Why Passive Condo Owners Often Pay the Price

You bought a condo. You paid a significant amount of money, signed a stack of paperwork, and moved in. The reasonable assumption at that point is that the hard part is over.

That assumption can make passivity expensive.

A condominium in Ontario is run by a corporation, and the unit owners elect its board of directors (Condominium Act, 1998, section 28). The quality of the decisions made about the building's budget, maintenance, contractors, and long-term direction can affect what you pay and how you live. Staying uninvolved does not exempt you from the outcomes. It means you are not present when the decisions that produce those outcomes are being made.

A structural imbalance between the corporation and the owner

The Condominium Act, 1998 sets up a formal accountability structure. Owners elect a board, and the board oversees the corporation's management. The Condominium Authority of Ontario (CAO) provides information and runs the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT), which decides certain disputes between owners and corporations. The Condominium Management Regulatory Authority of Ontario (CMRAO) is a different body. It licenses condominium managers and management companies and handles complaints about them. It does not settle disputes between owners and the corporation, and it does not review board decisions.

What the Act does not do is balance the resources of the two sides in a dispute.

A corporation generally pays for legal advice and proceedings from the common expenses that all owners contribute to, and it may be able to keep doing so for as long as a matter takes. An owner who disputes something generally pays their own legal costs, and that owner's own share of the common expenses also helps fund the corporation's side. These are general points. The real cost depends on the dispute and the forum. Some disputes can go to the CAT, which the CAO describes as quick and affordable online dispute resolution. Owners can choose to represent themselves there, and the CAT can order one party to pay another's costs in some cases (section 1.44).

This is not a flaw in anyone's intentions. It is how the system is set up. In practice, the cost and effort of a dispute can discourage owners with sound concerns from pursuing them formally, especially when the outcome is uncertain. That is not a reason for cynicism. It is a reason to consider acting together, because organized owners can share information, share the work, and show the board that a concern is widely held.

What passive ownership actually costs

The financial consequences of disengagement can be significant, although they differ from building to building.

When a building is well managed, owners tend to see fee increases that are explained and predictable, common areas in good condition, and major repairs that are planned and funded in advance. Good management does not guarantee any particular result, and owners rarely notice it because it does not generate events that demand attention.

When a building is poorly managed, the effects can build up gradually and then arrive suddenly: a fee increase with a vague explanation, a special assessment that was never anticipated, a maintenance failure that turns out to have been visible in engineering reports for years, a governance conflict that has been running in the background while most owners were unaware. By the time these events arrive, many of the decisions behind them have already been made and can be hard to reverse.

Passive ownership does not create these outcomes directly. What it does is remove a check on the governance that produces them. A board that knows its decisions will be read, questioned, and voted on by an informed group of owners may decide differently than one that does not.

Why individual engagement has limits

One owner reading the budget, asking questions at the AGM, and submitting written requests to management is doing the right things. It is also often not enough to change the direction of a building on its own.

Individual engagement matters, and it is always better than no engagement. But the influence available to a single owner acting alone is limited. A concern raised by one person can be dismissed or deflected. The same concern raised by fifteen organized owners, documented in writing and formally submitted, is harder to ignore. It creates a record, and it shows the board and management that the issue is shared.

The difference between individual and collective engagement is not just scale. It is structural. Some rights belong to each owner, such as asking for the corporation's records. Others need the support of several owners. For example, a requisition for a meeting of owners must come from owners of at least 15 per cent of the units who are on the corporation's record of owners and entitled to vote (section 46). Using any of these rights is usually easier and more effective when owners coordinate rather than act alone.

The most practical tool: an independent residents' group

One of the most accessible forms of collective owner organization is an independent residents' communication group, one that is set up and controlled by owners rather than by management or the board.

The platform is secondary. WhatsApp, Telegram, a private Facebook group, or any other tool that allows reliable group communication works. What determines whether the group is useful or not is how it is run.

A residents' group that functions as a general community chat produces noise: news, gossip, arguments, announcements about lost cats. In many such groups only a small share of members are actively engaged with building issues, and the rest mute the group or tune it out. This is not a coordination tool. It is a community feature with limited governance value.

A residents' group that functions as a working coordination tool operates differently. Its rules are simple and consistently enforced:

• only building-related topics: issues, questions, proposed actions, meeting notices, and relevant documents
• no personal arguments, no off-topic conversation, no drama
• rules are visible and re-posted regularly, at minimum once a week
• moderators are identified and active, not nominal

A group run this way becomes something different. It is the place where an owner posts a concern and finds out whether others share it. It is where the AGM agenda gets read and discussed before the meeting, so that questions are coordinated rather than scattered. It is where the reserve fund study gets circulated and someone asks the question that everyone was wondering but no one raised formally. It is where a pattern of governance issues becomes visible to enough people at the same time that a collective response becomes possible.

People who rarely attend AGMs may still take part in a well-run group chat. The accessibility is different, the barrier to entry is lower, and the ongoing connection to building issues is easier to maintain. This is not a replacement for formal participation, attending meetings, voting, submitting written requests. It is the infrastructure that makes that participation more likely to happen and more effective when it does.

What organized owners can actually do

When enough owners in a building are informed and coordinated, several formal steps become more practical.

Owners of at least 15 per cent of the units, who are on the corporation's record of owners and entitled to vote, can requisition a meeting of owners. The board must then call the meeting within 35 days, or add the business to the agenda of the next annual general meeting if the requisitionists agree (section 46). A requisition can include a vote on removing directors, and the rules for that vote are in the Act and the corporation's by-laws, so check them first. The rules are due to change on December 31, 2026, when an amended section 46 takes effect: requisitioning owners must also have no arrears of 30 days or more, the requisition must be on a prescribed form, and the board must respond in writing within 20 days, the period set by regulation (Ontario Regulation 48/01, section 12.2.3). If the board agrees, or does not respond in time (it is then treated as agreeing), the meeting must be held within 40 days after the response period ends, or the item added to a later AGM if the requisitionists ask or consent. The board may also refuse in writing and must give its reasons. Check the current CAO guidance before you start.

Each owner can also use the prescribed Request for Records form to ask for records the corporation must keep, such as the minutes of owners' and board meetings, financial records, and reserve fund studies (section 55). Some records can be withheld, for example records about litigation or about other owners. A request has to relate solely to the requester's interests as an owner, and the board has 30 days to give its written response. The corporation may charge a reasonable fee, but printing is capped at 20 cents a page, and core records, such as the declaration, by-laws, rules and current budget, are free if sent electronically.

Owners can also pool resources to hire legal or advisory help that few individuals could justify alone, and they can create visible, documented scrutiny that may change how boards and management companies behave before any formal step is needed. None of this guarantees a particular outcome.

None of these steps is complicated, but they take time and some coordination. A requisition needs owners of 15 per cent of the units, which is 15 units in a building of 100, so it helps to learn early how many neighbours share a concern.

Where to start

If your building does not have an independent residents' group, consider starting one. The logistics are straightforward: choose a platform, invite a core group of engaged owners, establish the rules from the beginning, and enforce them consistently. The first few weeks determine whether the group becomes a working tool or drifts into noise.

If your building has a management-run communication channel but no independent owner group, the distinction matters. A channel controlled by management serves the management's communication needs. An independent owner group serves the owners'.

If your building already has an active independent group, the question is whether it is functioning as a coordination tool or as a community chat. The difference is in the rules and the moderation, and both can be improved without starting over.

Staying passive can be expensive. Getting organized costs little, mainly time. The governance of your building, and with it the value of your investment, is shaped by who shows up and what they do with their presence.