Registration of Condominium Liens - Time is of the Essence
In a recent case, YCC No. 82 v. Bujold, the Court of Appeal considered the interpretation of Section 85 of the Condominium Act (the “Act”) and, in particular, the timing requirements under the Act relating to notice of the lien and registration of the lien. Section 85 of the Act provides that a certificate of lien must be registered within three months after the default has occurred and that the Corporation must give written notice of the lien to the owner at least ten days before registration of the certificate. Condo corporations that are not diligently complying with these requirements risk losing their lien rights.
In the Bujold case, the corporation served the owner with a notice of lien on June 22, 2007 relating to arrears of common expenses that had accumulated since December 31, 2006. The lien was registered on September 25, 2007. In 2009, the corporation served a notice of sale, and subsequently brought a motion for summary judgment and an order for possession of the unit.
The trial judge dismissed the corporation’s claim on the basis that the lien had expired, as it was not registered within three months as required by the Act.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that a lien automatically arises upon the date of default and expires three months after the default, unless a certificate of lien is registered. As the certificate of lien was registered on September 25, 2007 the liens that arose before June 25, 2007 had expired. However, as common expenses were payable on the first day of each month, a separate default occurred on July 1, August 1 and September 1 and the liens in respect of those defaults were potentially valid.
We expect that some residents were shocked to read a recent article in the 
Property managers and condominium corporations should take noise complaints seriously or risk facing serious financial consequences. In a recent case, a condominium corporation that failed to enforce its rules prohibiting excessive noise was ordered to compensate an owner for the costs incurred to find alternative accommodation and was ordered to pay a significant costs award. The judge also criticized the property manager for not having taken the complaint seriously.
As we’re quickly approaching a new year, we’ve taken a look back at the condominium cases that were reported in 2012. As usual, its been an interesting year and for many on the losing side of these court decisions (and sometimes also for those on the winning side), it’s been a costly year. Here is our list of ten notable cases for the year (not in any particular order or ranking). Depending on the issues that our readers are facing, the significance of each case will vary by reader. 
Will fines induce a breaching owner to comply with the condominium documents? Condominium corporations in Ontario are not permitted to fine owners who breach the condominium documents. Fines are, however, permitted in many U.S. states and also in British Columbia. A recent case in British Columbia, 
In a recent decision, the Superior Court of Justice was once again asked to determine whether a condominium owner should be forced to move out and sell her unit as a result of her violent and inappropriate conduct towards other owners.
Can owners withhold their common expenses if they are engaged in litigation with the Corporation? In a recent case, 
Pet owners in condominiums who fail to familiarize themselves with the condominium’s restrictions on pets, or who blatantly ignore these restrictions, do so at the risk of having a court order that the pet be permanently removed from the property. The case of 
Section 
Owners taking on interior renovations to their unit, should always check with property management or the board to ensure that proper steps are followed, otherwise they may be faced with having to remove costly alterations and being held responsible for the costs incurred by the Corporation in getting them to comply with the condominium documentation.
Denise Lash
The applicant was the mother of a ten-month old baby who was asked to leave the swimming pool on numerous occasions on the grounds that babies were not allowed in the pool. The majority of the residents of both condominiums were senior citizens. The condo corporations' position on the rule prohibiting children with diapers from using the pool, was that it was necessary as there were serious concerns about the potential health risks resulting from urine/fecal contamination in the pool, which risks were heightened for elderly persons who are more vulnerable to infection. 
