Canada: Key Themes, Trends, And Principles From The Post-Bill 40 Case Law On Strata Wind-Ups In B.C.

It has been about two years since Bill 40 ushered in a new strata wind-up regime in British Columbia. The bill, which was prompted by a 2015 B.C. Law Institute report, marked a new era in strata wind-ups under the Strata Property Act1 (the "Act"). Whereas, previously, unanimous approval on the part of the owners was generally required to wind up a strata corporation, the new threshold is a more attainable 80 per cent, provided court confirmation is subsequently obtained.

Thus far, we have seen four contested confirmation applications reach the B.C. Supreme Court, with one refusal and three approvals:

  • In The Owners, Strata Plan VR 19662 ("Bel-Ayre"), the Court refused to confirm the wind-up resolution because the interest schedule – the liquidator's "roadmap" – that was attached to the resolution suffered from a deficiency of substance: it omitted statutorily required value estimates.
  • In The Owners, Strata Plan VR2122 v. Wake3 ("The Hampstead"), the Court confirmed the resolution over the objections of four dissenting owners, finding that the essential statutory requirements had been met, even though the resolution contained certain flaws.
  • In Re The Owners, Strata Plan VR27024 ("Barclay Terrace"), the Court confirmed the resolution despite resistance from two holdout owners who argued that the sale price was too low and that they were not kept informed throughout the sale process.
  • In Strata Plan NWS837 (Re)5 ("Ascott Wynde"), the Court confirmed the resolution in the face of allegations that the process leading up to the vote on the resolution was unfair and that permitting the wind-up and sale to proceed would result in "significant unfairness" and "significant confusion and uncertainty".

Though the post-Bill 40 jurisprudence is still in its infancy, it is worth taking a moment to step back and take stock of five key themes, trends, and legal principles that have emerged thus far.

1.     The Analytical Framework

In considering whether to confirm a wind-up resolution, the Act requires the Court to consider the following factors:

  1. the best interests of the owners, and
  2. the probability and extent, if the winding-up resolution is confirmed or not confirmed, of

    1. i) significant unfairness to one or more

      1. owners,
      2. holders of registered charges, or
      3. other creditors, and
    2. ii) significant confusion and uncertainty in the affairs of the strata corporation or of the owners.6

In Ascott Wynde, the Court provided a helpful summary of several bedrock principles governing applications for court confirmation of wind-up resolutions, including the following:

  • The dissenting owners bear the onus of establishing the factors that would justify refusing an application for an order confirming a wind-up resolution.
  • In determining what is in the best interests of the owners, the interests of all owners must be weighed.
  • Any alleged unfairness or uncertainty must be significant enough to override the interests of the majority who voted in favour of the wind-up.
  • "Significant unfairness" includes conduct that is "burdensome, harsh, wrongful, lacking in probity or fair dealing, done in bad faith, unjust, or inequitable, and might extend to less severe conduct as well".
  • In determining whether confirming or refusing to confirm the resolution would cause significant unfairness, the Court must consider whether the evidence supports the reasonable expectations asserted by the minority and, if so, whether those expectations were violated in a way that was significantly unfair.7

2.     The Fairness of the Wind-Up and Sale Process Is a Familiar Target in Litigation

One of the most striking themes emerging from the case law is the frequency with which the fairness of the wind-up and sale process is targeted in litigation. While the fairness of the process was challenged to some extent in each of the cases to reach the Court so far, in Ascott Wynde the issue truly took centre stage. Among other lessons, we can extract the following principles from that case and the Court's reasons dismissing the dissenting owners' arguments:

  • False or Misleading Information: The Court may scrutinize statements made by realtors and strata council members in the lead-up to a vote on a wind-up resolution to determine whether owners have been given false or misleading information. Those involved in managing the process should ensure all information provided to owners is accurate, complete, and balanced.
  • Shared Interests: The mere fact that the strata council, the realtor, and the law firm involved in organizing and managing the process have a shared interest in consummating a sale does not, in itself, mean that the process is flawed.
  • Strata Council's Role: It is not inappropriate for the strata council to retain and instruct realtors and lawyers and to enter into a provisional sale agreement on behalf of the owners before a liquidator is appointed. The strata council is permitted to take the reins and drive the process from an early stage, provided it acts in the bests interests of all owners collectively.
  • Strata Council's Commitments: The Court may look to whether the strata council has honoured any and all commitments made to owners about the process (e.g., that council would ensure the sale agreement gives owners a right of priority access to units in the new building following redevelopment), and the consequences of any "broken promises" should be viewed in context.
  • Inadequate Price: The argument that the purchase price for the property is inadequate is unlikely to get off the ground unless the dissenting owners can adduce compelling, objective evidence that the realtor's efforts in marketing the property were deficient or that the price is demonstrably below what it ought to have been in light of market prices. Barclay Terrace further solidifies the notion that dissenting owners who advance an inadequate price argument face an uphill battle.
  • Forced Move: The mere fact that the dissenting owners will be forced to move against their will cannot be, in itself, the kind of "significant unfairness" or "significant confusion and uncertainty" that may justify a refusal to confirm a duly passed wind-up resolution. The Court in The Hampstead affirmed a similar proposition in rejecting the submission that "property rights as a home should be given greater emphasis in the face of 80% or more of the owners who want to take advantage of the increased profit to be made as a result of rezoning and redevelopment".8 In sum, dissenting owners do not have an absolute veto and may be required to move against their will.
  • Translations: There is no general requirement on strata councils to "discern and then cater to the diverse language abilities of their owner populations", and broadly speaking, translating all informational materials to suit owners' language preferences will not be strictly necessary.9
  • Opportunity to Be Heard: The Court may look to whether dissenting owners have been given a sufficient opportunity to have their voices heard. Providing ample opportunities for discussion and debate – such as through town hall meetings, questions and answer periods, and information sessions – is essential to ensure the process is sufficiently robust, fair, and transparent.

The importance of a fair process was also underscored in The Hampstead. There, the Court rejected the dissenting owners' argument that the process was significantly unfair, finding instead that "the owners were informed every step of the way, the process was transparent, and all of the owners were provided with any information they sought, answers to any questions they had, and provided with any document they requested".10 This is the standard of fairness and transparency that those managing the process should strive for.

3.     The Importance of the Interest Schedule Should Not Be Overlooked

The very first contested strata wind-up case in the post-Bill 40 era, Bel-Ayre, issued a caution: before the Court grants its blessing, the applicant must demonstrate that all essential statutory requirements have been satisfied. As Bel-Ayre illustrates, this principle extends equally to the requirements relating to the interest schedule that must be attached to the wind-up resolution.

The purpose of the interest schedule is to provide the liquidator with a "roadmap" for the ratable distribution of the property's sale proceeds to the owners and their creditors. The interest schedule must include, among other things, the "estimated value of the interest of each holder of a registered charge against the land".11 In Bel-Ayre, this information had been omitted, but the resolution passed nonetheless. Before the Court, the strata argued that the omission was a "rectifiable procedural irregularity"12 and that the resolution should be confirmed despite that irregularity. The Court disagreed. It observed that under the Act, the value estimates were "essential ingredients" in a valid winding-up resolution.13 Their omission was one of substance, and there was nothing in the Act to suggest that the Court had discretion to overlook such a deficiency. Accordingly, the Court found the resolution to be invalid and incapable of confirmation.

Bel-Ayre, which drove home the point that court confirmation is no rubber stamp, is not the only case involving interest schedule defects. In The Hampstead, the wind-up resolution failed to set out the name and address of the proposed liquidator, despite a requirement in the Act to do so.14 In addition, a registered charge holder that held a charge against a sidewalk on the common property was not named in the interest schedule. However, unlike in Bel-Ayre, these defects were not found to be fatal. The Court distinguished Bel-Ayre on the basis that the name and address of the liquidator were not "essential to the liquidator's mandate or the roadmap of the liquidation process",15 and the omission of the charge holder from the interest schedule was of no moment, as the particular charge would remain on title whether or not a wind-up and sale took place.

Bel-Ayre and The Hampstead illustrate an important point: as far as defects are concerned, only a defect of substance will lead the Court to refuse to confirm a wind-up resolution. Still, it goes without saying that best efforts should always be made to ensure the resolution is flawless.

4.     The Typical Wind-Up and Sale Process Is Not the Only Option ¬– "Unit Assembly" Is also an Option

The typical wind-up and sale process involves the prospective purchaser entering into a conditional purchase and sale agreement with the strata council (acting on behalf of the owners) for the purchase of the strata complex as a whole. In this scenario, if a condition (such as court confirmation of a wind-up resolution) fails to be satisfied, the prospective purchaser can simply walk away, without having purchased a single unit.

But the typical process is not the only option. Barclay Terrace illustrates an alternative approach. There, two major developers gradually bought up over 80% of strata units and proceeded to use their controlling interest to successfully drive the wind-up process through what one might call a "unit assembly" strategy. The objective of the prospective purchaser in a "unit assembly" strategy will generally be to achieve complete ownership of all units in the strata, though that objective may not always be attainable.

At least in theory, there are some advantages to this transactional approach. For example, the Court in Barclay Terrace suggested that minority owners' legitimate expectations relating to their participation in the marketing and sale process may be reduced when owners could "see the writing on the wall" as the prospective purchaser sought and achieved a controlling block of units.16 In these circumstances, minority owners "cannot reasonably expect to exercise any measure of control or a veto over any deal that is struck".17 Hence, a prospective purchaser who has acquired an overwhelming majority of units may be permitted to exercise a high degree of control over the wind-up and sale process, without material interference from minority owners.

But the "unit assembly" approach carries significant risk. Even if the prospective purchaser acquires over 80% of the units, thereby guaranteeing a wind-up resolution if desired, this does not obviate the need to seek court confirmation. If confirmation were to be denied – for example, because a wind-up and sale would result in significant unfairness to one or more owners or creditors – the controlling owner may not be able to execute its redevelopment or other objectives. Moreover, unit-by-unit negotiation over an extended period can be costly, and the unit assembly process may introduce pricing dynamics that work against the prospective purchaser, as it can give the last remaining holdout owners significant leverage to thwart the prospective purchaser's aspirations.

Each case is unique, and prospective purchasers should consult with legal and real estate advisors to determine the optimal approach in the particular circumstances.

5.     The Court Will Not Question the Wisdom of Municipal Planning Decisions

Finally, The Hampstead established an important principle: in deciding whether to confirm a wind-up resolution, the Court will not question the wisdom of municipal planning decisions. In The Hampstead, the question arose as to whether the City of Vancouver's decisions regarding social housing, densification, rezoning, or community planning that allowed for the redevelopment of the property should be considered in the Court's analysis of whether to confirm the wind-up resolution. The Court answered this question in the negative, finding that those factors fell within the municipality's purview, not the Court's.

Looking Ahead

The law on strata wind-ups in the province is rapidly developing. The Court continues to grapple with important questions bearing on the balance to be struck between:

  • giving effect to the wishes of a supermajority of owners who want to capitalize on the opportunity to sell their units at a significant premium, often in the context of a rapidly deteriorating strata complex in need of costly repairs; and
  • protecting the rights and interests of dissenting owners who, for any number of legitimate reasons, wish to continue calling their units "home".

This balancing exercise is not an easy one, and it engages difficult questions of law and policy. But at least to date, we have seen a general willingness from the Court to give effect to the wishes of the willing majority, provided essential statutory requirements have been observed. This has been the case even where dissenting unit owners bought into the strata at a time when the law generally required unanimous consent to effect a wind-up, which presumably set up certain expectations among owners as to the stability of their housing situation.

However, uncertainties remain. For example, we have yet to see how the Court would handle a scenario in which there is clear evidence that dissenting owners would be forced from their communities as a result of their inability to find comparable units in the surrounding area. In the cases to date, there was no compelling evidence that dissenting owners would be unable to find comparable units nearby. It is conceivable that the analysis in these cases may have taken a different path had a significant number of dissenting owners faced the prospect of being driven from their communities against their will.

As a further example of uncertainties in the law (or at least how it may apply), we have yet to see a set of facts in which, in the Court's view, "significant unfairness" arose. We know from Ascott Wynde that "significant unfairness" includes conduct that is "burdensome, harsh, wrongful, lacking in probity or fair dealing, done in bad faith, unjust, or inequitable, and might extend to less severe conduct as well".18 We also know from The Hampstead that the modifier "significant" indicates that the unfairness must be "oppressive or transcend beyond mere prejudice or trifling unfairness" – it must be unfairness that is "of great importance or consequence."19 But we have yet to see a concrete example of what that would look like in the post-Bill 40 case law. Nor do we have a concrete example of what amounts to "significant confusion and uncertainty in the affairs of the strata corporation or of the owners".

Finally, we have yet to see the B.C. Court of Appeal issue any guidance on strata wind-ups in the post-Bill 40 era. But it is only a matter of time. Although Bel-Ayre, The Hampstead, and Ascott Wynde were never appealed, Barclay Terrace has been appealed.


1 S.B.C. 1998, c. 43.

2 2017 BCSC 1661 [Bel-Ayre].

3 2017 BCSC 2386 [The Hampstead].

4 2018 BCSC 390 [Barclay Terrace].

5 2018 BCSC 564 [Ascott Wynde].

6 Strata Property Act, ss. 273.1(5), 278.1(5).

7 Ascott Wynde at para. 17.

8 The Hampstead at para. 129.

9 Ascott Wynde at para. 66.

10 The Hampstead at para. 136.

11 Strata Property Act, s. 278(1)(d).

12 Bel-Ayre at para. 8.

13 Ibid at para. 36.

14 Strata Property Act, s. 277(3).

15 The Hampstead at para. 72.

16 Barclay Terrace at para. 46.

17 Ibid at para. 49.

18 Ascott Wynde at para. 17.

19 The Hampstead at para. 140.

To view original article, please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions