|
Condominiums - Compliance Orders [s.134]. Peel Standard Condominium Corp. No. 779 v Rahman
In Peel Standard Condominium Corp. No. 779 v Rahman (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered a condo corporation appeal [under Condominium Act, 1998, s.1.46] from a decision of the Condominium Appeal Tribunal, here where the trbunal ordered that the respondent was "entitled to park in designated accessible parking spaces located outside the appellant’s building, and awarding ancillary relief (2021 ONCAT 13)". In these quotes the court considers s.134 compliance orders:Issue 5: Application of the Amlani Decision
[36] The Tribunal considered Amlani v. York Condominium Corporation No. 473, 2020 ONSC 5090 (Div. Ct.), and determined that it did not apply to the circumstances of this case. I agree with the Tribunal’s analysis of this point. At paragraphs 44 and 45 of the Decision, the Tribunal quotes from Amlani as follows:The Amlani case deals with the interpretation of an indemnification clause and the operation of section 134 of the Act. However, the case does not stand for the proposition that, through deft wording of an indemnification clause, a condominium corporation can deprive an owner of his or her day in court as provided for in subsection 134(5) of the Act. In fact, the Court says, at paragraph 34,It is one thing to allow the corporation to enforce, by way of lien, common expenses that are applicable to all unit holders and that a majority of unitholders have approved. It is entirely another to allow a condominium corporation the unfettered, unilateral right to impose whatever costs it wants on a unitholder, refer to them as common expenses and thereby acquire the right to sell the unitholder’s apartment. Another way of considering the matter is to determine if PSCC779’s interpretation of its indemnification clauses is reasonable. Here again, reference may be had to the Amlani case, where the Court wrote, at paragraph 46: Finally, the interpretation the Corporation advances contravenes section 134(5) of the Act because the costs it claims related to compliance and enforcement costs without being embodied in a court order. An interpretation that contravenes a statutory provision is, by definition, unreasonable…. [37] I see no error in the Tribunal’s interpretation and application of principles stated in Amlani.
|
