Changes Coming to Requisition Meetings, the Owner-Occupied Position, and the CAT’s Jurisdiction

As you may recall, the Condominium Act, 1998, was significantly amended by legislation called the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015. The changes were implemented in phases starting in 2017 with the creation of the Condominium Authority of Ontario (CAO), the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT), and the Condominium Management Regulatory Authority of Ontario (CMRAO). There were also changes made to the prescribed forms and processes for calling meetings.

Some parts of the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015, never came into force.  Last year, the Ontario government was considering bringing into force some provisions in the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015, related to meetings, such as creating a new prescribed requisition process and changing the often-misunderstood owner-occupied position. It was also considering expanding the CAT’s jurisdiction to include disputes about meetings.

On July 16, 2026, the Ontario government announced that certain provisions of the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015, would finally come into force on December 31, 2026. This blog will briefly explain those changes.  For those interested in reading the actual legislative changes, you can view them here: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s15028  See Schedule 1, s. 1 (11), 26 (2), 28, 39 (2), (3), 40, 44 (1), 46 (2)-(4), 144 (4).

Requisition Meetings

On December 31, 2026, there will be a new process for requisitioning meetings of the owners. There will be a new form that must be used to requisition a meeting. The CAO is creating the form with the goal of reducing disputes over whether the requisition meets legal requirements. I imagine it will be similar to the one currently available on the CAO’s website, but only time will tell. Owners will also have more ways to deliver the requisition, such as prepaid mail, courier, depositing into the condominium’s mailbox, or electronically (where the board has approved electronic delivery).

The amendments to the Act also states that requisitions will be for the following purposes: a) information meeting without a vote; b) removal or election of one or more directors; or c) “any other purpose for which this Act or the regulations permit the owners to requisition a meeting of owners”. The language in (c) makes it clear that owners cannot requisition a meeting to vote on subjects that the Act or regulations do not authorize them to vote on. Put another way, the board will continue to have the authority to make some decisions without input from the owners, such as maintenance and repairs, levying special assessments, or preparing the annual budget.

Once owners submit the requisition, the condominium will have 10 days or such other prescribed period to respond. The CAO’s recent notice suggests the prescribed period will be 20 days. This is great news for condominiums as the 5 days they currently have to send out the preliminary notice of meeting following receipt of a requisition is not workable, especially when the requisition is usually submitted by owners on a Friday afternoon. The meeting must be held within 40 days of the end of the period the board has to respond to the requisition (e.g. 60 total days if the prescribed period is 20 days as indicated by the CAO’s notice). It may be added to the next AGM if the requisitionists request or consent in writing.

If the board fails to respond, the condominium is deemed to have provided a response indicating it will call the meeting as requested. If the board denies the requisition a reason must be provided to the owners, which gives the owners 10 days (or such other prescribed period) to revise the requisition and re-submit it. Owners will also be able to withdraw the requisition and they will be deemed to have abandoned it in certain circumstances set out in the Act.

Owner-Occupied No More!

The owner-occupied position is being replaced by the “non-leased voting units” position. It is not only a change of name, but the process for electing someone to the position is changing as well. Within 15 days of the preliminary notice of a meeting, an owner of a non-leased voting unit may request a position on the board be reserved for voting by owners of the non-leased voting units. In other words, it will switch from mandatory (where at least 15% of the units are owner-occupied) to optional upon request of the owners. It will also only be available where a minority of the units are non-leased voting units. In my opinion, this strikes a better balance as it will protect minority interests, unlike now where you could have 90% owner-occupied and Act requires one position to be reserved for the owner-occupied units. If anything, the Act ought to have reserved a vote for the non-owner-occupied in cases where 90% are owner-occupied.

The notices for meetings will also have additional information about the non-leased voting unit positions, such as eligibility requirements, legislative provisions (e.g. definition of “non-leased voting unit”, copies of subsections 51(5) and (6) of the Act), and instructions for requesting a non-leased voting unit position on the board as described above.

Expansion of CAT’s Jurisdiction

According to the CAO’s recent notice, on July 1, 2027, the CAT’s jurisdiction will expand to hear disputes related to owners’ meetings. According to the notice from the CAO, this will include disputes about whether the condominium is holding meetings as required by the Act (e.g. AGMs), the notices for meetings (e.g. did they comply with the timelines established in the Act, are all required attachments included), and whether owners requisitioning a meeting should be reimbursed for their costs of calling the meeting. The CAT will not hear disputes about what happens at the meeting, including voting procedures or disputes.  The maximum damages award the CAT may issue will also increase to $50,000 and will apply to all proceedings, including those commenced before the change comes into effect.