Like all of my strata blogs, I prepared this one for use on an as-needed basis only. It is not intended to be used in a malicious manner, nor do we support false claims or untrue accusations. I would much rather permanently delete my blogs and their associated contents than to live with the ongoing stress which is created by the necessity of their existence.

Insurance, Strata Property Act, Regulation, Bylaws

I honestly believe the strata corporation has an ongoing double duty to provide the replacement cost repairs to our strata lot's water damaged doors, walls, and floors that we paid strata fees to insure, and to finish the repairs that it started in 409, and promised,  just as other units were repaired, or to compensate us for the cost of doing so.

Pursuant to section 149 of the Strata Property Act, it is mandatory that the strata property insurance cover not just the buildings, but also the fixtures installed as part of original construction - even when they are owned by the strata lot owner:

Strata Property Act
Part 9 — Insurance

Property insurance required for strata corporation
149 (1) The strata corporation must obtain and maintain property insurance on
(a) common property,
(b) common assets,
(c) buildings shown on the strata plan, and
(d) fixtures
built or installed on a strata lot, if the fixtures are built or installed by the owner developer as part of the original construction on the strata lot.
...
(4) The property insurance must
(a) be on the basis of full replacement value, and
(b) insure against major perils, as set out in the regulations...

****

Strata Property Regulation
B.C. Reg. 43/2000 O.C. 130/2000

Part 9 — Insurance
Definitions for section 149 of the Act
9.1 (1) For the purposes of sections 149 (1) (d) and 152 (b) of the Act, "fixtures" means items attached to a building, including floor and wall coverings and electrical and plumbing fixtures, but does not include, if they can be removed without damage to the building, refrigerators, stoves, dishwashers, microwaves, washers, dryers or other items.

(2) For the purposes of section 149 (4) (b) of the Act, "major perils" means the perils of fire, lightning, smoke, windstorm, hail, explosion, water escape, strikes, riots or civil commotion, impact by aircraft and vehicles, vandalism and malicious acts.
[am. B.C. Reg. 265/2000.]

All of the water damaged building structure and fixtures in unit 409 were built or installed by the owner developer as part of the original construction on the strata lot.

Strata Property Act
Part 5 — Property
Division 1 — General Property Matters

Repair of property
72 (3) The strata corporation may, by bylaw, take responsibility for the repair and maintenance of specified portions of a strata lot.

***
Bylaws, Strata Plan NW 2671- Sunridge Estates
The following extract is taken from the bylaws filed in the Land Title Office on February 5, 2002, under number BT41643, and a consolidation of all amendments up to and including Dec/08 as filed on Jul 18/05, Mar 9/07, and Apr 28/08:

Powers and Duties of Strata Corporation
11 Repair and maintenance of property by strata corporation
11.1 The strata corporation must repair and maintain all of the following ... (d) a strata lot, but the duty to repair and maintain it is restricted to ... (i) the structure of a building ...


***

WHAT IS ALL THIS SUPPOSED TO MEAN??

Well based on looking up the key words in a dictionary, structure of a building seems to include doors, repair seems to refer to damage, and sound condition is what unit 409 is not in.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
door
A movable structure used to close off an entrance, typically consisting of a panel that swings on hinges or that slides or rotates
repair
To restore to sound condition after damage or injury
damage
Harm or injury to property or a person, resulting in loss of value or the impairment of usefulness
Black's Law Dictionary
damage
Loss, injury, or deterioration caused by the negligence, design, or accident of one person to another, in respect of the latter's person or property

We do not understand how repairs of extensive damage to Unit 409 caused by an accident in the unit above us became our responsibility when damage to Unit 227 caused by an accident inside of their own unit solely was fully repaired by the strata - especially when we have paid for mandatory strata insurance for over 20 years in a total amount more than most, if not all, other owners - including units 227 and 510, the sources of the water damage and subsequent unfairness.

http://www.accountingglossary.net/
insurance
Insurance is a way to make an individuals financial losses more affordable by transferring them to a large group of people through an intermediary called an insurance company and a legal contract called a policy
full replacement value
Coverage that pays the full replacement value for a covered loss rather than just the initial cost less wear and tear or depreciation

****

Strata Property Act[SBC 1998] CHAPTER 43

Division 2 – Records
Strata corporation records

35 (2) The strata corporation must retain copies of all of the following:
... (g) written contracts to which the strata corporation is a party;

Access to records
36 (1) On receiving a request, the strata corporation must make the records and
documents referred to in section 35 available for inspection by, and provide
copies of them to ... an owner ...
(3) The strata corporation must comply with a request under subsection (1) or (2) within 2 weeks unless the request is in respect of bylaws or rules, in which case
the strata corporation must comply with the request within one week.
(4) The strata corporation may charge a fee for a copy of a record or document
provided under this section of not more than the amount set out in the regulations
and may refuse to supply the copy until the fee is paid.
The strata manager did not file an insurance claim for the water damage to unit 409 before the time to do so expired and since then repeatedly obstructed and refused my requests to access the written contract for the relevant insurance cover in spite of my writing for a copy, providing a cheque in payment at the rate of $.25 per page as set out in the regulations, and attempting to attend at the strata records office pursuant to the Strata Property Act, raising an apprehension that the strata was not insured at the time of loss on July 23, 2003.

******************
 
It is hard to tell what the strata's current position is based on besides the negligence of professionals, but as far as I can tell it might have something to do with setting aside the insurance and disclosure issues and making allegations that floors and doors and walls are not part of the structure of a building. 

Unit 409 is part of the building, and but for the structure of the walls, floors, and ceilings of our strata lot, Unit 510 and its burst toilet tank would have fallen straight into our garage.

In Oldaker v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1008, 2010 BCSC 776 (CanLII) at [37], the Court said
Present day statutory interpretation recognizes that insofar as the language of a provision allows, interpretations which are consonant with and which promote a clear legislative purpose should be adopted. This is not to say that a statute’s intended purpose can overwhelm the language of a provision. Instead, one seeks to ensure consistency between language and purpose and to achieve a result which is harmonious.
Although it may not be clear, it is possible that the obligation to repair the structure of the building is included in standard strata bylaws because the structure is a collective and integrated system.  If so, it does not say it excludes floors, walls, and doors as structural components of a building and it does not require damage to create such an immediate danger that it poses a structural problem before being repaired.

At the time of loss no insurance investigator or member of council inspected the changes to the structure and fixtures in our strata lot but the strata's engineer reported that unrepaired damage in Unit 409 was consistent with water damage. Although from an engineering perspective he didn't consider the damage that he reported on to be a problem structurally he expressly excluded reporting on our floors and the substrate in our strata lot and refused to inspect the (apparently water soluble) type of concrete used in the supporting column in the garage below.   

With respect to the Strata Property Act protective fairness provisions, in Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 5th ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2008) at p. 360, the author states: 

Related provisions. In adopting a contextual approach, the courts focus on any provision or series of provisions that in their opinion is capable of shedding light on the interpretive problem at hand. Looking to other provisions is useful because courts make certain assumptions about the way legislation is drafted. As Lord Reid wrote in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Hinchy:
... one assumes that, in drafting one clause of a bill, the draftsman had in mind the language and substance of other clauses and attributes to Parliament a comprehension of the whole Act.
More specifically, it is assumed that language is used consistently, that tautology is avoided, that the provisions of an Act all fit together to form a coherent and workable scheme.
Statutory provisions which purport to limit or restrict rights are generally construed narrowly: Sullivan at pp. 476-478. 

Something is very wrong when prohibitively high costs and systemic barriers cultivate corruption and effectively prevent people from accessing minimum protections enshrined in law.