"Bitter conflict": Meeting ban sparks resident's legal fight against BC strata
A BC resident and co-homeowner embarked on a legal fight with her strata, forcing it to hold a new meeting after it allegedly barred and limited access to a previous meeting.
The co-owner said a January 2023 special general meeting (SGM) didn’t comply with the BC Strata Property Act (SPA).
According to the tribunal’s decision, the co-owner claimed that the SGM was held by a restricted proxy, which the SPA doesn’t permit. She alleged that the strata council president lied to her when they said the meeting was just an information session. She added that none of the business from the SGM was valid. She also asked for $700,000 in compensation.
The strata admitted to the tribunal that it held an information session only after it had completed formal business at the SGM. The strata also alleged that the co-owner and her husband have been “so disruptive to strata meetings in the past that it was justified in preventing their direct participation.”
It asked the tribunal to dismiss the co-owner’s claims.
- You might also like:
- BC homeowner takes legal fight to strata over $300 move-in fee
- BC strata out thousands in heat pump fight against homeowner
- BC strata on the hook for thousands in pest control legal battle
“On its face, this dispute is about the conduct of a single meeting, but the materials before me make it clear that there has been a longstanding and bitter conflict between two factions within the strata,” the tribunal decision reads.
That single meeting was on January 29, 2023. The meeting was announced on January 8 under the heading “Type of Vote.”
The notice said the meeting was “restricted proxy or in person.”
“At the end of the page, the notice instructed owners on where to hand in their ballots ‘if you do not plan to attend.’ The notice was therefore ambiguous about whether the strata would allow in-person attendance,” the tribunal declared.
There were three primary resolutions for owners to consider for this meeting. One was a vote to terminate the strata’s contract with the manager. The second was a vote to approve the budget for the 22/23 fiscal year. The last was a vote to raise $6,000 for landscaping work.
According to the homeowner, the following happened:
“After a discussion, the strata council president decided not to hold the SGM that day and proceeded to hold an informal information session. There was no vote on any of the three resolutions. The next day, to her surprise, the strata circulated minutes indicating that the strata had held the SGM and the owners had approved the three resolutions.”
The homeowner called the minutes a “fabrication.”
The strata admitted that it intentionally prevented the homeowner from participating in the SGM. It added that it did so to avoid a confrontation between the strata and the homeowner and her husband. They claimed that if they attended, no business would’ve gotten done.
“The strata says that at one past meeting, they swore at and made obscene gestures at a strata manager chairing the meeting,” the tribunal decision says.
The tribunal did see some merit in the decision-making process of the strata.
“A strata corporation cannot function if its owners disrupt meetings. That said, some amount of heated discussion or disagreement is common in strata corporations. The strata must balance its obligation to facilitate democratic and SPA-compliant governance with the practical need to conduct functional meetings.”
The homeowner provided minutes from a June 2023 SGM, which proved to the tribunal that business could get done even if some tension persisted.
For a remedy, the tribunal dismissed the homeowner’s claim of $500,000 for mental anguish, exclusion, defamation, duress, breaching the SPA, and incompetence.
In the end, the tribunal decided that the strata had to hold an SGM or AGM within 60 days of the tribunal’s decision to vote on the matters that the homeowner and her husband couldn’t previously vote on. The homeowner’s remaining claims were dismissed.