Cost defines what’s a repair or a renovation
Our board recently spent more than $500,000 in cosmetic work, such as refurbishing hallways and the lobby. Two directors are real estate agents and the refurbishing helps them sell units. Is the expenditure valid?
The corporation is required to carry out necessary repairs and replacement of the common elements.
If the refurbishing is reasonably necessary due to the worn-out or damaged condition of the hallways and lobby, the board is required to act without notice to or a vote of the owners. If, on the other hand, such refurbishing is not necessary but constitutes a desire by the board to upgrade the hallways or lobby, it constitutes an addition, alteration or improvement to the common elements.
In that event the board must comply with section 97 of the Condominium Act, including advising the owners that owners of 15 per cent or more of the units have the right to requisition a meeting of the owners to vote on the proposed addition, alteration or improvement.
If an estimate of the cost of the proposed work exceeds 10 per cent of budgeted common expenses for the current fiscal year, the work is deemed to be a substantial change and the corporation cannot carry it out unless the owners who own at least 662⁄ per cent of the units vote 3 in favour.
Our condo board recently replaced a lobby notice board with a TV screen that flashes advertisements 24 hours a day. The screen has caused a decrease in the owners’ enjoyment of the common elements. As well, there was no consultation with, or vote by, the owners about the installation. Can we take action against the condominium, even though the cost of the installation was less than the amount referred to in subsection 97(5) of the Condominium Act?
Subsection 97(5) provides that a condominium corporation may make an addition, alteration or improvement to the common elements without notice to the unit owners in certain situations.
That includes if the cost of the project is not more than the greater of $1,000 and 1 per cent of the budgeted common expenses for the current fiscal year.
Assuming that the TV screen is used for showing bulletins relating to the operation of the condominium corporation, despite the ads, and that the cost of the installation is less than the amount specified in subsection 97(5) of the Condominium Act, there would appear to be no basis for an action against the corporation.
We attempted using proxies to get enough votes to remove our condo’s directors. But they fell a bit short. Now the board has introduced a new proxy form naming a vice-president as proxy and “failing him, the president — and “failing him” a person to be named by the owner who signs the proxy instrument. Do I understand this correctly that if either the vice-president or president is at the meeting, they will be the proxy and a person named by the unit owner will not?
Yes! The words “failing him” mean that unless both the vice-president and the president are not available, one of them will be the proxy and the unit owner cannot choose the proxy.
Using that form of proxy will render it impossible for owners to obtain enough proxy votes to remove the directors.
Currently, however, you need not use the corporation’s proxy form but can prepare your own in which the second “failing him” is replaced by “instead of the foregoing I name . . . ”