Friday, February 12, 2016

Smoking in your Toronto Condo? DENIED

“The old adage that ‘a man’s home is his castle’ is subordinated by the exigencies of modern living in a condominium setting.  Living in a condominium necessarily involves a surrender of some degree of proprietary independence and owners are subject to the collective’s bylaws and rules. At the same time, owners have the benefit of the bylaws and rules which provide a measure of control over their environment.”

New Laws coming within the By Laws that you can't smoke within your own condominium unit. 

The British Columbia Supreme Court recently ordered
a condominium unit owner to cease smoking in his unit in contravention of the strata corporation’s bylaws.
The unit owner was a 70-year old “life-long smoker”, who purchased his unit in 2002. In 2009 the strata corporation passed a bylaw which prohibited smoking in the building, including in the units. However, the corporation did not attempt to enforce the bylaw against the unit owner until 2013, after receiving complaints from other residents. Numerous notices of violations were sent to the owner, detailing the days and times when he was alleged to have smoked in the unit. As the British Columbia governing legislation permits strata corporations to impose fines on non-compliant owners, the unit owner was fined for his numerous violations and at the time of the court hearing the fines (which were unpaid) amounted to $2300. Despite the notices of violation and the fines, the owner continued to smoke in his unit. For that reason the strata corporation sought a declaration from the court that the owner was in contravention of the bylaw and an order that he immediately cease and desist from contravening the bylaw.
The strata corporation took the position that the owner’s ongoing smoking in the unit:
§ caused a nuisance and disturbance for other residents;
§ created health risks relating to second-hand smoke;
§ increased the risk of fire;
§ diminished the other owners’ use and enjoyment of their property due to the smell of smoke;
§ negatively affected property values; and
§ encouraged other residents to ignore the bylaw.
While the owner admitted that he smoked in his unit, he disputed the number of violations and claimed that he was being discriminated against due to his addiction to smoking and mobility problems which he claimed prevented him from walking off the strata property in order to smoke. Consequently, the owner filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, claiming that his addiction to cigarettes and his mobility problems constituted a disability that the corporation was obligated to accommodate. The human rights case had not yet been heard when this decision was delivered.
As the owner admitted that he did smoke in his unit, the Judge readily concluded that the owner repeatedly breached the no-smoking bylaw. After noting that there were repeated violations of the bylaw by the owner, and that the strata corporation and the other owners had a reasonable expectation that the no-smoking bylaw would be enforced, the Judge ordered that the owner immediately cease and desist from smoking in his unit in contravention of the bylaw.

“The old adage that ‘a man’s home is his castle’ is subordinated by the exigencies of modern living in a condominium setting.  Living in a condominium necessarily involves a surrender of some degree of proprietary independence and owners are subject to the collective’s bylaws and rules. At the same time, owners have the benefit of the bylaws and rules which provide a measure of control over their environment.”

As noted by the Judge on more than one occasion, the owner did not challenge the validity of the bylaw. (In its zeal to impose the smoking prohibition, the corporation did not offer to grandfather any existing owners who smoked for as long as they continued to reside in their units.)  Had the owner challenged the validity of the bylaw itself, the outcome of this case may have been different.
 It will be interesting to see the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal, especially in view of the fact that human rights legislation prevails over other legislation in the event of a conflict.

If you live in a condo you agree to live by Condo By Law Rules

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Parking Disputes in a Condo

Posted: 11 Feb 2016 01:21 AM PST
In condominium living, the needs of the fewcoloured cars in parking garage 
must be balanced with the needs of the many. Compromise by owners and residents is necessary in order to achieve a harmonious condominium community. Where balance and compromise are missing, things can get very ugly.
A recent case, Couture v. TSCC No. 2187, illustrates how a dispute relating to condominium parking escalated out of control and it was up to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice “to unwind the tangled web that the parties wove”.
The Facts
The condominium consisted of 44 residential units, with just 32 parking spaces. The condominium declaration provided that the Board had the authority to assign the right to lease a parking space to unit owners in the condominium. The declaration further provided that: (i) leases would automatically terminate when the tenant ceased to be an owner of a residential unit, (ii) unit owners could not assign the parking leases or otherwise convey a parking space, and (iii) all motor vehicles parked in the parking spaces must have valid license plates and insurance and be in good working order. Unfortunately the condominium corporation did not document the parking arrangements with owners by way of written leases.
One unit owner kept a car with expired licences plates and no insurance in her parking space for several years. The Board then wrote to her demanding that she bring the car into good repair, insured and with active plates within 30 days. After no action or response to this letter (which the owner claimed she never received), a further letter was sent giving her an additional month to March 31, 2012 to bring the car into good standing, failing which her car would be towed to the street and the parking space leased to another owner on the waiting list. The Board also returned the owner’s two post-dated cheques for the combined monthly common expenses and the parking fee.
The owner took the position that the unwritten lease could be terminated only if she ceased to be the owner of a unit in the condominium and re-submitted her post-dated cheques. In any event, after receiving the second letter the owner had her car removed and sent to an auto repair shop – by doing so, she was no longer in breach of the declaration.
A couple of days before the Board’s March 31, 2012 deadline, the Board wrote to the unit owner that her parking privileges were withdrawn and her parking space was being reassigned to another owner. Once again her post-dated cheques were returned and she was asked to submit new cheques to cover only the common expenses. The owner refused to submit cheques for just the common expenses and the corporation refused to cash any of the owner’s cheques that included payment of the parking fee.
As a result, the unit owner fell into arrears in the payment of common expenses. In addition to the arrears, the corporation also sought to collect payment of its legal fees relating to the parking lease termination and correspondence from its lawyer relating to the multiple exchanges of the post-dated cheques.
After the unit owner delivered a notice of dispute in accordance with the mediation and arbitration provisions in the corporation’s by-law, the Board responded that the unit owner was a vexatious litigant and refused to participate in any mediation or arbitration proceedings. In doing so, the Board completely disregarded section 132 of the Condominium Act, which imposes compulsory mediation and arbitration of disputes between condominium corporations and unit owners.
Eventually, the corporation filed liens against the owner’s unit for unpaid common expenses and legal fees. The Board also imposed on more than one occasion an administrative fee in the amount of $250 (as permitted under the corporation’s by-law) against the owner for alleged harassment and alleged tampering with security cameras on the part of the owner’s husband.
This prompted the owner to commence legal proceedings against the corporation and its directors. The owner also moved out of her unit and eventually sold it to escape harassment from the Board.
The Outcome
The Court concluded as follows:
1. The corporation did not have any right to terminate the parking lease prior to the March 31, 2012 deadline set by the Board. However, as the owner did not show to the court that she suffered any loss or harm from the wrongful termination of the lease. no damages were awarded to the owner in respect of this breach.
2. The two liens were not properly registered, as in both cases, they related to defaults more than three months old. As the owner continued to submit cheques, the corporation could have cashed the cheques and either refunded the parking fee or made it clear that the cheques were being cashed on a without prejudice basis as it related to the parking issues. “The liens were used to punish the applicant in legal fees rather than as bona fide methods to collect amounts fairly subject to lien rights.” The corporation was ordered to repay the amounts paid by the owner under protest to remove the liens, excluding the amounts attributable to the monthly common expenses.
3. The by-law provision that authorized the imposition of administrative fees was ultra vires and thus those administrative fees were improper.
4. The conduct of the Board was harsh, burdensome and oppressive.
“The registration of facially invalid liens, levying of subjective and arbitrary fines, and the refusal to mediate/arbitrate as required were not reasonable responses by a board seeking to manage the affairs of the corporation reasonably and in good faith.” The owner was only awarded $1000 as nominal damages for the corporation’s oppression, as the owner did not provide any evidence to support her claims for damages. The Court also noted that “the legal doctrine of ‘it takes two to tango’ suggests that the applicant was very much a participant in the escalation of hostilities between the parties.”
Throughout the decision the judge chastised the parties for the adversarial approach they took, rather than trying to reconcile their differences in a more conciliatory manner:
“Rather than addressing the issues that arose from the parties’ respective (mis)understandings of their rights and obligations, they determined to take tactical positions with each other that basically involved: name-calling, hyperbole, failure to listen, taking extreme positions, wasting time, money and effort, and causing themselves and each other distress.”

Be informed when you invest in a condo building; you are joining a community and accept the Rules and Regulations.

Selling a condo?

Give me a call Toronto, 647 218 2414

Friday, February 5, 2016

Exposed ONLINE Getting Viewed

How can you attract fresh eyes to your condo listing?

They are all the same right?

What if you could travel through your screen to every nook and cranny of each room; check the views from each window, take a walk in the kitchen before you go see the unit.

Virtual Image Technology; 3D Imaging is available right here in Toronto today!

The engagement from Viewers in 4 - 5 Times Higher than with a regular virtual tour and just shames those animated slide show viewers that are so 1999.

Engagement Increases as Condo Buyers share the virtual imaging Tour with their friends family and co workers. 

Call to book your Virtual Tours

Virtual Tours are included by tech savvy and Social Media Active Agents.

Your virtual Tour is available without charge included in the Bundle of Services provided by David Pylyp, Sales Representative, RE/MAX Realty Specialists Inc., Brokerage 416 232 9000.

Serving Etobicoke and Toronto.