Serving Ontario's condominium communities since 2008
Owners are not allowed to modify the common elements as they please. Though owners have broader rights regarding their individual “units”, the line between “units” and “common elements” can often blur, leading to escalated disputes.
In Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 132 v Newton , an owner installed a new garage door and front slab door…
Parties seeking costs awards from the CAT must understand that the Tribunal has the discretion to award costs: even if a party is entirely successful on their claim, there is no guarantee it will receive its full costs, if any. In January 2022, the CAT published a practice direction which informs the public how the…
The Condominium Authority Tribunal (“CAT”) and Superior Court operate on virtual platforms, with CAT hearings typically concluding via written argument. These forums have their own rules and directions and, occasionally, comments from adjudicators to guide process. This decision from the Superior Court comments on using written materials efficiently and to win in modern practice.
Gone…
Before CAT, condominiums typically brought compliance applications under s. 134 of the Condo Act to force unwilling residents to comply with the Condo Act and the condo’s declaration, by-laws and rules. And beyond ordering compliance with the Condo Act, declaration, by-laws and rules, judges have the broad discretion to “grant such other relief as is…
Although the CAT’s jurisdiction has been expanded since its inception, the CAT’s decision in Brady v. PCC 947 is a reminder that disputes outside section 117(2) of the Condo Act will likely be dismissed even though owner-applicants have succeeded in other forums.
A unit owner brought a CAT application against the condo corporation for banging…
Common expenses are the life blood of condo corporations and section 85 of the Condo Act allows condos to register a lien to collect unit owners’ share. This section is vital to the functioning of condominiums in Ontario, but it also gives condo corporations enormous leverage to protect innocent unit owners from having to pay a disproportionate share of costs resulting from the unreasonable conduct of any single unit owner.
The court in CCC 56 v. Chreim recently considered the significant powers authorized by section 85 of the Condo Act and the responsibilities that come with those powers.
…
Continue Reading Condominium liens – With great power comes great…accountability
In a recent decision, the court examined what happens when a condo corporation fails to address a unit owners’ complaints of noise and vibration coming from the common elements.
The owner purchased her unit in 2010. It is the only residential unit on the ground floor next to a garbage room which housed a compactor. The building’s garbage chutes terminated into the garbage room. This created loud and intermittent crashing and tremors in the owner’s unit caused by heavy objects being thrown down the chute and loud noise and vibrations when the compactor motor was operating. The owner reported the issues to the condo in 2011 and by 2012, management conducted an inspection and found the noise to be “unbearable”. Few steps were taken by the condo to address the issues thereafter.
In 2018, new management took over and renewed interest in the owner’s complaints. The condo’s piecemeal efforts culminated in an inspection by the condo’s contractor in 2020 and a proposal for absorption and noise blocking material to be installed around the unit. Although the condo accepted its contractor’s proposal, the work wasn’t carried out and the owner brought an application for an oppression remedy under section 135 of the Condo Act. The condo then refused to carry out its contractor’s proposal when the owner started the court application.…
Continue Reading Don’t drag your feet: Maintenance, repair and oppression
We wrote about condo meetings and election pitfalls in the past (see HERE and HERE) but those articles focused on “what happens at the meeting/election”. A recent Superior Court decision highlights the dangers of poor meeting notices – these meetings were essentially dead before they hit the ground.
…
Continue Reading Hell hath no fury like condo scorn: avoiding meeting and election woes
The latest issue of our newsletter, Condo Alert! Spring 2022, highlights changes to the CAT’s costs regime, discusses the Superior Court’s treatment of tenants and comments on some other interesting cases.
We hope you are dusting yourselves off after a long winter, and that spring brings warm and sunny days!
Andrea
We were recently successful in obtaining a stay from a civil action involving our condominium client and a neighbouring condominium. The two condos were parties to a Reciprocal Agreement and Indemnity Agreement (the “Agreements”) and after a dispute arose with respect to these agreements, our client submitted the issues to mediation and arbitration. The neighbouring condo responded by bringing a civil action against our client where a corporate unit owner (which happened to own 100% of the neighbouring condominium units) was included as a co-plaintiff.
Section 132 of the Condo Act provides that any disputes “pertaining to agreements between two or more condominium corporations deemed to contain a provision submitting the disputes to mediation/arbitration”. The neighbouring condo and corporate unit owner attempted to avoid mediation/arbitration by arguing that their civil action was based on an economic tort and the corporate unit owner was not a condominium corporation that was party to the Agreements.
