Comprehensive Condex report · sample

Sample Condominium

Ontario

The paid comprehensive report: the full Condex score, every risk factor, the cohort’s peers and the document audit behind them. A real scored building with its identity removed.

January 2025Data snapshot

52Units (Under 100 units)

40+ yearsAge (reg. 1980)

4 storeysStructure

Non-denseGeography

Condex Index score

68.2/ 100C+

Typical comparable: A- (83.4)

Condex score, scoring model v0.3. Based on 12 of 14 factors (90% of weight, renormalized). The letter grade is a mechanical map of the score.

Cohort rank

10 of 11

Overall rank

1,444 of 1,847

Lower-performingHigher-performing

Key takeaways

Grade C+ (68.2) against a typical A- (83.4) for similar buildings — 10th of 11 in its cohort.
Reserve fund per unit is 38% below similar buildings ($6,085 vs $9,795).
Insured replacement value per unit is 46% below similar buildings — possible under-insurance.
No in-suite laundry allowed under the rules — flagged high importance for resale.

What is driving this building's score?

The strongest and weakest factor results for this specific building, in analyst-summary form.

Strengths

Legal proceedings

Clean · score 100 · cohort: —

The 2025 status certificate discloses no legal proceedings.

Special assessment

Clean · score 100 · cohort: 2/10 peers have SA

Observed in cohort: 2 of 10 eligible peers have a special assessment (median $8,632, unverified) — descriptive, not a probability for this building.

Shared facilities exposure

None identified · score 100 · cohort: 0/10 peers material

Financial statements reviewed; no cost-sharing agreement found. 0 of 10 assessable peers carry material shared obligations.

Watch items

Insured replacement value / unit

$259,137/unit · score 14 · cohort: $482,335/unit

−46% vs the cohort median of $482,335 per unit ($13,475,103 total) — possible under-insurance, scored on a stricter downside curve. It does not by itself establish adequacy.

Reserve per unit balance

$6,085 · score 24 · cohort: $9,795

−37.9% vs the cohort median ($316,406 across 52 units). Scored on the distance from the median, not on rank among peers. Higher is favourable.

Units leased

42% leased · score 38 · cohort: 15% leased

Formal leased-unit count from the status certificate, against a 15% cohort median. The absolute leasing scale gives 46/100 and the cohort adjustment brings it to 38/100. Weighted at half strength: only 7 peers had occupancy data.

14 risk factors · 12 scored for this building

Every factor behind the grade.

The free report explains five of these. The comprehensive report scores all of them against similar buildings.

Reserve funding exposure70

Reserve per unit balance24

Structural exposure70

Units leased38

Legal proceedings100

Contribution per unit58

Special assessment100

Shared facilities exposure100

Insured replacement value / unit14

Reserve-driven fee pressure80

Future funding increases91

Common expense burden / unitn/a

Opex per unit (high-only)100

Short-term rental riskn/a

Weighted together, these give the score of 68.2 and grade C+. Factors without enough data are left out rather than counted for or against the building.

Cohort: Under 100 units · 40+ years · Low-rise · Non-dense

How it ranks among similar buildings.

C+This building

A-Typical similar building

8 of 9 comparable buildings score higher. It ranks 10 of 11 in its cohort.

Reserve funding score 69.7 / 100

Is the reserve fund keeping up?

The funding correction is spread over 6 years, pushing part of the cost to future owners. The fund is projected to end at a healthy level for this stage of the building's life.

Reserve fund per unit

$6,085 per unit

Below peer median

−37.9% vs the cohort median ($316,406 across 52 units). Scored on the distance from the median, not on rank among peers. Higher is favourable.

$1,577Median $9,795$59K

Available data: 10 of 10 cohort buildings

1
Funding correctionStretched−29.2
2
Near-term cost pressureNo added pressure0
3
End-of-study reserve positionStrong−1.1
4
How far the study can seeGood visibility0
5
Funding trendNo trend evidence0

What the reserve study plans, in three numbers

9.4% a yearPlanned increase in reserve contributions until 2026, then 3.5% a year.

$50K in 2026The lowest balance the plan projects. Little cushion if costs run over.

$1.48M by 2050Where the 31-year plan ends up.

Projected reserve balance, 2020–2050

Document audit

The rules that matter, ranked.

Every by-law and rule in the package is read, and the ones that affect owners are flagged by importance.

High importance

Dishwashers and washing machines are prohibited inside units because of plumbing capacity; shared laundry rooms are provided instead (Rule 31).Unusual for Ontario condos. No in-suite laundry significantly affects buyer appeal and resale value.

Moderate importance

Propane and charcoal barbecues are prohibited on balconies and in exclusive-use lockers (Rule 32).Restricts a common use of balconies.
Units can't be used for any business that brings the public in, including some home offices and daycares (Rule 20).Limits work-from-home businesses that need client visits.
Owners who lease must give tenants the declaration, by-laws and rules, get a signed covenant and register tenant contacts (Rule 21).Adds landlord paperwork; gaps can cause enforcement disputes.
Only licensed cars, wagons, vans or half-ton pickups may park on common elements; no major repairs on site (Rule 15).Restricts truck and RV owners.

Plus 5 standard provisions, and the full document audit: the 31-year reserve study, budget, audited statements, what fees cover and what owners pay for.

Comprehensive report

Start with the free report.

Upload a status certificate to get the free report for your building. The comprehensive report will be offered as a paid upgrade.

Condex provides information and analytical context. It is not a substitute for legal, engineering, accounting, insurance or other professional advice.

Get your free report See the free report sample