Top 10 condo law cases of 2011
.png)
As one of our annual traditions, it is time to unveil our picks for the top 10 cases of the year gone by. 2011 brought us a bumper crop of condo-related cases by Ontario courts and tribunals, with almost 50 reported decisions cited in the @ChrisJaglowitz Twitter feed and frequently summarized in our microblog entries.
Here are our selections:
#10 -- York Region Condominium Corporation No. 890 v. RPS Resource Property Services, 2010 ONSC 3371
News of several condo frauds broke in 2011 but there was only one reported court decision on the topic, for a fraud between 2003 and 2005. The management firm here “borrowed” money from one condo to finance its own operations and those of its other condo clients and then repaid the money before year-end so as to avoid detection by the condo’s auditors. The plot unravelled when the condo changed managers and the fraudster was short $370,000 at year-end. The management firm and its principal were liable for breach of contract, breach of trust and conversion and were ordered to repay the $370,000. The condo’s claim against its bank was dismissed. We commented on this case and listed a number of takeaway points.
#9 -- York Condominium Corporation No. 26 v. Ramadani, 2011 ONSC 6726
The court granted a compliance order requiring the removal of a dog accused of peeing on a balcony. Despite the owner’s arguments, the condo was found to have acted reasonably in demanding the dog's removal. Condominium boards and managers must act reasonably in enforcing condo rules and what is “reasonable” will be decided on a case by case basis, but courts will not substitute their own opinion for that of the board or manager. Justice Strathy gives a good overview of the current law related to condo rule enforcement and his decision stands for the proposition that unit owners who think that a condominium must prove an owner’s wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt before taking steps against them are just fooling themselves and needlessly risking their financial security. The case also confirms that the court has a broad discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy which minimally affects the unit owner but which effectively solves the problem.
Continue Reading....jpg)
Toronto’s reputation as an international city and condominium capital knows no bounds.