24/04/2020 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 69 published on 01/03/2020
Court approves condominium corporation’s Kitec Replacement Program
The condominium corporation had initiated a building-wide program to replace faulty Kitec plumbing in the units (on behalf of the owners); but the corporation had also given owners an “opt-out” alternative (if they wished to attend to their own Kitec plumbing replacement).
One owner objected to the Board’s planned program, saying that her unit contained no Kitec plumbing (and that the Board’s plan, in relation to her unit, was therefore entirely unnecessary). The Board nevertheless asked to inspect her unit in order to confirm the type of plumbing, to conduct necessary pressure testing on the plumbing, and to install shut-off valves.
The owner claimed that the corporation did not have authority to proceed with the Kitec replacement program, had failed to properly consider other alternatives, and had unnecessarily insisted on accessing her unit for the reasons noted above. The Court dismissed the owner’s claims. The Court said:
The Condominium acted reasonably in seeking to ensure the piping in Ms. Hawkins’ unit was safe. I conclude that the Condominium did not act in a manner that was oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly disregarding toward Ms. Hawkins.
Given my conclusion that Ms. Hawkins has not satisfied the test under s. 135, I do not need to address her request for various remedies against the board. However, I do wish to comment on the fact that the board has charged Ms. Hawkins $11,346.68 in her fees’ assessments, for legal and engineering fees as a result of this matter. They say there is a further amount owing of $2,178.08. Counsel for the Condominium advised at the hearing that she would recommend to her client not to charge Ms. Hawkins an additional $1,672.57 the board also says is owing in an effort to minimize any further dispute between the parties. It is very unfortunate that Ms. Hawkins now owes the condominium over $13,500.08. However, the board is entitled to charge for these fees, pursuant both to Rule 2(3), excerpted above, as well as pursuant to Article 9 of the Condominium’s Declaration. Moreover, if a Condominium does not charge these types of fees back to a non-compliant owner, the fees must be absorbed by the rest of the owners. Finally, it is important to be aware that, if Ms. Hawkins had participated in the replacement of Kitec pipes using the Condominium’s contractors, the cost to her would have been significantly less, approximately $2,500.
Hawkins v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corp. No. 1696