In condominium governance, managing capital projects involves more than hiring qualified contractors and staying within budget. A commonly overlooked but legally critical responsibility is the formal designation of a “constructor” under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) when more than one trade is involved. Failing to meet this requirement can expose the condominium corporation and its board to serious legal, financial, and reputational consequences.

A real-life example highlights how this type of oversight can quickly become a costly mistake.

Case Study: A Pricey Oversight

A mid-sized condominium, referred to here as Corporation X, retained an engineering firm to manage an elevator modernization project. The board awarded the contract to a reputable elevator contractor, Company Y, and work commenced without issue.

Although Company Y was the sole contractor, midway through the project, they requested to use the Corporation’s preferred electrical and fire safety vendors to support related tasks. The board approved the request, believing it would improve coordination and save time. However, this change introduced multiple trades to the worksite. Because the Corporation had not formally appointed a constructor, it unknowingly triggered new legal obligations.

During work in the elevator pit, one of Company Y’s subcontracted trades committed several safety violations. These included the absence of a fire extinguisher, inadequate ventilation, and failure to use a respirator while performing hazardous work. A surprise inspection by the Ministry of Labour (MOL) resulted in immediate compliance orders.
Under OHSA Section 1(1), any construction project involving more than one employer requires a designated constructor. If one is not named in writing, the MOL deems the property owner—in this case, the condominium corporation—to be the constructor by default.

As a result, legal counsel had to be retained immediately. Company Y ultimately agreed to take on the constructor role, but only through a formal change order that added $20,000 to the project cost to account for the added liability and compliance requirements.

Understanding the Constructor Obligation

Under OHSA, a constructor is the party responsible for overall health and safety on a construction project. This includes ensuring that all trades follow safety protocols, emergency procedures are in place, and appropriate signage, equipment, and site supervision are maintained.

Even if trades are not working at the same time, the presence of more than one employer still qualifies the site as a multi-employer project under the law. Without a constructor formally designated, the Corporation bears that responsibility.

In the case of Corporation X, the board’s well-intentioned decision to let Company Y coordinate additional vendors resulted in unexpected legal and financial exposure.

The CCDC Contract Trap

Many Boards rely on standard Canadian Construction Documents Committee (CCDC) contracts, such as the CCDC 2, assuming these documents fulfill OHSA requirements.

While such contracts do identify the “Contractor” and outline obligations such as site supervision and trade coordination, they do not satisfy the legal requirement to designate a “constructor.”

The terminology is important. OHSA requires a constructor to be explicitly appointed in writing. Even if the contractor is functionally acting in that role, without written designation, the responsibility may revert to the Corporation.

To prevent this, Boards should supplement CCDC contracts with a separate letter or clause that formally identifies the contractor as the constructor for OHSA purposes. Legal counsel should be consulted to ensure the language is enforceable.

Why Boards Are at Risk

Corporation X’s Board believed they were making a practical and cost-efficient decision. Instead, they made the Corporation—and potentially themselves as directors—legally accountable for the safety of a construction site they were not actively managing.

The consequences included:
•    Legal fees to respond to MOL compliance orders
•    A $20,000 change order to assign constructor liability
•    Delays to the project timeline
•    Increased administrative pressure 
•    Exposure to personal liability under the Condominium Act

Had there been a serious injury or accident, the outcome could have been far more severe.

Best Practices for Boards and Property Managers

To avoid similar situations, Boards and managers should implement the following best practices:
1.    Always designate a constructor in writing: Any project involving more than one trade, even minor work such as water damage remediation, requires a constructor to be formally appointed.
2.    Avoid trade stacking without centralized oversight: Hiring multiple independent trades may seem cost-effective, but it creates liability unless one party is clearly responsible for coordination and safety compliance.
3.    Involve legal counsel early: Before awarding contracts for multi-trade projects, seek legal advice to ensure that constructor responsibilities are clearly assigned and documented.
4.    Document and communicate the designation clearly: Ensure the constructor appointment is in writing, acknowledged by all parties, and retained in the project records. Verbal arrangements are insufficient.
5.    Educate your Board: Directors must be informed about their obligations under both the Condominium Act and OHSA. Even routine maintenance work can carry legal implications if mismanaged.

Conclusion: Do It Right the First Time

Corporation X’s experience is not uncommon, but it is entirely preventable. While the desire to reduce project costs or streamline timelines is understandable, the price of failing to comply with OHSA requirements can be far greater than any short-term savings.

Designating a constructor is not just a procedural step—it is a legal obligation that safeguards the Corporation, the Board, and its residents. Whether the project is a minor repair or a major capital upgrade, structure and compliance should always come before convenience.

In property management and construction alike, cutting corners often costs more in the end. 

Patrick Krall, RCM, is the President of Krall Property Management Inc., a General License holder with the CMRAO, and an RCM. He is a current member of the ACMO Board of Directors. With over 14 years in the industry, he brings hands-on experience, legislative expertise, and a modern, client-focused approach to condominium management.
www.krallpm.ca
 

View PDF View Flipbook Back to Latest Issue