Condo News
Ice Condos is a two-tower condo complex with a large commercial condo on the lower floors and shared parking with the next-door stadium.
Toronto condo owners 'outraged' over new Airbnb partnership
City News (abridged)
By Melissa Nakhavoly
09 March 2023
The ICE condominiums have become infamous for hosting short-term rentals but starting this week additional restrictions have been put in place including a booking fee surcharge as part of a new partnership between the condominium board and Airbnb.
In a letter sent to condo owners dated March 6, the condominium says Airbnb will be the exclusive short-term rental (STR) platform permitted for use by owners in ICE Condominiums. A 15-per cent fee on the total booking cost will now go towards the condominiums contingency fund to pay for capital repairs and improvements as well as additional security.
Owners say while they wanted to see a more proactive approach to improve short-term rentals in the building, they weren’t fully consulted on the changes with some calling the new restrictions unfair.
“We were appalled,” says Maria, a condo owner in the building since it opened. “We were outraged with this increase because a 15 percent tax on the STRs that is relayed to the owner is quite steep.”
“They said they would fix the issues that we had but essentially what they did is tricked us. They promised to fix it but nothing is getting fixed, things are just deteriorating and getting worse. But we’re being charged for it now.”
Officials with the condo board say the changes were made after a number of troubling incidents, noise complaints and damage caused to the building. They believe the new changes will provide more oversight to keep the condos safe.
“Nothing is more important to us than the safety and security of our owners and our residents and our staff in the building. It’s our top priority,” condo board president Nicholas Pearson tells CityNews. “And having accountability and visibility into who’s coming into and out of our building on a transient basis is a big win for us.”
The condo board says building management will have direct access to Airbnb booking information as part of a new check-in system to ensure that guests staying at ICE Condominiums have a valid booking.
The condo board reiterated that all existing rules and by-laws still apply, including the requirement that only unit owners who live in the building can host, and may do so only for up to 180 nights per year.
Just because the condo’s board says that owners can only short-term rent their units through Airbnb and only rent them for 180 nights a year does not mean that everyone will obey these two new rules.
Renting your condo unit?
Harry Fine, a Toronto paralegal, who specializes in Landlord-Tenant issues in the GTA wanted to see how easy it is to obtain the documentation required to rent a property.
It took next to no time to find this ad on the Internet.
I looked up the company and looked at their website.
You need to take a look at this website if you are planning to rent out your condo unit.
Toronto condo owner shocked when hit with $27,000 insurance bill
CTV News (abridged)
Pat Foran
28 February 2023
As condominiums face rising insurance rates, some buildings try to keep their rates low by raising their insurance deductible—but that could leave condo owners on the hook if a claim is filed.
Irene Ricci’s condo unit flooded in March 2022. She thought everything would be looked after, but said she was told she would have to pay an additional $27,657 to cover the costs of the damage.
“My mom was away for the night and the supply line for the toilet burst off and there was a flood. As far as we were concerned it was a standard claim," Sandra Ricci said.
Irene Ricci’s unit is on the fifth floor and water damage seeped through to the units below, all the way down to the first floor.
Irene Ricci did have condo insurance for her unit and her building had insurance to cover the common elements. But about two years ago, the building raised its deductible, which the Riccis said they weren't aware of.
"My mom’s insurance covers up to $25,000 of the building's deductible. But the deductible on the condo building is now $50,000. They want us to cover the difference,” Sandra Ricci said.
“When living in a condominium, it is always important to undertake due diligence regarding your responsibilities as an owner and a neighbour. The charges are not retained by the managing agent, but rather are paid to the Condominium Corporation to cover the costs of damages.”
I have heard of condo boards signing insurance contracts with up to $100,000 deductibles for the common elements. Ask what your condo’s deductible is. You may have to raise your unit’s deductible to limit your liability.
Agree to 40% rent hike or we may sell your homes, landlord tells Surrey, B.C., renters
CBC News (abridged)
Liam Britten
03 May 2023
Tenants in Surrey, B.C., are devastated their landlord demanded a 40 per cent rent hike from them — with a warning if they don't agree, they could lose their homes.
A tenants' rights advocate says while the situation has some unusual aspects, landlords are free to make demands for higher rent, and many do.
Linda De Gonzalez, 70, has lived in Winsome Place Apartments since 2002. She lives on a $2,100-a-month pension and pays $1,014 a month for her two-bedroom unit, well below the CMHC's median rent for such a unit in Surrey — a city east of Vancouver — at $1,446.
But in late April, De Gonzalez and almost half her neighbours received a notice from their landlord. It said due to the landlord's growing costs, renters must pay more.
The residences at Winsome Place are condominium units, but have long been rented out.
De Gonzalez's letter asks her to agree to hike her rent to $1,450 — a 42 per cent rise.
"We may put your suite on the market for sale as soon as July 1, 2023 if an agreement is not reached," the letter read. "If the purchaser of the suite you occupy would like to move into the suite, you may receive Notice to Vacate from them."
The letter notes Winsome Place is, in fact, strata titled. "If we choose to, we could sell your suite at any time."
De Gonzalez says the landlord sent similar letters to 30 renters. B.C. Assessment lists the building as having 70 units. CBC has seen the letters sent to De Gonzalez and another tenant.
Signed off by "Winsome Place Apartments Management," it states allowable annual rent increases have been "minimal," but operating costs — taxes, utilities, waste disposal and trade costs — have seen "dramatic" increases.
"We simply cannot continue to absorb the rising operating costs with the current building's revenue stream," the letter states. "We therefore need to increase the building's revenue or consider other options."
De Gonzalez says she will likely pay, however. She says she can't afford anything else that will take her pets, three caged parrots.
I am not sure if this way of getting large rental hikes would work in Canada’s other provinces. If you own a condo unit and want to give it a try, I would check with a lawyer that is experienced in Landlord –Tenant Board issues first.
Judge rules against Sudbury couple facing $400K home repair bill
CTV News Northern Ontario (abridged)
Darren MacDonald
Updated 22 April 2023
A judge has ruled against a Sudbury couple who sued the former owners of their house when major problems emerged with the foundation.
The couple sued for $400,000, the current cost of repairing the damage. But the judge in the case ruled that, even if the lawsuit had been successful, they would only be entitled to $104,000, the estimate for how much repairs would have cost if they were made as soon as problems were discovered.
Problems began not long after the woman purchased the home in July 2014, which she shared with her husband.
“A few months later a water leak developed in the downstairs bathroom,” said a court transcript of the lawsuit.
“In the course of addressing that leak, (the woman’s husband) discovered not insignificant moisture in the cement blocks of the basement. Over time, that moisture caused failure of the mortar in some locations, weakened the cement blocks and compromised the structural integrity of the foundation. The plaintiffs say that the cost to remediate the water and foundation damage is over $400,000.”
The man who sold the home testified that he had no knowledge of any problems with the foundation. He purchased the three-bedroom home in 2001 with his now ex-wife.
A leak from an upstairs bathroom in 2010 caused $11,000 in damage and was repaired. He put the property up for sale in 2014, when the couple purchased it for $239,000.
“The agreement was conditional on, among other things, a satisfactory home inspection being conducted,” the court transcript said.
The woman’s husband is a mason “with a good deal of experience in construction,” the court documents said. “He determined that he would undertake the inspection on his own.”
The sale was completed but problems emerged two months after they moved in when a pipe burst in the downstairs bathroom.
As the woman’s husband began repairs by removing drywall, he discovered the extent of the problems.
“He started by taking off the bottom two feet of drywall where it was wet and discovered that some of the subfloor appeared black and rotted,” the transcript said.
“The more he looked, the more rotted flooring he discovered. As he removed flooring and got closer to the exterior walls, he discovered dampness in the cement block foundation.”
A home inspector took a look at the property in December and declared the foundation was in jeopardy.
“His opinion was that a combination of the lack of exterior foundation seal, weak mortar and water penetration was leading to the deterioration of the foundation,” the court documents said.
the foundation had not yet begun to settle or bow
“He said that although the foundation had not yet begun to settle or bow, it would be expected to do so unless remediated.”
In July 2015, the city ordered them to make repairs to the foundation to bring the home up to Ontario’s building code.
The couple then sued the man who sold them the house, arguing he had failed to disclose problems with the foundation.
In adjudicating the case, the judge said he had sympathy for the couple, but there was no evidence the seller had done anything improper.
“They strike me as basically decent, honest, hard-working people,” the judge said in the transcript of the case.
the issue is not one of sympathy or loss
“They certainly did not expect to find themselves in a home with significant structural issues and there is no doubt they will sustain a significant loss. However, the issue at this stage of the proceedings is not one of sympathy or loss. It is liability.”
In this case, the judge said the seller of the home had no liability for the damages and the couple was not entitled to compensation.
But even if he were to side with the plaintiffs, the judge said he wouldn’t have awarded them $400,000, because that was not the cost to repair the damage at the time it was discovered.
“If an injured party can prevent a loss or make it less serious by taking reasonable steps, he or she is required to take them,” the judge wrote.
not reasonable for them to undertake no remedial action
“The plaintiffs were successful in receiving some $75,000 from their home insurance and title insurance companies not long after the issues were discovered and therefore had the means to conduct the repairs. In my view, it was not reasonable for them to undertake no remedial action and allow the further deterioration of the property.”
repair bill established in 2020
The issue in this case is that the couple was aware of the problems since 2014 and they have gotten more severe. The $400,000 repair bill was established in 2020, six years later.
“The reason this presents a difficulty is because there was significant deterioration in the interim,” the judge wrote.
“In 2014 there was no bowing of the foundation walls or settling of the cement blocks and no evidence that the blocks contained debris that would render them unsuitable for other repair.”
A much cheaper repair—core-filling—was an option in 2014, but no longer. That would have cost $42,000, with repairs to the interior estimated at $50,000.
“On this evidence, the remediation costs, had they been undertaken when the issues were discovered, would be less than $100,000,” the judge wrote.
The couple also claimed $99,000 for loss of rental income from the basement. But the judge ruled that amount would have been much less if they had taken steps to repair the foundation as soon as they learned of the problem.
He knocked that claim down to $12,000, for a total damage calculation of $104,000 had there been a finding of liability. However, the couple will not receive anything because the claim was dismissed by the judge.
What does this court judgement about a house foundation in Sudbury have to do with condos? Lots.
Price of the house in 2014: $239,000
Price to repair house in 2014 : $ 92,000
Price to repair house in 2020: $400,000
By waiting six years to repair the concrete foundation, the owners must pay 400% more in repairs. It is the same for condos that ignore underground parking garage repairs.
I sold our unit in a Toronto condo after I found that a $900,000 of underground parking garage repairs were pushed out so far into the future that the engineers estimated that it will take $10 million to repair the deteriorated concrete.
I’ll let someone else pay for those repairs.
Leaflet for an AGM
This is a leaflet that I distributed at an AGM for a condo in the GTA. Make sure you know how to read your condo’s audited financial statements.
Independent American Communities
This is a great resource for anyone who owns, or for anyone considering buying, a condo or a home in a HOA in the United States.
This website has consumer education for homebuyers and home, and property owners. It exposings condominiums & HOA dysfunction, corruption, & abuse.
https://independentamericancommunities.com/
The case in BC with their ability to discriminate by age has amazed me for a long time. My luxury condo in Peel Region was adult only until Ontario Human Rights struck that down. The 55+ places now cannot ban anybody younger.
My partner’s aunt bought a condo in Kelowna and she had to pay to the condo board a penalty because she was just short of turning 55.
People don’t see that you can’t leave the condo to the kids they would have to sell it. Rented units have that same restriction. I think part of the Ontario rulings were a similar situation until someone in an “adult only” building had a baby.
On another note, we have a by-law that was voted on and registered that nobody has seen. Stay tuned.