Articles
<< back to all ArticlesImportant Amendments to Condominium Law in Alberta
This bulletin addresses amendments to the Condominium Property Act (“Act”) and Condominium Property Regulation (“Regulation”), effective as of February 15, 2026, that will most directly affect the day-to-day operations of condominium corporations in Alberta as experienced by owners, property managers and condominium boards.
We offer a review of these changes to provide an understanding of what is new or different. We also comment on the practical effects of these changes to offer insight on how these changes are likely to play out for Alberta condominiums. Finally, with respect to each change, we propose practical, tangible steps that boards and property managers can consider adopting to proactively address these developments in the law.
Information Statements
The content of an information statement under section 20.52(1)(a) now must include a statement detailing the nature of any plan or survey filed or registered on the parcel, other than the condominium plan. It must also include a statement setting out the unit factors and the criteria used to determine unit factor allocation – a requirement that existed before as section 20.52(1)(i), which is repealed.
A more substantial change relates to parameters of when reports must be disclosed. Previously, reports prepared for the corporation were producible under section 20.52(1)(m) except for those “requested and obtained by the corporation’s legal counsel in relation to actual or contemplated litigation”. The amended language excludes reports “subject to legal privilege”.
Practical Effect: Moving details regarding the unit factors and criteria for their allocation to the information statement makes good sense as there is no need for that to be in a separate record. Requiring details as to any plan filed or registered in relation to a parcel helps ensure that this information is not missed by someone who does not know to request something more than the condominium plan(s) should be pulled from Land Titles.
The amendment to section 20.52(1)(m) makes the protection over reports more robust. Legal privilege covers a broader range of situations than litigation privilege which is what the prior language protected. Legal privilege includes:
- Litigation privilege which protects materials prepared for litigation or in advance of it;
- Solicitor Client privilege which protects communications and information relating to the seeking of or giving of legal advice; and
- Settlement privilege which protects communications made in a genuine attempt to settle a dispute.
Reports may be obtained for purposes relating to litigation, related to legal advice or for settlement. This change clarifies that the Regulation does not override these types of privilege.
Practical Advice: Create a form of Information Statement that contains the information needed to respond to a request. For example, the statements relating to the nature of any plan or survey registered at Land Titles and setting out the unit factors and criteria used in assigning them can both be prepared now.
When a report is obtained, determine whether it is protected by legal privilege. You may ask your legal counsel to assist you in this determination. If it is privileged, mark it as such so that it is not disclosed when it should not be. It would also be wise to maintain a record of the reasons why a report is covered by privilege in the event your Corporation is asked to justify holding it back.
Keep the records that may be requested under section 44 of the Act and section 20.52(1)(a) of the Regulation in a way that makes them easy to pull and provide within the mandated ten-day period in which a response is required.
Standard Insurable Unit Descriptions
Standard Insurable Unit Descriptions (SIUDs) now take effect at the time a corporation adopts the SIUD through special, ordinary or board resolution.
Corporations are still required to submit SIUDs to Land Titles for registration.
Practical Effect: The importance of an SIUD is, of course, that in the event of a loss insured by a corporation, it clearly delineates that standard to which a corporation’s insurance will restore a unit. Owners’ insurance must address any betterments. In the time it takes to submit an SIUD to Land Titles and for it to come back registered, a loss could occur. Providing that the SIUD takes effect upon the resolution adopting it, the gap in time caused by registration is eliminated which offers greater certainty to corporations, owners, and their respective insurers.
Practical Advice: Review and confirm the status of the SIUD for your corporation – ensure that you have one and, if not, take steps to adopt one. It is worth engaging a professional to assist with this. In the event of a loss, if an element is not included on the SIUD then it will not be replaced by the corporation’s insurance. This can also be a good opportunity to communicate to owners the need to insure their own betterments.
Owners should provide their corporation’s SIUD to their own insurer along with information respecting betterments in their units to be sure that their own insurance covers anything that would not be addressed in a corporation’s insurance.
Insurance Deductible Chargebacks
The provisions relating to the recovery of a corporation’s insurance deductible where a loss originates in a unit have changed.
Previously, a corporation could not recover the deductible when it self-insured a loss (rather than making a claim) unless its bylaws specifically allowed for this. Corporations can now chargeback up to the value of the deductible (to a max of $50,000) even where no insurance claim has been made in response to a loss.
It remains the case, however, that a corporation’s bylaws must allow for the recovery of the deductible to be treated as a contribution for enforcement against the unit itself (i.e., registering a caveat and forcing a sale).
Practical Effect: Corporations that elect to self-insure in the face of an insurable loss but do not have bylaws that provide for the deductible to be charged back in such cases are no longer prejudiced by making the best fiscal choice for the corporation in the circumstances.
Practical Advice: The amount of a deductible chargeback can be as much as $50,000. This can be a devastating financial burden to many owners. It can be helpful to communicate to owners the possibility of an insurance chargeback and that there is insurance available that will respond and pay that deductible for them. It is well worth the relatively low increase to an owner’s insurance premium especially where the alternative can mean a forced sale of the unit if the owner does not have the resources to pay $50,000 unexpectedly. An additional benefit is that if a corporation does not have to pursue an action to collect on the deductible, it can avoid the delay in recovering the deductible amount caused by the need to engage in the court process.
Fidelity Insurance
A corporation’s bylaws can no longer set the amount of coverage required for fraudulent or dishonest acts. The minimum coverage now required is the sum of both the corporation’s reserve fund balance and operating account at the beginning of the applicable fiscal year.
Practical Effect: This change ensures that a corporation’s coverage in these circumstances is reviewed on an annual basis and will closely match the potential for loss. Even a relatively small gap between a loss and the degree of coverage can be harmful to a corporation which has carefully budgeted to meet its anticipated expenses (either present in the operating account or future in the reserve fund account).
Practical Advice: Incorproate it into your Board’s annual practice to review the values in the reserve fund and the operating account and confirm your Corporation has adequate fidelity insurance for the funds held in them. Bear in mind, the Regulation sets the floor and not the ceiling for insurance. A Board may decide to insure to the degree of funds expected to be in these accounts at the end of the fiscal year depending on the increased costs of doing so. This will mean any increases to those accounts after the beginning of the fiscal year will still be covered in the event of a loss.
Chargebacks
Chargebacks now require more formality.
If a corporation’s bylaws permit it, a chargeback can be levied to a unit to recover the costs a corporation has expended to address a situation where an owner or persons for whom they are responsible (for example, visitors or tenants) does something or fails to do something that causes the corporation to have to repair, replace, maintain or protect any unit, the common property or other corporation property.
Chargebacks can include a corporation’s actual costs and “reasonable related service” costs. By virtue of amendments to section 39 of the Act, they can also include reasonable and relevant administrative costs and legal fees.
The amount of a chargeback cannot exceed the deductible limit of the corporation’s insurance (whether or not an insurance claim is made).
All contributions, including chargebacks, are due and payable on the passing of a resolution of the board – and subject to the terms of the resolution. A resolution setting a levy to be paid at some point in the future would not be immediately payable.
The Regulation now sets out a procedure for dealing with chargebacks. As has been the case with monetary sanctions for some time now, a corporation must serve an owner with a notice of proposed chargeback. The notice must be served on the owner no later than 90 days after the board becomes aware – or should have been aware – of the act or omission causing the corporation to need to incur expenses.
The notice of proposed chargeback must include:
- The name and unit number of the owner(s) subject to the proposed chargeback,
- The date and description of the relevant act or omission,
- The estimated amount of the chargeback, and
- A deadline, of at least ten days not including holidays, after service of the notice, in which an owner can provide a written response to the board.
After the deadline, or after receiving a written response if before the deadline, the board can determine on the information available whether to levy a chargeback or to decline to levy a chargeback.
If a corporation does levy a chargeback, it must serve the owner subject to it with a statement setting out the following information:
- The amount of the chargeback levied;
- Instructions on how to pay the chargeback levied; and
- The deadline for payment of the chargeback levied.
Owners can appeal chargebacks to the court but must do so within 30 days of being served with them.
Estoppel certificates must now include the information of any proposed chargeback where notice for the chargeback has been served on the unit owner.
Practical Effect: The procedure required for chargebacks ensures that owners can address the circumstances of a chargeback. Examples of this could include disputing a chargeback is attributable to them or disputing the amount of the chargeback.
Practical Advice: Creating a form of Notice of Chargeback, Resolution for Chargeback, and Notice of Chargeback Levied can be prepared now to guide a board in working through these steps and ensuring that all requirements are met. It should be expected that a failure to meet these formal requirements could mean that a chargeback is not enforceable as we have seen the courts indicate with the formal process implemented for monetary sanctions.
Boards will be expected to consider the information provided to them by owners in determining whether to issue a chargeback. It would be wise to address some reasons in respect of why a chargeback is issued despite an owner’s response. Doing so will demonstrate that the information provided was considered rather than treated as a speed bump on the way to issuing the chargeback. This could be done within the board’s resolution or communicated in the notice confirming the chargeback – or both, depending on what is sensible in the circumstances.
Voting Rights
The language respecting voting has changed and some clarification is provided.
An “owner vote” is a vote that proceeds based on one vote per owner. On an owner vote, if a unit is owned by more than one person, each of them has one vote. If a person owns more than one unit, they have only one vote and cannot assign proxies to multiple persons.
A “unit factor vote” is a vote based on the unit factors for an owner’s unit or units. On unit factor votes, each owner of a unit votes the portion of unit factors equal to the portion of the unit they own. For example, a unit with two unit owners that has ninety unit factors would see each owner vote forty-five unit factors. If the same unit had three owners, each would vote thirty unit factors. If a person owns more than one unit, they are entitled to vote the unit factors equal to the portion of all the units they own.
The Act now clarifies that voting at a general meeting will be based an owner vote or a unit factor vote (or on a basis provided for in the bylaws). At any time before the results of an owner vote are announced, a person entitled to vote can demand a unit factor vote. The owner vote is then set aside and the question proceeds on a unit factor vote.
If a co-owner of a unit does not attend a general meeting, they must assign their right to vote their unit factors by proxy to a person who will be at the meeting.
If a corporation owns a unit, it only exercises the power of voting for the unit in the case of a special resolution. On a special resolution, the corporation’s vote is cast in accordance with the majority of other votes.
Practical Effect: This amendment offers better clarity in respect of voting. The Act previously addressed voting rights with respect to unit factors only. Frequently, bylaws addressed voting by “show of hands” and “poll votes”. The new terms reflect the relationship between the type of vote and the voting rights associated to it: a show of hands vote should now be referred to as an owner’s vote, and a poll vote should now be referred to as a unit factor vote.
Another matter clarified is that even if an owner has title to more than one unit, they are only one voice in respect of an owner’s vote. This helps protect minority interests in a corporation particularly in respect of special resolutions. This change incorporates the position set out in caselaw.
Practical Advice: If corporations do not already maintain a listing of units, the unit factors for each, owners, and the unit factors associated to each, doing so can save time and effort for your next general meeting. Voting at general meetings is one of the most important ways that owners have to participate in their corporation, accuracy and clarity are key to votes proceeding properly.
If you have questions about how these amendments may affect your Corporation, please contact a member of our team.
This post is meant to provide information only and is not intended to provide legal advice. Although every effort has been made to provide current and accurate information, changes to the law may cause the information in this post to be outdated.
