JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO STRATA REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE DECISIONS

"I respect the decisions of others, even if I disagree with them" -- Maya Angelou

WHAT IS THE DUTY TO REPAIR AND MAINTAIN?

The obligation to repair and maintain common property under section 72 of the Strata Property Act is often viewed by owners through the lens of outcome—what work is done, when it is done, and how much it costs. However, from a legal perspective, the focus is not on whether a strata corporation has chosen the “best” solution, but whether it has acted reasonably in the circumstances. This distinction is critical, as it frames how courts evaluate disputes over repair decisions and sets the boundaries for when judicial intervention is appropriate.

DOES THE COMMON PROPERTY NEED TO BE PERFECTLY REPAIRED?

The adequacy of the repair and maintenance of common property is judged on a standard of reasonableness, not perfection.  The chosen repairs do not need to be the “best” solution. The Strata must act reasonably in the circumstances. This distinction is critical, because courts will not intervene unless the property is not reasonably repaired.

WILL A COURT OVERRULE A STRATA’S DECISION ON REPAIRS?

A court will only overrule a Strata’s decision about what repairs are needed when the decision of the Strata is not reasonable because it is made in bad faith or does not adequately address the identified problem with the property.

Central to this analysis is the principle of judicial deference. The starting point for any judicial analysis of a strata corporation’s decision related to repair and maintenance is deference to the decision made by the strata council as approved by the owners.

When a court is considering if it should overrule a Strata decision that the repairs were proper, the judge will start with recognizing that it must defer to the Strata’s decision unless the decision was unreasonable. If the Strata’s decision was reasonable in the circumstances, a judge will not overrule a Strata’s decision on the basis that the judge would have made a different decision.

Courts recognize that strata corporations are democratic bodies tasked with balancing competing interests, financial constraints, and practical realities. As a result, they are generally reluctant to interfere with repair and maintenance decisions that have been made in good faith and supported by a majority of owners. Understanding this deference—and its limits—is essential for both councils making decisions and owners seeking to challenge them.

This means that:

• Strata corporations are not required to choose the best option or to replace a building component that can be repaired.

• Courts will not second-guess reasonable decisions of the councils as approved by the owners.

• Democratic decisions made by owners (even a majority of owners) carry significant weight.

• Judicial intervention is limited to situations where the strata’s actions fall outside the bounds of reasonableness.