Some members of British Columbia\u2019s strata sector are raising the alarm about depleted reserve funds and looming special levies, while also calling on the provincial government to undertake a full review of the Strata Property Act, which is 26 years old and due for an update.<\/p>\n
Their feedback offers meaningful perspectives, particularly when considered alongside additional context and the views of primary stakeholders in strata governance.<\/p>\n
The Number are Real, But The Story is More Complicated<\/strong><\/p>\n With an estimated 1.5 million British Columbians living in strata properties, the stakes of this conversation are significant. A 2026 report from Vancouver software firm OctoAI Technologies painted a stark picture: more than 100,000 BC condo owners face an average special levy of $8,000 this year, with owners needing to budget $2,000 to $3,000 annually for the next decade. However, that number represents approximately 13% of BC\u2019s estimated 778,000 strata lots, and should be considered as part of the overall picture. The comparison to Ontario\u2014where average monthly reserve contributions are $238 versus BC\u2019s $77\u2014has been used to suggest BC owners are heading for a financial reckoning.<\/p>\n For additional context, after completing more than 4,500 strata document reviews in BC and tracking similar data for the past few years, findings from Condo Clear Services are largely consistent with OctoAI\u2019s. The results suggest some BC stratas are facing real financial pressures, while also adding nuance.<\/p>\n Data drawn from 2,742 strata document reviews in BC suggests that over ten years, 21% of stratas face no projected special levy at all, 29% face levies under $5,000, 10% fall between $5,000 and $10,000, and 16% between $10,000 and $20,000. In other words, 76% of stratas face levies of $20,000 or less over a ten-year period. The $8,000 figure represents a single-year levy, not a ten-year projection. The framing makes an enormous difference to how alarming the situation appears.<\/p>\n There are outliers : 9% of stratas face levies exceeding $50,000 more than ten years, and 2.3% face six-figure levies. Based on extensive experience reviewing strata documents across BC, these cases are most commonly associated with older buildings that failed to obtain or act on depreciation report recommendations, or with properties still carrying unresolved issues from the leaky condo crisis.<\/p>\n Both patterns appear regularly in the data. These cases are serious and deserve attention; however, as mandatory depreciation reports and higher reserve fund contributions take effect across BC, the conditions that produce these extreme outcomes should become less common over time. They should not define the narrative for the entire sector.<\/p>\n Comparing BC to Ontario has limitations. Unlike Ontario, where strata-style ownership applies primarily to condominiums, BC\u2019s strata system encompasses a much wider range of property types, including townhomes, duplexes, bare land stratas, and detached homes. Add to that meaningfully different building ages, ownership cultures, and legislative frameworks, and presenting raw dollar averages as a direct comparison, risks generating anxiety that is disproportionate to the actual risk most BC owners and buyers face.<\/p>\n Recent Legislative Changes are A Good Start, But Not Yet Sufficient<\/strong><\/p>\n The direction the BC government has taken is a meaningful step forward. Mandatory depreciation reports on a five-year cycle, removing the ability to indefinitely defer them and requiring a minimum 10% annual contribution to contingency reserve funds (CRF) \u2014 these are substantive improvements that will no doubt show results. Stratas that previously had no depreciation report are now obtaining them, and reserve funds that were dangerously thin should grow as a result.<\/p>\n But 10% is still insufficient. A more feasible standard would involve higher minimums based on age and\/or the strata\u2019s current financial status. For instance, if a strata corporation is below the 50% funded level, they must contribute a minimum of 30% of their operating budget to the CRF annually until they reach at least the 50% level; then it can drop to 10%. That way, the strata should be able to minimize most catastrophic levies, while continuing to give them meaningful freedom to choose the funding level that they deem appropriate for themselves.<\/p>\n Mandating that stratas be fully funded to the level prescribed by their depreciation reports, however, would go too far. One of the foundational strengths of the Strata Property Act is that it creates small democracies. Some of that owners\u2019 democratic authority has been eroded by legislative changes in recent years\u2014changes which, on balance, represent necessary improvements\u2014 but no legislation can account for every strata\u2019s unique circumstances.<\/p>\n What is right for one strata is not necessarily right for another. The diversity of BC\u2019s strata landscape, in terms of building age, type, location, and ownership profile, makes a one-size-fits-all funding mandate difficult to justify. Owners have the right to make informed decisions about their own financial futures, including accepting a higher level of risk if they choose to do so. The government\u2019s role is to ensure they have the information to make that choice, not to remove the choice entirely.<\/p>\n Another practical improvement would be to require that, at every Annual General Meeting, councils present a summary of any capital expenditures projected within the next five years as identified in the current depreciation report and the impact that will have on their current CRF level. Right now, many owners have no idea what is coming. Making this requirement a mandatory agenda item would go a long way toward keeping owners informed without stripping them of their democratic authority.<\/p>\n Document Delivery Challenges<\/strong><\/p>\n When purchasing a strata property in BC, buyers are entitled to request a package of documents from the strata corporation, including, but not limited to, the Form B Information Certificate, council and AGM minutes, financial statements, the current budget, and the depreciation report. These documents are essential for buyers to understand the financial health and governance history of the building they are purchasing.<\/p>\n Based on a review of thousands of strata document packages, the 95% incomplete document rate observed by Condo Clear Services is not primarily a technology problem or a legislative drafting problem. It is a combination of management companies and strata corporations not fully understanding what they are required to provide and, in some cases, a failure to disclose information that reflects poorly on the building.<\/p>\n The per-page fee structure, meanwhile, has outlived any legitimate justification. The $0.25 per page charge was originally designed to recoup the actual cost of printing and photocopying documents. In 2026, when virtually every strata document exists, or ought to exist, in electronic form, there is no meaningful cost being recouped. In practice, this has evolved into a source of revenue that is difficult to justify as a legitimate cost-recovery mechanism in the digital age. Rush fees that reach $500 to $600 for documents that could be delivered digitally in minutes are unreasonable. This should change through legislation, rather than voluntary compliance.<\/p>\n Mandatory Council Training Addresses The Wrong Problem<\/strong><\/p>\n A proposal released by the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA) in February 2026, calling for mandatory education for strata council members modeled on Ontario\u2019s director training program, is well-intentioned, but may misdiagnose where the real gap is.<\/p>\n The data cited in support of this change is pulled from surveys of individuals who have already completed the training, which entirely overlooks those who may not have run for the council or board because of the training requirement. This is the more important group, yet one that has not been measured.<\/p>\n The BCREA\u2019s own proposal acknowledges that Condominium Home Owner\u2019s Association\u2019s (CHOA) existing voluntary education programs, supported by BC Housing and endorsed by the Minister of Housing, are considered by some stakeholders to be sufficient. The Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association (VISOA) offers similarly valuable voluntary education resources for strata council members across BC. Before mandating training, it is worth asking whether the problem is truly a lack of available education, or a lack of engagement with what already exists.<\/p>\n The more pressing issue is accountability, both for councils and strata managers. While strata managers are licensed under the Real Estate Services Act, the BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) does not enforce the Strata Property Act.<\/p>\n BCFSA has stated on its website that it \u201cdoes not provide legal advice and does not play a role in enforcing the provisions of the Act\u201d, referring specifically to the Strata Property Act. This means that disputes about strata manager conduct that fall outside BCFSA\u2019s licensing mandate under the Real Estate Services Act may leave consumers and strata owners with limited regulatory recourse.<\/p>\n Managers are contractually obligated to follow council direction rather than the Act. In practice, many are reluctant to push back on councils\u2014even when the council may be in the wrong\u2014because doing so risks losing the contract. This creates a precarious position for managers who recognize a contravention but have limited authority and significant financial incentive to remain silent.<\/p>\n On the council side, when a council willfully contravenes the Act, for example, by refusing to provide documents that authorized persons are legally entitled to under Sections 35 and 36, the only recourse is the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). This applies whether the request arises in the context of a real estate transaction or simply in the ordinary course of ownership.<\/p>\n According to the CRT\u2019s own 2024-2025 Annual Report, the average time to resolution for strata disputes is 352 days. Even when the owner prevails, the remedy is usually an adjudicator ordering the strata to provide the documents, by which point, in a transaction context, the deal has collapsed and the damage is done. While monetary awards for significant unfairness are available through the CRT, they are rarely claimed. There is, in practice, no meaningful punitive consequence for willful non-compliance.<\/p>\n This is an accountability gap that requires closure. Mandatory training for volunteer council members does not address it and could make the problem worse. Strata corporations already find it tricky to attract capable, committed council members. Volunteering is time-consuming, stressful, and largely thankless. Adding a mandatory education requirement risks shrinking the pool of willing candidates further, leaving some stratas unable to meet the minimum council membership required under the Act.<\/p>\n \u201cA strata council with fewer members than required by the bylaws cannot legally function \u2014 it cannot hold meetings, pay bills, or fulfill document requests,\u201d adds Wendy Wall, president of the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association (VISOA).<\/p>\n If training is to be mandated, there should be a greater focus on licensed strata managers\u2014the professionals who are paid to understand, advise the strata, and apply the Act.<\/p>\n Shaping The Conversation About Reform<\/strong><\/p>\n Perspectives from the real estate trading and technology sectors have largely shaped the recent discourse around strata reform. The BCREA and local real estate boards do important work, but their mandate is the buying and selling of property, not the governance of strata corporations. Data-driven analysis must be considered alongside the on-the-ground experience of those working directly within the strata governance system.<\/p>\n Organizations like the VISOA and Condominium Homeowners Association represent the people who live in and govern these buildings. Their voices, and the voices of experienced strata managers and those working daily inside the document review process, should be at the centre of any policy reform discussion.<\/p>\n The Strata Property Act is overdue for modernization. The reserve fund rules are strong, but more is needed. Document delivery requires updates and both buyers and owners need transparency. However, the most significant reform may be the introduction of meaningful accountability measures for councils and strata managers who fail to comply with legal requirements. Until there are real consequences for non-compliance, no amount of training, technology, or legislative tinkering will fix the underlying problem.<\/p>\n