Human rights and employment decisions are exposing distinct obligations for condominium boards, management companies and incoming service providers. Condominium boards often hire managers because their buildings require expertise and sustained attention that volunteer directors can't reasonably provide on their own. The manager becomes the person residents call when something breaks, when records are requested or when an accommodation issue arises. That arrangement can work well, but it creates an understandable temptation to assume that accountability has been transferred along with the day to day work. The law doesn't operate quite so neatly. A corporation may remain responsible for decisions made in its name, while the manager's own actions can attract separate legal scrutiny.
In Mudaliar v Fort Park Property Management and Real Estate Ltd., 2026 BCHRT 193, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal considered allegations arising from treatment in a strata building. The manager argued that it was an agent acting for the strata council and shouldn't remain a respondent. The Tribunal rejected the suggestion that agency automatically resolved the question because the manager had participated in communications and aspects of the accommodation process. Nevertheless, it dismissed the complaint against the manager under the applicable preliminary dismissal test. The available evidence didn't support the necessary connection between the manager's conduct and discrimination or retaliation. Other allegations remained separate. The decision didn't determine that the reported incidents occurred, nor did it immunize management companies against human rights obligations.
The result matters because it requires attention to the conduct of each respondent. A resident's dissatisfaction with a board decision isn't necessarily evidence of discriminatory conduct by a retained manager. Conversely, a company that actively requests medical information, communicates proposed accommodations or responds to a complaint can't assume that the board's ultimate authority makes its own actions legally irrelevant. The details of delegation, correspondence and decision making will often determine which parties have meaningful exposure.
Ontario's Kondaj v Crossbridge Condominium Services Ltd., 2026 ONCA 636, presents a different issue arising from outsourced building services. When the contract for managing a property changed hands, the incoming provider's employment obligations did not depend solely on how many days it had directly employed the worker. The Court of Appeal upheld a common law reasonable notice award that reflected the statutory framework governing continuity in building services. The reported award was ten months, notwithstanding a much shorter direct employment period with the incoming provider. The decision is relevant beyond condominiums because service contracts can change while the people doing the work remain part of the operation.
The practical consequence is that outsourcing requires careful attention to what has actually been delegated and what remains with the corporation. Management agreements should address authority, record retention, insurance, reporting and complaint handling. Service transitions require separate examination of employment standards, continuity of service and potential notice liabilities. These documents won't eliminate statutory obligations, but they can make it considerably easier to identify who was expected to make a decision and which information was available when it was made.
Good administration isn't measured only by how efficiently a manager answers requests or schedules contractors. It also depends on whether the board understands the decisions being made on its behalf and whether the service provider respects the legal obligations attached to its own work. A sensible allocation of responsibilities helps everyone, including residents who should not need to guess which organization is accountable when a problem occurs.
Original authorities
Mudaliar v Fort Park Property Management and Real Estate Ltd, 2026 BCHRT 193, Kondaj v Crossbridge Condominium Services Ltd, 2026 ONCA 636, Ontario Bar Association appellate case summary, British Columbia strata records guidance.