Ontario · Condominium Act, 1998
Four different decisions, four different thresholds, and one of them is not a percentage of the units at all. The number that catches boards out is not the famous 66 2/3 per cent. It is the narrow list of by-laws that need only a majority of the owners who turned up.
The s. 14(2) list is short and specific: by-laws described in s. 45(7), s. 47(6), s. 52(1.1.1), paragraph 12 of s. 55(1) or paragraph 3 of s. 55(2) of the Act, or s. 14(0.1) of the regulation. If the by-law is not one of those, leave this on the first option.
The vote you need
—
✓ Verified October 6, 2026 · Condominium Act, 1998, ss. 56, 58, 97 and 107
Sources checked automatically every Monday. Last check October 5, 2026, no change found. See the record
Want this — and the quorum, notice of meeting, requisition threshold, records request, reserve fund and status certificate deadlines — all in one printable calendar with checklists and templates? Get the Ontario Condo Board Starter Pack → CAD $49 one-time
Meeting notice, quorum and the four voting thresholds — the key Ontario rules on one page, each with its section citation. Free.
Your cheat sheet is ready right now — open the Ontario Condo Compliance Cheat Sheet →
Ontario does not have one condominium voting threshold. It has a different answer for each kind of decision, and the sections sit a long way apart in the Act.
| Decision | Threshold | Section |
|---|---|---|
| By-law, general | Majority of all units | s. 56(10) |
| By-law on the prescribed list | Majority present or by proxy | O. Reg. 48/01 s. 14(2) |
| Rule | No owner vote to make it | s. 58(6), (7) |
| Common element change, substantial | 66 2/3% of all units | s. 97(4), (5) |
| Common element change, not substantial | Notice, then 30 days | s. 97(3) |
| Declaration, listed matter | 90% written consent | s. 107(2)(d) |
| Declaration, anything else | 80% written consent | s. 107(2)(e) |
Section 56(10) of the Condominium Act, 1998 is the sentence everyone quotes, and the clause in the middle of it is the one everyone drops:
“… the owners of a majority of the units in the corporation, or such other number of owners that is prescribed, vote in favour of confirming it…”
That prescription exists. O. Reg. 48/01 s. 14(2) sets the other number at a majority of the owners present or represented by proxy at the meeting, and it applies to by-laws described in s. 45(7), s. 47(6), s. 52(1.1.1), paragraph 12 of s. 55(1) or paragraph 3 of s. 55(2) of the Act, or s. 14(0.1) of the regulation.
The difference is not academic. In a 200-unit corporation the general rule needs 101 owners to vote in favour, however many turn up. The prescribed rule needs a majority of the room. A board that applies the wrong one either fails a by-law it actually passed, or registers one it did not.
A rule under s. 58 needs no owner vote to come into force. The board makes it, gives notice to the owners, and s. 58(6) and (7) do the rest: the rule takes effect 30 days after that notice unless owners requisition a meeting under s. 46 within those 30 days, in which case it is decided at the meeting instead.
Section 58(8) adds the trap. A rule that substantially repeats one the owners amended or repealed in the preceding two years cannot simply be made again; it needs owner approval first. Re-issuing a rejected rule with new wording is the failure mode that section exists to catch.
Section 97(6) defines a substantial change by cost. The estimated total must exceed:
“… the lesser of, (i) 10 per cent of the annual budgeted common expenses for the current fiscal year, and (ii) the prescribed amount, if any…”
A lesser-of test with an unknown second limb would not be computable. It is computable here for one reason: there is no prescribed amount. The phrase does not appear anywhere in O. Reg. 48/01. The test collapses to the 10 per cent figure alone, which is why this tool can give a straight answer from a budget and an estimate.
The board may also elect under s. 97(6)(b) to treat a change as substantial regardless of cost, which is sometimes the cheaper path when the alternative is arguing about the estimate.
Section 107 does not work by a vote at a meeting. It works by written consents from the owners of units at the time the board approved the amendment: 90 per cent where the amendment changes a matter described in s. 7(2)(c), (d) or (f) or s. 7(4)(e), and 80 per cent in every other case. A board resolution, a meeting under s. 107(3) and (4), and notice to mortgagees sit alongside the consents rather than replacing them.