In the past,Our PMC organized the AGM and He did everything illigal.finally we let him go.In condominium act,it does not say anything about PM in regarding the AGM election.if that is the case,who is really responsible for the AGM and the election?.Can anyone else can organized the AGM and election except PM ?

While I believe it is OK for the PM to prepare the AGM package and send it out, I think the package should be vetted by both the Board and the Corporation solicitor.
When it comes to proxies, I believe management and directors should stay out of it. A Floor Representative team of owners, IMHO, based on experience, is more reliable about ensuring all proxies get to the meeting.
I think it is poor practice for proxies to be put in the hands of managers, who may have their own agenda. In my experience, proxies that show who the owners want to elect to the Board often go "missing" if the manager opposes one or more candidates.
Managers should stay out of soliciting owners as candidates for election as directors. That is the prerogative of owners.
Registration desks should be manned by owners and supervised by owners with a lawyer on hand to settle any questions about who is eligible to vote. The lawyer should have a copy of the current owners list and arrears list to be able to ensure he/she has all the facts.
Scrutineers should be owners. If there is a question about whether a ballot should be rejected or accepted, let the lawyer rule on it.
AGMs should be run by the Board, not the manager.
The Chair should ensure that all owners who have questions or comments are heard on all issues, never cutting off or ignoring the issues owners want to have fully discussed. Dissenting owners often spot problems that directors and management have not considered. There are times where it is better to have a Corporation Solicitor who is committed to the rights of owners chair a meeting, especially if a quorum of a Board is trying to pass one or more By-Laws. Boards are composed of only a few owners. Frankly, you need all the brains of all the owners thinking carefully about issues before voting.
No vote should be taken until all issues are resolvedl, even if it means postponing a vote on critical issues to a separate meeting so owners are fully informed and can cast their ballots in an educated manner.
Justice Ground made a ruling (around 1998) that owners have the right to have and consider all the facts in their own homes well before a vote is taken.
If any owner feels that not enough information has been given to make a reasoned choice, that owner should make a motion to adjourn the meeting until all owners have been fully informed.

One of the biggest flaws in the current Condo Act is that there is no regulation governing property managers and their companies. Thus, there are no legal specifications regarding their actions or standard of care. At this time, the only place you will find reference to a standard of care is in the Management Agreement/Contract. IMHO, each owner should be given a copy of the current contract and use it as a report card on management performance on an ongoing basis. Managers are paid. I have never had a paid job where I was not subject to an annual evaluation, so why should this not apply to property managers?
Boards would do well to survey all owners annually about the manager's performance. This would bring unresolved issues to the Board's attention to help them decide if the manager is doing the job well or poorly. As it stands, it is easy for managers to get away with too much without the Board's knowledge. Without surveying all owners, hidden favouritism and neglected problems can exist without their knowledge.

I would agree with Sharon... and add that the Chair for an AGM in most cases is the Condominium Corporation's President as per the by-laws. Don't waste money on having a lawyer present if you can help it. Where in the Condo Act does it say that a lawyer has to be present? It doesn't. The President should have no problem determining the validity of a proxy.

I would agree with Roland. Too often Boards invite their lawyer to attend special Owners' meetings and AGMs in order to protect the Board (except for minority Directors) from uncomfortable accountability at the expense of unit Owners. Roland is correct in stating that the Condominium Act, 1998 makes NO reference to "lawyers" attending much less Chairing Owners' meetings. Perhaps it is time that we elect competent, committed Boards who are able to govern without delegating their authority and responsibility to those we did not elect and who do not find it necessary to hide behind a lawyer.

Of course the lawyer should be present should there be any legal matter that may occur. For example, when updating the By-laws, the lawyer may be an asset as the By-laws can be lengthy. Also, for example, in order building, we updated that by-laws in 2004 to be in line with the new Act. The 2002, 2003, and 2004 AGMs were past the six month period (per the Act), and our updated By-laws contained a By-law in which it was mentioned that the AGM had to be held within six months of the end of the fiscal period. The lawyer had written the new By-laws for the Board, and Board claimed they could have the AGM late on the advise of the lawyer. Of course, our Board did not want owners questioning the lawyer about the By-law and the letter (it was later determined that the letter never existed.)