Kai Mallari's Notes'

Strata-Doorbell-Camera-Needs-Written-Council-Approval-in-BC (Home Systems)

4 min read

Strata Doorbell Camera Needs Written Council Approval in BC

decision-rule

Claim: In a BC strata building, mounting a video doorbell to the front door or exterior wall is an alteration to common property under Standard Bylaw 6(1) — it requires written council approval before installation. Installing without approval risks a removal order and fines.

Mechanism

In BC strata buildings, the front door and the exterior walls are typically common property, not part of the owner’s strata lot. This means any change to them — including mounting a camera — is governed by the Strata Property Act (SPA) Standard Bylaw 6(1), which requires the owner to obtain written approval from the strata corporation before making any alteration to common property.

The BC Civil Resolution Tribunal has ruled on this repeatedly:

  • The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 945 v Miller — the CRT held that installing a surveillance camera was an alteration because it changed the nature of the common property (a wall without recording capability became one with it). The owner was ordered to remove the camera immediately.1
  • Parnell v The Owners, Strata Plan VR 2451 (2018 BCCRT 7) — cameras mounted to an exterior wall constituted an alteration; strata was justified in refusing permission given PIPA concerns about recording common-corridor activity.2
  • Herr v The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1824 (2020 BCCRT 496) — even where the owner had a legitimate security concern (harassment from another occupant), the strata’s refusal to permit cameras was not unreasonable.2

The decision rule

Before any video doorbell installation in a strata:

  1. Read your strata plan — confirm the front door and exterior wall classification (common property vs limited common property vs strata lot boundary).
  2. Read your registered bylaws — check if your strata already has a camera/doorbell policy; some stratas have passed bylaws explicitly governing this.
  3. Submit a written request to strata council — describe the device, mounting method (adhesive/clip vs drilled), and your privacy compliance plan (motion zone limited to your entrance only).
  4. Wait for written approval before installing.

Alternatives that may avoid the approval trigger

  • Peephole camera — replaces the existing peephole from inside the door; classified as an internal unit modification in most strata bylaws, not an alteration to common property.
  • Over-the-door clip mount — clamps over the door frame with no drilling; may avoid the “alteration” classification, but confirm with your specific council — some treat any external fixture as an alteration.
  • Interior camera aimed at a window — entirely inside the unit, no common property contact at all.

Scope (what this does NOT cover)

  • Detached homes: no strata restriction applies; mount freely within city bylaws and privacy considerations.
  • The PIPA analysis on camera angle and recording scope — that is addressed separately in Smart-Doorbell-Privacy — PIPA-and-Strata-Are-Both-In-Play-in-BC (Home Systems).
  • The strata corporation’s own cameras on common property — governed separately under PIPA and the corporation’s obligations, not individual owner bylaws.

Idea Compass

North: Where this comes from

  • SPA Standard Bylaw 6(1) — the alteration-approval requirement
  • doorbell (Home Systems) — the parent component note

East: Tensions

  • Smart-Doorbell-Privacy — PIPA-and-Strata-Are-Both-In-Play-in-BC (Home Systems) — even with council approval, the camera angle must comply with PIPA if the strata corporation operates it, or with reasonable-expectation-of-privacy norms if you do
  • The owner’s legitimate security need vs. the strata’s right to control common property appearance and privacy — Herr shows the tension: the need is real but does not automatically override the strata’s authority

South: Where this leads

West: What’s similar

  • water-heater (Home Systems) — the same strata-approval discipline applies to any alteration that touches common property; hot water tanks are the most common shifted-responsibility item, doorbell cameras are the most common contested alteration

Sources

Footnotes

  1. CHOA (Condominium Home Owners Association of BC), Bulletin 200-255 — strata doorbell camera bylaw requirements; CRT case The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 945 v Miller cited for removal order — https://choa.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/200-255-Doorbells-and-Exterior-Cameras-Installed-by-Owners-Occupants-and-Tenants-What-a-Council-Needs-to-Know.pdf ↩

  2. Field Law — analysis of BC CRT doorbell camera cases: Parnell v The Owners, Strata Plan VR 2451 (2018 BCCRT 7) and Herr v The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1824 (2020 BCCRT 496) — https://www.fieldlaw.com/insights/publication/Ding-Dong-Your-Doorbell-Camera-Must-Come-Down ↩ ↩2

Graph View

Backlinks