1323 Homer St, Vancouver · Downtown Vancouver
See the whole Downtown Vancouver risk profile →Pacific Point Ii has been before the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal 7 times (2020–2023), surfacing 9 distinct issues across 6 categories. The dominant theme is governance & council conduct, and the highest-severity issue on record is rated high. Owners prevailed in 2 of 7 decisions; total awards on record: $225.
Each category below explains what that pattern means for a buyer, with the building’s own decisions as evidence.
How the corporation is actually run — records access, meetings, bylaw enforcement, transparency. Repeated governance cases signal a contentious or opaque council, and that colours every decision made about your money and your building.
Boundaries, parking, and renovation disputes — who controls and can alter shared space. Usually lower-stakes individually, but frequent cases show ongoing friction between owners and the board.
Electrical, HVAC, elevators, and fire safety. Disputes here point to aging or contested infrastructure — confirm the status of major systems and whether any fire-safety orders are outstanding.
Special assessments and fee disputes hit owners directly — a single levy can run tens of thousands per unit. A pattern here means the building’s finances have been contested. Ask for the reserve-fund study and the levy history before you offer.
Water ingress, roof, and building-envelope failures are the most expensive problems a condo faces, and they’re what drive large special assessments. Structural cases on record are the strongest reason to commission an engineer’s review of the envelope.
Noise, pets, smoking, short-term rentals. Day-to-day quality-of-life conflict — lower financial stakes, but a useful window into how neighbours and the council handle disputes.
Every tribunal decision linked to this building, newest first.
The owner contested strata bylaws that limited use of rooftop well space adjacent to their unit's deck area. The tribunal upheld the June 2022 bylaw banning well area access, determining it was valid and reasonable based on safety considerations regarding potential falls from the building's roof level.
The owner disputed the strata corporation's decision to disconnect power to a shared electrical outlet used for charging a hybrid vehicle. The tribunal ruled against the owner, determining the strata was not obligated to provide access to the common property outlet for vehicle charging purposes, especially given other EV charging facilities were available on the property.
A strata lot owner sought electronic copies of correspondence and legal opinions from past tribunal matters from their property's Residential Section. The tribunal ruled against the owner, determining the Residential Section operates as a distinct legal entity and has no duty to maintain or deliver records belonging to the strata corporation and council.
The tribunal determined that decorative items including planters and a statue installed by the owners on their limited common property terrace did not violate strata bylaws. The strata corporation was ordered to reverse $400 in penalties and pay $112.50 in tribunal costs, though the owners' request for $4,000 in additional damages was rejected.
The owner placed planters on their limited common property terrace for several years without objection. After complaints arose, the strata corporation imposed $400 in fines for bylaw violations. The tribunal determined no bylaws were violated, cancelled the fines, and required reimbursement of tribunal costs.
An owner alleged their strata corporation made defamatory statements in official meeting minutes and requested $4,000 compensation and an apology. The tribunal rejected the case, determining it lacked authority over defamation matters and claims about council members' duties under section 31 of the Strata Property Act.
The applicants challenged an electric vehicle charging outlet installation in the parkade by another strata owner and sought $10,000 in damages. The tribunal rejected their application, determining the installation did not constitute a significant modification requiring supermajority approval and that insufficient evidence supported their claimed losses.
Across 6 buildings, this manager has 7 tribunal cases on record — a dispute rate of 0.78 per 100 units. A manager’s portfolio-wide rate is a signal of how they run buildings generally, beyond this one address.
Sourced from published tribunal decisions and analysed by PropTrust. Not legal advice. Verify with the corporation and a licensed professional before purchase.