Part 12 published on 01/11/05
“Determined” owner
The following two cases were heard separately, but the decisions were rendered simultaneously.
“Determined” owner
In this application, the corporation was essentially seeking a number of Orders from the Court to restrain the respondent from engaging in certain behaviours which were alleged to be a breach of one of the corporation’s rules. The rule in question prohibited owners from engaging in any noxious or offensive actions or activities which may be or may become a nuisance to other owners or occupants.
The behaviour in question involved commencing legal proceedings, allegations of dissemination of false and malicious information, pursuing claims of fraud with the police, abusive language to staff and members of the board of directors, engaging in “proxy fights”, and requests for access to information. While the court held that some of the owner’s behaviour could be described as rude and aggressive, the court accepted that the owner’s intention was to pursue her legal rights. The Court therefore found that the behaviour constituted no breach of the rule. Furthermore, the court found that behaviour which affects non-owners and non-occupiers (i.e. board members acting in their official capacities) could not be the subject of a breach of the rule.
The court also dealt with the interpretation of the section of the former Condominium Act (now section 55) dealing with access to records. The court confirmed that, while an owner is entitled to review records, the owner is not entitled to “engage in an investigation and demand responses from Directors, Officers or managers”. The Court said, in effect, that board members are not obligated to dialogue with owners.