Justice Steele did not rule from the bench on Thursday, October 15, 2026. After hearing argument about the corporations where no owner objects, she promised a written decision that day or the next. The motion's supporters also agreed to speed up the timetable.
What the judge needs to be sure of
She said she was choosing between granting the order now for the unopposed buildings and adjourning everything to the following week with full notice. Two issues, raised by Mr. Ruhl, a lawyer for owners who oppose, drove her questions:
- Have owners in these buildings really been told about the motion?
- Can a single order cover many condos at once, without separate facts for each? She asked whether any court had ever done that for a group of condominiums. Mr. Ruhl knew of no such case.
The judge also praised a point from Firm Capital's lawyer, that courts regularly make orders before everyone has been notified, and that is exactly why orders let people return to court to challenge them.
Changes to the list of buildings
- Out: Leeds Standard Condominium Corporation No. 48. The CAO registry records it as registered on October 9, and its only listed director began that day. That suggests the developer has not yet handed control to owners, so it was dropped.
- In: Essex Standard Condominium Corporation No. 168 and Lambton Condominium Corporation No. 11. Their owners, represented by Mr. Bhatti, withdrew their objection. A registry check in court satisfied the judge that owners already control both buildings.
A faster timetable
- 30 days, not 90, for the administrator to hold owner meetings and elect new boards (paragraph 8).
- 45 days at most before the administrator must come back to court to ask for his release or for directions (paragraph 9).
Other parties asked for both changes and the owner group accepted them. Its lawyer also highlighted paragraph 19, which lets owners and other interested parties ask the court to vary or cancel the order.
The arguments, side by side
For the order: the owner group
Mr. Duggan, for the owner group, said no one disputes that these corporations are without directors or a manager, which is the basis for an administrator. He added three facts:
- Owners only learned the directors had quit when a court filing went around the week before.
- The public registry still shows the old directors, because their resignations went to the CMRAO (the regulator of condo managers), not through the CAO.
- The CMRAO will not give out owners' emails without a court order. An administrator could obtain them.
Against: opposing owners
Mr. Ruhl argued that:
- Some of his clients' buildings are already sending notices for owner meetings, which need roughly 15 days.
- The court has to look at each condo on its own facts, and does not have them.
- Adding the 30-day and 45-day periods, the administration would really last about 75 days.
- His clients' insurance, as he understands it, renews in March 2027, not October.
For: the trustee
Mr. Wasserman, for the trustee, backed the administrator, describing the situation as "very perilous". At one condominium the insurance has already run out. The trustee was asked to pay the premium but said it cannot, and neither can SIREG, because doing so would amount to managing a condo without a licence.
He argued that the court could treat owners as notified because the SIREG case is so widely publicized, citing section 183 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. He also proposed that the administrator leave automatically once proper boards exist, saving another hearing. On cutting the 15-day notice period, he said the trustee might file evidence the next week, but could not say whether the court can shorten it. Mr. Duggan pointed out the Condominium Act contains no such power.
For: Firm Capital
Ms. Miller, for Firm Capital, called the situation extraordinary. Citing the Forrest Todd affidavit, she said policies on Firm Capital's properties had lapsed or were due in October, which she suggested was no accident. Two London condos where Firm Capital is first mortgage lender lose their insurance on October 22. She asked what the opposing owners proposed to do before then.
SIREG's position
SIREG's lawyer said each owner is being sent the building's governing documents and a mailing list of the other owners, so they can organize meetings. Emails will not be shared without a court direction, because owners have no legal right to each other's email addresses.
Coming up
- A written ruling on the unopposed buildings, expected October 15 or 16.
- Hearings for the opposed buildings on October 20 and October 22.
Whichever route a building takes, it will be weeks before someone is fully in charge. The real danger in that window is lapsed insurance and interrupted services.
