Proxies are to be kept by the corporation for three months after an
election so that any owner can inspect them.
Sometimes a candidate, or an owner, may suspect that there was voting
irregularities so they will ask to inspect the proxies.
at the registration desk
A director told me that in 2013, when she ran for the board, she urged
a neighbour to come to the AGM and vote for her. He replied that he
would not stay for the meeting but he would come down to the
registration desk and hand in a proxy.
A few days after the meeting, the newly-elected director thanked her
neighbour for his support. He replied that he was sorry but he did not
voter for her as when the manager, who was accepting the proxies at the
registration desk saw how he voted, told him to change his proxy to
support the incumbent. So, feeling intimidated, he did.
At the same condo in Mississauga, during the 2014 AGM, the chair, the
the management company, selected two scrutineers to assist the manager
count the proxies and ballots.
During the counting, the manager took a few ballots and ripped them up.
She told the two scrutineers that she saw the candidate urged some of
the owners to vote for her during the meeting and no election
campaigning is allowed on election day.
The chair, who was the management company's vice-president—who it is
assumed knew what happened—announced that the
incumbent director was re-elected.
When a candidate requested that he announce the total number of votes
that each candidate received, the chair refused. He ruled that it was a
The two scrutineers were to afraid to say anything. Later, one of them
told a director what transpired in the counting room. (Then the
director told me.)
When the management company supplies the proxies, the owner finds that
the proxies have been redacted. The names and unit numbers have been
blacked out so they cannot be read.
The management company says this is to protect the voters' privacy but
it can appear to be a device to hide evidence of voter fraud by hiding
false signatures, wrong names and substitutions.
Nathan's Rule # 178 states: "Every voter has the right to know how
every other voter voted." Rule 188 states: "The chairman, scrutineers
and voters may examine ballots at any reasonable time, during or after
Comment: The same rule applies to the proxies."
A lower court judge ruled that a losing candidate could inspect the
proxies but the condo corporation could react all identifying
information so the voters could not be identified. It was claimed that
this was needed to protect the voters' privacy. (If the election is
facing a court challenge, then the applicant's lawyer can request a
copy of the original proxies.)
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this ruling can help
cover up proxy fraud by the management company. The losing candidate
gets a pile of papers that have black lines covering the following:
• the name of the voter
• the signature
• the unit number
So the candidate sees nothing but a pile of papers showing the
candidates names that the author of the proxies voted for.
The opportunities for fraud by the management company are unlimited.
announce election results
More and more I am hearing that the chair refuses to announce the
votes each candidate got. This is even when a candidate asks the chair
to announce the election results.
It is usually assumed that this is to protect the losing candidates
from embarrassment but I am now wondering that a second reason is so
that ballots or proxies could disappear somewhere between registration
and the counting of the ballots and proxies. (See the example above.)
What if the TV screens on election night gave this chart for the
official election results during the next Toronto municipal election.
Does it look a little odd? It wouldn't at some condos.
The Chairs are claiming that it was a secret election so the number of
votes each candidate received is a secret.
It may take a court challenge for a candidate to examine the ballots.