Discussion Groups

This post sets out a string of comments and responses I have made to others on social media concerning insurance matters under the Strata Property Act (the "SPA") and Strata Property Regulation (the "SPR"). NAME  Owners are responsible for routine repairs and maintenance of their unit, not for damage from the occurrence of a major peril such as water escaping into their strata lot from common property pipes or other units. The strata is responsible for that under Part 9 of the SPA, including the deductible, and pursuant to s.121 contrary bylaws are unenforceable to the extent that they contravene the SPA. NAME  Please provide a section of the Act to support your advice… this will ensure that misinformation is curbed. We are trying to build owners of strata property up with reliable knowledge. Your actions are your own, but if you advise others with false stories as if they are law and others rely on your advice to their detriment, you could be liable for the cost, s...

 This is a string of proxy comments and responses to others that I've made on discussion groups. NAME  What you are saying contradicts the SPA. The strata is required by s.35 to prepare records and retain copies of all correspondence sent or received by the strata or council, including proxies that it receives to certify. An owner shouldn't be able to use a proxy to avoid being identified or heard at a meeting as required by s.49 either. NAME   You might be right that the proxy holder does not legally need to vote as directed on the proxy. Or at least the strata has no duty to police that for the owner. You're unquestionably right about a proxy not being an agreement between the giver and strata - but how does that have anything to do with the strata's s.35 duty to prepare records and retain copies? What makes you think that duty is limited to agreements with the strata? If you think that you know what is "legally" not a strata record or correspondence after l...

This is a string of my responses to comments made by Georgia Title on a public social media site. I can't copy her posts, but anyone interested can see them online at  https://www.facebook.com/groups/1676136632614664/user/1456893082/  July 10, 2022 Georgia Title  I'm asking you for the third (3rd) time in this thread: Are you going to make a remedial motion to be recorded in the minutes? If so, can you improve on the following wording? "Following complaints received from Unit 409 council has investigated and confirmed a series of contraventions of the strata's use of property bylaws, therefore be it resolved that the strata will take remedial action pursuant to s.133 of the SPA to equalize the patios between Units 407 and 409 and reinstate Unit 409's long closely spaced spindles, sliding patio window, and trees next to 409's east and west windows. If required, council may borrow funding in order to proceed with this matter if a suitable payment plan cannot be...

Here are some of my comments and responses to the question posted in another forum asking whether an owner is required to agree to an assumption of liability (AOL) for alterations to common property.  NAME . Owners of strata property can agree to whatever they want, but the answer to your question is no, an owner is not required to sign an AOL.  An agreement must be voluntary, not forced, or coerced by chicanery. Also,  pursuant to s.121 of BC's Strata Property Act ("SPA"), most AOLs are unenforceable to the extent that they contravene the SPA, standard bylaws, or privity of contract.  Unfortunately, there are no penalties for strata councils contravening the SPA, so many strata bylaws are bogus and unenforceable. Any many AOLs prove to be not worth the paper they're written on. I am in total support of making the best use of property, but only in a lawful manner. I think most AOL agreements in strata corporations are intended as a waiver of the owner's statutor...

Stratas are not relieved of their responsibilities under the SPA by Indemnification Agreements, however, assumptions of liability can seriously interfere with sales when prudent purchasers look elsewhere.  Indemnification bylaws are unenforceable to the extent that they contravene the SPA. This is particularly true in regard to the strata's responsibilities for common property and insurance coverage.  This strata's past history has also proven that  when it comes to major expenses  such  agreements are not worth the paper  they're written on  due to loss, confused responsibilities, and enforcement, administration, or litigation issues .  Provisions to fund alterations effectively without confusing responsibilities are made in s.6.9 of the Strata Property Regulation. That section prescribes the terms for User Fee bylaws.  Unlike Indemnification Agreements, User Fee bylaws are a statutory provision of the governing enactment. User fees can be i...

If you want to know how many fines were issued you may have to figure it out by checking the minutes, where at law, each and every decision must be recorded. Yes, you're entitled to this information under s.35 and s.36 of the SPA, and no, the PM is not othewise authorized to disclose it. .... Okay, I think you might be right about human rights allowing people to grow food, but I'm a bit confused about what suprecedes what, as the Land Title Act says (my EMPHASIS added): Application to Strata Property Act 3 (1)This Act, except Parts 7 and 8, applies to the Strata Property Act, UNLESS inconsistent with that Act. (1.1)Despite subsection (1), provisions of Parts 7 and 8 of this Act apply to the Strata Property Act IF STATED TO APPLY by the Strata Property Act. (2)Part 9 of this Act applies to the Strata Property Act ONLY TO THE EXTENT EXPRESSLY STATED in the Strata Property Act or in Part 9. .... Council's job is not to follow the majority's wishes, it is to comply with...