as usual NOT legal advice.

A CBC TORONTO article about CONDO OCCUPANCY over-crowders, has triggered some overwhelmingly anti-management venom before the Comments were closed down.

It's only a mild version of many of comments typically seen at American websites & cable news when whatever the latest HOA or condo governance shenanigan gets thrown onto the fires. Lots of American folks now know PERSONALLY how oppressive & unlawful those can be.

Unfortunately none of the 230 Commenters bothers to look up section 57 "Occupancy Standards by-law" - an addition introduced effective May 4/5 2001 into Ontario's Condominium Act 1998 S.O. 1998 c.19

IF a valid Occupancy Standard by-law is in place, levies or charge-backs are actually legal to recover certain very specific occupancy costs.

That's "legal" because they arise from an express legislative provision.

NOT from what some Florida scum attorney throws against the wall to see if it sticks.

The only lawful occupancy violation levies however are limited under the Act's subsection 57 (4) to

" . . . .(a) an assessment for the amount that reasonably reflects the amount by which the contravention increases the cost of maintaining the common elements and repairing them after damage;

and

(b) an assessment for the amount that reasonably reflects the amount by which the contravention increases the cost of using the utilities that form part of the common expenses."

By-laws can expressly preclude "dens" ( or other non-bedrooms ) from proliferating lawful occupancy by pairs.

Commenters shriek about $ 30 per day condo corporation chargebacks at "Emerald Gate" ( 135 Hillcrest Ave in Mississauga ). Were those genuine incremental expenses of common areas ?

If they're angry now, good thing they don't notice that the presence of an Occupancy Standards by-law even legitimizes "prohibition" under subsection Act 57 ( 3 ) . Lockouts without court order ? Exactly what's it mean ? Enforcement problems of such would boggle the mind even in the age of FOBs and manned entry-points.

Some of the CBC article's angry commenters may themselves have received voodoo civil demand letters, lien threats & even liens lacking any legislated empowerment. One suspects such . . .

Because a $ 563 voodoo letter charge - not in the Act - is also applied.

then . . . so much fury that several misdirect the personal rage not at the originator but at a venerable condo law guru who's authored numerous texts. She provided some balanced advice . . .

There are many reasons why I would rather die under the wheels of my John Deere than live in a condo. BUT this issue here ain't one of them, except for voodoo demand letters being unlawfully rolled into so-called lienable "contributions".

May 27/20 “Family blasts 'ridiculous' condo occupancy fee after daughter comes home to shelter in place” by Chris Glover https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/family-blasts-ridiculous-condo-occupancy-fee-after-daughter- comes-home-to-shelter-in-place-1.5585134