Part 14 - 01/05/2006

We have found 10 items matching your search query.

Jurisdiction:

HOT TOPIC: BRITISH COLUMBIA DECISIONS INVOLVING APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATORS

There have been some important recent decisions in British Columbia respecting the appointment of administrators to govern the affairs of “dysfunctional” Strata Corporations.
Jurisdiction:

Strata Plan LMS 307 v. Krusozki

Sale of Strata Lot properly authorized
Jurisdiction:

Condominium Plan No. 0020701 v. Investplan Properties Inc.

Class Action by Condo Corporation
Jurisdiction:

Extra Gift Exchange Inc. v. Chung

Restitution for material supplied to condominium corporation, even though no agreement
Jurisdiction:

Niagara North Condominium Corporation No. 125 v. Waddington [(See Condo Cases Across Canada, Part 13 (February 2006)]

Going to the Court of Appeal In this case, both the landlord of a unit and the condominium corporation had been unsuccessful in their attempts to enforce a “No-Pets” provision in the condominium corporation’s declaration. The condominium corporation has appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The appeal is scheduled to be heard in the Fall of 2006. Niagara North Condominium Corporation No. 125 v. Waddington.pdf
Jurisdiction:

Ranftl v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 672 (December 19, 2005)

Powers of administrator expanded The court had previously appointed an administrator to attend to some of the affairs of the Strata Corporation.  One of the owners subsequently applied for an extension of the administrator’s authority.  The Court granted the application.  The Court noted that the small Strata Corporation (6 Strata lots) was dysfunctional and ordered that the administrator’s authority be expanded to include all of the powers and duties of the Strata council.  Ranftl v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 672.pdf
Jurisdiction:

Aviawest Resort Club v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1863 et al

Appointment of administrator extended
Jurisdiction:

Metropolitan Condominium Corporation No. 949 v. Staib [See Condo Cases Across Canada, Part 13 (February 2006)] (November 25, 2005 Ontario Court of Appeal)

Supreme Court of Canada refuses leave to appeal In this case, the Trial Court had declined to enforce a “No Pets” provision in a declaration in circumstances where the condominium corporation was deemed have been aware of the presence of a cat in a unit, but was too slow in taking steps to require the cat’s removal. The decision was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The condominium corporation then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court of Canada in April 2006, with costs awarded to the owner. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 949 v. Staib (Appeal).pdf
Jurisdiction:

Metropolitan Condominium Corporation No. 949 v. Staib [See Condo Cases Across Canada, Part 13 (February 2006)] (Ontario Superior Court)

Supreme Court of Canada refuses leave to appeal In this case, the Trial Court had declined to enforce a “No Pets” provision in a declaration in circumstances where the condominium corporation was deemed have been aware of the presence of a cat in a unit, but was too slow in taking steps to require the cat’s removal. The decision was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The condominium corporation then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court of Canada in April 2006, with costs awarded to the owner. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 949 v. Staib.pdf
Jurisdiction:

The Owners Condominium Plan No. 8221011 v. 775601 Alberta Ltd. and Doug Dueck

Condominium corporation granted Certificate of lis pendens against unit