Selective Enforcement Condominium Defence

An owner replies to a compliance letter with three photos from other units and one sentence: “You are enforcing this against me, but not against them.” That is the moment a selective enforcement condominium defence stops being a theoretical concern and becomes a board-file problem.

The immediate temptation is to explain why the owner is wrong. First, preserve the record. The question is rarely whether every past issue was handled perfectly. It is whether the corporation can show what it knew, what standard applied, what it did in comparable situations, and why any difference in treatment had a reasonable basis.

A sample response to an allegation of selective enforcement

Use this as a starting point for a factual response. Adapt it to the corporation’s declaration, by-laws, rules, known facts and legal advice where needed.

> Subject: Compliance letter dated [date] > > Dear [Unit Owner], > > We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated [date], including your concern that the corporation has selectively enforced its rules. > > The corporation is required to manage its affairs and administer the common elements and assets in accordance with the Condominium Act, 1998, its declaration, by-laws and rules. Section 119 of the Act requires each unit owner to comply with the Act, declaration, by-laws and rules. Where applicable, section 117 also prohibits conditions or activities that are likely to cause damage, injury, illness, nuisance or disruption. > > The compliance letter dated [date] concerns [brief, specific description of condition or conduct] observed at [location] on [date]. The relevant provision is [quote or identify the declaration, by-law or rule]. > > The corporation reviews reported and observed concerns on the facts available in each case. If you have information about a comparable condition that requires review, please provide the unit or location, dates and supporting details by [date]. The board will consider that information and maintain a record of its review. > > This letter is not a penalty. The corporation seeks compliance with its governing documents. Any recovery of properly incurred costs, if applicable, is governed by the declaration’s indemnification provisions and the circumstances of the matter. > > Please confirm by [date] whether the condition has been corrected, or provide your response and any documents you wish the board to consider. > > Sincerely, > > [Name and office] > For the Board of Directors

The useful feature of this wording is not its tone alone. It separates the current issue from the allegation, identifies the authority relied upon, asks for particulars, and avoids making claims the board cannot yet support. Do not state that enforcement has always been consistent unless the file actually demonstrates it.

What a selective enforcement condominium defence needs

A selective-enforcement allegation usually gains force when the corporation’s records are scattered. One director remembers warning a unit last summer. Another has photographs on a personal phone. A former secretary sent letters from a private email account. The spreadsheet says “resolved” but does not say why.

A better file does not require perfection. It requires a reconstructable decision trail. For each concern, record the same core facts: the applicable provision, the date and source of the report, photographs or other evidence, the person who reviewed it, each notice sent, proof of delivery, the owner’s response, follow-up dates, and the outcome.

The board should also record decisions not to proceed. A report may be unsubstantiated, the condition may have been corrected before a letter was necessary, the rule may not apply, or the matter may call for a different process. Those are not signs of selective enforcement if they are genuine, documented distinctions. They become difficult to explain only when they live in memory.

Comparable does not always mean identical

Owners often point to a similar-looking balcony, parking arrangement, pet, storage item or alteration. The board should investigate the comparison, but visual similarity is not the whole analysis.

A condition may pre-date a rule, have an approved alteration agreement, involve different common elements, be supported by different evidence, or already be under review. There may also have been an earlier enforcement failure. If so, do not conceal it or invent a rationale after the fact. Note what happened, decide how the corporation will apply the rule going forward, and obtain legal advice if the issue could affect existing rights or obligations.

Consistency is a discipline, not a promise that every case will end in the same letter. Comparable facts should receive comparable review under the same governing documents.

Build the record before the next letter

Before issuing a notice, a director can run a short file check. Confirm the exact declaration, by-law or rule provision. Check whether the condition has been reported before and whether another director has already contacted the owner. Capture current evidence, including the date, time and location. Decide who has authority to send the letter and set a response deadline.

After sending it, keep the delivery record with the letter rather than in a separate inbox. If the owner responds by email, text message or the owner portal, preserve the response in the matter file. If the board discusses the issue, the meeting materials and minutes should identify the decision without turning the minutes into a long argument about the owner.

This approach also supports the corporation’s broader statutory record obligations. Section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998 addresses records of the corporation. Section 17(3) sets out the corporation’s duty to control, manage and administer its common elements and assets. A practical compliance file helps a volunteer board show how it carried out that work when an owner asks for records or challenges a decision.

Where volunteer boards usually lose the thread

The old process is familiar: photographs are taken on a phone, a Word letter is copied from an older matter, and the sent email remains in one director’s account. Reminders are placed in a calendar that only one person can see. When a director resigns, the corporation discovers that its history is in a Gmail inbox it does not control.

That process can work for a single straightforward issue. It starts to fail when an owner disputes delivery, alleges different treatment, requests records, or starts a Condominium Authority Tribunal matter. CAT filing stages can involve $200 in fees, and the board will need to locate its documents quickly while continuing to manage the corporation.

The cost is often not only legal cost. It is lost volunteer evenings spent comparing emails, rebuilding timelines and asking former directors what they remember. A clear record gives the board a calmer basis for its next step, whether that is closing the matter, issuing a further compliance letter, seeking mediation or obtaining counsel’s advice under section 132. Section 134 may also be relevant where the corporation considers an application for compliance enforcement. The correct route depends on the governing documents and facts.

A repeatable enforcement process is the real defence

A fair process begins before an allegation arrives. Use the same intake fields for every reported concern. Apply a standard review before sending a letter. Use a consistent escalation schedule, while allowing the board to record why a case needs a different approach. Review open matters at meetings so that no issue is forgotten simply because the director handling it is busy.

This is where a purpose-built system can be more useful than a shared folder. YardRule gives self-managed Ontario condominium corporations a file for each matter: GPS- and time-stamped photo capture, compliance letter templates, delivery tracking, owner responses, 30/60/90-day reminders, meeting packs and an append-only audit trail. The record cannot be edited from inside the app, but it remains readable and exportable if the corporation stops paying.

For boards with up to 25 units, pricing is $49 per month or $490 per year. For up to 100 units, it is $99 per month. The full-product pilot runs for 30 days with no credit card. Those details matter because a small corporation should not need enterprise property-management software simply to keep a reliable compliance file.

Technology does not decide whether a rule applies, whether a distinction is justified, or what legal remedy is appropriate. It does make it easier for the board to see the record as the board sees it, rather than as one former director remembers it.

When an owner raises selective enforcement, respond to the specific concern, review any comparable cases they identify, and preserve the result. The better file usually wins time back for the volunteers who have to manage the matter.

This article and any templates are general information, not legal advice. The corporation’s declaration, by-laws, rules and legal counsel govern.