u/Physical-Alfalfa9989

This investigation reveals systemic issues in Australia's strata industry: hidden fees, massive conflicts of interest with insurance brokers, corporate consolidation killing competition, and even regulators with undisclosed ties to the industry. They were charging owners $100+ to chase petty debts and steering insurance to sister companies at double the price.

As we push for more high-density living in Ottawa, condo buyers and investors need to be aware of these exact risks. Management fees, special assessments, and opaque procurement practices are already major headaches here. This doc is a great primer on why scrutinizing condo financials, management contracts, and insurance procurement is non-negotiable before purchasing.

Watch this, then ask your property manager the hard questions about disclosure and kickbacks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdbCTFWAR5Y

Has anyone in Ottawa had similar suspicions about their condo corp or management fees?

Developer-written SFAs tend to favour the developer’s interests over that of the condo community. It is not illegal for developers to present a one-sided contract or to serve their own financial self-interests, but the courts have confirmed that condo corporations can get relief when an SFA is oppressive. (Developments in Condominium Law: Shared Facilities Agreements)

---

My experience: The backstory

I’m a unit owner at Claridge Moon – the 27-storey tower at 340 Queen St. The legal trap I discovered after moving in is unreal.

Claridge Homes (through their declarant, Claridge Homes (Moon) Inc.) controlled our condo board before turnover (that’s normal for new builds). But during that pre-turnover period, they quietly signed a Shared Facilities Agreement between our condo corporation (OCSCC No. 1106) and other Claridge entities – specifically:

• Claridge Homes (Albert) Inc.
• Claridge Homes (Albert) Limited Partnership

This agreement was registered on February 12, 2024 – before owners had any say. It gives Claridge-related businesses rights over our property (access, easements, shared costs) and binds us to cost-sharing terms that are frankly unreasonable and oppressive.

---

What’s actually wrong with the SFA? (from the court filing)

Our condo corporation filed a Notice of Application with the Ontario Superior Court on May 12, 2025. You can read the key allegations yourself, but here’s the summary:

“The provisions of the Shared Facilities Agreement are incomplete, unclear, unreasonable, and oppressive to OCSCC 1106 and its owners.”

Also – the Disclosure Statement given to buyers (under Section 72 of the Condominium Act) failed to clearly or adequately disclose the SFA’s terms. So most of us had no idea what we were walking into.

---

Why this should worry prospective buyers

If you buy at Claridge Moon or Claridge Royale (which appears to have a similar structure), you could be inheriting:

• Unclear cost-sharing obligations – You might be paying for facilities or services on Claridge’s property (or vice versa) with no fair formula.
• Perpetual easements/access rights – Claridge entities can use your condo’s land or amenities, and you have little control.
• No ability to renegotiate without going to court – Because the SFA was signed before owners had a board, it’s heavily skewed in Claridge’s favor.

---

What the court application is asking for

From the filing:

An Order that the Shared Facilities Agreement… be terminated and replaced with a new agreement that is reasonably acceptable to the parties.

If the judge agrees, it’s a win for owners. But the fact that we had to go to court at all – less than a year after turnover – tells you everything about how Claridge does business.

---

My advice to anyone looking at buying new Condo builds in Ontario

1. Ask for the Shared Facilities Agreement (if one exists) BEFORE you sign a purchase agreement. If the sales office says “it’s standard” or “it’s not ready yet” – walk away.
2. Hire a lawyer to review any mutual use agreement. Do not rely on the disclosure statement alone.
3. Check if the SFA was signed before turnover – that’s a huge red flag. It means owners had no say.
4. Look for Section 113 applications on the court registry to determine if the condo corporation has challenged the SFA after turn-over from the developer.
5. Consider other builders who don’t need to trap owners in oppressive agreements to make their numbers work.

---

Current status

The Notice of Application was issued May 12, 2025. Despite this, the Moon BOD has taken no action to bring this application to a hearing. Without any further action on this court action, we may be stuck with an oppressive SFA for years, maybe even decades.

---

Final thoughts:

Had I known about this SFA nonsense before closing, I would have walked. Don’t make my mistake.

Ask questions. Demand documents. And if the developer's salesperson says “don’t worry about the Shared Facilities Agreement” – worry a lot.

Happy to answer questions in the comments. And if you own a unit at the Claridge Royale condo in Ottawa and are seeing the same thing, contact me so we can compare notes.

Archived Web Link to Court Application:

https://archive.org/details/2025-05-12-issued-notice-of-application

TL;DR: Claridge Homes forced new condo owners at Claridge Moon (and likely Claridge Royale) into oppressive Shared Facilities Agreements (SFAs) that were signed before the condo corporation was turned over to owners. The agreements are incomplete, unclear, and one-sided. The Moon condo board filed a court application to terminate the SFA, but has done nothing to move the issue forward in court. If you’re looking at a new Claridge build, RUN unless you’ve reviewed the SFA with a lawyer – and even then, think twice.

---

The backstory

I’m a unit owner at Claridge Moon – the 27-storey tower at 340 Queen St. The legal trap I discovered after moving in is unreal.

Claridge Homes (through their declarant, Claridge Homes (Moon) Inc.) controlled our condo board before turnover (that’s normal for new builds). But during that pre-turnover period, they quietly signed a Shared Facilities Agreement between our condo corporation (OCSCC No. 1106) and other Claridge entities – specifically:

• Claridge Homes (Albert) Inc.
• Claridge Homes (Albert) Limited Partnership

This agreement was registered on February 12, 2024 – before owners had any say. It gives Claridge-related businesses rights over our property (access, easements, shared costs) and binds us to cost-sharing terms that are frankly unreasonable and oppressive.

---

What’s actually wrong with the SFA? (from the court filing)

Our condo corporation filed a Notice of Application with the Ontario Superior Court on May 12, 2025. You can read the key allegations yourself, but here’s the summary:

“The provisions of the Shared Facilities Agreement are incomplete, unclear, unreasonable, and oppressive to OCSCC 1106 and its owners.”

Also – the Disclosure Statement given to buyers (under Section 72 of the Condominium Act) failed to clearly or adequately disclose the SFA’s terms. So most of us had no idea what we were walking into.

---

Why this should worry prospective buyers

If you buy at Claridge Moon or Claridge Royale (which appears to have a similar structure), you could be inheriting:

• Unclear cost-sharing obligations – You might be paying for facilities or services on Claridge’s property (or vice versa) with no fair formula.
• Perpetual easements/access rights – Claridge entities can use your condo’s land or amenities, and you have little control.
• No ability to renegotiate without going to court – Because the SFA was signed before owners had a board, it’s heavily skewed in Claridge’s favor.

---

What the court application is asking for

From the filing:

An Order that the Shared Facilities Agreement… be terminated and replaced with a new agreement that is reasonably acceptable to the parties.

If the judge agrees, it’s a win for owners. But the fact that we had to go to court at all – less than a year after turnover – tells you everything about how Claridge does business.

---

My advice to anyone looking at buying new Condo builds in Ontario

1. Ask for the Shared Facilities Agreement (if one exists) BEFORE you sign a purchase agreement. If the sales office says “it’s standard” or “it’s not ready yet” – walk away.
2. Hire a lawyer to review any mutual use agreement. Do not rely on the disclosure statement alone.
3. Check if the SFA was signed before turnover – that’s a huge red flag. It means owners had no say.
4. Look for Section 113 applications on the court registry to determine if the condo corporation has challenged the SFA after turn-over from the developer.
5. Consider other builders who don’t need to trap owners in oppressive agreements to make their numbers work.

---

Current status

The Notice of Application was issued May 12, 2025. Despite this, the Moon BOD has taken no action to bring this application to a hearing. Without any further action on this court action, we may be stuck with an oppressive SFA for years, maybe even decades.

---

Final thoughts:

Had I known about this SFA nonsense before closing, I would have walked. Don’t make my mistake.

Ask questions. Demand documents. And if the developer's salesperson says “don’t worry about the Shared Facilities Agreement” – worry a lot.

Happy to answer questions in the comments. And if you own a unit at the Claridge Royale condo in Ottawa and are seeing the same thing, contact me so we can compare notes.

Archived Web Link to Court Application:

https://archive.org/details/2025-05-12-issued-notice-of-application

I’m a unit owner at the Claridge Moon condo (OCSCC 1106) in Ottawa. I’m posting this to warn anyone buying or living in a newer condo: if your board doesn’t complete required inspections before Tarion’s 1, 2 and 7-Year Common Elements Warranties expire, you could be on the hook for massive repair costs that the developer should have paid.

Our building was registered in early 2024. The 2nd Year warranty deadline for windows, balconies, cladding, water penetration, etc. was January 2026. Our board just sent a notice (June 12, 2026) asking for access to units on June 16-17 to inspect windows and balconies – half a year after the warranty expired.

Any defects found now will not be covered by Tarion. The builder (Claridge Homes) walks away. Owners pay 100% through condo fees or a special assessment.

This isn’t hypothetical. Look at this news article from October 2024:

https://www.cp24.com/local/2024/10/04/north-york-condo-owners-shocked-they-could-have-to-pay-special-assessment-of-70k/

 Condo owners at 869 Wilson Avenue in North York faced a $70,000 per unit special assessment to repair their parking garage – had these issues been found within the 7-year Tarion warranty for major structural defects, would they have had to pay this large special assessment?

That’s exactly what’s at risk here. Delayed inspections = shifted liability = owners pay.

What you should do if you own in a newer condo:

• Ask your board for the exact Tarion warranty deadlines for your building.
• Demand proof that all 1, 2 and 7-year common element inspections were completed before the deadline.

If you’re thinking of buying in a newer building (especially Claridge):

• Ask for copies of all performance audits related to Tarion common element warranties.
• Ask whether all warranty claims were submitted on time.
• Be aware that missed deadlines can turn into expensive bills for you.

I’ve already filed complaints with Professional Engineers Ontario about Keller Engineering (the firm that did our audits) and I’ve contacted Tarion for additional guidance. I’ll update when I hear back.

Don’t let your board or developer leave you holding the bag. Protect yourself.

I am a unit owner in a new condominium building (completed 2024) in Ottawa, Ontario. We have a Shared Facilities Agreement (SFA) with the developer (Claridge Homes, through “C‑Albert”), who also owns an adjacent larger rental/retail building. The SFA says many mechanical and structural elements are shared 50/50 (e.g., generator, hydro vault, storm cistern, fire pump, water entry rooms, etc.). The developer owns 100% of those assets; the condo only has a right to use them.

Our condominium corporation hired Keller Engineering to prepare a Class 1 Reserve Fund Study (RFS). The RFS is now being used to set our reserve fund contributions (approx. $430k/year). I have noticed what appear to be serious errors. I would like professional engineers (especially those with experience in reserve fund studies or shared facilities agreements) to review the facts below and tell me: Is this report professionally deficient, and does it appear biased in favour of the developer?

Key facts from the Shared Facilities Agreement (SFA)

• The SFA explicitly lists Schedule “C” shared facilities, with ownership “C‑ALBERT” and benefit to the condo.
• 50/50 cost split for operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of all shared facilities (Section 3.02).
• Shared facilities include, among others:
  • Shared generator (item 23)
  • Shared hydro vault (item 24)
  • Storm cistern (items 6, 52, 14, 6)
  • Fire pump room (items 14, P114)
  • Water entry room (items 15, P115, 38)
  • Grease interceptor (items 16, P116, 21, P121)
  • Glycol/heating room (items 22, P122)
  • 2nd floor terrace finishes (items 27, 28)

What Keller Engineering’s RFS did

• The RFS contains a table of “Shared Facilities Agreement” (page 9) that lists only 7 items, omitting most of the above.
• The generator is explicitly shared under the SFA, yet the RFS (page 63) describes the “Natural Gas Fueled Generator 600V, 300kW” located in the developer’s building (Claridge Sky 10th Floor) and schedules its full replacement cost of $560,000 as 100% payable by the condominium in 2053/54. No mention of the 50/50 split.
• Many other shared elements (hydro vault, cisterns, mechanical rooms) are treated in the RFS as 100% condo expenses, without any cost sharing.
• The RFS states: “The current agreement does not clearly identify all shared elements” – but the SFA actually does identify them clearly in Schedule “C”. The RFS appears not to have properly reviewed or interpreted the SFA.

Why this matters

• The condominium’s reserve fund contributions are being calculated based on a flawed expenditure forecast. If the RFS is wrong, owners will either over‑pay (by paying for assets we don’t own) or under‑pay (by not saving enough for future shared costs). In this case, the RFS understates the developer’s liability and overstates the condo’s liability.
• The generator error alone is a $560,000 cost that at a minimum would be split (280,000 each). The total cumulative effect over 30 years likely exceeds $2‑3 million.
• The developer (C‑Albert) is a large, sophisticated entity. The RFS was commissioned by the condo board, but the developer may have had input or influence. The result strongly favours the developer.

My questions

1. Is it standard practice for a reserve fund study to ignore explicit shared‑facility agreements and allocate 100% of major shared assets to one party?
2. Would you consider this a professional error, negligence, or possible bias/collusion?
3. What would you recommend the condominium do next? (e.g., demand a revised study, file a complaint with Professional Engineers Ontario, seek a legal oppression remedy under the Condominium Act?)

I have PDF copies of the Shared Facilities Agreement and the Keller Engineering Reserve Fund Study uploaded here, for those who are interested in looking into this further:

https://archive.org/details/ocscc-1106-shared-facilities-agreement-feb-2024

Thank you for your attention on this matter!