Lee Purcell wanted his strata to permanently seal a leaking basement window and immediately investigate stains near his bedroom ceiling. The strata acknowledged his concerns, put a temporary measure around the window and sought contractors. It hadn't ordered an immediate attic inspection. In Purcell v. The Owners, Strata Plan PGS173, 2026 BCCRT 1490, the Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed both claims after considering what the strata knew and the evidence of what repairs were actually needed.
The 239-lot townhouse strata had a statutory duty under section 72 of British Columbia's Strata Property Act to maintain common property. Its bylaws also placed the repair of exterior windows on the strata, whether or not a particular window technically formed part of an individual lot. The Tribunal determined that the attic above Purcell's two-storey townhouse was common property. Responsibility for both areas wasn't the central problem. The issue was whether the strata had responded unreasonably or failed to meet that responsibility.
On the window, the Tribunal accepted that a leak had occurred. Photographs showed a sloped temporary covering outside and sealing material inside, but no evidence established that water continued to enter after those measures. A window contractor had discussed filling the opening if that option were chosen, not recommended it as the only acceptable repair. Another email suggested brick and mortar, but its author hadn't demonstrated the technical qualifications necessary to establish a proper method. The strata was seeking further quotes for a permanent fix. Against that background, an owner couldn't insist on a preferred construction technique without reliable evidence that the strata's actual response was inadequate.
Purcell also pointed to discolouration, a soft area of ceiling and a spot he believed was mould. A restoration contractor described staining that appeared old. Purcell said the contractor had verbally recommended inspecting the attic, but no written professional confirmation supported that account and no evidence connected the interior marks to moisture from the attic. The strata had approved interior inspection and cleaning work and contemplated an attic inspection when its contractor became available. The Tribunal wasn't satisfied that delaying an immediate attic investigation was unreasonable on the record presented.
Strata corporations must act reasonably in maintaining common property, not achieve perfect repairs on an owner's schedule. They may rely on suitably instructed professionals and choose methods within the practical demands of a shared building and budget. Those principles didn't eliminate the strata's repair duties. They explained why a temporary measure while seeking a lasting repair wasn't itself a breach. Both applications were dismissed, along with Purcell's request for reimbursement of Tribunal fees. The strata remained subject to section 189.4 of the Strata Property Act, including the restriction against charging its dispute expenses back to him. The result rests on the evidence available at the hearing and doesn't predetermine what the strata must do if a leak or attic damage later becomes demonstrable.