Part 38 published on 01/05/12
Bylaws exempted developer’s vacant units from condominium fees for first year
?The developer passed bylaws stating that, for the developer’s unsold vacant units, no condominium fees would be payable for the first year, and no contribution was required to the capital reserve fund. The condominium corporation sought to have the bylaws set aside as either void or the result of oppressive conduct by the developer.
The Court held, based upon the available evidence, that there was no oppression or “improper conduct” for purposes of section 67 of the Condominium Property Act. The Court said: “The bylaws were provided to the purchasers in this case as required by law.” And the Court said that there was no evidence as to the expectations of the purchasers (nor any evidence that those expectations had not been met).
The Court also considered whether or not the bylaws might be void as in contravention of section 39 of the Condominium Property Act. The Court asked for further submissions on this question and reserved its decision pending those further submissions.
[Editorial Note: My understanding is that further submissions, and a resulting decision, respecting whether or not the bylaws are in compliance with section 39 of the Condominium Property Act, have not been forthcoming.]