Buying a Home in BC When the Seller Lives Outside Canada

If the person selling you a home is a non-resident of Canada for tax purposes, federal law can make you responsible for part of their tax bill. The exposure is 25 per cent of what you paid for the property, not 25 per cent of what the seller made on it. That is why a lawyer or notary acting for a buyer will hold a large sum back on completion day, and will not release it until a certificate arrives from the Canada Revenue Agency.

Most of what is written about this is written for the seller, or for the lawyer. This article is written for the buyer. It sets out where the liability comes from, what the real numbers are, which clock runs when, and the two places where buyers get caught.

Every rule below was read at its own primary source, and the statutory wording was read twice. The law here is federal, and it changes. Confirm your own position with the Canada Revenue Agency through its contact page for the Canada Revenue Agency, and take advice from your own lawyer or notary before you commit money.

Who counts as a non-resident, and why it has nothing to do with a passport

This is the first place people go wrong. “Non-resident” in this context is a tax residency test under the Income Tax Act. It is not about citizenship, permanent residence or an immigration file.

Section 250 of the Act is where the test lives. It turns on things like whether a person “sojourned in Canada in the year for a period of, or periods the total of which is, 183 days or more”, on whether they are ordinarily resident here, and on tie-breaker rules in Canada’s tax treaties. Section 250(5) can even deem a person not resident in Canada where a treaty makes them resident somewhere else.

The practical consequence is blunt. A Canadian citizen who has lived in Tehran, London or Dubai for years can be a non-resident for tax purposes, and section 116 applies to their sale in full. A foreign national who lives on the North Shore may not be a non-resident at all. You cannot tell by looking at a name, and neither can your realtor.

Term	What it actually tests	Where it comes from	Does it affect your section 116 holdback?
Non-resident of Canada	Tax residency: days in Canada, ordinary residence, treaty tie-breakers	Income Tax Act, section 250	Yes. This is the test that triggers everything in this article.
Non-Canadian	Citizenship or permanent resident status	Federal rules restricting some purchases by non-Canadians	No. That is about who may buy, not about a seller’s tax.
Foreign entity or taxable trustee	Who the buyer is	BC’s additional property transfer tax	No. It keys on the buyer, never on the seller.
Foreign national	Citizenship or permanent resident status	Provincial and federal purchase rules	No, not by itself.

Where the buyer’s liability comes from

A non-resident who sells Canadian real estate is taxed in Canada on the gain. Section 2(3) of the Income Tax Act charges the tax, and real property situated in Canada is “taxable Canadian property” under the definition in section 248(1). That part is uncontroversial.

The problem is collection. Once the money has left the country, Canada has limited practical ability to collect from the seller. So Parliament put the collection duty on the one party who is still here and still has the money: the buyer.

Section 116(5) says that where a purchaser has acquired taxable Canadian property from a non-resident, the purchaser “is liable to pay, and shall remit to the Receiver General within 30 days after the end of the month in which the purchaser acquired the property” an amount of tax on the seller’s behalf, unless one of three things is true. Read the section for yourself at section 116 of the Income Tax Act on the Justice Laws website. The consolidation read for this article prints “Act current to 2026-10-19 and last amended on 2026-06-18”.

The three escapes in section 116(5)

• Paragraph (a): “after reasonable inquiry the purchaser had no reason to believe that the non-resident person was not resident in Canada”.
• Paragraph (a.1): the treaty route in section 116(5.01) applies, which also requires a notice from the buyer.
• Paragraph (b): a certificate under section 116(4) has been issued to the purchaser.

Paragraph (b) is the one everyone aims for. It is a complete answer. The certificate is issued to the buyer as well as the seller, which is why your lawyer wants to see it rather than take the seller’s word.

The number that surprises buyers: 25 per cent of the price, not of the profit

This is the single most misreported fact on the subject, and it is worth being precise about.

Section 116(5) sets the buyer’s liability at 25 per cent of the amount by which “the cost to the purchaser of the property so acquired” exceeds “the certificate limit fixed by the certificate, if any, issued under subsection 116(2)”. Note what the base is. It is your cost. It is not the seller’s gain, and it is not the tax the seller actually owes.

If no certificate has been issued, there is no certificate limit to subtract. The whole price sits in the base. CRA puts it the same way in its own Information Circular IC72-17R6 on section 116: the purchaser “is liable to pay and remit 25% of either: the cost of the property acquired by the purchaser; or if a certificate of compliance has been issued under subsection 116(2), the amount by which the cost of the property acquired by the purchaser exceeds the certificate limit”.

The 25 per cent of the gain figure is real, but it belongs to the seller, not to you. Sections 116(2) and 116(4) are the provisions under which a non-resident seller pays CRA on account of their own tax, and there the measure is 25 per cent of proceeds minus adjusted cost base. Two different obligations, two different bases, one shared percentage. That is how the confusion starts.

	The seller’s payment on account	The buyer’s liability
Which provision	Section 116(2) for a proposed sale, section 116(4) after the sale	Section 116(5)
Rate	25 per cent	25 per cent
Applied to what	Proceeds minus the seller’s adjusted cost base, that is, the gain	The buyer’s cost of the property, minus any certificate limit
Who pays it	The seller, to get the certificate issued	The buyer, on the seller’s behalf, if no certificate is issued
Illustration only, not a market figure or a quoted price: a property bought for $1,000,000 which the seller had acquired for $600,000	25 per cent of $400,000, that is, $100,000	25 per cent of $1,000,000, that is, $250,000

That gap is the whole reason the holdback on a BC completion is as large as it is. A buyer’s lawyer is not holding back the seller’s estimated tax. They are holding back the buyer’s own statutory exposure.

What a certificate limit actually is

A certificate issued under section 116(2), before the sale closes, fixes an amount the Act calls the “certificate limit”. The section says the Minister fixes it “equal to the estimated amount set out in the notice in accordance with paragraph 116(1)(c)”, and paragraph 116(1)(c) is the seller’s estimate of the proceeds.

So the certificate limit is an estimate of the sale price, not of the tax. If the estimate was accurate, your base drops to nil and your liability disappears. If the property sold for more than the estimate on the certificate, the excess is still in your base. That is a real risk on a property that sells above the price the seller first told CRA about.

The certificate, and the three names it goes by

Buyers find this genuinely confusing, and it is nobody’s fault. The same piece of paper has different names depending on who is talking.

Name you will hear	Who uses it	What it really is
Certificate of compliance	CRA, and the forms	The section 116 certificate. CRA issues it on Form T2068 after a sale and Form T2064 on a proposed sale.
Clearance certificate	BC lawyers and notaries	The same section 116 certificate. The Law Society of BC’s residential conveyance checklist uses this name throughout and never uses CRA’s term.
Section 116 certificate	Accountants	Again the same document.
Clearance certificate (TX19 or GST352)	CRA, in a totally different context	A different instrument. This is the estate certificate a legal representative gets before distributing a deceased person’s property. It has nothing to do with your purchase.
Section 159 certificate	Estate lawyers	Also different. Section 159(2) covers a legal representative distributing property, and the person exposed is the representative, not a buyer.

The naming problem is not harmless. It is the reason a figure that belongs to estate certificates gets quoted at buyers who are nowhere near an estate. More on that below.

Which clock runs when

There are four deadlines in play and they do not line up. Two of them are the seller’s and two are yours.

Who	What	By when, in the Act’s own words	Provision
Seller	Apply before the sale, so a certificate can be in hand at closing	“at any time before the disposition”. CRA’s circular asks for “at least 30 days before the property is actually disposed of”	Section 116(1)
Seller	Notify CRA after the sale, if no matching earlier notice was given	“not later than 10 days after the disposition”, and “by registered mail”	Section 116(3)
Buyer	Remit the amount to the Receiver General	“within 30 days after the end of the month in which the purchaser acquired the property”	Section 116(5)
Buyer	File the treaty notice, if relying on the treaty route	“on or before the day that is 30 days after the date of the acquisition”	Section 116(5.02)

Look closely at the two buyer rows. The remittance clock runs from the end of the month of closing. The treaty notice clock runs from the date of closing. On a sale that completes early in a month, the treaty notice can fall due weeks before the remittance. Anyone who collapses both into “you have 30 days” has lost the earlier of the two deadlines.

The Law Society of BC’s Residential Conveyance Practice Checklist (PDF), which states that it is “current to September 4, 2025”, expresses the remittance deadline as a calendar date rather than a count. Item 9.6 directs the lawyer to “Provide the non-residency holdback to Canada Revenue Agency no later than the 30th day of the month following” the month of closing. It is the same deadline as the statute, said a different way.

One oddity worth knowing, because it is the sort of thing that unsettles a reader who checks. The Act still says the seller’s 10-day notice goes to the Minister “by registered mail”. CRA’s current guidance also offers submission “using the Submit Documents feature on My Account for Individuals, Represent a Client, and My Business Account”, and by fax. That is the seller’s problem, not yours, and it is not a decision a buyer should be making.

What happens if the certificate is not ready on completion day

This is the normal case, not the exception. Applications are often made close to closing, and the certificate frequently has not arrived when the keys change hands.

There are three ways it ends, and only two of them are comfortable.

Outcome	What happens to the money	Where this comes from
The certificate arrives before your remittance deadline	The holdback is released to the seller. Your section 116(5) liability is answered by paragraph (b).	Section 116(5)(b); Law Society checklist item 9.6
CRA authorises the funds to stay in trust	Your lawyer keeps holding the money past the deadline while CRA finishes its review. This has to be asked for, in your transaction.	Law Society checklist item 9.6
Neither happens, so the money is remitted	It goes to the Receiver General and is credited to the seller’s account. The seller gets any excess back after filing a Canadian return and being assessed.	Section 116(5); CRA’s circular

On that middle row, the Law Society’s checklist is explicit. Item 9.6 says the holdback goes to CRA by the deadline “unless a clearance certificate for non-resident vendor is provided or authorization has been requested and received” from CRA to keep it in trust. Note the two verbs: requested and received. It does not happen on its own.

On the third row, there is something a buyer should understand before it happens. Once the money is remitted it is the seller’s money in CRA’s hands. CRA’s circular says payments “will be credited to the vendor’s account”, and that after the seller’s return is assessed “any excess payment is refunded” to the seller.

I looked for CRA’s published position on what happens if a certificate is issued after a buyer has already remitted, and whether anything flows back to the buyer. I could not find one. CRA’s material addresses refunds to the seller and says nothing about the buyer. That silence is worth knowing about in advance: the practical answer is that you deal with it in the contract, before closing, not with CRA afterwards.

The former rental trap: 50 per cent, and two certificates instead of one

Here is the part that almost nothing written for buyers covers, and it bites on exactly the kind of property a North Shore buyer looks at: a house or condo that a non-resident owner has been renting out.

Section 116(5) applies to taxable Canadian property “other than depreciable property or excluded property”. Depreciable property is carved out of the 25 per cent rule, and picked up instead by section 116(5.2), with the buyer’s liability set by section 116(5.3) at 50 per cent.

A building on which capital cost allowance was available is depreciable property. So where a non-resident has held a property as a rental, the building element can fall on the 50 per cent side while the land runs at 25 per cent.

Rate	Which provision	What it covers
25 per cent	Section 116(5)	Taxable Canadian property other than depreciable property or excluded property. An ordinary resale home held as capital property sits here.
50 per cent	Sections 116(5.2) and 116(5.3)	A life insurance policy in Canada; a Canadian resource property; “a property (other than capital property) that is real property, or an immovable, situated in Canada”; a timber resource property; “depreciable property that is a taxable Canadian property”; and interests, rights and options in any of those.

Read that 50 per cent list again and notice what it does not say. The real property entry is limited to property “other than capital property”. An ordinary family home held as capital property is not on the list. So if you are told that 50 per cent of the purchase price must be held back on a normal resale house, that is wrong, and the statute is where to check it.

The second half of the trap is paperwork. CRA’s circular states that vendors “may have to file both Form T2062 and Form T2062A for one disposition”, that Form T2062A “should be filed even if capital cost allowance has not been claimed on a depreciable property”, and that in those cases “two certificates of compliance will be issued”.

Two consequences follow for a buyer. One certificate may not be the whole answer on a former rental, so ask how many were applied for. And a buyer who assumes the 25 per cent figure covers the deal may be holding back the wrong amount.

Form	Official title	Who files or receives it
T2062	Request by a Non-Resident of Canada for a Certificate of Compliance Related to the Disposition of Taxable Canadian Property	Filed by the non-resident seller. This is the one for a house held as capital property.
T2062A	The companion request covering resource and timber property, Canadian real property other than capital property, and depreciable taxable Canadian property	Filed by the non-resident seller, in addition to T2062 where a depreciable element exists.
T2062C	Notification of an acquisition of treaty-protected property from a non-resident vendor	Filed by the buyer, on the treaty route.
T2064	The certificate CRA issues on a proposed sale	Issued by CRA to the seller and the buyer.
T2068	The certificate CRA issues after a completed sale	Issued by CRA to the seller and the buyer.

How long does a certificate take? Nobody publishes an answer

This question decides whether a deal closes cleanly, and there is no published answer to it. I checked both of CRA’s own systems of record on 8 November 2026.

• CRA’s Service Standards 2026-2027 contains no standard for a certificate of compliance, for section 116, or for Form T2062. I searched the page for each of those terms and for “taxable Canadian property”, and found none of them.
• CRA’s Check processing times tool offers no option for any of them either.
• CRA’s own circular says only that it will issue the certificate “at the earliest possible date once the necessary information and supporting documentation have been received and validated”.

Here is the trap that follows from the naming problem earlier. CRA does publish a clearance certificate service standard, and it is widely quoted at buyers in this situation. Its own words are: “This is a timeliness service standard for processing Clearance Certificate requests (TX19 and GST352) received from legal representatives”, and “Our goal is to issue a Clearance Certificate within 120 calendar days of receipt of the request”, with a target of meeting it “90% of the time”.

Read the instrument names. TX19 and GST352 are the estate forms, filed by a legal representative. That standard is not about section 116 and it is not about your purchase. If an article, a forum post or a service quotes 120 days for a non-resident seller’s certificate, it has borrowed a figure from a different instrument.

So what can a buyer plan around? Honestly: not a published number. Plan around the certificate not arriving in time, and make sure your lawyer or notary has the holdback and the undertakings arranged before you remove subjects. The Law Society checklist item 6.14 tells the lawyer to “calculate the Income Tax Act, s. 116 holdback and determine who will hold the funds” precisely because this is normal.

“Reasonable inquiry”: what the law expects you to have done

If no certificate is issued, paragraph 116(5)(a) is your only defence. The words are “after reasonable inquiry the purchaser had no reason to believe that the non-resident person was not resident in Canada”.

Notice the double negative. The test is not that you proved the seller was resident here. It is that, having asked properly, you had no reason to believe otherwise. That is a lower bar than proof, and it is still a bar.

The Act does not define “reasonable inquiry” anywhere in section 116. CRA’s circular is where the administrative position sits, and it is less comforting than the short version of it that usually gets repeated. CRA says the purchaser “incurs no obligation to pay tax if, after reasonable inquiry, there was no reason to believe the vendor was a non-resident of Canada”, and then adds: “There is a question as to what constitutes ‘reasonable inquiry.’”

It goes further. CRA says the purchaser may become liable if it believes the purchaser “could have or should have known that the vendor was a non-resident or did not take reasonable steps to find out the vendor’s residence status”. And it closes the door on help: “The CRA will not make inquiries on behalf of a purchaser in this regard.”

That “could have or should have known” wording matters. It is a test about what a reasonable buyer in your position would have realised, not only about what you were told.

Does a signed residency declaration protect you?

Not on its own, and no authority I could find says it does. The standard BC contract of purchase and sale includes a residency declaration the seller completes. The Law Society’s checklist item 2.1.8 is headed “Vendor’s representation of residency”, and tells the lawyer that “If the ‘box’ on the contract is not ticked, consider requesting a statutory declaration from the vendor” in place of the contractual representation.

Read that as what it is. A declaration is evidence that an inquiry happened. CRA nowhere says it is a safe harbour, and the statutory relief is the inquiry, not the paperwork.

The same checklist item cites a 2017 British Columbia Supreme Court decision in which a notary was found liable for failing to make reasonable inquiries about a vendor’s residency, with tax consequences for the purchaser clients. The Law Society prints the citation as Mao v. Lui, 2017 BCSC 226; other published commentary spells the name Liu. I have not read the judgment, because BC court decisions were not reachable from the sources available for this article, so I am reporting only how the Law Society’s own checklist describes it, and not what the court said or what it awarded.

The Underused Housing Tax warning you will still read, and why it is out of date

There is a well-known reason a certificate can be refused that had nothing to do with the sale itself, and it is now mostly history. It is worth setting out carefully, because the warning is still live on pages a buyer will find, including one of CRA’s own.

Section 116(8) of the Income Tax Act lets the Minister decline to issue a certificate on residential property where the non-resident has not filed returns required under section 7 of the Underused Housing Tax Act, or has not paid amounts owing under it. That subsection is still on the books. I read it at the statute, and the consolidation prints “Act current to 2026-10-19”.

What has changed is the tax it points at. The Underused Housing Tax Act now contains two new sections. Section 1.1 says “No tax is payable under subsection 6(3) by a person in respect of a residential property for 2025 and subsequent calendar years.” Section 6.1 says that “a person is not required to file a return for a residential property for 2025 and subsequent calendar years.” Both were added by the Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1, at sections 167 and 168.

So the position is narrower than the warnings suggest, and it has a shape worth knowing:

Which part of section 116(8)	Can it still block a certificate?	Why
Paragraphs (a) and (b): unfiled returns, or unpaid amounts	Yes, but only for the 2022, 2023 and 2024 calendar years	Those obligations still exist. The Act is repealed only with effect from 1 January 2035.
Paragraph (c): the calendar year immediately before the year of the sale	No, not for a sale closing in 2026 or later	It keys on the year before the sale. For 2025 and later years there is no return to file and no tax payable.

The repeal date is worth pinning down, because it explains why the older years still matter. The amendments not in force page for the Underused Housing Tax Act shows the Act’s repeal as pending, and the implementing statute states at section 169(2) that the repeal “comes into force on January 1, 2035”. Until then, an unfiled 2022 to 2024 return remains a live obligation, and so remains capable of holding up a certificate.

Now the uncomfortable part, and I am reporting it because a buyer deserves to know how to read what they find. CRA’s own page on disposing of or acquiring certain Canadian property still describes the refusal power and still tells readers that an affected owner is “still required to file a UHT return for the residential property”. I read that sentence on the live page on 8 November 2026. For 2025 and later years it no longer matches the statute.

The lesson is not that CRA’s website is useless. It is that on a point where money turns, the statute is the thing to check, and a government page can lag it. That applies to this article too, which is why every link above goes to the source rather than to a summary.

If it goes wrong: the penalties

Two separate penalty regimes sit behind this, one aimed at the seller and one at the buyer.

For a seller who misses the 10-day notice, CRA’s failure to comply penalty page says the penalty arises under “subsection 162(7) of the Act” and is “$25 a day for each day the notification is late, with a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $2,500”. Section 162(7) itself sets a penalty of “the greater of $100 and the product obtained when $25 is multiplied by” the number of days, capped at 100 days. The $2,500 ceiling is the arithmetic of those two figures rather than a number printed in the section.

For a buyer who is liable and remits late, CRA’s circular points to the penalty under subsection 227(10.1), calculated under subsection 227(9), and sets out the ladder.

How late the remittance is	Penalty
One to three days	3 per cent
Four or five days	5 per cent
Six or seven days	7 per cent
More than seven days	10 per cent

Interest runs as well. CRA’s circular also notes the Minister’s discretion under subsection 220(3.1) to waive or cancel penalties and interest, and that a heavier penalty can apply to a repeat failure in the same year made knowingly or in circumstances amounting to gross negligence.

One more line in section 116(5) is worth reading, and worth not overselling. A buyer who pays this tax “is entitled to deduct or withhold from any amount paid or credited by the purchaser to the non-resident person or otherwise recover from the non-resident person any amount paid by the purchaser as such a tax”. The right exists. It is a right against someone who, by definition, lives abroad. That is exactly why the money is held at completion rather than chased afterwards.

What this is not: BC taxes that key on the buyer, not the seller

Buyers sometimes expect a provincial consequence to follow from the seller living abroad. On BC’s additional property transfer tax, it does not.

The Province’s page on the additional property transfer tax for foreign entities and taxable trustees frames the tax entirely around the transferee, which is the buyer. I read the live page on 8 November 2026 and the words “seller” and “vendor” do not appear on it at all. Nothing on it attaches a transfer tax consequence to a buyer because of who the seller is.

On BC’s speculation and vacancy tax I will be straight about the limit of what I checked. The Province’s own page for the speculation and vacancy tax describes it as an “annual tax payable by owners of residential property” who declare each year, and says nothing about buyers, about a purchaser inheriting a seller’s liability, or about a holdback at completion. I did not read the Act itself, so I am not telling you there is no interaction at all. Ask your lawyer or notary to confirm it for your transaction.

What a buyer should actually do

None of this is a reason to walk away from a sale. It is a reason to handle it early, because every option a buyer has gets worse as completion gets closer.

• Ask the residency question in writing, early. Before subject removal, not after. The answer changes how the deal is structured.
• Tell your lawyer or notary as soon as you suspect it. They need to calculate the holdback, decide who holds it and on what undertakings. That is item 6.14 of the Law Society’s own checklist.
• Ask whether the seller has applied, and when. An application made well before closing is the difference between a clean completion and a long holdback.
• On a property that has been rented, ask how many certificates were applied for. If there is a depreciable element, one may not be enough, and part of the deal may run at 50 per cent.
• Check the certificate’s own number against your price. A certificate limit is an estimate of the proceeds. If you are paying more than the certificate says, the difference is still in your base.
• Do not accept “the seller’s accountant is handling it” as the answer. The liability in section 116(5) is yours, not their accountant’s.
• Ask your lawyer about requesting CRA’s authorisation to hold in trust if the certificate is going to be late. It has to be asked for in your transaction.

And one thing to be realistic about. A realtor is not a tax adviser and cannot give you tax advice on this. What I can do is spot it early, make sure it reaches your lawyer or notary while there is still time to act, and keep it from turning up as a surprise on your statement of adjustments.

What I could not confirm

Being clear about the edges of this is part of being useful.

• No clause number for the contract’s residency declaration. The Law Society’s checklist and the predecessor regulator’s guidance both describe it as a box on the contract rather than a numbered clause, so this article does not give it a number.
• No published processing time. Checked at both of CRA’s own systems of record, as described above. I am not substituting an estimate of my own.
• Nothing from the court decision itself. BC judgments were not reachable, so the 2017 case appears only as the Law Society’s checklist describes it, with no figures and no reasoning.
• Whether both T2062 and T2062A are always required on a former rental. CRA says vendors “may have to” file both. It is a question for the seller’s accountant, and a reason for a buyer to ask.
• No CRA statement on a certificate arriving after a buyer has remitted. I looked and could not find one.

Questions buyers ask

Is the holdback the seller’s money or mine?

Economically it is part of the price you agreed to pay. Legally, the amount at stake is your own liability under section 116(5), which is why it is held rather than paid out. If a certificate arrives in time, it goes to the seller.

Can I just refuse to close?

That is a contract question, not a tax question, and the answer depends on what your contract says. It is a question for your lawyer or notary, and it is a much easier question before subject removal than after.

The seller says they are Canadian. Is that the end of it?

No. Citizenship is not the test. A Canadian citizen living abroad can be a non-resident for tax purposes, and section 116 then applies in full.

Who actually works this out in my transaction?

Your lawyer or notary. The Law Society’s residential conveyance checklist sets out their steps, from inquiring about the seller’s residency through calculating the holdback to remitting or releasing it afterwards.

Does this apply to a presale assignment?

An interest in real property can itself be taxable Canadian property, and the 50 per cent list expressly includes interests, rights and options. That makes it a question to put to your lawyer and the seller’s accountant early, not a question to settle from an article.

Read next

• From accepted offer to completion day in BC — where the holdback fits in the timeline.
• Lawyer or notary for a BC home purchase — who does this work, and how to choose.
• Buying a house from an estate in BC — the other clearance certificate, and why it is different.
• When someone else signs for the seller — powers of attorney and committees, for the buyer.
• Title insurance in BC: what it covers — and what it will not pay for.
• این مقاله به فارسی — the Farsi version of this article.
• All of my guides are collected at tomjahed.ca guides.

General information, not advice on a specific property or transaction. This article describes federal tax rules and BC conveyancing practice in general terms, and it is not tax advice, legal advice or advice about any particular sale. Tax law, CRA administrative practice, forms and published guidance all change, and a government web page can lag the statute, as this article shows. Confirm the current position with the authority that owns it, which for everything in this article means the Canada Revenue Agency, and take advice from your own lawyer, notary or accountant before you commit money. Every figure and every quoted provision was verified at its primary source on 8 November 2026 and checked again in a separate pass. Last reviewed November 2026.

Written by Tom Jahed, licensed REALTOR®, Vanak Realty, North Vancouver.