Background
Rong Sen Yu owned a strata lot in a Richmond, British Columbia condominium complex. The strata corporation alleged a recurring pattern of underpayment and non-payment of strata fees and other charges. After sending notices to the Shanghai mailing address Yu had provided, the strata registered a lien against his lot and petitioned to enforce it under the Strata Property Act.
Yu disputed the strata’s accounting, maintained that he had no arrears when the initial demand was issued, and challenged the validity of the notices. The Supreme Court of British Columbia accepted the strata’s reconciled accounting and entered judgment for $4,594.35 as of April 1, 2025, comprising strata fees, interest, and a lien charge. The order gave the strata exclusive conduct of sale if the judgment remained unpaid for 30 days and awarded it reasonable legal costs.
On appeal, Yu alleged factual errors in calculating the arrears, legal errors concerning notice and the lien’s scope, and procedural unfairness arising from the supplementary affidavit, an alleged payment plan, his self-represented status, his hearing impairment, and the interpretation provided at the hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The chambers judge was entitled to accept the strata’s accounting, which accounted for the payments identified by Yu and included interest properly chargeable on late strata fees. Yu demonstrated no palpable and overriding factual error in the finding that arrears remained owing.
The Court also upheld the notices and lien. The Shanghai address was the last mailing address Yu had provided for notices, and his later correspondence about a key fob did not update that address. Interest on late strata fees could form part of the lien, and the lien operated as a floating charge whose amount could change over time.
No procedural unfairness was established. The supplementary affidavit was relevant to reconciling the accounts, the evidence did not show an accepted payment plan, and the record disclosed no inadequacy in the interpretation or other unfairness. The strata was entitled under s. 118 of the Strata Property Act to recover its reasonable legal costs of defending the appeal because those costs formed part of enforcing the lien.
Key Takeaways
- A strata corporation may rely on the mailing address most recently provided by an owner for statutory notices; unrelated correspondence showing another address does not necessarily constitute an address update.
- Interest properly charged on overdue strata fees may form part of a strata lien, and the lien amount may increase or decrease as a floating charge.
- Reasonable legal costs incurred defending an appeal concerning enforcement of a strata lien are recoverable under s. 118 of the Strata Property Act.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that British Columbia’s strata-lien regime shifts the reasonable costs of collection and enforcement—including appellate costs—to the delinquent owner rather than the other strata owners. It also underscores the importance of owners formally updating their designated address and producing evidence that directly identifies an error in the strata’s accounting.
For strata corporations, the ruling supports recovery of actual reasonable legal expenses throughout lien-enforcement litigation and affirms that a properly supported reconciliation can sustain a conduct-of-sale order despite an owner’s competing payment records.