15/06/2022 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 78 published on 01/06/2022
Tribunal orders tenant to stop smoking cannabis
The Tribunal ordered a tenant to stop smoking cannabis in his unit, because this was causing a nuisance to other residents.
The Tribunal held that this contravened a provision in the condominium’s Declaration as well as Section 117 (2) of the Condominium Act and Section 26 of Regulation 48/01 (which lists smoke and odour as prescribed / prohibited nuisances under Section 117 (2)).
The landlord, Mr. Brunet, supported the condominium corporation’s application, and even asked that the Tribunal order the eviction of the tenant. However, the Tribunal declined to order the tenant’s eviction. The Tribunal said:
However, the Tribunal does not have the authority to make the requested order; section 1.44 (4) of the Act states “The Tribunal shall not make an order requiring a person to vacate a property permanently.”
In terms of costs: The Tribunal ordered the tenant (but not the owner) to pay costs and compensation to the condominium corporation totaling $600, comprised of $150 in Tribunal filing fees and $450 in administrative costs. The administrative costs were for expenses incurred to have cleaning staff go to the property outside of their normal working hours to investigate the odour complaints from other residents. The CAT said:
It is not reasonable that the owners whose quiet enjoyment of their units was disturbed by Mr. Abula’s cannabis smoking should pay even the relatively modest expense the corporation incurred. Therefore, I will order a compensation award of $450.
The Tribunal declined to order the owner to pay the above-noted amounts because the owner had made all reasonable efforts to obtain the tenant’s compliance.
Editorial Note: In my view, if the condominium’s governing documents include an appropriate indemnification provision, requiring a landlord to bear responsibility for costs caused by the landlord’s tenant, the landlord should in my view be jointly liable to the condominium corporation for the costs (even where the landlord has been entirely cooperative). The landlord should in turn be entitled to recover those costs from the tenant (if able to do so). That said: There was no mention of any indemnification provision in this case.Metropolitan Condominium Corporation No. 1177 v Brunet