"Significantly Unfair": The Strata Remedy Most BC Owners Never Use

Three owners enclosed their balconies over eight years. Council approved each one. The fourth owner applies with the same drawings from the same contractor and is refused, on the basis that council has decided to stop allowing enclosures.

Council is entitled to change its mind. The bylaw gives it discretion. Nothing here is illegal. And it may still be significantly unfair — which in British Columbia is a distinct legal wrong with its own remedy, and one of the most useful and least understood tools an owner has.

This article is general information about the Strata Property Act and is not legal advice. Significant-unfairness claims turn heavily on their facts, and the two-year limitation period can end a strong case. Get advice if you are near a deadline.

The point most owners miss

Almost every strata dispute is argued on the wrong ground. The owner says the strata broke a rule; the strata produces the bylaw and the minute showing it did not.

Significant unfairness sits somewhere else entirely. A strata can follow its bylaws exactly, take a properly minuted vote, act within its powers — and still be ordered to undo the decision. Legality is not a defence. The question is not whether the strata was allowed to act, but whether the way it acted was unfair to a particular owner in a way that matters.

Both the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Civil Resolution Tribunal can grant relief here. In practice the CRT is where nearly all of these claims go, because it costs a fraction of a court proceeding and has no monetary cap on strata claims — see the CRT and BC strata disputes.

The test the tribunal actually applies

The framework comes from the BC Court of Appeal's decision in Dollan v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 1589, and it is three questions:

1. 1.What was the owner's expectation?
2. 2.Was that expectation objectively reasonable?
3. 3.If so, was it violated by an action that was significantly unfair?

"Significantly" is doing real work in that third question. The conduct has to be more than annoying, more than a decision you dislike. Decisions applying the standard describe it as conduct that is burdensome, harsh, wrongful, or lacking in probity and fair dealing — unjust or inequitable, rather than merely unwelcome.

Note what question one and two require of you. You have to be able to say what you expected and why that expectation was reasonable — and "because they said yes to the last three people" is one of the strongest answers available.

What actually succeeds

Selective enforcement. The single most common winning claim. A bylaw enforced against you and not against your neighbours, or enforced against you after years of being ignored, without warning that the approach had changed. Councils change composition and enforcement style changes with them; the owner who is first through the new regime without notice is well positioned. See strata bylaw enforcement and fines in BC for the process that should have been followed.

Inconsistent discretion. Alterations, pets, parking, storage, short-term guests. Where a bylaw gives council discretion, similar applications should get similar answers, or there should be an articulable reason for the difference.

Process that was never followed. No written particulars, no opportunity to respond, no hearing when one was requested, a decision made before you were heard. This overlaps with a straightforward procedural challenge, but it also feeds the fairness argument.

Costs pushed onto one owner. A chargeback for a repair the corporation was responsible for, a deductible passed on without authority, or an allocation of expenses that lands disproportionately on a minority of owners. Who's responsible: strata vs owner repairs covers the underlying dividing line.

Majority power used against a minority. In a mixed building — commercial and residential, townhouse and tower, or a strata with sections — a majority can lawfully outvote a minority into carrying costs or restrictions that produce no benefit for them. Lawful, and frequently found to be significantly unfair.

Refusing to act at all. Unfairness is not only about decisions taken. A strata that will not repair common property, will not respond, or will not convene the meeting owners requisitioned is also capable of acting significantly unfairly.

What does not succeed

It is worth being blunt, because the phrase gets used as a synonym for "I lost the vote."

• Being outvoted. Democratic outcomes you dislike are not unfair.
• A bylaw applied evenly to everyone, however inconvenient. The remedy for a bad bylaw is to change it — see how to change strata bylaws in BC.
• Slow decisions, absent something more.
• Rudeness. Poor conduct matters, but on its own it rarely meets the threshold. Dealing with a difficult or bullying strata council sets out the better-fitting routes.
• Disagreement with a professional's advice council reasonably relied on.
• An expectation that was never reasonable — that a bylaw would never be enforced, or that a verbal assurance from one council member bound the corporation.

The distinction that runs through all of these is between a decision you would have made differently and a decision that treated you differently. Only the second one is a claim.

Build the case before you file

These claims are won on comparison, so the evidence you need is about other people as much as yourself.

Get the records. Minutes are where consistency lives or dies. Two years of council and general meeting minutes will usually show whether similar applications were approved, whether enforcement was even-handed, and when the approach changed. You are entitled to them, and the strata must respond within the statutory timeframe.

Build the comparator list. Which other units have the same enclosure, the same flooring, the same dog, the same parking arrangement? Photographs with dates. This is the heart of a selective-enforcement claim.

Keep the correspondence. Every request, every refusal, every unanswered email, dated. Silence is evidence too.

Ask for written reasons. Ask the strata to explain the decision and how it is consistent with earlier ones. A strata that gives no reason, or a reason that shifts, is in a much weaker position later.

Request a council hearing. Put the fairness argument to council directly before escalating. Sometimes it works, and if it does not, you have shown that you tried. Strata council hearings in BC covers how to request one.

Watch the clock. The general limitation period is two years from when the claim was discovered. Filing with the CRT stops it running.

The remedies available

The relief is broad, which is what makes the provision valuable:

• Setting aside or varying the decision — the approval you were refused, the fine, the chargeback
• Ordering the strata to do something, including carrying out a repair or holding a meeting
• Ordering the strata to stop doing something
• Compensation for loss actually suffered
• Orders about how a future decision must be made, where the process itself was the problem

Expect reimbursement of tribunal fees and reasonable expenses if you succeed. Legal fees are generally not awarded, consistent with a forum designed for self-represented parties.

What councils should take from this

If you sit on council, treat the standard as a design constraint rather than a threat, because it is cheaper to comply than to litigate.

Decide alike cases alike, and where you depart from precedent, write down why — a minuted reason is an almost complete answer to a fairness claim. Give notice before changing an enforcement approach that has been dormant for years, rather than making an example of whoever is next. Follow the process every time, including for the owner everybody finds difficult; that owner is exactly who ends up at the tribunal. And when a decision will fall unevenly across the building, say so openly and explain the justification, rather than hoping nobody runs the numbers.

Consistency is mostly a records problem. A council that can find what it decided in 2019 will not accidentally contradict it in 2026 — which is another argument for minutes that actually record decisions and reasons.

Frequently asked questions

What does "significantly unfair" mean under the BC Strata Property Act? Conduct by a strata corporation that is burdensome, harsh, wrongful, lacking in probity or fair dealing, or unjust and inequitable toward an owner. It is a separate wrong from breaking a bylaw — a strata can act entirely within its powers and still be significantly unfair.

Can I challenge a strata decision that followed the bylaws? Yes. Legality is not a defence to a significant-unfairness claim. The question is whether the decision violated your objectively reasonable expectations in a way that was significantly unfair, not whether the strata had the power to make it.

Where do I bring a significantly unfair claim in BC? Almost always the Civil Resolution Tribunal, which handles strata disputes online with no monetary cap and is built for self-represented parties. The Supreme Court of British Columbia can also grant relief, at considerably greater cost.

Is selective bylaw enforcement significantly unfair? It frequently is. Enforcing a bylaw against one owner while ignoring identical conduct elsewhere, or reviving a dormant bylaw against one owner without notice, is among the most commonly successful claims. Comparator evidence from minutes and photographs is what proves it.

How long do I have to bring a significantly unfair claim? The general limitation period in BC is two years from when the claim was discovered, and filing with the CRT stops the clock. Long-running disputes can go out of time while an owner is still negotiating.

Related reading

• The Civil Resolution Tribunal: How BC Strata Disputes Actually Get Decided
• Your Rights as a Strata Owner in BC
• Strata Bylaw Enforcement & Fines in BC: How to Do It Right
• Unenforceable Strata Bylaws in BC: Which Rules Actually Hold Up
• Strata Council Hearings in BC: Your Right to Be Heard

The remedy sits in Part 10 of the Strata Property Act, with the tribunal's parallel power in the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act. The tribunal's published decisions are searchable and show the standard being applied to real buildings.

Even-handed decisions, properly recorded, are the cheapest legal protection a council can buy. Onehive provides strata management across Metro Vancouver — request a proposal.