Condominium Authority Tribunal
Date: May 16, 2022 Case: 2022-00089N Citation: Decoste v. Halton Condominium Corporation No. 134, 2022 ONCAT 51
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Nicole Aylwin, Member
The Applicant: Kathy Decoste Self-Represented
The Respondent: Halton Condominium Corporation No. 134 Represented by Erik Savas, Counsel
Hearing: Written Online Hearing – April 8, 2022 to May 9, 2022
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. INTRODUCTION
1The Applicant, Kathy Decoste, is a unit owner of the Respondent, Halton Condominium Corporation No. 134 (“HCC 134”). Ms. Decoste has requested that the Tribunal order HCC 134 to provide her with an exemption to HCC 134’s Rule 7.1, the “no dog rule” and provide legacy status1 to a dog which she has put a deposit on but is not yet in her possession. It is her position that when she placed the deposit on the dog, she was in full compliance with HCC 134’s rules at the time. It was only after she had made a commitment to purchase the dog that HCC 134 instituted the “no dog rule”, which, as of February 1, 2022, effectively prohibits owners from having dogs. Thus, she requests an exemption from Rule 7.1.
2It is HCC 134’s position that Ms. Decoste is not entitled to an exemption. It submits that Rule 7.1 clearly sets out who is entitled to an exemption and Ms. Decoste does not meet these criteria.
3Both parties agree that the rule itself is not in dispute. They further agree that the only issues to be decided are:
- Does Rule 7.1 the “no dog rule” apply to Ms. Decoste in this case? Should the dog she has placed a deposit on be provided legacy status?
- Should any costs be awarded to either party?
4For the reasons set out below I find that Rule 7.1 does apply to Ms. Decoste and HCC 134 is not required to provide legacy status to the dog that Ms. Decoste has made a deposit on. I further find that no costs are to be awarded in this case.
B. ISSUES & ANALYSIS
Issue no. 1: Does Rule 7.1, the “no dog rule”, apply to the Applicant in this case? Should the dog she has placed a deposit on be provided legacy status?
5According to Ms. Decoste, after attempting for some time to find and purchase a suitable dog, in October of 2021, she agreed to purchase a Dachshund from a breeder in Manitoba. However, due to conditions imposed by the breeder, the dog she agreed to purchase would not be available for her to pick up until Spring 2022. In November 2021, Ms. Decoste put down a deposit of $300 to secure the dog. On December 3 and 4, 2021, Ms. Decoste booked a flight to Winnipeg and rented a car so that she could pick up the dog in June of 2022.
6When Ms. Decoste made the deposit and booked her flight and rental car, the pet rule in effect at HCC 134 did not prohibit dogs. At the time, Rule 7.1 read:
No pet, reptile livestock, fowl, wild creature, other than a domesticated pet of the size not exceeding 20 pounds (9kg) shall be kept in a unit or be allowed upon the common elements. The pets kept in the building before the effective date will be exempted from this Rule
7According to board meeting minutes submitted by HCC 134, it was at a board meeting on December 7, 2021, that the board of directors agreed to introduce a new rule prohibiting dogs altogether, regardless of size. The proposed new rule would contain an exemption for dogs already reported and kept in the building. The proposed new Rule 7.1 read:
Rule 7.1 No dogs of any size resident or visiting are allowed at Lakewinds. The only exception can be the dogs reported and kept in the building before February 1, 2022.
8On December 20, 2021, the board sent a notice (the “Notice”) to all owners proposing the above change to the rules. The Notice, set out the proposed new rule, clearly alerted owners to the date the new rule would become effective (February 1, 2022), and provided owners with the required notice that under the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) they had the right to requisition a meeting to consider and vote on the proposed rule within 30 days of receiving the Notice. According to the witness statement provided by condominium manager, Shanta Persad, there was no requisition to call and hold a meeting. Consequently, the rule came into effect on February 1, 2022.
9After receiving the Notice, Ms. Decoste promptly sent an email to the condominium manager expressing her dismay at the rule change, explaining her situation and requesting exemption from the rule. She asked that legacy status be provided to the dog she had put a deposit on. This email led to a series of email exchanges between Ms. Decoste and the board wherein Ms. Decoste makes her case for an exemption and the board details their reasons for the rule change, citing a variety of ongoing problems and compliance issues with dogs on the property.
10On