstrataplanisatermusedbysomecommentators.SeeMangan,supranote4at17.Othercommentatorsuseconventionalstrataplantorefertothistypeofplan.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§2.4.Theactitselfdoesn’tuseeitheroftheseterms;itjustreferstostrataplans.

236.SeeStrataTitlesAct,supranote25,s4.

237.Supranote5,s242(2).Theexpressionpreviouslyoccupiedisdefinedintheregulations.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote6,s14.1(“‘previouslyoccupied’meansoccupiedatanytimeinitspastforanypurpose,includingresidential,commercial,institutional,recreationalorindustrialuse,butdoesnotincludetheoccupationofaproposedstratalotbytheownerdevel-opersolelyasadisplaylotforthesaleofstratalotsintheproposedstrataplan”[emphasisinoriginal]).

238.Seesupranote5,s242(1)(definingapprovingauthoritytomean“(a)themunicipalcouncilofthemunicipalityifthelandislocatedinamunicipality,(b)theregionalboardoftheregionaldis-trictifthelandislocatedinaregionaldistrictbutnotinamunicipalityandisneitherNisga’aLandsnortreatylandsofatreatyfirstnation,(c)theNisga’aVillageGovernmentifthelandislo-catedwithinNisga’aVillageLands,(d)theNisga’aLisimsGovernmentifthelandisNisga’aLandsotherthanNisga’aVillageLands,or(e)thegoverningbodyofthetreatyfirstnationifthelandislocatedwithinthetreatylandsofthattreatyfirstnation.”).

239.Seeibid,s242(5)and(6)(“(5)Theapprovingauthoritymustnotapprovethestrataplanunlessthebuildingsubstantiallycomplieswiththefollowing:(a)theapplicablebylawsofthemunici-palityorregionaldistrict;(b)applicableNisga’aGovernmentlaws;(b.1)theapplicablelawsofthetreatyfirstnation;(c)thebuildingregulationswithinthemeaningoftheBuildingAct,except,inrelationtoatreatyfirstnationthathasenteredintoanagreementdescribedinsection6ofthatAct,totheextentthattheagreementenablesthetreatyfirstnationtoestablishstandardsthataredifferentfromthoseestablishedbythebuildingregulations.(6)Inmakingitsdecision,theapprovingauthoritymustconsider(a)thepriorityofrentalaccommodationoverprivatelyownedhousinginthearea,(b)anyproposalsfortherelocationofpersonsoccupyingaresiden-tialbuilding,(c)thelifeexpectancyofthebuilding,(d)projectedmajorincreasesinmaintenancecostsduetotheconditionofthebuilding,and(e)anyothermattersthat,initsopinion,arerele-vant.”).



landsurveyorcertifyingthatthebuildinghasnotbeenpreviouslyoccupied.”240Itdoesn’trequireapprovalfromanapprovingofficerorapprovingauthority.Strataplansthatsubdividelandarecalledbare-landstrataplans.Thesetypesofplansweren’tpartoftheoriginallegislation;theywereaddedin1974.241Atthattime,bare-landstrataplansdidn’trequireapprovalbyanapprovingofficer.242Givenhowsimilarabare-landstrataplanistoaconventionalsubdivision,243thisstateofaffairscreatedsomeanomalouscasesandabuses.244Thelegislaturemovedtocheckthoseabusesbyamendingtheactin1977.245Now,bare-landstrataplansaresub-jectedtoanextensiveapprovalprocess,setoutintheStrataPropertyAct246andtheBareLandStrataRegulations.247

240.Ibid,s241(1).

241.SeeStrataTitlesAct,supranote26,s3(4)(b).SeealsoBuholzer,supranote214at§13.10(“Thepopularityofindividualownershipinterestsinapartmentsinmulti-unitresidentialbuildingsandportionsofindustrialandcommercialbuildingsresultedintheProvinceamendingthestra-tatitleslegislationin1974topermitstratatitlingofbareland.Barelandstrataplansaresuper-ficiallyverysimilartoconventionalsubdivisionplans,exceptthatareasthatmightbeshownasdedicatedinternalhighwaysonasubdivisionplanareshownas‘accessroutes,’aformofcom-monproperty.Thisprivateownershipofthestreetsinabarelandstratasubdivisioncreatestheopportunityfora‘gatedcommunity’andhasproventobeapopularformofownershipinB.C.,thoughnotaspopularasinsomeU.S.jurisdictions.”[footnoteomitted]).

242.SeeBuholzer,ibidat§13.11(“Attheoutset,barelandstrataplansdidnotrequiretheapprovalofthesubdivisionapprovingofficerandlocalgovernmentbylawsimposingminimumparcelar-eascouldnotbeapplied,despitetheobvioussimilarityofbarelandstratasubdivisionstocon-ventionalsubdivisions.”[footnoteomitted]).

243.SeeBuholzer,ibid;BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§3.5(“AbarelandstratalotinmanywayshasmoreincommonwithalotsubdividedundertheLandTi-tleActthanwithaconventionalstratalot.”).

244.SeeReJarvisandResortMunicipalityofWhistler(1977),82DLR(3d)409at411,[1977]BCJNo1263(QL)(SC),RuttanJ(“Iagreethisisnotagoodsituationwherebylotscanbecreatedanddwellingsmultipliedbeyondthecontrolofthezoningby-lawinanyparticularmunicipality,andIamadvisedthatunderthenewStrataTitlesAct,thissituationwillbecorrectedwherebymorecompletepowerandzoningcontrolwillbereturnedtoeachlocalmunicipalcouncil.Atthepre-senttime,however,ifthesearevalidstratalotsthentheymaybebuiltonuncontrolledbythezoningby-law,thoughstillgovernedbythebuildingby-lawinthemunicipality.”).

245.SeeStrataTitlesAmendmentAct,1977,SBC1977,c43,s1.Thisactandthe1974StrataTitlesAct,supranote26,referredtosupport-structureplans.Thenamebare-landstrataplanmadeitsfirstappearanceinlegislationintheStrataTitlesAmendmentAct,1977(No2),supranote26.SeealsoBuholzer,supranote214at§13.11.


247.BCReg75/78.



Andit’sthiscontrastbetweenhowbuildingandbare-landstrataplansaretreatedthatgivesrisetotheissuesforreforminthispartofthereport.Becausebuildingstrataplans(solongastheydon’tinvolvetheconversionofapreviouslyoccupiedbuilding)don’trequireapprovalbyanapprovingofficerandbare-landstrataplansaresubjecttoarigorousapprovalprocess,thereisanincentivefordeveloperstotrytocharacterizeastrataplanasabuildingstrataplan.248Thisincentivecanleaddeveloperstotakeliberties.Inonenotoriouscase,249aplanwassubmittedthatsubdividedapostalboxintostratalots.250Eachofthesestratalotshadlargesectionsdesignatedaslimitedcommonpropertyforthebenefitofthestratalot.251Thethinlydisguisedintentwasforpurchaserstousethelimitedcom-monpropertyforparkingrecreationalvehicles.Theregistraroftitlesrefusedtoreg-istertheplan,252adecisionthatwasupheldbythesupremecourt.253Thiscasecanbeseenasan“extremeexample”oftryingtomakewhatappearstobeabare-landstrataplanfitintothebuilding-strata-planmouldforreasonsprimarilyrelatedtosubdivisioncontrol.254Butsimilar,thoughlessextreme,examplescontin-uetocropup.Onerecentcaseinvolvedastrataplanfeaturing“storage”areasas248.SeeBuholzer,supranote214at§13.9.

249.SeeSwanLakeRecreationResortLtdvBritishColumbia(KamloopsLandTitleOffice,Registrar)(1999),174DLR(4th)549,26RPR(3d)116(BCSC)[SwanLakecitedtoDLR].

250.Seeibidatpara4,CowanJ(“Thestrataplanindicatesthattheseveralstratalotsare0.07squaremetreseachinareaandstackedinrowstoaheightofsevenlevels.Eachstratalothasatotalspaceof0.098cubicmetres.”).

251.Seeibidatpara3(“Theschemeofthedevelopmentwastocreate200stratalotsandassigntoeachofthestratalotsaslimitedcommonpropertyundertheCondominiumAct,R.S.B.C.1996,c.64,oneof200recreationalvehiclesitesfortheexclusiveuseoftheownerofthestratalottowhichitwasassigned.”).

252.Seeibidatpara5(“Inhis‘noticedecliningtoregister’issuedpursuanttosection308oftheLandTitleActtheregistrarcharacterizedwhatwaspurportedtobea‘building’forthepurposesoftheCondominiumActasa‘mailbox.’”).

253.Seeibidatparas35–36(“Whetherthestratalotiscontainedwithinabuildingorissimplyameasuredareaofbareland,theprimaryintendeduseareaistobedesignatedthe‘stratalot,’andareaswithresidentialusesancillarytotheprimaryuse‘stratalot’mustbeeitherincludedinthestratalotorinthecommonproperty,andcannotbeseparatestratalots.Inthepresentlyproposeddevelopment,theschemecontemplatedbytheActisinverted.Itwouldbeabsurdtosuggestthatowners’useoftheindividuallydesignatedR.V.siteswillbeancillarytotheirprima-ryuseofthedevelopment,themailbox.TheprimaryuseareasofthedevelopmentaretheR.V.sites.TherearenobuildingsenclosingtheR.V.sites.Therefore,viewedfromafunctionalper-spective,theproposeddevelopmentisclearlya‘barelandstrata’ratherthana‘buildingstrata.’Consequently,themailboxisnota‘building’withinthemeaningoftheAct.”).

254.Buholzer,supranote214at§13.9,n1.



stratalots,whichwereeachentitledtoalarge“privateyardarea”aslimitedcom-monproperty.255Thisdevelopmentwasthwartedbythesuperintendentofreales-tatebeforeitcouldgetofftheground.256Thetwoissuesforreformthatfollowrepresenttwodistinctapproachestorespond-ingtoemergingissuesinsubdivisioncontrol.Thefirsttakesageneralapproachtotheissues;thesecondtakesatargetedapproach.Should all strata plans require the approval of an approving officer? Brief description of the issue Eventhoughthedepositofastrataplanisconsideredtobeasubdivisionofland,theStrataPropertyActcurrentlyallowsmanystrataplanstobedepositedwithouttheapprovalofanapprovingofficer.Whilebare-landstrataplansrequireapproving-officerapproval,mostbuildingstrataplansdonot.(Thesmallnumberofbuildingstrataplansthatinvolveconversionofapreviouslyoccupiedbuildingdorequireap-proval—byanapprovingauthority.)Thisdifferentialtreatmentofstrataplanscreatesanincentivefordeveloperstocharacterizewhatarefunctionallybare-landstrataplansasbuildingstrataplanstoavoidtherequirementforapproving-officerapproval.Thedevelopmentofsuchbuildingstrataplans(innameonly)skirtssubdivisioncontrolsthatformthecor-nerstoneofland-useregulationinBritishColumbia.ShouldtheStrataPropertyAct

255.528872B.C.Ltd—ceasemarketingorder(22January2007),atpara3,online:Superintendentof

RealEstateforBritishColumbia<www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/buying-and-selling/consumer-protection/redma-enforcement/redma20070122.pdf>[perma.cc/YP5J-UX66](“TheDevelopmentasdescribedinthedisclosurestatementislocatedon575acresoflandapproximately20kilometreswestofQualicumBeach,intheRegionalDistrictofNanaimo,BritishColumbia.TheDevelopmentcontains286buildingstratalotsinStrataPlanVIS4673,whichwasregisteredin1998attheLandTitleOffice.Thestratalotsareunusualinthateachstratabuildingisonlyabout26squaremetresinsizeandsuitableforstoragepurposesonly.However,eachstratalotalsoincludesaprivateyardareaofuptoseveralhectares.”).

256.Seeibidatparas26–27(“Basedontheinformationprovidedbythecomplainantswhoallegein-adequateorincompletestrataplanbuildings,inadequateorincompleteutilities,someunpavedroadsandconstructionwithintheareathatwillbeprohibitedbytheproposedrivercovenant,andtheinformationgatheredbytheSuperintendent’sstaff,IamoftheopinionthattheCDS[consolidateddisclosurestatement]isseriouslydeficient....Therearefundamentalfailurestodisclosematerialfactsandnewpurchaserswouldbeprejudicedintheirdecisionmakingability.Thereforenewpurchasersmaynotunderstandandmaynotbegettingwhattheyarepayingfor.”).



beamendedtorequirethatapprovalofallstrataplansbyanapprovingofficer,asameanstoreducetheincentivetocharacterizestrataplansasbuildingstrataplans?Discussion of options for reform ConcernsabouttheuseofbuildingstrataplanstocircumventaspectsofsubdivisioncontrolcanbetracedbacktobeforetheadventoftheStrataPropertyAct.Inthe1990s,theUnionofBritishColumbiaMunicipalitiesendorsedaseriesofresolutionsthataddressedaspectsofthisissue.257Oneoftheseresolutionscalledforlegislativeamendmentsthatwould,inessence,requireapproving-officerapprovalofbuildingstrataplans.258Theadvantageofsuchanamendmentisthatitwoulddirectlyaddressaproblemthathasdoggedstratapropertiessinceatleastthe1990s.Thereisatrailofdevel-opmentsthathaveusedthebuilding-strataformasameanstocreatewhatarefunc-tionallybare-landstratasubdivisionswithoutcomplyingwiththerequirementsfordepositingabare-landstrataplan.Treatingallstrataplansonthesamefootingwhenitcomestoapproving-officerapprovalwoulddramaticallyundercuttheincen-tivetoattemptsuchamanoeuvre.Otheradvantagestothisapproachincludeitssimplicityanddirectnessrelativetoothermeansthatcouldbetriedtoaddresstheissue.Amorefocusedandlimited

257.InSeptember2012,UBCM’sassociateexecutivedirectorsentBCLItheresultsofasearchof

UBCM’sresolutionsdatabase,whichcontainedresolutionsfrom1988to2012.Usingstrataasakeyword,thedatabasesearchyielded28records.UBCMresolutionsmadesince2003(thatis,currentlycoveringtheyears2003to2017,inclusive)arepubliclyavailable(lastvisited7August2018),online:UnionofBritishColumbiaMunicipalities<www.ubcm.ca/EN/main/resolutions/resolutions/resolutions-responses.html>[per-ma.cc/T2QJ-NN6X].Asearchofresolutionsconsideredintheyears2013to2017yieldedafur-thersixresolutionsdealingwithortouchingonstrataproperties.Notalloftheseresolutionsconcernsubdivisioncontrol.Resolutionstouchonanumberofareasofinteresttolocalgovern-ments(suchaspropertytaxationanddedicationofparkland)andpublic-policyconcernsgen-erally(suchaschargingstationsforelectronicvehicles).Fourofthetotal34resolutionsaredi-rectlyaimedatthesubdivision-controlissue.

258.SeeUnionofBritishColumbiaMunicipalities,ResolutionB14“RegulationofStrataSubdivisions”(1998)[unpublished,archivedatBritishColumbiaLawInstitute](“WhereastheCondominiumActpermitsthelandtitleofficetoregisterstratatitleplansfornewconstructionwhichisnotphasedwithouttheapprovalofthelocalgovernmentwithinwhichthepropertyislocated;andwhereastheLandRegistryOfficedoesnothaveanylegalmandateorprocessforcheckingtoseethatthebuildingsbeingstrata-titledareinfullcompliancewithbuildingcodesorzoningbylaws;andwhereasitwouldbedesirabletoallowlocalgovernmentsthepowertoensurethatnewbuildingsbeingstrata-titledareinfullcompliancewithBuildingCodesandzoningbylaws:thereforebeitresolvedthatUBCMrecommendchangestotheCondominiumActandMunicipalActthatmunicipalitiesbegivenapprovalpowersforthestrata-titlingofnewbuildings.”).



provision—aimedjustattheworstabuses,forexample—wouldposeamorecom-plexdraftingproblem.Itwouldalsoruntheriskoffailingtoaddresstheunderlyingmotivationofdeveloperstocharacterizeastrataplanasabuildingstrataplan,whichistherelativelylighterregulatoryburdenthatsuchplansface.TheprovincialresponsetotheUBCMresolutiondidagoodjobofspellingoutthedisadvantagesofthisoptionforreform.ThisresponsenotedthatthedaysoftheCondominiumActwerenumbered,asthenewStrataPropertyActhadjustpassedthelegislature,butwithoutaprovisionthatrespondedtotheUBCM’sconcern.Astheministryoffinancearguedinitsportionoftheresponse,implementingtheUBCMresolutionwouldpotentiallyhavethefollowingdrawbacks:

• costsanddelay:“Amunicipalapprovalrequirementforallnewstratade-velopmentswouldaddconsiderablecost,aswellasdelay,tothedevelop-mentprocess.”259

• availabilityofotherlegaltools:“Currently,municipalitieshaveconsider-ablecontrolovernewstratadevelopmentsbecauseoftheirjurisdictionoverzoningbylawsandtheissuanceofbuildingpermits.”260

• responseisoutofproportiontothescaleoftheproblem:“Indeed,itislikely,inlargepartduetothesuccessfulenforcementof[municipal]bylaws,thattheoverwhelmingmajorityofnewstratadevelopmentsarebuiltincompliancewiththeapplicablemunicipalbylaws....Giventheincidenceofnon-conformingdevelopmentsisrelativelylow,andthatmunicipalitieshavethemeanswithwhichtodealwiththeoccasionalnon-conformingde-velopments,[theministryisoftheviewthat]theimpositionofarequire-mentformunicipalapprovalforallstratadevelopmentswouldnotappeartobewarrantedatthistime.”261

Finally,it’sworthnotingthatrejectingthisapproachdoesn’tnecessarilyleadtotheconclusionthatthestatusquoisacceptable.It’spossibletotacklethisissuewithatargetedapproach,ratherthanthegeneralapproachusedinthisoptionforreform.

259.Ibid,provincialresponse,ministryoffinanceandcorporaterelations.

260.Ibid.Anargumentcouldalsobemade,inviewofthedecisionsdiscussedearlierinthememo-randum,thatthelandtitleofficeandthesuperintendentofrealestatealsohavesometoolstodealwithextremecases.SeeSwanLake,supranote249;528872B.C.Ltd—ceasemarketingor-der,supranote255.

261.Ibid.



The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteesawsomemerittothisproposedreform.Itwouldclearlyaddressthesubdivisionproblem.Butitwouldcomewithsignificantdrawbacks,mostlyintheformofaddedcostsanddelays.Thecommitteealsohadasensethattheunderlyingproblemvariedacrosstheprovince.Largeurbangovernmentslikelyalreadyhavethetoolstoaddressthisproblem.Butlocalgovernmentsinlessdenselypopulatedareasmightwelcomeprovinciallegislation.Whiletheirconcernsshouldn’tbecastaside,thecommitteewasn’tconvincedthatageneralapproachwasthebestwayforprovinciallegislationtodealwiththeseconcerns.Whileamajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee,asizeableminoritydisagreed,favouringlegislationthatwouldrequireapproving-officerap-provalforallstrataplans.Thecommitteerecommends:9.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotprovidethatallstrataplansrequiretheapprovalofanapprovingofficer.Should a strata plan that depicts the boundaries of strata lots as the exterior surface of a floor, wall, or ceiling, or as a point external to a building, be held to the same approval requirements that apply to a bare-land strata plan? Brief description of the issue Thisissueisbasedononeproposalthatwouldtakeatargetedapproachtotheprob-lemofbuildingstrataplansthatappeartocircumventthesubdivision-controlsys-tem.Onecommentatorhassuggestedthatakeycomponentofthisproblemisfoundintheact’sprovisionsonstrata-lotboundaries.262Section68oftheactsetsoutageneralrulemaking,insimplifiedterms,themidpointofawall,floor,orceilingtheboundarybetweenstratalots(orstratalotsandcommonpropertyoranotherparcelofland).263

262.SeeBuholzer,supranote214at§13.9.

263.Seesupranote5,s68(1)(“ifastratalotisseparatedfromanotherstratalot,thecommonprop-ertyoranotherparceloflandbyawall,floororceiling,theboundaryofthestratalotismidwaybetweenthesurfaceofthestructuralportionofthewall,floororceilingthatfacesthestratalotandthesurfaceofthestructuralportionofthewall,floororceilingthatfacestheotherstratalot,thecommonpropertyortheotherparcelofland”).



Butthisgeneralruleisadefaultrule.Theactcontemplatestwowaysinwhichitmaybeoverridden.First,thestrataplanitselfmaydepictotherboundaries(“[u]nlessotherwiseshownonthestrataplan”).Second,theactrecognizesthatsomedevel-opmentsmightnothavestratalotsseparatedfromotherstratalots,commonprop-erty,orotherparcelsoflandbyawall,floor,orceiling.Inthesecases,thebounda-riesareasdepictedonthestrataplan.264Thecommentatorhassaidthatbyallowingfor“theboundariesofabuildingstratalottobeshownasotherthanthemidpointsofthewalls,floorsandceilings,”theacthasopenedup“theopportunityforlanddeveloperstocreatewhatareinsubstancebarelandstratasubdivisions,withoutobtainingtheapprovaloftheapprovingof-ficer.”265Shouldthelegislationbeamendedtocloseoffthisopportunitybyrequiringastrataplanthatcontainsthesefeaturestomeettheapprovalrequirementsim-posedonabare-landstrataplan?Discussion of options for reform Theadvantagesofthisproposalarebestseeninrelationtotheoptiondiscussedforthepreviousissue,whichinvolvedrequiringallstrataplansobtainapproving-officerapprovalasaconditionofregistration.Thisproposalhasamuchmorelimitedscope,soitwouldn’tbringaboutasweeping(andexpensive)changetostrata-propertydevelopment.Butwithinthislimitedscope,itreliesonessentiallythesamemechanismastheoptionforthepreviousissue:itremovestheincentivetocharac-terizeastrataplanwithspecificqualitiesasabuildingstrataplansolelytosidesteptheneedforapproving-officerapproval.Sotheproposalholdsoutawaytodealwiththecoreoftheproblemwhileimposingnoadditionalburdensonthelargestpartofstratadevelopments.Theproposalalsohastheadvantageoftyingintotheestablishedsetofregulationsforapprovalofbare-landstrataplans.266TheBareLandStrataPlanRegulationscon-taindetailedrequirements“[i]nconsideringanapplicationfortheapprovalofabarelandstrataplan,”267whichhelptoensurethatanapprovingofficerisn’tfacedwithanunstructuredcalltoexercisetheofficer’sdiscretion.

264.Seeibid,s68(2)(“Ifastratalotisnotseparatedfromanotherstratalot,thecommonproperty

oranotherparceloflandbyawall,floororceiling,theboundaryofthestratalotisasshownonthestrataplan.”).

265.Buholzer,supranote214at§13.9.

266.SeeBareLandStrataRegulations,supranote247.

267.Ibid,s3.Notethattheregulationalsocontainsdetailedprovisionsonsiteaccessandservices.



Thedownsidesofthisoptionforreformaresimilartothedownsidesdiscussedinconnectionwiththepreviousissue.Theoptionwould(atleastinitially)imposecostsanddelaysonreal-estatedevelopersandcostsonlocalgovernments,thoughonasmallerscalethanwouldresultfromadoptingablanketrulethatallstrataplansre-quireapproving-officerapproval.268Theremaybeotherlegaltoolsalreadyavailabletotackleabuses.Theactalreadymakesitclearthat,whenastrataplandepartsfromthedefaultboundaryrule,itsboundariesmustbeapprovedbyaregistraroftitles.269Itcouldbearguedthattheregistraralreadyperformsanadequategatekeepingfunc-tion,sorequiringanotherapproval(fromtheapprovingofficer)isn’tneeded.Itcouldbequestionedwhethertheproposalisinproportiontotheproblem.Theremaybelegitimatereasonsfordevelopingabuildingstrataplanwithnon-traditionalboundaries.Ifthenumberoftheseunconventional,butinnocent,strataplansisgreaterthanthenumberofproblematicstrataplans,thenitcouldbeopentoques-tionwhetherthisproposalshouldimposecostsanddelaysonthesedevelopersasaconsequenceofdealingwiththeapprovalproblem.Finally,it’sworthbearinginmindthegeneralconcernaboutatargetedapproach.Thisisthatitdoesn’tsquarelydealwiththeunderlyingincentivetofashionabare-landstrataplaninthebuilding-strata-planmould,ifthatcharacterizationmeansthatthestrataplanwillgetamuchsofterregulatoryride.Theconcernisthatroguedeveloperscouldaltertheirpracticesslightly,andtrytocarryonasbefore.The committee’s recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,thetargetedapproachofthisproposalisthebetterwaytoachievereformandaddressthebroaderissue.Thisproposalshouldstampoutanunacceptablepractice,withrelativelylittledisruptionofestablishedpracticesoflanddevelopment.Thevastmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’sap-proachtothisissue.

268.Thispointisqualifiedwiththewordsatleastinitiallyinrecognitionthatproponentsofthisop-

tionwouldlikelyargueinresponsethatsuchcostswouldn’taccrueoverthelongterm,asthegoaloftheoptionwouldbetostampoutthefringeofcasesinwhichabare-landstrataplanischaracterizedasabuildingstrataplan.Oncethisoccurs,itcouldbearguedthatdevelopersandlocalgovernmentsshouldn’tbesaddledwithadditionalcosts.

269.Seesupranote5,s68(3)(“Aboundaryshownonthestrataplanmustbeshowninamannerapprovedbytheregistrar.”).




10.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatastrataplanthatdepictsthebounda-riesofstratalotsastheexteriorsurfaceofafloor,wall,orceiling,orasaboundaryex-ternaltoabuilding,mustmeetthesameapprovalrequirementsasthoughitwereabare-landstrataplan.Should the definition of “previously occupied” in section 14.1 of the Strata Property Regulation be amended to exclude temporary construction purposes? Brief description of the issue Thisissueforreformtacklesanemergingissueinpractice.Section242oftheactprovidesthat“[i]fapersonapplyingtodepositastrataplanwishestoincludeinthestrataplanapreviouslyoccupiedbuilding,thepersonmustsubmittheproposedstrataplantotheapprovingauthority.”270Ontheotherhand,section241provides“[i]fastrataplanincludesabuildingthathasnotbeenprevi-ouslyoccupied,theplanmustbeendorsedbyaBritishColumbialandsurveyorcer-tifyingthatthebuildinghasnotbeenpreviouslyoccupied.”271Thereisasignificantdifferenceinoversightbetweenthesetwotracks.Thedefini-tionofpreviouslyoccupiedcanmakeasubstantialdifferenceintheregulatorytreat-mentofastrataplan.PreviouslyoccupiedisdefinedintheStrataPropertyRegulationtomean“occupiedatanytimeinitspastforanypurpose,includingresidential,commercial,institu-tional,recreationalorindustrialuse.”272Butthisdefinitionissubjecttooneexcep-tion,whichcarvesoutdisplaylotsfromitsscope.273Questionshavebeenarisinginsurveypracticeaboutthestatusofbuildingsusedinconstruction.Shouldtheirstatusbeclarifiedbymakingthemsubjecttoanexceptionthat’ssimilartotheonethathasbeencreatedfordisplaylots?

270.Ibid,s242(2).

271.Ibid,s241(1).

272.Supranote6,s14.1.

273.Seeibid,s14.1(“doesnotincludetheoccupationofaproposedstratalotbytheownerdevelop-ersolelyasadisplaylotforthesaleofstratalotsintheproposedstrataplan”).



Discussion of options for reform Therearetwooptionstoconsiderforthisissue:eitheramendthedefinitionofpre-viouslyoccupiedfoundintheregulationorretainthestatusquo.Themainargumentinfavourofanamendmentisthatitwouldhelptoclarifyadiffi-cultareaofthelaw.Whilenocourtortribunalhasdeclaredthatastructureusedinconstructionhasbeenpreviouslyoccupiedwithinthetermsofthedefinition,ques-tionshaveariseninthesurveyprofessionaboutthedefinition’sreach.Thoughthismaybeanemergingissue,thestakesonitarehigh.Characterizationofastructurewithinastrataplanaspreviouslyoccupiedwouldresultinasignificantlymorerig-orousapprovalprocessforthatstrataplan.Clarityonthispointwouldassistlandsurveyors,whoarecalledupontocertifywhenastructurehasn’tbeenpreviouslyoccupied.Itisdifficulttoseeanydownsidetoamendingtheregulation.The committee’s recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,therigorousapprovalprocesssetoutundersection242oftheactshouldnotapplytoastructurethathasbeenusedfortemporaryconstruc-tionpurposes.Itwouldbebeneficialtoamendtheregulationtoclarifythispoint.Thecommittee’sproposalgarnerednear-unanimoussupportfromconsultationre-spondents.Thecommitteerecommends:

11.Section14.1oftheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldbeamendedtoread“Forthepurposesofsections241and242oftheAct,‘previouslyoccupied’meansoccupiedatanytimeinitspastforanypurpose,includingresidential,commercial,institutional,recreationalorindustrialuse,butdoesnotincludetheoccupationofaproposedstratalot(a)bytheownerdevelopersolelyasadisplaylotforthesaleofstratalots,or(b)fortemporaryconstructionpurposes,intheproposedstrataplan.”



Issues for Reform—Depicting Common Property for Strata Plans

Introduction Commentatorstendtoagreethateachstrataplanmusthave“twomaindesignationsofproperty”:stratalotsandcommonproperty.274Astwoleadingpracticeguideshavenoted,“[i]tisnotpossibletohaveastrataplanthatdoesnotcontainsomecommonproperty”275and“[a]llstrataplansarerequiredtohavecommonproper-ty.”276Yetsection244oftheStrataPropertyAct,whichliststherequirementsforstrataplans,onlymentionscommonpropertyonce.Comingasthelastwordsinthesec-tion,commonpropertyappearsasaby-the-wayreferenceinaprovisionthatoutlawsthedesignationof“parkingstalls,garageareas,storageareas,andsimilarareasorspaces,”usedinconjunctionwitharesidentialstratalot,asaseparatestratalot.277Nowhereinthesectionisanexplicitrequirementtoincludeadepictionofcommonpropertyonastrataplan.278Butthispointdoesn’tmaketheearliercommentsincorrect.Commonpropertyisin-herentinthedesignoftheStrataPropertyAct.Foundationalprovisionsintheactcontainreferencestocommonproperty.279274.BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§2.14.

275.Ibid.

276.LandTitlePracticeManual,supranote233,vol3at§53.165A.

277.Supranote5,s244(2)(“Parkingstalls,garageareas,storageareasandsimilarareasorspacesintendedtobeusedinconjunctionwitharesidentialstratalotmustnotbedesignatedassepa-ratestratalotsbutmustbeincludedaspartofastratalotoraspartofthecommonproperty.”).

278.Thesectiondoesprovidethatastrataplanmust“containanythingthatisrequiredbytheregu-lations”(ibid,s244(1)(j)).Whiletheregulationsdon’tcontainanexpressrequirementtodepictcommonpropertyonastrataplan,theydorefertodepictinglimitedcommonproperty.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote6,s14.4(1)(c)(“thestrataplanmustshowthedimen-sionsoftheboundariesofthestratalotsandlimitedcommonpropertyand,ifitisabarelandstrataplan,mustshowthebearingsoftheboundariesofthestratalotsandlimitedcommonproperty”).

279.Seee.g.supranote5,ss3(“thestratacorporationisresponsibleformanagingandmaintainingthecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporationforthebenefitoftheown-ers”),66(“[a]nownerownsthecommonpropertyandcommonassetsofthestratacorporationasatenantincommoninashareequaltotheunitentitlementoftheowner’sstratalotdividedbythetotalunitentitlementofallthestratalots”),72(1)(“thestratacorporationmustrepairandmaintaincommonpropertyandcommonassets”).SeealsoStrataPropertyRegulation,supra



Furthersupportforthesecommentscomesfromland-title-officepractice.TheLandTitleandSurveyAuthorityofBritishColumbiahassaidthat“[s]trataplansthatonlyshowtheboundariesofstratalots,withnocommonpropertydelineated,arenotshowninamannerapprovedbytheregistrar.”280Thispracticeisbasedonsec-tion68(3)oftheact,281whichdealswithstrata-lotboundariesandprovidesthat“[a]boundaryshownonthestrataplanmustbeshowninamannerapprovedbytheregistrar.”282Thatsaid,theLTSAhasalsoexpressedconcernsaboutcertainstrataplansthatap-peartoskirttheneedtodelineatecommonproperty.283TheLTSAofferedthefol-lowingasanexampleofitsconcerns:

somelandsurveyorshavepreparedbuildingstrataplansuponwhichthebuildingsarenotadjoinedand

• Nocommonpropertyisdelineated,and

• Allofthelandsoutsideofthebuildingaredesignatedtobepartofthestratalots(i.e.,“privateyardareas”).

Inthiscircumstance,itisnotevidentwhatcomprisesthecommonproperty.284

note6,s14.11(2)(“Theregistrarmustincludeonanyindefeasibletitleforastratalot,inthele-galdescription,thewords‘togetherwithaninterestinthecommonpropertyinproportiontotheunitentitlementofthestratalotasshownonFormV.’”).

280.LandTitleandSurveyAuthorityofBritishColumbia,LandTitleDivision,PracticeNote02-12,“DelineatingCommonProperty”(10October2012)at3.

281.Seeibidat2–3.


283.SeePracticeNote02-12,“DelineatingCommonProperty,”supranote280at2(“Questionshavearisenpertainingtostrataplansthatdonotclearlydelineateanypartofthelandsorbuildingsascommonproperty.Inregardstobuildingstrataplans,thestrataplanmustbeinterpretedtoascertainwhatpartofthelandsorbuildingsdonotcompromisepartofthestratalotsinordertoidentifywhatcomprisesthecommonproperty.”).

284.Ibid.Thereferenceto“privateyardareas”appearstoderivefromthepreviouslegislation.SeeCondominiumAct,supranote28,s6(2)(c)(“theboundariesofastratalotshallbedefined...(c)wherethestratalotincludesbalconies,patios,privateyardareas,garages,parkingspaces,storageareasandotherareasandspacesnotenclosedbyfloors,wallsorceilings,inanymannerapprovedbytheregistrar”[emphasisadded]).



Should the Strata Property Act expressly require a strata plan to include a depiction of part of the lands or building as common property? Brief description of the issue Section244containsalonglistofrequirementsforastrataplan,butnowhereamongthemisanexpressrequirementtodepictcommonproperty.Thisissode-spitetheact’simplicitcharacterizationofcommonpropertyasanessentialingredi-entofastrataproperty.Shouldsection244beamendedtocontainanexpressre-quirementtodepictcommonpropertyonastrataplan?Discussion of options for reform Thisissueisabridgebetweenthelastsetofissues(onemergingissuesinsubdivi-sioncontrol)andthisset(oncommonproperty).Creatingastrataplanwithnocleardepictionofcommonpropertyisoneofthewaysinwhichwhatmayfunctionallybeabare-landstrataplancouldbecharacterizedasabuildingstrataplan.Apartfromconcernsaboutsubdivisioncontrol,theLTSAisalsoontherecordasdisapprovingthisapproachasamatterofland-titlepractice.285TheLTSA’spositionisbasedonaninterpretationofsection68(3)oftheact,whichdealswithstrata-lotboundaries.286Anexpressprovisionthatisdirectlyonpointwouldaddmoresup-portfortheLTSA’sposition.Thedownsidesofthisoptionforreformdifferfromthosediscussedintheprecedingissuesforreform.Becausethisoptiondoesn’tinvolveanexpansionofaregulatoryprocessitdoesn’tcarrywithitobviouscostsandburdensforreal-estatedevelopersandothers.Thedisadvantageisthisapproachisthatitmaybetoomodest.Itisn’tclearthatanyoneiscallingforthisspecificamendment.Italsoisn’tclearthatitisneeded.Anargumentcouldbemadethatsection68(3)alreadygivestheLTSAenoughauthoritytodealwiththeissue.Finally,suchaprovisioncouldbeside-steppedbyaroguedeveloperbysimplyincludingatrivialamountofcommonprop-ertyonastrataplan.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteefavouredthisproposedreform.Itwouldhelptobringsomeclaritytotheact’srequirements.Inaddition,thisproposedreform,coupledwiththepreced-285.SeePracticeNote02-12,“DelineatingCommonProperty,”supranote280.

286.Seeibidat3.



ingtentativerecommendation,shouldprovidesomeassistanceinstampingoutquestionablesubdivisionpractices.Thevastmajorityofconsultationrespondentssupportedthecommittee’stentativerecommendation.Butahandfulofrespondentsraisedsomeconcernsaboutthescopeofthisproposal,aspotentiallyrequiringanexhaustivecatalogueofallcom-monpropertyinastrataplan.Toaddresstheseconcerns,thecommitteedecidedtomakeasmallchangetothelanguageofitsrecommendation,emphasizingthelimitednatureofthisrecommendation.Thecommitteerecommends:12.TheStrataPropertyActshouldexpresslyrequireastrataplantoincludeadepic-tionofpartofthelandsorbuildingascommonproperty.

Issues for Reform—Depicting the Vertical Limits of Limited Common Property for Strata Plans

Introduction It’scommonlyunderstoodthat“bydefinition,limitedcommonpropertymustbeshownonastrataplanandsoitcannotbeaverticalsurfacesuchastheexteriorbuildingwallabovethebalcony.”287But,thatsaid,therecanbedifficultiesindeter-miningtheverticallimitsofthepropertydepictedonastrataplan.Inparttoallevi-atethesedifficulties,theLTSAhasissuedapracticenoteoncross-sectionsonstrataplans.288“Generally,”theLTSAobserves,“crosssectionsassistinclearlyidentifyingtheboundariesbetweenindividualstratalotsandcommonproperty,includingtheclarificationoftheirverticallimits.”289Boundariesthatarelessthanclearlydefinedcanraisegeneralconcernsinthemar-ketplace,aspurchasersmaybeleftwithinaccurateassumptionsabouttheextentoftheinterestinlandbeingpurchased.Theycanalsocreateproblemsfortheopera-tionofastratacorporation,breedingconfusion(inparticular)overtheresponsibil-itytorepairandmaintainaspecificpartofthestrataproperty.

287.RawlevTheOwners,StrataPlanNWS3423,2017BCCRT15atpara31.

288.LandTitleandSurveyAuthorityofBritishColumbia,LandTitleDivision,PracticeNote01-12,“CrossSectionsonStrataPlans”(7March2012).

289.Ibidat1.



AstheLTSAnoted,“[h]istorically,landsurveyorshavenotalwaysincludedcrosssectionsnorhavelandtitleofficesrequiredthem.”290Butin2012theLTSAmovedtorequirethem,“[d]uetotheincreasingcomplexityofbuildingstrataplansbeingfiledinthelandtitleoffices,andsubsequentStrataPropertyActapplicationsbeingfiledaffectingthestratalotsand/orthecommonproperty.”291Should the Strata Property Act require strata plans to include a cross-section? Brief description of the issue TheLTSAhascalledfortheuseofcross-sectionsinstrataplans.ShouldamendmentsbemadetotheStrataPropertyActtosupportthiscall,ortootherwisepromoteclar-ityindepictingtheverticallimitsoflimited-common-propertydesignations?Discussion of options for reform OneoptiontoaddressthisissuewouldbetoenshrinetheLTSA’spracticeinlegisla-tion,bymakingtheStrataPropertyActrequirecrosssectionsonstrataplansasameanstoclarifytheverticallimitsoflimitedcommonproperty.Thisoptionhastheadvantageofdrawingonanexistingpracticethathasbeeninplacesince2012.Itcanbeseenasarelativelycautiousextensionofthelaw,whichwillbringanincre-mentalincreaseinclarity.Therearepotentialdownsidestothisoption.ItwouldbeunusualfortheStrataPropertyActtoaddresswhatcanbeconsideredasaland-surveyingissueatsuchadetailedlevel.Legislationcouldbeseenasbeingtoorigid,imposingaone-size-fits-allruleonaprocessthatcurrentlyhassomeflexibility.292Conversely,itcouldalsobearguedthatthecurrentlawallowstheregistrartoaddressthismatterinapracti-calway.Soitisn’tclearwhatwouldbegainedbyhavingtheStrataPropertyActsetoutaprovisiononthisissue.

290.Ibid.

291.Ibid.

292.Seeibidat2(“Landsurveyorswhofeelacrosssectionisnotwarrantedmayseekpre-approvalfromtheregistrarpriortosubmittingtheplan.Thelandsurveyormustclearlydescribeintheirrequesttotheregistrarthereasonswhyacrosssectionisnotrequiredonthatparticularplan.Ifsatisfied,theregistrarwillprovidewrittenauthorizationthatacrosssectionisnotrequiredforthelandsurveyortoincludewiththesubmissionofastrataplan.”).



The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteeviewedincludingarequirementtoincludeatleastonecross-sectiononastrataplanasausefulreform,onethatwouldbringsomeclaritytoanareathat’softenfraughtwithconfusion.Sucharequirementwouldn’tbeoutofkeepingwiththealready-existinglistofstrata-planrequirementsintheStrataPropertyAct.293Thisproposalattractedthesupportofastrongmajorityofconsultationrespond-ents.Thecommitteerecommends:13.Section244(1)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatallstrataplansarerequiredtoincludeaminimumofonecross-section.Should the Strata Property Regulation require strata plans to include representations to identify limited common property? Brief description of the issue Thisissueislinkedtothepreviousone.WhiletheStrataPropertyActsetsoutabroadlistofstrata-planrequirements,294theStrataPropertyRegulationcontainsmanyofthenuts-and-boltsdetailsofthoserequirements.295Shouldanyofthesere-quirementsbeamendedtoclarifythedepictionoflimitedcommonpropertyandtosupporttherequirementtoincludeatleastonecross-sectiononastrataplan?Discussion of options for reform Thediscussionofoptionsforthisissueissubstantiallysimilartothediscussionoftheoptionsforthepreviousissue.Amendingtheregulationholdsouttheprospectofclarifyingadifficultareaofthelaw.Amendmentswouldalsohelptoimplementthelegislativechangerecommendedforthepreviousissue.Thepotentialdownsidesoftheproposedreformarethatitcouldrobpractitionersofsomeflexibilityinput-tingtogetherstrataplansandcouldbeseenasanintrusionintoanareabettercov-eredbytechnicalstandards.


294.Seeibid,s244(1).




The committee’s recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,amendingtheregulationwouldofferthechancetoprovidemoredetailandfurtherclarifythelaw.Withproposalstoamendtheactandtheregulation,thecommitteeisoftheviewthatithasdevelopedaframeworkforthisarea.Thisframeworkmayhelptosupportfurtherdevelopmentsinotherareas,suchassurveyingguidelines.296Thisproposalcommandednearlyunanimoussupportinthepublicconsultation.Thecommitteerecommends:

14.Section14.4(1)(i)oftheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldbeamendedtoread:“thestrataplanmustincludeanyrepresentations,includingcross-sectiondrawingsofthebuilding,toidentifyandlocatethecommonproperty,includingthelimitedcom-monproperty,andthestratalotsandfloorswithinthebuilding.”Should the Strata Property Act require that, when limited common property is designated by a 3/4 vote, the sketch plan that must be filed in the land title office must be prepared by a British Columbia land surveyor? Brief description of the issue Eventhoughthisissueflowedfromthecommittee’sdiscussionoftheprevioustwo,itissomewhatbroaderinscope,takinginthedesignationoflimitedcommonprop-ertygenerally,notjustthedepictionofitsverticallimits.Whencommonpropertyisdesignatedaslimitedcommonpropertybyaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteatanannualgeneralmeetingoraspecialgeneralmeeting,theactrequiresthatresolutiontobefiledinthelandtitleofficewitha“sketchplan.”297Sketchplanisadefinedterm,298butthereisnothinginthisdefinitionorintheStrataPropertyActthatsetsoutwhoisrequiredtopreparethesketchplan.Shouldtheactbeamendedtopro-videthatthesketchplan,inthesecircumstances,mustbepreparedbyaBritishCo-lumbialandsurveyor?

296.SeeAssociationofBritishColumbiaLandSurveyors,SurveyandPlanRules(version1.1,6Sep-

tember2018),online:<www.abcls.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SPR-V1.1-18-09-06-1.pdf>[perma.cc/6Y4E-4UMS].

297.Seesupranote5,s74(2).

298.SeeLandTitleAct,supranote19,s1“sketchplan”(“meansanadequatelydimensioneddrawingoftheareaaffectedbyaleaseofallorpartofabuildinglocatedonlandshownonaplanofsur-veydepositedinthelandtitleoffice”).



Discussion of options for reform Thegoalofthisproposedreformwouldbetopromoteaccuracyintherecordingoflimitedcommonproperty,whichwouldcutdownonconfusionandforestallpoten-tialdisputes.Thiswouldbeofconsiderableassistanceformorethanjustthedepic-tionoflimitedcommonproperty;itwouldenhanceunderstandingoflimitedcom-monpropertyingeneral.Asmembersofarecognizedprofession,landsurveyorsarerequiredtomeetstringentstandardsinthepreparationofsurveydocuments.Theirinvolvementinthisprocesswouldbeasafeguardagainstconfusionandinaccuracy.Therearepotentialdownsidestothisproposedreform.Itcouldaddtimetothepro-cessofdesignatinglimitedcommonpropertyandcouldmakethatprocessmoreex-pensive.Theactalreadyrecognizesthatthereislevelofinformalityinthisprocessbycallingforthefilingofasketchplan.Anargumentcouldbemadethatlimitingwhocouldpreparethesesketchplanswouldbearegulatoryoverreach.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteedecidedthattheactshouldprovidethatasketchplanfiledundersection74shouldbepreparedbyalandsurveyor.Thisrequirementshouldenhancetheaccuracyofthesesketchplansandstrengthentheintegrityofdesignationsoflimitedcommonproperty.Thetentativerecommendationforthisissueintheconsultationpaperhadthesup-portofanoverwhelmingmajorityofconsultationrespondents.Thecommitteerecommends:15.Section74(2)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbyaddingthefollow-ingasparagraph(d):“ispreparedbyaBritishColumbialandsurveyor.”

Issues for Reform—Certificate of Payment Introduction ACertificateofPaymentis,insimpleterms,aprescribedformissuedbyastratacorporationcertifyingwhetherornotastrata-lotownerowesmoneytothestratacorporation.299ACertificateofPaymentmustbegiventoaregistraroflandtitlesinconjunctionwiththedepositofanyofthefollowingdocumentsforregistration:299.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s115;StrataPropertyRegulation,supranote6,FormF.



• aleaseofastratalot;

• anassignmentofaleaseofastratalot;

• anagreementforsaleofastratalot;

• aconveyanceoftitletoastratalot.300IntheabsenceofaCertificateofPayment,theactdirectstheregistrarnottoacceptanyoftheselisteddocumentsforregistration.301Thisprovisionhasbeenconsideredinthreecourtdecisionsinvolvingforeclosurebyamortgagelender—apairofcases302beforeamasterofthecourt303anda“rehear-ing”ofthemaster’sdecisioninoneofthesecasesbyasupreme-courtjustice.304AllthreedecisionsheldthataCertificateofPaymentisn’trequiredwhentitletoastratalotchangeshandsunderacourtorder.Forthethreedecisions,arrivingatthisconclusionwasamatterofinterpretingtherelevantprovisionsfromtheStrataPropertyActandtheLandTitleAct.Intwoofthesedecisions,themasterremarkedthatthelogicalprogressionwas“unassaila-ble,”305leadingfromthesepremisestotheconclusion:

300.StrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s256(1).

301.Seeibid.

302.SeeCIBCMortgageCorpvSpreeuw,2001BCSC172957[Spreeuw];PeoplesTrustCovMeadow-larkEstatesLtd,2003BCSC1321[MeadowlarkEstatesMaster].

303.SeeSupremeCourtAct,RSBC1996,c443,s11(7)(“Amasterhas,subjecttothelimitationsofsection96oftheConstitutionAct,1867,thesamejurisdictionunderanyenactmentortheRulesofCourtasajudgeinchambersunless,inrespectofanymatter,theChiefJusticehasgivenadi-rectionthatamasterisnottoexercisethatjurisdiction.”);SupremeCourtofBritishColumbia,PracticeDirection:Masters’Jurisdiction(PD-50)(effectivedate:15May2016)at1(settingoutdirection“astothemattersinrespectofwhichamasterisnottoexercisejurisdiction”).SeealsoGPeterFraser,JohnWHorn,&SusanAGriffin,TheConductofCivilLitigationinBritishColumbia,2nded,vol1(Markham,ON:LexisNexisCanada,2007)(loose-leafupdatedJune2018,re-lease28)at§5.5(“InBritishColumbiatheseconstitutionallimitationshaveledtotheprinciplethatamasterhasjurisdictiontomakeorderswhicharenotfinalandalsotomakeorderswhicharefinalbutwheretherehasbeen,intheproceeding,nodisputeonthefactsorthelaw....Amastermayhearaforeclosureapplicationwherenomatteriscontestedorwherethereisnotriableissue.”[footnotesomitted]).

304.SeePeoplesTrustCovMeadowlarkEstatesLtd,2005BCSC51[MeadowlarkEstatesSC].

305.Spreeuw,supranote302atpara12,MasterBolton;MeadowlarkEstatesMaster,supranote302atpara5,MasterMcCallum.



• section256oftheStrataPropertyActrequiressubmissionofaCertificateofPaymentinordertoregister“aconveyanceoftitletoastratalot”;306

• section1oftheStrataPropertyActdefinesconveyancetomean(amongoth-erthings)“atransferofafreeholdestateinthestratalot”;307

• section1oftheLandTitleActcontainstwodefinedterms:transfer(which“includesaconveyance”)308andtransmission(which“meansachangeinownership...underanorderofacourt”);309

• section3oftheLandTitleActprovidesthattheLandTitleActappliestotheStrataPropertyAct“unlessinconsistentwiththatAct.”310

Therefore,because“[t]hereisnoinconsistencybetweentheActsinthiscontext,”311thedistinctionbetweenatransferandatransmissionappliestosection256oftheStrataPropertyAct,limitingitsscopetocasesinvolving“voluntary”312transfersoftitleandnottransmissions.Sinceasaleinaforeclosureproceedingisatransmission(“achangeinownershipunderanorderofthecourt”),theregistrarisnotrequiredtoreceiveaCertificateofPaymentinordertoregisterthetransmissionofowner-ship.313

306.Supranote5,s256(1)(d)[emphasisadded].

307.Ibid,s1(1)“convey”and“conveyance”[emphasisadded](“whenreferringtotheconveyanceofastratalottoapurchaser,meansanyofthefollowinginrespectofwhichanapplicationtothelandtitleofficehasbeenmadetoregister:(a)atransferofafreeholdestateinthestratalot;(b)anagreementforsaleofthestratalot;(c)anassignmentofapurchaser’sinterestinanagreementforsaleofthestratalot;(d)anassignmentofastratalotleaseinaleaseholdstrataplan”).

308.Supranote19,s1“transfer”(“includesaconveyance,agrantandanassignment”).

309.Ibid,s1“transmission”(“meansachangeofownership(a)effectedbytheoperationofanActorlaw,(b)underanorderofacourt,or(c)consequentonanychangeintheofficeofapersonalrepresentativeortrustee,butdoesnotinclude(d)anamalgamationof2ormorecorporations,howevereffected,whetherornottheamalgamationisinrespectofabeneficialoratrustestateorinterestinland,or(e)anamalgamationundertheStrataPropertyAct”).

310.Ibid,s3(1)(“ThisAct,exceptParts7and8,appliestotheStrataPropertyAct,unlessincon-sistentwiththatAct.”).

311.Spreeuw,supranote302atpara10.

312.MeadowlarkEstatesSC,supranote304atpara24.

313.SeeSpreeuw,supranote302atpara11;MeadowlarkEstatesMaster,supranote302atpara5;MeadowlarkEstatesSC,supranote304atpara34.



Whentheissueisdiagrammedinthisway,itcanseemabstractandbloodless.But,aseachofthedecisionspointedout,314whatisreallyatstakehereisacontestbe-tweentwocreditors—thestratacorporationandthemortgagelender—whenthereisn’tenoughmoneytosatisfybothofthem.315Section116(5)oftheStrataPropertyActgivesthestratacorporationpriorityovermostothercreditors(includingpriori-tyovermortgagelenders)foramountsthatitmayincludeinitslienonastratalot.316Butinsomecasesastrata-lotownerowesthestratacorporationmoneyandtheamountcan’tbeincludedinthelien.317Thatiswhathappenedineachofthesecases,inwhichtherewereamountsowingforfinesduetobylawcontraventions.Whenthisoccurs,therequirementtoprovidetheregistrarwithaCertificateofPaymentcanhavetheeffectofdeterminingprioritybetweenthestratacorporationandthemortgagelender.IftheCertificateofPaymentisrequiredinthesecircum-stances,thenthestratacorporationwillbepaidfirst,becauseitwon’tissuethecer-tificateunlessitispaidinfullforanyamountsowing.318ButiftheCertificateof

314.SeeSpreeuw,supranote302atpara3;MeadowlarkEstatesMaster,supranote302atparas2,8;

MeadowlarkEstatesSC,supranote304atpara2.

315.SeeSpreeuw,supranote302atpara3(“Althoughastratacorporationhasalienforitsbasicfeeswhichhaspriorityoverpriormortgages,anownermayoweadditionalmoniesforsuchitemsaspenalties,interestandcostswhichdonotformpartofthecorporation’spriorityclaim.Adisputeoftenarisesinforeclosureactionsinvolvingstrataproperties,whenthestratacorporationhasbeenpaidtotheextentofitspriorityclaim,butisstillowedmoneyfortheseadditionalitemsbytheowner.Inthosecircumstances,thecorporationwilloften(oralways)declinetoissuetheFormF,onthesensiblepremisethattheycannotcertifythatnomoniesareowingwhenthatisnot,infact,thecase.TheLandTitleOfficewillnotacceptforregistrationavestingorderrelatingtostratapropertywithoutaFormF.Consequently,thepetitionerseitherhavetopaythefeestothecorporation,orpaythemintocourtandthenmakeasubsequent,expensiveapplicationtohavethemoniespaidoutbecauseoftheirpriority.”).

316.Seesupranote5,s116(5)(“Thestratacorporation’slienranksinprioritytoeveryotherlienorregisteredchargeexcept(a)totheextentthatthestratacorporation’slienisforastratalot’sshareofajudgmentagainstthestratacorporation,(b)iftheotherlienorchargeisinfavouroftheCrownandisnotamortgageofland,or(c)iftheotherlienorchargeismadeundertheBuildersLienAct.”).

317.Seeibid,s116(1)(“Thestratacorporationmayregisteralienagainstanowner’sstratalotbyregisteringinthelandtitleofficeaCertificateofLienintheprescribedformiftheownerfailstopaythestratacorporationanyofthefollowingwithrespecttothatstratalot:(a)stratafees;(b)aspeciallevy;(c)areimbursementofthecostofworkreferredtoinsection85;(d)thestra-talot’sshareofajudgmentagainstthestratacorporation.”).

318.Sincetheformactuallycallsonthestratacorporationtocertifythattheownereither“(a)doesnotowemoneytothestratacorporation,or(b)doesowemoneybut(i)themoneyclaimedbythestratacorporationhasbeenpaidintocourt,ortothestratacorporationintrust,undersec-tion114oftheStrataPropertyAct,or(ii)arrangementssatisfactorytothestratacorporationhavebeenmadetopaythemoneyowing,”anargumentcouldbemountedthatthestratacorpo-



Paymentisn’trequired,thenthestratacorporationwillonlybepaidfirsttotheex-tentofanyamountsowingunderitslien.Anyotheramountsitisowedwilleffec-tivelyrankinprioritybehindtheamountsowingtothemortgagelender.Thiswastheresultintwoofthethreecases:theamountsowingonthemortgageswerepaidbeforefinesowingtothestratacorporations(whichmeant,becausetherewasn’tenoughmoneytosatisfyalldebts,thestratacorporationsweren’tabletocollectthefullamountowingforfines).319Should a Form F (Certificate of Payment) be required when a transfer of a strata lot takes place under a court order? Brief description of the issue AnamendmenttotheStrataPropertyActwouldessentiallyreversetheresultsinthecasesdiscussedearlier.ShouldtheactexpresslyspelloutthataCertificateofPay-mentisrequiredtoregisterachangeinownershipuponatransmissionoftitletoastratalot?Discussion of options for reform Inbroadterms,therearetwooptionstoconsiderhere:eitheramendtheStrataPropertyActtomakeitclearthataCertificateofPaymentmustbeincludedwhenatransmissionoftitletoastratalotisdepositedforregistrationinthelandtitleofficeorretainthestatusquo.ThepoliciessupportingthecurrentlawwerediscussedinthejudicialdecisioninMeadowlarkEstates.320Thecourtnotedthatitsconclusionthatatransmissionofti-tleneednotbeaccompanied,upondepositforregistration,byaCertificateofPay-mentissupportedbytheStrataPropertyAct’ssystemforbalancingcreditors’priori-

rationcan’tgivetheformwhenitknowsthereismoneyowingandneitherofthearrangementsmentionedinparagraph(b)hasbeenmade.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote6,FormF.

319.SeeMeadowlarkEstatesMaster,supranote302atpara8;MeadowlarkEstatesSC,supranote304atpara34.InSpreeuw,supranote302,themasterdeclinedtodecidetheissue“forpurelypro-ceduralreasons”:“Inmyview,thisis,insubstanceandeffect,amandatoryorderrequiringtheLandTitleOfficetodoanactwhichthatoffice,todate,haspresumablyconsideredtobecontra-rytolaw.Inthecircumstances,Idonotbelieveitiseitherappropriateorpossibletomaketheordersoughtinthepresentproceedings.AnapplicationunderRule63[nowSupremeCourtCivilRules,BCReg168/2009,r21-3]forreliefinthenatureofmandamusmustbebroughtbeforethiscourtmayproperlydirecttheCrowntoperformaspecifiedact.”(Spreeuw,supranote302atpara14.)

320.Seesupranote304atparas25–30.



tiesunderthestratacorporation’slien.321“Thepurposeoffilingthelien,”thecourtobserved,“mustbetoprovidenoticetoanyinterestedpartyofthefactandamountofthestratacorporation’sclaim.”322Thispurposewouldbeunderminediftheactgavethestratacorporationpriorityoverothersecuredcreditorsforamountsnotin-cludedinthelien.Further,itcouldalsocreateadisincentivetofilingthelienatall,asthestratacorporationcouldsimplychoosetorelyontheneedtogiveaCertificateofPaymentupontransmission.323Argumentsthatcouldbeseenassupportingreformofthelegislationhavealsoap-pearedinthecourtcases.Theseargumentstendtoturnonthebasic“fairness”ofrequiringaCertificateofPaymentandeffectivelygivingthestratacorporation’sclaimspriorityincontestedcircumstances.324(Forexample,inthecourtdecisionsdiscussedearlier,thestratacorporations’financeshadapparentlybeenseverelystrained.Astratacorporationmayfinditselfinsuchstraitswhenitsrepairobliga-tionsoverwhelmitsresources.)325The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteegavethisissueextensiveconsideration.Whileitwassympathetictostratacorporation’splightinthesecircumstances(astherequirementtoprovideaCertificateofPaymentwouldoftenbetheonlypracticalwaytoensurethatit’sad-visedofachangeofownershipofastratalot),itultimatelyhadtoomanyconcernsaboutmeshingthisproposedrequirementwiththerealitiesofforeclosurelitigationandabouttheeffectofitonothercreditors.Whileamajorityofconsultationrespondentssupportedthecommittee’sproposal,asizeableminoritydisagreed.Theserespondentstendedtofavourgivingstratacor-porationsagreaterreachincollectingmoneyduetothem.Thecommitteerecommends:16.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuenottoprovidethataregistraroftitlesmustonlyacceptatransmissionofastratalotforregistrationinthelandtitleofficeifitisaccompaniedbyacurrentCertificateofPayment.321.Seeibidatpara28.

322.Ibidatpara30.

323.Seeibidatpara29(“If[thestratacorporation’s]argumentiscorrect,thereisnopointtoastratacorporationfilingalienundersection116.TheywouldbeabletowithholdaFormFevenwith-outfilingalienforthechargeswhichcanbesubjecttolien.”).

324.MeadowlarkEstatesMaster,supranote302atpara12.

325.Seeibid.



Chapter 5. Fundamental Changes Meaning of “Fundamental Changes” ThewordsfundamentalchangearenotfoundintheStrataPropertyAct.Theyrefertoaconceptthatcanbeusedinanalyzingtheact,groupingtogethercertaintransac-tionsthatmaybesaidtoprofoundlytransformthenatureandqualitiesofagivenstrataproperty.326Sincefundamentalchangedoesn’thavealegislativedefinition,itsmeaningcanbesomewhatelastic.

Transactions Classified as Fundamental Changes Becausefundamentalchangeisaflexibleconcept,thecommitteebeganitsreviewbyconsideringthetypesoftransactionsthatcouldbeclassifiedasfundamentalchang-es.ItsstartingplacewastoexaminethosetransactionsthatmustbeauthorizedbyaresolutionthatachievesthehighestvotingthresholdintheStrataPropertyAct:aresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.Thenitconsideredwhetheranyothertrans-actions(whichdon’trequireauthorizationbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote)havefeaturesthatwouldleadthemtobeclassifiedasfundamentalchanges.Transactions requiring authorization by a resolution passed by a unanimous vote Theactdefinesunanimousvotetomean“avoteinfavourofaresolutionbyallthevotesofalltheeligiblevoters.”327Ifastratalothasmorethanoneowner,thanallof

326.Seee.g.BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2atch23(describing

amendmentofstrataplans,amalgamationofstratas,andterminationofstratasasfundamentalchanges).

327.Supranote5,s1(1)“unanimousvote.”Eligiblevotersisdefinedtomean“personswhomayvoteundersections53to58”oftheact(ibid,s1(1)“eligiblevoters”).Mostofthepeoplewhowouldbeconsideredeligiblevotersarestrata-lotowners,buttheexpressionisbroadenoughtocap-ture,incertaincircumstances,tenants,mortgagees,parentsorguardians,andcourt-appointedvoters(seeibid,ss54,55,58).Astrata-lotownermaylosetherighttovoteoncertainresolu-tionsifthestratacorporationis“entitledtoregisteralienagainst[theowner’s]stratalotundersection116(1)”andthestratacorporationhasabylawprovidingthattheowner’svotemaynotbeexercisedinthesecircumstances,butthisprovisiondoesn’tapplytoaresolutionthatmustbepassedbyaunanimousvote(ibid,s53(2)–(3)).



theseco-ownersmustbeinfavouroftheresolutionforittobepassedbyaunani-mousvote.328Theactallowsastratacorporationthatconsistsof10ormorestratalotstoapplytothesupremecourtifalmostalloftheeligiblevoterssupportaresolutionthatmustbepassedbyaunanimousvote.329Underthisapplication,thestratacorporationmayaskthecourtfor“anorderprovidingthatthevoteproceedasifthedissentingvoterorvotershadnovote.”330Thelegislationauthorizesthecourttomakethisor-der“if[itis]satisfiedthatthepassageoftheresolutionisinthebestinterestsofthestratacorporationandwouldnotunfairlyprejudicethedissentingvoterorvot-ers.”331Stratacorporationsconsistingoffewerthan10stratalotsaren’tallowedtousethisprovision.332Thefollowingtransactionsrequireauthorizationbyaresolutionpassedbyaunani-mousvote.Table 1. Transactions requiring authorization by a resolution passed by a unanimous vote

SPA section Description

10 restricting strata corporation’s power to contract during period after first convey-ance of a strata lot but before first AGM with owner-developer or person not at arm’s length with owner-developer—such contract or transaction may be approved by a resolution passed by a unanimous vote at a special general meeting

11 (c) approving resolution ordinarily requiring passage by a 3/4 vote—other than a reso-lution to amend the bylaws in a wholly nonresidential strata corporation or the non-residential section bylaws in a strata corporation with residential and nonresidential sections—during the period after the first conveyance of a strata lot but before the first AGM

70 (4) (b) amending the Schedule of Unit Entitlement if a strata-lot owner wishes to increase or decrease the habitable area of a residential strata lot

328.Seeibid,s57(2)(“Ifthechairisadvisedbeforeorduringavotethatthe2ormorepersonswho

sharetheonevotedisagreeonhowtheirvoteshouldbecastonamatter,thechairmustnotcounttheirvoteinrespectofthatmatter.”).

329.Seeibid,s52.Thevotingthresholdthatmustbereachedforthisapplicationtobemadetocourtisdefinedinthelegislationas“allofthestratacorporation’svotesexceptfor(a)thevoteinre-spectofonestratalot,inastratacorporationcomprisedofatleast10stratalots,or(b)thevotesinrespectofmorethanonestratalot,ifthosevotestogetherrepresentlessthan5%ofthestratacorporation’svotes”(ibid,s52(2)).

330.Ibid,s52(3).

331.Ibid,s52(3).

332.Seeibid,s52(1).



SPA section Description

100 changing the basis on which a strata lot’s share of the contribution to the strata cor-poration’s operating fund and contingency reserve fund is calculated

108 (2) (b) changing the basis on which a strata lot’s share of a special levy is calculated

127 (1) amending bylaws in the period before the second AGM in a bare-land or wholly res-idential strata corporation

127 (3) (a) amending bylaws in the period before the second AGM in a strata corporation with residential and nonresidential strata lots and without sections

127 (4) (a) amending bylaws in the period before the second AGM in a strata corporation with separate residential and nonresidential sections—resolution passed by a unanimous vote required in residential section only

214 (3) authorizing a leasehold landlord to change the basis for calculating the purchase price of a leasehold tenant’s interest in a leasehold strata lot on termination of a leasehold strata property set out in a schedule to a ground lease

257 (a) amending a strata plan to designate limited common property or to remove a desig-nation of limited common property

259 (3) (a) amending a strata plan to add to, consolidate, or divide a strata lot, if the amend-ment would have the effect of decreasing the relative voting power of the other strata lots, increasing the share of common expenses borne by the other strata lots, or decreasing the relative unit entitlement of the other strata lots

261 (1) (a) amending a Schedule of Unit Entitlement to reflect a change in the habitable area of a residential strata lot in a strata plan in which unit entitlement has been calculated on the basis of habitable area

262 (3) (b) amending a strata plan to add land held in the name of or on behalf of a strata cor-poration and not shown on the strata plan to a strata lot or to create a new strata lot, the amendment would have the effect of decreasing the relative voting power of the other strata lots, increasing the share of common expenses borne by the other strata lots, or decreasing the relative unit entitlement of the other strata lots

263 (2) (a) amending a strata plan to add a strata lot or part of a strata lot to the common property

Thecommitteebeganitsreviewoffundamentalchangesbyinitiallyclassifyingeachofthesetransactionsasafundamentalchangerequiringfurtherstudy.Other transactions Inadditiontothetransactionslistedintheprevioussection,othertransactionssetoutintheactcouldalsobeclassifiedasafundamentalchangeiftheyprofoundlychangedthenatureandqualitiesofagivenstratacorporation.Thiscouldbeso,even



ifthetransactiondoesn’trequireauthorizationbyaresolutionpassedbyaunani-mousvote.Theonetransactionthatmeetsthisstandardisamalgamation.333Eventhoughanamalgamationoftwoormorestratacorporationsmaybeauthorizedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote,334theresultingtransactionwillhavetheeffectofprofoundlytransformingtheamalgamatingstratacorporationsinamannerthatisintherangeofthetransformationslistedintheprevioussection.335

Scope of this Chapter Fromthisstartingplace,thecommitteenarrowedthescopeofthischaptertojustthoseareasofthelawthataremostinneedofreform.Inthecommittee’sview,theseareasarethefollowingthree:

• amendingastrataplan;

• schedulestothestrataplan;

• amalgamation.Themainconcernforeachoftheseareasiswiththevotingthresholdoftheresolu-tionneededtoauthorizeatransaction.Inmostcases,thatresolutionmustbepassedbyaunanimousvote.Sothequestionbecomeswhetherthatthresholdcouldbelow-ered.Thiswouldmirrordevelopmentsfortermination,wherethevotingthresholdwasrecentlyloweredfromunanimousvoteto80-percentvote.336Inonecase(amal-gamation)thequestioniswhethertoraisea3/4-votethresholdtoan80-percentvote.

Issues for Reform—Amending a Strata Plan Introduction TheStrataPropertyActhasanextensivelydetailedsetofprovisionsonamendingstrataplans.337Theactdoesn’tcontainageneralprocedureforamendingastrata

333.SeeStrataPropertyAct,ibid,ss269–271.

334.Seeibid,s269(2)(a).

335.Seeibid,s271(effectofamalgamation).

336.Seeibid,ss272(1),277(1).

337.Seeibid,ss257–268.



plan.Instead,itcontainsproceduresdesignedtoobtainaspecificresultinadefinedcircumstance.And,insomecases,thestratacorporationisabletoobtainasimilarresultbyusingotherproceduresintheact,whichdon’tinvolveamendingthestrataplan.Thissystemcanbesomewhatdifficulttograsp.Overview of the Strata Property Act’s provisions on amending a strata plan Introduction LegislationenablingtheamendmentofstrataplanshasbeenafeatureofBritishCo-lumbia’sstrata-propertylegislationsinceitsinceptionin1966.Thislegislationhasfollowedafamiliarpatternofdevelopment.Thefirst-generationactcontainedahandfulofprovisionswithlittleproceduraldetail.338Therangeofprovisionswasexpandedandsomeoftheproceduraldetailwasfilledinwiththeadventofthesec-ond-generationact.339Asthatactwasamended,stillmoreprovisionswereaddedtothelegalframework.340Nevertheless,asthethirdgenerationofBritishColumbia’slegislationwasbeingde-velopedinthe1990stherewasasensethattheapproachtoamendingastrataplanneededamajoroverhaul.Intherun-uptotheenactmentoftheStrataPropertyAct,theministryoffinanceidentifiedconcernswiththeapproachtoamendingastrataplanthatthenewactwouldremedy.341Theconcernsfocusedontheperceivedfailureofthepreviousleg-islationtoprovide“sufficientflexibility”forstratacorporationsthatwishedtoamendtheirstrataplans.342Specifically,theministry’sdiscussionpapercited:(1)afailureto“anticipatealltypesofpotentialreorganization”thatshouldbeaddressedbythelegislation;and(2)afailuretoallowstrata-lotowners“toproceedinde-pendentlyorwithotherrelevantownerswithoutinvolvingthestratacorporation,”338.SeeStrataTitlesAct,supranote25,ss4(4)(a)(transferofcommonpropertybystratacorpora-

tion),4(4)(b)(transferoflandstostratacorporation),16(1)(resubdivisionofstratalot).Re-subdivisioninvolvedchangingtheboundariesofastratalot.

339.SeeStrataTitlesAct,supranote26,ss12(dispositionofcommonproperty),14(acquisitionofproperty),31(resubdivisionofstratalots).Limitedcommonpropertyalsomakesitsfirstap-pearanceinthisact,butatthispointitdidn’tinvolveamendingastrataplan(seeibid,s29).

340.SeeStrataTitlesAmendmentAct1977(No2),supranote26,ss9(dispositionofcommonproper-ty),11(acquisitionofproperty),26(resubdivisionandconsolidationofstratalots).

341.SeeBritishColumbia,MinistryofFinanceandCorporateRelations,DiscussionPaper:Amend-mentstotheCondominiumAct(October1990).

342.Ibidat23.



incircumstancesinwhichthestrata-planamendment“doesnotaffectthestratacorporation.”343Theresultisthattheactcontainsproceduresforamendingstrataplansinthefol-lowingcases:

• todesignatelimitedcommonproperty;

• toaddto,consolidate,ordivideastratalot;

• tomakelandheldbythestratacorporationintoanewstratalot;

• toaddastratalottocommonproperty;

• tomakecommonpropertyintolandheldbythestratacorporation;and

• toaddlandheldbythestratacorporationtothecommonproperty.344Eachcasehasdistinctiveprocedures,requirements,andcircumstancesthataresummarizedinthesectionsthatfollow.Common procedural elements Beforediscussingthedistinctiveaspectsofeachofthelistedprocedures,thissectiondescribessomeelementsthatappearrepeatedlyinalloftheprocedures,exceptforoneoutlier—amendingastrataplantomakecommonpropertyintolandheldbythestratacorporation.345First,ineachcase,aresolutionisrequiredtoauthorizetheamendment.Asthereisconsiderablediversityinthetypesofresolutionsrequiredbythelegislation,thisre-quirementisdiscussedineachofthesectionsthatfollow.Second,anapplicationtoamendastrataplanmustineachcase,ofcourse,includeaplan.Ataminimum,theprocedurescallforareferenceplanoranexplanatoryplan.346Inonecase,theprocedurerequiresoneofareference,explanatory,orsub-divisionplan.347Thespecifictypeofplanthatmustbefiledunderagivenprocedure

343.Ibid.

344.LandTitlePracticeManual,supranote233,vol3at§53.747.

345.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s265(theamendmentrequiresasubdivisionofcommonproperty,soitsprocedurestrackthoseapplicabletothesubdivisionofland).

346.Seeibid,ss257(b)(i),259(3)(b)(i),262(3)(c)(i),263(2)(b)(i),266(3)(b)(i).

347.Seeibid,s259(3)(b)(i)(amendingstrataplantoaddto,consolidate,ordividestratalot).SeealsoLandTitleAct,supranote19,ss.1“explanatoryplan”(“meansaplanthat(a)isnotbasedonasurveybutonexistingdescriptions,plansorrecordsofthelandtitleoffice,and(b)iscertified



is,inallcases,“whichever[one]theregistrarrequires.”348Underalltheprocedures,theplanfiledmustbeonethat

• showstheamendment,and

• isinaformrequiredundertheLandTitleActfor[thetypeofplanfiled].349Undersomeoftheproceduresthatplanisalsorequiredtocomply,“asfarasthereg-istrarconsidersnecessary,”350withthegeneralrequirementsintheStrataPropertyActforstrataplansandaccompanyingdocuments.351Third,ifthestrata-planamendmentchangestheunitentitlementorvotingrightsofanystratalot,thenanewScheduleofUnitEntitlementoranewScheduleofVotingRightsmustbeincludedintheapplication,alongwith“evidenceofthesuperinten-dent[ofrealestate’s]approval”ofthechanges.352Finally,eachprocedurerequiresaCertificateofStrataCorporation(whichisapre-scribedformundertheact),certifyingthattheappropriateresolutionhasbeenpassedandthattheplan(andanysupportingdocument)submittedconformstotheresolution.353Designating limited common property Theactallowsfortheamendmentofastrataplantodesignatelimitedcommonpropertyortoremoveadesignationoflimitedcommonproperty.354Limitedcom-

correctinaccordancewiththerecordsofthelandtitleofficebyaBritishColumbialandsurvey-ororby(i)apersondesignatedundersection121(7)oftheForestActforthepurposeofthatsection,or(ii)theministerchargedwiththeadministrationoftheTransportationAct”),67(re-quirementsastosubdivisionandreferenceplans);LandTitlePracticeManual,supranote233,vol1at§§7.487(“AreferenceplanisbasedonagroundsurveydonebyaBritishColumbialandsurveyorandgenerallyreferstoasingleparcel.”),7.491(“Asubdivisionplanisbasedonagroundsurveyandcreatesnewparcelsforwhichtheregistrarregisterstitle.ABritishColumbialandsurveyorpreparesasubdivisionplan.”).

348.Seesupranote5,ss257(b)(i),259(3)(b)(i),262(3)(c)(i),263(2)(b)(i),266(3)(b)(i).

349.Ibid,ss257(b)(i)(A)–(B),259(3)(b)(i)(A),(C),262(3)(c)(i)(A),(C),263(2)(b)(i)(A),(C),266(3)(b)(i)(A),(C).

350.Ibid.,ss259(3)(b)(i)(B),262(3)(c)(i)(B),263(2)(b)(i)(B),266(3)(b)(i)(B).

351.Seeibid,ss244–245.

352.Ibid,ss259(3)(b)(iii),(iv),262(3)(c)(iii),(iv),263(2)(b)(ii),(iii).

353.Seeibid,ss257(b)(ii);259(3)(b)(v)(butonly“ifapprovaloftheamendmentisrequired”),262(3)(c)(v),263(2)(b)(iv),266(3)(b)(ii).

354.Seeibid,s257.See,above,at29–31(generaldiscussionoflimitedcommonproperty).



monpropertyis“commonpropertydesignatedfortheexclusiveuseoftheownersofoneormorestratalots.”355Astratacorporationthatwantstoamenditsstrataplantodesignatelimitedcom-monpropertyortoremovethatdesignationmustcompletethecommonproceduralelementsdiscussedintheprevioussection.Thekeyelementtobearinmindhereisthatthestrata-planamendmentmustbeauthorizedby“aresolutionapprovingtheamendment...passedbyaunanimousvoteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeet-ing.”356Thiselementisimportanttonoteinlightofthefactthattheactcontainstwootherwaystodesignatelimitedcommonproperty,neitherofwhichinvolvesamendingthestrataplanorobtainingaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.Theowner-developermaydesignatelimitedcommonpropertyonthestrataplanatthetimeitisdepositedinalandtitleoffice.Strictlyspeaking,noamendmentofthestrataplanoccurshere,sincethatplanthatisbeingdealtwithiswhatmaybecalledtheoriginalstrataplan.Theactalsopermitsthedesignationoflimitedcommonpropertybyawayofareso-lutionpassedatageneralmeetingbya3/4vote.357Althoughthisproceduredoescallforthefilingofasketchplaninthelandtitleoffice,358itdoesnotrequireorre-sultintheamendmentofthestrataplan.359Aparallelprocedureforremovingades-ignationoflimitedcommonpropertybywayofaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteisunavailableifthedesignationwasmadebytheowner-developerwhenthestrataplanwasdepositedorbyamendmentofthestrataplan.360Andfinally,theacthasaspecialsetofrulesthatapplytoonespecificcircumstanceinvolvingamendingastrataplantodesignatelimitedcommonproperty.Thiscir-cumstanceoccurswhenanowner-developeramendsthestrataplanatatimeafter

355.Ibid,s1(1)“limitedcommonproperty.”See,above,at35–36(considerationoftentativerecom-

mendationtoamendthedefinitionoflimitedcommonproperty).

356.Supranote5,s257(a).

357.Seeibid,s74.

358.Seeibid,s74(2).

359.Seeibid,s74(4).See,above,at73–74(considerationoftentativerecommendationregardingsketchplansinthesecases).




theplan’sfilingbutbeforethefirstannualgeneralmeetingofthestratacorporationtodesignateparkingstallsaslimitedcommonproperty.361Adding to, consolidating, or dividing a strata lot Theacthasanintricateprocedurethatappliestostrata-planamendmentsforadd-ingtoastratalot,consolidatingtwoormorestratalots,ordividingastratalottocreateoneormoresmallerstratalots.Theplacetostartinconsideringthisproce-dureisthelistofcommonelementsnotedearlierinthischapter.362Amendingthestrataplantoaddto,consolidate,ordivideastratalotrequirestheunanimousvoteofstrata-lotowners.363Butunliketheotherproceduresdiscussedinthischapter,thisprocedurealsocontainsalistofsituationsthatareexceptionstotherequirementforaunanimousresolution.

• First,todividearesidentialstratalotintotwoormorestratalots,an“amendmenttothestrataplan...mustbeapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting.”364

• Second,todivideotherkindsofstratalots,an“amendmenttothestrataplan...doesnotrequireanystratacorporationapprovalif

o “thecombinedunitentitlementofthe2ormorestratalotsbeingcreat-edisthesameasorlessthantheunitentitlementofthestratalotbeingdivided,

o “thetotalnumberofvotesofthe2ormorestratalotsbeingcreatedisthesameasorlessthanthenumberofvotesofthestratalotbeingdi-vided,and

o “theamendmentwillnotincreasetheshareofthecommonexpensesbornebyastratalot,otherthanthestratalotbeingdivided.”365

• Third,toconsolidatestratalots,an“amendmenttothestrataplan...doesnotrequireanystratacorporationapprovalif

361.Seeibid,s258.See,above,at45–51(considerationofparkingstallsandtentativerecommenda-

tionsregardingsection258).

362.See,above,at86–87.

363.Seesupranote5,s259(3)(“aresolutionapprovingtheamendmentmustbepassedbyaunani-mousvoteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting”).

364.Ibid,s.260(4).

365.Ibid.,s260(1).Thisruleisexpresslymadesubjecttotheruleforresidentialstratalotsins260(4).



o “theunitentitlementoftheconsolidatedstratalotisthesameasorlessthanthecombinedunitentitlementofthe2ormorestratalotsbeingconsolidated,

o “thetotalnumberofvotesoftheconsolidatedstratalotisthesameasorlessthanthenumberofvotesofthe2ormorestratalotsbeingcon-solidated,and

o “theamendmentwillnotincreasetheshareofthecommonexpensesbornebyastratalot,otherthanthestratalotsbeingconsolidated.”366

• Fourth,toaddpartofastratalottoanotherstratalot,an“amendmenttothestrataplan...doesnotrequireanystratacorporationapprovalif

o “thetotalunitentitlementofthe2stratalotsaftertheamendmentisthesameasorlessthanthetotalunitentitlementofthestratalotsbeforetheamendment,

o “thetotalnumberofvotesofthe2stratalotsaftertheamendmentisthesameasorlessthanthetotalnumberofvotesofthestratalotsbeforetheamendment,and

o “theamendmentwillnotincreasetheshareofthecommonexpensesbornebyastratalot,otherthanthestratalotsbeingaltered.”367

Localapprovals368anddocumentationrelatingtochargeholders’priorities369mayberequireddependingonthecircumstances.Finally,thisprocedurehasseveraloverridingrules:

• [A]strataplanmaynotbeamendedtodivideastratalotiftheamendmentwouldresultinastrataplanconsistingofbarelandstratalotsandstratalotsthatarenotbarelandstratalots.370

• Stratalotsmaynotbeconsolidatedunless

o theyareownedbythesameperson,and

366.Ibid,s260(2).

367.Ibid,s260(3).

368.Seeibid,s259(3)(b)(ii)(“ifastratalotisbeingdivided,acertificatesignedbyanapprovingof-ficerindicatingthattheproposedamendmentcomplieswithanyapplicablemunicipalorre-gionaldistrictbylaws,Nisga’aGovernmentlawsortreatyfirstnationlaws”).

369.Seeibid,s259(3)(b)(vi)(“anydocumentrequiredbytheregistrartoresolvethepriorityofin-terestsofanyholdersofregisteredchargesagainstthestratalotsbeingaltered”).

370.Ibid,s259(5).



o theholdersofregisteredchargesagainstthestratalotshavedealt,tothesatisfactionoftheregistrar,withtheissueofthepriorityoftheirinterestsastheywillapplytotheconsolidatedstratalot.371

Making land held by the strata corporation into a new strata lot Thisprovisionappliesto“[l]andthatisheldinthenameoforonbehalfofthestratacorporation,butnotshownonthestrataplan.”372Theprovisionsetsoutaproce-dureforaddingsuchlandtoanexistingstratalotorusingittocreateanewstratalot.Butthestrataplanmayonlybeamendedforthesepurposesifthelandinques-tion:

• sharesacommonboundarywithlandinthestrataplan;

• isseparatedonlybyahighway,dike,streamorrightofwayfromlandinthestrataplan,or

• isseparatedfromthelandinthestrataplan,buttheapprovingofficerissatisfiedthattheamendmenttothestrataplanwouldresultinaviabledevelopmentofbenefittothecom-munity.373

Further,“[a]stratalotinanotherstrataplanmaynotbeaddedtoastratalotorusedtocreateanewstratalotunderthissection.”374Amendingthestrataplanunderthisprovisionrequiresaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvoteatageneralmeetingonlyinthefollowingcircumstances:

• theamendmentwillchangetheunitentitlementofastratalot,

• theamendmentwilldecreasetherelativevotingpowerofastratalot,otherthanthestratalotbeingaddedtoorcreated,or

• theamendmentwillincreasetheshareofcommonexpensesbornebyastratalot,otherthanthestratalotbeingaddedtoorcreated.375

Ifnoneofthesecircumstancesispresent,thenthestrata-planamendmentmaybeapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote.376

371.Ibid,s259(1).

372.Ibid,s262(1).

373.Ibid.,s.262(1)(a)–(c).

374.Ibid,s262(2).

375.Ibid,s262(3)(b)(i)–(iii).

376.Seeibid,s262(3)(a).



Anapplicationtoamendthestrataplanunderthisprocedurealsorequiresthecommonproceduralelementsnotedearlier.377Anditrequireslocalapprovals,378atransfer,379anddocumentationrelatingtochargeholders’priorities.380Adding a strata lot to common property Thisprocedureallowsfortheadditionofastratalot(orpartofastratalot)tothestrata’scommonproperty.Thisamendmenttoastrataplanmayonlybemadeifthestratalotatissue“isfreeofmortgagesoranyotherchargesthatmayresultinatransferofanestateorinterestinthestratalot.”381Thisamendmentmustbeapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.382Theapplicationalsocallsforthecommonproceduralelementsnotedearlier,383“atransferofanylandthatisbeingaddedtothecommonproperty,”384and“anydocu-mentrequiredbytheregistrartoensurethatthelandbeingaddedtothecommonpropertyisfreeofmortgagesorcharges[thatmayresultinatransferofanestateorinterestinthestratalot].”385Making common property into land held by the strata corporation Amendingastrataplanunderthisprocedurerequires“[a]subdivisionofcommonproperty”386underpart7oftheLandTitleAct.387Amongtherequirementssetoutin


378.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s262(3)(c)(ii)(“acertificatesignedbyanapprovingof-ficerindicatingthattheproposedamendmentcomplieswithanyapplicablemunicipalorre-gionaldistrictbylaws,Nisga’aGovernmentlawsortreatyfirstnationlaws”).

379.Seeibid,s262(3)(c)(iv)(“atransferofanylandthatisbeingaddedtothestratalotormadein-toanewstratalot”).

380.Seeibid,s262(3)(c)(vi)(“anydocumentrequiredbytheregistrartoresolvethepriorityofin-terestsofanyholdersofregisteredchargesagainstthestratalotsbeingaltered”).

381.Ibid,s263(1).

382.Seeibid,s263(2)(a).


384.Supranote5,s263(2)(b)(v).

385.Ibid,s263(2)(b)(vi).

386.Ibid.,s265(1).

387.Supranote19,ss58–120.



theLandTitleActisarequirementtoobtaintheunanimousconsentoftheownersofthelandtothesubdivision.388Adding land held by the strata corporation to the common property Thisprocedureforamendingastrataplanappliesto“[l]andthatisheldinthenameoforonbehalfofthestratacorporation,butnotshownonthestrataplan.”389Suchlandmaybeaddedtoastrata’scommonpropertysolongas:

• itsharesacommonboundarywithlandinthestrataplan;

• itisseparatedonlybyahighway,dike,streamorrightofwayfromlandinthestrataplan;[or]

• itisseparatedfromthelandinthestrataplan,buttheapprovingofficerissatisfiedthattheamendmenttothestrataplanwouldresultinaviabledevelopmentofbenefittothecom-munity.390

Twootherconditionsapplytothisprocedure:

• thelandinquestion“maynotbeaddedtothecommonpropertyunlessitisfreeofmortgagesandotherchargesreferredtoinsection263(1)”391—thatis,it’sfreeofmortgagesorotherchargesthat“mayresultinatransferofanestateorinterest”intheland;392and

• “[a]stratalotinanotherstrataplanmaynotbeaddedtothecommonprop-erty”bywayofthisprocedure.393

Unliketheotherproceduresdescribedinthischapter,thisproceduredoesnotre-quireapprovalbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.Inallcases,aresolutionpassedbya3/4voteissufficienttoauthorizethisamendmenttothestrataplan.394

388.Seeibid,s97(1)(“Asubdivisionplanmustbesignedbyeachownerofthelandsubdivided.”).

389.StrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s.266(1).

390.Ibid,s266(1)(a)–(c).

391.Ibid,s266(1).

392.Ibid,s263(1)(“Astratalotorpartofastratalotmaynotbeaddedtocommonpropertyunlessitisfreeofmortgagesoranyotherchargesthatmayresultinatransferofanestateorinterestinthestratalot.”).

393.Ibid,s266(2).

394.Seeibid,s266(3)(a).



Theotherrequirementsforanapplicationunderthisprocedurearethecommonproceduralelementsnotedearlier,395“anydocumentrequiredbytheregistrartore-solvethepriorityofinterestsofanyholdersofregisteredchargesagainstthelandheldinthenameoforonbehalfofthestratacorporation,”396and“anydocumentre-quiredbytheregistrartoensurethatthelandbeingaddedtothecommonpropertyisfreeofmortgagesorcharges[thatmayresultinatransferofanestateorinterestinthelandheldbythestratacorporation].”397Should the Strata Property Act continue to require a resolution passed by a unanimous vote to authorize amending a strata plan to designate limited common property? Brief description of the issue Whenlimitedcommonpropertyisdesignatedbyanamendmenttothestrataplan,oneoftherequirementsisthatthedesignationbeapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.398Thissetsthehighestvotingthresholdforthestratacorpora-tiontoclear.Shouldthethresholdbeloweredtoan80-percentvote?Discussion of options for reform Alowervotingthresholdgivesastratamoreflexibilitytodesignatelimitedcommonproperty.ThisaddedflexibilitywouldbeconsistentwiththeoneofthestatedgoalsoftheStrataPropertyAct’sapproachtoamendingastrataplan.399Athresholdsetatalevellowerthanunanimityalsoreducestheprospectofthevastmajorityofthestratacorporationfindingitswillthwartedbytheopposingviewsofasmallminority.Thiscansetupthekindsofconflictsthatthecommitteeexaminedinrelationtoterminatingastrata.400Thecompositionanddirectionofthestratacorporationcanbedictatedbyanintransigentminority,overthewishesofthema-joritygroup.Theunanimityrequirementcanevenhamperastratacorporation’s


396.Supranote5,s.266(3)(b)(iii).

397.Ibid,s266(3)(b)(iv).

398.Seeibid,s257(a).


400.SeeReportonTerminatingaStrata,supranote9at53–55.



abilitytoactincasesinwhichthecompositionofcommonpropertyhascometodif-ferfromitsdepictioninthestrataplan.401Finally,loweringthevotingthresholdwouldbringthiscorneroftheStrataPropertyActintoalignmentwithrecentchangestotheact’sterminationprovisions.402Butthereareanumberoffactorsthatmightservetodistinguishthistopicfromterminatingastrata.Unlikethecaseforterminatingastrata,designatinglimitedcommonpropertymaybedonebyothermeansthanamendingthestrataplan.403Relyingonthisalternativeprocedureavoidstherequirementtoobtainaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.404Anotherconsiderationtobearinmindisthatdesignatinglimitedcommonpropertyandterminatingastratamaynotbeperceivedasanalogoussituations.Thetwotransactionsdeliverstarklydifferentresults,sotheremightbeasolidrationaleforthemhavingdifferentvotingthresholds.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteefavouredloweringthevotingthresholdrequiredforaresolutiontoauthorizeamendingastrataplantodesignatelimitedcommonproperty.Initsview,thischangetothevotingthresholdwouldlendsomeneededflexibilitytothisproce-dure.Itwouldhelptoensurethattheprocedurecouldbeusedwhenthevastmajor-ityofthestratacorporationfavoursitsuse.Thecommitteeunderstandsthatthismethodofdesignatinglimitedcommonprop-ertyisn’tusedofteninpractice.Anumberoffactors,inadditiontothehighvotingthreshold,accountfortheprocedure’slackofpopularity.Thecostoftheprocedureoftenmakesitanundesirablerouteforstratacorporationstochoose.But,thatsaid,

401.SeeReOwnersofStrataPlanNW2212,2010BCSC519(applicationbystratacorporationforre-

liefofsignificantlyunfairaction—stratamadeupoftownhouseswithyards—belatedlydiscov-eredthatdeveloperinstalledfencesthatdidnotcorrespondtoboundariesonstrataplan—majorityseekingamendmenttostrataplan,butthreeownersnotinfavour—ratherthanholdingvote,stratacorporationapplyingtocourtforrelief—courtdismissingapplication).SeealsoStra-taPropertyRegulation,supranote6,s14.12(powerforregistraroflandtitlestocorrecterrorsinstrataplan).

402.Seesupranote5,ss272(1),277(1).

403.Seeibid,s74.

404.Seeibid,s74(1)(“Commonpropertymaybedesignatedaslimitedcommonpropertybyareso-lutionpassedbya3/4voteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting.”).



loweringthevotingthresholdshouldbeanincrementalimprovementtothelegisla-tionbyremovingoneroadblocktousingthisprocedureinappropriatecases.Thevastmajorityofresponsesintheconsultationagreedwiththecommittee’spro-posedreform.Thecommitteerecommends:17.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirearesolutionpassedbyan80-percentvotetoauthorizeamendingastrataplantodesignatelimitedcommonproperty.Should the Strata Property Act continue to require a resolution passed by a unanimous vote to authorize amending a strata plan to remove a designation of limited common property? Brief description of the issue Amendingastrataplantoremoveadesignationoflimitedcommonpropertyalsorequiresauthorizationbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.405Inviewoftherecommendationtolowerthevotingthresholdrequiredtoauthorizeamendingthestrataplantodesignatelimitedcommonproperty,shouldthevotingthresholdre-quiredtoauthorizeamendingthestrataplantoremoveadesignationoflimitedcommonpropertyalsobelowered?Discussion of options for reform Theoptionsforthisissuearesimilartothosediscussedforthepreviousissue.Low-eringthevotingthresholdwillmakethelegislationmoreflexibleandwillensurethatthisproceduremaybeusedwhenthevastmajoritysupportsitsuse.Itcanguardagainstthewillofthatmajoritybeingthwartedbyaverysmallnumberofstrata-lotowners.Inaddition,loweringthevotingthresholdinthiscasewillharmo-nizethisprocedurewiththealliedprocedurefordesignatinglimitedcommonprop-erty.Thatsaid,theremaybereasonstotreatremovingadesignationdifferentlyfromcreatingthedesignationinthefirstplace.Thedesignationoflimitedcommonprop-ertyoftenbenefitsasinglestratalot.Inmanycases,thatstratalot’sownerbears405.Seeibid,s257(“Toamendastrataplantodesignatelimitedcommonproperty,ortoamenda

strataplantoremoveadesignationoflimitedcommonpropertymadebytheownerdeveloperatthetimethestrataplanwasdepositedorbyamendmentofthestrataplan,thestrataplanmustbeamendedasfollows:(a)aresolutionapprovingtheamendmentmustbepassedbyaunanimousvoteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting”[emphasisadded]).



muchofthecostofamendingthestrataplan.Makingthedesignationvulnerabletobeingremovedwithoutthatowner’sconsentwouldcreateuncertaintyaboutthedu-rabilityofusingthisproceduretodesignatelimitedcommonproperty.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteewrestledwiththisissue.Itacknowledgedthatproposingtwodiffer-entvotingthresholdswherepreviouslyonlyoneexistedwouldmakethelegislationmorecomplex.Itcouldalsobeseenbysomeascreatingapuzzlinginconsistency.But,inthecommittee’sview,theseproceduresrespondtotwodifferentfactualsitu-ations.So,atbottom,thereisnocontradictioninoutfittingthemwithdifferentvot-ingthresholds.Inthecommittee’sview,loweringthevotingthresholdforamendingastrataplantoremoveadesignationoflimitedcommonpropertywouldopenthedoortoabusesoftheprocedure.Sothecommitteeproposesretainingthecurrentthreshold.Asolidmajorityofconsultationrespondentsagreedwiththecommittee’sproposalonthisissue.Thecommitteerecommends:18.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetorequirearesolutionpassedbyaunani-mousvotetoauthorizeamendingastrataplantoremoveadesignationoflimitedcommonproperty.Should the Strata Property Act Continue to Require a Resolution Passed by a Unanimous Vote to Authorize Amending a Strata Plan to Add to, Consolidate, or Divide a Strata Lot? Brief description of the issue Astratacorporationgenerallymustbeauthorizedbyaresolutionpassedbyaunan-imousvoteinordertoamendthestrataplantoaddto,consolidate,ordivideastratalot.406(Thisgeneralrequirementissubjecttoalistofexceptions.)407Shouldthevot-ingthresholdbeloweredforthisprocedure?406.Seeibid,s259(3)(a).

407.Seeibid,s260(“(1)Subjecttosubsection(4),anamendmenttothestrataplantodivideastratalotinto2ormorestratalotsdoesnotrequireanystratacorporationapprovalif(a)thecom-binedunitentitlementofthe2ormorestratalotsbeingcreatedisthesameasorlessthantheunitentitlementofthestratalotbeingdivided,(b)thetotalnumberofvotesofthe2ormorestratalotsbeingcreatedisthesameasorlessthanthenumberofvotesofthestratalotbeing



Discussion of options for reform Theprosandconsofthisproposedreformaresimilartothoseconsideredintheprevioustwoissues.Loweringthevotingthresholdforaresolutionauthorizingadd-ingto,consolidating,ordividingastratalotwouldbuildgreaterflexibilityintotheact.Itwouldalsoincreasethelikelihoodthatalargemajorityofstrata-lotownerswouldgettheirwayonamendingastrataplaninthisfashion.Butit’simportanttonotethatthisprocedureforamendingastrataplanincludesanextensivesetofexemptionsfromtherequirementtoauthorizetheamendmentbypassingaresolutionbyaunanimousvote.Asaresultoftheseexemptions,inmanycasesthestrata-planamendmentcanbeauthorizedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteorwithoutanyapprovalbythestratacorporationatall.Theseexemptionsmayshiftthemainquestiontowhetherthisprocedureforamendingastrataplanre-quiresanygreaterflexibilitythanwhattheexceptionsalreadybuildintothelegisla-tion.The committee’s recommendation for reform Whilethecommitteeconsideredloweringthevotingthresholdforthisprocedureforthesakeofconsistency,itdecidedagainstmakingthatrecommendation.Thecommitteenotedthatthisprocedureislittle-usedinpractice.Whenitdoestendtobeused,oneoftheexceptionsislikelytoapply.Inthecommittee’sview,theexistingexceptionsundercuttheneedtoamendthelegislation.Consultationrespondentssupportedthecommittee’sproposalonthisissue,byastrongmajority.

divided,and(c)theamendmentwillnotincreasetheshareofthecommonexpensesbornebyastratalot,otherthanthestratalotbeingdivided.(2)Anamendmenttothestrataplantoconsol-idate2ormorestratalotsdoesnotrequireanystratacorporationapprovalif(a)theunitenti-tlementoftheconsolidatedstratalotisthesameasorlessthanthecombinedunitentitlementofthe2ormorestratalotsbeingconsolidated,(b)thetotalnumberofvotesoftheconsolidatedstratalotisthesameasorlessthanthenumberofvotesofthe2ormorestratalotsbeingcon-solidated,and(c)theamendmentwillnotincreasetheshareofthecommonexpensesbornebyastratalot,otherthanthestratalotsbeingconsolidated.(3)Anamendmenttothestrataplantoaddpartofastratalottoanotherstratalotdoesnotrequireanystratacorporationapprovalif(a)thetotalunitentitlementofthe2stratalotsaftertheamendmentisthesameasorlessthanthetotalunitentitlementofthestratalotsbeforetheamendment,(b)thetotalnumberofvotesofthe2stratalotsaftertheamendmentisthesameasorlessthanthetotalnumberofvotesofthestratalotsbeforetheamendment,and(c)theamendmentwillnotincreasetheshareofthecommonexpensesbornebyastratalot,otherthanthestratalotsbeingaltered.(4)Anamend-menttothestrataplantodividearesidentialstratalotinto2ormorestratalotsmustbeap-provedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4voteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting.”).



Thecommitteerecommends:19.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinue,inthosecasesnotcoveredbyanexemp-tion,torequirearesolutionpassedbyaunanimousvotetoauthorizeamendingastra-taplantoaddto,consolidate,ordivideastratalot.Should the Strata Property Act Continue to Require a Resolution Passed by a Unanimous Vote to Authorize Amending a Strata Plan to Add a Strata Lot to Common Property? Brief description of the issue Amendingastrataplantoaddastratalottothecommonpropertyrequiresauthori-zationbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.408Unliketheproceduredis-cussedinthepreviousissueforreform,therequirementinthisprocedureisn’tsub-jecttoanyexceptions.Shouldthevotingthresholdbeloweredfromaunanimousvotetoan80-percentvote?Discussion of options for reform Similaroptionsandconsiderationsariseforthisissueasforthepreviousones.Alowervotingthresholdwouldgivestratacorporationsmoreflexibilityinmakingdecisionsaboutwhethertoaddastratalottocommonproperty.Alowerthresholdwouldalsomakeitmoreunlikelythatthewillofthemajoritycouldbeblockedbyasmall,intransigentminority.Finally,changingthevotingthresholdwouldalsocreateanopportunitytoalignthisprocedurewiththenewthresholdforterminatingastrata.409Themainadvantageofthecurrentrequirementisthatitprovidesenhancedprotec-tionforallstrata-lotowners.Addingastratalottocommonpropertymayaffecttheunitentitlementorvotingrightsofotherstratalots.Changestovotingrightsandunitentitlementmay,inturn,affectastrata-lotowner’sresponsibilityforstrataex-penses,abilitytoshapedecision-making,andothermattersconcerningthestrataproperty.

408.Seeibid,s263(2)(a).

409.Seeibid,ss272(1),277(1).



The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteefavouredloweringthevotingthresholdinthiscase.Itwouldbuildsomeflexibilityintothelegislationandwouldmakeitconsistentwithrecentchang-estothelegislationgoverningtermination.Thecommittee’sproposedreformcommandedwidespreadsupportinthepublicconsultation.Thecommitteerecommends:20.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirearesolutionpassedbyan80-percentvotetoauthorizeamendingastrataplantoaddastratalottocommonproperty.

Issues for Reform—Schedules to the Strata Plan Accompanying documents to the strata plan TheStrataPropertyActsetsoutalistofdocumentsthatanowner-developermustdepositinthelandtitleofficealongwiththestrataplan.Thesedocumentsincludethestratacorporation’smailingaddress,410“anybylawsthatdifferinanyrespectfromtheStandardBylaws,”411andextracopiesofthestrataplan,intheamounttheregistraroflandtitlesrequires.412Theyalsoincludeuptotwoschedules:

• aScheduleofUnitEntitlement,whichmustbeincludedinallcases;413and

• aScheduleofVotingRights,whichmustbeincluded“ifvotingrightsaresetoutinaschedule”—thatis,ifvotingrightsinthestratacorporationdepartfromthedefaultstatutoryruleofonevoteperstratalot.414

410.Seeibid,s245(c),Seealsoibid,s62(1)(“Thestratacorporationmustensurethatthecorrect

mailingaddressforthestratacorporationisfiledinthelandtitleoffice.”).

411.Ibid,s245(d).

412.Seeibid,s245(e).

413.Seeibid,s245(a).TheScheduleofUnitEntitlementmustbeintheprescribedform.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote6,FormV.

414.Supranote5,s245(b).Seealsoibid,ss53(1),247,248,264(thecombinedeffectoftheseprovi-sionslimitsdeparturesfromthedefaultruletocasesinwhichastrataplancontainsatleastonenonresidentialstratalotorinwhichastrataplanconsistingentirelyofresidentialstratalotshasseenanamendmenttoitsScheduleofUnitEntitlement).TheScheduleofVotingRightsmustbeintheprescribedform.SeeStrataPropertyRegulation,supranote6,FormW.



Thetwoschedulesarethefocusofthispartofthischapter.Theprimefocusoftheissuesthatfollowagainconcernwhetheravotingthresholdmaybeloweredfromaunanimousvotetoan80-percentvote.ThisvotingthresholdapplieswhenastratacorporationisamendingtheScheduleofUnitEntitlement.Italsoapplieswhenastratacorporationwantstochangethebasisofstratalots’contributionstopayingforcommonexpenses,eitherbywayofstratafeesorspeciallevy.Finally,thispartlooksatthecomplexprovisionsapplyingtofilingaScheduleofVot-ingrightsandrecommendschangesthatconnectwiththecommittee’srecommen-dationsconcerningamendingastrataplan.Amending the Schedule of Unit Entitlement AmendingaScheduleofUnitEntitlementisapparently“notuncommon”inprac-tice.415Thedesiretodosotendstobeaconsequenceofrenovationsandotherprac-ticalchangestoastrataproperty:“[t]ypicalsituationsinvolveenclosingdecks,con-vertingcrawlspacesandatticstolivingspace,constructinglofts,andcorrectingap-parenterrorsonthestrataplan.”416TheStrataPropertyActdoesn’tcontainacomprehensivemechanismthatallowsastratatoamenditsScheduleofUnitEntitlementinallcases.Instead,itsapproachissimilartothewaytheactapproachesamendingastrataplan.Thereareanumberofmechanisms,eachratherlimitedinscope,thatprovideameansforastratatoamenditsScheduleofUnitEntitlement.Thefocusoftheissueforreformisonacon-sensualmethod,whichallowsastratacorporationtoamenditsScheduleofUnitEn-titlementifallitseligiblevotersagreetodoso.Butit’sworthnotingthatthecom-mitteereviewedeachlegislativemethodinfull,toensurethatitsrecommendationswouldmeshwiththefulllegislativescheme.Amendment by resolution passed by a unanimous vote TheStrataPropertyActallowsastratatoamenditsScheduleofUnitEntitlementbywayofaunanimousvote,butthismechanismonlyappliesinlimitedcircumstances.Itonlyappliestoastratapropertywithaconventionalstrataplan,whichhasusedhabitableareaasthebasisforcalculatingtheunitentitlementofresidentialstratalots.417


416.Ibid.

417.Seesupranote5,s.261(1)(allowingamendment“toreflectachangeinthehabitableareaofaresidentialstratalotinastrataplaninwhichtheunitentitlementofthestratalotiscalculated



Twosectionsoftheactarerelevanttothismechanism.Thefirstissection70,whichdealswithchangestoastratalot.ThissectionimposesarequirementtoamendtheScheduleofUnitEntitlementif,asaresultofphysicalchangestoastratalot,itshab-itableareaisincreasedordecreased.418Section261setsoutthedetailedprocedureforamendingtheScheduleofUnitEnti-tlement.Thisprocedurecallsforaresolutionofthestratacorporationpassedbyaunanimousvote,theapprovalofthesuperintendentofrealestate,andanapplica-tiontoaregistraroflandtitles.419Theregistrarisrequired,“ifsatisfiedthattheapplicationandaccompanyingdocu-mentstoamendtheScheduleofUnitEntitlementcomplywiththerequirementsofthisActandtheregulations,”to“file”theamendedschedule.420ItbearsunderliningthatthisproceduretoamendaScheduleofUnitEntitlementisfarfromcomprehensiveinscope.Itdoesn’tapplytoanonresidentialstratalot.Ital-sodoesn’tapplytoaresidentialstratalot,ifthestratalot’sunitentitlementhasbeencalculatedbysomemeansotherthanhabitablearea(suchasawholenumberthatisthesameforallresidentialstratalots).421Finally,theregulationsprovideanexemp-

onthebasisofhabitableareainaccordancewithsection246(3)(a)(i)oronthebasisofsquarefootageinaccordancewithsection1oftheCondominiumAct”).

418.Seeibid,s70(4)(“Subjecttotheregulations,ifanownerwishestoincreaseordecreasethehab-itablepartoftheareaofaresidentialstratalot,bymakinganonhabitablepartofthestratalothabitableorbymakingahabitablepartofthestratalotnonhabitable,andtheunitentitlementofthestratalotiscalculatedonthebasisofhabitableareainaccordancewithsection246(3)(a)(i)oronthebasisofsquarefootageinaccordancewithsection1oftheCondominiumAct,R.S.B.C.1996,c.64,theownermust(a)seekanamendmenttotheScheduleofUnitEntitlementundersection261,and(b)obtaintheunanimousvotereferredtoinsection261beforemakingthechange.”).Theregulationsallowanownerwhowishestodecreasethehabitableareaofastratalotwithoutchangingitsunitentitlementtoavoidcompliancewithsection70(4).Seesu-pranote6,s5.1(1)(“Anownerwhowishestodecreasethehabitablepartoftheareaofaresi-dentialstratalotwithoutamendingtheScheduleofUnitEntitlementneednotcomplywiththerequirementssetoutinsection70(4)oftheAct.”).SeealsoBarrett,supranote89;HassanvTheOwners,StrataPlanLMS2854,2018BCCRT303.


420.Ibid,s261(2).

421.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§3.43(speculatingthat“s.261is[also]notavailablewhereanexistingstratacorporationwishestochangeitsunitenti-tlementtothesamenumberforeachstratalot”).



tionforchangesthatwouldresultinaminoramendmentoftheScheduleofUnitEn-titlement.422Amendment as a consequence of a strata-plan amendment Theactalsocontainsaprocedureforamendingastrataproperty’sScheduleofUnitEntitlementasaconsequenceofanamendmenttothestrataplan.423Thisprocedureappliestothefollowingchangestoastrataplan:

• amendingastrataplantoaddto,consolidate,ordivideastratalot;424

• amendingastrataplantomakelandheldbyastratacorporationintoanewstratalot;425and

• amendingastrataplantoaddastratalottocommonproperty.426Thisprovisioncan’tbeusedtochangetheformulausedtocalculateunitentitle-ment.AnamendedScheduleofUnitEntitlementunderthisprovisionmustuse“thesameformulaforcalculationsthatwasusedtoestablishtheScheduleofUnitEnti-tlementthatisbeingreplaced.”427Theprovision’srationaleistobringthescheduleintolinewiththechangesbroughtaboutbythestrata-planamendment.Amendment by application to supreme court TheStrataPropertyActhasadedicatedprovisionallowinganapplicationtocourtforanordertoamendastrataproperty’sScheduleofUnitEntitlement.428Thepur-poseofthisprovisionistoallowthestratacorporationtocorrectadiscrepancybe-tweentheunitentitlementofastratalotandtheactualhabitableareaofthestrata

422.Seesupranote6,s5.1(2)(“Anownerwhowishestoincreasethehabitablepartoftheareaofa

residentialstratalotwithoutamendingtheScheduleofUnitEntitlementneednotcomplywiththerequirementssetoutinsection70(4)oftheActif(a)theincreasetothehabitablepart,combinedwithanypreviousincreasetothehabitablepart,islessthan10%ofthehabitablepartandlessthan20squaremetres,and(b)theownerobtainsthepriorwrittenapprovalofthestra-tacorporation.”).


424.Seeibid,s259.

425.Seeibid,s262.

426.Seeibid,s263.

427.Ibid,s264(1).

428.Seeibid,s246(7)–(8).



lot.Onejudgehascalledita“‘recalculationremedy.’”429But,likethepreviouslydis-cussedprocedures,thisprovisionisonlyavailableinlimitedcircumstances.Theprovisionallows“anownerorthestratacorporation”toapplytothesupremecourtforanordertoamendthestrataproperty’sScheduleofUnitEntitlement.430Ontheprovision’sface,itcontainsthefollowinglimitations:

• theprovisiononlyappliesto“aresidentialstratalot”;431

• theunitentitlementmustbe“calculatedonthebasisofhabitablearea...oronthebasisofsquarefootageinaccordancewithsection1oftheCondomin-iumAct”;432and

• “theactualhabitableareaorsquarefootageisnotaccuratelyreflectedintheunitentitlementofthestratalotasshownontheScheduleofUnitEntitle-ment.”433

Morelimitationsarefoundintheregulations.First,acourtapplicationunderthisprocedureisnotavailableifthestratacorporationwantstoamendwhatmaybecalleditsoriginalScheduleofUnitEntitlement—thatis,theschedulethatwasde-positedinthelandtitleofficeatthetimethestratapropertywascreated.434Second,thereisakindofmaterialitytestappliedtocourtapplicationsinvolvingtheamend-edschedule.Theunit-entitlementfigurethatisthesubjectoftheapplicationmustvaryfromtheactualhabitableareaofthestratalotbyatleast10percentorby20squaremetres(orboth).435

429.KranzvTheOwners,StrataPlanVR29,2004BCCA108atpara7[Kranz],FinchCJ.


431.Ibid,s246(7)(a).

432.Ibid,s246(7)(a).

433.Ibid,s246(7)(b).

434.Seesupranote6,s14.13(“Anapplicationmustnot,afterNovember24,2009,bebroughtundersection246(7)oftheActinrespectofastratalot(a)iftheinaccuracyreferredtoinsec-tion246(7)(b)oftheActwascontainedintheScheduleofUnitEntitlementatthetimeofthedepositofthestrataplaninalandtitleoffice.”).SeealsoBarrett,supranote89.

435.Seeibid,s14.13(b)(applicationmustnotbebrought“unlessoneorbothofthefollowingcondi-tionsapply:(i)theactualhabitableareaorsquarefootageofthestratalotisatleast10%greaterthan,oratleast10%lessthan,thehabitableareaorsquarefootageusedtodeterminetheunitentitlementofthestratalot;(ii)theactualhabitableareaorsquarefootageofthestratalotisatleast20squaremetresgreaterthan,oratleast20squaremetreslessthan,thehabitableareaorsquarefootageusedtodeterminetheunitentitlementofthestratalot”).SeealsoKranz,supranote429atpara14(holdingthatchambersjudge“wascorrectinholdingthatthepetitionerhad



Underthisprovisionoftheact,“thecourthasnodiscretiontomodifyaScheduleofUnitEntitlementasthecourtthinksfittoallocateafairportionofcommonexpensesamongownersofstratalots.”436Thecourt’sroleisconstrainedtochoosebetweenacceptingtheamendmenttothescheduleorrejectingit.437Correction of errors in a registered strata plan Theregulationscontainaprovisionthatallowsaregistrartocorrecterrorsina“reg-isteredstrataplan.”438Thistermisdefinedexpansively;itincludesaScheduleofUnitEntitlement.439Errorisalsoadefinedterm:itmeans“anyerroneousmeasure-mentorerror,defectoromissioninaregisteredstrataplan.”440“Ifitappearstotheregistrarthatthereisanerrorinanyregisteredstrataplan,”thentheregistrarmay,aftergivingnoticetointerestedpartiesandhearingtheirsubmission,decideto“correcttheerror.”441Significant unfairness AsecondpossiblemeansforamendingaScheduleofUnitEntitlement—orachievingaresultthatistheequivalenttoanamendment—isbywayofanapplicationtothesupremecourtforanorderunderthecourt’spowertopreventorremedyunfairacts.442Anumberoflitigantshavearguedthatastrataproperty’sScheduleofUnitEntitlementissignificantlyunfairandthatthecourthasthepowerunderthissec-tiontoremedytheperceivedunfairness.443Inmostinstances,theseapplications

notestablishedthe‘thresholdtest’ofa10%differentialbetweentheactualhabitablearea,andtheareausedtocalculatetheunitentitlementofLotA”).

436.Mangan,supranote4at188.

437.Ibid.SeealsoFenwickvParks,2004BCSC1132atpara57,BurnyeatJ(courtorderingamend-mentstoScheduleofUnitEntitlementunderthisprocedure).

438.Seesupranote6,s14.12.

439.Seeibid,s14.12(1)“registeredstrataplan”(“includesanydocument,depositedinthelandtitleoffice,that(a)isreferredtoinsection245(a)or(b)oftheAct,(b)formspartofastrataplanundertheCondominiumAct,R.S.B.C.1996,c.64oraformerAct,or(c)amendsorreplacesadoc-umentreferredtoinparagraph(a)or(b)”).Section245liststhedocumentsthataccompanyastrataplan,oneofwhichisaScheduleofUnitEntitlement.Seesupranote5,s245(a).

440.Supranote6,s14.12(1)“error.”

441.Ibid,s14.12(2).

442.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s164.

443.SeeLiverantvTheOwners,StrataPlanVIS-5996,2010BCSC286[Liverant];PeacevTheOwners,StrataPlanVIS165,2009BCSC1791[Peace];StrataPlanVR1767(Owners)vSevenEstateLtd,



havebeenunsuccessful.444Butinonecase,thecourtgrantedanapplicantareme-dy.445Commentaryonthiscasehasbeenmixed.Onecommentatorhasessentiallycharac-terizedthecaseasadeadend,notingthat,intheabsenceofspecificmachineryintheacttoprovideforamendmentofaScheduleofUnitEntitlementduetoitsunfair-ness,theschedulecan’tpracticallybeamended.446Sothecourt’sorderinthiscaseendsup“compromis[ing]theintegrityoftheregisteroflandtitles,byoverridingtheregisteredstrataplanandscheduleswithoutamendingthem.”447Butanothercom-mentatorhassaidthat,ingrantingaremedy,thecourthas“effectivelycreatedafourthmethodforchangingunitentitlement.”448Land Title Act OnecommentatorhasspeculatedthattheLandTitleAct449givesaregistraroflandtitlesthescopetoamendaScheduleofUnitEntitlement,byvirtueoftheregistrar’spowertocorrecterrors,defects,andomissions,450whichcan“[a]rguably”beex-

2002BCSC381[SevenEstate].SeealsoLuckvTheOwners,StrataPlanNW1370,2019BCCRT359atparas33–34(“Ifindthattheinequitabledivisionofstrata-relatedexpensesandcontribu-tionsandtheapplicant’srequestedremedyofcompensationarecloselylinkedtotheunitenti-tlementissue,overwhichIhavenojurisdiction.Section11(1)(c)ofthe[CivilResolutionTribunalAct]providesthatthetribunalmayrefusetoresolveaclaimordisputewithinitsjurisdictioniftheissuesintheclaimordisputearetoocomplexforthedisputeresolutionprocessorother-wiseimpracticalforthetribunaltoresolve.Giventhattheamendmentofthescheduleofuniten-titlementcanbedealtwithonlybytheBritishColumbiaSupremeCourt,Ifindthatitwouldbeimpracticalformetoconsiderthesignificantunfairnessissueinisolation.ThisisparticularlysogiventhepotentialforsignificantunfairnesstootherstratalotownersifIweretoaddresstheapplicant’srequestedremedyforcompensation.”).

444.SeeLiverant,supranote443atpara23,SmithJ(“Althoughthecourthasbroadjurisdictionun-ders.164,Iamnotsatisfiedthatjurisdictionextendstochangingtheunitentitlement.”);Peace,supranote443atparas48–60,SewellJ.

445.SeeSevenEstate,supranote443atpara58,MartinsonJ.

446.SeeBritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§2.41(“Regardless,theregisteredstrataplanandScheduleofUnitEntitlementhavenotbeenamended,andcannotbeamendedintheabsenceofaStrataPropertyActprovisionexpresslypermittinganamend-ment.”).

447.Ibid.


449.Supranote19.

450.Ibid.,s106(1)(“Ifitappearstotheregistrar,onthefilingofsatisfactoryevidence,includingaplanorotherinstrumenttheregistrarmayrequire,thatthereisanerror,defectoromissioninadepositedplan,theregistrarmaycorrecttheplan.”).



tended“tocorrectastrataplaninanappropriatecase.”451Butthecommentatoralsothrowssomecoldwateronthisidea,notingthat“theRegistrar’spowertocorrectanerrorexistsonlywheretheerrormaybecorrectedwithoutprejudicingrightsac-quiredingoodfaithandforvalue.”452Thisqualificationmeansthat,eveniftheregis-trar’spowerexistsundertheLandTitleAct,“inmanycasestheRegistrarwillnotbeabletochangethescheduleifthecorrectioncouldadverselyaffecttherightsofoth-erownerswhopurchasedtheirstratalotswithoutanyknowledgeoftheallegeder-ror.”453Changing the basis of contribution to shared expenses Section99setsoutthegeneralruleforcalculatingstratafees.Theprovisionestab-lishesthefollowingformula,whichusesunitentitlementasitsbasis,for“astratalot’sshareofthecontributiontotheoperatingfundandcontingencyreservefund”:

unitentitlementofstratalotx totalcontribution.454totalunitentitlementofallstrata

lotsTheregulationscontainspecialrules,settingoutformulasthatapplytosharingex-pensesrelatedtolimitedcommonproperty,455toastratacorporationwithtypesofstratalots,456andtoastratacorporationthathastakenresponsibilityfortherepair


452.Ibid.SeealsoLandTitleAct,supranote19,s383(1)(“Ifitappearstotheregistrarthat(a)anin-strumenthasbeenissuedinerrororcontainsamisdescription,or(b)anendorsementhasbeenmadeoromittedinerroronaregisterorinstrument,whethertheinstrumentisintheregis-trar’scustodyorhasbeenproducedtotheregistrarundersummons,theregistrarmay,sofaraspracticable,withoutprejudicingrightsacquiredingoodfaithandforvalue,(c)canceltheregis-tration,instrumentorendorsement,or(d)correcttheerrorinorsupplytheentryomittedontheregisterorinstrumentoranendorsementmadeonit,orinacopyofaninstrumentmadeinorissuedfromthelandtitleoffice.”).


454.Supranote5,s99(2).Ifthestratahassections,thenanequivalentformulaisusedforsharingexpenseswithinthesection.Seeibid,s195(1).Seealsoibid,s166(2)(“Astratalot’sshareofajudgmentagainstthestratacorporationiscalculatedinaccordancewithsection99(2)or100(1)asiftheamountofthejudgmentwereacontributiontotheoperatingfundandcontin-gencyreservefund,andanowner’sliabilityislimitedtothatproportionateshareofthejudg-ment.”).





andmaintenanceofspecifiedportionsofsomebutnotallofthestratalots.457Thesespecialruleswereconsideredearlierinthisproject.458Theactalsoallowsstratacorporationstooverridethegeneralrule,byadoptingtheirownformulaforsharingcontributionstoexpenses.Thesectionsthatfollowexaminetheact’sprovisionsforcontributionstotheoperatingandthecontingencyreservefundsandforspeciallevies.Change to basis for calculation of contribution to operating fund and contingency reserve fund Astratacorporationisallowedtochangethebasisforcalculatingcontributionstoitsoperatingfundandcontingencyreservefund.Tomakesuchachangeitmust,“[a]tanannualorspecialgeneralmeetingheldafterthefirstannualgeneralmeet-ing,”adopta“aresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote”settingoutthestrata’sagreementtouseaformuladifferentthantheoneestablishedbythegeneralrule.459Astratacorporationisnotlimitedtoadoptingasinglereplacementformulaunderthisprovision.Thelegislationexpresslyallowstheuseof“oneormoredifferentformulas.”460Aresolutionpassedunderthisprovisiononlytakeseffectuponitsfilinginthelandtitleoffice,alongwith“aCertificateofStrataCorporationintheprescribedformstatingthattheresolutionhasbeenpassedbyaunanimousvote.”461Astratacorpo-rationmayrevokeorchangetheresolutionbypassinganotherresolution,givingef-fecttotherevocationorchange,byaunanimousvoteandfilingthatresolutionandacertificateinthelandtitleoffice.462Change to basis for calculation of contribution to special levy Thegeneralrulealsoapplieswhenastratacorporationraisesfundsbymeansofaspeciallevy.463Butastratacorporationmaychoosetooverridethegeneralrule.


458.SeeReportonComplexStratas,supranote12.


460.Ibid,s100(1).

461.Ibid,s100(3).

462.Ibid,s100(2)–(3).

463.Seeibid,s108(1)(enablingstratato“raisemoneyfromtheownersbymeansofaspeciallevy”).



Theactsetsouttwooptionsforcalculatingacontributiontoaspeciallevy.

• Thecalculationmaybeinaccordancewiththeformulausedforcontribu-tionstotheoperatingfundandthecontingencyreservefund.Thisformulamaybethegeneralrule,whichisbasedonunitentitlement,oravariationofthatrule,whichhaspreviouslybeenadoptedbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvoteandfiledinthelandtitleoffice.Inthiscase,thespeciallevymustbeapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4vote.464

• Thecalculationmayinsteadbebasedon“anotherwaythatestablishesafairdivisionofexpensesforthatparticularlevy.”Inthiscase,thespeciallevymustbeapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.465

Should the Strata Property Act continue to require a resolution passed by a unanimous vote to authorize amending a Schedule of Unit Entitlement to reflect a change in the habitable area of a residential strata lot in a strata plan in which the unit entitlement of the strata lot is calculated on the basis of habitable area? Brief description of the issue Section70(4)oftheStrataPropertyActsetsoutwhenanownermay“increaseordecreasethehabitablepartoftheareaofaresidentialstratalot.”466Whenachangetoastratalotoccursunderthissection,theactestablishesaprocedureforamend-ingtheScheduleofUnitEntitlement,whichappliestocasesinwhichtheamendmentisneeded“toreflectachangeinthehabitableareaofaresidentialstratalot.”467In464.Seeibid,s108(2)(a).Theprovisionalsoaddressescalculatingastratalot’sshareofthecontri-

butionincasesinwhichthestratahassections.

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

466.Ibid,s70(4)(“Subjecttotheregulations,ifanownerwishestoincreaseordecreasethehabita-blepartoftheareaofaresidentialstratalot,bymakinganonhabitablepartofthestratalothab-itableorbymakingahabitablepartofthestratalotnonhabitable,andtheunitentitlementofthestratalotiscalculatedonthebasisofhabitableareainaccordancewithsection246(3)(a)(i)oronthebasisofsquarefootageinaccordancewithsection1oftheCondominiumAct,R.S.B.C.1996,c.64,theownermust(a)seekanamendmenttotheScheduleofUnitEntitlementundersection261,and(b)obtaintheunanimousvotereferredtoinsection261beforemakingthechange.”).

467.Ibid,s261(1).



thesecases,oneoftheprocedure’srequirementsisthat“aresolutionapprovingtheamendmentmustbepassedbyaunanimousvoteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting.”468Shouldthevotingthresholdforauthorizinguseofthisprocedurebeloweredtoan80-percentvote?Discussion of options for reform Asinthepreviousissuesdiscussedinthischapter,theoptionsforthisissueboildowntochangingtheacttoprovideanewvotingthresholdorretainingthestatusquo.MakingsuchachangewouldmakeitincrementallysimplertoamendaScheduleofUnitEntitlementunderthisprocedure.Itwouldlimitthepossibilitythatasinglein-transigentvoter(orevenanindifferentvoterwhoishardtoreach)couldderailplanstoimproveastratalotorrequireacourtapplicationtoobtainapprovalofsuchplans.469Anotheradvantageofreformingthisprovisionisthatitcouldbebroughtintolinewithsimilarcommitteeproposalsforterminatingastrataandforcertainprocedurestoamendastrataplan.Thiswouldpromotealevelofconsistencyacrosstheact.Ontheotherhand,anargumentcouldbemadethatsincechangingaScheduleofUnitEntitlementaffectstherightsandliabilitiesofallstrata-lotowners,aunani-mousvoteapprovinganychangesshouldberequired.Asunitentitlementreflectsimportantaspectsofthepropertyinterestsofstratalotowners,itcouldbearguedthataScheduleofUnitEntitlementshouldnotbechangedwithoutaunanimousvote.Anotherpointthatmayweighinfavourofthestatusquoisthattherearenogroupscallingforitsreform.The committee’s recommendation for reform Inthecommittee’sview,thisprocedurewouldbenefitfromalowervotingthresh-old.Itwouldaddsomeflexibilitytotheprocedure.Makingthischangewouldalsopromotealevelofconsistencywithotherprocedures(suchastermination)thathavemovedtothisvotingthreshold.Thisproposalattractedthesupportofasolidmajorityofconsultationrespondents.

468.Ibid,s261(1)(a).

469.SeeStrataPropertyAct,ibid,s52(allowingcourtto“makeanorderprovidingthatthevotepro-ceedasifthedissentingvoterorvotershadnovote”inspecifiedcircumstances).



Thecommitteerecommends:21.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirearesolutionpassedbyan80-percentvotetoauthorizeamendingaScheduleofUnitEntitlementtoreflectachangeinthehabitableareaofaresidentialstratalotinastrataplaninwhichtheunitentitlementofthestra-talotiscalculatedonthebasisofhabitablearea.Should the Strata Property Act continue to require a resolution passed by a unanimous vote to authorize changing the basis on which a strata lot’s share of the contribution to the strata’s operating fund and contingency reserve fund is calculated? Brief description of the issue Thegeneralruleforstratacorporationsistocalculateastratalot’sshareofthecon-tributiontoastrata’soperatingfundanditscontingencyreservefundonthebasisofthestratalot’sunitentitlement.Theactallowsforsomeflexibilitywithinthissys-tem:throughdevicessuchassectionsandtypesstratacorporationscanuseuniten-titlementasthebasisforcalculatingcontributionsandalsoattempttoallocateex-pensesinwaysthatvarysomewhatfromastrictaccountingaccordingtounitenti-tlement.Theactalsoallowsstratacorporationstomakethecalculationsonsomebasisotherthanunitentitlement.Butastratacorporationneedsaresolutionpassedbyaunan-imousvotetodepartfromtheunit-entitlementsystem.Shouldthisvotingthresholdbeloweredtoan80-percentvote?Discussion of options for reform Loweringthevotingthresholdwouldgivestratacorporationsanincreasedmeasureofflexibilityindealingwithexpensesharing.Thisflexibilitycouldbeespeciallywel-comeforaddressingexpense-sharingconcerns.WhileBritishColumbia’sstrata-propertysectorisoneofthemostdiverseandsophisticatedinthecountry,itslegis-lativeapproachtoexpensesharingisconsideredtobemorerigidthantheapproachtypicallytakeninotherCanadianjurisdictions.470EventhoughBritishColumbia’s470.SeeK.C.Woodsworth,ed,Condominiums:BeingtheeditedtranscriptofalecturecourseinCon-

tinuingLegalEducationheldatVancouverinNovember,1971(Vancouver:CentreforContinuingLegalEducation,UniversityofBritishColumbia,1971)at20(“Wehavedisadvantagesinoursys-tem[inBritishColumbia].Itcreatesarigidandsomewhatinflexibletypeofcondominium.ThedeclarationthatI’vebeenspeakingoffiledinotherjurisdictionsallowsforgreaterelasticityofchoppingandchanginglateron.”).



legislationcontainsfeaturessuchassectionsandtypesthataren’ttypicallyfoundinotherCanadianstatutes,thesefeaturesonlygosofar.Theyonlyapplyincertaincir-cumstancesand,whentheydoapply,onlyprovideamodifiedversionofexpensesharingbyapplicationofformulasbasedonunitentitlement.Changingthebasisoftheseformulasstillrequiresaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote,whichisaveryhighhurdletoclear.Thiscanleavemanystratacorporationsfrustratedandunabletopursuetheirfavouredapproachtoexpensesharingbecauseitisblockedbyasmallminorityofstrata-lotowners.Loweringthevotingthresholdwouldalsobringconsistencybetweenthispartoftheactandtherecentchangestothelegislationgoverningtermination.Itcouldbear-guedthatitwouldbeanomaloustoallowterminationafteran80-percentvotebuttoinsistonaunanimousvotetochangethebasisofcontributionstotheoperatingfundandthecontingencyreservefund.Thepotentialdownsidewithloweringthevotingthresholdisthatitcouldopenthedoortoongoingabuseofsomestrata-lotowners.Agreaterburdenofthestratacor-poration’sexpensescouldbeshiftedontocertainowners.Anownerinsuchaposi-tionwouldn’tbebereftofdefences,butsuchanownerwouldlikelyhavetomakeacasethatthestratacorporation’sactionsweresignificantlyunfair.471Thiswouldbemuchmoredifficultthanthecurrentsystem,whichrequirestheowner’sconsenttoanychanges.Anotherpotentialdisadvantageisthatloweringthevotingthresholdcouldcreateuncertaintyinthesystem,shortofoutrightabuses.Therelativelystandardizedsys-temofexpensesharingthatBritishColumbia’slegislationcreateshasadvantagesforownersandstrata-lotpurchasers,particularlyintheresidentialsector.Makingiteasiertodepartfromthestandardcouldalsomakeitharderforownersandpur-chaserstonavigatethissectorbyintroducingsubtledifferencesbetweenstratacor-porations.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteegrappledextensivelywiththisissue.Itcouldseesomeadvantageswithbuildingingreaterflexibilitywiththelegislation.Itwouldalsobedesirabletohavegreaterconsistencybetweenotherfundamentalchangesandthenewvotingthresholdfortermination.But,ultimately,thecommitteedecidedtoproposeretain-ingthestatusquo.Inthecommittee’sview,loweringthisvotingthresholdinthiscasewouldpotentiallyopenthedoortoabusesanduncertainty.471.SeeStrataPropertyAct,supranote5,s164.



Astrongmajorityofconsultationrespondentssupportedthecommittee’sproposal.Thecommitteerecommends:22.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetorequirearesolutionpassedbyaunani-mousvotetoauthorizeagreeingtouseoneormoredifferentformulas,otherthantheformulassetoutinsection99oftheactandintheregulations,forthecalculationofastratalot’sshareofthecontributiontotheoperatingfundandcontingencyreservefund.Should the Strata Property Act continue to require a resolution passed by a unanimous vote to approve a special levy when each strata lot’s share of the special levy is calculated in a way other than in accordance with sections 99, 100, or 195 of the act? Brief description of the issue Stratacorporationsarepermittedtodepartfromthegeneralrulesincalculatingastratalot’sshareofaspeciallevysolongastheformulathatthestrataisproposingtouse“establishesafairdivisionofexpensesforthatparticularlevy”andthelevyisapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote.472Shouldthisvotingthresh-oldbeloweredtoan80-percentvote?Discussion of options for reform Theconsiderationsforthisissueforreformparallelthoseforthepreviousissue.Theunanimous-voterequirementservesamainlyprotectivepurpose.Althoughtheactrequiresfairnessinanydeparturefromunitentitlementasabasisforcalculatingcontributionstoaspeciallevy,theunanimous-voterequirementgivesdissentingownersapracticalmeanstoprotecttheirinterests.Thereissomepotentialthatthispowertochangethebasisofcalculatingcontributionstoaspeciallevycouldbeusedinanabusivefashion.Theunanimous-voterequirementmakesitverydifficultforanabusivemajoritytooverridethewishesofaminoritygrouporowner.Movingawayfromaunanimous-voterequirementmayhavesomeadvantagesforstratacorporations.Itwouldmakeitmarginallyeasierforstratastoaddressanyunusualcircumstancesthatmayaccompanyaneedtopassaspecificspeciallevy.Adoptingavotingthresholdthatmatchesthevotingthresholdforterminationwouldhelptopromotesomeconsistencyamongfundamentalchanges.472.Ibid,s108(2)(b).



The committee’s recommendation for reform Aswasthecasewiththepreviousissue,thecommitteealsograppledwiththisissue.Thereissomelogictoloweringthevotingthresholdinthiscase.Butthecommitteewasagainconcernedaboutthepotentialforabuse.Italsowasconcernedthatalow-ervotingthresholdcould,insomecases,leadtotheperverseoutcomeofdelayingneededrepairsandmaintenance.Thiscouldbetheresultifsmallgroupsofowners,insomecases,attempttomaketheirvotefortheresolutionauthorizingtherepairsconditionalonchangingthebasisuponwhichcontributionstothespeciallevythatwouldfundtherepairsiscalculated.Whilesuchanarrangementwouldbevirtuallyimpossibletoimplementunderthecurrentprovisions,someownersmayseeaglimmerofhopeinexactingsuchchangesifthevotingthresholdwereloweredtoan80-percentvote.Evenifthegambitwereultimatelyunsuccessful,pursuingitcouldsignificantlydelayneededrepairsandmaintenance.Consultationrespondentssupportedthecommittee’sproposal,byasolidmajority.Thecommitteerecommends:23.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetorequirearesolutionpassedbyaunani-mousvotetoapproveaspeciallevywheneachstratalot’sshareofthespeciallevyiscalculatedinawayotherthaninaccordancewithsections99,100,or195oftheact.Should a Schedule of Voting Rights be required to accompany deposit of a strata plan containing at least one nonresidential strata lot? Brief description of the issue TheStrataPropertyActdealswiththeneedtoestablishaScheduleofVotingRightsintwosections.473Thesectionsarebothengaged“[i]fastrataplanhasatleastonenonresidentialstratalot.”Theprimedistinctionbetweenthesectionsisthatoneap-pliestocasesinwhichtheproposedscheduledoesn’trequiretheapprovalofthesuperintendentofrealestate474andtheotherapplieswhenthescheduleissubmit-tedtothesuperintendentforapproval.475

473.Seeibid,ss247,248.

474.Seeibid,s247.

475.Seeibid,s248.



Bothsectionscontainpermissivelanguage(“may”)todescribetheprovisionforde-positingthescheduleinthelandtitleofficealongwiththestrataplan.476ShouldthelegislationbeamendedtomakeitmandatorytofileaScheduleofVotingRightsinthesecases?Discussion of options for reform Whilestrictlyspeakingthisissuedoesn’tinvolveafundamentalchangetoastratacorporation,itgrewoutofthecommittee’sreviewofthelegislationsupportingfun-damentalchanges.Eventhoughthecommittee’sfocuswasonvotingthresholdsthatcallforaunanimousvote,partofitsreviewwasonthebroaderproceduralrequire-mentsforimplementingfundamentalchanges.Thisissuearoseoutofexaminationoftheexistinglegislation.Theprimaryadvantageofamendingthelegislationistopromotecertaintyinde-terminingvotingrightsinstratacorporationsthatcontainatleastonenonresiden-tialstratalot.TheScheduleofVotingRightsprovidesadefinitiverecordinthesecases.Itsabsenceforastratacorporationisapttocreateconfusion.Anotherad-vantageofamendingthelegislationistocreateconsistencyandcertaintyinthepracticeandprocedureforthisarea.Buttheremaybedownsidestoalegislativeamendment.Thechangewouldresultinmarginallylessflexibilityandgreatercostsforowner-developersindevelopingastrataproperty.The committee’s recommendation for reform Forstrataplansthatincludeatleastonenonresidentialstratalot,thecommitteefa-voursmovingfromapermissive(“may”)provisiononfilingaScheduleofVotingRightstoamandatory(“must”)provision.Initsview,suchanamendmentwillpro-motecertaintyforstrata-lotownersandgoodpracticeforowner-developers.Thisproposedreformcommandednear-unanimoussupportinthepublicconsulta-tion.

476.Seeibid,ss247(1)(“thepersonapplyingtodepositthestrataplanmayestablishaScheduleof

VotingRightsintheprescribedformthatsetsoutthenumberofvotesperstratalot”),248(1)(“thepersonapplyingtodepositthestrataplanmaysubmittothesuperintendentforapprovalaScheduleofVotingRightsintheprescribedformthatsetsoutthenumberofvotesperstratalotinawaythatisdifferentfromtherequirementsofsection247”).




24.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirethefollowingincasesinwhichastrataplanhasatleastonenonresidentialstratalot:(a)ifvotingrightsarenottobeapprovedbythesuperintendentofrealestate,thepersonapplyingtodepositthestrataplanmustestablishaScheduleofVotingRightsintheprescribedform;(b)ifvotingrightsaretobeapprovedbythesuperintendentofrealestate,thepersonapplyingtodepositthestrataplanmustsubmittothesuperintendentforapprovalaScheduleofVotingRightsintheprescribedform.

Issues for Reform—Amalgamation Amalgamation generally Althoughthetermcanbeused“inaloose,non-legalsense,”477amalgamationisa“ef-fectivelyatermofart”478incorporatelaw.AstheleadingCanadiancaseputsit,theeffectofcorporateamalgamationis“tohavetheamalgamatingcompaniescontinuewithoutsubtractionintheamalgamatedcompany,withalltheirstrengthsandtheirweaknesses,theirperfectionsandimperfections,andtheirsins,ifsinnerstheybe.”479“[T]heendresult,”ofanamalgamationfortheamalgamatingcorporations,“istocoalescetocreateahomogeneouswhole.Theanalogiesofariverformedbytheconfluenceoftwostreams,orthecreationofasingleropethroughtheintertwiningofstrandshavebeensuggestedbyothers.”480Thewaytoachievethisresultistoemploy“specificstatutoryprocedures.”481ThereareseveralsuchproceduresinBritishColumbialaw,eachgearedtoaspecifictypeofcorporation.482

477.ContinuingLegalEducationSocietyofBritishColumbia,ed,BritishColumbiaCompanyLawPrac-

ticeManual,2nded,vol.1(Vancouver:ContinuingLegalEducationSocietyofBritishColumbia,2003)(loose-leaf2016update)at§11.2.

478.KevinPMcGuiness,CanadianBusinessCorporationsLaw,2nded(Markham,ON:LexisNexisCan-ada,2007)at§14.89.

479.RvBlackandDeckerManufacturingCo,[1975]1SCR411at422,43DLR(3d)393,DicksonJ[BlackandDecker].

480.Ibidat421.

481.BritishColumbiaCompanyLawPracticeManual,supranote477at§11.2.

482.Seee.g.BusinessCorporationsAct,SBC2002,c57,ss273(verticalshort-formamalgamations),274(horizontalshort-formamalgamations),276(amalgamationswithcourtapproval);Cooper-ativeAssociationAct,SBC1999,c28,ss191–193;SocietiesAct,SBC2015,c18,ss86–91.



Givenitstransformativenature,amalgamationistypicallyconsideredbycorporate-andstrata-lawcommentatorstobeafundamentalchange.483Development of the law Stratacorporationshavebeenabletoamalgamatesince1973.484Theoriginal1973amalgamationprovision:

• waslimitedto“stratacorporationsowningadjacentland”;485

• calledfortheamalgamatingstratacorporationstoenterintoan“amalgama-tionagreementprescribingthetermsandconditionsoftheamalgama-tion”;486

• requiredapprovaloftheamalgamationagreementbyspecialresolutionsorunanimousresolutionsoftheamalgamatingstratacorporations;487and

• requiredapprovaloftheamalgamationbythesupremecourt.488Ifthecourtapprovedtheamalgamation,thentheprocedurecalledforfilingthefol-lowingdocumentswiththeregistraroflandtitles:

• theagreement;

• acopyoftheorder;

• “proofofcompliancewithanytermsorconditionsimposedbytheCourtor-der”;and

• “anexplanatoryplanshowingtheconsolidatedlands.”489Theeffectoftheamalgamationwasspelledoutinthelegislation:

483.Seee.g.BritishColumbiaStrataPropertyPracticeManual,supranote2at§23.24;McGuiness,su-

pranote478atch14(discussingamalgamationamongother“fundamentalchanges”).

484.SeeStrataTitles(Amendment)Act,SBC1973,c86,s4(enactings16AoftheStrataTitlesAct,su-pranote25).

485.Ibid,s16A(1).

486.Ibid,s16A(1).

487.Seeibid,s16A(1).

488.Seeibid,s16A(1).

489.Seeibid,s16A(5)(a)–(d).



Fromthedateofthedepositofthestrataplantheamalgamatingstratacorporationsshallbeamalgamatedandshallbecontinuedasonecorporationunderthenameen-dorsedontheagreement,and,thereafter,theamalgamatedcorporationshallbeseisedofandshallholdandpossessalltheproperty,rights,andinterestsandshallbesubjecttoalldebts,liabilities,andobligationsofeachamalgamatingcorporation,andeveryownerineachamalgamatingcorporationshallbeboundbythetermsoftheagree-ment.490

Therequirementsthatamalgamatingstratacorporationsownadjacentlandandthattheiramalgamationagreementbeapprovedbythesupremecourtaswellastheop-tiontoauthorizeamalgamationbywayofunanimousresolutionwerealldroppedinthemajorrevisiontostrata-propertylawthattookplaceinthefollowingyear.491Af-terthesechanges,theprovisionwasnotamendedagainuntiltheadventoftheStra-taPropertyAct.492Amalgamation under the Strata Property Act TheStrataPropertyAct’sprovisions493onamalgamationarelargelyconsistentwiththeprovisionsintheprecedinglegislation.494Amalgamatingstratacorporationsun-derstrata-propertylegislationcontinuestorequire:

• anamalgamationagreementthatcontains

o thetermsandconditionsoftheamalgamation,and

o thebylawsthatwillapplytotheproposedamalgamatedstratacorporation;495[and]

• aresolutionapprovingtheamalgamationagreement...passedbyeachoftheamal-gamatingstratacorporationsbya3/4voteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeet-ing.496

Theapplicationtoamalgamatestillmustbemadetotheregistrar,withthefollowingdocuments:

• theamalgamationagreement,[and]

490.Ibid,s16A(6).

491.SeeStrataTitlesAct,supranote26,s32.

492.Supranote5.

493.Seeibid,ss.269–271.

494.SeeCondominiumAct,supranote28,s61.


496.Ibid,s269(2)(a).



• areferenceorexplanatoryplan,497whichevertheregistrarrequires,that

o consolidatesthestrataplansintoasinglestrataplan,

o complies,asfarastheregistrarconsidersnecessary,withsections244[strataplanrequirements]and245[strataplans:accompanyingdocuments],and

o isinaformrequiredundertheLandTitleActforareferenceorexplanatoryplan.498

But,inadditiontothesedocuments,theapplicationtotheregistrarmustalsobeac-companiedbythefollowingdocuments,whichareneededtobringcertainaspectsoftheamalgamationprocessintolinewithotherrequirementsoftheStrataPropertyAct:

• anewScheduleofUnitEntitlementthatmeetstherequirementsofsection246[ScheduleofUnitEntitlement],togetherwithevidenceofthesuperintendent’sap-provaliftheapprovalisrequired,

• ifaScheduleofVotingRightshasbeenfiledwiththesuperintendent,anewScheduleofVotingRightsthatmeetstherequirementsofsection247[ScheduleofVotingRightsnotapprovedbysuperintendent]or248[ScheduleofVotingRightsapprovedbysuperintendent],togetherwithevidenceofthesuperintendent’sapprovaliftheapprovalisrequired,

• aCertificateofStrataCorporationintheprescribedformfromeachstratacorpora-tion,statingthattheresolution[approvingtheamalgamationagreement]hasbeenpassedandthatthereferenceorexplanatoryplanandthenewScheduleofUnitEnti-tlementandanynewScheduleofVotingRightsconformtotheamalgamationagreement,and

• anybylawsoftheamalgamatedstratacorporationthatdifferinanyrespectfromtheStandardBylaws.499

TheeffectofamalgamationundertheStrataPropertyActisthesameasunderpre-viousstrata-propertylegislation:

497.SeeLandTitleAct,supranote19,ss.1“explanatoryplan”(“meansaplanthat(a)isnotbasedon

asurveybutonexistingdescriptions,plansorrecordsofthelandtitleoffice,and(b)iscertifiedcorrectinaccordancewiththerecordsofthelandtitleofficebyaBritishColumbialandsurvey-ororby(i)apersondesignatedundersection121(7)oftheForestActforthepurposeofthatsection,or(ii)theministerchargedwiththeadministrationoftheTransportationAct”),67(re-quirementsastosubdivisionandreferenceplans);LandTitlePracticeManual,supranote233,vol1at§7.487(“AreferenceplanisbasedonagroundsurveydonebyaBritishColumbialandsurveyorandgenerallyreferstoasingleparcel.”).

498.Supranote5,s269(2)(b)(i)–(ii).

499.Ibid,s269(2)(b)(iii)–(vi).



• theamalgamatingstratacorporationsareamalgamatedandarecontinuedasonestratacorporationunderthenameendorsedontheamalgamationagreement,

• theamalgamatedstratacorporationisseizedof,andholdsandpossesses,theprop-erty,rightsandinterestsandissubjecttotheliabilitiesandobligationsofeachamal-gamatingstratacorporation,

• thebylawsoftheamalgamatedstratacorporationaretheStandardBylawsexcepttotheextentthatdifferentbylawshavebeenfiledwiththeregistrar[aspartoftheap-plicationtotheregistrar],and

• eachownerineachamalgamatingstratacorporationisboundbythetermsoftheamalgamationagreement.500

Reasons for amalgamating Inthecorporateworld,amalgamationispursuedforbusinessreasons.Amalgama-tionis,inthewordsofaleadingcase,seenas“alegalmeansofachievinganeconom-icend.”501Amalgamatingcompanies’goalsare“tobuild,toconsolidate,perhapstodiversify,existingbusinesses;sothatthroughuniontherewillbeenhancedstrength.Itisajoiningofforcesandresourcesinordertoperformbetterintheeconomicfield.”502Theseconsiderationsdon’tapplytostratacorporations,soitisn’tsurprisingtolearnthat“[a]malgamationsofstratacorporationsarenotcommoninBritishColum-bia.”503But,ofcourse,simplybecausetheyarenotcommondoesnotmeantheydonottakeplace.Infact,stratacorporationsmaybemotivatedtoamalgamateforamorediversesetofreasonsthanbusinesscorporations,whicharelargelyguidedbyeconomicobjectivesinamalgamation.Oneexamplecitedinthecommentarysug-gestedthatamalgamationmaybeusedtoprovide“greateradministrativeefficiencybysharingtheuseofcommonfacilitiestothemutualbenefitofthestratalotown-ers.”504Buttheremaybeawholehostofotherreasonsforwantingtoamalgamatestratacorporations.

500.Ibid,s271.

501.BlackandDecker,supranote479at420.

502.Ibid.


504.Ibid.



Should the Strata Property Act require a resolution passed by an 80-percent vote to approve an amalgamation agreement? Brief description of the issue Thisissueisadeparturefromtheotherissuesconsideredinthischapter.Ineveryotherissuedealingwiththevotingthreshold,thelegislationrequiresaresolutionpassedbyaunanimousvote,whichisitshighestvotingthreshold.Inthiscase,theStrataPropertyActrequiresaresolutionpassedbya3/4votetoapproveanamal-gamationagreement.505Sothequestionhereisshouldtheactbeamendedtoraisethisvotingthresholdtoan80-percentvote?Discussion of options for reform Themainreasonforproposingthisreformwouldbetocreatesomeconsistencywithotherfundamentalchangesinvolvingstratacorporations.Consistencywouldbringseveralsubsidiarybenefits,suchasmakingthestatutesimplerandmoreac-cessible.Anotherrationaleforraisingthevotingthresholdwouldbethatahigherthresholdwouldprovidemoreprotectionforminorityinterests.Amalgamationisasignificantchangeforastratacorporation,onethatcouldaffectthepropertyrightsofstrata-lotowners.Allowingittobeapprovedbyaresolutionpassedbya3/4votecreatesthepossibilityofanamalgamationgoingaheadwiththesupportofarelativelysmallgroupofowners,sincethe3/4-votethresholdneedonlybereachedby“thevotescastbyeligiblevoterswhoarepresentinpersonorbyproxyatthetimethevoteistakenandwhohavenotabstainedfromvoting.”506AhighervotingthresholdwouldalsobeinlinewiththeapproachtakeninmostotherCanadianjurisdictions.507505.Seesupranote5,s269(2)(a)(“aresolutionapprovingtheamalgamationagreementmustbe

passedbyeachoftheamalgamatingstratacorporationsbya3/4voteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting”).

506.Supranote5,s1(1)“3/4vote.”Butseeibid,s51(allowingforreconsiderationofresolutionpassedbya3/4votewhenitispassed“bypersonsholdinglessthan50%ofthestratacorpora-tion’svotes”).

507.SeeSaskatchewan:TheCondominiumPropertyAct,1993,supranote33,s15(4)(“Wheretheamalgamatingcorporationsareproposinganamalgamation:(a)pursuanttosubsection14(1),theunanimousconsentofallunitownersandholdersofregisteredinterestsbasedonmortgag-esforeachoftheamalgamatingcorporationsmustbeobtained;or(b)pursuanttosubsec-tion14(2),theconsentof80%ofallunitownersandholdersofregisteredinterestsbasedonmortgagesforeachoftheamalgamatingcorporationsmustbeobtained.”);Manitoba:TheCon-dominiumAct,supranote33,ss1(1)“specifiedpercentage”(“(a)inrelationtoarequirementinthisActforthewrittenconsentofunitownersforanymatter,means80%or,ifagreaterper-centageisspecifiedinthedeclarationforthatmatter,thatpercentagespecifiedinthedeclara-



Buttheproblemwithraisingthevotingthresholdforprotectivereasonsisthatitisn’tclearthatanyoneisactuallybeingharmedbythecurrent,lowerthreshold.Therehavebeennopublishedcomplaintsaboutit.Thecurrentthresholdwouldalsoallowforgreaterflexibilityinplanningforamalgamationandamorestreamlinedprocessofapproval.The committee’s recommendation for reform Thecommitteenotedthatamalgamationisrarelyencounteredinstrata-propertypractice.Whenitoccurs,ittendstobearesponsetoahighlyunusualsetofcircum-stances.Thecommitteeisunawareofanyproblemsorabusesflowingfromtherela-tivelylowvotingthresholdrequiredtoapproveanamalgamationagreement.Intheabsenceofreal-worldproblems,thecommitteeisreluctanttoproposeraisingthisvotingthreshold.Consultationrespondentssupportedthecommittee’sproposal,byawidemargin.Thecommitteerecommends:

25.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetorequirearesolutionpassedbya3/4votetoapproveanamalgamationagreement.

tion”),253;Ontario:CondominiumAct,1998,supranote33,s120(1)(b)(requiringthat“theownersofatleast90percentoftheunitsofeachcorporationasofthedateofthatcorporation’smeetinghave,within90daysofthemeeting,consentedinwritingtotheregistrationofthedec-larationanddescription”thatauthorizestheamalgamation);NovaScotia:CondominiumAct,su-pranote33,s29B(1)(b)(“theownersofatleasteightypercentoftheunitsofeachcorporationvoteinfavourofapprovingthedeclarationanddescription”);NewfoundlandandLabrador:CondominiumAct,2009,supranote33,s66(1)(b)(“theownersofatleast80%oftheunitsofeachcorporationvoteinfavourofapprovingthedeclarationanddescription”);NorthwestTerri-toriesandNunavut:CondominiumAct,supranote33,s6.2(2)(“Corporationsthatareproposingtoamalgamatemusteachobtainthewrittenconsentofthepersonsowning80%ofthecommonelements,orsuchgreaterpercentageasmaybespecifiedinthedeclaration.”).TwoprovinceshaveamalgamationprovisionsthatcallforapprovalbyvotingmajoritythatisbroadlysimilartoBritishColumbia’sresolutionpassedbya3/4vote.SeeAlberta:CondominiumPropertyRegula-tion,AltaReg168/2000,s50(1)(specialresolution);NewBrunswick:CondominiumPropertyAct,supranote33,s13(2)(“theownersofatleast60%ofthecommonelementsofeachcorpo-rationvoteinfavourofapprovingthedeclarationanddescription).Québec,PrinceEdwardIs-land,andYukondon’tappeartohaveamalgamationprovisionsintheirlegislation.



Chapter 6. Draft Legislation and Regulations

Draft legislation

StrataProperty(CommonProperty,LandTitles,andFundamentalChanges)AmendmentAct,2019

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

pealingthedefinitionof“limitedcommonproperty”andsubstitutingthefollowing:

“limitedcommonproperty”meansaformofcommonproperty,

designatedfortheexclusiveuseoftheownersofoneormorestratalots;.

recommendationno.(2)

Comment: Section 1 (1) of the Strata Property Act currently defines limited common property to mean “common property designated for the exclusive use of the owners of one or more strata lots.” While it’s unclear whether this definition has generated any sig-nificant legal issues, it has apparently been a source of confusion in practice. The stum-bling block appears to be whether the definition is intended to set limited common prop-erty off as a concept totally distinct from common property. In fact, the intent of the defini-tion is actually to constitute limited common property as a subset of the broader class of common property. The amended definition set out in this draft section makes this point in clearer and more emphatic language. 2 ThefollowingsectionisaddedtoPart3:

Leases of common-property fixtures or common assets

6.1 (1) Subjecttosubsection(2),anylease(a) inrespectofafixturethatiscommonpropertyorofa

commonasset,and(b) withatermthatexceedsfiveyears,



thatisenteredintobyastratacorporationwhentheownerde-veloperisexercisingthepowersandperformingthedutiesofacouncilisvoid.

(2) TheSuperintendentofRealEstatemayauthorizeanownerde-velopertoenterintoaleasedescribedinsubsection(1),onthetermsandconditionsthatthesuperintendentmayrequire.

(3) Forthepurposesofsubsection(1),“fixtures”hasthemeaningsetoutintheregulations.

(4) Thissectionappliestoeverystrataplanthatisdepositedinthelandtitleofficeonorafterthedatethatissixmonthsafterthedateonwhichthissectioncomesintoforce.

recommendationnos.(3),(4),and(5)

Comment: This draft provision addresses a source of frustration for many strata-lot owners: leases of common property or common assets that are entered into in the early days of a strata property by its owner-developer for long terms that end up binding the strata corporation well into its functional life. The draft provision implements three rec-ommendations that respond to this frustration. First, it limits the term of leases entered into by an owner-developer of “a fixture that is common property or of a common asset” to five years. The quoted language will capture the kinds of property that have typically been the subject of such long-term leases, such as enterphones. Second, in recognition of the fact that some leases with long terms may be necessary for certain strata corpora-tions (for example, in cases involving district energy systems), the provision creates a power for the superintendent of real estate to authorize such leases. Third, it defines the term fixtures by drawing on an existing definition in the Strata Property Regulation (which defines fixtures for insurance purposes to mean “items attached to a building, including floor and wall coverings and electrical and plumbing fixtures, but does not include, if they can be removed without damage to the building, refrigerators, stoves, dishwashers, mi-crowaves, washers, dryers or other items”). The draft provision setting out this definition is found, below, at section 1 of the draft regulations. Finally, the draft provision concludes with a subsection that establishes its temporal application. The draft provision isn’t meant to apply to leases entered into in the past; its application is forward facing. This subsec-tion is meant to underscore that point. Further, the draft provision allows some time for owner-developers and others to prepare for the change in the law. The committee has decided to set this period at six months after the date on which the section comes into force. This six-month period represents the committee’s best judgment on what ade-quate notice of a change in the law in these circumstances would be, recognizing that the committee—unlike the government—doesn’t (and can’t) have all the relevant infor-mation about the provision’s implementation date. Others—including the government—could reasonably draw a different conclusion on an appropriate notice period.



3 Section70(4)(b)isamendedbystrikingout“aunanimousvote”andsubsti-tuting“an80%vote”.


Comment: Under section 70 (4) of the Strata Property Act when “an owner wishes to in-crease or decrease the habitable part of the area of a residential strata lot, by making a nonhabitable part of the strata lot habitable or by making a habitable part of the strata lot nonhabitable” the owner must “seek an amendment to the Schedule of Unit Entitlement under section 261.” Section 261 provides that a Schedule of Unit Entitlement may be amended “to reflect a change in the habitable area of a residential strata lot in a strata plan in which the unit entitlement of the strata lot is calculated on the basis of habitable area in accordance with section 246 (3) (a) (i) or on the basis of square footage in ac-cordance with section 1 of the Condominium Act.” Such a change may be the result, for example, of enclosing a balcony that was part of the strata lot. In order to effect such an amendment to the Schedule of Unit Entitlement, “a resolution approving the amendment must be passed by a unanimous vote at an annual or special general meeting.” In the committee’s view, it would be desirable to change this requirement from a unanimous vote to an 80-percent vote. This change would give strata corporations greater flexibility, without sacrificing protection of minority interests. If the requirement in section 261 is changed, then the cross-reference to it in section 70 (4) (b) must also be changed. 4 Section74(2)isamended

(a) inparagraph(b),bystrikingout“and”,

(b) inparagraph(c),bystrikingout“limitedcommonproperty.”andsub-stituting“limitedcommonproperty,and,and

(c) byaddingthefollowingparagraph:(d) foreveryresolutionpassedundersubsection(1)onoraf-

terthedateonwhichthisparagraphcomesintoforce,ispreparedbyaBritishColumbialandsurveyor.


Comment: Section 74 of the Strata Property Act deals with the designation of limited common property by a 3/4 vote. Subsection (2) deals with a sketch plan, which “must be filed in the land title office” in the land title office in order to make the designation effec-tive. Sketch plan is defined in the Land Title Act to mean “an adequately dimensioned drawing of the area affected by a lease of all or part of a building located on land shown on a plan of survey deposited in the land title office.” Section 74 (2) of the Strata Property Act lists the requirements for a sketch plan that must be filed in connection with a desig-nation of limited common property by a 3/4 vote: the plan must be one that “(a) satisfies the registrar, (b) defines the areas of limited common property, and (c) specifies each



strata lot whose owners are entitled to the exclusive use of the limited common proper-ty.” This draft provision proposes adding a new requirement as paragraph (d), which would require the sketch plan to be prepared by a professional British Columbia land surveyor. This requirement is intended to foster greater certainty in the identification of limited common property in strata properties. The requirement is introduced by language setting out the provision’s temporal application, which is meant to underscore the point that this requirement is intended to improve the law on an ongoing basis, and not to cast a shadow over any past uses of this provision, potentially exposing them to a legal chal-lenge. 5 ThefollowingsectionisaddedtoPart14:

Approval of certain strata plans

243.1 (1) Astrataplanthatdepictstheboundariesofstratalotsastheex-teriorsurfaceofafloor,wall,orceiling,orasaboundaryexternaltoabuilding,mustmeetthesameapprovalrequirementsasthoughitwereabarelandstrataplan.

(2) Thissectionappliestoeverystrataplandepositedinthelandti-tleofficeonorafterthedateonwhichthissectioncomesintoforce.


Comment: This draft provision is intended to be a targeted approach to an emerging is-sue in subdivision control. One nagging concern is this area is the persistence of strata plans that are functionally bare-land strata plans being deposited for registration in the land title office on the basis that they are building strata plans. The goal of this approach is to side-step the more rigorous local or regional approval process for bare-land strata plans. This draft provision describes a specific method that attempts to achieve this re-sult and proceeds to undercut its rationale by requiring that the plan meet the same ap-proval requirements as a bare-land strata plan. Subsection (2) is included in the draft provision out of caution. Its intent is to make it clear that the draft provision is only meant to apply to strata plans that are deposited in the land title office on or after the date the provision comes into force. The draft provision isn’t intended to be a mechanism to chal-lenge strata plans deposited before that date. For the purposes of this report, the com-mittee decided that the draft legislation should be clear and explicit on this point. There is a strong presumption that legislation operates prospectively, which is partially codified in sections 36 and 37 of the Interpretation Act and is also supported by the common law. In implementing this provision, it may be open to the legislature to rely on this provision in-stead of express legislative language.



6 Section244isamended

(a) insubsection(1),byaddingthefollowingparagraphs:(a.1) containadepictionofpartofthelandsorbuildingascom-

monproperty,

(c.1) containaminimumofonecross-section,,and(b) byaddingthefollowingsubsection:

(1.1)Subsection(1)(a.1)and(c.1)applytoeverystrataplanfiledonorafterthedateonwhichtheparagraphscomeintoforce.

recommendationnos.(12)and(13)

Comment: Section 244 (1) of the Strata Property Act lists the requirements for strata plans. This draft provision would add two new requirements to that list, to address land-title issues that have arisen in practice. The first requirement makes it clear that a strata plan must include a depiction of part of the lands or building as common property. In ad-dition to clarifying the act, this draft provision could help to stamp out some questionable subdivision practices. The second requirement is intended to provide greater clarity in the depiction of common property on a strata plan. Subsection (1.1) is included in the draft provision out of caution. Its intent is to make it clear that the two new requirements found in paragraphs (a.1) and (c.1) are only meant to apply to strata plans that are de-posited in the land title office on or after the date they come into force. These require-ments aren’t intended to be a mechanism to challenge strata plans deposited before that date. For the purposes of this report, the committee decided that the draft legislation should be clear and explicit on this point. There is a strong presumption that legislation operates prospectively, which is partially codified in sections 36 and 37 of the Interpreta-tion Act and is also supported by the common law. In implementing this provision, it may be open to the legislature to rely on this provision instead of express legislative lan-guage. 7 Section247(1)isamendedbystrikingout“may”andsubstituting“must”.

recommendationno.(24)Comment: Section 247 of the Strata Property Act deals with establishing a Schedule of Voting Rights in cases in which the schedule won’t require approval by the superinten-dent of real estate. Subsection (1) currently provides that “[i]f a strata plan has at least one nonresidential strata lot, the person applying to deposit the strata plan may establish a Schedule of Voting Rights in the prescribed form that sets out the number of votes per strata lot.” The draft provision would replace the word may with must, making it clear that the section contains a mandatory requirement—which effectively is the case already in any strata property containing a nonresidential strata lot.



8 Section248(1)isamendedbystrikingout“may”andsubstituting“must”.

recommendationno.(24)Comment: This draft provision is a companion to the previous draft provision. Sec-tion 248 of the Strata Property Act deals with establishing a Schedule of Voting Rights in cases in which the schedule does require approval by the superintendent of real estate. Subsection (1) currently provides “[i]f a strata plan has at least one nonresidential strata lot, the person applying to deposit the strata plan may submit to the superintendent for approval a Schedule of Voting Rights in the prescribed form that sets out the number of votes per strata lot in a way that is different from the requirements of section 247.” The draft provision would make it clear that submission of the schedule is a mandatory re-quirement in these circumstances. 9 Section257isamended

(a) byrepealingparagraph(a)andthesubstitutingthefollowing:(a) toamendastrataplantodesignatelimitedcommonprop-

erty,aresolutionapprovingtheamendmentmustbepassedbyan80%voteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting;,

(b) byaddingthefollowingparagraph:(a.1) toamendastrataplantoremoveadesignationoflimited

commonpropertymadebytheownerdeveloperatthetimethestrataplanwasdepositedorbyamendmentofthestrataplan,aresolutionapprovingtheamendmentmustbepassedbyaunanimousvoteatanannualorspecialgeneralmeeting;,and

(c) inparagraph(b)(ii),byadding“or(a.1),asapplicable,”after“para-graph(a)”.

recommendationnos.(17)and(18)

Comment: Section 257 of the Strata Property Act sets out the requirements that must be met to amend the strata plan to designate limited common property or to remove a des-ignation of limited common property. The section currently requires that “a resolution ap-proving the amendment must be passed by a unanimous vote at an annual or special general meeting.” In the committee’s view, the voting threshold for amending a strata plan to designate limited common property should be lowered to an 80-percent vote. But the threshold should remain at a unanimous vote for removing a designation. The differ-ent treatment is justified by the different potential for abuse of minority interests.



10 Section258isamended

(a) byrepealingtheheadingandsubstitutingthefollowing:

Parking or storage designated by owner developer as limited common property,

(b) bystrikingout“firstannualgeneralmeeting”whereveritappearsandsubstituting“fifthannualgeneralmeeting”,

(c) insubsections(1)and(2),byadding“orstoragelockers”after“parkingstalls”whereveritappears,

(d) insubsection(3),bystrikingout“each”andsubstituting“a”,

(e) byaddingthefollowingsubsections:(4.1)Anownerdevelopermay,atanytimebeforethefifthannual

generalmeetingofthestratacorporation,amendthestrataplantodesignateamaximumof2extrastoragelockersaslimitedcommonpropertyfortheexclusiveuseoftheownersofastratalotinthestrataplan.

(4.2)Inthissection,“extrastoragelockers”meansanystoragelock-ers,onlandshownonthestrataplanassetasideforstorage,thatareinadditiontothetotalnumberofstoragelockersneededtoprovideonelockerperstratalot.

(f) insubsection(5),byaddingthewords“orextrastoragelockersundersubsection(4.1)”after“extraparkingstallsundersubsection(3)”,

(g) byrepealingsubsection(6)andthesubstitutingthefollowing:(6) Adesignationofparkingstallsorstoragelockersundersubsec-

tions(1),(3)or(4.1):

(a) doesnotrequireapprovalbyaresolutionatanannualgen-eralmeetingorspecialgeneralmeeting;

(b) doesrequirethattheownerdevelopermustgivethestratacorporationwrittennoticeofanamendmentofthestrataplan.,and

(h) byaddingthefollowingsubsection:(8) Thissectiononlyapplieswhentheownerdeveloperhasnotcon-

veyedallthestratalots..

recommendationno.(7)Comment: Section 258 of the Strata Property Act currently empowers the owner-developer to “amend the strata plan to designate parking stalls as limited common prop-



erty for the exclusive use of owners of strata lots in the strata plan” and to “amend the strata plan to designate a maximum of 2 extra parking stalls as limited common property for the exclusive use of the owners of each strata lot in the strata plan.” In each case, the owner-developer is bound by a broad duty to “act honestly and in good faith and exercise the care, diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person in comparable circumstanc-es.” Despite this duty, there have been concerns that this power is being used in ways that ultimately cause confusion for the strata corporation. Much of the attention has fo-cused on the use of leases and licences in some strata corporation. The committee rec-ommends taking a balanced approach to rein in confusing practices. In a draft provision set out below, it declares leases and licences of parking stalls or storage lockers by the owner-developer to be void. In addition, the committee recommends extending the peri-od in which the owner-developer may amend the strata plan under section 258 from the date of the strata corporation’s first annual general meeting to the date of the fifth annual general meeting. This recommended change is dealt with in paragraph (a) of the draft provision. Paragraph (d) contains a clarifying amendment. In the committee’s view, the reference in subsection (3) of the current section 258 to designating limited common property “for the exclusive use of the owners of each strata lot in the strata plan” is ambi-guity. This ambiguity may be clarified by changing one word: “each.” Replacing each with a would remedy the ambiguity. Paragraphs (g) and (h) deal with some of the potential implications of this changes brought in by the amendments to paragraph (a). Para-graph (a) extends the period in which an owner-developer may amend the strata plan out beyond the point at which control of the strata corporation passes from the owner-developer to the elected strata council. So paragraph (g) requires an owner-developer to keep the strata corporation informed of any changes to the strata plan under this section. The extended period under section 258 also creates the potential that an owner-developer could retain the power to amend the strata plan even when the owner-developer no longer holds an interest in the strata property. Paragraph (h) is intended to foreclose this possibility by restricting the application of section 258 to only that time in which the owner-developer is the owner of at least one strata lot. Finally, the committee has decided to extend this section’s reach, to embrace storage lockers. The amend-ments needed to accomplish this task are found in paragraphs (c), (e), and (f). They pro-vide for the section to operate for storage lockers in the same manner as it operates for parking stalls, with one small difference. The definition of extra parking stalls, which is currently found in section 258 (4), ties into the reality that provision of parking stalls is regulated by local governments. Similar local-government requirements don’t exist for storage lockers, so the draft provision defines extra storage lockers by reference to the number of storage lockers needed to ensure that each strata lot has a storage locker. 11 ThefollowingsectionsareaddedtoPart15:

Undesignated parking stalls or storage lockers

258.1 Anyparkingstallsorstoragelockersthathavenotbeendesignatedaslimitedcommonpropertyundersection258bythestratacorpo-ration’sfifthannualgeneralmeetingremaincommonproperty.




Comment: This draft provision is intended to remove any doubts about the classification of parking stalls or storage lockers on a strata plan that haven’t been designated as lim-ited common property under section 258.

Lease or licence of parking stall or storage locker by owner developer void

258.2 (1) Anyleaseorlicenceofaparkingstallorstoragelockerenteredintobeforeorafterthedepositofastrataplanbytheownerde-veloperisvoid.

(2) Thissectionappliestoeverystrataplandepositedinthelandti-tleofficeonorafteradatethatissixmonthsafterthedateonwhichthissectioncomesintoforce.


Comment: Leases and licences of parking stalls and (to a lesser extent) storage lockers have caused confusion in many strata properties and have sown conflict in others. In the committee’s view, they can be eliminated, if this change is enacted in concert with the changes proposed in the previous two draft provisions. Subsection (1) of this draft provi-sion provides that such leases or licences are void, whether they are made before or af-ter the deposit of a strata plan in the land title office. Subsection (2) establishes the draft provision’s temporal application. The draft provision isn’t meant to apply to leases or li-cences entered into in the past; its application is forward facing. This subsection is meant to underscore that point. Further, the draft provision allows some time for owner-developers and others to prepare for the change in the law. The committee has decided to set this period at six months after the date on which the section comes into force. This six-month period represents the committee’s best judgment on what adequate notice of a change in the law in these circumstances would be, recognizing that the committee—unlike the government—doesn’t (and can’t) have all the relevant information about the provision’s implementation date. Others—including the government—could reasonably draw a different conclusion on an appropriate notice period. 12 Section261(1)(a)isamendedbystrikingout“aunanimousvote”andsub-

stituting“an80%vote”.

recommendationno.(21)Comment: Under section 70 (4) of the Strata Property Act when “an owner wishes to in-crease or decrease the habitable part of the area of a residential strata lot, by making a nonhabitable part of the strata lot habitable or by making a habitable part of the strata lot nonhabitable” the owner must “seek an amendment to the Schedule of Unit Entitlement



under section 261.” Section 261 deals with the procedural requirements for amending a Schedule of Unit Entitlement in a specific circumstance. This circumstance occurs when an amendment is called for “to reflect a change in the habitable area of a residential stra-ta lot in a strata plan in which the unit entitlement of the strata lot is calculated on the ba-sis of habitable area in accordance with section 246 (3) (a) (i) or on the basis of square footage in accordance with section 1 of the Condominium Act.” Such a change may be the result, for example, of enclosing a balcony that was part of the strata lot. In order to effect such an amendment to the Schedule of Unit Entitlement, “a resolution approving the amendment must be passed by a unanimous vote at an annual or special general meeting.” The committee recommended changing this requirement for a unanimous vote to a requirement for an 80-percent vote. This change is appropriate in this case to give strata corporations added flexibility without compromising minority interests. A cross-reference to section 261 (1) (a) found in section 70 (4) (b) is dealt with earlier in this draft legislation. 13 Section263(2)(a)isamendedbystrikingout“aunanimousvote”andsub-

stituting“an80%vote”.

recommendationno.(20)Comment: Section 263 of the Strata Property Act deals with amending a strata plan to add a strata lot to common property. Among the requirements set out in section 263 (2) is a requirement that “a resolution approving the amendment must be passed by a unan-imous vote at an annual or special general meeting.” In the committee’s view, this re-quirement may be changed to a requirement for an 80-percent vote, which would give strata corporations greater flexibility in carrying out this procedure. Commencement

14 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 Part3oftheStrataPropertyRegulation,B.C.Reg.43/2000,isamendedby

addingthefollowingsection:

Definition for section 6.1 of the Act

3.01 Forthepurposesofsection6.1oftheAct,“fixtures”meansitemsat-tachedtoabuilding,includingfloorandwallcoveringsandelectricalandplumbingfixtures,butdoesnotinclude,iftheycanberemovedwithoutdamagetothebuilding,refrigerators,stoves,dishwashers,microwaves,washers,dryersorotheritems.


Comment: Proposed section 6.1 is dealt with in the draft legislation, above. The draft provision would address long-term leases of common property that is fixtures by an owner-developer. To add clarity to the draft provision, the committee recommended ap-plying the existing definition of fixtures found in section 9.1 of the Strata Property Regula-tion. This draft regulation makes that definition applicable to the committee’s proposed section 6.1.2 Section13.6isamendedbyaddingthewords“orstoragelockers”after

“parkingstalls”,byaddingtheword“fifth”before“annualgeneralmeeting”andbystrikingout“requiredbythedepositofthatphaseundersection230oftheAct”.

recommendationno.n/a

Comment: Section 13.6 currently reads, “[f]or the purposes of section 258 of the Act, an owner developer may amend a phased strata plan to designate parking stalls as limited common property in a phase only up to the date of the annual general meeting required by the deposit of that phase under section 230 of the Act.” The draft legislation set out earlier in this report contains significant amendments to section 258, notably extending the period in which an owner-developer may amend the strata plan under the section from the date of the first annual general meeting to the date of the fifth annual general meeting, and extending the reach of the section to embrace storage lockers in addition to



parking stalls. This draft provision is intended to bring section 13.6 of the regulation into line with the proposed changes to section 258 of the act. 3 Section14.1isrepealedandthefollowingsubstituted:

Definition for sections 241 and 242 of the Act

14.1 Forthepurposesofsections241and242oftheAct,“previouslyoc-cupied”meansoccupiedatanytimeinitspastforanypurpose,in-cludingresidential,commercial,institutional,recreationalorindustri-aluse,butdoesnotincludetheoccupationofaproposedstratalot

(a) bytheownerdevelopersolelyasadisplaylotforthesaleofstratalots,or

(b) fortemporaryconstructionpurposes,

intheproposedstrataplan.

recommendationno.(11)Comment: Under section 242 (2), “[i]f a person applying to deposit a strata plan wishes to include in the strata plan a previously occupied building, the person must submit the proposed strata plan to the approving authority” for the authority’s review and approval. Section 14.1 of the Strata Property Regulation currently defines previously occupied to mean, “[f]or the purposes of sections 241 and 242 of the Act, . . . occupied at any time in its past for any purpose, including residential, commercial, institutional, recreational or industrial use, but does not include the occupation of a proposed strata lot by the owner developer solely as a display lot for the sale of strata lots in the proposed strata plan.” This draft provision would add a reference to structures that are built “for temporary con-struction purposes.” The status of such structures is an emerging practice issue, particu-larly for land surveyors. (Section 241 of the Strata Property Act calls on land surveyors to issue an “endorsement of nonoccupancy,” in the following circumstances: “[i]f a strata plan includes a building that has not been previously occupied, the plan must be en-dorsed by a British Columbia land surveyor certifying that the building has not been pre-viously occupied.”) Carving structures that are used for temporary construction purposes out of the definition of previously occupied would clarify this practice point. 4 Section14.4(1)(i)isrepealedandthefollowingsubstituted:

(i) thestrataplanmustincludeanyrepresentations,in-cludingcross-sectiondrawingsofthebuilding,toiden-tifyandlocatethecommonproperty,includingthelim-itedcommonproperty,andthestratalotsandfloorswithinthebuilding;.




Comment: Section 14.4 (1) of the Strata Property Regulation sets out a list of strata-plan requirements. Paragraph (i) of the section currently reads: “the strata plan must include any representations, including an elevation or sectional drawing of the building, that the registrar [of land titles] may consider necessary to identify and locate the strata lots and floors within the building.” The draft provision adds more detail to the list and supports the committee’s recommendation to amend section 241 of the Strata Property Act and require that a strata plan “contain a minimum of one cross-section.”



Chapter 7. Conclusion Thisreporthasaddressedthreecomponentsofasystemthatservestodefinestratapropertiesasinterestsinland.Asawhole,thissystemcontinuestoservepartici-pantsinthestrata-propertysectorwell.But,asthisreporthasrecommended,thesystemdoesneedupgradingandimproving.Thisreportprovidesablueprintofim-provementsthatwouldenhancethecurrentsystemandwouldbenefitthestrata-propertysectorasawhole.



APPENDIX A

ListofRecommendationsCommon property—defining common property 1.TheStrataPropertyAct’sdefinitionof“commonproperty”shouldnotbeamend-ed.(32–35)2.TheStrataPropertyAct’sdefinitionof“limitedcommonproperty”shouldbeamend-edtoreadasfollows:“‘limitedcommonproperty’meansaformofcommonproperty,designatedfortheexclusiveuseoftheownersofoneormorestratalots.”(35–36)Common property—transactions involving common property 3.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatanylease,enteredintobytheowner-developer,ofafixturethatiscommonpropertyorofacommonassetmustnothaveatermthatexceedsfiveyears.(40–43)4.Forthepurposeofthepreviousrecommendation,thedefinitionof“fixtures”foundinsection9.1oftheStrataPropertyRegulation(“‘fixtures’meansitemsattachedtoabuilding,includingfloorandwallcoveringsandelectricalandplumbingfixtures,butdoesnotinclude,iftheycanberemovedwithoutdamagetothebuilding,refrigerators,stoves,dishwashers,microwaves,washers,dryersorotheritems”)shouldapply.(43–45)5.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethattheSuperintendentofRealEstateforBritishColumbiahastheauthoritytoapprovealeaseofafixturethatiscommonpropertyorofacommonassetenteredintobytheowner-developerwithatermthatexceedsfiveyears.(45–46)Common property—parking stalls and storage lockers 6.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatanyleaseorlicenceofaparkingstallorstoragelockerenteredintobeforeorafterthedepositofastrataplanbytheowner-developerisvoid.(48–50)



7.Section258oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedby:(a)strikingoutthewords“firstannualgeneralmeeting”wherevertheyappearandreplacingthemwith“fifthannualgeneralmeeting”;(b)addinganewsubsectionthatreads“Thissectiononlyapplieswhentheowner-developerhasnotconveyedallthestratalots”;(d)amendingsubsection(6)toread“Adesignationofparkingstallsorstoragelockersundersubsections(1)or(3):(a)doesnotrequireapprovalbyaresolutionatanannu-algeneralmeetingorspecialgeneralmeeting;(b)theowner-developermustgivethestratacorporationwrittennoticeofanamendmentofthestrataplan”;and(e)makingsuchamendmentsasarenecessarytoexpandthescopeofthesectiontoembracestor-agelockers.(50–52)8.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatatthestratacorporation’sfifthannualgeneralmeetinganyparkingstallsorstoragelockersthathavenotbeendesignatedaslimitedcommonpropertyundersection258remaincommonproperty.(52)Land titles—emerging issues in subdivision control 9.TheStrataPropertyActshouldnotprovidethatallstrataplansrequiretheapprovalofanapprovingofficer.(63–66)10.TheStrataPropertyActshouldprovidethatastrataplanthatdepictsthebounda-riesofstratalotsastheexteriorsurfaceofafloor,wall,orceiling,orasaboundaryex-ternaltoabuilding,mustmeetthesameapprovalrequirementsasthoughitwereabare-landstrataplan.(66–69)11.Section14.1oftheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldbeamendedtoread“Forthepurposesofsections241and242oftheAct,‘previouslyoccupied’meansoccupiedatanytimeinitspastforanypurpose,includingresidential,commercial,institutional,recreationalorindustrialuse,butdoesnotincludetheoccupationofaproposedstratalot(a)bytheownerdevelopersolelyasadisplaylotforthesaleofstratalots,or(b)fortemporaryconstructionpurposes,intheproposedstrataplan.”(69–70)Land titles—depicting common property for strata plans 12.TheStrataPropertyActshouldexpresslyrequireastrataplantoincludeadepic-tionofpartofthelandsorbuildingascommonproperty.(73–74)Land titles—depicting the vertical limits of limited common property for strata plans 13.Section244(1)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedtoprovidethatallstrataplansarerequiredtoincludeaminimumofonecross-section.(75–76)



14.Section14.4(1)(i)oftheStrataPropertyRegulationshouldbeamendedtoread:“thestrataplanmustincludeanyrepresentations,includingcross-sectiondrawingsofthebuilding,toidentifyandlocatethecommonproperty,includingthelimitedcom-monproperty,andthestratalotsandfloorswithinthebuilding.”(76–77)15.Section74(2)oftheStrataPropertyActshouldbeamendedbyaddingthefollow-ingasparagraph(d):“ispreparedbyaBritishColumbialandsurveyor.”(77–78)Land titles—certificate of payment 16.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuenottoprovidethataregistraroftitlesmustonlyacceptatransmissionofastratalotforregistrationinthelandtitleofficeifitisaccompaniedbyacurrentCertificateofPayment.(82–83)Fundamental changes—amending a strata plan 17.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirearesolutionpassedbyan80-percentvotetoauthorizeamendingastrataplantodesignatelimitedcommonproperty.(98–100)18.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetorequirearesolutionpassedbyaunani-mousvotetoauthorizeamendingastrataplantoremoveadesignationoflimitedcommonproperty.(100–101)19.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinue,inthosecasesnotcoveredbyanexemp-tion,torequirearesolutionpassedbyaunanimousvotetoauthorizeamendingastra-taplantoaddto,consolidate,ordivideastratalot.(101–103)20.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirearesolutionpassedbyan80-percentvotetoauthorizeamendingastrataplantoaddastratalottocommonproperty.(103–104)Fundamental changes—schedules to the strata plan 21.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirearesolutionpassedbyan80-percentvotetoauthorizeamendingaScheduleofUnitEntitlementtoreflectachangeinthehabitableareaofaresidentialstratalotinastrataplaninwhichtheunitentitlementofthestra-talotiscalculatedonthebasisofhabitablearea.(113–115)22.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetorequirearesolutionpassedbyaunani-mousvotetoauthorizeagreeingtouseoneormoredifferentformulas,otherthantheformulassetoutinsection99oftheactandintheregulations,forthecalculationofa



stratalot’sshareofthecontributiontotheoperatingfundandcontingencyreservefund.(115–117)23.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetorequirearesolutionpassedbyaunani-mousvotetoapproveaspeciallevywheneachstratalot’sshareofthespeciallevyiscalculatedinawayotherthaninaccordancewithsections99,100,or195oftheact.(117–118)24.TheStrataPropertyActshouldrequirethefollowingincasesinwhichastrataplanhasatleastonenonresidentialstratalot:(a)ifvotingrightsarenottobeapprovedbythesuperintendentofrealestate,thepersonapplyingtodepositthestrataplanmustestablishaScheduleofVotingRightsintheprescribedform;(b)ifvotingrightsaretobeapprovedbythesuperintendentofrealestate,thepersonapplyingtodepositthestrataplanmustsubmittothesuperintendentforapprovalaScheduleofVotingRightsintheprescribedform.(118–120)Fundamental changes—amalgamation 25.TheStrataPropertyActshouldcontinuetorequirearesolutionpassedbya3/4votetoapproveanamalgamationagreement.(125–126)



APPENDIX B

BiographiesofProject-CommitteeMembersPatrickWilliamsisapartneroftheVancouverlawfirmClarkWilsonLLPandamemberofthefirm’sStrataPropertyGroup.HeisalsoamemberoftheAlternativeDisputeResolutionPracticeGroup.Patrick’spracticefocussesonassistingstratacorporations,developers,andstrata-lotownerswithdisputeresolution.Heisanex-periencedandqualifiedarbitratorandmediatorwhohasmanagednumerousstrata-property,real-estate,andconstructiondisputes.Patrickhaswrittenandpublishedmanyarticlesonissuesimpactingthestrata-propertyindustry,includingconstruction-relatedproblemsexperiencedbyowners,propertymanagers,anddevelopers.Heisaregularcontributortoindustryperiodi-calsandregularlydeliverspresentationsandseminarstoindustrygroups,stratacorporations,andpropertymanagers.Hehasalsopublishedarticlesregardingtheuseandbenefitofarbitrationandmediationasanalternativetocourtandisafre-quentguestinstructorforthemediationcomponentoftheProfessionalLegalTrain-ingCourserequiredtobetakenbyallarticledstudentsinBritishColumbia.PatrickreceivedhisdisputeresolutiontrainingthroughtheContinuingLegalEduca-tionSocietyofBritishColumbiaandtheBritishColumbiaArbitrationandMediationInstitute.HeobtainedhisBachelorofCommercedegreein1973andhisBachelorofLawsdegreein1974,fromtheUniversityofBritishColumbia.VeronicaBarlee(committeememberJuly2014–present)isaseniorpolicyadvi-sorwiththeprovincialgovernment’sOfficeofHousingandConstructionStandards.Forthepastsevenyears,Veronicahasworkedonstratalegislation,regulations,pol-icies,andissues.StratahousingisavitaleconomicdriverandakeyhousingchoiceinBritishColumbia,providingalmost25%oftheprovince’shousingstock.Veroni-ca’sprofessionalbackgroundincludesextensivepolicy-developmentandmanage-mentexperienceintheprivate,public,andnot-for-profitsectors,includingsmallbusiness,fundraising,forest-firefighting,andcommunityservices.HerMBAfromtheUniversityofAlbertaisaugmentedbyongoingprofessionaldevelopmentinpoli-cydevelopment,stakeholderconsultation,publicengagement,andinformationmanagement.



LarryButtress(committeememberOctober2013–June2016)wasfirstlicensedundertheRealEstateActinBritishColumbiain1980.Workingforhisfamily’ssmall,independentreal-estatecompany,hesoldresidentialandmulti-familyrealestate,assistedinthecompany’sproperty-managementportfolio,andachievedhisagent’squalificationsin1982.ThatsameyearhebeganworkingwiththeRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouverasthemanagerofitsMultipleListingService.In1986,heearnedhisDiplomainUrbanLandEconomicsandbecameamemberoftheRealEs-tateInstituteofBritishColumbiaandtheRealEstateInstituteofCanada.In1988,hewasappointedasREBGV’sexecutiveofficer,apositionhehelduntil1995.In1995,hejoinedJCITechnologiesInc.asdirectorofreal-estateservices.Hesuccessfullyne-gotiatedthatcompany’spreferredsupplieragreementwiththeCanadianRealEstateAssociationthatledtothedevelopmentofmls.ca,nowREALTOR.ca,thelargestandmostfrequentlyvisitedreal-estatewebsiteinCanada.LarryjoinedstaffattheRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbiain1998asitsman-ager,industrypractice.HehasbeenanactiveparticipantintheCanadianRegulatorsGroupaschairofitsInternetAdvertisingGuidelinesTaskForce,chairofitsElec-tronicTransactionsTaskForce,andvice-chairofitsAgencyTaskForce.In2003–04,Larryalsoservedasthedistrictvice-presidentoftheCanadianDistrictofARELLO,theAssociationofRealEstateLicenceLawOfficials.LarryrecentlyretiredasthedeputyexecutiveofficeroftheRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia.J.GarthCambreyhasover28yearsofexperienceintheproperty-managementin-dustryinBritishColumbia.GarthcurrentlysitsontheRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia,wasthefoundingdirectorandpastvice-presidentofStrataPropertyAgentsofBCandwasapastdirectorandvice-presidentoftheProfessionalAssocia-tionofManagingAgents(PAMA).HeisanactivememberoftheRealEstateInstituteofBritishColumbiaandisinvolvedwithvariousindustryassociationsandcommit-tees.GarthhasbeenappointedbytheSupremeCourtofBritishColumbiaasanad-ministratorundertheStrataPropertyActon17occasionsandholdsaCharteredAr-bitratordesignationwiththeADRInstituteofCanada,actingasanarbitratorinstra-tadisputes.GarthisalsoinvolvedinvariousadvisorygroupswiththeBritishCo-lumbiagovernment,providingsupportandadvicewithrespecttoprovinciallegisla-tion,includingtheCivilResolutionsTribunalAct.TonyGioventuistheexecutivedirectoroftheCondominiumHomeOwnersAssoci-ationofBritishColumbia(CHOA),aconsumerassociationinBritishColumbiawithover200000memberscomprisingstratacorporations,owners,andbusinessmem-berswhoservethestrataindustry.TonyistheweeklyCondoSmartscolumnistforTheProvince,TheTimesColonist,and24HoursVancouver.Since2002,Tonyhaswrittenover1000columnsandinformationbulletinsdedicatedtostratalivingandistheco-authorofAPracticalGuidetoBylaws:TheStrataPropertyAct,andUnder-



standingGovernance:StrataRulesoforderandproceduresinBritishColumbia.Tonyhasservedasadirector/committeememberfortheHomeownerProtectionOffice,BCBuildingEnvelopeCouncil,CanadianStandardsAssociation,theRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia,andcontinuestoplayanactiveroleinresearchandde-velopmentofbuildingstandards,legislationforstratacorporations,andconsumerprotection.WithofficesinNewWestminster,Victoria,andKelowna,CHOAprovidesservicetoitsmembersthroughouttheprovince,promotinganunderstandingofstrataliving,andtheinterestsofstrata-propertyowners.Onaveragetheassociationfields300inquiriesadayfromowners,strata-councilmembers,managersandagents,andde-liversover100seminarsannuallyonavarietyofstrata-relatedtopicsincludinggov-ernance,operations,andadministration.IanHolt(committeememberOctober2016–April2017)startedhiscareerinre-al-estatesalesin1993.Heiscurrentlyareal-estateagentwithRe/MaxRealEstateServicesinVancouver.Ianspecializesandhassoldmanystratapropertiesthrough-outhiscareer.IanisamemberoftheRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouverandtheCanadianRealEstateAssociationandislicensedwiththeRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia.IanhasbeenanMLSMedallionClubmemberfor19yearswiththeRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouver.From2006to2008,IanwasaVancouverWestsideDivisionboardmemberoftheRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouver.From2008tothepresent,IanhasbeenanactivememberoftheGovernmentRela-tionsCommitteeattheRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouver.TimJowettstartedwiththeVancouverlandtitleofficein1988andhasprogressedthroughtheyearsfromanexamineroftitleintohiscurrentpositionofseniorman-ager,E-businessanddeputyregistrarwiththeNewWestminsterlandtitleofficeattheLandTitleandSurveyAuthorityofBritishColumbia.TimcurrentlyoverseestheE-businessteam,agroupofspecialistexaminerswhoareresponsibleforthepublishedpractices,statutoryproceduresandfunctionalityre-latedtotheelectronicfilingsystem.Theteam’sworkinvolvesvariousenhance-ments,changes,andupdatestothesystemsandprocessesthatarebeingdoneinanefforttosupporttheneedsofstakeholders.Hisrolealsoentailsansweringquestionsfromavarietyofstakeholders,primarilylawyers,notaries,landsurveyors,andemployeeswithlocalgovernments.Timhaspresentedandisakeyparticipantatvariousmeetingsandconferencesonland-titleissueswiththesestakeholders.



AlexLongson(committeememberJuly2016–present)startedhiscareerinrealestatein2005,shortlyafteremigratingfromtheUnitedKingdom,wherehehad20years’experienceintheautomotive-engineeringindustryworkingasatestengineerforFordMotorCompany.Hebecamelicensedforstratamanagementin2006withabrokerageintheOkanagan,andsubsequentlybecamelicensedforrentalmanage-mentandasamanagingbrokerin2009.In2012,hejoinedthestaffoftheRealEs-tateCouncilofBritishColumbiaandinhisroleasseniorcomplianceofficerheinves-tigatescomplaints,advisesandeducateslicenseesontherequirementsofthelegis-lation,andsupportstherealestatecouncil’sStrataManagementAdvisoryGroup.HehasalsobeenaguestspeakertotheStrataPropertyAgentsofBritishColumbiaandtheBritishColumbiaRealEstateAssociation,andiscurrentlyaresourcetotheRealEstateCouncilofAlbertafortheCondominiumManagersImplementationAdvisoryCommittee.JudithMatheson(committeememberOctober2013–October2016)startedhercareerinrealestatein1980.Sheiscurrentlyareal-estateagentwithColdwellBankerPremierRealty.Judithhassoldthousandsofstratapropertiesasresales,aswellashavingworkedformanyofthetopstratadevelopersinBritishColumbia.SheisrankedinthetopsevenpercentofrealtorsworldwidewithColdwellBanker,andisaColdwellBankerPremierRealtyTopProducer.JudithisamemberoftheRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouverandtheCanadianRealEstateAssociation,andislicensedwiththeRealEstateCouncilofBritishCo-lumbia.SheisanMLSMedallionClubMember,RealEstateBoardofGreaterVancou-verQuarterCenturyClubMember,andanAffiliateMemberofLuxuryHomes.com.JudithhasbeenawardedtheColdwellBankerUltimateServiceAward,theColdwellBankerPresidentsCircle,theColdwellBankerDiamondSociety,theColdwellBankerSterlingSociety,andtheColdwellBankerTop50inWesternCanada.ElaineMcCormackisafoundingmemberofthelawfirmWilsonMcCormackLawGroup.Forover20yearsshehasassistedstratacorporations,individualowners,andmanagementcompaniesinthegovernanceanddispute-resolutionprocessesofstratalife.Shepreparesbylawsandprivacypolicies,resolutions,andcontracts.Shehasalsorepresentedclientsincourtandinhuman-rightsmatters.Elaineisactivelyinvolvedineducatingmembersofthestratacommunity.Shefre-quentlydesignsanddeliversseminarsfortheProfessionalAssociationofManagingAgentsandpresentlyservesontheeducationcommitteeofPAMA.Shehaswrittenanddeliveredthelatestfull-daycourseentitled“RealEstateE&OInsuranceLegalUpdateforStrataManagers”usedfortheRelicensingEducationProgramforstratamanagers.ShealsofrequentlydeliversseminarsfortheCondominiumHomeOwn-ers’AssociationofBritishColumbiaandhaswrittenmanyarticlesfortheCHOA



News.SheisapastdirectoroftheBritishColumbiaArbitrationandMediationInsti-tute(BCAMI)andcurrentlysitsontheaccreditationcommitteeofBCAMIfortheQArbdesignation.AsaCharterArbitrator,Elainefrequentlyadjudicatesdisputesandusesthisexperi-enceinturnwhenadvocatingforclientsbeforefellowarbitrators.SheisamemberoftheMediateBCCivilRosterandhasreceivedmediationtrainingthroughtheBrit-ishColumbiaJusticeInstitute,theContinuingLegalEducationSocietyofBritishCo-lumbia,andMediateBC.ElainehasalsobeencounselinseveralseminalSupremeCourtofBritishColumbiadecisionsinvolvingsuchdiversestrataissuesastheen-forcementandvalidityofagebylawsandrentalbylaws,thetransitionalprovisionsbetweentheCondominiumActandtheStrataPropertyActwithrespecttoallocationofrepaircosts,andclaimingdamagesforimproperlycalculatedstratafees.Elaine’sdegreesanddesignationsincludeaBAwithamajorinEnglish,minorinLawandtheLiberalArtsfromtheUniversityofCalgaryin1988,anLLBfromtheUniver-sityofBritishColumbia,andaCArbdesignationfromtheADRInstituteofCanadaInc.in1998.SusanMercer(committeememberSeptember2016–present)startedhercareerasanotarypublicin1986inSidney,BC.Duringheryearsofpractice,shespecializedinreal-estatetransactions,whichincludedmanystrataproperties.Asaresult,sheisveryawareofvariousissuesfacedbystrata-propertyowners,aswellasbystrata-propertymanagers.Shehasalsobeeninvolvedinstrata-propertydevelopment.Susanhasservedvariouscommunityandprofessionalboardsandfoundations.ShealsoservedontheBCLIRealPropertyReformProjectCommitteefrom2008–12.In1986,SusanreceivedhercertificationasanotarypublicfromtheUniversityofBritishColumbia.Atthattime,shebecamethefirstrecipientoftheannualBernardHoeterAwardforhighestmarksachievedontheBCNotarystatutoryexams.SheisalsoagraduateoftheUBCUrbanLandEconomicsDiplomaProgram(2002),receiv-ingtwobursariesrecognizingherexcellentmarksuponcompletionoftheprogram.DougPage(committeememberOctober2013–July2014)isthemanagerofhousingpolicyintheBritishColumbiagovernment’sOfficeofHousingandConstruc-tionStandardsandisaformercondoowner.BritishColumbia’sstratalegislationandregulationsarenowoneofhismainresponsibilities.Hehasworkedfor25yearsinvariousaspectsofthehousingfield,includingstintswiththeUrbanInstituteinWashington,DC,theUSDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment,BC’sTreasuryBoardstaff,andwithalargeprivatedeveloperandmanagerofapartmentbuildings.DoughasaBAfromDartmouthCollegeandanMAinurbangeography



andadiplomainurbanlandeconomics,bothfromtheUniversityofBritishColum-bia.HeisamemberoftheRealEstateInstituteofBritishColumbia.DavidParkinistheassistantcitysurveyorfortheCityofVancouver.Hehasbeenworkinginthelandsurveyingprofessionforover30yearsindifferentcapacitiesinWhistlerandtheVancouverLowerMainland.HeobtainedhisBachelorofScienceinSurveyingEngineeringfromtheUniversityofCalgaryin1992andwascommis-sionedasaBritishColumbiaLandSurveyorin1995.HeisapractisingmemberoftheAssociationofBritishColumbiaLandSurveyors.DavidwasemployedbyUnderhillGeomaticsLtd.for15yearsandworkedasapro-jectlandsurveyorandwasresponsibleformanagingandsupervisingtheday-to-dayoperationsandprojectsoftheVancouveroffice.HispreferredareasofpracticewhilewithUnderhill’swerelargerdevelopmentprojectsthatincludedtheprepara-tionofair-spacesubdivisionsandstrataplans.Inhiscurrentcapacityastheassistantcitysurveyor,Davidreviewsconventionalandair-spacesubdivisionapplications,subdivisionsofexistingstrataplansandstatutoryrightofwayplans,andagreementsrelatedtocommercialandresidentialdevelopments.AllenReganisthevicepresidentandmanagingbrokerforBaysidePropertySer-vicesLtd.HehasbeenwithBaysidesinceApril1999.Baysideprovidesmanagementservicestoapproximately145stratacorporationsthroughoutthelowermainland,aswellasapproximately40rental-apartmentbuildings.Intotal,Baysidemanagesabout12000strataandrentalunits.PriortoworkingatBayside,Allenheldposi-tionsinthecommercialreal-estatefieldwithGWLRealtyAdvisorsasregionaldirec-torforBritishColumbiaandwithO&YEnterpriseasgeneralmanagerforBritishColumbia.AllenhasaBCommfromtheUniversityofBritishColumbiainurbanlandeconomics(1979)andislicensedinBritishColumbiafortrading,rental,andstratamanagement,allasamanagingbroker.AllenisalsoontheboardofdirectorsoftheStrataPropertyAgentsofBritishColumbia.GarrettRobinson(committeememberApril2017–present)startedhiscareerinreal-estatesalesin1993.HeiscurrentlyarealtorwithRe/MaxCrestRealtyWestsideinVancouver.GarrettisamemberoftheRealEstateBoardofGreaterVan-couverandtheCanadianRealEstateAssociationandislicensedwiththeRealEstateCouncilofBritishColumbia.Garretthaspreviouslybeenasubcommitteememberofthe2009StrataPropertyActReviewthatwasheadedbyAdrienneMurray.GarretthasbeenanMLSMedallionClubmemberfor18yearswiththeRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouver.Garrettisapastdirector(threeterms)fortheVancouver



WestsideDivisionoftheRealEstateBoardofGreaterVancouver.Garrettisastrata-propertyownerandactiveinday-to-daystrata-councilactivity.StanRule(committeememberOctober2013–September2016)isapartnerattheKelownalawfirmofSabeyRuleLLP.HehasbeenpracticinginKelownasinceshortlyafterhewascalledtothebarin1989.Hispreferredareasofpracticearewills,trusts,estates,andestatelitigation.Stanwritesalegalblogentitled“RuleofLaw.”HehasbeenaguestspeakerattheTrialLawyersAssociationofBritishColumbia,theCanadianBarAssociationOkana-ganwillsandtrustsandtheVictoriawillsandtrustssubsections,theOkanaganfami-lylawsubsection,theKelownaEstatePlanningSociety,theVernonEstatePlanningSociety,andhehaspresentedpapersateightcontinuinglegaleducationcourses.StanisadirectoroftheBritishColumbiaLawInstitute.Heisthetreasurerofthena-tionalwillsandestatessubsectionoftheCanadianBarAssociation.HeisamemberandformerchairoftheOkanaganwillsandtrustssubsection,andamemberandaformerpresidentoftheKelownaEstatePlanningSociety.HeisalsoamemberoftheSocietyofTrustandEstatePractitioners.HerecentlyparticipatedasamemberoftheBritishColumbiaLawInstituteProjectCommitteeonRecommendedPracticesforWillsPractitionersRelatingtoPotentialUndueInfluence.SandyWagnerrepresentsstrataownersinmanyareasofpublicconcernaspresi-dentoftheboardofdirectorsoftheVancouverIslandStrataOwnersAssociation.VISOA’smandateiseducation,empowerment,andassistanceforBritishColumbiastrataowners,andhasprovidedfront-lineservicetothemfor45years.ShehasbeenadirectorofVISOAsince2007andhasledtheassociationaspresidentforthepastsevenyears,duringwhichtimeithasgrownsignificantlybothinmem-bershipandinvisibility.SandycurrentlyeditstheVISOABulletin,aquarterlynewsmagazinedistributedtonearly10000VISOAmembers,andleadsVISOA’sworkshopgroup,providingeducationalfull-dayworkshopsonstratabestpractices.SheisalsopartoftheCivilResolutionTribunalstaff.Previously,SandywasamemberoftheCivilResolutionTribunalWorkingGroup(acommitteeworkingonproceduralmattersfortheCRT)andavolunteerontheStra-taManagementAdvisoryGroup(workingwiththeRealEstateCouncilofBritishCo-lumbiatoprovideeducationandinformationforstratamanagers).EdWilsonisapartnerwiththeVancouverlawfirmLawsonLundellLLPandhaspracticedinthereal-estateandmunicipal-lawfields,withaspecialtyinreal-estatedevelopment,forover30years.EdwasamemberoftheCanadianBarAssociation’s



stratapropertycommitteethatworkedwithgovernmentindevelopingthecurrentStrataPropertyAct.EdhasbeenactivelyinvolvedwiththeContinuingLegalEduca-tionSocietyofBritishColumbia.Hehastaughtmorethan15CLEBCcourses,includ-ingcoursesonstrata-propertylaw,resortdevelopment,real-estatedevelopment,anddepreciationreportsforstratacorporations.EdisalsoamemberoftheUrbanDevelopmentInstitute’slegalissuescommittee.



PRINCIPAL FUNDERS IN 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 Common Property, Land Titles, and Fundamental ...€¦ · Report on Common Property, Land...

Documents

Transcript of Report on Common Property, Land Titles, and Fundamental ...€¦ · Report on Common Property, Land...