Part 37 published on 01/02/12
No oppression of owners. Parking provisions reasonably enforced
The owners claimed that the condominium corporation had engaged in a long-standing course of conduct that was oppressive towards them (while they were occupants, and after they had vacated and leased their unit). The dominant issue related to the enforcement of provisions contained in the corporation’s Declaration respecting the use of parking units (including height restrictions for vehicles).
The Court found that there had been no oppression. The Court said:
The Court in exercising its discretion must balance the reasonable expectations of an owner with the duties of the Board to the ownership at large.
…
The “best interests” of the (owners) is not the test for assessing the (condominium corporation’s) conduct and intention. The Board of this cooperative condominium is not some faceless corporate entity. Rather, they were elected members from among the fellow residents who were charged to carry out the statutory and internal rules of the corporation. The (owners) viewed any decision other than what they wanted as unfair or oppressive. The circumstances of this case, unfortunately, came to resemble the breakdown of a marriage, with litigation inevitable and unhappiness all round. At virtually every instance the (owners) adopted a very adversarial stance toward the corporation.