Part 51 published on 01/08/15
Condominium corporation’s failure to address noise and vibration problems amounted to oppression
The applicant owned a penthouse unit. She complained about excessive noise and vibration from the elevators. She claimed to be oppressed in that the condominium corporation had failed to take proper steps to resolve the problems.
The Court agreed that the condominium corporation had not taken proper steps to resolve the problems. The Court said:
Peel has done a lot of investigation but it has done little to no work to solve the problem. There are not even any quotes for me to consider if the work is appropriate. There are no financial statements to consider balancing the interests of Ms. Wu and those of the rest of the residents. All I have is a promise to do work that is needed. Since Peel has done virtually nothing since 2011, I am not considering “good, better, best” solutions; I am considering no solution at all. Peel has failed to maintain and repair the elevators. It is in breach of its obligations.
The Court also found that the owner was oppressed. The Court said:
There is no reasonable explanation given as to why this took so much time. Having been prodded by counsel and this application, Peel got underway again. It now promises to take further steps that it should have taken long before. I find that Ms. Wu has been oppressed, unfairly prejudiced and unfairly disregarded.
The Court ordered that the parties “attend before me within the next 45 days to provide details and supporting documentation of what is to be undertaken to fix the problem”. The Court also awarded damages to Ms. Wu in the amount of $30,000.
The owner also alleged that the condominium corporation had failed to produce certain records requested by her, and claimed a $500 penalty pursuant section 55 of the Condominium Act. This claim was dismissed.
The Court said:
On this record, I cannot determine what was produced and when. It appears that some of the production issues arose within the contemplated litigation itself. That is a topic for costs and not a free standing order. That claim is dismissed.
The Court also said that the owner had failed to pay the corporation’s reasonable requested copying fee of $150, and had also failed to pick up the records. The Court said: “Ms. Wu should have picked up the documents without complaint”.