Condo Law Digest – March 2015

Bascula 8.jpgDyke v. Metropolitan Toronto Condo. Corp. No. 972, 2015 ONSC 732
Decision Date: January 30, 2015

This motion refers back to Justice Morgan’s 2013 finding on behalf of the applicant in her noise complaint against the condo corporation. (To make a long story short, the source of the noise was a professional dance studio situated in the unit above the applicant’s. The dance studio moved in November 2013.) This action turns on whether the corporation “disregarded, intentionally violated, or otherwise flouted” the order. While the corporation may have been “a tad slow or bureaucratic” their conduct does not rise to the standard of contempt. The judge awarded costs of $20 000 to the corporation; they had sought $97 000 on a substantial indemnity basis or $66 000 on a partial indemnity basis. The applicant has also made a claim for damages against the corporation, which will be heard together with a separate action she has brought, naming additional parties.

Comment: The applicant continues to be bothered by noise originating from the unit upstairs. (Ordinary residential noise, rather than noise associated with a dance studio.) The judge reaffirmed the position that condominium dwellers are entitled to “quiet enjoyment” but not silence.

Toronto Standard Condominium Co. No. 1487 v. Market Lofts Inc., 2015 ONSC 1067
Decision Date: Feb 18, 2015

This is a request for summary judgment to enforce a Shared Services Agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. Under the 2001 agreement both premises were to share costs related to shared facilities and services (including the roof, the foundation, the hot water tank, and some of the alarm monitoring system). The agreement seems to have been ignored by the plaintiff’s property manager at the time; the failure to enforce it was also an oversight or failure by TSCC’s board. In late 2010/2011, a new property management team noticed the Agreement and prepared a claim for payment by the defendant in the amount of over $162, 000. The defendant refused to pay, claiming that there was a “common understanding” that each party would take care of its own expenses. Justice Perell found no evidence of such an understanding, and granted the summary judgment motion.

Valentina Vasilescu Tarko et al. v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation 626 et al., 2015 ONSC 982
Decision Date: Feb, 13, 2015

This is an appeal of a small claims court decision. MTCC 626 is the condominium corporation for Renaissance Plaza, a mixed use building with residential and commercial units, retail space, office space and an indoor parking garage. Some of the condominium owners had parking arrangements which were automatically renewed each year, and others had monthly parking which could be terminated by either side. The owner of the monthly parking spaces terminated the agreement; MTCC commenced litigation and was unsuccessful. To pay the “significant” legal costs, the Board created a Special Assessment on individual condominium owners of $7 per square foot. The appellants disagreed with the Special Assessment and circulated an open letter arguing against it; the unit owners ratified the Special Assessment at the Annual General Meeting on May 30, 2011. On June 28, 2013 the appellants commenced a small claims court action. The Deputy Judge stayed the claim, as it was issued 25 months after the AGM. (The Limitations Act specifies that ordinarily a claim may not be commenced more than 2 years after a claim is discovered.) The basis of this appeal is that the claim did not take effect until July 1, 2011, when the first installment of the Special Assessment was due. The judge rejected the appeal and awarded costs of $5000 to the respondents.

Information about the image:

Bascula 8” by L.Miguel Bugallo Sánchez ( – self made, Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.