Part 30 published on 01/05/10
Court orders removal of cats
The corporation’s declaration stated that there could only be one pet per unit and “all dogs and cats must be kept under personal supervision and control and held by leash at all times during ingress and egress from the unit and while on the common elements of the building or on the grounds”. The declaration also said that the board could ask that pets be removed from the property if deemed to be a nuisance.
The respondent resident owned two cats which were allowed to roam freely on the property. The corporation received complaints about the cats defecating and leaving dead prey on the common elements. After numerous warnings, the corporation ultimately declared the cats to be a nuisance and demanded that they be removed. The Court upheld the board’s decision. The court said:
“Where the court is asked to enforce a declaration by a corporation great deference should be shown to that declaration. It is not for the court to substitute its view of what is reasonable for that of the board. If the board has acted reasonably and not capriciously it is important that the court support the board’s decision.”
“While it may be true that other pets are wandering around the condominium complex unleashed on occasion or that other residents are feeding chipmunks, and song birds, it would appear that these activities have not caused such a nuisance as to require the board to act. While a board has a duty to enforce its own declaration and rules where the violation thereof is causing a problem, not every minor violation of a declaration must be met with an enforcement procedure. It is for the board to exercise its discretion in the best interests of the residents of the corporation.”
“I am satisfied that the board was within its rights to pass the declaration deeming the cats a nuisance and requiring that they be removed. I am further satisfied that the board acted reasonably in providing the applicant with notice over a two-year period before taking action. The actions of the board should therefore be upheld by the court.”
The court also ordered the respondent to pay costs on a full recovery basis.