Restricting Access to Common Property

IS RESTRICTING ACCESS TO COMMON PROPERTY A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN ITS USE?

In 2025, the BC Supreme Court confirmed that removing access to a common property utility room from all owners is a significant change in the use of common property requiring a resolution passed by a vote in favour by ¾ of the votes cast. This is an important clarification because Strata’s often have a genuine reason to restrict access to common property utility rooms.

IS THERE A PRESUMPTION THAT ALL OWNERS CAN ACCESS ALL COMMON PROPERTY?

Common property is owned by all Owners as tenants in common. That means unless the Common Property is designated as Limited Common Property for a specific user or users or is subject to a short term exclusive use agreement that every Owner has a right to access and use that property.

This makes sense for most of the Common Property, such as:

• Outdoor areas.

• Parking areas.

• Hallways.

• Elevators and Stairwells.

• Lobbies.

However, it does not make sense for other areas of Common Property, such as:

• Utility areas.

• Maintenance areas.

• Storage areas used for common assets (such as cleaning supplies or maintenance tools).

• Roof areas.

The reality is that for most Stratas, there has never been a resolution prohibiting Owners from accessing the areas that it makes no sense for Owners to access.

HOW CAN A STRATA PREVENT ACCESS TO AREAS OF THE COMMON PROPERTY?

The Strata Property Act permits the Owners, at a general meeting, through a resolution passed by a vote in favour by ¾ vote to change access to common property. This is a relatively simple resolution and assuming the restrictions are reasonable it should be supported by the Strata Community.

We want to highlight that it is recommended to follow the correct process to not create any potential conflict within the Strata Community.

We have been asked by Stratas whether they can adopt a bylaw prohibiting access and our response is that it is acceptable to adopt a bylaw in addition to a resolution but that a bylaw amendment should not be seen as a substitute for the clear language in the Strata Property Act requiring that “the change is approved by a resolution passed at an annual or special general meeting.” Adopting or amending a bylaw and passing a resolution have the same requirement for a resolution passed by a ¾ vote so there does not appear to be any practical benefit of adopting a bylaw instead of approving a resolution and there does not appear to be any reason why the Owners would not approve of both the resolution and the bylaw amendment at the same general meeting.

We have also been asked whether access can be restricted by a Rule. The advantage of a Rule is that it can be implemented by the Council without the requirement for a resolution to be passed by the Owners at a general meeting. It is specifically because a Rule appears to be a way to avoid the requirements of the Act that we do not recommend this option. A Council that may appear to be attempting to avoid approval of the Owners in favour of acting unilaterally are not supporting the Strata Community and are only providing an opportunity for confusion and conflict.

IS IT ASSUMED THAT RESTRICTING ACCESS TO PORTIONS OF THE COMMON PROPERTY IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE SAFETY?

We have been asked if it is appropriate to prevent access to utility rooms as an emergency. This was considered by the court in 2025, and it was clear there was no presumption of an emergency. The court stated that the party that wanted to prevent general access “adduced no evidence in support” of it being an emergency. This is a clear indication that if the Council believed that access must be prevented, it needs to be able to explain in a manner supported by facts, that it is an emergency. It is not enough to say that it is a preference, common sense or that there is the potential for mischief if there is no reason to expect mischief.

IF NO ONE HAS BEEN ACCESSING PORTIONS OF THE COMMON PROPERTY IS IT A CHANGE TO MAKE THIS A FORMAL RESTRICTION?

We are often asked if it is a change in use if there has not been general access previously. Our position on this is that a Strata cannot avoid compliance with the requirements of the Strata Property Act based on a history of non-compliance. We have written about the requirement for all Stratas to comply with the Strata Property Act in another article.

Our advice is that it is not legally valid to argue that to change a non-lawful use of common property (preventing access without a resolution) to a lawful use of common property (permitting access) is a significant change requiring a resolution. Otherwise, that argument would support that Owners can decide between themselves to not comply with the Strata Property Act and the BC Supreme Court has clearly rejected that argument.

RESTRICTING ACCESS TO PORTIONS OF THE COMMON PROPERTY CAN HELP DEVELOP A ROBUST AND RESILIENT STRATA COMMUNITY

It may be counter intuitive but taking actions like officially proposing and passing resolutions to maintain the status quo is a great opportunity for community building. It demonstrates an adherence to the requirements of the Strata Property Act for the easy things which causes Owners to be more confident that there will be adherence when things are more contentious and this helps reinforce that the Strata Community want to be robust and resilient.