19/12/2023– Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 85 published on 01/03/2024
Condominium corporations obligated to share certain repair and maintenance costs based upon the principle of unjust enrichment
The lower Court held that the condominium corporations were obligated to share in the cost for the required replacement of certain electrical equipment located on the property of the Applicant condominium (but which also benefitted the Respondent condominiums), based upon the principle of unjust enrichment. [See Condo Cases Across Canada, Part 82, June 2023.]
OCSCC 656 appealed. The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal said:
With respect to the argument that the absence of a cost-sharing agreement constitutes a juristic reason, we again see no error in the application judge’s conclusion. The appellant’s resort to TSCC No. 1633 v. TSCC No. 1809 and Baghai Development Ltd., 2017 ONSC 1372, is unavailing. The case does not stand for the proposition advanced by the appellant: that the absence of a cost‑sharing agreement between the parties constitutes a juristic reason justifying the retention of a benefit without obligation to pay. As the respondent argues, if the absence of a contract between the parties constitutes a juristic reason to retain a benefit, it would entirely oust the law of unjust enrichment in the context of disputes between condominium corporations.
Furthermore, TSSC No. 1633 is distinguishable on the basis that it dealt with a claim for a contribution to the maintenance of a shared driveway that was subject to an easement. There are well-established common law principles governing the obligations of servient tenements. None of them apply here. Although 656 has an easement over the lands of 519 for the purpose of accessing the electrical vault, the present dispute has nothing to do with maintenance of the lands subject to the easement.