Ontario Condo Law Blog : Toronto Condominium Lawyer & Attorney : Gardiner Miller Arnold Law Firm : Ontario, Ottawa, Hamilton, Kitchener

Debtors and troublemakers are no longer immune from receiving legal process on the Lord’s Day.

Ontario’s long-standing prohibition against serving legal documents and enforcing court orders on Sundays was abolished amidst little fanfare as of December 15, 2009, when section 124 of the Courts of Justice Act was repealed by the Good Government Act, 2009.  This omnibus bill amended hundreds of Ontario statutes, including the Condo Act.

Before its repeal, section 124 read as follows:

No document shall be served and no order shall be executed on Sunday, except with leave of the court.

This development is of special interest to process servers, bailiffs and lawyers who go to sleep on Friday night thinking there are only two more working days until Monday.

Those who spend Sundays on more spiritual pursuits will recall that:

And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

                                                                                                         – Matthew 5:40

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Another interesting lesson emerges from Jeffers v. YCC 98, the slander of title case we reported about earlier this year.

After dismissing the plaintiffs’ lawsuit at trial, the court ordered the plaintiffs (the unit owners) to pay about 50% of the legal costs incurred by the defendant condo corporation and the co-defendant bank.

Unsatisfied with that costs award, the condo made further submissions about why it should recover 100% of its legal costs from the unsuccessful unit owners. In support of that request, the condo relied on an offer to settle it had made during the litigation and also section 134(5) of the Condo Act, which provides as follows:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This month’s news featured a horrifying story of a serious fire at the Millrise, a 159-unit condominium building in Calgary.   Luckily, no one was seriously hurt, but 300 people are homeless and the 3-story wooden building was subsequently condemned by the city as uninhabitable. 

We carried the following related news articles on our microblog, some of which feature video footage of the fire and resulting damage:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At long last, the official electronic version of the Condominium Act, 1998 has been updated to show the latest amendments made in December 2009.  Most of those amendments were made by the Good Government Act, 2009, which amended over 300 Ontario statutes, and hence the long delay in updating the official electronic version of most statutes.

Condominium owners, directors and their professionals should always check to be sure they're consulting the latest version of legislation and regulations before making decisions.   The best way to do this is consult the Ontario Government's e-Laws website at www.e-laws.gov.on.ca.

At the top of every statute and regulation on e-Laws is a currency date, as well as a reference to the latest amendment.  See below picture.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a special update released this week, CCI-Toronto and ACMO announced that they have successfully lobbied the provincial government to amend the regulations under the Condo Act so that corporations registered before May 5, 2001 will have 15 years (not 10 years) from the date of their first reserve fund study to top-up their reserve funds.

[Update (March 7, 2010):  The regulation making this amendment is now published here.]

Condominium corporations existing as of May 1, 2001 were required to have their first official reserve fund study under the New Act within three years after that date. Generally speaking, that means that they must top up their reserve funds by the year 2016 or 2019.

CCI-Toronto and ACMO deserve kudos for securing this concession to help condo corporations offset the deleterious effects of the ever-looming HST.   We wish them well in their continued negotiations with government.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a decision dated January 27, 2010, the Ontario Energy Board ruled that Toronto Hydro breached the Electricity Act by refusing to connect hydro service to the bulk meters of new condominium projects unless all units in the condominium are individually smart-metered by Toronto Hydro and become a customer of Toronto Hydro.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

People trying to keep tabs on the legislative authority for suite submetering can’t even blink these days without the risk of being left in the dark!  

On December 8, 2009, the Ontario Government tabled Bill 235, an Act to enact the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2009 and to amend other Acts.

If passed, Bill 235 will, among other things, repeal section 53.17 of the Electricity Act, 1998, which is the current authority for condominium boards to install smart meters and download electricity costs to individual unit owners. An entirely new section dealing with submetering and billing in multi-unit residential buildings will be passed, as well as a whole raft of regulations.

As with all recent energy and environmental initiatives, Bill 235 is expected to move forward quickly. Comments were to have been received by February 6, 2010.   The public consultation page is here, with links to additional information. The actual wording of the Bill and its legislative status is found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bob Gardiner reminds us that the grace period for the ban on hand-held devices while driving is coming to an end. 

*********

Now it is illegal for drivers to talk, text, type, dial or e-mail using Blackberrys, cellphones and similar hand-held devices.

Bill 118, the Countering Distracted Driving and Promoting Green Transportation Act, promoted by the Ministry of Transportation, took effect on October 26, 2009. A three-month probationary educational period will end February 1, 2010, when police will begin issuing tickets to offenders, resulting in fines of up to $500.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Another small amendment to our Condo Act came into force on December 15, 2009, this time by virtue of Bill 218, the Ontario Tax Plan for More Jobs and Growth Act, 2009.

Clause (b) of the definition of "eligible security" in subsection 115(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998 is amended to include certain financial instruments issued by institutions located in Ontario insured by the Deposit Insurance Corporation of Ontario ("DICO").

Subsection 115(5) now reads as follows (with amendment underlined):

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Ontario Legislature passed Bill 212, the Good Government Act, 2009 on December 3, 2009.   The bill received Royal Assent with very little fanfare on December 15, 2009 and is now law.

This omnibus bill is intended to modernize statutes by correcting errors and plugging loopholes.  It also does the following things:

• makes minor amendments to almost every Ontario statute, mostly by updating language and terminology
• repeals a few outdated or ineffective statutes
• makes significant improvements to the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and the Municipal Elections Act
• legalizes the until-recently covert process of conducting criminal records checks on jurors
• replaces the old Public Inquiries Act with a new one

The bill also makes three minor amendments to the Condominium Act, 1998 and a few small consequential changes to related statutes.   Here is a brief description of the changes:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As of January 1, 2010, the maximum amount that can be claimed in an action in the Small Claims Court in Ontario will increase from $10,000 to $25,000.

This change, which we first reported here in December 2008, is intended to provide a faster and more affordable option for bringing civil disputes to court. The cost of filing a claim or other documents in Small Claims Court is relatively low, the rules of that court are less complex and the process is normally much simpler and often quicker than in the Superior Court of Justice. Legal fees for small claims proceedings are typically much lower as a result.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The following guest entry by property manager and condo consultant Robert Buckler, RCM offers tips to property managers for dealing with the new ban on hand-held communication devices while driving. 

I can only add:  "Keep your eyes on the road and your hands upon the wheel!"

*********

Effective condominium managers spend more time communicating than in any other activity. They communicate by talking to board members, colleagues within the condominium management company, vendors, contractors, owners, potential services providers… the list goes on. Since condominium managers are often on the road, traveling between sites and the office or stuck in traffic, many of these conversations may take place on a cell phone, BlackBerry® or other mobile device.

As of October 26, 2009, Bill 118, a new law amending Ontario's Highway Traffic Act, comes into force. The legislation bans driving while holding or using a handheld wireless device of any kind, including devices used not just for voice conversations, but also texting, emailing, and even viewing the screen of a handheld GPS device.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Q: What percentage of unit owners is required to approve a modification of the maintenance and repair obligations contained in a condominium declaration?

A: 90%, as required by section 107(2)(d) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Q: If two different proxy holders show up at an annual general meeting and they each hold a proxy from the same unit owner but the proxies were signed on different dates, which proxy is valid?

A: The most recent proxy is the valid one, often because most forms of proxy contain the words: “I (We) revoke all proxies previously given.”

Q: Is it correct that no board member can sit more than 2 - 3 year terms? What happens next? Do they take a year off and run again the following year?

A: The Condominium Act, 1998 contains no restrictions as to the number of terms a director can serve. Some corporations’ by-laws may contain term limits, in which case the by-law may specify any additional restrictions or procedures. Term limits are not a very good idea because it is often hard to find volunteers willing to spend the time and effort to serve on the Board.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Anyone following the progress of Ontario’s Smart Metering Initiative and wondering how it applies to condominiums should read an August 2009 decision of the Ontario Energy Board (“OEB”) on smart sub-metering in rental buildings. See the decision here.

This case was commenced by the OEB on its own initiative as a stop-gap interim measure to try and guide a widespread frenzy of landlords outfitting their rental buildings with smart sub-metering equipment despite the fact that such installations have been expressly prohibited by law since 2005. Some landlords have actively begun downloading electricity costs to tenants, which is similarly illegal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A troubled condo project in Ottawa is being taken over this week by the developer’s major creditor. The Ottawa Citizen reports that this creditor announced it is terminating the existing purchase agreements and that:

The former purchasers of the condos were told they would receive their deposits back. But it’s not clear about other expenses, such as upgrades and fixtures that have already been purchased.

This situation illustrates that while a purchaser’s deposit for the purchase price is protected by section 81(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998 (“the Act”), not all monies paid to a developer are covered by this statutory requirement that money be held in trust by the developer’s lawyer or another trustee.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The saga of the doomed luxury condo development at 1 Bloor in Toronto took an interesting turn earlier this month when the project was sold.

Great Gulf Homes announced that it had purchased the land at the corner of Yonge and Bloor Streets from developer Bazis International as part of a court-approved process to keep the project from falling into receivership. Bazis had initially purchased the land for $61 million but had defaulted on its loans before construction could begin.  

Despite the insolvency of the developer, those purchasers who braved the cold and lined up outside for days in late 2007 to buy units at 1 Bloor won’t lose a dime of their deposits (reportedly over $70 million). They can thank section 81 of the Condominium Act, 1998, which provides that deposits paid for the purchase of proposed condo units must be held in trust by a trustee or a law firm.  Section 82 provides that developers must pay interest on these deposits. 

Though their deposits are safe, those who purchased units at 1 Bloor are wondering what kind of condo they are going to get for their money.   The fate of the project won’t be known until after the sale to Great Gulf Homes closes in September but the new concept will probably be far less ambitious than the 80-storey, half-billion dollar skyscraper that was originally planned.  GMA's very own Gerry Miller shared his view on the project in this article in last Friday’s Globe and Mail.

Update (Sept 4/09):   Kris Scheuer of the Town Crier reports on her blog that 1 Bloor purchasers are now being refunded their deposits.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Stark & Stark reports that the State of New York is considering legislation that will, if passed, require residential property managers to be certified by a state-approved certifying organization and then register with the state.

This approach may be an interesting hybrid between self-regulation and state regulation but, as with all legislative initiatives, the devil will be in the details (which can be seen here).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sections 132 and 134(2) of our Condominium Act make it mandatory for condo corporations and unit owners to mediate many types of disputes before proceeding to arbitration or commencing litigation. Among the disputes that must be mediated are disagreements over the declaration, by-laws or rules.

Despite the fact that mediation is mandatory in declaration, by-law and rule cases, this step is often by-passed where the parties don't agree on the selection of the mediator, as per section 132(1)(b) of the Condo Act.  This is a shame since the case will then proceed directly to arbitration and, in some instances, to court. The cost, complexity and level of animosity between the parties all increase sharply as the dispute progresses through the various stages. Early resolution  is almost always preferable.

In cases where mediation actually does take place, the likelihood of the dispute being resolved successfully depends heavily on a number of factors such as the skill of the mediator and counsel, the preparation and goodwill of the parties and, quite importantly, the ability of the parties to really listen to each other. Without proper preparation and anticipation of the likely concerns of the opposing party, mediation is often doomed to fail.

In a recent posting on the California HOA & Law Blog, attorney Beth Grimm shares her views on why mediation is the perfect way to solve condo disputes, why mediation often fails and what can be done to improve the odds of succeeding. Her comments are worth reading since they are perfectly applicable to condo disputes north of the 49th parallel.

Because mediation is mandatory for many condo disputes here in Ontario and since mediation represents an excellent opportunity to resolve disputes and heal divisions quickly and economically, board members, property managers and unit owners must equip themselves with the knowledge and tools to come to the mediation table to solve disputes.

Stay tuned in the coming weeks for more tips and insight into making the most of mediation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Readers keen on comparing Canadian and American condominium law should take note of a significant development south of the border, recently reported by attorney Mark Payne at Colorado HOA Law Blog.

In February 2009, the American Bar Association approved the Uniform Law Commission's proposed amendments to the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act ("UCIOA").  This model law covers all aspects of common interest ownership and, as with all uniform model laws, was prepared by a national body of lawyers and stakeholders who then recommended its use in all American states. Each state may then choose whether to implement all, some or none of the model law, but model laws are commonly used in brainstorming and customizing new laws.

This set of amendments to UCIOA is the product of four years' work and is only the third revision of this model law that first emerged in 1982 as a combination of the Uniform Condominium Act (1980), Uniform Planned Community Act (1980), and the Model Real Estate Cooperatives Act (1981).   With the third set of amendments, the model law is now known colloquially as "UCIOA 3.0."  

UCIOA 3.0 contains prefatory notes that outline the history of the development of this model law and describe the effect of amendments made since the original law was adopted in 1982. 

In addition to numerous amendments dealing with owner/association issues, new features of UCIOA 3.0 provide:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Condo unit owners and directors are often uninformed about their rights and responsibilities or about how condos work. This is largely due to a lack of comprehensive information online to address basic condo concepts.

A new website may help fill that void.

The Condo Information Centre (found at www.condoinformation.ca) was launched on June 30, 2009 by Anne-Marie Ambert, a retired university professor and condo director, who offers her knowledge of how condos work. Her site offers an impressive digest of original text and commentary on a number of topics, including:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The following guest entry by local condo director Ernie Nyitrai is a call to action for other condo corporations and unit owners to lobby for amendment to the Assessment Act, which governs the municipal tax assessment regime in Ontario.  

*********

Condominiums, even though they have been around for quite some time in Ontario, have only modestly grown in the past and mostly only in urban areas. However, all that started to change in the late 1980’s when growth in condominium development began to expand. This growth increase almost seemed to double each year. In fact, in many urban areas, especially in the Greater Toronto Area, they have almost come to supplant single-family residences as the preferred form of residential accommodation. MacLeans magazine, in its December 31, 2007 issue, featuring real estate in Canada, postulated that half the people in urban Canada will be living in condos by 2025. 

This growth has led many urban municipalities to allocate an ever-increasingly larger proportion of residential building permits to condominium development. Since condominium developments, specifically high-rise condominiums, utilize less land area, they have also become an excellent planning tool for the urban municipality, enabling them to accommodate more people in a smaller land area.

Although this growth in condominium developments has increased, almost exponentially in recent times, one aspect of condominium life has not changed, namely assessment on condos for the purpose of municipal taxes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The proposed Green Energy Act (“GEA”) is moving forward quickly and will be considered in committee later this month. As it now reads, nothing in the GEA contemplates any amendment to the Condominium Act, 1998 (“the Condo Act”).

That may change, but not in a way we would like.

The Toronto Atmospheric Fund (“TAF”), together with a local condo developer and their respective lawyers, made a written submission to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure on the implementation of the GEA. A copy of the submission is available here. [Hat tip to environmental law blogger Dianne Saxe.]

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this year the New York Times featured an article about miniature horses replacing guide dogs as “service animals” for people with certain types of disabilities.  (Hat tip to Daniel Zimberoff of the Northwest Condo & HOA Law Blog for passing it along.)  The article thoroughly discussed the several different types of service animals and the definition briefly and generally described the history of service animals:

“… [F]irst it was guide dogs for the blind; now it’s monkeys for quadriplegia and agoraphobia, guide miniature horses, a goat for muscular dystrophy, a parrot for psychosis and any number of animals for anxiety, including cats, ferrets, pigs, at least one iguana and a duck. They’re all showing up in stores and in restaurants, which is perfectly legal because the Americans With Disabilities Act (A.D.A.) requires that service animals be allowed wherever their owners want to go. …”

This New York Times article is of particular interest in light of the new Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (“AODA”), which came into force on January 1, 2008 and which affects most condos as private sector organizations that provide goods and services. The purpose of the AODA is described as follows at section 1:

Recognizing the history of discrimination against persons with disabilities in Ontario, the purpose of this Act is to benefit all Ontarians by,

(a) developing, implementing and enforcing accessibility standards in order to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises on or before January 1, 2025; and

(b) providing for the involvement of persons with disabilities, of the Government of Ontario and of representatives of industries and of various sectors of the economy in the development of the accessibility standards.

Section 9 of the AODA’s Regulation 427/07 establishes accessibility standards for customer service and prescribes the following criteria as to whether an animal is properly qualified as a service animal:

(a) if it is readily apparent that the animal is used by the person for reasons relating to his or her disability; or

(b) if the person provides a letter from a physician or nurse confirming that the person requires the animal for reasons relating to the disability.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Ontario Government unveiled its proposed Green Energy Act ("GEA") this week, amidst much fanfare.   According to the Ministry's News Release, the GEA should attract new investment, create new green economy jobs and better protect the climate.

While big on hype but short on specific details, the two main thrusts of the proposed GEA are described by the Ministry as:

• making it easier to bring renewable energy projects to life, and
• fostering a culture of conservation by assisting homeowners, government, schools and industrial employers to transition to lower energy use.

More info on the GEA is available here and here.

The idea of condominium corporations generating electricity from solar or wind power for their own use and selling the surplus is an interesting concept that may not be too far off.  Given the right incentives, any condo board would closely consider whatever green energy options may be available. 

One area of concern is the type of projects that unit owners may undertake on their own, especially if those projects affect other units, the common elements or life safety.   As with the regulation enacted last summer that permits the use of clotheslines and clothestrees where otherwise restricted, the proposed GEA will permit certain renewable energy projects to be undertaken notwithstanding restrictions imposed by municipal by-laws and condominium by-laws.  While it appears that section 117 of the Condominium Act ("no dangerous activities") will continue to prevail, we will be watching closely to see what comes of this.

For information on what steps you or your condominium corporation can take to save energy today, see The Ontario Energy Efficiency Resource Guide, which provides information about the many programs, financial incentives, and resources available to help Ontarians conserve energy and achieve greater energy efficiency.   View and download a PDF copy of the Guide here.

If your condo is currently planning or implementing a renewable energy project, post a comment and share the details.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In December 2008, the Premier of Ontario said that municipal property assessments issued last fall for the 2009-2012 tax years are "unrealistic" since resale values have significantly declined in recent months.  

Will there be a flood of objections and appeals in respect of these assessments? Time will tell, but seeing as how each condominium unit is treated as separate property for municipal tax assessment purposes, a large volume of appeals may be likely.   A 100-unit standard condominium could, for instance, give rise to 100 separate objections or appeals. With more than 5,000 condo corporations in the Greater Toronto Area alone, the number of appeals by condo unit owners alone could be astonishing.

In reality, obtaining expert representation to navigate the process and collecting the necessary market value data to use as evidence is not cheap. For that reason alone, most property owners do not appeal from their assessments.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

It is time for the 2-year review of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.    

When this Act was proclaimed in force in January 2007, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing said that:

[The Act] recognizes Toronto as a responsible, accountable government. The city is now better able to determine the appropriate mechanisms for delivering municipal services, determine the appropriate levels of municipal spending, and use new fiscal tools to support the city’s activities.

What do you think?

Submissions and comments can be made to the Ministry online, by email or in writing.    

Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Hat tip to Toronto lawyer Rachel Loizos of the Move Smartly blog for spreading the word.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Each year, the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (“CCBFC”) invites stakeholders and members of the public to participate in the review of proposed changes to six national model codes, including the following construction codes:

• National Building Code
• National Fire Code
• National Plumbing Code

These construction codes, last published in 2005 but subsequently amended and expected to be revised in 2010, form the basis of the construction codes of each of the provinces and territories to varying degrees. 

Builders and developers have an obvious vested interest in participating in the development and upkeep of these model construction codes, and so do the end users of most buildings, particularly condominiums.  Typical construction issues that affect interest condominium communities include soundproofing, building materials, energy efficiency and life safety.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a news release yesterday entitled “Resolving Lawsuits Faster and More Affordably,” the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General announced a number of notable changes to the civil justice system.  Most of these changes stem from the Civil Justice Reform Project chaired by the Honourable Coulter Osborne, who released a report of findings and recommendations in November 2007.

Among the reforms announced this week is an increase in the monetary limit of the Small Claims Court to $25,000 from the current level of $10,000 and a doubling of the monetary limit for the simplified procedure in Superior Court to $100,000 from the current $50,000. 

These increases become effective on January 1, 2010, more than a full year from now.

While these increases in the monetary limits are decidedly positive, the long delay until they become effective bears some comment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Where a unit owner, tenant or a guest causes damage to an owner’s unit, section 105 of the Condominium Act, 1998 permits condo corporations to charge back certain repair costs by adding those costs as common expenses to that owner’s unit and collecting them by way of lien. Corporations can pass by-laws extending the circumstances under which they can charge back repair costs. The underlying concept is that an owner who is responsible for damage should pay any repair costs not covered by the corporation’s insurance.

This type of charge back is typically limited to the deductible amount under the corporation’s insurance policy, which can range from $500 to $10,000 for most water escape or fire claims. In larger condominiums or those with a poor claims history, the deductible can reach $50,000.

No matter what the amount, few owners can easily afford these charge backs. Thankfully, they can obtain insurance to significantly lessen the impact of such charge backs and protect their personal property and improvements to their unit, none of which are covered by the corporation's insurance.

The problem is that a surprisingly large number of owners do not secure proper insurance because they do not understand the limitations of the corporation’s insurance and mistakenly assume that they don't need to obtain their own coverage.  The truth emerges very quickly in the aftermath of a water escape or fire, but too late.   

Failure to obtain proper insurance can result in a crippling financial burden that can rob owners and their families of their financial security and their home. There are few things as heartbreaking or as avoidable.

Condo boards and managers should take concrete steps to help educate their unit owners about insurance on an ongoing basis and especially when new standard unit by-laws or insurance deductible by-laws are proposed.  Here are some ideas:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Before 2004, a person in Ontario who suffered a loss typically had six years within which to commence a civil lawsuit to seek compensation or recover damages for the loss. With the enactment of the Limitations Act, 2002 (“the Act”), the old six-year limitation period was reduced to two years for losses (or "claims") discovered on or after January 1, 2004.

Under the old limitations law, the courts exercised significant discretion as to when the limitation period began to run and whether it could be extended in order to achieve fairness in appropriate cases, such as where a plaintiff’s lawyer failed to issue the lawsuit on time due to a miscalculation or an oversight. This discretion is known as the doctrine of “special circumstances.” While the enactment of the new Act significantly changed the law of limitations, the courts continued to apply the “special circumstances” doctrine in a number of cases. An important June 2008 ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal has now put an end to that.

In Joseph v. Paramount Canada’s Wonderland, 2008 ONCA 469, a case where the plaintiff’s lawyer issued the lawsuit almost two months after the expiry of the limitation period because of an oversight, the Court of Appeal washed away the old doctrine of special circumstances for most claims arising after January 2004 and confirmed the principle that the two-year limit is a firm two-year limit, subject to any specific exceptions in the Act. The Court found that the aim of the new Act is “to balance the right of claimants to sue with the right of defendants to have some certainty and finality in managing their affairs.”

The result of this decision is that where a plaintiff commences a lawsuit after the expiry of the applicable limitation period, regardless of the reason, the lawsuit will most likely be statute-barred and dismissed. It appears that certainty for defendants has prevailed over fairness for plaintiffs.

While some pre-2004 claims are still subject to the old six-year limitation period, most claims discovered between January 2004 and October 2006 are now (as of October 2008) probably already statute-barred. Parties with claims discovered in 2006 and 2007 are in serious danger of losing their right to sue, as is anyone that does not understand that a lawsuit must be commenced within two years of discovering a claim.

The lesson: Carefully consider whether your condo might have claims that need to be dealt with and move them forward promptly. Incoming condo boards or managers need to get up to speed immediately upon taking office and determine whether any claims need to be acted upon and to do so quickly.

The limitations clock is ticking.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yes, an Environmental SWAT Team does exist.

The City of Toronto began charging a fee on garbage collected at condominium and other mult-residential buildings on July 1, 2008.   The basis for this fee, besides the promotion of recycling, likely stems from Regulation 103/94, a long ago enacted and historically dormant 1994 Regulation under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act,

Regulation 103/94 calls for the implementation of “Source Separation Programs” in all multi-unit residential buildings across Ontario; however the Ministry of the Environment did not have a system in place to monitor conformity.  Therefore in 2001 an Environmental SWAT Team  (now called the Sector Compliance Branch) was dispatched by the Ministry to undertake inspections of multi-unit residential buildings for compliance with the Regulation's Source Separation Program in cities across Ontario.  The SWAT team’s initial efforts were described by the Ministry as follows:

"The team began its inspections of multi-unit residences on July 31, 2001 and continued with its inspections for four weeks. Working from lists provided by the City of Toronto, the team targeted multi-unit residences in Toronto (focusing on Scarborough and North York) that were suspected to be in non-compliance. The team then expanded its inspections to the areas of Ottawa, Kingston and Belleville. In total, they conducted 103 inspections." 

A “Source Separation Program,” under section 2(1) of the Regulation, must include:

• the provision of facilities for the collection, handling and storage of source separated wastes described in subsection (2) adequate for the quantities of anticipated wastes;
• measures to ensure that the source separated wastes that are collected are removed;
• the provision of information to users and potential users of the program describing the performance of the program and encouraging effective source separation of waste and full use of the program;
• reasonable efforts to ensure that full use is made of the program and that the separated waste is reused or recycled.

Section 10 of the Regulation defines multi-unit residential buildings as those with 6 or more dwelling units located in municipalities with a population of at least 5000. An “owner” of a multi-unit residential building is deemed to include “a condominium corporation created under the Condominium Act.”   And condos should be sure to follow the above guidelines at a minimum.

A good start in implementing a Source Separation Program is to launch an effective recycling regime in the building. There is no charge in Toronto for the collection of any volume of recyclable material and the City has made recyclable collection extremely user friendly by dispensing with the sorting requirement.  Recyclable material collected from condo buildings is now sorted mechanically at a sorting facility. The City has also made the transition easier by publishing a Recycling Handbook for Owners, Property Managers and Superintendents  to help implement the Source Separation Program in Toronto. 

So far, condos and other multi-residential buildings have been free to self-govern their building’s compliance with Regulation 103/94.    The actual fees charged for garbage collection are still in flux.  The garbage fees themselves may be enough of an incentive for a condo corporation in Toronto to implement and monitor Source Separation Programs in their buildings. We hope that our condo friends outside of the GTA have begun to implement their own Source Separation Programs so that if the SWAT comes knocking on the door, they are met with a clean and green building.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 The Government of Ontario recently introduced Bill 108 - "An Act respecting Apologies." 

According to the Attorney General's news release, the Apology Act would, if passed:

• Allow individuals and organizations, such as hospitals and other public institutions (or condo corproations), to apologize for an accident or wrongdoing without fear of the apology being used as evidence of liability in a civil lawsuit
• Help victims by acknowledging that harm has been done to them — an apology is often key to the healing process
• Promote accountability, transparency and patient safety by allowing open and frank discussions between patients and health care providers
• Enhance the affordability and speed of the justice system by fostering the resolution of civil disputes and shortening or avoiding litigation.

Several other provinces and states have passed similar legislation and there has been growing call for such a law to be introduced here so as to help minimize conflict and disputes.   Indeed, the bill has the support of the legal and medical professions:

“Apology legislation would help to foster better communication and more compassionate relations between potential litigants,” said Jamie Trimble, President of the Ontario Bar Association. “An apology should not be something that can be used in a lawsuit later on to establish the liability of another party, nor should it be able to be used by one party to prevent the ability of another to seek justice.”

We've all heard about long and drawn-out lawsuits over disputes that reportedly could have been resolved at the very beginning with a simple apology.  Only time will tell whether apology laws have an appreciable effect on the number of disputes ending up in our courts or whether people begin to apologize more freely to each other.   We all hope that legislation like this is a step in the right direction towards creating a more civil society.

Update (July 17, 2009):   The Apology Act, 2009 was passed and came into force in April 2009.  See here for full text.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link