So the next phase of amendments is coming on February 1st, 2018. Excited? Overwhelmed with all the changes? Well, there is some good news for any of the overwhelmed directors and owners. Most of the changes this time are for the managers. Sorry to our manager friends out there. Continue reading
The first phase of amendments to the Act has been in force for almost a month now. We have new forms, a new tribunal, and the CAO. There is a new process for calling and holding meetings. There are new information certificates. The changes span hundreds of pages so, understandably, everyone is still getting the hang of it all. There are even disputes about how certain parts should be interpreted. Here are some of the most common mistakes or misconceptions that we’ve encountered so far: Continue reading
Big changes are coming to the voting procedures for owners’ meetings. I’ve previously written about the changes for notices and pre-notices, but you’ll also need to familiarize yourself with the new requirements for voting at owners’ meetings.
Condominium communities are small democracies with their own set of unique challenges. Like many democracies, the board of directors is often criticized by the owners for the decisions made, or not made, but are rarely praised for their hard work. Given the wide range of values, interests, and characteristics of condominium inhabitants, it not surprising that governance issues account for a large proportion of the disputes that arise in condominiums.
Given the importance of proper governance to the financial health and stability of condominiums, the working group made several recommendations to improve the governance of condominiums. The recommendations were in five key areas:
- Access to Records & Information
- Directors and Officers
- Owners’ & Directors’ Rights & Responsibilities.
Davis v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 22  O.J. No. 2594 is a recent decision of the Superior Court of Justice about owners’ meetings, especially voting rights and the role of the chair. It was an application by an owner alleging the chair of the meeting improperly allowed 12 proxies to be used to remove the board of directors. Without the 12 votes, the requisition to remove the directors would have failed.
The Court dismissed the application. Continue reading