20/10/2017 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 60 published on 01/12/2017
Condominium corporation’s imperfect conduct did not amount to oppression
The owner experienced water pooling on the floor of her unit during heavy rainfall. She notified the condominium corporation. The corporation initially said that the water penetration was the owner’s problem to address; but subsequently took steps, over a period of almost two years, to investigate and resolve the problems.
During those two years, the owner “was unable to use her solarium. She hesitated to go out when it was raining for fear that water would seep into the solarium unabated. If she was out when it began to rain, she would stop what she was doing and rush home. In addition to these interruptions in her plans, she was inconvenienced repeatedly by frequent entries to her Unit by Corporation representatives, contractors, and engineers who were attempting to identify the source of the water. On three occasions, her Unit was accessed by the Corporation while she was not home and without her consent.”
The owner alleged that, “throughout this period of time, the Corporation dismissed her concerns, violated her privacy, was either unresponsive to or unreasonably slow to respond to her complaints, was incommunicative or insufficiently communicative about the status of its investigation and its plans to address the problem, thwarted her efforts to have her own engineer investigate the source of the water leaks, attacked her credibility, wrongfully accused her of being responsible for the leaks, and was harsh and abusive in its dealings with her.”
The owner applied for a declaration that the corporation’s actions were oppressive; and for related damages and costs. The Court dismissed the Application. The Court said:
The Corporation’s conduct was, in certain respects, less than neighbourly and short of ideal. It was often deficient in its communications, it entered her unit unlawfully on one occasion, and it was heavy-handed in its demand for payment of Mr. Beattie’s fees. Its adversarial stance is, however, justified by the fact that Ms. Weir had retained counsel and commenced an Application against the Corporation. In the full context of all the relevant facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the Corporation’s conduct was not the type of harsh, vindictive, and abusive behaviour that would ground an oppression remedy.
I do not agree … that the Corporation “bent over backwards” to find a solution to Ms. Weir’s situation, but that is not the standard to be applied. The Corporation’s attitude was increasingly combative and its actions were at times heavy-handed, but its conduct was not so egregious as to constitute oppression or unfair prejudice to Ms. Weir and it did not unfairly disregard her interests.