Can a Condo Corporation Be Forced to Sign a Resort Licence in Ontario?

Does a Condo Corporation Have to Sign a Resort Access Licence?

Yes — but only if its own declaration requires it, and even then, not on the developer’s terms alone. In OBD Developments Inc. v. Muskoka Standard Condominium Corporation No. 79, 2026 ONSC 3705 (CanLII), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice confirmed that a resort condominium corporation can be obligated by its declaration to enter into a resort access licence agreement. At the same time, the court dismissed the application because the corporation’s refusal to sign the developer’s proposed version of that agreement was not oppressive or unfairly prejudicial.

This decision is particularly relevant for resort and mixed-use condominiums in cottage country and across Ontario, where amenity access arrangements between developers and condo corporations are common — and commonly contentious.

What Is a Resort Access Licence Agreement?

A resort access licence agreement is a contract that governs how condominium owners and residents can use shared amenities — things like pools, docks, fitness facilities, or common recreational areas — that may be owned or operated by the developer rather than the condominium corporation itself. The agreement typically sets out what fees the corporation or its owners must pay for that access.

In resort-style condominiums, these arrangements are often contemplated in the original declaration registered when the condominium is created. The dispute in this case centred on whether the corporation was legally required to sign such an agreement and, if so, whether it had to accept the terms the developer was proposing.

Who Counts as a “Declarant” Under the Condominium Act?

The court confirmed that the applicant qualified as a “declarant” under section 1(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, even though the condominium had gone through a receivership. The declarant concept under the Act is tied to consumer protection — it identifies the party responsible for obligations owed to purchasers and the corporation from the time of registration. The court applied the reasoning from Mastercraft to find that those responsibilities persist despite changes in ownership or corporate structure. Standing to bring an oppression application under section 135 of the Act was confirmed.

This matters because it means developers or their successors cannot simply shed declarant obligations by restructuring or going through insolvency proceedings.

Can a Declaration Override the Condominium Act’s Termination Rights?

Generally, section 112 of the Condominium Act, 1998 allows a condominium corporation to terminate certain management and service agreements after a set period. However, the court applied the reasoning from Lexington on the Green to find that where a declaration specifically requires an ongoing licence arrangement, that obligation is not automatically terminable under section 112. The declaration here was found to require the corporation to have a resort access licence agreement in place — making it a binding obligation, not just an option.

This is an important distinction. Not every condominium declaration will have this effect. The outcome depended heavily on the specific language used in this declaration.

Was the Corporation’s Refusal to Sign Oppressive?

No. Even though the corporation was obligated to enter into some form of resort access licence, the court found that refusing to sign the developer’s proposed agreement was not oppressive conduct. The court applied the two-part test from Noguera and gave appropriate deference to the board’s business judgment.

The proposed agreement was described as one-sided, with fees that were not clearly defined. A board acting in the interests of its owners is entitled — and arguably required — to push back on terms that are vague or unfavourable. Refusing to accept a bad deal is not the same as refusing to deal at all. The oppression remedy under section 135 of the Act was denied.

What Happens When the Parties Cannot Agree on Terms?

When a declaration requires an agreement but the parties cannot settle on terms, the Condominium Act, 1998 provides a structured path forward. Section 132 of the Act requires disputes of this kind to go through mediation first, and then arbitration if mediation does not resolve the matter. The court confirmed this is the correct route — not a court application seeking to force the other side to sign a particular document.

This means both sides are protected: the developer cannot be stonewalled indefinitely, and the corporation cannot be forced to accept unfair terms without a neutral process.

Was the Claim Brought on Time?

Yes. The court rejected the limitation period defence. The two-year clock under the Limitations Act, 2002 began running when the corporation refused to sign the agreement presented in June 2023. The application was issued promptly after that refusal, so there was no limitation problem. No earlier date of discoverability was established on the record.

Practical Takeaways for Condominium Corporations and Owners

• Read your declaration carefully. If your condominium’s declaration requires a resort access or amenity licence agreement, the corporation likely cannot simply refuse to have one — but it can and should negotiate fair terms.
• Refusing a bad deal is not oppression. Boards are entitled to exercise business judgment and push back on one-sided or vague proposed agreements without that refusal being treated as oppressive conduct.
• Mediation and arbitration are your tools. If negotiations stall, section 132 of the Condominium Act, 1998 provides a structured dispute resolution process — use it rather than rushing to court.
• Declarant obligations survive restructuring. Developers who have gone through receivership or corporate changes may still be treated as declarants under the Act, with all the obligations that come with that status.
• Get legal advice before signing or refusing. The stakes in these disputes — ongoing fees, amenity access, and governance — are significant. Our Ontario litigation lawyers can help you understand what your declaration actually requires.

For condo owners and boards in the Muskoka region and across Ontario, this decision is a useful reminder that resort-style governance arrangements are legally complex. If you are facing a similar dispute in the Hamilton or Burlington area, experienced legal guidance can make a real difference in how these negotiations unfold. Learn more about how our Burlington litigation team approaches condominium and property disputes.

UL Lawyers offers a free initial consultation from their Burlington office and serves clients across Ontario. If your condominium corporation is facing pressure to sign an amenity or resort access agreement — or if you are a developer trying to enforce declaration obligations — reach out to our civil litigation team to discuss your options.

---

This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.