The Strata Plan (22:IV) - Revision history

LSLAP at 19:45, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T19:45:46Z

← 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: /* 1. Changing Unit Entitlement */

2025-09-29T19:29:42Z

1. Changing Unit Entitlement

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:29, 29 September 2025
Line 100:		Line 100:

	# For a residential strata lot: an application to the BC Supreme Court under section 246(7);		# For a residential strata lot: an application to the BC Supreme Court under section 246(7);
	# For a residential strata lot: a unanimous vote to amend the Schedule of Unit Entitlement under sections 70(4) and 261 (see also [https://canlii.ca/t/j5mzl ''Richardson v Simmons'', 2020 BCCRT 241]);		# For a residential strata lot: a unanimous vote to amend the Schedule of Unit Entitlement under sections 70(4) and 261 (see also ''[https://canlii.ca/t/j5mzl Richardson v Simmons]'', 2020 BCCRT 241);
	# For either type of strata lot: a filing under s 264, as consequential to certain fundamental changes to the strata plan:		# For either type of strata lot: a filing under s 264, as consequential to certain fundamental changes to the strata plan:
	::a) Adding to, consolidating, or dividing a strata lot (''SPA'', s 259);		::a) Adding to, consolidating, or dividing a strata lot (''SPA'', s 259);

LSLAP: /* 1. Changing Unit Entitlement */

2025-09-29T15:49:36Z

1. Changing Unit Entitlement

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:49, 29 September 2025
Line 106:		Line 106:
	::c) Adding a strata lot to common property (''SPA'', s 263).		::c) Adding a strata lot to common property (''SPA'', s 263).

	If the Schedule of Unit Entitlement allocates expenses in a significantly unfair manner to one or more strata lot owners, the court or the CRT may make an order under section 164 of the ''SPA'' to allocate some or all expenses using a different method: see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2002/2002bcsc381/2002bcsc381.html Strata Plan VR1767 (Owners) v Seven Estate Ltd.]'', 2002 BCSC 381, ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc792/2007bcsc792.html Southern Interior ~~ConstructionAssociation~~ v Strata Plan KAS 2048]'', 2007 BCSC 792, and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2022/2022bccrt705/2022bccrt705.html Klassen v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1710]'', 2022 BCCRT 705.		If the Schedule of Unit Entitlement allocates expenses in a significantly unfair manner to one or more strata lot owners, the court or the CRT may make an order under section 164 of the ''SPA'' to allocate some or all expenses using a different method: see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2002/2002bcsc381/2002bcsc381.html Strata Plan VR1767 (Owners) v Seven Estate Ltd.]'', 2002 BCSC 381, ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc792/2007bcsc792.html Southern Interior Construction Association v Strata Plan KAS 2048]'', 2007 BCSC 792, and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2022/2022bccrt705/2022bccrt705.html Klassen v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1710]'', 2022 BCCRT 705.

	In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1772/2018bcsc1772.html King Day Holdings Ltd. v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3851 (Re)]'', 2018 BCSC 1772 (affirmed in [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2020/2020bcca342/2020bcca342.html 2020 BCCA 342]), the court overturned two special levies for being significantly unfair to King Day Holdings Ltd., even though the levies were passed by the respondent strata corporation at its annual general meeting.		In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1772/2018bcsc1772.html King Day Holdings Ltd. v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3851 (Re)]'', 2018 BCSC 1772 (affirmed in [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2020/2020bcca342/2020bcca342.html 2020 BCCA 342]), the court overturned two special levies for being significantly unfair to King Day Holdings Ltd., even though the levies were passed by the respondent strata corporation at its annual general meeting.

LSLAP at 15:49, 29 September 2025

2025-09-29T15:49:18Z

LSLAP: /* 1. Changing Unit Entitlement */

2024-08-01T19:30:50Z

1. Changing Unit Entitlement

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:30, 1 August 2024
Line 110:		Line 110:
	In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1772/2018bcsc1772.html ''King Day Holdings Ltd. v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3851 (Re)'', 2018 BCSC 1772] (affirmed in [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2020/2020bcca342/2020bcca342.html 2020 BCCA 342]), the court overturned two special levies for being significantly unfair to King Day Holdings Ltd., even though the levies were passed by the respondent strata corporation at its annual general meeting.		In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1772/2018bcsc1772.html ''King Day Holdings Ltd. v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3851 (Re)'', 2018 BCSC 1772] (affirmed in [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2020/2020bcca342/2020bcca342.html 2020 BCCA 342]), the court overturned two special levies for being significantly unfair to King Day Holdings Ltd., even though the levies were passed by the respondent strata corporation at its annual general meeting.

	Ultimately, it is rare that a strata corporation dividing expenses by unit entitlement will create significantly unfair results. The fact that an owner must contribute towards expenses that disproportionately do not benefit them is insufficient by itself to constitute significant unfairness and is simply part of strata living: see [https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2023/2023bccrt146~~/~~2023bccrt146.html~~/ ''Smith v The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 2503'', 2023 BCCRT 146].		Ultimately, it is rare that a strata corporation dividing expenses by unit entitlement will create significantly unfair results. The fact that an owner must contribute towards expenses that disproportionately do not benefit them is insufficient by itself to constitute significant unfairness and is simply part of strata living: see [https://canlii.ca/t/jvkdc ''Smith v The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 2503'', 2023 BCCRT 146].

	Strata corporations are required to disclose such court judgments in their Information Certificates under section 59(3)(j) of the ''SPA'', although the judgment binds purchasers even if the Information Certificate fails to disclose this information.		Strata corporations are required to disclose such court judgments in their Information Certificates under section 59(3)(j) of the ''SPA'', although the judgment binds purchasers even if the Information Certificate fails to disclose this information.

LSLAP: /* 3. Leases and Licenses of Parking Stalls */

2024-08-01T19:29:08Z

3. Leases and Licenses of Parking Stalls

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:29, 1 August 2024
Line 64:		Line 64:
	Surface parking can only be placed in the owner developer’s control by licence, not lease, as per sections 73 and 73.1 of the [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96250_00_multi#section73.1 ''Land Title Act'', RSBC 1996, c 250] [''LTA'']. Because a license does not create an interest in land, the strata corporation may revoke such a parking stall licence without needing to provide notice to the strata lot owner.		Surface parking can only be placed in the owner developer’s control by licence, not lease, as per sections 73 and 73.1 of the [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96250_00_multi#section73.1 ''Land Title Act'', RSBC 1996, c 250] [''LTA'']. Because a license does not create an interest in land, the strata corporation may revoke such a parking stall licence without needing to provide notice to the strata lot owner.

	Section 20 of the ''LTA'' raises questions about whether this common practice of unregistered parking stall leases is enforceable. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1991/1991canlii529/1991canlii529.html#document ''Hill v Strata Plan NW 2477 (Owners)'', 2 BCAC 289, 1991 CanLII 529 (BC CA)] [''Hill''], the court ruled that an owner developer could not arrange with a particular owner for the exclusive use of common property; despite being a case on the ''Condominium Act'', it continues to be applicable to the ''SPA'' ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2018/2018bccrt166/2018bccrt166.html ''The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 3437 v Townsite Marina Ltd.'', 2018 BCCRT 166]). In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc2160/2018bcsc2160.html ''~~TownsiteMarina~~ Ltd. v The Owners, Strata Plan VIS3437'', 2018 BCSC 2160] at paras 27 to 28, the BC Supreme Court recognized that such a practice has some acceptance, “possibly even a consensus,” among legal practitioners as valid, although the court ultimately left the question open. [https://canlii.ca/t/j615n ''Khalili v The Owners, Strata Plan BCS460'', 2020 BCCRT 343] further affirms the use of this practice and the ability for strata lot owners to transfer their leases in parking stalls by assignment alone subject to any applicable bylaws.		Section 20 of the ''LTA'' raises questions about whether this common practice of unregistered parking stall leases is enforceable. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1991/1991canlii529/1991canlii529.html#document ''Hill v Strata Plan NW 2477 (Owners)'', 2 BCAC 289, 1991 CanLII 529 (BC CA)] [''Hill''], the court ruled that an owner developer could not arrange with a particular owner for the exclusive use of common property; despite being a case on the ''Condominium Act'', it continues to be applicable to the ''SPA'' ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2018/2018bccrt166/2018bccrt166.html ''The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 3437 v Townsite Marina Ltd.'', 2018 BCCRT 166]). In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc2160/2018bcsc2160.html ''Townsite Marina Ltd. v The Owners, Strata Plan VIS3437'', 2018 BCSC 2160] at paras 27 to 28, the BC Supreme Court recognized that such a practice has some acceptance, “possibly even a consensus,” among legal practitioners as valid, although the court ultimately left the question open. [https://canlii.ca/t/j615n ''Khalili v The Owners, Strata Plan BCS460'', 2020 BCCRT 343] further affirms the use of this practice and the ability for strata lot owners to transfer their leases in parking stalls by assignment alone subject to any applicable bylaws.

	=== 4. Parking Stalls and Storage Lockers as Part of Strata Lot ===		=== 4. Parking Stalls and Storage Lockers as Part of Strata Lot ===

LSLAP at 19:24, 1 August 2024

2024-08-01T19:24:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:24, 1 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: /* C. Schedule of Unit Entitlement */

2024-07-30T20:07:24Z

C. Schedule of Unit Entitlement

LSLAP: /* B. Parking and Storage Facilities */

2024-07-30T20:03:41Z

B. Parking and Storage Facilities

LSLAP: /* 3. Building Systems */

2024-07-30T19:28:17Z

3. Building Systems

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:28, 30 July 2024
Line 30:		Line 30:
	When utility systems serve multiple strata lots or the common property, they are considered common property, even when located within a strata lot. These are not shown on the strata plan, and it can be difficult to delineate where common property starts and ends. For instance, see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2012/2012bcpc409/2012bcpc409.html ''Fudge v Owners, Strata Plan NW2636'', 2012 BCPC 409], where the court held that a washing machine discharge pipe found inside a strata lot was nevertheless common property due to being integrated with the building’s wastewater collection systems.		When utility systems serve multiple strata lots or the common property, they are considered common property, even when located within a strata lot. These are not shown on the strata plan, and it can be difficult to delineate where common property starts and ends. For instance, see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2012/2012bcpc409/2012bcpc409.html ''Fudge v Owners, Strata Plan NW2636'', 2012 BCPC 409], where the court held that a washing machine discharge pipe found inside a strata lot was nevertheless common property due to being integrated with the building’s wastewater collection systems.

	A building component that only serves one strata lot despite being located outside the lot’s boundaries may nevertheless still be common property if it is a fixture at common law. If the component is sufficiently attached to the building, and the intention behind its attachment is more for the better use of the building rather than for facilitating its own use, the component may be a fixture at common law: see [~~https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1969/1969canlii740/1969canlii740.html#document ''La Salle Recreations Limited v Canadian Camdex Investments Limited'',~~ [~~1969<nowiki>]</nowiki> BCJ No 421~~ (~~QL), 1969 CanLII 740 (BC CA~~)]. For instance, a heat pump attached to common property for the benefit of only one strata lot may nevertheless be classified as common property: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2017/2017bccrt139/2017bccrt139.html ''Warren v The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 6261'', 2017 BCCRT 139].		A building component that only serves one strata lot despite being located outside the lot’s boundaries may nevertheless still be common property if it is a fixture at common law. See [[Common Property and Common Assets (22:V)\|Fixtures as Common Property]] under Section V below.

	Section 72 of the ''SPA'' allows bylaws to make an owner responsible for limited common property that they have the right to use, but not undesignated common property ~~except as permitted in the ''SPR''~~. Thus, a fixture found on limited common property may be an individual owner’s responsibility, but a fixture found on undesignated common property is unlikely to be any individual owner’s responsibility. The courts have ruled that section 72 does not prevent a strata corporation from assigning responsibility for common property to entire sections: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1690/2018bcsc1690.html ''Norenger Development (Canada) Inc. v Strata Plan NW 3271'', 2018 BCSC 1690].		Section 72 of the ''SPA'' allows bylaws to make an owner responsible for limited common property that they have the right to use, but not undesignated common property. Thus, a fixture found on limited common property may be an individual owner’s responsibility, but a fixture found on undesignated common property is unlikely to be any individual owner’s responsibility with regards to repair and maintenance. For instance, a bylaw assigning responsibility to owners for repairing and maintaining undesignated common property without a regulation authorizing such a bylaw may be held to be unenforceable: see [https://canlii.ca/t/jx0ws ''Joyce v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS3046'', 2023 BCCRT 365] [''Joyce''] at para 30. To circumvent this, strata corporations are free to designate the areas as limited common property before then assigning responsibility for repair and maintenance to individual owners ([https://canlii.ca/t/jx0ws ''Joyce'']). The courts have ruled that section 72 does not prevent a strata corporation from assigning responsibility for common property to entire sections: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1690/2018bcsc1690.html ''Norenger Development (Canada) Inc. v Strata Plan NW 3271'', 2018 BCSC 1690].

	If ~~such~~ a building component is not a fixture, such as being insufficiently attached to the building or being primarily attached to facilitate its own use, it may instead be ~~considered~~ a chattel owned by the strata lot owner. The responsibility to repair and maintain falls on the owner, although the strata corporation may have authority to remove it under its bylaws, subject to the prohibition against significantly unfair action: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2023/2023bccrt350/2023bccrt350.html?resultIndex=1 ''Estrin v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3758'', 2023 BCCRT 350].		If a building component is not a fixture, such as being insufficiently attached to the building or being primarily attached to facilitate its own use, it may instead be a chattel owned by the strata lot owner. The responsibility to repair and maintain falls on the owner, although the strata corporation may have authority to remove it under its bylaws, subject to the prohibition against significantly unfair action: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2023/2023bccrt350/2023bccrt350.html?resultIndex=1 ''Estrin v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3758'', 2023 BCCRT 350].

	== B. Parking and Storage Facilities ==		== B. Parking and Storage Facilities ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:49, 29 September 2025
Line 24:		Line 24:
	# Storage areas other than closet space.		# Storage areas other than closet space.

	When these structures are designated as common property, section 71 of the ''SPA'' would require a ¾ vote at an annual or special general meeting before the strata corporation may make a significant change in their use or appearance: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc1206/2016bcsc1206.html ''Frank v The Owners Strata Plan LMS 355'', 2016 BCSC 1206].		When these structures are designated as common property, section 71 of the ''SPA'' would require a ¾ vote at an annual or special general meeting before the strata corporation may make a significant change in their use or appearance: see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc1206/2016bcsc1206.html Frank v The Owners Strata Plan LMS 355]'', 2016 BCSC 1206.

	=== 3. Building Systems ===		=== 3. Building Systems ===

	When utility systems serve multiple strata lots or the common property, they are considered common property, even when located within a strata lot. These are not shown on the strata plan, and it can be difficult to delineate where common property starts and ends. For instance, see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2012/2012bcpc409/2012bcpc409.html ''Fudge v Owners, Strata Plan NW2636'', 2012 BCPC 409], where the court held that a washing machine discharge pipe found inside a strata lot was nevertheless common property due to being integrated with the building’s wastewater collection systems.		When utility systems serve multiple strata lots or the common property, they are considered common property, even when located within a strata lot. These are not shown on the strata plan, and it can be difficult to delineate where common property starts and ends. For instance, see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2012/2012bcpc409/2012bcpc409.html Fudge v Owners, Strata Plan NW2636]'', 2012 BCPC 409, where the court held that a washing machine discharge pipe found inside a strata lot was nevertheless common property due to being integrated with the building’s wastewater collection systems.

	A building component that only serves one strata lot despite being located outside the lot’s boundaries may nevertheless still be common property if it is a fixture at common law. See [[Common Property and Common Assets (22:V)\|Fixtures as Common Property]] under Section V below.		A building component that only serves one strata lot despite being located outside the lot’s boundaries may nevertheless still be common property if it is a fixture at common law. See [[Common Property and Common Assets (22:V)\|Fixtures as Common Property]] under Section V below.

	Section 72 of the ''SPA'' allows bylaws to make an owner responsible for limited common property that they have the right to use, but not undesignated common property. Thus, a fixture found on limited common property may be an individual owner’s responsibility, but a fixture found on undesignated common property is unlikely to be any individual owner’s responsibility with regards to repair and maintenance. For instance, a bylaw assigning responsibility to owners for repairing and maintaining undesignated common property without a regulation authorizing such a bylaw may be held to be unenforceable: see [https://canlii.ca/t/jx0ws ''Joyce v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS3046'', 2023 BCCRT 365] [''Joyce''] at para 30. To circumvent this, strata corporations are free to designate the areas as limited common property before then assigning responsibility for repair and maintenance to individual owners ([https://canlii.ca/t/jx0ws ''Joyce'']). The courts have ruled that section 72 does not prevent a strata corporation from assigning responsibility for common property to entire sections: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1690/2018bcsc1690.html ''Norenger Development (Canada) Inc. v Strata Plan NW 3271'', 2018 BCSC 1690].		Section 72 of the ''SPA'' allows bylaws to make an owner responsible for limited common property that they have the right to use, but not undesignated common property. Thus, a fixture found on limited common property may be an individual owner’s responsibility, but a fixture found on undesignated common property is unlikely to be any individual owner’s responsibility with regards to repair and maintenance. For instance, a bylaw assigning responsibility to owners for repairing and maintaining undesignated common property without a regulation authorizing such a bylaw may be held to be unenforceable: see ''[https://canlii.ca/t/jx0ws Joyce v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS3046]'', 2023 BCCRT 365 [''Joyce''] at para 30. To circumvent this, strata corporations are free to designate the areas as limited common property before then assigning responsibility for repair and maintenance to individual owners ([https://canlii.ca/t/jx0ws ''Joyce'']). The courts have ruled that section 72 does not prevent a strata corporation from assigning responsibility for common property to entire sections: see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1690/2018bcsc1690.html Norenger Development (Canada) Inc. v Strata Plan NW 3271]'', 2018 BCSC 1690.

	If a building component is not a fixture, such as being insufficiently attached to the building or being primarily attached to facilitate its own use, it may instead be a chattel owned by the strata lot owner. The responsibility to repair and maintain falls on the owner, although the strata corporation may have authority to remove it under its bylaws, subject to the prohibition against significantly unfair action: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2023/2023bccrt350/2023bccrt350.html?resultIndex=1 ''Estrin v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3758'', 2023 BCCRT 350].		If a building component is not a fixture, such as being insufficiently attached to the building or being primarily attached to facilitate its own use, it may instead be a chattel owned by the strata lot owner. The responsibility to repair and maintain falls on the owner, although the strata corporation may have authority to remove it under its bylaws, subject to the prohibition against significantly unfair action: see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2023/2023bccrt350/2023bccrt350.html?resultIndex=1 Estrin v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3758]'', 2023 BCCRT 350.

	== B. Parking and Storage Facilities ==		== B. Parking and Storage Facilities ==
Line 53:		Line 53:
	Often in larger developments where parking stalls have higher value, the owner developer makes the first allocation of parking stalls by granting a 99-year lease to an entity they control. With each strata lot initial purchase, the owner developer grants licenses or partial lease assignments to the purchaser. When an owner sells their strata lot, the new purchaser must receive not only a transfer of the strata lot, but also a further assignment of the parking stall lease or license. As a result, the owner developer retains control of the parking stalls, even past the first annual general meeting.		Often in larger developments where parking stalls have higher value, the owner developer makes the first allocation of parking stalls by granting a 99-year lease to an entity they control. With each strata lot initial purchase, the owner developer grants licenses or partial lease assignments to the purchaser. When an owner sells their strata lot, the new purchaser must receive not only a transfer of the strata lot, but also a further assignment of the parking stall lease or license. As a result, the owner developer retains control of the parking stalls, even past the first annual general meeting.

	Such an arrangement of parking stall leases and licenses may not be evident from the strata plan or the common property record, as they are typically not registered in the Land Title Office to minimize property transfer tax. Instead, the owner developer must disclose the arrangement as part of their disclosure statement under the [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/04041_01 ''Real Estate Development Marketing Act'', SBC 2004, c 41].		Such an arrangement of parking stall leases and licenses may not be evident from the strata plan or the common property record, as they are typically not registered in the Land Title Office to minimize property transfer tax. Instead, the owner developer must disclose the arrangement as part of their disclosure statement under the ''[https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/04041_01 Real Estate Development Marketing Act]'', SBC 2004, c 41.

	Note that for leases entered into before the strata plan is deposited, the ''SPA'' section 80 requirements for the strata corporation to approve of common property disposal do not apply. This is because strata corporations do not exist before their strata plan is deposited. Once the strata plan is deposited, the strata corporation assumes the role of landlord under any pre-existing parking stall lease arrangements.		Note that for leases entered into before the strata plan is deposited, the ''SPA'' section 80 requirements for the strata corporation to approve of common property disposal do not apply. This is because strata corporations do not exist before their strata plan is deposited. Once the strata plan is deposited, the strata corporation assumes the role of landlord under any pre-existing parking stall lease arrangements.
Line 64:		Line 64:
	Surface parking can only be placed in the owner developer’s control by licence, not lease, as per sections 73 and 73.1 of the [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96250_00_multi#section73.1 ''Land Title Act'', RSBC 1996, c 250] [''LTA'']. Because a license does not create an interest in land, the strata corporation may revoke such a parking stall licence without needing to provide notice to the strata lot owner.		Surface parking can only be placed in the owner developer’s control by licence, not lease, as per sections 73 and 73.1 of the [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96250_00_multi#section73.1 ''Land Title Act'', RSBC 1996, c 250] [''LTA'']. Because a license does not create an interest in land, the strata corporation may revoke such a parking stall licence without needing to provide notice to the strata lot owner.

	Section 20 of the ''LTA'' raises questions about whether this common practice of unregistered parking stall leases is enforceable. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1991/1991canlii529/1991canlii529.html#document ''Hill v Strata Plan NW 2477 (Owners)'', 2 BCAC 289, 1991 CanLII 529 (BC CA)] [''Hill''], the court ruled that an owner developer could not arrange with a particular owner for the exclusive use of common property; despite being a case on the ''Condominium Act'', it continues to be applicable to the ''SPA'' ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2018/2018bccrt166/2018bccrt166.html ''The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 3437 v Townsite Marina Ltd.'', 2018 BCCRT 166]). In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc2160/2018bcsc2160.html ''Townsite Marina Ltd. v The Owners, Strata Plan VIS3437'', 2018 BCSC 2160] at paras 27 to 28, the BC Supreme Court recognized that such a practice has some acceptance, “possibly even a consensus,” among legal practitioners as valid, although the court ultimately left the question open. [https://canlii.ca/t/j615n ''Khalili v The Owners, Strata Plan BCS460'', 2020 BCCRT 343] further affirms the use of this practice and the ability for strata lot owners to transfer their leases in parking stalls by assignment alone subject to any applicable bylaws.		Section 20 of the ''LTA'' raises questions about whether this common practice of unregistered parking stall leases is enforceable. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1991/1991canlii529/1991canlii529.html#document Hill v Strata Plan NW 2477 (Owners)]'', 2 BCAC 289, 1991 CanLII 529 (BC CA) [''Hill''], the court ruled that an owner developer could not arrange with a particular owner for the exclusive use of common property; despite being a case on the ''Condominium Act'', it continues to be applicable to the ''SPA'' (''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2018/2018bccrt166/2018bccrt166.html The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 3437 v Townsite Marina Ltd.]'', 2018 BCCRT 166). In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc2160/2018bcsc2160.html Townsite Marina Ltd. v The Owners, Strata Plan VIS3437]'', 2018 BCSC 2160 at paras 27 to 28, the BC Supreme Court recognized that such a practice has some acceptance, “possibly even a consensus,” among legal practitioners as valid, although the court ultimately left the question open. ''[https://canlii.ca/t/j615n Khalili v The Owners, Strata Plan BCS460]'', 2020 BCCRT 343 further affirms the use of this practice and the ability for strata lot owners to transfer their leases in parking stalls by assignment alone subject to any applicable bylaws.

	=== 4. Parking Stalls and Storage Lockers as Part of Strata Lot ===		=== 4. Parking Stalls and Storage Lockers as Part of Strata Lot ===
Line 106:		Line 106:
	::c) Adding a strata lot to common property (''SPA'', s 263).		::c) Adding a strata lot to common property (''SPA'', s 263).

	If the Schedule of Unit Entitlement allocates expenses in a significantly unfair manner to one or more strata lot owners, the court or the CRT may make an order under section 164 of the ''SPA'' to allocate some or all expenses using a different method: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2002/2002bcsc381/2002bcsc381.html ''Strata Plan VR1767 (Owners) v Seven Estate Ltd.'', 2002 BCSC 381], [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc792/2007bcsc792.html ''Southern Interior ConstructionAssociation v Strata Plan KAS 2048'', 2007 BCSC 792], and [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2022/2022bccrt705/2022bccrt705.html ''Klassen v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1710'', 2022 BCCRT 705].		If the Schedule of Unit Entitlement allocates expenses in a significantly unfair manner to one or more strata lot owners, the court or the CRT may make an order under section 164 of the ''SPA'' to allocate some or all expenses using a different method: see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2002/2002bcsc381/2002bcsc381.html Strata Plan VR1767 (Owners) v Seven Estate Ltd.]'', 2002 BCSC 381, ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc792/2007bcsc792.html Southern Interior ConstructionAssociation v Strata Plan KAS 2048]'', 2007 BCSC 792, and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2022/2022bccrt705/2022bccrt705.html Klassen v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1710]'', 2022 BCCRT 705.

	In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1772/2018bcsc1772.html ''King Day Holdings Ltd. v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3851 (Re)'', 2018 BCSC 1772] (affirmed in [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2020/2020bcca342/2020bcca342.html 2020 BCCA 342]), the court overturned two special levies for being significantly unfair to King Day Holdings Ltd., even though the levies were passed by the respondent strata corporation at its annual general meeting.		In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1772/2018bcsc1772.html King Day Holdings Ltd. v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3851 (Re)]'', 2018 BCSC 1772 (affirmed in [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2020/2020bcca342/2020bcca342.html 2020 BCCA 342]), the court overturned two special levies for being significantly unfair to King Day Holdings Ltd., even though the levies were passed by the respondent strata corporation at its annual general meeting.

	Ultimately, it is rare that a strata corporation dividing expenses by unit entitlement will create significantly unfair results. The fact that an owner must contribute towards expenses that disproportionately do not benefit them is insufficient by itself to constitute significant unfairness and is simply part of strata living: see [https://canlii.ca/t/jvkdc ''Smith v The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 2503'', 2023 BCCRT 146].		Ultimately, it is rare that a strata corporation dividing expenses by unit entitlement will create significantly unfair results. The fact that an owner must contribute towards expenses that disproportionately do not benefit them is insufficient by itself to constitute significant unfairness and is simply part of strata living: see ''[https://canlii.ca/t/jvkdc Smith v The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 2503]'', 2023 BCCRT 146.

	Strata corporations are required to disclose such court judgments in their Information Certificates under section 59(3)(j) of the ''SPA'', although the judgment binds purchasers even if the Information Certificate fails to disclose this information.		Strata corporations are required to disclose such court judgments in their Information Certificates under section 59(3)(j) of the ''SPA'', although the judgment binds purchasers even if the Information Certificate fails to disclose this information.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:07, 30 July 2024
Line 84:		Line 84:
	# The contribution of each owner to the strata corporation’s operating fund and contingency reserve fund (''SPA'', s 99; ''SPR'', ss 11.2 – 11.3);		# The contribution of each owner to the strata corporation’s operating fund and contingency reserve fund (''SPA'', s 99; ''SPR'', ss 11.2 – 11.3);
	# The contribution of each owner to a strata corporation’s expenses that relate solely to a section (''SPA'', s 195; ''SPR'', ss 11.2 – 11.3);		# The contribution of each owner to a strata corporation’s expenses that relate solely to a section (''SPA'', s 195; ''SPR'', ss 11.2 – 11.3);
	# The contribution of each owner to special levies (''SPA'', s 108);		# The contribution of each owner to special levies (''SPA'', s 108); and
	# The owner developer’s share of expenses attributable to common facilities of earlier phases of a phased strata plan, until later phases are deposited (''SPA'', 227).		# The owner developer’s share of expenses attributable to common facilities of earlier phases of a phased strata plan, until later phases are deposited (''SPA'', 227).

Line 97:		Line 97:
	=== 1. Changing Unit Entitlement ===		=== 1. Changing Unit Entitlement ===

	In scenarios such as enclosing decks and converting crawlspaces and attics into living space, a strata corporation may seek to amend the Schedule of Unit Entitlement. However, the ''SPA'' only provides a few circumstances in which that amendment is possible:		In scenarios such as enclosing decks and converting crawlspaces and attics into living space, a strata corporation may seek to amend the Schedule of Unit Entitlement to convert the area from non-habitable to habitable. However, the ''SPA'' only provides a few circumstances in which that amendment is possible:

	# For a residential strata lot: an application to the BC Supreme Court under section 246(7);		# For a residential strata lot: an application to the BC Supreme Court under section 246(7);
	# For a residential strata lot: a unanimous vote to amend the Schedule of Unit Entitlement under ~~section~~ 261;		# For a residential strata lot: a unanimous vote to amend the Schedule of Unit Entitlement under sections 70(4) and 261 (see also [https://canlii.ca/t/j5mzl ''Richardson v Simmons'', 2020 BCCRT 241]);
	# For either type of strata lot: a filing under s 264, as consequential to certain fundamental changes to the strata plan:		# For either type of strata lot: a filing under s 264, as consequential to certain fundamental changes to the strata plan:
	::a) Adding to, consolidating, or dividing a strata lot (''SPA'', s 259);		::a) Adding to, consolidating, or dividing a strata lot (''SPA'', s 259);
Line 106:		Line 106:
	::c) Adding a strata lot to common property (''SPA'', s 263).		::c) Adding a strata lot to common property (''SPA'', s 263).

	If the Schedule of Unit Entitlement allocates expenses in a significantly unfair manner to one or more strata lot owners, the court or the CRT may make an order under section 164 of the ''SPA'' to allocate some or all expenses using a different method: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2002/2002bcsc381/2002bcsc381.html ''Strata ~~PlanVR1767~~ (Owners) v Seven Estate Ltd.'', 2002 BCSC 381], [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc792/2007bcsc792.html ''Southern Interior ConstructionAssociation v Strata Plan KAS 2048'', 2007 BCSC 792], and [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2022/2022bccrt705/2022bccrt705.html ''Klassen v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1710'', 2022 BCCRT 705].		If the Schedule of Unit Entitlement allocates expenses in a significantly unfair manner to one or more strata lot owners, the court or the CRT may make an order under section 164 of the ''SPA'' to allocate some or all expenses using a different method: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2002/2002bcsc381/2002bcsc381.html ''Strata Plan VR1767 (Owners) v Seven Estate Ltd.'', 2002 BCSC 381], [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc792/2007bcsc792.html ''Southern Interior ConstructionAssociation v Strata Plan KAS 2048'', 2007 BCSC 792], and [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2022/2022bccrt705/2022bccrt705.html ''Klassen v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1710'', 2022 BCCRT 705].

	In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1772/2018bcsc1772.html ''King Day Holdings Ltd. v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3851 (Re)'', 2018 BCSC 1772] (affirmed in [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2020/2020bcca342/2020bcca342.html 2020 BCCA 342]), the court overturned two special levies for being significantly unfair to King Day Holdings Ltd., even though the levies were passed by the respondent strata corporation at its annual general meeting.		In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1772/2018bcsc1772.html ''King Day Holdings Ltd. v The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3851 (Re)'', 2018 BCSC 1772] (affirmed in [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2020/2020bcca342/2020bcca342.html 2020 BCCA 342]), the court overturned two special levies for being significantly unfair to King Day Holdings Ltd., even though the levies were passed by the respondent strata corporation at its annual general meeting.

	Ultimately, it is rare that a strata corporation dividing expenses by unit entitlement will create significantly unfair results. ~~This is because the~~ fact that an owner must contribute towards expenses that do not benefit them is insufficient by itself to constitute significant unfairness: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2023/2023bccrt146/2023bccrt146.html/ ''Smith v The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 2503'', 2023 BCCRT 146].		Ultimately, it is rare that a strata corporation dividing expenses by unit entitlement will create significantly unfair results. The fact that an owner must contribute towards expenses that disproportionately do not benefit them is insufficient by itself to constitute significant unfairness and is simply part of strata living: see [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2023/2023bccrt146/2023bccrt146.html/ ''Smith v The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 2503'', 2023 BCCRT 146].

	Strata corporations are required to disclose such court judgments in their Information Certificates under section 59(3)(j) of the ''SPA'', although the judgment binds purchasers even if the Information Certificate fails to disclose this information.		Strata corporations are required to disclose such court judgments in their Information Certificates under section 59(3)(j) of the ''SPA'', although the judgment binds purchasers even if the Information Certificate fails to disclose this information.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:03, 30 July 2024
Line 37:		Line 37:

	== B. Parking and Storage Facilities ==		== B. Parking and Storage Facilities ==

	~~Issues arising from parking stalls often arise from how owner developers allocate stalls for sale.~~

	~~When a strata lot contains one or more parking lots, the strata lot may be subject to strata fees, special levies, property taxes, other municipal levies, and municipal business licensing regulation.~~

	Since January 1, 2014, strata corporations are required to disclose an Information Certificate, Form B of the ''SPR'', listing which parking stalls and storage lockers have been allocated to a strata lot to prospective buyers of a strata lot. Parking is often contentious, depending on how parking stalls are designated and allocated.		Since January 1, 2014, strata corporations are required to disclose an Information Certificate, Form B of the ''SPR'', listing which parking stalls and storage lockers have been allocated to a strata lot to prospective buyers of a strata lot. Parking is often contentious, depending on how parking stalls are designated and allocated.
Line 47:		Line 43:

	If parking is common property, the strata corporation has the authority to allocate stalls. The strata corporation must review and renew this allocation annually under section 76 of		If parking is common property, the strata corporation has the authority to allocate stalls. The strata corporation must review and renew this allocation annually under section 76 of
	the ''SPA''. This authority is limited by the strata corporation’s bylaws, and allocations that are significantly unfair to any strata lot owner may be challenged. This authority does not enable the owner developer to sell additional stalls.		the ''SPA''. This authority may be limited by the strata corporation’s bylaws, and allocations that are significantly unfair to any strata lot owner may be challenged. This authority does not enable the owner developer to sell additional stalls.

	=== 2. Limited Common Property Designated on Strata Plan ===		=== 2. Limited Common Property Designated on Strata Plan ===
Line 63:		Line 59:
	Although the bylaws do not need to refer to the lease arrangement, provisions may include:		Although the bylaws do not need to refer to the lease arrangement, provisions may include:

	* A requirement for the strata corporation to place before the owners ~~a resolution~~ to designate stalls as limited common property for the owners with lease assignments or licenses from the owner developer;		* A requirement for the strata corporation to place a resolution before the owners to designate stalls as limited common property for the owners with lease assignments or licenses from the owner developer; and
	* A requirement for the strata corporation to maintain a register of parking stalls allocated by lease assignments or licences from the developer.		* A requirement for the strata corporation to maintain a register of parking stalls allocated by lease assignments or licences from the developer.

	Surface parking can only be placed in the owner developer’s control by licence, not lease~~. This is because~~ sections 73 and 73.1 of the [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96250_00_multi#section73.1 ''Land Title Act'', RSBC 1996, c 250] [''LTA''] ~~forbid the assignment of leases of land that is both less than the entire legal parcel and not for the purpose of leasing a building or part of a building~~. Because a license does not create an interest in land, the strata corporation may revoke such a parking stall licence without needing to provide notice to the strata lot owner.		Surface parking can only be placed in the owner developer’s control by licence, not lease, as per sections 73 and 73.1 of the [https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96250_00_multi#section73.1 ''Land Title Act'', RSBC 1996, c 250] [''LTA'']. Because a license does not create an interest in land, the strata corporation may revoke such a parking stall licence without needing to provide notice to the strata lot owner.

	Section 20 of the ''LTA'' raises questions about whether this common practice of unregistered parking stall leases is enforceable. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1991/1991canlii529/1991canlii529.html#document ''Hill v Strata Plan NW 2477 (Owners)'', 2 BCAC 289, 1991 CanLII 529 (BC CA)], the court ruled that an owner developer could not arrange with a particular owner for the exclusive use of common property; despite being a case on the ''Condominium Act'', it continues to be applicable to the ''SPA'' ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2018/2018bccrt166/2018bccrt166.html ''The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 3437 v Townsite Marina Ltd.'', 2018 BCCRT 166]). In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc2160/2018bcsc2160.html ''TownsiteMarina Ltd. v The Owners, Strata Plan VIS3437'', 2018 BCSC 2160] at paras 27 to 28, the BC Supreme Court recognized that such a practice has some acceptance, “possibly even a consensus,” among legal practitioners as valid, although the court ~~also~~ ultimately left the question open.		Section 20 of the ''LTA'' raises questions about whether this common practice of unregistered parking stall leases is enforceable. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1991/1991canlii529/1991canlii529.html#document ''Hill v Strata Plan NW 2477 (Owners)'', 2 BCAC 289, 1991 CanLII 529 (BC CA)] [''Hill''], the court ruled that an owner developer could not arrange with a particular owner for the exclusive use of common property; despite being a case on the ''Condominium Act'', it continues to be applicable to the ''SPA'' ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2018/2018bccrt166/2018bccrt166.html ''The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 3437 v Townsite Marina Ltd.'', 2018 BCCRT 166]). In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc2160/2018bcsc2160.html ''TownsiteMarina Ltd. v The Owners, Strata Plan VIS3437'', 2018 BCSC 2160] at paras 27 to 28, the BC Supreme Court recognized that such a practice has some acceptance, “possibly even a consensus,” among legal practitioners as valid, although the court ultimately left the question open. [https://canlii.ca/t/j615n ''Khalili v The Owners, Strata Plan BCS460'', 2020 BCCRT 343] further affirms the use of this practice and the ability for strata lot owners to transfer their leases in parking stalls by assignment alone subject to any applicable bylaws.

	=== 4. Parking Stalls and Storage Lockers as Part of Strata Lot ===		=== 4. Parking Stalls and Storage Lockers as Part of Strata Lot ===