Highlights from the 22nd Annual CCI-T Conference

 

purple blue green pink orange and yellow highlighter

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

It was a pleasure for the Robson Carpenter team to see and chat with many familiar faces at the conference this past weekend. The conference was full of fantastic exhibitors and informative sessions on a broad spectrum of issues, challenges, and anticipated changes in the condominium industry. There were so many great speakers, panels, and topics in the various sessions that I often wished I could be in two places at once to listen in on concurrent sessions!

In no particular order, here are some of my favourite moments and takeaways from the conference:

Discussion of Security Issues

I particularly enjoyed the Q&A style insights, advice, and perspectives from the panel in “Palace or Prison: Security Through Environmental Design” with security topics ranging from lighting, mirrors, cameras, and signage, to communication systems for communities. Of note, the panel’s emphasis on unique situations and issues for different types of condominium communities from massive high rises to townhouse complexes was very engaging.

Proxies

It was interesting, if unsurprising, to hear numerous speakers and people I interacted with on the tradeshow floor express ongoing frustration with the length and complexity of the new prescribed form. Clearly this form continues to be a source of frustration for managers, boards, and owners. On the bright side, representatives from the Condominium Authority of Ontario (“CAO”) did highlight they have created an information guide as well annotated sample proxies available on their website (link here https://www.condoauthorityontario.ca/en-US/resources/proxy-overview/ ) to assist owners in understanding how to fill out these forms. Hopefully more refinements to the form are planned by the government in the future.

CAO and CMRAO Statistics

Interesting numbers on the 1st Year of the CAO and Condominium Management Regulatory Authority of Ontario (“CMRAO”) – representatives of the CAO and CMRAO shared some fascinating statistics about their respective 1st anniversary of operation:

  • The CAO’s database estimates there are over 11,000 condominium corporations in Ontario. Of those, 85 % have registered with the CAO and 84% have provided the required returns (transitional and annual)
  • Over 2,800 licensees registered with the CMRAO
  • Over 300 condominium management companies with 3 companies employing over 100 property managers each.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal (“CAT”) which currently has jurisdiction over records disputes under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) already has 127 active cases. We previously posted about some of the first decisions released by CAT here (link).

Quorum

There were some interesting questions and discussions in one session regarding condominium corporations that have passed by-laws increasing the quorum threshold from the 25% required by the Act for the 1st and 2nd attempts to call an owners meeting. My opinion, and one shared by a few other lawyers I have spoken to, is that the most recent amendments of the Act in subsection 50(1.2) have voided those higher quorums (ex. 33 1/3 %) thresholds in by-laws. Quorum can be no more than 25%. If a corporation wants to increase the threshold from 15% on the 3rd and subsequent attempts to call an owners meeting, the quorum increase is restricted to remaining at 25% by 50(1.2) of the Act.

Exhibitors

On a final note, the exhibitors with booths that had a live-magician, hockey memorabilia collection, and handwriting analyst were captivating and very popular draws for many.

If you weren’t able to attend this year’s conference, don’t forget the Golden Horseshoe chapter of CCI has its annual conference coming up in the spring of 2019. We will have a booth and both Craig and Michelle will be speaking.  Definitely something to look forward to attending as we slip into the winter season!

Ontario Election – New Canvasser Rules

stencil.default

We previously wrote about provincial and federal elections rules relating to condominiums, especially regarding election signs here: https://ontcondolaw.com/2014/05/15/ontario-election-how-does-it-affect-your-condo/  In anticipation of the upcoming election we take this opportunity to provide some information about canvassers for elections.  Continue reading

Update: Improper Use of the Indemnification Clause

money

In July 2016, we wrote a post about Pearson v Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 178, 2012 ONSC 3300, a case where the condominium registered a lien against an owner’s unit for legal costs incurred by the condominium in relation to three unsuccessful small claims court actions brought by the owner. The court found that the indemnity clauses in the declaration that the condominium relied on did not apply to recovering the legal costs and ordered the condominium to discharge the lien.

We also noted a Small Claims Court decision where leave to appeal was granted because the judge relied on a general indemnity clause similar to Pearson v CCC No. 178 as authority for the Condominium to charge legal fees to the unit owner.

The Divisional Court of the Superior Court of Justice recently released its decision in Wexler v Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 28, 2017 ONSC 5697; the subject of that appeal.

While the majority of the decision deals with the standard of review for an award of costs, Justice O’Bonsawin does address the applicability of the general indemnity clause in the declaration for claiming legal costs. Specifically, at paragraph 16, she states,

In Pearson v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 178, 2012, ONSC 3300, the corporation submitted that the Condominium Corporation’s Declaration permitted it to recover all legal costs incurred related to the litigation by adding these costs to the common expenses of Pearson’s unit. The language in the Declaration in Pearson is very similar to that of this case. Mr. Justice Smith concluded that the article in the Condominium Corporation’s Declaration did not apply in that case because there had been no loss, damage or injury to the common elements caused by any act or omission by Ms. Pearson. I come to the same conclusion in Ms. Wexler’s case; Declaration X is not applicable as there has been no loss, costs, damage, injury or liability suffered or incurred with respect to the common elements and/or all other units caused by an act or omission by Ms. Wexler.

The provision in the declaration Justice O’Bonsawin referred to above reads as follows:

Each owner shall indemnify and save harmless the corporation from and against any loss, costs, damages, injury or liability whatsoever which the corporation may suffer or incur resulting from or cause by an act or omission of such owner, his family or any member thereof, any other resident of his unit or any guests, invitees or licencees of such owner or resident to or with respect to the common elements and/or all other units, except for any loss, costs, damages, injury or liability caused by an insured (as defined in any policy or policies of insurance) and insured against by the corporation.

This type of general indemnity clause is often the only indemnity clause found in older condominium corporation declarations.

So what is my point? Simply that case law is growing that supports the position that a condominium cannot force an owner to indemnify it for costs incurred without proper authority to do so and a general indemnity clause in the declaration might not be sufficient. Authority may be contained within the Act (see e.g. sections 92(4), 98 (4), or 134(5)), declaration (e.g. like above), or by-law (e.g. insurance deductible). The condominium’s lawyer can assist in determining if there is proper authority in the Act or documents or if there are other legal principles that may allow the condominium to recover the expense from the owner.

Finally, still to come with the amendments, is the promise of a new process and new forms for charging costs back to unit owners.  Once the amendments are in force only “prescribed additions” may be added to an owner’s common expenses and only once the “prescribed notice” is provided to the owner.