1716243 Ontario Inc. v. Muskoka Standard Condo Corp. No. 54, (with a counterclaim) 2014 ONSC 1848
Decision Date: March 24, 2014
http://canlii.ca/t/g68rp
Judge Gilmore referred to this claim and counterclaim as an “extended and somewhat complex litigation” over an inadvertent error. The applicant purchased a unit in the condo corporation in February 2012. The unit included two parking spaces. The Status Certificate contained an error, in that the calculation of the unit’s common expenses did not include the amount associated with the two parking spaces (about $168/month). The applicant stopped paying the charge for the parking spaces in May 2012 and argued that the corporation is precluded from pursuing payment related to the parking spaces. The corporation argued that the status certificate should not be read in isolation and that it bound the corporation only for the fiscal year ending March 2012. In January 2013 the corporation registered a lien for non-payment of common expenses (amounting to about $6945.00).
In this action, the unit owner seeks a declaration that it is not required to pay common expenses for the parking spots and an order discharging the lien. The corporation seeks an order requiring the owner to pay the full amount of the lien, interest of 24%, all costs incurred by the corporation and the full costs of both actions, and a declaration that the owner is in breach of the Condominium Act and of the corporation’s by-laws, rules, etc.
The judge ruled that the owner could not avoid payment for the parking places after March 2012 (about $2185 owing with nominal costs award of $750). He declined to order the owner to pay the corporation’s full costs, since the origin of the matter was an error by the corporation.
Comment: The corporation spent about $30, 000 to bring this matter to court. I cannot help but wonder if the parties attempted mediation.
Elbaum v. York Condominium Corporation No. 67, Nathalia Gauto and Miqueias de Oliveira Silva 2014 ONSC 1182
Decision Date: Feb 26, 2014
http://canlii.ca/t/g4n3d
The plaintiff, an elderly woman, owns a unit in the condominium corporation. In September 2012, during a walk on the common elements of the condominium, she was seriously injured when she was attacked by a dog owned by Gauto and de Oliveira Silva. (The dog was unleashed at the time.) She has sued the dog owners under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act and the condominium corporation for common law negligence under the Occupiers’ Liability Act. The corporation has brought forth a motion seeking to have the plaintiff’s claim dismissed under Rule 21. To be successful, the corporation would have to show that it was “plain, obvious and beyond all doubt” that the plaintiff could not succeed.
Judge Perell dismissed the motion. He found that even if the corporation was not the owner or harbourer of the dog (and therefore there was no strict liability under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act), this would not preclude a claim of common law negligence or a claim under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.
Comment: It is no surprise that there are so many rules and by-laws regarding dogs in condominiums.
Never miss a post: Use the “subscribe” box on this page to receive notification of every new post. Or to learn about new Condo Law posts only, get in touch using the contact form and I’ll add your email address to the Condo Law List.