Recourse to the Courts (22:XVI) - Revision history

LSLAP at 19:46, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T19:46:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:46, 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: /* 3. Findlay v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS401, 2024 BCCA 305 */

2025-09-29T19:53:36Z

3. Findlay v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS401, 2024 BCCA 305

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:53, 29 September 2025
Line 248:		Line 248:
	=== 3. ''Findlay v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS401'', 2024 BCCA 305 ===		=== 3. ''Findlay v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS401'', 2024 BCCA 305 ===

	In ''Findlay v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS401'', 2024 BCCA 305 [''Findlay''], the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered whether a strata corporation could assert REDMA claims on behalf of original purchasers for misrepresentation in the developer’s disclosure. The Court held that it could not, because REDMA section 22(3) confers a narrow statutory cause of action only on the purchasers themselves.		In ''Findlay v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS401'', 2024 BCCA 305 [''Findlay''], the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered whether a strata corporation could assert ''REDMA'' claims on behalf of original purchasers for misrepresentation in the developer’s disclosure. The Court held that it could not, because ''REDMA'' section 22(3) confers a narrow statutory cause of action only on the purchasers themselves.

	* S.22(3) of the REDMA allows causes of action that are personal in nature and only available to the purchaser of a development unit from the developer—this being the initial purchaser (''Findlay'' at para 79).		* S.22(3) of the ''REDMA'' allows causes of action that are personal in nature and only available to the purchaser of a development unit from the developer—this being the initial purchaser (''Findlay'' at para 79).
	* S.171 of the SPA allows strata corporations to sue when a matter affects the strata corporation.		* S.171 of the ''SPA'' allows strata corporations to sue when a matter affects the strata corporation.
	* Misrepresentations made to purchasers of a development unit are not matters affecting the strata corporation (''Findlay'' at para 91).		* Misrepresentations made to purchasers of a development unit are not matters affecting the strata corporation (''Findlay'' at para 91).
	* “Leaky condo cases” are distinguishable from REDMA claims for misrepresentation because those cases involve defects that affect all owners, regardless of whether they purchased directly from the developer or a subsequent owner (''Findlay'' at para 75).		* “Leaky condo cases” are distinguishable from ''REDMA'' claims for misrepresentation because those cases involve defects that affect all owners, regardless of whether they purchased directly from the developer or a subsequent owner (''Findlay'' at para 75).

	To conclude, strata corporations lack standing to advance REDMA claims. Claims under REDMA must be brought by individual purchasers, not the strata corporation.		To conclude, strata corporations lack standing to advance ''REDMA'' claims. Claims under ''REDMA'' must be brought by individual purchasers, not the strata corporation.



	{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters15-23}}		{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters15-23}}

LSLAP: /* 2. REDMA and the Limits of Collective Enforcement */

2025-09-29T19:52:48Z

2. REDMA and the Limits of Collective Enforcement

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:52, 29 September 2025
Line 244:		Line 244:
	=== 2. REDMA and the Limits of Collective Enforcement ===		=== 2. REDMA and the Limits of Collective Enforcement ===

	The Real Estate Development Marketing Act, SBC 2004, c 41 [REDMA] establishes a framework of consumer protection for purchasers of new developments. Section 22(3) states that only a “purchaser” who acquires a development unit directly from a developer has the statutory right to rescind the contract and seek damages where a disclosure statement is materially false or misleading. This right is strictly personal and does not extend to subsequent purchasers of third-party entities like strata corporations.		The ''Real Estate Development Marketing Act'', SBC 2004, c 41 [''REDMA''] establishes a framework of consumer protection for purchasers of new developments. Section 22(3) states that only a “purchaser” who acquires a development unit directly from a developer has the statutory right to rescind the contract and seek damages where a disclosure statement is materially false or misleading. This right is strictly personal and does not extend to subsequent purchasers of third-party entities like strata corporations.

	=== 3. ''Findlay v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS401'', 2024 BCCA 305 ===		=== 3. ''Findlay v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS401'', 2024 BCCA 305 ===

LSLAP: /* 1. Representative Actions and the Strata Property Act */

2025-09-29T19:52:23Z

1. Representative Actions and the Strata Property Act

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:52, 29 September 2025
Line 240:		Line 240:
	=== 1. Representative Actions and the Strata Property Act ===		=== 1. Representative Actions and the Strata Property Act ===

	Section 171 of the SPA states that a strata corporation may bring a claim on behalf of the owners with respect to matters affecting the strata as a whole, subject to approval by a ¾ vote. However, this authority is limited. Courts have drawn a distinction between corporate interests and individual rights. When the subject matter of a claim is grounded in a personal statutory right belonging to individual owners—rather than a right vested in the strata corporation—courts use discretion to decide whether the strata corporation can proceed.		Section 171 of the ''SPA'' states that a strata corporation may bring a claim on behalf of the owners with respect to matters affecting the strata as a whole, subject to approval by a ¾ vote. However, this authority is limited. Courts have drawn a distinction between corporate interests and individual rights. When the subject matter of a claim is grounded in a personal statutory right belonging to individual owners—rather than a right vested in the strata corporation—courts use discretion to decide whether the strata corporation can proceed.

	=== 2. REDMA and the Limits of Collective Enforcement ===		=== 2. REDMA and the Limits of Collective Enforcement ===

LSLAP at 18:17, 29 September 2025

2025-09-29T18:17:18Z

Show changes

LSLAP at 23:17, 15 August 2025

2025-08-15T23:17:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:17, 15 August 2025
Line 249:		Line 249:

	In Findlay v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS401, 2024 BCCA 305 [Findlay], the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered whether a strata corporation could assert REDMA claims on behalf of original purchasers for misrepresentation in the developer’s disclosure. The Court held that it could not, because REDMA section 22(3) confers a narrow statutory cause of action only on the purchasers themselves.		In Findlay v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS401, 2024 BCCA 305 [Findlay], the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered whether a strata corporation could assert REDMA claims on behalf of original purchasers for misrepresentation in the developer’s disclosure. The Court held that it could not, because REDMA section 22(3) confers a narrow statutory cause of action only on the purchasers themselves.

			* S.22(3) of the REDMA allows causes of action that are personal in nature and only available to the purchaser of a development unit from the developer—this being the initial purchaser (Findlay at para 79).
			* S.171 of the SPA allows strata corporations to sue when a matter affects the strata corporation.
			* Misrepresentations made to purchasers of a development unit are not matters affecting the strata corporation (Findlay at para 91).
			* “Leaky condo cases” are distinguishable from REDMA claims for misrepresentation because those cases involve defects that affect all owners, regardless of whether they purchased directly from the developer or a subsequent owner (Findlay at para 75).

	To conclude, strata corporations lack standing to advance REDMA claims. Claims under REDMA must be brought by individual purchasers, not the strata corporation.		To conclude, strata corporations lack standing to advance REDMA claims. Claims under REDMA must be brought by individual purchasers, not the strata corporation.



	{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters15-23}}		{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters15-23}}

LSLAP at 23:16, 15 August 2025

2025-08-15T23:16:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:16, 15 August 2025
Line 236:		Line 236:
	Section 171(2) of the ''SPA'' states that before the strata corporation sues as representative of all owners, the suit must be authorized by a 3/4 vote resolution. This does not apply to the Civil Resolution Tribunal. From sections 189.1 and 34.1 of the ''SPA'', a strata corporation, owner, or tenant may request the CRT to resolve any dispute concerning a strata property claim within its jurisdiction, although requests by an owner or tenant must be preceded by either a request for a council hearing or a CRT direction that the council hearing may be exempted.		Section 171(2) of the ''SPA'' states that before the strata corporation sues as representative of all owners, the suit must be authorized by a 3/4 vote resolution. This does not apply to the Civil Resolution Tribunal. From sections 189.1 and 34.1 of the ''SPA'', a strata corporation, owner, or tenant may request the CRT to resolve any dispute concerning a strata property claim within its jurisdiction, although requests by an owner or tenant must be preceded by either a request for a council hearing or a CRT direction that the council hearing may be exempted.

			== G. Limits on Court Standing for Strata Corporations ==

			=== 1. Representative Actions and the Strata Property Act ===

			Section 171 of the SPA states that a strata corporation may bring a claim on behalf of the owners with respect to matters affecting the strata as a whole, subject to approval by a ¾ vote. However, this authority is limited. Courts have drawn a distinction between corporate interests and individual rights. When the subject matter of a claim is grounded in a personal statutory right belonging to individual owners—rather than a right vested in the strata corporation—courts use discretion to decide whether the strata corporation can proceed.

			=== 2. REDMA and the Limits of Collective Enforcement ===

			The Real Estate Development Marketing Act, SBC 2004, c 41 [REDMA] establishes a framework of consumer protection for purchasers of new developments. Section 22(3) states that only a “purchaser” who acquires a development unit directly from a developer has the statutory right to rescind the contract and seek damages where a disclosure statement is materially false or misleading. This right is strictly personal and does not extend to subsequent purchasers of third-party entities like strata corporations.

			=== 3. Findlay v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS401, 2024 BCCA 305 ===

			In Findlay v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS401, 2024 BCCA 305 [Findlay], the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered whether a strata corporation could assert REDMA claims on behalf of original purchasers for misrepresentation in the developer’s disclosure. The Court held that it could not, because REDMA section 22(3) confers a narrow statutory cause of action only on the purchasers themselves.

			To conclude, strata corporations lack standing to advance REDMA claims. Claims under REDMA must be brought by individual purchasers, not the strata corporation.

	{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters15-23}}		{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters15-23}}

LSLAP at 00:46, 4 August 2024

2024-08-04T00:46:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:46, 4 August 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~July 24~~, ~~2023~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= August 1, 2024}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = strata}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = strata}}

LSLAP at 22:34, 31 July 2024

2024-07-31T22:34:25Z

Show changes

Clicklaw Editor: /* D. Section 173 Appications */

2023-08-22T20:38:01Z

D. Section 173 Appications

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 22 August 2023
Line 181:		Line 181:

	# It proposes a resolution to approve a special levy to raise money for repairs to common property or common assets that are necessary to ensure safety or prevent significant loss or damage;		# It proposes a resolution to approve a special levy to raise money for repairs to common property or common assets that are necessary to ensure safety or prevent significant loss or damage;
	# The resolution fails the required ¾ vote of the strata lot owners, but does receive more than half		# The resolution fails the required ¾ vote of the strata lot owners, but does receive more than half of the votes cast;
	of the votes cast;
	# Not more than 90 days have passed since the resolution was voted upon.		# Not more than 90 days have passed since the resolution was voted upon.