The court dismissed that motion, ordering that, among other things, “a fair process should be put in place to find out whether a majority of the unit owners would prefer to have the court appoint another administrator [to replace the current administrator, who had expressed an intention to retire from that position at the conclusion of renovation work that YCC 42 was conducting at the time of this hearing] or would prefer to see the governance of YCC 42 transferred into the hands of
Based on the foregoing, the court held that a referendum should be held to determine the will of the majority of the unit owners with respect to the potential return of the corporation to self-governance, and that the administrator should report the result of the referendum to the court and seek further direction. With respect to the referendum itself, the court ordered that the vote should be supervised by an independent third party, “preferably a retired judge of this Court”, and solicited input from all con-
‘…as every condominium corporation is different, each corporation should have the benefit of a solution tailored as much as is possible to its individual needs.’ an elected board of directors”. Following that order, and in anticipation of this hearing, the court received written submissions from over 200 unit owners, which showed that some unit owners favoured continued administration and some unit owners opposed. These submissions also showed that many of the unit owners had divided into factions, many of which appeared to have their own respective agendas with respect to the future governance of the corporation.
cerned parties with respect to the manner of conducting the referendum, including whether the use of proxies should be permitted. Author’s Note: This decision offers an interesting look at the creativity that the court may employ in situations where an administrator’s appointment (or continuing appointment) is being considered by the court. Such creativity is appropriate; as every condominium corporation is different, each corpora-
tion should have the benefit of a solution tailored as much as is possible to its individual needs. The importance of this creative approach is underlined by the fact that many condominium buildings in Ontario are forty years old or older, and may be faced with increasing financial and infrastructure-related challenges as a result. In this case, for example, it was clear that unit owner factions were opposed to one another, and that opposition could have the potential for one faction to try to bully other unit owners; given those circumstances, it could be appropriate for the court to order that no proxies be used in the referendum, as they could be too easily abused by one or more unit owner factions at the expense of the majority of owners. Courthouse Block Inc. v. Middlesex Condominium Corp. No. 173 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 5, 2011) This was an application by the owner of 35 of the 38 commercial units in a mixed-use condominium corporation that also contained 255 residential units. The applicant had purchased its units from a mortgagee in possession approximately 15 years earlier on an “as-is” basis. The applicant alleged that, over time, the respondent had
Fall 2011
thecondovoice
43