Letās be clear:
The Boardās proposed by-law and so-called ācode of ethicsā are not about ethics – they are about control.
They break multiple laws and, if passed, will expose the corporation (and the directors personally) to massive legal and financial risk.
āļø 1ļøā£ It Violates the Condominium Act
The Condominium Act, 1998 already defines who can and cannot run for the Board.
Under section 29(1), the only disqualifications are:
- Bankruptcy,
- Mental incapacity,
- Failure to complete required director training,
- Failure to consent in writing, or
- Certain conflict-of-interest situations.
Nowhere does it say that āsuing the corporationā or āhaving a disputeā disqualifies a person.
And the Act already addresses this exact issue through mandatory disclosure rules.
Under section 29(2) and (3), candidates must disclose in writing whether they are involved in any legal proceeding with the corporation.
That means owners will know about any ongoing cases before voting, and can make their own informed decision.
š In short: the Act already covers it.
There is no need – and no authority – for the Board to add an extra rule.
Doing so makes the by-law ultra vires (beyond their power) and invalid from day one.
š« 2ļøā£ It Violates Ownersā Democratic Rights
Section 28 guarantees that directors are elected by owners.
A by-law that blocks certain owners from running takes that right away from everyone.
Itās not democracy – itās censorship.
Owners have the right to know a candidateās history, ask questions, and vote accordingly.
Thatās how democracy works, not by pre-screening or banning candidates.
š¤„ 3ļøā£ It Violates the Duty of Good Faith
Under section 37, directors must act honestly, in good faith, and in the best interests of the corporation.
A by-law designed to punish or silence dissenting owners is the opposite of good faith.
Itās self-serving, retaliatory, and exposes directors to personal liability under section 37(3).
š§± 4ļøā£ Itās Retaliation (Reprisal) – a Human Rights Violation
The Ontario Human Rights Code, section 8, makes it illegal to punish or threaten someone for exercising their human rights.
Barring people from running for the Board because they filed or joined a legal action is exactly that – reprisal.
Itās already unlawful under the Code.
š They already have a Human Rights case open. Do they really want another one? Do you want another one?
š„ 5ļøā£ Itās Oppressive Conduct
Under section 135 (Oppression Remedy), conduct that is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly disregards an ownerās interests can be struck down by the Court.
Retaliating against owners through a by-law is textbook oppression.
If passed, it can be challenged and declared void – with costs against the corporation.
š§¾ 6ļøā£ It Misuses Corporate Power
Condo boards have authority to manage property and enforce existing by-laws – not to legislate against accountability.
This by-law attempts to rewrite participation rules to protect the directors from scrutiny.
Thatās not governance – itās an abuse of delegated power.
šø 7ļøā£ It Will Cost Owners – Again
The last wave of bad decisions already cost this community over $400,000.
If this by-law passes, expect:
- More tribunal cases,
- More court applications,
- More legal fees,
- And very likely another special assessment.
Directors who vote for it could lose D&O insurance coverage, since intentional or bad-faith acts are not insurable.
š§ BOTTOM LINE
This by-law:
- Breaks the Condominium Act,
- Violates the Human Rights Code,
- Undermines democracy,
- Breaches the directorsā duty of good faith, and
- Exposes the corporation to new lawsuits and costs.
Owners deserve transparency, not retaliation.
Reject this by-law before it drags the entire community into another legal and financial mess.
