There have been several parking cases at the CAT since its jurisdiction was originally expanded. In many cases the owners denied that they were improperly parking on the property and argued the rule was unenforceable. In some cases the CAT members felt there was insufficient evidence to support the condominium’s allegations against the owners. In other cases the conduct was not contrary to the rules.
In a recent case a condominium argued that three owners were parking in the visitor parking spaces, which was prohibited by the rules. The owners admitted that they were parking in the spots. They argued they had been doing so for many years without incident, so they should be entitled to continue doing so. They argued the rules were inconsistently enforced and no longer served their condominium community.
The CAT member reviewed the governing documents, including Rule 2.18 that stated the parking lots at the front and rear of the building were “reserved for visitors and guests only”. The rule stated that the owners must use the designated spots in the underground parking garage. The owners parked in visitor spaces because their vehicles were too large to fit in the underground parking garage.
The owners argued that they should be able to continue to parking in the spots because they had been doing so for several years. They also argued that they were being targeted for enforcement while others were violating the rules. They also argued the rule was unreasonable as it had not changed in 30 years. In response, the condominium stated it was prompted to enforce the rules after receiving several complaints about misuse of the visitor parking. The condominium admitted that the rules were not enforced in the past, but the current board had given owners ample notice of their intention to enforce the rules. The CAT member was not persuaded that the condominium’s enforcement was unfair.
The CAT member also disagreed with the owners regarding the reasonableness of the rule. While large vehicles may be more popular now than when the rule was created 30 years ago, that did not render the rule unreasonable. The owners ought to have investigated the designated parking space for their unit before purchasing it. “If they owned or chose to purchase a vehicle that did not fit into the spot, this was their choice”.
Lastly, the owners argued that the condominium had acted improperly in not accepting any of their proposed solutions. The CAT member disagreed. “While I commend the parties for their attempts to resolve this matter through discussion and negotiation, the fact that a resolution was not reached is not evidence of wrongdoing by either party.”
The CAT member gave the owners 90 days to remove their vehicles from the visitor parking lots. After the 90 days the condominium could continue its efforts for enforcement.
Our fourth Q-and-A style blog post has arrived. This time we discuss how you can navigate having a noisy neighbour, a neighbour that has complained about you being too noisy, how you can build a case for a complaint, and what you can do if you disagree with a ruling of a condominium.
Noise is one of the most common types of nuisances in condominiums, especially in residential condominiums constructed with shared walls, like apartments or townhouses. While owners have a right to use and enjoy their units, there is no absolute right to silence. Living in close quarters means that owners must expect some level of noise from their neighbours. The residents are entitled to make ordinary household noises without fear of complaints against them or enforcement steps being taken by their condominiums. The courts have suggested that in most cases ordinarily household noises will include the sound of people walking in the unit above, children playing, doors and cabinets closing, chairs moving away from tables, and vacuuming.
Q. What can I do if another unit owner is being noisy and disturbing me?
A. Ask yourself the following questions: Is the source considered an ordinary household noise? Is the sound at a reasonable level? Is the noise occuring during the day?
If the answer to these questions is yes, there is likely not much the condominium can do to assist you as the other residents have the right to use their units. You could purchase noise reducing earplugs or a white noise machine to cover the noises. You could also speak with your neighbour to see if you can work out a solution, such as the owner agreeing not to vacuum at a certain time of day when you might be sleeping.
If the noise is unreasonably loud or very frequent, or occurring late at night, and your neighbour is not willing to reduce the noise or work with you to find a solution, you can reach out to the condominium for assistance. The condominium will likely ask for details about the noise, such as the date and time of occurrences and a description of the type of noise (i.e. loud music, banging or hammering). The condominium may also ask you to provide a recording from your phone or other device if the noise is the type that is easily recorded. This information will help the condominium investigate your complaint and address it with the other resident. In some cases, the condominium may have an acoustical engineer or other professional investigate the noise and provide a report of the sources.
You might have success calling by-law officers to report the noise. Keep in mind that the by-law officers will only ticket the other resident if they can hear noise that violates the municipal by-law at the time of their attendance. Often by the time the officers arrive the noise has subsided. Also, in some parts of the province by-law officers will not attend condominiums in response to noise complaints.
Q. What can I do if another unit owner has complained about me?
A. Consider if you are making too much noise in your unit and take steps to reduce the noise. Often installing area rugs or flooring with high quality underpad can work for a variety of noise issues. You can purchase inexpensive felt pads to reduce noise from banging cabinets, furniture moving across the floor, and closing doors. Keep noise from electronics, like televisions and computers, to a reasonable level or use a headset. Ask your kids to stop screaming or not jump off furniture, especially early in the morning when some people might still be sleeping. If you have people over for dinner or a party, remind them of the rules about noise and their obligation to keep the noise down. Whatever you do, do not ignore a letter from the condominium alleging any sort of rule violation, including excessive noise, as it could have significant consequences.
If you believe the owner complaining about you is unreasonable or there are special circumstances causing the noise, such as a renovation project, you can try speaking with them to see if there are certain noises or times of day that they find most irritating and work with them to find a solution. You can keep your own record of times when you are home and your activities to refute the complaints if you feel the other owner is making them up or exaggerating about the noise. If you feel the noise is caused by another unit or from the common elements, such as the elevator, garbage chute, or HVAC equipment, ask the condominium to investigate to rule out deficiencies with these items.
Q. What can I do if the condo has ruled against me in a complaint but I think the decision is unreasonable?
A. If you feel the condominium is not addressing noise from another unit that disturbs you, you could gather your own evidence to make a case for the condominium. For example, have witnesses give you statements of what they hear and feel when they visit your unit. You could hire an expert to provide a report of their findings. You could record the noise with your phone or other device. If the condominium still refuses to address the noise, you should speak with a lawyer about your options for requiring the other owners and the condominium to comply with the rules regarding noise.
If the condominium takes steps to enforce against you and you feel you are not causing excessive noise, you should speak with a lawyer about your options for defending yourself. For example, you might want to request mediation to try to resolve the matter without court as mediation tends to be much quicker and less costly than court.
Special thanks to Zach Powell, summer student at Robson Carpenter LLP, for asking the questions owners want to know and preparing this post!
2020 has been an eventful year, to say the least. With everything else going on in the world, who has time to stay on top of changes in condominium law? We do! And so to help you out, we’ve prepared a list of 10 changes and decisions in condominium law in 2020 that you won’t want to miss.
The Condominium Authority Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) expanded its authority
Starting on October 1, 2020, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction expanded to include hearing disputes based on provisions in a condominium’s declaration, by-laws, or rules regarding: (a) pets, (b) vehicles, (c) parking/storage, and (d) indemnification/compensation related to the disputes in (a)-(c). This means that disputes in these categories can now be heard using the Tribunal’s streamlined dispute resolution process instead of going to court.
The new Condo Guide for pre-construction and newly-built residential condo purchasers
The Condominium Authority of Ontario released a new Condominium Guide which, starting January 1, 2021, must be delivered to all potential purchasers of pre-construction and newly-built residential condominium units. The Guide will give these purchasers more information on condominium construction and condominium living. For more information on the Condominium Guide, see our previous post here: https://rcllp.ca/condo/?p=499
“Adequate” condo records need not be perfect
Condominiums are required to keep adequate records. The Tribunal confirmed that “adequate” means the records must allow the condominium to fulfill its duties under the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”). To do so, “adequate” records must be accurate but need not be perfect. The level of accuracy required for a record to be “adequate” may vary depending on the record in question. For example, minutes of board meetings are held to a high standard because they look back on facts which should be certain and known, and they serve the important purpose of making the board’s affairs open to the owners. Read the full case here: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncat/doc/2020/2020oncat33/2020oncat33.html?resultIndex=1
A condominium cannot impose conditions before releasing records to owners
The Tribunal determined that a condominium cannot impose conditions before providing requested records to an owner. If the records are properly requested by the owner, the condominium must either provide them or refuse to provide them (with a reasonable excuse for the refusal). By imposing conditions, the condominium effectively refused to provide the records. Read the full case here: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncat/doc/2020/2020oncat2/2020oncat2.html?resultIndex=1
Comply with Tribunal orders or face cost consequences in court
The Tribunal ordered the condominium to provide records to the owner within 30 days. The condominium did not comply, so the owner took the matter to court. The condominium provided the records to the owner before the court hearing date, yet because the condo had still breached the Tribunal’s order, the court ordered the condominium to pay the owner’s legal fees and disbursements totalling $14,716.91. This serves as a reminder that timelines in Tribunal orders must be complied with, and that Tribunal orders may be enforced in court. Read the full case here: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc189/2020onsc189.html?resultIndex=1
Condominium directors not held personally liable for board decisions
A declarant claimed that the condominium’s directors acted oppressively toward the declarant. The court determined that the claims could not succeed against the directors personally. The directors’ decisions in question were decisions relating to day-to-day activities of the condominium without personal gain, and therefore even if the directors made the wrong decisions, this did not justify a personal order against them. Read the full case here: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc6445/2020onsc6445.html?resultIndex=1
Significant cost consequences of acting unreasonably
After succeeding in a case against his condominium, an owner sought a court order for the condominium to cover the costs he had incurred. The court ordered the condominium to pay $83,340 in costs to the owner. The court granted this unusually high costs award because the owner had acted reasonably throughout the matter whereas the condominium was unreasonable and aggressive. Let this serve as a reminder and a warning that unreasonable, aggressive behaviour from a condominium may have significant cost implications. [Note: the decision was unsuccessfully appealed by the condominium, resulting in another $30,000 costs order payable to the owner]. Read the full case here: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc1190/2020onsc1190.html?resultIndex=1
I recently read an interesting case about parking rights in a commercial condominium. The applicant was the owner of three units, which were leased for use as a restaurant. The owner commenced an application against her condominium after it passed a by-law restricting parking in common element spaces.
Historically parking was allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. This led to problems with insufficient parking for customers and employees of many of the units. In 2009 the Board passed a by-law to change the allocation of parking spaces. The by-law allocated two parking spots to each unit. In 2014 the Board discovered that the by-law was never registered so it was not valid. The Board passed another by-law in 2015 to fix the problem. The 2015 by-law increased the number of parking spaces per unit to four. The result was that the restaurant had significantly less available parking for its customers.
A recent decision of the Superior Court of Justice illustrates how the conduct of the parties can sway a judge when it comes to the issue of costs. The case is York Condominium Corporation No. 922 v. Frank Lu et al (2016). The facts are straightforward. The owner refused to permit the condominium’s contractors to enter the unit to investigate it after a flood in the unit, which was caused by the owner’s tenants. The condominium made repeated attempts to gain access to the unit and offered to meet with the owner to discuss the issue, but the owner refused. The condominium engaged a lawyer, who wrote several letters, but the owner still refused to grant the condominium access to the unit.
The condominium started a court application under sections 92, 117, and 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998. The condominium asked the court for an order requiring the owner to allow it to access the unit to investigate the damage, and if necessary, repair the damage to the common elements.
The condominium was successful in its application and sought $15,416.00 in costs from the owner. Continue reading →