INSIDE Containing Insurance Costs - CCI Eastern Ontariocci-easternontario.ca/sites/default/uploads/files/CCI_CONDOCONTAC… · soon be full bloom fall colours. At the same time, I

CONDOCONTACTF A L L 2 0 1 4

INSIDE

President’s Message ............3

Editors’ Message ..................4

Containing Insurance Costs -The Case in Favour of the “Bare Box” Standard UnitBy-Law......................................5

Ontario Allows 6-Storey Wood-Framed Buildings ......8

How Can I be Forced toSell My CondominiumUnit? ......................................10

CCI National News ..........N-1

What is Mediation? ............12

Ask the Pros..........................14

Bulletin Board ......................15

Advertising Corner ..............20

CREATING A VIBRANT, WELL-INFORMED OTTAWA AND AREA CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITY

Containing Insurance Costs

The Case in Favour ofthe “Bare Box” StandardUnit By-Law

2 FALL 2014 CONDOCONTACT

CONDOCONTACT FALL 2014 3

CONDOCONTACT

CANADIANCONDOMINIUMINSTITUTE

OTTAWA & AREA CHAPTER

P.O. Box 320011386 Richmond Road

Ottawa, OntarioK2B 1A1

Telephone: 1-866-491-6216Fax: 1-866-502-1670

E-mail: [email protected]: www.cci.ca/OttawaTwitter: @CCIinOttawa

Operations ManagerCarolyne Vigon

[email protected]: (866) 491-6216 x 124Fax: 1-866-502-1670

This publication attempts to provide the CCI Ot-tawa Chapter membership with information on con-dominium issues. Authors are responsible for theirexpressed opinions and for the authenticity of allpresented facts in articles. The CCI Ottawa Chapterdoes not necessarily endorse or approve state-ments of fact or opinions made in this publicationand assumes no responsibility for these statements.

This publication also notifies members of the Ot-tawa Chapter of events and services. The productsand services advertised are not necessarily en-dorsed by the Ottawa Chapter. Readers shouldconduct their own review of the products and serv-ices and seek legal and other professional adviceon the particular issues which concern them.

Permission to reprint is hereby granted provided:

1) Notice is given by phone 1-866-491-6216 and/or in writing to the CCIOttawa Chapter; and

2) Proper credit is given as follows: Reprintedfrom Condo Contact. Copyright by Ottawa Chapter of the CanadianCondominium Institute.

President ’s Message

Over the past year, your Chapter BoardMembers have been working towards our goalsof delivering more opportunities for education,and increasing our means of effectivelycommunicating with members in the Ottawacondominium community. With a revampedwebsite and newsletter, twitter and facebookaccounts, and almost monthly seminars (inaddition to the regularly scheduled Director’scourses), we hope that we are providing ourmembers with more opportunities to connect

with your Chapter and your condominium community.

We also hope that these initiatives may inspire many of our members to comeout to the Ottawa Chapter Annual General Meeting, which will be held onOctober 22, 2014, commencing at 7:00 pm, at the Hellenic Community ofOttawa, 1315 Prince of Wales Drive, Ottawa. Not only will you have thechance to learn more about your Chapter and mingle with other members,you are also invited to attend a free seminar on how to read and understandyour condominium corporation’s financial statement, immediately followingthe AGM. Be sure to watch for your AGM package for further details!

If you can’t make it to the AGM, don’t despair! There are many other excitingseminars and events coming up. Check our Chapter website frequently forinformation on current, and upcoming events:

As I write this note, my eyes are drawn outside to the beginnings of what willsoon be full bloom fall colours. At the same time, I see cranes andconstructions sites with many new condos on the horizon. Perhaps I willseize the moment, head outside, and explore both the colours and theconstruction, both sites and sights, which will soon house new members ofour condominium community. I hope to see you in my travels!

Sincerely,

Nancy HoulePresident-CCI-Ottawa


CCI Ottawa is gearing up to go paperless for our newsletters in the 2015 year. In the meantime,members can enjoy reading about condos anywhere at any time by accessing the member side of thewebsite. Visit www.cci-ottawa.ca

This latest edition highlights that, while condominiums continues to be a popular lifestyle choice,there are many issues that come along with ownership. The Ottawa condominium market is a blendof new and old, much like the city itself. Whether one resides in a brand new or a pre-existing unitsome of the issues are the same and there is hunger for practical information and sound knowledgeon how condominiums function. At CCI we not only try to feed your appetite, but also quenchyour thirst!

In this edition of the CCI newsletter, readers will find some great articles that illustrate the vast scopeof issues that face condominium corporations and unit owners such as: new construction and the useof wood in a high-rise setting, an article on issues that touch the lives of unit owners and boardsregularly, like, insurance and standard unit by-laws, mediation, and how to deal with difficultowners…just to name a few. We hope you find this a refreshing read and as you will agree there issomething for everyone.

Condominiums can be a great way to live and we hope these articles will assist in a better understand-ing of how a condo functions, which can lead to happier times.

Tim Kennedy is a partner with the law firm Vincent Dagenais Gibson LLP/s.r.l.Rod Escayola is a partner with the law firm Gowlings in Ottawa.

Rod Escayola

Editor ’s Message

Contributing to CCI Condo ContactEditor’s Contact Information

A benefit of CCI membership is the opportunity to share perspectives with one another by contributing and reading articles in CCI-Ottawa’s quarterly newsletter Condo Contact.

If you are a condominium director, owner or manager, and have a unique tale to tell or advice to relay to other condominium boards, let us know! If you are a professional or represent a trade

company offering services or products to condominiums and have a relevant article, let us know!

The subject matter should be current, concise and helpful. Topics should relate to management and operation of condominiums and not be of a commercial nature.

ARTICLES MAY BE FORWARDED TO:

The Editor, Condo ContactCanadian Condominium Institute

Ottawa & Area ChapterP.O. Box 32001

1386 Richmond Road, Ottawa, ON K2B 1A1OR Email: [email protected]

Tim Kennedy


Containing Insurance CostsThe Case in Favour of the “Bare Box” Standard Unit By-Law

Feature Art ic le

Overview

The main purpose of a condominium’s Mas-ter Insurance Policy is to provide coverage forthe value of the buildings and to ensure thecorporation’s ability to restore their physicalintegrity in the event of significant damage.The policy is also routinely used to cover someor all of the cost of repairing damage to indi-vidual units, but this comes at a price as willbe explained below.

Under the Condominium Act (specifically Sec-tion 56(1)(h) and Sections 99(4), (5) and (6))responsibility for providing insurance cover-age for unit interiors is apportioned betweenthe corporation and individual owners. Thecorporation’s insurance will cover the cost ofrestoring a damaged unit up to the “standardunit” level and the unit owner’s insurance willcover the cost of restoring any “improve-ments”. To pick a simple example, if a “stan-dard unit” bathroom floor tile is ceramic andthe damaged unit had marble tile, the corpo-ration’s insurance would pay the cost of restor-ing the bathroom to the standard level(ceramic) and the unit owner’s insurancewould cover the additional cost of restoring itto the higher level of finish (marble).

The Condominium Act does not restrict howstandard units are to be defined and variouscorporations have adopted different models,ranging from a “bare box” of concrete floorsand ceilings and bare stud walls, up to theas-finished levels with all upgrades included.The most common definitions are based on

the standard finishes described in the builder’ssales brochure, and the builder is required tofile these descriptions as a Schedule in theDeclaration. In the absence of a StandardUnit By-Law this Schedule defines the stan-dard unit for insurance purposes.

How Condominium Insurance Normally Works

All unit owners contribute to paying the pre-mium for the corporation’s Master InsurancePolicy through their monthly condominiumfees. This policy provides the primary cover-age for the building, including common ele-ments and unit interiors up to the standardlevel of finish. Individual unit owners alsopurchase insurance for their own unit, whichcovers furniture, appliances and any otherowner contents, work required to prepare theunit to undergo needed repairs, as well as re-pair and replacement of improvements be-yond the standard unit level. The owner’sinsurance typically also provides for coveringthe corporation’s insurance deductible whererequired.

When damage to a unit triggers a claim onthe corporation’s policy, the corporation’s in-surer takes the lead, in cooperation with theProperty Manager, in assessing the damageand organizing the necessary demolition andrestoration work. Details about the addi-tional costs related to the restoration of anyimprovements are worked out between thecorporation’s insurer and the unit owner’s in-surer. As appropriate, the insurance compa-nies similarly work out how to apportion

liability for the damage between them. Thesediscussions between insurers are largely trans-parent to the owner and the corporation (al-though one or both may see an impact infuture premium charges).

Influences on Insurance Rates

Depending on the number and cost of occur-rences, and the assessed risk, insurance com-panies will periodically adjust insurance ratesand perhaps the amount of coverage offered.For condominiums especially, insuranceclaims inevitably push rates up very quicklyand many buildings that have experienced anumber of them are paying as much as fivetimes their original rate. In addition, de-ductibles can also increase significantly as a re-sult of a building’s claim history and somecondominiums in Ottawa are understood tohave deductibles in excess of $50,000 forthings like water damage. In some cases, cor-porations may have difficulty obtaining anycoverage at all and must self-insure.

In Ontario, only a handful of companies arecurrently offering condominium corporationsinsurance. Multi-unit condominium build-ings are generally grouped by the insuranceindustry with commercial structures and areinsured in the commercial insurance market.That market has higher risks and is less finan-cially attractive to insurers, so there is littlemarket pressure constraining insurance ratesin this sector.

Continued on page 6

By Charles Davies


Conversely, individual condominium unitsare grouped by the industry with single familyhomes for actuarial purposes, and this residen-tial market is far more competitive. Risks arespread over a very wide base and many com-panies are active in selling a wide array ofproducts, which generally provides a greaterconstraint on rate increases. There is alsomore government oversight and regulation ofthe residential insurance market.

Insurance Cost Containment Strategies

Insurance companies set their rates based onmany factors, but these essentially boil downto three calculations: competitive pressure; theassessed probability of one or more claimsarising; and the potential cost of any claims.Condominium corporations have no controlover the first factor, but can do somethingabout the other two.

Clearly the best way to contain insurance costsis to avoid having claims, and Boards need towork closely with their Property Manager toensure that proper maintenance is done to re-duce the probability of costly system malfunc-tions. It is also important that individualowners pay attention to maintaining theirunits, appliances and fixtures in good condi-tion. Simple things like replacing washingmachine water supply hoses every five yearsand hot water tanks every seven to ten yearscan make a great difference.

Another strategy Boards may wish to consideris reducing the potential cost to their insurerof any claims that do arise. This can be doneby adopting a Standard Unit By-Law de-signed to limit the size of potential claims onthe corporation’s Master Insurance Policy.Standard Unit By-Laws define what will becovered by the corporation’s insurer (the stan-dard unit) and what will be covered by theowner’s insurer (anything above the standardunit is considered an improvement to be in-sured by the owners). Under a “bare box” ver-sion of this by-law the corporation’s insuranceresponsibility is limited to restoring only basicstructures and utility services, and unit ownersassume insurance responsibility for fullrestoration of the interior and contents oftheir own units. By doing so, the corporationmoves the onus for most insurance claimsaway from the commercial market – with its

low competition, higher risks for insurers,and few constraints on rate increases – to theresidential market where competition isstronger, risks are spread among many play-ers, and rates are more likely to be held down.It effectively makes condominium owners’ in-surance responsibilities more akin to those ofsingle family homeowners.

What’s in it for Owners?

The adoption of a “bare box” Standard UnitBy-Law is unlikely to be immediately costneutral for owners. Some will see no addi-tional cost to their homeowner policy premi-ums; some will pay more. Every owner’ssituation is different. It is also not guaranteedthat the corporation’s insurer will immedi-ately discount the rate it charges as there aremany other factors that are considered, and

the value of the interior finishings of unitsmay not represent a large proportion of theoverall value of a building. Owners will there-fore not likely see a material offsetting reduc-tion in their condo fees. What, then, is thebenefit to them?

Owners pay for both their own insurancepolicies and the corporation’s Master Insur-ance Policy. They know how much their owninsurance costs them but don’t normally con-sider the amount they individually pay for thecorporation’s insurance through their condo-minium fees. This can be easily calculatedusing the “Percentage Contribution to Com-mon Expenses” for each owner’s unit, lockerand parking space as set out in the Declara-tion, and knowing the current annual pre-mium for the corporation’s Master InsurancePolicy.

If we assume that a corporation’s insurancecosts currently make up 5% of the annual op-erating budget, but are expected to perhapsdouble over a period of three to five years (notuncommon for a new building) then ownerscan anticipate insurance premiums alone toforce a 5% increase in condo fees over the pe-riod, leaving aside any other cost drivers.Even if your corporation does not foresee sucha steep rate of premium increase, it will almostcertainly experience continuing inexorablegrowth in commercial market insurance costs,especially if there are claims.

It is this reality that underpins the logic of the“bare box” Standard Unit By-Law. The ben-efits are not short-term. They are longer term,and derive from the fundamental dynamicsof the commercial and residential insurancemarkets – and the high probability that thecommercial rates for condominium corpora-tions will increase more steeply than the ratesindividual unit owners pay in the more com-petitive residential insurance market. In thissituation, the longer the time horizon consid-ered, the greater the expected benefit of the“bare box” Standard Unit By-Law for boththe corporation and individual owners.

One Corporation’s Experience Implementing a“Bare Box” Standard Unit By-Law

Obtaining owner approval for any new by-law or by-law amendment is a challenge. A

‘By the time we began communicating with own-ers, all Board memberswere well prepared withknowledge, understandingand commitment to the

concept.’


Standard Unit By-Law – be it “bare box” orany other kind – is likely to be more difficultthan most because of the complicated subjectmatter and the variability of impact on indi-vidual owners. A Board considering bringingone forward for approval has to carefully thinkthrough its strategy, and be prepared to investa lot of time and effort. Above all, it has todo its homework and ensure that all Boardmembers understand the subject well, and arefully prepared to talk about it with owners andanswer their questions.

The experience of OCSCC 882 in success-fully adopting a “bare box” Standard Unit By-Law can perhaps illustrate the work that mayneed to be undertaken. Our Board met withinsurance professionals (our own broker andothers), our Property Manager and our legalcounsel several times to ensure that it under-stood the benefits, costs and intricacies of theconcept. Even so, we were still resolving smalldisagreements between professionals aboutsome details and learning more about howour insurance regime really operates almostup to the AGM where the vote was held.More work early on to establish a clear pictureof this would have been well worth it.

Once the five members of our Board decided,unanimously, to proceed with the by-law, wemapped out a communications and consulta-tion strategy that included several informationpackages mailed to owners, successive ones ad-dressing issues raised in owner feedback. Wealso held a series of information sessions wheregroups of owners could ask questions and de-bate the proposal well in advance of beingasked to make a decision. These sessions werecarefully structured, with a common Power-Point briefing package used to ensure reason-able consistency in the Board’s messaging, butwith flexibility for the owners to pursue anyline of questioning or discussion they wishedfor as long as they wished. Effective facilitationof these sessions was critical – we were fortu-nate in having a Board member with consid-erable experience in doing this, but anotheroption might be to bring in expert assistance.

The entire process took about ten monthsfrom the decision to proceed to the actualvote, with half of that time committed toBoard research, technical consultations andformulation of the first information package

explaining the issue and our recommendationto owners. By the time we began communi-cating with owners, all Board members werewell prepared with knowledge, understandingand commitment to the concept.

Throughout the process of informing and en-gaging owners, we made it clear that the Boardwas not attempting to “sell” the by-law. Wewere open in saying that we believed it to bein the best interests of the Corporation toadopt it, but our job was to ensure that ownershad all the information they needed to make aproperly informed decision, and the decisionwas theirs to make. This was an important dis-tinction that was appreciated by owners.

One of the recurring themes expressed bymany owners was that they liked the idea oftaking greater responsibility for their own in-surance and having less responsibility to payfor the insurance of others. Another impor-tant factor was that our building is largelyowner-occupied and a number of units thataren’t have family members as tenants. Mostowners are here for the long haul, so they tendto look at this kind of question from the per-spective of their long-term interests. A cor-poration with a different demographic profilewould undoubtedly experience a different re-ception to this kind of by-law.

Preparing for the discussion and vote at theAGM had to be carefully done, including avery active proxy solicitation leading up to it.At the meeting it was important to allow thevarious opposing and supporting argumentsto be fully aired, but equally important thatthe Board be well prepared to answer all of theconcerns raised, and for the discussion to beimpartially managed by the Chair to keep thetone respectful and dispassionate.

This fulsome discussion among owners hadtwo important results: no matter which sideof the question they were on, every owner leftthe meeting confident that the process hadbeen fair and their views had been listened toand respected; and owners who had been un-decided were comfortable making their deci-sion (with one or two who had intended tovote one way deciding to vote the other afterhearing the debate).

Ultimately, the by-law passed with a clear ma-

jority of owners voting in favour.

The work did not stop with the approval of theby-law. In updating their coverage a numberof owners found that their insurance compa-nies had quite varied understanding and re-sponses to the insurance requirements of a“bare box” by-law. Also, individual insurancecompanies apply a wide range of definitionsand approaches to the condominium insur-ance packages they offer. This made it difficultfor some owners to determine whether theircoverage was appropriate. The Board contin-ued to support owners in working throughthese issues by researching and providing ad-ditional information packages to help ownersin their conversations with insurers, and byscheduling sessions where owners who wantedto do so could privately review their policieswith an independent professional and get ad-vice. This latter service was generously pro-vided at no cost by our Corporation’s broker.

In a few cases insurers actually balked at of-fering the higher coverage sought and we as-sisted owners in finding companies that wereprepared to provide appropriate coverage. Inmost cases the original insurers did ultimatelydecide to provide the requested coverage afterall, rather than lose the client.

This follow-on support to owners has beencritical as this type of by-law makes it evenmore important for owners to be adequatelyinsured. Our Board will now be consideringhow best to verify owners’ compliance withthe insurance coverage requirements set outin our Declaration and By-Laws.

Chuck Davies is the president of OCSCC882, a Charlesfort development consisting of94 high-rise units and 3 townhomes in theMcKellar Park area. He retired in 2013 fol-lowing a 42-year military and Public Servicecareer. OCSCC 882 recently adopted a “barebox” Standard Unit By-law to proactivelycontrol insurance costs. For further informa-tion contact [email protected]. �


years include Kingston, Ontario wherethe crane operator had to be heli-res-cued; Richmond, British Columbia; andEdmonton and Calgary, Alberta,demonstrate how dangerous and unsafewood-frame buildings under construc-tion are. The tragic loss of senior citizens[in Québec] in January 2014 demon-strates how dangerous these buildingscan be in operation and how many livescan be put at risk as a result. There aresignificant safety issues, public and pri-vate liability and other consequences, es-pecially with moving too quickly onpotential Code changes.”

Unfortunately, we do not need to go as faras British Columbia to be reminded of thedevastating effects fires can have on woodenconstructions. Many of you probably re-member the blaze which destroyed a recentcondominium townhouse complex in SouthOttawa, on September 7, 2014. More thanfour dozen city firefighters responded to athree-alarm fire that caused in excess of $4Min damages. Thankfully, no occupants wereinjured, but the owners and the condo-minium are now left picking the pieces.

The Province indicates that they have ad-dressed these safety concerns by imple-

Ontario Allows 6-StoreyWood-Framed Buildings

On September 23, 2014, theOntario Ministry of Munici-pal Affairs and Housing hasannounced that the Province

will allow the construction of much higherwood-framed buildings. Through changesto the Ontario Building Code, wood-framed buildings will soon be allowed to bebuilt up to six storeys high, raising the limitfrom the existing four storeys limit.

According to the Ministry’s press release, thiswill introduce safer, more flexible and moreaffordable design options for the construc-tion of wood frame buildings. These changesare “expected to give builders a safe optionthat can help make building a home moreaffordable and support more attractive,pedestrian-oriented buildings that enhancestreetscapes while continuing to protect thesafety of residents and firefighters”.

Last March, the Ontario Coalition for FairConstruction Practices wrote to all OntarioMPP to oppose this proposed change to theOntario Building Code. In particular, theywere concerned with the safety of mid-risewood-framed buildings. At the time, theywrote:

“The massive fires that have recently de-stroyed several multi-storey wood build-ings under construction in the last two

By Rod EscayolaCondominium Lawyer with Gowlings


menting new safety requirements to woodframe buildings, including the requirementto include in them stairwells with non-combustible materials and roofs that arecombustion resistant. This is said to makeOntario’s regulations the most rigorous inCanada. On this, Ted McMeekin, the Min-ister of Municipal Affairs and Housing,stated:

“Building Code changes to mid-risewood construction will give builders andthe public even safer, more flexiblebuilding options. Our made-in-Ontariomodel for mid-rise wood provides thehighest requirements for fire safety inCanada.”

The University of the Fraser Valley pub-lished a recent study on the topic of firesafety in buildings with proper sprinklers.This study, the Sprinkler Systems and FireOutcomes in Multi-Level ResidentialBuildings, seemed to suggest that new six-storey wood-framed buildings would besafer than older, shorter wood-framedbuildings, given that the amended buildingcode (in British Columbia) requires themto be fully sprinklered to a higher standardthan previously required, and to be con-structed with a range of other built-in fireprotection systems, such as non-com-bustible exterior cladding and the use ofelectromagnetic hold-open door devicesthat release in the event of a fire. The fullreport is available for review at www.ufv.ca

(Centre for Public Safety and Criminal Jus-tice > Reports and Publications) and atwww.surrey.ca .

Queen’s Park expects that this change willgenerate new demands for forestry prod-ucts, which currently supports more than150,000 direct and indirect jobs in morethan 260 communities across Ontario.

I’m not an engineer. As such, I would notcomment on any of the above. I am left towonder, however, how will these higherwooden structures impact the cohabitationof neighbours? Wood structures are noto-rious to allow more noise transfer and moresmoke and odour migration. In a denserpopulated condominium community, willpurchasers be made aware of the fact thatthese new buildings are wooden-framedand not concrete as may be thought at firstglance?

Most condominiums’ governing docu-ments provide some protection to ownersin prohibiting noise disturbance or any nui-sance that affects owners’ quiet enjoymentof their units. But experience has shownthat the enforcement of such rules can becostly to the condominium corporationand very frustrating to the owners. Manyof us may remember last year’s very unfor-tunate case of the Ottawa autistic child,whose behavior and activities rendered co-habitation near impossible for the ownerliving below them.

Noise transmission is inevitable in manycases. We all have had to accept, at onepoint or another, some level of noise com-ing from a neighbour. What is the normallevel of noise to be expected in a wooden-structure? Would that be different than theone to be expected in a concrete structure?Perhaps a new chapter of condominium lit-igation is about to be written in Ontario.Only time will tell.

Perhaps some will be reassured to know thatOntario is not the first jurisdiction to in-crease the height of permitted wood-framebuildings. Most European Union countriesand several North American jurisdictionsallow six-storeys wood-frame buildings. InBritish Columbia, over 50 wood framebuildings have been built since it changedits building code in 2009 and over 200more are in the works.

These changes to the Ontario Building Codewill be in force on January 1st, 2015. �

‘I am left to wonder, however, how will thesehigher wooden structures impact the

cohabitation of neighbours?’


enforcing compliance with any provision ofthis Act, the declaration, the by-laws, therules or an agreement between two or morecorporations for the mutual use, provisionor maintenance or the cost-sharing of facil-ities or services of any of the parties to theagreement. 1998, c. 19, s. 134 (1); 2000,c. 26, Sched. B, s. 7 (7). [Emphasis Added.]

Section 134(3) states:

Contents of order(3) On an application, the court may,

subject to subsection (4),(a) grant the order applied for;(b) require the persons named in the

order to pay,(i) the damages incurred by the

applicant as a result of the actsof non-compliance, and

(ii) the costs incurred by the ap-plicant in obtaining the order;or

(c) grant such other relief as is fairand equitable in the circum-stances. 1998, c. 19, s. 134 (3).

It is subsection 134 (3)(c) (in addition tothe rules respecting contempt) that allowsa Court to order a Unit owner to sell theirunit if it determines that it is fair and equi-table in the circumstances. This is an ex-traordinary remedy and often takes manyyears and several Court orders before esca-lating to an Order requiring an owner tovacate the unit. However, recent case lawindicates that Court’s will make an Orderfor forced sale if they feel it is required.

In a condominium, owners need to re-member that although they own theirproperty, they have a duty to others inthe condominium community. This

includes complying with the CondominiumAct, 1998 (“the “Act”) and the Corporation’sDeclaration, By-laws and Rules. Not everyowner respects the obligations that comewith living in a condominium. As a result,in some extreme cases, the CondominiumCorporation is required to seek the removalof an owner.

There are two main ways that a condo-minium owner may be required to sell theirunit:

1) Power of Sale; and2) Forced Sale.

In each of the above-noted situations, con-dominium owners may be required to selltheir unit against their wishes. AlthoughCondominium owners own their property,the Act provides condominium corpora-tions with the ability to take steps, if re-quired, to force an owner out.

Let me begin with some background.

Power of Sale

This article does not focus on the power ofsale situation. However, it is important toknow that there are some situations wherethe Corporation will have the right to sellan owner’s unit under power of sale.

Section 84 of the Act requires owners tocontribute to the common expenses of the

Corporation. If an owner fails to con-tribute, the corporation has a lien rightagainst the owner’s unit.

Section 85 (6) of the Act states that the lienmay be enforced in the same manner as amortgage. Thus, in the event that an ownerfails to meet its obligations to pay commonexpenses, the Corporation can lien the Unitand, if required, it can seek to enforce thelien by way of power of sale.

Forced Sale

The second way an owner can be forced tosell their unit is by way of a forced sale. TheCondominium’s Board of Directors istasked with making sure that everyonecomplies with their obligations under theAct and the Corporation’s Declarations, By-laws, and rules. In some extreme cases, thisresults in the Board taking steps to force anowner out of their unit.

If an owner is in breach of his/her obliga-tions under the Act, or the Condominium’sDeclaration, By-laws or Rules, the Corpo-ration is required to take enforcement steps.In some cases, this leads to an Applicationto the Court under Section 134 of the Act.

Section 134 (1) of the Act states:

134. (1) Subject to subsection (2), anowner, an occupier of a proposed unit, acorporation, a declarant, a lessor of a lease-hold condominium corporation or a mort-gagee of a unit may make an application tothe Superior Court of Justice for an order

How Can I be Forced to SellMy Condominium Unit?By Cheryll WoodNelligan O’Brien Payne LLP


Recent decisions from the Ontario SuperiorCourt

There have been two orders in Ontariosince May that have resulted in the evictionof an owner and/or the forced sale of theunit.

York Condominium Corporation No. 301v. James

In this case, the Unit owner, Ms. James, wasfound to have behaved in a manner thatranged from disturbing to disgusting tothreatening.

In September 2013, Justice Stinson madean Order that restrained Ms. James from:

• entering on the common elements (ex-cept for ingress and egress to her unit);having contact or communication withresidents or any employees of the con-dominium;

• communicating with, harassing or hav-ing any contact with any member ofthe Board, management or security(and various others), except in cases ofan emergency;

• coming within 25 feet of an affiant inthe proceedings;

• entering or coming within 25 feet ofthe management office; and

• disturbing the comfort and quiet en-joyment of the units and common ele-ments.

Ms. James breached this Order severaltimes. Accordingly, on October 21, 2013,Justice Morgan ordered that Ms. James un-dergo a mental health examination. Thisorder was also breached.

As a result of Ms. James’ “unacceptable andanti-social behaviour”, and her failure tocomply with previous Court orders, theJudge ordered her to sell her unit. TheCourt said:

Unfortunately, the respondent suffers froma mental illness. I appreciate that it willbe a hardship for her to vacate the unitand have the unit sold. However, it mustbe borne in mind that while the applicantis a corporate body, it is the men, women,

and children who live and work in thebuilding and their visitors and guests whohave been confronted with behaviour thatranges from disturbing to disgusting tothreatening. I do not see remedies short ofan order vacating the unit and ordering asale as sufficient to address the uncontestedbreaches of the Act and the rules of the con-dominium corporation.

Carleton Condominium Corporation No.348 v. Chevalier

In this case, problems with the Respon-dents, Mr. Chevalier (the owner) and an oc-cupant of his unit Mr. Basmadji, had begunin 2005. The Condominium obtained sev-eral Court Orders in an attempt to controlthe behaviour of the respondents. Initially,the Corporation was granted an Order re-fraining the respondents from engaging invarious conduct that would damage or altercommon elements or pose a risk to thehealth and safety of others.

The Order was not complied with, and, asa result, the Corporation returned the Ap-plication seeking the immediate eviction ofMr. Basmadji from the premises. ThisOrder was granted by Justice Beaudoin inApril 2013.

In July 2013, the Corporation brought amotion seeking a finding of contempt asMr. Basmadji continued to attend thepremises and the Court was advised thatMr. Basmadji had struck a contractor witha crowbar. Justice Beaudoin did not makean order for contempt (as he questioned theRespondents capacity), however, he usedthe discretion afforded by the rules (Rule60.11 (5)) and made several orders includ-ing one that allowed the Corporation tobring a motion to evict Mr. Chevaliershould Mr. Chevalier continue to allow Mr.Basmadji on the premises.

Mr. Chevalier continued to allow Mr. Bas-madji on the premises. As a result, the Cor-poration brought a return of Application inJune 2014. Justice Beaudoin found that theRespondents had no intention of comply-ing with previous court orders. Justice

Beaudoin stated:In this case, it is obvious that previouscourt orders have been insufficient to con-trol the unacceptable and antisocial behav-ior of the Respondents. Their actions havepresented a series of health and safety issuesfor other residents, management, visitorsand contractors at the Condominium Cor-poration.

It is apparent that the Respondent, YvesChevalier, suffers from a mental illness. Iappreciate that it would be a hardship forhim to vacate his unit which will probablybe sold. Nevertheless, I am advised by the(Office of the Public Guardian andTrustee) that he is not without resources.There have been at least three previouscourt orders for costs which have beenadded to the common expenses for his unit.These have been paid by the (Office of thePublic Guardian and Trustee) on behalfof the Respondent. Further orders for thecosts will continue to jeopardize his re-maining assets and make his continued oc-cupancy of the unit impossible in anyevent.

As you can see, the remedy of a forced saleis not come upon lightly. It is usually a lastresort that the Court orders when no otherattempts at resolving or controlling the be-haviour of a particular owner is successful. Both of the decisions discussed above notethat communal living requires the respectand consideration for ones neighbour. Thisincludes complying with the Corporation’sDeclaration, By-laws and Rules. [Note: Inorder to avoid any surprises, when purchas-ing a condominium unit, prospective buy-ers should carefully review theCorporation’s Declaration, By-laws andRules to make sure that this particular con-dominium is the correct fit for them.]

Living in a condominium has many greatbenefits and can be a great place to live. Acondominium community needs to worktogether to ensure the success of the condo-minium corporation as a whole. In theevent that an issue arises with an owner, theCorporation does have remedies availableto it. �


The Condominium Act maymake it mandatory; your con-dominium may have a by-lawthat speaks to it; and the courts

may encourage parties to try it - but whatexactly is mediation, anyway?

Just as many condominium residents lackunderstanding of what a condominiumcommunity is or how it works, the samecan be said for mediation. Many parties en-gaged in conflict do not understand whatmediation is, how it works or what it cando for them.

The fact that mediation is not a set processto be applied the same way to every conflictcan complicate matters as well; it is not thecase that every mediation unfolds the sameway. There are also different “styles” of me-diation that apply to varying degrees andcan get intermingled to suit the situation -consider a group of teenagers at a soft drinkstation, each filling their cup. While onemay chose only one drink option, anothermay choose to combine a couple of differ-ent flavours to suit their taste.

While each mediation session is unique,there are some common principles andelements which can help one better

understand what mediation is and theoppor tunities it provides.

1. Mediation is a private process. It isconfidential and without prejudice. Thismeans that everything said in the courseof a mediation session, with limited ex-ception[1], does not leave the mediationsession and that various offers, propos-als and disclosures made in the courseof a mediation cannot be used againstparticipants outside of the mediation(i.e. in court, if the dispute proceeds totrial).

The idea is to bring the parties together

to express and explore in a safe environ-ment; to allow for the sharing of per-spectives and the joint consideration ofideas for the purpose of gaining insightand generating options which may offera more appealing way of resolving thedispute.

2. Mediation is driven by the parties. Theextent to which the parties have controlover how the process unfolds is contin-gent upon the mediator and – often –the behaviour of the parties; however, acore principle of mediation surroundsparties controlling the outcome. Thatis, any resolution achieved in the course

What is Mediation?By Marc Bhalla, Hons. B.A.,Q. Med from CONDOMEDIATORS.ca

THE NEWSLETTER OF THE CANADIAN CONDOMINIUM INSTITUTE/INSTITUT CANADIEN DES CONDOMINIUMS

National Newsy o u r c o n d oc o n n e c t i o n

Page NN-1

Fall 2014

Greetings to all CCI members across the country.Today is the first day of Fall and thankfully summerlike temperatures appear to be hanging on for thetime being. With any luck the fine weather will con-tinue for all of us for a little while longer. I hope allof our members had a safe and enjoyable summerand now feel rejuvenated to get back to business.

The onset of Fall also marks the beginning of AGMseason amongst our various Chapters. Special greet-ings from the National Executive have been preparedfor each Chapter and are forwarded as each AGMdate approaches. Last year I was pleased to knowthat our greetings were shared at various AGMs. Thisis the Executive’s way of recognizing the efforts ofyour local chapter boards and to let all of our mem-bers know about various national efforts and proj-ects that have been completed or are ongoing. I dohope that you all will make an effort to attend yourChapter’s AGM and participate. Your Chapter Boardwill be reviewing its activities and accomplishmentsover the last year and will also discuss initiativesplanned for the upcoming year. Thank you again toall Chapter volunteers for dedicating their time andeffort this year.

The CCI National meetings and AGM are coming upagain in early November. We will again offer excel-lent seminar and Leaders’ Forum topics and hold ourawards presentation. However for those who haveattended in the past, you will notice some changes

Message from the PresidentBY GEOFF PENNEY, BA, LLB, ACCICCI NATIONAL PRESIDENT

this year. After many years of holding our CCI Na-tional meetings in conjunction with the CCI-Toronto/ACMO Condominium Conference, this yearwe have decided to strike out on our own. While CCINational has certainly enjoyed and benefited frommeeting in conjunction with the CCI-Toronto/ACMOCondominium Conference, we felt the time wasright to focus more on the particular interests of ournational chapter members. We will also have moreflexibility in terms of scheduling our meetings anddetermining an appropriate location. This Novemberwe will be moving to hotel and meeting facilitiescloser to the downtown Toronto core rather thanusing those out towards Pearson Airport. We hopethis will allow for greater choice of restaurants andactivities for members. It also offers more opportu-nities to members who travel from outside the GTAto enjoy their free time. As our National CCI meetingswill not conflict with the CCI-Toronto/ACMO confer-ence, once the CCI National schedule has concluded,members who have registered are able to attend theCCI-Toronto/ACMO conference as well. We would ap-preciate feedback on the new format as it may con-tribute to our plans for upcoming years.

Our National Committees continue to drive the workof our organization and have been meeting recentlyto continue work on their various projects and man-dates. The membership of these committees comesdirectly from each of our sixteen chapters and iscomposed of individuals with diverse backgrounds.

This ensures excellent cross- representation of opin-ions, experiences and skills which has made ourcommittee structures so successful. There is also adirect link between the committees and the chap-ters themselves which facilitates sharing of ideasand a greater sense of involvement at the chapterlevel. Committees now meet face to face twice dur-ing the year in addition to regular teleconferences.I would encourage any of our members with timeand ideas to share to consider participating in oneor more of the national committees.

This is my last message to CCI members as Presidentof the National Executive. I will move into the posi-tion as National Chair following the AGM in Novem-ber. In conclusion, I’d like to express my sincerethanks to my fellow executive directors, committeechairs and members and general members every-where. It has been a pleasure working with you andfor you over the last two years. I am pleased andhumbled to think that I have played some small partin the continuing and expanding success of CCI. Iwish you all well.

CCI National News � Fall 2014 Page NN-2

Condo Cases Across CanadaBY JAMES DAVIDSON, LL.B., ACCI, FCCINELLIGAN O’BRIEN PAYNE, OTTAWA

It is my pleasure to provide these brief summaries of recentcondominium Court decisions across Canada. I don’t pro-vide summaries of every decision rendered. I select a hand-ful of decisions that I hope readers will find interesting. Ihope readers enjoy this regular column of the CCI Review.

Note to readers: In B.C., condominium corporations are“strata corporations” and in Quebec, condominium corpo-

rations are “syndicates”.

Note: This publication contains only a handful of this quarter’s summaries. CCImembers who would like to see the rest of this quarter’s summaries can find themat the Condo Cases Across Canada website: www.condocases.ca The current pass-word is “condocases”.

James Davidson LLB, ACCI, FCCI, Nelligan O’Brien Payne, Ottawa

THE HOT TOPIC – Courts Ordering Sale of Units

We are seeing more and more cases where the Courts are willingto order the eviction of an owner and/or the sale of the unit.Most recently, we’ve had a case from B.C. and two cases from On-tario. Here are the summaries:

Bea v. The owners, Strata Plan LMS2138 (British ColumbiaSupreme Court) May 12, 2014

Court orders sale of unit due to owner’s contempt of Court

The owner made several petitions, in each case repeating the owner’schallenge to the strata corporation’s parking arrangements. All of thepetitions were dismissed, with cost awards in favour of the strata corpo-ration. The repeating petitions were held to be an abuse of the Court’sprocess, given the fact that the Court had previously decided the mattersin dispute.

The Court had also previously ordered that the owner pay a fine of$10,000 due to the owner’s contempt. The owner refused to pay the fine.Ultimately the Court ordered that the owner’s unit be sold. The Courtsaid:

As I have noted more than once, this represents a departure from precedentinsofar as punishment for contempt of court is concerned. It is, however,as I see it, an appropriate evolution that is in line with sanctions that havebeen imposed in analogous circumstances for similar egregious behavior.

In this case, it appears certain that Mrs. Bea is destined to lose her propertyin any event through the enforcement of the many judgments for costs reg-istered against it. The question is whether the owners should be put throughthe additional expense and frustration of proceeding in that way in the faceof the Beas’ unremitting pattern of abuse of the court process, and the evermounting costs of dealing with them. I think not. The time to end theirabuse of the court’s process is now.

Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 348 v. Chevalier(Ontario Superior Court) June 25, 2014

Court orders eviction of owner

The unit owner, Mr. Chevalier, had repeatedly violated the CondominiumAct, 1998 and the declaration, by-laws and rules of the condominiumcorporation. He had also contravened previous Court orders. His tenant,Mr. Basmadji, had also contravened the Act, declaration, by-laws andrules. The Court had previously ordered his eviction.

The Court ordered that Mr. Chevalier vacate the unit. The Court said:

In this case, it is obvious that previous court orders have been insufficientto control the unacceptable and antisocial behavior of the Respondents.Their actions have presented a series of health and safety issues for otherresidents, management, visitors and contractors at the CondominiumCorporation.

It is apparent that the Respondent, Yves Chevalier, suffers from a mentalillness. I appreciate that it would be a hardship for him to vacate his unitwhich will probably be sold. Nevertheless, I am advised by the (Office ofthe Public Guardian and Trustee) that he is not without resources. Therehave been at least three previous court orders for costs which have beenadded to the common expenses for his unit. These have been paid by the(Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee) on behalf of the Respondent.Further orders for the costs will continue to jeopardize his remaining assetsand make his continued occupancy of the unit impossible in any event.

York CC No. 301 v. James (Ontario Superior Court) May 5,2014

Court orders sale of unit due to owner’s misconduct, despiteowner’s mental illness.

The Court ordered that the owner’s unit be sold due to her “unacceptableand anti-social behaviour”, and her failure to comply with previous Courtorders. The Court said:

continued…


Unfortunately, the respondent suffers from a mental illness. I appreciatethat it will be a hardship for her to vacate the unit and have the unit sold.However, it must be borne in mind that while the applicant is a corporatebody, it is the men, women, and children who live and work in the buildingand their visitors and guests who have been confronted with behaviourthat ranges from disturbing to disgusting to threatening. I do not see reme-dies short of an order vacating the unit and ordering a sale as sufficient toaddress the uncontested breaches of the Act and the rules of the condo-minium corporation.

The Court also ordered that the owner’s misconduct be restrained.

Other BC Case – Legend Holding Group Ltd. v. Chen (BritishColumbia Supreme Court) June 13, 2014

Strata lot owner has no right to install new service through anotherstrata lot

An owner on the 6th floor wished to install drainage pipes in a drop ceiling spacewithin one of the strata lots on the 5th floor. This was to allow the 6th floorowner to operate a new colon cleaning spa in that owner’s strata lot. The stratacorporation was in support of this proposed installation, but the owner of the5th floor strata lot refused. The question for the Court was whether or not Section69 of the Strata Property Act (which states that each strata lot is subject to ease-ments for services in favour of all other strata lots) applies only to original servicesor also to proposed new services.

The Court said that Section 69 applies only to original services, and refused therequested order forcing the 5th floor owner to allow installation of the drainagepipes. The Court said:

In my view, the provisions of s.69(3)(d) and (e) make it clear that the facilitiesfor which the easement exists are facilities already in existence or any replace-ment of those facilities necessitated by their deterioration….It does not extendto authorizing the installation of a completely new facility.

Alberta Case – Bank of Montreal v. Rajakaruna (AlbertaCourt of Queen’s Bench) July 10, 2014

Appeal dismissed. Mortgagee not entitled to summary judgment forforeclosure. Furthermore, mortgagee’s claim dismissed in its entirety.

The Bank of Montreal made application for summary judgment of its foreclosureaction against a condominium owner. The condominium corporation hadclaimed amounts from the owner (namely, a fine for alleged excessive noise

caused by the owner’s tenants, and a witness fee for the condominium manager’steleconference attendance at a related hearing of the Residential Tenancy DisputeOfficer). The mortgagee (the Bank) paid those amounts to the condominiumcorporation, and then sought to collect them from the owner under the termsof the mortgage. The Bank’s motion for summary judgment was dismissed (seeCondo Cases Across Canada, Part 44, November 2013). The Bank appealed. Theappeal was dismissed. Furthermore, the Appeal Court summarily dismissed theBank’s claim. The Appeal Court held that the Bank was not entitled to add theamounts in question to the mortgage. The Court said:

Even if the Applicant can bring further evidence to validate the legitimacy ofthe Noise Fine, there is no way that the Bank can rely on the Noise Fine to con-stitute a property claim pursuant to the Mortgage…. The acceleration of as-sessment scheme contemplated by the Bylaws is unsupported at law andcannot be relied upon for establishing a property claim existed. If the Bank wasable to prove the validity of the Noise Fine, the remedy for the CondominiumCorporation would be to bring an action and seek judgment, not to cause anacceleration of assessments owed.

. . . .

The Bank has had two opportunities to bring the required evidence before theCourt, and has failed to establish that the Witness Fee was properly chargedunder section 44(a) of the Bylaws. The Bank has also failed to establish whetherthe charge falls within the scope of section 44(a) in terms of the purpose forwhich it was incurred or expended, or whether the charge falls within the scopeof section 44(a) in terms of establishing the Condominium Corporation actuallywas charged for this expense. As such, I find the Bank has failed to satisfy itsevidentiary burden on the balance of probabilities.

Ontario Case – Robinson v. York Condominium Corporation No.365 (Ontario Human Rights Tribunal) July 18, 2014

Changes to security system did not increase electro-magneticradiation. Owner’s human rights claim dismissed

The Applicant was a resident in the high-rise condominium. She suffered fromelectro-magnetic sensitivity, which the Human Rights Tribunal described as a“very complex medical condition that is extremely disabling”. She claimed thatchanges made to the building’s security system had caused her suffering to in-crease, due to increased electro-magnetic radiation in and around her unit. Shemade a claim for accommodation to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim. The Tribunal said that the evidence did not in-dicate that the changes to the security system had increased electro-magneticradiation in any way that could have affected the Applicant’s symptoms.

Condo Cases Across Canada Cont’d.

continued…


Morley v. London Condominium Corporation No. 2 (OntarioHuman Rights Tribunal) March 17, 2014

Condominium corporation ordered to pay $1,000 for breach ofconfidentiality

The owner and condominium corporation had reached a settlement of theowner’s human rights claim. In the minutes of settlement, the corporationagreed to install a new entrance ramp to the owner’s unit. The settlement agree-ment also included a provision requiring that the settlement not be disclosedto third parties (with certain exceptions, including disclosure “required by law”).

In a newsletter, the condominium corporation disclosed to all owners the factthat the condominium corporation had installed the ramp at its expense. TheTribunal said that this was a breach of the confidentiality provision in the set-tlement agreement and ordered the condominium corporation to pay the owner$1,000.

[Editorial Note: In my respectful view, the Tribunal’s decision fails to recognize thecondominium corporation’s statutory duty to account to all owners for the corpo-ration’s spending of the owners’ money.]

Quebec Case – Deschenes v. Dauray (Quebec ProvincialCourt) May 12, 2014

No misrepresentation in relation to locker or flooding issues

The Plaintiff, Deschenes, purchased a condominium unit from the defendantDauray. Deschenes then sued both the defendant, and the Syndicat for allegedmisrepresentations made during the sale negotiations. Dauray was also a mem-ber of the Syndicat’s board of directors during the negotiations. Deschenes al-leged that:

• Dauray misrepresented that the unit was assigned an exclusive use locker;where, in actuality, the locker in question was only “borrowed” for use,until such time as the Syndicat required the use of the locker. The evidencewas that Dauray had shown the locker to Deschenes on several occasionsand had given Deschenes keys to the locker at the time of closing; and

• Dauray had also represented that, although there had been issues withflooding at the complex in the past, the Syndicat had recently undertakenrenovations, and the issues were resolved.

Deschenes also argued that Dauray was acting in his capacity as a director of theSyndicat when he made these representations.

At a later date, after Deschenes moved in, he was asked to remove his items from

the locker. In addition, the Syndicat learned that the renovations which hadbeen performed were deficient and, consequently, the Syndicat was required tolevy two special assessments. As a result, Deschenes sued Dauray for lost marketvalue of his unit and for inconvenience. He also sued Dauray and the Syndicatfor recovery of the amounts paid for the special assessments.

The Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed.

The Court accepted Dauray’s evidence that, although he had shown the plaintiffthe locker and had given the plaintiff keys to the locker, he had also told theplaintiff that the locker was “borrowed”, and was not for the exclusive use of theunit. Furthermore, there was no indication in any of the written documentationthat the unit included an exclusive-use locker.

The Court also found that there was no reason for Dauray to suspect, at the timeof the sales negotiations, that the renovations made by the Syndicat were defi-cient, as they appeared to have solved the flooding problems at that time. Con-sequently, it could not be said that Dauray had made false representationsrespecting the flooding problems.

The evidence (in this particular case) also failed to show that Dauray was actingin his capacity as a board member when he made the representations regardingthe building renovations.

Condo Cases Across Canada Cont’d.

Page NN-5CCI National News � Fall 2014

CHAPTER CHATTER

Golden Horseshoe Chapter – OurAnnual General Meeting was held on September18, 2014 at Dundurn Castle in Hamilton. We wel-come Kim Coulter, Maria Durdan and Maria Des-forges who were re-elected to the Board. We hada great turn out at the Annual General Meeting.Following the meeting there was a tour of the cas-tle followed by a Wine and Cheese gathering.

The yearly Board Planning Session has been setfor January 9, 2015 to plan their focus for 2015and to evaluate the sub-committees that wereput in place in 2014. The Committees were re-or-ganized and chairs appointed to each Committeeand they were provided with both short and longterm goals. All the Committees have been accom-plishing great progress.

The first Annual Conference and Trade Show in theKitchener-Waterloo area was a great success thisyear. It was held at Bingeman’s in Kitchener. TheTrade Show area was a sell out and there wererecord numbers in attendance. The ConferenceCommittee is already planning the next confer-ence to be held at the Hamilton Convention CentreMay 30, 2015.

We are excited to announce that the Communi-cations Committee has changed the appearanceof the Condo News! Quite exciting! The first edi-tion is coming out this fall.

We have had three successful L300 courses thatwere held in 2014, one in Accounting, Insuranceand the latest was Dispute Resolution which wassold out with excellent reviews. There is one more

Level 300 Course scheduled for the late fall in En-gineering. This upcoming year the Education Com-mittee will be scheduling three Level 300 courses.Our two Level 200 courses have been scheduledfor the fall, one in Kitchener and one in Burlington.

I must say that we do have a great group of Com-mittee Members working towards the same goal!The Golden Horseshoe Chapter has transformeditself into a very successful Chapter which is wellgoverned and efficiently administered. Anotherexciting year still to come!

Maria Desforges, RCM, ACCISecretary, Golden Horseshoe Chapter

North Saskatchewan Chapter –There is a lot more changing in Saskatchewanright now than the colour of the leaves. In Junewe saw the introduction of an updated and sub-stantially more consumer focused set of Condo-minium rules. The updated CondominiumProperty Act, 1993 and Condominium PropertyRegulations, 2001 came into effect on June 16,2014. There are new estoppel requirements withthe requirement to provide more information topotential purchasers including the last year ofmeeting minutes, new review and audit require-ments, reduced time between reserve fund stud-ies to every 5 years and mandatory insuranceprovisions for certain bare land condominiumcomplexes.

We hosted our annual conference in the fall thisyear. On September 13 we had over 120 members

and 9 sponsors fill the conference room for a fullday of condominium education. We were gratefulthat Catherine Benning and Sherri Hupp fromSaskatchewan Department of Justice were ableto join us for our fall conference to provide ourmembers with an overview of the changes to theAct and Regulations. We also had the police de-partment speak on noise complaints and drugs,an accountant walk us through financial reportingrequirements, a very informative presentation oncondominium websites and using technology tocommunicate with owners, and a panel of expertsto speak about bare land developments and is-sues surrounding those developments. It was avery successful and informative day.

We held our first President’s Club meeting in thespring. We had a lawyer attend to do a brief pres-entation on directors fiduciary liability whichstimulated a great conversation. The evening wasa success and we are planning our second Presi-dent’s Club meeting for late October focusing onthe new financial reporting requirements for con-dominiums.

In August we met with members of the SouthSaskatchewan CCI Chapter and worked throughthe course materials from Toronto’s Condominium100 Course and got a very good start on complet-ing a Condominium 100 course for ourSaskatchewan members. We hope to roll out theCondominium 100 course in early 2015.

We are also in the process of finalizing plans forour AGM which will be held in November. Pleasewatch our chapter notices for more information.We are asking anyone that is interested in gettinginvolved in the North Saskatchewan CCI whetheras a volunteer, or board level, please contact us todiscuss the opportunity.

Jamie Herle, President

CCI North Saskatchewan Chapter

continued…


In early 2014, with some nudging from col-leagues and clients, I decided to apply forthe ACCI designation. I hoped that the ACCIdesignation would help me distinguish my-self from other lawyers and demonstrate mydedication to the industry. I wrote andpassed the exam on my first attempt. Indoing so, I joined an impressive group oflawyers, of which I am extremely proud tobe a part.

While I had heard rumours that the exam was difficult before I wrote it, I did not fully appreciate how diffi-cult it was until after I passed it and began to receive congratulations from people across the country, someof whom I had never met. I also learned that it was common for people to fail their first attempt. I wasasked to write this article to describe the process I used to conquer the ACCI exam.

Once I decided to apply for the ACCI, I filled out the ACCI application, gathered two references, and sub-mitted it to CCI. When I received confirmation that my application was approved, I was provided with alist of suggested reading materials and information on the exam itself. Since I had to write the exam within60 days of my approval, I immediately began to gather the suggested reading materials. I found that mostof the documents could be purchased from the CCI bookstores. When I had difficulty locating an item, Icontacted the CCI administrators, who told me where to locate it.

Once I had gathered all of the materials, I had about 35 days to write the exam. Like most people, I havea busy work and family life. To be sure that I would complete reading the materials before writing theexam, I decided to make a study schedule. I was able to stick to the schedule for the most part. I studiedfor about 15 hours a week for the next 4 weeks. I reviewed the textbooks, guides, and Code of Ethics. I re-viewed the legislation in my province (Ontario) and the case summaries prepared by Jim Davidson for CCI(Condo Cases Across Country).

I wrote the exam a couple of days after I finished studying. I had only a few days to spare before the 60days was up! After I completed the exam I immediately received my results. I was thrilled to learn that Ihad passed each section of the exam.

I hope that this article encourages others to consider taking the exam. While there is no one right way tostudy for it, I encourage others to carefully review all of the source materials at least once before attemptingthe exam. Even the most experienced professional can be caught off guard by an unfamiliar case or pro-vision in the legislation, especially if the question asks about the law in another province or territory.

Michelle Kelly is a partner at Sutherland Kelly LLP in Guelph. She assists with all aspects of condominium law,including development, management, and litigation. She acts for condominium corporations, owners, anddevelopers throughout Ontario, with a particular focus on the Golden Horseshoe.

How I Conquered the ACCI ExamMICHELLE KELLY, B.COMM., LL.B., ACCI

Chapter Chatter Cont’d.

Huronia Chapter – 2014 has been abusy year for CCI Huronia and the Board of Direc-tors has been working hard. We are growing ourmembership and have improved our educationalprograming and newsletter. We have revampedthe newsletter and given it a fresh new look. Wecontinue to deliver our newsletter to the majorityof our membership in electronic format.

Our President’s Club events have switched to a din-ner and presentation format which have been wel-comed by many participants.

Our Annual Conference was expanded to a full dayevent. As part of our conference programming thisyear we held the Great Debate between candidatesrunning for municipal council in the upcoming elec-tion on issues that affect condomin iums at the mu-nicipal level and introduced a legal panel whichprovided the audience with an update on recent caselaw. Our “Who Wants to be a Condo Millionaire” quizgame show tested the contestants knowledge onspecific condominium questions and our Rapid FirePanel returned for another season. Our ExhibitorsHall was bustling with our many exhibitors and reg-istrants and we were all able to take a well deservedbreak during our wine and cheese reception. Thosethat stayed for dinner enjoyed a delicious meal andwere entertained by a mentalist.

Our two day Director’s Course was sold out inHuntsville and our recent Condo Forum in North Baywas a great success once again.

We are working on revamping and updating ourwebsite. Our new website will be launchingshortly. Be sure to check it out for updated infor-mation on all our upcoming events.

continued…


Golden Horseshoe:October 18 & 25 – Level 200 Course (Burlington)November 29 – Level 300 Engineering (Milton)

Huronia Chapter:October 6 – President’s Club – The Condo Corporation vs Winter Weather

Manitoba Chapter:November 20 – Luncheon – Amending Declarations/Bylaws/Rules & RegulationsJanuary 22/2015 – Luncheon – Help Me, I’m a Condo Director

North Alberta Chapter:October 9 – Luncheon – Winterizing Your CondominiumOctober 16 – Condo 101 November 5 – AGMNovember 13 – Luncheon – Investment Options for Condo CorporationsNovember 15 & 16 – Condominium Management 101November 19 – Seminar – FAQ on InsuranceNovember 20 – Condo 101January 8/2015 – Luncheon – Making Your Condominium More SaleableJanuary 21/2015 – Seminar – Condo CommunicationsJanuary 24 & 25 – Condominium Management 100

Northwestern Ontario Chapter:October 4 – Condo Cases In Review – What Every Condo Owner Needs to Know

Nova Scotia Chapter:October – CM 100 – Fundamentals Management Principles

Ottawa Chapter:October 22 – AGM & Seminar – Reading and Understanding Your Condo’s Financial StatementsNovember 29-30 – Fall 2014 Condo Directors Course

South Alberta Chapter:October 23 – Condo Management 101October 28 – LuncheonNovember 22 – Condo Management 100November 25 – LuncheonJanuary 27/2015 – Luncheon

South Saskatchewan Chapter:October 28 – Bare Land Condominium – What You Need to KnowNovember 15 – Annual Fall Conference & AGM

UPCOMING EVENTSChapter Chatter Cont’d.

In the next few weeks, CCI Huronia’s Board of Di-rectors will begin planning for 2015 which weanticipate will be an even better year. If you areinterested in volunteering your time and expert-ise, CCI Huronia is looking for volunteers to helpthe Board achieve our goals. Contact [email protected] and let us know how you can help.

Sonja HodisPresident, CCI Huronia Chapter

CCI Would Like to Celebrate thisYear’s New ACCI ProfessionalMembers:

Maria Bartolotti(Alberta – Property Management)

Josee Deslongchamps(Ontario – Property Management)

Maria Durdan(Ontario – Law)

Sandra Johnston(Alberta – Property Management)

Michelle Kelly(Ontario – Law)

Craig McMillan(Ontario – Property Management)

Rick Murti(Alberta – Law)

Karyn Sales(Ontario – Law)Adrian Schulz

(Manitoba – Property Management)

Alan Whyte(Alberta – Property Management)

The ACCI is Canada’s first, and only, multi-disciplinarydesignation for professionals in condominium. Backedby CCI’s reputation, ACCIs demonstrate their competenceto current and potential Members and to others in theirprofessions. Holding an ACCI In your profession marksyou as a leader and helps you stand out.


Upcoming Events Cont’d.

Toronto & Area Chapter:October 8 – Condo Course 102October 22 - AGMOctober 29 – Seminar – There are No Stupid Questions!November 7-8 – Annual ACMO/CCI-T Condo ConferenceNovember 11, 18, 25, December 2 – Condo Course 200November 20 – Seminar – Electrical Vehicles in Condos

Vancouver Chapter:October 14 – Insurance SeminarNovember 29 – Seminar: Strata Property Act – 15 Years Later January 13/2015 – Seminar: Council MeetingsFebruary 7/2015 – Seminar: Contracts for Major Project; Selecting a Contractor

This is just a snapshot of all the great events being held across the country…to register for any ofthese or see more fabulous educational offerings, please contact your local chapter.

For more information on more upcoming events in your area, please visit the chapter website.

CCI NATIONAL 2014 ANNUALGENERAL MEETING

Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Time: 5:00 pm – 7:00 pm

Location: Courtyard by Marriott Downtown Toronto475 Yonge Street, Toronto, ON

New Date! – New Location!New Format!

Reception

Business Meeting

& Awards Celebration!

Full information at www.cci.ca


of a mediation can only be achievedwith the agreement of the participants.

Part of what allows for the sharing of in-formation, exchange of ideas and brain-storming of options that take place inthe course of mediation is the fact thatparticipants cannot be held to anythingagainst their will. This is where media-tion stands out in comparison to arbi-tration or litigation, as a resolution ofthe dispute cannot be imposed.

While mediators are usually neutral andwithhold opinions or judgements, evenin instances where a mediator providesan evaluation of the dispute such is notbinding upon the parties as they remainfree to address the conflict as they like.

3. Mediation offers no guarantees. Whilerates of settlement are often utilized toencourage parties to mediate or pro-mote the capabilities of a mediator, asthe outcome of a mediation is ulti-mately controlled by the participants,there can be no certainty going in thata resolution will be reached.

While mediation offers no guarantees,it can add value even when the conflictis not ultimately resolved at media-tion. A greater understanding of theperspective of the other side and thechance to narrow issues or establish aninteraction plan can go a long way in

saving the additional cost and time thatwill be required to see the matterthrough to its conclusion.

I adamantly believe – and have told par-ties in mediations which I have facili-tated – that the goal of mediation is notto reach settlement but rather to gener-ate options. It is then up to the partiesto consider their options against theirother potential courses of action to ad-dress the conflict. If all in conflict agreethat an option presented is their mostappealing choice, settlement is appro-priate. That being said, I also believethat mediation “fails” if settlement isreached with a party finding that an op-tion other than settlement is more ap-pealing. For that reason, it is helpful forparties to prepare for mediation by un-derstanding how else they can addressthe conflict and reflecting upon how ap-pealing such options are. This bestequips one to seize the mediation op-portunity and make an informed deci-sion as to what is in their best interest.

The concept of mediation can be confus-ing, in part because it is a flexible processand also because description of the processcan seem contradictory – mediation is aninformal discussion that takes place in a for-mal setting; it can save you time andmoney, yet has the potential to add cost anddelay to the resolution of your dispute; it isa party-driven process facilitated by some-

one who may interrupt you, guide whathappens and otherwise control the process,and so on. What is clear, however, is thatmediation presents opportunity. It presentsan opportunity for those engaged in con-flict to have a say in how the dispute isresolved; to save the cost, time and uncer-tainty of having someone else impose a de-cision; and the potential to provide insight,understanding and collaboration to thinkoutside the box, examine creative optionsand improve the ongoing and future inter-actions. It is up to the parties to seize theopportunity, with the help of the mediator,and to try to make the most of it.

[1] Disclosures of imminent criminal activity or

the genuine threat of harm to individuals are typ-

ically exempted from confidentiality provisions in

mediation agreements out of public interest and to

maintain the ethical integrity of participants.

This article is re-printed with permission fromthe CCI Toronto & Area Chapter as it origi-nally appered in the Summer 2014 issue ofthe CondoVoice magazine. �

‘…the goal of mediation is not to reachsettlement but rather to generate options.’


Ask the Pros

Ask the ProsAuthored by the Editors

Q: How does a board of directors update their condominium’s rules? Doowners need to vote on new rules?

A: It is not mandatory for owners to vote on a new rule, except for a rule that hasbeen previously amended or repealed in the past two years. Owners can vote on a newrule if there is a requisition meeting requested by an owner to consider and vote on therule. Otherwise a proposed rule will be in effect thirty days after the board gives noticeof the new rule in accordance with the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”).

If the board determines that it is in the best interests of the condominium corporation tointroduce a new rule, here are some of the steps that should be taken:· Prepare a draft of the proposed rule(s), preferably in consultation with the condo-minium corporation’s lawyer to ensure that it will be in compliance with s. 58 of the Actand to ensure that it will not be inconsistent with the Act or the condominium’s Decla-ration or By-Laws.· Consider the proposed draft rule at a duly called board meeting. If the rule is specificto address a particular problem at the condominium, the board could consider includinga discussion at the meeting, to be documented in the board meeting minutes, to explainwhy the board feels that this rule is reasonable and why it is being introduced. This stepcould be of assistance down the road if the rule were to be challenged as being unreason-able.�· The board approves the proposed rule by resolution at the meeting· Notice of the proposed rule must be given to owners in accordance with the require-ments of the Act. The rule will become effective thirty days after the notice was given (ora later date chosen by the board), unless the board receive a requisition within thosethirty days, for a meeting to consider the proposed rule. If a requisition is received, therule becomes effective if the owners approve it at the requisitioned meeting of owners.

This process applies for any amendment or repeal of a rule as well.

If your corporation is currently relying on rules that were introduced by the declarant,and attached to By-Law No.1, then the board should consider whether any of the pro-posed new rules would be inconsistent with those existing rules. If so, then there are op-tions to consider, including reintroducing the entire set of rules first under s. 58, alongwith any new rules, and then passing a By-Law to repeal the rules attached to By-LawNo. 1.

Answered by Kristen Bailey�Lawyer�613-231-8327

Perhaps the biggest challenge formost condo directors is finding an-swers to the countless questions andchallenges that are thrown our way.I know: I’m a condo director myself.Thankfully, we have our fellow di-rectors to consult and bounce ideasof one another. But, let’s face it,there is nothing like getting the ad-vice from a professional. In fact, theCondominium Act provides directorswith legislated protection if you re-lied on expert advice.

For this reason, we have decided torevive the “Ask a Pro” section. Here,you will be able to write your ques-tions and get answers from the pros.Whether you have a question for aproperty manager, a lawyer, an ac-countant, an engineer or an electri-cian, let us find the answer for you.Feel free to also send your questionsto our linkedIn page (CanadianCondominium Institute - Ottawaand Area Chapter), to our Twitteraccount (@CCIinOttawa) or to ouremail address: [email protected]


Bul let in Board

NOVEMBER

CCI OTTAWA AGM Plus Free Seminar on

“Reading & UnderstandingYour Condo’s Financial

Statements”November 24th, 6:30 p.m.

Nepean Sportsplex , Capones Ballroom, Entrance 41701 Woodroffe Avenue, Nepean ON, K2G 1W2

CCI Ottawa would like to present our upcoming educational seminars/events for the upcoming year.Please visit our website for details and registration information at www.cci.ca/ottawa

NOVEMBER

Fall 2014 Condominium Directors’ CourseNovember 29 & 30, 20149:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Hellenic Centre

Have something to say? Join CCI-Ottawa on Twitter & LinkedIn for free

to participate in the conversations, and gain education, informationawareness and access to expertise by and for our members.

Visit our website CCI-Ottawa.ca to gain access

@CCIinOttawa

Canadian Condominium Institute -Ottawa and Area Chapter


NEW MEMBERSWELCOME TO THE FOLLOWING

NEW CCI OTTAWA CHAPTER MEMBERS

INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS

Brian Kurio

Jane Guest, Playfair Residences

Yvon D. Charron

CORPORATE MEMBERS

Carleton Condo Corp 0464Leeds Condo Corp 0022Ottawa Carleton Standard Condo Corp 0932

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERS

Stephanie Robinson, Halsall AssociatesDylan Conners, Halsall Associates

CONDOCONTACTCANADIAN CONDOMINIUM INSTITUTEOTTAWA & AREA CHAPTER

2014/2015 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

PresidentNancy Houle, LLB

Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP

Vice President/Education ChairConstance Hudak, MBANational Representative

Secretary/Membership Co-ChairAndrée Ball

Axia Property Management Inc.

TreasurerStephanie Courneyea, CGAMcCay, Duff & Company LLP

Membership Co-ChairIan Davidson

Condominium Management Group

Newsletter Co-ChairTim Kennedy

Vincent Dagenais Gibson LLP/s.r.l.

Newsletter Co-ChairRodrigue Escayola

Gowlings

DirectorChristopher Lyons

Laviolette Building Engineering Inc.

Bul let in Board

NOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Please Note New Date and Venue:Monday, November 24, 2014 at 6:30 pm

Nepean Sportsplex, Capones Ballroom, Entrance 4, 1701 Woodroffe Avenue, Nepean ON, K2G 1W2

Members are encouraged to join us at the 2014 AGM to learn more about the exciting initiatives the CCI-Ottawa Chapter has undertaken during the past year. The election for the 2014/15 Board of Directors alsotakes place at the AGM giving members the opportunity to participate in this important process. The Call ForNominations is included with this notice – this is an excellent opportunity for members to become moreinvolved with our vibrant chapter.

Following the AGM, a special complimentary session for attendees will take place on…

“Reading & Understanding Your Condo’s Financial Statements” Led by Chapter Treasurer, Stephanie Courneyea, CGA

This inter-active session will include an overview on understanding the Statement of FinancialPosition, Balance Sheet, Looking for red flags on the Statement of Operations, and Interpretingfinancial results, followed by a Q&A session.

The Board of Directors of the CCI-Ottawa Chapter thank you in advance for your continued support, andlook forward to seeing you on November 24th.

Sincerely,

Nancy Houle, PresidentOn behalf of the CCI-Ottawa Board of Directors

CONFIRMATION OF ATTENDANCE

� Yes, I will be attending the seminar on Reading & Understanding Your Condo’s Financial Statements

� No, I will not be attending the seminar on Reading & Understanding Your Condo’s Financial Statements

Name

Company

Phone��

Email

Please send to:CCI Ottawa Chapter

PO Box 32001, 1386 Richmond Rd., Ottawa, ON K2B 1A1

Free Seminar for Attendees!


Fall 2014 Directors Course

Name:

Company:

Mailing Address:

City:

Province: Postal Code:

Phone:

Manager's Email:

Registrant's Email:

Course Registration Fee

CCI Member – First Registrant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$285.00CCI Member – Additional Registrant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$240.00Non-Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$570.00

13% HST________

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$_______

Please complete a registration form for each person registering.

Registration includes all sessions, coffee breaks, two light lunches, and a complete binder of handout materials.

Please note any Dietary Restrictions ___________________________________

Cheque Enclosed $ or Charge my: � �

Card No. Exp. Date: /

Name on Card:

Signature:

Please make cheques payable to:

Canadian Condominium Institute – Ottawa and Area ChapterP.O. Box 32001, 1386 Richmond Road, Ottawa, ON K2B 1A1Email: [email protected]: 1-866-491-6216 Fax: 1-866-502-1670

R E G I S T R A T I O N F O R M

For more detailed information, pleasevisit the Chapter website at:

www.cci.ca/ottawa/NEWS/EVENTS

RESERVATIONS A MUST! Avoid Disappointment – Register Today!• The course is very comprehensive and reflects

key requirements of Ontario’s Condominium Act.

• A must for all condominium directors, professionals and condominium owners who arepotential directors or simply want a betterunderstanding of the way condominiumsfunction.

• The course is delivered by professionals whospecialize in the condominium sector – lawyers,engineers, property managers and accountants.

• A practical, hands-on course developed to reduce the risks of condominium ownership by equipping condominium corporation directors with the specializedmanagement skills they need.

Session Topics:1. What is a Condo/ Overview of the

Condo Act2. Status Certificates/Changes to

Common Elements/Insurance3. Property Asset Management/

Reserve Fund Planning4. Accounting and Finance5. Property Managers/Effective

Directors6. Experts Panel – Question Forum

Saturday November 29, 2014 9:00 am - 4:00 pm & Sunday November 30, 2014 9:00 am - 4:00 pmHellenic Meeting and Reception Centre, 1315 Prince of Wales Drive Ottawa Ontario

The CCI Ottawa Chapter

Fall 2014 Condominium Directors’ Course

HST/GST #89966 7364 RT0006

Bul let in Board


Bul let in Board

CCI-Ottawa is goingGreen in 2015!

CCI-Ottawa ispleased to announcethat the quarterlynewsletter CondoContact will begoing digital as ofSpring 2015.

All current members will receivequarterly e-blasts highlighting upcomingevents, important information and thequarterly newsletter. Watch for yourquarterly e-blasts!


Advert is ing Corner





FIRE HYDRANTS & VALVESINSPECTION TESTINGS, RESTORATION, REPLACEMENT, LEAK REPAIRS

Tel: (613) 834-7089Fax: (613) 824-8193Email: [email protected]



Documents

INSIDE Containing Insurance Costs - CCI Eastern Ontariocci-easternontario.ca/sites/default/uploads/files/CCI_CONDOCONTAC… · soon be full bloom fall colours. At the same time, I