Simcoe Condominium Corp. No. 12 v. Walker, 2014 ONSC 4109
Decision Date: July 7, 2014
http://canlii.ca/t/g80bl
This is an endorsement on costs; the parties and their lawyers resolved all other matters. Ms. Walker, owner of a unit in the condominium corporation, persistently refused to abide by the Rules, Bylaws and Declaration of the corporation, including refusing to control her dog, making unauthorized renovations, and renting out parts of her unit without permission. The judge called this case a “sorry saga of one person’s refusal to live peaceably and cooperatively.” The applicants asked for costs of just over $59 000 on the basis of full indemnity. The judge fixed costs on the full indemnity scale at about $48 700. Unpaid costs will be added to the common expense charges for Ms. Walker’s unit.
Comment: Condo owners tempted to flout the rules, take note.
Gordon v. York Region Condominium Corporation No. 818, 2014 ONCA 549
Decision Date: July 15, 2014
http://canlii.ca/t/g83w9
This is an appeal of Justice McCarthy’s decision that the Condominium’s by-law permitting the Board to remove a Director who violated the Director’s Code of Ethics was not invalid. (A summary of that decision can be found in the December 2013 Condo Law Digest.) Gordon argues that the by-law is not reasonable because such a determination should be made by an independent third party, rather than fellow Board members; that such by-laws are inconsistent with the Condominium Act as a whole; and that the judge erred in not re-instating him. The panel dismissed the appeal and noted that Mr. Gordon is at liberty to stand for re-election to the Board.
Comment: Have we seen the end of this case?
Robinson v. York Condominium Corporation No. 365, 2015 HRTO 1059
Decision Date: July 18, 2014
http://canlii.ca/t/g84p9
Ms. Robinson suffers from electro-magnetic frequency sensitivity (“EMS”), a complex and disabling condition. She charges that this condition has been made worse by the adoption of a new security system at her condominium complex, and that the Corporation and the Property Management Company have not accommodated. The adjudicator found that EMS is indeed a disability within the meaning of the Ontario Human Rights Code. However he did not find that the evidence provided supported the claim that the new security system was at the root of the applicant’s worsened condition. The application was dismissed.
“Dewy spider web“. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
