oppression

Subscribe to oppression

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

There are limited circumstances where directors of condominium corporations can be personally liable for oppressive conduct under Condominium Act, 1998.

In a recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, the declarant (also a unit owner at a vacant land condominium corporation) sued the condominium corporation and the individual directors.  The allegations of oppressive conduct by the condo and directors included exaggerating construction deficiencies and not repairing them at the same time, implementing rules that impeded the declarant’s ability to rent units and adding these issues to status certificates (among other allegations). The condo corporation brought a motion to throw out the claim against the individual directors under the rules of the court.

The court threw out the claim against the individual directors because:

  • the declarant did not provide sufficient particulars as to what each individual director is alleged to have done, as differentiated from the condo corporation’s alleged conduct; and
  • the alleged conduct of the individual directors did not result in any personal benefit or increase their control in any way; and
  • there was no reasonable basis in the claim for the court to decide whether the alleged oppression could be rectified by a monetary order against the directors personally.

Continue Reading No oppression claim against directors personally unless a director instigates the conduct

Section 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) gives unit owners, condo corporations, declarants and mortgagees the right to bring applications against one another for relief against conduct that is or threatens to be oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to the applicant or unfairly disregards the interests of the applicant.

Where a court finds the existence of oppressive conduct, it may make any order it deems proper, including an order prohibiting the conduct and an order requiring payment of compensation.  
Continue Reading Oppression remedy cases – 2015 in review

Condo directors in Ontario are expected to exercise a certain degree of attentiveness, caution and prudence while carrying out their duties. This expectation is known as the “standard of care” and is set out in section 37(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, which provides:

37.  (1)  Every director and every officer of a corporation in exercising the powers and discharging the duties of office shall,

(a) act honestly and in good faith; and

(b) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances.

While the wording of this standard of care seems pretty simple, some directors don’t entirely understand what it means.  A recent Superior Court case illustrates that some directors don’t understand it at all, or don’t care.
Continue Reading A reasonably prudent director