Unsuccessful Law Suit by Condo Owner

In the case of Harvey v. Elgin Condominium Corporation No. 3 an unhappy condo owner sued the condominium corporation, claiming that the corporation undertook work that constituted a substantial change without proper authorization from the owners. As the work that was done was funded by special assessment, the unit owner requested reversal of the special assessment. He also requested that the Court order the directors to take training, and appoint an administrator, and claimed punitive damages. 

The Facts

After several of the townhouse units experienced leaks, water damage and mould, the corporation hired a professional contractor and an engineer to investigate. The professionals concluded that the leaks resulted from construction design and implementation flaws of wooden decks constructed over the unit garages. The board concluded that corrective action was necessary to prevent harm to persons and further damage to property. Based on advice received from the contractor and engineer, there were two options available to fix the problem – replace the existing wooden decks with new wooden decks or, alternatively, replace them with vinyl decks. After having made its decision that corrective work would be undertaken, the board scheduled a meeting of owners to discuss and choose a style of the replacement decks. Votes were cast by 24 of 51 unit owners, and 20 of the owners voted in favour of the vinyl decks.

Continue Reading

Directors Found to be in Contempt Ordered to Pay $96,000 in Legal Fees

Broek bricks.PNGWe previously blogged about the Boily case involving a dispute between some owners and the directors of a Condominium complex in Ottawa.  This dispute revolved around the proposed alteration of the condominium’s courtyard.  Last March, a judge found the corporation and the directors in contempt of a prior court order and ordered them, for a second time, to reinstate the courtyard to its prior configuration and appearance at the directors' personal cost.  

 

This week, the same judge ordered the directors to pay, personally, in excess of $96,000 in legal costs. 

 

The Court concluded that the board's 

stubborn refusal to accept the Applicants' success set them on a path of deliberate and continual contempt that should attract a costs award on a substantial indemnity basis. The Moving Party should not have to bear the costs of those actions.

Continue Reading

Condo Alert: Assessment Appeal Deadline - April 1, 2013 - Don't Miss It!

MARCH 2013
Assessment Appeal Deadline – April 1, 2013 – Don't Miss It!

Has your Corporation filed a request for reconsideration for the common amenity service unit(s) in your building (i.e. guest, superintendent, recreational units and other units owned by the Corporation that provide services or amenities to the residents)? If not, the deadline is Monday, April 1, 2013.

In a recent Assessment Review Board decision, 40 superintendent suites were assessed at $9.00.  To make a long story short, the Board concluded that owners were already being taxed for these units through their residential, parking and locker unit taxes.

If your Corporation is currently paying more than $9.00 for any of the common amenity service unit(s) in your building, you should immediately file a request for reconsideration with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). There is no fee for the filing.

For more information on filing a request for reconsideration, please visit MPAC’s website.

CONTACTS:

Jason Rivait 416 777.4183 jrivait@heenan.ca  
 
      condoreporter.com  
 
The comments contained in Condo Alert provide general information only. They should not be regarded or relied upon as legal advice or opinions. © 2013, Heenan Blaikie LLP.

 

Heenan Blaikie LLP ■ Lawyers | Patent and Trade-mark Agents  heenanblaikie.com

Condo Alert: Sheave Jammer Settlement Funds -- March 29th, 2013 Deadline

MARCH 2013
Sheave Jammer Settlement Funds — March 29th, 2013 Deadline

In 2006, the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) ordered that all elevator sheave jammers manufactured or installed by ThyssenKrupp be replaced. Many Condominium Corporations were affected by this order and had to pay for the replacement of the sheave jammers.

As a result of the recent settlement of a class action lawsuit relating to these sheave jammers, Condominium Corporations may be eligible for a portion of the settlement
funds if:

(1) The sheave jammers were manufactured or installed by ThyssenKrupp;
(2) The replacement was carried out as a result of the July, 2006 Director’s Safety Order 207/06 issued by TSSA;
(3) The cost of the replacement was paid by the Corporation; and
(4) The Corporation did not opt out of the class action on or before May 31, 2012.

Claims must be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. March 29, 2013 elevatorclaim.ca.

Please contact us if you have any questions about this.

CONTACTS:

Denise Lash 416 360.3566 dlash@heenan.ca  
Barbara Holmes 416 643.6864 bholmes@heenan.ca  
Rod Escayola 613 236.3235 rescayola@heenan.ca  
      condoreporter.com  
 
The comments contained in Condo Alert provide general information only. They should not be regarded or relied upon as legal advice or opinions. © 2013, Heenan Blaikie LLP.

 

Heenan Blaikie LLP ■ Lawyers | Patent and Trade-mark Agents  heenanblaikie.com

Special Assessments : The Board Has the Last Word

board meeting with documents.JPGOne of our previous posts stressed the importance for condominium corporations to keep a healthy reserve fund. However, sometimes a board of directors has no choice but to levy a special assessment in order to proceed with necessary work, maintenance or repairs. Such a decision is rarely well-received by owners, who will most likely question the rationale of the decision and the board’s management of the condominium’s affairs. Even if owners agree that the contemplated work is necessary, many may believe that there are more affordable options.

Once the decision to levy a special assessment has been made, the next question is often to determine how much time to give owners to pay.

Continue Reading

Was Your Condo Reserve Fund Study Prepared by a Qualified Professional?

Thumbnail image for building through coloured glass.JPGCan anyone do a Reserve Fund Study? Yes if you are a Strata Corporation in B.C. and no if you are a condominium corporation in Ontario.

A recent article in the Vancouver Sun highlighted one of the differences between Ontario condominiums and Strata Corporations. This is something that has raised concerns for many in the condo industry including one of B.C.'s interest groups, the Condominium Home Owners Association

In Ontario, only persons that fall within the prescribed class set out in the Condominium Act's regulations are permitted to do Reserve Fund Studies. Those persons must have a certain level of expertise and the regulations stipulate what designations or certifications are required. For example, persons holding a certificate to practice under the Architects Act, persons who hold a certificate of authorization within the meaning of the Professional Engineers Act and members of the Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyors holding the designation of professional quantity surveyor fall within this prescribed class. The regulations also provide for instances in which a person is not qualified to carry out the Study, such as persons having any direct or indirect interest in a contract or transaction to which a director or officer of the corporation is a party, any spouse, son or daughter of a director or officer or a son or daughter of a spouse of a director or officer or any owner in the corporation.  It makes perfect sense that those individuals doing these studies should remain impartial and have no interest whatsoever in the outcome of the final reports.

However, this is not so in B.C.

Continue Reading

Condo Directors Held Personally Liable For Legal Costs

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Condo garden ottawa ontario.JPGThe Condominium Act (the “Act”) has several provisions (sections 85, 134(5) and 135(3) which place the financial burden of obtaining compliance orders on those responsible for the non-compliance, thus relieving innocent owners of this financial burden. There are numerous reported cases where the costs of legal proceedings were enforced against individual non-compliant owners. In a recent case, Boily v. Carleton Condominium Corp. No. 145, the court was asked to decide whether innocent unit owners should have to bear the legal costs of proceedings in cases where there has been misconduct on the part of the board of directors.

 The Boily case involved a dispute as to whether proposed modifications to the condominium courtyard constituted a “substantial change” to the common elements as contemplated by section 97 of the Act. The proposed redesign of the courtyard included the removal of significant vegetation, the addition of parking spaces, changes to the design, shape, size and configuration of the courtyard and the replacement of the podium’s original red-brick with significantly different-looking limestone veneer cladding. 

Rod Escayola of our firm was retained by a group of owners who felt that the proposed work constituted a “substantial change” that required the approval of 66 2/3% of the owners. The board argued that the work constituted “maintenance” not requiring a vote by the owners.

 The board refused to hold a special meeting of owners as requested

The group of owners eventually requisitioned a special meeting of owners pursuant to section 46, requesting (amongst other things) the question of the new courtyard configuration be put to a vote requiring approval of 66 2/3% of the owners. 

The board refused to recognize the validity of the applicants’ requisition for a special meeting, alleging that they had not met the 15% threshold required to requisition such a meeting. In support of their refusal to call a special owners’ meeting, the board took the position that in the case of units that were jointly owned, the requisition needed to be signed by the majority of the joint owners of each unit. Moreover, the board refused to provide the group of owners with the list of registered owners, despite numerous requests. The owners had requested this list, on four occasions, in order to rectify any alleged deficiencies in their requisition.

The board then issued its own requisition for a special meeting of owners, which indicated that the board intended on submitting the question of the courtyard configuration to a simple majority vote at the meeting called by the board – all along refusing to allow the special meeting requisitioned by the other group of owners. The board also advised that the work would start the morning after the special meeting it had called. 

The group of owners sought an emergency injunction to prevent the board’s special meeting to proceed and to prevent the work on the courtyard from starting until they were allowed to hold the special meeting of owners they were requisitioning. The court granted the emergency injunction only hours before the board’s special meeting of the owners. 

Continue Reading

Perils of Refusing to Mediate

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Condo towers ottawaSection 132(4) of the Condominium Act (the “Act”) provides that every declaration shall be deemed to contain a provision that the corporation and owners agree to submit a disagreement with respect to the declaration, by-laws or rules to mediation and arbitration. Although section 132(4) of the Act does not require that disputes with respect to the Act itself be submitted to mediation and arbitration, based on a recent court ruling, the decision not to utilize arbitration/mediation should not be made without careful consideration.

The case of Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1508 v. Stasyna involved a common element condominium. Each of the owners of the parcels of tied lands (the “POTLs”) owned a freehold interest in their homes and adjacent backyards. The common elements of the condominium consisted of a walkway located at the perimeter of the housing development (and enclosed by a fence) and also in between some of the separate POTLs. Visually, the common elements walkway appeared to be an indistinguishable part of each owner’s separate parcel of land. A number of owners planted trees and shrubs and installed patios and stones in their backyards and on the common elements walkway, in contravention of section 98 of the Act. It appears that the owners erroneously believed that they were entitled to use and deal with that part of the common elements walkway abutting their property as if it was an extension of their backyard.  Non-compliance issues frequently arise when owners do not fully understand the obligations imposed on them by the Act and the condominium documents. 

In 2007, the Corporation wrote to fifteen owners requesting that all landscaping elements be removed from the common elements walkway, twelve of whom complied. Several years later, as three of the owners had still not complied, the Corporation called a special meeting pursuant to section 97 of the Act to authorize those changes that had been made to the common elements.  However, as the Corporation did not receive the requisite approval from 66 2/3% of the owners, the changes were not approved. (It is interesting to note that  the Board treated this as a substantial change even though there were no costs to the Corporation relating to the changes.) The defaulting owners were given an additional one-year grace period to comply. This was followed by several more demand letters from the Corporation, with the Corporation eventually commencing an application for compliance under section 134. After the commencement of the application, the owners attempted to mediate, but the Corporation refused.

Continue Reading

Maintenance and Repair Responsibilities Table

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for person signing document.JPGDoes your corporation have a maintenance and repair responsibilities table? 

A maintenance and repair responsibilities table is a document which sets out what owners are responsible to maintain and repair after damage and what the Corporation is responsible for. Section 43 of the Condominium Act, 1998 provides a list of the documentation that is required to be turned over to the Corporation by the Declarant (the developer).  One of those items is this maintenance and repair table.

 

Continue Reading

Should the board consult the owners before implementing changes ? (Part III)

Mechanical shovel Ottawa May 1 2011 R. Escayola.JPGIn our previous posts on this topic, we looked at the level of consultation required when the board contemplates renovation to the condominium or changes to the services provided to the owners.  Last post dealt specifically with the kind of work or changes that could be undertaken by the board without owner consultation or notice.

In other cases, the corporation must give notice to the owners and must obtain their approval prior to making an addition, alteration or improvement to the common elements (as opposed to repairing or maintaining what is already in place) or prior to implementing a change to the corporation’s assets or to the services provided to the owners.  The board’s obligation will vary depending on whether the nature and scope of the proposed change is considered to be “substantial” or “non-substantial” in nature.

Continue Reading

Should condominium boards consult the owners before implementing changes ? (Part II)

Construction signs in Montréal R Escayola.JPGIn this series of posts, we are focusing on the level of owner consultation required when boards are contemplating renovations to the condominium or changes to the services provided to the owners.

As indicated in our last post, some decisions by the board require owner consultation while other decisions do not.  This post will focus on decisions by the board that do not require any owner consultation such as: 

  • Routine maintenance work and repairs; and
  • When the work is required to prevent injury or damage to the property

Continue Reading

Should the board consult the owners before implementing changes ? (Part I)

Buldozzer - R Escayola 2011.JPGWe are often asked to advise condominium corporations on the extent of owner consultation required before the board can implement a change or proceed with extensive work on the common elements. Do owners need to be consulted, for instance, before the board renovates the lobby, hires an on-site superintendent, installs a BBQ in the garden, or installs a cell phone tower on the roof [on this topic, see my prior blog]?

Clearly, if owner approval were required for everything before a board could act, not much would ever get done.  On the other hand, it may not be fair to let a handful of board members (as elected as they may be) impose on all other owners their views on what is required or desirable for the condominium.

In this series of posts, I will provide an overview of the board’s obligations (and the owners’ rights) when changes or extensive work is contemplated to the common elements or to the services provided by the condominium corporation. 

Continue Reading

The Differences Between Owning a House and Owning a Condominium

If you have wanted a detailed list cataloguing the differences between owning a home and owning a condominium you are in luck! Denise Lash recently presented to a large group at an HSBC event on the Differences Between Owning a House and Owning a Condominium.

Key topics of the presentation included:

  • Title / Ownership
  • Operation / Management
  • Compliance with Laws and Regulations
  • Pets
  • Alterations
  • Noise Issues
  • Move In / Move Out
  • Reserve Fund
  • Insurance

The presentation also included the following review sheets and checklists:

Please visit the Condo Reporter Seminars page to review our up-and-coming events. Please click here to register for our next seminar titled Battle of the Proxies: Everything a Condominium Corporation Needs to Know About Proxies! The session will be held atHeenan Blaikie's Toronto office located at 333 Bay Street, 29th Floor. You may also participate via Live Stream by simply logging onto www.condoreporter.com. Prior registration is required to view the Live Stream.

Condo Corporation's Duty to Repair After Damage

Section 89 of the Condominium Act provides that it is the Corporation's duty to repair the units and common elements after damage, excluding improvements made to a unit, unless otherwise set out in the Corporation's declaration (as contemplated in Section 91 of the Act). In the event that a unit is damaged by fire, what are the Corporation's specific obligations to the unit owner? This question was recently considered by the court in the case of Demetriou v. Carleton Condominium Corp. No. 59.Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Condo garden ottawa ontario.JPG

A townhouse unit, which was rented to a tenant, was damaged by fire to the extent that the unit became uninhabitable (but there was no structural damage) and almost all of the tenant's possessions in the unit were rendered unsalvageable.  The townhouse included a basement washroom which constituted an improvement over and above the standard unit. Neither the owner nor the tenant had any insurance. It took approximately nine months for the Corporation to complete the repairs to the state where it was fit for habitation and an occupancy permit could be obtained. Before starting any work, the Corporation waited several months until the owner signed a letter acknowledging that he would be responsible for the deductible. The Corporation also billed the unit owner over $7,500.00 for the storage and ultimate disposal of the damaged contents in the unit, which the unit owner paid to avoid a lien, as the unit was subsequently listed for sale by the owner. It was the unit owner's position that the unit should have been repaired and ready for occupancy in approximately four months.

Continue Reading

Who is responsible to repair and pay for flood damage in a condominium unit?

construction pilones.JPGWe were recently asked to provide advice following a flood in a condominium unit.  The condominium corporation was surprised to hear that it may have the obligation to repair the unit despite the fact that the damage was limited to the unit.

To better understand the obligations of the owners and those of the condominium corporation in case of a flood, it is important to understand the difference between the obligations to “maintain” and the obligation to “repair after damage”.

Continue Reading

Unauthorized In-Suite Condo Alterations

Thumbnail image for iStock_000008433981XSmall.jpgOwners 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.

This was the situation in the case of T.S.C.C. 1549 v. Chan. Ms. Chan, an owner of a live/work unit, carried out alterations to her unit, by physically dividing her unit into two parts, one side being the living side and the other being the work side, essentially subdividing the unit into two. 

 

Continue Reading

Expect the Unexpected!

When a journalist in Pattaya, Thailand recently found herself stuck in the elevator of her condominium, she decided to capture her experience on camera right up to the time that she was rescued by the elevator repair technician. Thumbnail image for Exterior High rise.jpgThis story was one of several stories involving condos that were featured on the website of Pattaya One News. We were somewhat flabbergasted at some of the other headlines on that website: "10-year old girl drowns at South Pattaya Condominium swimming pool" " 2-year old child's head stuck between 2 metal supports at South Pattaya Condominium" "Thai woman jumps to her death from South Pattaya 9th Floor condo".  It certainly seems that condominiums in Pattaya are dangerous places!

While it is unusual to see so many condo-related stories in the news at the same time, these headlines provide just a few examples of the types of unexpected occurrences that can happen in a condominium. This emphasizes the need for condo corporations to ensure that the common elements and facilities are safe and do not pose a risk to residents or their guests. In Ontario the condominium corporation is the deemed occupier of the common elements and is therefore subject to the provisions of the Occupiers' Liability Act. Under this Act the occupier is responsible for the condition of the property. If there is any inherently dangerous condition, which leads to damage or personal injury, the occupier may be liable. Thus if anyone falls as a result of ice on the sidewalk and is injured, the Corporation may have liability. If there is a pothole in the driveway, and a car is damaged by it, the Corporation may be liable.

Continue Reading

Denise Lash's Latest Column in Condominia Magazine #3

 

In  Legal Eye, Denise Lash's column for Condominia Magazine  she provides a commentary on whether a home inspection in needed for condominium purchasers:

The condominium inspection will involve inspecting the unit and may also reveal the general state of repairs of the building itself.

You can read the rest of the article here. Enjoy! Thumbnail image for Condomania spring.bmp

 

 

Condos in Financial Crisis

condo balconies.JPGOver the past few years, more and more condominium associations in the U.S. have had to deal with issues that most have never had to face before; owners walking away from their condominium units due to the economic downturn and associations unable to meet their operating expenses because maintenance fees have not been paid by the owners.

Fortunately in Canada, condominium corporations have rarely had to face similar circumstances.  Although owners may fall into arrears from time to time, most condominium corporations are able to secure the payment of those expenses by lien and have those arrears either paid by a mortgagee or the owner. The collection process enables the condominium corporation to collect arrears and pay the operating expenses to properly maintain the property.

 

Continue Reading

Leaking Balcony Enclosures- Who is Responsible?

condo balconies.JPGIn Kelowna B.C., Lloyd Guenther, who purchased a condo with his wife in 2003, was so frustrated with the Strata Council's inaction in addressing water leaks on the owners enclosed balconies and the building envelope issues which he felt were caused by the enclosures, that he applied to the Supreme Court of B.C. to have an administrator appointed.

 

Continue Reading

Status Certificate's Failure to Disclose Unauthorized Alterations

Thumbnail image for Condo Interior.jpg

An interesting case recently decided by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, involved a unit owner's unauthorized widening of a doorway and the board's attempt to enforce the provisions in the Declaration.

In Durham Condominium Corporation No. 63 v. On-Cite Solutions Ltd., the respondent, On-Cite, had owned the unit since 2008, which at the time it was purchased, had already had it's door widened from 36 inches to 10 feet.

 

Continue Reading

Condos and Wood Burning Fireplaces

Fireplace.jpgWood Burning Fireplaces in homes can often lead to high risk situations if not properly maintained and repaired.  Many fires have been caused by problems with the corrosion of chimneys, all because the owner was not aware of the hazards.

In high-rise and town home condominiums, the maintenance and repair of fireplaces and chimneys may be the joint responsibility of both the unit owner and the condominium corporation. It may only take one fireplace failure to cause a major fire in an entire complex with severe consequences.

 

Continue Reading

Motion Sensor Lighting in Condos

This past August, the Toronto City Council passed an amendment to the Municipal Code- Property Standards to allow the use of motion sensor-controlled lighting in multi-unit residential buildings.  This now allows motion sensor lighting in corridors, parking garages, storage rooms and laundry rooms.  Stairwells and lobbies are not permitted to have this type of lighting.

Why now? Case studies have shown that installing motion sensor lighting can impact greatly on energy savings.  Condominium corporations are looking at ways to save owners money, by reducing operating costs without impacting on the residents quality of life.

In 2007 the Ontario Building Code was amended to allow for the installation of motion sensor lighting.  The Municipal Code-Property Standards did not permit motion sensor lighting, which meant that multi-residential unit buildings in Toronto could not take this energy savings initiative.

With the passing of the amendment to the Municipal Code -Property Standards, condominium corporations can now look to installing sensors in hallways and parking garages.

It is important to get contractors who know about the specific regulations for installation of motion sensor lighting, as there are all kinds of stipulations as to the manner in which the installation has be carried out.

TowerWise is a program of the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and is working with industry representatives to help reduce the climate impact of high-rise living by saving energy and money.  They have been instrumental in getting changes to the Municipal Code.