Legal

June 29, 2026 Published by Huronia Chapter - By Patricia Elia

The Unproclaimed Provisions of the Condominium Act, 1998: What Condominium Directors and Managers Should Consider

From the CCI Huronia Summer 2026 Condo Buzz Newsletter

Although Ontario's Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 introduced sweeping reforms to the Condominium Act, 1998, many amendments passed by the Legislature have never been proclaimed into force. Unfortunately, we lost a material number of changes when those provisions expired in December 2025. Some of the provisions however, were saved at the last minute by the Legislature via Bill 72 which was passed in December 2025. I honestly, do not know why the government did not just save all the provisions. Unfortunately, there were no consultations with stakeholders on what should have been saved as a priority.

We were not sad to see the changes to section 105 fall off the books because that was a conflict escalation issue right out of the gate which would have cost condominiums money.

With respect to the unproclaimed provisions that are not currently law, they provide insight into the government's long-term vision for condominium governance and may influence future reforms.

Three areas are particularly relevant to condominium directors and managers: owner-requisitioned meetings, status certificates, and shared facilities. Together, these proposed amendments reflect recurring themes found throughout the legislative debates on Bill 106—greater transparency, stronger owner participation, and governance tools better suited to increasingly complex condominium communities.

Owner-Requisitioned Meetings: Strengthening Owner Participation

Owner-requisitioned meetings are one of the few mechanisms available to owners to raise concerns and hold boards accountable between annual general meetings.

Under the current Act, owners representing at least 15% of the voting units may requisition a meeting by submitting a written request that states the purpose of the meeting and is signed by the requisitioning owners. Once a valid requisition is received, the board generally has 35 days to call and hold the meeting.

In practice, however, requisition meetings often generate disputes. Questions frequently arise about whether a requisition is valid, whether the proposed business can properly be considered by owners, and what happens if the board refuses to act. Further to this, I understand that the government may expand the CATs power to deal with meeting issues. I think that this must done carefully and cautiously because the CAT is not at these meetings and meetings have a chair who at law makes various decisions which are binding unless challenged in court. Bringing uncertainty to the findings at meetings will undermine confidence in the meetings which are governed by a huge body of corporate law. Thus, caution must be exercised.

The unproclaimed amendments were intended to modernize and clarify this process. The amendments would also provide more detailed guidance regarding the board's obligations after receiving a requisition and establish clearer procedures when a board fails to respond appropriately.

A key objective of these reforms was to reduce procedural disputes and ensure that owners have a meaningful opportunity to exercise their democratic rights.

For directors and managers, the message is clear: even though these provisions are not in force, boards should strive to facilitate owner participation rather than rely on technical procedural barriers. Clear communication, prompt responses, and transparent decision-making can often prevent disputes before they escalate.

Status Certificates: Expanding Disclosure and Transparency

Status certificates remain one of the most important documents in any condominium transaction. Purchasers, lenders, lawyers, and real estate professionals rely on them to assess the financial and legal condition of a condominium corporation.

Currently, status certificates disclose information such as common expenses, arrears, reserve fund balances, legal proceedings, insurance matters, and special assessments. However, the Legislature approved amendments that would significantly expand disclosure requirements. While this may seem like a good idea, we need to know who bears the risk of this disclosure and what is the cost to these parties. The Board, the unit owners and property management will ultimately bear the downloaded costs of these decisions.

The amendments would also require broader disclosure of agreements and obligations that could materially affect owners or purchasers. The underlying policy objective is straightforward: purchasers should have access to meaningful information before making what is often one of the largest financial decisions of their lives.

That is the purchaser’s perspective but the reality is that condominiums are operating every day. Risks change, which is why the status certificate is good for the day it is issued in providing a snapshot of the Corporation. The intention of the Status Certificate was to provide a snapshot, not a complete analysis of risk for the condominium – that would be absurd! Who could do that day to day, who would pay for it. If you pay $100 dollars, what should you expect. Even if they raise it to $250, it would not cover the risk associated with current disclosure.

For directors and managers, the changes to the Status Certificate disclosure obligations could escalate risk materially for the Corporation which at the end of the day will borne by the taxpayers in a condominium – the unit owners. This would not be consumer protection as contemplated by the Act.

Shared Facilities: Modernizing Governance for Complex Communities

Perhaps the most significant unproclaimed reforms relate to shared facilities.

When the Condominium Act, 1998 was enacted, many condominium corporations operated as relatively self-contained communities. Today's developments are often far more complex. Multiple condominium corporations may share parking garages, recreational facilities, roads, mechanical systems, security infrastructure, or other common assets.

These arrangements can create significant governance and financial challenges. Questions frequently arise regarding cost allocation, reserve fund responsibilities, decision-making authority, maintenance obligations, and capital replacement planning. Because multiple corporations may be involved, disagreements can become costly and difficult to resolve.

One of the areas of the unproclaimed amendments is shared facilities. Where a condominium corporation participates in shared facilities arrangements, additional information would be required regarding the existence of those agreements, cost-sharing obligations, governance structures, and potential financial liabilities. This is an important and essential idea that should be furthered in the regulations with prescribed minimum thresholds. Would it be a good idea to require declarant to clearly identify component inventory, shared services and boundaries out of the gate and avoid the downloading of costs of the developer to buyers by burying them? YES that is in keeping with the Act.

Recognizing these challenges, the Legislature introduced amendments designed to create a more comprehensive framework for shared facilities arrangements. The proposed provisions would provide greater flexibility for establishing and managing shared facilities agreements while creating clearer governance structures and cost-sharing mechanisms. The reforms were intended to improve certainty regarding financial contributions and responsibility for major expenditures. They also acknowledged the need for coordinated long-term planning among participating corporations, particularly where reserve fund expenditures affect shared assets.

For directors and managers, shared facilities remain one of the most challenging areas of condominium governance. Even without the proposed amendments, corporations should ensure that shared facilities agreements are regularly reviewed, clearly understood, and supported by appropriate financial planning and even amended to reflect the realities of today.

Looking Ahead

Although these amendments remain unproclaimed, they reveal several consistent policy objectives that continue to shape condominium regulation in Ontario:

• Greater transparency for owners and purchasers;
• Enhanced owner participation in governance;
• Increased use of electronic communication and modern governance practices; and
• Better management of complex, interconnected condominium communities.

Directors and managers should view these provisions not simply as dormant legislation but as indicators of where condominium governance may be headed.

Conclusion

The unproclaimed provisions dealing with owner-requisitioned meetings, status certificates, and shared facilities represent some of the most significant unfinished reforms within Ontario's condominium legislation.

While they are not currently in force, they reflect the Legislature's continuing efforts to improve accountability, transparency, and governance within condominium communities.

Boards and managers that embrace these principles today—through open communication, meaningful disclosure, and proactive governance—will be well positioned to meet the evolving expectations of owners, purchasers, and regulators in the years ahead.

---

Patricia Elia
Elia Associates PC