Should future board directors be required to own a unit?
Board decisions shape your maintenance fees, building services, and long-term investment. Should the people making those decisions be required to own a unit at Maple Leaf Square? Share your view in our short owner survey.
Quick Stats
A direct ownership stake in our future
Section 6.3 of By-law No. 1 says a director “need not be an owner of a unit in the Corporation.” The proposed change would require every future nominee and appointee to personally be a registered owner of a TSCC 2130 unit. The aim is to give each director a direct ownership stake in the decisions they make on our behalf.
Ownership is optional
An eligible resident or other individual can serve without holding title to a unit. Owners still elect directors, and every director has duties to the corporation.
Ownership for future directors
Future nominees and appointees would need to appear on title as owners. The final wording and the treatment of current terms require legal review before any formal vote.
This survey asks about a policy direction. It is not a formal bylaw ballot or a motion to remove any sitting director.
Why this matters now
At the June 2026 AGM, Abe Dyck was elected to the board as a non-owner. His election disclosure identifies a long-term lease in the South Tower, at 55 Bremner Boulevard, where he is a tenant. He also disclosed that his wife operates a registered short-term rental at Maple Leaf Square and is involved in legal action against the corporation over its STR administration fee. That legal action remains ongoing. He stated that he had attended meetings related to that matter and was not a named party. Read his campaign statements.
The case for owner-only eligibility
Owners directly bear maintenance fees, reserve contributions, and the effect of decisions on their property’s value. Requiring directors to own a unit would give every future director that same direct financial stake. Ownership creates a financial incentive to protect the building’s reputation and support long-term property appreciation. We believe those priorities should come before short-term cash flow pursued at the expense of the property’s reputation, which risks eroding value for all owners.
What the change can—and cannot—do
An ownership requirement would narrow the candidate pool. It would establish a shared financial stake, but it would not guarantee good judgment or eliminate conflicts of interest. Experience, integrity, and proper disclosure would remain essential for every director.
These disclosures give owners a concrete reason to consider director eligibility and how interests connected to STR operations or litigation are managed. They do not, by themselves, establish misconduct. All directors owe duties to the corporation; appropriate disclosure and recusal remain necessary where conflicts arise.
Three reasons to consider the change
Shared financial responsibility
Each director would personally own a unit affected by maintenance fees, reserve funding, and capital spending.
Long-term value and reputation
Every director would have a direct ownership stake in protecting the building’s reputation and supporting property appreciation, with an incentive to weigh lasting value against short-term income.
Clear eligibility
Owners would know that each future candidate or appointee meets the same ownership requirement.
Your response will help shape the next step
Gather owner views
Ask owners to support, oppose, or remain undecided and submit questions.
Confirm legal wording
Ask condominium counsel to confirm eligibility wording, transition terms, the required threshold, and meeting notice.
Use the formal process
A board resolution, notice and owner meeting, confirmation vote, and registration would be required. Survey responses cannot substitute for these steps.
The 2026 AGM package counts 872 voting units. A majority would be 437. The applicable threshold and final denominator should be verified for this particular amendment; a survey cannot establish eligibility or cast binding votes.
Should we move this proposal forward?
Choose support, oppose, or undecided, and tell us what you want clarified. The survey takes about two minutes. Every owner’s response helps us understand whether there is enough interest to pursue a formal proposal. Please submit one response per unit; if you own multiple units, respond separately for each.
Questions owners may have
Why might someone who does not own volunteer?
A resident may care about their home, have relevant board experience, wish to influence building policy, or have a household interest in costs and services. Those are possible reasons in general; we cannot infer an individual director’s private motivation from ownership status. Abe Dyck described his own reasons in his published platform.
Would the proposal remove the newly elected director?
The policy question is framed around future nominations and appointments. This survey does not seek removal. Counsel would need to review how a final amendment affects any incumbent term.
Do non-owner directors have different legal duties?
No. A director’s duties to the corporation do not depend on owning a unit. Disclosure and conflict rules apply to all directors.
Does supporting this change mean opposing short-term rentals?
No. Director qualifications and STR policy are separate matters. Owners may hold any view on STR and any view on the ownership requirement.
Will a majority of survey responses pass the change?
No. The survey measures interest among those who respond. Formal confirmation requires a duly noticed owner vote under the Condominium Act; the working target of 437 assumes 872 voting units and must be checked by counsel.
Check the source material
- TSCC 2130 By-law No. 1 — sections 6.3, 6.5 and 6.6.
- Abe Dyck’s 2026 candidate website — platform and disclosure.
- Condominium Authority of Ontario: director qualifications.
- Condominium Authority of Ontario: changing by-laws.
2026 AGM package supplied by TSCC 2130: 872 units. The tenancy and STR details are drawn from the candidate’s election disclosure. The consultation organizer confirms that the STR administration fee legal action remains ongoing as of September 23, 2026.