Alert pickup by Markie. ( The Boily judgment from Ottawa was mentioned without details in a topic here at CAFCOR on July 8/12 3 weeks before the interesting article. Maybe they read us first : http://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=15598&catid=2
Heenan Blaikie LLP's very interesting website, has the Ottawa case (Boily) review directly without registration : http://www.condoreporter.com/board-of-directors/condo-directors-held-personally-liable-for-legal-
The Ottawa area judgments emerge from a judicial region until recently dominated by a single, very competent firm whose lead condo cousel is the well-respected Jim Davidson ( see Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP condo articles ).
The Boily judgment arrived from Ottawa about the same time as an Oshawa judgment called Durham C.C. # 45 v Swan 2012. Cafcor comments cited Swan directly ( http://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=15613&catid=2#15613
) but for lack of reader interest merely skimmed over Boily some months later ( but has cited it without identifiers) .
From Boily :
...  The main area of concern involves the Board’s attempts to resile from the Minutes of Settlement and avoid the results of the meeting when it failed to obtain the necessary level of support. While the Board now says it was required to bring the matter back to court because of the insistence by the Applicants that they obtain three new quotes before proceeding with the work, its main argument was that the Applicants had breached the Minutes of Settlement on many other grounds and that these Minutes of Settlement were not enforceable. More importantly, the Board took the position that the paragraph of the Minutes of Settlement that would have allowed anyone at the meeting to bring any motion were in violation of the provisions of the Act. Their own solicitor negotiated those terms and he was not present at the meeting to advise them. In any event, the meeting was adjourned before any such motion could be voted on. I conclude that the Board acted in bad faith in attempting to resile from the agreement their own solicitor had negotiated on its behalf.
 . . . The dispute is yet one more facet of the problems inherited when previous boards of directors postponed repairs and failed to set aside sufficient reserves. For this reason, the Applicants’ costs should be paid by the Condominium Corporation with the exception of the fees incurred to enforce the settlement. None of the fees to enforce the settlement can be allocated to the Applicants and these are to be paid by the Board.
From Gerry Hyman LLB at ToStar :
-Jan 28 2012 http://www.thestar.com/living/realestate/article/1121892--handicap-should-be-factored-into-
-Dec 17 2011 http://www.thestar.com/living/realestate/article/1102587--hyman-board-members-are-mandated-to-
.... "A finding by a court that the directors have not acted honestly and in good faith will prevent the directors from being indemnified under the corporation’s directors and officers liability insurance, or under the corporation’s indemnification bylaw."