The Government of Ontario has announced to how owners can requisition meetings starting January 1st, 2027.

Let’s take a look at a snapshot of how things will look starting in 2027:

• Owners representing at least 15% of the units in a condominium must sign the requisition
• The requisition must follow the template on the Condominium Authority of Ontario’s (CAO) website
• There can be one or two requisitioners who are designated as ‘representatives’ of the requisitioners
• The Board will have 20 days to respond to the requisition, either by calling a meeting or to indicate issues found in the requisition
• The requisitioners will have 10 days to correct any issues that might be found in the requisition and re-submit it
• If the requisitioners disagree with the Board’s decision to not hold a meeting they now have 20 days to contest the decision either in court (until June 30th, 2027) or to the Tribunal (starting July 1st, 2027)
• A requisitioned meeting can be held to discuss any issue(s) in the condominium and will be an ‘Information Meeting’
• Owners can requisition a meeting to remove directors (and to elect their replacement(s))
• Meetings can be held for any other issues allowed for under the Condominium Act or the Regulations
• The Board has 40 days after the end of their 20 day ‘response period’ to call the meeting
• Requisitioners can ask that the issue(s) be added to the AGM either in the requisition itself or if they accept the Board’s request to do so

I want to discuss the changes.

The 15% requirement has been around since the current Condominium Act (‘The Act’) took effect in 2001.

The CAO has offered forms for owners to use in order to create the requisition since 2017. However, owners were not required to follow these forms. This could potentially lead to issues in the requisition if it didn’t follow specific requirements under the Act (for example, if owners want to remove directors they have to list the name of each director separately and provide a reason for why each director should be removed. However, if a requisition doesn’t list each director’s name separately the Board could deny the requisition. The change should stop this type of issue from occurring.

While this is a new addition, I think that it’s a good idea allowing for one or two of the requisitioners to be designated as representatives. The change allows for one or two people to deal with the Board on the issue. Up to know, the Board would potentially have to contact all the requisitioners individually if there was an issue that needed to be dealt with (if no one is ‘designated’ as a representative, the Board still has to contact all the requisitioners if necessary.)

Under the existing rules, a Board only had five days to deal with a requisition before they would have to send out a notice for the meeting. A mad rush, as there are are always issues that have to be dealt with – as I will discuss below. The new 20 day period gives the Board time to digest the situation prior to calling the meeting.

If there is an issue with the requisitioners now have 10 days to resubmit the requisition. The two most common issues are that either a requisitioner isn’t an owner (which could lower the number of requisitioners to under 15% of the total units) or that the wording in the requisition is wrong (for example, saying that they want to ‘remove all the directors due to x’ instead of listing out the names of all the directors.)

Should the Board refuse to call the meeting (or continues to refuse the requisition), the requisitioners have 20 days to apply to the Tribunal (or the courts prior to July 1st.) The limited time period is good for the Board, not necessarily for the requisitioners. However, overall this is a step in the right direction as the Tribunal may end up ordering the Board to hold the meeting and allows for an independent third party review.

A requisition can still cover all the items that it could up to now: general discussion of any issues, removal of directors, amending the rules, etc.

The meeting still has to be called within a specific time frame, although now it’s up to 60 days after receipt of the requisition (20 days to officially accept the requisition, and then a 40 day period for the Board to send out the pre-notice and formal notices of the meeting.)

Now let’s talk about some of the issues I see with the changes:

1. There is no mention of the requisitioners calling the meeting should the Board refuse to. At the moment, if the Board does nothing, then the requisitioners can do so. As there is the option now for there to be one or two ‘representatives’ of the requisitioners, this would make that application process a bit easier.
   
   This is the biggest issue that I see. While there is an opportunity for the representatives to make an application to the Tribunal, it opens the door to the Board trying to control everything and to intentionally ignore the requisition knowing that the requisitioners will have to go to court to make the Board call the meeting. Sometimes this ‘cooling off period’ is a good thing (for example, one or two directors may opt to resign in order to allow new directors on the Board to deal with any issues.) However, this ‘cooling off period’ may end up having one or more owners sell their units or change their minds (thus bringing the number of requisitioners to below the 15% threshold) or for the issue to ‘blow over’ and people are no longer upset by it.
   
2. The 20 day response period for the Board, and the required frame work for the requisitioners to resubmit the requisition if necessary, are good for the industry. For example, in a 100 unit condominium, the requisition requires the signatures of owners who collectively own at least 15 units. Let’s say a requisition is submitted with 15 signatures. However, one of the signatures is from a tenant, or a spouse who isn’t legally on the deed to the unit (and thus not legally an owner.) The requisition now doesn’t have the 15 units presented but only 14. Under the changes, the other requisitioners can knock on some doors and get the extra signature.
   
3. The new 20 day period also gives the Board time to consult properly with the corporation’s lawyer. The Board shouldn’t be pressured into calling a meeting without proper legal advise first.
   
4. The Board, of course, and use the 20 day waiting period to its’ full extent in order to delay a meeting. For example, as I mentioned above, what if there are only 14 owners actually signing the requisition. If the Board finds out about this on the 2nd or 3rd day, they still have 17 or 18 days to wait prior to telling the requisitioners this. Then there is a few days for the requisitioners to get the additional signature, and then another 20 days for the Board to actually call the meeting. Then the 40 day notice period. This means it could potentially be 82-90 days after the Board first receives the requisition before the meeting is held.
   
   I doubt that this is likely to be a big deal, but the potential for an intentional delay on the Board’s part.

Overall, I do feel that this is a step in the right direction.