Not legal nor metaphysical advice, as usual

A recent article by some Toronto partners of a multi-city lawfirm BENNETT JONES LLP has offered a fresh view of the complexities of non-expropriation votes to TERMINATE a condominium corporation in Ontario at this time . ( "Vote-triggers" are merely one way. )

That's : under the existing Ontario frameworks of Ontario condo law, provisions within its prescribed Regs. and jurisprudential treatment of sparse previous Ontario precedents.

CAFCOR topics have addressed this in Ontario (as well as several in B.C. "Out of Province").

Part 8 of Ontario’s Condominium Act 1998 S.O. 1998 Ch C.19 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98c19 is a “Termination” section and Regs take such further.

Previous CAFCOR topics have included :

2015 Barrie judicial order under s 128 with short-vote http://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&catid=2&id=18071#18071

2017 39 Roehampton ( Toronto ) section 124 vote D item “CONDOBUSINESS : 39 Roehampton complex sold by owner vote “ https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=18699&catid=9 and

the vote battle for historic Sandyford Place ( WCC #96 Hamilton ) “Will SANDYFORD PLACE ( W.C.C.# 96) become Ontario's SECOND TERMINATION by 80-80 VOTE ( s124 ) ?” https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=19058&catid=9

Some interesting aspects of this recent article also include speculation whether a "whole complex" 80 % vote sale could trigger an as-prescribed need - unit by unit - for matrimonial/spousal rights sign-off ? Or be trumped by a community property sorta dispute begun or emerging over one or more condo units under Ontario's Family Law (Reform) Act ?

Is it even possible that a single matrimonial dispute over a unit titled solely to one disputant spouse, could scotch an entire, otherwise sufficient affirmative vote to terminate ? And could every entitled but non-titled objecting spouse threaten to scuttle one or all votes underway ?

Parallel 80 % Vote of "Claimants" :

Interesting as well : how to count the section 124 80 % parallel vote of some members of the "claimants" category. That's a "claimant" lender with 60 charges on title being no more than a lender with 2 charges on title !

Or a dominant easement tenement "claimant" with a "claim" severally against every single unit ? But being counted under section 124 as one "claimant" voter only ?

2 - BOTTOM LINE : A timely and interesting read. Sadly its embedded reference to a 2014 CBA Canadian Bar Association Presentation is "subscribers only".

3 - ( AND for some of those among of us NOT WITHIN Ontario's condo law universe :

Yes in my own Building Scheme universe & others like it in Ontario, we just merrily wait for the restrictive covenants on title to expire by operation of law. That's a termination like Cinderella's coach at midnight.

And then suddenly a gigantic lakefront and hundreds of common lands acres will cease to be contractually appurtenanced by covenant. And will even pass beyond being held solely by 69 sets of co-owning tenants in common. That's without any rules at all unless we all wanna litigate our brains out ! . . . Ho Ho Ho

That's one consequence or eventual consequence of the pre-condo, cross-covenanting common law model in what might be North America's harshest MRTA jurisdiction. But - hey ! - that's just how it works. )

4 - The recent article :

Sep 6/22 Bennett Jones LLP Blog “Closing Down the Condo: When Developers Want In and Owners Want Out”
https://www.bennettjones.com/Blogs-Section/Closing-Down-the-Condo-When-Developers-Want-In-and- Owners-Want-Out