Toronto, Ontario
Illustrative Condex professional report based on real building data. Building identity has been anonymized — figures are drawn from an actual scored corporation.
Preliminary score — for calibration, not a final grade. Based on 14 of 14 factors (100% weight, renormalized).
14 of 14 factors · 100% weight, renormalized
The complete factor set behind the Condex Index score, scannable in one table before going deeper below.
| Factor | Building | Cohort | Score /100 | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve per unit | $4,514 | $3,927 | 76 | 13.5% |
| Structural exposure | 10y · 21 st | Absolute — no cohort | 88 | 10% |
| Units leased | 73% leased | 60% leased | 20 | 9% |
| Funding vs own plan | 90% of plan (audited) | Med. 90% of plan | 90 | 9% |
| Contribution per unit | $1,712 | $1,312 | 56 | 9% |
| Legal proceedings | Lawsuit · $548K | — | 20 | 9% |
| Special assessment | Clean | 1/78 peers have SA · med. $120K | 100 | 9% |
| Common expense burden / unit | $544/mo (+7% vs med.) | $510/mo | 93 | 4.5% |
| Reserve-driven fee pressure | 3.0% pressure | Med. 2.2% | 90 | 4.5% |
| Future funding increases | 2.0%/yr | 8.6%/yr | 50 | 4.5% |
| Short-term rental risk | Not permitted | — | 100 | 4.5% |
| Insured replacement value / unit | $314,169/unit | $353,622/unit | 64 | 4.5% |
| Opex per unit (high-only) | $5,690 | $5,050 | 87 | 4.5% |
| Shared facilities exposure | Ancillary items | 38/60 peers material | 90 | 4.5% |
| Overall | 70.7 | 100.0% |
Colour bands (green ≥60 · amber 40–59 · red <40) are presentation bands only, not approved grades.
The strongest and weakest factor results for this specific building, in analyst-summary form.
Condex does not evaluate a building in isolation. It compares it against relevant condominium peers.
Peers are ranked within the cohort by similarity (unit count and age, with penalties for form/geography differences) for display order only — every building in the scoring cohort is an equal member of the comparison; similarity does not weight the score itself. Peers are matched within ±24 months of this snapshot.
+14.9% vs the cohort median. Scored on the distance from the median (anchor curve), not on rank among peers. Higher is favourable.
86th percentile of 77 eligible peers. Scored on distance from the cohort median — neither direction is inherently good.
Absolute reserve position and funding relative to the corporation's own plan are two different questions — a building can be well funded in absolute terms while still contributing below what its own reserve study recommends, or vice versa.
+14.9% vs the cohort median. Scored on the distance from the median (anchor curve), not on rank among peers. Higher is favourable.
86th percentile of 77 eligible peers. Scored on distance from the cohort median — neither direction is inherently good.
Contributing 90% of the amount its own reserve study recommends. Cohort median: 90% of plan — a difference of 0 percentage points. Secondary context: 41 of 52 eligible peers are under plan (79%). This is an absolute factor — interpreted against the building's own study, not its cohort.
The scheduled reserve-fund contribution step adds approximately 3.0% of current common-expense assessments next year. Measures fee pressure from scheduled reserve-fund increases only — not a forecast of the corporation's total maintenance-fee increase.
Planned annual increases to reserve-fund contributions in the current reserve funding plan — not projected maintenance-fee increases. Limited basis: NOFF schedule and budget only, per-year fee levels are not on file.
Per-unit operating expense and monthly fees, each shown against the cohort's peer range and median.
Fees above cohort median while reserves run under the building's own plan. Fee level alone is not graded — quadrant with reserve funding decides.
+12.7% vs the cohort median. Scored on % above the median (anchor curve); at or below median scores 100 — low opex is never a bonus.
Insurance detail — context only, not scored · Acceptable
General deductible within standard band · Replacement cost on file
Insured value per unit sits 11% below the cohort median — a possible under-insurance signal, scored on a materially stricter downside curve. No combined insurance grade exists; components are shown side by side.
Lower deductible is safer; the absolute band and same-category median are primary — rank is secondary.
Lower deductible is safer; the absolute band and same-category median are primary — rank is secondary.
No approved absolute band for this category — amount and same-category median only.
No approved absolute band for this category — amount and same-category median only.
No approved absolute band for this category — amount and same-category median only.
Categories are never compared against each other; a lower safe deductible never reads worse for percentile-tie reasons. Insurance detail is context only and is not scored into the Index score.
Structural exposure reflects age (0–10 years) and vertical complexity (21 storeys) — inherent characteristics, not how well they're managed. Height/storey data is treated as absolute when a cohort comparison isn't available, rather than inferred.
Reflects inherent exposure associated with building age and vertical complexity (10 years old, 21 storeys). Financial and operational factors separately measure how well that exposure is being managed.
Shared facilities can provide efficiencies, but material shared obligations introduce dependency on joint governance, spending decisions and shared infrastructure. Cohort context: 38 of 60 assessable peers carry material shared obligations (operating or critical) — descriptive only.
Section summaries below trace back to the factor cards that support them.
Absolute interpretation — not curved against peers.
Role-agnostic: plaintiff or defendant, a disclosed proceeding creates financial uncertainty — the disclosed amount ($548K) is not an estimate of expected liability.
Observed in cohort: 1 of 78 eligible peer buildings have a special assessment (1.3% observed prevalence — descriptive, not a probability for this building). Median detected assessment among flagged peers: $120,000 (regex-parsed from one amount on file, unverified).
Transience risk restricted by bylaw.
Where a factor's data is unavailable for a given building, that factor's weight is renormalized across the remaining available factors rather than scored as zero, so the total always sums to 100% of available weight.
Each factor above traces back to specific rows in these source-document families — cross-referenced across documents and years, not read from a single certificate. Identifying details from the underlying documents are not exposed in this sample.
How the Condex Index score is built, at a high level.
Professional reporting
Condex brings financial, reserve, insurance, structural and operational information into one comparable view.
