What constitutes significant unfairness under s. 164 of the Strata Plan?

The issue of what constitutes significant unfairness under s. 164 of the SPA was dealt with most recently in a judgment rendered by Taylor J., in Chow v. Strata Plan LMS1277, 2006 BCSC 335 [Chow]. In that case, there were two petitions seeking relief under the SPA: one from a group of apartment owners, and another from a group of townhouse owners. Due to the breakdown between the two types of units, the townhouse strata lots had 34% and the apartment lots 66% of the votes in the strata corporation. The common expenses were shared in a 46.1% to 53.9% ratio respectively. Given of the division between the types of lots, it was difficult to achieve the necessary consensus for special resolutions to raise special levies or to create special ownership sections under s. 191 of the SPA to deal with the diverse exigencies of the strata corporation. In the result, the apartment owners sought an order from the court approving a special levy for moisture repair work related to “significant moisture problems” in the apartment buildings and “localized damage and elevated moisture content” in the townhouse units.