Why “We meant well” isn’t good enough under Ontario condo law
⚖️ The Law: Section 37(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998
“Every director and every officer of a corporation shall:
(a) act honestly and in good faith; and
(b) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances.”
In simple terms:
👉 Directors must act with honesty, fairness, and common sense.
👉 They don’t get to be careless just because they’re volunteers.
👉 They don’t get to plead ignorance when the law is clear.
🧠What Does “Duty of Care” Actually Mean?
A duty of care means directors must:
- Make informed, responsible decisions
- Follow the condo’s rules and laws
- Treat owners equally
- Protect the corporation’s interests – not just their own
It’s the legal opposite of:
- “We didn’t look into it”
- “We just did what the lawyer said”
- “We don’t recall”
- “We’re just volunteers”
Being on the board means stepping into a position of legal responsibility – not just social power.
🛠️ What Directors Are Expected To Do
Here’s what reasonable care and diligence looks like:
| Reasonable Board | Negligent Board |
|---|---|
| Reviews medical accommodation requests carefully | Denies requests without explanation |
| Investigates complaints thoroughly | Ignores or predetermines outcomes |
| Applies rules consistently | Enforces selectively or punitively |
| Follows the Condo Act and governing documents | Makes decisions based on “gut feeling” or bias |
| Provides records when requested under the Act | Obstructs or delays record access |
| Seeks legal advice when needed – then uses judgment | Hides behind legal advice to justify bad decisions |
| Acts in best interest of all owners | Caters to favourites or retaliates against critics |
📉 What a Breach Looks Like
A breach of duty of care doesn’t require malice – it requires negligence or failure to act reasonably. Examples include:
- Denying an accommodation request without even reviewing the documentation
- Failing to investigate harassment complaints
- Approving legal action with no evidence or justification
- Withholding records you’re legally entitled to
- Letting personal bias or politics influence governance decisions
A breach isn’t just a “bad call.” It’s a decision made without proper diligence, fairness, or care.
đź“Ś Why It Matters
Board members who breach Section 37:
- Can be held personally liable
- Can have decisions overturned in court
- Can open the condo to legal risk and unnecessary costs
- Can trigger oppression claims under Section 135
The condo is not a private club. It’s a corporation with laws, and directors are fiduciaries, not figureheads.
🧾 Summary
| Section | Obligation | Real-World Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 37(1)(a) | Act honestly and in good faith | No lies, cover-ups, or self-dealing |
| 37(1)(b) | Act with care, diligence, and skill | No laziness, bias, or willful ignorance |
The standard is not perfection – it’s basic competence and good judgment.
If a board can’t meet that?
They shouldn’t be making decisions on anyone’s behalf.
👉 If you believe your rights have been violated, contact us confidentially through the Condo Leak Tipline at www.CondoTribune.com/tipline – your story matters, and you’re not alone.
đź“ť While we are not lawyers, we’ve spent years learning the Condominium Act, tribunal process, and case law – and we’re here to help point you in the right direction.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal guidance specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.
