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
So, this won’t be like my usual posts where I share a recent case or discuss a section of the Condominium Act, 1998. Today I’m going on a rant about the relationships between owners, directors, and managers.
Last night I attended another requisition meeting. Nothing out of the ordinary about a requisition meeting; the best managed condominiums can have them from time to time. They are often a result of owners feeling in the dark about an issue and wanting more information. However, in this case the requisition was to remove a majority of the directors, which usually signals bigger issues. I can’t identify the parties involved because of privilege, but one of the reasons the owners sought removal of the directors was that the owners wanted to terminate the property management company and the directors refused or failed to do so. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this as a reason for a requisition to remove the board of directors. It seems to be a trend in recent years. Continue reading
The courts have been busy this year! While that is good news for law bloggers, it means far too many condominiums are spending money on lawyers when they could be spending it on solutions. Here are the highlights from cases in Ontario:
10. Declarants may use s.152(6) of the Condominium Act, 1998 to regain control of phased condominiums years after they became entitled to request a meeting of owners to elect a new board. Such conduct may not be oppressive, even when the reason for the request was to end litigation started by the condominium against the declarant: Middlesex 643 v. Prosperity Homes Limited. Continue reading
You may recall a case from last summer where a board of directors disqualified one of the directors for violating the condominium’s by-law, which included a Code of Ethics. The lower Court found that the condominium’s by-law permitted the board to disqualify the director. Although the Judge found that the disqualified director had not been given proper notice of the review by the board prior to his disqualification, the Judge was not prepared to order the board to re-instate him since the vacancy created by his disqualification had been filled. Instead, the Judge ordered that the board was at liberty to conduct a fresh ethics review within 90 days, failing which the disqualified director could move for re-instatement to the board.
The board conducted a fresh review and concluded that the disqualified director had violated the Code of Ethics and was still disqualified. The disqualified director appealed to the Court of Appeal. He argued that the by-law permitting the board to determine if he had violated the Code of Ethics was inconsistent with the Condominium Act, 1998, and unreasonable. He also argued that the Judge erred by not re-instating him.