Part 54 published on 01/05/16
Court determines voting rights for purposes of special resolutions
The Court-appointed administrator applied for an order declaring that a special resolution had been validly passed. Under the Condominium Property Act, a special resolution requires voting approval from both (a) a majority of at least 75% of the persons entitled to vote and (b) owners representing 75% of the unit factors. The second requirement was clearly met in this case. In terms of the first requirement, the Court noted two possible interpretations:
Interpretation #1: If an owner owns two or more units, that owner still only counts as one “person entitled to vote”.
OR
Interpretation #2: If an owner owns two or more units, that owner counts as a “person entitled to vote” for each of his or her units.
In this case, one of the owners owned 18 of the 24 units (and had voted in favour of the resolution). The Court adopted the first interpretation. The Court said:
Logically, once an owner or mortgagee becomes a “person … entitled to exercise the powers of voting,” that person does not then become multiple persons simply because they own multiple units. That owner is still one person.
The Court accordingly held that the special resolution had not been passed.
[The Court also noted that proposed amendments to the Condominium Property Act specifically provide that “an owner has the right to vote with respect to each unit owned and, where required, the right to vote the unit factors for each unit owned”. But the Court said: “However, as those amendments are not yet in force, the current language of the CPA governs.”]