Clause-by-clause consideration
of Bill 106
05 November 2015

On 05 November 2015, The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs met to debate a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 106 prior to the third reading in the legislature .

The committee consists of eight MPPs, five Liberals, two Progressive Conservatives and one NDP.

After reading the debates, I was pleased to see that the opposition MPPs and their staff had read and understood the concerns that condo owners have brought to their attention and that they proposed very thoughtful amendments to Bill 106.

I was also very disappointed that the Liberals rejected all the opposition amendments out of hand. They either ignored the proposed amendments or believe that all of these legitimate concerns could be addressed by regulations.

So far, the clause by clause consideration of this Bill by this standing committee appears to be a formality that is being rushed through as quickly as possible so the Liberals can get on with the third reading and pass the Bill pretty much as it has been written.

I have listed the proposed amendments and the debates that I thought were most important below. For the complete transcript, click on this link.

Debate and comments on the proposed amendments

Oversight bodies
An amendment to have the Integrity Commissioner appointed under the Members’ Integrity Act, 1994 oversee the condominium authority was defeated by the Liberal majority.

Appointments to the Condo authority
An amendment to ensure the authority’s members are either elected by stakeholders or appointed by order in council was defeated by the Liberal majority.

Access to compensation information
Mr. Chris Ballard (Lib) moved that the Condominium Authority shall make available to the public the prescribed information relating to the compensation for members of its board of directors or officers or employees of the authority and relating to any other payments that it makes or is required to make to them, and shall do so in the prescribed manner. This amendment passed.

Disappointment
Mr. Jim McDonell (PC): Just to say that we’re disappointed that we couldn’t put in any appointments that would allow us a little bit more oversight over this tribunal.

Appointments to the Condominium Authority
The Progressive Conservatives attempted to pass a couple of amendments that  would have the authority’s members either elected by stakeholders or appointed by order in council. This was to prevent the board of the authority being composed of appointees who's appointments can’t be reviewed in the future." These amendments were defeated by the Liberal majority.

Mr. John Vanthof (NDP) moved that part I.1 of the Condominium Act, 1998, as set out in section 2 of schedule 1 to the bill, be amended by insuring that no more than one member of the board of directors of the condominium authority may be a person who is employed to represent the interests of one or more home builders.”

The motion did not pass.

Oversight by Ombudsman
An amendment was proposed to have oversight by the provincial Ombudsman over the Condominium Authority. This amendment was ruled out of order.

Freedom of information
Mr. Toby Barrett (PC) moved that the Condominium Authority is an institution for the purposes of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.”

The Vice-Chair Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn (Lib) ruled the amendment out of order.

Disclosure of contracts
Mr. Toby Barrett (PC) moved that the condominium authority shall disclose on its website any contract it enters into that exceeds a value of $10,000.”

It was argued that this amendment would encompass things such as consultation and any contracts entered into by the authority, which are not covered by Liberal amendment number 14, as that one only applies to board members, officers and employees of the authority as subject to compensation disclosure.

So if this amendment fails, the authority could bump its members’ pay and potentially otherwise waste money through consultants and contracts.

This amendment failed.

Requirements to set fee, cost or charge
Mr. Toby Barrett (PC): I move that the Condominium Authority may not set a fee, cost or charge described in clause (1)(b) unless,

 (a) the proposed fee, cost or charge has been published on the condominium authority’s website for a minimum period of at least six months; and

(b) the minister does not veto the proposed fee, cost or charge during the period referred to in clause (a).”
This amendment failed.

Appointing members to the tribunal
Mr. Toby Barrett (PC): I move that subsection 1.32(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, as set out in section 5 of schedule 1 to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

“(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint members to the tribunal as part-time or full-time members for terms of up to four years.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Debate and comment? Mr. McDonell?

Mr. Jim McDonell (PC): Administrative tribunals in Ontario are appointed independently through orders in council, such as the Landlord and Tenant Board, the Assessment Review Board, the Social Benefits Tribunal and others. The condo tribunal should be appointed to the same standard. Again, OIC appointments are not cumbersome, and they’re very common.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further debate and comment? Mr. Ballard?

Mr. Chris Ballard (Lib): The bill’s intent is to allow the tribunal to function as part of the condo authority as a way of improving dispute resolution from an arm’s-length organization. I would recommend we vote against this motion because the proposed amendment creates a serious consolidation risk in that an organization subject to government oversight may have to become part of government and therefore be paid for by government.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further debate and comment? Mr. Barrett?

Mr. Toby Barrett (PC): We know that Tarion, for example, is not paid for by government, but I just don’t think that’s a justification to give this amount of power to the condominium authority. I’m just concerned about what kind of an organization we are building here.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Mr. McDonell?

Mr. Jim McDonell (PC) : I agree with Mr. Barrett. I think it’s dangerous when we set these up. We put it at arm’s length. It should always be reviewable by agencies such as the government agencies standing committee. I’m not sure why we would be worried about having that subject to review of a committee of the House.

We see many examples where things get out of hand where the government, for some reason, turns a blind eye, as they’ve done in Ornge and other arm’s-length agencies of the province of Ontario. It has got us into serious trouble and wasted billions of dollars.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further debate and comment? No? We’re ready to vote on this motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion does not carry.

Adding transparency to the appointments
Mr. Toby Barrett (PC): I move that subsection 1.33(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, as set out in section 5 of schedule 1 to the bill, be amended by striking out “The condominium authority” at the beginning and substituting “The Lieutenant Governor in Council”.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Debate and comment?

Mr. Jim McDonell (PC): Again, we believe that the makeup of the tribunal should be determined in a transparent manner through order-in-council appointments like other administrative tribunals in Ontario.

In some ways, this is unique that we’re making sure that we have no way of reviewing the appointments. This is certainly something we do with many other of the similar agencies that we’ve pointed out before. I’m not sure why the government would be against this change. It would add certainly a lot more transparency.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further debate and comment? Mr. Ballard.

Mr. Chris Ballard (Lib): Thank you, Mr. Chair. As with the previous motion, I recommend that we vote against this motion. As I stated previously, the proposed amendment creates a serious consolidation risk in that an organization subject to government oversight may have to become part of government and therefore be paid for by government.

The bill’s intent is to allow the tribunal to function as part of the condo authority as a way of improving dispute resolution from an arm’s-length organization.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further debate and comment? Mr. McDonell.

Mr. Jim McDonell: As I say, we have many other tribunals in Ontario that work fine with this. I don’t see the issue. I’m not quite sure of the rationale—why we would set this one up differently.

The item did not carry.

Tribunal to hear all disputes
Mr. Toby Barrett (PC): I move that subsection 1.36(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, as set out in section 6 of schedule 1 to the bill, be amended by striking out “prescribed”.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Debate and comment? Mr. McDonell?

Mr. Jim McDonell (PC): This amendment removes the limitation that a dispute must be permitted in regulation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further debate and comment? Mr. Ballard.

Mr. Chris Ballard (Lib): I have a problem with this motion and would recommend voting against it. The tribunal, Mr. Chair, was designed to provide fast, inexpensive dispute resolution. My fear is that this amendment compromises its objective by overburdening it.

The motion was lost.

Disclosure of documents to purchaser
Mr. Toby Barrett (PC): I move that subsection 1.36(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998, as set out in section 6 of schedule 1 to the bill, be amended by striking out “if the regulations so provide” at the beginning.

Mr. Jim McDonell (PC): Subsection 55(3) governs the disclosure of key documents such as the declarations, the corporation’s financial situation, performance, audit results and reserve fund study results for a purchaser. These are key documents on which to base their investment decision. There must be an avenue to resolve disputes related to full and timely disclosure, and this amendment achieves good balance between a purchaser’s right and their status as a not yet full owner of a unit.

We just think that if you’re looking at purchasing a unit, you should have as much information as you can. This information should be available to them.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further debate and comment? Mr. Ballard?

Mr. Chris Ballard (Lib): I just have one major issue why I would recommend voting against the motion. In our view, it would impair the phased implementation and create inconsistent rights with respect to access to records.

The motion did not carry.

Sunny days, sunny ways
“Sunny ways my friends, sunny ways, this is what positive politics can do.”
—Prime Minister-elect Justin Trudeau

Mr. Toby Barrett (PC): I’m not batting very well. I haven’t had a motion accepted yet by the government, to my knowledge. Maybe there’s hope.

Mr. Chris Ballard (Lib): There are 121 or more, or something like that—

Vice-Chair Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn (Lib):
"Keep pitching them. Sunny days; sunny ways."

Both quotes refer to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's style of governing Canada.
He believed that compromise was a better way of governing than allowing issues to divide Canadians.
—editor

Sir Wilfrid Laurier
Direct parties to Alternative Dispute Resolution
Mr. John Vanthof (NDP): I move that section 1.40 of the Condominium Act, 1998, as set out in section 6 of schedule 1 to the bill, be struck out.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Debate and comment? Mr. Ballard?

Mr. Chris Ballard (Lib): A concern I have is that removing the ability of the tribunal to direct parties to participate in an alternative dispute resolution as part of the tribunal’s proceedings would discourage the early resolution of disputes and may increase costs to both the tribunal and the parties. For that I would recommend that we vote against the motion.

The motion did not carry.

Declarations need to be reasonable
Mr. Jim McDonell (PC): I move that subsection 10(9) of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Comment and debate? Mr. Singh.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (NDP): I’m just wondering what the rationale is for that portion.

Mr. Jim McDonell (PC): We see no reason to amend the current form of subsection 7(5) of the Condominium Act with a provision that a declaration need not be reasonable. The provisions of the Condominium Act ensure that declarations comply with Ontario law—no exceptions—so the amendment preserves the provision that is already in place today.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Okay.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further comment and debate? Mr. Ballard?

Mr. Chris Ballard (Lib): I would argue against the motion. I think that subsection 10(9) of schedule 1 is consistent with the existing case law. The subsection allows purchasers to choose a declaration without being subject to a reasonableness standard, and if owners do not support their declaration, they don’t have to buy. Purchasers want certainty that rules and restrictions they commit to will not be subject to an objective reasonableness standard. For those three points, I would ask us to recommend against voting for the motion.

The motion did not carry.

Shared facilities by-laws
Mr. Jagmeet Singh (NDP): I move that section 21.1 of the Condominium Act, 1998, as set out in section 18 of schedule 1 to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

“When joint bylaw effective
“(4.1) A joint bylaw is not effective until,

 (a) the majority of the owners of the units of each corporation vote in favour of confirming it, with or without amendment; and

(b) each corporation registers a copy of it in accordance with the prescribed procedures.
(4.2) The vote of the owners under clause (4.1)(a) may be at a joint meeting of the corporations duly called for that purpose.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Comment or debate?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: This is an issue that’s been brought up by stakeholders. This would allow for greater participation for the owners and give them a stronger voice.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further comment and debate? Mr. Ballard?

Mr. Chris Ballard (Lib): I agree. This has been raised by stakeholders; however, shared facility by-laws are, in our opinion, best addressed in regulations, after further consultation with stakeholders. The bill proposes to address this in regulations to take into account the wide array of possible shared facility arrangements.

We have heard stakeholders, and it would be the intent to address this in regulations after further consultations. So I don’t see a need for us to vote in favour of this amendment.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further comment or debate? Mr. McDonell?

Mr. Jim McDonell (PC): I’m just a bit surprised. In this case here, regulation is a better way of handling it, but it hasn’t been in the regulation before. As we said before, stakeholders have asked for this, and we were hoping to put that one in regulation. Anyway, that’s just a comment.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Mr. Singh?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Through you, Chair, Mr. Ballard, I appreciate you acknowledging that this is an issue that’s been brought up. I appreciate that.

I’ll just make this comment now; it might come up again and again. In general, I find that, too often, we rely on regulations to address issues that can be dealt with by legislation. Legislation offers an opportunity for us to debate it, for members to have a voice in it. Regulation doesn’t have that same ability for member participation. Certain issues which are well acknowledged and well established as concerns should be addressed in legislation; instead, we see a growing trend towards increasingly shifting the responsibility of legislating into regulation, as opposed to the actual bill. So, it’s a comment in general, but in specific with respect to this bill.

The motion did not carry.

“Disclosure of interest to owners
“‘41.1 When a director or officer of a corporation becomes aware that he or she has, directly or indirectly, an interest in a contract or transaction to which the corporation is a party or a proposed contract or transaction to which the corporation will be a party, he or she shall disclose the interest in writing to the corporation’s owners in the prescribed manner as soon as possible.’”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Comment or debate? Mr. McDonell.

Mr. Jim McDonell (PC): This amendment is essential in order to maintain transparency for the procurement process and owners’ confidence. We see this essentially now in municipal governments. If there’s a conflict of interest, people need not only to declare but to stand down.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further comment or debate? Mr. Ballard.

Mr. Chris Ballard (Lib): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can see this being addressed through regulations that fall under 26.3. It’s better to address disclosure, from my perspective, of conflicts to owners through procedures set up in the existing bill, including the proposed section 26.3, as well as subsections 45 and 55(3) of the act. Requiring directors to personally disclose to owners creates an unnecessary burden.

The motion did not carry.

Requisition meetings requested by owners
Mr. Jagmeet Singh (NDP): I move that section 38 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“(2) Subsection (1) may not be proclaimed into force until such time as the minister is of the opinion that the Condominium Authority Tribunal is able to hear disputes concerning non-compliance with section 46 of the act.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further comment or debate? Mr. Ballard.

Mr. Chris Ballard (Lib): I guess my concern is that the motion would prevent section 46 dealing with the requisition for a meeting from being proclaimed into force before a minister is of the opinion that the condo authority is able to hear the dispute regarding non-compliance with section 46. I think the policy intent can be dealt with through a combination of regulation and proclamation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further comment or debate? Mr. Singh.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The concern is this, Mr. Chair: We want to ensure that the protections that would flow from the Condominium Authority Tribunal would be available and actually accessible. If they’re not actually available and not accessible, then we’re not really ensuring that that protection is afforded to the individual. That’s the purpose of the amendment.

The motion did not carry.

Allow owners to requisition termination of management company
Mr. Toby Barrett (PC): I move that subsection 46(4) of the Condominium Act, 1998, as set out in section 38 of schedule 1 to the bill, be amended by adding the following paragraph:

“2.2 Entering into a contract with or terminating the contract of a condominium manager or condominium management provider.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Mr. McDonell.

Mr. Jim McDonell (PC): Sure. Again, we believe consumers are best protected when their right to requisition a meeting to deal with such an important issue is guaranteed by law rather than through regulation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further comment or debate? Mr. Ballard.

Mr. Chris Ballard (Lib): If I might, in the Condominium Act the owners have the ultimate democratic right to elect or remove the board of directors. The elected board of directors manages the affairs of the corporation on behalf of the owners, including the affairs of the managers.

The act also allows management of the property to be the subject matter of a bylaw. Given that the majority of the owners must approve the bylaws, the owners are entitled to make decisions regarding the management of the property through the bylaw that the CMSA is going to introduce, as you know—a new licensing regime to govern condo managers. This motion would expand the purposes for which the requisition meeting might be called, but I think the proposed legislation covers that adequately.

The motion did not carry.

Limiting proxies
Mr. Toby Barrett (PC): I move that section 46 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“(2.2) Section 52 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:
(3.1) A proxy shall not be,

 (a) a condominium management provider or a condominium manager or an employee or agent of such a person;

(b) a candidate in the election of the corporation’s board of directors;

(c) a director of the corporation; or

(d) a spouse, sibling, parent or child of a person described in clause (a), (b) or (c).
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Comment or debate? Mr. McDonell.

Mr. Jim McDonell (PC): This amendment brings greater transparency to the proxy appointment process by barring those with a large stake in an owners’ meeting outcome from being a proxy.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further comment and debate? Mr. Baker?

Mr. Yvan Baker (Lib): Thanks, Chair. I recommend voting against the motion. The motion is, again, very broad. It takes away flexibility for corporations across Ontario to choose who cannot be a proxy.

The motion did not carry.

Noise transmission between residential units
Mr. Jagmeet Singh (NDP): I move that clause 72(3)(f.1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, as set out in subsection 60(5) of schedule 1 to the bill, be amended by adding the following subclause:

“(iv.1) a statement that the unit complies with the sound transmission standards under the Ontario Building Code, as demonstrated and documented using the prescribed processes and forms, if any,”

The purpose for this bill—if anyone has gone to a condominium, particularly new ones, you know that there’s often the sense that those walls are like pieces of paper, and sound travels through them as if there was no wall. Ensuring that there’s sufficient material in between the units, you ensure sound is not flowing through like water. This is an amendment to ensure that there is adequate protection.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further comment and debate? Mr. Ballard.

Mr. Chris Ballard (Lib): I understand the intent of the proposed amendment but I find it problematic. I think that, at the time when a developer provides a disclosure statement to a purchaser, the unit would likely not have been constructed, even in a residential condominium conversion project.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further comment and debate?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (NDP): The compliance could be in the fact that there are sufficient plans in place to ensure that this would happen, and that those plans are in compliance so to provide the purchaser with some confidence that the unit will comply with the sound transmission standards: “These are the plans that we have laid out and because of these plans, it will comply, or we anticipate that it would comply.”

The motion did not carry.

Canvassing for condo elections
Mr. Toby Barrett (PC): Yes, Chair. I move that section 117 of the Condominium Act, 1998, as set out in section 99 of schedule 1 to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

“(3) No corporation or employee or agent of a corporation shall prevent a candidate for a position on the board of directors of the corporation from canvassing the property.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn (Lib): Comment or debate? Mr. McDonell.

Mr. Jim McDonell (PC): Yes, we heard from stakeholders that corporation managers have prevented owners from canvassing their building in order to promote their candidate for a board position, or to collect signatures for a requisition. Despite this, political canvassers are protected by section 118, which does not cover owners canvassing for the board or for a requisition.

We can’t amend section 118 because it is not touched by Bill 106. Our amendment guarantees that candidates to the board and requisitioners have the same protections as political candidates when canvassing condos.

If you don’t allow this, it takes away a big part of the election process. That’s why we do it in provincial and federal elections.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Mr. Singh.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, through you, I support this emotion—I support this motion as well as the emotion behind the motion.

The reason is, we have protections included in the Election Act that allow for political canvassing to occur, but there isn’t actually any protection that allows for people who want to represent their own condominium corporation to get the necessary signatures, to get the necessary votes so they can become a participating member of their own condominium. The fact that that protection isn’t present is a big problem.

I think this is a good motion. It allows for that protection and it ensures that people can go out and canvass their own neighbours, to ensure that they have the support to get involved. We’ve heard from stakeholders who said they weren’t able to do this. This is an issue that they raised, and I think we should provide a solution to this problem.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Ms. Vernile.

Ms. Daiene Vernile (Lib): Chair, we see that this particular motion is placed incorrectly. It might be better suited in section 28, and it could be addressed as a regulation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further comment and debate? Mr. McDonell.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I think we require a recorded vote on this.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Recorded vote. Okay. Mr. Singh, did you want to add some comment or debate?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Yes, one final comment: There are certain things that I understand the government talks about: flexibility. Regulations do provide flexibility, but this isn’t something that we want to provide flexibility with. We want to provide it in black and white, very clear, that, “You are allowed to canvass your own property.” This is not something that we want to leave to regulation.

Regulations are things that can be modified, and I can understand, where it comes to costs, that putting in a prescribed fee after time, you might say that $75,000 is very minimal after 20 years or maybe 30 years of inflation, and then we want to increase the amount. So I understand, with monetary fees, leaving flexibility in the hands of a regulation, but we don’t want to leave in the hands of regulations something like protecting your ability to participate in the democratic process of your own condominium corporation. That is not something that should be left to regulation; that’s something that should be enshrined clearly in the legislation.

Just to make that distinction: I think there are some points where we can say, “Yes, regulation. You can make the argument for it,” but there is no argument that would suggest, in any way, that ensuring that there’s protection for people to be involved in the process should be left to regulation. That argument does not hold any water in this particular case. Whether or not it’s in the wrong section—I’m sure our colleague Mr. McDonell would be willing in the section that the government would propose. But I think this is something that we should certainly address. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Mr. McDonell.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Yes, we are unable to put it in the proper section because of the regulations that we’re following. But again, as Mr. Singh said, this is very important and we don’t think it should be left to regulation. It’s a basic right.

Mr. McDonell asked for a recorded vote.
Ayes Barrett, McDonell, Singh. PC & NDP members
Nays Albanese, Baker, Ballard, Hoggarth, Vernile. Liberal members

The motion did not carry.

Allowing owners to canvas for a requisition
Mr. Toby Barrett (PC): I move that section 117 of the Condominium Act, 1998, as set out in section 99 of schedule 1 to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

“(4) No corporation or employee or agent of a corporation shall prevent an owner from canvassing the property for the purpose of collecting signatures to requisition a meeting in accordance with section 46.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn (Lib): Comment or debate? Mr. McDonell.

Mr. Jim McDonell (PC): On the same line, this amendment grants owners collecting signatures to requisition an owners’ meeting the same protection as canvassers.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further comment or debate? Mr. Ballard.

Mr. Chris Ballard (Lib): I certainly understand the need for people to be able to talk to their neighbours and other condominium owners in order to put their names forward or those of their friends or supporters, but I have similar problems with motion 73 that I had with motion 72, in that I believe that it’s placed incorrectly and should be within section 28. And again, I think it can be dealt with within regulations.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further comment or debate? Mr. McDonell.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I guess our concern is that the government had the opportunity to do this with this bill and they didn’t. We have no ability to force that, other than putting it in areas where we’re allowed to do that. Again, the bill is making some important changes. It allows people to exercise their democratic rights—in this case, in condominiums—so we wouldn’t want anything to diminish those. Of course, as we know, we’ve taken those steps when it comes to elections in this country, and we think that’s important. This is a similar type of right.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Mr. Singh.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (NDP): I’d ask for a recorded vote on this as well.
Ayes Barrett, McDonell, Singh PC & NDP members
Nays Albanese, Baker, Ballard, Hoggarth, Vernile Liberal members

Timing for payment of court costs
Mr. Toby Barrett (PC): Thank you, Chair. I move that section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998, as set out in subsection 113(4) of schedule 1 to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

“(3.0.1) An order under subsection (3) that awards damages or costs specify that the damages or costs are payable within 90 days.”

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn (Lib): Comment or debate? Mr. McDonell?

Mr. Jim McDonell (PC): The rationale is that if an owner has to pay, they have to pay straight away or face severe consequences. When a corporation has to pay, the owner does not have a guaranteed timeline for payment. A large award could take years to recoup if it’s just set off against common expenses. This amendment creates a fair framework where anyone who has to pay an award must do so within 90 days. This gives the corporation enough time to authorize the payment, and the owner enough time to arrange the payment, if needed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Comment or debate? Mr. Ballard?

Mr. Chris Ballard (Lib): This motion addresses the time for payment of monetary awards in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The deadline for the payment of a monetary award in an order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is the proper subject matter of the applicable rules of the court and the discretion of a judge making the order. I would recommend voting against this motion because it risks taking away from the discretion and the authority of the court.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Mr. McDonell?

Mr. Jim McDonell: I guess I’ll say that it protects the rights of the owners in a case like this, especially if they’re looking at moving out. They’re getting rid of their common expenses, and it creates a problem.

The motion was not carried.

Opposition amendments all defeated
Mr. Jim McDonell (PC): We’ve gone through a good portion of this bill. To my accounting, there’s not been one amendment by either the official opposition or the third party approved. I think that that’s a loss for many of the stakeholders who approached us and asked for these changes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn): Further debate or comment? Mr. Singh?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (NDP): I’ll just echo Mr. McDonell in that there was a number of amendments brought forward that were reasonable, that were supportable and that were, indeed, requested by stakeholders, and they were not supported. It certainly is a loss for the province.

The committee was adjourned until Thursday, 19 November at 9 a.m.


top  contents  chapter  previous  next