Wu v Peel Condominium Corporation No. 245, 2015 ONSC 2801
Decision Date: May 6, 2015
http://canlii.ca/t/ghh9f
Ms. Wu purchased a penthouse unit in PCC 245 in 2008. The building’s mechanical, elevator and HVAC equipment are located on the level above her unit. Ms. Wu and her parents lived there without complaint for about 6 months; then the noise and vibration from the elevator became excessive. Ms. Wu reported the problem to the Board, and from 2009 to 2013 she followed up many times. After a mediation in 2013, PCC 245 agreed to resolve the problem. Complicating matters is the fact that Ms. Wu’s unit contains a second bedroom that was illegally partitioned off from the main living room before she purchased it. PCC 245 hired experts to investigate the cause of the noise and have spent more than $31,000 over the years. However the Board did little-to-no work to solve the excessive noise and vibration issues, despite being advised by a lawyer to “just fix it.” Instead they “attempted to put the blame on Ms. Wu” and demanded that she renovate her unit to comply with City By-Laws.
The Corporation has effectively not acted, and Justice Lemon found clear evidence that Ms. Wu had been treated “harshly and wrongly.” The Board has a duty to balance the “objectively reasonable expectations” of individual owners with the safety, security, and welfare of all owners and of the property assets, and they did not provide any evidence of attempting to balance the needs of Ms. Wu with those of the rest of the residents. Ms. Wu had sought damages in the amount of $150,000 per year for the adverse affects on her and her parents’ health and well-being. However she provided no evidence to support this claim and Justice Lemon assessed damages at $30,000. The Corporation has now agreed to fix the problem and Justice Lemon has asked them to report on their progress.
Comment: Failure to take appropriate action on complaints and attempts to deflect owners tend not to go over well with judges.
Liu v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 541, 2015 HRTO 637
Decision Date: May 15, 2015
http://canlii.ca/t/gj1c8
This is an application to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal for a Contravention of Settlement. In February 2012 Mr. Liu and his wife Ms. Zhang came to an agreement with two property management companies over age restrictions then in place at the recreational facilities of their condominium. (Two property management companies were involved because they alternate responsibilities for the shared facilities management.) The agreement stated that children under the age of 16 would be permitted to use the recreational facilities under adult supervision. A memo was sent to all residents advising them of this change. About one year later, Ms. Zhang, her son and two family friends were attempting to enter the billiard room and were stopped by a security guard who told them that children were not allowed to use the facilities. She advised him that the rule had been changed. He demanded proof, so Ms. Zhang and her son went back to their unit and returned with the memo about the rule change. As the guard examined the memo, Ms. Zhang called her husband to tell him that the problem had been resolved. However after she hung up, the guard asked to see her residents’ photo ID, although it should have been obvious by that point that she lived in the building. The party left and did not return to the billiard room that night.
The applicants wrote a letter of complaint to the security company. They followed up with the Board of MTCC 541 and with the property management company, asking for a response by March 6. Having no response, the applicants filed an application for a Contravention of Settlement with HRTO on March 25. When the applicants responded, they accused the children of “rowdy behaviour,” and Ms. Zhang of being “rude and abusive” towards the security guard. Later counsel for the respondents wrote to the family, advising that they had failed to execute a waiver of liability regarding the attendance of children at the recreational facilities.
The adjudicator found Ms. Zhang’s version of events to be more credible than that of the security guard, and that there had indeed been a Contravention of Settlement. Noting the respondents’ failure to investigate and to resolve the issue, and their “misguided attempts” to blame the applicants for their difficulties, she awarded the applicants $5000 in general damages.
Comment: This is a great example of how a minor incident, if not handled promptly and with courtesy, can blow up.
About the Image:
“Erfurt Fischmarkt – Haus zum Breiten Herd – Detail 2” by Erich Braun – Scan vom Negativ. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons. (“Allegory of Hearing”)
