Michelle Kelly

Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 519 (CCC 519) brought an application seeking to compel Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 656 (OCC 656) and Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 522 (CCC 522) to share the costs of replacing a critical electric switchgear (ESG) located on CCC 519's property but serving all three condominiums.

CCC 522 agreed to contribute, but OCC 656 refused, arguing its declaration did not require it and CCC 519 was responsible for its common areas.

The court applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment, finding OCC 656 had been incontrovertibly benefited and failed to establish a juristic reason for retaining the benefit without contributing.

The court rejected the argument that the absence of a cost-sharing agreement constituted a juristic reason.

The application was granted, requiring both respondents to share costs equitably, with a reference directed for cost apportionment if necessary.

The applicant unit owner sought an oppression remedy and $50,000 in damages against the respondent condominium corporation and its volunteer directors, alleging they oppressively delayed replacing his drafty bedroom window for 13 years.

The court dismissed the application, finding the corporation acted reasonably, followed its window replacement policy, and did not breach its duty to repair.

The court also held that suing the directors personally was vexatious, as there were no allegations of bad faith or personal benefit to support personal liability.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application for a compliance order against the respondent unit owners, who continued to smoke on their balcony in violation of a newly passed rule prohibiting smoking on exclusive use balconies.

The respondents argued that they owned a portion of the balcony exclusively, that the rule was improperly passed, and that the rule was unreasonable or should have included a grandparenting clause.

The court found that the entire balcony was an exclusive use common element, the rule was properly passed, and the rule was reasonable given the context of second-hand smoke and nuisance.

The court granted the application and ordered the respondents to cease smoking on their balcony immediately.

A condominium unit owner challenged the condominium corporation’s decision to replace garage roof decks and impose special assessments to fund the work, alleging the project constituted a substantial alteration to common elements requiring approval under s.97(4) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and seeking oppression remedies under s.135.

The court held the work constituted repair and maintenance of common elements within s.97(1), undertaken using materials reasonably close in quality to the original in accordance with modern construction standards.

As such, the project was not a substantial alteration requiring owner approval.

The evidence also failed to establish oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly disregarding conduct by the corporation.

The corporation was entitled to levy special assessments and enforce payment through a lien.