How to Remove a Strata Council Member in BC

In our years managing Sea-to-Sky stratas we've seen a number of formal s. 33 removal SGMs, and only a small minority of them actually improved the council. Most produced factionalism that took years to heal. Removing a strata council member is the most contentious tool in the Strata Property Act. It exists because sometimes a council member behaves badly enough that owners need to vote them out, but the process is public, divisive, and often ends worse than it started. This guide covers the legal mechanics under SPA s. 33, the automatic-removal triggers that handle most situations without a vote, and the practical case for mediation as a first step.

When removal is actually warranted

Before getting to mechanics, the threshold question: is removal warranted? Council members are volunteers serving a fiduciary duty under Strata Property Act s. 31, and reasonable owners can disagree about reasonable decisions. The bar for removal should be substantial conduct issues, not policy differences.

Situations where removal is genuinely warranted:

• Breach of fiduciary duty. Self-dealing, undisclosed conflicts of interest, voting on contracts where the member has a personal financial stake.
• Persistent confidentiality breaches. Leaking hearing details, sharing in-camera discussions with non-council owners.
• Harassment or abusive conduct toward owners or staff. Documented, repeated, not isolated.
• Sustained absence. Missing many consecutive meetings without justification.
• Outright legal misconduct. Fraud, theft, falsified financials.

Situations where removal is not warranted (these are policy disagreements, not removal grounds):

• Voting against the special levy you wanted
• Being slow to respond to emails
• Disagreeing with you about a contractor choice
• Having a personality you find difficult
• Voting in favor of a bylaw fine against you

If your reason is on the second list, the right answer is to run against them at the next AGM, not to attempt a mid-term removal.

The mechanics of s. 33

Strata Property Act s. 33 sets out the formal removal process. The key features:

• A council member can be removed by majority vote of votes cast at an Annual General Meeting or Special General Meeting.
• The meeting agenda must specifically name the council member being considered.
• The named member must be given notice as part of the standard meeting notice.
• The named member retains the right to speak at the meeting before the vote.
• The removal takes effect immediately on the recorded vote.

There is no requirement that the removal vote be a 3/4 vote. A simple majority of votes cast (proxies included) is enough. This is intentional in the SPA: the same standard that elects a council member also removes them.

After removal, the seat is vacant and may be filled by council appointment under s. 32 until the next general meeting, where an election fills the seat for the remainder of the term.

Automatic removal, when no vote is needed

Most council seats that turn over mid-term don't go through a removal vote at all. They're vacated automatically by one of these triggers:

1. Resignation. Under s. 29, a council member can resign by written notice to council. The seat becomes vacant on receipt. This is the cleanest exit.

2. Sale of the strata lot. A council member must be an owner. When they sell, council membership ends on title transfer (the closing date). The seat is vacant the day they're no longer on title.

3. Loss of good standing. If the bylaws make good standing a council qualification (most do), then arrears, unpaid fines, or unresolved hearings against the council member can trigger automatic removal. The bylaws usually require council to give notice and an opportunity to cure before declaring the seat vacant.

4. Bankruptcy or insolvency. Some bylaws specifically disqualify bankrupt members. Check yours.

5. Missed meetings. Most bylaws set a threshold (typically 3 consecutive missed meetings without prior notice) after which the seat is automatically vacated. Check your bylaws for the rule.

If the council member you want removed is hitting one of these triggers naturally, the right path is to let the automatic mechanism work. No SGM, no public vote, no factional damage. The bylaws and SPA do the work.

How an SGM removal vote actually plays out

If automatic removal isn't available and conduct genuinely warrants a vote, here's how the SGM unfolds:

1. Petition (if owner-initiated). Owners holding 20% of eligible votes sign a written petition under s. 43(2) stating that an SGM is requested to vote on removing the named council member. Petition is delivered to the strata corporation.

2. Council schedules the SGM. Within four weeks of petition receipt, council must call the SGM. If council refuses, the petitioning owners can call the meeting themselves at corporation expense.

3. Notice is prepared and sent. At least two weeks' written notice under s. 45, naming the council member, stating the resolution to be voted on, and including a proxy form. Notice goes to all owners including the named council member.

4. The named member prepares a response. They have the right to speak at the SGM. Many do. Most prepare a written statement circulated in advance.

5. The meeting is held. Quorum is the standard one-third under s. 48. After agenda items, the chair calls the removal resolution. The named member speaks. The petitioner or council representative speaks. Discussion is time-boxed (10 to 15 minutes is plenty). The vote is held. Secret ballot is strongly recommended for these.

6. The vote is recorded in the minutes. With count: "MOTION to remove [Name] from council CARRIED [X] to [Y]" or "DEFEATED [X] to [Y]."

7. If removed, the seat is vacant immediately. Council can appoint a replacement at the next council meeting under s. 32, or hold a by-election at the next general meeting.

Recent CRT decisions on council member removal procedure have reinforced that procedural sloppiness (naming the wrong person, failing to give the named member adequate notice, conducting the vote unfairly) can void the removal. Get the process right.

The practical case for mediation first

In our experience, many formal s. 33 removal votes either fail outright or fail to fix the underlying problem even when they succeed. The most common outcomes:

1. The vote fails and the targeted council member stays, now with a clear mandate from owners who voted for them. The petitioner loses credibility.
2. The vote succeeds but the conflict continues. The removed member's supporters become a permanent opposition bloc. Future AGMs are tense. Manager turnover often follows.
3. The vote succeeds and one or two other council members resign in solidarity. Council is now understaffed and demoralized. The strata pays for an emergency SGM to refill seats.

The alternative, mediation, costs a fraction of a contested SGM and resolves most council disputes that aren't about serious misconduct. A good mediator can be:

• The strata manager (if neutral and trusted)
• An independent strata mediator from a roster like the BC Mediator Roster Society
• The CRT's facilitation service for disputes already filed there

We almost held a removal SGM and a mediator talked us back from the edge. A couple of sessions, and we figured out that the problem was meeting culture, not the person we wanted to remove. Best money the strata spent that year.

What happens to a removed council member

A council member removed under s. 33 retains their full owner rights. They keep their vote, their access to records under s. 36, their hearing rights, and their right to run for council again at the next AGM. Removal is not a permanent ban from council service.

This matters because owners considering a removal vote sometimes assume it's a permanent exile. It isn't. A removed council member can run again next year, and sometimes does, successfully, if the building has rotated through other conflicts in the meantime.

When to involve the CRT

If a council member is doing something that's a clear violation of the SPA (voting on a contract they have an undisclosed interest in, refusing to disclose financial information owners are entitled to, retaliating against owners who raised concerns), the Civil Resolution Tribunal can issue orders against them personally. This is sometimes faster and lower-conflict than a removal SGM, because the CRT process is private and the outcome is enforceable.

CRT orders against an individual council member can include:

• Requirement to disclose conflicts of interest
• Restriction from voting on specific matters
• Order to comply with records production
• Cost awards payable personally

These orders don't remove the member, but they can effectively neutralize the behavior that would otherwise warrant removal.

A clean path forward

If you're an owner considering initiating a removal, pause. Talk to two other owners you trust. Talk to the strata manager. Try one round of mediation. If after all of that the conduct still warrants formal action, the s. 33 mechanism is there. But the bar should be high and the process should be procedurally clean.

For more on the SGM mechanism that enables a removal vote, see our SGM guide. For owners thinking about running for council partly because of dissatisfaction with current members, our getting-elected guide is the right read. For a confidential conversation about a specific situation, reach out. We'll think through options with you before any public action.