Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The respondent 1067192 B.C. Ltd. applied to pay only a portion of the disputed strata fee arrears ($17,375.30) into trust or court pending resolution of the proceeding, which the petitioner strata corporation opposed.
   
• Central to the dispute is whether s. 114 of the Strata Property Act permits a strata lot owner to deposit less than the total lienable amount to trigger a discharge of the strata lien registered against its unit.
   
• 106 BC also sought to convert the petition proceeding into an action and refer the matter to the trial list, arguing that triable issues existed regarding notice of strata fees, AGMs, and the calculation of interest.
   
• Bylaw 2.1(n) of the petitioner's registered bylaws prescribes interest at 10% per annum on overdue strata fees, and 106 BC disputed both the quantum of interest claimed and whether it was calculated consistently with that bylaw.
   
• A related civil action commenced by 106 BC (the "106 Action") was dismissed on January 15, 2026 by Associate Judge Hughes on the basis that the claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Resolution Tribunal.
   
• Allegations of inadequate notice—including failure to provide monthly invoices, AGM notices, and approved budget communications—were identified as arguably triable issues, though the court found a wholesale transfer to the trial list disproportionate.

Facts of the case

The petitioner, The Owners, Strata Plan BCS1022, is a strata corporation governing a commercial complex known as the Payal Business Centre, located at 12885 80th Avenue, Surrey, British Columbia. The respondent 1067192 B.C. Ltd. ("106 BC") owns strata lot 290, municipally addressed as 205 – 12885 80th Avenue, Surrey, B.C. The respondent Raj Gill Law Corporation ("RG Law Corp") occupies the strata unit and operates a law firm there.

The petitioner alleges that 106 BC failed or refused to pay monthly strata fees for its strata lot beginning August 1, 2020. Interest accrued on overdue amounts at 10% per annum pursuant to the petitioner's bylaws, with interest continuing to accrue until payment. On February 28, 2025, the petitioner's counsel sent a demand letter advising that outstanding strata fees totalled $17,375.30, with interest of $4,312.50, for a combined amount of $21,387.80, with a further $401.42 due on March 1, 2025.

On June 19, 2025, 106 BC filed a notice of civil claim against the petitioner in New Westminster registry action S258366 (the "106 Action"). On July 29, 2025, the petitioner registered a s. 116 Strata Property Act, SBC 1998, c 43 ("SPA") lien on title to the subject strata lot under Land Title Office registration #CB2208840. On August 21, 2025, the petitioner filed the present petition proceeding, seeking, among other relief, a declaration that 106 BC was in default of its strata fee obligations, that the lien ranked in priority to all other registered charges, and judgment for the "debt amount" of $25,215.50 as of August 1, 2025, together with legal costs and disbursements.

Negotiations between the parties in September 2025 were unsuccessful. On September 4, 2025, RG Law Corp proposed depositing the lien amount of $25,215.50 into trust pending resolution of the 106 Action, under protest and without prejudice. On September 15, 2025, RG Law Corp further proposed depositing the amount directly to the petitioner (rather than in trust), with the petition proceeding to stand as satisfied and be withdrawn by consent. The petitioner rejected both proposals, taking the position that the lien was a floating charge securing not only amounts already owing but all amounts that would continue to accrue, and that payment of less than the total lienable amount would not satisfy the lien. On September 24, 2025, the petitioner's counsel provided a pay-out statement setting the total claimed at $33,172.72 as of that date, valid for seven days, comprising strata fees, interest, and various categories of legal fees. On September 29, 2025, 106 BC disputed the enhanced interest figure and challenged the inclusion of legal expenses in the lienable amount.

On October 15, 2025, the petitioner (as defendant in the 106 Action) applied to dismiss the 106 Action pursuant to s. 16.1(b) and (c) of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, SBC 2012, c 25, on the basis that the claims fell within the jurisdiction of the Civil Resolution Tribunal. On January 15, 2026, Associate Judge Hughes ordered that the 106 Action be dismissed, that 106 BC's application to amend its notice of civil claim be dismissed, and that the petitioner be awarded costs of the action.

Policy terms and legislative provisions at issue

The primary legislative framework is the Strata Property Act, SBC 1998, c 43. Section 116 of the SPA authorizes a strata corporation to register a lien against a strata lot as security for unpaid strata fees, special levies, and related charges. The lien operates as a floating charge, securing both amounts currently owing and amounts that will become due or accrue. Section 118 permits the addition to the lien of reasonable legal costs incurred in registering and enforcing the lien, land title and court registry fees, and other reasonable disbursements.

Section 114 of the SPA, relied upon by 106 BC, provides that where there is a dispute over whether an owner or tenant owes money to the strata corporation, the owner or tenant may pay the disputed amount into court (if Supreme Court Civil Rules allow) or to the strata corporation to hold in trust, if, among other conditions, an initiating notice has been given under s. 6 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act or court proceedings have been started. Upon receipt, the strata corporation holds the money in trust for the parties until the dispute is resolved.

The petitioner's bylaws—registered with the Land Title Office on October 28, 2004—include bylaw 2.1(n), which requires a strata lot owner or tenant to pay to the strata corporation, when due, all strata fees levied or assessed against the strata lot, together with interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date due until payment.

Reasoning and analysis

On the application to pay a portion of the arrears into trust, Associate Judge Bilawich found that 106 BC had not referred to any authority supporting the proposition that the amount it proposed to deposit was appropriate in all the circumstances, nor any authority suggesting the court could or should order an amount posted that was materially less than the current lienable amount. The court found that 106 BC had not made out a persuasive case that the petitioner's approach to calculating the floating lien amount was flawed or that there was a valid reason to deprive the petitioner of the security and priority protections afforded by the SPA. The court expressly declined to make a specific finding that the petitioner's calculations of the amount owing were correct, noting only that the general approach appeared sound. The application to pay $17,375.30 into trust was dismissed.

On the conversion application, the court considered Rule 16-1(18) and Rule 22-1(7)(d) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules and the applicable test from HGE Administrative Services Ltd. v. Perrick, 2011 BCCA 308, under which a petition should be referred to the trial list unless it is manifestly clear there is no bona fide triable issue. The court noted that following Cepuran v. Carlton, 2022 BCCA 76, judges hearing petitions that raise triable issues have greater discretion to tailor pre-trial procedures rather than automatically referring matters to trial. While the court acknowledged some arguably triable issues—including whether adequate notice of monthly strata fees, AGMs, and approved operating budgets had been given, and questions about the consistency of interest calculations with the 10% per annum bylaw rate—it was not persuaded that a wholesale transfer to the trial list was necessary or proportionate given the relatively modest amounts and number of issues involved. Many of the issues 106 BC sought to raise had already been advanced in the 106 Action and dismissed as falling within Civil Resolution Tribunal jurisdiction; the court found it inappropriate for those same issues to be re-litigated in the present proceeding.

Ruling and overall outcome

Associate Judge Bilawich dismissed 106 BC's application to pay $17,375.30 into trust with the petitioner or into court. The application to convert the petition proceeding into an action and refer it to the trial list was also dismissed. Instead, the court ordered a hybrid procedure: limited discovery of documents restricted to the triable issues identified, examinations for discovery capped at a maximum of two hours per side, with the proceeding otherwise continuing as a petition. No order as to costs was made with respect to this application; the parties were given liberty to address costs at the conclusion of the proceeding. In the result, the petitioner, The Owners, Strata Plan BCS1022, successfully resisted both applications brought by 106 BC, preserving the priority and security of its registered strata lien and maintaining the petition as the forum for resolving the dispute.