There’s been a fair bit of confused coverage of the October 2025 amendments to BC’s qualified-preparer rule for depreciation reports, much of it written by people who weren’t following the file in 2024. The short version: the universe of who can prepare a depreciation report in BC did not change. The list of which credentials within each designated professional group count was clarified and modestly expanded, primarily to address a capacity problem that had become acute.

If you’re a council member who saw a viral post on a strata Facebook group claiming “anyone with engineering experience can now write depreciation reports,” that’s wrong. Here’s the version that actually matches the BC.gov page.

The pre-October-2025 rule

Effective July 1, 2025, BC restricted depreciation-report authors to members of six designated professional groups — P.Eng / Professional Licensee Engineer (EGBC), Architect / Architectural Technologist (AIBC), Applied Science Technologist / Certified Technician (ASTTBC), AACI / P.App. Appraiser (Appraisal Institute of Canada), Certified Reserve Planner (REIC), and Professional Quantity Surveyor (CIQS).

A practitioner had to hold the designation and be in good standing with the regulator, and the report had to be signed by that practitioner personally — not by a firm in the generic sense.

What the October 2025 amendment did

The amendment did three things, in plain English.

1. Clarified which sub-credentials within each designated group count. Several of the six bodies have multiple credential tiers (an architect vs. an architectural technologist; a senior appraiser vs. a candidate; etc.). The amendment specified which tiers within each body satisfy the “qualified preparer” test, which had been ambiguous in some cases.

2. Modestly expanded the list within ASTTBC. Specific Applied Science Technologist registration categories that had been excluded under the July 2025 rule were brought in scope, with the requirement that the registrant carry the appropriate professional liability coverage. This is the change that matters most for capacity: it brought a measurable number of practitioners into eligibility.

3. Required preparer disclosure of designation on the report face. Every depreciation report finalised after the amendment must clearly state the preparer’s full designation, registration number, and regulator on the cover page or in the executive summary. This is a transparency measure; councils should now be able to verify a preparer’s standing without having to ask.

The Province’s full current list of who counts is at BC.gov / choosing a depreciation report provider. That page is the authoritative version. We’ve kept the 2026 deadline guide aligned to it.

What did not change

A few common misunderstandings worth addressing directly.

• The six designated groups are still the only path. Nobody outside those six bodies can sign a depreciation report in BC. A general appraiser, a builder, a property manager (regardless of how senior), an unregistered consultant — none of them count, even if they have decades of experience.
• The amendment did not relax the report content requirements. Sections 6.1–6.6 and 6.11 of the Strata Property Regulation continue to define what has to be in the report: physical condition assessment, 30-year maintenance schedule, three CRF scenarios, hard + electronic copies. None of that changed.
• The amendment did not extend the July 1, 2026 deadline. It was a supply-side adjustment, not a deadline relief. Councils that interpret “they expanded the list, so they must be slipping the deadline” are misreading it.
• Insurance and liability disclosure expectations didn’t shift. Councils should still ask every shortlisted preparer for proof of current professional liability coverage and an active-standing letter from the regulator.

What councils should do now

Three concrete actions, all small.

1. Re-verify your shortlisted provider’s designation. If you got quotes between January and October 2025, ask the provider to confirm which sub-credential they hold and to send their active-status letter. Some practitioners who would have been ineligible under the July rule are now eligible under the October rule; some who were already eligible should now be naming a more specific credential on their cover page.

2. Read the cover page of any sample report. When a provider sends a sample report as part of an RFP response, the cover page (or the executive summary) should clearly state the preparer’s full designation, registration number, and regulator. If it doesn’t, that’s now a procedural gap that’s worth flagging.

3. If you commissioned a report in 2024 or early 2025, check the signoff. Reports completed under the pre-July rule are still valid; the new disclosure requirement is forward-looking. But if you’re commissioning a refresh or planning a 5-year update, make sure the new report meets the current standard.

The honest take

The October 2025 amendment was a sensible response to a real capacity problem — not a watering-down of the qualified-preparer rule. The Province was hearing the same thing councils were hearing: there weren’t enough practitioners to ship the reports needed under the original timetable, and the most obvious source of additional capacity was a layer of ASTTBC registrants who were arguably qualified but had been excluded by the July rule’s narrower definition.

The amendment doesn’t change what a council should look for in a provider. It just slightly widens the pool of providers councils can choose from — and asks them to be more transparent about which credential they hold when they sign your report.

If you’re starting the procurement now, the 2026 deadline guide walks through the full process, and our matching service handles the qualification verification on your behalf.