Should condominium boards consult the owners before implementing changes ? (Part II)

Construction signs in Montréal R Escayola.JPGIn this series of posts, we are focusing on the level of owner consultation required when boards are contemplating renovations to the condominium or changes to the services provided to the owners.

As indicated in our last post, some decisions by the board require owner consultation while other decisions do not.  This post will focus on decisions by the board that do not require any owner consultation such as: 

  • Routine maintenance work and repairs; and
  • When the work is required to prevent injury or damage to the property

 No Notice required when the work is to prevent damage or injury

The Act allows the board to make additions, alternations  or improvement to the common elements without having to consult the owners in the following cases: 

  • When it is necessary to ensure the safety or security of persons using the property;
  • When it is necessary to prevent imminent damage to the property or to its assets; or,
  • When the estimated cost of the proposed work in any given month is no more than $1,000 or one per cent of the annual budgeted common expenses for the current fiscal year (whichever is greater).

For example, the decision to repair the roof (which may be required to prevent imminent damage to the property) or the decision to repair a deficient elevator (which may be required to ensure the safety of persons using the property) does not require prior consultation.

No notice required for repairs and maintenance

Section 97 of the Act also provides that no consultation or prior notice is required to be given to the owners when a corporation has an obligation to either repair or maintain common elements, and provided that it is using materials that are as reasonably close in quality to the original as is appropriate in accordance with current construction standards.  After all, the corporation has a duty to maintain the corporation’s assets.

For example, the decision to repaint the lobby or to repair leaky windows, no matter how expensive the work may be, does not require prior consultation provided that the board uses materials as reasonably close in quality to the original.  This means that the board cannot use the excuse of “required maintenance” to justify an upgrade or a complete re-design of the lobby or the courtyard.  At the same time, owners cannot expect that a board will maintain the original construction if construction standards and materials have changed significantly.

What constitutes a “material change” ?

The difficulty is often in the determination of whether the board is using “materials reasonably close in quality to the original”. 

We were recently involved in a dispute between a board and owners of a condominium corporation over whether the redesign of the courtyard constituted a “substantial change” requiring approval by the owners or simply maintenance not requiring owner approval. 

According to the owners, the redesign of the courtyard included the removal of significant vegetation, the addition of parking spaces, changes to the design and shape of the courtyard and the replacement of the podium’s original red-brick with significantly different-looking limestone.   

Substantial change - various brick sampling.JPG

The board argued that the work constituted required maintenance and that it was using material that was “reasonably close in quality to the original” in any event. 

As part of the evidence, the owners filed pictures taken of the podium showing the original brick and the various proposals considered by the board.  The owners submitted that the limestone could not possibly constitute material close in quality to the original.  This question was eventually settled between the parties but not without the parties having incurred significant legal costs.

 

Far too often even well-intentioned boards find themselves between a rock and a hard place, attempting to please the owners while, at the same time, attempting to meet their statutory obligation to maintain the common elements and the property.  Change is never easy.  To avoid significant controversy and costly litigation, it is important to properly manage change and to understand the rights and obligations of the corporation and of the owners.

In our next post, we will look at changes that do require either notice to the owners or owner approval before they are implemented.

Comments (3)

Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the end
David Pylyp - May 8, 2012 9:09 AM

Condominium Board of Directors need to be determined in their position to look after the buildings. Too often they are swayed by the impassioned pleas of other unit owners to reduce the maintenance costs. The resulting deferred repairs can result in other unexpected repair items.

With so many condominium buildings being built in Toronto and especially along Humber Bay Shore, this commitment management and fiscal responsibility should be paramount.

David Pylyp
Living in Toronto

Andrea Cullen - May 8, 2012 8:36 PM

Sometimes boards take their "required maintenance" clause of the act too far and change the common elements to a degree that is so far from the original that the change has now caused a depreciation of the property.

We have a board that changed the hallway wallpaper and carpets on the penthouse floors to the same as the other floors without consent of the owners and now they are telling the penthouse owners that they need 80% of the ownership to change it back to the way it was originally which was different from the other floors.

The declaration states the differences between penthouse and all other floors and now they are all the same which has caused concern with the penthouse owners as to what there property values are worth today because of this change. Boards have to be cautioned when stating "required maintenance" instead of quoting "change" to the common elements and getting owner approval and possibly preventing costly litigation.


Andrea Cullen
Living in the city center of Mississauga

Gilberto - December 30, 2012 11:14 PM

Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing
a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it
for him smile Thus let me rephrase that: Thank you for lunch!

Post a comment

Fill out this form to add a comment to the discussion
I'd like to leave a comment. is
,
is
,
is
is