Search this site

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.

WHAT IS QUORUM? A quorum is the minimum number of votes that must be present, in person or by proxy, at a meeting to vote on any resolution or other matter. Whether there is a quorum is determined after the meeting is called to order and does not need to be done before every individual vote. This means that a meeting can still have quorum if a vote, or several votes, abstain from voting on a particular matter. HOW MANY VOTES SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR QUORUM? Generally, quorum is a proportion of present votes as compared against the total number of possible votes. For this reason, the number of votes required to achieve quorum, will depend on the type of meeting being held. A general meeting, in which every Strata Lot (with some exceptions) has the right to vote will often require a larger number of votes to be present to achieve quorum compared to a council meeting, where the number of possible votes is likely limited to the number of members of Council. As a basic guide for ratios of present votes to total votes, you can consider the Strata Property Act. The Strata Property Act allows a Strata to determine by bylaw what is required for a quorum, but if a Strata does not adopt a bylaw the default is that quorum for a general meeting is 1/3 of the Strata’s votes, present in person or by proxy. HOW SHOULD MY STRATA DETERMINE HOW MANY VOTES FOR QUORUM? The Strata Property Act presumes 1/3 of all votes must be present in person or by proxy to have quorum at a general meeting. However, this ratio can vary based on the total number of possible votes. In our experience, achieving quorum at general meetings in which there are not significant issues that are currently being disputed in the Strata Community, is difficult based on the Strata Property Act’s presumption of 1/3 of all votes. Our recommendation is that the 1/3 ratio be reduced to a 1/5 ratio. The benefit of reducing the ratio is that it increases the likelihood that quorum will be achieved. Importantly, it does not limit the number of votes that can be present. Therefore, a meeting that involves matters that are important to the Strata Community can have participation far exceeding 1/5 of the votes. WHAT IF A MEETING DOESN’T HAVE QUORUM? If there are not enough votes present in person or by proxy at the time the meeting is scheduled to occur, the meeting is called to order, but nothing can be voted on. The Strata, through its bylaws, should determine what happens when a meeting does not have quorum. There are three general options: The meeting is adjourned to a distant future date with the same agenda. The meeting is adjourned for a short period of time and then quorum is re-evaluated. The meeting is adjourned for a short period of time and quorum is then equal to the votes present regardless of the ratio between votes present in person or by proxy and the total number of possible votes. WHY WOULD A STRATA WANT TO ADJOURN A MEETING TO A DISTANT FUTURE DATE? It is important to consider that deciding, through bylaw, the number of votes that are required to form quorum is a meaningful decision regarding the legitimate exercise of democracy. Essentially, setting the quorum number is a control against the ‘tyranny of a minority.’ In that context, adjourning a meeting to a distant future date prevents a situation where because of scheduling a smaller number of votes than is required for quorum can pass resolutions and potentially make significant decisions about the future of the Strata Community. In our experience, most Owners do not think it is a reasonable option to reschedule general meetings on the hope that enough votes will be present at another date. The assumption is that if Owners want to participate in decision making, they will either attend a general meeting or appoint a proxy (see our article regarding that an Owner has the right to vote by proxy). If an Owner does not take the steps to either attend or appoint a proxy, the likelihood that they would attend at a rescheduled date is low. Consequently, the assumption is that adjourning a general meeting to a distant future date only accomplishes a delay in making important decisions. However, we want to highlight that the presumption in the Strata Property Act is that a meeting that does not have quorum is adjourned “to the same day in the next week at the same time.” For reasons, explained later, Morley Hanson’s Model Bylaws do not adopt that presumption. WHY WOULD A STRATA WANT TO HAVE A SHORT ADJOURNMENT AND RE-EVALUATE QUORUM? The benefit of a short adjournment is that it allows votes that are ‘running late’ to arrive and therefore the meeting can achieve quorum. For example, a meeting scheduled to start at 7:00 may be adjourned until 7:30 to allow latecomers. At 7:30, quorum is re-evaluated and if quorum is still not achieved the meeting is adjourned again. This option preserves the presumption that the number of votes that are required to form quorum is a meaningful decision regarding the legitimate exercise of democracy and it is set as a control against the ‘tyranny of a minority.’ The primary disadvantage of a short adjournment after which quorum is re-evaluated is that if quorum is still not achieved, the meeting cannot proceed. Consequently, the chance of a meeting having quorum is based on the involvement of the Strata Community and situations may occur when achieving quorum is simply not realistic. WHY WOULD A STRATA WANT TO HAVE A SHORT ADJOURNMENT AND THEN PROCEED WITH A REDUCED REQUIREMENT FOR QUORUM? A Strata might prioritize holding general meetings and voting on resolutions over protecting Owners from the risk of the ‘tyranny of a minority.’ If this is the priority of a Strata, they can adopt a bylaw that says regardless of the actual number of votes present, the meeting has quorum based on those present. See our article explaining why it is important that Stratas have Annual General Meetings to understand why prioritizing holding meetings is reasonable. The concept is that if a meeting does not have quorum at the time it is scheduled to start it is adjourned for a short period of time and then whatever votes are present constitute quorum. This balancing, between efficiency and legitimacy, by adjourning a general meeting for a short period of time to allow votes to arrive and then continuing is endorsed by the Morley Hanson Model Bylaws. The Morley Hanson Model Bylaws state that if within five minutes from the appointed start time for a general meeting a quorum is not present, the meeting stands adjourned to fifteen minutes from the appointed start time, at which time the eligible voters present in person or by proxy will constitute a quorum. A Strata that has adopted the Morley Hanson Model Bylaws would therefore be certain that a general meeting will proceed on the date it is scheduled for. For example, if a general meeting was scheduled to start at 7:00 and quorum was not achieved at that time, the meeting would wait five minutes, until 7:05, to see if additional votes arrived. At 7:05, if quorum was still not achieved, the meeting would be adjourned for ten (10) minutes until 7:15. At 7:15 the meeting would no longer be adjourned, and quorum would be established based on the number of votes present at 7:15. QUORUM IS VITAL TO THE LEGITIMATE DECISION MAKING OF A STRATA When a Strata determines how many votes must be present to establish quorum for a general meeting it is explicitly describing how it will support democracy while avoiding the ‘tyranny of the minority.’ That is why quorum should not be ignored when voting at a general meeting. However, Stratas can make reasonable compromises and establish that quorum can be achieved only by the votes that are present at a meeting when the Strata Community is not concerned with the risk of the ‘tyranny of the minority.’ It is a valid decision, for a robust and resilient Strata Community, to delegate to the votes at a meeting the authority to make decisions, even if those votes represent only a small fraction of the total possible votes. It is important to ensure that the bylaws reflect the values and goals of the Strata Community and that a bylaw setting quorum is adopted after thoughtful consideration and discussion.

WHAT HAPPENS IF A COUNCIL MEMBER RESIGNS? The Strata Property Act does not specifically dictate what happens when a Council Member resigns. Instead, the process of filling a vacancy is established by the Strata's bylaws. Serving on a Strata Council is a volunteer commitment that requires time, effort, and a willingness to work with fellow Council Members for the benefit of the community. While many Council Members complete their full term, life circumstances can change, and occasionally someone may resign or become unable to continue serving. Understanding these procedures helps ensure that council can continue to function effectively while maintaining stable leadership for the strata community. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A COUNCIL MEMBER RESIGNS? Under the Standard Bylaws, if a council member resigns or is unwilling or unable to act for a period of two months or more, the remaining council members may appoint a replacement to serve for the remainder of the term. This is critical because every Strata must have a Council. The replacement does not have to wait until the next annual general meeting and may be any person who is otherwise eligible to be a Member of Council. Importantly, the remaining Council may make this appointment even if the vacancy has temporarily left council without a quorum. The Morley Hanson Model Bylaws contain similar provisions but define the period of absence as sixty (60) days or more. The practical effect is much the same—the remaining Members of Council have the authority to appoint a qualified replacement to maintain continuity in the governance of the strata corporation. The power of appointment is important because it allows the Council to continue to exercise the powers of the Strata. A Council may not be able to delegate the work that was done by the Member of Council that resigned and this allows a Council to get the support that it might require. However, there is a risk when a Council appoints a replacement Member of Council. We have been involved in situations where there has been a breakdown between Members of Council which has resulted in frustration and the resignation of all the Members of Council that share a perspective. The result is that the remaining Members of Council are able to appoint replacement Members that share their perspective and this removes an important aspect of the democratic control of a Strata. WHAT IS THE ENTIRE COUNCIL RESIGNS? A Strata has a more significant challenge if all Members of Council resign or become unable to act. In an ideal world, the Council would provide notice for a general meeting including a resolution to elect a new Council. However, we have experience where that did not occur. We have worked with a Strata where all the Members of Council resigned at the same time that they commenced, in the name of the Strata, an application for an Administrator. Their logic, apparently, was that if they could not manage their responsibilities as Members of Council that no one could! If all the Members of Council resign and do not set up the conditions for the controlled election of a new Council, under the Standard Bylaws, owners holding at least 25% of the Strata’s votes may call a Special General Meeting to elect a new council. The Morley Hanson Model Bylaws establish a similar process but reduce the threshold to 20% of the Strata’s votes. These provisions ensure that the Strata can continue to operate, even if the entire Council resigns. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL RESIGNING IS NOT A CRITICAL ISSUE IF THE STRATA HAS A PROCESS FOR THEIR REPLACEMENT The resignation of a Member of Council are a normal part of strata governance, and the bylaws provide practical mechanisms for filling vacancies and maintaining continuity. By understanding these procedures and encouraging active owner participation, Stratas can adapt to changing circumstances while continuing to serve the needs of the community effectively. Robust and resilient Strata Communities can deal with resignations of Members of Council and, hopefully, reduce the frequency of resignations by providing support and appreciation for the Members of Council.

"There is no exception to the rule that every rule has an exception." -- James Thurber DO ALL RESIDENTS HAVE TO BE 55 OR OLDER TO COMPLY WITH AN AGE RESTRICTION BYLAW? A 55+ age restriction bylaw does not mean that every resident of the strata lot must be 55 or older. The Strata Property Act only permits a strata corporation to pass a bylaw requiring one or more persons residing in a strata lot to have reached a specified age that is not less than 55 years. However, section 123.2 of the Act and section 7.01 of the Strata Property Regulation create important exemptions. These exemptions matter. WHAT ARE THE EXEMPTIONS TO AN AGE RESTRICTION BYLAW? The starting point is section 123.1 of the Strata Property Act. Section 123.2 and Regulation section 7.01 exempt certain underage residents: such as: · Preexisting underaged lawful residents. · Underaged care givers of a resident who is 55 or older. · Children of a resident who is 55 or older. · Underaged adult children of a resident who is 55 or older. · The underaged spouse of a resident who is 55 or older. EXEMPTION 1 – EXISTING LAWFUL RESIDENTS The first exemption protects certain existing residents. A 55+ age bylaw does not apply to a person who: resided in the strata lot immediately before the bylaw was passed; was not contravening an age restriction bylaw by residing there at that time; and continues to reside in the strata lot after the bylaw is passed. This is the basic “grandfathering” protection. It prevents a newly passed 55+ bylaw from forcing existing lawful residents out of their homes merely because they do not meet the new age threshold. However, the protection depends on continued residence. If the person ceases to reside in the strata lot, the exemption may no longer assist them. EXEMPTION 2 – CAREGIVERS The second exemption applies to caregivers. Section 123.2 provides that the age requirement does not apply to a caregiver who resides in the strata lot for the purpose of providing care to another person who resides in the strata lot and is dependent on caregivers for continuing assistance or direction because of disability, illness, or frailty. The exemption recognizes that a person living in a 55+ strata lot may need a live-in caregiver and that caregiver may be under 55. The caregiver exemption is not a general permission for any underage person to reside in the strata lot. The person must be residing there for the purpose of providing care to someone who is dependent on caregivers for continuing assistance or direction because of disability, illness, or frailty. EXEMPTION 3 – CHILDREN The regulations created an additional exemption for children. Section 7.01 of the Strata Property Regulation defines a “child” as a person under 19 years of age. It then provides that a child is exempt if one of the child’s caregivers is a “specified resident.” A “specified resident” means a resident of the strata lot who has reached the age specified in the bylaw, or a resident who is grandfathered under section 123.2(a) of the Act. The practical effect is that a child may reside in a 55+ strata lot if one of the child’s caregivers is a specified resident. This exemption is not limited to biological or adopted children of the specified resident. The regulation focuses on whether one of the child’s caregivers is a specified resident. EXEMPTION 4 – ADULT CHILDREN The regulations also create an exemption for adult children. Section 7.01 provides that a person who is 19 years of age or older is exempt if the person resides in a strata lot with a specified resident who was one of that person’s caregivers before the person reached the age of 19 years. This exemption is broader than many councils may expect. It may protect an adult child who resides with a parent or other former caregiver who is a specified resident. The regulation does not say that the adult child must have continuously lived in the strata lot since childhood. Nor does it say that the specified resident must still be providing care to the adult child. That wording may allow an adult child to reside with a parent or former caregiver in a 55+ strata lot, even if the adult child is under 55. EXEMPTION 5 – SPOUSES The regulations also exempt spouses. Section 7.01 defines “spouse” to include a person who is married to another person or who is living with another person in a marriage-like relationship. It then provides that the spouse of a specified resident is exempt. This means that an underage spouse may reside with a specified resident in a 55+ strata lot. The regulation does not require the spouse to have reached any particular age. It also does not require the marriage or marriage-like relationship to have existed for any minimum period of time. However, the exemption depends on the person being the spouse of a specified resident. It does not appear to apply to former spouses. If the specified resident dies or ceases to reside in the strata lot, the underage spouse may no longer fall within this exemption. WHO IS A “SPECIFIED RESIDENT”? The concept of a “specified resident” is central to the child, adult child, and spouse exemptions. A specified resident is a resident of the strata lot who either: has reached the age specified in the bylaw; or is grandfathered because they were lawfully residing in the strata lot immediately before the bylaw was passed and continue to reside there. This definition matters because the regulatory exemptions are built around the specified resident. HOW DOES A STRATA CORPORATION ENFORCE ITS AGE RESTRICTION BYLAW? A strata corporation should not enforce a 55+ bylaw blindly. Before issuing a complaint, fine, or demand that a person cease residing in a strata lot, council should consider whether the person may fall within one of the exemptions. The council should ask: Was the person already lawfully residing in the strata lot when the bylaw was passed? Is the person a live-in caregiver? Is the person a child whose caregiver is a specified resident? Is the person an adult child residing with a specified resident who was previously one of their caregivers? Is the person the spouse of a specified resident? The strata corporation may request reasonable information to assess whether an exemption applies. However, it should avoid intrusive or unnecessary demands. The goal is to determine whether the person is exempt, not to pry into private family life. Strata councils should avoid rigid enforcement, consider the actual legal status of the resident, and make evidence-based decisions rather than relying on assumptions. CONCLUSION ON AGE RESTRICTIONS A 55+ age restriction bylaw remains lawful in British Columbia, but it is subject to important exemptions. The age requirement does not apply to certain existing lawful residents, qualifying live-in caregivers, children, adult children, and spouses of specified residents. The practical lesson is that 55+ bylaws must be enforced carefully. A strata corporation should not assume that an underage resident is in breach merely because the bylaw says 55+. The council must first determine whether the person falls within a statutory or regulatory exemption. Where an exemption applies, the person is not contravening the age restriction bylaw. Where the facts are unclear, the strata corporation should obtain reasonable information, assess the exemption in good faith, and document its decision-making process.

DOES THE COUNCIL NEED TO BE ELECTED EVERY YEAR? Yes, the Council must be elected at each annual general meeting. Serving on a Council is an important responsibility, but it is not a permanent position. Council members are elected by the owners at each annual general meeting (AGM). We have an article describing the purpose of general meetings. Under section 25 of the Strata Property Act, eligible voters who are present in person or by proxy at the AGM must elect a council to manage the affairs of the Strata. WHEN DOES A COUNCIL MEMBERS TERM END? A council member's term generally comes to an end at the AGM where a new council is elected. During the meeting, the existing council effectively steps aside, nominations are accepted, and owners vote to fill the council positions for the coming year. The Standard Bylaws provide that a council member's term ends at the conclusion of the annual general meeting at which the new council is elected. The Morley Hanson Model Bylaws contain similar wording and confirms that an outgoing council member may stand for re-election if they wish to continue serving. There are also situations where a council member may choose to leave before their term expires. If a member expects to be unavailable for an extended period, such as moving away or being unable to devote the necessary time to council duties, stepping down may be the most practical option for both the individual and the community. We have an article describing what happens when a Member of Council resigns. A council member's term can also end through a vote of the owners or other processes established under the Strata Property Act and the bylaws. These situations are less common and involve specific procedures. DEMOCRACY REQUIRES THE POWER OF OWNERS TO ELECT THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL Annual council elections are an important part of strata governance. They provide owners with the opportunity to choose representatives who will act in the best interests of the community while ensuring accountability and fresh perspectives. Whether a council member continues through re-election or passes the responsibility to someone new, the annual election process helps maintain effective and democratic strata management.

ARE OCCUPANCY RESTRICTIONS IN STRATA CORPORATIONS LEGAL? Occupancy restrictions in Stratas can be legal in British Columbia, provided they are properly adopted as bylaws. A Strata may generally regulate how strata lots are occupied, including adopting limits aimed at preventing overcrowding, protecting safety, preserving building systems, or managing the use of common property, but those restrictions must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, or inconsistent with provincial legislation, and they are subject to the Human Rights Code. As mentioned above, even where an occupancy restriction is valid on its face, it may still be unenforceable in a particular situation if enforcing it would contravene the Human Rights Code. This is particularly important where the bylaw affects families, larger households, children, or non-traditional family arrangements. HAVE THE COURTS AND TRIBUNAL UPHELD OCCUPANCY RESTRICTIONS? Occupancy restrictions have been upheld by the Courts and the Civil Resolution Tribunal. Their decisions have largely confirmed that Stratas may, in appropriate circumstances, adopt bylaws limiting the number of occupants in a strata lot. These bylaws are not prohibited simply because they regulate how owners, tenants, occupants, or visitors may use a strata lot. Occupancy restriction bylaws may serve legitimate purposes, including: Preventing overcrowding. Reducing excessive wear and tear. Managing pressure on common property and common assets. Addressing noise and nuisance concerns. Preserving residential use. Preventing boarding-house, rooming-house, or commercial-style occupancy arrangements. Accordingly, occupancy restrictions are not necessarily unenforceable under the Strata Property Act. IS AN OCCUPANCY RESTRICTION ALWAYS ENFORCEABLE? A validly adopted occupancy bylaw may be generally enforceable, but still be unenforceable in particular circumstances. Section 121(1)(a) of the Strata Property Act provides that a bylaw is not enforceable to the extent that it contravenes the Human Rights Code. The Human Rights Code also prevails where there is a conflict between the Code and other legislation. This means that a Strata cannot simply say: “The bylaw applies to everyone equally, so it can be enforced.” Equal enforcement may still be discriminatory if the bylaw has an adverse impact on a person or family because of a protected ground, including family status. We have another article addressing the duty to accommodate, whether family size is protected under the Human Rights Code and the general limits to the scope of bylaws. DOES THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE APPLY TO OCCUPANCY RESTRICTIONS? The Code applies to Stratas. When Stratas enforce bylaws, rules, and policies, they provide services connected to the management, use, and enjoyment of strata lots, common property, and common assets. As a result, a Strata’s enforcement decisions must comply with the Code. This does not mean occupancy restrictions are prohibited. It means they must be enforced carefully and in a manner that does not discriminate on protected grounds. Where a resident claims that an occupancy restriction adversely affects them because of family status, disability, or another protected ground, the Strata must consider whether enforcement would be discriminatory. If a prima facie case of discrimination is established, the Strata must justify its conduct and show that it accommodated the resident to the point of undue hardship. WHAT ARE THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CODE ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF OCCUPANCY RESTRICTIONS? Occupancy restrictions are not inherently unlawful. They may still be useful and enforceable, particularly where they are aimed at genuine overcrowding, unsafe occupancy, rooming-house arrangements, or uses that are inconsistent with residential strata living. However, councils should avoid rigid or automatic enforcement, particularly where the enforcement of an occupancy restriction impacts a family. Before enforcing an occupancy limit, a Strata should consider: Who is occupying the strata lot. Whether the occupants are part of a family or family-like unit. Whether children are involved. Whether the residents have raised a protected ground (like family status). Whether the bylaw has an adverse impact connected to that protected ground. Whether an exemption or accommodation should be considered. A properly drafted occupancy restriction may still be valid. The legal risk usually arises from how the Strata enforces it. OCCUPANCY LIMITS MUST BE BASED ON LEGITIMATE CONCERNS. Occupancy restriction bylaws are not automatically invalid. Stratas may adopt bylaws that regulate the number of occupants in a strata lot, particularly where the purpose is to address legitimate concerns such as overcrowding, safety, excessive use of common property, nuisance, unreasonable noise, or boarding-house-style occupancy. However, validity and enforceability are different concepts. A bylaw that is valid on its face may still be unenforceable in a specific case if enforcing it would contravene the Human Rights Code. The practical lesson is that occupancy restrictions must be approached cautiously. They remain available as a governance tool, but they cannot be enforced mechanically. Stratas must consider human rights impacts, assess requests for exemptions in good faith, and ensure that enforcement is supported by evidence and reasonableness. In light of the above councils should also consider whether adopting an occupancy restriction bylaw that may have limited enforceability, is better than simply dealing with the potential issues caused by high occupancy and over crowding through the Strata’s other bylaws, like the nuisance, unreasonable noise bylaw, illegal use bylaw, or use contrary to the express or implied use of the strata lots as set out on the strata plan.

"Independent contractors - a rapidly growing piece of the workforce - can often achieve the best quality of life. They can choose from where they work, whom they work for and for how long." -- Maynard Webb WHY SHOULD STRATA CORPORATIONS PREFER TRUE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS? In most cases, strata corporations are better served by engaging bonafide and properly managed independent contractors rather than informally creating employment relationships. This is not because employees are improper or unlawful. Strata corporations may employ staff where appropriate. The issue is that employing staff brings legal and administrative obligations that many strata corporations are not set up to manage. Independent contractors are often preferable because: They operate their own business. They provide their own insurance. They may provide their own tools, equipment, staff, and supervision. They are responsible for their own payroll, taxes, and employment obligations. They can often be replaced more easily if performance is poor. heir obligations can be defined by contract, scope of work, service standards, and termination provisions. This is especially important for self-managed strata corporations, where councils may not have the systems, expertise, or appetite to manage payroll, employment standards, performance management, workplace safety obligations, and termination risk. WHAT ARE THE STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES? The Termination Risk is on of the biggest risks of any strata having an employee. Employees in British Columbia are entitled to minimum termination notice or pay under the Employment Standards Act, unless an exception applies. The Province explains that an employer may end employment by giving written working notice, pay in lieu of notice, or a combination of both. The statutory minimum compensation for length of service generally increases with the employee’s length of employment. The Province’s interpretation guidance states that, after three consecutive months of employment, an employee is entitled to compensation for length of service if the employer terminates the employment, with the amount increasing as service increases. In general terms, the statutory minimums are: After 3 consecutive months – 1 week. After 12 consecutive months – 2 weeks. After 3 consecutive years – 3 weeks, 1 additional week for each additional year of employment, to a maximum of 8 weeks. These are minimum statutory standards only. They do not necessarily represent the full amount an employee may be owed. WHAT ARE COMMON LAW NOTICE REQUIREMENTS? In addition to statutory notice, employees may be entitled to common law reasonable notice unless there is an enforceable employment agreement limiting notice to statutory minimums or another lawful amount. Common law notice is assessed using the factors from Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., which include the character of employment, length of service, age of the employee, and availability of similar employment. Common law notice can be significantly greater than the statutory minimums. This is one of the main reasons misclassification can be so expensive. A strata corporation may believe it has ended a contractor agreement on 30 days’ notice, only to face an argument that the person was actually a long-service employee entitled to months of reasonable notice. This is particularly important where the person has worked for the strata corporation for many years, is older, has specialized or site-specific duties, or may have difficulty finding comparable work. WHAT SHOULD A STRATA CORPORATION DO WHEN HIRING SERVICE PROVIDERS? A strata corporation should structure service relationships carefully from the outset. The goal is not to use magic words. The goal is to create a relationship that actually operates like an independent contractor relationship. A strata corporation should consider the following: Use a written contractor agreement. Require the contractor to be incorporated or operating under a business name where appropriate. Require the contractor to provide invoices. Require proof of commercial general liability insurance. Require proof of WorkSafeBC coverage or clearance where applicable. Avoid fixed employee-like schedules unless necessary. Avoid directing the minute-by-minute performance of the work. Focus on deliverables, standards, and outcomes. Permit the contractor to use its own workers or substitutes, where appropriate. Avoid providing tools, uniforms, phones, vehicles, or equipment unless necessary. Ensure the contractor has other clients or is genuinely free to work for others. Include a clear termination clause. Review long-standing “contractor” arrangements before ending them. WorkSafeBC recommends obtaining clearance letters before and after receiving services from subcontractors to protect against potential liability for unpaid premiums, and its clearance letter confirms whether the contractor is registered and paying premiums as required. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STRATA COUNCILS For strata councils, the practical lesson is the same one that appears throughout strata law: good governance requires process, evidence, and reasonableness. The attached Fundamentals articles repeatedly use a question-based, practical approach focused on reasonableness, proper evidence, and careful decision-making in strata governance. Before hiring a person to provide services, the strata council should ask: Are we hiring a business or an individual worker? Who controls how the work is performed? Who provides the tools and equipment? Does the person work for other clients? Can the person hire others to perform the work? Is the person exposed to profit or loss? Do we have a written agreement? Do we have insurance and WorkSafeBC clearance? Are we accidentally creating an employment relationship? BEWARE OF RESIDENT CARETAKERS Strata corporations should exercise significant care when entering into informal arrangements involving residents. A resident who is “just helping out” with gardening, cleaning, caretaking, snow removal, or minor maintenance may slowly become a worker whose legal status is unclear. Those arrangements are often attractive because they are convenient and inexpensive. Unfortunately, convenience is not a legal classification. The Employment Standards Act operates to make most resident caretakers employees, not independent contractors. Under the Employment Standard Regulations, where a caretaker lives in a strata titled building and performs regular duties such as cleaning, minor maintenance, inspections, garbage/recycling, responding to resident issues, or monitoring the property they can be deemed to be employees and as such, the strata corporation must comply with the Employment Standards Act and the Employment Standards Regulation, including the special minimum wage rules for resident caretakers. As of June 1, 2025, the minimum wage for a resident caretaker is $1,069.36 per month plus $42.84 for each residential suite in buildings with 9 to 60 suites, and $3,642.51 per month for buildings with 61 or more suites. The general hourly minimum wage does not apply to resident caretakers in the same way because they have their own prescribed monthly minimum wage. CONCLUSION ON EMPLOYEES AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS The safest approach is not to avoid all workers. The safest approach is to be deliberate. If a strata corporation wants an employee, it should hire one properly, with an employment agreement and payroll systems in place. If a strata corporation wants an independent contractor, it should retain a genuine business, use a proper contractor agreement, obtain insurance and WorkSafeBC clearance, avoid employee-like control, and ensure the relationship operates in substance as an independent contractor relationship. In short, strata corporations should not accidentally become employers. They should know who they are hiring, document the relationship properly, and manage the relationship consistently with the legal status they intend to create.

WHY DOES A STRATA NEED A DEPRECIATION REPORT? In British Columbia, a Depreciation Report is a mandatory planning document for Stratas with five or more strata lots. It assesses common property and estimates future repair and replacement costs. A Depreciation Report incorporates a physical inspection, financial forecasting, and cashflow analysis in support of long term financial planning. Stratas are legally obligated to maintain and repair common property, and this report is a key document for Stratas to understand and use as a planning reference. HOW DOES A DEPRECIATION REPORT MODEL ESTIMATED FUTURE EXPENSES? A Depreciation Report must include at least 3 cash flow funding models. A cash flow funding model is a mathematical model used to determine an appropriate funding level to sustain building assets. Major maintenance and renewal costs are projected against the Contingency Reserve Fund (CRF) over a 30-year period to identify any years in which projected costs exceed the fund balance. The three most common funding models are: Current or Status Quo. Alternative or Incremental Funding. Progressive Funding. WHAT IS A CURRENT OR STATUS QUO FUNDING MODEL? A Current or Status Quo funding model predicts what additional funds will be required to carry out repairs and maintenance using the Strata’s current CRF funding formula. Unless the Strata has been making significant contributions to the CRF as part of its usual budgeting process, this model often includes the requirement for several large Special Levies to ensure adequate funding for projects if the CRF contributions are low. The timing of those Special Levies is based on the expected date for significant repairs or replacement. WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE OR INCREMENTAL FUNDING MODEL? The Alternative or Incremental Funding model shows what funds will be required to carry out repairs and maintenance with CRF funding contributions increasing each year. The model may still include the requirement for Special Levies, but the dollar amount of the Special Levies are offset through higher contributions to the CRF. This model often requires significant increase in the Strata Fees that must be paid by Owners each fiscal year. We have an article where we discuss Strata Fees. WHAT IS THE PROGRESSING FUNDING MODEL? A Progressive Funding model shows what funds will be required to carry out repairs and maintenance with CRF funding contributions being substantially higher than the other two models. The model may still include the requirement for Special Levies, but the frequency and dollar amount of Special Levies decrease due to higher contributions to the CRF as part of the payment of Strata Fees in subsequent annual budgets. DOES A STRATA NEED TO FOLLOW A FUNDING MODEL FROM A DEPRECIATION REPORT? A Strata does not need to choose between the funding models provided in a Depreciation Report. A Strata should use those models as a tool to assist owners in evaluating different budgets and future planning. The minimum contribution to the Contingency Reserve Fund is set by the Strata Property Act and Regulation. The Strata Property Regulation states that the contribution to the Contingency Reserve Fund must be “at least 10% of the total amount budgeted for the contribution to the operating fund for the current fiscal year” but also “must be determined after consideration of the most recent depreciation report.” Resilient and robust Strata Communities use Depreciation Reports as planning tools to make sure that Owners have an opportunity to discuss and collectively decide on any incremental increases in Strata Fees and can anticipate the amount and date of future Special Levies. DEPRECIATION REPORTS ARE MANDATORY PLANNING TOOLS BUT STRATAS HAVE DISCRETION REGARDING HOW TO FUND FUTURE EXPENSES A Depreciation Report is mandatory for Stratas with more than five strata lots. It is a very useful planning document and, in addition to comments on the current state of physical property, it includes funding models. A Strata retains wide discretion to decide how to fund future repair expenses, but it should evaluate different potential budgets in the context of the information in the Depreciation Report.

WHEN ARE OWNERS EXPECTED TO GET COPIES OF STRATA COUNCIL MINUTES? Council meeting minutes are one of the primary ways that Councils communicate with Owners. They provide a record of decisions made by Council and help Owners stay informed about the management of their community. The Strata Property Act (SPA) does not establish a specific timeline for providing council meeting minutes to owners. Instead, it leaves that decision to the bylaws of the strata corporation. This flexibility allows Stratas to adopt timelines that reflect the needs of their particular community while balancing the importance of transparency with the practical realities of volunteer governance. WHO DECIDES WHEN MINUTES ARE DISTRIBUTED? Unlike some aspects of strata governance that are specifically prescribed by the Strata Property Act, the timing for distributing council meeting minutes is generally determined by the Strata's bylaws. Different Stratas may have different timelines. Some may require that minutes be provided quickly after a meeting, while others may establish a longer timeframe to accommodate larger or more complex communities. When deciding the timeline for the distribution of Council meeting minutes, Stratas should consider several factors: Keeping owners reasonably informed about council decisions; The workload placed on volunteer council members; The complexity and frequency of council meetings; The size of the strata corporation; and Administrative resources available to prepare and distribute minutes. An effective bylaw should strike a balance between providing timely information to owners and creating a process that is practical for council to administer. WHEN ARE MINUTES DISTRIBUTED? The Standard Bylaws require council to inform owners of the minutes of all council meetings within two weeks of the meeting, whether or not the minutes have been formally approved. The Morley Hanson Model Bylaws require that Owners receive the minutes within fourteen (14) days of the meeting. They also require that written minutes be prepared for every council meeting and that they include the wording of all resolutions and the results of all votes. Some Stratas may determine that a shorter timeframe better serves their community, particularly if communication is a priority or meetings are relatively straightforward. Others may prefer a longer period if council meetings are lengthy or administrative resources are limited. Regardless of the timeline selected, consistency and clear communication are essential. WHY ARE MINUTES DISTRIBUTED BEFORE APPROVAL? Owners are often surprised to learn that council meeting minutes may be distributed before they are formally approved by council. The reason is simple: owners benefit from receiving timely information about council activities rather than waiting until the next meeting for formal approval. Minor corrections can be made when the minutes are approved at a subsequent meeting, while owners remain informed about important decisions and ongoing projects. It is also important to remember that the purpose of council meeting minutes is to record decisions and actions taken by council. They are not intended to be a verbatim transcript of every discussion that occurred during the meeting. STRATA CORPORATIONS DECIDE WHEN TO DISTRIBUTE COUNCIL MINUTES BASED ON BALANCING TIMELINESS WITH ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES There is no single timeline established by the Strata Property Act for providing council meeting minutes to owners. Instead, strata corporations have the flexibility to establish requirements through their bylaws that reflect the needs of their community. Whether a Strata chooses a shorter or longer timeframe, the objective should be the same: to provide owners with meaningful information while ensuring that the process remains practical and manageable for the volunteer council members responsible for preparing and distributing the minutes. This is a key characteristic of a robust and resilient Strata Community.

"Age is just a number. It's totally irrelevant unless, of course, you happen to be a bottle of wine." -- Joan Collins ARE AGE RESTRICTION BYLAWS STILL LEGAL? Yes, but only in a limited form. Strata corporations may have age restriction bylaws but they must be consistent with the requirements of the Strata Property Act. Under the Strata Property Act a strata corporation may adopt a bylaw requiring one or more persons residing in a strata lot to be at least 55 years old. Age restrictions below 55, such as 19+, 25+, 35+, or 40+ bylaws, are no longer permitted or enforceable as of November 24, 2022. Age restriction bylaws regulate residency, not ownership, so a person under 55 may still own a strata lot but may not be able to live there unless an exemption applies. Those exemptions include legacy residents who were lawfully residing in the strata lot when the bylaw was passed, certain caregivers, and some family members, including younger spouses, partners, children, and adult children in prescribed circumstances. WHAT IS THE HISTORY OF AGE RESTRICTION BYLAWS? Age restriction bylaws in British Columbia strata corporations have changed dramatically since November 2022. Before those changes, strata corporations had broad statutory authority to pass bylaws restricting the age of persons who could reside in a strata lot. Former section 123 of the Strata Property Act expressly allowed a strata corporation to pass a bylaw restricting the age of residents to any age that it saw fit and which was approved by the owners. That changed with Bill 44 in November 24, 2022, when the Province limited strata corporations’ ability to adopt age restriction bylaws to 55+ bylaws. THE OLD LAW – BROAD AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT AGE Historically, section 123 of the Strata Property Act permitted strata corporations to adopt age restriction bylaws setting the age restriction at any age whatsoever. That meant a strata corporation could adopt bylaws restricting occupancy to persons over 19, 25, 40, or another specified age, subject to the statutory protection for residents who were already living in the strata lot when the bylaw was passed. Strata corporations could even adopt an age restriction bylaw setting a maximum age, though it is unknown whether any strata corporations had ever done so. This produced a wide range of age-restricted strata communities. Some were 19+. Some were 40+. Some were 55+. Others used different thresholds. The key point is that, before November 2022, the statute expressly allowed age restriction bylaws generally. BILL 44 – THE FIRST ATTEMPT TO SHIFT TO 55+ ONLY Bill 44, the Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, 2022, changed the law. It amended section 123.1 of the Strata Property Act, to provide that a strata corporation could only pass an age restriction bylaw if the bylaw required one or more persons residing in a strata lot to have reached an age that was not less than 55 years. The policy shift was significant. Age restriction bylaws were no longer treated as a general governance tool available to strata corporations. Instead, the Legislature preserved only one category of age restriction: 55+ housing. The practical effect was that 19+, 25+, 40+, 45+, and similar age restriction bylaws were no longer permissible. THE INITIAL UNCERTAINTY The Provinces first attempt to amend section 123.1 created significant legal uncertainty. The wording introduced by Bill 44 stated that a strata corporation “must not pass” an age restriction bylaw except a 55+ bylaw. That wording clearly prohibited the adoption of new age restriction bylaws below 55. However, it was less clear whether the amendment automatically invalidated age restriction bylaws below 55 that had already been passed and filed in the land titles office before November 2022. For several months it was unclear whether Bill 44 had retroactive effect and had eliminated all existing age restriction bylaws below 55, or only prohibited the adoption of new non-55+ bylaws. This was not a small technical issue. Many strata corporations had pre-existing 19+, 25+ 45+, or similar bylaws. If the statute only prevented strata corporations from passing new bylaws, then existing bylaws might arguably have survived. If the statute made all non-55+ age restriction bylaws unenforceable, then those bylaws ceased to have practical effect. BILL 24 – THE CLARIFICATION The Legislature quietly clarified the issue at a later date in the spring of 2023. Bill 24 further amended section 123.1(1) so that it now provides: “Except as permitted by subsection (2), a bylaw must not restrict the age of persons who may reside in a strata lot.” The current wording is materially different. It does not merely say that a strata corporation must not pass a non-compliant age restriction bylaw. It says that a bylaw must not restrict age except as permitted. The current version of section 123.1 confirms that the only permitted age restriction bylaw is one requiring one or more residents to have reached an age that is not less than 55 years. The point-in-time legislative history also shows that the original Bill 44 wording was amended by Bill 24, with the change effective retroactively to November 24, 2022. WHAT CAN A STRATA CURRENTLY HAVE FOR AN AGE RESTRICTION BYLAW? The current law is now much clearer. A strata corporation may have a 55+ age restriction bylaw. It may not have an enforceable bylaw restricting residency to an age below 55. Section 123.1(1) provides that, except as permitted by subsection (2), a bylaw must not restrict the age of persons who may reside in a strata lot. Section 123.1(2) then permits a bylaw requiring one or more persons residing in a strata lot to have reached a specified age that is not less than 55 years. This means that an age restriction bylaw requiring residents to be 19+, 25+, or 45+ is not enforceable. It also means that strata corporations should not attempt to “revive” or rely on old non-conforming age restriction bylaws simply because they remain registered in the bylaws. The legislation changed the legal effect of those bylaws. A strata corporation may therefore still have or adopt a bylaw requiring one or more persons residing in a strata lot to be 55 years of age or older. However, the existence of a valid 55+ bylaw does not mean every underage person is prohibited from residing in the strata lot. The statute and regulations create several important exemptions. WHAT ARE THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE AMENDMENTS TO S. 123.1 FOR STRATA CORPORATIONS? The practical implications of the amendments to section 123.1 are significant. Strata corporations should review their bylaws to determine whether they contain outdated age restrictions. If the bylaws contain a 19+, 25+, 45+, or other under-55 age restriction, the strata corporation should not assume any such bylaw is enforceable. Councils should also be careful when communicating with owners, tenants, purchasers, and realtors. A Form B or bylaw package may still show an old age restriction bylaw, but that does not mean the bylaw remains enforceable. For 55+ strata corporations, councils must also understand the statutory exemptions. The proper question is not simply whether a resident is under 55. The proper question is whether the person falls within one of the statutory or regulatory exemptions. CONCLUSION ON AGE RESTRICTION BYLAWS The law of age restriction bylaws has changed substantially since November 2022. Before Bill 44, strata corporations could generally pass any age restriction bylaws they saw fit. After Bill 44, age restriction bylaws were limited to 55+ bylaws. After Bill 24, the legislation was clarified so that non-55+ age restriction bylaws are not enforceable, whether they were newly passed or already existed. The practical lesson is straightforward: 55+ bylaws remain available, but all other age restriction bylaws should be treated with extreme caution and, in most cases, as unenforceable. Strata corporations with age restriction bylaws should review their bylaws, update outdated language, and ensure that councils understand both the current 55+ rule and the exemptions that apply to residents who do not meet the age threshold.