Part 18 published on 01/05/07
Window replacement project did not require owner involvement. (Arbitrator’s decision. Leave to appeal refused.)
One of the owners asserted that the Board did not have authority to replace the windows in the absence of a vote of the unit owners. The issue was whether the replacement of the windows was a repair or maintenance or, in the alternative, an addition, alteration or improvement. The issue was argued before an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator concluded that the window replacement fell within the mandate of the Board, and did not require owner involvement. Although the material used was not identical, it was reasonably close in quality to the original and therefore did not qualify as an “addition, alteration or improvement”, pursuant to Section 97 (1) of the Condominium Act, 1998. In summary, the window replacement was considered to be purely maintenance.
One of the owners applied for leave to appeal the Arbitrator’s Award. The Court refused the Application and the Arbitrator’s Award was accordingly final.
[The one owner (Solmica) had refused to allow the windows of its unit to be replaced. The owner was required to allow the window replacement to proceed.]