Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Governmental policies concerning residential condominium development in British Columbia Conradi, Andrew Paul 1971

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971_A8 C65.pdf [ 11.37MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0102072.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0102072-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0102072-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0102072-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0102072-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0102072-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0102072-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0102072-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0102072.ris

Full Text

GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES CONCERNING RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by ANDREW PAUL CONRADI B.A. (Honours) M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , 1966 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the School of COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1971 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the D i r e c t o r of the S c h o o l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . ANDREW PAUL CONRADI School o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 8, B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada. Date kph.ll, 7 9 7 / The provision of adequate housing for a l l i t s people remains a problematical objective for Canada. A new type of cooperative housing—condominium—has recently received s p e c i f i c l e g a l sanction i n most provinces and t e r r i t o r i e s i n Canada with the exception of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and the North-West T e r r i t o r i e s . This thesis considers t h i s innovative housing concept i n l i g h t of the population trends and housing needs of B r i t i s h Columbia and shows that condominium i s merely one of a v a r i e t y of a l t e r n a t i v e housing types but one that may prove increasingly e f f e c t i v e i n helping meet future housing demand. The h i s t o r i c a l evolution of the condominium concept i s outlined a f t e r which the author c a r e f u l l y distinguishes between condominiums and other s i m i l a r forms of housing. The author affirms that Federal and P r o v i n c i a l housing p o l i c i e s do not discriminate against r e s i d e n t i a l condomin-iums and further hypothesizes that Municipal housing p o l i c i e s and bureaucratic procedures do not f r u s t r a t e t h e i r develop-ment, i n contrast with the findings of a s i m i l a r study concerning a s i m i l a r form of housing—continuing cooperatives, which found that a lack of s p e c i f i c P r o v i n c i a l and Municipal p o l i c y had retarded t h e i r formation. Governmental p o l i c y i s reviewed i n general and i t s s p e c i f i c a p p l i c a t i o n to r e s i d e n t i a l condominium development i s assessed w i t h the c o n c l u s i o n g e n e r a l l y c o n f i r m i n g the author's o r i g i n a l a f f i r m a t i o n and hypothesis. Abstract i i i Table of Contents v Acknowledgements ix CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 The Ideal and Reality i n Housing; Housing i n Canada 1945 - Mid 1960's, the Problem Emerges; Urbanisation and Population Growth; The Task Ahead; Some Aspects of the Housing Market; The Emergence of Condominium - Past and Present; The Alterna t i v e s i n Housing; Condominiums i n Canada; Housing and Urban Planning; Hypothesis; D e f i n i t i o n s ; Assumptions; Methodology; Limitations; Conclusion. I I . AN OUTLINE HISTORY OF THE CONCEPT OF CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP 32 Introduction; The Ancient World; Rome and Roman Law; Condominium i n Europe i n the Middle Ages; Germany-an Example of C o n f l i c t of Law; Switzerland and Austr i a ; Other European Countries; C i v i l Law and Common Law; France; C o d i f i c a t i o n of the Law-The Code Napoleon; Belgium; Other Countries; France-The 1938 L e g i s l a t i o n ; Spain; Post-War L e g i s l a t i o n ; Jugoslavia; L a t i n America; Puerto Rico; Louisiana; Quebec; Scotland; England; The United States; A u s t r a l i a and New Zealand; Canada; The Far East; Conclusion. I I I . THE MODERN CONCEPT OF CONDOMINIUM 7 4 The Word "Condominium"; Two C o n c e p t s -P o l i t i c s and R e a l t y ; Other Terms f o r Con-dominium; Problems e n c o u n t e r e d i n t h e Use o f t h e Term; The Three Meanings; Two E s s e n t i a l E l e m e n t s i n a Condominium P r o j e c t ; V a r i e t y i n Form and F u n c t i o n ; Two L e g a l Concepts o f a U n i t ; The Condominium as a C o o p e r a t i v e ; Condomin-iums and C o n t i n u i n g C o o p e r a t i v e s L i m i t e d L i a b i l i t y H o u s i n g Companies; Common Law Condominiums and P l a n n e d U n i t D e v e l o p -ments w i t h a Home Owner's A s s o c i a t i o n . I V . FEDERAL POLICY 109 L e g i s l a t i o n as H o u s i n g P o l i c y ; The F i r s t F e d e r a l I n i t i a t i v e i n H o u s i n g , 1 9 1 9 ; The Dominion H o u s i n g A c t , 1 9 3 5 ; The F i r s t N a t i o n a l H o u s i n g A c t , 1 9 3 8 and C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Power; Wartime Measures; N a t i o n a l H o u s i n g A c t , 1 9 4 4 ; C e n t r a l Mortgage and H o u s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n A c t , 1 9 4 5 ; The B a s i c P r i n c i p l e s o f F e d e r a l P o l i c y ; N a t i o n a l H o u s i n g A c t , 1 9 5 4 ; The 1964 Amendments; F e d e r a l F i n a n c i a l P o l i c y ; R e s i d e n t i a l Condomin-iums and F e d e r a l P o l i c y ; Impending Changes i n t h e F e d e r a l R o l e ; C o n c l u s i o n . V. PROVINCIAL POLICY 138 I n t r o d u c t i o n ; H o u s i n g L e g i s l a t i o n ; P r o v i n -c i a l Condominium H o u s i n g Programmes; Ot h e r L e g i s l a t i o n R e l a t e d t o H o u s i n g ; S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t ; C o n c l u s i o n . V I . MUNICIPAL POLICY 165 I n t r o d u c t i o n ; The M u n i c i p a l A c t ; The Vancouver C h a r t e r ; R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t s ; Town P l a n n i n g A c t ; O t h e r R e l e v a n t Vancouver L e g i s l a t i o n ; An Example o f a P r o p o s e d M u n i c i -p a l H o u s i n g P o l i c y - T h e Vancouver P r o p o s a l s ; M u n i c i p a l Survey on R e s i d e n t i a l Condominium P o l i c i e s and B u r e a u c r a t i c P r o c e d u r e s ; N e c e s s i t y f o r P o l i c y ; P o s s i b l e M u n i c i p a l F r u s t r a t i o n o f R e s i d e n t i a l Condominium Development; C o n c l u s i o n . V I I . CONCLUSION 185 Condominiums and C o n t i n u i n g C o o p e r a t i v e s ; Trends and F u r t h e r R e s e a r c h . BIBLIOGRAPHY 191 Public Documents 191 Books 192 Reports 19 3 A r t i c l e s and Pe r i o d i c a l s 196 Theses 198 Unpublished Material 19 9 The Press and Magazines 199 Other Sources 200 APPENDICES 201 Appendix A - English "Condominium" Schemes . . . . 201 Appendix B - Leasehold Condominiums 20 3 Appendix C - Kinds of Estates 207 Appendix D - P i l o t Project: Champlain Heights . . . 209 Appendix E - Strata T i t l e s Act 210 Appendix F - Questionnaire 211 Appendix G - Vancouver Bureaucratic Procedures . . 212 Appendix H - Vancouver Bureaucratic Procedures . . 213 Appendix I - CMHC Condominium Information Sheet . . 214 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. The V a r i e t y i n Form and F u n c t i o n of Condominium 82 2. The S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t - Diagra m a t i c R e p r e s e n t a t i o n 150 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. M u n i c i p a l Survey on R e s i d e n t i a l Condominium P o l i c i e s and B u r e a u c r a t i c Procedures . . . . 177 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to Dr. R.W. C o l l i e r , Professor Brahm Weisman and Miss Marianthi Constantinu for t h e i r h e l p f u l encouragement and c r i t i c i s m . Also to his wife Jacqueline for her f a i t h with-out which t h i s thesis might not have been completed. C H A P T E R I I N T R O D U C T I O N The Ideal and Reality in Housing; Housing i n Canada 19 45-mid 19 60's, the Problem Emerges; Urbanisation and Population Growth; The Task Ahead; Some aspects of the Housing Market; The Emergence of Condominium-Past and Present; The Alternatives in Housing; Condominiums i n Canada; Housing and Urban Planning; Hypothesis; Definitions; Assumptions; Methodology; Limitations; Conclusion. THE IDEAL AND THE REALITY IN HOUSING The Government of Canada endorsed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights* of the United Nations, part of which states: A r t i c l e 25. Everyone has the r i g h t to a standard of l i v i n g adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, c l o t h -ing, housing and . . . . 1 The Report of the Guidelines Committee of the Canadian Conference on Housing (1968) declared as a goal that " . . . a l l Canadians have the r i g h t to be adequately housed, whether 2 they can aff o r d i t or not." The Federal Task Force stated as a matter of p r i n c i p l e that: "Every Canadian should be e n t i t l e d to clean, warm 3 shelter as a matter of basic human r i g h t . " The Canadian Welfare Council c l a s s i f i e s the ri g h t s enumerated i n A r t i c l e 25 above as s o c i a l r i g h t s d i s t i n c t from 4 c x v i l and p o l i t i c a l r i g h t s . How does the r e a l compare with the i d e a l , that i s to say to what extent has t h i s r i g h t to housing been attained i n Canada? I t has been estimated that during the years 1966 and 1967 housing demand exceeded 5 housing a v a i l a b i l i t y by 25,000 un i t s . This m simple abso-lute terms was the measure of the housing shortage i n those years. According to the Task Force, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) estimated that there were i n Canada about 5,500,000 housing u n i t s , of which a t l e a s t h a l f a m i l l i o n were substandard, t o serve some 5,700,000 f a m i l y and n o n - f a m i l y users i n 1968. HOUSING IN CANADA 1945 - MID 1960'S -THE PROBLEM EMERGES U n t i l the mid 1960's Canada's housing performance i n r e l a t i o n t o the c o u n t r y ' s growing needs and demands f o r housing 7 was v e r y good. In the mid 1960's when t h e r e was a marked a c c e l e r a t i o n i n new f a m i l y and household f o r m a t i o n , new housing e x p e n d i t u r e s d i d not i n c r e a s e enough and t h e r e emerged " . . . a s e r i o u s shortage of housing i n many of the c o u n t r y ' s g major m e t r o p o l i t a n areas by 1967." I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g and r e l e v a n t t o d i g r e s s f o r a moment and remark t h a t i t was perhaps o n l y d u r i n g the 1960's 9 t h a t demand grew f o r a l t e r n a t i v e types of housing and to r e p e a t the view, expressed by the Canadian Conference on Housing, t h a t t h e r e should be a c h o i c e i n ownership of housing — i . e . , p r i v a t e , c o o p e r a t i v e , n o n - p r o f i t and p u b l i c . 1 ^ To r e t u r n t o the housing s i t u a t i o n , Dr. A l b e r t Rose has d e s c r i b e d i t as a "housing c r i s i s " and P r o f e s s o r A . J . Diamond has s t a t e d t h a t housing i s the worst problem Canada has f a c e d s i n c e the Depression. 1''" The Canadian Conference on Housing has s t a t e d t h a t - h o u s i n g i s not o n l y an urgent problem and t h a t an emergency e x i s t s f o r low-income groups but that i t i s also an increasingly serious problem for middle income groups. However, the e x i s t i n g housing stock i n Canada compares well i n some respects with the rest of the world. For i n -stance, 49% of the entire stock has been b u i l t since 1945, the highest r a t i o of new housing i n the Western World. In qual-i t a t i v e terms Canadian housing i s second only to the United States i n the provision of baths and f l u s h t o i l e t s and i t s average of 5.3 rooms per dwelling makes i t the "roomiest!1 i n the Western World. Canada has a high r a t i o of 63 per cent owner occupied dwellings and at 0.7 persons per room has one of the lowest density r a t i o s among the i n d u s t r i a l i z e d 13 nations. URBANISATION AND POPULATION GROWTH Canada i s increasingly and r a p i d l y becoming an urban 14 15 nation with a growing population, estimated at 21,324,000 16 on 1 A p r i l 1970. At present seven out of every ten Canadians l i v e i n urban areas and by 19 80 eight out of ten—some 20 17 m i l l i o n people w i l l do so, mostly i n 29 major urban centres, but one t h i r d of the Canadian population w i l l l i v e i n e i t h e r 18 Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. If the s t a t i s t i c s are impressive i n themselves, even more so i s the physical e f f e c t which t h i s massive migration, equal i n scope, to the f i r s t settlement and development of Canada, has had and i s having on the national landscape. 19 The 19 80 population forecasts for Canada, using the "component method" based on varied assumptions range from 20 a low of 23.8 m i l l i o n to a high of 26.7 m i l l i o n . Due mainly to c l i m a t i c conditions, lack of transportation and other f a c i l i t i e s the Canadian population has been d i s t r i b u t e d mostly i n settlements on the A t l a n t i c and P a c i f i c coasts, the P r a i r i e s , and the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Lowlands. 21 That i s , on less than one per cent of the land which places Canada among the most highly urbanised countries of the world. The population of B r i t i s h Columbia has been projected by the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board (LMRPB) using f i v e previous projections which were projected and i n t e r -22 polated on a semi-log basis to derive Census year f i g u r e s . Since two of these projections had three basic assumptions each with a projection, the t o t a l set of projections was 23 nine. These range from a low of 2.4 m i l l i o n to a high of 3.7 m i l l i o n by 19 86 and the LMRPB has accepted the following . . . 24 projection: 1971 - 2,144,000 1976 - 2,447,000 1981 - 2,793,000 1986 - 3,188,000 and i n the longer range t h e i r estimates are: 2001 - 4,500,000 2006 - 5,000,000 2021 - 6,300,000 2026 - 6,800,000 2 6 To cal c u l a t e the population of the Lower Mainland the " r a t i o " method was used and based on the h i s t o r i c "share" of the t o t a l P r o v i n c i a l population that was housed i n the 27 Lower Mainland which resulted i n the following forecasts 2 8 for the Region: 1971 - 1,158,000 1976 - 1,321,000 1981 - 1,508,000 1986 - 1,722,000 This was further broken down into the Metro and Valley Areas d i s t r i b u t i o n , based on the h i s t o r i c r a t i o between them, 29 with the r e s u l t i n g forecasts: Metro Area Valley Area 1971 - 1,026,000 132,000 1976 - 1,169,000 152,000 1981 - 1,335,000 173,000 1986 - 1,524,000 198,000 These forecasts were further broken down into munici-p a l i t i e s but for the purposes of t h i s paper the author does not consider i t necessary to go into such d e t a i l . I f such figures are required the source has been indicated. In short then: T h e n e x t 20 y e a r s w i l l l i k e l y s e e a 70 p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e i n t h e R e g i o n ' s p o p u l a t i o n — g r o w t h t h a t w i l l h a v e m a j o r i m p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e R e g i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r h o u s i n g , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , a n d m u n i c i p a l s e r v i c i n g . 30 T h e L o w e r M a i n l a n d w i t h o v e r h a l f t h e P r o v i n c e ' s p o p u l a t i o n i s l a n d - p o o r . I t s s t o c k o f u s a b l e l a n d i s s m a l l — l e s s t h a n 800 s q u a r e m i l e s , w h i c h i s a b o u t o n e - f i f t h o f o n e p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l a r e a o f t h e P r o v i n c e . I n t h i s R e g i o n t h e p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y o f 1,070 p e o p l e p e r s q u a r e m i l e i s g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t o f t h e N e t h e r l a n d s w i t h 905 p e r s q u a r e m i l e , i n 1960. I n 1963 t h e r e w a s a b o u t h a l f a n a c r e o f l a n d p e r p e r s o n i n t h e r e g i o n w h i c h w i l l h a v e b e e n r e d u c e d t o o n e 31 c i t y l o t p e r p e r s o n b y t h e y e a r 2000. T h e s e f i g u r e s a n d 32 t r e n d s a r e i n d i c a t i v e o f a t l e a s t t w o t h i n g s : f i r s t l y 33 t h e n e e d f o r c a r e f u l l a n d u s e a n d s e c o n d l y t h e i n e v i t -a b i l i t y o f h i g h e r d e n s i t y h o u s i n g s u c h a s g a r d e n a p p a r t m e n t s a n d t e r r a c e h o u s e s . T h e m a j o r s o u r c e o f f u t u r e h o u s i n g d e m a n d i s n e t f a m i l y f o r m a t i o n w h i c h i s e x p e c t e d t o i n c r e a s e f r o m t h e c u r r e n t r a t e o f 118,000 t o 145,000 p e r y e a r b y 1976. T h e n u m b e r o f m a r r i a g e s w i l l l i k e l y c o n t i n u e t o i n c r e a s e d u e t o t h e e f f e c t o f t h e h i g h b i r t h r a t e s i n t h e e a r l y p o s t - w a r p e r i o d ; t h e y i n c r e a s e d f r o m 128,000 i n 1961 t o 176,000 i n 1968. T h i s w i l l b e a u g m e n t e d b y t h e c o n t i n u i n g i n c r e a s e i n n o n - f a m i l y h o u s e h o l d f o r m a t i o n w h i c h i s u p f r o m 2 8,600 a y e a r i n t h e l a t t e r h a l f o f t h e 1950's t o a n e s t i m a t e d 50,000 a y e a r i n t h e l a t t e r p a r t o f t h e 1 9 6 0 ' s . 3 5 T H E T A S K A H E A D I n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e h o u s i n g f o r C a n a d i a n s i t h a s b e e n e s t i m a t e d t h a t : A m i n i m u m o f 1 m i l l i o n a d d i t i o n a l u n i t s o v e r t h e n e x t f i v e y e a r s w o u l d a l l o w t h e h o u s i n g m a r k e t t o k e e p p a c e w i t h n e w d e m a n d p l u s m a k i n g a t l e a s t s o m e i n r o a d i n t o t h e c u r r e n t b a c k l o g o f o v e r -c r o w d i n g , o b s o l e s c e n c e a n d g e n e r a l s h o r t a g e o f s u p p l y . I t i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t a n a v e r a g e o f 165,000 u n i t s p e r y e a r a r e r e q u i r e d t o m e e t t h e d e m a n d s o f n e w f a m i l y a n d n o n - f a m i l y f o r m a t i o n s w h i l e m a i n t a i n -i n g a m i n i m u m r e p l a c e m e n t p r o g r a m o f 10,000 u n i t s a y e a r . T h u s a n a v e r a g e o f 200,000 u n i t s a y e a r w i l l c r e a t e a " s u r p l u s " o f 35,000 u n i t s a n n u a l l y t o h e l p r e l i e v e t h e p r e s e n t s h o r t a g e a n d , h o p e f u l l y , t o a t l e a s t b e g i n t o c r e a t e t h e k i n d o f v a c a n c y r a t e s w h i c h a r e r e q u i r e d i f t h e m a r k e t i s t o b e a t r u l y c o m p e t e t i v e o n e . I n s e t t i n g a t a r g e t o f 1 m i l l i o n a d d i t i o n a l u n i t s b y 1973, i t s h o u l d b e s t r e s s e d t h a t t h i s i s a m i n i m u m o b j e c t i v e ; t h e T a s k F o r c e w o u l d e a r n e s t l y h o p e t h a t a c t u a l a c h i e v e m e n t w o u l d r u n c o n s i d e r a b l y a b o v e t h i s . 36 I n l i g h t o f t h e f o r e g o i n g , c o m p l e t i o n s i n 1969 w e r e 195, 8 2 6 . 3 7 C M H C h a s p o i n t e d o u t t h a t s u c h a p r o g r a m m e w o u l d a l l o w f o r a r e d u c t i o n o f f a m i l y d o u b l i n g - u p t o t h e e x t e n t o f 70,000 o r 80,000 f a m i l i e s , i n c r e a s i n g v a c a n c i e s , i n c r e a s i n g r a t e s o f r e p l a c e m e n t o f e x i s t i n g h o u s i n g a n d a n e x p a n s i o n i n t h e 3 8 n u m b e r o f u n m a r r i e d a d u l t s e s t a b l i s h i n g s e p a r a t e h o u s e h o l d s . A t t h e s a m e t i m e t h i s p r o g r a m m e w o u l d n o t i n f i v e y e a r s e n t i r e l y e l i m i n a t e t h e " b a c k l o g " o f h o u s i n g n e e d s a s m e a s u r e d b y d o u b l e d - u p f a m i l i e s , o t h e r w i s e c r o w d e d f a m i l i e s a n d t h e o c c u p a n c y o f s u b s t a n d a r d d w e l l i n g s . O n e r e a s o n i s t h a t a s h o u s i n g c o n d i t i o n s i m p r o v e , t h e f o r m a t i o n o f n o n -family households, the number of vacancies and demolition of units not necessarily deficient a l l increase. The number of units required to be added by 1973 to prevent a deterioration in housing conditions would be about 180,000 units a year and the number required to completely eliminate overcrowding, doubling-up and use of substandard units i s not known since i t would require the d e f i n i t i o n of needs and requirements— 39 an e t h i c a l question. To prevent a deterioration in housing conditions in Metropolitan Vancouver the number of new dwellings 40 required during 1965-70 was estimated at 7,000 annually. This might give an idea of the scale of approximate future requirements i n the area. In 1969 the t o t a l number of completions i n Metro-politan Vancouver was 1,916 whereas by the end of March 1970 completions were 4,106 with 10,390 units under construction. However, indications are that demand remained strong since the inventory of newly completed and unoccupied dwelling units 41 declined to 1,3 87 units. Further indications as to the strong demand are pro-vided by the vacancy rates, which i n Vancouver, for apart-42 ments are low or minimal varying by location and type of 43 apartment and are the lowest i n Canada. A similar s i t u a -tion exists in a l l the major Canadian c i t i e s with the 44 exception of Montreal. Housing starts by A p r i l 1970 across Canada were running about 40 per cent below that month of the previous y e a r , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e M i n i s t e r R e s p o n s i b l e f o r H o u s i n g . T h e M i n i s t e r t h o u g h t t h a t t o t a l s t a r t s i n 1970 w o u l d b e a b o u t 180,000 c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e 200,000 a n t i c i p a t e d i f t h e F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t ' s 19 69-7 3 c o m m i t m e n t w e r e t o b e m a i n t a i n e d a t a n 45 a n n u a l r a t e . S t a r t s f o r t h e m o n t h o f M a y 1970 w e r e 50.1 p e r c e n t b e l o w M a y 19 69 f i g u r e s f o r u r b a n a r e a s , a d r o p t o 46 8,392 u n i t s f r o m 16,814 u n i t s . T h e t r e n d t o m o r e a p a r t m e n t s a n d r o w - h o u s e s c o n t i n u e d i n M e t r o p o l i t a n V a n c o u v e r w i t h 1,014 s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d , s e m i -d e t a c h e d a n d d e u p l e x s t a r t s c o m p a r e d t o 2,27 8 r o w , a p a r t m e n t 47 a n d o t h e r s t a r t s b y t h e e n d o f M a r c h 1970. I n 19 6 8 a l s o t h e t r e n d t o a p r e d o m i n a n c e o f r e n t a l u n i t s o v e r o w n e r - o c c u p i e d u n i t s w a s i n c e n t r e s o f 10,000 48 p o p u l a t i o n , m o r e t h a n t w o t o o n e . I n 19 65 t h e T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g B o a r d o f V a n c o u v e r e s t i m a t e d t h a t b y 19 81 t h e r e w i l l b e 68,900 a p a r t m e n t u n i t s i n V a n c o u v e r c o n s t i t u t i n g 49.2 p e r c e n t o f a l l d w e l l i n g u n i t s , a c h a n g e f r o m t h e 1961 s i t u a t i o n w h e n t h e r e w e r e 29,200 a p a r t m e n t s m a k i n g u p 24.7 p e r c e n t o f 49 a l l d w e l l i n g u n i t s . S O M E A S P E C T S O F T H E H O U S I N G M A R K E T T h e u r b a n r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d m a r k e t s a r e a m o n g t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e l y m o s t i m p o r t a n t o f a l l u r b a n m a r k e t s , a n d m o s t u r b a n p r o b l e m s a r e r e l a t e d i n o n e w a y o r a n o t h e r t o t h e o p e r -50 a t i o n o f t h e u r b a n l a n d a n d h o u s i n g m a r k e t s . M e n t i o n h a s been made of the components of demand and population density and land s c a r c i t y i n Metropolitan Vancouver and also the performance of supply; reference has been made to the housing shortage and there remains the problem of housing costs to the consumer: Housing i s a universal need, yet the private market on which Canadians have r e l i e d i s anything but universal i n i t s present scope and a p p l i c a t i o n . Housing, i n a word, i s too expensive for too many Canadians. I f i t i s not true, as popular charge would have i t , that any Canadian earning less than $8,000 a year cannot buy a home i n today's market, i t i s true that t h i s statement does apply i n some metropolitan areas, while i n many others "average" income w i l l not buy a family an "average" home. 51 Not only do the low income groups suffe r i n competing 52 53 for shelter but so do the "a f f l u e n t poor," those earning the "average" income of between $5,000-$7,500 a year who are 54 forced to rent accommodation and whose housing costs are well above the 20-27 per cent of income CMHC holds acceptable 55 for housing expenses. The major impact of the housing shortage i n Vancouver i s on the renter with a young f a m i l y . 5 ^ The r i s i n g costs of obtaining shelter are generally a r e f l e c t i o n of land s c a r c i t y and the cost of s e r v i c i n g land 57 58 which r e s u l t s i n high land costs, on high i n t e r e s t rates an the imperfect competition i n the market as indicated by low vacancy rates. This shortage, r e f l e c t e d by minimal vacancy rates, mentioned e a r l i e r , i s an important cost factor i n i t s -59 60 e l f . The r i s i n g cost of b u i l d i n g materials, construction 61 62 labour and s t r i k e s also contribute to increased housing costs. A further d i f f i c u l t y i s that of the larger downpayment required, which between 1964 and 1968 increased by 44 per cent. A l t h o u g h r i s i n g i n c o m e s h a v e g e n e r a l l y m a t c h e d r i s i n g 64 h o u s i n g c o s t s t h e i m p a c t o f t h e s h o r t a g e i n h o u s i n g i s i n h o u s i n g o f c e r t a i n t y p e s f o r c e r t a i n s e g m e n t s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n c o m p r i s i n g h o u s i n g d e m a n d . T h e i m p a c t h a s b e e n f e l t f i r s t a n d h a r d e s t b y l o w i n c o m e f a m i l i e s * ^ b u t a l s o o n n o n - f a m i l y g r o u p s w i t h f i x e d o r l i m i t e d i n c o m e s s u c h a s w i d o w e d p e r s o n s , s i n g l e d i v o r c e d p e r s o n s , s t u d e n t s a n d s e n i o r c i t i z e n s . ^ A l s o a f f e c t e d a r e y o u n g f a m i l i e s w i s h i n g t o m o v e f r o m r e n t a l u n i t s 6 V t o s e l f o w n e d h o u s i n g . T h e m i d d l e a n d h i g h i n c o m e f a m i l i e s a r e a f f e c t e d m a i n l y i n t h e l o c a t i o n , s i z e a n d a d d e d f a c i l i t i e s a n d l u x u r i e s t h a t t h e y c a n a f f o r d i n t h e i r h o u s i n g a n d m a n y p r o b a b l y d e l a y b u y i n g h o m e s d u e t o h i g h e r d o w n p a y r n e n t s a n d 6 8 m o n t h l y c h a r g e s . T H E E M E R G E N C E O F C O N D O M I N I U M - P A S T A N D P R E S E N T T h e c o n d i t i o n s p r e s e n t l y o b t a i n i n g i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a b e a r s o m e s i m i l a r i t y t o t h o s e o u t o f w h i c h i n o t h e r t i m e s i n o t h e r p l a c e s t h e r e e m e r g e d c o n d o m i n i u m h o u s i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s . T h e c o n d i t i o n s i n c l u d e l i m i t e d b u i l d i n g s p a c e i n w a l l e d c i t i e s i n t h e M i d d l e A g e s a n d o n i s l a n d s t o d a y s u c h a s P u e r t o R i c o a n d H a w a i i a n d t h e l a n d p o v e r t y o f t h e L o w e r M a i n l a n d o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r , t h e s h o r t a g e o f h o u s i n g d u e t o d e s t r u c t i o n i n w a r s o r d u e t o a g r o w i n g p o p u l a t i o n , t i g h t e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s , t h e h i g h c o s t o f d w e l l i n g s a n d t h e 69 d e s i r e f o r o c c u p a n t - o w n e r s h i p o f d w e l l i n g s . The importance of condominiums i n other countries i s perhaps useful i n showing i n perspective the p o t e n t i a l of condominiums i n Canada. Condominiums are important because they may be a most e f f e c t i v e means of providing mass housing and i n some countries have already superseded other types of 70 dwellings. Belgium builds 90 per cent of i t s t o t a l 71 r e s i d e n t i a l development i n condominium; 98 per cent of the 72 Hawaiian market i s condominium and m A u s t r a l i a 66 per cent 73 of new housing i s condominium. During 1962-1968 i t was estimated that between 50,000-60,000 condominium units were 74 b u i l t i n the United States. In the urban conditions of today the u t i l i s a t i o n of the condominium concept i n providing housing can r e s u l t i n greater population density and thus lower land cost, lower s e r v i c i n g costs, and lower construction costs because they are d i s t r i b u t e d among more buyers. S i m i l a r l y services and f a c i l i t i e s such as maintenance and swimming pools, etc. can 75 be included at a price more people can a f f o r d . Another advantage of condominium i s that, as intensive urban development i s concentrating ownership, p a r t i c u l a r l y of multiple housing, i n fewer and fewer hands, condominium w i l l provide the p o s s i b i l i t y of ownership of homes, which i s con-7 6 sidered by some to be a basic strength of Canadian society. Condominium, t h e r e f o r e , becomes one a l t e r n a t i v e i n the ch o i c e o f housing accommodation a v a i l a b l e t o B r i t i s h Columbians. 77 The range of a l t e r n a t i v e s i s g i v e n below, i n which condomin-ium can be r e c o g n i z e d as the second a l t e r n a t i v e : 1. a d w e l l i n g owned i n fee simple w i t h no common f a c i l i t i e s or common c o n t r o l ; 2. a d w e l l i n g owned i n fee simple w i t h some common p r o p e r t y and f a c i l i t i e s and some form of c o n t r o l p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o the val u e or s i z e of the d w e l l i n g 7 8 and s u b j e c t to the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t ; 3 . a d w e l l i n g l e a s e d from a c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e i n which the occupant l e s s e e i s a s h a r e h o l d e r , w i t h some common f a c i l i t i e s and w i t h each l e s s e e h a v i n g e q u a l c o n t r o l i r r e s p e c t i v e o f the s i z e or v a l u e of the d w e l l i n g and s u b j e c t t o the C o o p e r a t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n s A c t ; 4. a d w e l l i n g l e a s e d from a company i n which the occupant l e s s e e i s a s h a r e h o l d e r w i t h some common f a c i l i t i e s w i t h some form of c o n t r o l p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o the v a l u e of the d w e l l i n g and s u b j e c t to the Companies A c t ; and 5. a l e a s e d d w e l l i n g w i t h or without some common f a c i l i t i e s over which the occupant l e s s e e has no c o n t r o l and e i t h e r (a) s u b j e c t t o the L a n d l o r d and Tenant A c t and/ or l e a s e , or (b) managed by the B r i t i s h Columbia Housing Management Commission s u b j e c t t o the Short 79 Form of Leases A c t . CONDOMINIUMS IN CANADA In 1969, although complete s t a t i s t i c s are not a v a i l -a b l e , i t was es t i m a t e d t h a t there were between 2,0 00-3,000 80 u n i t s o f condominium housing i n Canada i n c l u d i n g completions, 81 u n i t s under c o n s t r u c t i o n and imminent s t a r t s of which 25 per 82 ce n t of the completions were i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The es t i m a t e s f o r B r i t i s h Columbia are t h a t i n 1969 c l o s e t o 1,000 8 3 u n i t s were b e i n g developed and t h a t d u r i n g 1966-1970 some 84 2,000 u n i t s were developed. Although the Vancouver O f f i c e of C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n has r e c e n t l y c o l l e c t e d s t a t i s t i c s on condominiums t h a t i t f i n a n c e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, a t the time of w r i t i n g these s t a t i s t i c s 8 5 have not been a n a l y s e d . The O n t a r i o Housing C o r p o r a t i o n has announced p l a n s f o r f i v e condominium developments t h a t 8 fi w i l l c o n s t r u c t 8,6 85 u n i t s f o r s a l e by the F a l l of 1974. "Nineteen-seventy w i l l be the year o f the Condominium i n 87 Metro Toronto." The 2,500 condominium u n i t s t h a t i t i s est i m a t e d w i l l be b u i l t i n townhouse c l u s t e r s and h i g h r i s e towers r e p r e s e n t more than a q u a r t e r of a l l the s i n g l e f a m i l y , owner-occupied d w e l l i n g s t o be b u i l t d u r i n g 1970 i n Metro-p o l i t a n Toronto and i t i s expected t h a t i n a few ye a r s condominium u n i t s w i l l outnumber s i n g l e f a m i l y houses i n the 8 8 annual s t a r t s and completions. HOUSING AND URBAN PLANNING I t i s accepted t h a t Planners must be concerned w i t h a l l the v a r i e d aspects of a c i t y and i t s problems and needs. 90 One of these problems i n v o l v i n g a b a s i c need i s urban 91 92 housing and i t i s suggested condominiums may a i d i n s o l v i n g the problem of the housing shortage and p r o v i s i o n f o r f u t u r e housing needs. C o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s have a l s o been sugges-93 t e d as another means to s o l v e the problem. The F e d e r a l Task Force has s t a t e d t h a t : . . . a t l e a s t p a r t of the problem i n the f i e l d o f h ousing and urban development can be t r a c e d t o the f a c t t h a t governments i n Canada . . . have not s p e l l e d out t h e i r primary g o a l s and p r i o r i t i e s i n t h i s a r e a . 94 The Task Force then recommended t h a t the F e d e r a l Government do so and d e c l a r e d among the p r i n c i p l e s t h a t should be adopted the f o l l o w i n g : . . . the aim of the government p o l i c i e s s hould be t o generate s u f f i c i e n t housing s t o c k o f v a r i o u s forms so t h a t a l l Canadians may e x e r c i s e t h e i r own freedom of c h o i c e as t o the s t y l e and tenure of housing i n which "they l i v e . 95 Condominium developments w i l l widen t h i s c h o i c e of s t y l e and t e n u r e . In a paper on the s o c i a l e f f e c t s of housing, Marvin Lipman s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e were c e r t a i n themes, which o f f e r d i r e c t i o n i n c r e a t i n g the k i n d of housing environment d e s i r a b l e , and which i n c l u d e d : (i) i n c r e a s i n g our u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the r e l a t i o n -s h i p between man, h i s housing and h i s e n v i r o n -ment, through experiment and r e s e a r c h . ( i i ) i n c r e a s i n g the range of c h o i c e s i n housing environment f o r a l l our c i t i z e n s , i n c l u d i n g the low income groups. ( i i i ) b u i l d i n g i n t o our housing environments the k i n d of amenities which make i t more than s h e l t e r . (iv) p r o v i d i n g the k i n d s of o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n housing which a l l o w f o r d i f f e r e n t forms o f management, ownership, e t c . and which encourage r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and independence, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r the low income group. 96 I t i s suggested t h a t condominiums c o u l d be e s p e c i a l l y e f f e c t i v e i n meeting the l a s t t h r e e requirements mentioned by Lipman. Condominium developments may o f t e n i n v o l v e l a r g e p a r c e l s of l a n d and the u t i l i s a t i o n of urban l a n d i . e . , urban l a n d p o l i c y has always been of c e n t r a l importance t o urban p l a n n e r s . A.G. D a l z e l l , an e a r l y P r e s i d e n t of the Town P l a n n i n g I n s t i t u t e of Canada emphasized i n h i s w r i t i n g s t h a t the b a s i c problems o f town p l a n n i n g and housing were l a n d problems, and today urban l a n d p o l i c y i s r e c e i v i n g i n c r e a s i n g a t t e n t i o n 97 from p l a n n e r s . Governments have been i n v o l v e d i n housing a t v a r i o u s l e v e l s and i n v a r i o u s ways i n v o l v i n g 9 8 community p l a n n e r s f o r some decades and w h i l e the e f f e c t o f Governmental p o l i c i e s c o n c e r n i n g c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s 99 has been c o n s i d e r e d , t h e x r e f f e c t on condomxnium development remains to be a n a l y s e d . HYPOTHESIS In B r i t i s h Columbia t h e r e are two types of housing cooperatives;"'"^"'" c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s and t i t l e c o o p e r a t i v e s , the l a t t e r b e i n g more commonly known as condominiums. Although the absence of s p e c i f i c P r o v i n c i a l and M u n i c i p a l p o l i c i e s f o r the promotion and implementation of c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s 102 has r e t a r d e d t h e i r f o r m a t i o n the housing p o l i c i e s o f the 103 F e d e r a l Government do not d i s c r i m i n a t e " a g a i n s t condominiums and the P r o v i n c i a l Government does have s p e c i f i c p o l i c i e s on condominium housing. The author contends t h a t the l a c k o f s p e c i f i c M u n i c i p a l p o l i c y and b u r e a u c r a t i c procedures does not f r u s t r a t e the development o f condominium housing and consequently w i l l attempt t o answer the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s : What, i f any,, are the s p e c i f i c M u n i c i p a l p o l i c i e s and b u r e a u c r a t i c procedures c o n c e r n i n g r e s i d e n t i a l condominium development, and What, i f any, i s t h e i r e f f e c t on such development? DEFINITIONS Condominium, u n l e s s otherwise c l e a r from the c o n t e x t , means any or a l l o f the f o l l o w i n g : - 105 The form o f land ownership and tenure s u b j e c t to s p e c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n r e g u l a t i n g condominiums, i n which 1. Land b u i l d i n g s and oth e r f a c i l i t i e s are s u b d i v i d e d i n t o (a) u n i t s , t h a t are s e p a r a t e l y owned i n fee simp l e , and (b) common p r o p e r t y shared and c o n t r o l l e d by a l l o f t h e . u n i t owners, and 2. In r e f e r e n c e t o B r i t i s h Columbia are s u b j e c t t o the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t , u n l e s s r e f e r e d t o as "common-law" or " n o n - s t a t u t o r y " condomin-iums . Policy means: Any r e l e v a n t l e g i s l a t i o n , or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , r e g u l a t i o n , standards o r programme stemming t h e r e f r o m o r any p o l i c y r e s o l u t i o n , view a t t i t u d e or i n t e n t i o n whether expressed g e n e r a l l y or stemming from any s p e c i f i c r e l e v a n t governmental d e c i s i o n . Bureaucratic Procedures means; The procedures and documentation necessary t o l e g a l l y o b t a i n p e r m i s s i o n t o develop l a n d and c o n s t r u c t b u i l d i n g s and f a c i l i t i e s . ASSUMPTIONS The assumptions i n t h i s t h e s i s a r e : That a l l l e v e l s o f Government and t h e i r p roper agencies i n Canada a r e , or should be, concerned w i t h improving the e x i s t i n g housing s i t u a t i o n , and That they a r e , or should be, not averse t o ado p t i n g p o l i c i e s which w i l l a i d i n the accomplishment o f an improvement i n the hous-i n g s i t u a t i o n . METHODOLOGY By way of i n t r o d u c t i o n the and f u t u r e urban housing needs are c u r r e n t housing s i t u a t i o n d e s c r i b e d and condominium suggested as one a l t e r n a t i v e housing type and one u s e f u l way of meeting f u t u r e housing demand. In o r d e r to p r o v i d e the n e c e s s a r y background and p e r s p e c t i v e t o the study, g i v e n the s u b j e c t ' s n o v e l t y i n Canada, c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s g i v e n t o the e v o l u t i o n o f condominium i n Chapter I I f o l l o w e d i n Chapter I I I by c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the nature of condominium housing i n which a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n i s drawn between condominiums and s i m i l a r phenomena. The next t h r e e Chapters - IV, V and VI d e a l w i t h F e d e r a l , P r o v i n c i a l and M u n i c i p a l P o l i c i e s r e s p e c t i v e l y . The l a t t e r Chapter, on M u n i c i p a l P o l i c y , i n which the h y p o t h e s i s i s t e s t e d , i s d e r i v e d i n p a r t from a q u e s t i o n n a i r e sent t o some o f the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n which con-dominium housing has been developed. Chapter VII concludes w i t h the major o b s e r v a t i o n s drawn from the whole paper. LIMITATIONS In a d d i t i o n to examining l e g i s l a t i o n a f u r t h e r method of e s t a b l i s h i n g F e d e r a l , P r o v i n c i a l and M u n i c i p a l housing p o l i c i e s would be t o conduct a thorough search of the minutes o f debates a t the t h r e e l e v e l s mentioned as w e l l as a l l p r e s s r e l e a s e s , conference minutes and r e l e v a n t r e p o r t s e t c . t o d i s c o v e r r e f e r e n c e s t o housing and r e s i d e n t i a l condominiums from which to deduce t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p o l i c i e s . The main l i m i t a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s i s t h a t such a s e a r c h was not con-ducted by the author (and i s suggested as a u s e f u l f u t u r e t o p i c f o r a t h e s i s ) - . The reasons b e i n g f i r s t l y the p a u c i t y of such r e c o r d s a t the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l , i . e . no Hansard and s e c o n d l y , a l a c k of time and r e s o u r c e s to c a r r y out such a s e a r c h e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e a t the M u n i c i p a l l e v e l a number of M u n i c i p a l i t i e s would have to be c o n s i d e r e d . However, i n the case o f F e d e r a l housing p o l i c y Barrow's deduced p r i n c i p l e s were accepted. F u r t h e r l i m i t a t i o n s are mentioned i n the t e x t , e.g. those r e g a r d i n g the u s e f u l n e s s of the p o s t a l survey of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n Chapter V I . CONCLUSION T h i s t h e s i s i s i n p a r t s — d e s c r i p t i v e , t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l . The major o r i g i n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s of t h i s work a r e , i n the author's o p i n i o n as f o l l o w s . In Chapter I the author p r e s e n t s a framework of the range of a l t e r n a t i v e s i n housing i n B r i t i s h Columbia and i n Chapter I I a " n u t s h e l l " h i s t o r y o f the e v o l u t i o n of the condominium concept t o which the author's o r i g i n a l c o n t r i -b u t i o n i s the o u t l i n e of the l e g a l background and r o l e of S c o t t i s h and Quebec condominiums, i n the l a t t e r case from New France u n t i l today. N e i t h e r of these c o u n t r i e s " e x p e r i e n c e i s to be found i n any d e t a i l i n the sources on condominium e v o l u t i o n . In Chapter I I I the author has c a r e f u l l y drawn the o d i s t i n c t i o n between condominiums and s i m i l a r forms of housing (over which t h e r e e x i s t s much c o n f u s i o n i n the p u b l i c mind) and i n Chapter V has d e s c r i b e d P r o v i n c i a l housing p o l i c y and i n Chapter VI has o u t l i n e d the scope o f M u n i c i p a l housing p o l i c y . 1. Quoted i n Canadian Welfare C o u n c i l , S o c i a l P o l i c i e s f o r  Canada, P a r t 1, (Ottawa: 1969) , p. T~. 2. M i c h a e l Wheeler, (ed.),"Recommendations of the Conference," The R i g h t t o Housing, (Montreal: Harvest House L t d . , 1969), p. 331. 3. Report o f the Task Force on Housing and Urban Development, (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1969), p. 22. 4. Canadian Welfare C o u n c i l , op. c i t . , p. 1. 5. Background Papers f o r the F e d e r a l P r o v i n c i a l Conference on Housing and Urban Development, Housing P o l i c y , Problems  and P r i o r i t y , (Ottawa: December, 1967), p. 1. C i t e d by M a r i a n t h i C o n s t a n t i n u , Housing C o o p e r a t i v e s i n B r i t i s h  Columbia, u n p u b l i s h e d Master's t h e s i s i n Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g (Vancouver, B.C.: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970), p. 4. 6. Task F o r c e , op. c i t . , p. 14. 7. Economic C o u n c i l of Canada, P e r s p e c t i v e 1975, S i x t h Annual Review, (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1969), p. 100. 8. I b i d . 9. T h i s i s supported by the o p i n i o n expressed by Dr. H.P. Oberlander, ( D i r e c t o r of the School of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia), e t a l . , c o n c e r n i n g one a l t e r n a t i v e , i . e . c o o p e r a t i v e KousTng and c i t e d by C o n s t a n t i n u , op. c i t . , p. 76. 10. Op. c i t , supra, note 2. 11. Dr. Rose of the School of S o c i a l Work and P r o f . Diamond of the S c h o o l of A r c h i t e c t u r e , both of the U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , quoted i n B r i e f submitted t o the F e d e r a l Task F o r c e on Housing and Urban Development, Vancouver, B.C., November 1968, by the B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l C o u n c i l of C a r p e n t e r s , (prepared by the Trade Union Research Bureau, Vancouver, B.C.), p. 1. T n e R i g h t t o Housing, op. c i t . . , and see a l s o David V. Donnison, A g e n d a f o r Housing" i n I b i d . , 234, 235. 13. Task F o r c e , op_. c i t . , p. 6. 14. I b i d . , p. 9. 15. For b i r t h s , deaths, immigration and p o p u l a t i o n , f o r Canada 1921-69, see Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s 1969, (Ottawa: CMHC, 1970), T a b l e 76, p. 58. For p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n s under v a r i o u s assumptions see Wolfgang I l l i n g , et. a_l. , P o p u l a t i o n , f a m i l y , household and labour f o r c e growth t o  1980, (Ottawa: Economic C o u n c i l o f Canada, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1967), T a b l e 2-E, p. 25. F o r t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n and urban and l a r g e c i t y shares by r e g i o n see Economic C o u n c i l o f Canada, F o u r t h Annual Review, From the 1960's t o 1970's, (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1967), p. 186. 16. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s r e p o r t e d i n The Sun, Van-couver, B.C., 28 May 1970. 17. Economic C o u n c i l o f Canada, op. c i t . , pp. 41, 186. 18. Economic C o u n c i l of Canada, F o u r t h Annual Review, op. c i t . , s upra, n. 15, quoted i n C o n s t a n t i n u , op. c i t . , p. 2. 19. Task F o r c e , op_. c i t . , p. 9. 20. See I l l i n g , op_. c i t . , s upra, n. 15, p. 25. 21. Economic C o u n c i l of Canada, F o u r t h Annual Review, op. c i t , supra, n. 15, p. 4. 22. Lower Mainland R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g Board (LMRPB), P o p u l a t i o n  Trends i n the Lower Mainland, (New Westminster, B.C.: 1968) , p. 11. 23. I b i d . , p.12. 24. B. C.-Bureau of Economics and S t a t i s t i c s , i n LMRPB, op. c i t . , p. 12. 25. LMRPB, 0 £ . c i t . , p. 42. 26. For map see LMRPB, op_. c i t . 27. I b i d . , pp. 13-14. 28. I b i d . , p. 14. 29. I b i d . , p. 17. 30. I b i d . , p. 3. 31. LMRPB, Chance and C h a l l e n g e , (New Westminster, B.C.: 1963), p. 4. 32. I b i d . 33. I b i d . , p. 9. 34. For a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f housing needs and demands see Malcolm McD. Barrow, F e d e r a l Housing P o l i c i e s and the Deve l o p i n g Urban S t r u c t u r e : C o n f l i c t s and R e s o l u t i o n ^ u n p u b l i s h e d Master's t h e s i s i n Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , (Vancouver, B.C.: U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1967) , Chapter IV. 35. CMHC, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s 1968, (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r ^ 1969), p. x i i . For t o t a l f a m i l y and non-family household formations and p r o j e c t i o n s see I l l i n g , op_. c i t . , Ta b l e 3-4, p. 69 and f o r components of housing demand based on demographic t r e n d s see Economic C o u n c i l of Canada, op. c i t . , s upra, n. 7, T a b l e 6-5, p. 99. 36. Task F o r c e , o£. c i t . , p. 23. 37. CMHC, Housing S t a t i s t i c s , B.C. Region, March 1970. (Vancouver, B.C.: 4 A p r i l 1970), p. 1. For the Annual h i s t o r i c a l f i g u r e s , see Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s 1969, (Ottawa: CMHC, 1970), T a b l e 1, p .~T. 38. CMHC, op. c i t . , supra, n. 35, p. x i v . 39. I b i d . , p. x i v . 40. M.J. Audain, The Housing S i t u a t i o n i n Vancouver, A B r i e f i n g  For V o l u n t e e r s , (Vancouver, B.C.: U n i t e d Community S e r v i c e s , 1966), p. 4. 41. CMHC, op. c i t . , supra, n. 37, p. 1. 42. For a comparative summary of vacancy r a t e see Real E s t a t e  Trends Supplement, (Vancouver Real E s t a t e Board, 1970) , T a b l e s 1, 2 and 3, pp. 13, 14. 43. G.R. Brown, An A n a l y s i s of the Vancouver Housing Market  1966-68, A J o i n t Report o f the Seminar i n Governmental Urban Land P o l i c i e s , F a c u l t y of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , (Vancouver, B.C.: U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968), p. 20. 44. Task F o r c e , op. c i t . , p. 15. 45. The Sun, Vancouver, B.C., 28 May 1970. 46. CMHC p r e l i m i n a r y d a t a quoted i n The Sun, Vancouver, B.C., 10 June 1970. 47. CMHC, Housing S t a t i s t i c s , B.C. Region, op_. c i t . , supra, n. 37, p. A-36. 48. CMHC, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s 1969, (Ottawa: 1970) , p. v i i i . 49. Quoted i n the Vancouver Tenants O r g a n i z a t i o n Committee ( p r e s e n t l y the Vancouver Tenants C o u n c i l ) B r i e f t o the Task F o r c e on Housing and Urban Development^ (Vancouver, B.C.: 1968), p. 2. 50. R i c h a r d F. Muth, "Urban R e s i d e n t i a l Land and Housing Markets" i n Issues i n Urban Economics, Harvey S. P e r l o f f and Lowdon Wingo, J r . , [ells7) ( B a l t i m o r e : The Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1968), p. 285. 51. Task F o r c e , op. c i t . , p. 14. 52. I b i d . , p. 15 and C o n s t a n t i n u , ojo. c i t . , pp. 5-6. 53. Task F o r c e , op. c i t . , p. 15. 54. For appartment r e n t s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver see Brown, op. c i t . , Appendix A-X and Real E s t a t e Trends 196 8, ^Vancouver Real E s t a t e Board, 1969), p. B-9 and Supple-ment 1969, p. 17. 55. Task F o r c e , op. c i t . , p. 15 and C o n s t a n t i n u , op. c i t . , 56. Brown, op. ex t . , p. 33. 57. For r e s i d e n t i a l land c o s t s i n Metro Vancouver, see Real  E s t a t e Trends 1970, op. c i t . , p. A -4. 58. CMHC, op. ext.., supra, n. 48, p. x and Ta b l e 52 and f o r i n t e r e s t r a t e levels see CMHC, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s  F ebruary 1970, p. 7. And a l s o : In summary, the f o l l o w i n g are the major f a c t o r s con-t r i b u t i n g to the h i g h c o s t of f i n a n c i n g ; 1. The demand f o r c a p i t a l i s h i g h on a worldwide s c a l e . 2. Because of a number of i n t e r n a t i o n a l developments - h i g h rate of i n f l a t i o n , U.S. balance-of-payments d e f i c i t s , the war i n Vietnam, p o l i t i c a l upheavals, e t c . , — c o n f i d e n c e i n the s t a b i l i t y of c u r r e n c i e s has weakened, and l e n d e r s are wary about s u p p l y i n g funds. 3. Not o n l y are i n t e r e s t r a t e s r i s i n g under such c o n d i t i o n s , but the p r e f e r e n c e f o r v a r i o u s types of s e c u r i t i e s changes t o the disadvantage of l o n g -term fixed-income s e c u r i t i e s such as mortgages. 4. The U n i t e d S t a t e s i s f a c e d by a p e r s i s t i n g dilemma on the one hand, the n e c e s s i t y t o pursue f u l l employment p o l i c i e s t o a v o i d mounting unemployment under c o n d i t i o n s of extremely r a p i d l a b o u r f o r c e g r o w t h — i . e . p o l i c i e s which imply e a s i e r money and c r e d i t , as w e l l as a c e r t a i n amount of i n f l a t i o n (depending on the c h o i c e of t r a d e - o f f s between un-employment and p r i c e i n c r e a s e s ) — a n d , on the other hand, the need t o pursue more d e f l a t i o n a r y p o l i c i e s designed to c o r r e c t i t s balance of payments. 5. Canada has become more c l o s e l y t i e d to developments o u t s i d e i t s b o r d e r s , and i s t h e r e f o r e l i k e l y to be a f f e c t e d not o n l y by e x i s t i n g p r e s s u r e s on i n t e r e s t r a t e s , but a l s o by developments i n p r i c e s - - w i t h an a d d i t i o n a l push a r i s i n g from the remaining scope f o r Canadian p r i c e s and c o s t s to r i s e more than those i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Wolfgang M. I l l i n g , "The R i s i n g Cost of Housing and Problems of F i n a n c i n g " i n the R i g h t t o Housing, op. c i t . , pp. 161-162. 59. Task F o r c e , op. c i t . , p. 15. 60. For p r i c e s of r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s 1963-70, see Real E s t a t e Trends 1970, supra, n. 57, p. A-3. 61. For b a s i c wage r a t e s i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d u s t r y see Real E s t a t e Trends 1969 , supra, n. 42, p. 22. 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, For i n s t a n c e i n B r i t i s h Columbia d u r i n g the summer of 1970 f o r e s t r y and c o n s t r u c t i o n workers were on s t r i k e . Brown I b i d . I b i d . Brown I b i d . op. c i t . , p. 12. p. 12 . p. 22 and C o n s t a n t i n u , op_. c i t . , p. 4/ e t . seq. op. c i t . , p. 21. p. 21. 68. I b i d . pp. 2 3-2 5. 69. J . L e y s e r , "The Onwership o f F l a t s - A Comparative Study," I n t e r n a t i o n a l and Comparative Law Q u a r t e r l y , ( V o l . 7, January 1958), p. 320, and E.H.Q. Smith, " b i d Wine i n New B o t t l e s , " H a b i t a t , ( V o l . X I I , Nos. 4-5, 1969), p. 2 and A. F e r r e r and K. S t e c h e r , Law of  Condominium, (Oxford, N.H.: E q u i t y P u b l i s h i n g C o r p o r a t i o n , 1967), V o l . 1, pp. 26, 29, 33 and 37 and A Rosenberg, Condominium i n Canada, (Toronto: Canada Law Book L t d . , 1969) , p. 2-2 and Task F o r c e , op_. c i t . , p. 17. 70. F e r r e r and S t e c h e r , op. c i t . , p. i v . 71. Quoted i n L e y s e r , o_£. c i t , p. 35, n. 16. 72. E. S u l l y , "Developers Look a t Condominium," H a b i t a t , ( V o l . X I I , Nos. 4-5, 1969), p. 29. 73. M i c h a e l P i n e , " C i t y R e p a i r , A i r R i g h t s and Condominium," H a b i t a t , ( V o l . X I I , No. 4-5, 1969), p. 62. 74. A. S c h r e i b e r , "The L a t e r a l Housing Development: Con-dominium or Home Owners A s s o c i a t i o n ? , " U n i v e r s i t y o f  P e n n s y l v a n i a Law Review, ( V o l . 117, No. 8~5 p^ 1106, 75. Rosenberg, op_. c i t . , pp- 1-2 and R.J. MacLeod, "Developers Look a t Condominium," H a b i t a t , ( V o l . X I I , Nos. 4-5, 19 69), p. 26. And a l s o : The condominium may o f f e r the buyer a m e n i t i e s and l u x u r i e s which might otherwise be beyond h i s means such as a g o l f c ourse, view o f the ocean or a l a k e , a swimming p o o l , or an a t t r a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n a rea. In a d d i t i o n , he may r e c e i v e more housing f o r h i s money s i n c e the percentage of l a n d c o s t s i n r e l a t i o n t o the a c t u a l c o s t of the u n i t tends t o be l e s s than the percentage f o r a s i n g l e - f a m i l y d w e l l i n g . A r e s i d e n t i a l l o t , f o r example, might r e p r e s e n t 20 t o 25% o f the t o t a l c o s t of an average p r o p e r t y , whereas i n a condominium i t u s u a l l y would tend to be l e s s , perhaps around 10 t o 15 per c e n t . from W.R. Beaton, "The Detached-House Condominium," Urban Land, ( V o l . 3, 29 March 1970), p. 5. 76. J.P. Roberts, "Condominium Ownership i n B r i t i s h Columbia," Real E s t a t e Trends i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, (Vancouver, B.C.: Vancouver ReaT~Estate Board, 1966), p. B - l . 77. The author's l i s t o f a l t e r n a t i v e s , which e x c l u d e s — i n the f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e — t h e ease o f , f o r example, a shared driveway or a p a r t y w a l l , i . e . a common f a c i l i t y i n a semi-detached house or duplex; and--in the second a l t e r n a t i v e — c o m m o n law or n o n - s t a t u t o r y condominiums; a n d — i n the f i f t h a l t e r n a t i v e — c a s e s where Tenants C o u n c i l s or A s s o c i a t i o n s have been formed and which have bargained w i t h the l a n d l o r d thereby g a i n i n g some, a l b e i t s m a l l , measure of c o n t r o l over t h e i r housing c o n d i t i o n s . For i n s t a n c e , a committee of tenants of the Vancouver, B.C. L i t t l e Mountain p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t has been r u n n i n g the p r o j e c t s i n c e the l a t e F a l l of 1970 and i n t e n d s to ask f o r equal r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w i t h Government appointees on the B.C. Housing Management Commission (The Sun, Vancouver, B.C., 7 January, 1971). In Vancouver, B.C. d u r i n g A p r i l 1971 a s i g n i f i c a n t number of tenants o f W a l l and Redekop L t d . , w i t h h e l d t h e i r r e n t i n order t o coerce the l a n d l o r d i n t o j u s t i f y i n g a r e n t i n c r e a s e . At the time of w r i t i n g ( A p r i l , 1971) the matter has not been r e s o l v e d . A d d i t i o n a l l y the r i g h t s o f ownership o f p r o p e r t y are s u b j e c t t o Governmental power t o l e v y taxes and t o s e i z u r e o f p r o p e r t y i n the event o f non-payment; t o r e g u l a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g land use, h e a l t h , e t c . , and to ex-p r o p r i a t i o n by the Crown or m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . 78. See Chapter V. 79. Short Form of Leases A c t , R.S.B.C. 1960, C.357 as amended. 80. See Chapter I I f o r the Canadian j u r i s d i c t i o n s w i t h s p e c i a l condominium l e g i s l a t i o n . 81. R.T. Ryan, "The Lenders' View 1," H a b i t a t , ( V o l . X I I , Nos. 4-5, 1969), p. 18. 82. Smith, op_. c i t . , p. 11. 83. The Hon. Grace McCarthy, M i n i s t e r Without P o r t f o l i o , Address, t o the P r o v i n c i a l Assembly, Monday 16 February, 1979, p. 11. 84. David Davidson, " S t r a t a T i t l e Development - Condominium," Real E s t a t e Trends i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver 1970, (Vancouver, B.C.: Vancouver Real E s t a t e Board"]! T9"71) , p.B-1. P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h Mr. J . Lowdon of CMHC 1s Vancouver O f f i c e , 13 November 1970. 86. Richard R. S n e l l , "The Third Alternative," Habitat, (Vol. XII, No. 4-5, 1969), p. 23. In Canadian Homes (June 1970), p. 1, i t is stated that the Ontario Govern-ment has plans for 10,000 condominium homes. 87. Toronto Daily Star, Real Estate Section, 28 February 1970. 88. Ibid. 89. See, for examples, the wide range of subjects covered in planning texts and journals. See Barrow, op_. c i t . , pp. 13-16 and 120, 121 for a more detailed discussion of the relationship between urban planning and housing. 90. Economic Council of Canada, supra, n. 7, p. 164. 91. H i s t o r i c a l l y , housing reform was one of the a c t i v i t i e s that preceded modern planning and today governmental p o l i c i e s and programmes i n housing and urban renewal are major factors i n city development. 92. In that i t has been called the most effective method of providing mass housing, supra, n. 70 and also half of the ten contributors to an a r t i c l e enti t led "Operation Housing" in Western Homes and L i v i n g , (February 1970), pp. 22-30 mention condominiums as part of the solution to meeting future housing needs. 93. Constantinu, op_. cit . . , p. 8. 94. Task Force, op_. c i t . , p. 22. 95. Ibid. 96. Marvin Lipman, Social Effects of the Housing Environment, (Canadian Conference on Housing, Background Paper No. 4~7 September 1968), p. 12. 97. Mary Rawson, Submission on the Benson White Paper by the  Town Planning Institute of Canada, (working draft pre-pared for the Committee on the Public Presence of the Town Planning Institute of Canada, J u l y , 1970), pp. 4-5. See also p. 18 for elaboration on land taxation and urban problems and planning. 98. The Dominion Housing Act was passed in 1935, see also Chapter IV and Albert Rose, Canadian Housing P o l i c i e s , (Canadian Conference on Housing, Background Paper No. 2, June 1968) and Task Force, op_. c i t . , pp. 4-6. Munici-p a l i t i e s have been involved through zoning and building regulations and some provinces have had l e g i s l a t i o n respecting housing for some time. 99. By C o n s t a n t i n u , op_. c i t . 100. Claude Morin, Condominium, ( r e p o r t prepared f o r the A d v i s o r y Group of CMHC Ottawa, 1967), pp. 7-8 i n which i t i s s t a t e d t h a t condominiums have not been s t u d i e d from a p l a n n e r ' s p o i n t of view. 101. C o n s t a n t i n u , op_. c i t . , pp. 9-11. See a l s o i n f r a Chapter I I I . 102. C o n s t a n t i n u , op_. c i t . , pp. 63-71. 103. Infra.. / Chapter IV. 1 0 4 • I n f r a . , Chapter V. 105. I n f r a . , Chapter I I I . 106. F o l l o w i n g C o n s t a n t i n u , op_. c i t . ' , p. 15. t C H A P T E R I I A N O U T L I N E H I S T O R Y O F T H E C O N C E P T O F C O N D O M I N I U M O W N E R S H I P I n t r o d u c t i o n ; The A n c i e n t World; Rome and Roman Law; Condominium i n Europe i n the Middle Ages; Germany-an Example of C o n f l i c t of Law; S w i t z e r l a n d and A u s t r i a ; Other European C o u n t r i e s ; C i v i l Law and Common Law; France; C o d i f i c a t i o n o f the Law-The Code Napoleon; Belgium; Other C o u n t r i e s ; F r a n c e -The 1938 L e g i s l a t i o n ; Spain; Post-War L e g i s l a t i o n ; J u g o s l a v i a ; L a t i n America; Puerto R i c o ; L o u i s i a n a ; Quebec; S c o t l a n d ; England; The U n i t e d S t a t e s ; A u s t r a l i a and New Zealand; Canada; The F a r E a s t ; C o n c l u s i o n . INTRODUCTION If you would know what a thing is you must know how it came to be what it is . . . . Let us therefore begin with the historical background. 1 This chapter w i l l present an outline of the evolution of condominium arrangements and their diffusion i n time and space u n t i l the adoption of l e g i s l a t i o n in Canada i n the l a t t e r 1960's. For the purposes of this chapter a condominium means the subdivision of ownership of land and buildings and their associated f a c i l i t i e s into separately owned units and property belonging i n common to a l l the unit owners and the implied operating rules. THE ANCIENT WORLD The e a r l i e s t record of a condominium arrangement is contained i n papyrus in the Brooklyn Museum which records that a form of condominium was used by the ancient Hebrews 2,500 2 years ago. There is also the recorded sale of part of a building nearly 2,200 years ago in Ancient Babylon during the F i r s t 3 Dynasty. Some r e s e a r c h e r s have found evidence of condominium arrangements i n A n c i e n t and C l a s s i c a l times among the Greeks, Hebrews, E g y p t i a n s and Muslims and o t h e r s a l s o c o n s i d e r passages i n Homer's Odyssey and i n Herodotus as i n d i c a t i o n s 4 of the e x i s t e n c e of s i m i l a r arrangements. ROME AND ROMAN LAW While "condominium," a L a t i n word i s commonly used i n North America t h e r e i s disagreement as to whether the condominium concept, as i t i s ma n i f e s t e d today, a c u t a l l y was a f e a t u r e of r e a l p r o p e r t y l e g a l p r a c t i c e i n C l a s s i c a l Rome. 5 V a r i o u s authors have been c i t e d as having found evidence of condominium arrangements i n C l a s s i c a l Rome. However, such arrangements would be c o n t r a r y t o the l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s of superficies solo cedit (whatever i s at t a c h e d t o the land forms p a r t of i t ) and dominus soli est coeli et inferorum vel usque ad infera (property r i g h t s extend up i n t o the heavens and down t o the c e n t r e o f the e a r t h ) . : In s p i t e o f these maxims t h e r e e v o l v e d the r i g h t of superficies, which p e r m i t t e d the e r e c t i o n and ownership o f 7 b u i l d i n g s on la n d owned by another. M a r t m - G r a n i z o t h e o r i z e s t h a t f o l l o w i n g , and based on, superficies the next s t e p would be the s p l i t t i n g o f ownership of p a r t s of a b u i l d i n g . The maxim dominus soli e t c . , mentioned above was a l s o expressed as cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum (he who has the l a n d has up t o the heavens) i n which there i s no mention of the underground r i g h t s thereby c o n s t i t u t i n g a weakening of the maxim as expressed dominus soli e t c . , mentioned above. And s i n c e the l a t t e r was sometimes m o d i f i e d t o a l l o w s e p a r a t e g ownership o f the m i n e r a l r i g h t s and was f o l l o w e d by the e v o l u t i o n of the r i g h t of superficies i t does seem l o g i c a l t h a t i n d i v i d u a l ownership of p a r t s of b u i l d i n g s c o u l d a l s o e v o l v e . C e r t a i n l y , out of n e c e s s i t y and on an i n f o r m a l b a s i s t h i s 9 custom d i d a r i s e i n C l a s s i c a l Rome but without l e g a l s a n c t i o n . CONDOMINIUM IN EUROPE IN THE MIDDLE AGES I t was however, i n the M i d d l e Ages w i t h the surround-i n g of many towns by w a l l s and o t h e r f o r t i f i c a t i o n s t h a t the condominium arrangement became common. 1 0 T h i s was a r e s u l t o f the n e c e s s i t y of u s i n g more i n t e n s i v e l y a f i x e d supply of l a n d s e c u r e w i t h i n the w a l l s . GERMANY - AN EXAMPLE OF CONFLICT OF LAW The s i t u a t i o n i n Germany d u r i n g the e a r l y decades of 11 12 the 12th century has been d e s c r i b e d by Gonzalez and Hubner: From the 1100's onward we f i n d extremely widespread i n German Towns s o - c a l l e d 'Story' or 'Roomage' Ownership ('Stockwerks-J *Geschoss-J *Gelass-J 'Etageneigentum- 1)--ownership o f the i n d i v i d u a l s t o r i e s of a b u i l d i n g . Houses were h o r i z o n t a l l y d i v i d e d and the s p e c i f i c p a r t s so c r e a t e d . . . were h e l d by d i f f e r e n t persons i n sep a r a t e owner-s h i p . . . e s p e c i a l l y i n Bohemia and South Germany . . . and above a l l i n S w i t z e r l a n d . 13 Again the condominium arrangements adopted by the poorer c l a s s e s became common and widespread and were, as i n Rome, i n f o r m a l and without l e g a l s a n c t i o n . In the 19th cen t u r y t h e r e was however, o f f i c i a l o p p o s i t i o n t o the i d e a on l e g a l grounds and a l s o from the p o l i c e and tax c o l l e c t o r s and even the C o d i f i c a t i o n s of the law by P r u s s i a and by Saxony i n 14 the mid 19th century d i d not a l l o w condominium ownership. A l e g a l c o n t r o v e r s y over condominium l a s t e d u n t i l the coming 15 i n t o f o r c e of the German C i v i l Code i n 1900. A c c o r d i n g t o the Code, ownership of p a r t o f a b u i l d i n g was f o r b i d d e n but i t was p r o v i d e d t h a t : "Laws approved by the S t a t e s t o e s t a b l i s h i n d e t a i l the r u l e s governing cases i n which each each one of the co-owners of an i n d i v i d u a l house has the e x c l u s i v e enjoyment of p a r t of such house are 16 not hereby r e p e a l e d . " T h i s p r o v i s i o n n i c e l y p e r m i t t e d the c o n t i n u a t i o n o f customary condominium arrangements i n c e r t a i n p a r t s of Germany w h i l e a t the same time g i v i n g e x p r e s s i o n t o Roman p r i n c i p l e s o f law and w e l l i l l u s t r a t e s the c o n f l i c t between customary law and l a t e r C o d i f i e d law based on the Roman p r i n c i p l e s of immoveable p r o p e r t y ownership mentioned e a r l i e r . I t i s opportune a t t h i s p o i n t t o s t a t e t h a t customary law has been d e f i n e d by the c e l e b r a t e d French j u r i s t Robert P o t h i e r as: " . . . laws t h a t usage has e s t a b l i s h e d and t h a t 17 were kept u n w r i t t e n , through a l o n g t r a d i t i o n . " and which were, i n the case of France, o n l y w r i t t e n down i n the e a r l y 16th c e n t u r y . That t h e r e was a r e a l c o n f l i c t between customary law and the acceptance of Roman Law p r i n c i p l e s i n t o the p r e v a i l i n g l e g a l d o c t r i n e i s c l e a r l y borne out by the f o l l o w i n g : . . . . N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h a t t h i s p e c u l i a r l e g a l i n s t i t u t e [ i . e . condominium] was t o t a l l y i r r e c o n c i l a b l e w i t h the a l i e n law of the Reception [of Roman Law p r i n -c i p l e s ] i t remained p a r t of the law . . . . I t was pr e s e r v e d as a p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c l e g a l i n s t i t u t i o n i n many l o c a l i t i e s even i n the face of s t a t u t o r y p r o h i b i t i o n s . 18 In Germany the condominium concept was not e x p r e s s e d l y r e c o g n i z e d or comprehensively r e g u l a t e d l e g a l l y (except as J. i d i c a t e d above) u n t i l 1951 when a law p e r m i t t i n g apartment 19 ownership was approved, f o l l o w e d by a new law i n 1953. SWITZERLAND AND AUSTRIA S w i t z e r l a n d ' s e x p e r i e n c e i n condominium i s s i m i l a r t o Germany's i n t h a t having been common s i n c e a t l e a s t the 12th century as mentioned e a r l i e r , i t was l a t e r p r o h i b i t e d by the Swiss Code of 1912 but p r o v i s i o n was made t h e r e i n t o r e s p e c t the l o c a l customs which r e s u l t e d i n d i f f e r i n g concepts 20 and r e g u l a t i o n of condominium i n each Canton. S w i t z e r l a n d 38 21 has adopted l e g i s l a t i o n enabling and regulating condominium and i t i s of passing i n t e r e s t to note that Turkey, having adopted the Swiss C i v i l Code, authorized condominium ownership 22 before the Swiss although based on the then proposed Swiss l e g i s l a t i o n . In A u s t r i a , which has a l e g a l system s i m i l a r to Germany and Switzerland, informal condominium arrangements had been known for many years and as i n Germany and Switzerland had been l e g i s l a t i v e l y proscribed but nevertheless permitted i n 1879 and again i n 1912 but were f i n a l l y authorized by law i n 1948 as amended i n 1 9 5 0 . 2 3 OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES In many other European countries forms of condominium existed and were recognized under customary law, e.g. Spain, 24 Portugal, • Igium, I t a l y and France. Examples of these are the customs of the Spanish Basque Provinces and a compilation of Spanish law i n the year 1263 which contained much customary law and which has been c i t e d as implying condominium s i t u a -tions; i n Portugal an a r t i c l e of the P h i l l i p i n e Ordinances of 1603, providing for buildings where d i f f e r e n t owners owned the c e l l a r and upper storey; and i n Belgium a 16 57 Statute of Brussels and the Customs of Antwerp, Ghent and Louvain; and i n I t a l y the " s t a t u t i " of Milan and the usage of Genoa and Sardinia. While no r e f e r e n c e has y e t been made to the B r i t i s h I s l e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h condominium arrangements which from the 16th century on e x i s t e d under common law i t w i l l be a p p r e c i a t e d t h a t t h e r e are two main s c h o o l s of l e g a l thought 25 m the modern Western world v a r i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d on one hand, as the Anglo-American or Common Law system and C i v i l Law, C o n t i n e n t a l or Franco-German system on the ot h e r hand and t h a t : . . . the f i r s t [ i s ] founded upon E n g l i s h Common Law and e q u i t y and t h e r e f o r e predominantly i n d u c t i v e and e m p i r i c a l and the second [ i s ] founded on the law of Rome and i t s modern o f f s h o o t s i n many r e c e n t c o d i f i -c a t i o n s , and t h e r e f o r e predominantly s y s t e m a t i c and d e d u c t i v e . 26 Because o f these d i f f e r e n c e s i n the l e g a l systems the e v o l u t i o n of the condominium i n Anglo-American law w i l l be d e a l t w i t h a f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the concept i n the C i v i l law c o u n t r i e s and w i l l be preceded by a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of Quebec and S c o t l a n d . FRANCE However, t o r e t u r n t o C o n t i n e n t a l Europe, i t was from France t h a t the g r e a t e s t impetus t o condominium l e g i s -l a t i o n was d e r i v e d , f i r s t l y from customary law, secondly from the Code Napoleon, and t h i r d l y from the 19 3 8 l e g i s l a t i o n . Some of France's e x p e r i e n c e i s a l s o o f s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t t o those i n t e r e s t e d i n . t h e antecedents o f condominium l e g i s l a t i o n i n Canada s i n c e p a r t of the law of France was a l s o the law of New France out of which grew Quebec C i v i l law and whose "new" C i v i l Code of 1866, the year b e f o r e Canadian C o n f e d e r a t i o n , owed much to the Code Napoleon. In France d u r i n g the l a t e r Middle Ages t h e r e were many l e g a l p r o v i s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g forms of condominium owner-s h i p . In the c i t i e s o f Nantes, Saint-Malo, Caen, Rouen, Rennes, Lyons, Chambery and e s p e c i a l l y Grenoble condominium ownership was common and i n Orleans and P a r i s even s i n g l e rooms were owned s e p a r a t e l y such was the shortage o f housing. P a r i s i n 1672 passed l e g i s l a t i o n d e f i n i n g the r i g h t s of "apartment" owners w h i l e the Coutumes (customary laws) of the P r o v i n c e s of O r l e a n s , B e r r y , Bourbonnais, B r i t t a n y , Montargis and N i v e r n a i s and a l o c a l custom o f Auxerre c o n t a i n e d a r t i c l e s 27 r e g u l a t i n g condominium ownership. CODIFICATION OF THE LAW - THE CODE NAPOLEON I t was from these coutumes t h a t the concept o f con-dominium ownership passed i n t o the Code Napoleon. Yet t h i s c o d i f i c a t i o n , which was to i n f l u e n c e the law of many c o u n t r i e s e i t h e r by conquest o f French arms and c o l o n i s a t i o n or by p e r s u a s i o n and i n s p i r a t i o n t o the j u r i s t s of other c o u n t r i e s , o n l y adopted the A r t i c l e concerned, A r t i c l e 664, which f o l l o w e d the example of A r t i c l e 257 of the ooutume of O r l e a n s , as a r e s u l t of the o b s e r v a t i o n s on the o r i g i n a l d r a f t of the Code by two r e g i o n a l appeal c o u r t s i n whose d i s t r i c t s s eparate ownership of f l o o r s was common, those of Lyons and Grenoble. Thus t h i s Code, which l a t e r e x e r t e d so much i n f l u e n c e upon the law of c o u n t r i e s of the Roman c o d i f i e d t r a d i t i o n , d i d not p r o h i b i t condominium ownership ( u n l i k e Germany, A u s t r i a and S w i t z e r l a n d ) on t h e o r e t i c a l grounds as b e i n g a d e v i a t i o n from the Roman Law p r i n c i p l e s mentioned e a r l i e r . Important though i t was, the i n c l u s i o n of A r t i c l e 66 4 i n the Code Napoleon d e a l t o n l y w i t h r e p a i r and r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a house owned i n p a r t by separate owners. T h i s same a r t i c l e adopted l a t e r by the C i v i l Code of Quebec and renumbered as A r t i c l e 521 (1866-1969) reads i n the E n g l i s h v e r s i o n as f o l l o w s : When the d i f f e r e n t s t o r e y s of a house belong t o d i f f e r e n t p r o p r i e t o r s , i f t h e i r t i t l e s do not r e g u l a t e the mode of r e p a i r i n g and r e b u i l d i n g , i t must be done as f o l l o w s : A l l the p r o p r i e t o r s c o n t r i b u t e t o the main w a l l s and the r o o f , each i n p r o p o r t i o n to the v a l u e of the s t o r e y which belongs to him; The p r o p r i e t o r of each s t o r e y makes the f l o o r under him; The p r o p r i e t o r of the f i r s t s t o r e y makes the s t a i r s which l e a d t o i t , the p r o p r i e t o r o f the second s t o r e y makes the s t a i r s which l e a d from the f i r s t t o h i s , and so on. However, i t can be seen t h a t these p r o v i s i o n s apply i n the absence of s p e c i a l r e g u l a t i o n s made between the p a r t i e s concerned. "And t h e r e are g e n e r a l l y such s p e c i a l a c c o r d s . And, i n almost a l l c i t i e s where t h i s d i v i s i o n of houses i s p r a c t i s e d , t h e r e are l o c a l usages and a s p e c i a l j u r i s p r u d e n c e . " As mentioned above the importance o f A r t i c l e 664 was t h a t through the p r e s t i g e and i n f l u e n c e of the Code Napoleon the concept passed i n t o , or remained a p a r t of the modern law of many c o u n t r i e s of the wor l d . A l l t o l d , the Napo l e o n i c Code has made an amazing t r i p around the world: i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h i r t y - f i v e s t a t e s , t r a n s l a t e d , c o p i e d , and adapted i n t h i r t y - f i v e o t h e r s , w i t h an i n f l u e n c e t h a t i s s t i l l l a s t i n g today. 31 BELGIUM I t was not u n t i l 1924 t h a t a European country adopted comprehensive l e g i s l a t i o n c o n t a i n i n g a s e t of b a s i c r u l e s g o v e r n i n g condominium ownership. In J u l y of t h a t year the B e l g i a n Code was amended by A r t i c l e 577 b i s . U n t i l then A r t i c l e 664 of the Code Napoleon had been law, but, as i n France, agreements between the co-owners i n the m a j o r i t y o f cases had r e g u l a t e d condominium ownership and j u r i s p r u d e n c e 32 had been e s t a b l i s h e d through l i t i g a t i o n . The B e l g i a n l e g i s l a t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d t o have co n t a i n e d few i n o v a t i o n s and was based on p r i n c i p l e s drawn from French and B e l g i a n e x p e r i e n c e , j u r i s p r u d e n c e and l e g a l commentaries and anyway the r u l e s governing condominiums were a p p l i c a b l e o n l y i f th e r e were no s p e c i a l convenants and p r o v i s i o n s between 33 the co-owners. The two s t r i k i n g p o i n t s about t h i s B e l g i a n law are f i r s t l y t h a t i t was the f i r s t modern l e g i s l a t i o n of a comprehensive nature g i v i n g express l e g a l s a n c t i o n t o con-dominium ownership and s e c o n d l y , t h a t i t i n c l u d e d p r o v i s i o n s which made p o s s i b l e the f i n a n c i n g of modern l a r g e - s c a l e • . . 34 p r o j e c t s . OTHER COUNTRIES Before the next l e g i s l a t i o n o f major importance, i n 19 3 8 i n France, a number of o t h e r European c o u n t r i e s adopted l e g i s l a t i o n o f v a r y i n g comprehensiveness, p r o v i d i n g express l e g a l s a n c t i o n t o condominium ownership and b a s i c r u l e s regu-l a t i n g the o p e r a t i o n of the condominiums a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o d i e s . Thus, Hungary i n 1924, Romania i n 1927, Sweden i n 1931 and 1942, B u l g a r i a i n 1 9 3 3 , 3 5 and I t a l y i n 1935, 1942 and 1 9 4 7 . 3 6 FRANCE - THE 1938 LEGISLATION The French l e g i s l a t i o n of 1938 was of major importance i n the d i f f u s i o n and e v o l u t i o n of the condominium concept. One a s p e c t of the French condominium e x p e r i e n c e should be s t r e s s e d . France i s u n q u e s t i o n a b l y the j u r i s d i c t i o n where the modern condominium i d e a was developed . . . [and] The Law of June 28, 1938, has been c a l l e d "a remarkable c o d i f i c a t i o n of the f r u i t s of e x p e r i e n c e and o b s e r v a t i o n s of the t e x t w r i t e r s . " 37 The one very s e r i o u s drawback t o the pre-19 3 8 system b u i l t up by agreements and j u r i s p r u d e n c e which was overcome by the 1938 l e g i s l a t i o n , was t h a t the veglement de oopvopviete 3 8 c o u l d not b i n d s u c c e s s o r s i n t i t l e . The 1938 l e g i s l a t i o n , which r e p e a l e d A r t i c l e 664 i s d i v i d e d i n t o two c h a p t e r s . The f i r s t d e a l s w i t h b u i l d i n g s o c i e t i e s and the second w i t h co-ownership or condominium. The second chapter r e g u l a t e s not o n l y the i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s of each co-owner but a l s o c l a r i f i e s " . . . the r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s of the owners of f l a t s w i t h r e g a r d t o the common 39 p a r t s of the b u i l d i n g " and: I t c r e a t e s an assembly of co-owners known as the " s y n d i c a t , " and p r o v i d e s f o r i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by an e x e c u t i v e agent known as the " s y n d i c " or t r u s t e e . I t a l s o covers most of the o t h e r a s p e c t s u s u a l l y r e g u l a t e d under modern condominium s t a t u t e s . 40 The 1938 enactment was supplemented and amended i n 1939, 1943, 1955, 1 9 5 9 4 1 and 1 9 6 5 . 4 2 SPAIN In 1939 Spain adopted comprehensive condominium l e g i s l a t i o n . Reference was made e a r l i e r t o the customary l e g a l antecedents t o the modern l e g i s l a t i o n but i n a d d i t i o n t o these i n 1885, a few years b e f o r e the a d o p t i o n of a C i v i l Code i n Spain i n 1889 a f t e r more than h a l f a century of e f f o r t , an author had s e t down some of the r u l e s which were c u s t o m a r i l y accepted i n the c i t y of V a l e n c i a governing the r i g h t s of co-ownership i n a condominium a r r a n g e m e n t . 4 3 on A r t i c l e 664 of the Code Napoleon, and which was not t h e r e f o r e comprehensive. By 19 39 the long acknowledged need f o r reform l e d t o the app r o v a l of new l e g i s l a t i o n which however, was not t r u l y comprehensive but d i d overcome c e r t a i n l e g a l d o c t r i n e which had developed and which was i n i m i c a l t o the development 44 of a t r u e modern condominium concept. In 19 60 a compre-h e n s i v e condominium law was enacted t a k i n g i n t o account as s t a t e d i n i t s preamble " . . . the needs i n h e r e n t t o the 45 s o c i a l r e a l i t i e s w i t h which i t i s designed t o d e a l . " POST - WAR LEGISLATION A f t e r the Second World War the Greek C i v i l Code of 1946 A r t i c l e 1,117 r e g u l a t e d condominium and A u s t r i a as mentioned e a r l i e r passed a condominium law i n 19 4 8 f o l l o w e d by Germany and the Netherlands i n 1951, P o r t u g a l i n 1955, 46 S w i t z e r l a n d m 19 66 and Luxembourg r e c e n t l y . JUGOSLAVIA J u g o s l a v i a has a type of c o o p e r a t i v e t h a t i s s i m i l a r t o condominium. There are two main types of housing coopera-t i v e s . The f i r s t type o r g a n i s e s p l a n n i n g and c o n s t r u c t i o n of new apartment b u i l d i n g s by s e l l i n g shares t o p r o s p e c t i v e occupants. The second type i s formed by owner-occupants t o manage t h e i r b u i l d i n g and to attend to i t s upkeep. I f the b u i l d i n g i s " s o c i a l l y " owned, i . e . by the commune, i t can be bought by the cooperative as a whole or by the i n d i v i d u a l residents who receive t i t l e to t h e i r own separate apartment. A l l housing cooperatives must j o i n the General Cooperatives Union, and t h e i r members are therefore e n t i t l e d to such p r i v -ileges as tax exemptions and other concessions granted only 4 7 to the s o c i a l i s e d sector of society. LATIN AMERICA Continuing with the C i v i l Law countries and turning to the New World, i t was i n 1928 that B r a z i l passed condominium l e g i s l a t i o n whose roots are to be found i n the P h i l l i p i n e Ordinances of 1603 mentioned e a r l i e r . While the 19 2 8 Law, as amended, i s not r e a l l y an adequate condominium statute because of i t s sketchy provisions, i t needs to be recognized that i t s e a r l i e r adoption was very far-sighted and made possible a great deal of the vigorous urban growth evident i n modern B r a z i l . 48 The amendments mentioned were passed i n 1943 and 1948. The idea of condominium l e g i s l a t i o n spread to other South American countries quite r a p i d l y but the l e g i s l a t i o n i t s e l f took longer to materialise and before the outbreak of the Second World War only C h i l e i n 19 37, had followed B r a z i l ' s 49 example. However, m 19 39 there was held i n Buenos Aires the f i r s t Pan American Housing Congress, at which an Argentinian advocated condominium ownership which led to the Congress s u p p o r t i n g a r e s o l u t i o n c a l l i n g f o r the enactment of h o r i z o n -50 t a l p r o p e r t y l e g i s l a t i o n . In A r g e n t i n a p r e s s u r e f o r condominium l e g i s l a t i o n c o n t i n u e d from 19 2 8 onwards and s e v e r a l b i l l s were i n t r o d u c e d i n the A r g e n t i n e Congress p r o p o s i n g the ad o p t i o n of a compre-he n s i v e h o r i z o n t a l p r o p e r t y law. The 1869 C i v i l Code of A r g e n t i n a , however, e x p r e s s l y p r o h i b i t e d condominium f o l l o w i n g the Roman Law d o c t r i n e s mentioned e a r l i e r . A l s o i n 1869 the year of a d o p t i o n of the A r g e n t i n e C i v i l Code: . . . t h e r e were no p r a c t i c a l housing problems t o be s o l v e d by a l l o w i n g h o r i z o n t a l p r o p e r t y ownership. E i g h t y years were t o e l a p s e b e f o r e the shortage o f housing space i n Buenos A i r e s and other urban c e n t r e s would l e a d the A r g e n t i n e Congress t o r e p e a l A r t i c l e 2617 of the C i v i l Code and to approve a compre-hens i v e condominium s t a t u t e , on September 30, 1948. 51 Sin c e 1948 many other L a t i n American c o u n t r i e s have 52 adopted condominium l e g i s l a t i o n . Of these c o u n t r i e s some borrowed d i r e c t l y from o t h e r c o u n t r i e s e.g. Cuba's 1950 l e g i s -l a t i o n was based on the 1939 Spanish law and Venezuela's ". . . was p a t t e r n e d a f t e r p r o v i s i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n the A r g e n t i n e , B o l i v i a n , Columbian, Cuban, C h i l e a n , French and Uruguayan 53 H o r i z o n t a l P r o p e r t y A c t s . " A l s o some c o u n t r i e s had c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s r e g u l a t i n g condominium arrangements a l r e a d y i n e x i s t e n c e , e.g. the C o n s t r u c t i o n Ordinances of the C i t y of Havana, 1961, sec. 341-353, but o t h e r s , even though t h e i r l e g a l systems were based on the Code Napoleon, had no, or 54 inadequate, p r o v i s i o n s . In 19 52 Cuba passed a new Condominium law which i s of i n t e r e s t t o North Americans: . . . s i n c e i t served as a model f o r the Puerto R i c a n A c t , and thus i t i n d i r e c t l y s e t the p a t t e r n f o r most of the condominium s t a t u t e s adogted by the s e v e r a l s t a t e s of the U n i t e d S t a t e s . 55 These i n t u r n had some i n f l u e n c e on c e r t a i n A c t s passed by the Canadian P r o v i n c e s . In 1889 the new Spanish C i v i l Code was extended by Royal Decree t o Cuba, Puerto R i c o and the P h i l l i p i n e s . Cuba thus had rudimentary r u l e s r e g u l a t i n g condominium i n a d d i t i o n t o the Havana C i t y Ordinances. However, these r e g u l a t i o n s , which remained i n f o r c e a f t e r Cuban independence from S p a i n , were as inadequate i n Cuba as they were i n S p a i n and the Cuban c o u r t s f o l l o w e d the precedents of the Spanish c o u r t s i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the law. Cuba d i d not, however, adopt the 1939 Spanish Law u n t i l 1950 but w h i l e the Spanish d i d not c o r r e c t the shortcomings o f t h e i r 1939 law u n t i l 1960 i t took the Cubans on l y two years t o fo r m u l a t e and enact e n t i r e l y new l e g i s l a t i o n . In 1952 the 1950 decree was reexamined and on the b a s i s o f a comparative study of the h o r i z o n t a l p r o p e r t y s t a t u t e s adopted i n other j u r i s d i c t i o n s , A c t No. 40 7 was f i n a l l y d r a f t e d and approved. A c t No. 407 i s a comprehensive s t a t u t e , which i n c o r p o r -ates most of the b e s t f e a t u r e s c o n t a i n e d i n ot h e r advanced laws on the s u b j e c t . 56 I t i s perhaps of p a s s i n g i n t e r e s t t o note the f a t e of t h i s law s i n c e the Cuban R e v o l u t i o n l e d by F i d e l C a s t r o . . . . the h o r i z o n t a l p r o p e r t y d e v i c e has assumed g r e a t importance and i s p l a y i n g an unexpected r o l e under the F i d e l C a s t r o Communist regime. The Cuban Urban Reform A c t of October 14, 1960 (see t e x t i n 224 Informacion J u r i d i c a , p. 79 (1962) , p u b l i s h e d by the F o r e i g n L e g i s l a t i o n Committee of the Spanish M i n i s t r y of J u s t i c e ) p r o h i b i t s , w i t h c e r t a i n minor e x c e p t i o n s , a l l urban r e a l p r o p e r t y l e a s e c o n t r a c t s . I t decrees the s a l e t o the tenant of the l e a s e d premises, on the b a s i s of the payment, d u r i n g a f i x e d number of y e a r s , of a sum e q u i v a l e n t t o the r e n t payments. Art. 20 o f the A c t p r o v i d e s t h a t i n the case of any and a l l apartment b u i l d i n g s , the P r o v i n c i a l Urban Reform C o u n c i l f o r the area i n which the p r o p e r t y i s l o c a t e d w i l l s u b j e c t i t t o the h o r i -z o n t a l p r o p e r t y regime by i s s u i n g a r e s o l u t i o n t o t h a t e f f e c t , thus making i t p o s s i b l e f o r the ten a n t s t o purchase the "apartments" they occupy. Presumably t h i s means t h a t the C o u n c i l w i l l a l s o draw up the master deed and the bylaws f o r the b u i l d i n g . 57 T h i s i s i n t e r e s t i n g f o r two reasons. F i r s t l y i t throws more l i g h t on how the condominium concept i s f i t t e d i n t o the communist or more s t r i c t l y speaking, the s o c i a l i s t , system and the r o l e of condominium home ownership i n a communist or s o c i a l i s t s t a t e about which L e y s e r and o t h e r 5 8 Western authors when w r i t i n g on condominium are s i l e n t . Secondly t h e r e i s a c e r t a i n degree of s i m i l a r i t y between the Cuban Urban Reform A c t and "A d r a f t program of housing reform-the tenant condominium ( f o r low and middle income h o u s i n g ) " 59 by W i l l i a m J . Quirk and o t h e r s , by which the c i t y o f New York would g a i n c o n t r o l of slum p r o p e r t y which i t would r e h a b i l i t a t e and s e l l t o the occupant tenants as a condominium. PUERTO RICO Puerto R i c o ' s e a r l y e x p e r i e n c e i n condominium d e v e l o p -ment was s i m i l a r t o t h a t of Cuba and the Spanish C i v i l Code's condominium p r o v i s i o n s were extended to Cuba i n 1889. A f t e r the c e s s i o n of Puerto R i c o to the U n i t e d S t a t e s i n 1898 and the subsequent r e v i s i o n o f the C i v i l Code the wording of these p r o v i s i o n s remained unchanged though the a r t i c l e s were r e -numbered. However, " . . . i t i s a l s o t r u e t h a t i n Puerto • R i c o , a t t h a t time, t h e r e were no housing problems t h a t needed to be s o l v e d by having r e c o u r s e to the h o r i z o n t a l form o f 6 0 tenancy. Urban lan d was cheap and r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . " In 1951, Puerto R i c o , f o l l o w i n g i n Spain's and Cuba's f o o t s t e p s , amended the C i v i l Code i n e x a c t l y the same terms as had Spain i n 1939 and Cuba i n 1950. In 1958 a b i l l p r e -sented i n the House of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s based on the A r g e n t i n e H o r i z o n t a l P r o p e r t y A c t was withdrawn and another based on the Cuban L e g i s l a t i o n of 1952 submitted i n i t s p l a c e which became law i n t h a t y e a r . The reason the Cuban model was p r e f e r r e d b e i n g t h a t the Cuban and Puerto Rican C i v i l Codes and Mortgage Laws were very s i m i l a r . ^ 1 T h i s l e g i s l a t i o n g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d t h a t l a t e r adopted throughout the U n i t e d S t a t e s : I t i s a l s o t o Puerto R i c o ' s c r e d i t t h a t i t f u r n i s h e d the impetus f o r the d r i v e i n Congress t o amend s e c t i o n 234 o f the N a t i o n a l Housing A c t i n order to a u t h o r i z e the FHA t o i n s u r e mortgages on condominium d w e l l i n g s thus opening the way f o r a new source of f i n a n c i n g and c r e a t i n g the main i n c e n t i v e f o r the ad o p t i o n o f comprehensive h o r i z o n t a l s t a t u t e s i n a l l but one of the s t a t e s . 62 Having en t e r e d a North American j u r i s d i c t i o n , most of which are common law, c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i l l be g i v e n t o L o u i s -i a n a , Quebec and S c o t l a n d b e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g t o the common law j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n England, North America and elsewhere. LOUISIANA When the S t a t e o f L o u i s i a n a adopted the Code Napoleon i n the e a r l y 19th century A r t i c l e 664 of t h a t code was omitted from the new C i v i l Code of L o u i s i a n a . However, i n s p i t e o f A r t i c l e 505 o f the L o u i s i a n a Code which s t a t e s : The ownership o f the s o i l c a r r i e s w i t h i t the ownership of a l l t h a t i s d i r e c t l y above and under i t . . . . 63 the next a r t i c l e p r o v i d e d as f o l l o w s : A l l the c o n s t r u c t i o n s , p l a n t a t i o n s and works, made on or w i t h i n the s o i l , are supposed t o be done by the owner, and a t h i s expense, and t o belong t o him, u n l e s s the c o n t r a r y be proved, without p r e j u d i c e t o the r i g h t s o f the t h i r d persons who have a c q u i r e d or may a c q u i r e by p r e s c r i p t i o n the p r o p e r t y of a subterr a n e a n p i e c e of ground under the b u i l d i n g of another, or any p a r t o f the b u i l d i n g . 64 I t had been f e l t t h a t t h i s a r t i c l e r e c o g n i s e d the 65 p o s s i b i l i t y o f p a r t ownership i n a b u i l d i n g . In the case o f 6 6 Lasoyne v Emerson, however, the Supreme Court of L o u i s i a n a " . . . adhered t o an e n t i r e l y orthodox and c o n s e r v a t i v e p o i n t 67 of view . . . ." by r e f e r r i n g t o the t r a d i t i o n a l Roman Law concept expressed i n A r t i c l e 505 and by making no r e f e r -ences t o A r t i c l e 506. I n 1962 L o u i s i a n a e n a c t e d a c o m p r e h e n s i v e h o r i z o n t a l p r o p e r t y s t a t u t e p a t t e r n e d a f t e r t h e P u e r t o R i c a n l a w a s a d o p t e d b y A r k a n s a s . I n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n p e r h a p s t h e f o l l o w i n g q u o t e w e l l e x p l a i n s w h y Q u e b e c r e l i e d u p o n t h e F r e n c h c o n -d o m i n i u m l a w r a t h e r t h a n m o d i f y i n g a n o t h e r C a n a d i a n o r A m e r i c a n a c t f r o m a C o m m o n L a w j u r i s d i c t i o n : I t h a s b e e n p o i n t e d o u t t h a t i t i s u n f o r t u n a t e t h a t t h e L o u i s i a n a A c t w a s n o t m o d e l l e d d i r e c t l y a f t e r t h e P u e r t o R i c a n A c t , L o u i s i a n a a n d P u e r t o R i c o b o t h b e i n g C i v i l l a w j u r i s d i c t i o n s . A r k a n s a s h a d m a d e c e r t a i n c h a n g e s i n t h e s t a t u t e t o a c c o m m o d a t e i t t o i t s c o m m o n l a w s y s t e m , a n d t h e s e c h a n g e s a n d o m m i s s i o n s w e r e c a r r i e d d i r e c t l y i n t o t h e L o u i s i a n a s t a t u t e , t h u s e n g r a f t i n g i n t o L o u i s i a n a r e a l p r o p e r t y l a w c o n c e p t s d e e m e d e n t i r e l y a l i e n a n d i n a p p r o p r i a t e . 6 8 Q U E B E C I n t h e P r o v i n c e o f Q u e b e c , o r L o w e r C a n a d a , a s i t t h e n w a s , c o d i f i c a t i o n o f c i v i l l a w w a s c o m p l e t e d i n 1866. F r o m 166 3 u n t i l t h a t t i m e , s i n c e L o u i s X I V h a d e x t e n d e d t h e C u s t o m o f P a r i s t o " . . . o u r c o u n t r i e s o f C a n a d a , A c a d i a a n d t h e 69 I s l a n d o f N e w f o u n d l a n d . . . " Q u e b e c h a d b e e n u n d e r f e u d a l l a w . T h e C u s t o m o f P a r i s i s t h e o n l y c u s t o m t h a t w a s o f f i c i a l l y m a d e a p p l i c a b l e t o C a n a d a . I t w a s c o m p i l e d i n 1510 a n d r e f o r m e d i n 1580. U n t i l c o d i f i c a t i o n i n 1866, i t c o n s t i t u t e d t h e b a s i s o f t h e c i v i l l a w i n C a n a d a . 70 I n 1675 t h e I n t e n d a n t D u c h e s n e a u w a s d i r e c t e d t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e S u p e r i o r C o u n c i l a n d a l l i n f e r i o r c o u r t s decide cases according to the Edicts and Ordinances of the King of France and the Custom of Paris. U n t i l that time, that is from 1608 when Champlain founded Quebec, some land grants had been made under the Custom of the Vexin Francais, some, under the Custom of Paris and others under the Custom of Normandy.^ The confusion as to the v a l i d i t y of English and French c i v i l law which prevailed in Quebec after i t s cession to the B r i t i s h Crown was not completely cleared by the passage of the Quebec Act, 1774, which reintroduced French c i v i l law into Quebec. This was because of the unfamiliarity of English 72 judges with French c i v i l law and i t s related jurisprudence. There was nothing more uncertain and more confused than the laws of Lower Canada by the middle of the nineteenth century and many lawyers looked with envy at the Code Napoleon and the C i v i l Code of Louisiana that had made order out of chaos. Codif ication, i t was said, would also enable lawyers, notaries, and judges to know the exact state of the law in Lower Canada, when i t was becoming more and more d i f f i c u l t since the enactment of the Code Napoleon to obtain copies or commentaries on the old laws of France. 73 In 1857 the Attorney-General of Lower Canada, Georges-Etienne Cartier i n i t i a t e d a law that established a Commission to reduce the c i v i l law i n Lower Canada into two codes. In framing the two codes, i . e . , the C i v i l Code and the Code of C i v i l Procedure the Commissioners were bound by section 6 to: . . . embody therein such provisions only as they s h a l l hold to be actually in force, and they shal l give the suthorities on which they believe them to be so; they may suggest such amendments as they s h a l l think desirable, but s h a l l state such amendments separately and d i s t i n c t l y , with the reasons on which they are founded. 74 Section 7 of the Act stated that the Codes should be: . . . framed upon the same general plan, and s h a l l contain, as nearly as may be found convenient, the l i k e amount of d e t a i l upon each subject, as the French Codes known as the Code C i v i l , the Code de Commerce, and the Code de Procedure C i v i l . 7 5 In suggesting the adoption of A r t i c l e 664 of the Code Napoleon the Commission had this to say: This a r t i c l e provides for the case, of a rather rare occurrence here, when the different storeys of the same house belong to d i s t i n c t proprietors, and determines the manner and the proportions in which each of them must contribute to the necessary repairs and reconstructions: each makes along those which are in his own interest or which are caused by his f a u l t , whilst he contributes, in proportion to his interest only to those which are to the common advantage of a l l . This a r t i c l e , conformable to A r t i c l e 664 of the Code Napoleon, is for us a new d i s p o s i t i o n , adopted not in amendment but in addition to the law actually i n force. 76 U n t i l the enactment of the New C i v i l Code in 1866 condominium arrangements were presumably regulated by the provisions of the Custom of Paris . The sources of the new law which became A r t i c l e 521 of the C i v i l Code of Lower Canada are given as: Orleans 257. - Lamoignon, t i t . 20, art . 32. - 2 Bousquet, p. 146. - 7 Locre, pp. 442, 443. - 2 Pand. Franc. 436. - C.N. 664. 77 Even though a u t h o r i t i e s such as the C o d i f i e r s and 7 8 M i g n e a u l t have mentioned t h a t cases of p a r t ownership i n b u i l d i n g s e x i s t e d i n Quebec, Rosenberg has s t a t e d t h a t i n s p i t e of A r t i c l e 521 p r i o r t o the passage of B i l l 29 concern-i n g co-ownership of immoveables i n 1969 " . . . t h e r e have been no d i v i s i o n s o f b u i l d i n g s by s t o r e y s or apartments except 79 i n the form of c o o p e r a t i v e s . D e s s a u l l e s , however, s t a t e d i n 1965: A condominium does e x i s t i n Westmount as a r e s u l t o f a g r e a t d e a l of energy and i n i t i a t i v e . The agreement i s some twenty-two pages long and has s e v e r a l pages of p lans a t t a c h e d t o i t . The C i t y o f Westmount does send s e p a r a t e tax b i l l s and se p a r a t e mortgages were o b t a i n e d . 80 When the author made e n q u i r i e s about t h i s "condominium" he was assure d by the C i t y a s s e s s o r t h a t M. D e s s a u l l e s was misinformed as to the separate tax b i l l s . B i l l 29, Quebec's condominium l e g i s l a t i o n , was passed by the N a t i o n a l Assembly i n November 1969 having been f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the Assembly the year b e f o r e . T h i s was the c u l m i n a t i o n of s i x years of work i n i t i a t e d by the Mo n t r e a l Real E s t a t e Board who i n s t r u c t e d P i e r r e D e s s a u l l e s t o d r a f t a condominium B i l l . In t h i s p r o j e c t M. D e s s a u l l e s worked c l o s e l y w i t h the Nadeau Commission f o r the R e v i s i o n of the 81 C i v i l Code o f the P r o v i n c e of Quebec. The B i l l was d e r i v e d 8 2 p a r t l y from the 1965 French l e g i s l a t i o n and c o n s i s t s of amendments to the C i v i l Code as A r t i c l e 441 e t seq. e n t i t l e d "of co-ownership of immoveables e s t a b l i s h e d by d e c l a r a t i o n " i n the T i t l e o f Ownership, and r e p e a l s A r t i c l e 521 c o p i e d from the Code Napoleon. One unique a s p e c t of the Quebec law concerns the management of a condominium: The law o f f i c e r s of the Department of J u s t i c e who s t u d i e d the Board's d r a f t extremely t h o r o u g h l y a r r i v e d a t what i s an e n t i r e l y new formula which r e p l a c e s the a s s o c i a t i o n of owners which e x i s t s i n other j u r i s d i c t i o n s . I t was f e l t t h a t t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n d i d not p l a y an important r o l e , was unwieldy, and t h a t i t should be combined w i t h the management f u n c t i o n s and e x e r c i s e d by one or more persons who would be " a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of the immoveable" and who would have b r o a d l y speaking, the d u t i e s and powers of t r u s t e e s . . . a t f i r s t the Board . . . was d i f f e r e n t about t h i s new system, mostly on account o f i t s n o v e l t y and the f a c t t h a t t h e r e would be no e x p e r i e n c e i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s t o be drawn from . . . [but i t now approves] t h i s concept. 83 S i n c e t h i s law i s so r e c e n t i t s e f f e c t cannot y e t be gauged. However, i t w i l l b e n e f i t persons who l i v e i n c o o p e r a t i v e apartments i n the h e a r t of urban areas which can now become 84 o r g a n i s e d as condominiums. One of the b e s t known Mo n t r e a l l u x u r y apartment c o o p e r a t i v e s p l a n s t o t u r n i t s e l f i n t o a condominium by d e c l a r a t i o n , i f favoured by the l e s s e e share-h o l d e r s . ^ 5 SCOTLAND I t has been s a i d of the law of S c o t l a n d t h a t : " . as i t stands [ i t ] g i v e s us a p i c t u r e of what someday w i l l be the law of the c i v i l i z e d n a t i o n s , — n a m e l y a combination between the Anglo-Saxon system and the C o n t i n e n t a l s y s t e m . B e c a u s e Scots Law, though d e r i v e d from Roman Law, Feu d a l Law, C o n t i n -8 7 e n t a l Law,native customary law and n a t u r a l law and more r e c e n t l y i n f l u e n c e d by Anglo-American Law has a markedly c l o s e r a f f i n i t y w i t h the Franco-German s c h o o l than w i t h the 8 8 Anglo-American i t w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d a t t h i s p o i n t b e f o r e t u r n i n g t o the common law j u r i s d i c t i o n s . D e s s a u l l e s has s t a t e d t h a t : "In S c o t l a n d co-ownership or common ownership e x i s t s and i s based> on the same p r i n c i p l e s of Roman law and the same s e r v i t u d e s t89] r e C 0 g n j _ z e c j o u r [Quebec] l a w . " 9 0 91 The most r e c e n t o f the " S c o t t i s h l e g a l t r i n i t y , " B e l l , i n 1829 s t a t e d : A s p e c i e s of r i g h t d i f f e r i n g from common p r o p e r t y takes p l a c e among the owners of s u b j e c t s possessed i n s e p a r a t e p o r t i o n s , but s t i l l u n i t e d by t h e i r common i n t e r e s t . I t i s r e c o g n i z e d i n law as "Common I n t e r e s t " . I t accompanies and i s i n c o r p o r a t e d w i t h the s e v e r a l r i g h t s of i n d i v i d u a l p r o p e r t y . 92 T h i s "Common I n t e r e s t " i s found most f r e q u e n t l y i n 93 f l a t t e d houses or tenements. The "Law of the Tenement" which takes e f f e c t o n l y i n the absence of a Deed of C o n d i t i o n s r e g u l a t e s the r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s o f the p r o p r i e t o r s i n a manner s i m i l a r t o A r t i c l e 664 of the Code Napoleon but i n much g r e a t e r d e t a i l and a t too g r e a t a l e n g t h t o be a giv e n d e t a i l e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n here. In 1925 the law was l a i d down i n the case o f Smith vs G u l i a n i . A Deed o f C o n d i t i o n s may be en t e r e d i n t o by the p r o p r i e t o r s and i s a c o n t r a c t s e t t i n g out the b a s i s f o r the management of the tenement, r e p a i r s and c o s t s h a r i n g and d e s c r i p t i o n s of j o i n t l y owned f a c i l i t i e s . S c o t t i s h f l a t t e d houses or tenements w i t h s e p a r a t e ownership were, i n the words of a Scots lawyer: . . . f o r c e d on us c e n t u r i e s ago by the f a c t t h a t Edinburgh was an o verpopulated w a l l e d c i t y and i t s c i t i z e n s had t o b u i l d upwards; money was s c a r c e and had t o be kept i n c i r c u l a t i o n ; so the s e p a r a t e f l a t s were s o l d . Customs arose out o f j o i n t ownership and e v e n t u a l l y lawyers d e c i d e d what, i n law, was the nature of the r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s c r e a t e d t h e r e -by. 95 As L o r d J u s t i c e - C l e r k Thompson so a p t l y expressed i t 96 i n 1958: "Custom has hallowed what convenience d i c t a t e d . " E x a c t l y why the condominium concept f l o u r i s h e d i n S c o t l a n d but d i d not i n England, g i v e n the s i m i l a r medieval urban c o n d i t i o n i s not apparent. I t has been suggested t h a t s i n c e Scots lawyers a t t h a t time f l o c k e d to c o n t i n e n t a l law s c h o o l s the c o n t i n e n t a l precedents i n f l u e n c e d development i n 97 t h i s f i e l d . I t i s perhaps more than a c o i n c i d e n c e t h a t w i t h the p o p u l a r i t y o f the Law F a c u l t y of Orleans the Law of the Tenement should bear i n p r i n c i p l e such a s i m i l a r i t y t o A r t i c l e 664 o f the Code Napoleon s i n c e t h a t was d e r i v e d from A r t i c l e 257 of the Custom o f O r l e a n s . I t i s a l s o i n t e r e s t i n g t o s p e c u l a t e as to when the i n f l u e n c e of C o n t i n e n t a l comprehensive condominium s t a t u t e s w i l l r e s u l t i n s i m i l a r l e g i s l a t i o n i n S c o t l a n d . A d d i t i o n a l l y t h e r e i s the added i n f l u e n c e of proposed l e g i s l a t i o n i n England. I n t h e common law o r A n g l o - A m e r i c a n l e g a l systems t h e c o n c e p t o f p-.rt o w n e r s h i p i n b u i l d i n g s has been a c c e p t e d i n E n g l a n d f o r any c e n t u r i e s . New Square, L i n c o l n ' s I nn i n London has been c i t e d as an example of "superimposed f r e e -9 8 h o l d s . " The t h r e e r e f e r e n c e s commonly quoted a r e "Coke on 99 L i t t l e t o n , " a case d a t e d 1508, and H a l s b u r y . I n Coke on L i t t l e t o n i t i s s t a t e d : "A man may have an i n h e r i t a n c e i n an upper chamber, though t h e l o w e r b u i l d i n g s and s o i l e be i n a n o t h e r . . . "'^ OO and i n H a l s b u r y ' s Laws o f E n g l a n d i t i s s t a t e d : F o r t h e purposes o f o w n e r s h i p , l a n d may be d i v i d e d h o r i z o n t a l l y , v e r t i c a l l y o r o t h e r w i s e , and e i t h e r below o r above t h e ground. Thus s e p a r a t e o w n e r s h i p may e x i s t i n s t r a t a o f m i n e r a l s , i n t h e space o c c u p i e d by a t u n n e l , o r i n d i f f e r e n t s t o r e y s o f a b u i l d i n g . 101 The Law o f P r o p e r t y 1925, s. 205 ( i x ) c o n t a i n s t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n : " . . . l a n d i n c l u d e s . . . b u i l d i n g s o r p a r t s o f b u i l d i n g s (whether t h e d i v i s i o n i s h o r i z o n t a l o r 102 v e r t i c a l o r made i n any o t h e r way) . . . ." The f r e e h o l d s a l e o f f l a t s i n E n g l a n d was uncommon u n t i l a f t e r W orld War I I . I n d i s c u s s i n g a S c o t t i s h case i n 1935 L o r d B u c k m i n s t e r s a i d i n r e f e r e n c e t o E n g l a n d : The d i v i s i o n o f a s i n g l e b u i l d i n g i n t o a s e r i e s o f tenements h e l d i n f e e s i m p l e i n s e p a r a t e o w n e r s h i p i s n o t a f a m i l i a r i n c i d e n t o f p r o p r i e t o r s h i p i n E n g l a n d , b u t i t e x i s t s , and has f o r a l o n g t i m e e x i s t e d , and w i t h t h e growth o f f l a t s i t may become l e s s uncommon i n t h e f u t u r e . Where i t o c c u r s , the r i g h t s o f the s e v e r a l owners a r e r e g u l a t e d e i t h e r by a system o f mu t u a l c o v e n a n t s o r by easements a r i s i n g from e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d g r a n t o r a c q u i r e d by u s e r . 103 Although such d i v i s i o n of ownership i n a b u i l d i n g has now " . . . become a permanent p a r t of the E n g l i s h way of 104 l i f e . " I t i s e f f e c t e d w ithout the b e n e f i t of e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n , but such l e g i s l a t i o n has been proposed. R i g h t s can, however, be c r e a t e d by easements and o b l i g a t i o n s by covenants. The l a t t e r causes the d i f f i c u l t y s i n c e the c o u r t s are r e l u c t a n t t o e n f o r c e a f f i r m a t i v e covenants running w i t h the l a n d . L e y s e r suggests t h a t v a r i o u s workable schemes f o r the t r a n s f e r of f l a t s i n fee simple were p o s s i b l e due perhaps 105 o n l y t o the i n g e n u i t y of E n g l i s h s o l i c i t o r s and these are 106 c o m p a r a t i v e l y f r e e from l i t i g a t i o n . For a l i s t of items covered i n such c o n t r a c t s see Appendix A. The W i l b e r f o r c e Committee r e p o r t s t a t e s t h a t the p r e s e n t law i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y and i n c o n v e n i e n t e s p e c i a l l y w i t h r e g a r d to e n f o r c i n g maintenance and r e p a i r o b l i g a t i o n s which have g i v e n r i s e t o mortgage s e c u r i t y d i f f i c u l t i e s . The r e p o r t recomends the a d o p t i o n f o r new c o n s t r u c t i o n of two schemes, one, f o r l a r g e r p r o j e c t s , s i m i l a r t o the Conveyanc-in g ( S t r a t a T i t l e s ) A c t , 1961 of New South Wales, upon which the B r i t i s h Columbia, A l b e r t a and Saskatchewan l e g i s l a t i o n i s a l s o based. The r e p o r t a l s o recommends a s i m p l e r model f o r n A • • . . 107 s m a l l e r condominium p r o j e c t s . In the United States " . . . quite a few instances may be found of the conveyance of freehold estates in separate parts of buildings, long before the adoption of 108 special condominium statutes" and those instances which gave r i s e to l i t i g a t i o n originated in j u r i s d i c t i o n s scattered a l l over the United States. Thus apartment ownership has been accepted under common law for well over a century in the 109 United States. In a sense related to apartment ownership, or owner-ship of part of a building is the establishment of t i t l e to, and conveyancing of a i r r ights , e . g . , in the case of a i r rights over railway tracks which evolved in the United States some decades ago, especially in C h i c a g o . 1 1 0 However, i n the United States the, . . . need to adopt comprehensive statutes has been dramaticized by the occasional reluctance of courts to accord legal recognition to condominium owner-ship as a d i s t i n c t form of tenancy. I l l The most succinct explanation of the necessity for comprehensive condominium l e g i s l a t i o n in a Common law j u r i s -d i c t i o n is the following: The common law furnishes an inadequate background to solve [the] problems of condominium operation. An i n i t i a l purchaser of a condominium unit could bind himself contractually to pay for building r e -p a i r , j a n i t o r i a l service, a ir conditioning replace-ment and elevator repair. But a second purchaser would not be bound by that contract unless he assumed i t s obligations. Obligations could be made "cove-nants running with the land" to bind subsequent purchasers, but court enforcement of affirmative covenants i s u n p r e d i c t a b l e . D e l e g a t i o n of managerial a u t h o r i t y t o a c o u n c i l of co-owners might be upheld as an "agency coupled w i t h an i n t e r e s t , " but again , c o u r t e f f e c t a t i o n i s u n r e l i a b l e . The common law's i n a d e q u a c i e s make implementing l e g i s l a t i o n i m p e r a t i v e to condominium o p e r a t i o n . 112 However, an American example of how the l a c k of e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n proved surmountable i s p r o v i d e d by the f o l l o w i n g account of a "common-law" condominium: The example of the el e v e n veterans who purchased t h e i r s e parate apartments i n New York i n 1947 i l l u s t r a t e s the c r e a t i o n of a condominium-type s t r u c t u r e i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s b e f o r e the term was g e n e r a l l y employed. In t h i s case i t was nece s s a r y f o r each purchaser t o have a fee ownership i n a separate p o r t i o n o f the r e a l e s t a t e i n order t o take advantage of the V e t e r a n s ' A d m i n i s t r a t i o n quarantee on home mortgages under the t h e n - e x i s t i n g law and r e g u l a t i o n s . T h i s was accomplished by making each of the el e v e n owners a te n a n t i n common of the land and b u i l d i n g , e x c l u d i n g from the l a n d and b u i l d i n g the "areas o c c u p i e d by the apartments, and then conveying t o each one of the e l e v e n h i s own p a r t i c u l a r a rea which comprised the space i n the apartment t h a t he was buying. 113 In 1958 Puerto R i c o was the f i r s t a r e a of the U n i t e d S t a t e s t o enact s p e c i a l condominium l e g i s l a t i o n f o l l o w e d by Hawaii. Rosenberg has drawn a t t e n t i o n t o the s i m i l a r i t y of the impetus t o condominium development i n Europe d u r i n g the Middl e Ages and Puerto R i c o and Hawaii. In the former case a l a c k of b u i l d i n g space i n s i d e the f o r t i f i e d a r e a l e d t o condominium arrangements and i n the l a t t e r cases the b u i l d i n g 114 space was r e s t r i c t e d not by w a l l s but by the ocean. By 1969 a l l the s t a t e s w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of Vermont had passed e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n , as had the D i s t r i c t of Columbia. Both A u s t r a l i a and New Zealand have developed i n r e c e n t years schemes f o r apartment ownership. P r i o r t o the enactment i n two A u s t r a l i a n S t a t e s of condominium l e g i s l a t i o n the stock c o o p e r a t i v e was g a i n i n g i n p o p u l a r i t y and c e r t a i n f a v o u r a b l e changes i n the law a f f e c t i n g easements f o r s e r v i c e s o f c o o p e r a t i v e b u i l d i n g s were passed i n V i c t o r i a ; i n a d d i t i o n t h e r e were schemes s i m i l a r t o those adopted i n England. However i n 1961 a f t e r a year o f d i s c u s s i o n New South Wales enacted the Conveyancing ( S t r a t a T i t l e s ) A c t . T h i s Condominium a c t i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be a w e l l founded law s i n c e the d r a f t was the s u b j e c t of an exchange of ideas from lawyers, accoun-t a n t s , businessmen, bankers, f i n a n c i e r s , i n s u r a n c e companies , ... . 116 and p u b l i c s e r v a n t s . Although the authors of the standard A u s t r a l i a n t e x t on S t r a t a T i t l e s have w r i t t e n t h a t t h e r e was no precedent f o r the New South Wales law and t h a t i t can be f a i r l y l a b e l l e d "made i n A u s t r a l i a " i t i s understandably n e v e r t h e l e s s t r u e t h a t the A u s t r a l i a n l e g i s l a t i o n has many f e a t u r e s s i m i l a r t o 117 European and L a t i n American condominium l e g i s l a t i o n . New South Wales was f o l l o w e d i n 1967 by the S t a t e o f 118 V i c t o r i a which enacted a S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t . New Zealand »>* which a l s o e x p e r i e n c e d a marked growth i n c o o p e r a t i v e s appears to be moving towards adopt i o n o f comprehensive condominium •> - 1 4 - - H 9 l e g i s l a t i o n . In the Canadian common law jurisdict ions the schemes similar to those worked out in England for the freehold or 120 long term leasehold transfer of apartments were not u t i l i z e d while cooperatives and companies were the form manifested in answer to the needs of people who desired to "own" apart-ments . Rosenberg has written that there is l i t t l e doubt that at common law in Canada i t is possible to own separate parts of a building or a i r space and that there are a number of schemes throughout Canada which could be cal led condominium schemes to some extent but, he adds, they " . . . are however, of l i t t l e h i s t o r i c a l significance since they do not involve 121 the subdivision of a b u i l d i n g . : The same author shows the necessity for special enabling l e g i s l a t i o n by pointing out the following ways by which, at Common Law a non-statutory condominium unit could be separated from the common property: 1. If the common elements are subject to separate realty tax, a l i e n for unpaid taxes could result in separation. 2. A conveyance of the unit without i t s common interest would result in separation i f such a conveyance were allowed under the Act. 3. An encumbrance enforceable against the common elements alone, i f foreclosed (and i f allowed by the Act) , would result in separation. A l l the Canadian Acts provide protection against these contingencies. 122 By the end of 1969 only Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and the North West T e r r i t o r i e s had not followed the example of B r i t i s h Columbia and Alberta, the f i r s t two Provinces i n Canada to enact s p e c i a l condominium l e g i s l a t i o n 123 i n 1966. J < The B r i t i s h Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan Acts are very s i m i l a r i n t h e i r provisions and are modelled a f t e r the Conveyancing (Strata T i t l e s ) Act 1961, of New South Wales. The Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick Acts and Yukon T e r r i t o r y Ordinance are s i m i l a r to each other and, i n part, s i m i l a r to some American l e g i s l a t i o n . They do, however, contain some provisions that are quite novel. The Nova Scotia Act i s i n many respects s i m i l a r to the United States' Federal 124 Housing Administration Model Act. The Quebec law received s p e c i a l mention e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter. THE FAR EAST In the Far East, Japan whose l e g a l system i s an offshoot of the Code Napoleon, had an inadequate l e g a l pro-v i s i o n i n the C i v i l Code u n t i l 1962. The changes which occurred i n post-war Japan necessitated new l e g i s l a t i o n which 125 was enacted m 1963. Hong Kong i s also reportedly con-si d e r i n g l e g i s l a t i o n . 1 2 * ' CONCLUSION In c o n c l u s i o n then i t has been shown t h a t condominium was at odds w i t h Roman Law y e t f l o u r i s h e d w i t h the s a n c t i o n of customary law i n those c o u n t r i e s of the Roman l e g a l t r a d i t i o n . In France the concept passed i n t o the Code Napoleon, which because of i t s g l o b a l i n f l u e n c e caused a g r e a t e r d i f f u s i o n of the concept. In the Common Law j u r i s -d i c t i o n s the common law was no b a r r i e r t o condominium arrange-ments, but i n the aftermath of the F i r s t World War, housing c o n d i t i o n s had d e t e r i o r a t e d t o such an e x t e n t c a u s i n g the s t a r t of the t r e n d t o modern condominium l e g i s l a t i o n i n both common law and c i v i l law c o u n t r i e s . The concept a r r i v e d i n North America v i a French Law i n the case of Quebec and v i a A u s t r a l i a i n the case of some Western Canadian P r o v i n c e s . The concept came from Europe t o L a t i n America and thence to the U n i t e d S t a t e s from whence i t i n f l u e n c e d some oth e r Canadian l e g i s l a t i o n . 1. Lord Cooper, The S c o t t i s h L e g a l T r a d i t i o n , (Edinburgh: O l i v e r and Boyd L t d . , 1960), p. 5. 2. In New York Law J o u r n a l , ( V o l . 150, 26 J u l y 1963), p. 43. C i t e d i n Rosenberg, op_. c i t . , pp. 2-2. 3. F e r r e r and S t e c h e r , op. c i t . , p. 15. 4. I b i d . , pp. 15-16 and n. 6 & 7. 5. I b i d . , pp. 16-17 and n. 8-14. 6. I b i d . , p. 17 and n. 16 & L e y s e r , op. c i t . , p. 33. 7. I b i d . , p. 17, n. 17. 8. T. Mackenzie, S t u d i e s i n Roman Law, (Edinburgh: W i l l i a m Blackwood and Sons, 1862), p. 155. 9. F e r r e r and S t e c h e r , op. c i t . , p. 17. 10. I b i d . , p. 18. 11. C i t e d i n I b i d . , p. 19, n. 25. 12. Hubner, H i s t o r y of Germanic P r i v a t e Law 174, (Con't and Leg. s e r i e s 19181 c i t e d by C. Q u i e n a l t y i n "Comments", L o u i s i a n a Law Review ( V o l . 19, 688, 1959 )p. 668. 13. I b i d . 14. Leyser,.op. c i t . , pp. 33-34. 15. F e r r e r and Stecher, op. c i t . , p. 19. 16. I b i d . , p. 19, n. 25, and L e y s e r , op. c i t . , p. 34. 17. P o t h i e r , Oeuvres, ( V o l . 15), p. 1. Quoted i n F e r r e r and S t e c h e r , op. c i t . , p. 18, n. 19. 18. Hubner quoted i n Q u i e n a l t y , op. c i t . , pp. 668-669. 19. L e y s e r , op. c i t . , p. 36. 20. I b i d . , p. 36. and F e r r e r and S t e c h e r , 0£. c i t . , p. 22. 21. Rosenberg, op. c i t . , p . 2-4, n. 16. 23. Ibid. , p. 3-2. 24. I b i d . , chapter 3. 25. Cooper, op_. c i t . , p. 5. 26. I b i d . , pp. 5-6. 27. Ferrer and Stecher, op. c i t . , chapter 3. 28. P.B. Migneau.lt, Le Droit C i v i l Canadien Base sur les "Repetitions Ecrvts sur le Code~C~ivil" de Frederic  Mourlon avec Revue de la. Jurisprudence de nos Tribun-aux, Tome Troisieme, (Montreal: C. Theoret, 1897), p. 90. 29. Ley ser, op_. c i t . , p. 34. 30. Marcel P l a n i o l , Treatise on the C i v i l Law, 12 e d . , V o l . 1, Part 2, Section 2523, [LouTsTana: 1959TT~P• 488. 31. Melvin Kranzberg, "The Napoleonic Code" in Law in a Troubled World, pp. 39-40, cited by Ferrer and Stecher, op. c i t . , pT 2 6. 32. Leyser, 0£. c i t . , p. 34. 33. Ferrer and Stecher, op. c i t . , p. 30, n. 84. 34. I b i d . , p. 30. 35. I b i d . , p. 26 & p. 29. 36. I b i d . , pp. 32-33. 37. I b i d . , p. 27, n. 64. 38. Leyser, op_. c i t . , p. 35. 39. P . J . Rohan and M.A. Reskin, Condominium Law and Practice -Forms, (New York: Matthew Bender, 19 69)7""PP« 2-2. 4Q-. Ferrer and Stecher, op. c i t . , p. 27. 41. I b i d . , p.26. 42. Pierre Dessaulles, Condominium - Some Aspects of the New  Law - B i l l 29, (Montreal Real Estate Board, 19F9") 7~P• ~ T T 43. Sebastian del Viso, quoted in Ferrer and Stecher, ojo. c i t . , p. 35. 44. Ferrer and Stecher, op. c i t . , pp. 38-39. 45. Quoted i n Ibid ., p. 38. 46. Rosenberg, op_. c i t . , p. 2-4 and Ferrer and Stecher, op. c i t . , p. 21, n. 39 and Leyser, op_. c i t . , p. 31, n. 1, Leyser mentions Poland as having passed l e g i s l a t i o n but does not mention the date. Ferrer and Stecher omit any mention of Poland. 47. Charles P. McVicker, Titoism, Pattern for International  Communism, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1957), p. 204. 48. Ferrer and Stecher, op. c i t . , p. 41. 49. I b i d . , p. 41, n. 50. 50. Ibid . , pp. 43-44. 51. Ibid . , p. 43. 52. i . e . those countries not mentioned i n the text include Uruguay 1946; Peru 1946; Ecuador 1946; B o l i v i a 1949; Cuba 1950; Panama 1952; Mexico 1954; Venezuela 1957; Dominican Republic 1958; Guatemala 19 59 and E l Salvador 1961; Ibid. , chapter 3. 53. I b i d . , p. 42. 54. Ibid . , chapter 3. 55. Ibid . , pp. 47-48. 56. Ibid . , p. 49. 57. I b i d . , p. 49, n. 10. 58. See Leyser, op_. c i t . , p. 31, n. 1. 59. William J. Quirk, et aJL. , "A Draft Program of Housing Reform - The Tenant Condominium," (for low and middle-income housing,) C o r n e l l Law Review, 53; 361 (February 1968) and also Ibid., 54:811, (July, 1969). 60. Ferrer and Stecher, op_. c i t . , p. 49. 61. Ibid . , p. 49. 62. Ibid . , p. 56. 63. Quienalty, op. c i t . , p. 679. 64. Cited i n Ferrer and Stecher, op_. c i t . , p. 57. 65. Quienalty, op_. c i t . , p. 680. 66. 220 La 951, 57 So. 2d 906 (1952) and followed i n Haney vs Dunn, 96 So. 2d 243 (1957) cited i n Ferrer and Stecher, op. c i t . , p. 57. 67. I b i d . , p. 57. 68. I b i d . , p. 58. 69. Commission of Jacques Duchesneaux, The Intendant of Justice, Police and Finances for Canada, June 1675, E. and 0. V o l . 3, (1854), p . 4 2 . quoted i n Castel , The C i v i l Law System of the Province of Quebec, (Toronto: Butterworths, 1962). Author's translation from the o r i g i n a l quote in French. 70. Castel , op_. c i t . , p. 14. 71. I b i d . , p. 12. 72. I b i d . , p. 22. 73. I b i d . , p. 23. 74. An Act to Provide for the Codification of the Laws of Lower Canada relat ive to C i v i l Matters and Procedure, (1857), 20 V i c t ; c. 43 quoted by Castel , op_. c i t . , p. 25. 75. Ibid. 76. Third Report of the Codif iers, Book 2, " C i v i l Code of Lower Canada," (QueEec; printed by George E. Desbarats, 1865), p. 393. 77. I b i d . , p. 488. In the French text under "Book Second-Prescription, T i t l e Fourth of Real Servitudes, Chapter Second - of Servitudes established by law." 78. Migneault, op_. c i t . 79. Rosenberg, op. c i t . , p. 2-13. See also W.P. Rosenfeld, "The Sale of Individual Apartment Suites," 18 Faculty of Toronto Law Review 12 (1961). 80. Pierre Dessaulles, "Condominium for Quebec," in Montreal  Real Estate and Business Review, (1965) , pp. 97-103. 81. I b i d . , p. 97. 82. Dessaulles, ojp. c i t . , supra (n. 42), p. 2. 83. Ibid. 84. Montreal Star, 26 November 1969. 85. Montreal Star, 1 December 1969. 86. Professor Levy Ullman of Paris , quoted by Cooper ojp. c i t . , p. 29. 87. Cooper, op_. c i t . , p. 9. , and T.B. Smith, Scotland, (London: Stevens and Sons, 1962), p. 3. 88. Cooper, o_£. c i t . , p. 11. 89. Easements in Common Law correspond generally with s e r v i -tudes i n Roman Law, Mackenzie, op. c i t . , p. 169. 90. Dessaulles, op. c i t . supra, (n. 80), p. 100. 91. Cooper, op. c i t . , p. 10. 92. B e l l , P r i n c i p l e s , s. 1086 quoted by Gloag and Henderson, Introduction to the Law of Scotland, 5th E d . , (Edinburgh: W. Green and SonTTEd., 1WS2), pp. 508-509. 93. Dessaulles, ojp. c i t . , supra, (n. 80), pp. 100-101 and Gloag and Henderson, op_. c i t . , pp. 509-510. 94. Ibid. 95. W.F. Dickson, "Freehold T i t l e to F l a t s , " 28 L. Inst. J 133 (1954) quoted by Ferrer and Stecher, op. c i t . , p~. Tl. 96. In Thomson vs St. Cuthberts Co-op. Assoc. Ltd. 1958 S.C. 380 at p. 389 quoted i n Smith, ojp_. c i t . , p. 483. 97. Ferrer and Stecher, OJD. c i t . , p. 71. In which mention is made of the European precedents, Cooper, op_. c i t . , p. 9. Discusses the powerful attraction of Bologna, Pisa, Paris , Orleans, Leyden and Utrecht for Scots Law students. 98. Buckland and McNair, Roman Law and Common Law, 78 (1936) cited by Ferrer and Stecher, o£. c i t . , p. 65. 99. 72 Eng. Rep 262 (1508) cited by Ferrer and Stecher, op. c i t . , p. 65. 10 0. Co. L i t t . 42b quoted by Ferrer and Stecher, op. c i t . , p. 65, n. 84. 101. Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd. e d . , V o l . 27, p. 603, quoted i n Ferrer and Stecher, 0£. c i t . , p. 65. 102. Quoted by Ferrer and Stecher, op. c i t . , p. 65. 103. Smith and G u i l i a n i (1924) S.C. 247 and (1935) S.C. (H.L.) 45 quoted by Rosenberg, op_. c i t . , p. 2-11 and Ferrer and Stecher, op_. c i t . , p. 72. 104. Edward F. George, The Sale of F l a t s , 2nd, Ed. (London: .1959), p. v i i c i t e d by Ferrer and Stecher, op. c i t . , p. 66. 105. Leyser, op. c i t . , p. 51. 106. Rosenberg, op. c i t . , p. 2-9. 107. Wilberforce Committee Report, Report of the Committee on  Pos i t i v e Covenants A f f e c t i n g Land, Cmd 2719^ (London: HMSO, 19 65) , p. 2. Quoted in Rosenberg, op_. c i t . , pp. 2-10. 108. Ferrer and Stecher, ojp. c i t . , p. 59, n. 66 for l i s t of U.S. cases. 109. I b i d . , p. 62. 110. Stuart S. B a l l , " D i v i s i o n into Horizontal Strata of the Landscape Above the Surface," 39 Yale Law Journal 616 (1930), p. 651. 111. Ferrer and Stecher, op_. c i t . , p. 59. 112. John Mixon, "Apartment Ownership i n Texas: Cooperative and Condominium," 1 Houston Law Review, 226, 239 (1964) . 113. Rohan and Reskin, ojp. c i t . , pp. 4-5. 114. Rosenberg, op. c i t . , p. 2-8. 115. Schreiber, op_. c i t . , p. 1106, n. 14. 116. See A.F. Rath, P.J. Grimes and J.E. Moore, Strata  T i t l e s , (Sydney, N.S.W.:Law Book Co. Ltd., 1966), Cited by Rosenberg, op. c i t . , pp. 2-12. 117. Rosenberg, op. c i t . , p. 2-12. 118. I b i d . , p. 2-13. 119. I b i d . , p. 2-13. 120. Ibid., p. 2-13, 2-14. 121. I b i d . , p. 2-13. 122. I b i d . , pp. 7-7. 123. B . C . , "Strata T i t l e s Act" was effective 1 September 1966; a n c ^ Alberta, "Condominium Property Act," proclaimed 1 August 19 66; Ontario, "The Condominium Act," proclaimed 1 September 19 67; Manitoba, "Condominium Act," effective 25 May 1968; Nova Scotia/"" "Condominium Property Act" proclaimed 1 June 196 8; Saskatchewan, "The Condominium Property Act" proclaimed 1 November 1968; Yukon T e r r i t o r y , "The Co dominium Ordinance" effective 9 December 1968; New Brunswick, "The Condominium Property Act" assented to 18 A p r i l 19 69; Quebec, "An Act respecting co-ownership of immoveables," assented to 2 8 November 19 69. 124. Rosenberg, op_. c i t . , p. 1-5 and various authors Habitat (XII, 4-5 , 1969) , pp. 5-12. 125. Ferrer and Stecher, op. c i t . , pp. 80-81. 126. Rosenberg, op_. c i t . , p. 2-14. In the P h i l l i p i n e s the Old Spanish C i v i l Code A r t . 396 remains in force merely having been renumbered to art . 490 of the 1949 P h i l l i p i n e C i v i l Code. Ferrer and Stecher, op. c i t . , p. 48, n. 1. C H A P T E R I I I T H E M O D E R N C O N C E P T O F C O N D O M I N I U M The Word "Condominium"; Two Concepts - P o l i t i c s and R e a l t y ; Other Terms f o r Condominium; Problems encountered i n the Use of the Term; The Three Meanings; Two E s s e n t i a l Elements i n a Condominium P r o j e c t ; V a r i e t y i n Form and F u n c t i o n , Two L e g a l Concepts of a U n i t ; The Condominium as a C o o p e r a t i v e ; Condominiums and C o n t i n u i n g Cooperatives, L i m i t e d L i a b i l i t y Companies, Housing Companies, Common Lav/ Condominiums and Planned U n i t Developments w i t h a Home Owners' A s s o c i a t i o n . THE WORD "CONDOMINIUM" The word "condominium" i s a L a t i n word which g e n e r a l l y 1 2 s i g n i f i e d j o i n t ownership (or co-ownership) i n Roman Law. I t s p r e s e n t e l a b o r a t e and r e s t r i c t e d meaning or meanings i n r e s p e c t of r e a l p r o p e r t y as e s t a b l i s h e d by l e g i s l a t i o n i n many j u r i s d i c t i o n s i s much d i f f e r e n t and more r e f i n e d than the o r i g i n a l Roman Law concept. THE TWO CONCEPTS - POLITICS AND REALTY In the Middle Ages i n Europe the Roman Concept a l s o had a t e r r i t o r i a l and p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . The Oxford D i c t i o n a r y d e s c r i b e s condominium as: " . . . j o i n t r u l e or s o v e r e i g n t y . Condominium i s the s u b j e c t o f v a r i o u s L a t i n t r e a t i s e s of the 17th-18thc. c h i e f l y by Germans, e.g. Fromanus De Condominio T e r r i t o r a l i , Tubingen, 1682 . . . ." The Oxford and Webster's d i c t i o n a r i e s do not d e f i n e condominium i n the same way and t h i s r e f l e c t s the d i f f e r e n t meanings understood i n B r i t a i n and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . In the former the term "condominium" means s o l e l y a t e r r i t o r i a l and p o l i t i c a l j o i n t s o v e r e i g n t y and another term i s used f o r a r e a l p r o p e r t y condominium. In the U n i t e d S t a t e s two meanings are understood, witness Webster's d e f i n i t i o n : -. . . j o i n t dominion o r s o v e r e i g n t y : a: Roman Law: ownership by two or more persons h o l d i n g u n d i v i d e d f r a c t i o n a l shares i n the same p r o p e r t y and ha v i n g the r i g h t t o a l i e n a t e t h e i r share resembling tenancy i n common i n Anglo-American law r a t h e r than j o i n t tenancy w i t h i t s r i g h t s o f s u r v i v o r s h i p b: j o i n t s o v e r e i g n t y o r r u l e by two or more s t a t e s over a colony or p o l i t i c a l l y dependent t e r r i t o r y . . . . There are then two concepts of condominium and perhaps the b e t t e r known h i s t o r i c a l examples of the t e r r i t o r i a l p o l i t i c a l concept are the sometime German-Danish condominium over S c h l e s w i g - H o l s t e i n ; the A n g l o - E g y p t i a n condominium over' the Sudan and the Anglo-French condominium over the New Hebrides The s h o r t - l i v e d p r o p o s a l t o form a North A t l a n t i c T r e a t y O r g a n i z a t i o n condominium over Cyprus f u r n i s h e s a more r e c e n t 3 example of t h i s concept o f condominium. In t h i s t h e s i s the author i s concerned o n l y w i t h the concept o f condominium as a scheme f o r the co-ownership o f l a n d , b u i l d i n g s and a s s o c i a t e d f a c i l i t i e s and not w i t h the t e r r i t o r i a l p o l i t i c a l condominium. OTHER TERMS FOR CONDOMINIUM In North America the word condominium i s used p o p u l a r l y , even though e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n may r e f e r t o condominium as " h o r i z o n t a l p r o p e r t y " ; " s t r a t a l o t ownership"; " u n i t owner-s h i p " ; "apartment ownership"; or "co-ownership of immoveables". Other terms are used e.g. i n I t a l y the term i s "condominio"; i n France "co-ownership"; i n Spain " h o r i z o n t a l p r o p e r t y " ; i n England " f l a t ownership" or " f l y i n g f r e e h o l d " and i n S c o t l a n d the term " f l a t t e d house" or "tenement" means a condominium apartment b l o c k . In German c o u n t r i e s " s t o r e y " or "roomage" 4 ownership and i n Japan "comparted ownership" are the terms used. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN THE USE OF THE TERM The word "condominium" has r e c e i v e d c o n s i d e r a b l e 5 p u b l i c i t y i n r e c e n t years but the concept t h a t t h i s word denotes w i t h r e s p e c t t o r e a l p r o p e r t y i s not g e n e r a l l y under-g stood. Indeed i n 1967, a Canadian author s t a t e d t h a t the word "condominium" s u f f e r s from the disadvantage of meaning 7 n o t h i n g t o most people, and how f a r t h i s has changed s i n c e then i s an open q u e s t i o n . The 1969 Report of the F e d e r a l Task Force on Housing and Urban Development noted t h a t condominium arrangements had o n l y r e c e n t l y been i n t r o d u c e d i n Canada but t h a t they were not g e n e r a l l y known and l e s s 8 accepted at t h a t time. The author has found i n d i s c u s s i n g the t o p i c w i t h a wide c i r c l e o f acquaintances many misunder-st a n d i n g s as to the v a r i e t y p o s s i b l e i n the nature and form of a condominium development. "Condominium" i s a word t h a t has r e g r e t a b l y been 9 i n v e s t e d w i t h a r e s t r i c t i v e meaning by some. For example the Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines condominium as " . . . an apartment house . . . " which i s to r e s t r i c t i t s meaning to r e s i d e n t i a l use and i t s form to a block. In a recent pamphlet published by a Bank there appears the following statement: "Condominiums can be e i t h e r v e r t i c a l i n the form of a high r i s e structure, or hor i z o n t a l i n the town house form.""1"^ This i s hardly the whole truth and would r e s t r i c t the meaning of the term and b e l i e i t s f l e x i b i l i t y . Another example can be c i t e d from advertisements i n Vancouver newspapers f o r ". . . A Terrace Garden Home . . . featuring — F e e simple ownership (not a Condominium)."''"'*" While t h i s may be so, the wording may give the impression to some that simple ownership or fee-simple i s not possible i n a condominium. Further examples can be given i n t h i s respect. One d e f i n i t i o n of condominium was drafted thus: . . . i n d i v i d u a l ownership i n fee simple of a one-family un i t i n a multi-family structure coupled with ownership of an undivided i n t e r e s t i n the land and i n a l l other parts of the structure held i n common with a l l of the other owners of one-family u n i t s . 12 This would r e s t r i c t the concept to family-units and another author defined condominium as "a freehold i n t e r e s t i n 13 a h o r i z o n t a l s l i c e i n a v e r t i c l e column of a i r " which excludes the p o s s i b i l i t y of leasehold condominiums which, i n Canada are permissable i n Manitoba and Quebec under t h e i r respective condominium enabling l e g i s l a t i o n (but see also Chapter V and Appendix B). THE THREE MEANINGS The term "condominium" can be used to denote any or a l l of the f o l l o w i n g : 1 ^ - a form o f l a n d tenure or ownership - a p r o j e c t so owned - a u n i t , i n a p r o j e c t so owned, w i t h i t s owner's i n t e r e s t i n the common p r o p e r t y . TWO ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS IN A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT There are two e s s e n t i a l elements o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between sep a r a t e i n d i v i d u a l and common i n d i v i s a b l e ownership i n h e r e n t i n the Condominium concept. F i r s t l y t h e r e i s the d i v i s i o n of p r o p e r t y i n t o u n i t s t h a t are t o be i n d i v i d u a l l y owned whether f r e e h o l d or l e a s e h o l d , and the common p r o p e r t y t o be owned i n common by the owner's of the u n i t s ; and seco n d l y , an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e framework t o enable the owners to manage the p r o p e r t y . " T h i s concept i s i n d i f f e r e n t t o the use t o be made of the p r o p e r t y , t o the d e s i g n of the b u i l d i n g s , and t o the l o c a t i o n o f the boundaries between i n d i v i d u a l 15 a,nd common ownership." VARIETY IN FORM AND FUNCTION Condominiums, per se can cover a v a r i e t y of p r o j e c t s . The word " b u i l d i n g " alone says n o t h i n g o f i t s form, f u n c t i o n or c o s t and c a r r i e s no c o n n o t a t i o n s of the s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s of the owner or occupants o f the " b u i l d i n g " . The term condominium i s s i m i l a r i n the sense t h a t i t r e f e r s o n l y t o the t h r e e meanings mentioned e a r l i e r . The author suggests t h a t , i n form, condominiums c o u l d be c l a s s i f i e d as f o l l o w s : 1. v e r t i c a l , e i t h e r (a) h i g h r i s e or (b) low r i s e i . e . o f more than t h r e e s t o r e y s ; 2. h o r i z o n t a l , i . e . row housing of two s t o r e y s or l e s s ; 3. l a t e r a l detached, e.g. detached d w e l l i n g s , whether i n a c l u s t e r development or not (see F i g u r e I ) . Condominiums, then, can be r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial, i n d u s t r i a l or r e c r e a t i o n a l or a mixture of these types of use. A r e s i d e n t i a l condominium might i n c l u d e a t r a d i t i o n a l f a m i l y house or houses and/or a m u l t i p l e u n i t b l o c k or b l o c k s and/or a h i g h r i s e b l o c k or b l o c k s and might a l s o i n c l u d e commercial e s t a b l i s h m e n t s and p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s . An i n c r e a s i n g l y p o p u l a r housing concept i n F l o r i d a i s the s i n g l e f a m i l y detached house condominium. I t i s a d e p a r t u r e from the t y p i c a l r e s i d e n t i a l condomin-iums namely, l o w - r i s e and h i g h - r i s e apartments and townhouses. 17 An example might be where a h i g h r i s e condominium c o n t a i n s r e s i d e n t i a l apartments, each of the apartments would be individual ly owned while the remainder of the property including the roof, the basement, parking area and f a c i l i t i e s such as elevator system, heating system, tennis courts, swimming pool, sauna bath and gardens e t c . , would be owned in common indivisably by the owners of the apartment units. An administrative framework enables the owners to manage the property for the common benefit and each apartment owner must contribute to the common expenses of the building and f a c i l i t i e s . In this example i t is imaginable that such a bui lding, i f located downtown in a large c i ty might be subdivided with the ground floor occupied by commercial establishments such as a restaurant, flower shop and barber with, say, the next two or three floors occupied as business offices or medical practitioners or even a school or l i b r a r y . Above a l l this could be the r e s i d e n t i a l apartments. In such a building the shops, off ices, school, l ibrary and apartment occupants could either own the space they occupied or lease i t from the owners Such a building with such different users might require quite complicated administrative arrangements but the drawing up of a workable administrative framework would surely not defeat expert lawyers or large scale urban land developers and property managers. Condominiums have been developed for a l l income groups and certain projects have been s p e c i f i c a l l y designed for a C O N D O M I N I U M n n —^  — 1 Kr> ft n n -5 fe$)&£f, teases A is 1. A Type of Ownership 2. A Project With this Ownership 3. A Unit in Such a Project and can be -in form: T—} | D J . \ |_n _B J!_D j:j _n _oj-3 B i 1 "OUT-TJTiTlTi Tl "Tl o ^ l l m m rm Irm 1 cm T85&&g • a " D " D II. A. V e r t i c a l -. Either High or Low B. Horizontal - of One or More.Strata C. Lateral Detached - of one or More Stra -' D. Mixed and in Function: III. (i) Residential ( i i ) Commercial ( i i i ) Industrial (iv) Inst i tut ional (v) Recreational or (vi) A Mixture of the Above. r FIGURE I THE VARIETY IN FORM AND FUNCTION OF CONDOMINIUM Figure I The Variety i n Form and Function of Condominium s p e c i a l s e c t o r of the housing market, e.g. r e t i r e d people and the Government of the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia views t h i s type of housing with s p e c i a l favour as b e i n g 20 s u i t a b l e f o r r e t i r e d p eople. Another example of the f l e x i b i l i t y of the condominium 21 concept i s the r e c r e a t i o n a l or r e s o r t condominium. Examples of t h i s type of development which have been r e c e n t l y a d v e r t i s e d 22 m Vancouver are l o c a t e d a t W h i s t l e r Mountain, B.C. and 23 Sun V a l l e y , Idaho. Both of these are s k i r e s o r t s . The W h i s t l e r development advertisement e x h o r t s : " S k i at W h i s t l e r t h i s Winter and l i v e i n your own condominium c h a l e t ! " In the 2 4 absence of the owner the c h a l e t can be r e n t e d . The Sun V a l l e y , Idaho advertisement s t a t e s : " S k i . . . Sun V a l l e y , Idaho from your own Condominium C h a l e t 1 An investment i n l i v i n g i n t h i s f a b u l o u s year round playground . . . . R e n t a l management i s a v a i l a b l e i n your absence to show a handsome 25 investment r e t u r n . " Yet another example of t h i s type of Condominium i s p r o v i d e d by the f o l l o w i n g : F r e e p o r t , Grand Bahama - In t h i s a c t i v e r e s o r t c i t y o f h o t e l s operated by l a r g e h o t e l c h a i n s , t h e r e i s one l u x u r y condominium h o t e l owned by hundreds of s m a l l i n v e s t o r s . The C o r a l Beach H o t e l of 300 s u i t e s on a f i v e -a cre s i t e i s the o n l y condominium h o t e l i n the Bahamas. The complex i n F r e e p o r t ' s e x c l u s i v e r e s o r t a r e a , Lacaya, o f f e r s "the l i t t l e guy" a chance t o be p a r t -owner of a h o t e l p r o j e c t w h i l e g i v i n g him a v a c a t i o n r e t r e a t when he needs i t . When he i s not u s i n g h i s apartment the i n v e s t o r ' s u n i t becomes a one-bedroom h o t e l s u i t e . While he i s absent, the i n v e s t o r shares i n the p r o f i t s of the h o t e l - not o n l y h i s s u i t e , but i n the r e c r e a t i o n a l , r e s t a u -r a n t and beverage f a c i l i t i e s . 26 Another example i s p r o v i d e d by the campsite condomin-ium. A c h a i n of m i l l i o n d o l l a r condominium r e s o r t s i n which G u l f O i l Company i s p a r t i c i p a t i n g , c a l l e d "Venture Out i n America, Inc." i s b e i n g developed f o r campers i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s and which w i l l p r o v i d e a paved p a t i o , u t i l i t y hook-ups, p i c n i c t a b l e s and p l a n t i n g s . P l u s h surroundings w i l l i n c l u d e landscaped grounds, heated swimming p o o l s and playgrounds. Each campsite w i l l be i n d i v i d u a l l y owned and the owner can l e t h i s s i t e when he i s absent and d i v i d e the r e n t w i t h 27 the d e v e l o p e r . T h e o r e t i c a l l y the use and type of condominium i s v a r i e d and can be mixed but t h i s may be a f f e c t e d by law. The e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n might e x p l i c i t l y a l l o w or d i s a l l o w c e r t a i n types o f development. In Canada f o r i n s t a n c e , o n l y Manitoba and Quebec al l o w l e a s e h o l d condominium development w h i l e an e n a b l i n g amendment i s b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d i n B r i t i s h 28 Columbia. Otherwise r e s t r i c t i o n s w i l l be the r e s u l t of 29 p l a n n i n g bylaws and d e c i s i o n s of the d e v e l o p e r s and condomin-ium co-owners themselves. But see a l s o Appendix B f o r f u r t h e r comment on l e a s e h o l d condominiums. THE TWO LEGAL CONCEPTS OF A UNIT Having c o n s i d e r e d the nature of condominium as a system of l a n d tenure and the f l e x i b i l i t y o f form and use i n s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t s l e t us c o n s i d e r the nature o f a s i n g l e u n i t i n a condominium. There are two l e g a l concepts of a u n i t . The Common Law concept i s o f a cube of space w h i l e the C i v i l Law concept i s o f a p a r t of a b u i l d i n g t o which the owner has an 30 e x c l u s i v e r x g h t of use. However: There i s ample a u t h o r i t y t h a t both a p a r t of a b u i l d i n g and a cube of space c o n s t i t u t e l a n d and may be the o b j e c t of the bundle of r i g h t s c o m p r i s i n g ownership. 3 1 T h e o r e t i c a l l y the e s t a t e (or c l a s s of ownership) 32 c r e a t e d i n an a i r space c o u l d be f r e e h o l d or n o n - f r e e h o l d . There are problems w i t h the a i r space t h e o r y — t o c i t e one e x a m p l e — i f a b u i l d i n g s h i f t e d and s e t t l e d then t h e o r e t i c a l l y t r e s p a s s might occur s i n c e ownership would be d e s c r i b e d i n terms of a cube o f space r a t h e r than the p h y s i c a l p a r t i t i o n s of a b u i l d i n g . While t h e r e i s a proposed t h e o r e t i c a l remedy 33 f o r t h i s i t i s mentioned as b e i n g merely one t h e o r e t i c a l l e g a l d i f f i c u l t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the a i r space t h e o r y . In B r i t i s h Columbia, w i t h which t h i s t h e s i s i s b a s i c a l l y concerned, the term " s t r a t a l o t " used t o d e s c r i b e an i n d i v i d -u a l l y owned p a r t of a condominium p r o j e c t , suggests t h a t the e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n , the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t , s u b s c r i b e s t o the a i r space t h e o r y . In f a c t t h i s i s not the case f o r a s t r a t a p l a n must " . . . d e f i n e the boundaries of each 34 s t r a t a l o t by r e f e r e n c e t o f l o o r s , w a l l s and c e i l i n g . " T h i s p h y s i c a l s t r u c t u r e s t h e o r y holds t h a t the 35 i n d i v i d u a l owner w i l l h o l d "an e x c l u s i v e e s t a t e " i n h i s u n i t , 3 6 or s t r a t a l o t . What k i n d of ownership or e s t a t e i s c r e a t e d i n the s t r a t a l o t i n B r i t i s h Columbia? The S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t s t a t e s t h a t l a n d may be s u b d i v i d e d i n t o s t r a t a l o t s by the d e p o s i t o f a s t r a t a p l a n which may be d e a l t w i t h i n the same manner and form as any land the t i t l e t o which i s 37 r e g i s t e r e d under the Land R e g i s t r y A c t . For each t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l s t r a t a l o t s a C e r t i f i c a t e of I n d e f e a s i b l e T i t l e i s i s s u e d i n the same form p r o v i d e d under the Land R e g i s t r y A c t w i t h the a d d i t i o n thereon a t the top of the c e r t i f i c a t e o f the words " S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t ( S e c t i o n 3)" and showing the owner's share i n the common p r o p e r t y c r e a t e d by the s t r a t a 3 8 p l a n . The C e r t i f i c a t e o f I n d e f e a s i b l e T i t l e c e r t i f i e s t h a t the person named t h e r e i n " i s a b s o l u t e l y and i n d e f e a s i b l y e n t i t l e d i n f e e - s i m p l e " t o the land d e s c r i b e d as a s t r a t a l o t 39 i n the s t r a t a p l a n . The "bundle of r i g h t s c o m p r i s i n g ownership" quoted above i n c l u d e s the i n t e r e s t and r i g h t s o f the owner of the u n i t i n . t h e common p r o p e r t y as mentioned e a r l i e r . In B r i t i s h Columbia the u n i t s are h e l d i n fee simple w h i l e the u n i t owners are tenants i n common i n r e s p e c t of the common p r o p e r t y . 41 However, t h e r e may e x i s t cases o f l i m i t e d common p r o p e r t y . For example where a r e s i d e n t i a l h i g h r i s e condominium has a laundry room w i t h a washing machine and d r y e r on every f l o o r then such f a c i l i t i e s c o u l d be r e s t r i c t e d t o the r e s i d e n t s o f the r e s p e c t i v e f l o o r s . The "bundle of r i g h t s " i s a l s o s u b j e c t to the pro-v i s i o n s o f the e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n under which, i n B r i t i s h Columbia f o r example, bylaws p r o v i d e f o r the c o n t r o l , management, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , use and enjoyment of the s t r a t a 42 l o t s and common p r o p e r t y . Perhaps i t can be s a i d t h a t i n essence a new form of r e a l p r o p e r t y ownership has been c r e a t e d by l e g i s l a t i o n , a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f an e s t a t e i n fee simple 43 which c o u l d perhaps be c a l l e d an " e s t a t e i n condominium," even though common law has evo l v e d a r u l e t h a t no new e s t a t e s U 4- A  4 4 can be c r e a t e d . CONDOMINIUMS AND CONTINUING COOPERATIVES I t i s necessary a t t h i s p o i n t having d e s c r i b e d the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of condominiums and the condominium concept t o r e l a t e t h i s t o , and d i s t i n g u i s h between, ot h e r forms o f c o o p e r a t i v e housing, s i n c e condominiums f a l l g e n e r a l l y i n t o 45 t h a t c a t e g o r y . C o o p e r a t i v e housing . . . c o n s i s t s b a s i c a l l y of people g e t t i n g t o g e t h e r t o p r o v i d e housing f o r themselves by j o i n t a c t i o n i n e i t h e r b u i l d i n g or f i n a n c i n g or management and maintenance of t h e i r housing u n i t s . 46 There are two types of c o o p e r a t i v e housing i n B r i t i s h Columbia, the C o n t i n u i n g C o o p e r a t i v e or C o o p e r a t i v e i n P e r p e t u i t y and 47 the T i t l e C o o p e r a t i v e or Condominium. There are a few c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e p r o j e c t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The Western Cooperative Housing Society was incorporated in 1966 and i t s f i r s t project p a r t i a l l y completed in 1969. Since then two other projects have started construction while four more are under consideration, only one of which is in the c i t y of Vancouver, and together with the Simon Fraser University Students Cooperative constitutes the t o t a l in B r i t i s h Columbia, although the Carpenter's Union is considering cooperative 48 housing projects for xts members. In contrast, 49 housing companies which w i l l be discussed below, were established 49 between 1958-1970 in Vancouver alone. In B r i t i s h Columbia continuing cooperatives are regis-tered as corporations under the Cooperative Associations 50 Act, while condominiums are subject to the Strata T i t l e s Act. The Cooperative Associations Act, which gives a general description of cooperative enterprise and the general p r i n -ciples under.which i t is to be organised, operated and 51 administered, subjects a l l types of cooperatives, i . e . pro-ducer's, consumer's, housing and building cooperatives except 52 credit unions and condominiums to i t s provisions. "Cooper-ative" insurance companies in B r i t i s h Columbia are i n fact registered under the Companies Act or are subject to Federal j u r i s d i c t i o n . 5 3 If l e g i s l a t i o n can be viewed as a vehicle for implemen-ting Provincial Government policy then i t is clear that one form of cooperative, i . e . the t i t l e cooperative or condominium s u b j e c t t o a s p e c i a l a c t c o n c e r n i n g i t a l o n e , i s v i e w e d e i t h e r a s m o r e c o m p l e x o r w i t h g r e a t e r f a v o u r t h a n t h e c o n t i n -u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e , w h i c h i s n o t s u b j e c t t o a s e p a r a t e a c t b u t i s i n c l u d e d w i t h a l l o t h e r t y p e s o f c o o p e r a t i v e s e x c l u d i n g o n l y c r e d i t u n i o n s a n d c o n d o m i n i u m s . I n a c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e t h e o c c u p a n t o f a n a p a r t m e n t i s a t e n a n t o f t h e a s s o c i a t i o n w h i c h o w n s t h e l a n d a n d b u i l d i n g . T h e o c c u p a n t i s a s h a r e h o l d e r i n t h e a s s o c i a t i o n w h i c h l e a s e s t h e a p a r t m e n t t o t h e s h a r e h o l d e r . T h e o c c u p a n t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e p r o p e r t y i s t h a t o f a l e s s e e w h o h a s s o m e c o n t r o l o v e r h i s l a n d l o r d ' s a c t i o n , t h e e x t e n t o f h i s i n f l u e n c e d e p e n d -54 i n g p a r t l y o n t h e s i z e o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . I n a c o n d o m i n i u m i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , a s m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r , t h e s t r a t a l o t s a r e o w n e d i n f e e s i m p l e . H o w e v e r , b o t h a s t r a t a l o t o w n e r a n d a c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e o c c u p a n t l e s s e e a r e e n t i t l e d t o t h e A n n u a l H o m e - o w n e r G r a n t o f $170 p . a . a n d t o a s s i s t a n c e u n d e r t h e P r o v i n c i a l N e w - H o m e B u i l d i n g A s s i s t a n c e A c t ( r e n a m e d 55 t h e P r o v i n c i a l H o m e A c q u i s i t i o n A c t i n 1970). T h e o c c u p a n t s o f a c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e a r e n o t t e n a n t s i n c o m m o n o f t h e c o m m o n p r o p e r t y , u n l i k e s t r a t a l o t o w n e r s w h o a r e , a n d i t i s t h e a s s o c i a t i o n t h a t o w n s t h e l a n d a n d b u i l d i n g s . I n t h e m o r t g a g i n g o f a c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e t h e r e i s o n e b l a n k e t m o r t g a g e w h e r e a s i n a c o n d o m i n i u m i n d i v i d u a l m o r t g a g e s a r e n e g o t i a t e d w h i c h i s a n a d v a n t a g e s i n c e a p r o s p e c t i v e o w n e r c a n a r r a n g e f i n a n c i n g t o s u i t h i s n e e d s . one of the most essential characteristics of ownership of a 5 6 fee simple estate. If a continuing cooperative share-holder defaults on his share of mortgage payments the associa-tion as a whole, i . e . the other shareholders, to prevent foreclosure, would between them have to assume the defaulter's share. This situation would not arise in a condominium except as regards an owner's share of common expenses. Although during the economic depression of the 1930's nearly a l l the housing cooperatives in the United States 57 f a i l e d in Canada this was not the case for i t was not u n t i l 1938 that the f i r s t continuing cooperative was established 5 8 in Sydney, N.S. However, joint l i a b i l i t y , i n a b i l i t y to arrange individual mortgages and the lack of an estate in fee simple are the major disadvantages of continuing cooperatives 59 vis a vis condominiums. A condominium strata lot is 6 0 assessed and taxed separately whereas a continuing cooperati i s assessed and taxed as an association, and such blanket assessment could result in blanket l iens upon fai lure to pay even i f such fai lure is the result of only one shareholder being unable to pay his share. If a condominium owner wishes to s e l l his strata lot he should receive the market p r i c e , and thus may benefit from a c a p i t a l gain or suffer a c a p i t a l loss. In a continuing cooperative the shareholder's shares in the association may (a) be s o l d a t t h e i r market v a l u e t o the a s s o c i a t i o n which then r e s e l l s them to the next occupant or (b) the vending s h a r e h o l d e r may r e c e i v e the par v a l u e p l u s a c e r t a i n f i x e d percentage of the va l u e of the shares d u r i n g the p e r i o d they 61 were h e l d by him. One advantage of a s a l e o f c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e shares over the s a l e o f a s t r a t a l o t i s t h a t i t may be much e a s i e r to r e t u r n shares t o a c o o p e r a t i v e a s s o c i -a t i o n than t o s e l l t o advantage p r i v a t e l y owned p r o p e r t y at s h o r t n o t i c e i f the need t o move a r i s e s . In a d d i t i o n such a t r a n s f e r does not i n v o l v e agent's and l e g a l f e e s . A c o o p e r a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n i s a d m i n i s t e r e d through the management committee and the bylaws and r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t i t e n a c t s . These are not l a i d down i n the C o o p e r a t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n s A c t i n d e t a i l as i s the case f o r condominiums where the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n i s bound by the F i r s t and Second Schedules of the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t . T h i s l a c k o f d i r e c t i o n f o r c o o p e r a t i v e s has been c o n s i d e r e d a shortcoming by C o n s t a n t i n u who has s t a t e d ; Housing c o o p e r a t i v e s i n v o l v e c o m p l e x i t i e s of r e a l e s t a t e p r o p e r t y t a x a t i o n , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and s h a r i n g of c o s t s which are not common t o oth e r types of c o o p e r a t i v e s . A c l e a r and d e t a i l e d d e f i n i t i o n of these c o m p l e x i t i e s i s n e c e s s a r y . T h i s would a l s o a i d f u l l u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the l e g a l n ature of these c o o p e r a t i v e s . 62 T h i s need has been met f o r condominiums by the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t . The author quoted above goes on to recommend: THAT TO THE BRITISH COLUMBIA STATUTES BE ADDED AN ACT WHICH WILL DEFINE THE REGULATIONS, DESCRIBE THE PROCEDURES, THE RIGHTS, DUTIES AND BYLAWS INVOLVED IN THE FORMATION AND OPERATION OF A HOUSING COOPERATIVE PROJECT. or a l t e r n a t i v e l y THAT TO THE EXISTING COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS ACT OF THE B.C. STATUTES-, A SECTION BE ADDED WHICH WILL DEFINE AND DESCRIBE THE LEGAL SPECIFICATIONS EXCLUSIVE TO HOUSING COOPERATIVES 3. . . . (3: such as c i t y by-laws and t a x a t i o n on l a n d and improvements a p p l i c a b l e t o the pro-j e c t owned by an a s s o c i a t i o n ) 63 64 Under the Vancouver C h a r t e r a s t r a t a l o t owner who i s 19 years of age, a B r i t i s h s u b j e c t and who i s "the r e g i s t e r e d owner of any r e a l p r o p e r t y h e l d i n h i s own r i g h t i n the c i t y " i s e n t i t l e d t o have h i s name en t e r e d on the l i s t of e l e c t o r s as an owner e l e c t o r . The s h a r e h o l d e r occupant of a c o o p e r a t i v e apartment i s a l s o e n t i t l e d t o have h i s name e n t e r e d on the l i s t of o w n e r - e l e c t o r s i f he i s of 19 years of age and a 6 5 B r i t i s h s u b j e c t , and: (i) the p r i n c i p a l l e s s e e of a s u i t e used s o l e l y as a d w e l l i n g , i n a b u i l d i n g o f which a c o r p o r a t i o n i s the r e g i s t e r e d owner; p r o v i d e d (A) such c o r p o r a t i o n operates on a n o n - p r o f i t b a s i s ; and (B) the memorandum of a s s o c i a t i o n of such a c o r p o r -a t i o n s t i p u l a t e s t h a t such b u i l d i n g s h a l l be owned and operated f o r the b e n e f i t of occupant s h a r e h o l d e r s o n l y ; and (C) such p r i n c i p a l l e s s e e i s the h o l d e r of shares i n the c o r p o r a t i o n approximately e q u i v a l e n t i n v a l u e t o the c a p i t a l c o s t o f the s u i t e . . . 6 6 Under the M u n i c i p a l A c t a s t r a t a l o t owner i f he i s a Canadian c i t i z e n or o t h e r B r i t i s h s u b j e c t o,. 19 years of age 6 7 and "who i s the owner o f r e a l p r o p e r t y i n the m u n i c i p a l i t y " i s e n t i t l e d t o have h i s name entered on the l i s t of e l e c t o r s as 68 continuing cooperative: . . . who occupies with his household as his ordinary residence a suite that is owned by a corporation i n which he holds c a p i t a l stock equivalent in value to the capital value of the suite and that is an owner-occupied apartment building as defined in the Provin-c i a l Home-owner Grant Act; is enti t led to have his name entered on the l i s t of electots as an owner-elector. The Provincial Home-owner Grant Act does not in fact define an "owner-occupied apartment building" 69 merely defining an "owner-occupied building" as follows: owner-occupied building" means a parcel of land (a) the owner of which is a corporation the memoran-dom of association of which stipulates that any building or buildings owned or operated by the corporation s h a l l be owned and operated exclusively for the benefit of sharholders i n the corporation who are occupants of the building or buildings; and (b) that i s shown as a separate taxable parcel on a taxation r o l l for the current year prepared under the Taxation Act or on a real-property tax r o l l for the current year prepared by the Collector of a municipality; and (c) that has a building or buildings in which there is an e l i g i b l e apartment residence. Under both the Vancouver Charter and the Municipal Act there are three classes of e l e c t o r s : - owner,-, tenant,- , and resident-electors, and the significance of being an owner-elector in the City of Vancouver is that only the owner-electors may vote on by-laws requiring the assent of this class of elector, that is to say, on certain by-laws authorizing 70 Council to borrow money. Similarly under the Municipal Act certain by-laws authorizing a council to borrow money r e -quire the assent of only the owner-electors. S i n c e c o n d o m i n i u m p r o j e c t s c a n i n c l u d e a m i x t u r e o f u s e s , i n t h e c a s e o f a s t r a t a l o t o w n e r b e i n g a c o r p o r a t i o n e n g a g e d i n a b u s i n e s s f o r p r o f i t t h e n u n d e r t h e M u n i c i p a l A c t s u c h a c o r p o r a t i o n w o u l d h a v e o n e v o t e a n d b e e n t i t l e d t o h a v e 7 i t s n a m e e n t e r e d o n t h e l i s t o f e l e c t o r s a s a n o w n e r - e l e c t o r . I t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t a b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n w o u l d b e o p e r a t e d i n a n a p a r t m e n t i n a c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e b u t e v e n i f a s i m i l a r b u s i n e s s o c c u p i e d a n d o p e r a t e d i n a n a p a r t m e n t i n a c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e t h e b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n w o u l d n o t b e e n t i t l e d t o v o t e a s a n o w n e r - e l e c t o r b e c a u s e i t w o u l d n o t b e t h e o w n e r o f t h e b u i l d i n g , b e i n g m e r e l y a l e s s e e o f t h e C o o p e r a t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n . S i m i l a r l y u n d e r t h e V a n c o u v e r C h a r t e r a s t r a t a l o t o w n e r w e r e i t a c o r p o r a t i o n c o u l d v o t e a s a n o w n e r - e l e c t o r s i n c e i t w o u l d b e a r e g i s t e r e d o w n e r o f r e a l p r o p e r t y w h e r e a s a b u s i n e s s c o r p o r a t i o n i n a c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e c o u l d n o t v o t e , n o t b e i n g t h e r e g i s t e r e d o w n e r 7 3 o f r e a l p r o p e r t y . C O N D O M I N I U M S A N D L I M I T E D L I A B I L I T Y H O U S I N G C O M P A N I E S I n C a n a d a t h e r e a r e p r o j e c t s w h i c h a r e o r g a n i s e d o n p r i n c i p l e s s i m i l a r t o a c o n d o m i n i u m . C o n s t a n t i n u r e f e r s t o 7 4 t w o s u c h p r o j e c t s w h i c h i n v o l v e t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a T e a c h e r s 7 5 F e d e r a t i o n ( B C T F ) b u t w h i c h a r e i n f a c t m o r e s i m i l a r t o c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s a n d a r e i n c o r p o r a t e d a s l i m i t e d 7 6 l i a b i l i t y c o m p a n i e s u n d e r t h e C o m p a n i e s A c t . I n s u c h p r o -j e c t s t h e c o m p a n y o w n s t h e l a n d , b u i l d i n g ( s ) a n d f a c i l i t i e s and l e a s e s the apartments t o the s h a r e h o l d i n g occupant l e s s e e s . O r i g i n a l l y the BCTF C o o p e r a t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n (BCTF 77 Coop) bought the land and c o n t r a c t e d w i t h a b u i l d e r f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the b u i l d i n g and f a c i l i t i e s . A Housing Company was then s e t up and was completely owned by the BCTF Coop which then s o l d the shares t o the incoming occupant l e s s e e s . Thus the ownership of the housing company passed e n t i r e l y i n t o the hands of the occupant l e s s e e s who r e t a i n e d the BCTF Coop as managers f o r a f e e . O r i g i n a l l y the shares were to be s o l d o n l y t o t e a c h e r s but s u f f i c i e n t demand from them was not forthcoming and today o n l y about 20 per cent of the occupants are from t h a t p r o f e s s i o n . The c h o i c e t o i n c o r p o r a t e as a l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y company r a t h e r than a c o o p e r a t i v e was due t o the d e s i r e t o enable the d i f f e r e n t v a l u e s of the apartments t o be r e f l e c t e d i n the v o t i n g r i g h t s o f the occupant l e s s e e s . Perhaps the main d i f f e r e n c e between a c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e and a l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y housing company a r i s e s over v o t i n g r i g h t s . In a c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e each share-h o l d e r has one vote r e g a r d l e s s of the amount of h i s share-h o l d i n g w h i l e i n a company the s h a r e h o l d e r s have v o t i n g powers commensurate w i t h the v a l u e of t h e i r s h a r e h o l d i n g . For i n -stance the l e s s e e of a two bedroom apartment w i l l s u b s c r i b e to more shares than the l e s s e e of a b a c h e l o r apartment, s i n c e the v a l u e of the apartments d i f f e r . T h i s method of a s c r i b i n g v o t i n g power bears a s i m i l a r i t y t o t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d under the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t which i s d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter V. In the case of the two companies managed by the BCTF Coop there i s a b l a n k e t mortgage on the b u i l d i n g and the company i s assessed f o r t a x a t i o n . The method of e s t a b l i s h i n g the share of monthly expenses r e c o v e r a b l e from a p a r t i c u l a r apartment occupant i s as f o l l o w s . F i r s t the t o t a l monthly c o s t s are c a l c u l a t e d e x c l u d i n g mortgage repayments. T h i s i s then d i v i d e d by the t o t a l a r e a i n the b u i l d i n g i n square f e e t r e s u l t i n g i n a f i g u r e of $x per sq. f t . T h i s f i g u r e i s then m u l t i p l i e d by the a r e a i n square f e e t of the p a r t i c u l a r apartments which r e s u l t s i n the amount the p a r t i c u l a r o c c u p i e r s are assessed by the management. The mortgage repayments are handled s e p a r a t e l y but t h e r e have been cases where monthly maintenance and mortgage payments have been mixed up r e s u l t i n g ^ i n e x t r a expense t o the l e s s e e s due t o s p e c i a l assessments necessary t o make up 7 8 the l o s s e s s u s t a i n e d i n the c o n f u s i o n . The disadvantages of b e i n g a l e s s e e r a t h e r than an owner as regards b l a n k e t mortgages and t a x a t i o n are the same as those d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s . However one p o i n t remains to be mentioned. The advantages of being a s t r a t a l o t owner r a t h e r than an occupant l e s s e e i n a c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e or company are perhaps not t h a t important to some people and i n any case the share-h o l d i n g l e s s e e s of such c o o p e r a t i v e s and companies i n B r i t i s h Columbia can vote as owne r - e l e c t o r s and r e c e i v e the home-owner grant and home a c q u i s i t i o n g r ant or l o a n as mentioned e a r l i e r . N e v e r t h e l e s s the p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s of such cooper-a t i v e s or companies f i n d i n g i t advantageous t o c o n v e r t t o condominiums r e g i s t e r e d under the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t . In some cases t h i s c o u l d only be done a f t e r the mortgage has been p a i d o f f , even assuming t h a t the occupants would want t o go to the t r o u b l e and expense of a survey and r e g i s t r a t i o n o f the s t r a t a p l a n . I f they d i d t h e i r ownership would c o n v e r t to t h a t of f e e simple w i t h a l l i t s l e g a l and f i n a n c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s and separate mortgages, i f r e q u i r e d , c o u l d perhaps be n e g o t i a t e d but a mortgagee would h a r d l y c o n v e r t a b l a n k e t mortgage i n t o , say, 50 separate mortgages w i t h much enthusiasm. The Honourable Grace McCarthy, M i n i s t e r w i t h o u t P o r t -79 f o l x o , has s t a t e d : I can see a r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y i n e x i s t i n g apartment b l o c k s and garden apartments which are now being r e n t e d becoming e i t h e r s u b d i v i d e d under the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t or i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s s o l d t o members of a c o o p e r a t i v e . In t h i s case, the new P r o v i n c i a l Government l e g i s l a t i o n w i l l most l i k e l y be used. Under the new P r o v i n c i a l Home A c q u i s i t i o n s A c t a Grant o f up t o $500 or a second mortgage lo a n (on very easy terms) of up t o 42,500 i s a v a i l a b l y t o tenants who have been r e n t i n g f o r two years t o purchase an o l d e r housing u n i t . . . . I p r e d i c t t h a t many e x i s t i n g apartment b l o c k s w i l l be s u b d i v i d e d and many people who p r e f e r t o l i v e i n an apartment w i l l be able t o buy a s u i t e w i t h the h e l p of the proposed l e g i s l a t i o n . . . T h i s s u b d i v i s i o n of o l d e r apartment b l o c k s i s merely one s p e c i a l way of u s i n g a combination of the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t and the o l d e r premises p r o v i s i o n s of the P r o v i n c i a l Home A c q u i s i t i o n s A c t . I t remains t o be seen whether c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s 81 and housing companies w i l l c o n v e r t t o condominiums but s i n c e the passage of the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t i t seems re s o n a b l e to suppose t h a t more condominiums, r a t h e r than c o n t i n u i n g coopera-t i v e s or l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y housing companies, w i l l be e s t a b l i s h e d . S i n c e 19 66 o n l y t h r e e new companies have r e g i s t e r e d w i t h the V o t e r s R e g i s t r a t i o n Department at Vancouver C i t y H a l l whereas from 19 5 8--when the occupant l e s s e e s of such housing companies were f i r s t e n t i t l e d t o vote as o w n e r - e l e c t o r s — u n t i l 1970, a p e r i o d of 12 year:;, the t o t a l number of housing com-panies r e g i s t e r e d w i t h the V o t e r s R e g i s t r a t i o n was 49. Thus the m a n i f e s t a t i o n of these housing companies, which d i f f e r from c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s , i n o n l y one important p o i n t , i . e . v o t i n g power, and which appeared i n B r i t i s h Columbia a t l e a s t ten years b e f o r e the f i r s t c o n t i n u i n g cooper-a t i v e , and because of t h e i r number and s t a b i l i t y , suggest the e x i s t e n c e of an a l t e r n a t i v e t o c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s . T h i s may have been an a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r i n the r e t a r d e d development 8 2 of c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s . Having d e s c r i b e d the two types of housing c o o p e r a t i v e s i . e . c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s and condominiums as w e l l as l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y housing companies mention i s made i n p a s s i n g of p r o j e c t s o r g a n i s e d on the same p r i n c i p l e s as a condominium i n c o r p o r a t e d by the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t but whose l e g a l f o u n d a t i o n r e s t s i n the common law. These are r e f e r r e d t o i n the l i t e r a -t u r e as "common law condominiums" or " n o n - s t a t u t o r y condominiums. COMMON LAW CONDOMINIUMS AND THE NEED  FOR ENABLING LEGISLATION It is possible to have a kind of condominium project at common law without enabling l e g i s l a t i o n , though whether or not i t can be truly., called a condominium depends on the d e f i n i t i o n used. 83 B r i t i s h , American and Canadian e x p e r i e n c e i n such p r o j e c t s i s mentioned i n Chapter I I and such p r o j e c t s u s u a l l y do not m a n i f e s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t a p p e r t a i n i m p l i c i t l y to those r e g i s t e r e d under the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t or s i m i l a r l e g i s l a t i o n . For i n s t a n c e , s e p a r a t e t a x a t i o n of each s t r a t a l o t , the a b i l i t y to mortgage each s t r a t a l o t s e p a r a t e l y , l i m i t e d t o r t and c o n t r a c t l i a b i l i t y , a system o f e n f o r c i n g p o s i t i v e covenants as between remote purchasers o f s t r a t a l o t s and the p o s s i b i l i t y o f the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n e n a c t i n g 84 r e s t r i c t i o n s on the use of the p r o j e c t . In f a c t , many of the e s s e n t i a l elements of the condomin-ium, such as the a b i l i t y of the unit owners to enforce p o s i t i v e covenants against other unit owners and against the owner's association, the a b i l i t y of the owner's association to enforce the same p o s i t i v e covenants against the unit owners, the l i m i t a t i o n of l i a b i l i t y against each unit owner as occupier of the common property, the ri g h t to separate r e a l t y tax assessment and separate taxation and the a b i l i t y to mortgage separately can only be f u l l y and adequately achieved with the assistance of l e g i s l a t i o n . Another author has stated further reasons for the enactment of enabling l e g i s l a t i o n : to render the condominium safer for the lender, purchaser and other p a r t i e s and to permit a c e r t a i n uniformity which w i l l remove the mysterious nature of condominium ownership from lawyers, developers, lenders and prospective home-owners. Having discussed the r e l a t i o n s h i p between condominiums and continuing cooperatives, l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y housing com-panies and the necessity for condominium enabling l e g i s l a t i o n there remains one more s i m i l a r organisation which should be considered to d i s t i n g u i s h i t from a condominium. This w i l l aid i n c l a r i f y i n g further the concept of condominium and i s necessary because further reference w i l l be made to i t i n 8 7 consideration of zoning to which i t i s related which follows i n Chapter VI. CONDOMINIUMS AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS WITH A HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION There e x i s t i n the United States organisations c a l l e d Homes Associations i n connection with Planned Unit Developments which have been d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : A planned u n i t development i s a r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d sub-d i v i s i o n of i n d i v i d u a l l y owned homes w i t h neighborhood owned open areas and r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s . I t i s a r e l a t i v e l y new approach t o a time proven concept of r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d use. B a s i c a l l y i t i n c o r p o r a t e s a v a r i a t i o n of the " v i l l a g e square" i d e a . 90 and can be t r a c e d back c o n c e p t u a l l y t o medieval England. 91 A Homes A s s o c i a t i o n : . . . i s an i n c o r p o r a t e d n o n - p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n o p e r a t i n g under r e c o r d e d l a n d agreements through which (a) each l o t owner i n a d e s c r i b e d land area i s automa-t i c a l l y a member and (b) each l o t i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y s u b j e c t t o a charge f o r a p r o p o r t i o n a t e share of the expenses of the homes a s s o c i a t i o n ' s a c t i v i t i e s , such as common p r o p e r t y maintenance. In l i g h t of the e a r l i e r d i s c u s s i o n of the forms and f u n c t i o n s of condominiums the planned u n i t development w i t h a homes a s s o c i a t i o n can be seen to be very s i m i l a r t o a condominium. I t i s i n f a c t a form of common law condominium 92 and one has been e s t a b l i s h e d f o r over 50 y e a r s . Because of i t s s i m i l a r i t y t o a s t a t u t o r y condominium th e r e e x i s t s a c h o i c e between o r g a n i s i n g a condominium or a homes a s s o c i a t i o n i n cases where development takes the form of f r e e - s t a n d i n g s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s w i t h fee simple ownership b u i l t on a s i n g l e p a r c e l of land w i t h a s s o c i a t e d common f a c i l i t i e s of 93 v a r i o u s n a t u r e s . A r e c e n t a n a l y s i s , p u b l i s h e d i n 1969, of the advantages and disadvantages of the condominium form of o r g a n i s a t i o n i n such cases compared t o the home owners' a s s o c i a t i o n came to no f i r m g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n as to which 9 4 form i s p r e s e n t l y more advantageous. T h i s , however, c o n t r a s t s w i t h an o p i n i o n expressed i n 1964 t h a t : In the s i n g l e - f a m i l y home c o n t e x t — w h e t h e r detached, semi-detached, or townhouses, the homes a s s o c i a t i o n i s a s u p e r i o r form of o r g a n i z a t i o n t o the condominium.9 5 The 1964 c o n c l u s i o n was perhaps based on inadequate e x p e r i e n c e i n condominium development and i s i n v a l i d i n such c a t e g o r i c a l terms. The condominium as the form of o r g a n i s a t i o n f o r a " l a t e r a l " p r o j e c t i s e x p e r i e n c i n g a s u b s t a n t i a l measure of 96 p o p u l a r i t y as "detached-house condominiums" i n F l o r i d a . The author found no examples of such developments i n Canada and as mentioned p r e v i o u s l y w i l l c o n f i n e h i s a t t e n t i o n to s t a t u t o r y condominiums r e g i s t e r e d under the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1. These two terms i . e . " j o i n t ownership" and "co-ownership" are used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y i n t h i s paper. 2. Roscoe Pound, J u r i s p r u d e n c e , ( V o l . 5, 1959), pp. 162, 163 c i t e d i n F e r r e r and S t e c h e r , op. c i t . , p. 14. 3. Gen. G r i v a s , Memoirs of General G r i v a s , (London: Longmans, 1964) , p. 1"8~5~. 4. F e r r e r and S t e c h e r , op. c i t . , Chapter 4. 5. e.g. a r t i c l e s i n Canadian Homes, (February 1969 and June 1970); H a b i t a t , ( V o l . X I I , No. 4-5, 1969); American Homes, (January 1970); Vancouver L i f e , ( V o l . 17, No. 12, June 1969); Risk, "Condominiums and Canada," U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Law J o u r n a l , ( V o l . 18, No. 1, 196~8l and Rosenberg, op. c i t . , t o name a few f a i r l y r e c e n t a r t i c l e s and books. 6. Claude Morin, op_. c i t . , p. 2, where r e s t r i c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n s are quoted. 7. I b i d . , p. 4. 8. Report of the Task F o r c e , op_. c i t . , p. 17. 9. Morin, op_. c i t . , p. 4. 10. Royal Bank o f Canada, Mortgage M a t t e r s , V o l . 2, No. 4, no d a t e . 11. Advertisement f o r Mary H i l l Homes i n P o r t Coquitlam, B.C. seen by the author d u r i n g the e a r l y p a r t of 1970. 12. C E . Ramsey, "Condominium: The New Look i n Coops," 2 H o m e T i t l e Guaranty Co., 1961. 13. Spahn, ( T r a n s c r i p t ) , The Emerging P r o f i l e o f Condominium, Condominium I n s t i t u t e , T h i r d Annual Conference^ (Be r k l e y , C a l i f o r n i a : 1963), p. 12. 14. Morin, op_. c i t . , p. 2. 1 5 • Report of O n t a r i o Law Reform Commission on the Law of Condominium"! (Province of O n t a r i o , Department of tn~e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , 1967), p. 4. 16. R . B . D e n n i s o n a n d P i e r r e D e s s a u l l e s , " L e s m u l t i p l e s a p p l i c a t i o n s p r a c t i q u e d u c o n d o m i n i u m , " H a b i t a t , ( V o l . X I I , N o . 4-5, 1969), p p . 59-60. 17. B e a t o n , op_. c i t . , p . 3. 18. " D e v e l o p e r s l o o k a t C o n d o m i n i u m , " H a b i t a t , ( V o l . X I I , N o . 4-5, 1969), p p . 26-45. 19. e . g . i n V i c t o r i a , B . C . s e e H a b i t a t , ( V o l . X I I , N o . 4-5, 1969), p . 33 a n d i n F l o r i d a s e e B e a t o n , OJO. c i t . , p . 3. 20. P r e s s R e l e a s e , O f f i c e o f t h e H o n . I s a b e l D a w s o n , M i n i s t e r W i t h o u t P o r t f o l i o , G o v e r n m e n t o f t h e P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 8 J u l y 1970. 21. K . B . R o m n e y a n d P . J . R o h a n , " R e s o r t C o n d o m i n i u m s : t h e h o u s i n g i n d u s t r y ' s p r e s c r i p t i o n f o r r e l a x a t i o n , r e t i r e -m e n t a n d r e a l e s t a t e i n v e s t m e n t , " C o n n e c t i c u t L a w  R e v i e w , ( V o l . 2, N o . 1, J u n e 1969). 22. " C o n d o . . . w h a t ? " V a n c o u v e r L i f e , ( V o l . 17, N o . 12, J u n e 1968), p p . 6-9. 23. T h e S u n , V a n c o u v e r , B . C . , S u n d a y , 24 J a n u a r y 1970 - s e e a l -s o A m e r i c a n H o m e s . 2 4 « V a n c o u v e r L i f e , (17:12: J u n e 1968), p . 9. T h e S u n , V a n c o u v e r , B . C . , S u n d a y , 24 J a n u a r y 1970. 26. M o n t r e a l S t a r , T r a v e l S e c t i o n , 6 D e c e m b e r 1969. 27. J u l i e C h a n d l e r ; f r o m W o m a n ' s D a y q u o t e d i n R e a d e r ' s  D i g e s t , ( J u l y , 1970), p . 20. 28. D a v i d s o n , o p . c i t . , p . B - l . 29. O n t a r i o L a w R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n , o p . c i t . , p . 5. 30. M o r i n , op_. c i t . , p . 4. 31. W . K . K e r r , " C o n d o m i n i u m , S t a t u t o r y I m p l e m e n t a t i o n , " S t . J o h n L a w R e v i e w , ( M a y 1963), p . 1239 a n d s e e a l s o F e r r e r a n d S t e c h e r , o p . c i t . , p . 2. 32. F r a n k S . S e n g s t o c k a n d M a r y C . S e n g s t o c k , " H o m e o w n e r s h i p ; A G o a l f o r a l l A m e r i c a n s , " J o u r n a l o f U r b a n L a w , (46:3:1969), p . 404. 33. I b i d . , n. 159. 34. S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t , S.B.C. 1966, c. 46, 3 . 4 . ( l ) ( d ) . 35. Sengstock and Sengstock, op_. c i t . , p. 405. 36. For the v a r i o u s kinds o f e s t a t e see Appendix C. 37. S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t , op_. c i t . , c. 46, s. 3(1). 38. J.H.R. Robertson i n Rosenberg, op_. c i t . , Appendix C, p. 17-3. 39. Land R e g i s t r y A c t , R.S.B.C., 1960, c. 208, Schedule 1, Form F. 40. S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t , S.B.C., 1966, c. 46, s. 5(1). 41. Morin, ojo. c i t . , p. 4 and S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t S.B.C. 1966, c. 46, F i r s t Schedule, 3 ( f ) . 42. S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t , S.B.C., 1966, c. 46, s. 13(1) and (2) and F i r s t and Second Schedules. 43. T h i s phrase was used by John G e i s l e r i n " P r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t i o n , " 4-5, H a b i t a t , X I I , 1969, pp. 6, 12. 4 4. See Appendix T. 45. C o n s t a n t i n u , ojo. c i t . , pp. 9-11. 46. I b i d . , p. 7. 47. I b i d . , pp. 9-11. 48. I b i d . , pp. 31-33 and telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n , 5 August 1970. The Western C o o p e r a t i v e Housing S o c i e t y i s now d e f u n c t . A U n i t e d C o o p e r a t i v e Housing S o c i e t y was i n c o r p o r a t e d on 6 March 1970. See Chapter V I . 49. Mr. Harvey of the V o t e r s ' R e g i s t r a t i o n Department a t Vancouver C i t y H a l l , telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n 20 May 1970. 50. C o o p e r a t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n A c t , R.S.B.C, 1960, c. 77. 51. C o n s t a n t i n u , OJO. c i t . , p. 62. 52. C r e d i t Unions A c t , S.B.C, 1961, c. 14. 53. Information from Cooperative Union of Canada, Vancouver, B.C., telephone conversation on 15th August 1970. 54. Sengstock and Sengstock, op_. c i t . , p. 435. 55. P r o v i n c i a l Home Owner Grant Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 308 as amended and the P r o v i n c i a l New Home Building Assistance Act, S.B.C., 1967, c. 39, renamed the P r o v i n c i a l Home Ac q u i s i t i o n Act S.B.C., 1970, c. 40. 56. S c h l i t t , "Condominiums," New York Law Journal, (2:147: 1962), c i t e d by Sengstock and Sengstock, op. c i t . , p. 411, 57. James MacDonald i n "Cooperative and Non-Profit Housing -A Panel Discussion," The Right to Housing, op. c i t . , 58. Sengstock and Sengstock, o£. c i t . , p. 411, n. 185. 59. Rosenberg, op. c i t . , p. 3-4. 60. Ibid., p. 13-2. 61. Constantinu, op_. c i t . , p. 10. 62. Ibid. , p. 46. 63. Ibid. , p. 73. 64. Vancouver Charter, S.B.C.,1953,c.55;s.7 (a)(1). 65. Ibid, s.7 ( a ) ( i i ) , (A)(B) and (C). 66. Municipal Act, R.S.B.C, 1960, c. 255. 67. Ibid. , s. 31 ( a ) ( i ) ( A ) . 68. I b i d . , s. 31 ( a ) ( i ) ( B ) . 69. P r o v i n c i a l Home Owner Grant Act, R.S.B.C, 1960, c. 308, s. 2. 70. Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, s. 184; s. 242; s. 245; s. 267. 71. Municipal Act, R.S.B.C, 1960 , c. 255, s. 247 (b). 72. Ibid. , s. 3 1 ( i i ) . 73. Vancouver Charter, S.B.C, 1953, c. 55, s. 7(b). 74. C o n s t a n t i n u , op_. c i t . , p. 30. C o n s t a n t i n u was i n e r r o r (a) i n s t a t i n g t h a t the p r o j e c t s were h e l d by the BCTF under the S o c i e t i e s A c t and (b) t h e r e are i n f a c t not two but 49 companies i n the C i t y of Vancouver alone. I n f o r m a t i o n from Mr. Harvey, V o t e r s R e g i s t r a t i o n , C i t y H a l l , Vancouver, B.C. and Mr. B e n t l e y , BCTF Coop, by telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n— 2 0 May 1970. 75. i . e . Oakmont Housing Co. L t d . , and Oakridge Towers L t d . 76. Companies A c t , R.S.B.C. 1948, c. 5 8 as amended. 77. The B.C.T.F. i s i n c o r p o r a t e d under the S o c i e t i e s . A c t , R.S.B.C. 194 8, c. 311 and the B.C.T.F. Coop i s i n c o r p o r a t e d under the C o o p e r a t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n s A c t , R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 77 and the two housing companies under the Companies Act,.R.S.B.C. 1948 c. 58. 78. The i n f o r m a t i o n on p r o j e c t s such as the Oakmont Housing Co. L t d . , was o b t a i n e d from Mr. B e n t l e y from the BCTF Coop i n a s e r i e s of telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n s i n May 1970. 79. The Hon. Grace McCarthy, M i n i s t e r Without P o r t f o l i o , Press Release, p. 3, (undated—presumably Summer 1970). 80. The Hon. Grace McCarthy, Address, t o the P r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, (Monday, 16 February, 1970), p. 10. 81. Mr. B e n t l e y of the BCTF knows of none which have done so. 82. C o n s t a n t i n u , op_. c i t . , p. 8. The e x i s t e n c e of t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e would, i n f a c t , be a f u r t h e r l i m i t a t i o n i n a d d i t i o n t o the " s o c i a l c u l t u r a l " f a c t o r s mentioned. 83. Rosenberg, op. c i t . , p. 1-3. 84. Rosenberg, op. c i t . , p. 1-3. 85. I b i d . , p. 1-4. 86. Morin, op_. c i t . , p. 11. 87. And see Uwe Rossen, Zoning f o r Comprehensively Planned  Developmer.ts, u n p u b l i s h e d Master's T h e s i s i n Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , ( U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1969) , p. 31. 88. F e d e r a l Housing A u t h o r i t y , Planned U n i t Development  w i t h a Homes A s s o c i a t i o n (Land P l a n n i n g B u l l e t i n No. 6), (Washington, D . C : r e v i s e d e d i t i o n 1964). 89. Byron R. Hanke, "Planned U n i t Development and Land Use I n t e n s i t y , " U n i v e r s i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a Law Review, (3:114:1965), p. 18. 90. Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , T e c h n i c a l B u l l e t i n No. 50, The  Homes A s s o c i a t i o n Handbook, 1964, foreword. 91. Hanke, op_. c i t . , pp. 19-20. 92. S t . F r a n c i s Wood, San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a c i t e d i n Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , T e c h n i c a l B u l l e t i n No. 50, op. c i t . , forward. 93. S c h r e i b e r , op. c i t . , pp. 1104-1162. 94. I b i d . , p. 1155. 95. Beaton, op_. c i t . , p. 3. 96. Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , op_. c i t . , p. 10. C H A P T E R I V F E D E R A L P O L I C Y L e g i s l a t i o n as Housing P o l i c y ; The F i r s t F e d e r a l I n i t i a t i v e i n Housing, 1919; The Dominion Housing A c t , 1935; The F i r s t N a t i o n a l Housing A c t , 19 3 8 and C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Power; Wartime Measures; N a t i o n a l Housing A c t , 1944; C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o a A c t , 1945; The B a s i c P r i n c i p l e s of F e d e r a l P o l i c y ; N a t i o n a l Housing Act,19 54; The 19 64 Amendments; F e d e r a l F i n a n c i a l P o l i c y ; R e s i d e n t i a l Condominiums and F e d e r a l P o l i c y ; Impending Changes i n the F e d e r a l Role; C o n c l u s i o n . LEGISLATION AS HOUSING POLICY In t h i s c h a p t e r , F e d e r a l Housing P o l i c y per se and i t s e v o l u t i o n w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . Only a g a i n s t such a back-ground, i t i s f e l t , can any F e d e r a l p o l i c y c o n c e r n i n g r e s i d e n t i a l condominiums be p l a c e d i n p e r s p e c t i v e . A l b e r t Rose has d i s c u s s e d the problem of the nature of housing p o l i c y and whether Canada i n f a c t has any such policy."'" He s t a t e d t h a t : . . . l e g i s l a t i o n i s not tantamount t o housing p o l i c y per se or t o the implementation of a course of a c t i o n i n t e n d e d by the government e n a c t i n g such l e g i s l a t i o n . 2 And added: The major e s s e n t i a l s i n Canadian housing p o l i c y are l e g i s l a t i o n , f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i n i t i a t i n g a c t i o n , and a p p r o p r i a t e a d m i n i s t r a -t i v e arrangements. 3 Rose concluded t h a t t o m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e r e i s no F e d e r a l housing 4 p o l i c y i s r i d i c u l o u s and s t a t e d f u r t h e r : . . . i t i s now apparent t h a t Canada no l o n g e r s u f f e r s from a l a c k of "housing p o l i c y " , i f housing p o l i c y i s equated i n an s u b s t a n t i a l measure wi t h housing l e g i s l a t i o n . 5 The author i s , of c o u r s e , i n t e r e s t e d i n housing p o l i c y but w i l l c o n s i d e r at the F e d e r a l l e v e l mainly the l e g i s l a t i o n (which i n f a c t s p e c i f i e s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i n i t i a t i n g a c t i o n ) and the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e arrangements. F i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s a l l o c a t e d i n support of housing p o l i c y and programmes, w h i l e an important measure of a government's degree of commitment, fluctuate and are so much dependent upon the whole of government spending and perception of national p r i o r -i t i e s as well as the national and i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l and economic s i t u a t i o n that they deserve separate treatment. I t i s accepted that i n ignoring t h i s aspect of housing p o l i c y a l i m i t a t i o n i s placed upon the claim of examining Federal "housing p o l i c y " as defined by Rose above, but i t i s f e l t that nevertheless the l e g i s l a t i o n and administration components of housing p o l i c y can stand apart for the purpose of analysis. Barrow equated l e g i s l a t i o n i n substantial measure with p o l i c y , and Constantinu i n examining housing p o l i c y and Cooperatives i n B r i t i s h Columbia considered only l e g i s l a t i o n . ^ Indeed Rose has stated that: Under the circumstances, the analyst can do no better than i n f e r the most important elements of national housing p o l i c y from the enactment of l e g i s l a t i o n , and the encouragement or discouragement of various aspects of the t o t a l national housing programme. 7 THE FIRST FEDERAL INITIATIVE IN HOUSING, 1919 The f i r s t Federal l e g i s l a t i o n concerning housing was enacted i n 1919 and i t s purpose was to give employment to g ex-servicemen returning from World War I. The consequent l i m i t e d programme, i . e . Federal Housing Project was successful but the Government d i d not consider eith e r housing or un-9 employment a proper fxeld for Government action. The economic d e p r e s s i o n o f the 1930's caused the F e d e r a l Government t o a c t i n the f i e l d of housing, among o t h e r s , on an unprecedented s c a l e . A committee was s e t up t o study the housing s i t u a t i o n and to make recommendations f o r "the i n a u g u r a t i o n of a n a t i o n a l p o l i c y o f house-building."^"'" The committee's r e p o r t l e d to the f i r s t e x t e n s i v e F e d e r a l Housing l e g i s l a t i o n — t h e Dominion Housing A c t i n 1935. THE DOMINION HOUSING ACT, 1935 T h i s A c t a u t h o r i z e d loans t o home-buyers by i n s t i t u -t i o n a l l e n d e r s d e f i n e d as "approved l e n d e r s " . The maximum loan - to - v a l u e r a t i o n was t o be 80 per ce n t , o f which the approved l e n d e r s p r o v i d e d 6 0 per cent and the F e d e r a l Government 20 per c e n t . The i n t e r e s t r a t e was f i x e d a t f i v e per cent and on the F e d e r a l Government's share a t t h r e e per cen t . T h i s A c t r e v o l u t i o n i z e d the t r a d i t i o n a l l e n d i n g p a t t e r n : I t e f f e c t e d the f o l l o w i n g changes: (1) a hi g h e r r a t i o l o a n ; (2) s u b s i d i z e d i n t e r e s t r a t e by Crown p a r t i c i -p a t i o n i n the loa n ; (3) an i n i t i a l l o a n term of ten yea r s ; (4) a c o n t r a c t of renewal f o r a f u r t h e r ten years at terms to be agreed upon a t the i n i t i a l m a t u r i t y ; (5) blended equal monthly monthly repayments of p r i n c i p a l and i r ^ r e s t ; (6) the payment of taxes monthly i n advar .2 so as to c r e a t e a tax fund f o r f u t u r e tax payments; an (7) the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of minimum standards o f c o n s t r u c t i o n , s u b j e c t t o o n - s i t e i n s p e c t i o n s to ensure compliance. A l l of these were d r a s t i c changes i n the mortgage realm and opened the gates of home-ownership t o many t o whom i t was p r e v i o u s l y d e n i e d . 12 The A c t was not as e f f e c t i v e as i t was hoped i t c o u l d have been, e s p e c i a l l y i n the f i e l d o f low-income housing. In 19 37 the Dominion Housing A c t was augmented by the passage of the Home Improvement Loans Guarantee A c t under which the F e d e r a l Government c o u l d grant guaranteed loans f o r the improvement o f e x i s t i n g homes. T h i s A c t was s a i d t o have been more e f f e c t i v e i n promoting house b u i l d i n g and r e p a i r 14 than the Dominion Housing A c t i t s e l f . THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT OF 1938 The f i r s t N a t i o n a l Housing A c t (NHA) was passed i n 1938 and i t s purpose was to a s s i s t i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of new homes. There were t h r e e p a r t s - - P a r t I l a i d down the q u a l i f i -c a t i o n s of l e n d e r s , the c o n d i t i o n s under which they should o perate and terms a f f e c t i n g the making of l o a n s . P a r t I I p r o v i d e d f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of low r e n t a l housing u n i t s by means of l i m i t e d - d i v i d e n d housing c o r p o r a t i o n s and through l o c a l housing a u t h o r i t i e s and P a r t I I I p r o v i d e d f o r a s s i s t a n c e 15 t o m u n i c i p a l i t i e s f o r low c o s t housing. An agency o p e r a t i n g under the a e g i s of the Department of Finance was c r e a t e d t o a d m i n i s t e r the A c t 1 ^ - - t h e N a t i o n a l Housing A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , from which i t c o u l d be s a i d the p r e s e n t C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n i s descended. CONSTITUTIONAL POWER The o p e r a t i o n of the NHA h i g h l i g h t s the "most important background f a c t i n Canadian housing which i s un d e n i a b l y t h a t 17 Canada i s a F e d e r a l s t a t e . " Housing f a l l s w i t h i n P r o v i n -c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n as s p e c i f i e d i n the B r i t i s h North America A c t , S e c t i o n 92, which enumerates the s u b j e c t s over which the P r o v i n c e s have j u r i s d i c t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g s u b j e c t s are con-s i d e r e d to be r e l e v a n t t o housing, i n s u b s e c t i o n s of S e c t i o n 9 2 : 1 8 2. D i r e c t T a x a t i o n w i t h i n the P r o v i n c e f o r the R a i s i n g of a Revenue f o r P r o v i n c i a l Purposes 8. M u n i c i p a l I n s t i t u t i o n s i n the P r o v i n c e 10. L o c a l Works and Undertakings . . . . 11. The I n c o r p o r a t i o n of Companies w i t h P r o v i n c i a l O b j e c t s 13. P r o p e r t y and C i v i l R i g h t s i n the P r o v i n c e 16. G e n e r a l l y a l l M a t t e r s of merely l o c a l or p r i v a t e Nature i n the P r o v i n c e . 19 Although the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the p r o v i s i o n of housing t o i n d i v i d u a l s and f a m i l i e s has been a s s i g n e d t o the P r o v i n c e s by j u d i c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f 20 S e c t i o n 92, n e v e r t h e l e s s the F e d e r a l Government m the NHA has c o n s t r u c t e d the framework i n which P r o v i n c i a l housing 21 p o l i c i e s may o p e r a t e , by the p r o v i s i o n of money to P r o v i n c e s , and M u n i c i p a l i t i e s . However, the other most important con-s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t must be t h a t F e d e r a l p o l i c y implementation i s p r e d i c a t e d upon l o c a l i n i t i a t i v e and s i n c e the M u n i c i p a l i t i e s 22 are indeed the c r e a t u r e s of the P r o v i n c e s , t h i s means t h a t o n l y w i t h P r o v i n c i a l p e r m i s s i o n can a M u n i c i p a l i t y p a r t i c i p a t e i n a F e d e r a l programme, by v i r t u e of P r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n 23 e n a b l i n g the s i g n i n g o f agreements. In B r i t i s h Columbia the Housing A c t i s the e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g the Pr o v i n c e t o draw up agreements with the F e d e r a l and M u n i c i p a l Governments f o r the purpose o f c o n s t r u c t i n g F e d e r a l - P r o v i n c i a l p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s and un d e r t a k i n g urban renewal p r o j e c t s 24 and s h a r i n g the c o s t s o f such p r o j e c t s . I t i s because l o c a l i n i t i a t i v e i s necessary t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n F e d e r a l programmes t h a t although P a r t I of the 19 3 8 NHA was used e x t e n s i v e l y , n e v e r t h e l e s s from " . . . the f a c t t h a t n e g l i g i b l e use was made of P a r t s I I and I I I , i t would seem t h a t p r o v i n c i a l and m u n i c i p a l governments were 25 i n d i f f e r e n t t o the f a c i l i t i e s which the A c t o f f e r e d . " WARTIME MEASURES During the Second World War the u r b a n i s a t i o n t h a t o c c u r r e d w i t h i n c r e a s e d i n d u s t r i a l i s a t i o n as the economy was m o b i l i s e d , t o g e t h e r w i t h the a l r e a d y inadequate housing stock 2 6 produced an i n t o l e r a b l e housing shortage i n urban c e n t r e s . A Crown C o r p o r a t i o n , Wartime Housing L t d . , was s e t up i n 19 41 by the F e d e r a l Government t o determine needs and a l l o c a t e the new houses c o n s t r u c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o the needs, and to 27 c o n t r o l and f i x r e n t s of housing u n i t s . T h i s was of course part of the Federal Government's wartime emergency l e g i s l a t i o n including control over prices, wages, rents, al location of 2 8 material and conscription. Rose has said that Wartime Housing Limited . . . can be seen now as a rudimentary federal housing agency, one of whose major tasks was direct negotiation with the elected and appointed o f f i c i a l s of municipal governments. 29 In 19 4 3 the Advisory Committee on Reconstruction established by the Federal Government set up a Sub-Committee on Housing and Town Planning with the following terms of reference: To review the existing l e g i s l a t i o n and the administra-t ive organization relat ing to housing and community planning, both urban and r u r a l , throughout Canada and to report such changes i n l e g i s l a t i o n or organization and procedure as may be necessary to ensure the most effective implementation of what the Sub-Committee considers to be an adequate housing program for Canada during the years immediately following the war. 30 The foundation of Federal housing pol ic ies as reflected i n the NHA of 1944 which followed the F i n a l Report of the Sub-Committee i s contained i n the four following basic proposals of the Sub-Committee: 1. A three-pronged program of action involving l e g i s l a t i o n to induce a greater supply of housing to meet requirements of: (a) the large metropolitan areas: (b) the smaller c i t i e s and towns; and (c) the farm areas. 2. A housing policy geared to meet the needs of the three established income groups; lower t h i r d , middle t h i r d , and upper t h i r d . 3. L e g i s l a t i o n t o make e f f e c t i v e use of town p l a n n i n g , e f f i c i e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n by b r i n g i n g d i f f u s e d housing programs under one a c t ; and what the Sub-Committee c o n s i d e r e d a c r i t i c a l element, the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the p r o v i n c i a l governments. 4. Recommendations as regards methods t h a t c o u l d be used t o reduce b u i l d i n g c o s t s . 31 Rose has c a l l e d t h i s r e p o r t "a m i l e s t o n e i n the enun-c i a t i o n o f p o t e n t i a l assumption of s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by 32 government." NATIONAL HOUSING ACT OF 1944 The r a t i o n a l e of the NHA of 1944 i s seen t o be, i n the words of the preamble t o the A c t , . . . t o Promote the C o n s t r u c t i o n of new Houses, the Improvement o f Housing and C o n d i t i o n s and the Expansion of Employment i n the Postwar P e r i o d . 33 The main changes implemented by the NHA o f 19 44 were, i n the case of home-ownership f i n a n c i n g : the i n c r e a s e o f the a m o r t i z a t i o n p e r i o d from t e n t o between twenty and t h i r t y y e a r s ; the i n c r e a s e of the l o a n - t o - v a l u e r a t i o so t h a t the mortgagor c o u l d borrow 95 per cent of the f i r s t $2,000; 85 per cent of the next $2,000 and 70 per cent o f the remainder. The i n t e r e s t r a t e was s e t by the government and was r e l a t e d t o long-term 34 Government bond i n t e r e s t r a t e s . V a r i o u s measures c o n c e r n i n g l o w - r e n t a l housing were re - e n a c t e d and extended i n some cases and p r o v i s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g slum c l e a r a n c e were i n c l u d e d . The home improvement and e x t e n s i o n loans p r o v i s i o n s were continued and community p l a n n i n g and housing r e s e a r c h were e s t a b l i s h e d as p a r t of Government , . 36 p o l i c y . CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION ACT OF 1945 The f o l l o w i n g y e a r , 1945, i n order to a d m i n i s t e r the NHA the F e d e r a l Government enacted l e g i s l a t i o n t o c r e a t e a who l l y owned Crown C o r p o r a t i o n , the C e n t r a l Mortgage and 37 Housing C o r p o r a t i o n (CMHC). CMHC r e p l a c e d the N a t i o n a l Housing A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and was to supersede or absorb a l l the 3 8 l e s s e r agencies such as Wartime Housing L t d . Under the CMHC A c t a M i n i s t e r of the Crown i s respon-s i b l e f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the NHA, to s u p e r v i s e CMHC, "and thus the housing p o l i c y and programme of the Government 39 of Canada." The c o r p o r a t i o n i s run by a Board of D i r e c t o r s i n c l u d i n g the P r e s i d e n t , V i c e - P r e s i d e n t and e i g h t o t h e r D i r e c t o r s . The P r e s i d e n t , V i c e - P r e s i d e n t and two o t h e r D i r e c t o r s form the E x e c u t i v e Committee. The powers of the Board are o u t l i n e d i n S e c t i o n 18 which s t a t e s t h a t on b e h a l f of Her Majesty and i n p l a c e of the M i n i s t e r the Board may have, e x e r c i s e and perform a l l r i g h t s , powers, d u t i e s , l i a b i l i t i e s and f u n c t i o n s o f the M i n i s t e r and the Housing A c t s or under any c o n t r a c t e n t e r e d i n t o under the s a i d A c t s , except the a u t h o r i t y o f the M i n i s t e r under the s a i d A c t s to pay moneys out of the C o n s o l i -dated Revenue Fund, or under S e c t i o n 22 of the N a t i o n a l Housing A c t , t o make gr a n t s f o r slum c l e a r a n c e . In 1947 the NHA was amended g i v i n g CMHC a u t h o r i t y t o make d i r e c t mortgage loans " t o ensure an adequate source o f 41 mortgage f i n a n c i n g throughout the Dominion." F u r t h e r amendments t o the NHA were passed i n 1949, the most important of which was S e c t i o n 35 (now S e c t i o n 35A). Under t h i s s e c t i o n the F e d e r a l Government can undertake i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h any P r o v i n c i a l Government or Agency p r o j e c t s (a) f o r the a c q u i s -i t i o n and development o f l a n d f o r housing purposes; (b) f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of h ousing p r o j e c t s or h ousing accommodation of the h o s t e l or d o r m i t o r y type f o r s a l e or f o r r e n t and (c) the a c q u i s i t i o n , improvement and c o n v e r s i o n of e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s f o r a housing p r o j e c t or f o r housing accommodation o f the h o s t e l or d o r m i t o r y type. In such p r o j e c t s 75 per cent of the c a p i t a l c o s t and p r o f i t s and l o s e s are borne by the F e d e r a l Government which would a l s o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the p l a n n i n g , d e s i g n and c o n s t r u c t i o n l e a v i n g the P r o v i n c e to bear 25 per cent o f the c o s t . THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FEDERAL POLICY Barrow has concluded t h a t towards the end of the 1940's F e d e r a l Government housing p o l i c y was based on the f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s of which (1), (2), and (3) formed the c o r e : 1. Every Canadian f a m i l y d e s i r e s home-ownership and t h e r e f o r e p r o v i s i o n o f t h i s form of housing accommodation was t o be a major o b j e c t i v e . 2. The private market is the best way of supplying the housing needs of the nation. 3. The Government's responsibi l i ty would be discharged i f i t made i t attractive for private i n s t i t u t i o n a l lenders to enter the housing market. But some direct government involvement would be necessary to even out the regional d i s p a r i t i e s . 4. Subsidizing low-rental housing should be rejected. If the market is considered the best way of supply-ing housing for the nation, one cannot very well accept subsidized housing as part of policy. 5. Federal-provincial relations should be carefully considered. Unless the provinces are prepared to co-operate with the Federal Government and indeed i n i t i a t e the necessary projects, nothing should be done. 42 Barrow noted that the Federal Government had clearly established i t s e l f as an important source of funds for home-ownership and intended to influence community planning and consequently local government. He noted also that the principles he had deduced were " . . . not designed to f a c i l i t a t e housing construction for moderate and low-income f a m i l i e s . " 4 3 Adequate funds for home-ownership were not forthcoming from private c i t i z e n s ' capital from CMHC or from the approved lenders to clear up the backlog of housing needs from wartime and to keep pace with the demand from growing family formations 44 and immigration. Woodward has this to say: The approved lenders, the majority of which were l i f e insurance companies, had responded well to the challenges of each successive change in the Housing Acts. Nevertheless, i t was becoming increasingly apparent that i t was not within their f inancial capacity to provide the mortgage funds required to meet Canada's growing housing needs. New sources of mortgage funds had to be found and towards this end a new National Housing Act was passed i n 1954. 45 Mr. R.H. Winters, the M i n i s t e r of R e c o n s t r u c t i o n and supply s t a t e d : . . . . The main o b j e c t of t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n i s t o broaden the supply of mortgage money by making t h a t form of investment more a t t r a c t i v e , i n c r e a s i n g the number of l e n d e r s and making more funds a v a i l a b l e f o r mortgage l e n d i n g . 46 NATIONAL HOUSING ACT OF 19 54 Barrow has s t a t e d t h a t the NHA of 195 4 brought about a s e r i e s of major changes: I t brought c h a r t e r e d banks i n t o the mortgage l e n d i n g f i e l d . I t terminated the system of j o i n t l e n d i n g . To r e p l a c e t h a t system, i t made p r o v i s i o n s t o i n s u r e mortgage loans s u p p l i e d by approved l e n d e r s t o a s s i s t i n f i n a n c i n g new housing. The new A c t p r o v i d e d t h a t a l l mortgage loans were t o extend over t w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s w i t h a p o s s i b l e maximum of t h i r t y y e a r s . Before t h i s time the m a t u r i t y term was a matter de c i d e d on by the l e n d e r and the borrower, the l a t t e r b e i n g o f t e n i n the more un f a v o u r a b l e p o s i t i o n . 47 Amendments t o the Bank A c t were a l s o necessary t o complement the new NHA. Between 1954 and 1962 f u r t h e r amend-ments t o the NHA were passed c o n c e r n i n g the l o a n - t o - v a l u e r a t i o of i n s u r e d mortgage l o a n s , f e d e r a l loans f o r m u n i c i p a l sewage treatment p r o j e c t s and u n i v e r s i t y housing p r o j e c t s . U n t i l the l a t e 1950's the Canadian house b u i l d i n g i n d u s t r y c o n c e n t r a t e d on the p r o d u c t i o n of one main product i . e . the s i n g l e f a m i l y detached house on vacant l a n d which 48 was the o n l y type e l i g i b l e f o r NHA f i n a n c i n g . I t has been p o i n t e d out by many c r i t i c s t h a t u n t i l 1964 the F e d e r a l Government's p o l i c y was concerned o n l y w i t h the p r o d u c t i o n of housing u n i t s and h a r d l y a t a l l w i t h the d i s t r i b u t i o n of 49 housing among the v a r i o u s income groups. To e l a b o r a t e , Rose has p o i n t e d out t h a t i t was o n l y by 1967 t h a t the percentage of p u b l i c housing u n i t s t a r t s of t o t a l housing s t a r t s had r i s e n t o about 5 per c e n t . ^ THE 1964 AMENDMENTS In 1964 Amendments were passed which, t o quote Rose " . . . v i r t u a l l y re-wrote most of the s o c i a l p r o v i s i o n s of ., A T , . n T T . , , „51 S i n c e these do not d i r e c t l y the N a t i o n a l Housing A c t . 1 concern the s u b j e c t of t h i s t h e s i s they w i l l be mentioned o n l y i n p a s s i n g to p r o v i d e the p e r s p e c t i v e i n which the t o t a l a r r a y of F e d e r a l p o l i c y should be viewed. The l i m i t e d d i v i d e n d s e c t i o n was expanded by a u t h o r i z i n g loans t o non-p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n s owned by a P r o v i n c e , M u n i c i p a l i t y or any of t h e i r agencies or a c h a r i t a b l e c o r p o r a t i o n f o r the con-s t r u c t i o n or purchase o f a housing p r o j e c t or h o s t e l s and rooming houses as l o w - r e n t a l p r o j e c t s . Part. I l l of the NHA was r e - t i t l e d "Urban Renewal", a change from "Urban Re-development". T h i s p a r t i n c l u d e d c o s t s h a r i n g and F e d e r a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s f o r p l a n p r e p a r a t i o n and implementation, p l u s loans and i n s u r e d l o a n s . The P r o v i n c e s were r e c o g n i s e d as the a u t h o r i t y which must approve urban renewal p l a n s and f o r the f i r s t time r e c o g n i t i o n was g i v e n t o the n e c e s s i t y f o r a s s i s t i n g i n the r e l o c a t i o n of the people a f f e c t e d by the renewal. In 1969 the F e d e r a l Government d e c i d e d t o suspend n e a r l y a l l urban renewal p r o j e c t s i n order to r e c o n s i d e r the e n t i r e process and i t s aims. In the f i e l d o f " P u b l i c Housing", as P a r t IV was t i t l e d , mention was made of P r o v i n c i a l housing agencies which c l e a r l y p o i n t e d the way t o an i n c r e a s e d r o l e f o r the P r o v i n c e s i n t h i s f i e l d . CMHC was p e r m i t t e d to make loans t o a s s i s t a P r o v i n c e , M u n i c i p a l i t y or p u b l i c housing agency t o a c q u i r e l a n d f o r p u b l i c housing t o a maximum of 90 per cent o f the c o s t o f a c q u i s i t i o n and s e r v i c i n g . T h i s was complemented by the p r o v i s i o n a l l o w i n g f o r loans to con-s t r u c t , a c q u i r e and operate p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s and CMHC was a u t h o r i z e d t o c o n t r i b u t e 50 per cent of the o p e r a t i n g l o s s e s o f p u b l i c housing f o r a p e r i o d o f up to 50 y e a r s . Under S e c t i o n 35A CMHC may undertake w i t h a M u n i c i p a l i t y upon i t s i n i t i a t i v e and w i t h the P r o v i n c e ' s concurrence, t o assemble raw land f o r r e s i d e n t i a l development i n areas where l a c k o f s e r v i c e d l a n d i s hampering housing growth. CMHC can p r o v i d e up t o 75 per cent of the c a p i t a l c o s t w i t h the Pr o v i n c e b e a r i n g the r e s t , some of which i t r e c o v e r s from the M u n i c i p a l i t y . The s e r v i c e d l o t s are then s o l d and the proceeds are shared on the same b a s i s . The l o t s are s o l d on a f i r s t - c o m e f i r s t - s e r v e d b a s i s through the l o c a l CMHC o f f i c e and: . . . purchasers are expected to s e l e c t l o t s a p p r o p r i a t e to the proposed house d e s i g n . Plans and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the house r e q u i r e a p p r o v a l by CMHC whether or not the house i s f i n a n c e d through the f a c i l i t i e s o f the NHA. To assure o r d e r l y development of the p r o j e c t , c o n s t r u c t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l houses must be s t a r t e d w i t h i n s i x months of l o t purchase and completed w i t h i n 18 months a f t e r commencement of c o n s t r u c t i o n . 52 C o s t s of m u n i c i p a l s e r v i c e s not r e c o v e r e d by the M u n i c i p a l i t y i n the g e n e r a l tax r a t e are i n c l u d e d i n the l o t s a l e s p r i c e s or r e c o v e r e d through l o c a l improvement charges over a p e r i o d of y e a r s . FEDERAL FINANCIAL POLICY I t has been mentioned p r e v i o u s l y t h a t the r o l e o f the F e d e r a l Government (which was the f i r s t l e v e l o f Government to a c t i n the f i e l d of h o u s i n g ) , has b a s i c a l l y been to p r o v i d e the l e g i s l a t i v e framework of housing p o l i c y , t o s e t up and a d m i n i s t e r i t s programmes, t o p r o v i d e mortgage and o t h e r funds and t o encourage the P r o v i n c e s t o accept t h e i r respon-s i b i l i t y f o r meeting housing needs. The implementation o f F e d e r a l p o l i c y forming "the h e a r t of our housing p o l i c y d u r i n g 53 the p a s t 25 years has been the e f f o r t to p r o v i d e an adequate supply of mortgage money, to manipulate the i n t e r e s t r a t e and to s e t out t o a p p r o p r i a t e terms t o encourage i n d i v i d u a l home ownership. Funds were made a v a i l a b l e under the p r e -v a i l i n g markets, down payments were reduced i n p r o p o r t i o n to the amount loaned and the a m o r t i z a t i o n p e r i o d i n c r e a s e d . Barrow has stated' t h a t t h e r e are f i v e components of an NHA mortgage:^ 4 1. l o a n - t o - v a l u e r a t i o ; 2. down payment r e q u i r e d ; 3. i n t e r e s t r a t e ; 4. a m o r t i z a t i o n p e r i o d ; and 5. debt s e r v i c e r a t i o . 55 A l l o f these, except the downpayment which i s i n d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d , are d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d by Government l e g i s l a t i o n o r r e g u l a t i o n . . 56 Thus the l o a n - t o - v a l u e r a t i o f o r homeownership i s 95 per cent of the f i r s t $20,000 and 80 per cent of the balance o f the v a l u e w i t h the maximum loan b e i n g $25,000 f o r a l l housing except apartments f o r which the maximum l o a n i s $18,000. The i n t e r e s t r a t e f o r loans by approved l e n d e r s under P a r t I i s now f r e e , h a ving been f r e e d by amendment i n 19 69. The mortgage i n s u r a n c e fees are between 1 per cent and 1 1/4 per cent. The i n t e r e s t r a t e f o r d i r e c t loans by CMHC was 9 1/2 per cent i n September 1969. The a m o r t i z a t i o n p e r i o d was amended i n 1969 t o be up t o 40 years f o r new and e x i s t i n g housing but 25 years has been the u s u a l term f o r Condominiums i n B r i t i s h 57 Columbia. The f a c t remains t h a t the F e d e r a l Government's p o l i c y of r e l y i n g on the money market t o p r o v i d e loans which CMHC w i l l i n s u r e (CMHC w i l l o n l y l e n d d i r e c t l y under S e c t i o n 40 5 8 where p r i v a t e funds are not a v a i l a b l e ) i s s t i l l the mainstay o f i t s housing p o l i c y and y e t the r e " i s an o v e r a l l " 59 shortage of mortgage funds". The Task Force on Housing and Urban development, however, c a r r i e d on the t r a d i t i o n . b y recommending t h a t : ^ The F e d e r a l Government seek t o encourage and c o - o r d i n a t e the e f f o r t s of p r i v a t e l e n d i n g i n s t i t u -t i o n s t o meet the v a s t m a j o r i t y o f Canada's r e s i d e n t i a l mortgage requirements by s e t t i n g annual t a r g e t s , by c a n v a s s i n g these l e n d e r s twice a n n u a l l y to ensure t h a t t h e i r investment i n t e n t i o n s are adequate t o meet these g o a l s , and by pay i n g p a r t i c -u l a r a t t e n t i o n t o the needs of the v a r i o u s r e g i o n s of Canada. A s p e c i a l e f f o r t be made t o e n l i s t the i n c r e a s i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f Canada's r a p i d l y growing pension funds i n the f i e l d of r e s i d e n t i a l mortgage f i n a n c i n g . The Task F o r c e c o n s i d e r e d the r o l e o f s p e c i a l l e n d i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s such as b u i l d i n g s o c i e t i e s i n B r i t a i n but recommended t h a t a s i m i l a r system be s e t up i n Canada on l y i f e x i s t i n g l e n d e r s f a i l t o a l l o c a t e s u f f i c i e n t r e s i d e n t i a l mortgage funds t o meet n a t i o n a l g o a l s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t i n France the 1938 condominium law c o n s i s t e d o f a P a r t I d e a l i n g w i t h c o o p e r a t i v e b u i l d i n g s o c i e t i e s . ^ 1 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS AND FEDERAL HOUSING POLICY In Canada condominium ownership, by g e n e r a l d e f i n i t i o n , has always been p o s s i b l e under the N a t i o n a l Housing A c t . Even so, the r e c e n t amendments t o the N a t i o n a l Housing A c t made s p e c i f i c note o f t h i s type o f housing. But' s i n c e housing comes w i t h i n p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n complementary p r o v i n c i a l e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n has not, u n t i l v ery r e c e n t l y , been enacted. 62 The amendments mentioned i n the above q u o t a t i o n were 6 3 added i n the 1968-69. s e s s i o n of Pa r l i a m e n t and r e f e r i n S e c t i o n 7 t o condominium u n i t s which are d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 2 (6a) as f o l l o w s : (6a)'condominium u n i t ' means a bounded space i n a b u i l d i n g d e s i g n a t e d or d e s c r i b e d as a separate u n i t on a r e g i s t e r e d condominium or s t r a t a l o t p l a n or d e s c r i p t i o n or s i m i l a r p l a n or d e s c r i p t i o n r e g i s t e r e d persuant t o the laws of a p r o v i n c e , and i n t e nded f o r human h a b i t a t i o n , and i n c l u d e s any i n t e r e s t i n land a p p e r t a i n i n g t o ownership of the u n i t . C o o p e r a t i v e housing p r o j e c t s , d e f i n e d as be i n g r e g i s -t e r e d as pursuant t o the laws of Canada or the P r o v i n c e s and 64 the Yukon T e r r i t o r y a l s o r e c e i v e s p e c i a l mention i n the NHA and are t r e a t e d e q u a l l y w i t h condominium u n i t s i n terms o f 65 i n s u r a b l e loans f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f , and f o r the purpose 6 6 of d i s c h a r g i n g a l o a n secured by a mortgage on, a coopera-t i v e housing p r o j e c t or condominium u n i t . However, as regards an i n s u r a b l e l o a n f o r the purchase or improvement of an e x i s t i n g d w e l l i n g u n i t , a condominium i s s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned but a c o o p e r a t i v e housing p r o j e c t i s not, and would 6 7 appear not t o q u a l i f y . In a d d i t i o n , a loan t o a c o o p e r a t i v e housing a s s o c i a t i o n i s not i n s u r a b l e u n l e s s CMHC approves the a s s o c i a t i o n s instrument o f i n c o r p o r a t i o n and bylaws: and the A c t a l s o makes f u r t h e r c o n d i t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the share-h o l d e r s , a t l e a s t 80 per cent o f whom must occupy the 6 8 completed p r o j e c t . In the case of a c o o p e r a t i v e housing a s s o c i a t i o n which i s i n c o r p o r a t e d t o c o n s t r u c t houses and which having c o n s t r u c t e d houses and conveyed them t o the members or share-h o l d e r s of the a s s o c i a t i o n — t h e A c t p r o v i d e s f o r members or sh a r e h o l d e r s t o o b t a i n an i n s u r e d l o a n f o r the house and f o r 69 i t t o be c o n s i d e r e d a loan t o a home owner. In t h i s way a b l a n k e t mortgage can be co n v e r t e d t o i n d i v i d u a l mortgages i f the a s s o c i a t i o n s e l l s the houses t o members or share-h o l d e r s . CMHC i s charged w i t h the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f d i s t r i -b u t i n g . . . i n f o r m a t i o n l e a d i n g t o the c o n s t r u c t i o n or pr o -v i s i o n of more adequate and improved housing accommo-d a t i o n i n Canada. 70 Rose has commented t h a t . . . i t was never the p o l i c y of the C o r p o r a t i o n t o "shout from the r o o f t o p s ' i n an e f f o r t t o a d v e r t i s e or s e l l the a v a i l a b l e housing programmes. 71 CMHC has, however, devoted a whole i s s u e o f i t s j o u r n a l , H a b i t a t , Volume X I I , Numbers 4-5, i n 1969 to the s u b j e c t o f condominium. The q u e s t i o n of d i s t r i b u t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e s t o the comments on p u b l i c misunderstanding and ignorance about the concept of condominium mentioned i n Chapter I I I . C o n s t a n t i n u has mentioned a l a c k of i n f o r m a t i o n about 72 c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s . CMHC has a s s i s t e d and encouraged the s e t t i n g up of an o r g a n i s a t i o n known as the Co o p e r a t i v e Housing Foundation i n v o l v i n g the Canadian Labour Congress and the Cooperative Union of Canada. Their aim is to interest 73 sponsoring groups and to provide expert consultants and thus a fundamental difference between continuing cooperatives and condominiums is implied. That i s , that while continuing cooperatives develop spontaneously from the ideas and efforts 74 of the cooperators without promotion by t h i r d part ies , condominiums (unless constructed by a cooperative association and then conveyed to the strata lot owner in the way mentioned earl ier) are advertised by the developers who wish to s e l l the dwelling units. In this way d i s t r i b u t i o n of information on the condominium concept is aided. Differences of opinion between CMHC and developers have arisen over the p o s s i b i l i t y of placing r e s t r i c t i o n s on the resale and leasing of strata l o t s . CMHC has always insisted that the bylaws of a Strata Corporation should contain nothing which would require a strata lot owner to obtain the Strata Corporation's consent to the sale or leasing by the 75 . . owner of his strata l o t . In any case, no r e s t r i c t i o n s on 7 6 resale are permitted i n projects financed under the NHA. This question w i l l be considered further i n Chapter V where the Strata T i t l e s Act w i l l be discussed. CMHC has been involved i n t r i a l condominium projects whereby direct financing was made available and the f i r s t applications which were approved were for a row housing project for sale to employees of Rayonier Canada (B.C.) Ltd. in the one-industry town of Rumble Beach, and a row housing and apartment p r o j e c t i n P o r t Moody. In 196 8 CMHC was a u t h o r i z e d to undertake a l i m i t e d programme of d i r e c t loans t o merchant b u i l d e r s , some of which i n v o l v e d condominium 7 8 p r o j e c t s i n Ladner, Richmond and P o r t Moody, B.C. CMHC i s p r e s e n t l y i n v o l v e d i n Edmonton's f i r s t e x p e r i m e n t a l housing p r o j e c t which i s a p r o p o s a l t o c o n s t r u c t 300 condominium 79 townhouses. The whole range of F e d e r a l housing p o l i c y has been b r i e f l y o u t l i n e d because although undoubtedly most r e s i d e n t i a l condominium development under the NHA w i l l be under P a r t I — I n s u r e d Mortgage Loans r a t h e r than under the oth e r p a r t s t h e r e appears t o be no reason why a governmental housing agency c o u l d not develop a p r o j e c t based on the condominium concept wherein the occupants pay r e n t t o the agency but have some p a r t i n the management of the b u i l d i n g . Indeed the scheme mentioned e a r l i e r by Quirk i s r e l e v a n t i n t h a t the i d e a o f 80 a "tenant-condominium" i s proposed. T h i s i s perhaps a widening of the concept but i f the concept of l e a s e h o l d con-dominiums can be e n t e r t a i n e d , as i t i s i n Quebec and Manitoba, then why not the tenant condominium? I f i t can, then P a r t s I I , VI and VIA o f the NHA (Being e n t i t l e d r e s p e c t i v e l y "Housing f o r R e n t a l Purposes and Land Assembly, P u b l i c Housing and Loans f o r Student Housing P r o j e c t s ) c o u l d be used f o r r e s i d e n t i a l condominium p r o j e c t s . In O n t a r i o p r o g r e s s i s bei n g made toward arrangements f o r the s a l e of p u b l i c housing u n i t s t o tenants whose income has r i s e n t o the p o i n t where they could afford to buy but whether a modified condominium arrangement i s envisaged i s not known. Indf "d perhaps the land assembly provisions are most relevant since condominiums themselves can represent an intensive use of land and since economies of scale accrue to large scale projects. Seen i n t h i s l i g h t land assembly and condominium together appear to have great p o t e n t i a l as tools for reducing the costs of producing housing u n i t s . In Ontario the land assembly programme of the Ontario Housing Corporation encourages condominium housing through the 82 provision of serviced b u i l d i n g s i t e s . IMPENDING CHANGES IN THE FEDERAL ROLE The Federal Task Force recommended the establishment 8 3 of a Department of Housing and Urban A f f a i r s and with the announcement on 8 October 1970 of the creation of a Secr e t a r i a t of Urban A f f a i r s i n the Speech from the Throne with Mr. Robert Andras as Minister, further Federal Government intervention on the Canadian urban scene can be expected. However, no p o l i c y statement has been issued at the time of w r i t i n g . T h i s Chapter has taken the form of a h i s t o r i c a l review of the e v o l u t i o n of F e d e r a l housing l e g i s l a t i o n . In t h i s manner, i t i s hoped the p r e s e n t F e d e r a l p o l i c i e s have been p l a c e d i n a wider p e r s p e c t i v e . The p l a c e o f condominiums and c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s i n F e d e r a l p o l i c y has been pre-sented and c o n t r a s t e d . T h i s Chapter i s not meant t o be a c r i t i q u e of F e d e r a l P o l i c y merely an expose viewed as an e s s e n t i a l p a r t of the t o t a l a r r a y of F e d e r a l , P r o v i n c i a l and M u n i c i p a l p o l i c i e s . 1. Albert Rose, Canadian Housing P o l i c i e s , (Ottawa: Canadian Welfare Council, Background paper prepared for the Canadian Conference on Housing, October 1968), pp. 1-4. 2. Ibid., p. 101. 3 . Ibid. , p. 3. 4. Ibid., p. 104. 5. Ibid., p. 101. 6. Barrow, op. c i t . , p. 17, and Constantinu, op_. c i t . , p. 8. 7. Rose, op. c i t . , p. 32. 8. Barrow, op_. c i t . , p. 25. 9. Ibid., p. 26. 10. Ibid., p. 27. 11. Quoted by Barrow, op_. ext., p. 27. 12. H. Woodward, Canadian Mortgages, (Toronto: C o l l i n s and Company, 1957) , p. 10, quoted by Barrow, ojo. c i t . , p. 29 . 13. Barrow, op_. c i t . , p. 30. 14. Ibid. , pp. 30, 31. 15. National Housing Act, 1938. 16. Barrow, ojo. c i t . , p. 32. 17. Rose, op_. c i t . , p. 2. 18. A.E. Grauer, Housing (Ottawa: A Study prepared for the Royal Commission on Dominion—Provincial Relations, 1939), p. 34, quoted by Constantinu, op. ext., p. 100. 19. B r i t i s h North America Act, 1867, s. 92. 20. Rose, op. c i t . , p. 3. 21. I b i d . , p. 49. 22. A.N. McKay and D.W. S l a t e r , "The Scope of Urban P o l i c y , " Urban S t u d i e s : A Canadian P e r s p e c t i v e , e d i t e d by N.H. L i t h w i c k and G i l l e s Pacquet"/ (Toronto: Methuen P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1968), p. 220. 23. I b i d . , pp. 4, 5. 24. M.J. Audain c i t e d i n C o n s t a n t i n u , op. c i t . , p. 61. The A c t i s the Housing A c t , S.B.C. 1950, c. 31 as amended. 25. Barrow, ojo. c i t . , p. 32. 26. I b i d . , p. 34. 27. I b i d . 28. Rose, ojo. c i t . , p. 21. 29. I b i d . , p. 22. 30. F i n a l Report of the Sub-Committee on Housing and Community  P l a n n i n g , cit e d " by Barrow, op. c i t . , p. 35. 31. Report quoted i n Barrow, CJQ. c i t . , p. 35. 32. Rose, ojo. c i t . , p. 23. 33. Quoted i n I b i d . , pp. 23, 24. 34. Barrow, ojo. c i t . , p. 36. 35. I b i d . 36. I b i d . , p. 37. 37. C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n A c t , 1945. 38. Rose, cjp. c i t . , p. 24. 39. I b i d and Barrow o£. c i t . , p. 38. 40. Quoted i n Barrow, I b i d . 41. Woodward quoted i n I b i d . 42. Barrow, I b i d . , pp. 42, 43. See a l s o Rose, ojo. c i t . , pp. 36, 37. 43. Barrow, ojo. c i t . , p. 43. 45. Woodward, op_. c i t . , pp. 20-28 quoted by Barrow, I b i d . 46. House of Commons Debates, ( V o l . I, 1954), pp. 998, 999 quoted by Barrow, I b i d . ~ 7 p. 46. 47. Barrow, I b i d . , p. 45. 48. Rose, op_. ext., pp. 37, 38. 49. See f o r i n s t a n c e Barrow, o p . c i t . , pp. 47, 48, 49 and Rose, op. c i t . , p. 38. 50. Rose, op. c i t . , p. 39. 51. I b i d . , p. 42. 52. CMHC, NHA F e d e r a l P r o v i n c i a l Land Assembly, (Ottawa: Pamphlet 5024, 1967), p. 2. 53. Rose, op. c i t . , p. 37. 54. Barrow, op. c i t . , pp. 62, 63. 55. The debt s e r v i c e r a t i o (DSR) i s c a l c u l a t e d by the f o l l o w -i n g formula: DSR = ^ LX z the annual payment r e q u i r e d t o repay the mortgage at a gi v e n r a t e of i n t e r e s t f o r a gi v e n p e r i o d o f a m o r t i z a t i o n ; taxes f o r s c h o o l and g e n e r a l purposes on the p r o p e r t y ; and net income. when expressed as a percentage should not exceed 27% as s p e c i f i e d by CMHC under the NHA. 56. Now determined by N a t i o n a l Housing Loan R e g u l a t i o n s . C M H C Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , (Ottawa: CMHC, 1969). 57. C o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Mr. J . Lowden of CMHC, Vancouver, 13 November 1970. Where x = Y = z = DSR 58. Task Force, op. c i t . , pp. 24, 26. 59. Ryan, o_£. c i t . , p. 17. 60. Task F o r c e , op. c i t . . , p. 26. 61. F e r r e r and Stecher, op_. c i t . , p. 27. 62. Smith, op_. c i t . , p. 3. 63. RSC, 1968-69, c. 45, s. 1(1). 64. For d e t a i l s of the impact of the NHA on C o o p e r a t i v e Housing see C o n s t a n t i n u , op. c i t . , passim, and Barrow, op. c i t . , pp. 70, 71. 65. NHA, s. 7 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) . 66. NHA, s. 7 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i v ) . 67. NHA, S. 7(1) (a) ( i i i ) . 68. NHA, s. 8(1)(a); (b) and ( c ) . 69. NHA, s. 8(2). 70. NHA, s. 31. 71. Rose, op_. c i t . , p. 52. 72. C o n s t a n t i n u , op_. c i t . , pp. 74, 82. 73. MacDonald i n The R i g h t t o Housing, op. c i t . , p. 283. 74. M i l l e r , " C o o p e r a t i v e Apartments: Real E s t a t e or Secur-i t i e s ? " Boston U n i v e r s i t y Law Review, ( V o l . 45, 1965), p. 469 , quoted i n Sengstock and Sengstock, op_. c i t . , p. 429. 75. R.W. Ford and R.E. Fowler, "The Lenders' View I I , " H a b i t a t , ( V o l . X I I , No. 4-5, 1969), p. 21. 76. Ryan, op_. c i t . , p. 18. 77. Ford and Fowler, op_. c i t . , p. 19. 78. I b i d . , p. 21. 79. The Edmonton J o u r n a l , Thursday 23 J u l y 1970. 80. See Chapter I I , n. 59. 81. The Hon. S . J . Randall, "Housing P o l i c i e s i n Ontario," The Right to Housing, op. c i t . , pp. 258, 259. 82. Ibid. 83. Task Force, op. ext., p. 72. C H A P T E R V P R O V I N C I A L P O L I C Y Introduction; Housing Legislat ion; Provincial Condominium Housing Programmes; Other Legislation Related to Housing; Strata T i t l e s Act; Conclusion. T h i s Chapter attempts t o o u t l i n e the housing p o l i c y and programmes of the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e to the r o l e o f condominiums. The q u e s t i o n of what c o n s t i t u t e s housing p o l i c y was c o n s i d e r e d i n the p r e v i o u s Chapter. In the l i g h t o f t h a t d i s c u s s i o n B r i t i s h Columbia can be s a i d t o have a housing p o l i c y s i n c e i t has (a) l e g i s l a t i o n ; (b) i t a l l o c a t e s f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s f o r housing; (c) i t has i n i t i a t e d housing programmes and (d) i t has an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e framework."'' Whether these f a c t o r s amount t o an adequate housing p o l i c y i s a matter of d e f i n i t i o n as t o the need and p r o o f t h a t the need i s be i n g s a t i s f i e d . The Vancouver Housing A s s o c i a t i o n , a v o l u n t a r y group i n t e r e s t e d i n housing and i n c o r p o r a t e d under the S o c i e t i e s 2 A c t , s t a t e d in 1967: U n f o r t u n a t e l y , . . . our p r o v i n c e has no comprehensive housing p o l i c y . I t i s t r u e t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l a s s i s t a n c e i s g i v e n by the P r o v i n c i a l Government t o n o n - p r o f i t p r o -s o c i e t i e s b u i l d i n g f o r e l d e r l y people. A P r o v i n c i a l gramme of c a p i t a l g r a n ts t o new home purchasers has a l s o r e c e n t l y been i n a u g u r a t e d , but the primary purpose of t h i s l a t t e r programme appears t o be t o encourage home ownership. The A s s o c i a t i o n then c r i t i c i s e d the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia f o r not t a k i n g advantage of F e d e r a l programmes t o a s s i s t poorer f a m i l i e s by i n i t i a t i n g p u b l i c housing programmes; and c o n t r a s t e d B r i t i s h Columbia u n f a v o u r a b l y w i t h O n t a r i o i n t h i s r e g a r d . Furthermore the A s s o c i a t i o n s t a t e d t h a t a P r o v i n c i a l Housing Department w i t h a M i n i s t e r as head should be e s t a b l i s h e d and p o i n t e d t o the other P r o v i n c e s 4 which have P r o v i n c i a l Housing C o r p o r a t i o n s . In 1966, the Community P l a n n i n g A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada a l s o submitted a b r i e f t o the P r o v i n c i a l Government on t h i s s u b j e c t i . e . the need f o r such a c o r p o r a t i o n . ~* However, B r i t i s h Columbia i n . . . p r e f e r e n c e to e s t a b l i s h i n g a crown c o r p o r a t i o n . . . has r e f u r b i s h e d the housing a u t h o r i t y approach by a p p o i n t i n g f e d e r a l , p r o v i n c i a l and m u n i c i p a l o f f i c i a l s t o c o n s t i t u t e a P r o v i n c i a l Housing Manage-ment Commission. 6 which i s , however, not comparable t o , s a y , the O n t a r i o Housing C o r p o r a t i o n : When the B r i t i s h Columbia Housing Management Commission was s e t up i n 1967 i t was s a i d of i t : T h i s body w i l l s u pplant the system of l o c a l housing a u t h o r i t i e s , which were comprised of p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s s e r v i n g v o l u n t a r i l y . The newly e s t a b l i s h e d commission w i l l manage a l l p u b l i c housing p r o v i d e d under government auspices i n B r i t i s h Columbia. F e d e r a l , P r o v i n c i a l and M u n i c i p a l p a r t n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t s w i l l be served by employees, the r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the owners w i l l be d i r e c t , and a m u l t i p l i c i t y of a u t h o r i t i e s w i l l be avoided. 7 The members of the Commission are, f o r g e n e r a l b u s i n e s s : — t w o employees of the P r o v i n c e appointed by i t ; two employees of CMHC appointed by i t ; i n a d d i t i o n t o which i s appointed one employee of the R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t or M u n i c i p a l i t y appointed by i t , f o r s p e c i f i c b u s i n e s s , i . e . p e r t a i n i n g to t h a t R e g i o n a l g D i s t r i c t or M u n i c i p a l i t y or a p r o j e c t l o c a t e d t h e r e i n . The administrative framework for housing other than public housing, i s composed of a Minister Without P o r t f o l i o , the Hon. Grace McCarthy who has a sp e c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for housing, a Housing Commissioner, who i s also Deputy Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s , and a Special Housing As s i s t a n t . An ad d i t i o n a l point concerning the administrative framework i s that with the creation, by the P r o v i n c i a l Government, of Regional D i s t r i c t s which are i n e f f e c t federations of l o c a l 9 governments, the Province allows authority over public housing to be granted to Regional D i s t r i c t s upon agreement of a l l the l o c a l governments concerned. For the same reasons as outlined i n Chapter IV the question of f i n a n c i a l resources w i l l not be considered and attention w i l l be focused on l e g i s l a t i o n as the embodiment of the Province's housing p o l i c y . BRITISH COLUMBIA HOUSING LEGISLATION The Housing Act of 1950^^ has already been mentioned i n Chapter I V - - i t merely authorized the Province to enter into Federal-Provincial-Municipal j o i n t projects under Part 11 VI--Public Housing—of the NHA, and also the establishment of housing a u t h o r i t i e s e.g. the Vancouver Housing A u t h o r i t y . 1 One other feature of P r o v i n c i a l p o l i c y i s B r i t i s h Columbia's 13 programme of est a b l i s h i n g land banks i n metropolitan areas pursuant to sections 35A and 35C of the NHA, mentioned i n the previous chapter. The E l d e r l y C i t i z e n s ' Housing Aid Act provides for "senior c i t i z e n s " housing with grants to Regional D i s t r i c t s , M u n i c i p a l i t i e s or non-profit corporations which since 1970 are as f o l l o w s — (a) i n the case of self-contained low r e n t a l housing 33 1/3 per cent of the cost of construction (or reconstruction of e x i s t i n g housing) with the sponsoring agency making a cash grant to the construction or reconstruc-t i o n equal to 10 per cent of the cost; and (b) in' the case of low r e n t a l boarding homes 35 per cent of the cost of construction (or reconstruction of e x i s t i n g housing) with 14 the sponsoring agency putting up 15 per cent of the cost. As mentioned i n Chapter I I I , under the P r o v i n c i a l 15 Home Owner Grant Act of 1957 as amended, homeowners i n -cluding s t r a t a l o t owners, received an annual grant--$160 i n 1970—to o f f s e t l o c a l property taxes. 16 Under the P r o v i n c i a l Home A c q u i s i t i o n Act grants of $500 or $525, (depending on the date of entitlement) were availa b l e to persons who had between 1 A p r i l 1966 and 9 February 19 6 8 completed construction of a new home or had by July 1 19 68 entered into a binding contract to purchase premises or stock i n a new or e x i s t i n g continuing cooperative 17 or housing company and who had been residents of the Province for one year and who intended to occupy the bui l d i n g 18 for f i v e years or more. Under section 3A of the same Act (a) a grant of $1,000 for new premises, or $500 for older premises, or (b) a loan secured as a second mortgage of $5,000 for new premises, or $2,500 for older premises, i s availa b l e to a person who has i n the case of new premises (a) completed the construction of, or undertaken to buy the premises the con-s t r u c t i o n of which was not started before 9 February 196 8 i n the case of a grant and not occupied before 9 February 19 69 i n the case of a loan; or undertaken to purchase shares i n a continuing cooperative or housing company; (b) who i s the f i r s t occupant; (c) has been a resident of B r i t i s h Columbia for at l e a s t one year; or i n the case of older premises (a) has been a tenant for at le a s t 2 years and (b) purchased the older premises between 1 A p r i l 1970 and 31 March 1971 and, i n both the case of both new and older premises, intends to remain i n the dwelling for at least f i v e years. However, an owner i n an Indian Reserve incorporated pursuant to s. 10A of the Municipal Act i s only e n t i t l e d to a grant and not to a loan under the P r o v i n c i a l New-Home Building Assistance Act (now e n t i t l e d the P r o v i n c i a l Home Ac q u i s i t i o n Act which consolidates a l l such l e g i s l a t i o n with the exception of the P r o v i n c i a l Home Owner Grant Act) . In the case of a mortgage the terms and conditions are prescribed by r e g u l a t i o n — t h e i n t e r e s t rate w i l l not r a t e charged by CMHC f o r f i r s t mortgages on s i n g l e f a m i l y 19 d w e l l i n g s . I f the p r i n c i p a l wage earner d i e s , any out-20 s t a n d i n g amount i s f o r g i v e n and the mortgage removed. The loan must not exceed the amount of the f i r s t mortgage or exceed the d i f f e r e n c e between the c o s t of the p r o p e r t y and the f i r s t mortgage. The loans and the a m o r t i z a t i o n p e r i o d must not exceed t h a t of the f i r s t mortgage. I f a homeowner who has r e c e i v e d a g r a n t wishes t o s e l l h i s home he may do so i f he has o c c u p i e d i t f o r f i v e y e a r s . I f not he may t r a n s f e r the grant t o a second home or repay the g r a n t . In the case of a l o a n , i f the homeowner wishes t o s e l l b e f o r e f u l l r e -payment has been made, the o u t s t a n d i n g amount on the l o a n , i n c l u d i n g accrued i n t e r e s t owing a t the time of the s a l e , 21 must be r e p a i d . There has been a t l e a s t one case o f a condominium owner who d i d not repay whereupon the P r o v i n c e 22 s e i z e d h i s s t r a t a l o t . A mortgagor who meets h i s repayments i s e n t i t l e d a n n u a l l y t o a r e f u n d of ten per cent of h i s p r e c e d i n g y e a r ' s payments or up t o $50 f o r new premises 23 and $25 f o r o l d e r premises whichever i s the l e s s . The P r o v i n c e w i l l a l s o advance fund's t o M u n i c i p a l -i t i e s f o r the a c q u i s i t i o n of e x i s t i n g homes f o r s u b s i d i z e d r e n t a l but i n p l a c i n g a c e i l i n g a c q u i s i t i o n p r i c e o f $14,000 has f r u s t r a t e d a c t i o n as a r e s u l t of the d i f f i c u l t y 24 of p u r c h a s i n g s u i t a b l e accommodation a t such a p r i c e . A s t a t i s t i c a l s u m m a r y o f t h e r e s u l t o f t h e P u b l i c H o u s i n g , U r b a n R e n e w a l a n d L a n d A s s e m b l y c o m p o n e n t s o f P r o v i n -c i a l p o l i c y c a n b e f o u n d i n t h e R e p o r t o f t h e D i r e c t o r , H o u s i n g a n d U r b a n R e n e w a l D i v i s i o n i n t h e A n n u a l R e p o r t o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s . I t w i l l b e r e m e m b e r e d t h a t l o c a l i n i t i a t i v e i . e . M u n i c i p a l i n i t i a t i v e i s u s u a l l y t h e c a s e r a t h e r t h a n P r o v i n c i a l i n i t i a t i v e — t h e P r o v i n c e u s u a l l y m e r e l y a p p r o v e s t h e f o r m e r ' s i n i t i a t i v e . T h e P r o v i n c e w i l l n o t , h o w e v e r , a c c e p t h o s t e l - t y p e h o u s i n g u n d e r t h e N H A . 2 5 P R O V I N C I A L P O L I C Y A N D R E S I D E N T I A L C O N D O M I N I U M S A s m e n t i o n e d i n C h a p t e r I I I s t r a t a l o t o w n e r s a n d o c c u p a n t s h a r e h o l d e r s o f c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s a n d h o u s i n g c o m p a n i e s , a r e e l i g i b l e t o r e c e i v e t h e a n n u a l h o m e o w n e r g r a n t a n d t o r e c e i v e g r a n t s o r l o a n s u n d e r t h e P r o v i n c i a l H o m e A c q u i s i t i o n A c t . T h e r e i s t h e r e f o r e e q u a l t r e a t m e n t b e t w e e n t h e s e t y p e s o f o w n e r s h i p u n d e r t h e A c t r e v i e w e d . T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t i t s e l f , w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o c o n d o m i n i u m s v i s a v i s c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s , a n d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f e x i s t i n g a p p a r t m e n t b l o c k s b e i n g s u b d i v i d e d u n d e r t h e S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t t h u s p e r m i t t i n g t h e s t r a t a l o t o w n e r s t o a v a i l t h e m s e l v e s o f t h e o l d e r p r e m i s e s p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e P r o v i n c i a l H o m e A c q u i s i t i o n A c t , w a s m e n t i o n e d i n C h a p t e r I I I . PROVINCIAL CONDOMINIUM HOUSING PROGRAMMES Although the P r o v i n c i a l Government has "no s t a t e d 2 6 p o l i c y on condominiums" i t has i n i t i a t e d an i n n o v a t i v e and demonstration p r o j e c t by which w i l l be c o n s t r u c t e d 132 condominium 3-bedroom townhouses f o r f a m i l i e s e a r n i n g between $5,000 and $7,000 a n n u a l l y . The p r o j e c t w i l l be b u i l t by Dawson Developments L i m i t e d , of Vancouver on 6.9 acres o f C i t y owned land a t Champlain H e i g h t s , South E a s t Vancouver. I t w i l l be ready f o r occupancy i n 1971 and w i l l make use o f 2 1/2 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s from CMHC 1s housing i n n o v a t i o n s fund a t 7 7/8 per cent i n t e r e s t w i t h a 35 year a m o r t i z a t i o n p e r i o d and P r o v i n c i a l Home A c q u i s i t i o n Grants w i l l a l s o be a v a i l -a b l e (see Appendix D). The P r o v i n c i a l Government sees homeownership i n condominiums f o r low income f a m i l i e s as a p a r t i a l a l t e r n a t i v e t o p u b l i c housing and thus as an advantage to m u n i c i p a l taxpayers where they pay 12 1/2 per cent of 27 the o p e r a t i n g l o s s e s . Another programme, c a l l e d the "5-5-5 p l a n " i n v o l v e s condominiums and s e n i o r c i t i z e n s . The B r i t i s h Columbia Housing Management Commission w i l l a c t as deve l o p e r and the Pr o v i n c e w i l l p r o v i d e i n t e r i m f i n a n c i n g o f up t o $120,000 f o r a p i l o t p r o j e c t i n V i c t o r i a . T h i s p r o j e c t , f o r which a s i t e has y e t to be found w i l l be a demonstration p r o j e c t o f 10 or 12 condominium apartment u n i t s f o r s a l e f o r approximately $15,000 each. I t i s designed f o r people over 60 years o f age w i t h f i x e d incomes of l e s s than $5,000 a year who own a home t h a t i s no longer s u i t a b l e f o r them due to s i z e , maintenance and r i s i n g p r o p e r t y t a x e s . A s i m i l a r scheme f o r Vancouver which r e c e i v e d a p p r o v a l i n p r i n c i p l e from C i t y C o u n c i l 1 October 1970 c a l l s f o r 100 apartments on a 1.2 a c r e s i t e i n city-owned Champlain H e i g h t s . In both of these p r o j e c t s the a p p l i c a n t i s expected t o put up $5,000 cash r e a l i z e d from the s a l e of t h e i r p r e v i o u s home and o b t a i n a f i r s t mortgage of $5,000 from CMHC and a second mortgage of $5,0 00 under the P r o v i n c i a l Home A c q u i s i t i o n 2 8 A c t which i s p a i d o n l y a f t e r o c c u p a t i o n . OTHER LEGISLATION RELATING TO HOUSING Although the l e g i s l a t i o n reviewed forms the core of P r o v i n c i a l housing p o l i c y mention i s made i n p a s s i n g of the Town P l a n n i n g A c t , M u n i c i p a l A c t , Vancouver C h a r t e r , L a n d l o r d and Tenant A c t and the Leas e h o l d R e g u l a t i o n s A c t which as P r o v i n c i a l s t a t u t e s a l s o a f f e c t housing i n g e n e r a l . The e f f e c t o f the Town P l a n n i n g A c t , M u n i c i p a l A c t , Vancouver C h a r t e r and the Le a s e h o l d R e g u l a t i o n s A c t w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d i n Chapter V I . The L a n d l o r d and Tenant A c t , which i s r e a l l y o u t s i d e the scope of t h i s study, was r e v i s e d i n 1970 and i s perhaps one of the most modern p i e c e s o f l e g i s l a t i o n i n Canada c o n c e r n i n g r e s i d e n t i a l t e n a n c i e s . There remains however, one more important P r o v i n c i a l S t a t u t e t o d i s c u s s , w i thout which t h i s study would never have been undertaken, namely the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t , which makes p o s s i b l e modern condominium development i n B r i t i s h Columbia. THE STRATA TITLES ACT Although "self-owned s u i t e s " have been i n e x i s t e n c e f o r some time i n B r i t i s h Columbia and are a d v e r t i s e d i n the 29 Vancouver Sun as " s u i t e s f o r s a l e " they u s u a l l y take the form of what the author d e s c r i b e s as housing companies 3^ or c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s , the development of which has been 31 c o n s i d e r e d by C o n s t a n t i n u , and both of which are r e g u l a t e d by l e g i s l a t i o n . The importance of the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t (STA) l i e s i n the a u t h o r i z a t i o n of the c r e a t i o n and r e g u l a t i o n of the condominium form of ownership i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Because of t h i s f a c t and the n o v e l t y of condominium i n B r i t i s h Columbia the author w i l l c o n s i d e r i n some d e t a i l the p r o v i s i o n s of the A c t — b u t see F i g u r e 2 f o r a d i a g r a m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . The Hon. Grace McCarthy has s t a t e d t h a t the A c t was ". . . i n i t i a t e d by o f f i c i a l s o f the A t t o r n e y General's 32 Department a t the d i r e c t i o n of the A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , " but the Real E s t a t e I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia had advocated condominium l e g i s l a t i o n and had p u b l i s h e d an i n f o r m a t i v e 33 b o o k l e t on the s u b j e c t i n September 1965. The STA i s Chapter 46 of the S t a t u t e s of B r i t i s h Columbia 1966 and came i n t o e f f e c t on 1 September 1966. I t was amended by Chapter 42 of the S t a t u t e s of B r i t i s h Columbia 1968, and one r e g u l a t i o n under the a c t has been passed by the 35 Lieutenant-Governor--B.C. Reg. 196/66. The 1968 Amendment was nec e s s a r y t o i n c l u d e s i n g l e s t o r e y townhouses, or s i n g l e s t o r e y d w e l l i n g s on a s i n g l e l o t s i n c e by the o r i g i n a l 3 6 wording i n S e c t i o n 2, two s t r a t a were ne c e s s a r y . S i n c e 37 the amendment, v e r t i c a l , h o r i z o n t a l or l a t e r a l p r o j e c t s of one or more s t o r e y s or s t r a t a have been p o s s i b l e . S e c t i o n 3 of the STA a u t h o r i z e s the s u b d i v i s i o n o f l a n d i n t o s t r a t a l o t s by the a c t o f d e p o s i t i n g a s t r a t a p l a n . The s t r a t a l o t s c r e a t e d are the condominium u n i t s and may be t r e a t e d i n the same way as land r e g i s t e r e d i n the r e g i s t e r of i n d e f e a s i b l e fees under the Land R e g i s t r y A c t which a p p l i e s 3 8 t o condominiums. Upon d e p o s i t o f the s t r a t a p l a n the owners o f the s t r a t a l o t s c o n s t i t u t e and are members of a body c o r p o r a t e under the name "The Owners S t r a t a P l a n No. . . . ." and r e f e r e d t o as a s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n , to which the Companies A c t does not apply. The s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n has p e r p e t u a l s u c c e s s i o n , a common s e a l (which i s governed by 39 the F i r s t Schedule) and may sue and be sued. The s t r a t a p l a n i n c l u d e s a survey of the p a r c e l of land and d e f i n e s the boundaries of the s t r a t a l o t s by r e f e r -ence t o f l o o r s , w a l l s and c e i l i n g s and u n l e s s otherwise A STRATA PLAN STRATA LOTS I COMMON PROPERTY VOTING WEIGHT PORTION OF COMMON PROPERTY ATTACHED TO STRATA LOTS PORTION OF COMMON EXPENSES PAYABLE BY STRATA LOT OWNERS BY-LAWS AND OTHER PROVISIONS STRATA CORPORATION STRATA LOT OWNERS DUTIES STRATA CORPORATION1 S POWERS AND DUTIES • MEETINGS AND PROCEDURES P R O J E C T O P E R A T I O N FIGURE II THE STRATA TITLES ACT - DIAGRAMATIC REPRESENTATION O s t i p u l a t e d i n the s t r a t a plan the boundaries w i l l be the centre of such f l o o r s , walls and c e i l i n g s . I t follows there-fore that the bu i l d i n g must t o s u b s t a n t i a l l y complete before depositing the s t r a t a plan. The common property i s shown as being whatever i s included i n the survey of the parcel 40 that i s not a s t r a t a l o t . As mentioned i n Chapter III leasehold condominiums are not provided for but an enabling 41 amendment i s under consideration. However see Appendix B. The s t r a t a plan must specify the unit entitlement of each s t r a t a l o t . This determines the voting r i g h t s or weight of each s t r a t a l o t owner (but see also the F i r s t Schedule Section 26) and the proportion of the i n d i v i s a b l e common property that accrues to each owner as a tenant i n common and the proportion payable by each owner of the c o n t r i -butions l e v i e d by the s t r a t a corporation for operating 42 expenses etc. Further provisions concerning voting r i g h t s are contained i n Section 22, e.g. i n the case of an inf a n t being an owner and an owner being unable to control his property. Since the st r a t a plan must specify the unit en-titlement and since the s t r a t a plan i s deposited before the s t r a t a .lots are sold t h i s means that the developer determines the u n i t entitlement by e i t h e r — t a k i n g a percentage of the cost or value to the t o t a l cost or v a l u e — o r a percentage 43 of the area to the t o t a l area. Under the STA a mortgagee may vote i n place of the st r a t a l o t owner i f he has given written notice of his mortgage to the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n . In p r a c t i c e a standar d mortgage form may be used wi t h t h r e e a d d i t i o n a l covenants which cover p o i n t s touched upon i n the STA: 1. A covenant on the p a r t of the mortgagor t h a t he would pay any l e v i e s or any c o n t r i b u t i o n s l e v i e d a g a i n s t him by a s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n promptly when due. 2. A covenant by the mortgagor t h a t he would c a r r y out the d u t i e s r e q u i r e d by the s t r a t a by-laws such as paying r a t e s and t a x e s , r e p a i r i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g h i s s t r a t a l o t . 3. A covenant by the mortgagor t o g i v e an assignment of h i s power t o vote t o the mortgagee. The mortgagee must then g i v e w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f t h i s power t o vote t o the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n , and the mortgagee w i l l then be n o t i f i e d o f any meetings, he c o u l d then g i v e a proxy t o the s t r a t a owner i f he so d e s i r e s t o vote a t such meetings. A l t e r n -a t i v e l y , he can i s s u e a g e n e r a l u n r e s t r i c t e d proxy t o the s t r a t a owner t o vote a t a l l meetings but which can be revoked a t any time i f the mortgagee so d e s i r e s . In t h i s event, the mortgagee can r e -quest the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n t o send i t c o p i e s of n o t i c e s o f a l l meetings t o g e t h e r w i t h the agenda f o r such meetings so t h a t the mortgagee may know whether i t wishes, a t any p o i n t t o revoke i t s g e n e r a l proxy and t o take p a r t i n the meeting i t s e l f . 45 In Chapters I I and I I I the problems i n v o l v i n g a f f i r m -a t i v e covenants running w i t h the land a t common law were d i s c u s s e d . Under the STA s e c t i o n s 11 and 12 the necessary system o f easements both i n favour and a g a i n s t s t r a t a l o t owners i s c r e a t e d . These easements which are i m p l i e d w ithout r e g i s t r a t i o n i n r e s p e c t of each s t r a t a l o t i n c l u d e d i n a s t r a t a p l a n , c o v e r , s u p p o r t , s h e l t e r , passage or p r o v i s i o n of water, sewage, d r a i n a g e , gas, o i l , e l e c t r i c i t y , garbage, h e a t i n g and c o o l i n g systems, and o t h e r s e r v i c e s such as telephone, r a d i o and t e l e v i s i o n , through or by means of any p i p e s , w i r e s , c a b l e s , chutes or d u c t s . In Chapter I I I the absence o f r u l e s f o r ru n n i n g a c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e was mentioned. The STA, S e c t i o n 13, p r o v i d e s t h a t the b u i l d i n g s h a l l be r e g u l a t e d by by-laws c o n c e r n i n g the c o n t r o l , management, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , use and enjoyment of the s t r a t a l o t s and common p r o p e r t y . The by-laws s e t f o r t h i n the F i r s t and Second Schedules take e f f e c t a u t o m a t i c a l l y upon d e p o s i t o f a s t r a t a p l a n i n a Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e and are e f f e c t i v e u n t i l amended, r e p e a l e d or superseded by new by-laws, which t o be e f f e c t i v e must be r e g i s t e r e d w i t h a Land R e g i s t r a r and r e f e r e n c e t h e r e t o added t o the s t r a t a p l a n . 1 * ' The F i r s t Schedule c o n t a i n s the d u t i e s o f an owner which are to permit the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n e n t r y f o r mainten-ance and r e p a i r , and to c a r r y out work ordered by any p u b l i c a u t h o r i t y and t o pay h i s r a t e s , taxes and l e v i e s , e t c . An owner must a l s o m a i n t a i n h i s p r o p e r t y i n a s t a t e o f good r e p a i r and by h i s behaviour not i n t e r f e r e w i t h o t h e r people's enjoyment of common p r o p e r t y , and not use h i s p r o p e r t y i n such a way as to be a nuisance or hazard t o ot h e r s and to n o t i f y the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n o f any change of ownership or any mortgage or other d e a l i n g i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h h i s p r o p e r t y . The second Schedule enacts t h a t an owner s h a l l not use h i s l o t f o r any purpose which may be i l l e g a l o r ' i n j u r o u s t o the r e p u t a t i o n of the b u i l d i n g or make undue n o i s e or keep any animals i f so notif ied by the strata corporation. If the strata plan expressly stipulates the use of a strata l o t , the owner may not use the lot for any other purpose. The duties of the strata corporation are covered i n Section 14 and parts of the F i r s t Schedule. One of these duties concerns the insurance of the building against f i r e to i t s replacement value unless otherwise decided by the owners and to which the provisions of Section 15 apply. Other duties c a l l for the corporation to keep the common property i n a state of good and serviceable repair, and to comply with notices and orders emanating from any public or l o c a l authority. Further duties of the corporation, mentioned in the F i r s t Schedule are to control , manage, and administer the common property for the benefit of a l l owners. Further maintenance duties are detailed concerning elevators and other fixtures and f i t t i n g s to common property,, lawns and gardens, etc. The corporation must also produce the insurance policy or pol ic ies and the premium receipt or receipts i f required by certain persons. Other duties are prescribed in Sections 18 and 19 concerning the disposit ion of the building and prodedures to be followed i f i t were destroyed. The corporation must under Section 20 have a mail box in the building for the purpose of being served' documents including ordinary mail , summons, notices, orders and other legal documents. The powers of a c o r p o r a t i o n are found i n v a r i o u s s e c t i o n s o f the STA but mainly i n S e c t i o n 14 and the F i r s t Schedule. S e c t i o n s 8, 9, and 10 concern the d i s p o s i t i o n of common p r o p e r t y and the e x e c u t i o n and acceptance o f easements or r e s t r i c t i v e covenants burdening or b e n e f i t i n g the l a n d i n c l u d e d i n a s t r a t a p l a n and the a c q u i s i t i o n of more common p r o p e r t y . In S e c t i o n 14 the f i n a n c i a l powers of the c o r p o r a t i o n are l a i d down. These i n c l u d e the e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a fund f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e expenses s u f f i c i e n t f o r the c o n t r o l , manage-ment and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the common p r o p e r t y , payment of i n s u r a n c e premiums and any oth e r o b l i g a t i o n s . The c o r p o r a t i o n has the power t o determine the amounts t o be r a i s e d and to l e v y c o n t r i b u t i o n s on the owners i n p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e i r u n i t e n t i t l e m e n t and t o r e c o v e r by an a c t i o n i n Court any share o f expenses a t t r i b u t a b l e t o an owner who i s i n d e f a u l t . F u r t h e r powers are l a i d down i n the F i r s t Schedule, these p r o v i d e t h a t the c o r p o r a t i o n may purchase, h i r e or otherwise a c q u i r e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y f o r use by owners as common p r o p e r t y ; borrow money i n performance of i t s d u t i e s or e x e r c i s e of i t s powers; secure repayment o f money borrowed by i t and the i n t e r e s t thereon; i n v e s t money i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e expenses fund; make agreements c o n c e r n i n g amenities or s e r v i c e s w i t h an owner or occupant of a s t r a t a l o t ; g r a n t e x c l u s i v e use or s p e c i a l p r i v i l e g e s c o n c e r n i n g common p r o p e r t y to an owner; and do a l l t h i n g s r e a s o n a b l y n ecessary f o r the enforcement o f the by-laws and c o n t r o l , management and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the common p r o p e r t y . The by-laws cannot be added t o , amended or r e p e a l e d except, i n the case o f the F i r s t Schedule, by unanimous r e s o l u t i o n and, i n the case of the Second Schedule, by s p e c i a l r e s o l u t i o n . A unanimous r e s o l u t i o n must i n c l u d e a l l those e n t i t l e d t o vote and a s p e c i a l r e s o l u t i o n must be passed by at l e a s t t h r e e - q u a r t e r s of the t o t a l u n i t e n t i t l e m e n t and membership—both r e s o l u t i o n s are d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 2. However, no by-law or a d d i t i o n or amendment t o or r e p e a l of any by-law can operate to p r o h i b i t or r e s t r i c t a d e v o l u t i o n of s t r a t a l o t s or any t r a n s f e r , l e a s e , mortgage or oth e r d e a l i n g or t o change any easement i m p l i e d or c r e a t e d by the STA. Although such r e s t r i c t i o n s c o u l d not be i n c l u d e d i n by-laws i t c o u l d be i n c l u d e d i n the s t r a t a l o t deeds s i n c e a s t r a t a l o t i s r e g i s t e r e d under the Land R e g i s t r y A c t under which a vendor 47 can s t i p u l a t e f o r r i g h t o f f i r s t r e f u s a l . The F i r s t Schedule p r o v i d e s f o r the S t r a t a Corpor-a t i o n ' s powers and d u t i e s t o be e x e r c i s e d and performed by the C o u n c i l o f the C o r p o r a t i o n , s u b j e c t t o r e s t r i c t i o n s and d i r e c t i o n s g i v e n a t g e n e r a l meetings. The C o u n c i l i s composed of between t h r e e and seven members e l e c t e d a t an annual g e n e r a l meeting and a l l matters b e f o r e the c o u n c i l are determined by a simple m a j o r i t y . The F i r s t Schedule f u r t h e r p r o v i d e s f o r the removal of c o u n c i l members, f i l l i n g o f v a c a n c i e s , quorums, chairman, meetings, employ-ment of agents on b e h a l f of the c o r p o r a t i o n , d e l e g a t i o n of powers and d u t i e s t o p a r t u c u l a r c o u n c i l members, and the keeping of minutes and accounts which are t o be open to i n s p e c t i o n by the owners and mortgagees. Ge n e r a l meetings o f a l l owners are r e g u l a t e d and procedures l a i d down. A g e n e r a l meeting must be h e l d t h r e e months a f t e r the r e g i s t r a t i o n of the s t r a t a p l a n w i t h subse-quent g e n e r a l meetings h e l d once a year except t h a t other g e n e r a l meetings c a l l e d e x t r a o r d i n a r y g e n e r a l meetings, may be h e l d i f r e q u i r e d by owners e n t i t l e d t o t w e n t y - f i v e per cent of the t o t a l e n t i t l e m e n t . Seven days n o t i c e must be g i v e n but a c c i d e n t a l o m i s s i o n t o g i v e n o t i c e to any owner or f i r s t mortgagee does not i n v a l i d a t e any meeting. The types of b u s i n e s s t r a n s a c t e d at g e n e r a l meetings and quorums are d e f i n e d . I f a quorum of h a l f those e n t i t l e d t o vote i s not p r e s e n t at the f i r s t meeting i t i s adjourned t o a week l a t e r at which time i f a quorum i s not p r e s e n t then a f t e r one h a l f hour those p r e s e n t are c o n s i d e r e d a quorum and can proceed w i t h the meeting. At a g e n e r a l meeting r e s o l u t i o n s are determined by a show of hands and thus a simple m a j o r i t y based on one-man-one-vote but no owner may vote i f he has not p a i d h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n s to expenses, except on a r e s o l u -t i o n r e q u i r i n g unanimity. A p o l l may be demanded i n which case the votes correspond to the u n i t e n t i t l e m e n t of the v o t e r s . P r o x i e s are allowed, but must be appointed i n w r i t -i n g and may be e i t h e r g e n e r a l or f o r a p a r t i c u l a r meeting. F u r t h e r p r o v i s i o n s concern co-owners and p r o x i e s , s u c c e s s i v e i n t e r e s t and t r u s t e e s . S e c t i o n 16 p r o v i d e s f o r r e s u b d i v i s i o n of any l o t or l o t s i n the s t r a t a p l a n and S e c t i o n 23 p r o v i d e s f o r the L i e u t e n a n t - G o v e r n o r i n C o u n c i l to make c e r t a i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e g u l a t i o n s under the Act; the one r e g u l a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g p r o c e d u r a l d e t a i l s of the acceptance, numbering and d e p o s i t of a s t r a t a plan--B.C. Reg. 196/66—was mentioned e a r l i e r . S e c t i o n 21 p r o v i d e s f o r an a d m i n i s t r a t o r t o be appointed by the Supreme Court of B r i t i s h Columbia f o r reasons presented by any person, having an i n t e r e s t i n a s t r a t a l o t , t o the Court and accepted by i t . The a d m i n i s t r a t o r would, to the e x c l u s i o n of the S t r a t a C o r p o r a t i o n , have the powers and d u t i e s of the c o r p o r a t i o n or such of these powers and d u t i e s as the Court might o r d e r . There remains one f u r t h e r matter i n the STA to c o n s i d e r namely S e c t i o n 1 7 — v a l u a t i o n of the condominium p r o j e c t f o r assessment and tax purposes. For the purpose of v a l u a t i o n o n l y the p r o j e c t i s c o n s i d e r e d as a s i n g l e p a r c e l owned by the S t r a t a C o r p o r a t i o n and the taxes assessed based on the v a l u a t i o n are then a p p o r t i o n e d among the s t r a t a l o t owners i n p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e i r u n i t e n t i t l e m e n t and f o r which they are l i a b l e . The s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n i s not l i a b l e f o r any r a t e , t a x , or charge and common p r o p e r t y cannot be s u b j e c t t o any l i e n , charge, s a l e or oth e r process i n r e s p e c t o f unpaid t a x e s . CONCLUSION In summary, then, B r i t i s h Columbia's housing p o l i c y i s based on the l e g i s l a t i o n reveiwed. I t emphasises home ownership and a s s i s t a n c e f o r the e l d e r l y . As f a r as con-dominium i s concerned P r o v i n c i a l p o l i c y does not d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t i t , g i v i n g i t the same treatment as t r a d i t i o n a l homes, c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s and housing companies. However, condominium does have s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i o n , something con-t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s and housing companies do not have. The two condominium p r o j e c t s i n i t i a t e d by the P r o v i n c e are e x p e r i -mental demonstration p r o j e c t s the success of which, i t i s hoped, (when completed) w i l l encourage d e v e l o p e r s t o under-take s i m i l a r p r o j e c t s . T h i s Chapter i s not in t e n d e d t o be a c r i t i q u e o f P r o v i n c i a l housing p o l i c y as a whole but i s pr e s e n t e d as nec e s s a r y background t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l condominium development. However, the scope o f the r o l e of condominium i n such p o l i c y can be c o n t r a s t e d to t h a t o f othe r P r o v i n c e s as a measure of i t s adequacy. I f the r o l e of condominium i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s compared w i t h the r o l e of condominium i n O n t a r i o , g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d t o be one 48 of the most p r o g r e s s i v e i n terms of housing p o l i c y i t i s apparent t h a t i n the l a t t e r ' s p o l i c y the r o l e of condominium i s much g r e a t e r and accorded h i g h p r i o r i t y . The O n t a r i o Housing C o r p o r a t i o n (OHC), e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1964 as "the r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g arm of the p r o v i n c i a l 49 government" has seven main programmes l a b e l l e d "Home Owner-s h i p Made Easy" (HOME). One of these seven programmes i s the "Encouragement of condominium housing through the 50 p r o v i s i o n of s e r v i c e d b u i l d i n g s i t e s " which i s a i d e d by the "main t h r u s t i n the p r o v i s i o n of home ownership . . . 51 the l a n d assembly program" . The OHC has announced p l a n s f o r f i v e condominium p r o j e c t s which w i l l produce 8,6 85 d w e l l i n g s by the F a l l o f 1974 and other p r o j e c t s are under 52 c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A g a i n s t t h i s B r i t i s h Columbia's announced plans t o date ( f o r one hundred and twenty-eight u n i t s ) are p a l t r y . 1. See quotation from Rose, i n Chapter IV, n. 3. 2. Vancouver Housing Association, B u l l e t i n No. 65, (Vancouver, B.C.: A p r i l , 1967), p. 1 and see Audain, op. c i t . , pp. 15-17 for more on voluntary housing groups. 3. Vancouver Housing Association, op_. c i t . , p. 1 4. According to Rose, op. c i t . , pp. 53-92 a l l of the Provinces with the exception of B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskatechewan had established such corporations by 1968. 5. Community Planning Association of Canada i n B r i t i s h Columbia, B r i e f to the P r o v i n c i a l Government on Need for a B.C. Housing Corporation, (25 July 1966). 6. J.E. Brown i n "The Public Sector - a Panel Discussion," The Right to Housing, op. c i t . , p. 252. 7. J.T. Williams, Report of Department of Municipal A f f a i r s , 1967 ( V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1968), p. W41. 8. Public Housing, A Possible Function of the Fraser-Burrard R e g i 6 n a l " ~ D i s t r i c t , (Vancouver^" B.C.: A Technical Committee"! 1968) , p. 32. 9. Ibid . 10. Housing Act, S.B.C, 1950, c. 31,as amended. 11. Ibid., s. 3 . 12. Ibid., s. 11. 13. Brown, op. c i t . , p. 252. 14. E l d e r l y C i t i z e n ' s Housing Aid Act, S.B.C, 1955, c. 19, s. 2, as amended. 15. Op. c i t . , i n Chapter I I I , n. 55. 16. 1970, c. 40 formerly the P r o v i n c i a l New-home Building Assistance Act, S.B.C, 1967, c. 39. 17. As d e s c r i b e d by the author i n Chapter I I I . 18. These grants are s t i l l a v a i l a b l e a c c o r d i n g t o the Hon. Dan Campbell and the Hon. Grace McCarthy, A Home of Your Own, (Booklet p u b l i s h e d by the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia, no date.) 19. I b i d . 20. P r o v i n c i a l Home A c q u i s i t i o n A c t , s. 3A(6). 21. Campbell and McCarthy, o£. c i t . 22. C o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Mr. J . Lowden, CMHC, Vancouver, B.C., 13 November 1970. 23. P r o v i n c i a l Home A c q u i s i t i o n A c t , s. 3A(5). 24. L e t t e r from P e t e r C r i s p , V i c t o r i a , B.C. t o M a r i a n t h i C o n s t a n t i n u , 23 September 1969. 25. P u b l i c Housing, A P o s s i b l e F u n c t i o n o f the F r a s e r - B u r r a r d  R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , op. c i t . , p. 10. 26. L e t t e r from the Hon. Grace McCarthy t o the author 6 August 1970. 27. Hon. Grace McCarthy i n an Address t o the L e g i s l a t u r e , 16 February, 1970 and Press Release 7 December 1970. 28. Hon.Grace McCarthy, Address t o the L e g i s l a t u r e , 16 Febr u a r y , 1970; Hon. Dan CampEell, Address t o the L e g i s l a t u r e , 13 February 1970; Hon. Grace McCarthy, Press  Release) 2T February 19 70; Hon. I s a b e l Dawson, Press  Release, 8 J u l y , 1970; and The P r o v i n c e , Vancouver, 2 October, 1970. The Sun, A d v e r t i s i n g S e c t i o n no. 220, Vancouver, B.C. 30. See Chapter I I I . 3-"-* 2 £ ' E i i . * 32. L e t t e r t o the author, 0£. c i t . , s i n c e t h i s was w r i t t e n the A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l has pres e n t e d a b i l l t o the L e g i s -l a t u r e t o enable the r e g i s t r a t i o n o f t i t l e t o a i r space, B i l l 37, 1971. 33. Roberts, ojo. c i t . , p. B - l . 34. See Appendix E. 3 5 . B r i t i s h Columbia Gazette, Part I I , V i c t o r i a , B.C., 29 September 1 9 6 6 . 3 6 . Watson T. Hunter, Q.C., " B r i t i s h Columbia," Habitat, Vol. XII, No. 4 - 5 , 1 9 6 9 ) , p. 10 and Rosenberg, op. c i t . , pp. 5 - 1 , 5 - 2 , n. 1 . 37. See Figure I, Chapter I I I . 3 8 . Land Registry Act, R.S.B.C, 1 9 6 0 , c. 2 0 8 , as amended, s. 2 A . 3 9 . STA, s. 1 and s. 6 . 40. I b i d . , s. 1 and s. 4. 4 1 . G.A. Williams, Land Agent of the Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver i n Conversation with the author, February 1 9 7 1 . 42. STA, s. 4 and s. 5(1) . 43. Hunter, op_. c i t . , p. 11. 44. STA, s. 7. 45. Hun€er, op_. c i t . , pp. 11, 12. The mortgage for the Rumble Beach, B.C. project contained s i m i l a r clauses, Rosenberg, op_. c i t . , p. 12-7, n. 14. 46. Rosenberg, op_. c i t . , p. 4-5 has drawn attention to the following from Rath, Grimes and More, 0£. c i t . , pp. 32, 33: A matter of some i n t e r e s t i s whether a new set of by-laws must necessarily follow the First-Second Schedule pattern. I t i s conceivable that a l l the F i r s t and Second Schedule by-laws might be repealed and a new set of by-laws introduced, not designated as either F i r s t or Second Schedule by-laws, and either providing t h e i r own code of amendment or containing no provisions for amend-ment. There appears to be nothing i n the [New South Wales] Act to prevent such a course being followed . . . Upon r e g i s t r a t i o n of the Strata plan, and for some time thereafter, usually only one person w i l l be the owner of a l l the l o t s and the common properties. That person may be bound by contract to e f f e c t amendments to the by-laws. The sole owner at t h i s stage constitutes the council of t h e b o d y c o r p o r a t e . . . a n d m a y . . . c o n v e n e . . . a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y g e n e r a l m e e t i n g . I n t h e o r y , h e s h o u l d g i v e h i m s e l f t h e n o t i c e . . . r e q u i r e d , . . T h u s , b y f o l l o w i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e o u t l i n e d . . . t h e s o l e p r o p r i e t o r m a y p a s s ' u n a n i m o u s ' r e s o l u t i o n s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a c h i e v i n g a n y d e s i r e d a l t e r a t i o n i n t h e b y - l a w s . P r e s u m a b l y , h e c o u l d ' r e p e a l ' a l l t h e b y - l a w s a n d s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h e m a n e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t s e t . 47. S e e R o s e n b e r g , ojo. c i t . , p . 12-6, n . 12. 48. S e e , f o r i n s t a n c e , R o s e o p . c i t . , p p . 50, 51. 49. T h e H o n . S . J . R a n d a l l , " H o u s i n g P o l i c i e s i n O n t a r i o , " T h e R i g h t t o H o u s i n g , o p . c i t . , p . 257. 50. I b i d . , p . 258. 51. I b i d . , p . 259. 52. S n e l l , op_. c i t . , p . 23. C H A P T E R V I M U N I C I P A L P O L I C Y Introduction; The Municipal Act; The Vancouver Charter; Regional D i s t r i c t s ; Town Planning Act; Other Relevant Vancouver L e g i s l a t i o n ; An Example of a Proposed Municipal Housing P o l i c y -The Vancouver Proposals; Municipal Survey on Residential Condominium P o l i c i e s and Bureau-c r a t i c Procedures; Necessity for Policy; Possible Municipal F r u s t r a t i o n of Residential Condominium Development; Conclusion. INTRODUCTION T h i s c h a p t e r attempts t o o u t l i n e the l e g i s l a t i v e framework of M u n i c i p a l housing p o l i c y and c o n s i d e r s as an i l l u s t r a t i o n o f Municapal p o l i c y the case of the C i t y of Vancouver's housing p o l i c y as the background t o the t e s t i n g o f the h y p o t h e s i s , b e a r i n g i n mind t h a t condominiums are a form of c o o p e r a t i v e and t h a t C o n s t a n t i n u found i n the case o f c o n t i n u i n g c o o p e r a t i v e s t h a t a l a c k of s p e c i f i c M u n i c i p a l p o l i c i e s r e t a r d e d t h e i r development. 1 The b a s i c l e g i s l a t i o n a f f e c t i n g the powers and d u t i e s of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the housing f i e l d i s c o n t a i n e d i n the 2 Vancouver C h a r t e r and the M u n i c i p a l A c t . Although M u n i c i -p a l i t i e s are " c r e a t u r e s " o f the P r o v i n c e and both the s t a t u t e s r e f e ed t o above are P r o v i n c i a l A c t s ; i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o c o n s i d e r them i n t h i s c h a p t e r . The method used to d i s c o v e r the s e c t i o n s of the Acts r e l e v a n t to housing was t o se a r c h t h e i r i n d i c i e s . THE MUNICIPAL ACT T h i s A c t a p p l i e s t o a l l l o c a l governments i n B r i t i s h Columbia e x c e p t i n g Vancouver, but i n c l u d i n g Vancouver as a member m u n i c i p a l i t y i n the G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t . The p a r t s and s e c t i o n s of the A c t t h a t are r e l e v a n t to housing are as f o l l o w s : A. Parts: .1. Part IV Assessment and Taxation (s. 317-437); 2. Part XII A c q u i s i t i o n and Disposal of Property, including compensation and leasing (s. 464-503); 3. Part XXI Community Planning (s. 694-723) which deals, among other things, with an O f f i c i a l Community Plan, Advisory Planning Commission, Zoning, Subdivision of Land, and Building Regulations; B. Other Sections: 1. Compensations for land taken for sewer and storm drains (s . 531) ; 2. Buildings dangerous and a nuisance to public health and safety (s. 635); 3. Buildings - F i r e protection regulations (s. 642); 4. Buildings erected or used i n contravention of by-laws (s . 735); 5. Buildings d i l a p i t a t e d or dangerous to public safety or health (s. 873); C. Further'sections s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e d to housing.: 1. Powers to contract under the NHA (s. 214-215); 2. Power to e s t a b l i s h and manage housing accommo-dation for the aged, i n f i r m and disabled to acquire and hold r e a l and personal property (s.640); D. Duty to make suitable provision for the poor and de s t i t u t e (s. 639). THE VANCOUVER CHARTER The parts and sections of the Vancouver Charter related to housing are as follows: A. Parts: 1. Part IV Buildings (s. 304-308); 2. Part X Real Property (s. 339-454); 3. Part XXVI Compensation for Real Property Expropriated or Injured (s. 531-558); 4. Part XXVII Planning and Development (s. 559-574) which, among othe things deals with Development Plans, Zoning, Permits, Building By-laws and an Advisory Planning Commission); B. Other Sections: 1. Subdivision of property (s. 292); 2. Demolition of buildings a nuisance or danger to public health or safety (s. 324 a); 3. Leasing of land (s. 190, 193). 4. Various sections concerning Crown lands; C. Sections s p e c i f i c a l l y concerning housing: 1. Power to acquire r e a l property and renovate or con-st r u c t b u i l d i n g for the provision and management of housing accommodation for such persons as the council s h a l l think f i t (s. 193); 2. Standards for multiple dwellings (s. 330(k)); 3. Power to e s t a b l i s h and maintain homes for the aged, i n f i r m or disabled (s. 330(n)); D. Duty to make suitable provision for the poor and d e s t i t u t e (s. 183). REGIONAL DISTRICTS Regional D i s t r i c t s , mentioned e a r l i e r , are regulated by s. 765-798F of the Municipal Act and apply to Vancouver as a member municipality of the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . The Sections 765-798F pertain, among other things, to Regional Plans, Technical Planning Committees, Advisory Planning Commissions and the functions or powers of the Regional D i s t r i c t s . The Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t 3 recently assumed public housing as one of i t s functions. TOWN PLANNING ACT 4 Under t h i s A c t M u n i c i p a l i t i e s are empowered to draw up O f f i c i a l Town P l a n s , t o e x p r o p r i a t e p r o p e r t y , to pass zoning and b u i l d i n g r e g u l a t i o n by-laws and to e s t a b l i s h a Town P l a n n i n g Commission. However, a l l of these powers are a l s o s i m i l a r l y c o n f e r e d by the M u n i c i p a l A c t and Vancouver C h a r t e r i n much g r e a t e r d e t a i l . AN EXAMPLE OF OTHER RELEVANT LEGISLATION - VANCOUVER The f o l l o w i n g examples of m u n i c i p a l l e g i s l a t i o n drawn from Vancouver are o u t l i n e d t o i l l u s t r a t e the scope of m u n i c i p a l l e g i s l a t i o n i n the housing f i e l d . V a r i o u s by-laws made pursuant t o the Vancouver C h a r t e r have been passed by C i t y C o u n c i l c o n c e r n i n g housing namely: 5 the zoning and development, b u i l d i n g , plumbing, h e a l t h , rodent, l o d g i n g house and t i d y by-laws. A study i n 19 57 had recommended the passage of a by-law which would c o n s o l i d a t e a l l matters c o n c e r n i n g housing^ and a l t h o u g h such a by-law has not y e t been attempted by e i t h e r the C i t y of Vancouver or any oth e r M u n i c i p a l i t y i n B r i t i s h Columbia (to the author's knowledge) the Lie u t e n a n t - G o v e r n o r i n the Speech from the Throne a t the opening of the L e g i s l a t u r e i n January 1971 s t a t e d t h a t the P r o v i n c i a l Government intended t o p r e s e n t a B i l l which would s t a n d a r d i z e and c o o r d i n a t e h o u s i n g r e g u l a t i o n s 7 throughout the P r o v i n c e i . e . a standar d housing by-law . That the P r o v i n c e has t o do t h i s i s pr o b a b l y e x p l a i n e d by g the f o l l o w i n g : M a i n t a i n i n g standards i n housing has a l s o been a l o c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but the r o l e o f c i t i e s i n the p a s t has not been p o s i t i v e or c o n s t r u c t i v e . The r e g u l a t i o n of housing c o n d i t i o n s and o c c u p a n c i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r the low income housholds i s not p o p u l a r . 9 However, pursuant t o the Rent C o n t r o l A c t the Vancouver R e n t a l Accommodation Grievance Board was e s t a b l i s h e d by C o u n c i l i n 1969 to a d m i n i s t e r r e g u l a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n Schedule A of the by-law"^ c o n c e r n i n g standards t o be observed i n r e s i d e n t i a l t e n a n c i e s . The M u n i c i p a l D i s t r i c t of Surrey has a s i m i l a r by-law and other m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have a l s o c o n s i d e r e d . . . . . . . . 11 s i m i l a r l e g i s l a t i o n . AN EXAMPLE. OF A PROPOSED MUNICIPAL HOUSING POLICY -THE VANCOUVER PROPOSALS In January 1970 the Vancouver C i t y P l a n n i n g Department p u b l i s h e d the Vancouver Urban Renewal Study, 1971-75 Proposals. T h i s r e p o r t a u t h o r i z e d by CMHC, c o n t a i n s (a) recommendations f o r an " o v e r a l l p o l i c y f o r the r o l e of government i n improving 12 housing and the p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n " of the c i t y ; (b) recommen-ded programmes and (c) recommended procedures f o r implemen-t i n g these programmes, i n v o l v i n g c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n and c a l l e d Community Improvement and Development Programmes f o r 13 each l o c a l area of the c i t y . As f a r as housing i s concerned the r e p o r t recommends (a) v a r i o u s types of housing; (b) the number of u n i t s to be b u i l t per year of the 5 year p e r i o d and (c) the amount of funds r e q u i r e d , but no s p e c i f i c p r o p o s a l s f o r M u n i c i p a l -P r o v i n c i a l c o s t s h a r i n g are made, no change i n the p r e s e n t b a s i s b e i n g assumed. In a d d i t i o n sometimes a s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t l o c a t i o n i s mentioned. 14 The recommended housing programme t o improve w e l f a r e and amenity by improving housing c o n d i t i o n s would p r o v i d e f o r : 1. p u b l i c housing e i t h e r through the R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t or C i t y , p r i m a r i l y f o r s e n i o r c i t i z e n s , n o n - f a m i l y households and the handicapped; 2. the c i t y to s t i m u l a t e s e n i o r c i t i z e n and l o w - r e n t a l p r o j e c t s by n o n - p r o f i t groups by making funds a v a i l -a b l e through the m i l l i o n d o l l a r r e v o l v i n g fund f o r housing approved by r a t e p a y e r s as p a r t of the 1971-75 F i v e Year P l a n ; 3. c i t y i n i t i a t e d " e x p e r imental housing" under f u t u r e F e d e r a l i n n o v a t i v e programmes; 4. f o r low income f a m i l i e s F e d e r a l and P r o v i n c i a l Governments to c o n t i n u e t o encourage home ownership w i t h i n p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t s and i n s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s ; and * . -5. F e d e r a l and P r o v i n c i a l Governments t o encourage r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of o l d e r homes r e q u i r i n g major r e p a i r s i n areas not l i k e l y t o r e d e v e l o p by 1981. In r e f e r e n c e t o (1) above, i t i s assumed t h a t F e d e r a l and P r o v i n c i a l Governments w i l l c o n t i n u e t o a c c e p t most of the f i n a n c i a l burden and t h a t the c i t y ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n w i l l be i n the form of a share i n the c o s t of r e n t a l s u b s i d i e s , c u r r e n t l y 12 1/2 per cent w h i l e r e c e i v i n g f u l l t a x e s . In reference to (3) above, although the report does not define "experimental housing" i t w i l l be remembered that the projected low income and senior c i t i z e n s 1 condominium townhouses and apartments i n Champlain Heights, described in the previous chapter, and the continuing cooperatives mentioned elsehwere in this chapter would probably f a l l into such a category. However, the report does not s p e c i f i c a l l y recommend any policy or programmes for either continuing cooperatives or condominiums as a form of ownership, merely 16 stating that the present policy of providing sites for various types of housing should continue. In reference to (5) above the c i t y i s proposing new or modified NHA provisions and a new Provincial programme of grants. The report does not specify whether a policy of leasing or s e l l i n g c i ty owned land should be adopted, or guidelines for either course of action. This question provides scope for further c i t y policy and this aspect of c i ty r e s i -dential land policy or lack of i t is i l l u s t r a t e d by the follow-ing examples, where in one case land is sold and i n another land is leased. In the case of the continuing cooperative proposed for Champlain Heights the City Council Planning and Development Committee approved the non-profit United Co-operative Housing Society's plan to construct 10 5 low income three and four bedroom townhouse units. In what Constantinu described as an ad hoc decision City Council had e a r l i e r passed a resolution whereby a 6.6 acre s i te in c i ty owned Champlain Heights would be reserved for sale to cooperative 17 groups only. However, i n the event the site was leased to the Society at 80 per cent of market value. The c i t y could reserve sites for the other form of housing cooperative i . e . condominium on the same basis—non-profit—and the question of the p o s s i b i l i t y of leasehold condominiums under the S.T.A. would be raised. (see Appendix B). 18 In the other case 94 r e s i d e n t i a l lots zoned R . S . - l , One Family Dwelling D i s t r i c t , were offered for sale based on a fixed price with p r i o r i t y being given to persons wishing to build homes for themselves. Other conditions were that construction must commence within 18 months of the date of sale and the rate of interest for sale of lots on terms was to be 9 3/4 per cent and applications to purchase were to be accompanied by a cheque to the value of 5 per cent of the property as a guarantee of good f a i t h . Many of the proposed programmes of the c i t y would u t i l i s e the land assembly provisions of the NHA and the m i l l i o n dol lar revolving housing fund of the c i ty both of which have been mentioned elsewhere in this paper. AND BUREAUCRATIC PROCEDURES In order to discover the existence and extent of any sp e c i a l Municipal p o l i c i e s or bureaucratic procedures con-cerning r e s i d e n t i a l condominium development eleven Municipal-i t i e s chosen at random were surveyed by postal questionnaire. 19 The two questions posed were: What, i f any, are the p o l i c i e s of your municipality concerning condominium housing development? What, i f any, are the s p e c i a l procedures necessary to develop a condominium project i n your municipality (e.g. rezoning i s often necessary)? The effectiveness of the survey w i l l have been affected possibly by the questions being of an open nature, the d i f f e r -ent positions and therefore biases of the respondents and more importantly by the fact that i t i s probably rare for a Municipality to have a formally ennunciated and accepted comprehensive housing p o l i c y i n which- condominiums may be conceived to play a r o l e . Furthermore no Regional D i s t r i c t s were questioned since very few, to the best of the author's knowledge have assumed any housing function and those that have confine t h e i r attention to e l d e r l y c i t i z e n s and public housing. In spi t e of these l i m i t a t i o n s , however, the responses are f e l t to provide v a l i d answers. The r e s u l t s are shown i n Table I. Richmond did not reply and Nanaimo's answer was unusable. Of the other respondents none stated a f f i r m a t i v e l y that they had s p e c i a l polic ies or bureaucratic procedures and six stated that they had none. Vancouver, New Westminster and Kamloops stated that they "encouraged" condominium development while Penticton "favoured" such development. It w i l l be recalled that the author's def init ion of policy in Chapter I included: . . . any policy resolution, view, attitude or inten-tion whether expressed generally or stemming from any specif ic relevant govermental decision. It can be concluded therefore that save for generally favourable attitude towards r e s i d e n t i a l condominium develop-ment expressed by some respondents, the Municipalit ies have no special policy or bureaucratic procedures concern-ing such development. As mentioned e a r l i e r Constantinu 1 s study also found no special policy for continuing cooper-atives . The extent of encouragement by Municipalit ies to condominium housing may be similar to that of the City of Vancouver i n connection with continuing cooperatives. Vancouver advertised in the press for proposals for a Cooper-ative Housing Development on a parcel of City owned land, the same parcel for which condominium development i s favoured. Similarly the D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver advertised an "opportunity" to develop a unique low density townhouse or cluster housing scheme. The advertisement was 20 directed to "condominium and apartment developers." The conclusion reached above based on the survey of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s raises the question as to whether s p e c i a l p o l i c y or bureaucratic procedures should be considered necessary for condominium housing development. The author feels that, since to benefit from the provisions of the NHA i n i t i a t i v e must come from l o c a l government, (Municipality or Regional D i s t r i c t ) then i n conjunction with Municipal development plans and/or Regional D i s t r i c t plans, a Municipal or Regional D i s t r i c t housing p o l i c y should be formulated i n which condominiums should be considered, and that t h i s p o l i c y should be adopted by the Munic i p a l i t y or Regional D i s t r i c t . I f t h i s i s not the case the zoning map may become a substitute. This point and the d i f f i c u l t y of deducing Municipal p o l i c y mentioned i n Chapter I i n reference to the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s thesis i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the following. Vancouver "City Council w i l l allow the development of town-houses i n rooming-house and duplex zones on s i t e s of a minimum 21 s i z e 12,000 sq. f t . " In so doing Vancouver made an "experi-22 mental p o l i c y " decision a f f e c t i n g housing by amending the Zoning and Development By-law. Furthermore i t i s possible that some townhouses w i l l be condominiums, but the c r u c i a l point i s that townhouses, (defined i n the by-law) and not condominiums, (which are not defined or mentioned i n the by-law) are s p e c i f i c a l l y referred to. I t so happens, however, that the example mentioned i n the previous paragraph i s i n fa c t one of the programmes TABLE I MUNICIPAL SURVEY ON RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM POLICIES AND BUREAUCRATIC PROCEDURES MUNICIPALITY SPECIAL POLICY SPECIAL PROCEDURES RESPONDENT Vancouver No - but condominium encouraged for Champlain Heights No Deputy Director of planning New Westminster Condominium encouraged and attempts made to a t t r a c t development No City Planner Burnaby No No Senior Planner Richmond — — — Nanaimo — — Building Inspector Port Alberni No — Planning Administrator Prince George No No City Manager Dawson Creek No — City Clerk Kamloops Condominium encouraged No Director of Planning and Inspections Penticton Condominium favoured — Assistant Planner V i c t o r i a No No Senior Planner o u t l i n e d i n Vancouver's proposed housing p o l i c y . However, the zoning change mentioned o c c u r r e d b e f o r e the p u b l i c a t i o n of the proposed housing p o l i c y and t h e r e f o r e the p o i n t made e a r l i e r t h a t M u n i c i p a l housing p o l i c i e s are not g e n e r a l l y t o be found i n one formal document but i n the r e c o r d s of myriads of d e c i s i o n s and recommendations of t a b l e d or u n t a b l e d r e p o r t s , i s s t i l l , v a l i d . NECESSITY FOR POLICY I t c o u l d be s a i d t h a t t h e r e are two p o s s i b l e l e v e l s o f M u n i c i p a l or Re g i o n a l housing p o l i c y ; the f i r s t was d e s c r i b e d i n an e a r l i e r paragraph, i . e . g e n e r a l p o l i c y s t a t i n g the r o l e t h a t condominium (and o t h e r types o f housing) should p l a y i n a comprehensive M u n i c i p a l or R e g i o n a l housing p o l i c y f o r m u l a t e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a M u n i c i p a l or R e g i o n a l develop-ment p l a n which c o u l d i n f a c t move from the g e n e r a l t o the p a r t i c u l a r by s t a t i n g the q u a n t i t y , l o c a t i o n and approximate c o s t f o r the v a r i o u s types of housing envisaged. A second or more s p e c i f i c l e v e l of p o l i c y might a l s o be co n c e i v e d which would d e a l w i t h l a n d use c o n t r o l s and development 23 procedures and how these should t r e a t p r o p o s a l s f o r con-dominium housing p r o j e c t s . From F i g u r e I i n Chapter I I I i t w i l l be r e c a l l e d t h a t one of the meanings of the term "condominium" i s a type o f r e a l p r o p e r t y ownership and t h a t condominium p r o j e c t s can take f o u r b a s i c forms and be used i n s i x b a s i c ways. Should a condominium p r o j e c t i n terms of l a n d use and development by-laws be t r e a t e d i n a s p e c i a l way? I f so on what grounds? Condominium p r o j e c t s are p h y s i c a l l y not unique on account of the nature of t h e i r type of ownership. For i n s t a n c e a condominium h i g h r i s e apartment p r o j e c t i n terms of land use and development by-laws i s p h y s i c a l l y merely a h i g h r i s e apartment p r o j e c t and the type of ownership i s i m m a t e r i a l . Simply because the form of ownership of a p r o j e c t i s condomin-ium does not appear t o c o n s t i t u t e grounds f o r s p e c i a l t r e a t -ment ( i . e . f o r s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n s or exemptions) i n terms of l a n d use and development by-laws (except perhaps i n the case of l a t e r a l condominiums which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d below.) There has been some l o o s e t a l k on the s u b j e c t of zoning f o r condominiums which r e s u l t s from and/or causes c o n f u s i o n ; f o r example Davidson i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h condominiums has s t a t e d t h a t " I t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t new zoning by-laws 24 be designed . . . ." The author does not q u a r r e l w i t h the statement as such taken out of c o n t e x t , but f e e l s i t i s m i s l e a d i n g i n t h a t i n con t e x t i . e . i n s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e t o condominium i t can be i n t e r p r e t e d as c a l l i n g f o r s p e c i a l condominium zoning. Another example i s f u r n i s h e d by the Hon. Grace McCarthy's statement t h a t p l a n n i n g o f f i c i a l s "are aware of the need f o r zoning f o r condominiums but c o u n c i l s (with a few exc e p t i o n s ) w i l l need t o be educated." The view expressed e a r l i e r by the author that, given zoning, with the exception of l a t e r a l condominiums, no special zoning is necessary for condominium development is supported by the following quotations: It is commonplace to talk of condominiums as i f they were a dwelling type. They are not. The condomin-ium i s essential ly a form of property ownership and i t therefore makes no sense to legis late for them i n a zoning by-law that regulates the use of land not i t s ownership. 26 It i s u n r e a l i s t i c to treat a development differently purely because of the ownership pattern alone. The impact on the surrounding area and the demand for public services would be the same whether an apart-ment building is a rental unit cooperative or condominium. 27 Most of the Southern C a l i f o r n i a Communities that have accepted condominium developments have been able to f i t these projects into existing zoning ordinances, usually medium or high density r e s i -dential zones, with appropriate set-back provisions for a relinquishment of minimum yard requirements to be accounted for by common area greenery. Some communities in Orange County are f i t t i n g condominium projects into planned development zoning ordinances whilst others are drafting o r i g i n a l provisions to provide for "high-rise" condominium development . . . . Zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations should be applicable to condominium projects accord-ing to their use, without regard to the legal form of their ownership, just as they are applicable to other land uses without regard to the form of ownership. 28 POSSIBLE MUNICIPAL FRUSTRATION OF RESIDENTIAL  CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT The f o r e g o i n g argument f o r not a c c o r d i n g s p e c i a l treatment t o condominiums i n zoning and development by-laws was q u a l i f i e d by the author's r e s e r v a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g l a t e r a l condominiums which w i l l now be c o n s i d e r e d . The on l y p o s s i b l e i n s t a n c e o f m u n i c i p a l zoning by-laws f r u s t r a t i n g the development of r e s i d e n t i a l condominiums would occur where proposed l a t e r a l condominiums are t o be l o c a t e d i n r e s i d e n t i a l s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g zones where such zones permit o n l y one d w e l l i n g on one l o t . In such cases the l a t e r a l condominium p r o j e c t cannot be developed s i n c e a s t r a t a p l a n , t o be r e g i s t e r e d , can o n l y show one p a r c e l 29 (a synonym f o r " l o t " ) which i s s u b d i v i d e d i n t o s t r a t a l o t s 30 which are d e f i n e d by w a l l s , c e i l i n g s and f l o o r s . S i n c e i n a l a t e r a l p r o j e c t the s t r a t a p l a n would have to show more than one s t r a t a l o t (which i n the case of a l a t e r a l condomin-ium would be i n f a c t a f r e e - s t a n d i n g s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g house)on the p a r c e l , then c l e a r l y such a development would not be p e r m i s s a b l e . However, i f the zoning and development by-law i n q u e s t i o n p r o v i d e s f o r a zone which enables e x t r a -o r d i n a r y developments which cannot be f i t t e d i n t o the o r d i n a r y s i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l zone, t h i s o b s t a c l e can be circumvented by r e z o n i n g t o — u s i n g Vancouver as an example— CD-I, Comprehensive Development. Only i f such r e z o n i n g i s denied or i f the municipal zoning and development by-law cannot accommodate the l a t e r a l condominium i n the manner described, i . e . by not having a special zone or device, then and only then, can municipal policy be said to frustrate r e s i d e n t i a l condominium development. CONCLUSION In general then, since condominium is a form of ownership and not a use of land, Municipal policy at the secondary or specif ic level and Municipal bureaucratic pro-cedures cannot be held to frustrate r e s i d e n t i a l condominium development. In the specif ic case of l a t e r a l condominiums, however, unless Municipal by-laws provide the necessary f l e x i b i l i t y , the p o s s i b i l i t y does exist of frustrating the development of a l a t e r a l r e s i d e n t i a l condominium. If this be the case in any Municipality the passage of an appropriate amendment to the by-law to provide the requisite f l e x i b i l i t y i s recommended. 1. C o n s t a n t i n u , ojo. c i t . , pp. 63-71. 2. S.B.C. 1953, c. 55 as amended and R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 255, as amended, r e s p e c t i v e l y . 3. See P u b l i c Housing, A P o s s i b l e F u n c t i o n of the F r a s e r -B u r r a r d R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , (Vancouver, B.C.: A T e c h n i c a l Committee, March 1968) and R.C. Andrews, Chairman 1s  Report 1970, (Vancouver, B.C.: G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , 27 January, 1971). The F r a s e r - B u r r a r d D i s t r i c t has been renamed the G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t . 4. S.B.C. 1925, c. 55 as amended. 5. By-law no. 4193 based on the N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code of  Canada, a model document p u b l i s h e d by the N a t i o n a l Re-se a r c h C o u n c i l , Ottawa. The Premier of B r i t i s h Columbia i n d i c a t e d i n e a r l y February 1971 t h a t t h i s code would be a p p l i e d throughout the P r o v i n c e . 6. Audain, ojo. c i t . , pp. 51-52. 7. As r e p o r t e d i n The Sun, Vancouver, B.C., 21 January 1971. Vancouver Urban Renewal Study 1971-75 P r o p o s a l s , (Van-couver C i t y P l a n n i n g Department, 1970), p. 73. 9. R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 338. 10. By-law nos. 4448 and 4465, (1969). 11. C o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Mr. Bruce York of the Vancouver Tenants C o u n c i l . 12. Vancouver Urban Renewal Study, op. c i t . , l e t t e r of t r a n s -m i t t a l . CMHC p a i d f o r 75 per cent of the c o s t of the study w i t h the C i t y p a y i n g 25 per cent under P a r t V of the NHA. 13. I b i d . , p. i x . 14. I b i d . , pp. 86-88. 15. I b i d . , p. 87. The d e t a i l s have not y e t been worked out. As mentioned e a r l i e r tenants a t the L i t t l e Mountain p r o j e c t have a t t a i n e d an i n c r e a s i n g l y g r e a t e r measure of c o n t r o l of the management of the p r o j e c t . The C i t y does not take a stan d on t h i s matter however. 16. I b i d . , p. 99. S i n c e t h i s was w r i t t e n C o u n c i l r e s o l v e d to s e l l c e r t a i n s i t e s i n Champlain Heights f o r Condomin-ium development o n l y . The Sun, Vancouver, B.C., 22 March, 1971. 17. C o n s t a n t i n u , op_. c i t . , pp. 67, 110. 18. L o t s 1-94 ( I n c l u s i v e ) D.L. -339, P l a n no. 13659. 19. For q u e s t i o n n a i r e see Appendix F. 20. The Sun, Vancouver, B.C., 16 January 1971. 21. I b i d . , 21 January 1971. 22. I b i d . 23. As an example o f development procedure an o u t l i n e o f t h a t f o l l o w e d i n Vancouver i s at t a c h e d as Appendices G and H. 24. Davidson, op. c i t . , p. B - l . 25. McCarthy, Address . . . , ojp. c i t . , p. 11. 26. M a r t i n Chesworth, Apartment Study, (North Vancounver, B.C.: C o r p o r a t i o n of the D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver P l a n n i n g and P r o p e r t y Department, 1968), P a r t One, p. 44. 27. American S o c i e t y o f P l a n n i n g O f f i c i a l s , I n f o r m a t i o n Report No. 159, Condominium, (Chicago: June 1962), p. 11. 28. Wallace, L. M i t c h e l l I I , "Fee i n Condominium, IV Government R e g u l a t i o n s , A. Community P l a n n i n g , " Southern C a l i f o r n i a Law Review, ( V o l . 37 , 1964) , pp. 106, 107. See'also C a l i f o r n i a C i v i l Code s. 1370 and C a l i f o r n i a B usiness and P r o f e s s i o n s Code, s. 4525. 29. 30. Land R e g i s t r y A c t , R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 208 as amended, s. 2 . 0 STA, s. 3(2)b. C H A P T E R V I I C O N C L U S I O N Condominiums and Continuing Cooperatives; Trends and Further Research. CONDOMINIUMS AND CONTINUING COOPERATIVES Condominiums have gained acceptance for similar reasons today as caused their evolution and spread in the past. Today, however, the modern concept of condominium is subject to detailed l e g i s l a t i o n and although condominiums are a type of cooperative they have certain characteristics which in our present economy and law are clear advantages over the other variety of cooperative housing.-In spite of widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the condominium concept, in the present Canadian economy, condominiums (or t i t l e cooperatives) whose existence widens the range of housing types available, are more l i k e l y to be effective i n meeting housing demand and adding to housing stock than continuing cooperatives. In addition to the differences aris ing from the different form of ownership between condominiums and continuing cooperatives an important factor i s that the former are generally b u i l t and marketed by private enterprise developers. This process u t i l i z e s the s k i l l and experience of housing developers i n locating and acquiring a s i t e , constructing, financing, advertising and s e l l i n g the finished units. Continuing cooperatives are generally b u i l t by non-profit cooperative associations which are lacking i n the s k i l l and experience of p r o f i t seeking developers and consequently many have not been successful. This is not to say that condominiums are not impor-tant i n cooperative enterprise since recently four projects have received f inancial assistance from credit unions. Such assistance, pioneered in B r i t i s h Columbia, has been attributed to the need to combat a decline i n credit union membership by involvement in the provision of housing to credit union members. In one case the Abbotsford Credit Union organised the Abbotsford Co-op Housing Association which late i n 19 69 completed a 30 unit condominium project--thus providing an example of the t o t a l integration of condominiums within cooperative enterprise. Although Federal Government policy gives basical ly the same benefits to condominiums as to t r a d i t i o n a l homes and to continuing cooperatives i t does impose extra conditions upon the l a t t e r . There seems to be further scope for the general condominium concept of ownership to be exploited by the Federal Government or CMHC in ar.;. angements whereby public housing tenants could own their own unit . Provincial policy differentiates fundamentally in i t s treatment of condominiums and continuing cooperatives. The former are regulated by a specific "tailor-made" act while the l e g i s l a t i v e framework of the lat ter is too general and inadequate. Municipal p o l i c y , apart from general decisions to allow for a variety of housing types and ad hoc decisions to reserve a s i te has l i t t l e i f any bearing on either form of housing cooperative Development since in terms of zoning and development by-laws the form of ownership is immaterial, only in the case of l a t e r a l condominiums might municipal policy be c r u c i a l . TRENDS AND FURTHER RESEARCH Due to the constraints of time and lack of data an analysis of the impact of Governmental policy i n terms of actual r e s i d e n t i a l condominium development in B r i t i s h Columbia could not be made. However, i t can be stated that the majority of developments in B r i t i s h Columbia to date (February 1971) 2 have been of the town- or row- house design type. CMHC has recently begun to c o l l e c t s t a t i s t i c s on condominiums that i t finances under the NHA (for an example of the items see Appendix I) . Condominium development offers scope for further research of interest to urban planners for many reasons. Although most residential high r i s e development in c i ty centres has been for rental projects, in terms of high density impact on the surrounding area the form of ownership is not d i r e c t l y material to the actual physical impact. What w i l l be of interest to planners and others is the extent to which home owners rather than tenants might come to l ive in the city centre. Home owners can vote upon money by-laws in B r i t i s h Columbia whereas tenants cannot, and even though this may change in the future, home owners are widely f e l t to have more of a stake and interest in municipal affairs and to be more stable in terms of population turnover. The impact of con-dominium recreational f a c i l i t i e s as well as those of rental projects w i l l no doubt interest Parks Boards. Condominiums as social systems which have been likened to mini-municipalities w i l l undoubtedly attract interest since planners and others have in the past been concerned with neighbourhood s o c i a l relat ions. A number of points of interest come readily to mind—community vs. p r i v a c y — p a r t i c i p a t i o n , control and education through involvement. To paraphrase Sopocles and Jane Jacobs—the c i ty i s indeed the people and also a network of their relationships. The Sun, Vancouver, B.C., 7 January 1971. Davidson, ojo. c i t . , p. B - l . B I B L I O G R A P H Y BIBLIOGRAPHY Public Documents B r i t i s h Columbia, Companies A c t , R.S.B.C. 1948, c. 58 as amended. . C o o p e r a t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n s A c t , R.S.B.C, 1960, c. 77 as amended. . C r e d i t Unions A c t , S.B.C, 1961, c. 14 as amended. . E l d e r l y C i t i z e n s Housing A i d A c t , R.S.B.C, 1960, c. 19 as amended. . Housing A c t , S.B.C, 1950, c. 31 as amended. . Land R e g i s t r y A c t , R.S.B.C, 1960, c. 208 as amended. . L a n d l o r d and Tenant A c t , R.S.B.C, 1948 , c. 174, as amended. . M u n i c i p a l A c t , R.S.B.C, 1960, c. 255, as amended. . P r o v i n c i a l Home A c q u i s i t i o n A c t , "S.B.C, 19 70, c. 40 as amended. . P r o v i n c i a l Home Owner Grant A c t , R.S.B.C, c. 308 as amended. . P r o v i n c i a l New-home B u i l d i n g A s s i s t a n c e A c t , S.B.C 1967, c. 39 as amended. . Rent C o n t r o l A c t , R.S.B.C, 1960, c. 338 as amended. . Short Form o f Leases A c t , R.S.B.C, 1960, c. 357 as amended. . S o c i e t i e s A c t , R.S.B.C, 1948, c. 311 as amended. B r i t i s h Columbia, Strata T i t l e s Act, S.B.C. , 1966, c. 46 as amended. . Town Planning Act, S.B.C, 1925, c. 55 as amended. . Vancouver Charter, S.B.C, 1953, c. 55 as amended. Canada, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, S.C, 1945, a as amended. . Dominion Housing Act, S.C. 1935,c. 58 as amended. . National Housing Act 1938, 1944, 1954, S.C. 1953-54, c. 23 as amended. . Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , Ottawa: Economics Research Department, Annual. . Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Housing S t a t i s t i c s B.C. Region, Vancouver, B.C.: Vancouver Branch, Monthly. Ci t y of Vancouver, Building By-law, No. 4193. . Vancouver Rental Accommodation Grievance Board By-law, No. 4448. United Kingdom of Great B r i t a i n and Ireland, B r i t i s h North  America Act, 30 and 31, c. 3, 1867. Books C a s t e l . The C i v i l Law System of the Province of Quebec, Toronto: Butterworths, 1962. Cooper, Lord. The Scottish Legal T r a d i t i o n . Edinburgh:Oliver and Boyd Limited, 19 60. Ferrer, A. and K. Stecher. Law of Condominium. 2 Vols., Orford, N.H.: Equity PubTishing Corporation, 1967. Gloag and Henderson. Introduction to the Law of Scotland. Edinburgh: W. Green and Son Ltd., 1952. G r i v a s , G e n e r a l . Memoirs of G e n e r a l G r i v a s . London: Longmans, 1964. L i t h w i c k , N.H. and G i l l e s Pacquet, (e d s . ) . Urban S t u d i e s : A Canadian P e r s p e c t i v e . Toronto: Methuen P u b l i c a t i o n s , T9 68. Mackenzie, T. S t u d i e s i n Roman Law. Edinburgh: W i l l i a m Blackwood and Sons, 1862. McVicker, C h a r l e s P. T i t o i s m , P a t t e r n f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l  Communism. New York: S t . M a r t i n ' s P r e s s , 1957. M i g n e a u l t , P.B. Le D r o i t C i v i l Canadien Base sur Les "Repe-t i t i o n s E c r l t s sur l e Code C i v i l " de F r e d e r i c  Mourlon avec Revue de l a J u r i s p r u d e n c e de nos  Tribunaux. Tome T r o i s i e m e , M o n t r e a l : C~ T h e o r e t , P l a n i o l , M a r c e l . T r e a t i s e on the C i v i l Law. 12 ed., V o l . I, L o u i s i a n a : 1959. Rath, A.F., P.J. Grimes and J.E. More. S t r a t a T i t l e s . Sydney, N.S.W.: Law Book Company^ 1966. Rosenberg, A. Condominium i n Canada. Toronto: Canada Law Book L t d . , 1969. Rohan, P.J. and M.A. R e s k i n . Condominium Law and P r a c t i c e -Forms . New York: Mathew Bender, 1969. Smith, T.B. S c o t l a n d . London: Stevens and Sons, 1962. Woodward, H. Canadian Mortgages. Toronto: C o l l i n s and Co., 1957. Reports American S o c i e t y of P l a n n i n g O f f i c i a l s . Condominium. Informa-t i o n Report NO. 159, Chicago: 1962. Andrews, R.C. Chairman's Report 1970. G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , Vancouver, B.C., 27 January 1971. Audain, M i c h a e l J . The Housing S i t u a t i o n i n Vancouver, A B r i e f i n g f o r V o l u n t e e r s . Vancouver, B.C. : United" Community S e r v i c e s , 1966 . Brown, Gerald R. An Analysis of the Vancouver Housing Market 1966-68. A J o i n t Report of the Seminar i n Governmental Urban Land P o l i c i e s , Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.: 1968. Brown, J.E. "The Public Sector - A Panel Discussion," The  Right to Housing, Report of the Canadian Conference on Housing, Toronto, 196 8, Montreal: Harvest House Limited, 1969. Canadian Welfare Council. S o c i a l P o l i c i e s for Canada. Part I, Ottawa: 1969. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. NHA Federal Provin-c i a l Land Assembly. Pamphlet 5024, Ottawa: 1967. Chesworth, Martin. Apartment Study. Part One, Corporation of the D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver, B.C.: 1968. Donnison, David. "Housing Problems and P o l i c i e s : An Intro-duction" and "Agenda for Housing," The Right to  Housing. Michael Wheeler, ed., Montreal: Harvest House, 1969. Economic Council of Canada. The Canadian Economy From the 1960 1s to the 19 70 1s. Fourth Annual Review, Ottawa: Queen's Pr i n t e r , 1967. . Perspective 1975• Sixth Annual Review, Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1969. Federal Housing Authority. Planned Unit Development with a Homes Association, rev. ed. Land Planning B u l l e t i n No. 6, Washington, D.C: 1964. I l l i n g , Wolfgang. "The Rising Cost of Housing and Problems of Financing," The Right to Housing. Report of the Canadian Conference on Housing, Toronto, 196 8, Montreal: Harvest House Limited, 1969. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. Chance and Challenge. New Westminister, B.C.: 1963. . Population Trends i n the Lower Mainland. New Westminster, B.C.: 19~6~8. MacDonald, J . "Cooperatives and Non-Profit Housing," The Right to Housing. Report of the Canadian Conference on Housing, Toronto, 1968, Montreal: Harvest House Ltd., 1969. Morin, Claude. Condominium. Report prepared for the Advisory Group of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa: 1967. Ontario Law Reform Commission. Report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission on the Lav7~bf~~Condominium. Department of the Attorney General, Province of Ontario, 1967. Randall, S.J. "Housing P o l i c i e s i n Ontario," The Right to  Housing. Report of the Canadian Conference on Housing, Toronto, 1968, Montreal: Harvest House Limited, 19 69. Spahn. "The Emerging P r o f i l e of Condominium," Transcript. Third Annual Conference of the Condominium I n s t i t u t e , Berkley: 1963. Task Force on Housing and Urban Development. Report of the Task Force on Housing and Urban Development. Ottawa: Queens Printer"! 1969. A Technical Committee. Public Housing, A Possible Function  of the Fraser - Burrard Regional" D i s t r i c t . Vancouver, B.C.: Greater Vancouver Regional Dis-t r i c t , March 1968. The C o d i f i e r s . Third Report of the C o d i f i e r s . Book 2, " C i v i l Code of Lower Canada"!""" Quebec: George E. Desbarats, 1865. Urban Land I n s t i t u t e . The Homes Association Handbook. Technical B u l l e t i n No. 50, 1964. Vancouver C i t y Planning Department. Vancouver Urban Renewal  Study 1971-75 Proposals. Vancouver, B.C.: 1971. Wheeler, Michael, ed. et al. "Recommendations of the Conference," The Right to Housing. Report of the Canadian Conference on Housing, Toronto, 1968, Montreal: Harvest House Ltd., 1969. Williams, J.T. Report of Department of Municipal A f f a i r s , 1967. V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Queen^s P r i n t e r , 1968. B a l l , Stuart S. "Division into Horizontal Strata of the Landscape Above the Surface," Yale Law Journal. Vol. 39, p. 616. Beaton, W.R. "The Detached-House Condominium," Urban Land. Vol. 3, 29 March 1970. Davidson, David W. "Strata T i t l e Development - Condominium," Real Estate Trends i n Metropolitan Vancouver. (Annual), Vancouver" B.C.: Vancouver Real Estate Board, 1970. Dennison, R.B. and Pierre Dessaulles. "Les multiples applica-tions practique du condominium," Habitat. Vol. XII, No. 4-5, 1969, p. 59. Dessaulles, P i e r r e . "Condominium for Quebec," Montreal Real  Estate and Business Review. 1965. Ford, R.W. and R.E. Fowler. "The Lenders' View I I , " Habitat. V o l . XII, No. 4-5, 1969, p. 19. Habitat. Vol. XII, No. 4-5, 1969. The whole issue was devoted to condominium. Hanke, Byron R. "Planned Unit Development and Land Use Intensity," University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Vol. 3, No. 114, 1965. Hunter, Watson T. " B r i t i s h Columbia," Habitat. Vol. XII, No. 4-5, 1969, p. 10. Leyser, J . "The Ownership of F l a t s - A Comparative Study," International and Comparative Law Quarterly. V o l . 7, January 1958. MacLeod, Roderick J . "Developers Look at Condominium," Habitat. V o l . XII, No. 4-5, 1969, p. 27. McKay, A.N. and D.W. S l a t e r . "The Scope of Urban P o l i c y , " Urban Studies: A Canadian Perspective. N.H. Lithwick and G i l l e s Pacquet") eds. , Toronto: Methuen Publications, 1968. M i t c h e l l I I , Wallace L. "Fee i n Condominium, IV. Govern-ment Regulations, A. Community Planning," Southern  C a l i f o r n i a Law Review. Vol. 37, 1964, p. 106. Mixon, John. "Apartment Ownership i n Texas: Cooperative and Condominium," Houston Law Review. V o l . I, 1964, p. 226. Muth, Richard F. "Urban Residential Land and Housing Markets," Issues i n Urban Economics. Harvey S. P e r l o f f and Lowdon Wingo, J r . eds., Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968. Pine, Michael. "City Repair, A i r Rights and Condominium," Habitat. Vol. XII, No. 4-5, 1969, p. 61. Quienalty, C h a r l i e . "Comments," Louisiana Law Review, Vol. 19, 1959, p. 688. Quirk, William J . , et a l . "A Draft Program of Housing Reform -The Tenant Condominium," C o r n e l l Law Review. Vol . 53, February 196 8, p. 361 and Vol. 54, July 1969, p. 811. Ramsey, Charles, E. "Condominium: The New Look i n Coops," 3, Home T i t l e Guaranty Co., 1961. Risk, R.C.B. "Condominiums i n Canada," Univ e r s i t y of  Toronto Law Journal. Vol. 18, No. 1, 1968. Roberts, J.P. "Condominium Ownership i n B r i t i s h Columbia," Real Estate Trends i n Metropolitan Vancouver. Vancouver, B.C.: Vancouver Real Estate Board, 1966. Romney, K.B. and P.J. Rohan. "Resort Condominiums: the housing industry's p r e s c r i p t i o n for relaxation, retirement and r e a l estate investment," Connecticut Law Review. Vol. 2, No. 1, 1969. Rosenfeld, W.P. "The Sale of Individual Apartment Suites," Faculty of Toronto Law Review. V o l . 18, No. 12, 1 T 6 T : : Royal Bank of Canada. Mortgage Matters. Vol. 2, No. 4, no date. Ryan, R.T. "The Lenders' View I," Habitat. Vol. XII, No. 4-5, 1969, p. 17. S c h r e i b e r , A. "The L a t e r a l Housing Development: Condominium or Home Owners A s s o c i a t i o n ? " U n i v e r s i t y of  P e n n s y l v a n i a Law Review. V o l . 117, No. 8~ Sengstock, Frank S. and Mary C. Sengstock. "Home-Ownership; a Goal f o r a l l Americans," J o u r n a l of Urban Law. V o l . 46, No. 3, 1969. Smith, E.H.Q. "Old Wine i n New B o t t l e s , " H a b i t a t . V o l . X I I , No. 4-5, 1969, p. 2. S n e l l , R i c h a r d R. "The T h i r d A l t e r n a t i v e , " H a b i t a t . V o l . X I I , No. 4-5, 1969, p. 23. S u l l y , Edward. "Developers Look a t Condominium," H a b i t a t . V o l . X I I , No. 4-5, 1969, p. 29. Wheeler, M i c h a e l , ed. "Recommendations of the Conference," The R i g h t to Housing. M o n t r e a l : Harvest House L t d . , T9T9~. Theses Barrow, Malcolm McD. F e d e r a l Housing P o l i c i e s and the D e v e l o p i n g Urban S t r u c t u r e : C o n f l i c t s and R e s o l u t i o n . Unpublished Master's T h e s i s i n Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 1967. C o n s t a n t i n u , M a r i a n t h i . Housing C o - o p e r a t i v e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Unpublished Master's T h e s i s Tn Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 1970. Rossen, Uwe A. Zoning f o r Comprehensively Planned Developments. Unpublished Master's T h e s i s i n Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 1969. The Press and Magazines American Homes, January 1970. B r i t i s h Columbia G a z e t t e , V i c t o r i a , B.C. Canadian Homes, June 1970. M o n t r e a l S t a r , M o n t r e a l , P.Q. Toronto D a i l y S t a r , Toronto, O n t a r i o . The Edmonton J o u r n a l , Edmonton, A l b e r t a . The P r o v i n c e , Vancouver, B. C. The Sun, Vancouver, B.C. "Operation Housing," Western Homes and L i v i n g . February 1970. "Condo . . . . What?", Vancouver L i f e . V o l . 17, 12 June 1969. P r e s s Release. The Hon. Grace McCarthy, M i n i s t e r Without P o r t f o l i o , V i c t o r i a , B.C., 16 February 1970; 27 February 1970 and 7 December 1970. . The Hon I s a b e l Dawson, M i n i s t e r Without P o r t f o l i o , V i c t o r i a , B.C., 8 J u l y 1970. ... Unpublished Material B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l C o u n c i l of C a r p e n t e r s , B r i e f submitted t o the F e d e r a l Task Force on Housing and Urban Development, Vancouver, B.C., November 1968. Prepared by the Trade Union Research Bureau, Van-couver, B.C. D e s s a u l l e s , P i e r r e , Condominium - Some Aspects of the New  Law - B i l l 2W. Montreal Real E s t a t e Board, M o n t r e a l , 1969. Campbell, The Hon. Dan. Address to the P r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t u r e . V i c t o r i a , B.C., 13 February, 1970. Campbell, The Hon. Dan and The Hon. Grace McCarthy. A Home  of Your Own. B o o k l e t p u b l i s h e d by the Government of B r i t i s h Columbia, no date. Community P l a n n i n g A s s o c i a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia. B r i e f t o the P r o v i n c i a l Government on need f o r a B.C. Housing  C o r p o r a t i o n . 25 J u l y 1966. — Rawson, Mary. Submission on the Benson White Paper by the  Town P l a n n i n g I n s t i t u t e of Canada. Working cTraft prepared by the Committee on the P u b l i c Presence of the Town P l a n n i n g I n s t i t u t e of Canada, September 1970 . Vancouver Housing A s s o c i a t i o n . B u l l e t i n No. 65. 1967. Vancouver Tenants O r g a n i z a t i o n Committee (Now the Vancouver Tenants C o u n c i l ) , B r i e f . t o the F e d e r a l Task Force on Housing and Urban Development, Vancouver, B.C., November 1968. Other Sources B r i t i s h Columbia T e a c h e r s 1 F e d e r a t i o n C o - o p e r a t i v e S o c i e t y . Telephone i n t e r v i e w w i t h Mr. B e n t l e y . C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n . Vancouver, B.C. P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h Mr. J . Lowden. C o - o p e r a t i v e Union of Canada. Vancouver, B.C. Telephone i n t e r v i e w s w i t h v a r i o u s persons. D i s t r i c t o f North Vancouver. P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h Mr. G. W i l l i a m s , Land Agent. Government of B r i t i s h Columbia. Correspondence from the Hon. Grace McCarthy, M i n i s t e r Without P o r t f o l i o . Vancouver C i t y H a l l , Telephone i n t e r v i e w s with Mr. Harvey, V o t e r ' s R e g i s t r a t i o n . Vancouver Tenants C o u n c i l . P e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h Mr. B. Yorke. V i c t o r i a , B.C. P l a n n i n g Department. Correspondence between Mr. P. C r i s p , S e n i o r P l a n n e r and Miss M a r i a n t h i C o n s t a n t i n u , s t u d e n t . A P P E N D I C E S APPENDIX A E n g l i s h "Condominium" Schemes A t y p i c a l c o n t r a c t f o r the t r a n s f e r of a f l a t i n fee simple w i l l cover the f o l l o w i n g main a s p e c t s : 1. Payment by the Purchaser of a f i x e d sum p l u s a p e r p e t u a l y e a r l y r e n t charge. 2. T r a n s f e r by the Vendor, to the Purchaser of the F l a t s i t u a t e d as shown on an annexed p l a n t o -gether w i t h the easement r i g h t s and p r i v i l e g e s mentioned i n an a t t a c h e d Schedule. 3. Purchaser covenants t o : (A) Bind a l l persons d e r i v i n g t i t l e under him t o observe the r e s t r i c t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n the Schedule. (B) Pay the y e a r l y r e n t charge. (C) Keep the F l a t , and a l l w a l l s , p a r t y w a l l s , sewers, d r a i n s , p i p e s , c a b l e , w i res and appurtenances i n good c o n d i t i o n , i n p a r t i c -u l a r so as t o support, s h e l t e r and p r o t e c t the p a r t s of the b u i l d i n g o t h e r than the F l a t . (D) C o n t r i b u t e a f i x e d p a r t of the common expenses. (E) Keep the F l a t i n s u r e d a g a i n s t l o s s or damage by f i r e . (F) Permit Vendor to e n t e r the F l a t t o examine the c o n d i t i o n t h e r e o f and make good any d e f e c t s f o r which Vendor may be l i a b l e . 4. Grant of a r i g h t of r e - e n t r y i n f a v o r of Vendor i n case of d e f a u l t . 5. Vendor covenants: (A) To impose the same r e s t r i c t i o n s on o t h e r P u r c h a s e r s . (B) To m a i n t a i n the main s t r u c t u r e , gas and water p i p e s , d r a i n s and e l e c t r i c c a b l e s , the main en t r a n c e s , passages, l a n d i n g s s t a i r c a s e s , boun-dary w a l l s and f e n c e s . (C) To d e c o r a t e the e x t e r i o r of the b u i l d i n g i n such manner as s h a l l be agreed by a m a j o r i t y of the owners or l e s s e e s of the f l a t s . 6. Vendor d e c l a r e s t h a t he holds the common p a r t s and the b e n e f i t of the covenants made by a l l the Pur c h a s e r s , as t r u s t e e f o r such P u r c h a s e r s . 7. Vendor remains l i a b l e on the covenants made by him so long as he remains the owner of the r e n t charge r e s e r v e d . 8. One or more schedules are a t t a c h e d t o the c o n t r a c t , to s p e l l out the d e t a i l s about: (A) The r e s t r i c t i o n s imposed i n r e s p e c t o f the F l a t , (B) The easement r i g h t s and p r i v i l e g e s i n c l u d e d i n the t r a n s f e r , (C) The r i g h t s and p r i v i l e g e s excepted and r e s e r v e d from the t r a n s f e r , (D) The c o s t s and expenses i n r e s p e c t of which the purchaser i s t o c o n t r i b u t e . A t y p i c a l c o n t r a c t f o r the s a l e o f a f l a t by means of a long term l e a s e would be s i m i l a r i n many r e s p e c t s t o a s a l e f r e e h o l d . The main d i f f e r e n c e s would be: (a) Term - the t r a n s f e r i s not made i n p e r p e t u i t y , but f o r a l o n g term, such as 99 y e a r s . (b) Lessee agrees not to make a l t e r a t i o n s or remove f i x t u r e s . (c) Lessee agrees not t o u n d e r l e t the premises d u r i n g the c l o s i n g y ears of the l e a s e term, and t o su r r e n d e r p o s s e s s i o n a t the e x p i r a t i o n o f such term. Otherwise,the terms of a c o n t r a c t f o r the s a l e of a f l a t by means of a long-term l e a s e would be s u b s t a n t i a l l y the same as those f o r the s a l e o f a f l a t f r e e h o l d . Source: Edward George, "The Sale of F l a t s , " 19, The Conveyancer and P r o p e r t y Lawer (M.S.), 19 55, p. 7. c i t e d by F e r r e r and Ste c h e r , op. c i t . , pp. 66-68. APPENDIX B Lease h o l d Condominiums 502. Condominium on Leasehold Land 502.1 Freehold t i t l e generally essential The O n t a r i o , B r i t i s h Columbia, A l b e r t a , Saskatchewan and Nova S c o t i a A c t s r e q u i r e t h a t the t i t l e o f the de v e l o p e r be f r e e h o l d 3 6 w h i c h prima f a c i e means t h a t a condominium p r o j e c t i n these f i v e p r o v i n c e s cannot be developed on l e a s e -h o l d l a n d . However, w i t h the c o - o p e r a t i o n o f the owner o f the f r e e h o l d t h e r e may be a method of d e v e l o p i n g a l e a s e h o l d condominium p r o j e c t i n these p r o v i n c e s . T h i s method i s f u l l y o u t l i n e d i n 6 502.3 i n f r a . The Manitoba A c t , on the othe r hand, allows condominium p r o j e c t s on f r e e h o l d or l e a s e h o l d l a n d . The d e s i r a b i l i t y o f having a condominium p r o j e c t on l e a s e h o l d l a n d i s obvious. Many p r o j e c t s which appear to be most s u i t a b l e f o r condominium development are deve toped on l e a s e h o l d l a n d . "The Colonnade" on B l o o r S t r e e t i n Toronto, which would be an i d e a l p r o j e c t f o r condominium, i s b u i l t on land owned by V i c t o r i a C o l l e g e , and l e a s e d under a 9 9-year l e a s e . The O n t a r i o Housing C o r p o r a t i o n has a p l a n whereby, i n s t e a d of s e l l i n g land f o r development, they are l e a s i n g i t on a long term b a s i s . Many of the f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s have r e c e n t l y adopted p o l i c i e s whereby, i n s t e a d o f mortgaging p r o p e r t y , they f i r s t purchase the la n d and l e a s e i t back t o the owners, and then mortgage the b u i l d i n g and l e a s e h o l d i n t e r e s t of the de v e l o p e r . In a d d i t i o n t o these reasons, the Manitoba Government had a s p e c i f i c reason f o r p r o v i d i n g t h a t the Manitoba A c t would apply t o l e a s e h o l d e s t a t e s . There i s a development scheme by the C i t y of Winnipeg under which i t i s hoped t o develop a l a r g e number of housing u n i t s on l e a s e h o l d l a n d s , and t o s e l l them as separate condominium u n i t s . 502.2 The Manitoba approach The method used i n the Manitoba A c t le a v e s a l a r g e number of problems unanswered. The A c t simply p r o v i d e s t h a t " l a n d " means l a n d , whether l e a s e h o l d or i n fee simple, under the p r o v i s i o n s of the Real P r o p e r t y A c t , and t h a t "owner" means the owner of the f r e e h o l d e s t a t e or e s t a t e s or l e a s e h o l d 3 8 e s t a t e or e s t a t e s i n a u n i t and common i n t e r e s t . 3 9 A number of American s t a t u t e s p r o v i d e f o r the i n c l u s i o n o f l e a s e h o l d e s t a t e s i n the same manner. However, these p r o v i s i o n s do not b e g i n t o answer the many problems of l e a s e h o l d condominium developments. In such a development the deve l o p e r i s a tenan t of the f r e e h o l d owner. When he. s e l l s a condominium u n i t he a s s i g n s h i s i n t e r e s t i n the p a r t i c u l a r u n i t and the common elements t o the purchaser, who thereby assumes the burden of a p o r t i o n o f a l l the ten a n t ' s covenants under the head l e a s e . I f , then, as w i l l almost i n v a r i a b l y be the case, the head l e a s e c o n t a i n s a tenant's covenant t o pay taxes, what would be the e f f e c t o f one o f the u n i t purchasers f a i l i n g t o pay the taxes on h i s u n i t ? S u r e l y t h i s would c o n s t i t u t e a d e f a u l t under the head l e a s e , g i v i n g the f r e e h o l d owner the r i g h t o f r e - e n t r y or f o r f e i t u r e o f the whole l e a s e . I f t h i s i s so, then every o t h e r u n i t purchaser w i l l be i n jeopardy, s i n c e they w i l l a l l be dependent on one another f o r the performance o f the covenants i n the head l e a s e . One of the e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e s o f condominium—the independence o f the u n i t o w n e r — w i l l be d e s t r o y e d . Furthermore, i f the head l e a s e i s i n d e f a u l t and the f r e e h o l d owner r e - e n t e r s or f o r f e i t s the l e a s e , or t h r e a t e n s t o do so, does t h i s not c o n s t i t u t e a breach of the d e v e l o p e r ' s covenant w i t h the u n i t purchaser f o r q u i e t enjoyment? I f , on the other hand, the e f f e c t o f such breach o f a covenant i n the head l e a s e i s not t o p l a c e the whole l e a s e i n d e f a u l t but only t h a t p o r t i o n p e r t a i n i n g t o the p a r t i c u l a r u n i t , t h i s of n e c e s s i t y i m p l i e s a fr a g m e n t a t i o n o f the l e a s e . S u r e l y t h i s c o u l d not r e s u l t without the 'consent o f the l a n d l o r d , or express s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n . In Manitoba, t h e r e f o r e , a c o u r t f a c e d w i t h a breach o f any te n a n t ' s covenant by a u n i t owner w i l l have two a l t e r n a t i v e s . I t can f i n d e i t h e r : (a) That the whole o f the head l e a s e i s i n d e f a u l t , o r (b) That the l a n d l o r d ' s r i g h t s are fragmented so t h a t he has only a f r a c t i o n a l r i g h t a g a i n s t each i n -d i v i d u a l owner. Under the second a l t e r n a t i v e the l a n d l o r d would be i n the p o s i t i o n of having as many i n d i v i d u a l l e a s e s as t h e r e were u n i t s . I f t h i s i s the i n t e n t i o n , then a number of a d d i t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s are ne c e s s a r y . The consent of the l a n d -l o r d t o any r e g i s t r a t i o n as a condominium must be r e q u i r e d . S u r e l y h i s r i g h t s cannot be so fragmented without h i s know-ledge or consent. I f t h e r e i s such a fr a g m e n t a t i o n , the p r o p o r t i o n s must be s p e c i f i e d . Presumably the l o g i c a l r a t i o f o r a p p o r t i o n i n g a l l •: ?: the o b l i g a t i o n s under the head l e a s e would be i n the u n i t • ^ p o r t i o n s f o r ownership of the common elements or payment of common expenses. There would have t o be a p r o v i s i o n t o t h a t e f f e c t i n the s t a t u t e . There are a number of other d e t a i l e d p r o v i s i o n s t h a t would be ne c e s s a r y t o p r o p e r l y cover the fra g m e n t a t i o n o f the l e a s e i n t h i s way. 502.2 A l t e r n a t i v e method There i s an a l t e r n a t i v e method of d e v e l o p i n g a con-dominium p r o j e c t on l e a s e h o l d l a n d t h a t i s s u i t a b l e f o r any j u r i s d i c t i o n where t h e r e i s a condominium s t a t u t e , which i t i s suggested would, i n a simple, s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d way, and u s i n g instruments and methods w i t h which lawyers and con-veyancers are f a m i l i a r , accomplish the d e s i r e d r e s u l t . The method proposed r e q u i r e s c l o s e c o - o p e r a t i o n between the owner of the land and the d e v e l o p e r . Assume t h a t the O n t a r i o Housing C o r p o r a t i o n owns l a n d on which a 200-unit condominium p r o j e c t i s t o be e r e c t e d , and the land i s t o be l e a s e d f o r 99 years a t a r e n t a l o f $20,000 per ye a r . The Housing C o r p o r a t i o n would e n t e r i n t o a l e a s e w i t h the deve l o p e r f o r 99 y e a r s , which would enable him t o complete the b u i l d i n g and o b t a i n the nece s s a r y i n t e r i m f i n a n c i n g . There would be an agreement t h a t on completion of the b u i l d i n g the 99-year l e a s e would be s u r r e n d e r e d and the p r o j e c t would be r e g i s t e r e d under the A c t by the O n t a r i o Housing C o r p o r a t i o n as owner. The c o r p o r a t i o n would then s i m u l t a n e o u s l y l e a s e by separate l e a s e s each of the two hundred u n i t s t o the de v e l o p e r . Each l e a s e would, of co u r s e , i n c l u d e the common i n t e r e s t and would be f o r a p e r i o d of 99 y e a r s . I f the u n i t s were i d e n t i c a l i n val u e and i n u n i t p r o p o r t i o n s , the r e n t under each lease, would be $100 per annum. The Housing C o r p o r a t i o n would then have the same r e v e n u e — t h a t i s , $20,000 per y e a r — b u t from two hundred s e p a r a t e l e a s e s . The d e v e l o p e r would s e l l each of the u n i t s , t h a t i s the l e a s e -h o l d i n t e r e s t i n each u n i t t o g e t h e r w i t h i t s common i n t e r e s t , t o each purch a s e r . The l e a s e h o l d i n t e r e s t i n each u n i t and common i n t e r e s t c o u l d be s e p a r a t e l y mortgaged. Each u n i t would be s e p a r a t e l y taxed and the tenant o f each u n i t and common i n t e r e s t would be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r these t a x e s . The l a n d l o r d ' s and tenant's covenants w i t h r e s p e c t t o each u n i t and common i n t e r e s t would be completely s e p a r a t e . The f i n a n c i a l independence, which i s a ne c e s s a r y element of the condominium concept, would be as complete as i n a f r e e h o l d p r o j e c t . In one r e s p e c t o n l y would the p r o j e c t d i f f e r from a f r e e h o l d p r o j e c t : each o f the u n i t owners would have i n a d d i t i o n t o h i s separate r e a l t y tax o b l i g a t i o n and h i s sepa r a t e o b l i g a t i o n f o r mortgage payments, the o b l i -g a t i o n t o pay h i s sepa r a t e " l a n d r e n t . " 4 0 The o n l y r e a l l i m i t a t i o n remaining on the complete independence of each u n i t owner would be one t h a t e x i s t s i n a l l condominium p r o j e c t s , t h a t i s , h i s p o t e n t i a l l i a b i l i t y i n the event t h a t other u n i t owners f a i l t o meet t h e i r f a i r share of the common expenses. The form of the l e a s e w i t h the Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , or w i t h the l a n d owner i n other cases, would c o n t a i n very few covenants. The major covenants a f t e r the covenant t o pay r e n t , would be (1) t o comply w i t h a l l the requirements of the d e c l a r a t i o n , by-laws and s t a t u t e ; (2) t o pay common expenses as and when assessed; and (3) t o pay r e a l t y t a x e s . Would the c o u r t s say t h a t t h i s was a p l a y by the de v e l o p e r t o do i n d i r e c t l y t h a t which the s t a t u t e d i r e c t l y p r o h i b i t s ? They should not. Not onl y would a l l o w i n g such an approach be b e n e f i c i a l t o the f u r t h e r development of the condominium concept; i t would be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the A c t t o the e x t e n t t h a t the "owner" a t the time o f r e g i s t r a t i o n i s the owner i n fee simple. In the example r e f e r r e d t o , the "owner" would be the O n t a r i o Housing C o r p o r a t i o n . A l l Canadian A c t s c l e a r l y permit u n i t s and common i n t e r e s t s , once c r e a t e d , t o be l e a s e d (as w e l l as s o l d or mortgaged) in d e p e n d e n t l y . 3 6 O n t a r i o , s. 2(1); B r i t i s h Columbia, s. 3 ( 2 ) ( a ) ; A l b e r t a and Saskatchewan, s. 3(3); Nova S c o t i a , s. 3. See a l s o R.C.B. R i s k , "Condominiums and Canada," 18 U. of T . L . J . 1 (1968), at p. 16. 3 7 S e e s s . l ( n ) , (p) , 2 ( 2 ) , 4 ( 2 ) , 20 (3) (b) . 3 8 A . l ( n ) , (p). 39 E.g., A l a s k a , A r i z o n a , C o n n e c t i c u t and D i s t r i c t of Columbia. 40 T h i s i s not i n any way a r e a l i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h the independence o f each u n i t owner, but merely an a d d i t i o n a l f i n a n c i a l o b l i g a t i o n i n dependently assumed. Source: Rosenberg, op. c i t . , pp. 5-10, 5-14. Note: The D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver i s attempting t o have developed a l e a s e h o l d condominium on D i s t r i c t owned l a n d . APPENDIX C Kinds of E s t a t e s In summary, the term " e s t a t e " s i g n i f i e s ownership of a p o s s e s s o r y i n t e r e s t i n l a n d . Homeownership i s ownership of a p o s s e s s o r y i n t e r e s t i n a b u i l d i n g l o c a t e d on land and l a n d i t s e l f . Homeownership i s the ownership of an e s t a t e i n l a n d . Through the y e a r s , the common law has g i v e n r e c o g -n i t i o n t o s i x k i n d s of e s t a t e s . The number s i x appears t o be a f i x e d one as the common law e v o l v e d a r u l e t h a t no new e s t a t e s c o u l d be c r e a t e d . 5 The e s t a t e s which have gained r e c o g n i t i o n are as f o l l o w s : 1. The fee simple. Such an e s t a t e c o n f e r s upon i t s h o l d e r a b s o l u t e ownership of l a n d so f a r as our, or any, law can conceive of i t . I t i s ownership o f i n f i n i t e d u r a t i o n . 2. The fee t a i l . T h i s e s t a t e c o n f e r s upon the grantee and h i s descendants ownership of the l a n d w ithout the r i g h t of a l i e n a b i l i t y . 3. The l i f e e s t a t e . Such e s t a t e c o n f e r s upon i t s h o l d e r the r i g h t t o e x e r c i s e dominion over land d u r i n g the l i f e o f some person. 4. The e s t a t e f o r y e a r s . T h i s i s a l e a s e . I t s owner has a p o s s e s s o r y i n t e r e s t i n l a n d f o r a s p e c i f i c p e r i o d of time. The p e r i o d may be very s h o r t , such as a week or even a day; or very l o n g , as one hundred y e a r s . 5. Tenancy from year to y e a r . T h i s i s an e s t a t e i n which the owner may e x e r c i s e dominion over la n d f o r a s p e c i f i c p e r i o d of time w i t h automatic s u c c e s s i v e renewals. Thus, a r e n t e r , who r e n t s from month to month, i s assured of a renewal of h i s e s t a t e f o r one month a d d i t i o n a l to t h a t i n which he i s e x e r c i s i n g h i s r i g h t s over the l a n d . 6. Tenancy at w i l l . When a person o c c u p i e s another's l a n d w i t h e i t h e r p a r t y f r e e to t e r m i n a t e the r e l a t i o n -s h i p such occupancy i s achieved w i t h the p e r m i s s i o n of the owner. The occupancy i s an i n t e r e s t i n l a n d t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s an e s t a t e denominated as a tenancy at w i l l . 7 The f i r s t t h r e e e s t a t e s are c a l l e d f r e e h o l d e s t a t e s , a term i n d i c a t i v e of t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l d i g n i t y . The l a t t e r are c a l l e d n o n - f r e e h o l d e s t a t e s . Homeownership i m p l i e s some g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t i n one's h a b i t a t t ; an i s enjoyed by a " r e n t e r " or "tenant". Homeownership i ; p o r t s to a layman something more than an e s t a t e f o r years or any o t h e r l e s s e r e s t a t e . Homeownership i s the a n t i t h e s i s of an e s t a t e f o r y e a r s , or tenancy from year t o y e a r , or a tenancy a t w i l l . Without f u r t h e r comment, a study of homeownership w i l l concern i t s e l f w i t h the non-f r e e h o l d e s t a t e s o n l y f o r the purpose of comparison. In the popular mind one of the p r i n c i p a l concomitants of homeownership i s the development of an " e q u i t y . " 8 An e q u i t y r e p r e s e n t s the i n v e s t m e n t - s e c u r i t y f a c t o r o f ownership. 9 Investment i m p l i e s the a b i l i t y t o c o n v e r t e q u i t y i n t o a cash r e a l i t y . Such c o n v e r s i o n r e q u i r e s a l i e n a b i l i t y , a c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c e xcluded by the nature of the fee t a i l and absent as a p r a c t i c a l matter i n a l i f e e s t a t e , which i s t e r m i n a b l e by d e a t h — a c e r t a i n t y . T h e r e f o r e , the o n l y e s t a t e t h a t p r o p e r l y concerns a study of homeownership i s the fee simple e s t a t e . A fee simple e s t a t e denotes an e s t a t e i n l a n d con-s t i t u t i n g the g r e a t e s t p o s s i b l e aggregate of r i g h t s , powers, p r i v i l e g e s , and i m m u n i t i e s . 1 0 I t i s the maximum amount of l e g a l ownership known to Anglo-American j u r i s p r u d e n c e . I t i s an e s t a t e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e by two e s s e n t i a l elements: i t s p o t e n t i a l l y i n f i n i t e d u r a t i o n , and i t s i n h e r i t a b i l i t y by c o l l a t e r a l as w e l l as l o c a l d e s c e n d a n t s . 1 1 (Author's comment: N.B. i n B r i t i s h Columbia:-" ( P a r t I I R e s i d e n t i a l Tenancies) 35. For the purposes of t h i s P a r t the r e l a t i o n s h i p of l a n d l o r d and tenant i s one o f c o n t r a c t o n l y , and a tenancy agreement does not c o n f e r on the t e n a n t an i n t e r e s t i n l a n d . " L a n d l o r d and Tenant A c t , R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 207 as amended.) ^1 Coke, Commentary Upon L i t t l e t o n 6 27 (1853). 7 A. Casner & W. Leach, Cases and Text on P r o p e r t y 293 (1951). 8 9 Se-" supra, p. 330. See supra, pp. 328-9. "^Moynihan, I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the Law of Real P r o p e r t y 29 (1962) . 11 f l 2 l I d . , at 30. Of homeownership, but not of housing. Source: Sengstock and Sengstock, op. c i t . , pp. 380-381. APPENDIX D PILOT PROJECT: CHAMPLAIN HEIGHTS The f o l l o w i n g f i g u r e s p e r t a i n to the u n i t p r i c e o f each o f the 128 townhouses which w i l l be b u i l t i n Champlain Heights i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. The townhouse w i l l be b u i l t on 6.9 a c r e s of l a n d . They each c o n t a i n t h r e e bedrooms and f u l l basement. The s e l l i n g p r i c e i n c l u d e s a l l f i n a n c i n g expenses, s e l l i n g expenses and mortgage f e e s . The s e l l i n g p r i c e i s $16,200 and i s payable as f o l l o w s : S e l l i n g P r i c e Home A c q u i s i t i o n Grant CMHC 1st Mortgage Cash Down Payment $1,000 14,700 500 $16,200 16,200 A l l o w i n g taxes o f $350.00 per year, l e s s the homeowner g r a n t o f $160.00 and assuming a 35 year a m o r t i z a t i o n and 7-7/8% i n t e r e s t r a t e , the monthly payments would be as f o l l o w s : P r i n c i p a l and I n t e r e s t $101.74 Taxes ( a f t e r g r ant 16.00 T o t a l 117.74 Minimum Income assuming 27% G.D.S. R a t i o $437.00/month Source: News Release from the O f f i c e of the Hon.Grace McCarthy, M i n i s t e r Without P o r t f o l i o , Government of B r i t i s h Columbia, 7 December 1970. Strata Titles Act [Consolidated for convenience only, July 1,1968.] 1. This Act may be cited as the Strata Titles Act. 1966, c. 46, s. 1. 2 . In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, "building" means the building or buildings shown in the strata plan; " common property " means so much of the land for the time being comprised in a strata plan that is not comprised in any strata lot shown in the plan; " Court" means the Supreme Court of British Columbia; " owner" means the person registered in the books of any Land Registry Office as owner in fee-simple of a strata lot, whether entitled thereto in his own right or in a representative capacity or otherwise; "Registrar" means a Registrar within the meaning of the Land Registry Act; " special resolution " means a resolution passed at a general meeting of the strata corporation of which at least fourteen days' notice specifying the purpose of the special resolution has been given by a majority of not less than three-fourths of the total unit entitlement of the strata lots, and not less than three-fourths of all members; " strata corporation " means the corporation created by section 6; " strata lot" means a lot shown as such in a strata plan; " strata plan " means a plant that (a) is described in the heading thereto as a strata plan; (b) shows the whole or any part of the land comprised in the plan as being divided into two or more strata lots, whether on one level or more, and whether or not connected with another or others; (c) complies with the requirements of section 4, and includes a plan of resubdivision of any strata lot or strata lots in a strata plan; " unanimous resolution " means a resolution unanimously passed at a duly convened meeting of the strata corporation at which all persons entitled to exercise the powers of voting conferred by or under this Act are present personally or by proxy at the time of the motion; " unit entitlement" in respect of a strata lot means the unit entitle-ment of that strata lot, specified or apportioned in accordance with clause (/) of subsection (1) of section 4 or subsection (5) of section 16. 1966, c. 46, s. 2; 1968, c. 54, s. 2. tffandtoto ^ - (*) L a n d m a v b e subdivided into strata lots by the deposit of a strata lots. strata plan, and the strata lots created thereby, or any one or more of them, may devolve or be transferred, leased, mortgaged, or otherwise dealt with in the same manner and form as any land the title to which is registered under the Land Registry Act. (2) A strata plan shall not be accepted for deposit by the Registrar unless (a) the title to'the land included in the strata plan is registered in the register of indefeasible fees; and (b) the land included in the strata plan is shown as a single parcel on a subdivision plan deposited pursuant to the Land Regis-try Act. (3) The Registrar shall examine the application and the instrument and strata plan produced in support thereof, and, if satisfied that they are in order and in compliance with all the applicable requirements of the Land Registry Act, shall assign to the strata plan a serial deposit number and issue such new certificates of title for the strata lots shown upon the strata plan as may be necessary. (4) Upon the issue of the new certificate of title, the former certifi-cate shall be cancelled in like manner as provided in section 159 of the Land Registry Act in the case of a transfer of the whole or a portion of . lands included in a certificate of title. (5) A strata plan shall be deemed, upon registration, to be embodied in the register and, notwithstanding any other Act, the owner shall hold . his strata lot and his share in the common property subject to any interests affecting the same for the time being notified on the registered strata plan and subject to any amendments to strata lots or common property shown on that plan. 1966, c. 46, s. 3. strata plans. 4 (1) A strata plan shall (a) delineate the plane boundaries of the land included in the strata plan and the location of the building in relation thereto; (6) bear a statement containing such particulars as may be neces-sary to identify the title to the land included in the strata plan; (c) include a drawing illustrating the strata lots and distinguishing the strata lots by numbers or letters in consecutive order; (d) define the boundaries of each strata lot by reference to floors, walls, and ceilings; (e) show the approximate floor area of each strata lot; (/) have endorsed upon it a schedule specifying in whole numbers the unit entitlement of each lot and a number equal to the aggregate unit entitlement of all lots, which unit entitlement shall determine (i) the voting rights of owners; (ii) the quantum of the undivided share of each owner in the common property; and ( i i i ) the proportion payable by each owner of contribu-tions levied under section 14; (g) have endorsed upon it the address at which documents may be served on the strata corporation; and (/i) contain such other data as may be prescribed by regulation. (2) Unless otherwise stipulated in the strata plan, the common bound-ary of any strata lot with any other strata lot or with common property is . .  the centre of. the floor, wall, or ceiling, as the case may be. (3 ) Every strata plan tendered for deposit in a Land Registry Office (a) shall be accompanied by the certificate of a British Columbia land surveyor that the building shown on the strata plan is within the external boundaries of the land that is the subject of the strata plan, or that appropriate and necessary easements or other interests exist to provide for any part or parts of the building that is or are not within the boundaries; and (6) shall be accompanied by whatever number of copies thereof may be required by the Registrar for taxing authorities; and (c) shall comply with all regulations which may from time to time be made by the Surveyor-General for the purposes of this Act; and (d) shall be signed by the owner of the land included in the strata plan and witnessed in like manner as instruments required to be registered under the Land Registry Act; and (e) shall comply with subsection (1). (4) (a) Upon registration of an instrument or instruments evidencing a transfer of common property by a strata corporation, the Registrar shall cause the strata plan in which the property transferred was included to be amended by deleting that property therefrom. (b) Upon registration in accordance with the Land Registry Act of an instrument or instruments evidencing transfer of lands to a strata corporation, the Registrar shall cause the appropriate strata plan to be amended accordingly. (5) The Registrar shall register a charge against the common prop-erty included in the strata plan by endorsing a memorandum thereof on the strata plan. 1966, c. 46, s. 4; 1968, c. 54, s. 3. 5. (1) The common property shall be held by the owners as tenants in common in shares proportional to the unit entitlement of their respec-tive strata lots. (2) Save as in this Act provided, no share in the common property shall be dealt with except with the strata lot of the owner, and any instrument dealing with a strata lot shall operate to deal with the share of the owner in the common property, without express reference thereto. (3) The Registrar shall show on every certificate of title for a strata lot included in a strata plan the owner's share in the common property created by that plan. 1966, c. 46, s. 5. corporation. (1) (fl) The owner or owners of the strata lots included in a strata plan and his or their successors shall, upon deposit of the strata plan in a Land Registry Office, constitute and be members of a body corporate under the name " T h e Owners, Strata Plan N o . " (the number to be specified shall be the registration number of the strata plan). (b) In this subsection, " owners " includes the persons entitled to the land included in the strata plan under subsection (3) of section 18. (2) The Companies Act and the Companies Clauses Act do not apply to a strata corporation. (3) Subject to this Act, the strata corporation is responsible for the enforcement of the by-laws, and the control, management, and adminis-tration of the common property. (4) A strata corporation (a) has perpetual succession; (b) shall have a common seal; (c) may sue and be sued; (d) may, as representative of the owners of the strata lots included in the strata plan, sue for and recover damages and costs, or either, in respect of any damage or injury to the common property caused by any person, whether an owner or not; and (e) may be sued in respect of any matter connected with the land included in the strata plan for which the owners are jointly liable. (5) A judgment against the strata corporation shall for all purposes be deemed to be a judgment against the owners of the strata lots included in the strata plan in respective amounts proportionate to their unit en-titlements as shown on the strata plan, and execution may be made accordingly. 1966, c. 46, s. 6. of0nwrtgagees ^ • Where an owner's interest is subject to a registered mortgage, the mortgage may provide that the power of voting conferred on an owner by or under this Act be exercised in all cases or in specified cases by the mortgagee. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to allow a mortgagee to vote unless the mortgagee has given written notice of his mortgage to the strata corporation. 1966, c. 46, s. 7. rfcommoS3 ^ - (1) ^ n e o w n e r s by unanimous or special resolution may direct the property. strata corporation to transfer or charge common property, or any part thereof. (2) Where a resolution is duly passed under subsection (1) and all persons other than owners having registered or statutory interests or estates in the land included in the strata plan which have been notified to the strata corporation have, in the case either of a transfer or a charge, consented in writing to the release of those interests or estates in respect 4652-6 of the land comprised in the proposed transfer or, in the case of a charge, have approved in writing of the execution of the proposed charge, the strata corporation shall execute the appropriate instrument, and the instrument is valid and effective without execution by any person having an interest in the common property, and the receipt of the strata corpo-ration for the purchase money, rent, premiums, or other moneys payable to the strata corporation under the terms of the transfer or charge shall be a sufficient discharge, and shall exonerate the persons taking under the transfer or the charge, as the case may be, from any responsibility for the application of the moneys expressed to have been so received. (3) Every such instrument presented for registration under the Land Registry Act shall be endorsed with or accompanied by a certificate under the seal of the strata corporation that the resolution was duly passed, that the instrument conforms with the terms thereof, and that all necessary consents were given. (4) In favour of purchasers of the common property and in favour of the Registrar, the certificate mentioned in subsection (3) is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. (5) The Registrar shall register each transfer by issuing to the trans-feree a certificate of title for the land transferred, and no notification of the transfer shall be made on any certificate of title or folium of the register. (6) Upon registration of a transfer of common property, the Registrar shall, before issuing a certificate of title, amend the registered strata plan by deleting therefrom the common property comprised in the transfer. 1966, c. 46, s. 8. c O T e n " a n n t ? a n d 9. (1) The owners, by unanimous or special resolution, may direct j j f t h e 6 t n e s t r a t a corporation strata p l a n . ( a) t o execute on their behalf a grant of easement or a restrictive covenant burdening the land included in the strata plan; or (b) to accept on their behalf a grant of easement or a restrictive covenant benefiting the land included in the strata plan. (2) Where a resolution has been duly passed under subsection (1) and all persons other than owners having registered or statutory interests or estates in the land included in the strata plan which have been notified to the strata corporation have consented in writing to the release of those interests or estates in respect of the land comprised in the proposed grant, the strata corporation shall execute the appropriate instrument, and it is valid and effective without execution by any person having an interest in the land included in the strata plan, and the receipt of the strata cor-poration is a sufficient discharge and shall exonerate all persons taking under the instrument from any responsibility for the application of the moneys expressed to have been so received. (3) Every such instrument presented for registration under the Land Registry A ct shall be endorsed with or accompanied by a certificate under 4652-7 the seal of the strata corporation that the resolution was duly passed and that all necessary consents were given. (4) In favour of persons dealing with the strata corporation under this section and in favour of the Registrar, the certificate mentioned in subsection (3) is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. 1966, c. 46, s.9. 10. (1) The owners, by unanimous or special resolution, may direct the strata corporation to acquire in accordance with the direction any land to be added to the common property. (2) Every document evidencing acquisition of land under subsection (1) that is presented for registration under the Land Registry Act shall be endorsed with or accompanied by a certificate under the seal of the strata corporation that the resolution was duly passed. (3) Upon applying to register title to land acquired under this section, the strata corporation shall file with the Registrar an amendment to the strata plan or an amended strata plan satisfactory to the Registrar to-gether with as many copies thereof as he shall require. (4) It shall not be necessary to name as grantees the owners of the strata lots or refer to their unit entitlements in any conveyance to them if these words are used to describe the grantees: " The owners, Strata Plan No. , [address], a corporation subsisting under the Strata Titles Act on behalf of the strata lot owners thereof." 1966, c. 46, s. 10. 11. (1) In respect of each strata lot included in a strata plan, there shall be implied, without registration, (a) in favour of the owner of the strata lot, and as appurtenant thereto, an easement for the subjacent and lateral support thereof by the common property and by every other strata lot capable of affording support; (b) as against the owner of the strata lot and to which the strata lot shall be subject, an easement for the subjacent and lateral support of the common property and of every other strata lot capable of enjoying the support of that strata lot; (c) in favour of the owner of the strata lot, and as appurtenant thereto, easements for the passage or provision of water, sew-age, drainage, gas, oil, electricity, garbage, heating and cooling systems, and other services (including telephone, radio, and television services) through or by means of any pipes, wires, cables, chutes, or ducts for the time being existing in the land included in the strata plan to the extent to which those pipes, wires, cables, chutes, or ducts are capable of being used in con-nection with the enjoyment of the strata lot; and (d) as against the owner of the strata lot, and to which the strata lot shall be subject, easements for the passage or provision of water, sewage, drainage, gas, oil, electricity, garbage, heat-ing and cooling systems, and other services (including tele-Acquisition of more common property. phone, radio, and television services) through or by means of any pipes, wires, cables, chutes, or ducts for the time being existing within the strata lot, as appurtenant to the common property and also to every other strata lot capable of enjoying such easements. (2) All ancillary rights and obligations reasonably necessary to make easements effective apply in respect of easements implied or created under this Act. 1966, c. 46, s. 11. 1 2 . (1) The owner of a strata lot included in a strata plan is entitled to have his strata lot sheltered by every part of the building shown in the strata plan capable of affording shelter. (2) The right created by subsection (1) is an easement to which every part of the building shown in the strata plan capable of affording shelter is subject. (3) The easement for shelter created by this section entitles the owner of the dominant tenement to enter on the servient tenement to replace, renew, or restore any shelter. 1966, c. 46, s. 12. By-laws. 13. (1) The building shall be regulated by by-laws. (2) The by-laws shall provide for the control, management, adminis-tration, use, and enjoyment of the strata lots and common property, and shall include (a) the by-laws set forth in the First Schedule, which shall not be added to, amended, or repealed except by unanimous resolu-tion; and (6) the by-laws set forth in the Second Schedule, which shall not be added to, amended, or repealed except by special resolution; and until by-laws are made in that behalf, the by-laws set forth in the First and Second Schedules have force and effect from the time of the deposit of the strata plan in the Land Registry Office. (3) No by-law or addition to or amendment or repeal of any by-law shall operate to prohibit or restrict a devolution of strata lots or any transfer, lease, mortgage, or other dealing therewith or to destroy or modify any easement implied or created by this Act. (4) No addition to or amendment or repeal of any by-law under clause (a) of subsection (2) has any effect until the strata corporation gives notification thereof in the form prescribed by regulation to the Registrar. Upon receiving the notification, the Registrar shall make reference thereto on the deposited strata plan. (5) The strata corporation shall, on the application of an owner or mortgagee of a strata lot or any person authorized in writing by him, make available for inspection the by-laws for the time being in force. (6) The by-laws for the time being in force bind the strata corpora-tion and the owners to the same extent as if such by-laws had respectively been signed and sealed by the strata corporation and each owner and contained covenants on the part of the strata corporation with each 4652-9 Easement for shelter. owner and on the part of each owner with every other owner and with the strata corporation to observe and perform all the provisions of the by-laws. 1966, c. 46, s. 13. powers of 1 (*) r^ n e duties of the strata corporation include the following:— corporation To m s u r e a n < 3 keep insured the building to the replacement value thereof against fire and such other risks as may be pre-scribed under this Act, unless the owners by unanimous or spe-cial resolution otherwise resolve: (b) To insure against such other risks as the owners may from time to time determine by special resolution: (c) Subject to section 19, forthwith to apply insurance moneys re-ceived by it in respect of damage to the building in rebuilding and reinstating the building so far as the same may lawfully be effected: (d) To pay premiums on any policies of insurance effected by i t : (e) To keep in a state of good and serviceable repair and properly maintain common property: (/) To comply with notices or orders by any competent public or local authority requiring repairs to or work to be done in re-spect of the land included in the strata plan or the buildings; and the strata corporation, for the purpose of effecting any insurance under clause (a), shall be deemed to have and has an insurable interest to the replacement value of the building, and for the purpose of effecting any other insurance under this subsection shall be deemed to have and has an insurable interest in the subject-matter of the insurance. (2) The powers of the strata corporation include the following:— (a) To establish a fund for administrative expenses sufficient for the control, management, and administration of the common property, for the payment of any premiums of insurance, and the discharge of any other obligations of the strata corporation: (b) To determine the amounts to be raised for the purposes aforesaid: (c) To raise amounts so determined by levying contributions on the owners in proportion to the unit entitlement of their respec-tive strata lots; and (d) To recover from any owner by an action for debt in any Court of competent jurisdiction any sum of money expended by the strata corporation for repairs to or work done by it or at its direction in complying with any notice or order by a competent public or local authority in respect of that portion of the build-ing comprising the strata lot of that owner. (3) (a) Subject to clause (b), any contribution levied as aforesaid shall be due and payable on the passing of a resolution to that effect and in accordance with the terms of the resolution, and may be recovered as a debt by the strata corporation in an action in any Court of competent 4652-10 jurisdiction from the owner at the time when the resolution was passed and from the owner at the time when the action was instituted both jointly and severally. (b) The strata corporation shall, on the application of an owner or any person authorized in writing by him, certify (i) the amount of any contribution determined as the contribution of the owner; (ii) the manner in which the contribution is payable; (iii) the extent to which the contribution has been paid by the owner; and (iv) the amount of any rate paid by the strata corporation under section 17 and not recovered by it; and in favour of any person dealing with that owner, the certificate is conclusive evidence of the matter certified therein. (4) The policy of insurance authorized by this section and taken out by the strata corporation in respect of the building shall not be brought into contribution with any other policy of insurance, save another policy authorized by this section in respect of the same building. 1966, c. 46, s. 14. insurance. -^ 5 (j) where a building is insured to its replacement value, an owner may effect a policy of insurance in respect of any damage to his strata lot in a sum equal to the amount secured, at the date of any loss referred to in the policy, by mortgages charged upon his strata lot. (2) Where a policy of insurance as described in subsection (1) is in force, (a) payment shall be made by the insurer under the policy to the mortgagees whose interests are noted thereon in order of their respective priorities, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy; (b) subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurer is liable to pay thereunder (i) the value stated in the policy; or (ii) the amount of the loss; or (iii) the amount sufficient, at the date of the loss, to dis-charge mortgages charged upon the strata lot, whichever is the least amount; (c) where the amount so paid by the insurer equals the amount necessary to discharge a mortgage charged upon the strata lot, the insurer is entitled to an assignment of that mortgage; and (d) where the amount so paid by the insurer is less than the amount necessary to discharge a mortgage charged upon the strata lot, the insurer is entitled to a mortgage of the mortgage to secure the amount so paid on terms and conditions agreed upon as provided in subsection (4), or, failing agreement, on the same terms and conditions as those contained in the mortgage by the owner. 4 6 5 2 _ n (3) Where a building is uninsured or has been insured to less than its replacement value, an owner may (a) effect a policy of insurance in respect of any damage to his strata lot in a sum equal to the replacement value of his strata lot less a sum representing the amount to which his strata lot is insured under any policy of insurance effected on the build-ing; and, (b) notwithstanding any existing policies, effect a policy of insur-ance in respect of damage to his strata lot in a sum equal to the amount secured, at the date of any loss referred to in the policy, by mortgages charged upon his strata lot, and clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d) of subsection (2) apply in respect of any payment under the policy; and, for the purposes of this subsection, the amount for which a strata lot is insured under a policy of insurance effected in respect of the build-ing shall be determined by multiplying the value stated in the policy by the unit entitlement of the strata lot and dividing the product so obtained by the sum of the unit entitlements of all strata lots. (4) For the purposes of clause (d) of subsection (2) and clause (6) of subsection (3), any insurer and mortgagee or mortgagees may at any time, whether before or after a policy of insurance has been effected by an owner, agree upon the terms and conditions of the mortgage of a mortgage. (5) Nothing in this section shall limit the right of an owner to insure against risks other than damage to his strata lot. (6) The policy of insurance authorized by this section and taken out by an owner in respect of damage to his strata lot shall not be brought into contribution with any other policy of insurance, save another policy authorized by this section and taken out in respect of damage to the same strata lot. 1966, c. 46, s. 15. o S S o t s 1 1 (*) Subject to the provisions of this section, this Act applies to any resubdivision of any strata lot or strata lots included in a strata plan by the deposit in the Land Registry Office of another strata plan. (2) Upon deposit of a strata plan of resubdivision of a strata lot or strata lots included in a strata plan on deposit in the Land Registry Office, the Registrar shall amend the strata plan on deposit as prescribed by regulation. (3) Notwithstanding section 6, the owners of strata lots in a strata plan of resubdivision are not a body corporate but are, upon deposit of the strata plan of resubdivision, members of the strata corporation formed on deposit of the original strata plan. (4) On deposit of a strata plan of resubdivision, strata lots comprised therein become subject to the burden and have the benefit of any ease-ments affecting the strata lot or strata lots in the original strata plan that is or are included in the plan of resubdivision. 4652-12 (5) The Schedule endorsed on a strata plan of resubdivision, as re-quired by section 4, shall apportion among the strata lots the unit entitle-ment of the strata lot or strata lots in the original strata plan that is or are included in the plan of resubdivision. 1966, c. 46, s. 16. 17. (1) For the purposes of valuation of land and improvements for assessment and taxation, the land and improvements included in a strata plan shall be valued as a single parcel of land with improvements thereon as if it were all owned by one owner, and for that purpose, but no other, the land and improvements shall be deemed to be owned by the strata corporation. (2) During the period that elapses from the time of registration of the strata plan and the making of a valuation for the purposes of assess-ment and taxation, the valuation then in force shall be deemed to be a valuation made in accordance with subsection (1). (3) For the purposes of assessment and taxation, (a) the values of the land and of the improvements as determined under subsection (1) shall be apportioned between or among all of the strata lots included in the strata plan in proportion to the unit entidement of the respective strata lots as shown on the strata plan: (b) each strata lot shall be deemed to be a separate parcel of land and improvements having values equal to those apportioned to it under clause (a); and (c) the strata corporation is not liable for any rate, tax, or charge, and common property shall not be subject to any lien, charge, sale, or other process in respect of unpaid taxes. 1966, c. 46, s. 17. desTractfonot 1 1 8 • (*) u P o n ^ building being deemed to be destroyed, the strata the building, corporation shall forthwith lodge with the Registrar of Titles a notifica-tion of the destruction in the form prescribed by regulation. (2) Upon receipt of notification under subsection (1), the Registrar shall make an entry thereof on the relevant strata plan in accordance with the regulations. (3) Upon entry being made under subsection (2), the owners of strata lots in the strata plan are entitled to the land included in the strata plan as tenants in common in shares proportional to the unit entidement of their respective strata lots. (4) The owners of all strata lots, by unanimous or special resolution, may direct the strata corporation to transfer the land included in the strata plan, or any part or parts thereof. (5) Where a resolution has been duly passed under subsection (4) and all persons other than owners having registered or statutory interests or estates in the land included in the strata plan which have been notified to the strata corporation have consented in writing to the release of those interests or estates in respect of the land comprised in the proposed dis-4652-13 Valuation for assess merit and tax purposes. position, the strata corporation shall execute the appropriate instrument, and the instrument is valid and effective without execution by any person having an interest in the land included in the strata plan, and the receipt of the strata corporation is a sufficient discharge, and shall exonerate the persons taking under the transfer from any responsibility for the applica-tion of the moneys expressed to have been so received. (6) Every instrument under this section presented for registration under the Land Registry Act shall be endorsed with or accompanied by a certificate under the seal of the strata corporation that the resolution was duly passed and that all necessary consents were given. (7) In favour of a purchaser of the land included in the strata plan and in favour of the Registrar, the certificate mentioned in subsection (6) is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. (8) Upon presentation for registration under the Land Registry Act of an instrument of transfer of the land included in the strata plan by the strata corporation under this section, the Registrar, before issuing a cer-tificate of title, shall make the entry prescribed by subsection (2). (9) Where land is transferred by the strata corporation under this section, (a) the owners of the strata lots in which the land is included shall surrender to the Registrar their duplicate certificates of title for cancellation; and (b) the Registrar, after cancelling the folia of the register consti-tuted by the certificates of title relating to the strata lots, shall register the transfer by issuing to the transferee a certificate of title for the land transferred. 1966, c. 46, s. 18. D | s t r u c t k . n o t 19 (1) For the purposes of this Act, the building is deemed to be destroyed on the happening of the following events:— (a) When the owners by unanimous or special resolution so re-solve; or (b) When the Court is satisfied that, having regard to the rights and interests of the owners as a whole, it is just and equitable that the building shall be deemed to have been destroyed and makes a declaration to that effect. (2) In any case where a declaration has been made under clause (b) of subsection (1), the Court may by order impose such conditions and give such directions (including directions for the payment of money) as it thinks fit for the purposes of adjusting as between the strata corporation and the owners and as amongst the owners themselves the effect of the declaration. (3) (a) Where the building is damaged but not deemed to be de-stroyed, the Court may by order settle a scheme, including provisions (i) for the reinstatement in whole or in part of the building; and (ii) for transfer or conveyance of the interests of owners of strata lots which have been wholly or partially destroyed to the other owners in proportion to the unit entitlements of the strata lots Ate* 1 A of which they are the owners. 4652-14 J (b) In the exercise of its powers under this subsection, the Court may make such orders as it deems necessary or expedient for giving effect to the scheme, including orders (i) directing the application of insurance moneys received by the strata corporation in respect of damage to the building; (ii) directing payment of money by the strata corporation or by owners or by some one or more of them; (iii) directing such amendment of the strata plan as the Court thinks fit, so as to include in the common property any enlargement thereof; and (iv) imposing such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. (4) For the purposes of this section, an application may be made to the Court by the strata corporation or by an owner or by a registered mortgagee of a strata lot. (5) On any application to the Court under this section, any insurer who has effected insurance on the building or any part thereof (being insurance against destruction of strata lots or damage to the building) has the right to appear. (6) The Court may from time to time vary any order made by it under this section. (7) (a) The Court, on the application of the strata corporation or any member thereof, may by order make provision for the winding-up of the affairs of the strata corporation. (b) By the same order, the Court may declare the strata corporation dissolved as of and from a date specified in the order. (8) On any application under this section, the Court may make such order for the payment of costs as it thinks fit. 1966, c. 46, s. 19. 20. (1) The strata corporation shall, at or near the front building alignment of the parcel, cause to be continually available a receptacle suitable for purposes of postal delivery, with the name of the strata cor-poration clearly designated thereon. (2) A document may be served on the strata corporation or the coun-cil thereof by post enclosed in a prepaid letter addressed to the strata corporation or the council, as the case may be, at the address shown on the strata plan or any amendment thereof, or by placing it in the recep-tacle referred to in subsection (1). (3) For the purposes of this section, " document " includes summons, notice, order, and other legal process. 1966, c. 46, s. 20. Administrator, (1) The strata corporation or any person having an interest in a strata lot may apply to the Court for appointment of an administrator. (2) The Court may in its discretion, on cause shown, appoint an ad-ministrator for an indefinite period or for a fixed period on such terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise as it thinks fit. The re-muneration and expenses of the administrator shall be an administrative expense within the meaning of this Act. Service of documents on body corporate. (3 ) The administrator shall, to the exclusion of the strata corporation, have the powers and duties of the strata corporation or such of those powers and duties as the Court shall order. (4) The administrator may delegate any of the powers so vested in him. (5) The Court may in its discretion, on the application of the admin-istrator or any person referred to in subsection (1), remove or replace the administrator. (6) On any application made under this section, the Court may make such order for the payment of costs as it thinks fit. 1966, c. 46, s. 21. voting rights. 2 2 . (1) Any powers of voting conferred by or under this Act may be exercised, (a) in the case of an owner who is an infant, by his guardian; (6) in the case of an owner who is for any reason unable to control his property, by the person who for the time being is authorized by law to control that property. (2) Where the Court, upon the application of the strata corporation or of any owner, is satisfied that there is no person able to vote in respect of a lot, the Court (a) shall, in cases where a unanimous resolution is required by this Act, and (6) may, in its discretion in any other case, appoint the Public Trustee or some other fit and proper person for the purpose of exercising such powers of voting under this Act as the Court shall deterrnine. (3) The Court may order service of notice of such application on such person as it thinks fit or may dispense with service of such notice. (4) On making any such appointment, the Court may make such order as it thinks necessary or expedient to give effect to such appoint-ment, including an order as to the payment of costs of the application, and may vary any order so made. 1966, c. 46, s. 22. Regulations. 2 3 . The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations not inconsistent with this Act for and with respect to (a) the manner and form of depositing a strata plan; (&) the fees to be paid for any procedure or function required or permitted to be done under this Act; and (c) the alteration or prescribing of any procedure or exercise of any power, right, or duty, statutory or not, under any other Statute, to me extent necessary to give full force and effect to this Act; and (d) all matters which by this Act are required or permitted to be prescribed, or which are necessary or convenient to be pre-scribed, for carrying out or giving effect to this Act. 1966, c. 46, s. 23. 24. (1) For the purposes of the Wife's Protection Act, a strata lot shall be deemed to be land upon which is situate a dwelling. (2) The Plans Cancellation Act does not apply to a strata plan. 1966, c. 46, s. 24. 25. This Act shall come into force and effect on the first day of September, 1966. 1966, c. 46, s. 25. S C H E D U L E S FIRST SCHEDULE Duties of an Owner 1. An owner shall (a) permit the strata corporation and its agents, at all reasonable times on notice (except in case of emergency, when no notice shall be required), to enter his strata lot for the purpose of inspecting the same and main-taining, repairing, or renewing pipes, wires, cables, and ducts for the time being existing in the strata lot and capable of being used in connection with the enjoyment of any other strata lot or common property, or for the purpose of maintaining, repairing, or renewing common property, or for the purpose of ensuring that the by-laws are being observed; (b) forthwith carry out all work that may be ordered by any competent public or local authority in respect of his strata lot other than work for the bene-fit of the building generally and pay all rates, taxes, charges, outgoings, and assessments that may be payable in respect of his strata lot; (c) repair and maintain his strata lot, and keep it in a state of good repair, reasonable wear and tear and damage by fire, storm, tempest, or act of God excepted; (d) use and enjoy the common property in a manner that will not unreason-ably interfere with the use and enjoyment thereof by other owners or their families or visitors; (e) not use his lot, or permit the same to be used, in a manner or for a pur-pose that will cause a nuisance or hazard to any occupier of a lot (whether an owner or not) or his family; (/) notify the strata corporation forthwith upon any change of ownership or of any mortgage or other dealing in connection with his strata lot. Further Duties of Strata Corporation 1. The strata corporation shall (a) control, manage, and administer the common property for the benefit of all owners; (ft) keep in a state of good and serviceable repair and properly maintain the fixtures and fittings (including elevators) used in connection with the com-mon property; (c) where practicable establish and maintain suitable lawns and gardens on the common property; (d) maintain and repair (including renewal where reasonably necessary) pipes, • wires, cables, chutes, and ducts for the time being existing in the parcel and capable of being used in connection with the enjoyment of more than one strata lot or common property; (e) on the written request of an owner or mortgagee of a strata lot, produce to such owner or mortgagee, or person authorized in writing by the owner : or mortgagee, the policy or policies of insurance effected by the strata corporation and the receipt or receipts for the last premium or premiums in respect thereof. Further Powers of Strata Corporation 3. The strata corporation may (a) purchase, hire, or otherwise acquire personal property for use by owners in connection with their enjoyment of common property; borrow moneys required by it in the performance of its duties or the exercise of its powers; (c) secure the repayment of moneys borrowed by it, and the payment of inter-est thereon, by negotiable instrument, or mortgage of unpaid contributions (whether levied or not), or mortgage of any property vested in it, or by combination of those means; (d) invest as it may determine any moneys in the fund for administrative ex-penses; (e) make an agreement with any owner or occupier of a strata lot for the pro-vision of amenities or services by it to the strata lot or to the owner or occupier thereof; (/) grant to an owner the right to exclusive use and enjoyment of common property, or special privileges in respect thereof, the grant to be determin-able on reasonable notice, unless the strata corporation by unanimous resolution otherwise resolves; (g) do all things reasonably necessary for the enforcement of the by-laws and the control, management, and administration of the common property. Council of the Strata Corporation 4. The powers and duties of the strata corporation shall, subject to any restric-tion imposed or direction given at a general meeting, be exercised and performed by the council of the strata corporation. 5. The council shall consist of not less than three nor more than seven owners and shall be elected at each annual general meeting. Where there are not more than three owners, the council shall consist of all owners. 6. Except where the council consists of all the owners, the strata corporation may, by resolution at an extraordinary general meeting, remove any member of the council before the expiration of his term of office and appoint another owner in his place, to hold office until the next annual general meeting. 7. Any casual vacancy on the council may be filled by the remaining members of the council. 8. Except where there is only one owner, a quorum of the council is two where the council consists of four or less members, three where it consists of five or six members, and four where it consists of seven members. 9. At the commencement of each meeting, the council shall elect a chairman for the meeting, who shall have a casting as well as an original vote; and if any chair-man so elected vacates the chair during the course of a meeting, the council shall choose in his stead another chairman, who shall have the same rights of voting. 10. At meetings of the council all matters shall be determined by simple majority vote. 11. The council may (a) meet together for the conduct of business, adjourn and otherwise regulate its meetings as it thinks fit, and it shall meet when any member gives to the other members not less than seven days' notice of a meeting proposed by him, specifying the reason for calling the meeting; (b) employ for and on behalf of the strata corporation such agents and servants as it thinks fit in connection with the control, management, and administration of the common property, and the exercise and perform-ance of the powers and duties of the strata corporation; (c) subject to any restriction imposed or direction given at a general meeting, delegate to one or more of its members such of its powers and duties as it thinks fit, and at any time revoke such delegation. 12. The council shall (a) keep minutes of its proceedings; (b) cause minutes to be kept of general meetings; (c) cause proper books of account to be kept in respect of all sums of money received and expended by it and the matters in respect of which receipt and expenditure take place; (d) prepare proper accounts relating to all moneys of the strata corporation, and the income and expenditure thereof, for each annual general meeting; (e) on application of an owner or mortgagee, or any person authorized in writing by him, make the books of account available for inspection at all reasonable times. 13. All acts done in good faith by the council are, notwithstanding it be after-wards discovered that there was some defect in the appointment or continuance in office of any member of the council, as valid as if the member had been duly appointed or had duly continued in office. General Meetings 14. A general meeting of owners shall be held within three months after regis-tration of the strata plan. 15. Subsequent general meetings shall be held once in each year, and not more than fifteen months shall elapse between the date of one annual general meeting and that of the next 16. All general meetings other than the annual general meetings shall be called extraordinary general meetings. 17. The Council may whenever it thinks fit, and shall upon a requisition in writing made by owners entitled to twenty-five per centum of the total unit entitle-ment of the strata lots, convene an extraordinary general meeting. 18. Seven days' notice of every general meeting specifying the place, the date, and the hour of meeting, and in case of special business the general nature of such business, shall be given to all owners and first mortgagees who have notified their interests to the strata corporation, but accidental omission to give notice to any owner or to any first mortgagee or non-receipt of notice by any owner does not invalidate any proceedings at any such meeting. Proceedings at General Meetings 19. All business shall be deemed special that is transacted at an annual general meeting, with the exception of the consideration of accounts and election of mem-bers to the council, or at any extraordinary general meeting. 20. Save as in these by-laws otherwise provided, no business shall be transacted at any general meeting unless a quorum of persons entitled to vote is present at the time when the meeting proceeds to business. One-half of the persons entitled to vote present in person or by proxy shall constitute a quorum. 21. If within one-half hour from the time appointed for a general meeting a quorum is not present, the meeting shall stand adjourned to the same day in the next week at the same place and time; and if at the adjourned meeting a quorum is not present within one-half hour from the time appointed for the meeting, the persons entitled to vote present shall be a quorum. 22. At the commencement of a general meeting, a chairman of the meeting shall be elected. 23. At any general meeting a resolution by the vote of the meeting shall be decided on a show of hands, unless a poll is demanded by any owner present in person or by proxy. Unless a poll be so demanded, a declaration by the chairman that a resolution has, on the show of hands, been carried is conclusive evidence of the fact without proof of the number or proportion of votes recorded in favour of or against the resolution. A demand for a poll may be withdrawn. 24. A poll, if demanded, shall be taken in whatever manner the chairman thinks fit, and the result of the poll shall be deemed to be the resolution of the meeting at which the poll was demanded. 25. In the case of equality in the votes, whether on a show of hands or on a poll, the chairman of the meeting is entitled to a casting vote in addition to his original vote: Votes of Owners 26. On a show of hands, each owner shall have one vote; on a poll, the votes of owners shall correspond with the unit entitlement of their respective strata lots. 27. On a show of hands or on a poll, votes may be given either personally or by proxy. 28. An instrument appointing a proxy shall be in writing under the hand of the appointer or his attorney, and may be either general or for a particular meeting. A proxy need not be an owner. 29. Except in cases where, by or under this Act, a unanimous resolution is required, no owner is entitled to vote at any general meeting unless all contributions payable in respect of his strata lot have been duly paid. 30. Co-owners may vote only by proxy jointly appointed by them or by one of the co-owners appointed by the other or others, and in the absence of such proxy or co-owner are not entitled to a vote on a show of hands except when a unanimous resolution is required by this Act, but any one co-owner may demand a poll. On any poll, each co-owner is entitled to that part of the vote applicable to a strata lot that is proportionate to his interest in the strata lot. The joint proxy (if any) on a poll shall have a vote proportionate to the interests in the strata lot of the joint owners who do not vote personally or by individual proxy. 31. Where owners are entitled to successive interests in a lot, the owner entitled to the first interest is alone entitled to vote, whether on a show of hands or a poll. 32. Where an owner is a trustee, he shall exercise the voting rights in respect of the lot to the exclusion of persons beneficially interested in the trust, and those persons shall not vote. Common Seal 33. The strata corporation shall have a common sea], which shall at no time be used except by authority of the council previously given and in the presence of the members of the council or at least two members thereof, who shall sign every instrument to which the seal is affixed, except that where there is only one member of the strata corporation, his signature is sufficient for the purpose of this clause. 1966, c. 46, First Sch. SECOND SCHEDULE 1. An owner shall not (a) use his strata lot for any purpose which may be illegal or injurious to the reputation of the building; (b) make undue noise in or about any strata lot or common property; (c) keep any animals on his strata lot or the common property after notice in that behalf from the council. 2. When the purpose for which a strata lot is intended to be used is shown expressly or by necessary implication on or by the registered strata plan, an owner shall not use his strata lot for any other purpose, or permit the same so to be used. 1966, c. 46, Second Sch. Printed by A . SUTTON, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in right of the Province of British Columbia. 1969 1M-869-6771 APPENDIX F QUESTIONNAIRE Dear S i r : During the l a s t year I have been engaged i n research on condominium housing i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n connection with my work at the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Condominium housing usually takes the form of multi-unit projects of any type and can be defined as follows:-A form of land ownership, subject to the Strata T i t l e s Act, i n which:-1. land, buildings and other f a c i l i t i e s are subdivided i n t o : -(a) s t r a t a l o t s that are separately owned in fee simple, and (b) common property shared and c o n t r o l l e d by the Strata Corporation of which a l l s t r a t a l o t owners are members. An important part of t h i s research i s the discovery of any p o l i c i e s pertaining to such housing i n the l o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s of the Province. As a means of obtaining such information the following questions are put to you: What, if any, are the -policies of your municipality concerning condominium housing development? What, if any, are the special procedures necessary to develop a condominium project in your municipality (e.g. re-zoning is perhaps necessary)? I f such information i s not a v a i l a b l e to you, please forward the questions to any o f f i c i a l able to answer them. Please mail your reply to: Andrew Conradi Hoping to hear from you at your e a r l i e s t convenience, Yours s i n c e r e l y , Andrew Conradi APPENDIX G (continued) PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING PLANS FOR BUiLDii'MG AND DEVELOPMENT PERf'/il' (OUTRIGHT USE) "S INITIAL APPLICATION P L A N : ; Si.'ixirris TO B I ' I I L - I N G i^AmriENr A N D AT.E Ci:.r.Cv.I~> E C U CClU'LElLNisa AN'J FOR 'JSE I'M'r.R ItC Z O N I N G AND BSVEU5?-K E N T 3V-u'-w. T L A N E X A M I N A T I O N Fcro; A N D D E V E I O F X - N T ?r?jJ.IT A P F L I C A T I O : ; AI»E C C H -FIETEO AND -A J L A N CAS'J EX I i FILED SHOW-I N G T H E L O C A T I O N Or T H E V L A N . ENGiMEcRi^G DEPARTMENT TKE DAY FCLl/V SJ TiiE DATE 0? A!*i-LICA I I O N , nis F L A N ARE S E •a- T O TJ;E E : . . ; ; : . I N G 'jEi,,1.-i-.rJ.r::.7 v. J Ctl 6 SECTIONS Cr-.ECK FOR t-E" : \, S T R E E T CROT-S [NOS, A I R P O L L TlON cc N T R O L , HIGHWAYS S I C . TH3 VIANS A?.E CS: : : ' .L\LLY R E T U R N E D TO T'iE SUtiDXS , Dc.FAR' V.ENT Hi 2 err 3 OA-iS, OR C C C A S O : ; A L L Y MUCH to:;c£a. P L A N N I N G D E P A R T M E N T THE KAY THE FLAN3 ARE RELVR THE PLANNING CE:'AR-.V.S: T^E FROVOiF.D DF.VELOV.'.; AREA REQUIP.EO F H SC:-. :o BY E N -Y A:<E S E N ; TO TO E N S I Y E Ti:.\T 13 NOi IN AN .5, FAKKS, HICH-FGT( RE EON INC, RESi'SOIVIS ION C-t REDEVEL-OPMENT. IF IN S'-'C:* AN' A?J1\, T: :E PLANS ARE LEFT FO?. CLEARANCE. IN SCtE CASEo Tt!E PLANS ARE REFEiaES TO THE UES'.CN PANEL FCil APPROVAL. V:{E:-»:-: THESE IS NO HOLD, 1>/£ FLANS ARE NOT LEFT IN FLAW-ING D E F A C E NT. IF FLANS ARE LEFT IN .LY RETURNED IN PLANNING THEY AS? CE T I O N A L >'.\Y SOT 3E KErvUNED BUILDING DEPARTMENT-P L A N S AP.E C O C K E D BY E'.'ILS.IN< FC?. C O M P L I A N C E W I T H Z C N I N U A K E N T BY-LAW. (i.e. F L O C 3 S P A C E R A T I O , P A R K I N G , YARDS, L I C H I KSliS, E T C . ) PLANS AHZ C H E C K E D B Y 3 ' J I L D I ! M E N T FOR C O M P L I A N C E W I T H B L ' I L D I N C J Y -L A W . (i.e. sraiicruRE. E X I T S , C U S S GP C O N D U C T I O N , C R A D E S , E T C . ) T H E SET T I M E S P E N T BY T H E B U I L D I N G DETAXtKECT IN C H E C K I N G T H E P L A N S R U N S F P U ' . C N E HOUR TO K A N Y HOURS S P S E A D OVER S E V E R A L DAYS OR 1 BUILDING AMD DEVELOPMENT P£n;j/TS is^uec FIRf V/ARDE.'i- Flf!Z MARSHAL-' S SCIIE C A S E S . H E A P P L I C A N T I S R E Q U E S T -ED 70 TAiLE A SET OP PLANS TO THE pIRE WAP.DES" TO f IKE M A R S H A L FOR <\pc'RO'.'A.L I'MJCR T H E P I K E n-UIS CH F t W i S C l A L F I R E KAKSILtL A C T . f;OTIrlCATIO:-J EV D U I L O I r i O ci?>.-.r:Ti.;i;ir I P E N G I N E E R I N G D E P W I T E N I R E V E S T S W P E R M I T TO CE H E L D TOR C L E ' / . V N C : - : ut C^OSSO.ETIS , sus^iv:;:.:; E T C . . :;-:E APPLICANT IS SENT A POST CARU A.37I3INr. HTM TO CONTACT r.!E r"NC I N = . E B I N N P .El /^r-HENT FOR DSIAtLS. HEALTH CiTA/lTME.-JT IH SOIF. CASES . PIANS ARE SENT TO HEALTH DEPARTMENT POR THEIR AptRCVAL L'l-TjER THE HEALTH BY-UVW. r UQTlflCXnCU BY rUiLPl ' . 'G DZPAamcfjT III THE HA.ICSITY C? CASE5 , DiE PL.\?JS DO M3T Ca«:-'LK WHOLLY V-'ITH THE WliDINC ANQ 20IUNU A.-.TJ DE'VELO .^ENT AI.'D THE A?.Cl;i'fECT, CON • -^ACTClt G-N..K Is EEQ'JU.ED TO AMEIiD THE ?LAN3 A.'O SUBMIT FLsKTiita INFCR.^VriON, CON'S:P2?A3LE TIME 12 SPENT EXPLAINTNC ANTJ Pl-C^^StW T>tE V « : > i U S ITEMS A.VJ A L S O W I E t ! TiLF. FLANS «:CHPLY WITH TI'.S BY-IJV-S AND ANY "HOLDS" HAVE BEEii CLE.'?::3 liY tSCI.NtaiN-: ASD/CA PLANNING. Tl'E GILD-ING A!.0 r E V E L O ' M E . ' i : PERMITS K.U. ISiK-Ji, Source: City of Vancouver, B.C. See also Rossen, op. c i t . , for a description of the Development Permit System i n the City of Vancouver. INITIAL A P P L I C A T I O N '•ANS SL'FMITTEO TU M ; I LDI'.Y. DEw-KYt'.ENT A:.O y.-.t. CHECKED :-oa c a u L E T E N E : ^ A::. i'v.i -J-J:-: 2R THE iV:;t:« ANO D E V E i . O i ' ->:'i'.T BY-LAW, FLAN FIXA>:I:;.\ v • ON I-VR.1: A:.J OF.VE: r: r rE'L-.ir AS I-UCATIO:.* AXE C ^ I -UfTt'J AND A i-t-\N CVhOy.X IS FIt.EU SHOE-ING "HE LCCA1HA OF T!l£ PLAN. PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING FLAMS FOR BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT PERMITS (CONDITIONAL USE) V/ARt-EH - FIRE f. iA/'ISHAi. IV: SCMC CASE-; THE A;VI.:'LV:: ;s v: £0 TO TAiCK \ STT O f PLANS TO THE "IM-: WAP.DE^ O i ; F!i:F. ^ - i i - M . F-JR A:-'KM'.'A: CNLTiK THE F IKE HY - IA- 0!! i :'.CV;:;CIAL f I R E r W K l i K A L ACT. F L A N N i N G D E P A R T M E N T VAR-;-T:'.E ;>AV FOI-(Mit*. THE D.\;E Of A r V M C A -TI-.I.; r.i-'Q JErs c:- VL\NS AND THE DEVEL-OVV.E:.T i::!^ ir AJ»E SENT TO THE PIANNINL; 5Ki-t&\yj.:;v FOX CHECKING \i:ryc< TON-ING A:U r-vr.'.ov'.F.sr SV-LA>*. ( i . e . :;E10UY,' ?U<H S1ACS RATIO, SrTREL'N-I N v ETC.) AND FCrt PRESENTATION TO THE ITOLNICAL HA:::::-..: SOARD. THE AT IS FLANS ARE AL;. i RE:VRNZD TO THE y:-^i{.c -E:AX::-,.A\T IN 2 WEEKS, S I T SOME CASES : r TA:<£L NGTIrJCATIO'J OY PLMUIMQ D2P.VlTf.'2HT IS HOT I F LETj BY THE PI A N N IN*.; D E P A R T M E N T . T l i l S A D D I T I O N A L U T v V N A I ION IS 'JS 'JALLY F.EQv TKF.D P.EFU'.E T H E L'E'-'E LO; W . N T P E R M I T E N G i ^ E R I N G D E P A R T M E N T O:--E SET 0 ? 7:1s TIA:>; IS SENT TO ENGIN-EERING DF.;.'O.T:J.E:.T THE S.V.E DAY THE orv.Ef' .s AT.E SENT TO ?L . \ - . . : : f : : . . THE ENGINEERING t>iv:-.?r.v.CHECKS FOR SEVERS, V.'.VIER, ST-Xi~i c?ossiw:s, AIR POLLUTION' CCN17.0L, i! r-'AY S , EVC. THE PLANS ARE GENERALLY A/.'P;KNED TO THE BUILD IV.- C E I ? A R I S .1 OA 3 DAYS, CM OCCASIONALLV V.CCW LONGER. I D? .vc i-c-? ; J i ' »T PEf-.uns I S S U E D •-•KEN :HE APPLICATION IS APIRCVED BY THE TE<:H-.:fc\:. PLANN::*' BOARD, THE D E V E L O P -MENT Pi-WIT IS ISSL'ED AND y.',!i3 10 CHF. A T i L I C A N T t>; Ti-t P L A N N I N G E E P A R I X E l . T . NOTIFICATION D Y E'JILOKiG DZPARTf.lErJT I P E N n i t . T r T M N C nr.PA'J-iyES'T p e . v j F S T ? r v ? P E R M I T TO ? E H E i r F C ? CLr..\?ANC': 0~ J . S U E D I V I S I O S E T C . , T H E I I S GENT A f C S T C v K D A D V I S I N G CON TACT THE E N U t N Z E U t i C D S P A R T -T A I L S . APPLICANT HLt T  c c : H E A L T H C £ P A R T M £ N T IN CAJaES . PL»J.S A.1E SENT TO 1-XALTH DEPASTMtS'f FOR THEIR APrSCVAL -N'JLR IKS KEAL1H B Y - L A W . BUILDING D E P A R T M E N T ON R C C E I P T OF TdZ P L A N S FRO'. P L A N N I N G or.?.\3TK£:;;, TV:E IS CHTCKED yen 3 L ' I U I W BY-LAV. (i.e. Siai'CTUaS. EXITS, '-•LAST Or' CO:;S:R'-C:ICN, ETC.) NOTlFiCAT.'O.'i E Y DO'ILDI.'JQ D^PA.^TMZfJT IN T K I KULHrY C? CVS^J , THZ PLANS DO hOT CQiTLY WHOLY WITH T:.i?. BUILDING BY-L-'V AI-D L":-7v'iLCr:CNT t^T.Uir A'JIE-^DY ISS'JZO, TH:I ATICIUT^CT. C0HT.L\CTi3, ca a;:.T3 la Esocia.v3 TO .v^a via PLANS AW S!1EJ!IT FL7.iMEi II.7r.-;L\TJ0M. COJJSLOruV^L: TIM2 IS CP;H<T E^PIANTNG A N J DISCUSSINC T.i? V'.-ICUS I T i l t S ANT, ALSO I N ciiyxxiK i;a /2,:i:.i:iztr:s. Kl'lLDUiC P E R M I T l3SUc*0 WJtE.V Ti;E PIANJ CCl'.iLY Ul 'nt Ti!F. BLHLDINO BY-I.VJ A.TJ AMY "Kf/LOS" HAVE BEEN ...••1 r . . n i T i f P: ItntiC PERMIT IS ISSUED. PL H-MLH--70 Fi le : B.90.3.05 INFORMATION RE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION'" The following information is to assist persons making development permit applications, as regards: (1) The minimum amount of information that must be submitted with any development permit application. (2) The Zoning and Development Fee By-law providing for the payment of fees at the time of f i l ing of the application for the processing of ALL • development permit applications. (1) DRAWINGS AND INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED WITH DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS As may be applicable, the following information must be shown on the required drawings op plans and submitted prior to or at the same time as the f i l ing of a development permit application:-DETAILED SKETCH PLANS, IN TRIPLICATE, CLEARLY INDICATING:- _ (Scale not less than 1/16" or 1/20" to 1') with legal description, size of site and adjoining street names. Size and location, including required yards or setbacks, from all property lines of existing buildings, proposed buildings or additions, including accessory buildings. Size and location of off-street parking and off-street loading and unloading spaces, including screening, curbing, surfacing and access from streets or lanes. Landscaped areas. Finished grades of site relative to street grades and floor levels of buildings. • . (Scale not less than 1/B" to 1') with all elevations of proposed building or additions. Details of exterior finishes and materials for each elevation. Height of building above finished site grades. (Scale not less than 1/8" to 1') Dimensioned layout and use of each floor of all existing and proposed buildings, additions and accessory buildings. ROOF PLANS (Scale not less than 1/8" to 1') general layout of al l Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning or mechanical structures or equipment including ductwork etc; with elevations as necessary and details of all horizontal and vertical screening. • THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION MUST ALSO BE INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS: A statement, including an analysis of each floor etc. of: (1) The Floor Space Ratio for the development, as applicable in the appropriate District Zoning ' Schedule of the Zoning and Development By-law. . . (2) The number of off-street parkinq and off-street loadinq and unloadino spaces REQUIRED and PROVIDED. '. •• (Sections 12 and 13 Zoning and Development By-law refer) The foregoing are the MINIMUM requirements of information to be shown on the required Sketch Plans. Development permit applications may not be accepted unless all the required information Is submitted at the same time as the application is made. Further, where applicable, explanatory drawings must be submitted showing compliance of a development w1th al1 Daylight Access, Horizontal and Vertical Light Angles as well as Side Yard Containing Angles, Height and Length, Bulk and Width requirements of the appropriate District Zoning Schedule. -SITE PLAN ELEVATIONS FLOOR PLANS NOTE: All copies of plans or drawings submitted shall be drawn on substantial paper of cloth--fully dimensioned, accurately • . . figured, explicit and complete. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL ' ZONING BRANCH SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL EAST WING 873-7613 W. E. Graham, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 14/10/70 SEE OVER REGARDING PROCESSING FEES In the case of any development cernvil app l i ca t ion uncle,- tha -follov.'ir.g D i s t r i c t Schedules and Sect ions, the fee sha l l be $25.00; (RA-1) D i s t r i c t Schedule, Section 2A (1) (RS-1) " " " 2A (1) and i2) (RS-2) . . . . .. 2A. (1) to (4) inc lus i ve (RS-3) " " • "• 2A (1) (RT-1) " "• " , •'• 2A (3) and (4) (RT-2) " " 2A (3) , (4), (5A), (6) and (7A) (RM-1) " " " 2A (3) and (4) (RH-2) " •" . . . " 2A (3) to (7) inclusive. ' • ' . (T4/9/55 —*4198) (RM-3) " " " 2A (3) to (7) i nc lus i ve (RM-4) ' ' " " " 2A (4) to (8) inc lus ive (C-l) " " 2A (19) to (21) inc lus ive (C-2) " " " 2A (36) to (40) inc lus ive (C-3) " " '• . "- 2A (42) to (46) inc lus i ve (C-4) . " " 2A (40) (C-5) " . " . " 2A (48) to (52) inc lus ive (CM-1) " . • ' " "" " 2A (42A) (H-l) " . " • . " , . 2A (55A) (M-2) ." . • "• .-• " 2A (59A) (P-l) " ". 2A (1) to (5) inc lus ive SCHEDULE 2 Type of Development Fee 1. For a one-family dwe l l ing , addit ions thereto, ..-IV.. accessory bu i ld ing in connection therewith, va l idat ions and relaxat ions $ 3.00 2. For a new pr inc ipa l bu i ld ing or use, or for an addit ion to an ex i s t i ng bu i ld ing or use, being in a l l cases, other than a one-family dwel l ing: (14/9/65—*4193) Up to 5,000 square feet of gross f loor area $ 12.00 For each addi t ional 1,000 square feet of gross f l o o r area or port ion thereof $ 1.00 Maximum fee $ 150.00 3. For a l l parking, areas . (Pr ivate) , .parking areas ( Pub l i c ) , storage yards, car sales l o t s , truck gardens, marinas, t r a i l e r cour ts , and other developments which in the opinion of the Director of Planning are s im i l a r Up to 12,000 square feet of s i t e area $ 12.00 For every addi t ional 2,000 square feet of s i t e area or part thereof $ 1.00 Maximum fee $ 20.00 4. For accessory bui ld ings or uses to a pr inc ipa l bu i ld ing or use already ex i s t ing (being other . . . than a one family dwell ing) for va l idat ions and relaxat ions in cases other than a one family dwe l l ing ; fo r day care , homecraft, kindergartens, and s im i l a r development and uses as determined by the Director of Planning; and for changes in the use of an ex i s t i ng b u i l d i n g , with no additions $ 6.00 (14/9/65—*4198) - SCHEDULE 3 Type of Appl icat ion Fee 1. An appl i ca t ion to amend the text of the Zoning By- law— 2. An appl i ca t ion to amend the zoning d i s t r i c t plan (Schedule D) of the Zoning and Development By-law Up to 50,000 square feet of land area For each addi t iona l 1,000 square feet of land area, or part thereof. W. E. Graham, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING $ 50.00 $ 1.00 SEE OVER APPENDIX I CMHC Condominium I n f o r m a t i o n Sheet These sheets maintained by CMHC c o n t a i n the f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : Reference number U n i t Type Number o f Bedrooms L.F.A. S a l e s P r i c e Land Cost Adjustments B a s i c S a l e Rate Appr. Down Payment P r e v i o u s Tenancy Age Number of Dependents Occupation Purchaser's Income Date o f S a l e Source: CMHC, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0102072/manifest

Comment

Related Items