Top 10 condo law cases of 2010
Ontario’s courts and tribunals were busy this past year with condominium matters. We reported on over 35 decisions on our microblog over the course of 2010. Here are our picks for the top 10 cases of the year.
#10 -- Lexington on the Green Inc. v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1930, 2010 ONCA 751
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that a condo corporation cannot use Condo Act s.112 to terminate an agreement for the corporation to purchase the superintendents’ unit from a developer where the obligation to enter into such an agreement is set out in the declaration. This is a game-changing decision that can drastically affect a condo corporation’s finances. According to Bob Aaron, new condo buyers must be extraordinarily careful in reviewing the disclosure materials and draft declaration before signing on the dotted line. Caveat emptor -- Buyer beware.
#9 -- Essex Condominium Corporation No. 89 v. Glengarda Residences Ltd, 2010 ONCA 167
In another case dealing with disclosure, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a trial judge’s ruling that the condos’ developer failed to adequately disclose that the HVAC system serving the shared facilities was leased. The court then set aside the trial judge’s award of damages made under Condo Act 1990, s.52 (replaced by Condo Act 1998, s.133). While the disclosure statement did not reveal the terms of the lease, interest rate or cost of the equipment, it clearly revealed that the equipment was leased and gave what turned out to be a fairly accurate estimate of the cost. This was held to be sufficient disclosure that the HVAC equipment was not owned by the condo corporation. While it was challenged by the developer/appellant, the court upheld the earlier case of Wellington Condominium Corp. No. 61 v. Marilyn Drive Holdings Ltd., 1998 CanLII 2289, which is the leading case on false and misleading statements under the Condo Act.
#8 -- McFlow v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 27, 2010 ONSC 6260
A mortgagee’s bid to remove and replace the court-appointed administrator of a deeply troubled condo corporation was denied. The administrator was appointed a year earlier at the behest of that same mortgagee and while things were moving slowly, there was demonstrable improvement and no evidence of mismanagement as before. The test for removing a court-appointed administrator of a condominium is the same as the test for appointing one under Condo Act, s.131.
Continue Reading....jpg)
