Every condominium board begins with the same objective: to protect the corporation and act in its best interests.
Yet somewhere along the way, many boards begin to believe their primary role is simply to enforce the governing documents exactly as they're written.
That isn't what good governance looks like.
The Declaration, By-laws and Rules are essential. They establish expectations, protect the corporation, and provide consistency. But they are not the purpose of governance.
The purpose of governance is to create a safe, financially sound, well-managed community where people enjoy living. Rules are one of the tools that help achieve that objective. They are not the objective itself.
The standard isn't perfection — it's reasonableness
Ontario's Condominium Act, 1998 doesn't expect directors to make perfect decisions.
Section 37 requires directors to act honestly and in good faith and to exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances.
That standard isn't about finding the perfect answer. It's about following a thoughtful, informed and reasonable decision-making process. Reasonableness requires directors to ask questions, gather information, listen to professional advice, consider different perspectives, and weigh competing interests — then, together, make the best decision they can based on the information available at the time.
Good governance is measured less by the outcome than by the quality of the process that produced it.
Board meetings are working sessions
One reason boards sometimes lose sight of this is because they misunderstand the purpose of a board meeting.
Board meetings aren't owners' meetings. They're not debates to determine who wins. They're working sessions where directors collectively exercise judgment on behalf of the corporation.
An experienced manager helps directors understand their legal obligations, explains previous decisions, identifies risks, summarizes expert advice, and keeps discussion focused. But the manager doesn't vote. The manager doesn't decide. The directors do.
Good managers don't replace the board's judgment. They help improve it.
The best decisions are collaborative
Every director brings a different perspective. Every manager brings experience from many different communities. Engineers, lawyers, accountants, insurance professionals and contractors each contribute specialized knowledge.
Good governance happens when those perspectives come together. The strongest boards don't rush to conclusions. They listen, ask questions, challenge assumptions respectfully — then they decide.
Leadership isn't about having all the answers. It's about creating a process that leads to good ones.
When the applicant is also a director
This principle becomes especially important when a director submits an owner request.
On a three- or five-member board, it can be uncomfortable. The applicant is also one of the decision-makers.
Many boards immediately remove that director from every part of the discussion. Sometimes that's appropriate — but it's not necessarily a requirement. Sometimes excluding that one person leaves the remaining directors without important factual information.
A better approach is often to separate information from final decision-making. Allow the director, as the applicant, to participate, explain the proposal, answer questions and provide background information just as any owner would. Once the board has the information it needs, the directors should decide how best to proceed.
Treating every owner request by a director as though it were a statutory material conflict under section 40 of the Condominium Act, 1998 can sometimes do more harm than good. Section 40 exists to address material conflicts involving contracts and transactions of the corporation — not to automatically exclude a director from every discussion simply because they are also the owner making the request.
The important question is not whether the director remained in the room. The important question is whether the board's decision was made independently, fairly, reasonably, and in the best interests of the corporation.
Rules should protect communities — not prevent them from growing
One of the most important questions every board should ask is this: What is the purpose of this rule?
Is it protecting safety? Security? Insurance? Structural integrity? Property values? The quiet enjoyment of neighbours?
If so, the board should protect those interests vigorously.
But sometimes a rule no longer reflects the way people live. Communities evolve. Technology changes. Building materials improve. Accessibility needs become better understood. Owner expectations change.
Good boards recognize that fairness sometimes requires flexibility. That doesn't mean ignoring the governing documents — it means interpreting them reasonably and looking for solutions that satisfy both the purpose of the rule and the legitimate interests of the owner.
One of the most valuable questions a board can ask is: "Is there a reasonable process through which this request could be approved?"
If the answer is yes, then the discussion shifts from "How do we stop this?" to "Under what conditions could we responsibly approve it?" That is often the beginning of better governance.
The message boards sometimes send without realizing it
Consider two owners. The first follows the process — completes the application, submits drawings, answers questions, waits patiently. The answer is "no."
Months later, another owner completes the same alteration without asking for permission.
Now the board is faced with an entirely different conversation. Should it demand removal? Retain legal counsel? Spend months litigating over an issue that has little or no impact on safety, security, insurance, structural integrity, property values or the enjoyment of neighbouring owners?
Sometimes enforcement is absolutely necessary. But before taking that step, boards should ask: What message are we sending to our community?
If owners begin to believe that following the approval process simply produces a quicker "no" than acting first and asking for forgiveness later, the approval process itself begins to lose credibility. A fair, transparent and reasonable approval process encourages owners to work with the board instead of around it.
Fairness builds better communities
Every decision is an opportunity to strengthen — or weaken — the relationship between the board and its owners.
Fairness doesn't mean approving every request. Reasonableness doesn't mean avoiding difficult conversations. Kindness doesn't mean abandoning the corporation's responsibilities.
It means listening. Explaining. Being consistent. Looking for solutions before creating disputes.
Owners don't expect every answer to be "yes." They do expect to be heard, to have their request considered on its merits, to receive decisions within a reasonable time, and to see similar situations treated similarly.
Those expectations aren't obstacles to good governance. They are the foundation of it.
A final thought
Many disputes that eventually reach lawyers, mediators, adjudicators or the courts could have been resolved months earlier through thoughtful governance.
The most successful boards aren't measured by how many enforcement letters they send or how often they win legal disputes. They're measured by how few disputes ever need to happen.
If you're on a condo board, before voting "no" on your next owner request, ask yourselves one final question: "If this weren't already on our prohibited list, would we still have a good, independent reason to refuse it?"
Can you identify a genuine concern involving safety, security, insurance, structural integrity, property values, nuisance, or the corporation's legal obligations?
If the only answer is "Because that's what the list says" — perhaps the better question isn't whether the owner should change the request. Perhaps it's whether the board should look for an exception now and then revisit the list.
The Declaration, By-laws and Rules deserve respect. They also deserve thoughtful application. After all, they were written to serve the community — not to replace judgment.