Common Property and Common Assets (22:V) - Revision history

LSLAP at 19:45, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T19:45:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:45, 13 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~August 1, 2024~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 24 July 2025}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = strata}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = strata}}

LSLAP: /* Fixtures as Common Property */

2025-09-29T19:32:41Z

Fixtures as Common Property

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:32, 29 September 2025
Line 32:		Line 32:
	===== Fixtures as Common Property =====		===== Fixtures as Common Property =====

	The SPA does not replace the common law relating to fixtures. Because the law considers fixtures to be part of the land, a strata lot owner who affixes their personal belongings onto the strata corporation’s common property may cause those belongings to become common property. However, if the object does not become a fixture, it remains a chattel, which remains as the strata lot owner’s personal property. The courts use a two-part test to determine whether an object is a fixture: see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1990/1990canlii1932/1990canlii1932.html Royal Bank of Canada v Neilson (Trustee of)]'', 43 BCLR (2d) 363, 1990 CanLII 1932 (BC CA).		The ''SPA'' does not replace the common law relating to fixtures. Because the law considers fixtures to be part of the land, a strata lot owner who affixes their personal belongings onto the strata corporation’s common property may cause those belongings to become common property. However, if the object does not become a fixture, it remains a chattel, which remains as the strata lot owner’s personal property. The courts use a two-part test to determine whether an object is a fixture: see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1990/1990canlii1932/1990canlii1932.html Royal Bank of Canada v Neilson (Trustee of)]'', 43 BCLR (2d) 363, 1990 CanLII 1932 (BC CA).

	Firstly, the court considers the object’s degree of attachment to the land or building. If an object stays in place by its own weight only, it is presumed to be a chattel unless it can be proven to be intended as part of the land. If the object has any amount of additional affixation to the land, it is presumed to be a fixture unless it can be proven to be intended to remain considered a chattel.		Firstly, the court considers the object’s degree of attachment to the land or building. If an object stays in place by its own weight only, it is presumed to be a chattel unless it can be proven to be intended as part of the land. If the object has any amount of additional affixation to the land, it is presumed to be a fixture unless it can be proven to be intended to remain considered a chattel.

LSLAP at 16:01, 29 September 2025

2025-09-29T16:01:41Z

Show changes

LSLAP at 15:52, 29 September 2025

2025-09-29T15:52:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:52, 29 September 2025
Line 22:		Line 22:
	==== a) “Not Part of a Strata Lot” ====		==== a) “Not Part of a Strata Lot” ====

	The areas of a strata plan that do not fall within a strata lot are automatically common property. This can include areas of the strata corporation that are not explicitly shown on the strata plan: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2010/2010bcsc1725/2010bcsc1725.html ''Chan v Owners, Strata Plan VR-151'', 2010 BCSC 1725], where the court ruled that the airspace above a strata lot owner’s yard was common property.		The areas of a strata plan that do not fall within a strata lot are automatically common property. This can include areas of the strata corporation that are not explicitly shown on the strata plan: see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2010/2010bcsc1725/2010bcsc1725.html Chan v Owners, Strata Plan VR-151]'', 2010 BCSC 1725, where the court ruled that the airspace above a strata lot owner’s yard was common property.

	Nevertheless, strata plan legends typically provide a way of designating common property areas, often using letters like “CP” or “C” on common spaces such as hallways, stairwells, elevators, and parking stalls. In a conventional strata plan, the land is common property.		Nevertheless, strata plan legends typically provide a way of designating common property areas, often using letters like “CP” or “C” on common spaces such as hallways, stairwells, elevators, and parking stalls. In a conventional strata plan, the land is common property.
Line 28:		Line 28:
	In a bare land strata plan, the land itself is divided into strata lots. As a result, much of a building constructed on a strata lot, including even the exterior, are not considered common property. The common property would be limited to roads, sidewalks, and recreational facilities that do not fall within a strata lot. Underground services that service more than one strata lot would also be common property.		In a bare land strata plan, the land itself is divided into strata lots. As a result, much of a building constructed on a strata lot, including even the exterior, are not considered common property. The common property would be limited to roads, sidewalks, and recreational facilities that do not fall within a strata lot. Underground services that service more than one strata lot would also be common property.

	When a component of a system or service, such as water, mechanical, or electrical systems, is located on the common property, they are common property even if it only serves on strata lot: for instance, see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2017/2017bccrt122/2017bccrt122.html ''Newman v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS 680'', 2017 BCCRT 122]. The location of these physical components is typically not marked on the strata plan, but it is usually possible to draw reasonable inferences.		When a component of a system or service, such as water, mechanical, or electrical systems, is located on the common property, they are common property even if it only serves on strata lot: for instance, see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2017/2017bccrt122/2017bccrt122.html Newman v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS 680]'', 2017 BCCRT 122. The location of these physical components is typically not marked on the strata plan, but it is usually possible to draw reasonable inferences.

	===== Fixtures as Common Property =====		===== Fixtures as Common Property =====

LSLAP at 22:45, 3 August 2024

2024-08-03T22:45:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:45, 3 August 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~Aug~~ 1, 2024}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= August 1, 2024}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = strata}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = strata}}

LSLAP at 22:44, 3 August 2024

2024-08-03T22:44:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 3 August 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~July 24~~, ~~2023~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= Aug 1, 2024}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = strata}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = strata}}

LSLAP: /* 1. Repair of Common Property */

2024-08-03T22:43:27Z

1. Repair of Common Property

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:43, 3 August 2024
Line 265:		Line 265:
	As of June 27, 2024, no regulation has been passed to give effect to section 72(2)(b). Therefore, a bylaw purporting to make an owner responsible for common property is unenforceable.		As of June 27, 2024, no regulation has been passed to give effect to section 72(2)(b). Therefore, a bylaw purporting to make an owner responsible for common property is unenforceable.

	The standard of a strata corporation’s section 72 duties is reasonableness, not perfection: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2010/2010bcsc784/2010bcsc784.html ''Weir v Owners, Strata Plan NW 17'', 2010 BCSC 784]. This means that a strata corporation is not limited to the “best” solution to a repair situation. Their duty to act in the interests of the owners does not reach as far as a fiduciary duty ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc790/2007bcsc790.html ''Petersen v Proline Management Ltd.'', 2007 BCSC 790]), and a strata corporation that acts reasonably does not become liable for claims of negligence caused by defective repairs ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1996/1996canlii2460/1996canlii2460.html ''Wright v The Owners, Strata Plan #205'', [1996] BCJ No 381 (QL), 1996 CanLII 2460 (BC SC)]). Because a strata council is made up of volunteers who are not expected to have expertise in building maintenance and repair, the strata council is entitled to rely on the advice of its contractors and other professionals: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc113/2023bcsc113.html ''Dolnik v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1350'', 2023 BCSC 113] at para 69.		The standard of a strata corporation’s section 72 duties is reasonableness, not perfection: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2010/2010bcsc784/2010bcsc784.html ''Weir v Owners, Strata Plan NW 17'', 2010 BCSC 784]. This means that a strata corporation is not limited to the “best” solution to a repair situation. Their duty to act in the interests of the owners does not reach as far as a fiduciary duty ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc790/2007bcsc790.html ''Petersen v Proline Management Ltd.'', 2007 BCSC 790]), and a strata corporation that acts reasonably does not become liable for claims of negligence caused by defective repairs ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1996/1996canlii2460/1996canlii2460.html ''Wright v The Owners, Strata Plan #205'', (1996) BCJ No 381 (QL), 1996 CanLII 2460 (BC SC)]). Because a strata council is made up of volunteers who are not expected to have expertise in building maintenance and repair, the strata council is entitled to rely on the advice of its contractors and other professionals: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc113/2023bcsc113.html ''Dolnik v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1350'', 2023 BCSC 113] at para 69.

	In some situations, a strata corporation’s failure to satisfy its duty to repair can constitute a significantly unfair act under section 164 of the ''SPA''. However, failing to reasonably repair and maintain common property is not automatically significantly unfair: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2023/2023bccrt602/2023bccrt602.html ''Jobanputra v The Owners, Strata Plan VR 911'', 2023 BCCRT 602].		In some situations, a strata corporation’s failure to satisfy its duty to repair can constitute a significantly unfair act under section 164 of the ''SPA''. However, failing to reasonably repair and maintain common property is not automatically significantly unfair: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2023/2023bccrt602/2023bccrt602.html ''Jobanputra v The Owners, Strata Plan VR 911'', 2023 BCCRT 602].

LSLAP: /* 1. Recreational Facilities */

2024-08-03T22:26:55Z

1. Recreational Facilities

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:26, 3 August 2024
Line 189:		Line 189:
	Many strata developments have recreational facilities for the owners’ use. They are typically subject to rules that may, for instance, govern hours of operation or usage by guests. Recreational facilities may be common property, limited common property, another strata lot, or even a common asset on another land parcel.		Many strata developments have recreational facilities for the owners’ use. They are typically subject to rules that may, for instance, govern hours of operation or usage by guests. Recreational facilities may be common property, limited common property, another strata lot, or even a common asset on another land parcel.

	When a recreational facility is intended ~~the~~ be used and accessed by more than one strata corporation, there may be easements granting mutual access to the facility. These easements must be registered to be enforceable, and once registered, they continue to bind future owners until removed.		When a recreational facility is intended to be used and accessed by more than one strata corporation, there may be easements granting mutual access to the facility. These easements must be registered to be enforceable, and once registered, they continue to bind future owners until removed.

	=== 2. The Roof ===		=== 2. The Roof ===

LSLAP: /* I. Duty to Repair */

2024-07-30T21:13:21Z

I. Duty to Repair

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:13, 30 July 2024
Line 263:		Line 263:
	# Common property other than limited common property, but only as identified in the ''SPR'' and subject to prescribed restrictions.		# Common property other than limited common property, but only as identified in the ''SPR'' and subject to prescribed restrictions.

	As of ~~July 11~~, ~~2023~~, no regulation has been passed to give effect to section 72(2)(b). Therefore, a bylaw purporting to make an owner responsible for common property is unenforceable. Strata corporations nevertheless sometimes enter into an agreement with an owner for that owner to be responsible for the expenses of repairing and maintaining alterations to common property, under the grounds that this responsibility would not be imposed by bylaw; it is an open question as for whether this practice is permitted by the ''SPA''.		As of June 27, 2024, no regulation has been passed to give effect to section 72(2)(b). Therefore, a bylaw purporting to make an owner responsible for common property is unenforceable.

	The standard of a strata corporation’s section 72 duties is reasonableness, not perfection: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2010/2010bcsc784/2010bcsc784.html ''Weir v Owners, Strata Plan NW 17'', 2010 BCSC 784]. This means that a strata corporation is not limited to the “best” solution to a repair situation. Their duty to act in the interests of the owners does not reach as far as a fiduciary duty ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc790/2007bcsc790.html ''Petersen v Proline Management Ltd.'', 2007 BCSC 790]), and a strata corporation that acts reasonably does not become liable for claims of negligence caused by defective repairs ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1996/1996canlii2460/1996canlii2460.html ''Wright v The Owners, Strata Plan #205'', [1996] BCJ No 381 (QL), 1996 CanLII 2460 (BC SC)]). Because a strata council is made up of volunteers who are not expected to have expertise in building maintenance and repair, the strata council is entitled to rely on the advice of its contractors and other professionals: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc113/2023bcsc113.html ''Dolnik v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1350'', 2023 BCSC 113] at para 69.		The standard of a strata corporation’s section 72 duties is reasonableness, not perfection: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2010/2010bcsc784/2010bcsc784.html ''Weir v Owners, Strata Plan NW 17'', 2010 BCSC 784]. This means that a strata corporation is not limited to the “best” solution to a repair situation. Their duty to act in the interests of the owners does not reach as far as a fiduciary duty ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc790/2007bcsc790.html ''Petersen v Proline Management Ltd.'', 2007 BCSC 790]), and a strata corporation that acts reasonably does not become liable for claims of negligence caused by defective repairs ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1996/1996canlii2460/1996canlii2460.html ''Wright v The Owners, Strata Plan #205'', [1996] BCJ No 381 (QL), 1996 CanLII 2460 (BC SC)]). Because a strata council is made up of volunteers who are not expected to have expertise in building maintenance and repair, the strata council is entitled to rely on the advice of its contractors and other professionals: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2023/2023bcsc113/2023bcsc113.html ''Dolnik v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1350'', 2023 BCSC 113] at para 69.

LSLAP: /* 4. Indemnity Agreements Related to Alterations */

2024-07-30T21:10:07Z

4. Indemnity Agreements Related to Alterations

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:10, 30 July 2024
Line 248:		Line 248:
	=== 4. Indemnity Agreements Related to Alterations ===		=== 4. Indemnity Agreements Related to Alterations ===

	A strata corporation ~~is permitted to require~~ a ~~strata lot~~ owner to ~~assume~~ responsibility for ~~any expenses arising from alterations~~ of common property. For the purposes of owner or tenant insurance policies, such an indemnity agreement should list the items and amounts to be covered.		Whether a bylaw can require an owner to sign an indemnity agreement over common property is not yet settled in law. Section 72 of the ''SPA'' prohibits bylaws that make an owner responsible for the repair and maintenance of common property. However, it remains unclear whether a strata corporation can pass a bylaw requiring an owner to sign a contract assuming responsibility for repair and maintenance of common property they wish to alter: see [https://canlii.ca/t/k1x0b ''Vairo v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS 2102'', 2023 BCCRT 1122] for a discussion on this issue. For the purposes of owner or tenant insurance policies, such an indemnity agreement should list the items and amounts to be covered.

	Under section 59(3)(c) of the ''SPA'', the Information Certificate that a strata corporation issues must disclose these indemnity agreements. If a strata corporation fails to make this disclosure to a strata lot purchaser, the new owner could be exempt from the indemnity agreement due to not being a party to the original agreement: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2022/2022bccrt260/2022bccrt260.html ''Nguyen v The Owners, Strata Plan Vr 97'', 2022 BCCRT 260].		Under section 59(3)(c) of the ''SPA'', the Information Certificate that a strata corporation issues must disclose these indemnity agreements. If a strata corporation fails to make this disclosure to a strata lot purchaser, the new owner could be exempt from the indemnity agreement due to not being a party to the original agreement: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2022/2022bccrt260/2022bccrt260.html ''Nguyen v The Owners, Strata Plan Vr 97'', 2022 BCCRT 260]. However, a strata lot purchaser may become a party to an indemnity agreement if the agreement is properly disclosed and includes language about binding future owners: see [https://canlii.ca/t/jzbgd ''The Owners, Strata Plan NW 2476 v Jensen'', 2023 BCCRT 623] at para 21.

	== I. Duty to Repair ==		== I. Duty to Repair ==