Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
Review of Draft Recommendations for the Condominium Act
Wednesday December 12, 2012
2nd floor boardroom, Law Center
12:00-2:00 pm
Present:
Stakeholders:
Carl Friesen, Surveyor, Association of Canada Lands Surveyors
Greg Fekete, Law Society of Yukon
Rick Karp, President, Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce
Bob Gray, Deputy Surveyor General, NRCan, Yukon
Brian Thompson, NRCan, Yukon
Patrick Ross, City of Whitehorse
Department of Justice:
Lesley McCullough, Assistant DM, Courts & Regulatory Services
Denise Dollin, Registrar of Land Titles
Dan Cable, Director of Policy
Susan Ellis, Policy and Communications
Jill K Ford, Administrative Project Assistant
Regrets:
Chris Almstrom, Communications & Tech Branch
Catherine Holt, Consultant
Anne King, Legislative Counsel
Stefan Voswinkel, Consultant
Shaunaugh Stikeman, Woodward & CO. Lawyers LLP, for Ta’an Kwachan Council
John Berg, Architects practicing in Yukon
Paul Gudaitis, Association of Yukon Communities
Graham Lang, Solicitor for Kwanlin Dun First Nation
Darren Leas, for Council of Yukon First Nation
Tim Green, Communication & Tech Branch
Stephen Phillips, for Teslin Tlingit Council
Sonny Gray, Yukon Condominium Homeowners Association
Philip Fitzgerald, (YCHA)
Lesley McCullough presented a power point presentation of the draft recommendations for
Modernization of Yukon’s Condo Act. The draft recommendations are not included in these minutes due
to confidentiality. Input was giving by Stakeholders on what should be edited or amended within the
document.
1) Legal Framework:
2) Declaration requirement:
Brian Thompson felt that a standard set of bylaws ought to be included.
3) Phased Condominiums:
Clarification is required in regards to phased condominiums
Greg Fekete felt that we should look at the legislation of other locations such as AB and see what we can
change.
We may want to rework this area to increase clarity. For section A) all phases should be showed, not just
the initial phase (for consumer protection).
In some locations common elements are non-changeable (in the US) some developers would take issue
with this. They may use phased developments in a different fashion depending on the market trends.
We will look at these provisions in different locations and see if they can give us some direction. We
would like to find an area that provides consumer protection while giving the developers enough
flexibility.
Some developers don’t have the money to complete common elements. There has to be a certain level
of consumer protection in this regard as that is unacceptable.
The importance of information sharing between groups (City, Surveyors and YTG) was highlighted.
In reference to D) Carl Friesen felt that after phase 1 the developer and condo group should form a
partnership rather than the developer controlling everything. Greg mentioned that sometimes the
developer will make the condo buyers give up their voting rights.
In regards to section F) Greg felt that we should add that this will follow in accordance with other bylaws
(municipal act). We should look at the best practices of other jurisdictions. Look at their consumer
protection legislation (zoning bylaws) (subdivision control bylaw).
We may acknowledge that we have to balance different levels of interest such as consumer protection
while taking the developers interest into account.
Brian felt that some areas contradict themselves. He felt that part A) should accompany a disclosure
statement.
In section D) the plan goes in with disclosure document and that is what will create the titles, and they
are issued at that time. This section requires clarification. Look at other jurisdictions.
Rick Karp felt that the registration of the phased development has to be complete in the beginning. How
binding is that to the developer? What if small changes have to be made? As we phase in the project,
when does the condo corp obtain authority? These items need to be figured out. We have to try and
balance these interests appropriately.
4) Bare Land Condominiums:
Carl had questions about why a structure cannot be built on a bare land location. Things become very
complicated with that type of situation.
Row housing may be alright as long as those protections are provided. Refer to C)
Patrick Ross said that the only time we should have bare land is when we have vacant land or a bunch of
detached structures that we want to create envelopes around. The city does not support bare land
usage otherwise.
We will flag this issue of row housing, bare land condos, common elements and compare to other
jurisdiction’s best practices.
Greg also spoke about what is going on down south. (Stratifying older apartments and older buildings).
What will they do with their reserve fund? They are changing apartments into condos. They have
assessors coming in and they require large reserve funds which strongly affects the apartment owners.
5) Hooked Condominiums:
Pat Ross, felt that this may not even fully apply to condominiums. It is not exclusive to condos.
6) Commercial Condominiums:
There was discussion involving air space above condos and titles in relation to that. Some commercial
condos have commercial space on the bottom and residential on the top. This creates 2 separate titles.
7) Minimum Number of Units in Condominiums:
Pat Ross said that this issue has concluded. The City of Whitehorse will always put in 2 services for 2
houses.
Carl felt that duplex condos should still be considered.
8) Disclosure:
It was said that the declaration of bylaws are missing in this area. E) Shouldn’t be in there. “Any
mortgage that affects or proposed mortgage that will affect the title to the unit or proposed unit..”
In regards to master title and unit titles, Greg felt that there is a misunderstanding regarding these 2
types of title.
In regards to F) Greg felt that there is no contractual obligation for these vendors to provide that stated
information. This could be a vendor package. We may have no way to impose this rule.
“The condo board shall deliver upon request….” A-f is problematic. Section A) will not be included in a
private sale.
9) Insurance:
This relates back to bare land condos. Condo corps are not getting insurance. They are getting a
standard house policy, as the insurance groups don’t even know that the units are condos, and
therefore some have house policies and some have condo policies. Who will pay for the loss of a unit?
Condo policy covers loss to an adjacent unit, while house policy only covers the one unit. This is
something important. This is one example of why we have to be in accordance with other jurisdictions.
Perhaps we should recommend that the department will work with the insurance association to come
up with a suitable insurance structure in the act. This may have to be retroactive.
10) Governance:
#19 - if you have 3 people who own a condo in common, who gets to vote? (Tenants in common in one
unit). This should be worked out.
#21 - What happens if we only have the BOD and the developer and they would like to vote on
something? We may look at best practices for voting methods. If people could vote electronically that
could also be very useful.
#24 - We should say has a lien or garnish but not a garnish alone.
11) Reserve Fund:
#28 - Who is capable and allowed to complete the reserve fund studies? How do you choose the person
who is suitable?
Yukon may have to do things differently. We could look at having a formula instead of forcing condo
corps to incur the cost of bringing someone up north to complete a reserve fund study.
Condo conversions may be different and may require having a reserve fund study in the original fashion.
12) Arbitration:
13) Survey Issues:
Meeting adjourned at 2:10 pm