Chan v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1834 (Ontario Court of Appeal)

The lower Court held that the owner was responsible for water damage, and that the Corporation’s lien for recovery of the related amounts was valid and proper. [See Condo Cases Across Canada, Part 33, February 2011]  The lower Court also enforced the single family use restriction in the Corporation’s governing documents.  The lower Court said that the meaning of the term “family” had been decided in the case of Nipissing Condominium Corporation No. 4 vs. Kilfoyl. [See Condo Cases Across Canada – Part 28, November 2009, and Part 30, May 2010.]  Therefore, the occupants of each unit had to be related.   Finally, the lower Court had also ordered the owner to remove locks that she had installed on some of the interior doors of the unit. 

The owner appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower Court decision. In upholding the lower Court decision, the Court of Appeal said: 

There was sufficient evidence to support the application judge’s essential factual finding, namely, that the water damage in unit 2208 was caused by a leak in the appellant’s unit, 2308.…

In our view, the application judge was correct to conclude that the occupancy in unit 2308 was outside the Declaration and Rules of the Corporation. In addition, there was not a sufficient evidentiary record to support an estoppel grounded argument for the appellant.

…

These locks were a clear violation of the Declaration. 

[Editorial Note:  Again, the decision contains no mention of an Insurance Deductibles By-law, pursuant to s. 105 of the Condominium Act, 1998. Like the lower Court, the Court of Appeal does not make mention of the fact that the water damage is ‘insured damage’ and the owner has the benefit of the Condominium Corporation’s property insurance, subject to the deductible. The obligations with respect to the deductible portion of the loss are then governed by s. 105.]