A strata council's decisions can be challenged, but the Civil Resolution Tribunal isn't a general supervisor of every meeting, communication or disagreement within a condominium community. In Kyba v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 3743, 2026 BCCRT 1486, a BC strata owner brought a wide range of complaints about committee changes, meeting procedures, council conflicts and disclosure of hearing minutes. The tribunal considered the specific claims it had authority to decide and found no basis for the orders sought.
Daniel Kyba co-owned a unit in a 112-lot strata. After resigning from its finance committee, he questioned changes to its terms of reference and the council's failure to investigate his concerns. He also challenged the sound quality and voting arrangements at a February 2024 hybrid annual general meeting, the council's refusal to continue answering questions about an easement, comments made to him at a town hall and a summary of an in-camera hearing circulated to owners. His submissions expanded well beyond the original dispute notice and exceeded the CRT's stated submission limit. The member read them nonetheless because the strata had been given an opportunity to respond, while warning that similar conduct in another proceeding could carry costs consequences.
The tribunal drew an important line between different statutory duties. Section 31 of the Strata Property Act requires council members to act honestly, in good faith and in the strata's interests, but that duty is owed to the corporation, not to an individual owner who seeks to enforce it. Claims about interests in strata contracts or transactions under sections 32(a) and 33 belong outside the CRT's jurisdiction. By contrast, concerns under section 32(b), where a council member has a direct or indirect interest in a matter before council, can be examined where the conduct arguably leads to a significantly unfair result. The CRT can remedy significant unfairness under the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, but it cannot issue general declarations or conduct an open-ended audit of strata governance.
Against that framework, the finance committee complaints failed. The Act does not assign an independent decision-making role to informal volunteer committees, and the council remained responsible for the strata's affairs. Revising terms to better support the treasurer was not significantly unfair. A hearing had already been provided, so ordering another would serve no purpose. The member also rejected the suggestion that the strata had been obliged to inquire more deeply into the reasons for committee resignations.
The hybrid meeting had genuine shortcomings. Some electronic attendees struggled to hear proceedings, and a council member seeking re-election had asked Kyba to transmit his votes through her. The strata acknowledged those problems and committed to improvements. But electronic attendees had no statutory entitlement to a secret ballot under section 49(3)(b), and there was insufficient evidence that technical difficulties made the votes invalid. The tribunal would not order a new meeting merely because the first hybrid meeting had been imperfect.
Nor did the other complaints justify relief. An informational town hall did not create an automatic right to a response to every question or a right to direct the strata's dealings with its lawyer. A council member's brief outburst did not require a compelled apology. For the later in-camera hearing, council had circulated a shortened summary rather than detailed confidential minutes, and no decision at the hearing had been shown to result from an undisclosed conflict. The council's eventual decision to take repetitive questions under advisement was not, on these facts, significantly unfair.
The tribunal refused to resolve the claims under sections 32(a) and 33 and dismissed the remainder, including the request for CRT fees. The useful distinction for strata councils and owners is between specific, provable failures with a remedy within the tribunal's jurisdiction and a general dissatisfaction with governance. Councils still need to comply with applicable statutory and bylaw procedures. Owners seeking relief should identify the decision, the statutory duty, the concrete prejudice and the order that the chosen forum can actually make.