Background Facts:
The dispute arose from alleged failures by the defendants, as former owner-developers, to comply with statutory obligations under the Strata Property Act (SPA), including conducting a proper first Annual General Meeting (AGM) and establishing a contingency reserve fund. The plaintiffs, a strata corporation, claimed that the defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary and statutory duties, resulting in financial and administrative burdens. The plaintiff sought damages exceeding $1.035 million, while the defendants admitted to limited liability and disputed the extent of the claims.

Legal Issues:
The primary issue was whether either party achieved "substantial success" as defined by costs jurisprudence. Key issues included:

• Whether the first AGM met statutory requirements under the SPA.

• Whether the contingency reserve fund was adequately established and funded.

• Compliance with operating expense contributions and interim budget requirements.

• Claims for punitive damages and restitution for unjust enrichment.

• Jurisdictional challenges under the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA).

Legal Arguments and Outcome:
The defendants argued they were substantially successful, emphasizing that the plaintiff only obtained orders worth approximately $3,928.71 out of over $1.035 million claimed. The plaintiff contended it succeeded on significant substantive issues. The court determined that neither side achieved substantial success, as success on critical issues was divided.

Costs and Awards:
The court ordered each side to bear its own costs, concluding that neither party met the 75% threshold for substantial success. No costs were awarded to either side.