In the case of Schwartz v. TSCC 1443, the owner alleged, among other things, that the condominium corporation had failed to provide “adequate” Board minutes. The owner’s reasons were as follows: The Applicant submits that minutes that were provided do not capture all discussions and scope of the business that occurred during the meeting as to create an “open book” for the reader. The Applicant indicated that in the October 27, 2022, minutes, it notes that discussions about residents’ concerns and requests were conducted in-camera and in the December 13, 2022, meeting it states that “resident’s ..read more

In the case of D’Souza v. TSCC 2565 et al., the Applicant owner claimed that cigarette smoke was entering her unit from a neighboring unit and that the condominium corporation had failed to properly investigate and resolve the problem. The Applicant claimed that the smoke contravened Section 117 (2) of the Condominium Act as well as the Rules of the condominium corporation. The Tribunal ultimately determined that there was insufficient proof that any smoke was coming from the neighboring unit and dismissed the application. The Tribunal also determined that the condominium corporation had taken ..read more

In the case of OCCC 574 v. OCCC 573, there was a retaining wall located (essentially between the two condominiums) partially on each property. About 60% of the retaining wall was on the OCCC 574 property, and about 40% of the retaining wall was on the OCCC 573 property. The retaining wall was nearing the end of its life, and needed to be rebuilt. There was no registered agreement addressing responsibility for the retaining wall. The two corporations could not agree on the sharing, and this dispute ultimately ended up in Court. Our firm acted for OCCC 574, which was entirely successful on the A ..read more

If you missed our February 22 Condo Crunch addressing violence and harassment in condominiums, it is now available as the latest episode of our Condopedia podcast.  The speakers in order of presentation and their associated topics are: Emily Deng (introduction – starts at 00:15) Emily Deng (violence and harassment against employees – starts at 1:39) Christy Allen (responding to allegations of violence and harassment – starts at 9:13) Mitchell Robinson (relevant cases addressing violence and harassment – starts at 18:55) Christy Allen (proactive steps and preventative action to ..read more

In the case of Abeygunasekara v. PCC 392, the Ontario Superior Court held the owner responsible for loss falling within the deductible under the condominium corporation’s insurance policy. In the PCC 392 case, water overflowed from the toilet in Unit 718, resulting in damage to several other units and to the common elements.  According to the Court’s decision, the superintendent “checked the toilet and determined that the toilet’s flapper was ajar, and that the toilet had been clogged.” The damage from the water escape was worsened because the shut-off valve at the toilet was broken, and ..read more

In the case of MTCC 584 v. Kakish, the condominium corporation’s Declaration and Rules contained provisions prohibiting pets in the units. One of the residents had a dog. She provided three letters from her doctor, setting out her need for the dog. She also provided a further letter from her treating psychiatrist. The letters stated that the resident suffered from anxiety and depression and needed the dog as a support animal to help decrease her anxiety and depression, and to help her sleep.   The condominium corporation argued that the letters (from the doctor and the psychiatrist) did n ..read more

In the case of The Owners, Strata Plan NES2613 v. Ramsay, the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal ordered the residents of one of the units to stop smoking in their unit. The strata corporation had passed a bylaw against smoking. The bylaw said that a resident could not smoke in any interior space, including within the units, or on exterior common property within 3 meters of a door, window, or air intake. The occupants of one of the units argued that the by-law should not apply to them for various reasons: First, the occupants said that the by-law should not apply to them because they entered into ..read more

Recently, we have received enquiries from clients about whether or not condominium corporations are required to provide a list of owners’ email addresses to owners (in accordance with a request for records) or to a third party (for instance, the Condominium Authority of Ontario). The short answer is no. Owners It is clear that condominium corporations are required to maintain owners’ email addresses in accordance with Section 46.1 of the Condominium Act, 1998 and Section 12.6.1 of O. Reg 48/01. As a result, the email addresses become a part of the records of the Corporation.  Generally sp ..read more

In the case of Peel Condominium Corporation No. 312 v. Singh, the residents of one of the units complained about thumping and running noises coming from the unit above. They were particularly bothered by the intermittent sound of running and thumping after 10:30 pm, which was waking them up. The owner of the unit above, Mr. Singh, acknowledged the sounds, but claimed that there was no unreasonable noise but rather only “the normal sounds of a young family in their daily activities”. Mr. Singh argued that the residents below were obligated to tolerate the sounds and that the complaints amounted ..read more

In the case of Ron John William Dowdell et al, v. York Condominium Corporation No. 403, the Ontario Superior Court dealt with an owner’s objections to the condominium corporation’s efforts to gain access to the owner’s unit and exclusive-use balcony. YCC 403 is a 13-storey residential high-rise.  The Applicant in the case owned a penthouse unit with an exclusive-use balcony. In 2002, the condominium corporation installed anchors onto the underside of the balcony (and other penthouse balconies) to allow for more efficient, and less expensive, cleaning and maintenance of the common element ..read more