Condominium Dispute Lawyer in Toronto

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1240 v. Debnath, 2023 ONCAT 56

In this case, the CAT dealt with a noise dispute where a condo owner was found to be in violation of noise and nuisance provisions. Despite the owner’s decision to not participate in the hearing, the Tribunal awarded the condo corporation only 50% of its legal fees, emphasizing the need for reasonableness in enforcing rules and assessing costs.

Here, the the applicant, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1240 (MTCC 1240), sought an order from the Condominium Authority Tribunal requiring S. D. a unit owner, to comply with noise and nuisance provisions in its declaration and rules. MTCC 1240 also requested indemnification for legal costs incurred due to S. D.’s non-compliance to the required regulations and rules of the condo.

The case focused on allegations that S. D. was violating the rules about loud levels of noise by playing music at excessively loud volumes, causing a disturbance to her neighbours. Despite receiving numerous complaints and notices from MTCC 1240 and its legal counsel, S. D. continued to play loud music. The Tribunal noted and took into consideration that S. D. did not participate in the case, although she acknowledged receipt of the notice.

The tribunal identified two key legal issues: whether S. D. failed to comply with the condominium’s governing documents related to noise, and whether MTCC 1240 was entitled to indemnification for the costs incurred in seeking compliance.

MTCC 1240 presented extensive evidence of noise complaints from neighbours, particularly from the adjacent unit. These complaints were documented by property management and security personnel, who confirmed the loud music was audible from outside Debnath’s unit. Despite suggestions to use headphones or lower the volume, Debnath continued her behaviour.

The tribunal found that S. D. violated Section 22(a) of the MTCC 1240 declaration, Rule 8, and Section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998. The evidence showed that her actions substantially interfered with the use and enjoyment of other units over several years. The tribunal ordered Debnath to comply immediately with the noise provisions.

Regarding indemnification, MTCC 1240 sought compensation for pre-tribunal legal costs and costs associated with the tribunal proceedings. The Tribunal reviewed the indemnification provisions in the declaration and rules, determining that the costs were reasonable and necessary to enforce compliance. The tribunal ordered S. D. to pay $2,830 for pre-tribunal legal fees and $2,975 for tribunal-related costs.

In the end, the Tribunal ordered S. D. to stop creating excessive noise and to reimburse MTCC 1240 for the legal costs that were incurred as a result of her non-compliance, emphasizing the importance of adherence to condominium rules for the benefit of all residents.

N.A. v. York Condominium Corporation No. 473, 2020 ONSC 194

This case involved a legal dispute in relation to the tenant, N. A., smoking within a unit and the condo corporation’s enforcement of its no-smoking policy. The Court found that the corporation had acted unreasonably and highlighted the importance of fair and consistent rule enforcement.

This case caused significant confusion in Ontario’s condominium sector, particularly around the issue of charging back enforcement costs to unit owners. The Superior Court held that a condominium could not charge back its legal costs for enforcement against a smoking unit owner due to a “limited indemnity” clause in its Declaration, which only covered physical damages to common elements or other units.

However, the ruling was misinterpreted by the Condominium Authority of Ontario (CAO) and the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT), resulting in them incorrectly interpreting the case to imply that chargebacks for legal costs should typically always require a Court Order. This interpretation prompted many condominium corporations to initiate more Compliance Applications in Superior Court to avoid issues. However, subsequent case law tells us that a Court Order is NOT always necessary to issue chargebacks.

This case deals with the issues of compliance within condominium regulations. The case often serves as a significant precedent in matters involving condominium corporations seeking enforcement of their rules and regulations against unit owners who violate them.

The case typically involves a scenario where a tenant engages in activities or maintains conditions within their unit that violates the condominium’s governing legislation or other rlues, including the declaration, by-laws, or rules. The condominium corporation, representing the interests of all owners, may then seek an order from a Tribunal or Court to enforce compliance and, in some instances, seek indemnification for legal costs that were sustained as a result of the non-compliance.

Key elements often include detailed documentation of the violations, efforts made by the condominium corporation to address the issue with the unit owner, and the legal grounds for seeking compliance and cost recovery. This case shows us the importance of maintaining a safe and enjoyable living environment for all residents while ensuring that individual owners comply with established community standards.

The Tribunal or Court’s decision in such cases typically includes an order for the unit owner to rectify the violations and may also require the owner to compensate the condominium corporation for the expenses incurred in enforcing compliance. This sets a clear precedent that non-compliance with condominium rules can lead to significant legal and financial consequences for unit owners.