Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute centers on which of two competing strata councils validly holds authority to manage a Surrey high-rise strata corporation.
   
• Justice Fowler found that the notice issued for the December 23, 2025 special general meeting was a substantial irregularity under the Strata Property Act.
   
• Evidentiary reliability of the parties' lengthy affidavits was largely unnecessary to the outcome, since the court resolved the matter on the validity of the SGM notice rather than weighing contested allegations.
   
• Section 171 of the Strata Property Act barred the December Council from commencing litigation in the Strata's name without prior owner authorization.
   
• Appointment of an administrator under section 174 of the Act was found necessary given the entrenched mistrust between the two factions.
   
• Costs and further relief were left to the discretion of the newly appointed administrator rather than being determined by the court at this hearing.
   

Facts of the case

D'Corize is a 180-unit high-rise strata building in Surrey, British Columbia, governed by The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3444. On October 30, 2025, an annual general meeting elected three owners to the strata council (the "October Council"). A separate group of residents then sought a special general meeting; an attempt to hold it on December 1, 2025 was cancelled by the October Council, but an SGM ultimately proceeded on December 23, 2025, at which the October Council was voted out and seven individuals were elected as a new council (the "December Council"). Each council subsequently disputed the other's legitimacy. The December Council, purporting to act for the Strata, filed a notice of civil claim on February 3, 2026 (New Westminster Registry S261747) against members of the October Council, property manager Pacific Quorum Properties Inc. ("PQP"), and the Bank of Montreal, alleging financial mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and related misconduct. The October Council, in turn, filed a petition on February 11, 2026 (New Westminster Registry S261586) against eight respondents, seeking a declaration that the December SGM was invalid and various restraining orders. On April 14, 2026, the petition was amended to add a request that Garth Cambrey be appointed administrator of the Strata under section 174 of the Strata Property Act. Approximately 75 owners filed identical responses opposing the amended petition. The matters were heard together over four days beginning June 2, 2026, in Port Coquitlam.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The case turned on several provisions of the Strata Property Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 43. Section 45(3) sets out the required contents of meeting notices, including a description of matters to be voted on and meeting details. Section 47 provides that a failure to give proper notice does not automatically invalidate a vote if the strata corporation made a reasonable attempt to give notice, though the court noted this provision's application to owner-organized SGMs under section 43(6) was not fully argued. Sections 147 and 148 govern when a tenant may participate in strata governance on an owner's behalf, including a presumption arising from long-term leases of three years or more. Sections 171, 172, and 173.1 impose mandatory conditions precedent, including owner authorization, before a strata council may commence litigation in the Strata's name, while section 165 allows individual owners to apply to the court in their personal capacity. Section 174 empowers the court to appoint an administrator to exercise the powers and duties of a strata corporation. The court also relied on the common-law principle, drawn from Azura Management (Kelowna) Corp. v. Owners of the Strata Plan KAS2428, 2009 BCSC 506, that meeting notices must remain factual and neutral, and applied the test for setting aside an election from Leroux v. Molgat, 1985 CanLII 229 (B.C.S.C.).

Reasoning and analysis

Applying the Leroux v. Molgat framework, the court examined whether the December 23, 2025 SGM notice constituted a substantial irregularity calculated to affect the result. The notice included a "Background" document describing the October Council as unlawful and asserting as fact that the October AGM had been compromised by irregularities, including the use of approximately 75 unverified proxies. The court held this document was argumentative and misleading rather than factual, breaching the neutrality principle from Azura Management, and constituted a substantial irregularity. The onus therefore shifted to the December Council to show the irregularity had not affected the result; the court found it failed to do so, concluding the Background was deliberately intended to sway owners against the October Council. Confusion generated by competing communications, including PQP's notice that the SGM was unauthorized, likely suppressed turnout at the December meeting relative to a February 2026 SGM where 91 or 92 of the 102 owners voted approved a litigation special levy. On this basis, the court declared the December 23 SGM notice invalid and the votes taken there of no force or effect, leaving the October Council as the council with authority to act for the Strata. Turning to the NOCC, the court held that because the December Council's authority had been invalidated, and no owner approval under section 171 had been obtained before filing, the claim could not proceed in the Strata's name and was stayed pending compliance. On the administrator application, the court found no substantial misconduct by the October Council but concluded that an inability to manage the Strata had arisen from a widespread lack of owner confidence in its legitimacy, evidenced by the number of respondents opposing the petition and attendees at the December meeting. Drawing on the guiding principles from Lum et al. v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR519, 2001 BCSC 493, and the reasoning in Campbell v. The Owners, Strata Plan NW1018, 2014 BCSC 2058, the court concluded that neither faction could be trusted to conduct a fair election and that only an administrator offered a reasonable prospect of restoring order.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court declared the December 23, 2025 SGM notice invalid and the votes taken at that meeting of no force or effect, which left the October Council as the council with authority to act for the Strata unless and until a new election occurred. The notice of civil claim filed under file number S261747 was stayed pending compliance with section 171 of the Strata Property Act, and the applications filed under that claim were adjourned generally. The court appointed Garth Cambrey as administrator of the Strata for six months on the terms set out in the amended petition, with authority to retain legal counsel, and all other orders sought in the petition (file S261586) were adjourned generally. The October Council, as petitioner, was the successful party in obtaining the declaration of invalidity and the stay of the December Council's claim, though the ultimate governance outcome was the appointment of an independent administrator rather than an unqualified confirmation of the October Council's authority. The judgment does not record any award of damages or costs; the decision whether to pursue costs or further orders was left to the administrator's discretion, so no monetary amount was specified in this ruling.