Part 33 published on 01/02/11
Rules required that units be used only as single family residences
The condominium corporation’s rules required that each unit be occupied and used only as a private single family residence. The Court noted that the meaning of the term “family” had been decided in the case of Nipissing Condominium Corporation No. 4 vs. Kilfoyl. [See Condo Cases Across Canada – Part 28, November 2009, and Part 30, May 2010.] Therefore, the occupants of each unit had to be related. Furthermore, because of provisions in the corporation’s declaration and rules, the owner was not permitted to place any additional locks on any doors (to or within the unit) without first obtaining the written approval of the Board. And if approval was given, the owner had to then provide the corporation with a key to the changed or additional lock.
Water had also escaped from the unit (from the water valve servicing the toilet), causing damage to the unit below. The damage to the unit below totaled approximately $8,500, including about $3,600 damage to improvements. The deductible on the corporation’s insurance policy was $5,000, which exceeded the amount of damage to the standard unit. The Court held that the owner of the unit with the leaky toilet valve was responsible for all of the damage by virtue of provisions of the corporation’s declaration and Section 92 of the Act. The corporation’s lien for such amounts was valid and proper.
[Editorial Note #1: The corporation’s governing documents did not contain any definition of family. Even so, the Court was prepared to apply the definition of family from the Nipissing Condominium Corporation No. 4 v. Kilfoyl case.]
[Editorial Note#2: The decision contains no mention of an insurance deductibles by-law, pursuant to Section 105 of the Condominium Act, 1998. Again, the Court seemed to rely upon a provision in the declaration, as well as Section 92 of the Act. It seems to me that this aspect of the decision (relating to responsibility for the deductible) may be questionable.]