Condo owner has pet peeve about in­ac­tion

Calgary Herald - Calgary Herald New Condos - - New Condos - ROBERT NOCE

Ques­tion: Our condo board pres­i­dent wants the cor­po­ra­tion to adopt “house rules” in ad­di­tion to our by­laws.

The by­laws are suf­fi­cient, ex­cept that the pres­i­dent is slow to take ac­tion when pet bylaw in­frac­tions are brought to his at­ten­tion.

The pre­vi­ous board used fines to get the at­ten­tion of neg­li­gent own­ers and ten­ants, but the cur­rent pres­i­dent does not do so.

He chooses what he wants to do, and our prop­erty man­age­ment com­pany will only act on his in­struc­tions.

I have tried to tell the pres­i­dent that no mat­ter what hap­pens with re­spect to “house rules,” the board has the duty to en­force all by­laws. Is this cor­rect?

An­swer: A con­do­minium cor­po­ra­tion, through its board, can­not ig­nore a par­tic­u­lar bylaw sim­ply be­cause it does not want to en­force pet pro­vi­sions.

If the board is aware of a bylaw breach, the board must act. As well, the prop­erty man­age­ment com­pany should be get­ting its di­rec­tions from the board through proper board res­o­lu­tions, not through the pres­i­dent, who has no author­ity to in­struct the prop­erty man­ager to do or not to do some­thing with­out the board’s ap­proval.

The prop­erty man­age­ment com­pany should re­mind the board that it is to act through board res­o­lu­tion.

Fi­nally, a cur­rent board is not bound by any de­ci­sion of a pre­vi­ous board.

Help­ful hint: Ad­her­ing to board gov­er­nance, and en­sur­ing that the board is act­ing through proper res­o­lu­tions, will en­sure that is­sues as to whether or not the cor­po­ra­tion had the author­ity to do some­thing can­not be chal­lenged.

Cal­gary Her­ald/files

Lawyer Robert Noce.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.