Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiffs allege the strata corporation negligently failed to act in owners’ interests, requiring legal action at their own expense.

• Claims focus on unauthorized lease agreements, improper release of liability, and misleading conduct in court filings.

• Legal issue centers on whether a strata corporation owes a duty of care to its own unit owners in negligence.

• Court evaluated whether legal fees could be claimed as damages, distinguishing between litigation conduct and external negligent acts.

• Application to strike claims tested principles of res judicata, abuse of process, and sufficiency of pleadings under Rule 9-5.

• The Court split the result, striking two of four negligence claims but allowing the remainder to proceed to trial.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties involved

This case arises from a dispute between three individual strata unit owners—Sylvie Rochette, Jim Tennant, and Laura Podgorenko—and their strata corporation, Strata Plan 962, based in Victoria, British Columbia. The plaintiffs originally filed a petition in September 2019 against both the strata and several individual strata council members, alleging misconduct and failure to act in accordance with the Strata Property Act. Over time, the legal proceeding evolved into a civil action focusing solely on the strata corporation after a settlement was reached with the individual defendants.

Claims and legal theories

The plaintiffs amended their claim to include four core negligence-based allegations. These included: (1) the strata corporation’s misleading response to the original petition; (2) an unauthorized lease of common property to a third party; (3) an unlawful release agreement absolving former council members of liability; and (4) misleading representations made to the court during proceedings. In each case, the plaintiffs sought damages in the form of legal expenses they incurred while attempting to protect the interests of the corporation and fellow owners, alleging the strata council failed to do so.

Application to strike and legal standards applied

The strata corporation brought an application under Rule 9-5 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, seeking to strike all claims on the basis that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action or constituted an abuse of process. The court, guided by the Carhoun and Cooper line of cases, undertook a negligence analysis involving duty of care, proximity, and policy considerations. Additionally, the doctrines of res judicata and abuse of process were raised to argue that previous judicial decisions had already addressed these issues.

Court’s findings on negligence and legal costs

Justice Loo held that claims based on the lease and the release agreement could proceed. These were viewed as plausible negligence claims because they involved decisions affecting the owners’ property rights and financial interests outside of litigation. However, the court struck the claims based on the strata's litigation conduct—specifically the response to petition and allegedly misleading court submissions—finding that such conduct should be addressed under traditional cost awards, not tort law. The court emphasized that litigation behaviour is not subject to a separate duty of care outside the court’s own oversight mechanisms.

Damages and cost rulings

While the plaintiffs claimed legal fees as damages, no damages were awarded in this preliminary decision. The court determined only whether the pleadings should proceed to trial. With success divided between the parties—two claims struck, two allowed to proceed—Justice Loo ordered that there be no costs payable by either side for this application.

Next steps and procedural posture

A ten-day trial is scheduled to begin in March 2026. The plaintiffs’ remaining negligence claims concerning the unauthorized lease and the release agreement will be tested at trial. The outcome may further clarify the extent to which strata corporations owe a tort-based duty of care to their own members, particularly when procedural missteps have financial consequences for individual owners.