As described in our post on Wednesday, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) has been busy so far in 2021 releasing at least 30 decisions. Well, the Superior Court of Justice is no slouch either. There have been dozens of decisions in 2021 that are relevant to condominiums in Ontario. The Court of Appeal has also released some interesting decisions. Today, we briefly review a few of the key decisions.

2021 ONSC 2616: a condominium brought an application against a unit owner claiming that he “terrorized the community”. Other allegations included harassment of contractors, not permitting his unit to be inspected for fire safety purposes, threatening to send asbestos to others’ homes, and playing audio recordings loud enough for the whole condominium to hear on a repeating loop for hours at a time. The condominium sought various orders, including an order prohibiting the owner from communicating with the directors, agents, and contractors. The owner claimed that the condominium had to accommodate him. The court found the condominium had done all that it could to accommodate him and his communications constituted harassment. At paragraph 43 the court summarized the situation as follows:

[43]         A demand for accommodation is only one side of the community living equation. People are required to recognize [the owner’s] disabilities and aid him accessing their goods and services to the point of undue hardship. But the duty to accommodate does not eliminate altogether the other parties’ rights and the need for [the owner] to obey the law and the rules of the condominium. A right to accommodation to participate in the community is not license to harass, oppress, or unilaterally dictate rules for how the condominium community behaves.

2021 ONSC 2575: an owner brought an application against its condominium to set aside part of an arbitration award. The owner only owned parking units and wanted to access the corridors and other common elements. The arbitrator found this was an “absurd result” and found the board’s interpretation of its documents to be reasonable. As a result, the arbitrator determined the owner was not entitled to access the corridors and other common elements. The court set aside the arbitrator’s award. The judge felt the arbitrator had no authority to make the decision it did with respect to the access issue as the arbitrator “cross the line” and purported to amend the declaration to correct perceived inconsistencies or errors. I do not agree with this decision, but it appears the matter is not over given the judge has referred it back to arbitration on the issue of access. We will see what happens with it.

2021 ONCA 191: an owner brought an application against her condominium claiming it had failed to maintain and repair the property and acted oppressively. The owner complained of noise from fans above her unit, which the condominium removed. She claimed the condominium did not resolve the problem in a timely manner. The application was dismissed. The owner appealed. The court of appeal dismissed the appeal. The judge properly considered the test for oppression under section 135 of the Act: was there a breach of the owner’s reasonable expectations and, if yes, the conduct complained of amounts to oppression, unfair prejudice, or unfair disregard of the owner’s interests. The judge was satisfied that the condominium addressed her complaint in a reasonable manner by meeting with her, communicating with her, visiting her unit multiple times, retaining experts to investigate, and in following the recommendations of the experts. The judge’s decision was entitled to deference on appeal.

2021 ONSC 2071: a condominium brought an application against two owners who refused to wear masks while on the common elements. The owners claimed they were exempt due to medical conditions and they were not required to provide proof of their exemption. The condominium argued the owners refusal was deliberate and in defiance of the legislation, municipal mask by-law and the condominium’s mask by-law. The condominium submitted photographs of the owners wearing anti-mask signs and posting anti-mask posters in the building. The condominium was concerned that the refusal to wear masks put the other residents at greater risk. The court had to balance the competing rights of the owners and the rest of the community. The court summarized the balancing at paragraphs 37 and 38:

[37]                 Condominium corporations indeed constitute a form of micro-community, in which the residents partake in a form of social contract. As with living in any community, condominium owners and their guests must enter a social contract which relinquishes their absolute interests to do as they please with their real property, and instead balance their interests with those of the other owners and tenants.  Condominium corporations are mandated to be self-regulated.  Condominium boards have a duty to control, manage and administer their community.  In doing so, they may make rules and policies that are more restrictive than the general law applicable to all persons and premises in the province or in a particular municipality by operation of provincial statutes or regulations, or municipal by-laws: for example, restricting the sorts of pets that residents may keep, or restricting the access of contractors to do non-essential work during the pandemic, as in TSCC 1704 v. Fraser, supra. 

[38]                 The efforts of the HCC77 board to develop and promulgate a mask policy were not only reasonable, but necessary in the circumstances.  But, in respect of the interplay between provincial and municipal legislation and condominium policy, a condominium board may not promulgate policies that are contrary to law of general application in the province or municipality.  They may make policies that are more restrictive in areas where the law of general application has not already occupied the field, but they cannot be inconsistent.

The court was not prepared to require the owners to wear a mask given their claim of being exempted and the clear language in the legislation and municipal by-law not requiring proof of the exemption. The court did make an order limiting their use of the common elements to essential purposes only (i.e. ingress and egress to their unit, collecting their mail) to protect the other residents. As a result, the owners can no longer walk around on other floors for exercise or visit other residents without wearing masks.

2021 ONSC 1306: an owner refused to replace Kitec pipes in his unit. The condominium notified him that it would replace the pipes at the owner’s cost. The owner refused to permit access to his unit. The condominium commenced mediation proceedings in an attempt to secure his cooperation. He did not participate in mediation. The condominium commenced arbitration proceedings, but the owner did not participate in any meaningful way (other than to object to the arbitrator’s appointment). The arbitrator made an award ordering the owner to permit the condominium to access his unit to replace the Kitec pipes in his unit and ordered $60,000 in costs. The owner continued to refuse, so the condominium sought a court order enforcing the award. The owner brought an application to set aside the arbitration award. The owner’s application was out of time and dismissed. The condominium’s application was granted, so judgment would be issued enforcing the arbitration award.