Condo Owners Association COA

Forms Under New Condo Act



New Forms  

Links to the mandatory forms to use under the Condominium Act. 

They are to help facilitate and standardize communication between Condo Owners and Boards.  The majority of the forms are mandatory and many were issued on November 1st, 2017.  It is best to use these fillable forms on Internet Explorer. 

You also need the latest version PDF version (v. 8 or higher). 

If experiencing difficulties with the links below you can:

  • Right-click on the form, select “open link” and save the form on your computer;
  • OR Click on the Printable version below (second bullet for each forms).


Information Certificates


Meeting of Owners (plus AGM)


Records of the Corporation


Various other Forms


More Condo Related Forms  are available here 

There are over 1.25 million Condo Owners in Ontario and the numbers are growing.  According to the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, as

COA Gets Involved

The Condo Owners Association has made a huge impact providing expert opinion, recommendations and solutions on various "Stakeholder Groups" on behalf of residential and commercial Condo Owners and Condo Corporations   We offer our sincerest appreciation to those listed below and all of the other Governmental Agencies, Non Profit Agency and Private Corporations who have reached out to invite the COA to participate:  

  1. Ministry of Government and Consumers Services
  2. Consumers Council of Canada
  3. Ministry of Finance
  4. Homeowner Protection Centre
  5. Fire Marshal Office
  6. Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services
  7. Canada's Public Policy Forum
  8. City of Toronto
  9. City of Mississauga


STAKEHOLDER - Reports are links below:

Consumers Council of Canada Residential Housing Intensification Study

Fire Marshall Safety for Ontarians Advisory Committee

Carbon Monoxide Safety for Ontarians

Homeowner Protection Centre Condominium Property Management Regulation

City of Mississauga Stormwater System Review Page 78

Ontario's Condominium Act Review Stakeholder Roundtable

Ontario's Condominium Act Review Stage One Findings Report

Ontario's Condominium Act Stage Growing Up Ontario Condo Communities

Condo Act Residents Report - COA presents Page 59


COA Ontario Reports/Power Points links below:

How Condo Owners Association Helps Condo Owners 

COA Explains Impact of Condo Act at Carson Dunlop Condo Event  

COA Makes an Impact for Condo Owners at Toronto Home Show - Exhibition Place  

COA recommends a Provincial Reserve Fund Bond for Condos 

COA letter to Premier Wynne regarding problems with Status Certificates


COA Ontario submits Reports to Ministry of Government and Consumers Services   


COA submits Letters to Hon Premier Kathleen Wynne



Stage 1

Does the Condo Act Review help or hurt?

 These are initiatives of the COA during the review process:

The Condo Owners Association has submitted concerns on Stages 1 and 2 of the Condo Act Review to enforce Consumer Protection for Condo Owners.

Cover Letter  (PDF Click Here)

COA Feedback of Report  (PDF Click Here)

COA has again reviewed Stage 1 Stakeholder Roundtables as presented by the Public Policy Forum.  An overview of our notes as presented to the Forum elaborating additional information is listed below.   The overall experience for Stage 1 of the process was very beneficial.   Our participation in the Residents Review panel confirm our mutual concerns with Condo Owners but how many were adopted and where do we stand today.

Dispute Resolution

COA is extremely concerned about the position of Property Managers and Property Management firms. The Property Management firm is the contracted provider of property management services which is administered by their employee (known as the Property Manager)   Many times Condo Owners are blaming the Property Managers and not the Boards because they do not understand the command of control.  Board of Directors often hide behind the Property Managers so they can shift the blame.  Property Managers and their respective Property Management firms have a direct relationship with the Board of Directors and are at arms length with Condo Owners.  They depend on this relationship to ensure their substantial service contracts (in excess of $150,000+).   The Board of Directors have a fiduciary duty to represent the Owners and the Condo Corporation.  Owners must be well informed that all of their problems are a result of the Board.

The inefficiencies in the Act’s current mediation and arbitration approach is not effective because Board of Directors are often working with Property Managers to create maneuvers against Owners with falsifying documents, proxies to cover their tracks.  They may also work together to prevent Owners from receiving records of the Corporation therefore so Owners go into a mediation and arbitration without written facts and proof to substantiate their complaints.   Board of Directors are too quick to involved corporation solicitors because they use them as an intimidation factor against Condo Owners. 

Priority Issues

  • Condo Owners are uninformed about their rights and responsibilities, as well as specific rules and regulations
  • Condo Directors and Property Managers are in a direct position to abuse their rights and responsibilities, as well as specific rules and regulations
  • Corporation Solicitors use a “precedence of previous rulings” to maneuver the ambiguity of the Condominiums Act to prevent owners from exercising their rights to documents of the corporation, view proxy’s in their original form etc and they depend on other Provincial Acts (ie. Privacy Act) to prevent Condo Owners from obtaining information
  • Corporation Solicitors, Directors and Property Managers have and use their power of election and contractual services to intimidate owners.

Potential Solutions 

  • Develop a form of insurance protection for Condominium Owners as part and parcel of Director & Officers  (D&O) insurance
  • Condo Corporation is responsible to pay the  mediation expenses and a reimbursement from the Condo Owner will be mandated in the event that the Mediator deems in favour of the Corporation because this is as Consumer Protection Act
  • Reporting system similar to the Better Business Bureau for Owners to report Board of Directors in non compliance to the Condo Act.
  • We have concerns on the mechanics and potential conflicts of interests relating to Dispute Resolution because of internal controls of Board of Directors;  it will be very difficult to have an impartial body

Areas of Further Discussion

  • Change the rules on forcing the Board to call a Special Meetings on any grounds is very important to balance fairness in the Condominium.  A minimum of 5 Owners should have the ability to request a meeting with the Board within a 14 day period or at the regular Board meeting if it is soon;  to present an outline of their complaint in writing.  In the event that the 5 Owners have not received a satisfactory response; they then have the option to request the Board to call a Special Meeting.  This will force more Board governance and prevent extensive mediation and arbitration costs.
  • Owners have the right to claim against the Directors & Officer Insurance in the event that the Directors are found to be in non compliance of the condo Act.
  • It is difficult to have an internal DRO (Dispute Resolution Office)  for each Condo Corporation because of the power of manipulation by the Board of Directors and Property Managers
  • Board of Directors who ignore the Condo Act must be held responsible for legal fees and dispute resolutions fees and these costs must be covered by the Directors and Officers Insurance

Condominium Governance 

  • Concerns about Superior court rulings setting precedence and overriding present Condominium Act
  • Standardize Declaration for New and Existing Condominiums
  • Fining (a regulatory complain process for Owners Protection)  for Board of Directors in non compliance to the Condo Act
  • Fining process (a regulatory complaint process for Owners Protection) for Property Managers and Property Management Firms in non compliance to the Condo Act
  • Fining process (a regulatory complaint process for Owners Protection) for Solicitors of the Corporation for not abiding by fair business practice reflecting the Condo Act
  • Solicitors must be appointed by the Condo Owners similar to the Auditor appointment to ensure that the Lawyers represent the Owners
  • Board of Directors are refusing to provide updated owners lists (with email addresses) to Owners.  They must be accountable to provide the list within a 2 week period of the request
  • Board of Directors threaten and abuse Owners who are trying to obtain signatures for requisition meetings
  • Owners who have dishonerable intentions to remove the Board resort to unethical, slanderous accusations and dishonest tactics to promote signatures for requisition meetings
  • Board Members against other Board Member resorts to the same behaviour mentioned above
  • Proxies must be held by 3rd party and/or online voting systems and not available for viewing by the Property Manager or any member of the Board of Directors.
  • Scrutinees should be elected at the Annual General Meeting by the Condo Owners and not appointed by the Board of Directors.  The Auditor should oversee the scrutineers
  • Boards are changing qualifications to restrict off site owners from standing for election on the Board – they use forged proxies for the voting process
  • There needs to be a better mechanism between Boards of Directors on shared facilities for multiple condo corporations.   There also has to be a different allowance for buildings including commercial units and live-work units.
  • Special legislation must be set out for live-work residential units so Condo Owners do not abuse these units by operating full scale commercial businesses in live-work residential units to avoid commercial taxes and to purchase units at less value than a commercial condo unit.
  • Restrictive measures must be implemented to prevent Board of Directors from obtaining loans at high interest rates for energy retrofitting and green technologies.

Priority Issues 

  • Property Managers on behalf of Board of Directors requests are stamping Annual General Meeting packages with dates (20 days prior to meeting) but withholding the mail out so Owners are not receiving the packages until a few days or potential after the meetings
  • Board of Directors ignore Owners requests to the records of the Corporation;  if the Owner continues to request the records;  the Board enlists the assistance of the Corporation Solictor who also refuses the Owner access stating draft minutes are not records of the Corporation etc.
  • Excessive costs applied by Board of Directors relating to price per page for requested records of the Corporation
  • Board of Directors tampering with Board Meeting Minutes, AGM Minutes and records of the Corporation
  • Need to address abuse of Live-Work units and their avoidance on MPAC (Municipal Property Assessment Corporation) tax issues while using residential units for commercial purposes.

Potential Solutions

  • Standardized Declaration     Most building are universal in standard guidelines.  As prepared in accordance with the Condo Act
  • New Construction Standardized Declaration      As prepared in accordance with the Condo Act
  • ByLaws specific to each Condominium building
  • Qualifications and Disqualifications as set out in Condominium Act 1998 cannot be altered
  • Define Records of the Corporation ie does it include draft minutes, special requisition meetings etc.
  • Licensed Property Managers should sign off on all Minutes if they are present at the meeting within 15 days of the Meeting
  • Board of Director monthly approved minutes must be made available to Owners upon their request
  • All minutes of all meetings (including Special meetings) must be signed off and approved on a monthly basis by the Board of Directors and made available to Owners upon their request
  • Annual General Meeting Minutes in Draft form must be sent to the Condo Owners within 1 month of the Annual General Meeting to keep Owners informed
  • There has to be a mechanism for Condo Owners to register complaints on minutes of the Corporation that are incorrect or have been tampered

Areas for Further Discussion

  • Establish education for Condo Owners (could be an on-line interactive course) so they recognize the importance of good governance with Board of Directors and cost savings on maintenance fees
  • Develop a cost chart relating to building expenditures so Boards can use as a guide to understand proper pricing

Condominium Management  (COA disputes this name)

  • The terminology of condominium management DOES NOT exist in the present condominium structure – they are known as Property Managers and Property Management Firms
  • The confusion to change the name is Governance (board) Versus Management (Property Management)

Please Note:

  • ACMO is publicly announcing an approval from the Ministry of Consumers Services that they are the licensing entity for all Condominium Managers – COA finds this extremely detrimental to this Review process and a direct conflict of interest in ensuring that Condo Owners have Consumer protection under the new Condominium Act.

Priority Issues

  • Property Managers represent the Board of Directors and do not represent the Owners
  • Property Management firms must be held responsible for their Property Managers under employee relationship of employment
  • Property Managers quote Bill 168 unreasonably against Condo Owners
  • Property Managers are not mandated to abide by the Condo Act
  • Property Managers have knowledge and skills to manipulate the Condo Act to create a strong business relationship with Board and ensure their employer – Property Management Companies continued contract with that Condo Corporation

Potential Solutions

  • Develop a Provincial - RECO (Real Estate Council of Ontario) style of licensing for Property Managers
  • Mandate their profession through a specific Act geared to their profession (similar to the REBBA  (Real Estate Business Brokers Act)
  • Mandate an errors and ommissions insurance to protect condo corporations on misinformation
  • Mandates in the Act to prevent interaction ie.  Property Managers cannot be Directors or owners in the Corporation
  • Property Management firms must disclose referral fees or remunerations received from service providers they have recommended to their contracted Condo Corporations.

Areas for Further Discussions

  • See new Potential Solutions Above
  • Manager fees are not directly related to the Corporation.  The Property Management Company negotiates a contract for services of property management for the Condominium.  This would include a Property Manager (employee) and sometimes an administrator (employee)   The employees income is NOT negotiated by the Board of Directors nor should it be
  • Services provided by the Property Management company also include accounts payable and banking of the Corporation.  These firms also recommend service providers and they do receive referral fees for the recommendations.  These referral fees are not and should MUST be disclosed to the Condo Corporation.

Financial Management

  • A limited amount of the operating expenses relate to repairs and maintenance
  • The majority of the budget relates to reserve fund, utilities and service contracts ie. Property Management company, security and cleaning contracts.
  • Stringent guidelines must be in place for green technologies so older condos do not find themselves in financial ruin spending to save and Owners not being able to afford their maintenance fees

Priority Issues

  • Builders accountability for deficit of 1 year is insufficient
  • Province to provide higher interest rate deposits/bonds on reserve funds and include an inflationary blanket recognizing that the performance audit does not reflect market times
  • It inappropriate to allow coverage from the reserve fund for new green technology initiatives.  Restrictive measures must be implemented to prevent Board of Directors from obtaining loans at high interest rates for energy retrofitting and green technologies
  • Insurance issues between Corporation and Owners re: corporation policy and owner policy
  • Board of Directors and insurance companies changing standard unit bylaws without notifying owners.  Lack of coverage on flooring and betterment problems will exist
  • Fan coils and special filters are not being changed regularly if left in the hands of the owners and take into account off site owners therefore compromising potential insurance claims and water issues
  • Warranty concerns because of insufficient coverage by Tarion under the New Home Warranty Act.  Unfortunately Tarion DOES NOT represent owners and there are far too many examples of problems resulting after the 2 year coverage and there are limitations to what is deemed as structural.
  • New buildings do not have enough security cameras and security keys so they increase the expenditures of the Corporation substantially within the first year
  • The reserve funds of the Corporation may be handled through recommended financial service providers by the Property Management firms;  is there a referral fee involved – disclosures must be mandated
  • The reserve fund is handled by a financial company that the Board of Directors has chosen;  is there a referral fee involved – disclosures must be mandated
  • Since there is not one financial source for Reserve Funds;  there is a higher risk of  misappropriation of funding and lower interest rates
  • Pooling of reserve funds may compromises the corporations unless it is Government administered.  Property Management firms obtaining referral fees must disclose full particuaalrs in writing.
  • Even though this is hard to legislate, green technology companies may provide overpriced quotes to Board of Directors and/or loan options
  • Concerns on overinflated costs pertaining to condominium refurbishment.  Designers and contractors for simple wall paper, painting and floor coverings ie. Porcelain tiles are compromising financial stability of reserve funds and corporations   (ie.  11 floors $745,000.00) and potential depleting reserve funds for cosmetic issues.

Potential Solutions

  • Builders must be held accountable for the first 3 years not 1 year
  • Property Management cannot be associated with the Builder during the full warranty period; conflict of interest concerns and full  warranty periods to include structural must be extended.
  • Create a Reserve Fund Bond (similar to a Government Savings Bond) exclusively for Condo Corporations at higher interest rates (this is an excellent benefit for additional Government funding)
  • Mandate mechanical performance inspection prior to common element design expenditures from reserve funds

Areas for Further Discussion

  • Explore Government Reserve Fund Bond to provide better protection of investment and stronger interest rates
  • Ensure accountability for Reserve Funds to avoid Board of Director and Property Manager abuse and kick backs (reserve funds need to be audited)

Consumer Protection

  • New construction contracts prepared to represent the best interest of the builders is not protecting the rights of the Buyers
  • Proper disclosures of representation are not mandated so Buyers are unaware who is representing their interest in the buying process therefore they enter into the agreement with a strong lack of information relating to occupancy, interest rates to determine occupancy costs, structure of taxes and maintenance fees embodied in occupancy costs; length of time for extensions, rules pertaining to leasing and/or selling under assignments, turnover meetings and what is included in their purchase relating to responsibilities outside of their standard balcony, windows etc.
  • The price per square foot relating to maintenance fees at the point of sale creates a huge problem because with delays on closing and inflation these fees have a substantial increase in the first year creating an affordability problem for Owners.  The Builder must include an inflationary protection for 3 years after registration.
  • 10 banking days for Status Certificates compromises sale transactions and Property Managers abuse the time period and 95% of the time wait the entire time before they provide it meanwhile the declarations and bylaw are already preprinted and held in property management.  The only hold up is the Status Certificate which is signed by a Directors however many times Directors turn over signing authority to their Property Manager.  Financial institutions to secure hundreds of thousands of dollars in mortgages require 5 banking days; therefore Status Certificates should be the same period of time – 5 banking days.    In reality Status Certificates can and have been prepared in less than a day.
  • Standardized declaration with key points exclusively at the front of the declaration to ensure full understanding by the consumer on standard points of most condominiums will protect and educate the consumer.
  • The present method of builders lawyers preparing different declarations for each condominium and all resale condos all having different declarations compromises the security and protection of the consumer.  By-laws can be geared to each specific condominium but the overall decaration in plain English must be prepared considering the importance of 1.3 million condo owners understanding their rights and their ownership of their unit
  • Short term rentals are increasing throughout the province identifying a hotel concept of 3 days – 8 days.. with no limitations on short term.  It is an ideal circumstance for builders when selling their units as they promote these benefits to out of country investors but it becomes a safety and security concern of Condo Owners.  It also increases wear and tear on common elements ie. Moving elevators, hallways and unit doors/door frames etc.
  • Real Estate lockbox and/or keys – Property Management and Board of Directors are compromising the safety and security of their buildings depending on the rules they are implementing relating to lockboxes and keys.  Some are taking Realtors Drivers Licenses / ID’s as a deposit for keys; lockboxes are place in unlit areas of the complex opening the Corporation for potential law suits in case of physical harm claims, keys are identified with unit numbers on them and held at security in unlocked areas; many condos do not keep a register of Realtors showing and so on.
  • Registered Sales agents under RECO and REBBA already have full disclosure mandates; the concern is unregistered sales personnel of Builder.  Keys or Lockbox should be readily available and physically onsite

Priority Issues

  • It is impossible for buyers to read their condo purchase and sale documents on new construction because they are confusing, prepared by the builders lawyers and protective to the builder.   Disclosure of representation must be confirmed and key issues of the contract must be at the front of the agreement.
  • Low price per square foot on maintenance fees at point of sale for new construction compromise Owners affordability
  • Property Managers are not cooperative with Status Certificates many times and do not require 10 banking days
  • Standards rules to protect the Corporation relating to lockboxes and keys recognizing the personal safety and security of the Realtors and the Corporation

Potential Solutions

  • Standardized declaration with By-Laws relating to specific differences of the Corporation
  • Builder has to guarantee an inflation % rate for maintenance fees increases and make up the difference on new construction to cover additional costs over a 3 year period
  • Minimum term on short term rentals and defined rules and regulations
  • Immediately implement up to 5 banking days on status certificate
  • Guidelines relating to keys/lockbox recognizing safe standards practices
  • Keys or Lockbox should be readily available and physically onsite.  The best practice to ensure safety is for Security to hold both key or lockbox or to install lockbox in the staircases closest to the unit.

Areas for Further Discussion

  • Sales Agents Staff of Builder must be licensed to trade in Real Estate under RECO and REBBA regulation
  • Full disclosure for representation must be mandated and affect Builders and Sales Agents Staff on site
  • 95% of Status Certificates are prepared by the Property Management office and does not require solicitor intervention.   Please see above notes.   The Certificate only requires 1 signature from the Board of Directors (or Property Management)         banking days is more than sufficient.
  • Status certificate must include discussions on special assessments because too many boards hold off on the decision process especially if they or a friend in the building is selling.  Buyers have a right to know what they can expect to include legal proceedings and fees to date.  Also, mediation and arbitration cases involving the Corporation should be noted.  Status Certificate to guarantee no special assessment for a certain time period.

Next Steps

  • The main concern of the Condo Owners Association is to ensure that Condo Owners are protected in this process.  We believe that the present forum has a higher contribution from service related trades who may be party to a conflict of interest on their recommendations.  We realize that the Ministry must embrace their professional experience and related suggestions but we also caution the Ministry when evaluating the final outcome of the review.  Many of the existing problems in Condominiums result from uninformed and uneducated Board of Directors, Property Managers and their Property Management firms and Corporation Solicitors.
  • Although there are problems with Condo Owners as well;  many become a problem as a result of their loss of rights, lack of protection for their unit; distasteful slanderous actions by the Board and the cold hard fact that they believe they have no where to turn
  • In reality, there is substantial FEAR in the Condominium communities experienced by a number of condo owners.  We believe the apathy amongst owners is caused by fear as well; sometimes if you know less you have no reasons to be upset.  Turning a blind eye is much easier for many especially if they already know they cannot do anything
  • We truly believe that once Property Management Firms and Property Managers are licensed under a delegated authority under the Safety and Consumer Statues Administration Act as a result of our Government working with the Ministry of Consumer Services and the Condo Act to protect Condo Owners Province wide; will ensure professionalism in the industry to create more consumer and Corporation protection
  • It is the responsibility of our Provincial Government in this Condo Review Process must ensure proper due diligence and lack of conflict of interest are identified as we move forward to ensure consumer protection for all Condo Owners
  • It is necessary for the Government of Ontario to have a regulated Consumer Protection Tribunal Process to protect Condo Owners

COA Recommendations



(Click to view PDF File)





Recommendations – implement a fine structure for Directors who operate the Affairs of the Corporation in compliance to the Condo Act

Reasons - the only way that our Ministry can build a better condo act is to make Board of Directors accountable for their actions and decisions when they are in non-compliance of the declaration.  At the present time hundreds of Directors have ruled their Corporations by ignoring their Owners and making their own rules.  There is no governance of practice so they have no repercussions on their decisions.   Owners are powerless in the face of unscrupulous Board of Directors.



Recommendation: The owner occupied position should be held by an owner occupied unit owner and voting for this position should be allowed by all owners

Reasons: There is confusion with the owner-occupied position.  Condo Owners, Board of Directors and sometimes even Property Managers are not aware that this position can be held by anyone as long as they qualify under the qualifications of the Condo Act.   There is also disharmony between owner occupied unit owners and off site unit owners recognizing that the off site unit owners have no say on this voting process.   The position is for representation of on-site unit owners so the best representation would come from an on-site unit owner who can interact with the other on site unit owners.



Recommendation – There should be a mandated 5 Board of Directors for all Condominiums

Reasons: This allows proper discussion and decision making process without too much control.  It protects the Condo Corporation and Owners because there is less chance of dictatorship and non compliance to the act since it ensures better governance of responsibilities.



Recommendation - If a Director is found to be in non compliance to the Condo Act, Declaration and By Laws of the Corporation there must be an immediate removal of that Director. 

Reasons – Self explanatory,  a Director has a fiduciary duty to the Corporation and must adhere to all requirements of the above 



Recommendation – the Ministry of Consumer Services should be implement a course structure (just like RECO with their REBBA requirements) .  They should work with COA, Condo Owners Association to implement these courses.  COA is the only reg. non profit Association representing Condo Owners.  We do not represent Condo service related trades. 

Reasons - to ensure that Directors have some understanding of the operations, declaration and bylaw structure of a Condo Corporation.   Corporation Insurance policies, Directors Insurance and fines etc. relating to different situations should also be part of the course.  We would suggest segments I, II and III provides proper certification and better knowledge.



Recommendation Property Management firms should be licensed and have regulatory policies as prepared by the Ministry of Consumers Services or Better Business Bureau

Reason: Property Management Firms/Companies are responsible for the actions of the Property Managers they have employed to work at their contracted Condominiums.  It is not necessary and inappropriate to mandate that Property Managers are licensed when they are only employees of the Property Management company.  It is the company who has the contract as approved by the Board of Directors and accepts full responsibilities of the management operations of the condominium Corporation.   Also as noted in the Reserve Fund section;  many of these Property Management firms offer direction or have their accounting staff provide recommendations for placement of reserve funds;  licensing these firms will protect that situation as well as many other relating to contractual arrangements with other service providers and potential of conflict of interest between the Management firm and other service providers.



Recommendation - To create a standardized declaration to protect the interest of the Corporation and written in every day language for Condo Owners to understand

Reason: All condominiums should have a standardized declaration written in every language for the general public to read.  This would prevent the Boards from changing the declaration at will.  Although the condo act stipulates requirements to change a declaration; it is self-governing and in complete control of the Board of Directors.  Proxies could be altered to achieve the votes required for the change considering that proxies are not monitored or held by a third party.  A standardized declaration would prevent this from happening and allows Condo Owners, Lawyers and the general public the ability to familiarize themselves with the declaration in effect for all Condominiums across the province without confusion.



Recommendation – implement specific guidelines for Board of Directors to follow when an Owner is requesting Corporation documentation  

Reasons –  The Board of Directors has full control of the Corporation Documentation and can withhold the same from Owners although they have requested a copy of the same.   The Owners has no options to obtain these documents other than to hire a lawyer for representation costing them unnecessary expenses



Recommendation -  non-compliance to the declaration relating to renovations, alterations, key lock changes and installations and having this work done without the Board of Directors consent

Reasons:. There are problematic issues which are not being recognized by the Courts and Condo Corporations  have to spend unaccounted for Corporation funds to hire lawyers, go to court and still risk winning the case because the Declarations are ambiguous and the Courts may not rule in favour of the Corporation.  Case studies in favour of the Corporations sometimes assist the final judgement, but the Corporations should not be subject to the time, energy and cost associated with trying to enforce their declaration.

Recommendation – full costs for legal fees and court proceedings should be enforced on the declaration to prevent the above non compliance issues and the Corporation can lien the unit in the event that these costs are not paid.

Reasons: Condo Owners will be reluctant to participate in non compliance issues if they are held responsible for full payment of costs relating to enforcement of the declaration.



Recommendation: a standardized declaration would enforce the minimum time period for short term rentals and prevent the Builders lawyers and Directors from shortening the period

Reason: There is no governance or mandate on the time limits for short term rentals noted on the declarations.  This affects the Corporation creating a transient community resulting in potential more security and safety concerns.  It also affects our tourism and hotel industry because investors are purchasing these units and advertising 2-3 day stays across the internet to attract tourists.   The Pan Am games is going to have a tremendous effect on this situation and the end result after the games may be a true hardship for owners.



Recommendation – to ensure that balconies are noted on a standard declaration as part of the exterior building of the Corporation and not the responsibility of the owner
Reason: There are some buildings where the responsibility of repair etc. to a balcony rests on the shoulders of the owners as stated in their declaration.   New owners buying into these building will have the reserve fund and status review by their lawyers their reserve funds study is based on requirements and responsibilities as per the declarations and the excessive costs of balcony repairs/replacements is extensive for condo owners.  They must always be part of the Corporation expense so reserve funds can be used if they require repair/refurbishment etc.



Recommendationto establish a dispute resolution for Condo Owners having difficulty with their Board of Directors

Reasons - We have a catch 22 situation when it comes to Board of Directors and Property Managers or Property Management Firms.  There is a huge misunderstanding within the Condo Community.  Owners who have a dispute with Property Management must then go to their Board of Directors because the Property Managers are only employees of the Property Management Firm who is on contract by the Board of Directors for the Corporation.   If there is a dispute the Board of Directors are responsible to address the dispute but if they like the Property Manager or Property Management Firm they side with them and ignore the Condo Owner.  On another note:  unfortunately many Board of Directors depend on the Property Managers advice and recommendations because they may not be informed or educated to the requirements/operations of a Condominium Corporation so they leave too much power in the hands of the Property Managers and or Property Management Firms.



Note: this is applicable to Phase Condominium Complex – changes to the ACT



Recommendation: Requirement to match year end dates with existing when there is a second phase of construction

Reason: New condominiums must have their study done within the first year and every three years after that on their building.  There is an interesting time with shared facilities and reciprocal agreements on newly phased in condominiums because the existing condominiums reserve funds will have a different component life cycle on the common elements reserve funds since it is already in place when the new condo is phased in.   Owners of the new condominium will not have up-to-date information on the shared facilities reserve fund study unless by chance it is scheduled for an update at the same time.



Recommendation: - Standardized Declaration

Reasons: the Builders Lawyer prepares the declarations to protect the builder’s interest and to assist the sale of the units therefore they include allowances which may be more beneficial to the prospective purchaser than to the Corporation.



Recommendation: Performance audit should be done prior to the turnover to clear as many issues as possible before the Corporation Directors have to exercise their warranties on behalf of the Corporation.

Reasons: Condo Owners and Corporations should receive a notice of Performance Audit to see exactly what they purchased and what needs to be corrected prior to the turnover meeting.  This enables them to ask questions of the builder’s representative at the meeting and to document any concerns they have with respect to the building.  Also it assists the newly elected Board of
Directors to be aware of large areas of concerns.   At the present time;  turnover meetings only elect Board of Directors and there is a room full of Condo Owners who have not been provided any information on the performance audit of their Corporation. 



Recommendation: All proxies for the turnover meeting should be given to a third party not related to the Builder or Property Management.  It has been noted that there is substantial forgery of proxies by Board of Directors compromising the voting process for their personal interest.

Reasons: It is to be noted that at the time of the turnover;  the Property Management Company represents the Builder and not the Corporation.   They are on contract with the Builder and until such time after the elections if and when their contracts have been ratified by the Board of Directors.   There is a gray area of their fiduciary duties and responsibilities during the occupancy period until after the ratification of their contracts. There should be a third unbiased party to accept Proxies from Condo Owners to ensure proxies are recorded as given and not altered.  The obvious;  a new Directorship has the ability to either ratify the Property Management contract and maintain the same Company or choose to tender the contract for another company.   These proxies could potentially be compromised to align with any particular candidate for board position because at the time of the turnover there is a direct conflict of interest.



Recommendation: Builders must be mandated to reimburse the first 4 years of deficits relating to the Condo Corporation Operating Budget.

Reasons: Maintenance fees prices per square foot are determined at least 3 years and possible 4 years prior to occupancy and do not have any inflationary regulations.  New Condo construction is introduced to the public  to make the maintenance fees appear low in comparison to the fees in existing condo buildings.  Mortgages are determined based on these fees at registration only to find a huge increase in the 2nd year because only the first years deficit of insufficient maintenance fees is covered by the builder.  This situation starts an imbalance of increases in the 2nd year for the Condo Owners which become impossible to recover over the next few years so the building suffers on the market value and the maintenance fees continue to increase beyond the normal.  If this building then has major deficiencies past the Tarion 1-2 year building coverage;  the financial viability of the building is already challenged and the Condo Owners are not protected.



Recommendation: Year end dates must be matched because inconsistency on value relating to maintenance fee increases when the year ends are different dates between the buildings and the shared facilities

Reason: There is an inconsistency on value relating to maintenance fee increases when the year ends are different dates between the buildings and the shared facilities



Recommendations: Builders must be required to provide minimum 4 year Tarion Warranty coverage on the interior aspects of the building (having an estimated value of $80,000,000).  They also need to increase coverage on the exterior of the building and structural needs to be broadened to include various underground surface floor topping.

Reasons: The warranty is not sufficient for the Condo building because a 1-2 year coverage is equivalent to a single family home.  Many of the deficiencies are not recognized till the 3-4th year and by then the warranty coverage is over and the Condo Corporations are left with extensive expenses in their operating budgets.   They cannot access the reserve funds and these extensive costs are increasing the operating budgets and skyrocketing the maintenance fees.

The unit coverage of 1-2 years is sufficient but not the building coverage.  Also there needs to be better security and safety protection as noted independently on this report.

Case Study - when a new Condo site is built within ¾  of a metre from an existing foundation wall of an existing Condo building, there is no protection for the foundations of the existing building.  The builders are not mandated to provide a liability insurance and/or any degree of compensation in the event of present or future damage to these walls as a result of their excavation and construction.  Tarion will not cover anything that is not a result of nature causes so therefore the existing buildings are at a substantial risk of foundation problems.  The City does not mandate any type of protection when building permits are requested and the existing condominium Unit Owners could potential have substantial damage and resulting costs relating to this problem.

Ie.  The situation happened at 20 Blue Jays Way, with Fly condos building within ¾ of a metre from their foundations – 2010/11.



Recommendation: Include specific mandates and requirements relating to safety and security to include a strong position for the Corporation to deal with illegal acts.

Reason: Illegal acts are becoming more prevalent and without proper safety measures of cameras, restrictive unit keys and restrictive elevator access with fab entry for each floor is required to ensure the safety of the owners.   The declaration has to be superior court specific so that in the event that an issue arises in a condominium relating to Illegal Acts there is no confusion


Hoarders cases have had to go as far as a full court process with excessive legal expenses.  During this period “all condo owners and residents” are subjected to unsafe and hazardous living environment which could be potentially dangerous should something happen   ie. Fire; chemical reactions; etc.   The practice with Fire Marshalls and requirements for certificates of disposal of hoarder contents is a lengthy and costly process with limited available restrictions to assist.


Meth Labs – The standard declaration should allow an in –suite inspection twice a year accompanied by Security to ensure that there is no meth labs and/or hoarder situation.  At present there is only a fire inspection whereby things could be missed.   Sometimes Boards provide a fan coil maintenance of the units however many times they just have the owners do their own replacements.



Recommendation – all Corporations should conduct Fan coil inspections through Property Management and the cost as part of the yearly financials and operating budget

Reason: The safety aspect for internal water problems can be avoided if the Corporation takes responsibility for a fan coil inspection and at the same time they can check the units as a safety measure for illegal acts.  Fan coils can cause fire and water damage if not maintained properly.  It should not be left in the hands of individual owners and or tenants (with off site owners).



Recommendationall condominiums should have specialized keys which cannot be duplicated through standard key  outlets.  They  must be ordered and documented by property management

Reasons: this measure protects the condo owners/residents in the building from having too many keys duplicated with no registration of additional occupants of units



Recommendation - all elevators should have a fab entry access which only allows each unit owner to access their own floor of the building

Reasons: creates a safer and secure environment with more control for Security to do their job .  It records the fab user when it is used and allows security a record of entry.



Recommendation – all condo buildings should have cameras in all elevators (new construction needs to be mandated for all elevators, access and entries throughout the building)

Reasons: cameras create a safe environment and allows security the ability to monitor the safety of the building and provides them and Police Dept with proper camera footage in the event of an incident.  It also deters incidents and ensures that visitors, condo owners and residents conduct themselves properly.


EXISTING BUILDINGS - RESERVE FUND STUDIES  - 3 year requirement confirmation report

Recommendation: All  Condominium must be required to send in a confirmation of compliance of completion of every 3 year reserve fund study

Reasons: This can be done through the engineering firms who complete the study as a requirement or directly to the Ministry to ensure that the boards are not deferring the study because of the cost.  Many times Boards ignore the time line because of cost and they also only do a type 3 without a site visit which is cheaper than a type 2 having a site visit.



Recommendations: A government bond strictly for Condo Corporation Reserve Funds should be established.

Reasons: Minister of Finances can review benefits such as the saving of monies because no commissions would be payable on bonds to financial institutions.   Bond interest rates could be higher benefitting the Corporations and strengthening their position. Many Reserve Fund Studies are showing that Reserve Funds are under water because of incorrect interest and inflation rate assumptions.



Recommendation mandated reserve fund inflation rate and long term interest rates assumption

Recommendation – clearer definition of “Reserve Fund Expenditures”

Recommendation – Ministry must address energy saving initiatives and create a process and regulatory guidelines to ensure Condo corporations do not take on excessive financing and loans to retrofit throughout the building.  Possible provide government endorse initiatives with a loan structure of repayment. 



COA has established a relationship with BMO Nesbitt Burns and they have created a specific Reserve Fund Portfolio under the guidelines of the requirements of investing as noted in the present Condo Act.

Reasons: Many Board of Directors are using various institutions and investment advisors who may not be very business savy to draw the best interest rate situation.   There is also mismanagement of funds ie $20 Million fraud case with Property Management Firm.  Many Property Management Firms are taking active roles in recommending certain investment advisors and or investments.  Board of Directors do not at any given time have any record of their portfolio.  BMO Nesbitt Burns has developed a specific web site to provide active information at any time to the Board of Directors for the Condo Corporations they now are working with by a log in process.    It is a win win situation for all.



Recommendations: Mandate that all condo unit owners require their own insurance policy

Reasons: Condo owners are not aware that the Building condo insurance included in their maintenance fee does not cover their unit and betterment/improvements they have made to their unit.  Also in the event that the Board of Directors changes the insurance policy to save on deductibles the standard unit could now not include floor coverings.  Board of Directors need to be mandated to either obtain approval from owners on this change or at least mandated to inform the unit owners in writing so they are protected within their unit.  Condo unit policies are very confusing and there are stringent guidelines on what is covered and what is not.  There  is no mechanism in place to protect the condo owners.  A standard declaration with condo unit owner insurance coverage would help the situation and also enforce guidelines for Board of Directors to follow on changes to the policies. 



Recommendations: A complete review of coverage must be implemented.  Condo Owners, Board of Directors and many Property Managers have no idea on the guidelines of the coverage.   Better protection of coverage for Board of Director Liability Insurance, the Condo Corporation and Condo Owners is required

Reasons: Insurance Companies split their insurance policies… ie Intact Financial Corporation is a well known Condo Insurance provider for Condominiums.  Their coverage contains 50% of building under Intact and the other 50% of building under Novex.   The Board of Director liability coverage, flooding  and building liability is 100% under Intact.   Specifics on the actual coverage between the building and the unit is not readily available and the above parties are unaware of their protection.  As mentioned above (unit owner insurance) the Board of Directors can and do make changes to the building policy to keep deductibles lower without notification to the Condo Owners.



Recommendation: Board of Directors are responsible to ensure complete enforcement of the Declaration under the guidelines of the Condo Act.     Penalties and fines must be implemented in the event that the Board of Directors do not.

Reasons: the insurance policies can be at risk in the event that Board of Directors and/or Condo Owners are not in compliance to their declaration, condo act which also  tends to include non compliance to fire codes and the insurance policies.   If the Board of Directors are aware of a non compliance issue with an owner or a fellow Board member and they do not take proper action there must be some measures of accountability and responsibility for their negligence.



Recommendation: a distinct process must be established and available for Directors to register a complaint and or exercise their option for Directors Liability Insurance

Reasons: Directors liability insurance is the best kept secret of Insurance Companies.  The Board of Directors, Property Management and even the Insurance Company cannot provide a direct quote of coverage with full facts and process of how a Director can exercise their rights and what is covered.


Case Study: We contacted Atrens Counsel, Insurance Brokerage for Intact Insurance which provides Condo Building Insurance and found out that there has to be a majority vote of Directors for a Director to claim coverage of the Directors Liability Insurance which would include a majority decision with only 3 Board Members.   If the 3 Directors are unscrupulous and do not adhere to the Condo Act or Declaration then the other Board Members are left unprotected.   The 3 Directors can manipulate and control the operations while the other 2 Board members have absolutely no recourse available to them.   It opens the door for the 3 Directors to create slanderous and damaging rumours about the other 2 Directors hoping to force their resignation.   All Directors should have  specific Directors Liability to protect their personal & human rights and reputation should they be subjected to lies, deceitful manoeuvers and prejudices  by other Directors, Property Managers and Condo Owners.  At the present time, these Directors just resign leaving the Corporation in the hands of unscrupulous Board Members.

Note:  COA receives substantial complaints pertaining to the above.



The Ministry of Consumer Services must include specific regulations pertaining to these units because they are being abused and Condo Corporations and unit owners are left unprotected. 



Recommendation: the Condo Act needs specifics for the usage of live-work units as a residential unit and outline restrictions with fines for non compliance.

Reasons: The live-work units  place these Condo Corporations at risk for non compliance of the declaration, rules and regulations, by-laws, insurance liability coverage, zoning & building codes, fire codes and signage offering no protection to the Condo Owners.

Condo owners with live-works units generally have a main street and a common element entrance inside the building corridor.    They are residential units with residential taxes, zoning and fire codes.  They were built to allow an owner or tenant to live and work in the unit with specific guidelines for usage on the Condo Declaration.   Condo Owners are not adhering to the Declaration and are operating full scale commercial businesses.   In some situations the live-work unit owner is on the Board of Directors to ensure he can operate his live-work unit as a full scale commercial unit and not even living in the building.   MPAC is now taxing these units with commercial taxes when they investigate and determine strong percentage of commercial activity yet they are a residential unit and should not be allowed to operate commercially.

Case Study: A unit owner is on the Board of Directors (for the past 10 years) and operates a commercial business with full admin staff, sales persons whereby the unit is 100% business operations and he does not live in the building.  MPAC is now taxing his unit as a commercial and not residential unit.   He was a Director when the Board of Directors changed their Condo Declaration qualification guidelines for Directors.  The new qualifications as per their declaration are in non-compliance to the Condo Act. This Corporation has restricted off site owner from being on the Board of Directors but does allow an Off Site owner to sit on the Board of Directors if they own a unit on the 1st floor (live-work unit) for the past 7 years plus.    It was changed to benefit this owner/director. His term is expiring later this year however he will seek re-election to protect his position and jeopardize the Corporation and all Condo Owners.  The Board of Directors are aware of the non-compliance to the Condo Act and the above however will do absolutely nothing about it.

Case Study: Live Work Units many are in non compliance to renovations, improvements etc because they have a direct access to street level;  they can evade security and property management.  There is a case study where a live work unit owner split his unit into 2 sides, 1 side having no fire life safety systems and he was collecting 2 rents.  The security only found out about it because 1 of the tenants operating a commercial business wanted parking for his client.  Property management inspected the unit;  the Board of Directors spent over a year dealing with the issue with a substantial legal fee of over $100,000.  Superior court finally ruled the owner to take down the walls and return the unit to a single unit at his expense however only part of the legal fees were his responsibility to reimburse to the Corporation yet the Corporations declaration stated that all legal fees born by the Corporation resulting from a unit owner in non-compliance are the responsibility of the unit owner and shall be reimbursed to the Corporation.  The judge overruled the declaration and the Corporation lost over $35,000 only to enforce their declaration and create a safe environment for other Owners.



The Condo Owners Association has provide these recommendations as a starting point of discussions recognizing their extensive knowledge regarding the operations and pitfalls of the present Condo Act, operations of the Condo Corporations and the Board of Directors.

This report has been prepared without prejudice and only to report facts and recommendations for the protection of all Condo Owners.

COA Concerns

COA Additional Concerns

  1. Home Warranty Act needs a complete revision.  Consideration for Developer to guarantee maintenance fees for at least 3 years.
  2. Provincial Government consideration for a Condo Reserve Fund Bond which pays  1 to 1 ¼ % higher than the Ontario Savings bond. Reserve funds create jobs
  3. Reserve fund studies need to conform to proper financial numbers.  Interest rates and inflation rates must be set by the Government.  Reserve funds are using short term interest rates of 3% and inflation rates of 2%
  4. MPAC should consider deficiencies in the Reserve Fund
  5. Smoking problems in buildings
  6. Status Certificate - 10 banking days is too long of a period and jeopardizes sale
  7. Meetings with extensive costs considered should be part of status certificate

Sign the Petition

Licensing Property Management Firms & Property Managers


Government MUST License & Regulate Property Management/Managers NOT ACMO | Online Petition

The Condo Owners Association was formed to represent Condo Owners and advocate for their rights.


It is very common for some Boards to rely on information and/or even recommendations they receive from their Property Manager which may prevent Condo Owners from exercising their rights ie. compromising proxy forms, withholding the records of the Corporation and many times ignore Owners requests.

The Ministry of Consumer Services have recognized an overwhelming numbers of complaints from Condo Owners as a direct result of the actions of the Board of Directors and Property Managers plus Property Management Firms.   It is imperative that the new condo Act has strict Governance and Provincial Licensing for Property Managements companies and Property Managers with accompanying educational courses and accreditation.  COA has suggested a similar style to the Real Estate Council of Ontario and under a similar Act to the Real Estate Business Brokers Act.   The Government restrictions should provide a more protection infrastructure to ensure a better situation than we have today.


The Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario (ACMO) which is a self-governed Association is advocating for the authority to license Property Managers which would be a DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST and again compromises Condominium Owners and Condo Corporations.   ACMO has protected the interest and rights of Property Managers since 1977 and maintain a direct relationship with Board of Directors because the Board approves and signs their contracts.  These contracts are substantial  ie.  300 suite building equates to $150,000 upwards


The Ministry has already identified numerous complaints from disgruntled Owners.  Our Provincial Government needs to take full responsibility to protect Condo Owners by being the regulatory body who provides licensing, courses and accreditations for Property  Management firms and Property Managers.   This responsibility cannot be placed in the hands of ACMO.  Please consider that if ACMO has been around for 33 years working directly with Board of Directors and Condominiums; how come it took so long for Condo Act reform and protection needs for Condo Owners.   Our Provincial Government has to intervene as the Regulatory Body!

Please sign the petition and help us to DO IT RIGHT!!

View:  other comments from Condo Owners

Facts on Condo Problems

Many Condo Owners are afraid  to speak out!

Many Boards of Directors, Property Managers/Management firms, Lawyer

could easily intimidate and prevent you as a Condo Owners from exercising your rights!


What do you as a Condo Owner do when the following happens?

  • Over 1.3 Million Condo Owners in Ontario need changes to the Condo Act
  • Over 580,000 Condo Units are at risk - Does your board comply to Act?
  • Over 6,750 Condo Corporations at risk - Does your Board comply to Act?
  • 1,000's Commercial Condos - Does your Board comply to the Condo Act?
  • Directors need more governance and accountability to comply to Condo Act
  • Directors forging proxies to control votes is a huge concern on Condo Review
  • Directors need a "fining process if they don't comply to the Condo Act
  • Condo Lawyers must be appointed by Corporation, not hired by Board
  • Condo Lawyers may walk a fine line to protect Board not Owners
  • Directors may refuse to provide information  to Condo Owners
  • Directors change qualifications to manouver Board Positions
  • Directors may change your By-Laws in contravention to Act
  • Is your Board implementing Provincial mandates  ie AODA
  • Many Directors take away Condo Owners Human rights
  • Is your Board compromising your Condo Corporation?

Let's work together for important changes to Condo Act



Local Councillors and Municipalities may be changing your landscape

Ex: Toronto - Trinity Spadina Ward 20 (Yonge - Dufferin; Lake Ont - Bloor)

  • Condo Owners upset with vast developed in neighbourhood.
  • Trinity-Spadina use to feature lifestyle and entertainment
  • Too many condo towers being built or under construction
  • Major traffic jams and conjestion- Spadina Ave/Gardiner
  • Beautiful Bistro Restaurants torn down- Restaurant row
  • Clubs and Entertainment venues forced to relocate

If  you are Condo Owner, Register with COA




Find County


Dufferin ( map )



Frontenac (formerly Frontenac Management Board)







Leeds & Grenville

Lennox and Addington ( map )






Prescott and Russell, United Counties



Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry


Human Rights and Accessibility

Protecting Human Rights and Accessibility 

Did you know that condominiums must comply to Provincial Government Legislation AODA which is the Accessibility under the Minister of Community and Social Services.   Province of Ontario Accessibility Laws

Ontario has four (4) Accessibility Standards which can be identified in the provincial government by clicking here for the Government of Ontario Wizard.     This will provide you with a comprehensive personalize summary of what you have to do for compliance.  Persons with disabilities as studied and announced by the Royal Bank account for approx 25 Billion Dollars spending annually.  This number will rise as the population ages.

It is important to create a Province to allow all people, business and our communities to provide equal accessibility, goods and service and equal participation for everyone.   Condo Corporations must comply with this Act or they will be fined accordingly.

Chamber of Commerce's Partners with Province

Canadian Human Rights - Government of Canada - Justice Laws Act 

  1. click - Human Rights Act  
  2. click - Ministry of Attorney General - Human Rights in Ontario

The Condo Owners Association will be discussing Human Rights for Condo Owners with the Attorney Generals office.  Under the purpose of this act is to extend the laws in Canada to allow all individuals to have equal opportunity without prevention or discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.   Also discrimination of pregnancy or child-birth. 

Condo Owners can find some protection under the Human Rights Act.  The Human Rights Code protects every person's right to equal treatment without defamation, slander or insult.

Standard of Human Rights Laws in Ontario

*  Service

* Accommodation

* Harassment in Accommodation

* Contracts * Employment

* Person's accommodation under eighteern


Note:  Fifteen (15) grounds of discrimination:

*  place of origin                       *  ethnic original        *  colour                          *  citizenship

*  age record of Offence           *  family status           *  creed                           *   creed

*  receipt of public assistance    * marital status          *  sexual orientation         *   disability


Page 8 of 14