Those who do not follow the rules of their condominium may face costly consequences.
C purchased a unit that she rented out. She brought an application against the condo corporation to vacate a lien the corporation had placed on her unit for the costs of water damage. The corporation sought a compliance order from the owner and tenant to comply with its rules.
The court ordered C to remove internal locks that were not in compliance with the rules. The court also ordered C not to use the unit as a rooming/boarding house, instead of for single-family use. It awarded the condominium corporation costs of more than $40,000 and appeals right up to the Supreme Court of Canada were dismissed.
Those buying condominium units should realize their restrains and obligations. The unit is not a freehold family residence like a single-family home. (Chan v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1834, 2011 ONSC 108)
* * * * *
In another case, the owners of units in a condominium made some landscaping alterations on common elements adjacent to their parcels. After several previous requests, the condo corporation gave them one year to remove the alterations. When the owners did not comply, the board voted on the matter, and although more than 50 per cent of the owners present voted to allow the alterations, the requirement was 66.6 per cent to carry the vote.
The court granted the application for compliance and removal of the unauthorized alterations to the common elements. The court found that the condo corporation did not have to mediate or arbitrate the issue and could ask for a court order. It found that the owners of the units ignored notices and opportunities to comply and could not ask the court for “equitable remedy” (coming to court without clean hands). (Toronto Common Element Condominium Corporation No. 1508 v. William Stasyna, 2012 ONSC 1504)
* * * * *
After a condominium project suffered several serious problems in construction, the developer and the condominium lender were sued by the condo corporation and the unit holders. On a motion for partial summary judgment, the court agreed that the construction lender owed no duty of care whatsoever to purchasers of units in the condominium or to the condominium corporation itself. The Commitment Letter to provide financing was a private contract and did not accrue or provide benefits to third-party beneficiaries. (Condominium Corporation No. 0321365 v MCAP Financial Corporation, 2012 ABCA 26)
* * * * *
The City of Guelph, Ont. city served a Notice of Violation under its bylaw, requiring the owner of a pool to make sure the pool pump circulated the water and that the water was chlorinated. The enforcement officer entered the owner’s backyard while the owner was out of the country, and had the water drained from pool.
The court held that the swimming pool was not a dwelling, so no warrant was needed to enter the property, nor was the consent of the owner required. The case was upheld by the Court of Appeal. (Davis v. Guelph [City], 2011 ONCA 761)
Complete court decisions are available at www.canlii.org.
Donald Lapowich, Q.C. is a partner at the law firm of Koskie, Minsky in Toronto, where he practices civil litigation, with a particular emphasis on real estate litigation and mediation, acting for builders, real estate agents and lawyers.
