A resident moved out after mould was confirmed in his unit, yet the Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed his $35,000 claim against the strata. In Nagel v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS1553, 2026 BCCRT 1492, the question wasn't whether water had entered the building or whether the owner had experienced serious difficulties. The issue was whether the strata breached its duty to maintain the common property exterior while trying to secure a workable repair.
Stuart Nagel noticed water rising between his bedroom floorboards soon after purchasing unit 203 in December 2023. He reported it to council, which acknowledged the need to address the east wall. As the problem continued, a February 2025 report recorded elevated mould levels and Nagel moved out. He argued that faster work on the wall would have avoided the need for interior remediation, health expenses and other losses. The strata said it had acted throughout but needed professional advice, adequate funds and access to the neighbouring property.
The Strata Property Act required the strata to maintain common property, including the outside wall. It didn't automatically make the strata an insurer for interior damage in a privately owned lot. Under the governing bylaws, an owner ordinarily bore the cost of repairs inside the lot unless an unreasonable breach of the strata's maintenance duty caused the loss. Relying on Dolnik, the Tribunal assessed the council's choices from the information available at the time rather than from hindsight. Councils may obtain multiple professional opinions, choose a sound rather than the most expensive solution, and account for the building's shared financial constraints.
Contractors initially proposed repointing and coating the wall without guaranteeing the leak would stay fixed. Council engaged an engineer who recommended a stucco overcoat, then examined bids ranging from $122,500 to $290,000. By April 2025, the owners had approved $120,000 from reserve funds and a levy, with another $30,000 available. But the preferred project needed access to the adjoining building's roof. Its owner demanded negotiations over separate rights involving underpinning and a crane. When the neighbouring building was expected to be demolished, council chose interim wall work that could be completed from an articulated lift, finishing in July 2025.
The Tribunal accepted that repairs could physically have occurred sooner, but found that the time spent pursuing a longer lasting solution and negotiating roof access wasn't unreasonable. It concluded Nagel hadn't proved a breach of the maintenance obligation, so his claims and reimbursement of Tribunal or report expenses were dismissed. That conclusion wasn't a finding that mould is harmless or that a strata may postpone repairs indefinitely. It reflects a case in which council could show active investigation, concrete quotes, financing steps and external obstacles to completing the planned work.