April 28, 2020 at 12:20 pm #227732StrataSpeakMember
We have an interesting issue arising in our scheme. A by-law is being proposed to prohibit short-term letting unless the occupant primarily resides there (per new legislative provisions). We have a number of apartments that are being leased by a property manager solely as short-term stays and naturally this property manager does not want the by-law to succeed as it will mean they cannot operate in this manner any longer.
We have seen in the legislation at Schedule 1, clause 25 that onsite property managers are unable to hold a proxy if they may obtain a pecuniary interest through it. In this case we are wondering:
1. What is an onsite property managing agent and does it extend to these circumstances where the managing agent is operating a “chain” of short-term letting lots for various owners.
2. Whether a pecuniary interest would extend to circumstances where the property agent indirectly will obtain payment for their letting services – if they can no longer operate this means no income for them.
3. Whether this would preclude them from holding a proxy.April 29, 2020 at 7:07 pm #227980Amanda FarmerExpert
For an issue with this level of importance (and likely litigation to follow should the on site manager lose their contracts), it’s probably worth the investment in some specific legal advice. I’m not sure if it’s the strata committee or a particular lot owner proposing the new by-law.
As for some ‘non-specific legal guidance”:
The term “on-site residential property manager” used in schedule 1, is defined in s 4 of the Act as:
“on-site residential property manager” means a real estate agent exercising on-site residential property manager functions within the meaning of the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002 .
Section 3A of the Property Stock and Agents Act defines “on-site residential property manager functions” as:
(a) acting as an agent for giving possession of residential premises under a lease, licence or other contract, or
(b) acting as an agent for collecting bonds, deposits, rents, fees or other charges in connection with any such lease, licence or other contract, or
(c) any other function that is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition.
Interestingly, it doesn’t refer to actually being “on-site”…
Subject to the applicability of these definitions, I think there’s a good argument here that cl 25 of schedule 1 could be relied on to invalidate any proxy exercised by the on site manager in respect of this particular motion.
That’s my preliminary view, knowing nothing further about the specific circumstances of this building. Would love the opportunity to dig deeper for you 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.