Live-in Caregivers are Family

A recent Alberta decision from January, 2013, Condominium Plan No. 9910225 v. Davis (Alberta Court of Queens Bench), held that the ‘Single family’ provision in a condominium’s by-laws did not prohibit a caregiver from living in the unit with a resident. In this decision, the Court found that “the presence in a unit of a live-in caregiver, who is required to provide necessary assistance to infirm residents, does not mean the unit is ‘being used other than as a single family dwelling.

The condominium’s by-laws stated that the units could only be used as single-family dwellings, and that roomers and boarders were prohibited. The owner, who was 87 years old and blind, hired a live-in caregiver. The condominium corporation was of the view that a live-in caregiver was prohibited by the single family provision. The corporation sought to change the by-laws to specify that live-in caregivers were permitted, but 90% of the voting unit owners voted against the change at an annual general meeting. The corporation then started a court application to seek an order requiring the caregiver to vacate the unit.

The Court held that condo by-laws are a private contract among unit owners, to which the Alberta Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply. It also held that there were no prior cases on the issue of whether live-in caregivers, nannies, or maids were prohibited by single family provisions. The Court therefore made its decision based on its interpretation of the by-law itself, finding that the by-law did not prohibit live-in caregivers.

In coming to its decision, the Court examined a ‘purposive provision’ in the by-law. This provision stated that the purpose of the by-law included health, safety, comfort, and convenience of condo owners. The Court found that these purposes were incompatible with prohibiting live-in caregivers who are required to provide necessary care to residents.  Therefore, the Court felt that the term “family” should be interpreted to include live-in caregivers. The Court added that it would be open to the corporation to pass a new by-law, specifically prohibiting live-in caregivers, if it wished, stating; “that way, prospective purchasers might be made aware that, in the event that they suffer some catastrophe or infirmity, [the corporation] will require them to vacate, rather than have access to necessary live-in medical care.

What does this decision mean for Ontario condominium corporations? This decision is helpful for corporations that have single-family provisions, but wish to allow live-in caregivers. On the other hand, corporations that are seeking to exclude live-in caregivers, with or without an express provision to this effect, are still facing some uncertainty. My sense is that the Court only decided this matter with reference to the by-law to avoid addressing the more contentious human rights issue. The Court’s decision that the Alberta Human Rights Act did not apply to condo corporations was based on a narrow application of that Act. In Ontario, we know that the Human Rights Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act both apply to condo corporations and that it would be more difficult to avoid the human rights implications of such a prohibition. As such, I believe that prohibition of live-in caregivers might not even be possible in Ontario.

Share this:

Court Considers: Forced Sale of Owner’s Unit or Forced Removal from the Board

In extreme cases; such as when dealing with a very unruly owner or Director; the courts are sometimes asked for an order requiring the owner to sell his or her unit, or, in the case of a Director, requiring the removal of the Director from the Board. The most recent case of this sort in Ontario is the case of YCC 137 v. Hayes.

Here’s my summary of the case, published in the November 2012 edition of Condo Cases Across Canada, which I author, and is published quarterly by the National Chapter of the Canadian Condominium Institute (CCI).

York Condominium Corporation No. 137 v. Hayes (Ontario Superior Court) August 7, 2012

Court orders owner to refrain from assaulting, verbally abusing, swearing at, harassing, threatening or intimidating others.

The respondent owner, also a Board member, had engaged in violent and threatening behaviour. The details were summarized by the Court as follows:

“…the (owner) committed no less than five physical assaults on other condominium unit owners or occupiers and, in several other instances, engaged in verbal abuse, threats and intimidation in relation to a board member, other unit owners or occupiers and service providers to the condominium. The result of this behaviour is that the respondent has repeatedly intimated and instilled fear in a number of her fellow members of this community.

The Court held as follows:

“I am, therefore, satisfied that the (condominium corporation) has proved the various forms of misconduct, as summarized above, on a balance of probabilities. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the (condominium corporation) has proved that the (owner) has been repeatedly in violation of s. 117 of the Act and has also violated the declaration, by-laws and rules of the condominium.

The Court granted an order restraining the owner from continuing her improper conduct (which was specifically spelled out in the order). The Court declined to grant a “broad, permanent injunction” (requested by the condominium corporation) which would restrain the owner’s conduct in virtually all aspects of her interaction with the condominium and the members of its community. The Court felt that this would be “both overreaching and unworkable,” and instead granted a more specific order prohibiting the owner from repeating her improper conduct.

The Court also declined to order that the owner be removed from the Board. The Court said that such an order might be possible under section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998 in another case (where the respondent’s election was at issue), but was not appropriate on the facts of this case. The Court also said:

“In any event, even if I were to conclude that the jurisdiction of the court extended to the granting of an order removing a member of the board in the circumstances of this case, I would decline to exercise my discretion on the basis that there is a clear, well-established democratic process for the removal of a director prior to the expiration of his or her term set out in the legislation.”

The Court declined to order that the owner sell her unit and vacate the condominium, stating:

“…the remedy of forced sale is, in many ways, the ultimate and harshest remedy available. As such, it should be reserved for the most egregious cases.

In my view, before the harshest remedy is imposed, the (owner) ought to be given the opportunity to show that she is capable of complying with the rules and regulations governing behaviour in this community. I have made a restraining order imposing limitations on her behaviour. It is to be hoped that this order will have a salutary effect and that the (owner) is able to demonstrate her willingness to change and conduct herself in accordance with the rules which she agreed to when she purchased her unit.”

Share this:

Kingston Area Condominium Association (KACA) Seminar – April 27, 2013

James Davidson and Nancy Houle of Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP are two of the speakers at the upcoming Directors Seminar to be hosted by the Kingston Area Condominium Association (KACA), which will take place in Kingston on April 27, 2013. Topics will include:

  • Common Element Changes (sections 97 and 98 of the Condomium Act, 1998)
  • Update on Coming Changes to the Act
  • Recent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) Changes
  • Benefits of Engineering Specs/Drawings
  • Recent Court Decisions

For more information on this event, please click here.

If you would like to register for the seminar (registration cost $25.00), contact Wanda Blakney at (613) 531-7905 or

Share this: