Water entering a unit through common property doesn't automatically make the strata responsible for repairing everything inside it. In Wright v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS1553, 2026 BCCRT 1491, a homeowner sought $27,793.50 after the east wall of her building allowed water into a bedroom. The Tribunal recognized the damage but dismissed the claim because the council had acted reasonably while addressing the exterior problem.
Gail Wright had purchased unit 204 in a 32 lot building in 2023. The strata already knew of occasional moisture near the east wall, which abutted another building. Earlier sealing work had not permanently solved the issue, and a projected repair discussed in 2022 was delayed in part because of financing. Wright first reported water on her floor in January 2024. She later slept in her living room while damaged flooring and drywall were removed, and maintained that the strata's delay had caused avoidable mould and repair costs.
Under section 72 of the Strata Property Act and the strata's bylaws, the council had to maintain the building exterior. It didn't follow that every resulting unit repair expense became a strata expense. The owner needed to prove both an unreasonable failure to maintain common property and that the failure caused the claimed loss. The Tribunal applied the reasonableness principles set out in the British Columbia Supreme Court's Dolnik decision. Those recognize that volunteer councils can weigh professional advice, choose among reasonable repair options and balance the interests of all owners within a workable budget.
The strata obtained proposals for repointing and coating the wall, then commissioned engineering work on a longer lasting stucco option. Quotes ranged from $122,500 to $290,000. Owners approved funding in April 2025, but construction depended on access across a neighbouring roof. That owner sought a separate arrangement involving underpinning and crane rights, and the neighbouring property was later scheduled for demolition. The council ultimately returned to an interim repointing and coating project that could be completed from an extended lift. The Tribunal found this sequence understandable rather than proof that cheaper work had simply been preferred over necessary repairs.
Wright relied on a professional engineer's brief letter attributing the leak to defective flashing and insufficient maintenance. It carried little weight because the engineer hadn't explained the assumptions, inspection access, or why the steps council actually took were unreasonable. The Tribunal refused a prospective order making the strata liable if future repairs failed, because that question depended on events that hadn't happened. Wright's claim and costs were dismissed, while the strata remained bound by the statutory protection against charging its dispute costs to her. A council must still respond to known leaks, but reasonable investigation, funding efforts and legitimate access obstacles can matter when assessing whether a delay breached its duty.