When Bert Winberg, founder of the Rockport Group, began building condominiums in the Toronto area in the late 1960s, condominiums were a largely unknown concept and there was no specific legislation governing how they would operate in Ontario. The first Condominium Act was not adopted until 1970. It was a skeletal statute, and while it provided some direction on the functioning of boards, it made no mention of owner meetings.

Legislation evolved as issues emerged and circumstances changed. The concept of owner meetings was introduced in the Condominium Amendment Act of 1974, which set out basic requirements for annual and requisitioned owner meetings. It was not until the “new” Condominium Act of 1978 that the concept of proxies was introduced. Initially, these appear to have been generic, as no specific proxy form was mandated for condominium use.

The Condominium Act, 1998 significantly expanded the requirements for owner meetings and provided more detailed guidance on who could be appointed as a proxy, how proxies were to be given, and introduced a prescribed proxy form. The most recent major amendments came into force on November 1, 2017. While these amendments permitted corporations to conduct votes by electronic means, the Act continues to allow owners to appoint proxies to attend meetings and vote on their behalf, and the regulations now prescribe very specific requirements for proxy forms.

Although proxies and electronic ballots are different mechanisms, they are typically used for the same purposes: establishing quorum and voting. There are circumstances in which appointing a proxy remains appropriate, but proxy forms have become a frequent source of difficulty. By their nature, proxy forms are complex, and problems frequently arise due to incomplete forms, unverifiable signatures, or simple confusion. Difficulties can also occur if the proxy giver’s signatures cannot be validated or a proxy holder cannot attend the meeting or chooses not to exercise the proxy because it contains voting instructions they oppose.

Many owners are unfamiliar with proxies, most have never seen one before, and almost everyone finds proxy forms confusing and burdensome. It is certainly possible to make the current proxy form easier to complete (and the CAO are working on that) but it will never be easy or intuitive for owners – who will rarely need to use it.

As a result, an increasing number of corporations use electronic voting and are no longer distributing blank proxy forms with meeting packages. Instead, they advise owners that the prescribed proxy form is available from the CAO website if required. MTCC 573, a 52‑unit corporation in downtown Toronto, has offered advance electronic voting to its owners since 2021 and has not distributed proxy forms during that time. Whereas quorum was often difficult to achieve in the era of paper voting, the corporation has since achieved participation rates exceeding 90 percent at both annual and special meetings. Notably, no owner has submitted-or even requested-a proxy form.

A concern sometimes raised is that unexpected issues may arise at a meeting that could affect how an owner would wish to vote. The same concern applies equally to proxy voting, as it is common for proxy givers to provide explicit voting instructions that limit flexibility.

We live in a digital world and owners reasonably expect the same seamless, user‑friendly experience in their condominium affairs that they encounter in other aspects of daily life. Requiring owners to complete a complex form so that someone else can cast a vote on their behalf increasingly feels like a relic of a much earlier era.

This guest post was contributed by David Crawford, President of MTCC 573, who brings both a practical perspective and a healthy dose of real‑world experience to the discussion.

Lash Condo Law

Message History

Delivery option(s)