3 total
Condominium rules prohibiting short-term rentals were upheld as reasonable interpretations of single-family residence requirements.
The applicants sought a declaration that new condominium rules prohibiting transient or hotel-like use of units were invalid, arguing inconsistency with declarations allowing no minimum lease term.
The respondents contended the rules were consistent with provisions requiring units to be used as private, single-family residences.
The court found the respondents' interpretation reasonable, upholding the new rules, and granted the respondents' cross-application for compliance.
The court dismissed the condominium corporation's appeal, upholding the finding that the disclosure statement regarding parking lease obligations was not misleading.
The appellant condominium corporation appealed a judgment dismissing its claim that the disclosure statement was false, deceptive, or misleading regarding the disclosure of parking lease obligations.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's conclusion that sufficient information was included in the disclosure statement and that it was not false, deceptive, or misleading.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
A condominium declaration restricting recreational common elements to residential owners does not require listing in Schedule F.
The appellant, a commercial condominium unit owner, sought to amend the condominium declaration to allow its employees access to recreational common elements (swimming pool, gymnasium, library, squash court) that were restricted to dwelling unit holders and their guests.
The application judge dismissed the application, holding that restrictions on the use of common elements need not be listed in Schedule F of the declaration under the Condominium Act.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding no error in the application judge's interpretation of the statutory provisions or his use of the zoning by-law to explain the declaration's proper interpretation.
