A former director of the Corporation is currently defending a personal defamation claim using the Corporation insurance. The defamatory conduct in question did not occur while he was serving as a board member. At the time of the events:
- He was no longer a director.
- He acted solely in his capacity as a unit owner.
- He collected signatures and made statements on his own initiative, without any board mandate or corporate purpose.
Despite this, the Corporation has allowed him to invoke its insurance policy to defend the claim. This means that common expense funds are now being used to cover legal costs arising from his private conduct.
This raises serious concerns, including:
- ✅ Whether this use of insurance coverage is authorized under the terms of the Corporation’s policy;
- âś… Whether owners were informed or consented to this allocation of resources;
- âś… Whether the Board has overstepped by treating a personal legal issue as a corporate one.
If the defamatory actions were not committed in the course of fulfilling his duties as a director – clearly, they were not -, then the Corporation is not obligated – and arguably not permitted – to fund his defence.
At minimum, owners have the right to know:
- 🔍 Who authorized this use of the policy?
- đź“„ Was a legal opinion obtained?
- đź’° What will the total cost to the Corporation be?
- 🗳️ Why were owners not consulted on this decision?
This is especially concerning given that the same Board has repeatedly refused to assist unit owners when they are the ones seeking protection, legal clarity, or fair enforcement. The unequal treatment of owners versus former directors raises serious questions of governance, transparency, and potential misuse of funds.
