The Increasing Complexity of Strata Management Part 4 – Record Keeping, Privacy & The Document Request Deluge

In Parts 1 through 3 of this series, we explored how external pressures—from climate changed related legislation to the rising tide of “AI Slop” in disputes—are complicating the strata landscape. Today, we turn our lens inward to one of the most operationally demanding aspects of modern strata management: Record Keeping, Privacy, and Document Access Requests.

The good old days of a single physical binder and a standup of files sitting in a property manager’s office are long gone. Today, Strata Corporations are data-rich organizations, and the legal framework governing that data is a practical minefield. Before we dive into the mechanics, it is critical to state a foundational requirement that is often overlooked: Every Strata Corporation in British Columbia is an “organization” under PIPA and requires a designated Privacy Officer.

While it is common to look to the Property Manager for guidance, the Strata Manager cannot be the Privacy Officer, as we lack independent decision-making power for the Corporation. This role belongs to a Council member or a specific committee, yet it is rarely filled until the need arises or worse, a crisis emerges. This is understandable, strata councils are facing a variety of pressures and demands on their time. But, it is a requirement and as the saying goes, “now is the second best time” to appoint one.

The Three Buckets of Document Requests 

To manage complexity, we must first categorize it. Not all requests for documents are created equally. Strata corporations generally receive requests under three distinct legal frameworks: 

1. Under Section 36 of theStrata Property Act (SPA) 

This is the most common request. It entitles owners to inspect copies of specific records listed in Section 35 (minutes, financials, contracts, etc.). Crucially, the obligation is to allow an *inspection*, which we’ll come back to and which we’ve written about in the past. 

• Timeline: Section 36 requires the inspection be held within two weeks (one week for bylaws/rules). 

• The Rule: Because this disclosure is required by law, PIPA restrictions generally do not apply. You typically do not redact personal information if the document is a core record required under Section 35.  The word “redact” is entirely absent from the SPA and there is no provision to do so, though this should be considered on a case-by-case basis and in consultation with legal counsel when it comes to particularly tricky cases such as when potential harm can result from over-disclosing. An age-old and sadly familiar example is when the strata corporation has reason to believe physical harm could result from disclosure, ie. a known violent gang member requests the names of fellow owners.

• The Case Law Guardrails: 

• “All Records” is not a valid request: In Drance v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 3625, the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) found that a request to view “all the strata records” without a date range was unreasonable. This is a crucial precedent as we see more homeowners utilizing AI to generate massive, broad-reaching requests designed to bury corporations in paperwork. Requests must be narrow and achievable.

• Internal Emails are often exempt: In Hudson v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 880, the CRT clarified that correspondence exchanged among Council members (and even between Council and the Strata Manager) is not a Section 35 record unless it was sent by an officer authorized to speak on behalf of the Council. This is a vital distinction: internal deliberation is different from official correspondence. 

2. Under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) 

These are requests by an individual for their own personal information. 

• Timeline: 30 days (extensions are possible, we recommend seeking legal advice if you are considering requesting an extension). 

• The Difference: Unlike SPA requests, which are about “strata records,” PIPA requests are about personal data. This requires careful redaction. If a document contains information about third parties, that information must be blacked out unless an exception applies. You can see that this conflicts entirely with the Section 36 provisions which do not provide for redactions, so this is a very important point to consider. 

• Common Pitfall: A Strata corporation cannot use PIPA as a shield to hide records that must be disclosed under the SPA. Conversely, you cannot use the SPA as an excuse to broadcast private information. In British Columbia (Strata Owners) (Re), the Privacy Commissioner ruled that a Strata breached PIPA by attaching unredacted complaint letters to meeting agendas circulated to all owners. Disclosure under the SPA generally requires a specific request; it is not a license to broadcast. 

3. Legal Proceedings (CRT, Human Rights Tribunal, Supreme Court)

When a dispute escalates to litigation, the rules of “Discovery” take over. 

• Scope: Extremely broad. The CRT Rules, for example, require the production of all evidence “that may prove or disprove an issue in the dispute,” even if it hurts your case. Essentially, there are no limits to what records the *courts* may require you to produce. 

• The Danger Zone: This is where informal emails, text messages between Council members, and sign-in sheets can become discoverable evidence. Unlike Section 36 requests, you cannot simply say “that isn’t a strata record.” If it exists and is relevant, it must be produced.  For this reason, and many others, we encourage Council members to ensure electronic communications are kept civil, professional and perhaps even minimal. 

The Modern Challenge: Bifurcated Communication 

The greatest threat to comprehensive record keeping today is the fragmentation of communication. A decade ago, correspondence was mail or formal email. Today, the “record” of a decision or a maintenance issue might be scattered across: 

• Formal emails to the Property Manager; 

• Text messages between the President and the Treasurer; 

• WhatsApp group chats; 

• Instant messages on portals. 

This “bifurcation” creates a compliance nightmare. If a Council member is conducting strata business via text on a personal phone, that text is potentially a legal record. If it is not archived centrally, the Strata is failing its record-keeping obligations. Individual inboxes are a compliance liability. We strongly advocate for centralized communication channels to ensure that when a request comes in, we aren’t chasing ghosts across five different platforms.  The most effective and efficient approach is to ensure meetings are the venue where discussion and decisions are made: in other words, if a written record doesn’t exist because you met in person and complied with previous advice (such as our article on the Cassey decision)  then there is nothing to produce. 

A Note About Inspections 

A common misconception among owners is that a request for “all records” triggers an obligation for the Property Manager to photocopy and mail the entire contents of the filing cabinet. This is not the case. As noted in Drance v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 3625, a request to inspect “all the strata records” without a specific date range or category is often deemed unreasonable due to the sheer volume of documents involved. 

While Section 36 mandates access, it distinguishes between providing copies and allowing for inspection. When a requestor cannot enumerate the specific documents they are looking for—often the case with broad “fishing expeditions” for correspondence—the Strata Corporation is within its rights to require the owner to inspect the records in person at the management office. This shifts the burden of labor back to the requestor to sift through the “haystack” to find their “needle,” rather than demanding the Strata Manager do it for them. 

The Contentious Issue of Invoices 

Perhaps the most frequent point of friction is the demand for “all invoices.” It is crucial to highlight that we have repeatedly seen legal advice based on case law confirming that invoices are NOT a mandatory record under Section 35. While the Strata Property Act requires the retention of “books of account” (financial statements, general ledgers), it does not explicitly list individual invoices as a permanent record. 

This distinction is vital for Strata Councils attempting to balance transparency with operational reality. Fulfilling a request for “every invoice from Vendor XYZ since 2022” is a significant administrative burden. By standing firm on the distinction between financial statements (which must be provided) and invoices (which often do not), Councils can protect the corporation from incurring excessive management fees for document retrieval tasks that go beyond the statutory requirements.  Unfortunately, these document inspection requests can be laborious (and thus costly for strata corporations) enough without adding unnecessary disclosures. As noted below, the costs of fulfilling document requests are disproportionately borne by the strata corporation and not the requestor.

The Role of the Property Manager: We Are Agents 

It is important to remind our clients that Property Managers act as Agents. We are the conduit for records requests, not the decision-maker. 

When a complex document request arrives—especially one that smells of a “fishing expedition” or potential litigation—we are obliged to seek direction from the Strata Council. We cannot unilaterally release sensitive documents, nor can we redact them without instruction.  Unfortunately, we and other management companies are seeing a dramatic rise in the number of these record requests, likely the result of AI inducing Owners toward drowning strata corporations with paperwork to try to get their way on one issue or another.  We’ve written about that particular problem before, too. 

Because these requests are becoming more weaponized, legal counsel is often required. This is not us shirking responsibility, it is risk management and compliance for us. A misstep in releasing (or withholding) records can result in privacy complaints to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) or adverse rulings at the CRT.  The penalties for missteps can be severe.  Likewise, our regulators (and the Law Society of BC) have clearly delineated rules about the limits of the kind of advice we can offer, ie. It can only be of a non-legal nature.  We can provide practical advice based on experience (of which we have a great deal) but will refer you to legal counsel when necessary. 

We must also make the point that our labour in fulfilling these requests is billable to the strata corporation.  The only provision to charge requestors is the paltry fee of $0.25 per page of copied documents (i.e. the requestors pay nothing for the inspection).  This fee has not changed in at least 25 years.  We encourage you to write to your local MLA about this subject if you feel it is unfair, as we do. 

Conclusion 

As we move forward, Strata Councils must abandon the “file cabinet” mindset. You need rigorous digital archiving habits, limit correspondence generation to the most necessary and professional of emails, appoint a designated Privacy Officer, and be mindful of which bucket a request falls into. 

For a deeper dive into privacy guidance, we recommend reviewing the OIPC’s Guidance Document 2474.