Our readers may have recently seen the media coverage respecting the right of a condominium owner to fly a Canadian flag on the exterior of his unit. While we respect the concerns raised by all sides in that particular situation, the media coverage has raised a good opportunity to examine a condominium’s right to regulate its common elements. Continue reading “Flagging Issues on the Common Elements”
The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled on the circumstances that may give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in R v Jarvis. While the case was decided in the criminal context (with respect to the charge of “voyeurism”), it has potential wide-reaching implications on privacy rights in general. Continue reading “Are Condominium Residents Entitled to Privacy on the Common Elements?”
Ontario’s new home warranty program – Tarion – is governed by the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and certain Regulations (the “Warranty Act”). Under the Warranty Act, a warranty claimant with an unresolved claim must request conciliation (with Tarion) within a specified time limit. If the claimant does not do so, the claimant is “deemed to have withdrawn its claim.”
So, if a claimant hopes to continue its claim under the Warranty Act process, it is exceptionally important not to miss the “conciliation request deadline.” Continue reading “Tarion and the Dangers of the Conciliation Deadline”
We recently represented a client in a case involving a building scheme. In Chapadeau v Devlin et. al, 2018 ONSC 6456, a dispute arose between the Applicants (who are owner-residents) and their Co-Tenancy Association (the “Association”) regarding exterior alterations undertaken by the Applicants to their unit’s rooftop deck in 2016. Continue reading “What Are Building Schemes and How Do They Work?”
A recent court decision, York Condominium Corporation No. 78 v Stein, nicely summarizes the principles that apply when an owner makes changes to the common elements.
In this case, the owner had made substantial renovations to her apartment, which also included some changes to the common elements. For instance, the owner had made changes to electrical and plumbing features, as well as to heating equipment in the apartment, and these were changes to the common elements (in the case of York Condominium Corporation No. 78).
The court noted that the owner had made the changes without complying with Section 98 of the Condominium Act, 1998, which includes the requirements for consent of the Board and for a registered agreement between the condominium corporation and the owner. The court also noted that the changes were a possible threat to safety.
The court granted the condominium corporation full access to the unit (upon 48 hours’ notice to the owner) for the purpose of:
- carrying out a full inspection to determine any further unauthorized additions and/or alterations to the common elements;
- restoring any such unauthorized additions and/or alterations to the common elements to their original condition;
- carrying out a full inspection to determine whether the current state of the Unit poses any risk(s) as provided for in section 92 of the Act.
In my view, some of the key points to take away from this case are as follows:
- When an owner renovates a unit, the renovations may include changes to the common elements.
- An owner’s changes to the common elements must comply with Section 98 of the Condominium Act. Briefly, the requirements of Section 98 are:
- Consent of the board;
- An agreement between the corporation and the owner, registered on title to the owner’s unit;
- In some cases, involvement of all owners in the approval.
- One of the obligations of the condominium corporation is to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with Section 98.
- In each case, the corporation should also consider whether or not the changes could represent any risk to safety.
Read more about changes to common elements in our previous blog post.