A strata can't rescue an otherwise justified fine by pointing to the correct bylaw only after the fact. In Doerksen v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS7290, 2026 BCCRT 1479, the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal cancelled one garbage-disposal fine because the strata's written notice relied on the wrong provision. It upheld a second fine arising from a similar incident, showing that the formal notice requirements matter independently of whether the owner actually breached a rule.
Christine Doerksen owned a unit in a 153-lot complex with a garbage room on a parkade level. She said her access fob wasn't working and left garbage and recycling outside the room. The strata imposed 2 fines totalling $400 for incidents in July 2024. She challenged the process, including the bylaw citations, timing of the hearing, alleged prejudgment by the council president and the strata's response to the fob problem.
Section 135 of BC's Strata Property Act requires a strata to give the owner written particulars of a complaint and an opportunity to respond before imposing a fine. The Court of Appeal's decision in Terry v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW 309, 2016 BCCA 449, confirms that the notice must identify the proper bylaw. For the first incident, the strata cited a provision making owners responsible for trade or service callout costs caused by improper garbage disposal. There were no such costs. Although the owner admitted leaving garbage outside the room, that notice did not support the $200 fine, which had to be cancelled.
The second notice relied instead on a rule against using common property contrary to its intended purpose. The alleged dumping occurred in a drive aisle, which the strata plan designated for vehicle access, not waste storage. The photographs and the owner's admissions supported the contravention. The hearing took place less than four weeks after the infraction letter, meeting the applicable timetable.
The tribunal also rejected an allegation that the council president was disqualified by a conflict of interest. An informal email suggesting that management send another fine was not, in context, proof of prejudgment. The president had no special personal interest beyond the community-wide concern about rubbish in common areas. The tribunal emphasized that a council member who personally complains about a neighbour could face a different conflict analysis. It also held that fob inconvenience did not make it reasonable to leave refuse for neighbours to clean up, particularly when the strata had offered reasonable opportunities to troubleshoot access.
Only the first $200 fine was cancelled, and the owner's remaining claims were dismissed. Despite partial success, the tribunal refused reimbursement of her CRT fees given the character of the contraventions and the relatively small notice error. For strata managers the practical rule is straightforward. Verify the precise bylaw before sending each infraction notice, offer the mandated chance to respond and keep evidence of the breach. For owners, operational complaints deserve a response, but they don't by themselves authorize an unrelated rule violation.