Requisition meetings can be a source of anxiety for many directors, managers, and owners. In my experience, the conduct of the parties during the preliminary steps of the requisition process can exacerbate the anxiety and cause a great deal tension, hostility, and bickering at the meeting. We previously wrote about the requirements for requisition meetings (here) and the practical tips (here) for condominiums in responding to requisition requests. Today, I thought that I would share some tips for owners requisitioning meetings. Continue reading
Just as I did last year, I’ve put together a list of my favourite condo lessons for 2017. Every condo director, owner, manager, and other person living in or working for condominiums should know these lessons:
10. An owner cannot bring apply for a minor variance from a zoning by-law for common element parking spaces. The board of directors is obligated to manage the common elements, which includes applying for any minor variances that may be required for the common elements. A different result may have occurred if the owner had the exclusive use of all of the common elements the minor variance would apply to, but in this case the owner only had exclusive use of 6 of the 82 parking spaces. Read our post on the case here: https://ontcondolaw.com/2017/10/03/who-can-apply-for-a-minor-variance-for-the-common-elements-condo-or-owner/
9. Only lawyers should register liens. Most lawyers jumped for joy when a decision about a lien was released in May of this year. During the trial a report from the Law Society was produced to show that, in the eyes of the Law Society, a paralegal is not authorized to register liens; only lawyers should register liens. The interesting part is that in most firms the law clerks, not lawyers, register liens. And don’t get me started on lawyers who give their clerks access to their registration keys…yikes. Here is our previous post on the topic: https://ontcondolaw.com/2017/05/29/is-lien-work-really-for-lawyers-only/
8. Condos can charge interest at almost criminal rates. A case this summer confirmed that a condo can charge interest at 30% above the prime rate if a by-law authorizes it. For more information, read the MTCC 1067 v. 1388020 Ontario Corp. case available here: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc4793/2017onsc4793.pdf
7. Green energy initiatives are becoming increasingly popular as hydro costs soar and the government is making it easier for condos to implement some of them. For instance, submetering of the units for electricity consumption does not require the approval of the owners; the board can implement it by resolution of the board alone. Condos cannot prohibit clotheslines, but may have restrictions or conditions for their use. For more information, see our previous post on green energy initiatives: https://ontcondolaw.com/2017/05/10/green-initiatives-in-condos/
6. Similarly, electric vehicles and charging stations are likely to be a hot topic in future years as demand for electric vehicles increases. For more information on some of the legal issues associated with electric vehicles and charging stations see our previous post: https://ontcondolaw.com/2017/04/27/electric-vehicles-in-condos/
5. Degrading and harassing behaviour may be prohibited by section 117 as it may be likely to cause psychological harm. Some owners abuse managers and directors with vulgar language, yelling, and threats. The court has indicated that extreme cases would violate section 117, which prohibits conduct that is likely to cause injury to persons or damage to the property. It would also constitute workplace harassment, which condominiums have a duty to protect their workers from. See our previous post on: https://ontcondolaw.com/2017/04/23/if-you-cant-say-something-nice/
4. Owners need to be careful about sending defamatory emails to other owners and residents. Where an owner sends defamatory emails about directors or the manager, the condominium may obtain an order directing an internet service provider to disclose info to the condo to enable it to identify the person. Defamation is a communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public. For more information or to read the case in its entirety, see our previous post: https://ontcondolaw.com/2017/07/26/defamation-in-condos-an-update/
3. The courts will not amend a declaration because an owner feels it is inconsistent with the Act or unfair. The courts have confirmed that their involvement in such matters is limited by the Act to situations where there is an error or inconsistency in documents or where the documents are oppressive. The court will not interfere with validly passed by-laws either. For more information, read our previous post: https://ontcondolaw.com/2017/08/22/summer-case-law-reading/. For a more recent decision by the courts, see the following case: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc6542/2017onsc6542.html
2. Many more condos may make the switch from self-managed to professional managers in 2018 and beyond because of the next lesson on this list. For more information, see our post for self-managed condos: https://ontcondolaw.com/2017/12/18/self-managed-condominiums/
And the top lesson of 2017 (it was also the top for 2015 and 2016) is…
1. The Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015. Unless you have been living under a rock for the past year, you know the Condominium Act, 1998, (and a number of other statutes) were amended this year. Some of the key changes in force now include:
- The creation of the Condominium Management Regulatory Authority of Ontario (CMRAO) to oversee condo managers. [www.cmrao.ca].
- The mandatory licensing of condo managers by February 1st, 2018.
- The creation of the Condominium Authority of Ontario (CAO) to oversee condos. [www.condoauthorityontario.ca].
- The creation of the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) to hear condo disputes. The CAT’s jurisdiction is currently limited to record disputes, but the intention is to extend it to other areas in the future.
- Mandatory training for directors and disclosure obligations for candidates for the board of directors.
- A new process for calling owners’ meetings, including new forms for the preliminary notice, notice, and proxies.
- Allowing teleconferencing for board meetings without a by-law.
- Reducing quorum for owners meetings after two unsuccessful attempts to achieve quorum.
- Reducing the approval level required for certain by-laws, like adding disclosure obligations for candidates.
- More communications with owners in the form of three new certificates: periodic information certificate, information certificate update, and new owner information certificate.
- A new record request process where owners, mortgagees or purchasers want to obtain records of the condominium.
There are new forms associated with many of the changes described above. The forms are available here: https://www.ontario.ca/search/land-registration?openNav=forms&sort=desc&field_forms_act_tid=condominium
The deadline for registering condos was recently extended to February 28, 2018. For more information, visit the CAO’s website.
More changes are coming on January 1st, 2018. You can read about those here: https://ontcondolaw.com/2017/12/12/amendments-coming-january-1-2018/
More changes will come into force on February 1st, 2018 and later in 2018 (and maybe early in 2019). Changes still to come include:
- The regulatory part of the licensing of managers, such as a complaints and discipline process.
- Extending warranty coverage through Tarion to residential conversion condominiums in some instances.
- A process for preparing a budget and notifying owners of changes to it.
- A process for charging costs back to owners (i.e. infractions, damage).
Stay tuned! Next year should be full of lessons as more of the amendments are released and we have an opportunity to interpret them.
There has been a lot of talk this week about defamation in condos. Most of the interest comes from a decision released in Ottawa last week. A judge has ordered Yahoo! and Yahoo! Canada to disclose information that a condominium needs to determine the identity of a person responsible for sending defamatory emails to its owners and residents. The emails apparently accused the directors of receiving kickbacks.
Durham Condominium Corporation No. 45 and Swan.
As a recap, Swan was elected as a director in June of 2009. He often disagreed with the other directors about the management of the condominium. Two months after he was elected he started a claim against the condominium and another against one of the directors. In the first 4 months of his term as director he took several steps without authorization of the board, including:
- terminating the property manager;
- commencing two actions in the name of the condominium against the property management company and its president;
- commencing an action against the condominium and misleading the other directors by accepting service of the claim on behalf of the condominium;
- sending harassing and insulting emails to directors and management; and
- installing a satellite dish on the common elements.
One of the directors requisitioned a meeting to remove him for breaching his duties. The owners voted to remove him in September of 2009. He started another action against the director who requisitioned the meeting claiming defamation. In 2010, all 5 of his actions were dismissed at trial and he was ordered to pay $3,750.00 in costs. He appealed. His appeal was dismissed. The court found that the condominium, directors and manager may have produced material that constituted defamation to him, but they were doing what the Act required them to do and there was evidence to support the comments made.
In 2012 the condominium commenced an application against Swan claiming that he failed to carry out his duties and seeking various orders. Swan brought his own application against the condominium claiming that two directors breached their duties to the condominium and should be removed. He also sought his own reinstatement to the board.
The court reviewed his conduct and found that Swan’s “confrontational inflexibility and misguided assessment of his duties as Director failed to meet” the duties in section 37(1) of the Act. With respect to his application, the court dismissed it in full. There was no evidence that the other directors breached their duties or that the condominium acted in an oppressive manner toward him.
The condominium sought costs of $198,880.92 from Swan. Swan argued that the condominium had to indemnify him under section 38 of the Act. The judge ordered Swan to pay $45,000.00 in costs to the condominium. Swan appealed.
The Court of Appeal released its decision to his appeal on costs. The appeal was allowed and he was awarded $6,000.00 in costs. Unfortunately, the matter has been sent back to the application judge for reassessment of the costs as the Court of Appeal did not have enough information to make a decision regarding the condominium’s obligation to indemnify him. One of the key issues for the application judge will be whether he was acting in bad faith (in which case he would not be entitled to indemnification) or was simply negligent in fulfilling his duties (in which case he would be entitled to indemnification).
Stay tuned. This one isn’t over yet…