Part 6 published on 01/05/04
Estoppel certificate did not provide protection against cost of balcony repairs
The plaintiffs were the owners of separate units in the condominium. They had purchased their units in 1998. At the time, they had received estoppel certificates that included the following standard statement: Since the date of the “last financial statement, there has been no material adverse change in the assets or liabilities of the corporation”.
Commencing in 1996, concerns had arisen over the integrity of the balconies. A 1997 report contained a number of recommendations directed at preventing damage. Some work was done in 1997 and 1998, but the problems were observed to be worsening. By April of 1999, it was determined that serious balcony repairs were required, at an estimated cost of $250,000.
The Court compared the wording of estoppel certificates in Saskatchewan to status certificates in Ontario. The Court said that the “Ontario requirements are far more onerous than those required of the certificate under consideration in this case”. In Ontario, the certificate must disclose any known circumstances that may result in a common expense increase. This requirement does not apply in Saskatchewan. The Court found that the condominium corporation did not have sufficient information, at the time the estoppel certificates were issued in 1998, to conclude that there had been a “material adverse change in its assets or liabilities”. Therefore, the estoppel certificates were found to be accurate at the time of issuance and the plaintiffs had no basis of claim.