Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
CAFCOR Forum
_GEN_GOTOBOTTOM Post Reply
TOPIC:
#19021
PROVINCE INVITES INPUT : changes INCLUDING to widen jurisdiction CAT TRIBUNAL dispute resolution 2019/12/15 18:55  
( Thursday Dec 12, 2019 ! : ) Ontario Provincial invitation ( for public input ) has just been issued for public comment # 19-MGCS012 with deadline Jan 31 2020.

Arguably VERY TIGHT timeframe on brink of a major holiday period but AT LEAST with input possible to M.G.S. Min Govt Services by e-mail linked below.

Quite a challenge. How many will even see it or respond on time ?

Appears that the drafters only contemplate "undesirable" outcomes solely of "persons" ( ie owners/occupants/guests/ mortgagees ? Whether of managers ? Directors etc ? ) rather than those of the condo corporation itself. One might argue that "corporations" may variably have obtained aspects of "personal" status. But of course who ever heard of a condo corporation or governancers themselves causing a nuisance ?

The aspect involving Condo Act 1998 changes, also suggests that the Tribunal would be left to further develop how it will evolve consistent "nuisances" criteria rather than relying on site-specific covenants of variable - even dubious - credibility.

Proposals include :

"platforming" ( ? and arguably subtle but wider ? ) change to Ontario's Condominium Act 1998 and

widening CAT tribunal jurisdiction to statutorily deem certain nuisance /annoyance activities.

To widen CAT Ontario's tribunal jurisdiction https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=30228&language=en

and to amend Condominium Act 1998's O.Reg 179/17 https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/showAttachment.do?postingId=30228&attachmentId=42297


and to amend Condominium Act 1998's O.Reg 48/01 https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/showAttachment.do?postingId=30228&attachmentId=42296

MGS invitation's Thurs Dec 12/19 xcrpted :

" . . . . Currently, the CAT can only deal with certain disputes related to the retention of and access to condominium corporation records.

The Ministry of Government and Consumer Services proposes the expansion of the scope of disputes that can be heard by the CAT, in a staged process, beginning with this proposal.

The Ministry of Government and Consumer Services is proposing that a new section 117 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (Condo Act) be proclaimed into force as well as amendments to two regulations under the Condo Act (O. Reg. 48/01, and O. Reg. 179/17).

The proposal, if approved, would establish certain nuisances, annoyances, and disruptions that are to be prohibited on condominium properties and any assets of a condominium corporation including:

• Noise
• Odour
• Smoke
• Vapour
• Light
Vibration
• Infestation


In addition, the proposal, if approved, would broaden the scope of disputes that can be heard by the CAT. This would include disputes related to:

• The above-noted nuisances, annoyances, and disruptions.
• Condominium corporation declarations, bylaws or rules provisions that prohibit, restrict or otherwise govern other nuisances, annoyances, or disruptions.
• Such declarations, bylaws or rules provisions that prohibit, restrict or otherwise govern pets or other animals, vehicles, parking and storage.
Such declarations, bylaws or rules provisions that govern indemnification or compensation of a condominium corporation, owner or mortgagee regarding the above disputes.

The ministry is proposing to have these regulatory proposals and related Condo Act amendments come into force on July 1, 2020.

Your feedback will help inform how the proposal may impact condominium unit owners, condominium corporations, the CAO, the CAT, and the condominium sector in general.

The ministry welcomes feedback and encourages anyone interested to provide comments on its proposal. You may submit your comments to the Regulatory Registry." - unquote
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#19022
Will Province funnel so-called CHARGE BACK DISPUTES into the Tribunal ? 2019/12/27 19:34  
Again not legal advice. And so Ontario - long after some American jurisdictions - may be taking one cautious step to come to grips with misuse of so-called "charge-backs" / so -called "indemnifications".

That's providing a cost-limited adjudicative FORUM TO DISPUTE unit-specific "contribution-addition powers" as claimed derived solely from site-specific documents. Derived and with "factuals" to be determined extra-judicially by managements & Boards. Even merrily tolerated by some judges . . .

That's rather than from express provisions of legislation like sections 92, 98, 105 and 134(5) with degrees of legality & judicial oversight.

1 - They've been a handy extra-legal tool for one civil disputant to punish another without judicial involvement. Like some sort of blessing to shoot an offending dog or to vandalize a disputant's car windows. How hard will this power be defended ?

2 - Further, what sort of comment - will be heard about allowing such disputes to be resolved with limits on legal costs awardable ?

Outside the condo universes, many landlords dislike the levelling effect of Ontario's Landlord & Tenant Board.

3 - One has to fit such possibilities into the proclamation-awaited beefing up of Section 117 of the Condominium Act 1998. A bigger stick and wider reach for governancers.

Current at Dec 27/19 :

. . . . Dangerous activities

117 No person shall permit a condition to exist or carry on an activity in a unit or in the common elements if the condition or the activity is likely to damage the property or cause injury to an individual. 1998, c. 19, s. 117.

"Awaiting proclamation" : Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 117 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 102)[/i]

Prohibited conditions and activities

117 (1) No person shall, through an act or omission, cause a condition to exist or an activity to take place in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation if the condition or the activity, as the case may be, is likely to damage the property or the assets or to cause an injury or an illness to an individual. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 102.

Same

(2) No person shall carry on an activity or permit an activity to be carried on in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation if the activity results in the creation of or continuation of,

(a) any unreasonable noise that is a nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation; or

(b) any other prescribed nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 102." - unquote
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#19023
Is mere critical free speech A NUISANCE ? 2019/12/27 21:15  
Again not legal advice.

1 - Do some Boards misunderstand their legal limit ? Unfortunately some governance Boards may understand charge-backs only too well :

Alberta judge rejects bizarre GAG ORDER sought ( against outspoken owner critic ) by an Edmonton condo Board. The plaintiff Board sought to throttle MERE CRITICISM which it argued was "improper" and in violation of both Alberta's Condominium Property Act RSA 2000 c C-11 and ( Pepperwood condo ) by-laws against illegality, injuriousness, nuisance or hazard !

Not even a whacky U.S. story.

( https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&catid=11&id=19006#19006

Owners: Condominium Plan No 7921815 (Pepperwood Village) v MacMillan, 2019 ABQB 642 issued Aug 14/19 http://canlii.ca/t/j1zjf )

2 - The problem of distinguishing between a stakeholder 's arguably legitimate criticism of governance, as opposed to nuisance personal harassment / arguably false complaining to authorities as a weapon of neighbour vs neighbour warfare.

At some point the dividing line fades, but where ? Ask your lawyer.

Johnson v Cline 2017
as upheld by ONCA 2019 & SCC appeal refused. See cafcor topic “COMPLAINTS HELD NUISANCE / non-condo owner hit for $ 92 K ; JOHNSON v CLINE" https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=18987&catid=2

Johnson v Cline has already been specifically cited & applied in a Kitchener Ont Small Claims Court decision after similar years of non-condo /non Building Scheme bickering & complaints to authorities. See Doucette-Grasby v Brenton, 2019 CanLII 69714 (ON SCSM) http://canlii.ca/t/j1pn8 :

xcrpted
“ . . . [302] The case of Johnson v. Cline, 2017 ONSC 3916, 2019 ONCA 188 (CanLII), dismissed at trial and on appeal, has many similarities with this action. At trial, Glithero, J. found the plaintiff, Cline was obsessed with the actions of the defendants, evidenced by his conduct and excessive journaling. Cline’s actions amounted to nuisance and the Johnsons’ counterclaim against Cline was successful. . . " unquote
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster