Courts are asking how a condominium corporation responds to building failure, not whether every repair achieves a perfect result. Water entering a condominium unit has an unpleasant way of turning an abstract question about common property into something intensely personal. The owner is looking at a stained ceiling, damaged furniture or mould and wants the problem corrected. Meanwhile, the corporation is trying to establish where the water came from, which components it must maintain, whether a temporary repair will hold and how much an enduring solution will cost. Those perspectives can be difficult to reconcile, particularly when there isn't enough money in the reserve fund to do everything immediately. The legal question that eventually emerges from the disagreement is usually more demanding than identifying the damage. A tribunal must consider whether the corporation acted reasonably in responding to its maintenance obligations.
Three recent British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal decisions make that distinction particularly clear. In Wright v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS1553, 2026 BCCRT 1491, the Tribunal rejected a claim for almost $28,000 despite prolonged exterior repair difficulties. Nagel v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS1553, 2026 BCCRT 1492, involved mould and a claim for $35,000, but the corporation had considered repair methods, financing and access before implementing a solution. In Purcell v The Owners, Strata Plan PGS173, 2026 BCCRT 1490, temporary work on a leaking window wasn't unreasonable merely because the owner preferred a different repair or a faster timetable. None of those decisions establishes that a board may indefinitely postpone work. Their outcomes depended on the evidence of actual investigation, professional advice and the particular response taken.
Section 72 of British Columbia's Strata Property Act requires strata corporations to repair and maintain common property within the statutory framework. It doesn't give each owner an unrestricted right to choose a contractor or dictate the method of repair. Equally, the obligation isn't satisfied just because a council has commissioned an engineer's report. Advice must be considered against the urgency of the problem, and a responsible board needs to make decisions while acknowledging what it still doesn't know. If the condition deteriorates, the reasonableness of an earlier decision may not explain a later failure to act. The legal standard leaves room for judgment without giving a corporation permission to ignore an avoidable risk.
Insurance complicates matters because the owner and corporation may be looking at different policies and different kinds of loss. The corporation's liability insurer will want to understand causation, the relevant maintenance duty and the steps taken once the problem was reported. The owner may have a separate claim for damaged belongings or improvements. Contractors and engineers may also be drawn into the dispute. Meeting minutes, photographs, work orders and the correspondence that was exchanged before anyone anticipated litigation can become the best evidence of how the corporation approached its responsibilities.
For an owner, proof that a ceiling was damaged may be the beginning rather than the end of the evidentiary burden. For a council, the practical lesson is to investigate promptly, obtain advice that addresses the actual problem and preserve a record of why the chosen response made sense. A building can suffer a serious failure without proving that its board was negligent, but an unexplained pattern of delay can turn an ordinary maintenance problem into something quite different. The distinction is important for residents, directors and the insurers that may eventually be asked to pay.
Original authorities
Wright v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS1553, 2026 BCCRT 1491, Nagel v The Owners, Strata Plan EPS1553, 2026 BCCRT 1492, Purcell v The Owners, Strata Plan PGS173, 2026 BCCRT 1490, British Columbia Strata Property Act.