Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A minority group of unit holders (approximately 15%) appealed a court-ordered special levy for building repairs at a Richmond strata complex, which was dismissed by the BC Court of Appeal.

• The respondent strata corporation applied for increased costs under R. 70(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, arguing that assessment under the ordinary costs tariff would create an unjust result.

• Actual legal fees of $79,847.78 were incurred by the Strata, compared to maximum recoverable tariff costs of only $21,250 at Scale B, creating a discrepancy of roughly $60,000.

• No adverse findings were made regarding the appellants' litigation conduct, including their decision to abandon one ground of appeal on the morning of the hearing.

• The Court distinguished this case from Baran v. Pioneer Steel Manufacturers Limited, where increased costs were justified by delay tactics and failure to respond to a reasonable settlement offer.

• Application for increased costs was dismissed; the Court held that ordinary tariff costs at Scale B would not produce an unjust result in these circumstances.

The dispute over building repairs at a Richmond strata complex

This case involves a residential strata complex in Richmond governed by The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2884 (the "Strata"). A group of unit holders representing approximately 15% of the ownership community opposed a resolution proposed by the Strata for a special levy to complete several repairs, including repairs to the building envelope. The Strata had obtained a report from an engineering company outlining six areas of the complex requiring repair. While the unit holders agreed that some repairs were necessary, they disagreed about the extent of repairs presented in the omnibus repair plan. The resolution for the special levy did not pass.

The petition under the Strata Property Act

The Strata then filed a petition in the British Columbia Supreme Court under s. 173 of the Strata Property Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 43, seeking an order approving the special levy on the basis that the repairs were necessary to ensure safety and to prevent significant loss or damage. The Strata also submitted it was statutorily compelled by s. 72 of the Strata Property Act and its own bylaws to initiate proceedings to facilitate necessary repairs once it had in hand the professional engineering evidence. The chambers judge granted an order authorizing a special levy for all of the repairs, despite opposition from the appellants, and ordered the parties to bear their own costs.

The appeal and subsequent costs application

The appellants appealed the chambers judge's order to the BC Court of Appeal. Their primary submission was that the judge erred because he assessed only one aspect of the omnibus resolution and failed to conduct a separate examination for each proposed repair. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its earlier decision (Li v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2884, 2025 BCCA 196). Following its success, the Strata applied for increased costs under R. 70(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, B.C. Reg, 120/2022, submitting five grounds: (1) the Strata was statutorily compelled to act; (2) the unsuccessful appeal caused all the owners to bear the costs of certain owners' unsuccessful litigation; (3) the respondent succeeded at both levels of court; (4) the appellants abandoned one ground of appeal the morning of the hearing, leading to unnecessary preparation costs; and (5) the amount recoverable under the ordinary tariff is significantly less than the actual costs of the appeal. In support of the application, the respondent filed an affidavit from Clifton Jang, the current president of the Strata, who deposed that any legal expenses not recovered will be borne collectively by the owners of the Strata Corporation.

The Court's analysis of the increased costs claim

The Court considered the legal framework governing increased costs, noting that an order for increased costs is not usual and that it is in the nature of the appellate process that many appeals are important and difficult. The onus is on the applicant requesting an order of increased costs to demonstrate that this extraordinary award is merited. Relevant considerations include substantive and procedural complexity and a significant disparity between actual and recoverable costs under the relevant tariff. These considerations do not include reprehensible conduct but rather are grounded in indemnity. The Strata relied on Baran v. Pioneer Steel Manufacturers Limited, 2022 BCCA 126, where a discrepancy of roughly $28,000 between actual and recoverable costs was held to be unjust. However, the Court distinguished Baran because in that case the unsuccessful respondent had delayed the appeal by seeking extensions of time for filing his factum before ultimately abandoning the cross-appeal and discontinuing the action, and also failed to respond to a reasonable settlement offer — conduct not present in the case at bar.

Ruling and outcome

The BC Court of Appeal, in supplementary reasons dated March 31, 2026, dismissed the Strata's application for increased costs. The panel — Justice Fenlon, Justice Butler, and Justice Winteringham — found that the factors identified by the respondent did not justify an entitlement to increased costs. Unlike in Baran, there had not been any adverse findings about the appellants' conduct relating to litigation strategy or otherwise. The appellants pursued what they believed was a legitimate dispute about the extent of the repairs to be undertaken, and just because the dispute did not resolve in their favour did not mean the position they took was baseless. The appellants did not unduly prolong the litigation or raise spurious grounds, and with respect to their decision to abandon one of their grounds of appeal, counsel for the appellants satisfactorily explained the reason for its decision and revealed nothing improper. The Court noted this was a relatively straightforward petition proceeding not sufficiently complex to rise to a level beyond what is contemplated by an award of ordinary costs at Scale B. Even though the Strata was required to take litigation steps to authorize repairs it may have been obligated to carry out, this factor alone would not justify the award of increased costs. Accordingly, the Strata's costs are to be assessed as ordinary costs under Scale B, in accordance with the Rules, with the maximum recoverable tariff costs at Scale B being $21,250.