The Strata Plan (22:IV): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→C. Schedule of Unit Entitlement
| 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 | # 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 | 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. | 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. | ||