Part 28 published on 01/11/09
Court refuses to evict owner for by-law violations
The condominium corporation applied for eviction of an owner on the grounds that the owner “has flagrantly breached the by-laws and has conducted herself improperly”. [The corporation had received complaints that the owner had created unreasonable noise in her unit. The corporation’s by-laws prohibit noise which in the opinion of the Board constitutes a nuisance or unreasonably interferes with the use or enjoyment of other owners. On two occasions, the Board had fined Ms. Farkas for the violations of the by-laws. The fines had remained unpaid and the complaints had continued.]
The Court declined to order eviction of the owner because, according to the Court, the available sanctions did not include eviction. The Court said:
The remedies contemplated for the enforcement of sanctions under s. 36 (of the Condominium Property Act) do not include eviction of an owner from her unit. The remedies are exclusively monetary. Further, even those remedies can be granted only where the court itself is satisfied that the by-law has been contravened. Evidence to the effect that the Board was satisfied in that regard, which is all that has been put before me, would not suffice. Even if the remedy of eviction is available under s. 67, in my view it would be wrong to grant that remedy where the bylaws expressly required the Board to proceed under s. 36.