Part 56 published on 01/11/16
Court orders appointment of administrator as well as special levy
The strata corporation had been unwilling or unable, for many years, to arrange for necessary repairs to the building’s envelope. As a result, the Court ordered that an administrator be appointed and the Court also ordered a special levy of approximately $16.8 million. The Court said:
The water ingress problem at Gardenia Villa is serious and dates back to shortly after the residential complex was built in 1994. In some instances, drywall and carpets are soaked, walls and ceilings are stained, and condensation collects on window interiors. A number of units suffer from mould growth, and failed window and door seals. Several units have been tarped; some tarps have been left in place since a prior remediation attempt was abandoned in 2012. Owners complain that the mould in their homes has caused respiratory diseases and skin problems (such as eczema) as well as anxiety and stress.
…
In light of the admitted dispute between competing groups, the inability of the strata corporation to effectively implement and oversee these repairs over the course of two decades, and the consequent protracted delay in repairing the common property, it is patent that the appointment of an administrator is in the best interests of the strata corporation. I so order.
…
While I agree that s. 173(2) provides an additional remedy to owners who are seeking approval of a levy in circumstances were a 3/4 vote is defeated but where a bare majority approves the levy, I do not accept that that the enactment of this provision circumscribes the authority and the discretion of this Court to issue a special levy in the proper circumstances, even if less than a bare majority of owners approve the levy. In this regard, the reasoning in cases such as Clarke and Toth remains compelling. Put differently, the broad remedial powers of the Court under the Act have been expanded rather than constrained by the enactment of s. 173(2).
