CONDOCENTRIC: MEETING RULES: Robert's vs. Weinberg and Nathan's

At a recent unit owners meeting to vote on rules, a unit owner stood up and objected to the rules being considered as the condominium corporation was, at that time, also involved in litigation concerning subject matter of the rules. The property manager acknowledged the objection and advised the unit owners that, in order to amend the agenda in this way, two-thirds of all of the owners of the condominium corporation would need to approve the objection. The lawyer for the condominium corporation supported the property manager citing Robert's Rules of Order.

The only reason given by the solicitor for the condominium corporation as to why Robert's Rules were being used was that that was what they chose to do. As the meeting progressed, the objection, under Robert's Rules, failed to garner the necessary two-thirds support (however, it was clear from that initial vote that the rules would not be supported), and ultimately, the rules were defeated. The result was a waste of approximately an hour's time in further debate and argument over the rules, the history, the litigation, etcetera.

Under Weinberg and Nathan's Rules, a motion objecting to consideration of an item of business requires the same majority as the original motion to which it is applied. For example, as the vote on the rules would be carried by a majority of votes cast at a meeting with a 25% quorum, this same standard would apply to a motion objecting to the vote on the rules taking place.

So the question arises, as between Robert's Rules and Weinberg and Nathan's Rules, which are more suitable for condominium corporation meetings in Ontario.

Both publications are well respected and well written. Robert's Rules was initially published in 1876. Weinberg and Nathan's Rules is a more recent publication.

The key distinction in my view is the source of each publication. Robert's Rules is an American text. The introduction of Roberts' Rules (tenth edition) contains the following passage:

"In basing his rules on the practice of the U.S. House of Representatives in the manner already described, Roberts stated that this practice - except where obviously unsuited to ordinary societies - had come to determine the actual common parliamentary law of the country, just as the practice of the House of Commons had done in England. Thus Roberts, by offering a codification of the rules and practices of the House of Representatives adapted to ordinary societies, gave formal direction to a movement toward establishing a more complete, common parliamentary law, built upon congressional practice..."

By contrast, Weinberg and Nathan's Rules is a Canadian text which references, for the most part, Canadian authorities and Canadian caselaw.

In our practice, we currently reference Weinberg and Nathan's Rules; and intend to continue doing so.

From “Common Elements" Spring 2005

All of the information contained in this article is of a general nature for informational purposes only, and is not intended to represent the definitive opinion of the firm of Elia Associates on any particular matter. Although every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in this newsletter is accurate and up-to-date, the reader should not act upon it without obtaining appropriate professional advice and assistance.

www.elia.org

© Elia Associates Professional Corporation, All Rights Reserved.