558 THE ADVOCATE
VOL. 77 PART 4 JULY 2019
ing strata plan in order to benefit from the lighter regulatory requirements.
The committee recommended targeted changes to the Strata Property Act to
stamp out this practice. These targeted changes will also preserve the current
regulatory structure for true building strata plans.
The other area considered in this chapter involves the depiction of common
property on a registered strata plan. The committee recommended a
range of specific reforms that would clarify this area. These recommendations
are intended to provide certainty for strata lot owners and the broader
land title system.
This chapter examines the voting threshold for authorizing far-reaching
changes to a strata property, such as amending the strata plan to designate
limited common property, amending a Schedule of Unit Entitlement and
amalgamating strata corporations. In each case, the committee considered
whether the existing threshold should be changed to a resolution passed by
an eighty per cent vote.
The committee had a mixed response to the issues for reform in this
chapter. In the committee’s view, circumstances justified lowering the voting
threshold in some cases but not in others. For example, the committee
recommended lowering the threshold for authorizing an amendment to a
strata plan to designate limited common property. The committee favoured
this approach in this case because it will give strata corporations added flexibility
and will be unlikely to prejudice the interests of a strata lot owner.
But the committee favoured retaining the current voting threshold for the
converse case, in which a strata plan is amended to remove a designation of
limited common property. In its view, this case presented a greater danger
of the procedure being used for abusive reasons.