Condo Act Amendments - Voting Clarification

[Pappiklon]

3 points that were voted on at our AGM have been queried relating to what the law now says regarding % of votes needed to approve a motion.

Our understanding along with the outgoing Juristic Person was that on certain motions, ie changing the juristic Person, increasing the CAM fees and placing a psm levy to cover repairs and renovations (includes changing the original layout of a structure on the property but not the main building) required 50% of the voting rights to attend the AGM and a majority of those who attended voting in favour.

We duly voted wth the overwhelming majority of those attending agreeing the motions. We had just over 50% of the entire voting rights present, of those around 90% were in agreement.

However after the votes I received a note from the incoming mananagment company (new juristic person) that to vote on those matters required at least 50% of the voting rights being in favour not just those in attendance. I have reviewed all the info on here, translations and interpretations of the act etc and can find nowhere anything that says they are correct.

Would appreciate any clarification on this. Thanks Papi

[trogers]

If i am not wrong, changing CAM fees requires 75% agreement of total owners (not only those present in a meeting) and appointment of new juristic manager has to be over 25% agreement of total owners.

We just had an AGM 2 months ago. Building has 24 (almost equal) units. New committee has to be voted in by 4 units owners and manager by 7 unit owners.

Change in monthly fees has to be approved by 18 unit owners. Rules on renovation matters by 13 unit owners.

Except procedures that have to be observed for accounting matters in an AGM, the other matters can be short cut (without any meeting) by written documents and getting unit owners to sign their approvals on them.

Edited April 6, 2009 by trogers

[Pappiklon]

Thanks for the post, however I am pretty sure your figures are based on the condominium law prior to the new amendments

If i am not wrong, changing CAM fees requires 75% agreement of total owners (not only those present in a meeting) and appointment of new juristic manager has to be over 25% agreement of total owners.

We just had an AGM 2 months ago. Building has 24 (almost equal) units. New committee has to be voted in by 4 units owners and manager by 7 unit owners.

Change in monthly fees has to be approved by 18 unit owners. Rules on renovation matters by 13 unit owners.

Except procedures that have to be observed for accounting matters in an AGM, the other matters can be short cut (without any meeting) by written documents and getting unit owners to sign their approvals on them.

[hhgz]

"However after the votes I received a note from the incoming mananagment company (new juristic person) that to vote on those matters required at least 50% of the voting rights being in favour not just those in attendance."

This has been covered before, and I'm absolutely sure that the question will be asked again. Here's the answer. Your management company told you the truth: the majority of the owners, not just the meeting attendees, need to approve a measure.

[trajan]

3 points that were voted on at our AGM have been queried relating to what the law now says regarding % of votes needed to approve a motion.

Our understanding along with the outgoing Juristic Person was that on certain motions, ie changing the juristic Person, increasing the CAM fees and placing a psm levy to cover repairs and renovations (includes changing the original layout of a structure on the property but not the main building) required 50% of the voting rights to attend the AGM and a majority of those who attended voting in favour.

We duly voted wth the overwhelming majority of those attending agreeing the motions. We had just over 50% of the entire voting rights present, of those around 90% were in agreement.

However after the votes I received a note from the incoming mananagment company (new juristic person) that to vote on those matters required at least 50% of the voting rights being in favour not just those in attendance. I have reviewed all the info on here, translations and interpretations of the act etc and can find nowhere anything that says they are correct.

Would appreciate any clarification on this. Thanks Papi

Papi,

(a) Appointing or removing the Manager only requires not less than 1/4 of the total number of possible votes of the co-owners (see Section 49(1)

(b ) However, amending the regulations concerning the use or management of the common property, or carrying out a construction that is a change, addition or improvement of the common property etc. requires not less than 1/2 of the total possible votes of all co-owners (not just those in attendance at the meeting)(see Section 48)...

however, the 2nd paragraph of Secton 48 gives some possible relief....if the number of attending co-owners is insufficient to have 50% of all votes in attendance, then a new meeting can be called within 15 days and the vote then just requires not less than 1/3 of the total number of possible votes...(therefore tactically, it would have been advantageous (if possible) to have just under (rather than just over) 50% attend the first meeting, then call a second meeting and pass the resolution by 1/3 vote of all possible votes

[Pappiklon]

Thanks Trajan for that information. Does this mean that because we had 51% of the voting rights there and 1 voted against, meaning we didn't have over 50% of the condo's voting rights in agreement that we are ineligible to have that EGM within 15 days to revote.

Another bit of clarification please, the resolution to increase the CAM fees had 80% of those present in agreement, this I believe still stands, in your view am I correct?

The resolution to change the Rules and Regulations was simply to comply with the law, we altered nothing except the parts that have changed under the amendments to the condominium act, since the law will always take precedence over the condominium 'laws' am I correct in thinking that vote will still stand.

The issue of the psm levy to effect repairs, much of this was essential repairs and painting, only one section of that budget was to change anything (remove a driveway roof that prevented fire engine access), am I correct in thinking the only bit we would need over 50% voting rights to agree is the 'carrying out a construction that is a change' part?

Thanks for your input