Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

CONDOMINIUM ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES CONDOMINIUMS

CONTENTS

Thursday November 5 1998

Condominium Act, 1998, Bill 38, Mr Tsubouchi /

Loi de 1998 sur les condominiums, projet de loi 38, M. Tsubouchi

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Chair / Président

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside ND)

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Ms Nancy Sills, counsel, Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations

Mr Paul Gordon, senior policy analyst, Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations

Clerk / Greffier

Mr Tom Prins

Staff /Personnel

Mr Michael Wood, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1007 in committee room 1.

CONDOMINIUM ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES CONDOMINIUMS

Consideration of Bill 38, An Act to revise the law relating to condominium corporations, to amend the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and to make other related amendments / Projet de loi 38, Loi révisant des lois en ce qui concerne les associations condominiales, modifiant la Loi sur le régime de garanties des logements neufs de l'Ontario et apportant d'autres modifications connexes.

The Chair (Mr John O'Toole): I call this committee to session. We have in front of us a number of amendments to Bill 38. We had in the subcommittee agreed to perhaps a four- or five-minute overview from each caucus at the beginning of the clause-by-clause process. What I'd like to do, if possible, is start with the Liberal caucus and then the NDP caucus, and the concluding comments by the government caucus. With that particular comment being made, I would ask if the Liberal caucus is prepared to make an opening statement on the clause-by-clause. This is Bill 38.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Just briefly, Mr Chairman, in the time that I have spent on the committee assessing the various deliberations, there were a number of good presentations made and I felt that some of the presenters exposed some valid points, valid concerns. Busy as we are, unfortunately I haven't been able to go through the various amendments, motions presented by the government here, including a few of ours, and see if some of those concerns were taken into consideration now within the changes here. I have to say that when I saw so many motions, I felt maybe we're going to have a new bill again, you know, we'll start all over again. I'm wondering if some of those concerns which I thought to be valid from some of the presenters were incorporated in these motions.

I don't have any specific comments on any one of them, but as we move along I hope to at least recognize some of those valid points that I believe were made by some of the presenters and make some comments at that time.

The Chair: Mr Martin, if you would like to make an opening comment or statement on the proceedings so far.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I just wanted to thank all those who have worked so hard to get us to where we are today, actually looking at a piece of legislation that will have this whole sector of housing and industry in the province move ahead and come into the time that we live in. A lot of work has gone in over a long period of time. Differing governments have taken a look at this and have worked with the parties involved. It's good that we have it in front of us now and that we have an opportunity to actually together approve something that will be helpful. I look forward to participating in that.

Frankly, I was ready to move with this bill back when it was first introduced, but I appreciate the commitment to a process that involved other people coming forward to give us another overview of how it affected them and present to us some changes that might be made that might, again, improve the bill. So I look forward to today going through those amendments and having some further discussion and dialogue on that and ultimately, at the end of the day, having something that we can bring to the House, that then will probably get approval and be helpful to those who are involved in the condominium business, whether it's owners, developers or builders in the province, in the not too distant future.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I'll keep my comments very brief. I simply want to say that our government since 1996 has been going through ongoing consultations with all of the people involved in the condominium industry, including condominium owners and managers, legal experts, financial experts, insurance experts, developers and home builders, along with several others.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Nancy Sills, on my left, and Paul Gordon, on my right, for their hard work. They've literally worked 24 hours a day trying to get this bill completed and address the amendments. I would also thank Derek O'Toole for his hard work. We have with us Peter Ross as well, in the back, who has worked for the past eight years on this Condominium Act, so he's very pleased to see this come forward. Charles Finley, a legal counsel with the ministry who I think has since retired, worked very diligently on this act as well.

I urge the committee to move forward on this bill as quickly as we can to address the amendments. We've listened to the stakeholders who came forward to the public hearings and we've tried to address many of the issues that were brought forth. I urge you to exercise care and diligence but to move forward in a timely fashion so we can go through this, hopefully, today.

The Chair: Very good. I wonder, for the record, if we could have the other persons at the table with you state their names.

Ms Nancy Sills: My name is Nancy Sills, and I'm counsel at the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr Paul Gordon: My name is Paul Gordon, senior policy analyst with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Chair: Thank you very much. With that being the opening statements, we will start with the first of what I believe are 89 amendments that we have to deal with today.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): I move that subsection 1(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following definitions:

"'common elements condominium corporation' means a common elements condominium corporation described in subsection 139;

"'phased condominium corporation' means a phased condominium corporation to which part XI applies;

"'vacant land condominium corporation' means a vacant land condominium corporation described in subsection 156."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?

Mrs Ross: Excuse me. I think in the last part of that that where he read "'vacant land condominium corporation' means a vacant land condominium corporation described in subsection 156," that should be 156(2). And above that, under common elements, where it says "condominium corporation described in subsection 139," that should be 139(2), as well.

The Chair: Any other questions or comments? If not, I'll call the question on amendment number 1. All those in support? It's carried unanimously.

Mrs Ross, if you could, we're dealing with amendment number 2.

Mrs Ross: I move that paragraph 4 of subsection 6(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"4. Standard condominium corporations that are not any of the corporations mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? All those in support? It's carried unanimously.

If I could just slow the committee proceedings down for one moment, the clerk has advised me -- thanks for the assistance, Tom -- that we should deal with section 1. I would like to call the question on section 1, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Procedurally, there are no amendments to section 2, so we're voting on section 2 of the bill. All those in support? That's carried.

Sections 3, 4 and 5, if I could group those together, unamended: All those in support? That's carried.

Thank you very much for your patience. Now we're dealing with the second amendment to section 6 -- that's the third amendment -- moved by Mrs Ross.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 6(4)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) if the corporation is a freehold condominium corporation, the type of freehold condominium corporation that it is."

The Chair: Any questions or comments on that amendment? Seeing none, I'll call the question on the amendment. All those in support? That's carried unanimously.

We're now at section 7, so I'll call the question on section 6, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Now section 7.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 7(2)(e) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(e) an address for service, a municipal address for the corporation, if available, and the mailing address of the corporation if it differs from its address for service or municipal address."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Everyone in support? Carried.

We have the next amendment to --

Mr Sergio: Perhaps I don't read the motion the way the government intends under (e), "an address for service, a municipal address for the corporation, if available...." If we don't have an address, do we have a corporation?

The Chair: I would defer to the parliamentary assistant on that, although we have voted on this section. It's kind of a procedural exception.

Mr Sergio: We have voted?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Sergio: When?

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): Just now.

Mr Sergio: Just now? I didn't realize --

The Chair: Well, we haven't called the question on that section.

Mr Sergio: You haven't called the question? I'm sorry.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): We voted on the amendment.

The Chair: We voted on the amendment, yes, but we haven't voted on the section, so in that respect I think you can generally make a comment for clarification.

Mr Sergio: That's my comment. If you don't have an address for a corporation, do you have a corporation?

Mrs Ross: Yes, you can. You can have an address for a property but oftentimes the municipal address is not available until the declaration is registered. That's why we've included that in there.

Mr Sergio: Is that explained in any other part?

Mrs Ross: For example, you may have a lot number, that sort of thing, as opposed to a municipal address. When you build the condominium, it's built on lot number such-and-such and that's the address under the municipal plan. But when it's registered, then it becomes an address, such as 10 Main Street. It's no longer a lot number.

The Chair: Is that satisfactory, Mr Sergio?

1020

Mr Sergio: Well, a municipal address is fine if it's an empty piece of land on any particular place. I'm not a lawyer. I'm giving you the view the way I see it from the experience I've had. You may have a piece of land that is going through rezoning or being built and whatever, and until that particular building, be it residential, industrial, commercial, whatever, does get the condominium status, it would have an address, municipal address, specifically for that piece of land as the conditions may be. It would be a condominium corporation with that particular address when the condominium is registered, so the condominium corporation would have an actual address. I don't see the "if," "if you have an address." I don't see that. It should be an address. I don't see the "if." The "if" gives me problems.

Mrs Ross: Just to try to clarify that again, if a condominium corporation is building several townhomes, as an example, they have several streets within that complex and they have lot numbers assigned to those particular homes that they are building. But until they determine what they are going to call the street, they actually don't have a municipal address until that happens, and generally that happens when they register.

Mr Sergio: I find that strange, if I may, Mr Chairman. You may have a plan of subdivision with a number of streets, be it townhouses or whatever, but you have to have a municipal address, and then you may have different blocks or whatever. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I won't dwell on it.

Mrs Ross: Could I get legal counsel to respond?

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): On a point of order, Mr Chair: With all due respect, we've already voted on this amendment. If the member wants clarification, clarification has been given. We've already voted on the amendment, so I think we should carry on.

The Chair: Mr Froese, we haven't voted on section 7 yet. It's clarification, and the Chair will indulge legal counsel to perhaps add some clarity to the question. I understand what Mr Sergio is saying and I hope you can explain it for the members of the committee.

Ms Sills: I think that in cases of development where the land is being redeveloped and there are new homes, new units, the municipality may not necessarily have assigned an official municipal address yet, and so this recognizes the fact that the developer may not have been given a municipal address at the time of creation of the condominium.

Mr Sergio: I'll take that as acceptable.

The Chair: I'll call for voting on section 7, as amended. All those in support? Thank you.

We're now in the first amendment of section 8.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 8(1)(e) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(e) a certificate of an architect that all buildings have been constructed in accordance with the regulations and, if there are structural plans, a certificate of an engineer that all buildings have been constructed in accordance with the regulations."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? All those in support? That's carried.

Section 8 is completed now, so we'll vote on section 8, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

We've got no amendments up to section 19, so with the indulgence of the committee we will lump together sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. All of those sections I have just named have no amendments. I call the question on all those sections at once. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 19.

Mrs Ross: I move that section 19 of the bill be amended by adding at the end "or to exercise the powers of the corporation."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 19, as amended, all those in support? That's carried.

Section 20, no amendments, all those in support? Section 20 is carried.

Section 21, all those in support?

Mrs Ross: Mr Chair, I do have an amendment on subsection 21(2).

The Chair: We haven't called the question. Members of the committee do not have copies of any amendments to section 21, so if there are any, with the permission of the clerk, we'll distribute those to the members of the committee.

Mrs Ross: Could I just make a comment here, Mr Chair?

The Chair: Yes, while the clerk is distributing the copies. The clerk is hurriedly getting a copy of the amendment. If you could address the members of the committee, I'd appreciate it.

Mrs Ross: I apologize to the committee. There are five amendments that weren't submitted previously, the reason being that -- well, I don't have a reason. But I'd like to say that all of these five amendments address the issue with respect to documents executed by the corporation to be under seal. Because of technology the way it is, seals are no longer required. There are several sections, five of them, in which the amendment -- if I could read one of them. They basically read the same, to strike out "under its seal" because we no longer require seals, with the age of technology, as a way of filing documents.

The Chair: Ms Ross, I think because members don't have copies of the amendments, we could just take a four-minute recess right now. We'll reconvene here --

Mr Sergio: Why don't we carry on with some of the others? Then we can come back to those.

The Chair: We'd need unanimous consent, if that's the will of the committee, to stand down 21 and move on to 22. That's probably the most efficient. Thank you very much for that. I'm seeking unanimous consent to set down 21. All those in support? Thank you very much.

We're moving now to section 22, moved by Mr Sergio.

Mr Sergio: I move that the definition of "telecommunications" in subsection 22(1) of the bill be amended by adding at the end "whether or not it is one-way or bi-directional."

I think it's self-explanatory. I don't want to take the time of the committee.

The Chair: Mr Sergio has moved an amendment to subsection 22(1). Any questions or comments from members of the committee?

Mrs Ross: I just want to say that we don't believe this adds anything to the bill. In fact, there was a comment made that there could be multi-directional as well, so it might in fact confuse the situation. We don't feel it adds anything to the bill, so we'll be voting it down.

The Chair: Any questions or comments with respect to this amendment? Seeing none, I'll call the question on the amendment to 22(1). All those in support of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Subsection 22(2), Mr Sergio.

1030

Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 22(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "or" at the end of clause (b) and by striking out clause (c) and substituting the following:

"(c) amend an agreement for a telecommunications system that services the units of the corporation to permit the other party to the agreement to supply and invoice discretionary services directly to the unit owners; or

"(d) amend an agreement for a telecommunications system that services the units of the corporation to permit the corporation to supply bulk basic services only and to invoice them to the corporation."

Again, we see in both clauses that we are trying to protect the individual owners. We believe it's more beneficial. It's more explicit if we were to do that. We have seen, for example -- and I believe it's coming later on in another motion by the government as well -- with the telecommunications where the original builder or owner has been retaining full power and control and now he's imposing it on the full corporation. We want to see any benefits we can add to the various changes in the bill to make it more beneficial for the individual owners. This would be one area.

Mrs Ross: I'd like to say that under clause (c) he puts in "discretionary services." We're not quite sure what that means and we believe that confuses the issue. Under (d) he's put down here that it includes "bulk basic services only and to invoice them to the corporation." It leads to the question, does that mean that bulk basic services are now common expenses? It's a legal question there. We don't believe this adds anything to the bill.

The Chair: No further discussion? I'll call the question on the amendment to section 22(2). All those in support of this amendment? All those opposed? I declare that the amendment has been defeated.

Mr Sergio.

Mr Sergio: I move that section 22 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

"No negative options

"(4.1) Despite anything in this act, after the day this section comes into force, a corporation may not enter into a telecommunications agreement that provides for the automatic renewal of the agreement in the absence of any action by any of the parties and such an agreement is void.

"No registration

"(4.2) Despite anything in this act, after the day this section comes into force, no person may register a telecommunications agreement against the land or interests appurtenant to the land of a corporation, as the land and the interests are described in the description."

I think this is perhaps a bit clearer than what I was saying before, where the builder or the owner is entering into an agreement prior to and is retaining that agreement even after the condominium is registered, at the expense of the corporation and the individual owners. That's basically the intent. I would like to hear from the parliamentary assistant on this one as well.

Mrs Ross: "No negative options," subsection (4.1), which the member has suggested is really a consumer protection issue. It's our view that it really doesn't belong in the Condominium Act. It is an issue that the minister is very concerned about, and certainly we'll address that issue under the Consumer Protection Act. It's not the appropriate avenue to put it here. In fact, it would create two levels of consumers: those covered by the Condominium Act and those not.

Under subsection (4.2), we believe anything that affects title should be put on the title so that people know about it when they're buying a property. So we will be voting in opposition to this amendment.

The Chair: Any other comments or questions on this section?

Mr Sergio: I think it was very forcefully put to us by the proponents when they made a presentation. The question is this: If a developer enters into an agreement with a company prior to registration of a condominium, it's giving lifetime control of the telecommunications in that particular respect. We believe that when the corporation takes over, the corporation should have the power, the jurisdiction to terminate or continue that agreement with that particular contractor or service provider. We don't believe in a developer, once he has sold the units and has no more interest in the building, retaining some interest through a contract prior to the registration. We believe it is in the interests of the individual units and of the corporation that the corporation and the individual unit owners should decide to continue that service with that previous provider or not. In this particular case, they will not be able to because that agreement is a lifetime agreement.

The Chair: You've certainly made your argument. With that, I would call the question on the amendment to subsections 22(4.1) and (4.2). All those in support of this amendment? All those opposed? The amendment is defeated.

Subsections 22(5) and (6), and I would advise members to add subsection (7) in the opening definition there. Ms Ross.

Mrs Ross: Subsections 22(5) and (6), I move -- and (7), sorry.

The Chair: Members of the committee, just pencil that in. It's a small typographical error in the opening line.

Mrs Ross: It should read "Subsections 22(5), (6) and (7)."

I move that subsections 22(5), (6) and (7) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Telecommunications easement

"(5) A corporation and a party, if any, that has entered into a telecommunications agreement with the corporation shall have a non-exclusive easement over the part of the property described in clause (b) for the purpose of installing and using a telecommunications system if,

"(a) the corporation was created on or after the day this section comes into force and includes one or more units for residential purposes;

"(b) part of the property is designed to control, facilitate or provide telecommunications to, from or within the property; and

"(c) the corporation does not have an easement over the property described in the description or a right to use the property that is adequate for,

"(i) the telecommunications agreement that it has entered into with respect to the property, if it has entered into such an agreement, or

"(ii) the telecommunications system that the corporation intends to install and use on the property, if it has not entered into a telecommunications agreement with respect to the property.

"Duty to accommodate easement

"(6) If a telecommunications system installed on the part of the property described in clause (5)(b) interferes with a telecommunications system that the corporation intends to have installed and to use on the property described in the description, the owner of the part of the property shall, upon 30 days' written notice by the owner of the easement described in subsection (5), take all necessary steps that are reasonable to accommodate the intended telecommunications system.

"Validity of easement

"(7) The easement is valid even though the corporation and the party, if any, that has entered into a telecommunications agreement with the corporation own no land to be benefited by the easement."

I've just been asked to clarify, under clause (5)(c), it's a small (i) before the first paragraph beginning with "the telecommunications agreement," and (ii) before the second paragraph, again beginning with "the telecommunications system," just to ensure it's correct.

1040

The Chair: Is there any debate or discussion on this motion?

Mr Sergio: I wonder if perhaps the parliamentary assistant or the legal staff can allay my fears. This is addressing exactly the concern expressed by those telecommunications people and it is not clear to me that indeed if that easement were given to a particular supplier of a telecommunications service by the owner of the land, the builder, the developer, whoever, that agreement will follow through indefinitely, forever. Perhaps to allay my fears and those of the deputants who were here, and I believe some of them may be here today, if indeed we are inserting here in the motion, in the changes, that when the corporation takes over, they have the right, they have the power to either continue with that previous engagement or contracted company, or, if they are not happy for whatever reason, they may say, "Thank you, we're going to go ahead and have another company." That's what I would like to see.

I believe that the corporation, not somebody previous to that, in this case a builder or a developer or landowner, should have the only and sole authority to decide on behalf of the corporation or the individual owner that they are stuck with a service that they don't want, that is no longer feasible, that is too expensive, that is not in the best interests of the corporation. Can you please allay my fears that we don't have this particular situation here?

Mrs Ross: That concern has been raised by many people who came to the hearings. What we're saying is that because the cost involved in putting in a telecommunications system is so high, the individual or company involved in putting that system in should have some time to recoup their costs. In the Condominium Act, we have included 10 years as sufficient time for them to recoup their costs, and after 10 years then certainly the corporation can make whatever changes they wish to the CCUs. We believe that's fair and reasonable. As a matter of fact, many of the condominium owners who made presentations were prepared to look at a length of time for people who have installed that equipment to recoup their costs. We feel that 10 years is reasonable.

The Chair: Does that satisfy your concern?

Mr Sergio: No, it doesn't, but I don't want to delay it. I can see that we are trying to make changes over time to improve the Condominium Act, ultimately to make it better for the unit owners. I believe that we should have some mechanism in place where, as I said before, the corporation, the individual unit owners should be able to decide if they're willing to continue with a particular contract or agreement. I understand that there are certain expenses involved, incurred, especially in providing some major item like this, but I don't believe that a corporation or owners should be stuck with a very expensive provider of a service solely because now the corporation is stuck with allowing that provider to recoup some of its expenses. I don't think it's fair. If they are much more expensive than other providers, I don't think the unit owners should be stuck with recouping somebody's money who is not providing an efficient service. That's my point.

Mrs Ross: I just simply want to say again that we have looked at that issue and, in fairness to people who want to spend some dollars to put in CCUs, they should be able to recoup their costs, and 10 years seems to be fair and reasonable.

The problem you have is if a condominium corporation could make changes immediately upon taking over ownership, at the turnover meeting, if they could say to someone who's spent a great deal of money to put in a CCU, "Your contract is null and void," that would prohibit any telecommunications people from wanting to invest in condominium units.

The Chair: Regarding Mr Sergio's caucus's amendments, as Chair I sit and listen to this, and I think there were good arguments made. I think this is a reasonable solution. Perhaps I'm not supposed to air an opinion as the Chair, but I appreciate that explanation, Mrs Ross. With that, I'll call the question.

All those in support of the amendment before us? Opposed? It's carried.

We're now moving to subsection 22(9). Mr Sergio.

Mr Sergio: Subsection 22(8)?

The Chair: Subsection 22(8), yes. Sorry.

Mr Sergio: Did we vote on section 21?

The Chair: No, not on section 21. We'll do that after section 22 is completed, with your indulgence.

Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 22(8) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Easements non-exclusive

"(8) If the property of a corporation that includes one or more units for residential purposes is subject to an easement for the purposes of telecommunications, then, despite anything in the grant of the easement, the easement shall be deemed to be non-exclusive."

I will have to repeat the previous arguments, as they relate to the same thing and again speak of exclusivity to a former supplier which the contractor entered into prior to the corporation being in place. My arguments are the same. I expect that probably the vote is going to be the same. But again, I'm speaking for the benefit of the condominium corporation, especially at a time when the corporation is fresh, it's new and the owners are trying to keep the costs down, if you will. I don't believe they should be burdened. An expensive contract may not be the best service, perhaps, for a period of 10 years. A mechanism should be in place whereby the supplier may have to make some other arrangements, while ultimately the corporation's individual owners should have the final say either to continue or terminate that agreement, and that continues to be my view, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Any other discussion?

All those in support of this amendment? Seeing none, all those opposed? That's defeated.

Mr Sergio, clause 22(9)(a).

Mr Sergio: I move that clause 22(9)(a) of the bill be struck out.

I'll leave it at that. I don't want to prolong, giving too many details. It's simple and clear in itself.

The Chair: Any questions or comments?

Mrs Ross: I just simply want to say that we believe this is really punitive and unfair and, again, believe that the telecommunications contractor has to have some time to recoup his costs.

The Chair: I'll call the question on this amendment.

All those in support?

Mr Martin: Could we have a recorded vote on this one?

The Chair: Yes. We're calling for a recorded vote on this particular amendment, moved by Mr Sergio.

Ayes

Martin, Sergio.

Nays

Ford, Froese, Gilchrist, Munro, Ross.

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

Clause 22(9)(c).

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 22(9)(c) of the bill be amended by striking out "at least 50%" in the first line and substituting "more than 50%."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question.

Those in support? That's carried.

Section 22.

1050

Mr Sergio: I move that section 22 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Legal costs of termination

"(10.1) If a corporation terminates a telecommunications agreement before 10 years have passed since the later of the execution of the agreement and the registration of the declaration and description, the persons who were directors of the corporation at the time the agreement was executed shall reimburse the corporation for the legal costs incurred by the corporation in terminating the agreement."

The Chair: In light of the discussions with respect to the similar issue, do you have any comments?

Mr Sergio: No, I don't. I'll save the committee time.

The Chair: OK. Any questions or comments? I'll call the question.

Those in support of this amendment? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Now we are completed section 22, and I'd like to vote on section 22, as amended.

All those in support of section 22, as amended? That's carried.

With the indulgence of the committee, members now have in their possession a number of amendments moved or put forward by the government in section 21. Everyone has those amendments? We'll deal with them one at a time.

Subsection 21(2).

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 21(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "under its seal" in the third line.

The Chair: Any questions or comments on this?

Mr Ford: Yes. "Under its seal," I'm under the impression that they still use seals in legal terminology, don't they? They haven't eliminated seals, corporate seals or any --

Mrs Ross: No, but in registering documents or land titles --

Mr Ford: And in swearing, you don't have to use a seal?

Mrs Ross: That's correct. You do not have to use a seal.

Mr Ford: It's eliminated completely?

Mrs Ross: In some cases, through the land title's registration.

Mr Ford: That's what I'm saying. The seal definitely defines that it's legal, but if you don't have to use seals any more in swearing, and you said it's only used in application for land development, I think we should leave that in there.

Mrs Ross: This is being used only in the context of section 21 of this bill, that you don't require a seal.

Mr Ford: There is no doubt, then, the seal is not required. Is that right?

Mrs Ross: That's correct.

Mr Froese: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'd like to make a motion that -- maybe the clerk can tell us -- we block this, all of these amendments with respect to the seal; that we carry the motion right now, subsections 121, 123, 124, 125.

The Chair: That's not a point of order. We have a motion on the floor which we're discussing. It may certainly be in order to examine this option you're bringing forward. I'd leave that to perhaps Mrs Ross and the crafters of these amendments to take that initiative.

Mrs Ross, you're dealing with the amendment to subsection 21(2), dealing with the seal. The point has been made. Any further debate on this issue of the seal?

Mr Sergio: Yes. I can see the intent of the member, and I think he's right. All four of them, I believe, or five, deal with the seal here. It should be dealt with as a whole. If it doesn't cause any problems, then why take that out? Usually when some agreement is signed -- and I concur with Mr Ford -- be it a lease agreement or whatever, there is legal terminology in effect, to be under seal. Are we saying that agreements -- in this particular case it's a lease agreement and others -- don't have to be under seal but still are enforceable?

Mrs Ross: I'll ask Nancy to respond.

Ms Sills: We've taken out the references to seals in all these questions because for land registration purposes it is not necessary to have a seal; you can simply put a statement on the document saying that you have authority to bind the corporation. These amendments will facilitate electronic registration. The trend now is away from the requirement for corporate seals. It doesn't prevent the corporation from putting a seal on it if it wishes, it just doesn't require it.

Mr Sergio: If an officer of a corporation in one of his functions either for registration purposes or otherwise through the local municipality were to submit a document not under seal and if something were to go wrong, does it mean that officer is not legally bound or responsible for whatever action may emanate from that particular document not being under seal?

Ms Sills: No. If the officer signs the document, the officer is representing that he or she has the authority to do so.

Mr Sergio: Even though it's not under seal?

Ms Sills: Yes.

The Chair: Very good.

Mr Sergio: I would feel comfortable if we were to leave in "under its seal." It doesn't seem to make any difference other than expediency because of this new computer terminology, if you will, or to facilitate it for any other reason. I would say that it would perhaps make members of corporations much happier to see it under seal than to say, "For expediency of photocopying, we don't require it."

The Chair: It doesn't prohibit it, though. That's my understanding.

Mr Sergio: It doesn't prohibit, but again it raises some questions.

The Chair: It may be that the orders in council will all come out under an Internet directory of some sort. Anyway, we have a motion here. I'm at the indulgence of the committee. This particular seal issue, subsection 21(2), is moved by Ms Ross.

All those in support?

Mr Sergio: Do you want to vote on all five of them together, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: They're all different sections, and I would like to give time to legislative staff. It's the only amendment to section 21. The others are to 121, 123. They're dealing with the same issue in different sections of the bill. The researcher is going to be looking at its appropriateness. Mr Froese brought that up as well, but they're different sections.

We called the question and that carried. The amendment carried in section 21. I'm going to call the question on section 21, as amended.

All those in support? That's carried.

We're now moving to subsection 23(2).

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 23(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Notice to owners

"(2) Before commencing an action mentioned in subsection (1), the corporation shall give written notice of the general nature of the action to all persons whose names are in the record of the corporation maintained under subsection 47(2) except if,

"(a) the action is to enforce a lien of the corporation under section 86 or to fulfil its duty under subsection 17(3); or

"(b) the action is commenced in the Small Claims Court."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Sergio: If we say, "except for (a) and (b)" -- and I don't want to doubt the officers of corporations -- how do the individual owners know that indeed those actions are being carried out if no notification is being given to the individual owners?

Mrs Ross: Actually, I'll refer this to legal counsel.

1100

Ms Sills: Under the current Condominium Act, there is already an exception for actions in Small Claims Court. They don't have to notify all the owners. So the amendment here is to reinstate that exception. One of the reasons is that the amounts in Small Claims Court are smaller amounts. If you have a large condominium project and you have to give notice to 300 owners, it's a real administrative burden.

In terms of how the owners find out about these actions, there is an annual general meeting every year at which these types of matters can be disclosed and they can ask questions about them.

Mr Sergio: It goes totally against the interests of the individual owners. As I said, and I'm going to repeat myself, I don't want to sound like I don't have faith in the members of the corporation running the board, but I would hate to see individual owners read in the newspaper or the Gazette or whatever that an action has been taken or not taken on behalf of the corporation when indeed, at whatever meeting, the corporation was directed to do certain things. I believe that the intent of making some changes to the act is to improve it for the benefit of the individual owners. With all due respect, even though it's already there now, this is practically saying, "Because it's there now, we are not going to change it." What is the purpose of making changes if we do not improve it for the individual owners?

If the management of 300 units -- and I'm taking 300 units -- cannot slip a piece of paper underneath the individual doors and say, "We have taken this particular action," then, I'm sorry, I don't think it becomes an administrative burden. As an individual owner, I want to know if indeed a lien has been either removed or placed on whatever. As individual owners, we should be advised regardless. Only then a board and management functions together well in the interests of the individual owners. I'll tell you, by leaving a clause like this simply because the small claims court says you already have that authority, I want to know that my corporation has been doing exactly that, and unless the management notifies me, I won't be able to find out. It's not a service that we are providing to the individual owners and it's not an amelioration to the act if we leave it as it is. That's my view.

Mrs Ross: I just want to say that, indeed, when you elect a board of directors, there's some sort of faith and trust that you put in that board to act on your behalf, and we believe that this puts an onerous burden on them to notify it for small claims.

Mr Martin: There's another angle on this that may be of interest, and perhaps I can put it on the table, and that's the issue of the protection of privacy of people who have gotten themselves into a small difficulty with the corporation and don't want everybody in the building to know. It comes out in the annual report and perhaps it'll be discussed in general at an annual meeting, but it may not be that each individual owner who is in a dispute with the corporation wants everybody in the building to know their business.

The Chair: It's an interesting perspective.

Mrs Ross: I just want to say that is an interesting point. Thank you for raising that.

The Chair: Very good. Any debate on this particular amendment? I'll call the questions. All those in support? It's carried.

We are now dealing with section 23, as amended. All those in support of section 23, as amended? That's carried.

There are no amendments of record on section 24. I'm going to call sections 24, 25, 26 and 27 as there are no amendments to any of those sections. All those in support of those sections? Opposed? Carried on each of those sections.

We are now dealing with subsection 28(2).

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 28(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Notice of candidates

"(2) The notice of a meeting to elect one or more directors shall include the name and address of each individual who has notified the board in writing of the intention to be a candidate in the election as of the fourth day before the notice is sent."

The Chair: Any questions or comments on this? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll now call the question on section 28, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

On section 29, there are no amendments. I'll call the question on section 29. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 30, I'll call the question. All those in support? It's carried.

We are now dealing with section 31.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 31(3) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: For the purpose of administration, the Liberal motion, the next amendment, is a duplication, so I'm going to be calling the question on 31(3). I'm not calling the section, it's just on this particular amendment. All those in support? That's carried.

Mr Sergio, how do you intend to deal with your proposed amendment here? It's a duplication.

Mr Sergio: That's been done on page 17.

The Chair: It seems we agreed on that, or the government agreed with the Liberal caucus. Are you going to stand it down or withdraw it?

Mr Sergio: Withdrawn.

The Chair: We're dealing with section 31, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 32, there are no amendments. All those in support of section 32? That's carried.

Section 33, we have an amendment.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsections 33(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Removal

"(1) Subject to subsection 51(8), a director, other than a director on the first board, may be removed before the expiration of the director's term of office by a vote of the owners at a meeting duly called for the purpose where the owners of more than 50 per cent of the units vote in favour of removal."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments on this amendment? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 33, as amended, all those in support? That's carried.

Section 34, with no amendments. I'll call the question. Those in support of section 34? That's carried.

Sections 35, 36 and 37, there are no amendments. I'll call the question on those three sections. All those in support? That's carried.

We're now at section 38, proposed by Ms Ross.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 38(1) of the bill be amended by inserting "estate trustees" after "administrators" in the fourth and fifth lines.

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 38, as amended, all those in support? That's carried.

Section 39.

Mrs Ross: I move that section 39 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Insurance

"39. If the insurance is reasonably available, a corporation shall purchase and maintain insurance for the benefit of a director or officer against the matters described in clauses 38(1)(a) and (b) except insurance against a liability, cost, charge or expense of the director or officer incurred as a result of a breach of the duty to act honestly and in good faith."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 39, as amended, all those in support? That's carried.

Section 40, as is, all those in support? That's carried.

Section 41.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 41(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "of directors" in the third and fourth lines.

The Chair: Any questions or comments? I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 41, as amended, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 42.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 42(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "of directors" in the third and fourth lines.

The Chair: Any questions or comments? I'll call the question. Those in support? Carried.

Section 42, as amended, those in support? That's carried.

Section 43.

1110

Mr Sergio: I move that clause 43(4)(c) of the bill be amended by striking out "leases and licences" in the fifth line and substituting "leases, licences and easements". Again, it's very simple, it's very explicit. It's just to add "easements."

The Chair: Any questions or comments?

Mrs Ross: We have no problem with that.

The Chair: Any other discussion? This amendment really adds the word "easements" to subsection 43(4)(c). I'll call the question in support of this amendment. All those in support? That's carried.

Mr Gilchrist: Another successful day.

The Chair: Another successful day. I'll call section 43, as amended. All those in support? That's carried unanimously.

On sections 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 there are no amendments. I'm calling the question on all those sections. All those in support? That's carried.

We're dealing now with section 49, moved by Ms Ross.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 49(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Payment of arrears

"(2) An owner who is not entitled to vote under subsection (1) may vote if the corporation receives payment of the arrears with respect to the owner's unit before the meeting is held."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 49, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 50, moved by Ms Ross.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 50(1) of the bill be amended by striking out, "33$ per cent" in the seventh line and substituting "33 1/3 per cent."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? All those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 50, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 51.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 51(6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Reserved position

"(6) If at least 15 per cent of the units of the corporation are owner-occupied units on or after the time at which the board is required to call a turnover meeting under section 43, no persons other than the owners of owner-occupied units may elect a person to or remove a person from one of the positions on the board."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? It's carried.

Section 51.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsections 51(8) and (9) of the bill by struck out and the following substituted:

"Removal

"(8) A director elected under subsection (6) may be removed before the expiration of the director's term of office by a vote of the owners at a meeting duly called for the purpose where the owners of more than 50 per cent of the owner-occupied units vote in favour of removal."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 51, as amended. I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 52.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 52(2) of the bill be amended by inserting "promptly" after "or" in the fourth line.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 52, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on sections 53, 54 and 55 as there are no amendments. All those in support of those sections? That's carried.

Section 56.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 56(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:

"(h.1) to extend the circumstances described in subsection 106(2) under which an amount shall be added to the common expenses payable for an owner's unit for the purposes of subsection 106(2.1)."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 56, as amended: All those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on sections 57 through to 71, as there are no amendments. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 72: There's a government motion. The clerk has advised me -- it's not through any brilliance on my part -- that this motion is out of order. The option here is to vote against section 72. That's procedurally the way it would be dealt with, unless there any comments from counsel or from Ms Ross. It's your motion, your play.

Mrs Ross: Could we get some clarification on why it's out of order, please.

The Chair: Section 72 is to be struck out, and the procedural way to deal with it is to vote against the motion, which is the amendment to delete the section, or you can withdraw the amendment.

With indulgence, I'll give the clerk's technical description here as I'm executing at the end of a very short leash.

Clerk of the Committee (Mr Tom Prins): Procedurally, if you didn't want section 72 to stand as a portion of the bill, when the Chair calls the question, "Shall section 72 carry?" the members would vote no and it would no longer be a part of the bill. You can't move a motion to strike a section.

Mr Sergio: I guess the other point would be, why would this motion be introduced in the first place?

The Chair: With indulgence, the Chair would just say that if you look at section 72, part V deals with the sale and lease of units. It is a section in which the government, I guess, on review of public input, as the bill is printed at this point, moved an amendment.

Mr Sergio: Are you withdrawing the motion, then?

The Chair: The amendment has not been moved. I'm just pointing out, procedurally --

Mr Sergio: It doesn't have to be moved, but you have to dispose of it. So somebody has to either withdraw it or vote against.

The Chair: Let's go about it. We have an amendment here. I would just ask Ms Ross: Do you care to move this amendment and then have it defeated?

Mr Gilchrist: Chair, with the greatest respect, call for any questions. If there are no questions on 72 --

The Chair: We haven't even got an amendment moved.

Mr Gilchrist: There is no amendment. You've asked for questions on section 72.

The Chair: OK. That's where we are. Are there any questions on section 72 of the bill? Seeing none, I'll call the question on section 72. All those in support? All those opposed? Section 72 of the bill is defeated.

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Gilchrist.

Mr Gilchrist: My pleasure, Chair.

The Chair: You're eminently qualified.

We're now at section 73.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 73(3) of the bill be amended by adding the following clause:

"(a.01) a table of contents prepared in accordance with subsection (3.1) and located at the beginning of the disclosure statement."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 73(3)(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(1) a copy of the existing or proposed declaration, bylaws, rules and insurance trust agreement, if any."

The Chair: I would ask the parliamentary assistant to clarify with counsel. The clerk advises me -- the question is, is it 73(3) "one" or 73(3) "ell"? I believe it's "ell."

Mrs Ross: I'm sorry, it's "ell." You're correct. Clause 73(3)(l).

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

1120

Mrs Ross: I move that the English version of clause 73(3)(m) of the bill be amended by inserting "of" after "115 and" in the fourth line.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 73(3)(r) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(r) a statement setting out the fees or changes, if any, that the corporation is required to pay to the declarant or another person; and"

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. In support? Carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that section 73 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Table of contents

"(3.1) The table of contents in the disclosure statement shall be in the prescribed form, shall indicate whether the declaration, bylaws, rules or the proposed declaration, bylaws or rules of the corporation or any other material in the disclosure statement deal with the following matters and, if so, shall indicate where the matters are dealt with:

"1. A statement indicating,

"(i) whether the corporation is a leasehold condominium corporation or a freehold condominium corporation, and

"(ii) if the corporation is a freehold condominium corporation, the type of freehold condominium corporation that it is.

"2. The property or part of the property is or may be subject to the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act or the proposed units and common elements are enrolled or are intended to be enrolled in the plan within the meaning of that act in accordance with the regulations made under that act.

"3. A building on the property or a unit or a proposed unit has been converted from a previous use.

"4. One or more units or proposed units may be used for commercial or other purposes not ancillary to residential purposes.

"5. A provision exists with respect to pets on the property or the proposed property.

"6. There exist restrictions or standards with respect to the occupancy or use of units or proposed units or the use of common elements or proposed common elements that are based on the nature or design of the facilities and services on the property or on other aspects of the buildings located on the property.

"7. A statement of the portion of units or proposed units, to the nearest anticipated 25%, that the declarant intends to lease.

"8. A statement whether the proportion, expressed in percentages, of the common interest appurtenant to any unit or proposed unit differs in an amount of 10% or more from that appurtenant to any other unit or proposed unit of the same type, size and design.

"9. A statement whether the proportion, expressed in percentages, in which the owner of any unit or proposed unit is required to contribute to the common expenses differs in an amount of 10% or more from that required of the owner of any other unit or proposed unit of the same type, size and design.

"10. A statement whether any unit or proposed unit is exempt from a cost attributable to the rest of the units or proposed units.

"11. Part or the whole of the common elements or the proposed common elements are subject to a lease or licence.

"12. A statement whether parking is allowed in or on a unit, on the common elements or on a part of the common elements of which an owner has exclusive use and a statement of the restrictions on parking.

"13. Any other statement specified in the regulations made under this act."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 73(5)(g) of the bill be amended by adding at the end ", unless a turn-over meeting has been held under section 43."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on 73, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 74, there are no amendments. I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 75(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "or" at the end of clause (b), by adding "or" at the end of clause (c) and by adding the following clauses:

"(a.1) a substantial addition, alteration or improvement within the meaning of subsection 98(6) that the corporation makes to the common elements after a turn-over meeting has been held under section 43;

"(d) a change in the information contained in the statement described in subsection 162(1) of the services provided by the municipality or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as the case may be, as described in that subsection, if the unit or the proposed unit is in a vacant land condominium corporation."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 75(3) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 75(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Contents of revised statement

"(4) The revised disclosure statement or notice required under subsection (1) shall clearly identify all changes that in the reasonable belief of the declarant may be material changes and summarize the particulars of them."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 75, as amended, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

No amendments to section 76. I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that subclause 77(1)(m)(ii) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(ii) the amount in the reserve fund no earlier than at the end of a month within 90 days of the date of the status certificate, and"

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 77(1)(q) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(q) a statement of the amounts, if any, that this act requires be added to the common expenses payable for the unit."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 77, as amended: All those in support? That's carried.

With sections 78, 79, 80, 81 and 82, there are no amendments. I'll call the question on all those sections. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 83(4) of the bill be amended by striking out the portion before clause (a) and substituting the following:

"Time of payment

"(4) The interest shall be paid to the purchaser by way of payment or set-off."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 83, as amended. Those in support? That's carried.

There are no amendments to section 84. I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 85(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Contribution of owners

"85. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this act, the owners shall contribute to the common expenses in the proportions specified in the declaration."

The Chair: Are there are questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 85, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Sections 86 through 89: There are no amendments. I'll call the question on those sections. Those in support? That's carried.

1130

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 90(4)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) the standard unit described in the schedule mentioned in clause 43(5)(h), if the board has not made a bylaw under clause 56(1)(h)."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 90, as amended. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 91, as there are no amendments. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 92, Mrs Ross.

Mrs Ross: I move that section 92 of the bill be amended by striking out the portion before clause (a) and substituting the following:

"Provisions of declaration

"92. The declaration may alter the obligation to maintain or to repair after damage as set out in this act by providing that."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mr Sergio.

Mr Sergio: I move that section 92 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Telecommunications unit

"(2) Despite anything in this act, the owner of a unit that is designed to control, facilitate or provide telecommunications within the meaning of section 22 to, from or within the property, and not the corporation, shall repair the unit after damage and maintain it."

Again, Mr Chairman, this is self-explanatory and I won't add to it.

The Chair: Any questions or comments?

Mrs Ross: We'll be voting against this amendment, as we believe it's punitive and goes against the whole concept of shared ownership of a condominium.

The Chair: Any other questions or comments? I'll call the question on this amendment to section 92. All those in support? All those opposed? That's defeated.

I'll call the question on section 92, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 93.

Mrs Ross: I move that section 93 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same, maintenance of units

"(2.1) If an owner has an obligation under this act to maintain the owner's unit and fails to carry out the obligation within a reasonable time and if the failure presents a potential risk of damage to the property or the assets of the corporation or a potential risk of personal injury to persons on the property, the corporation may do the work necessary to carry out the obligation."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 93, as amended, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Sections 94 through 97, there are no amendments. I'll call the question on all those sections. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 98.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 98(2)(c) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(c) subject to the regulations made under this act, the estimated costs, in any given month or other prescribed period, if any, of making the addition, alteration, improvement or change is no more than the greater of $1,000 and 1 per cent of the annual budgeted common expenses for the current fiscal year."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 98.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 98(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "66 $ per cent" in the seventh line and substituting "66 2/3 per cent."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 98, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 99.

Mrs Ross: I move that subclause 99(1)(b)(iii) of the bill be amended by inserting "made under this act" after "regulations" in the second line.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 99, as amended. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 100.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 100(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Exclusion ineffective

"(3) An exclusion in the insurance required by this section is not effective with respect to damage resulting from faulty or improper material, workmanship or design that would be insured, but for the exclusion."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 100(6)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) the standard unit described in the schedule mentioned in clause 43(5)(h), if the board has not made a bylaw under clause 56(1)(h)."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 100, as amended. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll lump together sections 101 through 105, inclusive; there are no amendments. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 106.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 106(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "subsection (2)" in the first line and substituting "subsections (2) and (2.1)."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 106(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "If an owner or lessee of an owner" in the first line and substituting "If an owner, a lessee of an owner or a person residing in the owner's unit with the permission or knowledge of the owner."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? If not, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that section 106 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Same, bylaw

"(2.1) The corporation may pass a bylaw to extend the circumstances in subsection (2) under which an amount shall be added to the common expenses payable for an owner's unit if the damage to the unit was not caused by an act or omission of the corporation or its directors, officers, agents or employees."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?

Mrs Ross: Mr Chair, I'd just like to make a comment. This amendment is a technical change which we're putting in as a result of the public hearings and comments made by James Davidson of the law firm of Nelligan, Power, who appeared on behalf of the Ottawa chapter of the Canadian Condominium Institute. I just wanted to make that comment and read it into the record.

The Chair: A nice piece of information. Thank you for that comment. I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 106(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Owner's insurable interest

"(3) The amount payable by an owner under this section or as a result of a bylaw passed under this section constitutes an insurable interest of the owner."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question now on section 106, as amended. Those in support? That's carried.

Sections 107 through 112, inclusive: I'll call the question, as there are no amendments. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 113.

Mrs Ross: I move that section 113 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Non-application

"(2.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to a telecommunications agreement within the meaning of section 22."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Martin: I need some explanation as to why not.

Mrs Ross: It's a technical amendment. Subsection 22(9) has its own termination provisions for telecommunications agreements. It's already in under subsection 22(9).

The Chair: Is that the 10-year?

Mrs Ross: Yes.

The Chair: It's the 10-year clause, back further.

Any other questions or comments on this amendment? I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 113.

1140

Mr Sergio: I move that subsection 113(4) of the bill be amended by adding at the end "or section 22."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?

Mrs Ross: Basically, this goes back to the telecommunications agreements under section 22, and we again believe that 10 years is fair and reasonable as a result of the cost incurred.

Mr Sergio: A recorded vote, Mr Chairman.

Ayes

Martin, Sergio.

Nays

Ford, Froese, Gilchrist, Munro, Ross.

The Chair: I declare the amendment defeated.

I'll now call the question on section 113, as amended. All those in support? That section carries.

Section 114.

Mrs Ross: I move that section 114 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Non-application

"(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to a telecommunications agreement within the meaning of section 22."

Again, Mr Chair, just for clarification, it's a technical change because subsection 22(9) already has termination provisions for telecommunications agreements.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? I'll call the question.

Mr Sergio: Just a comment. There is the agreement, but of course the 10 years prevail.

Mrs Ross: Yes, that's correct.

The Chair: Mr Sergio, you're satisfied?

Mr Sergio: Yes.

The Chair: OK, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question now on section 114, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

There are no amendments to section 115. I'll call the question. All those in support of section 115? That's carried.

Section 116.

Mrs Ross: I move that clauses 116(4)(a) and (b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(a) a general account of the corporation, if the money was not received as contributions from owners to the reserve fund; or

"(b) a reserve fund account of the corporation, if the money was received as contributions from owners to the reserve fund."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 116, as amended: I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

There are no amendments to sections 117 through 120. I'm going to call all of those together. All those in support? That's carried.

We're now dealing with subsection 121(4), which was one of the ones added this morning.

Mrs Ross: I believe there's clause 121(1)(b), Mr Chair.

The Chair: This is the amendment I'm dealing with, the one added this morning, 121(4). Isn't that right? Pardon me. Yes, 121(1)(b), you're right, sequentially.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 121(1)(b) of the bill be amended by inserting "as of the date of that corporation's meeting" after "corporation" in the second line.

The Chair: Any questions or comments? If not, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 121(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "under the seal of the corporation" in the sixth line.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 121, as amended: All those in support? That's carried.

Section 122 has no amendments. I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 123.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 123(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "under its seal" in the fourth line.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 123, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 124.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 124(8) of the bill be amended by striking out "under its seal" in the fourth line.

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 124, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 125.

Mrs Ross: Sorry, Mr Chair. Under subsection 125(3) we submitted two amendments. I'd like to ask the committee's indulgence to eliminate the one subsection 125(3) that was distributed earlier today because we will address it --

The Chair: This is the amendment you're speaking of, the two-line amendment?

Mrs Ross: Yes.

The Chair: Members of the committee, with permission, I guess this amendment is withdrawn. Is that right? Mrs Ross, you're the person with the phone here.

Mrs Ross: Mr Chair, also, further to that --

The Chair: Let's deal with them separately. This one here, this particular amendment, as we see it now, is withdrawn.

Mrs Ross: That's correct.

The Chair: OK, so that's dealt with.

Mrs Ross: The amendment that's before us, perhaps it would be best if I read it and then I'll --

The Chair: If you read the amendment and then you propose an amendment to that amendment, that would be the appropriate way.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 125(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Conveyance

"(3) When a sale takes place, the board shall deliver to the purchaser the following documents signed by the authorized officers of the corporation...." Mr Chair, I'm not sure what to do at this point. Those three words, "under its seal," we'd like to eliminate.

The Chair: Just seeking support of the committee members, who have the amendment before them, we'd like to amend this before the amendment is moved, removing the three words "under its seal." Are there any questions or problems with that? OK, then, we'll strike those out. Continue.

Mrs Ross: OK, just for the record:

"Conveyance

"(3) When a sale takes place, the board shall deliver to the purchaser the following documents signed by the authorized officers of the corporation: a deed and a certificate in the form prescribed by the minister stating that the persons who, under subsection (2), are required to vote in favour of the sale or consent in writing to the sale have done so."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 125, as amended: I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Sections 126 through 130, we have no amendments. I'm going to call those together. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 131.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 131(1) of the bill be amended by inserting "a lessor of a leasehold condominium corporation" after "corporation" in the first and second lines.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 131, as amended: All those in support? That's carried.

Section 132.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 132(1) of the bill be amended by inserting "a lessor of a leasehold condominium corporation" after "corporation" in the first and second lines.

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 132, as amended, those in support? That's carried.

Section 133.

1150

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 133(6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Fees and expenses

"(6) Each party shall pay the share of the mediator's fees and expenses that,

"(a) the settlement specifies, if a settlement is obtained; or

"(b) the mediator specifies in the notice stating that the mediation has failed, if the mediation fails."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on 133, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 134, there are no amendments. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 135.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 135(1) of the bill be amended by inserting "a lessor of a leasehold condominium corporation" after "declarant" in the third line.

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 135, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Sections 136 through 138, there are no amendments. I'll call the question on all those sections. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 139.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 139(4)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) references to a mortgagee of a unit shall be deemed to be references to a mortgagee of a common interest appurtenant to an owner's parcel of land mentioned in subsection 140(1); and."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? All those in support? That's carried.

Section 139, as amended, all those in support? That's carried.

Section 140.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 140(2)(a) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(a) the common interest of an owner in the corporation attaches to the owner's parcel of land; and."

The Chair: Any questions or comments?

Mr Martin: Could we have some explanation of why this has been put in?

Mrs Ross: A portion of clause 140(2)(a) is being removed and incorporated into subsection 140(4), where it is more appropriately located.

The Chair: If there are no further questions, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 140(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Common interest preserved

"(4) Despite any other act, upon the sale of the parcel of land of an owner in a common elements condominium corporation or the enforcement of an encumbrance registered against the parcel, the common interest of the owner in the corporation is not terminated or severed from the parcel, but continues to be attached to the parcel."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 140(7) of the bill be amended by striking out "section 88" in the first line and substituting "section 87."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Those in support? That's carried.

Section 140, as amended: All those in support? That's carried.

Sections 141 through 145, there are no amendments. All those together, all those in support? That's carried.

Section 146.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 146(1)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) except as provided in the regulations made under this act, the corporation is not a vacant land condominium corporation or a common elements condominium corporation."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 146, as amended: All those in support? That's carried.

If I could group together 147 and 148, as there are no amendments, all those in support? Those are carried.

Section 149.

Mrs Ross: I move that section 149 of the bill be amended by adding at the end "unless the declarant,

"(a) has completed all phases described in the disclosure statement; and

"(b) no longer owns any of the units in the phases except for the part of the property designed to control, facilitate or provide telecommunications to, from or within the property."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 149, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 150.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 150(1)(a) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(a) a copy of the most recent disclosure statement delivered to a purchaser of a unit or a proposed unit in the corporation."

The Chair: Questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on 150, as amended. Those in support? That's carried.

Sections 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 and 157, there are no amendments. I'll call the question on all those sections. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 158.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 158(1)(b) of the bill be amended by adding at the beginning "subject to section 159."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 158(1)(c) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(c) subject to section 159, a certificate of an architect that the buildings included in the common elements have been constructed in accordance with the regulations and, if there are structural plans, a certificate of an engineer that the buildings have been constructed in accordance with the regulations."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

On section 158, as amended, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 159.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 159(1)(b) of the bill be amended by striking out the portion before subclause (i) and substituting the following:

"(b) the declarant provides to a person or body, including an approval authority, specified by the municipality in which the land is situated, or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing if the land is not situated in a municipality, a bond or other security that is acceptable to the municipality or the minister, as the case may be, and that is sufficient to ensure that."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll call section 159, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 160, there are no amendments. I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Section 161, there are no amendments. I'll call the question. Those in support of 161? That's carried.

Section 162.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 162(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Disclosure statement

"162(1) Before delivering the first disclosure statement mentioned in section 73, the declarant with respect to a unit or a proposed unit in a vacant land condominium corporation shall request from the municipality in which the land is situated or from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing if the land is not situated in a municipality, a statement of the services provided by the municipality or the minister, as the case may be, including the construction and maintenance of roads."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 162(3) of the bill be amended by inserting "within 30 days of making it" after "request" in the second line.

The Chair: Any questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

I'll move the question on section 162, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Sections 163 through 171, there are no amendments. I'll call those sections together. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 172.

Mrs Ross: Mr Chair, I wonder if we could call for a few minutes' recess so we could review this amendment.

The Chair: Could we stand that down and deal with the other sections? There are only a couple of other little sections. Is that appropriate?

Mrs Ross: Sure.

The Chair: We need unanimous consent of the committee to do that. That's fine. Section 172 is stood down for the moment.

Mrs Ross: I'm sorry, Mr Chair. I'd like to stand down 172, 174 and 176.

The Chair: We need unanimous consent of the committee to stand down those sections. All those in support? Mr Martin, are you in support? Yes? OK, thank you.

We're now dealing with section 178 and we've stood down -- oh, section 173, there are no amendments, so I'll call the question on section 173. All those in support? I thank the clerk for keeping me on track here. Where are we now?

We're at 175. There are no amendments, so I'll call the question on 175. That's carried.

Section 176 was stood down.

Section 177, all those in support? That's carried.

Section 178.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 178(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph:

"2.1 specifying requirements for the construction of the buildings described in a description for the purpose of a certificate mentioned in clause 8(1)(e) or 158(1)(c)."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? If not, all those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: I move that paragraph 3 of subsection 178(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "an information statement" in the fourth line and substituting "a table of contents."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in support? That's carried.

On section 178, as amended, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 179, no amendments. I'll call the question. Those in support?

There is a vote being called in the House. There are three minutes. I would adjourn until after the vote. I'm at the will of the committee here. I gather the committee has to reconvene this afternoon. We're almost finished. I declare this meeting adjourned until the scheduled time this afternoon. Thank you very much for your indulgence.

The committee recessed from 1203 to 1617.

The Chair: I'll reconvene this committee, dealing with Bill 38. At this point we're at section 179. I believe we completed section 179; it's been voted on. All right, just to be sure, the clerk informs me that we should call the question on section 179, with no amendments. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 180.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsections 180(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same, turnover

"180. If the corporation was created under the Condominium Act, being chapter C.26 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, section 43 does not apply and section 26 of that act, as it existed immediately before the coming into force of section 185, continues to apply."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

We've got to carry the question on 180, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 181.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsections 181(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same, disclosure

"181(1) If, on or before the day sections 44, 73 to 76 and 79 to 83 come into force, the declarant with respect to a corporation has entered into one or more agreements of purchase and sale for a unit or proposed unit in the corporation,

"(a) those sections do not apply; and

"(b) subject to subsection (2), sections 51 to 54 of the Condominium Act, being chapter C.26 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, except for subsection 52(5) of that act, as those sections existed immediately before the coming into force of section 185, continue to apply.

"Not a material amendment

"(2) For the purposes of subsection 52(2) of the Condominium Act, being chapter C.26 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, a change to the information required to be contained in a disclosure statement that arises only as a result of the coming into force of this act does not constitute a material amendment to the disclosure statement."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 181, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 182.

Mrs Ross: I move that section 182 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same, insurance

"182(1) If, at the time section 100 comes into force, the corporation has entered into an insurance policy under section 27 of the Condominium Act, being chapter C.26 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, that has not expired, section 100 does not apply and section 27 of that act, as it existed immediately before the coming into force of section 185, continues to apply."

"Act applies to renewals

"(2) Despite subsection (1), section 100 applies if the corporation renews an insurance policy described in that subsection after section 100 comes into force."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

I'll move section 182, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 183.

Mrs Ross: I move that section 183 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same, termination of agreements

"183. If the corporation has entered into an agreement described in sections 112 and 113 before those sections come into force, those sections do not apply and section 39 of the Condominium Act, being chapter C.26 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, as that section existed immediately before the coming into force of section 185, continues to apply."

The Chair: Any questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in support? It's carried.

I'll move section 183, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Sections 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, inclusive: There are no amendments. I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

Section 189 is the short title. Shall Section 189 carry? Carried.

Now we have a stood-down section. I believe the section stood down was section 172. These are the sections that were stood down: 172, 174 and 176.

Mrs Ross: I move that section 172 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Rent for property

"172(1) The rent for the property that a leasehold condominium corporation is required to pay to the lessor on behalf of the owners and all other amounts necessary to comply with the provisions of the leasehold interest affecting the property are a common expense.

"Contribution of owners

"(2) The corporation shall collect from each owner, as part of the owner's contribution to the common expenses, a portion of the rent and the amounts described in subsection (1) based on the proportion of contributions to the common expenses for the owner's unit set out in the declaration.

"Payment to lessor

"(3) The corporation shall remit to the lessor, from the contributions collected from the owners under subsection (2), the amounts to which the lessor is entitled under the provisions of the leasehold interest affecting the property."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

Shall section 172, as amended, carry? All those in support? That's carried.

Section 174 was stood down.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 174(2)(a) be struck out and the following substituted:

"(a) has failed to remit to the lessor the amounts to which the lessor is entitled under the provisions of the leasehold interest affecting the property."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

Shall section 174, as amended, carry? That's carried.

Section 176.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 176(1) of the bill be amended by striking out the portion before clause (a) and substituting the following:

"Effect of termination or expiration

"176(1) In the case of a leasehold condominium corporation, upon the registration of a notice of termination under section 123 or 124, the registration of a deed to the property under section 125, expropriation under section 127, the registration of an order under section 129 or 174 (or such other date, if any, specified in the registered order) or the registration of a notice under section 175 that the leasehold interests in the units have not been renewed (or such other date, if any, specified in the registered notice)."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in support? That's carried.

I'll call the question on section 176, as amended. All those in support? That's carried.

Mrs Ross: Mr Chair, I would ask for unanimous consent. I have three clauses which I'd like to go back to, if I could get unanimous consent, to have a look at these amendments again.

The Chair: These are amendments to sections that have been voted on. I would need unanimous consent of the committee members to open up those sections, and we'll distribute the --

Mr Martin: In the interest of not dragging this out for another three weeks, I'm willing to do that, but I must say it's somewhat frustrating in that we have people whom we work with to help us understand some of these things. Some of it's very technical and it's not something that I deal with every day. It's frustrating that there are changes coming at us at the last minute. I'm willing, in the interest of getting this thing through, but I just need to say on the record that this is a frustrating thing to have to --

The Chair: I appreciate that, Mr Martin. It's a very technical bill, as you're quite right to point out, for the committee members. I appreciate your indulgence.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): What has happened? How come something that has been voted on the other day is now coming back again?

Mrs Ross: There are three amendments which legal counsel has looked at and suggested that we should go back and clarify some of the issues that were raised and to make very clear to people, so that they understand exactly what was meant by the clauses in the bill.

If I could ask your indulgence to go through the first one, then perhaps I could explain why we would do that.

The Chair: I believe we're dealing with section 33. We have an amendment in front of us. If you want to read the amendment first -- and I need unanimous consent, section by section. So we're opening section 33 to amendments. I need unanimous consent.

Mr Colle: I'm just wondering, are we going to have legal counsel answering some of these questions, because it's quite unusual why this is happening.

Mrs Ross: Sure.

The Chair: Once you read the motion. Unanimous consent first. All those in support? That's unanimous.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 33(1) of the bill, as amended by the government motion, be further amended by striking out "the units" in the fifth line and substituting "all of the units in the corporation."

By way of explanation, it was felt that if you just left it as "the units" it would leave it open to that if you only had a number of people at the meeting it would be the number of people represented by those units as opposed to the number of units in the corporation. We wanted to ensure that it was clarified that it meant all of the units in the condominium, not just those in attendance at the meeting.

Mr Colle: Just relating to that one condominium corporation, that would refer to everyone and all units in that condominium corporation and not just those present, because you feel that would be open to possible interpretation as limiting to those people who were there?

Mrs Ross: Absolutely, and for clarification on it, Nancy will respond.

Ms Sills: Under the current case law, they say that it's 50% of the people at the meeting and not 50% of all the owners in the condominium. These are two provisions dealing with removal of directors and it has always been felt that for that type of an action it should be a fairly high level of approval.

Mr Colle: And not just the people who are there at that specific meeting called.

Ms Sills: Not just 50% of the people who come out at the meeting. We drafted this section to address that issue and we heard from a stakeholder yesterday who feels that it didn't go far enough.

Mr Colle: To specify.

Ms Sills: Yes, and suggested that we should do something more. We're trying to respond to that because there is a great deal of concern about this issue.

Mr Colle: That's fine. Thank you for the explanation.

The Chair: I appreciate the explanation myself, because it extends from "the units" to "all the units." So I appreciate that.

We have before us this motion. I'll call the question on this amendment. All those in support? That's carried.

Shall section 33, as further amended, carry? That's carried.

I would ask members to go to the amendment dealing with section 51 and seek unanimous consent to open section 51. All those in support? I appreciate that, thank you.

Mrs Ross: I move that subsection 51(8) of the bill, as amended in the government motion, be further amended by striking out "the owner-occupied units" in the fourth line and substituting "all of the owner-occupied units in the corporation."

It's the same reasoning as in the previous motion.

The Chair: Thank you for that explanation. Are there any questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question on the amendment. All those in support? That's carried.

Shall section 51, as further amended, carry? Carried.

I seek unanimous consent on section 150 to open that. All those in support? Thank you.

Mrs Ross: I move that clause 150(1)(a) of the bill, as amended by the government motion, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(a) a copy of the disclosure statement delivered to a purchaser of a unit in the corporation most recently before the registration of the declaration and description."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Colle: Just a brief explanation of the change.

Mrs Ross: Actually, this reverts back to our original clause in the bill. The initial amendment was intended to provide the corporation with the most current disclosure information. However, the amendment that was made might impact on the corporation's ability to decide whether to apply for an injunction to prevent -- this is with respect to phased condominiums. So with respect to the phase, the corporation should have the disclosure statement issued just prior to the initial creation of the condominium for comparison purposes. It was felt that if they didn't get them, if they only got the most current disclosure without having the previous one, they wouldn't know if there were any changes made to the disclosure.

Mr Colle: In other words, they would have both available to them.

Mrs Ross: That's correct.

Ms Sills: Well, they will have the original disclosure --

Mr Colle: The original, which they have had, and now this will also be available to them. I'm not quite sure about what you mean by "both."

Ms Sills: As long as they have the first disclosure statement, they won't need the most recent one, because they're going to get a copy of the amendments that the declarant is proposing to register. So they will compare the amendments to what was initially disclosed to everybody.

Mr Colle: I understand that. Thank you.

The Chair: Any further questions or comments? There being none, I'll call the question on this amendment. All those in support? That's carried.

Shall section 150, as further amended, carry? Carried.

Thank you for that. We're down at the very end here, a couple of small sections.

The question here is more to do with the title. Shall the long title of the bill carry? All those in support? Carried.

Shall Bill 38, as amended, carry? That's carried unanimously.

Shall I report this bill, as amended, to the House? That's carried.

With that, there is no further business for this meeting.

Mrs Ross: Mr Chair, if I could make a comment, I want to thank the opposition members for their indulgence in those last three amendments. I apologize, but we did feel it was necessary to bring them forward to make sure that everything is very clear.

The Chair: I would like to thank all of those who participated, because it is a very technical bill. I appreciate the deputations and the amendments and the indulgence of the committee members.

With that, this committee stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1634.