"Significantly unfair": challenging a strata decision in BC
A strata can follow every procedural step and still be ordered to change its decision, if the result treats an owner in a way the law calls significantly unfair. It is the most important safeguard owners have against a majority.
Last reviewed November 10, 2026, against the current Strata Property Act, Strata Property Regulation and Standard Bylaws on BC Laws.
The short answer
Under section 164 of the Strata Property Act, a court may prevent or remedy a significantly unfair action, threatened action or decision of the strata corporation or council toward an owner or tenant, or exercise of voting rights by a person holding 50% or more of the votes. The Civil Resolution Tribunal has a similar power. Decisions describe significant unfairness as conduct that is burdensome, harsh, wrongful, lacking in probity or fair dealing, done in bad faith, unjust or inequitable. Mere unfairness or disagreement is not enough.
What the Act says
Section 164: on application of an owner or tenant, the Supreme Court may make any interim or final order it considers necessary to prevent or remedy a significantly unfair:
- action or threatened action by, or decision of, the strata corporation, including the council, in relation to the owner or tenant, or
- exercise of voting rights by a person who holds 50% or more of the votes, including proxies, at a general meeting.
The court may direct or prohibit an act, vary a transaction or resolution, and regulate the conduct of the strata's future affairs. The Civil Resolution Tribunal's governing statute gives it power to make orders to prevent or remedy significantly unfair actions, decisions and exercises of voting rights in strata disputes, and most claims are now heard there.
The test
"Significantly unfair" is not defined in the Act. BC courts have explained it in a line of cases that the tribunal follows.
- More than unfair. The word "significantly" means the conduct must go beyond mere prejudice or trifling unfairness. A strata must often choose between competing interests, and somebody will be unhappy.
- The description. Conduct that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial: burdensome, harsh, wrongful, lacking in probity or fair dealing, done in bad faith, or unjust or inequitable.
- Reasonable expectations. In many cases the tribunal also asks: what was the owner's expectation, was it objectively reasonable, and was it violated by a significantly unfair action?
- Deference. Councils and owners are entitled to make decisions the tribunal might not have made itself, so long as they act within the Act and bylaws and do not cross that line.
StrataMinutes can take this off your plate. Most disputes are decided on the written record. Score your minutes with a free report card, or have them prepared for you.
Examples
| More likely significantly unfair | Less likely |
|---|---|
| Enforcing a bylaw against one owner while knowingly ignoring the same breach by others, without explanation | Enforcing a bylaw consistently, even if the owner thinks the bylaw is unwise |
| Refusing one owner's alteration when identical ones were approved for others | Refusing an alteration for a stated, reasonable building reason |
| Repairing some owners' common property problems promptly and leaving another's for years | Prioritizing repairs by urgency within a limited budget |
| A majority voting to shift costs onto a small group contrary to the Act's cost-sharing scheme | A special levy shared by unit entitlement that some owners cannot easily afford |
| Deciding a matter in bad faith, or to punish an owner for complaining | An honest decision that turns out to be wrong |
| Withdrawing a long-standing permission abruptly with no reason or notice | Ending a section 76 permission on reasonable notice for a legitimate purpose |
Each case turns on its facts. These are patterns, not rules.
How to bring a claim
- Write to council and state what you expect and why.
- Request a hearing under section 34.1. It is generally required before a tribunal claim (section 189.1), and the written decision shows council's reasons.
- Gather evidence: minutes showing how others were treated, correspondence, photos, dates.
- Apply to the Civil Resolution Tribunal, describing the action or decision, your reasonable expectation, and why the result is significantly unfair.
- Ask for a specific remedy: approve the alteration, carry out the repair, reverse the fine, stop the practice, or pay compensation.
Limitation periods apply. See CRT disputes.
What can be ordered
The tribunal or court can direct the strata to do or stop doing something, set aside or vary a decision or resolution, and regulate how the strata conducts itself in future. It can award money in appropriate cases. It will not usually substitute its own view on ordinary management choices.
Unfair use of voting power
Section 164 also covers a person who holds 50% or more of the votes, including by proxy. This matters in small stratas and where a developer, or one owner of many lots, controls the outcome. A resolution passed by such a voter can be set aside if its effect on the minority is significantly unfair. An ordinary majority made up of many independent owners is not caught by that branch, though the strata's resulting action can still be challenged under the first.
How councils avoid these claims
- Be consistent. Check how similar requests and breaches were handled before deciding.
- Give reasons, especially for a refusal.
- Follow the process in the Act and bylaws exactly.
- Decide on the merits, not on who is asking.
- Declare conflicts and step out.
- Keep promises, or explain in writing why circumstances changed.
- Record it. Minutes should show what was considered and the vote.
- Take advice before decisions that single out an owner or a small group.
A council that can show a consistent, reasoned, documented decision is very hard to overturn. See the council code of conduct.
Related remedies
An owner may also ask the court to order the strata to perform a duty or stop contravening the Act (section 165), and in cases of serious dysfunction to appoint an administrator (section 174). Complaints about discrimination go to the Human Rights Tribunal.
Questions councils and owners ask
What does significantly unfair mean in BC strata law?
Conduct by the strata or council toward an owner or tenant that is burdensome, harsh, wrongful, lacking in probity or fair dealing, done in bad faith, unjust or inequitable.
Is any unfair strata decision significantly unfair?
No. The unfairness must be more than trifling, and the tribunal gives stratas room to make reasonable choices.
Where do I bring a significantly unfair claim?
Usually to the Civil Resolution Tribunal. The Supreme Court also has the power under section 164.
Do I need a hearing with council first?
Generally yes, before an owner or tenant may ask the tribunal to resolve a strata dispute.
Can a majority vote be significantly unfair?
The exercise of voting rights by a person holding 50% or more of the votes can be, and the strata's resulting action may be challenged as well.
Fair decisions look fair in the minutes
Reasons considered, options weighed, owners treated alike. StrataMinutes prepares minutes that show how council reached its decision.
Free for 30 days, then $29 a month. Cancel anytime.
For a 30-lot strata, that is under $1 a lot each month. Have the strata pay: free council approval kit.
This page is general information for BC strata corporations, not legal advice. Your strata's own filed bylaws may differ from the Standard Bylaws. See the current text of the Strata Property Act and the Strata Property Regulation on BC Laws.
Related guides
CRT Disputes
Council Code of Conduct
Disputing a Strata Fine
Strata Owner Rights
Who Enforces the Act
Minutes as Evidence