Legal

June 22, 2026 Published by Toronto and Area Chapter - By Patricia Elia

The Rapid Legal Fire Panel: Part 1

From the Spring 2026 issue of CCI Toronto Condovoice Magazine.

The 2025 Condo Conference was an overwhelming success. The Rapid Legal Fire Panel was quick, substantively heavy and opinionated. Thank you to the panel who made it a positive experience. We have had them put together their comments on the various topics for your reading pleasure. Here is Part I of our three-part article series.

Moderator & Speakers:

Patricia Elia, Elia Associates PC
Jason Rivait, Stack Condo Law
Bharat Kapoor, Horlick Condominium Law
Maria Dimakis, Deo Condominium Lawyers
Jason Rivait, Stack Condo Law

Access to Units and Mortgage Enforcement

When a unit owner defaults on their mortgage, lenders often turn their attention to the condominium unit securing the loan. In doing so, they may request access from property management or the condominium corporation. This places corporations in a challenging position, balancing the lender’s expectations with their duties to owners and residents.

Most mortgage documents grant lenders contractual rights of entry in the event of default. However, those rights exist strictly between the lender and the unit owner. The condominium corporation is not a party to that contract. Without proper legal authority, granting access may expose the corporation to liability for trespass, breach of privacy, or potential damage claims if something goes wrong during the lender’s entry.

A writ of possession provides clarity. As a court order authorizing the sheriff to deliver possession of the unit to the mortgagee, it gives the corporation a clear legal basis to cooperate. When a valid writ is presented, compliance is typically appropriate.

Absent a writ, the situation is far less certain. Boards may choose to refuse access altogether, which is often the safest course. Alternatively, some corporations may consider granting limited access in exchange for a comprehensive indemnity from the lender. In either case, obtaining legal advice before taking action is prudent.

Mortgagees have established legal remedies to enforce their rights. Condominium corporations should not assume unnecessary risk or cost to facilitate private loan enforcement without proper authorization.

Status Certificates: Disclosure, Risk, and Best Practices

A status certificate provides a snapshot of the corporation’s financial and legal position on a specific date. Purchasers rely on it as core due diligence, and courts treat it as a point in time representation of truth. If information is inaccurate, incomplete, or unclear, liability can follow.

Most disputes arise under Paragraph 12, which asks whether the corporation is aware of any circumstance that may result in increased common expenses. Courts interpret “may result” broadly. It does not require certainty or formal approval. It requires awareness of a possible increase. This creates a low threshold for disclosure. If engineering reports, tenders, reserve fund updates, or consultant advice suggest a foreseeable cost increase, it should be disclosed clearly on the certificate itself.

In Gonzales v. YCC 242, the original certificate was upheld because it was accurate at the date issued. However, management later circulated an altered and back dated version. The court found this oppressive and awarded significant damages. The lesson is that accuracy and process matter. The certificate must reflect what was known at the time.

In Bruce v. WNCC 26, the corporation failed to disclose a foreseeable major project directly on the status certificate form, even though reference to it appeared in attachments. The court held that disclosure must be explicit on the certificate itself. Purchasers are not required to infer risks.

Boards and managers should treat Paragraph 12 as a living obligation. Each certificate must reflect current knowledge. Verbal reassurances should be avoided, and anyone seeking updated information should be directed to request a new certificate. When in doubt, disclose clearly and directly.

Cost Recovery

In York Region Standard Condominium Corporation No. 972 v. Lee (“Lee”), the Court of Appeal clarified limits on cost recovery under section 134(5) of the Condominium Act. The owners repeatedly refused access for critical plumbing repairs, and the corporation obtained compliance orders and multiple cost awards. It later registered a lien for over $71,000 in legal fees. Although the lien was valid, the Court held recovery was capped by an earlier appellate order that had “fixed” costs at $4,500, “all-inclusive,” and directed they be added to common expenses. That wording prevented further recovery for that appeal, underscoring how prior cost orders can restrict the Corporation’s ability to collect all of its “additional actual costs” to obtain the order.

Though the limitation in Lee stems from the particular wording of an earlier order, the decision still fits into a larger trend. The courts have been signaling discomfort with broad, automatic recovery of legal costs.

Stay Tuned for Part 2 in the Summer Edition!

Patricia Elia
Barrister and Solicitor
Elia Associates PC