Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Condo owners, tenants and directors are wise to take a hard look at the structural integrity of their buildings and make sure that key repairs aren’t neglected.

Fred Lum/The Globe and Mail

It’s a troubling question that has been echoing through the condo towers in Canada’s largest cities for the past two weeks: Could the disaster in suburban Miami happen here?

The revelations about the collapse of the Champlain Towers South condo building in Surfside, Fla. – deferred maintenance, construction flaws, salt-related erosion and potential foundation failings – seem to point to a uniquely toxic combination of causes.

There’s never been a similar tragedy in Canada, where provincial governments tend to be more rigorous with condo regulation.

Story continues below advertisement

“I’ve been doing [this] for 30 years and I’ve never seen something like this,” said condo lawyer Denise Lash.

Still, existing Canadian condo rules have significant gaps, which have been further exposed by the highly speculative nature of the market in cities such as Toronto and Vancouver.

“I think there’s a rude awakening coming,” said Martin Gravel, a civil engineer who is also the president of the condo board of a downtown Toronto building.

Toronto’s mix of planning rules limits growth of mid-rise housing

Toronto’s hot housing market calms as economy reopens, attentions shift to summer revelry

Condo owners, tenants and directors are wise to take a hard look at the structural integrity of their buildings and make sure that key repairs aren’t neglected.

The Canadian condo sector is better known for lesser incidents – high-rise windows and balconies that pop out or extensive water damage caused by shoddy construction.

In some cases, structural failings can be traced back to faulty construction and have led to legal action. In 2001, for example, the Ontario Superior Court awarded $1.6-million to an Ottawa condo board that sued then-Minto Construction and its contractors several times for work on an 11-storey building dating to 1972. The building experienced chronic water infiltration problems in the upper floors and consequently worrisome deterioration in the exterior brick cladding.

Under Ontario’s condo regulations, boards must regularly commission “reserve fund studies,” which can only be carried out by designated professionals. Investors or buyers can request to see these documents under the law. Reserve fund studies typically ballpark the replacement value and lifespan of building components such as boilers. But, as Ms. Lash noted, a “physical assessment” evaluation is only done once every six years.

Story continues below advertisement

Despite these rules, Ms. Lash and others pointed out that requirements designed to prevent properly designed buildings from deteriorating do not necessarily provide a complete picture of the required long-term repairs. Nor do current laws ensure that owners heed the warnings they receive from the engineers or consultants hired to evaluate whether the owners are putting aside sufficient funds to make major repairs to building components.

Mr. Gravel added that those estimates tend to lowball the actual financial impact of repairs, especially given the rapidly rising costs of contractors and replacement components. Many condo corporations, he said, likely don’t have enough set aside in their reserve funds.

It’s not uncommon for owners or investors to balk at a costly special assessments to address a major maintenance issue, such as the US$15-million in structural repairs identified by a consultant to the Champlain Tower board in 2018. As Mr. Gravel pointed out, “Most directors wouldn’t get elected if they’re putting out special assessments.”

What’s more, if an owner or tenant notices and reports to the property manager evidence of deterioration – for example, chipping concrete and exposed rebar on a load-bearing pillar in an underground parking garage – there’s no regulatory requirement in Ontario to disclose this information to potential buyers or even other residents, Ms. Lash said.

Consequently, in some buildings, such maintenance work may be chronically ignored or deferred. Ms. Lash cites a former client as an example – a newly elected condo board of a townhouse complex where previous boards had allowed structural problems in a parking garage to fester.

The new board “realized that repairs had been put off for years because the previous boards didn’t want to special assess the owners and they continued to carry out Band-Aid repairs,” she said. “It got to a critical stage with the engineer advising that the work could not be put off any longer.”

Despite those warnings, the owners decided to vote out the new directors instead.

University of Windsor sociologist Randy Lippert, who wrote extensively about the tangle of competing interests on condo boards in his 2019 study Condo Conquest, says governance failings in these vertical communities can have dire consequences.

“The disaster [in Miami] was caused by social reasons, not physical reasons,” he said.

While property management firms that own and operate office or rental apartment buildings have a clear financial interest in ensuring the structural integrity of their assets, condos are directed by boards of unpaid individuals, most of whom have no technical knowledge and may not even live in the building. The speculative nature of the condo market adds another layer of complexity, Prof. Lippert added.

“It’s of no interest to the owners and boards to ever reveal all of the problems in their buildings,” he said. “Somebody has to make decisions about what should be done with these buildings and I’m not sure it should be left to the boards.”

He said in some jurisdictions, including Australia, state governments have recently passed legislation that aims to systematically address the aging condo question – either by redeveloping, demolishing or converting older buildings based on the approval of just three-quarters of the owners.

Story continues below advertisement

Such reforms are not yet on the public policy agenda in Canada. And recent regulatory changes, such as the newly established Condominium Authority of Ontario, have tended to focus on soft issues such as director training and information on dispute resolution.

As for the harder questions about structural integrity or whether a high-rise glass building is setting aside enough money to replace its curtain walls three decades later, Mr. Gravel encourages buyers and owners to not just rely on a quick skim of a condo’s reserve fund studies.

“Walk around the building and make some common sense conclusions if you see spalling concrete or leaks in the walls,” he said. “Do the smell test.”

Your house is your most valuable asset. We have a weekly Real Estate newsletter to help you stay on top of news on the housing market, mortgages, the latest closings and more. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies