Part 4 published on 01/11/03
Hardwood flooring did not violate by-laws
The by-laws of the Strata Corporation prohibited structural alterations. The court said that replacing wall-to-wall carpeting with floating hardwood flooring did not contravene this by-law. The court said: “To my mind, an alteration to structure would be along the lines of knocking out a load-bearing wall, constructing an additional room or fundamentally reconfiguring the dimensions of an existing space. There is no evidence that the removal of the carpeting and accompanying underlay and the installation of the new underpad and wood flooring has altered the underlying concrete floor. I agree with the petitioners that their new flooring is more akin to fresh carpeting or wallpaper than it is to a wholesale alteration of some structural aspect of their Strata lot – essentially, it is a decorating decision.”
In addition, there had been no complaints relating to noise or other nuisance as a result of the installation of the hardwood flooring. Therefore, the corporation’s by-laws respecting noise and nuisance also had not been violated.
The court said, however, that the corporation certainly had the power to pass a by-law prohibiting hardwood flooring, if desired. In fact, subsequent to the installation of the particular hardwood flooring, the corporation did pass a by-law stating that the only permitted flooring was wall-to-wall carpeting with appropriate underlay. However, the court did not treat that by-law, passed after the installation of the particular hardwood flooring, as applying in this case.
The Strata Corporation had also incurred legal costs in dealing with this owner relating to the flooring. The corporation had added those “violation charges” to the owner’s monthly assessments. The court said that such “violation charges” could not be claimed under Section 127 of the Condominium Act unless and until a violation had occurred. Therefore, costs incurred by the corporation prior to the installation of the hardwood flooring certainly could not be claimed. Furthermore, there was no entitlement whatsoever to “violation charges” in this case, given the court’s finding that the hardwood flooring in fact did not violate the applicable by-laws.