Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strata or condominium property creates multiple privately owned lots or units within an association of owners. Dissolving strata property involves winding-up the association and terminating the private interests. As a result, the non-consensual dissolution of strata property involves the taking of property from those owners who oppose dissolution. The owners of individual lots become co-owners of the land formerly within the association, but the non-consenting owners have their property interests in separate lots taken from them. Beginning with the observation that non-consensual dissolution of strata property results in a taking of property, this article analyzes British Columbia’s move to facilitate non-consensual dissolution by lowering the required threshold in a dissolution vote from unanimous consent to 80 percent of owners. A supermajority of owners within strata property may now impose dissolution on a dissenting minority. The dissolution provisions in British Columbia’s Strata Property Act require court confirmation of dissolution votes and indicate that courts must consider “the best interests of the owners”, and the probability and extent of “significant unfairness” or “significant confusion and uncertainty” when determining whether or not to confirm a dissolution vote. The article predicts how courts will interpret these provisions, and it suggests how they should. It concludes by insisting that the courts recognize they will be making important decisions about the character of property when they rule in contested strata property dissolution cases, and that these decisions will have a significant impact on cities, particularly those, such as Vancouver, where strata property is increasingly prominent as a legal architecture of ownership.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".