Search this site

“You might use it if you feel better – When you get home” Rikki Don’t Lose That Number by Steely Dan CAN THE RIGHT TO ACCESS COMMON PROPERTY BE RESTRICTED? The Common Property is owned by the Owners together as tenants in common (see our article explaining this). As an Owner, you may own the Common Property, but this does not entitle you to an inalienable right to access all Common Property as you would your living room. The right to access Common Property can be restricted. CAN THE COUNCIL RESTRICT THE RIGHT TO ACCESS COMMON PROPERTY? The Strata Property Act provides several instances where a Council can restrict the Owners’ right to access Common Property without an approving vote of the Owners. These instances usually involve giving one Owner an exclusive right to use the Common Property over others, such as by: Giving an Owner exclusive use of Common Property for not longer than a year (see our article explaining exclusive use agreements), Leasing Common Property to an individual. A Council can also reasonably restrict the Owners’ right to access Common Property without giving one Owner an exclusive right to use the Common Property, such as by: Denying an Owner the right to use a Common Property recreational facility for a reasonable amount of time if the Owner breaches a bylaw or rule relating to the recreational facility, Restrict access to certain Common Property, such as a roof or mechanical room, either by rule or bylaw. See our article describing the considerations when restricting access to Common Property. CAN THE OWNERS AGREE TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO COMMON PROPERTY? The Strata Property Act provides several instances where a Strata can restrict the Owners’ right to access Common Property with an approving vote of the Owners, such as by: Designating Common Property as Limited Common Property for the exclusive use of one or more Owners. See our articles on the designation of Limited Common Property by amendment of the Strata Plan and by registering a sketch plan. Adopting a bylaw to restrict access to certain Common Property, such as a roof or electrical room. THE RIGHT TO ACCESS COMMON PROPERTY CAN BE RESTRICTED The Owners may own the Common Property, but this does not entitle them to an inalienable right to access and use the Common Property. The right to access Common Property can be restricted, and is often restricted, by the Strata with and without Owner approval.

“Only a fool would say that” Only a Fool Would Say That by Steely Dan WHO OWNS THE COMMON PROPERTY? It is a common misunderstanding that the Strata owns the Common Property. This is not true no matter how many times it is repeated. The Strata does not own the Common Property. The Owners own the Common Property. The Strata has powers regarding regulating the use of the Common Property under the Strata Property Act. However, this does not mean the Strata owns the Common Property. We have an article about the power of a Strata because of the Strata Property Act and the authority of a Strata to restrict access to portions of the Common Property. HOW IS OWNERSHIP OF THE COMMON PROPERTY SHARED BETWEEN OWNERS? The Strata Property Act provides that the Owners own the Common Property of the Strata as tenants in common in shares equal to the unit entitlement of the Owner's Strata Lot divided by the total unit entitlement of all Strata Lots. WHAT ARE TENANTS IN COMMON? The Common Property is owned by all Owners as "tenants in common". Importantly, for an Owner, a tenant in common can sell their portion of real property without the consent of each other Owner. Otherwise, the sale of any Strata Lot would require the consent of every Owner of a Strata Lot. Also, for a tenant in common, when they die their share in the property transfer to or through their estate and does not become the property of the other Owners. THE STRATA DOES NOT OWN THE COMMON PROPERTY The Common Property is owned by the Owners together as tenants in common. Each Owner’s share of the Common Property is equal to the unit entitlement of the Owner's Strata Lot divided by the total unit entitlement of all the Strata Lots. The Strata manages the Common Property on behalf of the Owners. The Strata, however, does not own the Common Property.

“Done up in blueprint blue – It sure looks good on you” Peg by Steely Dan CAN A STRATA PLAN BE AMENDED TO DESIGNATE LIMITED COMMON PROPERTY? A Strata may designate Common Property as Limited Common Property by amending the Strata Plan. The Strata Plan amendment must be approved by a unanimous vote at a general meeting. The Strata then files a reference or explanatory plan in the Land Title Office defining the Limited Common Property area or areas with a certificate stating the Strata Plan amendment was approved by unanimous vote. This is not the only way to designate Common Property as Limited Common Property, but it does carry the greatest degree of permanence. We have written an article describing the designation of Limited Common Property through a resolution and sketch plan and the registration of a sketch plan. This is an alternative that the Strata should consider. WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO DESIGNATE LIMITED COMMON PROPERTY BY STRATA PLAN AMENDMENT? There are few requirements in designating Common Property as Limited Common Property by Strata Plan amendment. All that is required is: A unanimous vote of the Owners at a general meeting approving the designation of Common Property as Limited Common Property, A reference or explanatory plan (an amended version of the Strata Plan) defining the boundaries of the Limited Common Property area or areas, A certificate stating the Strata Plan amendment was approved by unanimous vote, Filing the reference or explanatory plan and certificate in the Land Title Office. WHAT VOTE IS REQUIRED TO AMEND A STRATA PLAN? The designation of Common Property as Limited Common Property by Strata Plan amendment must be approved by a unanimous vote at a general meeting. A unanimous vote does not mean every voter must attend the general meeting. A unanimous vote means every eligible voter in the Strata voted in favour. If a voter cannot attend the general meeting, that voter must provide a proxy so their vote may be cast at the general meeting. We have an article describing how an Owner can delegate to a proxy. WHAT IS A REFERENCE OR EXPLANATORY PLAN? A reference plan is a precise surveyed plan that shows exact dimensions and boundaries with reference to survey markers. A reference plan is used when the physical boundaries are not already obvious and need certainty. A reference plan may be used when designating a yard as Limited Common Property when the yard, its measurements, and its boundaries are not identified on the existing Strata Plan. An explanatory plan is a less precise surveyed plan that shows dimensions and boundaries with reference to existing measurements on the Strata Plan and physical boundaries. An explanatory plan may be used when designating a balcony as Limited Common Property when the balcony, it measurements, and its boundaries are already indicated on the existing Strata Plan. The reference plan or explanatory plan must be prepared by a land surveyor licensed in British Columbia. Whether the Strata Plan amendment must be done by reference or explanatory plan is a decision left to the surveyor. DOES THE REFERENCE OR EXPLANATORY PLAN NEED TO BE FILED IN THE LAND TITLE OFFICE? The designation of Common Property as Limited Common Property by Strata Plan amendment does not take effect until it is filed in the Land Title Office. The Council is not usually able to file the plan amendment on its own. The plan amendment must be filed by an individual authorized to use the Land Title Office’s filing system, usually a lawyer or a notary. HOW IS THE REFERENCE OR EXPLANATORY PLAN REGISTERED WITH THE LAND TITLE OFFICE? The reference or explanatory plan must be filed in the Land Title Office with a certificate stating the Strata Plan amendment was approved by unanimous vote. This certificate, called a Certificate of the Strata Corporation, is attached to the Strata Property Regulation as Form E and can be accessed online. The certificate details the Strata’s legal name, the section of the Strata Property Act the amendment is made under, the date the unanimous resolution was approved, and a copy of the reference or explanatory plan. The certificate must be signed by a council member. DESIGNATING LIMITED COMMON PROPERTY BY STRATA PLAN AMENDMENT IS DIFFICULT TO REVERSE Designating Common Property as Limited Common Property by Strata Plan amendment is a significant process. It requires professional assistance from a surveyor and a unanimous vote which can be difficult to obtain. While designating Common Property as Limited Common Property by strata plan amendment is difficult to achieve, it also has the benefit of being difficult to undo. A Strata interested in designating Common Property as Limited Common Property by Strata Plan amendment should speak to a lawyer about the right strategy to obtain the unanimous vote. The Strata should then retain a licensed land surveyor to prepare the reference or explanatory plan.

“Nothing here but history – Can you see what has been done” The Caves of Altamira by Steely Dan WHAT IS LIMITED COMMON PROPERTY? Limited Common Property is Common Property designated for the exclusive use of the Owners of one or more Strata Lots. Limited Common Property is often used to give Owners exclusive use of Common Property parking stalls, patios, balconies, and yards. An Owner with Limited Common Property receives certain rights to use the Limited Common Property. These rights, however, can also be accompanied by responsibilities. Limited Common Property is specifically identified either on the Strata Plan or in a sketch plan filed with the Land Title Office. We have an article about amending the Strata Plan to designate Limited Common Property and another article on designating Limited Common Property by a sketch plan. CAN THE SAME LIMITED COMMON PROPERTY BE ALLOCATED TO MULTIPLE OWNERS? Common Property is often designated as Limited Common Property for the exclusive use of a single Strata Lot. For example, a Common Property balcony designated as Limited Common Property for the attached Strata Lot. Common Property can also be designated as Limited Common Property for multiple Strata Lots. For example, a Common Property parking lot designated as Limited Common Property for a dozen Strata Lots. Common Property can also be designated as Limited Common Property for an entire section of Owners. We have an article explaining what a section is. For example, in a Strata consisting of townhomes and an apartment building, the elevator can be designated as Limited Common Property for all the Owners living in the apartment building. WHAT RIGHTS COME WITH LIMITED COMMON PROPERTY? An Owner who has been allocated Limited Common Property has a nearly exclusive right to use the Limited Common Property. The exclusive use of the Limited Common Property is subject, of course, to the Strata’s bylaws and rules. We have an article describing the scope of a Strata's bylaws. The exclusive use is also subject to the Strata’s right to access the Limited Common Property to carry out its various responsibilities, such as repair and maintenance. WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES COME WITH LIMITED COMMON PROPERTY? A Strata must repair and maintain the Common Property. A Strata is not necessarily required to repair and maintain Limited Common Property. The responsibility to repair and maintain Limited Common Property is determined by the bylaws. A Strata’s bylaws often divide the responsibility to repair and maintain Limited Common Property between the Strata and Owners. It is common for bylaws to allocate all repairs occurring less than once a year to the Strata and all repairs occurring more than once a year to the Owners. HOW IS LIMITED COMMON PROPERTY CREATED? There are a four different ways to create Limited Common Property. Limited Common Property can be created by: A 3/4 vote of the Owners and the filing of a sketch plan in the Land Title Office indicating the Limited Common Property area. See our article describing this process. A unanimous vote of the Owners amending the Strata Plan to designate Limited Common Property. See our article regarding this process. The owner developer filing a Strata Plan including Limited Common Property. The owner developer, before the Strata’s first annual general meeting, amending the Strata Plan to designate parking as Limited Common Property. HOW DO I KNOW IF THERE IS LIMITED COMMON PROPERTY? You cannot know just by looking at a parking stall, patio, balcony, or yard if it is a part of a Strata Lot, Common Property, or Limited Common Property. You must review the documents filed in the Land Title Office. The Strata Plan is a good place to start as Limited Common Property is often indicated on the Strata Plan. In addition to the Strata Plan, Limited Common Property can be described on a sketch plan filed separately in the Land Title Office. We have an article describing how to get a copy of the Strata Plan. LIMITED COMMON PROPERTY IS ACCOMPANIED BY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Limited Common Property is a means to allocate an Owner the exclusive use of Common Property. The allocation of Limited Common Property includes certain rights, such as exclusive use, but it can also include certain obligations, such as repair responsibilities. An Owner interested in learning more about Limited Common Property in their Strata should access the Strata’s records filed in the Land Title Office. These records, such as Strata Plan amendments and Limited Common Property designations, are held by the Council and will be provided on request. These records will show a history of Limited Common Property designations created and removed.

DOES AN OWNER HAVE TO PAY STRATA FEES TO COVER A COMMON EXPENSE THEY DO NOT DIRECTLY BENEFIT FROM? Strata fees are calculated as each Strata Lot's share of the budgeted operating and Contingency Reserve Fund contributions, using the formula set out in the section 99 or 100 of the Strata Property Act. Compliance with that prescribed formula is, as a general rule, not significantly unfair under s.164, even where one Owner ends up paying for more than they personally use (King Day Holdings Ltd. v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS3851, 2020 BCCA 342). That general rule is not absolute, and this article covers both where it holds and where it gives way. HOW DOES A STRATA NORMALLY DIVIDE UP ITS EXPENSES? A Strata normally raises money to pay its expenses from all Owners according to unit entitlement, and every Owner contributes to the same operating and Contingency Reserve Fund regardless of how much they personally use any particular amenity or system (Strata Property Act, s.99). That formula can only be changed to a different basis by a unanimous vote taken after the Strata's first annual general meeting (Change to basis for calculation of contribution, s.100 of the Act). Some Owners do not consider this a fair basis for the calculation of Strata Fees. The presumption in the Act is that an Owner who simply benefits less than a neighbour from a shared system does not, on that basis alone, have a claim that the Strata is charging them unfairly. DOES THIS MEAN AN OWNER MUST PAY FOR A COMMON EXPENSE THEY DO NOT BENEFIT FROM? if the Strata has sections and the expense relates solely to a section the Owner is not part of their Strata Fees would not relate to those expenses. Where an expense for the repair and maintenance of common property relates solely to the Strata Lots in one section, the Strata Property Act requires that expense to be shared only among that section's Owners (Expenses of section, s.195 of the Act). Our understanding is that whether an expense "relates solely" to one section turns on a weighed set of factors: whether the property or system provides exclusive access or use to one section's Strata Lots, whether the other section's Owners have any use for or access to it, and whether the utilities or services running through it serve only one section. For example, our understanding is that where common-property catwalks provide the only means of access to a residential section's Lots, are not used or usable by a commercial section, and carry utilities serving only the residential Lots, the catwalks relate solely to the residential section — the commercial section owes none of the special-levy costs of repairing them (Section 2 of the Owners, Strata Plan LMS 257 v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 257, 2025 BCSC 1985). It is a similar situation when there are types of Strata Lots identified by bylaw and a contribution to the operating fund relates to and benefits only one type of Strata Lot. WHAT IF THE EXPENSE SEEMS UNRELATED TO AN OWNER? An expense can still benefit the whole Strata even where an Owner's Lot is not physically adjacent to it. Our understanding is that a building envelope which structurally protects and shelters a mixed-use building, including Lots not directly located within that building, benefits the whole Strata Corporation indirectly, so all Owners contribute to its repair by unit entitlement, even Owners of stand-alone Lots elsewhere in the development (The Residential Section of the Owners, Strata Plan NW 3365 v. The Commercial Section of the Owners, Strata Plan NW 3365, 2026 BCSC 176). Shelter, structural protection, and indirect benefit to Common Property or Limited Common Property elsewhere in the building can be enough to make an expense a common expense that is paid through Strata Fees from every Strata Lot, even where the Owner raising the complaint gains not benefit and has no consequence if it is not maintained. This is because, at least in part, every Owner owns the Common Property as a Tenant in Common - so, even though they get no direct benefit from that common property, they are an owner of that property). CAN A STRATA BE FORCED TO KEEP AN OLD, DIFFERENT COST-SHARING ARRANGEMENT? A Strata's insistence on reverting to strict unit entitlement can itself be significantly unfair in exceptional circumstances, even though unit entitlement is the Act's own default formula (King Day Holdings, 2020 BCCA 342). It is important to recognize that the exceptional-circumstances exception is narrow: it applies where an established, long-relied-upon different allocation practice is unilaterally abandoned without a duly authorized resolution. The Court of Appeal found exactly this where a Strata and one Owner had operated for roughly a decade under a mutually agreed, differential cost-allocation formula, never formalized by unanimous vote, until a new owner acquired a controlling majority and reverted unilaterally to strict unit entitlement, imposing significant new financial burdens on the original Owner (King Day Holdings). An Owner raising this kind of claim is ordinarily expected to first put forward a s.100 resolution or other available internal process (which were unsuccessful) before alleging a significantly unfair act. There is an exception to the requirement to use internal processes when it would plainly be an empty exercise. A STRATA'S EXPENSE ALLOCATION SHOULD RESPECT THE SCHEME OF THE ACT. Unit entitlement is the Act's default, and complying with it is generally a safe answer to a cost-allocation complaint as significantly unfair. The Act provides tools, through either sectioning or a types bylaw, to apportion common expenses in a manner that is fair to all Owners.

WHAT IS EXPRESS WAIVER OF SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE? Express waiver of solicitor-client privilege happens when the Strata Corporation, as the privilege holder, knows the privilege exists and voluntarily evinces an intention to give it up. We have written about solicitor-client privilege generally, and why a Strata must be careful not to waive it, in another article; this article works through the specific test for the express branch of waiver. The test has two elements, and both must be satisfied: the Strata Corporation must know of the existence of the privilege, and it must voluntarily evince an intention to waive it (S. & K. Processors Ltd. v. Campbell Ave. Herring Producers Ltd.*, 1983 CanLII 407 (BC SC), para 6). A disclosure made by someone who did not know the communication was privileged fails the first element. A disclosure that is compelled, involuntary, or merely incidental fails the second. WHEN DOES A STRATA KNOW THAT THE PRIVILEGE EXISTS? A Strata Corporation is deemed to know the privilege exists once it has expressly requested legal advice from its lawyer. We have written, in another article, that legal advice is a continuum that begins with the facts a Strata furnishes to seek the advice, and privilege attaches to that continuum from the Strata's first contact with the lawyer's office, before any advice is actually given. A Strata Corporation that has taken that first step cannot credibly claim, later, that it did not know a communication with its own lawyer was privileged. This does not require Council to understand the doctrine of privilege itself, only to be aware that the communication in question was made to a lawyer, in confidence, to obtain legal advice. Our experience is that Council rarely has any real difficulty meeting this element; the disputes that actually arise over express waiver turn almost entirely on the second element, whether the disclosure was voluntary, not on whether the Strata Corporation knew the privilege existed in the first place. WHEN DOES DISCLOSURE TO A THIRD PARTY WAIVE PRIVILEGE? Voluntary disclosure to a third party is the clearest way a Strata Corporation satisfies the second element of the test. A privilege holder who discloses a privileged document to a third party, knowing of the privilege and without asserting or preserving it, expressly waives that privilege (Huang v. Silvercorp Metals Inc., 2017 BCSC 795, paras 211-225). For example, providing a lawyer's letter to an engineering consultant likely waives privilege over that letter when the disclosure was intentional (Camp Development Corp. v. South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, 2011 BCSC 88, para 70). Not every disclosure counts. Disclosure compelled by statute is involuntary and does not waive privilege, and the Strata Corporation retains whatever privilege the statute leaves it (S. & K. Processors, para 11). A Strata Corporation that discloses a privileged document to a regulator under a genuine legal obligation, or to fulfill a genuine moral duty to cooperate with an investigation while explicitly maintaining the privilege, similarly does not waive it (Huang, paras 212, 218). Whether a disclosure was actually voluntary is assessed on the whole record, not on the Strata Corporation's own description of its reasons for making it. DOES DISCLOSING PART OF A LEGAL OPINION WAIVE PRIVILEGE OVER THE WHOLE OF IT? Disclosing part of a legal opinion waives privilege over the whole of it: waiver of privilege as to part of a communication is waiver as to the entire communication (S. & K. Processors, para 6). A Strata Corporation cannot disclose the part of an opinion that helps its position while withholding the rest; fairness and consistency treat the two as inseparable. This means a Strata Corporation should treat quoting, summarizing, or paraphrasing any part of a legal opinion, in a council minute, an Owner newsletter, or a response to a complaint, with the same caution as disclosing the opinion outright. Once part of it is out, a court can treat privilege as given up over all of it, not just the part disclosed. WHAT HAPPENS IF A MEMBER OF COUNCIL DISCLOSES A LEGAL OPINION TO DEFEND AGAINST AN ALLEGATION OF MISCONDUCT? A member of Council's own disclosure does not necessarily waive the Strata Corporation's privilege, but it creates real risk regardless of how a court would eventually decide the question. Privilege belongs to the Strata Corporation, not to any individual member of Council, and we have written, in another article, that the same is true of the authority to instruct the Strata's lawyer in the first place. It is reasonable to assume that a member of Council facing an allegation of misconduct can point to a lawyer's opinion clearing their conduct, but doing so raises the same two questions the test asks of the Strata Corporation itself. Did the member know the opinion was privileged? And did the member voluntarily evince an intention to waive the privilege on the Strata Corporation's own behalf, rather than only their own? A member of Council acting alone, without a resolution authorizing disclosure, has no more authority to waive the Strata Corporation's privilege than to instruct its lawyer alone. Our opinion is that an unauthorized disclosure by an individual member does not, by itself, bind the Strata Corporation to an express waiver, because the privilege belongs to the entity, not the member who happens to hold a copy of the opinion. However, once the content of the opinion is actually disclosed, in an email to other Owners or a written response to a complaint, the confidentiality the privilege depends on may already be lost as a practical matter, whatever a court later decides about waiver. Our recommendation is that Council treat a decision to disclose a legal opinion for this purpose the same way it treats a decision to instruct the lawyer: by resolution, not by an individual member acting alone. ONLY THE STRATA CORPORATION CAN DECIDE TO WAIVE ITS OWN PRIVILEGE Express waiver requires the privilege holder to know the privilege exists and to voluntarily evince an intention to give it up, most commonly by disclosing a privileged communication, or part of one, to a third party. A Strata Corporation that discloses even part of a legal opinion risks losing privilege over the whole of it, and that risk does not disappear because the person making the disclosure believed they were doing the Strata Community a favour. However, the decision to waive privilege belongs to the Strata Corporation, not to any individual member of Council. Keeping that decision with Council, made by resolution rather than by an individual member acting alone, is what allows a robust and resilient Strata Community to control when, and on what terms, it gives up the protection the law gives it.

WHY DOES ADVOCACY REQUIRE AN AUDIENCE? Advocacy requires an audience because persuasion does not happen inside a document, it happens inside another person's mind, when they read what you wrote, hold it against what they already believe, and decide to update that belief. It does not matter how well-reasoned, well-supported, or well-organized your argument is if nothing you wrote was actually read by someone capable of being moved by it. An argument with no audience persuades no one. We have written about the shared understanding that persuasion depends on in another article, on the assumption that the gap between you and your audience was a gap in a real person's understanding of your position. An uncounted number of files over the past year have made it clear that this assumption can no longer be taken for granted. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A CHATBOT BECOMES THE AUDIENCE INSTEAD OF A PERSON? Increasingly, correspondence is not being read at all. It is being pasted into a generative AI tool with an instruction along the lines of "say why this is wrong," and whatever comes back is sent as though it were a considered response. That is not a response. It is a rebuttal manufactured to order, and it would have been generated whether the underlying letter was right, wrong, or somewhere in between. Imagine a Council writes to an Owner explaining, in careful detail, why a proposed alteration cannot proceed without further information about drainage. The Owner does not read past the first paragraph. Instead, the letter is uploaded to a chatbot with the instruction to argue against it, and the output is sent back as the Owner's reply. The reply sounds confident and organized. It also does not engage with the drainage concern at all, because the person on the other end never saw it as a concern to engage with. They saw it as text to defeat. WHY DOES THIS MAKE A DISPUTE HARDER TO RESOLVE, NOT EASIER? This creates two distinct problems, and they compound each other. The first is that a chatbot prompted to argue against something will invent whatever it needs to make that argument sound complete, including authority that does not exist. We have now had several files where correspondence confidently cited a decision, by name and citation, as settled authority for a position. When we looked the decision up, it did not exist. Not that it said something different than claimed. It was not on CanLII, not on any other database, at all. It had been generated because it sounded like the kind of case that should exist, not because it did. The same pattern shows up with bylaws. A Strata will assert that an Owner's conduct contravenes a specific bylaw. The Owner disputes that the bylaw applies, or that it means what the Strata says it means. When we compare the quoted wording against what is actually on file for that Strata, the bylaw is not there. Our understanding is that a Strata's bylaws are the Standard Bylaws under the Strata Property Act, except to the extent different bylaws have actually been filed in the land title office (s.120), and that even an approved amendment has no effect until that filing is done (s.128(2)). A bylaw that reads smoothly, uses the right vocabulary, and sounds exactly like the kind of provision a strata corporation would have, but was never filed for this Strata, is not a bylaw of this Strata at all. It is usually something else entirely: a plausible-sounding provision pulled from somewhere else on the internet, offered up because it fit the shape of what the prompt was asking for. WHY IS IT EASIER TO GENERATE AN ARGUMENT THAN TO UNDERSTAND ONE? It used to cost something to respond to correspondence. You had to read it, understand what was actually being claimed, and work out where you agreed and where you did not, before you could write anything back. That cost was doing real work: it forced at least a minimal amount of engagement with the other side's position before you could disagree with it. That cost has now dropped close to zero. Generating a confident rebuttal takes less effort than reading the letter it responds to, and a rebuttal produced this way looks the same on the page as one a person actually reasoned through. There is no longer any friction pushing either side toward understanding the other, and the gaps of vocabulary, expectation, and responsibility we have written about elsewhere do not just persist, they widen, because neither side is doing the work that used to close them. HOW SHOULD YOU RESPOND WHEN THE OTHER SIDE'S "ARGUMENT" MIGHT NOT BE THEIRS? It is important to verify before you respond to what looks like a considered position. Confirm that a cited case actually exists and says what it is claimed to say, rather than assuming a citation that looks correctly formatted is correct. Confirm that a cited bylaw is actually filed against the Strata in question, rather than assuming quoted language is real because it reads like it belongs. Our recommendation is to treat an unverified citation, whether to a case or a bylaw, as a fact to be checked, not as a starting point to be argued with. It is also worth resisting the urge to answer a generated rebuttal point by point. A document produced to defeat your letter, without anyone having read it first, does not deserve the same engagement as a genuine disagreement, and responding to every line only rewards the practice of generating one. Focus your reply on the facts and the documents that actually govern the dispute, and put the burden back on the other side to engage with those, rather than chasing whatever a chatbot invented next. There is always the chance that a person will read your response before uploading it to a chatbot. That is why it is important that a response is structured in a way that will grab a readers attention, that uses narrative to persuade, and that is generally persuasive. AN ARGUMENT WITHOUT AN AUDIENCE PERSUADES NO ONE None of this means generative AI tools have no place in a dispute. It means that persuasion still depends on something a chatbot cannot supply on either end: a person who actually reads what is in front of them, checks whether it is true, and is willing to be moved if it is. A rebuttal generated in seconds can look exactly like a considered response, but it has not engaged with anything, and it cannot be persuaded of anything either. A robust and resilient Strata Community resolves its disputes through people who read each other's positions, not through documents traded past each other at machine speed. The tools may keep improving. The requirement that someone on the other end is actually paying attention will not change.

WHAT IS SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE? "Solicitor-client privilege" is a legal term that means specific communications are exempted from compelled disclosure. It protects a confidential communication between a lawyer and a client made to seek or give legal advice, and once it attaches it is treated as close to absolute (Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 SCC 39). We have written about what counts as legal advice, and who the client actually is for a Strata, in another article. Solicitor-client privilege is the protection that attaches once that advice exists; it is not a separate test for what the advice itself must be. Because privilege is close to absolute, it is not enough for someone challenging it to show that disclosure would be useful, or even that fairness would seem to favour it. It yields only in narrowly defined circumstances, and courts are reluctant to weigh it against other interests case by case. HOW DID SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE EVOLVE FROM A RULE OF EVIDENCE INTO A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE? Solicitor-client privilege was not always treated as more than a courtroom rule. In 1979, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the privilege had moved onto "a new plane," and was no longer merely a rule of evidence confined to a proceeding (Solosky v. The Queen), 1979 CanLII 9 (SCC)). Three years later, the Court further developed the concept of solicitor-client privilege. In Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski (1982 CanLII 22 (SCC)), the Court formulated privilege as a substantive right that can be raised whenever disclosure is threatened, not only in court, and confirmed that it attaches from a client's first contact with a lawyer's office, before any retainer is finalized. The concept further expanded in 2002, when the Court described privilege as a principle of fundamental justice and to the client's right to privacy (Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 61). By 2016, the Court had confirmed that privilege had "acquired constitutional dimensions," describing it as a fundamental policy of the law and formally distinguishing it, as a substantive protection operating everywhere, from a privilege of the law of evidence that only operates inside a proceeding (Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary, 2016 SCC 53). What began in 1979 as a rule about what a court would admit into evidence has become, in practice, a protection a Strata can rely on in any dealing with its lawyer, whether or not litigation is ever contemplated. DOES THE STRATA PROPERTY ACT ELIMINATE SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE? The Strata Property Act does not eliminate solicitor-client privilege. The Act requires a Strata to retain, among its records, "any legal opinions obtained by the strata corporation" (s.35(2)(h)), and requires the Strata to make its s.35 records available to an Owner on request (s.36(1)). It is reasonable to assume that listing legal opinions as a record the Strata must produce means an Owner is entitled to see them, but that assumption is wrong. The BC Court of Appeal has confirmed that legislation is not read as eliminating solicitor-client privilege unless it does so clearly, explicitly, and unequivocally, and identifying a category of record in a retention list falls well short of that (Mitchinson v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1120, 2024 BCCA 89). "Legal opinions," in this context, simply means documents or communications containing legal advice the Strata obtained; identifying that category is not the same as identifying, and giving up, the substantive interest privilege protects. A court will not rewrite s.35 or s.36 to reach a different result merely because the Act's general purpose is transparency to Owners. It also does not matter how old the legal opinion is. Privilege is permanent once it attaches, and does not expire simply because the dispute the advice concerned has since been resolved. CAN AN OWNER STILL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE STRATA'S LEGAL OPINION? An Owner can obtain a copy of the Strata's legal opinion only if the Strata Corporation agrees to provide it, or has otherwise given up the privilege. Because ss.35(2)(h) and 36(1) do not eliminate privilege, an Owner's request for records does not, on its own, defeat a Strata Corporation's claim of privilege over a legal opinion. An Owner who is joined or sued by the Strata Corporation, or who sues it, in their capacity as an Owner is further restricted. The Strata Property Act gives that Owner no right to information or documents relating to that suit at all, privileged or not (s.169(1)(b)). This is not a reason for a Strata to refuse every request. Our recommendation is that Council turn its mind, with legal advice, to whether disclosure actually serves the Strata Corporation's own interests before it decides whether to assert privilege or to waive it voluntarily. WHY DO STRATAS NEED TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO WAIVE PRIVILEGE? Privilege belongs to the Strata Corporation, not to Council, a member of Council, or the property manager, and it can be given up more easily than a Strata might expect. It is important for Council to understand that privilege can be lost even when no one intended to give it up. Express waiver happens when the Strata Corporation, knowing the privilege exists, voluntarily discloses the privileged communication, for example by forwarding a lawyer's opinion to a consultant or another third party outside any recognized exception (S. & K. Processors Ltd. v. Campbell Ave. Herring Producers Ltd., 1983 CanLII 407 (BC SC); Camp Development Corp. v. South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, 2011 BCSC 88). We discuss the test for express waiver, and how little disclosure it actually takes to trigger it, in another article. Implied waiver is a separate risk, and it does not require the Strata Corporation to have intended to waive anything at all. It can arise when the Strata Corporation puts its own state of mind in issue and relies on the legal advice it received to support a position it is taking, even when no one ever uses the word "privilege." We discuss the test for implied waiver, and what does and does not amount to reliance, in another article. Both routes share the same underlying risk: disclosing even part of a privileged communication, such as quoting a legal opinion's conclusion in a council minute or an Owner newsletter, can waive privilege over the rest of it. Our recommendation is that a Strata treat any potential disclosure of legal advice, however limited, with the same caution it would apply to a decision to waive privilege outright. SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IS A STRONG PROTECTION THAT ONLY THE STRATA CORPORATION CAN GIVE UP Solicitor-client privilege began as a rule about what a court would admit into evidence and has become a substantive, near-absolute protection a Strata can rely on in any dealing with its lawyer. The Strata Property Act does not take that protection away: ss.35(2)(h) and 36(1) require a Strata to keep and produce its records, but they do not clearly, explicitly, and unequivocally eliminate the privilege attaching to a legal opinion among them. However, the Strata Corporation itself can give up what the Act cannot take away. Privilege belongs to the Strata Corporation, and it is lost through express disclosure or through relying on legal advice to support a position, whether or not Council meant to waive anything at all. Keeping that in mind is what allows a robust and resilient Strata Community to rely on the privilege the law already gives it.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE CHAIR OF A MEETING? The role of the chair extends beyond simply following the agenda. An effective chair helps maintain order, ensures everyone has an opportunity to participate, keeps discussions focused on the matter at hand, and facilitates the meeting in accordance with the bylaws and legislative requirements. General meetings are an important part of strata governance, providing owners with the opportunity to make decisions that affect their community. Whether it is an annual general meeting (AGM) or a special general meeting (SGM), having an effective chair helps ensure the meeting remains organized, productive, and fair. General meetings are important for resilient and robust Strata Communities. HOW IS THE CHAIR OF A MEETING CHOSEN? The process to select the chair for a meeting should be established in the Strata's bylaws. Under the Standard Bylaws, annual and special general meetings are chaired by the president of the strata council. If the president is unwilling or unable to act, the vice president assumes the role. If neither the president nor the vice president chairs the meeting, the eligible voters present in person or by proxy must elect a chair from among the individuals attending the meeting. The Morley Hanson bylaws follow a similar approach by giving the president and vice president the first opportunity to chair the meeting. If neither chooses to do so, the eligible voters present may elect a chair from among those attending. Unlike some other meeting roles, a person elected to chair the meeting does not have to be an eligible voter. The ability of the Owners to elect a non-voter to be the Chair can be important. Stratas frequently want an experienced professional to act as the Chair, either a lawyer, paralegal or Property Manager when there are expectations that a meeting will involve several questions regarding procedure and rules of order. Sometimes a Strata wants to have an arms-length Chair to provide an indication of 'neutrality' or to permit the president or vice-president to fully participate in the meeting without having to also act as the Chair. EFFECTIVE MEETINGS REQUIRE THE CHAIR TO BE EFFECTIVE A well-chaired general meeting contributes to better decision-making and a more positive experience for everyone involved. Understanding who may chair a meeting and the responsibilities of that role helps promote orderly discussions, fair participation, and effective strata governance.

IS THERE A REQUIRED FORM FOR A BYLAW COMPLAINT? The Strata Property Act (SPA) does not prescribe a specific form for a bylaw complaint or provide a checklist of required information. Instead, it establishes procedural requirements that allow the person accused of a bylaw breach to understand the allegation and respond appropriately. A well-prepared complaint benefits everyone involved. It helps Council investigate the matter, provides the alleged offender with meaningful details of the complaint, and supports a fair and transparent enforcement process. Bylaw enforcement is one of the more challenging responsibilities of a Strata Council. While Councils have a duty to enforce the bylaws and rules of the Strata, they must also ensure that enforcement is fair and complies with the requirements of the SPA. WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD A BYLAW COMPLAINT INCLUDE? Section 135 of the Strata Property Act sets out the steps a Strata must follow before imposing a fine, requiring payment for the cost of remedying a contravention, or restricting access to certain recreational facilities. Before enforcement action can be taken, the Strata must: Receive a complaint. Provide the owner or tenant with written particulars of the alleged contravention. Allow a reasonable opportunity to respond, including a hearing if requested. If the individual is a tenant, notify both them and the landlord. Although the legislation does not specify exactly what information must be contained in the original complaint, providing sufficient detail is important because the Strata must communicate the particulars of the allegation to the affected individual. A properly presented complaint should include: A description of the alleged contravention. The date and approximate time of the incident, if known. The location where the alleged contravention occurred. The identity or description of the individual involved, if known. The strata lot or unit associated with the complaint, where applicable. The bylaw or rule that is believed to have been breached. The name and contact information of the person making the complaint. Providing these details helps Council investigate the matter and, equally importantly, allows the person receiving the complaint to understand the allegation and provide a meaningful response. Without adequate particulars, an Owner or Tenant may not be able to explain their version of events or respond to the complaint in a fair manner. For Owners that are preparing a complaint regarding a contravention of a bylaw, it is important that they understand the limits of bylaws and have access to the current bylaws of the Strata. PROPER BYLAW ENFORCEMENT REQUIRES A FAIR PROCESS Bylaw enforcement is not simply about issuing fines. It is about following a fair process that protects the rights of everyone involved while promoting a respectful and well-managed strata community. A well-documented bylaw complaint helps support a fair and effective enforcement process. While the Strata Property Act does not establish a mandatory complaint form, providing clear and detailed information assists council in meeting its legal obligations and helps ensure that owners and tenants are given a fair opportunity to respond to allegations.