What would the new bylaws change?

Owner costs

Damage originating in a unit

December §§4.3–4.4

The bylaws already allocate certain repair expenses and insurance deductibles to owners through an indemnity.

November §§39.1–39.3

Responsibility can be deemed based on where damage originates, including appliances, dedicated non-common plumbing and past owners’ alterations. The definition references personal injury and death. Recoverable items include investigation, repair of the cause, deductible and legal costs. For repair costs under §39.3(e), where a claim is withheld as contrary to the strata’s best interests, the text caps liability under that paragraph at the hypothetical deductible.

What owners should consider. The draft expands potential owner exposure. The wording on injury and death should be read with §39.1’s repair-focused indemnity. The cap in §39.3(e) is specific to that paragraph.

A dishwasher leak or a failure involving an alteration installed by a previous owner could trigger a charge even when the current owner had no part in installing it.

Home access

Entry into homes and return visits

December §10

The Resident Manager can enter for emergencies or, at a reasonable time with 48 hours’ written notice, for specified work or resident compliance. Emergency forced-entry costs can already be charged when the owner cannot be contacted.

November §10

Any strata-authorized person can enter for the specified purposes. Compliance extends to visitors. Date, approximate time and reason are now expressly required for all noticed entries. Emergency cost recovery adds reasonable contact efforts. Contractor reattendance costs are added when access required by §10.1 is not provided.

What owners should consider. Standard Bylaw 7 is a benchmark for emergency and maintenance entry. It omits general compliance inspections. Villa Jardin already has a broader clause. The draft’s reattendance wording gives no express test for reasonableness of the amount or how scheduling disputes are resolved.

A tenant or owner could be asked to admit an unfamiliar contractor for a compliance inspection. A disputed appointment could lead to a second call-out charge.

Owner costs

Full-indemnity legal costs

December §§4.4, 35.1

The existing indemnity addresses certain uninsured expenses. December §§5.3 and 8.3(e) already address pet-removal legal costs and common-property alteration indemnity. The small claims authorization already refers to legal costs of remedying contraventions.

November §§29.1, 34.1, 37.3, 39.3(c), 50.9

The draft adds express full-indemnity language for enforcement and specific tenancy, damage and owner surveillance matters. November §5.5 revises pet-removal cost wording and §7.3(e) carries over alteration indemnity into the combined approval provision. The small claims authorization is recast in general terms and includes other persons.

What owners should consider. Sections 133 and 135 of the Act limit statutory recovery for remedying contraventions to reasonable costs and require procedural protections. Whether particular fees are recoverable depends on their basis and the facts.

The same incident could generate an enforcement charge and a separate damage claim. The owner needs to be able to tell which legal work is being charged under which clause.

Privacy

Privacy requests · 30 business days vs 30 calendar days

December §§6, 43

The consolidation contains no equivalent personal-information access policy.

November §51.9

The draft states 30 business days to respond and says a minimum fee will be charged. It describes requests using resident and visitor terminology and addresses redactions.

What owners should consider. PIPA §§23, 26, 29, 31 and 32 govern access. The ordinary deadline under PIPA §29 is 30 calendar days, subject to the Act’s exceptions and permitted extensions. Thirty business days is roughly six weeks before accounting for holidays. The draft therefore gives the strata a longer routine response period than the Act allows. Fees, where permitted, must be minimal. A fee for services requires a prior written estimate. The wording creates a direct mismatch if applied as written to delay a statutory response or impose a fee beyond what the Act permits.

A resident seeking their own fob or camera records could face a slower response and an unspecified charge under the proposed wording.

Privacy

Strata cameras and fob records

December §43

Existing security provisions address building access, lost transmitters and a security committee. They contain no equivalent surveillance policy.

November §49

The draft describes 24-hour CCTV and usage records for each programmed security fob, sets purposes and access terms and permits up to 90 days of routine storage, with longer retention in specified cases.

What owners should consider. The B.C. privacy commissioner generally recommends keeping recordings only as long as reasonably necessary, usually 24 hours to 10 days, with exceptions such as an investigation. PIPA also has retention obligations where information is used to make a decision directly affecting someone.

In Order P21-06 (2021 BCIPC 35), the adjudicator reviewed a different strata whose concierge could see which fob was used, where and when, and link it to a resident. This revealed movements through the building, including elevator and amenity access. The adjudicator allowed a fob inventory and certain CCTV uses, but ordered that strata to stop collecting and using identifiable fob activity through that system because the tracking was inappropriate in the circumstances. For Villa Jardin, the question is what security need requires identifiable activity logs and whether an inventory or more limited access controls would meet it.

Privacy

Owner-installed security equipment

December §§8, 43

Common-property alterations already require approval. There is no equivalent dedicated surveillance scheme.

November §50

The draft restricts installation and use, sets approval and operating conditions for surveillance on common property, including a last-resort requirement, assigns certain costs to owners and allows a removal demand even after approval, with removal required within 10 days of written notice.

What owners should consider. Door cameras or other installations can affect neighbours’ privacy. Existing installations, notice, removal costs and the permitted field of view merit clarification.

An approved device could later have to be removed at the owner’s expense. Camera angles can also capture neighbours’ doors or visitors.

Home use

Could hanging a picture count as an alteration?

December §§7–8 · November definitions (a)–(b) and §§7.1–7.7

December §§7–8 already require written approval for specified changes inside a lot and for alterations to common property, limited common property and common assets. December §7.4 expressly says approval under §§7.1–7.2 must not be unreasonably withheld.

The November definition expressly includes attaching an item to a wall, floor or ceiling, and gives a nail as an example. It also captures like-for-like replacements and things held in place by their own weight, even if removable without damage. On the face of that definition, driving a nail to hang a picture can count as an alteration.

Whether it needs written approval is a separate question. Inside a lot, §7.1(a) requires the work to involve a listed category, including structure, flooring, building services and parts the strata must insure under §149 of the Act. A picture hook in an ordinary interior wall illustrates the ambiguity. The draft leaves owners to determine whether the surface or assembly involved falls within a listed category. Under §7.1(b), the trigger is broader because any alteration to common property, limited common property or common assets needs approval. That makes the same definition particularly consequential for routine activity on a balcony or terrace that is common property or limited common property.

Home use

Hard-surface flooring

Expanded scope · December §§7.2–7.3 · November §8

The December bylaws already require approval for changes to existing floor material. They specify underlay performance, thickness and density for hardwood or laminate. The November proposal applies its hard-surface installation conditions to a wider list including tile, stone, bamboo, cork, resilient flooring, linoleum and vinyl. It retains the three listed underlay figures and sets out noise precautions for residents with hard-surface flooring.

Approval turnaround. §8.1 requires written approval before installation and gives no deadline for a decision. Owners may need to book contractors, arrange deliveries or replace damaged flooring before a regular council meeting.

Governance

Unbudgeted spending

December §26.1

The spending clause restricts who can spend strata money and does not set its own unapproved spending threshold.

November §§25.1–25.3

The draft allows unapproved operating-fund expenditures if combined unapproved spending is less than $5,000. It separately addresses certain urgent repairs or replacements.

What owners should consider. Act §98(2) permits a bylaw threshold and otherwise uses the lesser of $2,000 and 5% of operating-fund contributions for the current year. The proposal does not expressly name a reset period. Statutory emergency spending has separate conditions.

A series of small payments could use most of the proposed $5,000 allowance before owners see the aggregate amount.

Governance

Voting and council eligibility

December §§14, 32

The text includes disqualifications tied to lien eligibility and lists some other amounts owing. The vote clauses expressly except unanimous votes.

November §§14, 32.1

The proposal retains lien-based wording, drops the separate lists of other charges, and expressly exempts both unanimous and 80% votes from the voting restriction.

What owners should consider. Act §§28 and 53 govern eligibility and voting restrictions. Read the old wording subject to those statutory limits. The proposal retains the two-thirds removal threshold and clarifies that council may appoint a replacement if owners do not elect one at the meeting.

An eligibility mistake at check-in could prevent an owner or proxy from voting even where the underlying balance is disputed or has already been paid.

Governance

Council hearings and dispute resolution

December §§20, 22.4 and 34

The text sets out council hearings, expressly requires council meeting minutes and provides an optional dispute committee where all parties agree.

November §§19–24 and 34

The standalone hearing and voluntary dispute committee bylaws disappear. The express general minute-keeping line is omitted, while circulation and recording vote results remain. §34 now addresses small claims.

What owners should consider. Act §§34.1 and 35 still set hearing and record obligations. Owners and tenants can still request a council hearing under the Act. Removing the committee provision removes the local procedure from the text.

With the local procedure removed, residents may have to find the statutory hearing process themselves. They may also lose a familiar route to informal resolution.

Owner costs

Fines and repeat contraventions

December §§28–29

General maxima are $200 for a bylaw and $50 for a rule. §28.2 directs fines for repeated contraventions and says they are added to strata fees.

November §§27–29

The general amounts and seven-day continuing contravention framework are carried over. The mandatory repeat-fine wording disappears and a payment deadline is tied to notice. A separate enforcement-cost clause is added.

What owners should consider. Act §135 requires notice and a reasonable opportunity to answer before the initial fine or recovery of remedy costs for a contravention. Special fine provisions should also be checked against applicable regulatory limits.

A resident may receive a bill with fines, remediation and legal fees combined, which makes it hard to identify what they can dispute.

Daily living

Front-door deliveries and enterphone access

Carried over with an explicit restriction.

December 2024 · §§43.2(b), 43.6 and 47.4

Residents already have to meet food, parcel and other deliveries at the front lobby door. The existing enterphone rule limits whom residents can admit to known owners or residents, invited guests and emergency responders. For furniture, appliances and building materials, residents who are unavailable can make prior arrangements with the Resident Manager.

November 2026 proposal · §§43.2(b), 43.6 and 47.5

The draft keeps the front-door requirement, expressly says residents must be onsite and meet the delivery person in person, and adds that residents must not buzz in a delivery when they’re away from home. The enterphone remains available for people covered by §43.2(b), including invited guests. The draft expressly allows prior arrangements with the caretaker for furniture, appliances and building materials. It gives no equivalent exception for ordinary food or parcel deliveries.

What owners should consider. The general enterphone rule and the delivery rule do different things. A resident can use the enterphone to admit an invited guest, but the delivery clause still requires an in-person handoff at the front door. Being home and able to verify the courier doesn’t, on the face of the draft, let the resident ask them to bring the delivery upstairs.

That distinction matters if someone is in a work meeting, caring for a child, ill, or unable to get to the lobby before the courier leaves. For a resident with a disability, a blanket lobby requirement could also create an accessibility barrier. Building security is a legitimate concern. The question is what additional security an in-person handoff provides when a resident can verify the courier and authorize that specific delivery, and what exceptions or accommodations are available.

Privacy

Resident, tenant, visitor and dog information

December §§5–6

Owners already report certain information, and tenants can be asked to identify themselves and their strata lot. Pet restrictions already exist.

November §§5.6, 6.1–6.2, 37.1–37.2 and 51

The draft adds tenant and co-occupant reporting, requires changes to residents’ names to be reported within two weeks, extends identification on request to residents and visitors, adds a deadline to the existing dog registration and documentation requirements, and includes a privacy policy. Form K duties are also stated.

What owners should consider. The reporting and policy provisions should be read together with PIPA’s limits on reasonable collection, use and disclosure. Form K duties already exist under Act §146.

A visitor or co-occupant may be asked for information without knowing why it is needed or how long the strata will retain it.

Home use

Occupancy limits and visiting family

Carried over · December §4.5 · November §§4.3–4.4

The two-, four- and six-person caps for units originally designated as one, two and three bedrooms remain, subject to prior written council approval. Children count, and visitors staying less than 30 days are excluded. The restriction can affect families whose household grows, owners hosting relatives and people needing a live-in caregiver.

Home use

Long-term rentals and short stays

December §38

The text contains an owner-occupancy and 12-rental cap framework, a whole-lot rule and a short-term accommodation ban with a $1,000 daily fine.

November §37

The cap and separate whole-lot wording disappear. The short-stay ban and daily amount carry over, with expanded examples including home exchange and temporary or corporate housing. Form K and tenancy enforcement are addressed expressly.

What owners should consider. The old long-term restriction must be read subject to the Act’s limits on rental restrictions. The reach of the revised short-stay wording depends on the arrangement and facts.

An owner arranging temporary housing or a home exchange may have difficulty predicting whether the broad short-stay wording applies and when the daily fine could start.

Home use

Showings, signs and lock boxes

December §37

Sale showings are by appointment only and open houses are expressly prohibited. Signs and lock boxes are prohibited.

November §36

The proposal requires owner or agent accompaniment on common property for sale or rental viewings. The outright open-house wording is removed. The lock-box ban remains and the signs clause ends with an unclear reference to 4.

What owners should consider. Act §122 permits reasonable regulation of sale activities, including signs and open houses. The sign exception needs a usable cross-reference.

An unclear sign exception and differing expectations about accompaniment can complicate a showing arranged by an owner or agent.

Daily living

Dog records, nuisance complaints and pet access

December §5

Existing requirements include pet limits, leash and muzzle rules, dog registration, rabies and licence proof, $1 million liability coverage, a nuisance complaint and removal process, and an amenity exception for assisted living animals.

November §5

The draft adds a seven-day dog-registration deadline, uses full-indemnity legal-cost wording for removal proceedings and drops the express amenity exception for assisted living animals. It broadens the wildlife-feeding restriction and revises aquarium liability. The historical note before §5.1 displays “Error! Reference source not found.” in place of the first bylaw number. Resolution 3 identifies the provisions as §§5.1 and 5.4.

December already has dog registration, rabies and licence documentation, a $1 million insurance requirement, a five-day response window, a 30-day removal process and solicitor-client costs language. November adds a seven-day registration deadline tied to the dog residing in the lot or passage of the bylaw and uses full-indemnity legal-cost wording. November §5.9 omits December §5.8's express exception for assisted living animals in amenity rooms. November §5.10 broadens the feeding restriction from nuisance birds to birds, rodents and other wild animals. Aquarium liability is carried forward in revised form and tied to §39. The old express aquarium insurance-claim restriction is omitted.

Daily living

Vehicle limits and visitor parking

December §§40–41

Assigned parking, visitor permits, the 4,000 kg limit, delivery and pickup exceptions, storage-insurance documentation and towing controls already appear in December.

November §§41–42

The draft retains the weight limit and delivery exception, revises the storage-insurance wording and expressly caps short-term passes at two per resident. It requires applicable passes to be visible on the dashboard and lists particular violations for towing.

What owners should consider. Residents should confirm the limits and permit procedures before hosting longer visits or arranging deliveries. Existing restrictions on bicycle storage and gate safety mostly carry over.

A visitor relying on a resident’s permit could be towed if the pass, location or overnight conditions are misunderstood.

Parking

EV charging and visitor parking

Mostly carried over with a removed priority clause · December §§41, 48 · November §§42, 48

Written permission, the user agreement, metered charges and the core time limit already exist. December §48.7 expressly gives the charging provisions priority over conflicting visitor-parking rules. November §48.7 permits eligible users to park in designated EV stalls but drops the express priority wording, while §42.2 expressly bars residents from visitor stalls.

Daily living

Smoking, alcohol and common areas

December §44 and §45

December already restricts smoking and vaping in listed areas and alcohol on common property, with event exceptions. It already includes immediate amenity ejection authority and a disclaimer covering common property and amenities.

November §§44–45

November restates the alcohol and liability language in general common-area clauses. It omits the specific $50 amenity fine while keeping the general bylaw fine ceiling. Its lounge wording calls for a licence or permit if alcohol is consumed.

The December bylaws already restrict alcohol on common property with booked-event exceptions and already include a disclaimer covering common property and amenities. The November proposal moves these provisions into more prominent common-area clauses and says alcohol is not permitted, subject to stated exceptions. Immediate ejection authority already exists. The December amenity-specific $50 fine provision is omitted, while the draft’s general bylaw fine provision sets a $200 maximum unless otherwise specified. The lounge wording changes from obtaining permits if required to requiring a valid licence or permit if alcohol is consumed.

Daily living

Balcony barbecues and butane torches

December §4 and §44.5

The existing bylaws restrict open flames in interior common property. They contain no equivalent barbecue use and storage ban.

November definitions and §§4.6–4.7

Use and storage of barbecues on common property are prohibited, expressly including balconies and terraces. The definition includes limited common property. There is no stated exception by fuel or power type. Using a butane torch inside a strata lot is also prohibited.

What owners should consider. Owners would lose an amenity where the prohibition applies. The breadth of the rule is a policy issue. The documents do not establish a resale price impact or an insurance requirement.

The proposal would require residents to remove stored barbecues from affected balconies and terraces, including equipment they no longer use.

Daily living

Outdoor decorations and housekeeping

Narrowed decoration window and updated refuse rules · December §11 · November §11

The December text allows outdoor decorative lights and ornaments starting December 1 and requires removal before January 15. The proposal allows installation after December 15 and retains the January deadline. Cooking ventilation and the ban on cut Christmas trees carry over. The updated refuse language includes organic waste.

Daily living

Fees, moves, deliveries and ordinary building use

December §§2, 11–12, 42–48

Late fees and interest, upkeep, visitor and child responsibility, delivery coordination, amenity terms, move fees and EV procedures are already addressed.

November §§2, 11–12, 40, 43, 45–48

The core repair split, four-hour move window, $150 move fee, $250 damage deposit and lounge’s $25 fee and $200 deposit continue. Wording, clause references and some operating details change. Child supervision expressly includes visiting children.

What owners should consider. These core costs and obligations predate the proposal. Check the proposed operational wording for timing, exceptions and how each obligation is enforced.

The fee amounts are familiar, but revised wording can still change what residents have to book, when they must pay and when they could lose a deposit.