PIPE DREAMS -- The Death of the PT SL Pipe. A Commentary on the Misapplication of Taychuk and Fudge by Justin Hanson

Background

Whether or not a pipe or other service is part of a strata lot or part of the common property within any given strata plan will depend on the drafting the strata  plan, the definitions of “common property”  set out in the Strata Property Act the physical boundaries of a strata lot as determined in  accordance with the SPA.  In the past, this was not a simple exercise, but recent case law and Civil Resolution Tribunal decisions interpreting that case law have made things a fair bit simpler. But not for the better.

Over the past several years we have witnessed a sustained attack upon and perhaps even the death of the PT SL pipe.  Let me explain.

The Strata Property Act

Common property is defined as follows:

"common property" means

(a)that part of the land and buildings shown on a strata plan that is not part of a strata lot, and

(b)pipes, wires, cables, chutes, ducts and other facilities for the passage or provision of water, sewage, drainage, gas, oil, electricity, telephone, radio, television, garbage, heating and cooling systems, or other similar services, if they are located

(i)within a floor, wall or ceiling that forms a boundary

(A)between a strata lot and another strata lot,

(B)between a strata lot and the common property, or

(C)between a strata lot or common property and another parcel of land, or

(ii)wholly or partially within a strata lot, if they are capable of being and intended to be used in connection with the enjoyment of another strata lot or the common property;

Section 72 of the Act sets out the Strata’s obligations and options when it comes to the repair and maintenance of property.  Section 72 provides as follows:

Repair of property

72   (1)Subject to subsection (2), the strata corporation must repair and maintain common property and common assets.

(2)The strata corporation may, by bylaw, make an owner responsible for the repair and maintenance of

(a)limited common property that the owner has a right to use, or

(b)common property other than limited common property only if identified in the regulations and subject to prescribed restrictions.

(3)The strata corporation may, by bylaw, take responsibility for the repair and maintenance of specified portions of a strata lot.

Please ignore section 72(2)(b) as it is a red herring.  No regulations have ever been adopted under that section and as such it is currently powerless. 

The Location Test

In order to determine whether or not a building component is common property, or part of a strata lot, you must first determine where the component is located, and then determine who the components serves.

If a building component is located on the common property or in a boundary wall, floor, or ceiling then it is, by definition, common property.  The definition of a boundary wall is found in 68 of the Strata Property Act sets out the boundaries between the common property and the strata lots, and provides as follows:

Strata lot boundaries

68 (1)Unless otherwise shown on the strata plan, if a strata lot is separated from another strata lot, the common property or another parcel of land by a wall, floor or ceiling, the boundary of the strata lot is midway between the surface of the structural portion of the wall, floor or ceiling that faces the strata lot and the surface of the structural portion of the wall, floor or ceiling that faces the other strata lot, the common property or the other parcel of land.

If a pipe in question is located within a boundary wall, floor, or ceiling, there is no question at law (either statutory or common), that pipes is deemed to be common property by its location alone under part (b)(i) of the definition of common property.

The Purposive Test

The issue becomes a lot trickier if a pipe is not located within a boundary wall, floor, or ceiling, or on the common property.  If the pipe is instead located solely within a strata lot, then the law states that we must undertake the purposive test and figure out who the pipe serves and what it is connected to.   

If a pipe is located entirely within in a strata lot then we must determine if that pipe serves only that strata lot or is “capable of being and intended to be used in connection” with another strata lot or the common property.

There are a growing number of cases which have looked at the purposive test when it comes to determining which party (the Strata or the Owner) is responsible for pipes and drains, with the two leading cases on the purposive test being: Taychuk v. Strata Plan LMS 744, 2002 BCSC 1638 and Fudge v. Strata Plan NW 2636, 2012 BCPC 409.  Both of those cases involved strata corporations with centralized plumbing systems in which there was either a central boiler that provided hot water to all units (Taychuk) or a wastewater plumbing stack that backed up (Fudge).

A 2019 CHOA article provided an opinion that any pipe attached to a common water supply in a strata corporation is common property.  I respectfully disagree with that opinion as I believe it stretches both the Act’s definition and the practical implications of the two cases the opinion relied on. 

The CHOA opinion was based upon a BC Supreme Court Case, namely Taychuk v. Strata Plan LMS 744, 2002 BCSC 1638 and a BC Provincial Court Case called Fudge v. Strata Plan NW 2636, 2012 BCPC 409. 

In Taychuk the BC Supreme Court found that all aspects of a hot water re-circulation system where water was fed to strata lots from a centralized boiler was common property.  This eminently makes sense, as the hot water pipes are all part of that centralized system. 

Many decisions of the CRT that were delivered after the CHOA opinion have imported the decision and pithy points from Taychuk without considering or appreciating the fact that the hot water system in Taychuk served all strata lots and that the case was about discoloration of water in the hot water system caused by high iron content in that re-circulation system. 

In the Fudge decision the BC Supreme Court dealt with a back up in a common drainage system.  The judge found that the blockage that caused the backup was not in Ms. Fudge’s washing machine discharge line, but further down in the common property drainpipe.  Again, there was no question in Fudge that the Strata Corporation was responsible for the part of the drainage system where the blockage occurred (because it was common property) and to make matters worse for the Strata Crporation in Fudge, it had already considered replacing the drains before Ms. Fudge’s water escape incident. 

As you can see, the facts in Fudge and Taychuk are highly specific and easily distinguishable from most cases involving water loss.   That said, it appears that recent decisions from the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal have largely followed CHOA’s interpretation of the Taychuk and Fudge cases without reviewing, or comparing the case before the Tribunal, with the factual matrix that caused the court to reach those decisions in either of those cases. 

It becomes immediately apparent when reviewing the CRT decisions is that the CRT is copying and pasting decisions from one decision to another.  There does not appear to be any individual analysis of the reason for the decision or where the Tribunal member reviews the case before them against the facts in Taychuk.  As mentioned above Taychuk involved a hot water re-circulation system with rust in it.  That fact is not reflected in many of the CRT’s decisions and has, in my opinion been inappropriately broadened to the point where the Taychuk decision is now being described as standing for the principal that “if pipes are connected to the pipes that service all the units, and so they are intended to be used in connection with the enjoyment of another strata lot.”  Here are some excerpts from those cases showing the general adoption of the CHOA opinion, and what is, in my opinion at least, a misapplication of the Fudge and Taychuk decisions.

CDM Health Creation Ltd. v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 4410, 2025 BCCRT 1042 was one such case that dealt with a missing section of drain pipe within a strata lot.  In that case, the CRT held:

25.  In Taychuk v. Owners, Strata Plan LMS 744, 2002 BCSC 1638, the court did not determine the exact source of the problem that caused discoloured water to flow from the taps in a strata lot’s bathroom. However, at paragraph 28, the court stated that the pipes are connected to the pipes that service all the units, and so they are intended to be used in connection with the enjoyment of another strata lot, so they were the strata’s responsibility to repair and maintain.

26.   The court in Fudge v. Owners, Strata Plan NW 2636, 2012 BCPC 409 confirmed that a component that forms part of an overall system is common property even if it is located wholly within a strata lot. Fudge considered a water backup from a washing machine inside a strata lot, where the washing machine’s discharge hose was connected to a common drainpipe installed in the wall. The court found that the discharge pipe from the washing machine was integrated with the pipe system in the walls and was therefore capable of being used in connection with the enjoyment of the common property. The court determined that the drainage system was an integrated whole that fell within the definition of common property.

Morris v. The Owners, Strata Plan K801, 2025 BCCRT 819 in which the CRT held that it didn’t have evidence to determine the location of the Poly B pipes in question and determined that they were common property.

26.   I considered Luke v. The Owners, CW 1702,[2] a previous CRT decision concerning Poly B plumbing. While that decision concerned pipes within the cement subfloor of the strata lot, much of the discussion is relevant to this dispute. While not binding on me, I find the decision rational, and agree with it.

27.   Luke applied other court decisions considering plumbing pipes. In Taychuk v. Strata Plan LMS744,[3] the court found that pipes supplying fresh water to a strata lot were common property, because the pipes were connected to pipes that service all of the units, and intended to be used in connection with the enjoyment of another strata lot. The court found it was the strata’s duty under SPA section 72 to repair and maintain the pipes. Following Taychuk, in Fudge v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW 2636,[4] the court confirmed the principle that a component that forms part of an overall system is common property, even if it is located within a strata lot. In Fudge, the washing machine’s discharge hose was connected to a common pipe installed in the wall during the original construction. The washing machine backed up, and the wastewater damaged the strata lot. The court found that the discharge pipe from the washing machine was part of with the pipe system in the walls, and was therefore capable of being used in connection with the enjoyment of the common property. The judge determined that the drainage system was an “integrated whole” that fell within the SPA’s definition of common property.

28.   Based on the limited evidence before me, I find that even if some of the Poly B pipes came out in the individual strata lots, those pipes fall within the definition of common property. In the words of the SPA, the Poly B plumbing consisted of pipes for the passage or provision of water located within a floor, wall, or ceiling that forms a boundary between strata lots or between strata lots and common property, or if the plumbing was wholly or partially within a strata lot, was capable of being and intended to be used in connection with the enjoyment of the common property.

Featherstone v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 4025, 2025 BCCRT 1307 (CanLII) the CRT held that drains from heat pumps were all connected and thus common property:

25.   In Taychuk v. Owners, Strata Plan LMS 744, 2002 BCSC 1638 at paragraph 28, the BC Supreme Court stated that pipes that are connected to pipes that service all the units, such that they are intended to be used in connection with the enjoyment of another strata lot, are common property that were the strata corporation’s responsibility to repair and maintain.

26.   Similarity, the BC Provincial Court in Fudge v. Owners, Strata Plan NW 2636, 2012 BCPC 409 confirmed that a component that forms part of an overall system is common property even if it is located wholly within a strata lot. Fudge considered a water backup from a washing machine inside a strata lot, where the washing machine’s discharge hose was connected to a common drainpipe installed in the wall. The court found that the discharge pipe from the washing machine was integrated with the pipe system in the walls and was therefore capable of being used in connection with the enjoyment of the common property. The court determined that the building’s entire drainage system was an integrated whole that fell within the definition of common property.

27.   Following Taychuk and Fudge, I find the drain pans and drains for the heat pumps are all connected, so I find they are common property and the strata’s responsibility to repair and maintain. I reach the same conclusion about the hoses that connect the heat pumps to the building’s water loop system.

Soltani v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3495, 2025 BCCRT 1087 the CRT again determined that drain pipes were common property.

32.   In Taychuk v. Owners, Strata Plan LMS 744, 2002 BCSC 1638 at paragraph 28, the court stated that pipes that are connected to pipes that service all the units, such that they are intended to be used in connection with the enjoyment of another strata lot, are common property that were the strata’s responsibility to repair and maintain.

33.   The court in Fudge v. Owners, Strata Plan NW 2636, 2012 BCPC 409 confirmed that a component that forms part of an overall system is common property even if it is located wholly within a strata lot. Fudge considered a water backup from a washing machine inside a strata lot, where the washing machine’s discharge hose was connected to a common drainpipe installed in the wall. The court found that the discharge pipe from the washing machine was integrated with the pipe system in the walls and was therefore capable of being used in connection with the enjoyment of the common property. The court determined that the drainage system was an integrated whole that fell within the definition of common property.

34.   Following Taychuk and Fudge, I find the drainpipes from SL186 are common property, so Mr. Soltani required the strata’s approval to alter them.

McCarthy v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 3776, 2025 BCCRT 915 where drain pipes were found to be common property.

20.   In Taychuk v. Owners, Strata Plan LMS 744, 2002 BCSC 1638, the court did not determine the exact source of the problem that caused discoloured water to flow from the taps in a strata lot’s bathroom. However, at paragraph 28, the court stated that “the pipes are connected to the pipes that service all the units, and so they are intended to be used in connection with the enjoyment of another strata lot” and were the strata’s responsibility to repair and maintain.

21.   The court in Fudge v. Owners, Strata Plan NW 2636, 2012 BCPC 409 confirmed that a component that forms part of an overall system is common property even if it is located wholly within a strata lot. Fudge considered a water backup from a washing machine inside a strata lot, where the washing machine’s discharge hose was connected to a common drainpipe installed in the wall. The court found that the discharge pipe from the washing machine was integrated with the pipe system in the walls and was therefore capable of being used in connection with the enjoyment of the common property. The court determined that the drainage system was an “integrated whole” that fell within the definition of common property.

22.   Following Taychuk and Fudge, I find the kitchen drainpipe in #306 is common property and therefore the strata’s responsibility to repair and maintain.

Given the current state of the law, I believe that the CRT would hold that all pipes attached a common fresh water supply, regardless of their location within a strata lot, would be found to be common property.  It was not always this way. 

Prior to the last few years, the Courts and Tribunals did distinguish between pipes that were part of a strata lot and pipes that were common property.  Even water supply pipes and drainpipes.  For instance, in Zhang v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 1039, 2017 BCCRT 56 the Tribunal examined the issue of who was responsible for a failed water supply pipe that solely serviced a single unit in a townhouse complex.  There the Tribunal examined the location of the pipe and held:

48.     A hole was drilled through the wooden floor plate between the studs to allow the plastic piping to come up from the kitchen ceiling bulkhead into the wall cavity to service the bathroom fixtures. The section of pipe that was removed shows a hole that, in my view, aligns with the floor plate of the bathroom wall. The photographs show another hole horizontally through the floor plate in the exact location where the pipe comes through it (possibly from a drywall screw).

49.     Considering my observations of what is shown in the photographs, I find that the section of leaking pipe that was replaced was the section that runs from the kitchen ceiling bulkhead to the upstairs bathroom vanity shut off and the section of pipe that leaked is within the wall cavity between units 2 and 3 as suggested by the owner.  It is undisputed that the leaking pipe only serviced unit 3.

50.     However, based on section 68(1) of the SPA, the boundary of the strata lot comprising unit 3 is the midpoint of the wall dividing unit 2 and unit 3. The section of wall where the pipe entered from the kitchen bulkhead below is the stud wall that forms the bathroom wall of unit 3 and is located past the midpoint of the dividing wall and within unit 3.  I find the pipe, although located within the dividing wall, is also located within the owner’s strata lot. 

51.     Applying the principles established in Morrison and given the strata’s bylaw 30(2) that holds the owner “responsible” for damage that originated in his strata lot, I find the strata is permitted to charge the insurance deductible to the owner’s strata lot.

In The Owners, Strata Plan ABC XXX v. Z.O.K., 2020 BCCRT 1359 a water leak originated from a water supply pipe in ZOK’s strata lot, causing damage to the strata lot below.  Ink ZOK the Tribunal held that the water supply pipe was part of the strata lot:

27.   Section 1(1) of the SPA defines “common property”, in part, as the pipes within a strata lot if they are capable of being and intended to be used in connection with the enjoyment of another strata lot or the common property.

28.   I find that the pipe and valve that failed, which again were under ZOK’s kitchen sink, are not common property. I find that they only exist to service ZOK’s kitchen sink and are not used in connection with any other strata lot or common property. So, the pipe and valve are part of ZOK’s strata lot.

29.   Bylaw 3(1) says that ZOK must repair and maintain his strata lot except for repair and maintenance that the strata is responsible for under the bylaws. Nothing in the bylaws makes the strata responsible for repairing or maintaining pipes or plumbing fixtures that are part of a strata lot. I find that the bylaws make ZOK responsible for the failed pipe and valve.

 Similarly, in Metzner v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR773, 2021 BCCRT 1067 the Tribunal was asked to determine who was responsible for a leak from a bathtub drain in a strata lot was the responsibility of the Strata Corporation or the home owner.  In Metzner, the Tribunal held:

18.   The parties disagree about whether this was a bathtub leak or a problem with the pipes below the bathtub. On the evidence before me, and relying on the Benchmark invoice in particular, I find that the leak was caused by a loose and ineffectively sealed bathtub drain, which I find was part of the bathtub. I find that the leak did not come from a pipe attached to the bathtub that was intended to be used in connection with the enjoyment of another strata lot or CP. So, according to the SPA’s definition of CP, I find that the leaking bathtub drain was not CP, and was part of strata lot 6. This means that under the SPA and bylaw 2(1), Mr. Metzner was responsible for the leak, including the costs of repairing the leak. This is consistent with the non-binding decision The Owners, Strata Plan K 407 v. Kelly, 2019 BCCRT 789.

What has emerged in recent years is not a clarification of the law governing pipes and drains in strata corporations, but a troubling distortion of it. The statutory framework under the Strata Property Act remains clear: the analysis is rooted in location and, where necessary, purpose. Yet a growing line of Civil Resolution Tribunal decisions has drifted from that framework, elevating an overly broad reading of Taychuk v. Strata Plan LMS 744 and Fudge v. Strata Plan NW 2636 into something approaching a blanket rule that any pipe or drain connected to a larger system is common property. That is not what those cases decided—and it is not what the Strata Property Act requires.

Both Taychuk and Fudge were grounded in highly specific factual matrices involving centralized, shared systems: a recirculating hot water system serving all units in Taychuk, and a blockage within a common drainage stack in Fudge. In each instance, the court’s conclusion that the infrastructure was common property flowed naturally from the fact that the impugned component was functionally and physically part of a shared system serving multiple strata lots. Those cases do not stand for the proposition that any pipe merely connected to a broader system is, by that fact alone, common property. To treat them as such is to collapse the purposive test into a single, blunt inquiry—connectivity—while ignoring the statutory language requiring that the component be “capable of being and intended to be used in connection with the enjoyment of another strata lot or the common property.”

The consequence of this doctrinal drift is significant. The careful distinction historically drawn between strata lot pipes and common property infrastructure is being eroded to the point of extinction. The so-called “PT SL pipe”—a pipe located wholly within a strata lot and serving only that lot—is effectively being read out of existence.

Earlier decisions such as Zhang, Z.O.K., and Metzner properly applied both the location and purposive tests, recognizing that pipes and drains are installed in sections, and not every section of pipe or drain connected to a larger system is thereby transformed into common property. Those decisions reflect a principled application of the Act. The more recent CRT decisions, by contrast, too often substitute repetition for reasoning, importing generalized statements from Taychuk and Fudge without undertaking the necessary factual comparison.

This trend is not merely analytically unsound—it produces outcomes that are difficult to reconcile with legislative intent. If every pipe, wire, or drain connected in any way to a common system is deemed common property, the logical endpoint is that virtually all building services infrastructure becomes common property, regardless of its location or function. That interpretation would render large portions of the statutory definition redundant, particularly the careful distinction drawn in section 1(1)(b) between components in boundary structures and those located wholly within a strata lot. It would also create unintended consequences across all strata types, including detached house and bare land strata, where the implications of such a rule would be even more far-reaching.

While most of the existing case law deals with pipes and drains within apartment style strata lots, or townhouses, the current interpretation that pipes and drains which are connected to pipes or drains that service all the units are common property would also apply to detached house strata corporations and bare land strata corporations where there is often a common water supply, common drainage, and perhaps even a common septic system.  It would also apply to electrical wires which are attached to a common property electrical source or transformer.

With respect, this can not be what the legislature intended.

What is required now is a course correction. Courts and tribunals must return to a disciplined application of the statutory tests and a faithful reading of Taychuk and Fudge—one that respects their context, limits, and reasoning. The inquiry must remain focused on the specific component at issue, not the system in the abstract. Connectivity alone cannot be determinative; purpose and function must be assessed in a meaningful way. Until that happens, the law will continue down a path that is both doctrinally unsound and practically unworkable.

In short, the current trajectory reflects an unfavorable and unsustainable development in the law. It is time to restore analytical rigour, properly apply the governing authorities, and—perhaps most importantly—bring back the principled recognition that not every pipe is common property simply because it happens to be connected to one.