Part 29 - 01/02/2010

We have found 13 items matching your search query.

Jurisdiction:

HOT TOPIC: "MORE HUMAN RIGHTS"

Condominiums in Ontario (and in many other Canadian jurisdictions) are obligated to make accommodation for residents with disabilities. As a result, condominium corporations may be obligated to allow common element changes as necessary to accommodate a resident’s disability. All of this is subject to “undue hardship”: The accommodation – the change – must not result in undue hardship to the condominium corporation or to the other residents. But there’s a further question: Does the duty to accommodate include paying for the change? [Assuming a change is needed (to accommodate a resident’s disability), does the condominium corporation pay for the change or does the owner pay for the change?]
Jurisdiction:

Jeffers v. York Condominium Corporation No. 98 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

Owner’s claims against condominium corporation for property damage dismissed. Condominium corporation’s lien upheld.
Jurisdiction:

Peace v. Strata Plan VIS2165 (British Columbia Supreme Court)

No significant unfairness where special levy is based on unit entitlements
Jurisdiction:

Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 687 v. ING Novex Insurance Co. of Canada (Ontario Court of Appeal)

Replacement of defective standpipe system not covered by property insurance
Jurisdiction:

Wentworth Condominium Corporation 198 vs. McMahon (Ontario Court of Appeal)

Hot tub not an addition, alteration or improvement to common elements
Jurisdiction:

DiSalvo v. Halton Condominium Corporation No. 186 (Ontario Human Rights Tribunal)

Condominium corporation must pay for townhouse entrance ramp
Jurisdiction:

Strata Plan VR386 v. Luttrell (British Columbia Supreme Court)

Owner not entitled to withhold Strata Fees
Jurisdiction:

Mount Royal Properties Limited v. Condominium Corporation No. 0113054 (Alberta Court of Queen's Bench)

Voting must be based on unit factors The by-laws of the condominium corporation said that, on a show of hands or secret ballot, voting would be on the basis of one vote per unit; but on a poll, voting would be on the basis of unit factors. The Court said that the by-law was in conflict with Section 26(1) of the Condominium Property Act, which requires that all voting be on the basis of unit factors. The provisions of the by-law which were in conflict with the Condominium Property Act were declared to be void and of no effect. Mount Royal Properties Limited v. Condominium Corporation No. 0113054.pdf
Jurisdiction:

Longley Condominium Services Ltd. v. Condominium Corporation No. 7910117 (Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner - Alberta)

Condominium minutes did not breach PIPA
Jurisdiction:

Condominium Corporation No. 012 5331 v. W. De Silva Properties Inc. (Alberta Court of Queen's Bench)

Arbitration under Alberta New Home Warranty Program not stayed as result of simultaneously court claim
Jurisdiction:

Saulnier v. Le Syndicat des Copropri̩taires de Domaine de L'Avenir - Phase I (Cour sup̩rieure du Qu̩bec District de Laval)

Owner not entitled to interior parking space
Jurisdiction:

Minox Equities Ltd. and Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 106 v. The Sovereign General Insurance Company (Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench)

Mould damage covered by property insurance policy