When Does a Strata's Decision Not to Fine Become Significantly Unfair?

Trevor Morley
Jul 10
7 min read

Updated: 5 days ago

WHAT IS THE TEST FOR SIGNIFICANT UNFAIRNESS?

A Strata's conduct is significantly unfair when it is oppressive, meaning burdensome, harsh, wrongful, lacking in probity or fair dealing, or done in bad faith, or when it is unfairly prejudicial, meaning unjust or inequitable (Reid v. Strata Plan LMS 2503 (Owners), 2001 BCSC 1578, paras 9-14). Whether an Owner held a reasonable expectation about how the Strata would act is one relevant factor in that analysis, not a separate, mandatory hurdle ([*King Day Holdings Ltd. v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3851, 2020 BCCA 342).

We have written about bylaw enforcement delay generally, and about how a fine or other bylaw remedy has to follow a fair process, in other articles. This article looks at a narrower and more difficult question inside that same subject: whether a Strata that did investigate a bylaw complaint, but chose not to impose a fine, has acted significantly unfairly.

MUST A STRATA FINE A SUBSTANTIATED BYLAW COMPLAINT?

A Strata need not fine every substantiated bylaw complaint. Council's duty to enforce the bylaws is subject to the rest of the Strata Property Act, so it retains genuine, though limited, discretion not to enforce, and a fine is only one of the tools the Act gives Council; a warning, or time to comply, are enforcement options too (The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 3259 v. Sze Hang Holding Inc., 2016 BCSC 32, paras 237-238). A Strata also need not remedy a trifling or trivial infraction at all (Abdoh v. The Owners of Strata Plan KAS2003, 2014 BCCA 270).

That discretion is bounded, though, not open-ended. Owners have a reasonable expectation that a bylaw complaint will actually be enforced consistently, and that expectation is what gives significant unfairness its grip on a decision not to fine, even though nothing in the Act requires a fine for every proven breach (Sze Hang, 2016 BCSC 32).

WHEN HAS THE TRIBUNAL FOUND A STRATA'S INACTION SIGNIFICANTLY UNFAIR?

A Strata's decision not to fine becomes significantly unfair when the Strata has enough evidence to reach a conclusion and does not act on it. A Strata received a tenant's detailed reports and an acoustic report identifying a specific unit as the source of months of noise, but kept asking for more logs instead of attributing the noise to that unit or taking any enforcement step. The tribunal found the Strata's ongoing refusal to reach a conclusion, once it had sufficient evidence to reach one, was burdensome and wrongful (Chan v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS2583, 2021 BCCRT 456).

A Strata that commissions its own expert evidence and then disregards it without a genuine reason follows the same pattern. A professional acoustic report confirmed a Strata Lot's floor alteration fell below the BC Building Code's noise-transmission standard, and Council's own minutes recorded that it simply disagreed with the report's finding, without commissioning further testing or taking any enforcement step for months afterward. The tribunal found this significantly unfair, noting the Strata was not genuinely uncertain, only unwilling to act on evidence it had chosen to obtain (Porto v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW2677, 2026 BCCRT 1060).

The same result follows where a Strata does not investigate at all. A Strata took no steps to look into an Owner's complaint that a neighbour's canopy lacked required approval, for eight months, despite a follow-up request and a hearing request. The tribunal found this significantly unfair because the Strata's own statutory duty to enforce the bylaws requires at least an investigation, whatever the eventual outcome might be (LeTexier v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 284, 2019 BCCRT 940).

An improper motive behind the inaction makes the same conclusion easier to reach. Two members of Council had a personal relationship with the Owner whose guest-suite misuse other Owners had reported and documented, and one member stated outright she would not take punitive action against him while she remained on Council. The tribunal found a reasonably prudent member of Council would not have refused to enforce the bylaws for personal reasons, and the years of resulting inaction were significantly unfair (Masse et al v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 6348 et al, 2018 BCCRT 112).

WHEN HAVE DECISIONS NOT TO FINE BEEN FOUND REASONABLE?

A decision not to fine has been found reasonable when the Strata actually investigated and reached a genuine conclusion, even one the complaining Owner disagrees with. A Strata formed a sub-committee to investigate a persistent noise complaint, attended the unit in response to text alerts, and eventually conducted its own sound recordings; Council unanimously concluded, based on those recordings, that the noise did not amount to a nuisance. The tribunal found this was not significantly unfair, because the Strata had reached a credible conclusion through a genuine process, not because it avoided one (Plante v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS2689, 2023 BCCRT 1024).

A Strata reached the same kind of protected outcome after investigating a noise complaint over roughly a year, testing the noise itself rather than simply relying on the complainant's own account, and ultimately agreeing with the respondent that the noise was not unreasonable. No fine was imposed. The tribunal found the Strata had communicated respectfully throughout and balanced the competing interests involved, and that reaching a conclusion favourable to the respondent, on a genuine investigation, was not significantly unfair to the complainant (Leung v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS643, 2026 BCCRT 1046).

Multiple investigative and remedial steps taken over a long period have also been found reasonable on their own, even without a fine. A Strata responded to 19 months of smoking complaints with repeated violation notices, a dispute resolution meeting, an air purifier, improved ventilation, and contractor inspections, without ever imposing a fine. The tribunal found the Strata had reasonably investigated and met its duties, because the Act permits, but does not require, a fine where other enforcement steps are genuinely being pursued (Brookes v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW 1890, 2021 BCCRT 1181).

A late start can even be cured by what comes after it. A Strata failed to respond to an Owner's fall complaints about a neighbour's noise and harassment for several months, a lapse the tribunal found fell short of the Strata's own enforcement duty. But the Strata issued an infraction letter the following spring, the letter stopped the conduct complained of, and no further breaches were reported. The tribunal found the significant-unfairness claim failed despite the earlier lapse, because a decision's ultimate effectiveness can offset an earlier shortfall; falling short of the ordinary enforcement duty is not the same question as whether the overall conduct was significantly unfair (McWilliams v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW1879, 2026 BCCRT 530).

WHY ISN'T THE LENGTH OF A DELAY ALONE ENOUGH TO DECIDE THE QUESTION?

The law is about line drawing, and the tribunal's own decisions show this particular line is not drawn by duration alone. A Strata that investigated a noise complaint for close to a year and eventually cleared the respondent was not significantly unfair, while a different Strata's months-long refusal to attribute noise to an identified unit, despite clear supporting evidence, was significantly unfair — two outcomes with broadly comparable timelines, decided in opposite directions, because what mattered was whether the Strata was still working toward a genuine conclusion (Plante, 2023 BCCRT 1024; Chan, 2021 BCCRT 456). A Strata that investigated a complaint and imposed no fine was not significantly unfair, while a Strata that let comparable evidence sit without investigation over a broadly similar span was significantly unfair (Leung, 2026 BCCRT 1046; Porto, 2026 BCCRT 1060).

A single Civil Resolution Tribunal decision is a data point, not a binding decision, but a collection of them can show a direction for how the law is developing; we have written about that distinction, and why it matters, in another article. Read together, these decisions point toward substance over duration as the operative distinction, but the tribunal has not drawn a bright line, and a Strata should not treat any particular number of months as a safe harbour on its own.

WHAT SHOULD COUNCIL DO WHEN IT DECIDES NOT TO ESCALATE TO A FINE?

Our recommendation is that Council treat a decision not to fine as a genuine decision, not the absence of one. Investigate the complaint using the Strata's own means, rather than relying only on what the complaining Owner reports, and be prepared to explain what was found.

It is important for Council to reach and record an actual conclusion, even an unfavourable one for the complaining Owner, rather than requesting further information indefinitely without ever committing to a finding. Once the Strata has enough evidence to reach a conclusion, reaching it, and communicating it, is what the case law above treats as the dividing line.

Our advice is that Council communicate that conclusion back to the Owner who complained, and to the Owner whose conduct was investigated, in both cases. A Strata that investigated, reached a conclusion, and told both Owners what it found and why is in a materially stronger position than one that let the file go quiet after its first response, whatever that conclusion turns out to be.

A DECISION NOT TO FINE IS SAFE ONLY WHEN IT IS AN ACTUAL DECISION

Choosing not to fine a bylaw complaint is not, on its own, significantly unfair, because the Act gives Council real discretion in how it enforces the bylaws. What the case law consistently punishes is not the choice itself, but a Strata that had enough information to make that choice and did not make it, whether through an unexplained refusal to reach a conclusion, an unwillingness to act on evidence it obtained itself, or no investigation at all.

A robust and resilient Strata Community treats every bylaw complaint as something that deserves an actual answer, even when that answer is that no bylaw was broken.