Strata Wind-Ups in BC: What a Condo Buyer Should Know

Reading in Persian? این مقاله به فارسی.

Updated 16 October 2026.

The short version

A wind-up ends the strata, cancels the strata plan, sells the land and pays each owner a share. The Strata Property Act calls it cancelling the strata plan and winding up the strata corporation, in Part 16.
It takes an 80% vote — and that means 80% of every eligible voter in the building, not 80% of the people who turn up. An owner who stays home counts against it.
If the strata plan has five or more lots, the strata corporation must apply to the BC Supreme Court within 60 days to have the vote confirmed. Under five lots, that court step is optional.
Your share is set by a formula in the Act: your lot’s most recent assessed value over the assessed value of all the strata lots, excluding any lots the strata corporation itself holds. In many buildings an older schedule overrides that formula entirely.
The Form B already tells you. Item (h.1) shows a wind-up resolution that has passed. Item (i) shows one that has only been noticed and not yet voted on. Most buyers never read item (i).
Your mortgage does not disappear, and nothing in federal or BC law waives a prepayment penalty because the sale was forced on you.
The Civil Resolution Tribunal cannot hear a wind-up application. It goes to the Supreme Court.

If you are buying a condo or townhouse on the North Shore, a wind-up is the one strata event that can take the home away from you entirely — not the roof, not the deductible, the whole building. It is also the one almost nobody checks for.

This is written for the buyer, not the strata council. Every section number below was read in the consolidated Act on BC Laws, which is current to 6 October 2026, and checked again in a second pass.

What a wind-up actually is

Part 16 of the Strata Property Act is headed “Cancellation of Strata Plan and Winding Up of Strata Corporation”. It sets out three ways a strata can end. Two are voluntary and start with a vote of the owners. The third is ordered by a court.

Before 28 July 2016 a voluntary wind-up needed a unanimous vote, which in practice meant one owner could stop it. On that date the threshold dropped to 80%. The Province says so on its own page: “Effective July 28, 2016, strata owners are now able to terminate (wind up) their strata corporation with an 80% vote instead of the previous difficult-to-achieve unanimous voting requirement.”

That is still the law. I checked the Act’s own Tables of Legislative Changes for both 2014 to 2023 and 2024 to 6 October 2026: no section between 272 and 289 has been amended since that 2016 change, and nothing affecting Part 16 is sitting in the “Changes Not in Force” list. If you read an article claiming a new wind-up law, check its date — the “new law” everyone means is the one from 2016.

The 80% vote is not the vote you are used to

This is the single most useful thing a buyer can understand, and it is buried in the definitions section of the Act rather than in Part 16.

Type of vote	What the Act counts	Effect of an owner who does not vote
Majority vote	More than half of the votes cast by eligible voters present in person or by proxy who have not abstained	No effect
3/4 vote	At least 3/4 of the votes cast by eligible voters present in person or by proxy who have not abstained	No effect
80% vote	At least 80% of the votes of all the eligible voters	Counts against it
Unanimous vote	All the votes of all the eligible voters	Counts against it

Source: Strata Property Act s.1(1), definitions. Read 16 October 2026.

So on an ordinary 3/4 vote, an absent owner is simply not counted. On a wind-up vote, an absent owner is effectively a no. In a building with a lot of overseas or investor owners who never return a proxy, that makes 80% much harder to reach than the number suggests.

Two more rules on who votes, both worth knowing before you buy:

A mortgage lender cannot vote on a wind-up. Section 54(2)(a) says “the mortgagee may not vote on a winding-up resolution”, even where the mortgage otherwise gives the lender a vote.
A tenant sometimes votes instead of the owner. Where a landlord has assigned the vote to a tenant under section 147 or 148, section 54(1)(b) and 54(2)(b) leave that vote with the tenant. If you are buying a tenanted unit, ask whether the vote has been assigned.

Three routes, and they are not the same deal

Route	Section	What it takes	What happens to the land
Voluntary, without a liquidator (Division 1)	272	80% vote; court confirmation required if five or more strata lots (s.273.1)	Owners become tenants in common of the land, in the shares set out in a conversion schedule
Voluntary, with a liquidator (Division 2)	277	80% vote; court confirmation required if five or more strata lots (s.278.1)	Title vests in the liquidator, who sells and distributes the proceeds per an interest schedule
Court ordered (Division 3)	284	No owner vote. An owner, a mortgagee of a strata lot, or any other person the court considers appropriate may apply	The court may appoint a liquidator; Division 2 then applies, with the court free to vary it (s.285)

Source: Strata Property Act ss.272, 277, 284, 285. Read 16 October 2026.

Notice who can start each one. A confirmation application under section 273.1 or 278.1 may only be brought by “a strata corporation”. An individual owner who wants the building wound up, or who wants to force the issue, has to use section 284 instead.

The difference between the two voluntary routes matters to a buyer for a reason that is easy to miss. Under the no-liquidator route, section 275(4)(e) says owners become “jointly and individually liable for the debts of the strata corporation to the creditors who do not have claims against the property of the strata corporation”. You do not simply collect a cheque and walk away.

What the judge has to weigh — and the one test that is different

Where the court step applies, the Act tells the judge exactly what to consider. There are three of these tests in Part 16, and they are not identical. I read all three side by side.

Provision	Applies to	The court must consider significant unfairness to
s.273.1(5)	Voluntary wind-up without a liquidator	(A) owners, and (B) holders of registered charges
s.278.1(5)	Voluntary wind-up with a liquidator	(A) owners, (B) holders of registered charges, or (C) other creditors
s.284(3)	Court-ordered wind-up	(A) owners, (B) holders of registered charges, or (C) other creditors

Source: Strata Property Act ss.273.1(5), 278.1(5), 284(3). All three read in full, 16 October 2026.

Section 273.1(5) is the only one of the three that leaves out “other creditors”. Every test also requires the court to consider the best interests of the owners, and the probability and extent of “significant confusion and uncertainty in the affairs of the strata corporation or of the owners”.

There is a sensible reason for the gap rather than a drafting slip, and it is worth saying so plainly: the no-liquidator route is only available where the strata has no unsecured debt left. Section 274 requires a certificate that the strata corporation “has no debts other than” debts held by registered charge holders. If there are no other creditors, there is nobody for the court to protect. That is my reading of why the words differ, not something the Act states.

Under five strata lots the picture changes again. The court application is optional, so the automatic judicial review of a dissenting owner’s position simply does not happen. Instead, section 274(c)(i) requires the written consent to the winding up signed by all holders of registered charges. If you are buying into a duplex, triplex or fourplex strata, that is a materially different risk profile from a tower.

How the money gets divided

This is the question every owner asks and almost no article answers, because in the online statute the formula is published as an image with no alt text — text tools cannot read it. Here it is, read directly from the Act:

most recent assessed value of an owner’s strata lot

most recent assessed value of all the strata lots in the strata plan, excluding any strata lots held by or on behalf of the strata corporation

That same formula appears twice, once in section 273(1)(d)(ii) for the no-liquidator route and once in section 278(1)(f) for the liquidator route. The two are word for word identical.

Two things in it are easy to skim past. It runs on assessed value, not on what your unit would sell for and not on unit entitlement. And it excludes any strata lots the strata corporation itself holds, so a caretaker suite or a guest suite owned by the corporation does not dilute your share.

Where there is no assessed value, sections 273(2) and 278(2) allow an appraised value from an independent appraiser to be used instead, but only if it is approved by a 3/4 vote at a general meeting.

The formula may not apply to your building at all

Sections 273(3) and 278(3) both say that if the strata has a schedule of interest on destruction required under the old Condominium Act or a similar schedule under any former Act, that schedule governs and replaces the formula. Older buildings are often in exactly that position, with each owner’s share fixed on assumptions made decades ago that may bear no relation to relative values today.

The Province summarises the position in three eras on its termination page:

When the strata plan was filed	What the Province says sets each owner’s share
Before August 1974	Unit entitlement
August 1974 to 2000	Interest upon destruction
After 2000	Relative assessed values

Source: Province of BC, Termination (winding up) a strata corporation. Publication date 11 January 2021, page last modified 2 April 2024. Read 16 October 2026.

Treat that as the Province’s summary rather than as the words of the Act, because the Act is written as a two-way rule, not a three-way one: schedule of interest on destruction if there is one, otherwise the formula. The phrase “unit entitlement” does not appear in section 273 or section 278 at all. For a pre-1974 building the answer turns on whether the old allocation counts as “a similar schedule that was required under any former Act”, and that is a question for a strata lawyer, not for a website.

There is a sting in the tail. A strata that wants to get out of an old schedule and move to the assessed-value formula can do it — under section 17.22 of the Strata Property Regulation — but only by a unanimous vote. So in some older buildings, winding up needs 80%, while changing how the money is split needs every single owner. The Regulation is current to 13 October 2026.

What happens to your mortgage

It does not vanish, and the Act is careful about this. Your lender cannot vote on the wind-up (s.54(2)(a)), but it must be served with the court application (ss.273.1(3) and 278.1(3)), the court must weigh significant unfairness to it, and under section 289 a strata plan may be cancelled only once “the priorities of all registered charges” have been resolved to the registrar’s satisfaction.

On the no-liquidator route, section 275(4)(c) says any encumbrances against your strata lot become claims against your interest in the land and “have the same priority they had before the registrar’s order”. Section 275(4)(d) extinguishes other claims created after the strata plan was deposited. Your mortgage follows you; it gets paid out of your share when the land sells.

And that is the moment the prepayment penalty lands. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada lists the triggers on its prepayment penalties page, and one of them is to “pay back your entire mortgage before the end of your term, including when you sell your home”. The charge is usually the higher of three months’ interest on the balance or the interest rate differential.

Nothing waives it because the sale was forced on you. I searched that page for any form of the word “waive” and there is none; the only no-penalty case it gives is an open mortgage. Part 16 of the Strata Property Act says nothing about mortgage charges either. An owner outvoted in a wind-up is in the same position as an owner who chose to sell, unless the lender agrees otherwise as a matter of goodwill. Ask your lender, in writing, before you assume anything.

If the unit you are buying has a tenant

Part 16 says nothing at all about what happens to a renter after a wind-up. The notice route sits in the Residential Tenancy Act instead, and the detail is where people get it wrong.

Section 49(6)(a) lets a landlord end a tenancy to “demolish the rental unit”, provided the landlord has all the necessary permits and approvals required by law and intends in good faith to do it. Section 51(1) then entitles the tenant to one month’s rent, payable on or before the effective date of the notice, and section 51(1.1) lets the tenant withhold that amount from the last month’s rent instead.

The much larger amount — twelve months’ rent under section 51(2) — is not automatic, and on a demolition it is narrower than most summaries suggest. Section 51(2) makes it payable unless the landlord or purchaser establishes two conditions, and condition (b) applies “except in respect of the purpose specified in section 49 (6) (a)”, which is demolition. So on a demolition notice only condition (a) is in play: that the stated purpose was accomplished within a reasonable period. Section 51(3) also lets the director excuse the payment for extenuating circumstances.

Anyone who tells you a demolition automatically means thirteen months’ rent has not read section 51(2)(b). One month is the automatic part.

One more thing a buyer should know: amendments to sections 49, 51, 51.1 and 51.4 were passed in 2024 but sit in the Act’s “Changes Not in Force” table, waiting on a commencement regulation. As at 6 October 2026 they are not law, and the figures above are the ones in force.

What to check before you write the offer

The disclosure already exists. Section 59(1) gives a purchaser the right to ask the strata corporation directly for an Information Certificate — the Form B — and to get it within one week. These are the lines that matter.

Form B item	What it asks	Why a buyer should care
(h.1)	“Are there any winding-up resolutions that have been passed?”	A yes means the vote has already happened. The clock on the court application may already be running.
(i)	“Has notice been given for any resolutions, requiring a 3/4 vote, 80% vote or unanimous vote or dealing with an amendment to the bylaws, that have not yet been voted on?”	This is the early warning. A wind-up vote that has been called but not yet held shows up here, not at (h.1).
(j)	Any court proceeding, arbitration or tribunal proceeding, and any judgments or orders	A confirmation application under s.273.1 or s.278.1 is a court proceeding.
(d)	Any approved special levy the owner must pay in future	A levy owners cannot or will not fund is often what starts the conversation.
s.59(4)(d)	The most recent depreciation report must be attached	The size of the deferred-maintenance bill is the usual trigger.

Source: Strata Property Act s.59 and the Form B in the Strata Property Regulation. Read 16 October 2026.

Items (h.1) and (i) are two lines apart on the same page of the same document, and they answer completely different questions. A buyer who reads only (h.1) can be told, truthfully, that no wind-up resolution has passed, while a meeting to vote on one is already scheduled.

To be clear about what the Act does not link: there is no statutory connection between a depreciation report, a special levy and a wind-up. Section 94 does not mention winding up, and neither do the special levy sections. The chain from a large repair bill to a wind-up vote is a real commercial dynamic, but it is not written into the law.

Where a wind-up dispute actually goes

Not to the Civil Resolution Tribunal. Its own page on what claims it can take lists, word for word, “Applications to wind up a strata corporation” among the claims it has no jurisdiction over — alongside “Orders vesting authority in a liquidator” and “Determining each owner’s percent share in the strata complex”. That page was last modified on 2 October 2026.

The statute backs it up. Section 122(1) of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act puts five Part 16 provisions outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction: sections 272, 273.1, 278.1, 279 and 284. Section 123(3)(a) separately bars the tribunal from making “an order requiring the sale or other disposition of a strata lot”.

The tribunal is not powerless, though. Under section 123(2) of that Act it may make an order against the strata corporation, the council, or a person holding 50% or more of the votes, where the order is necessary “to prevent or remedy a significantly unfair action, decision or exercise of voting rights”. So how a strata behaved around a wind-up can reach the tribunal, even though the wind-up itself cannot.

A correction worth making

The Province’s own termination page says the tribunal “can play a role to address certain unfair actions under sections 164 and 173 of the Strata Property Act”. I read both of those sections. Section 164 begins “On application of an owner or tenant, the Supreme Court may make any interim or final order”, and section 173 begins “On application by the strata corporation, the Supreme Court may” — and section 173 is not about unfairness at all; it is about compelling people to perform duties, and about special levies.

Both are Supreme Court remedies. The tribunal’s power to deal with significant unfairness comes from the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, not from those two sections. The outcome the Province describes is right; the citation is not. Checked against both Acts on 16 October 2026.

Tax: the honest answer

There is no published CRA guidance on this. I checked the Agency’s own interpretation bulletin on condominiums, IT-304R2, which is archived and marked as no longer updated: it contains no mention of winding up, termination or dissolution anywhere in it.

What that means in practice is that the tax treatment of a wind-up distribution falls to be worked out from general principles about dispositions and the principal residence exemption, on facts that differ from owner to owner — whether you lived in it, whether you rented it out, whether the use changed. That is accountant territory and I am not going to guess at it here. If a wind-up is on the table in a building you own in, get tax advice before the money moves, not after.

Who to call

A wind-up is a legal process with a court step in the middle of it, and the Province itself says strata corporations are “strongly advised to seek independent professional and legal advice from a knowledgeable strata lawyer”. A buyer should take the same advice. Your own lawyer or notary, not the strata’s, and your own accountant.

For the building side of it, the strata corporation or its management company is the one that must give you the Form B. For anything municipal — what could be built on the site afterwards, whether a rezoning is in play — call the city, and confirm it rather than relying on a website:

City of North Vancouver: 604-985-7761, 141 West 14th Street, V7M 1H9. Planning 604-983-7357, planning@cnv.org.
District of North Vancouver: 604-990-2311, District Hall, 355 West Queens Road, V7N 4N5. Planning 604-990-2387, planning@dnv.org.
West Vancouver: 604-925-7000, Municipal Hall, 750 17th Street, V7V 3T3. Planning 604-925-7055.

What I could not confirm, and did not print

How many BC stratas have actually wound up. Neither the Province nor the Land Title and Survey Authority publishes a count. Figures circulating elsewhere could not be traced to a primary record, so there is no number in this article.
Whether property transfer tax applies at the intermediate step where owners become tenants in common before the land is sold. No exemption in the Property Transfer Tax Act covers a strata wind-up, and no government bulletin addresses the point. I could not establish the answer either way, so I have not asserted one. Ask your lawyer or notary.
Whether a pending wind-up affects your ability to get a mortgage or insurance on the unit. I found no authoritative source on this at all. Ask your lender and your insurer directly, early.
Any guidance from BC Financial Services Authority on wind-ups. BCFSA publishes strata advisories for licensees, but I could find none on this subject. That is “not found”, not “does not exist”.
Case law. BC court decisions are not reachable through the sources used for this article, so no case is cited here.

Thinking about buying or selling on the North Shore?

Leave your name and number and I will come back to you, usually the same day. Tell me the address if you have one and I will pull the sale history and the documents that matter before we talk. No charge, no obligation.

Prefer to talk now? Call or text 778-903-7306.

Strata Wind-Ups in BC: What It Means If You Are Buying a Condo