"Bad Faith" - What it Means for Condo Board Members

 My earlier post on Mediation and Bad Faith Bargaining is one of the most-read on this site, so when a couple of recent legal decisions relevant for condominiums invoked "bad faith," I knew I had to write about it again.

Section 37 (1) of the Condominium Act specifies that every director and officer shall act “in good faith.”  What does this mean and how might it apply?  “Bad faith” is a slippery concept and is difficult to define precisely.  Basically, a person acts in bad faith when he or she intentionally infringes upon another’s rights, or intentionally fails to honour legal or contractual obligations.  The role of “intention” is key.  Acting in bad faith is different from failing to understand that you have obligations or being mistaken about them.

“Bad faith” is more than an abstract legal issue, as a number of condo board members have found out to their cost.  In two recent decisions judges have held condo board members personally responsible for court costs because they failed to act in good faith.  A look at these cases helps clarify condo board members’ legal responsibilities, as well as their obligations to unit owners.

The first case (Boily vs. Carleton Condominium Corporation 145) began innocently enough, with modifications to a courtyard.  The Board took the position that the changes were “simple repairs” and so required approval of a simple majority (50%) of unit owners.  A group of owners took a different view when they saw the proposed changes.  To them, the modifications looked like “substantial changes” that would require the approval of 2/3 of the owners, and so they attempted to organize a special owners’ meeting to present their concerns to the Board.  The special meeting would be held at the same time as the meeting the Board had already scheduled to vote on the courtyard modifications.

Here is when the Board’s shenanigans began: They refused to recognize that the owners’ had the correct number of signatures to requisition the meeting, and they initially refused to hand over the list of registered owners.  They did not move from their position that the approval of 50% of owners would be enough for the changes to go through, and advised that demolition would begin the day after the meeting.  The group of owners who opposed the changes sought an injunction to stop the demolition.  This was granted by a judge on June 22, 2011, with a promise to decide on the rest of the application on June 29, 2011.

It would seem that cooler heads prevailed after the injunction was granted.  The Board and the group of owners, together with their lawyers, reached an agreement, formalized in “Minutes of Settlement.”  The Board agreed not to proceed with the modifications unless they received the approval of 2/3 of the owners.

But the story does not end here.  When the Board failed to receive the 2/3 majority that it needed, they took the position that the “Minutes of Settlement” was not binding, and that they would wait for the judge’s decision on June 29.  The group of owners brought a motion to enforce the Minutes of Settlement, which the judge granted.  He also decided that the costs incurred to enforce the settlement ($13 560) were to be paid by the board members personally because they had acted in bad faith.  The two main factors in his decision were the Board’s actions regarding the special meeting (their refusal to recognize its legitimacy and their delay in providing the list of owners) and their attempt to wriggle out of the agreement that their own solicitor had negotiated on their behalf.

The second case (Middlesex Condominium Corporation 232 vs. Owners) is similar to the first.  Again, problems arose out of proposed repairs to the condominium – repairs that everyone agreed were necessary.  The Board had decided on a repair plan that would cost $750 000 and require the corporation to borrow $600 000.  A group of owners asked to see the relevant documents, to have time to study them, to post notices about the proposed repairs, and to have the Board suspend negotiations with their chosen contractors.  While the Board’s lawyer provided supervised access to the documents, the other requests were denied.  At the Annual General Meeting, the Board’s bylaw to authorize the $600 000 loan was defeated.  Then the owners held a specially requisitioned meeting where a new board was voted in.

Can you guess what happened next?  The old Board refused to recognize the legitimacy of the new Board.  In an attempt to get around the inconvenient fact that they had been voted out, the old Board filed an injunction with the court to have an administrator appointed.  The judge refused.  He said that the owners’ attempts to get a Board more responsive to their concerns was “entirely understandable and reasonable,” and that the injunction was brought with the sole purpose of preventing the owners from exercising their rights.  Because the application for the injunction was “tenuous and without merit,” he found the five members of the old Board personally responsible for $15 000 in costs.

What are the lessons here?  Probably the members of both Boards (Carleton 145 and Middlesex 232) thought they were doing the right thing and acting in the best interests of owners.  But this is not the point.  Condo Boards serve at the behest of owners.  Acting without the support of owners, or (worse) attempting legal maneuvers to thwart the will of owners, will not be looked upon favourably by the courts.  Board members must understand that, if they appeal to the courts without a legal basis for their actions they may be held personally responsible for costs if their actions be unsuccessful.  Obtaining reliable legal advice is absolutely crucial, as is keeping an open mind.  Any group of people that work together can develop a tendency to group-think, such that it is difficult to see the flaws in a plan that the group has adopted.  Being “certain” that you are doing the right thing is not enough.  And acting on that feeling of certainty, despite owners’ clear lack of support, is a very bad idea.



A slightly different version of the article appeared in the April 2013 issue of Condo Business magazine.