Reflecting on 2025 it has been a memorable year. We successfully launched our first in-person building tour session; this was a tremendous undertaking focused on providing entry level property managers with access to in-person learning guided by industry experts.

Complimenting our physical building tour, we have hosted our annual conference a variety of webinars, policy advocacy updates and our end of year legal recap.

This year regardless of who I have interacted with in condominium sector they have all echoed the same sentiment, it is unprecedently busy.

Condominiums continue to grow in size and complexity and are demanding increasingly sophisticated skillsets in shorter time frames.

While the landscape can be rough terrain, I personally find myself anchored in a sense of intentionality. Whether you are a property manager, lawyer, engineer or service provider, we are all tasked with the same responsibility: We have been entrusted to contribute to the maintenance and asset management of arguably the largest investment individuals will endeavour.

I invite each of you to consider what is our actual purpose in our specific tasks and how can we use our contributions to improve this sector.

At CAI Canada we will continue contribute to our sector with educational content and advocacy for our shared interests.

On behalf of myself and our Board of Directors, thank you for your support and we wish you lovely holiday season.

Seasonal AGM Challenges for Property Managers

For property managers, the holiday season often coincides with one of the busiest stretches of the year. AGMs, elections, and year-end communications all demand attention just as owners become harder to reach and board members juggle travel and family commitments. The result? More adjourned meetings, more follow-up, and much more pressure on managers who are already stretched thin.

The Role of Early Voting in Meeting Preparation

Early online voting, whether the meeting is in person, virtual, or hybrid, gives managers a valuable head start. Because early online votes count toward quorum, participation builds well before meeting day. Managers can see turnout earlier and better anticipate quorum outcomes, making planning more predictable. Boards can prepare agendas with confidence, and managers can move forward knowing the meeting will proceed as scheduled, without last-minute outreach, door-knocking, or scrambling for votes.

Reducing Administrative Workload During Peak Season

AGMs come with a significant administrative load, and the holidays often make it even harder to reach owners or collect required documents on time. When voting happens early and online, managers spend less time coordinating proxies, tracking ballots, and following up with owners. In fact, moving voting and AGM communications online saves managers 8-30 hours of preparation during the busiest time of the year.

Improving Participation and Avoiding Adjournments

Convenience is the strongest driver of turnout. When voting is simple and accessible, participation rises, and communities are far less likely to adjourn due to lack of quorum. For managers, avoiding an adjournment saves days, and sometimes weeks, of re-coordinating schedules, resending notices, and restarting preparation.

Holiday Takeaway: Plan Ahead for Stress-Free Meetings

A small planning shift can make even the toughest seasons run more smoothly. When owners are travelling for the holidays, summer vacations, or snowbird months, early online voting helps maintain participation and keeps AGMs moving forward.

Tim Bolivar,

General Manager of Minutes On-Time

EV charging has a reputation problem.

In condo buildings across Canada, it’s spoken about in frustration or indifference —like a project that’s inherently risky, overly complicated, and best left for later. Power limitations. Fire concerns. Vendor proposals that feel more confusing than helpful. Boards fear mistakes, residents experience frustration, and property managers are left in the middle without a lifeline.

Here’s the truth that rarely gets stated plainly: EV charging isn’t failing because it’s complex. It’s failing because of a poorly structured decision-making process.

It’s up to the property manager to create the necessary decision-making structure.

Not because you’re an electrical expert or because you’re expected to design the system. But rather, because you are the only person positioned to help board members navigate complicated decisions. A property manager’s job is to turn uncertainty into a structured, manageable set of decisions.

We’re publishing this three-part series outlining all the challenges and barriers we’ve identified over 8 years of deploying more than 3,000 EV chargers across Canada. This guide will give property managers and board members the structure needed to make a good EV charging decision.

Waiting Increases your Risk of Heartburn

When EV charging comes up, waiting often feels like the default, safe choice.

The board isn’t ready. More information is needed. Technology might improve. Costs could come down… No one wants to be the person who rushed into the wrong solution.

But waiting has consequences—As time passes:

• Resident frustration grows: I’ve been in buildings where the EV charging project has taken over 2 years, resulting in tenant and owner turnover and a palpable increase in frustration from existing building owners.
• No system design or future planning: Under pressure, some condo corporations allow a patchwork of one-off chargers to be installed on a first-come, first-served basis. It feels pragmatic at the moment, but it creates design constraints, sets precedents that are unfair for future drivers, and consumes electrical capacity inefficiently, forcing boards to later unwind legacy installs or manage multiple EV programs at higher costs.
• Stress increases: You don’t want to be the property manager involved in a legal procedure when condo owners issue a formal written application under Ontario regulation 48/01 of the Condo Act.

While the holiday season is traditionally associated with goodwill and community engagement, it can also place additional pressures on condominium corporations — such as increased governance challenges, enforcement disputes, and procedural missteps.

Seasonal issues—ranging from boosted short-term rentals and guest behaviour to holiday decorations and board decision-making—can often test the limits of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) and the evolving jurisprudence of the Condominium Authority Tribunal (“CAT”) and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

This article examines several recurring holiday-related condominium issues through a “naughty or nice” framework, focusing on where board conduct has attracted judicial or CAT criticism and how directors can discharge their duties in a manner consistent with evolving legal expectations.

Naughty: Governance Conduct That Courts and Tribunals Reject

Section 37(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998 imposes an obligation on directors: to act honestly and in good faith, and to exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances. Directors are not insulated from scrutiny simply because decisions were made in what they subjectively believed to be in the corporation’s best interests.

#1 Failure to Govern in Accordance with Procedural Requirements

A persistent governance failure involving boards is acting informally or outside the procedural framework mandated by the Act and the corporation’s governing documents. Despite increased familiarity with virtual meetings and electronic communications, some boards continue to make decisions via informal email consensus – without later formally ratifying same in Board Meeting Minutes –or without proper notice to directors or owners.

Ontario courts have long emphasized the importance of strict adherence to condominium governance procedures. The Superior Court has underscored that even well-intentioned board actions may be invalidated where they are not taken in accordance with the Act and the corporation’s by-laws. CAT decisions have echoed this principle, particularly where enforcement or compliance decisions are made without an evidentiary basis or proper authorization.

Boards that bypass duly constituted meetings or fail to properly minute decisions risk findings that their actions are unreasonable or ultra vires.

Naughty finding: Informal decision-making undermines transparency and exposes the corporation to procedural challenges.

#2 Inconsistent or Arbitrary Rule Enforcement

The holiday period is often accompanied by a spike in disputes concerning noise, parking, decorations, and guest conduct. CAT jurisprudence consistently demonstrates that inconsistent enforcement is a significant liability for condominium corporations.

Condominium rules must be enforced in a manner that is fair, reasonable, and consistent. Similarly, the enforcement of Board decisions must be supported by evidence and applied uniformly. Selective enforcement—such as tolerating prolonged violations by some owners while citing others—has repeatedly been characterized by both the Superior Court and the CAT as being unreasonable and could be considered to be oppressive.  This can certainly be heightened during the holiday months with the propensity for decorations and entertaining.

Naughty finding: Arbitrary enforcement erodes the board’s credibility and invites adverse Tribunal findings.

#3 Failure to Address Short-Term Rental Violations

Short-term rentals continue to generate condominium disputes, especially during peak holiday periods. While the Act does not itself prohibit short-term rentals, boards have a statutory obligation to enforce restrictions contained in declarations, by-laws, and rules.

Condominium corporations may validly restrict short-term rentals where authorized by their governing documents, whether it be in the corporation’s Declaration or in the Rules. The failure to take reasonable enforcement steps to enforce short-term rental restrictions may expose a corporation to owner complaints alleging breach of the board’s duty to manage the affairs of the Corporation.  Having clear protocols in place to assist in identifying short-term rentals and how to respond to same once identified is important.

Naughty finding: Inaction in the face of clear violations may constitute a failure to meet statutory governance obligations.

#4 Overly Broad Restrictions on Holiday Decorations

While safety and nuisance prevention are legitimate objectives, boards sometimes adopt or enforce overly broad bans on seasonal decorations, including religious or cultural displays. Such approaches may be vulnerable to challenge on the basis of unreasonableness or failure to accommodate under the Human Rights Code.

Rules must be rationally connected to a legitimate purpose and must not be arbitrary. Absent a serious safety issue, there must be proportionality in rule enforcement—an approach equally applicable to seasonal decoration disputes.

Naughty finding: Blanket bans not grounded in safety or property protection risk being overturned as unreasonable.

#5 Unauthorized Expenditures and Holiday Spending

The temptation to approve decorative enhancements or holiday community events without proper budgetary authority arises regularly at year-end. Courts have consistently held that boards owe a fiduciary duty to owners and must operate within approved budgets or obtain proper authorization. Expenditures inconsistent with approved budgets may constitute a governance failure, even where they are undertaken for ostensibly beneficial purposes.

Naughty finding: Unapproved spending, however modest, may breach fiduciary obligations.

Nice: Governance Aligned with Tribunal and Court Expectations

#1        Tribunal-Informed Enforcement Practices

Boards that remain attentive to CAT jurisprudence are better positioned to defend enforcement decisions. Recent CAT cases demonstrate consistent emphasis on documentary evidence, written notice, opportunities to cure, and proportional responses.

Both the CAT and the Court have highlighted the importance of maintaining proper  enforcement records, with escalation of consequences, and providing clear rationales for decisions. Boards that incorporate these principles into their enforcement protocols are more likely to be found reasonable and to have their actions supported and upheld.

Nice practice: Evidence-based, progressive enforcement aligned with CAT / Court guidance.

#2  Clear, Time-Limited Holiday Policies

Rather than reacting to disputes as they arise, “nice” boards proactively adopt clearly worded and tailored seasonal policies. These rules typically specify timeframes for decorations, safety requirements, and approval processes for common element use. The CAT and Court will typically show deference to rules that are specific, neutral, and consistently applied, particularly where they advance safety or property management objectives.

Nice practice: Predictable rules that minimize discretion and overall reduce disputes.

#3        Procedural Discipline and Owner Communication

Boards that conduct decisions at properly noticed meetings, maintain accurate minutes, and communicate expectations clearly to owners exemplify best governance practices. Courts and the CAT alike recognize that transparency and procedural compliance are hallmarks of reasonable condominium management.

Nice practice: Regular, documented governance processes that withstand scrutiny.

Staying on the “Nice List” Year-Round

Ultimately, the distinction between “naughty” and “nice” condominium governance is not seasonal but structural. The holiday period merely magnifies existing governance strengths and weaknesses. Ontario courts and the CAT have made clear that boards will be judged not on intent, but on compliance with statutory duties, procedural fairness, and reasonableness.

As condominium law continues to evolve through Tribunal jurisprudence and legislative reform, boards that align their practices with these principles will reduce risk, maintain owner confidence, and avoid unwelcome legal consequences — during the holidays and beyond.