Has the building registered? The first "board" is always made up of people appointed by the developer until the turnover AGM when the first real board is elected. Unfortunately, that first board creates the declaration which subsequent boards have to live with. It isn't until the first AGM that owners can vote for board members.

Yes - the initial Board, in place between the date of Registration and the election of the new Board at the Turnover Meeting, is put in place by the developer, and is the 'Declarant's Board'. The Declarant's Board however is not responsible for the Declaration itself. The developer (i.e. the Declarant) creates the Declaration - a draft of which is included in the Disclosure documents when the condominium is being marketed. The final version of the Declaration prepared by the developer is what is accepted and registered as a key component of the actual Registration process. At that point, the Condominium Corporation comes into existence, and the Declarant's Board is appointed.
 
Last edited:
Well, if that's who was elected at the AGM and owners aren't happy about it, they've got to turn out and/or vote by proxy the next time. Owner apathy is a huge problem in condos, which is something I don't understand -- choosing who is going to represent you and the interests of your large financial investment is an important part of being an owner.
 
Not surprising since Lamb and his agents own a majority of the units. Same thing happened with us and we booted him the moment we had the chance. The damage was already done.
 
Many newer condos now have a provision in their docs that require a director to be an owner of a unit.

It does sound fishy what is described. I'd be curious to hear what develops.
 
*opens popcorn*
 
If all the units in the building aren't sold I can imagine him wanting to hold onto power of the building until he's wholly devested of his original investment. Giving control of an entire tower over to random residents has never seemed like an entirely great idea to me.
 
Units owners in a condo have the right to vote for whomever they want on the Board. It's not that random, assuming that those running for the Board make it known what their qualifications are

42
 
Maybe random was the wrong word. I just think condo's would be better off if they all had a third party to manage them, where qualifications could be sought out and vetted. I mean - think of those condos in queen west - entire buildings are probably being managed by 22 year olds!
 
Recent changes to the Condo Act will make sure that 22 year olds are able to do just whatever. (BTW, the 22 year olds in these buildings are typically tenants, not owners.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Reforming Ontario's Condo Law
Province Supporting Stronger Condo Communities
December 2, 2015 12:40 P.M.
Ministry of Government and Consumer Services

The need for reform

The size and complexity of Ontario's condo market has changed dramatically since the Condominium Act was passed in 1998.

Today, Ontario has about 700,000 condo units and 10,000 condo corporations. About 1.3 million Ontarians live in a condo and more than half of new homes under construction in the province are condos.

Due to the vast growth and change in the condo sector, the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services reviewed the current Condominium Act using an innovative and collaborative public engagement process, receiving over 2,200 submissions and 200 recommendations from condo owners, developers, managers and industry experts.

The review clearly revealed that Ontario requires:

  • New laws and tools to increase consumer protection for condo owners and buyers
  • Improvements to how condominiums are run and managed
  • Means to strengthen the financial sustainability of condominium buildings
The Protecting Condominium Owners Act is based on the submissions received during the engagement process. Passing the act has amended the Condominium Act and the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, and enacted the Condominium Management Services Act to address five key areas of reform:

  1. Dispute resolution
The Protecting Condominium Owners Act enables the establishment of a Condominium Authority that would provide quicker, lower-cost dispute resolution than what is available today. It would also help prevent disputes between condo owners and boards by offering clearer information on condo owners' rights and responsibilities.

The Condo Authority would be established as an administrative authority, an independent, self-funded, not-for-profit corporation.

To ensure accountability and transparency, the Condo Authority would:

  • Have an administrative agreement with the Minister of Government and Consumer Services
  • Be required to publicly disclose information, such as salaries and other information about compensation
  • Be subject to oversight by the Auditor General
To fund its services, the Condo Authority would have the power to set its own fees, including a small fee for all condo corporations -- about $1 per unit a month, which would be collected from unit owners as a monthly common expense. Fees will support the services offered by the Condo Authority and will not be collected until the authority is in place in 2017.

  1. Consumer protection for owners and buyers
The Protecting Condominium Owners Act introduces additional safeguards to protect condo owners and buyers and help them make informed decision. The act will:

  • Require developers to give condo buyers a copy of an easy-to-read guide to condominium living at the time of sale
  • Provide clearer, more comprehensive rules to prevent buyers from being surprised by unexpected costs after purchasing a newly-built condo
  • Enable the government to create regulations for standard condominium disclosure statements and other documents, such as declarations
  • Amend the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act so that most of the warranty protections available to buyers of new condos would also apply to certain condo conversion projects
  1. Financial management
The Protecting Condominium Owners Act enables the government to introduce requirements that will strengthen financial management rules for condo corporations to help prevent fraud and mismanagement. For example, it would forbid condo corporations from finalizing some contracts unless they have fulfilled certain procurement process requirements.

It would also give owners more information about their condo corporations' financial matters and more control over important changes.

Regulations under the act would also clarify rules related to reserve funds by defining what adequate reserve funds are and how condo corporations can determine if their reserve funds are sufficient.

  1. How condos are run
The Protecting Condominium Owners Act will make it easier for condo owners and boards to participate and vote at meetings. For example, condo boards would no longer have to pass a by-law in order to hold a meeting through conference calls or using similar off-site meeting technologies.

The act would also require condo boards to issue information to owners on a regular basis on topics such as the corporation's insurance or any legal proceedings. It would also require condo directors to complete training requirements.

  1. Condo manager licensing
Passage of the Protecting Condominium Owners Act established a separate piece of legislation - the Condominium Management Services Act. Under this act, a new administrative authority would regulate condo managers and management firms by establishing a compulsory licensing system. Regulations under the act would set training and education requirements for condo managers and a code of ethics.
 
This situation with the first Board is not that unusual. If the developer still owns alot of units and votes as a block, they can sometimes dictate by simple majority the members it wants on the Board. It can be done fairly discrete as well and folks can be blindsided by the whole thing. This is gets worse if there are lots of candidates and the real owners voting spread their vote. It is going to take years to unravel.
 
Exactly, this is not unusual and happens in many new condo developments.
There's usually a higher turnover of Board Members and Property Management in the first couple years of a new condo and it not uncommon for some of the members to be from the developer's side. Also the property management company is hired by the developer and in some cases the property management company is owned or connected to the developer, which any knowledgeable and savvy Board would be shopping around to find the best management company that would serve in their best interest with reasonable operating costs.
This is not as shady as it sounds and there are lots more developers out there we should be more concerned about.

Most new condo developments will have a large number of tenants and unsold units in its first year or two of completion, so the make up of the Board may not be ideal in the beginning, but as the building eventually gets turned over by more residents and end-users, there should be more board members who share a genuine interest to serve the building and its residents.
 
A further issue with respect to newer condominium buildings. Until recently, many declarations included a standard clause prohibiting short term rentals - a minimum lease period of six months was normal. Now, with services such as Airbnb, some developers are eliminating the minimum lease period requirement in their declarations, allowing for unrestricted short term rentals in their buildings, and more to the point - using their unsold units for short term rentals. The unsold units could be either legitimately unsold due to unit specific issues - location, configuration or pricing, or they could have been withheld on purpose by the developer, to create an income stream from a portfolio of short term rental income units.

In buildings where the developer is doing short term rentals of their own suites, depending on the number of units involved as a proportion of total units in the building, the developer would vote their units as a block, and could be in a position to retain control of the Board indefinitely - much to the detriment of the other owners. For example, when it comes to first and second year warranty issues, a developer controlled Board may charge back to the owners the costs of repairs which should have been borne by the developer.

A real caveat here for purchasers in this regard - if there is no clause in the declaration stipulating minimum lease term requirements - the building may be destined to be
a revolving door of one, two or three day rentals in a number of the suites, with nothing the other owners can do about it. Also, the prospects in such situations of getting a truly independent Board which acts in the interests of the other (i.e. non-developer) owners could be much reduced.
 
This situation with the first Board is not that unusual. If the developer still owns alot of units and votes as a block, they can sometimes dictate by simple majority the members it wants on the Board. It can be done fairly discrete as well and folks can be blindsided by the whole thing. This is gets worse if there are lots of candidates and the real owners voting spread their vote. It is going to take years to unravel.
It's worth noting that this all coincides with the Tarrion warranty period for owners to address building deficiencies.
 
A further issue with respect to newer condominium buildings. Until recently, many declarations included a standard clause prohibiting short term rentals - a minimum lease period of six months was normal. Now, with services such as Airbnb, some developers are eliminating the minimum lease period requirement in their declarations, allowing for unrestricted short term rentals in their buildings, and more to the point - using their unsold units for short term rentals. The unsold units could be either legitimately unsold due to unit specific issues - location, configuration or pricing, or they could have been withheld on purpose by the developer, to create an income stream from a portfolio of short term rental income units.

In buildings where the developer is doing short term rentals of their own suites, depending on the number of units involved as a proportion of total units in the building, the developer would vote their units as a block, and could be in a position to retain control of the Board indefinitely - much to the detriment of the other owners. For example, when it comes to first and second year warranty issues, a developer controlled Board may charge back to the owners the costs of repairs which should have been borne by the developer.

A real caveat here for purchasers in this regard - if there is no clause in the declaration stipulating minimum lease term requirements - the building may be destined to be
a revolving door of one, two or three day rentals in a number of the suites, with nothing the other owners can do about it. Also, the prospects in such situations of getting a truly independent Board which acts in the interests of the other (i.e. non-developer) owners could be much reduced.

That sounds quite frightening of a situation. :(
 
No photos but today it looked like almost all the bands on the eastern side had been completed/adjusted. Nice to see this one being wrapped up.
 

Back
Top