Landing Page | My Ssmuh Nightmare

A series of systemic Small Scale Multi-Unit Housing (SSMUH) issues have had a devastating impact on my financial, physical, and mental health.

The issues I've encountered include:

A sword left on my front door step. As far back as October, 2021 I wrote an email to Council and the management company expressing concern about past and potential future vandalism and harassment. My attempts dating back to July, 2022 to have the Strata install security cameras or enact a bylaw allowing me to install them have failed.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT), "Canada’s first online tribunal ... has jurisdiction over most strata claims in BC, of any amount." (CRT homepage civilresolutionbc.ca). The CRT claims to "offer an accessible, affordable way to resolve disputes without needing a lawyer." In my extensive experience over the past 5 years, nothing could be further from the truth.
1. Volunteer Strata Councils made up of laypersons elected annually are assumed to have the knowledge, capacity, and financial means to navigate complex years-long legal processes. Official legal representation is only granted under "extraordinary circumstances".
2. Our situation includes twelve CRT disputes in 5 years, a distinct BC Supreme Court Action, a BC Supreme Court Judicial review of one of the CRT's rulings, multiple police department complaint files including a weapon left on my doorstep and an Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner file. The CRT informed us this summer this does not meet their threshold for extraordinary circumstances.
3. Irrespective of whether or not an individual Strata Council's situation could ever be dire enough to meet the threshold for "extraordinary circumstances", the other party has veto power over whether or not the official legal representation is granted.
4. Finally, the CRT's rules state that the "tribunal will not order one party to pay to another party any fees a lawyer has charged in the tribunal dispute process, except the tribunal has the discretion to make such an order if ... there are extraordinary circumstances ...."
"Under B.C.'s Strata Property Act and regulations, all strata corporations with five or more strata lots must obtain depreciation reports on a five-year cycle from a qualified depreciation report provider." Owners of 2, 3 and 4 unit Stratas are specifically denied assurance of this protection - it is merely optional.
1. After over 7 years of back and forth, the Strata's architect, engineers and City staff finally arrived at an approved scope of work for a 2018 building permit application to replace my Strata's roof deck on December 9, 2025. This is despite the deck being central to multiple legal disputes well known to all parties. Multiple revisions and countless scope amendments back and forth over a period exceeding 7 years have resulted in costs skyrocketing to 400% of the original bid. Work which finally began over a year ago on what was promised as a 6-week project has ground to a complete halt.
2. Over 5 years after legal commitment to making improvements, I have been unable to convince the Strata to install venting in our deteriorating front stairs.

Background

Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (SSMUH) legislation allows almost every single-family residential property in BC communities larger than 5,000 people to be redeveloped into either a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6-plex. This has the potential to deliver hundreds of thousands of new housing units, and tens of thousands of new Strata Corporations.

Based on my experience of living in a small strata, the existing governance legislation, regulations, rules, and operating norms are a ticking time bomb ready to explode on all existing and future SSMUH owners.

I live in a stacked townhouse condo in Metro Vancouver that has four strata lots on a typical 50' x 125' lot. Our building predates the SSMUH legislation, but is similar to what is allowed on almost any single family lot in BC communities as noted above.

Three major capital improvements were clearly overdue when I bought my unit in February 2019. All fell under the responsibility of the Strata Corporation under our Bylaws:

The rotting roof deck (photo below), subject to a 2018 permit application with the City at the time of my purchase. The ~800 ft2 deck is a single structure shared by the upper two units. Half is my Limited Common Property (LCP), and half the other upper Strata Lot's LCP, partially divided by a 3' high railing. It has a shared exterior stairway only accessible from our shared living room balcony on the third floor of the building.
The windows, which the Strata Corporation replaced during the summer of 2019 after I purchased due to failing seals, and
The front stairs, which provide access from the sidewalk to the front doors of the upper two units, were deteriorating (photo below) and had multiple layers of peeling paint in different colours.

My Nightmare Part 1 - Legal Disputes

There have been a dozen Civil Resolution Tribunal Disputes with one Strata Lot, which began in December 2020 and the latest being submitted in October 2025. Yes you read that correctly, 12 legal disputes in the last 5 years:
- The first CRT Dispute against the Strata Corporation was withdrawn when the Strata promised to address the deteriorating front stairs,
- Four of the subsequent CRT Disputes against the Strata Corporation were dismissed
- One of the CRT Disputes brought forward by the Strata Corporation against the owner was dismissed, due to confusion about what constituted evidence,
- One CRT Dispute against the Strata Corporation was partially dismissed and a counterclaim awarded to the Strata Corporation,
- One CRT Dispute against the Strata Corporation was dismissed. The owner subsequently sought a BC Supreme Court Judicial Review of the CRT's ruling (more information below),
- Three CRT Disputes against the Strata Corporation are awaiting adjudication, and
- One CRT Dispute against the Strata Corporation was submitted in the fall of 2025, status unknown.
In addition, an action has been brought forward by this owner against the Strata Corporation in the BC Supreme Court (BCSC) regarding the roof deck (in process).
Finally, this owner has brought forward complaints against myself and another owner to the Police, and against myself to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner; these were found to be without merit.
Two of the strata lots are owned by retirees with limited computer skills, whose retirement has been upended by this situation. I was the sole point of contact to liaise with the CRT, and later the Strata's lawyers, as the only owner able to add attachments & search for past emails. I have received over 1,600 emails from the litigious owner alone, not to mention all the Council correspondence in response, letters, minutes, etc. This role was in addition to my regular Council duties: together this totaled hundreds of hours a year without remuneration or a break starting in December 2020. I stepped down as CRT liaison in August 2025 and the bylaws were changed allowing me to end my time on Council in October 2025.
A defining feature of any SSMUH is the extremely small pool of volunteers. While the first dispute was withdrawn, it was not before I put a significant amount of effort into gathering evidence. For the subsequent 2 disputes we responded without legal assistance. I spent immeasurable volunteer hours on each, identifying, gathering, uploading, and tracking evidence, managing correspondence, organizing and taking notes for CRT related meetings with my fellow Strata Councillors, etc. For example, the second dispute had over 150 individual pieces of evidence that I needed to search for and organize and code and then upload into the CRT website, plus writing our formal responses to the various dispute claims and meeting with the other councilors.
1. All this was extremely taxing and done for free without the benefit of any formal background in the case law governing Strata Corporations other than the information about the Strata Property Act and Regulations and CRT on their respective websites. We also sought advice from the Condominium Home Owners Association of BC.
2. An illustration of the importance of court-specific legal understanding: the only Dispute out of the 12 that the Strata initiated against the owner was dismissed. The CRT noted we didn't provide the correct format of evidence. This left the other owners and I dumbfounded. The City had added a notation on the roof deck Building Permit that the top floor ceiling required a specific fire rating. Both myself (MA in Community Planning from UBC) and another councilor (at the time a practicing but now retired architect) identified this note as the evidence that this fire rating was required by the City: in both our fields this permit notation by the City was the evidentiary norm. However, the CRT rejected this and our dispute was dismissed.
After the arrival of the 4th dispute we sought support from our Directors and Officers insurance to hire a legal helper. The insurer approved Legal support for the next 5 CRT Disputes.
This didn't diminish the effort needed on my part to gather evidence; for example my time searching the over 1,600 emails from the one owner and Council's thousands of pieces of correspondence back and forth subsequent to the the original emails. This did give us support in understanding the case law and writing the arguments.
Our insurance rates skyrocketed due to the volume of claims.
Drowning in correspondence and legal disputes, the owners voted to obtain the services of a professional property manager after over 20 years being self-managed. The first manager quit after 18 months due to the volume of work and the Strata Council were unable to find a replacement. The Strata's legal team found a new management company which charges an very high hourly fee.
Maintenance fees increased from $275/month in 2019 to a high of $2,428 per unit each month by 2024.
After at first covering the legal support for 5 CRT Disputes and a BCSC Action against us, a couple of years later our insurer expressly excluded the strata lot generating all the claims, but still raised their premiums by an enormous amount! We were unable to find another insurance company due to the volume of claims.
During this period with insurance coverage that specifically excluded claims from the one owner, 3 new CRT disputes were launched against us. The other 2 strata lots and I have had to raise all the legal and professional fees from special levies that exclude the applicant.
Our property manager was able to obtain somewhat less costly insurance without exclusions this year. However, we 3 strata lot owners are still on the hook financially for the 3 in-process CRT Disputes that were not granted coverage.
The CRT's rules state "The tribunal will not order one party to pay to another party any fees a lawyer has charged in the tribunal dispute process, except the tribunal has the discretion to make such an order if ... there are extraordinary circumstances ...." To date, our situation has not been deemed extraordinary.
The ongoing special assessments to pay legal and professional fees have completely wiped out my personal savings and forced me to take on ever increasing debt in my late 50s.
Not only has this situation had a devastating impact on my financial, physical, and mental health, it has undermined our strata lot values, neighborly relationships, our living environment, and the time we have for more positive endeavors.
The strata lot owner sought a BC Supreme Court Judicial Review of one of the CRT's rulings that they had to pay the increased strata fees. The CRT lawyer's exhibits submitted to the Supreme Court were over 1,250 pages long.
1. The scope of this 1,250 page submission upends the CRT's contention that their process is do-it-yourself for any SSMUH and doesn't require legal support.
2. Exhibits (public record) included the CRT's lawyer's summary affidavit and witness statements from the three Strata Councilors.
3. The CRT's lawyer did not attend the judicial review - they relied on the Strata's lawyer.
4. The Honourable Justice ruled that the CRT had not given a proper rationale for their original findings, agreeing with the applicant that the reason given was not sufficient. The judge found: The presiding officer’s reasons with respect to his interpretation of section 167(2) are neither clear nor intelligible. The officer failed to provide an analysis of the issue with the result that it is unclear why the Strata Corporation’s interpretation of the said section was preferred over that of the Petitioner.
In August, 2025, our Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) case manager called me. They were not aware the Judicial Review had already been adjudicated two months earlier and sent back to the CRT. It is now over a year since we followed up on the CRT's suggestion to request an expedited decision based on the financial and health impacts to the remaining owners.
1. The ruling on whether or not the owner had to pay the increased strata fees was not addressed, only more evidence was requested. The fees have been paid in trust; for years the other 3 owners have had to carry the full financial load awaiting the ruling.
2. As of January 6, 2026 there is no response on this October 2024 request for an expedited decision.
In late August, 2025 we received more devastating news regarding the formal assistance we'd requested in governance of our Strata:
1. Both the CRT and the Strata's lawyers felt that our situation does not represent the extraordinary circumstances necessary to grant Council's request for official legal representation. While we can have a legal helper, a member of Council must continue to act as the official Representative role and be responsible for all evidence and correspondence to and from the Strata going forward, a not insignificant role, and
2. Irrespective of not meeting the threshold for "extraordinary circumstances", the other party, who in our case has a long history of spurious and vexatious actions, harassment and vandalism against individual owners and the Strata Corporation, has veto power over whether or not the official legal representation is granted.

My Nightmare Part 2 - Strata Maintenance & Depreciation Reports

The Strata Property Act exempts 2, 3, and 4 unit SSMUHs from Depreciation Reports. Strata corporations are legally required to repair and maintain common property. A depreciation report tells a strata corporation what common property and assets it has and the projected maintenance, repair and replacement costs over a 30-year time span.
My Strata does not have a depreciation report. It is very confusing to follow what maintenance projects have been approved, where they are at, which ones need to be funded at a General Meeting vs from the annual operating budget, how much funding has been raised for what projects and there isn't a single road map to identify future maintenance priorities.
We finally have a building permit approved by the City for the full scope of work for replacing the building's roof deck and related repairs and upgrades, on an application that was taken out in 2018. After countless amendments back over a period exceeding 7 years, owners have formal notice that the architect, engineers and City staff have arrived at an approved design. Over this time the cost of the project has increased to 4 times the original bid.
The original Building Permit approved by the City noted the need for fire rating the top floor ceiling. I front-ended these fire rating upgrades in my suite during a comprehensive renovation before I moved in, with the 2019 promise that the Strata Corporation would pay me back. Over 6 years I have been unable to convince the Strata to fulfill their promise and am still owed this outstanding debt, and have had no use of my roof deck.
We have not had an occupancy permit for the deck since the old deck's demolition and replacement in 2020.
Roof Deck Conference of Parties meeting #1.
1. Over the course of the first 5 years after the original 2018 building permit approval, a significant number of legal issues, moving goal posts, and conflicting information provided by the litigious owner, Strata Council, the Strata's architect and the City resulted in confusion as to what was required of all parties and an eventual cost increase of 400%.
2. To address this confusion and update the application in preparation for finally hiring a contractor to undertake an agreed upon scope of work, a conference of parties meeting was held in April, 2024. This meeting included participation by multiple City staff + all members of Strata Council, our architect, engineers, property manager, and members of the Strata's legal team.
3. The Strata's legal team provided a detailed description supported by evidence that was both screen shared and provided to everyone by email of the Strata Corporations legal obligations with respect the roof deck, and the ongoing litigation.
4. Inexplicably, given the purpose of the meeting was to eliminate confusion, not one of the SSMUH Strata professionals or City staff took minutes of this meeting.
The Strata signed a fixed price contract in September, 2024, that included a scope of work that met both the City's and Strata's legal requirements, with the Strata's engineers overseeing a general contractor. Work commenced that fall, and was originally scheduled to take 6 weeks. Note that work has completely stalled.
The architect was not covered by the fixed price contract and along with City staff lacked any incentive to get the job done - the longer the project went on, the more they got paid.
There continued to be confusion about what had been agreed to and a second meeting was scheduled.
Roof Deck Conference of Parties Meeting #2 November 2024
1. This meeting included all the parties above except the Strata's legal team and was supported afterwards with minutes and an audio recording from the City.
2. Of concern, the City's minutes indicated they didn't agree with the Strata's legal team that the roof deck was part of the original structure or required works by the Strata Corporation. No evidence was provided to support the City's position, which had not been communicated beforehand. This was unfortunate given the implications in the CRT and Supreme Court actions and my own front ending debt due to me; had we known the Strata's lawyers could have been requested to attend.
3. The City notes in the Conference of Parties Meeting #2 minutes they have no record of inspection for the fire rating work in 2019.
Fire Rating Decisions & Record Keeping
1. In 2019 my suite renovations front ended the full scope of fire rating upgrades required within my suite that had been identified by the Strata's architect. These were subsequently inspected by the City. What was left was to fire rate my neighbour's suite, which became quite contentious, and the shared covered exterior stairway between our suites.
2. Fast forward to 2024, and the Strata is finally moving forward on finishing the roof deck project. Neither the Architect nor the City seem to have kept a record of what was agreed to in 2019. The City says there was no inspection confirmation of the work in my suite. The architect then develops a new set of much more costly and intrusive requirements. There's some back and forth on this and much delay as the contractor begins to challenge to scope of work as well.
3. In late December 2024 the City then indicated they would allow a completely new solution in lieu of the additional fire rating - an upgrade to a monitored fire alarm system.
4. The agreement from the April 2024 meeting was for the Strata architect and City staff to work together to develop an acceptable solution to advance - it was finally happening but at a glacial pace and only after a fixed price contract had already been signed and work had begun on a completely different solution. I was alone in supporting continuing with the contract we had.
5. More fire alarm and associated architectural design work was undertaken and yet another revised application was submitted and back and forth etc. etc. etc.
6. As of December 9, 2025, we finally have an approved Building Permit for the full scope of work.
7. Meanwhile, work on the roof deck appears to have been abandoned, with no work whatsoever in the last 4 weeks.
Another building element that would be captured in a Depreciation Report if the Strata was required to have one is the wooden front stairs, which lead to the upper two units.
1. The Strata obtained a quote of $1,500 in late 2019 to add venting in the front stairs to address the moisture issue and prevent further deterioration in the stairs which are original to the 1988 building re-construction and stratification. No action was taken at that time.
2. Six years later this venting has still not been installed. I have failed to convince the Strata Council to undertake this work, contrary to promises by the Strata Corporation in the December 2020 CRT Dispute (dropped) and CRT 2021 Dispute that the stairs would be fixed. In April 2022 the CRT ruling on the 2021 dispute acknowledged that Council had promised to undertake the necessary repairs, and the 2021 claims were dismissed.
Another building element that would be captured in a Depreciation Report if the Strata was required to have one is my rear door.
1. I undertook a substantial renovation after my purchase in February 2019 before moving in mid-December 2019. One of the actions taken was my contractor replaced my paneled rear exterior door with a flat door. However, the new door was not fire rated, clearly a error on the part of my contractor. I was not aware of this as a requirement, and the inspector did not catch it before granting an occupancy permit for my new home.
2. At some point around August 2020 my litigious neighbour noted that my door had been replaced and noted it should be fire rated, sending multiple emails to all owners and the City over a number of months.
3. It was added to one of the many amendments to the roof deck building permit, as it was related to fire rating which was already a part of that project.
4. It is now more than 5 years later, and almost 14 months since we signed a contract awarding the roof deck project including new fire rated door to a specific contractor with the engineering firm as supervisors. I still don't have the protection of a fire rated rear door. The contractor measured the door on December 1, 2025 but a new door has not arrived.

My Nightmare Part 3 - Harassment & Vandalism

One evening I came home to find my neighbour's sword had been left on my front steps (photos below).
1. The owner told the police that they had left it outside leaning against the wall next to the front door and that it must have been moved by someone trying to steal it, who then dropped it because it was so heavy.
2. At the time of the weapon appearing, this owner had a substantial number of individual fees and levies overdue to the Strata and had received a demand letter the day before.
3. Where is the sword today? It's now outside on our shared back living room deck, which leads to a shared stairway to our roof decks. In fact, the original sword has been joined by a second sword, both easily accessible to my living room or roof deck. The police department has indicated this is OK with them as the weapon is not available to the public. My nightmares don't involve the public.
My personal property has been damaged, most recently the slashing of my bike tire in the summer of 2025 (photos below), and destroying many of my planters which were stored unused on the roof deck. Of note the planters outside my living room are ok, it is just the ones on the roof that were damaged (photos below). Note we have not had an occupancy permit for the roof deck and it has been off-limits to all owners since the project began in 2020.
As far back as October, 2021 I wrote an email to Council and the management company expressing concern about past and potential future vandalism and harassment. My attempts dating back to July 2022 to have the Strata install security cameras or enact a bylaw allowing me to install them have failed.

Conclusion

After over six and half years I needed a break and informed the owners that I would not run for Council again after my term expired on October 29, 2025. This necessitated a new bylaw, as previously our bylaws stated that Council consisted of 3 strata lots, and if I'd resigned at any point it would have put the Strata Corporation into Administration.
The owners of the other two strata lots, who should be enjoying their well deserved retirement, must be on Council and have no ability to escape this nightmare without forcing the Strata Corporation into Administration.
I'm left exhausted both physically and mentally, and would in the strongest possible terms advise against buying into a SSMUH.

Sword today near stairs to roof deck, my living room deck is behind the camera

What Happened Next

Link to password protected details