Do I have stories about condos and their court cases? Too many.
Having to go to court is one of the worse things about condo corporations. It so time consuming, expensive and stressful. They can lower property values and even make it hard to sell your unit.
So let’s look at what is going on now
As I was looking for a Superior Court decision involving the City of Kingston and its homeless population, I came across three applications that dealt with condos.
Peel Condominium Corporation No 49 v. Bruno Zaffino et al.
PCC #49 is a 101 unit condo located at 3525 Brandon Gate Dr. in Malton.
This case is a doozy. The condo corporation was successful in getting both a Mareva injunction and a Norwich order against the two property managers and their company, New City Property Management.
The defendants depleted the condo’s reserve account by issuing forged cheques to themselves or their associates. In January 2022 the Reserves had $908,844. In August 2023, the Reserves had a deficit of $45,600.
The board first knew about this when its bank called them about the deficit.
Unbeknownst to the Board, New City’s license to act as property manager had been revoked. (I wonder what brought that on?)
Mareva injunction
This injunction freezes the Respondents assets so that they cannot transfer them to a third party or move them out of the province.
Norwich order
This order instructs the respondents’ banks to give the condo corporation information that is available to the plaintiff to track the further disposition of its funds.
The condo is required to indemnify the banks for their costs of disclosure.
So obvious that this condo had piss-poor financial controls. We can all see that. However, the real question is how many other condos have equally lax oversite over their money.
Ron John William Dowell et al. v. York Condominium Corporation No. 403
For years, the condo corporation gained entry to the balcony on PH101 through the unit owned by the Dowdell Parties for the purposes of conducting annual roof anchor inspections as required by the Building Code.
Since May 2018, the Dowdell Parties have refused to permit access to YCC #403 through their unit to access the balcony and the anchor bolts. They changed the door locks to insure that there would be no entry..
The judge ordered the unit owners to grant entry to the balcony and to provide copies of the keys so the contractors could enter their units.
The condo corporation also won its court costs.
Every once in a while, a condo owner decides to battle the corporation on something stupid. I hope that the property manager advised the owners that failure to grant access would result in an expensive court action that the owner will lose.
All condo owners must realize that that do not get to enjoy complete privacy in their unit. There are times when the condo’s employees and/or contractors have the right, and duty, to enter their units. If they cannot accept this, they need to move out and buy a detached house.
Toronto Standard v. Distillery SE
This court case was about Shared Facilities. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2299 and the developer (who owns some of the parking spaces and some commercial units) had an dispute on who would be the arbitrator to hear a dispute over maintenance costs.
The arbitrator was agreed upon and no costs were awarded.
I hate shared facilities. Two or more amateur boards can fight over the smallest things. Too often they result in bitter disagreements and unnecessary court costs.
Developers had less than $300 in the bank when construction stopped on their Kitchener condo tower
(Abridged) Click on the link above to read the full article.
KITCHENER — Two Kitchener developers owed more than $100 million but had less than $300 in their bank account when they lost control of their unfinished, 15-storey condominium tower on Weber Street East, a new report says.
The report provides more detail around the financial meltdown of the Elevate housing project, before lenders persuaded a court to order the project into receivership in October. Receivership assigns control to a court appointee who can sell assets to pay outstanding debt.
Development partners Werner Leuschner and Kamal Patel pre-sold all 177 units in the unfinished tower plus 325 units in other proposed towers before they ran out of money, court documents indicate.
The developers have not responded to interview requests left with people at addresses listed as their residences. “I'm not the spokesperson for that project,“ a man said Tuesday, shutting the door on a reporter who asked if he is Patel.
Condo buyers in the first tower agreed to pay an average of $470,000, according to a list of buyers and prices. Down payments averaged $92,000.
KSV, the Toronto-based restructuring firm acting as the receiver, told condo buyers in October that their purchase agreements remain in full force and “there are no steps that you need to take in this regard at this time.”
At full build-out, the project was to include four towers between 12 and 15 storeys for a total of 570 residential units. When it was approved, a city planner said it would help the neighbourhood intensify and promote transit, cycling and walking. The city hoped the project would be a catalyst for improvements to the area.
Vancouver couple fined by strata for having babies, violating occupancy limits in unit
A British Columbia. couple was repeatedly fined by their strata for violating occupancy limits after the births of their children, according to a complaint filed with the human rights tribunal.
The strata lost a bid to have the case dismissed earlier this month with the tribunal finding – in part – that there is a public interest in resolving cases like these where people allege limits on occupancy amount to discrimination based on family status.
"Our province is facing a housing crisis against the backdrop of many such maximum occupancy policies. A hearing on this complaint will assist stratas and their owners alike in navigating this crisis by highlighting the human rights considerations that arise in circumstances such as these," the Dec. 1 decision by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal says.
The bylaw fines
Christina James and Matt Rowland had their first child in 2017 while living in a unit at Fairview Village in Vancouver. In November of that year, approximately three months after the birth, the strata sent the family a letter saying they were violating the bylaws.
"Council is under an obligation to apply the bylaws equitably, so regrettably, we must inform you that you are not in compliance with the bylaws," reads the letter, which was quoted in the tribunal's decision.
"Council understands that this may be difficult for you, and therefore council is giving you 12 months notice to comply with the bylaws."
The strata told the tribunal that the bylaws lay out the number of people who can live in a unit, depending on its size. The suite was constructed as a one-bedroom which meant the occupancy limit was two people, the tribunal was told. The couple told the tribunal that they understood the letter to be telling them they had to leave their home since there was no way to comply with the bylaw after they had a baby.
"The complainants say that the only financially viable option for them was to sell or rent the unit. They could not afford to leave the unit and let it sit empty," the decision says.
In December of 2018, the strata informed the family that a fine of $50 per month would be levied until they came into compliance with the bylaw. Six months later, the couple had a second child.
Twenty-three days after that child was born, the strata sent a letter saying the council was aware there were now four people living there, reiterating that constituted a bylaw breach.
"Council believe they have given you sufficient time to take action,” that letter said.
In July of 2019, the family responded by saying they had been unable to leave the unit thus far because of several months-long repairs that made it unsuitable to rent or sell.
"We continue meeting with real estate, rental and legal agents to consider our options given Vancouver’s housing crisis," their response to the strata said.
$200 every seven days
The strata responded by saying council had voted to increase the fine to $200 and to impose it every seven days.
Later that year the family moved out of the unit, having found a place to rent.
After they left, they filed the complaint with the tribunal alleging discrimination based on family status—asking for an order that the strata cease and desist from similar conduct in the future and seeking damages for expenses incurred as well as injury to dignity, feelings and self respect.
Ultimately, they sold the unit in 2021.
Application to dismiss
The strata argued the complaint should be dismissed because the family had moved out and sold their unit, and because all of the fines had been reversed. The decision does not indicate the total of the fines imposed.
Tribunal member Robin Dean rejected this argument, saying there was no evidence that the alleged discrimination had been "resolved or remedied."
Reversing the fines, Dean said, did not address the impact of the alleged discrimination.
"The complainants’ submissions speak to how Fairview Village’s actions caused the complainants anxiety, uncertainty, and stress. Fairview Village has not addressed these alleged impacts on the complainants," the decision says.
"Neither has it addressed the alleged expenses that the complainants have incurred, including expenses related to renting an accommodation that was more expensive than their mortgage had been."
The strata also said that the case should be dismissed because its actions did not contravene the Human Rights Code and did not have an "adverse impact" on the family – which is the two-part test for a finding of discrimination.
For the complaint to proceed, Dean noted, the couple only had to demonstrate that their allegations—if proven—could meet this test.
"The complainants say the reason they suffered the alleged adverse impacts was because they had children, which increased the number of occupants in the unit. Family status includes having a baby," the decision said.
"They say that but for the birth of their children, they would not have been in breach of (the) bylaw."
Dean agreed with this, finding that the adverse impacts alleged included having to leave their home as well as the stress caused by having to find another place to live. Further, Dean found that there was not enough evidence to show that the strata had tried to work with the family to come up with a solution that would potentially allow them to stay in their home.
The strata also said it was bound to enforce its bylaws strictly and equally on all owners. But Dean said a rigid, blanket policy risks running afoul of the Human Rights Code.
"Enforcing bylaws equally can result in discrimination, and stratas must be careful not to strictly enforce a bylaw in a way that might have a discriminatory effect," the decision said.
"In the housing context, the protection from discrimination based on family status exists precisely to protect families, and others who may be screened out of tight housing markets, from being unjustifiably excluded from safe and secure housing."
Finally, the tribunal rejected the strata's claim that the family had made their complaint in bad faith or for an improper purpose.
Dismissing the strata's application means the complaint will proceed to a hearing.
British Columbia allows strata corporations to levy fines against unit owners. That practice is not legal in Ontario. A fine of $200 every seven days is an abuse of power.