Serving Ontario's condominium communities since 2008
To kick off the new year, we’re reviewing the Condo Act in a series we’re calling “Back to Basics”. We’ll cover common topics and issues that often arise in condo living. So, follow along and we hope you’ll gain an appreciation of these foundational concepts.
In Part 1 of this series, we discuss a topic…
Happy New Year to our readers.
We hope 2024 is a year of peace, balance and prosperity. We present our top ten condo law cases of 2023 in our newest issue of Condo Alert!
Here’s hoping the past decisions help us in navigating noise, nuisance vs. maintenance, repair and chargeback disputes and promote our oft…
The Condo Act requires condominium corporations to insure against damage to the common elements and (standard) units that is caused by major perils such as fire or water escape. Picture this: you come home from a long day at work, only to find your unit flooded because of a broken dishwasher tube. Fortunately, your condo…
Last month, we blogged about the importance of having clear and concise governing documents. A recent CAT decision highlights the value of communicating rules to residents and how poor communication might lead to unnecessary disputes.
In this case, the CAT dismissed a dispute relating to the “communication of rules” because it had no jurisdiction…
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…
A recent CAT decision considered whether a condo’s claim for indemnification for legal costs in issuing a compliance letter was reasonable and whether the owner was required pay it.
The condo issued a compliance letter to the owner citing multiple incidents of noise, nuisance and harassment and demanded the owner reimburse the condo for the cost of the letter. The owner requested the security incident reports that allegedly supported the compliance letter but paid the condo’s requested costs after receiving a second notice of intent to lien. The owner challenged the chargeback and argued that the action taken by the condo in sending the letter without any warning was unreasonable and so were the costs.Continue Reading Compliance costs must be reasonable – prove it or lose it
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
Two recent CAT decisions highlight scenarios affecting recovery of costs in rule enforcement scenarios:
In TSCC 1767 v. Ahmed et al., the condo repeatedly assured the unit owner it would not seek costs against the owner for his tenants permitting their dog to urinate and defecate on a balcony and failing to clean it…
A recent court decision confirmed that disputes between neighbours should not be adjudicated by the courts as the first step (unless there is injury or danger to others or property). Parties should instead pursue mediation and arbitration. We have written on the proper forum for condo disputes before (see here and here) but this case demonstrates that adjudicated proceedings won’t always resolve squabbles between neighbours.
Neighbouring owners (let’s call them, A and B) have a history of alleged name calling, banging on a common wall, harassment and racist taunts. The condo corporation took neighbour B’s side despite “she said/she said” allegations and started an application for order requiring neighbour A to sell their unit or to comply with the rules. Neighbour A moved to stay the application pending mediation and arbitration.Continue Reading Condo neighbour disputes don’t belong in the courts
