Condo Law Blog
Status certificates are dealt with in s. 76 of the Condominium Act, 1998 which is a consumer protection statute. The purpose of a status certificate (for a purchaser) is so that the purchaser can make an informed purchase decision. The reason that this is important to a purchaser is that condominium unit owners are personally liable for the debts and liabilities of a condominium corporation. Therefore, the purchaser wants to ensure that he/she is not purchasing an existing or known liability. The effect of giving a status certificate is that the status certificate is binding on the condominium corporation with respect to the information it contains or is deemed to contain as of the date it is given.
By Mario D. Deo and Joseph W. Ryan
The responsibilities taken on by the board of directors of a new condominium are considerable, cannot be underestimated and are often overwhelming.
For example, in the condominium corporation’s first year, the board has to deal with myriad issues, such as: getting communications with unit owners up and running; ensuring that all of the documents that the developer is required to deliver are, in fact, delivered in accordance with turnover requirements; reviewing all service contracts affecting the condominium corporation to determine whether the corporation will resort to remedies available under the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) for relief from those contracts. Those are but a few examples.
However, perhaps the most important of all of those issues that must be dealt with is the necessity to identify and address construction deficiencies at the condominium, and the corporation’s owner-elected board is invariably confronted, early on after turnover, with the steps that must be taken by the corporation to audit and assess those construction deficiencies.
It is not only a vote of owners that can remove a board member.
The court has upheld a by-law permitting a condo board to hold an ethics review and disqualify a member who breaches the directors’ code of ethics on at least three occasions.
The case, Stanley Gordon v. York Region Condominium Corporation et al., is attached.