Recent British Columbia decisions show why valid decisions still depend on proper notices, accessible records and evidence of their effect on owners. Condominium boards spend much of their time making decisions that would never attract attention outside the building. They deal with parking, waste, access to shared space, complaints about noise and requests for documents. A council may be quite certain that an owner has broken a bylaw and still be unable to enforce a particular fine. It may properly defend one decision while losing a separate dispute about what records must be produced. Those outcomes aren't inconsistent. The corporation's underlying authority and the procedure it follows are both parts of the legal analysis.
Doerksen v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS7290, 2026 BCCRT 1479, illustrates the point. The Civil Resolution Tribunal accepted evidence that an owner had left garbage in a parkade. Nevertheless, one $200 fine failed because the notice identified a bylaw that didn't apply to the conduct. A second fine survived when the corporation relied on the correct rule concerning use of a drive aisle. The distinction can seem technical to someone who believes the misconduct is obvious. Yet section 135 of British Columbia's Strata Property Act gives an owner procedural protections before a penalty is imposed, and the corporation can't dispense with them simply because the allegation appears persuasive.
Brown v The Owners, Strata Plan BCS1245, 2026 BCCRT 1484, shows a different problem. A visitor parking fine was upheld, but the strata had to disclose specified communications with its property manager. The Tribunal distinguished correspondence authorized by council from informal exchanges involving individual council members. It also ordered production without ordinary copying charges because the corporation hadn't complied with the applicable response deadline. An owner can therefore lose the dispute about the parking rule and succeed on the corporation's statutory records obligation. Boards that treat all communications involving a manager as private may misunderstand what the Act requires them to retain and disclose.
In Stelzer v The Owners, Strata Plan VR2699, 2026 BCCRT 1493, a small strata formalized an allocation of limited common property through the required vote and land title filing. The applicants who opposed the change couldn't establish significant unfairness merely because the majority preferred a different arrangement. The Tribunal examined the actual property allocation and evidence of its effects. Proper approval was important, but so was the absence of evidence establishing the alleged inequity. A majority vote doesn't make every possible decision fair, just as disappointment with the outcome doesn't make a legitimate resolution unlawful.
These decisions are connected by the importance of institutional memory. A board should know which bylaw it is invoking, what response opportunity was given, who authorized correspondence and what the statutory records duties require. Where land or common property rights are altered, the resolution and filing history deserve particular care. The factual context of a dispute may be complicated, but many procedural errors are avoidable if councils use reliable forms and record their actual decisions.
Owners have responsibilities in this system as well. They should identify the statutory right they seek to enforce, make clear requests and bring evidence of the effect they allege. A tribunal isn't an appeal from every outcome the majority has chosen. It is a forum for assessing whether the corporation complied with its legal duties and whether the particular remedy has been established. That distinction lets collective ownership function without leaving individuals unprotected.
Original authorities
Doerksen v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS7290, 2026 BCCRT 1479, Brown v The Owners, Strata Plan BCS1245, 2026 BCCRT 1484, Stelzer v The Owners, Strata Plan VR2699, 2026 BCCRT 1493, British Columbia strata information and records guidance.