Part 31 published on 01/08/10
Strata corporation obligated to act reasonably, but there may be many reasonable alternatives
The petitioners were owners in the strata corporation. They asserted that the strata corporation was failing to act reasonably in repairing and maintaining the common property. The petitioners presented expert evidence which recommended a different repair strategy than that chosen by the strata corporation and its experts.
The Court held that the strata corporation should be permitted to continue with its repair strategy. The Court confirmed that the strata corporation was obligated to act reasonably in performing its duties. However, the Court said that in analyzing the actions of the strata corporation, the starting point should be “deference to the decision made by the strata council”. The Court said:
“With respect to drainage and water ingress problems, the respondent (strata corporation) has chosen a more cautious approach to resolving the issue than the petitioners believe is appropriate or reasonable. While the petitioners’ position is certainly not unreasonable, neither is that of the respondent.
In resolving problems of this nature, there can be ‘good, better or best’ solutions available. Choosing an approach to resolution involves consideration of the cost of each approach and its impact on the owners, of which there is no evidence before the court. Choosing a “good” solution rather than the “best” solution does not render that approach unreasonable such that judicial intervention is warranted.
In carrying out its duty, the respondent must act in the best interests of all of the owners and endeavour to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. That involves implementing necessary repairs within a budget that the owners as a whole can afford and balancing competing needs and priorities.
The course of action chosen by the respondent may or may not resolve the problems. If it does not, further remedial work, including separation of the two drainage systems, may be required. The respondent acknowledges that it will undertake that remedial work if it proves reasonably necessary.
It may even prove to be the case that the approach of the petitioners is the wiser and preferable course of action. Again, that does not render the approach of the respondent unreasonable.
Disagreements between strata councils and some owners are not infrequent. However courts should be cautious before inserting itself into the process, particularly, where, as here, the issue is the manner in which necessary repairs are to be effected.