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
COSTs punishment for unreasonable disregard of LANDLORD limits (NOISY TENANT; MTCC 933 v LYN) 2020/07/13 19:22  
Not legal advice, as usual...

AGAINST A NON-RESIDENT CONDO LANDLORD OWNER a Toronto Superior Court judgment has refused to award costs to obtain a Condominium Act 1998 section 134 (5) compliancing order issued to halt sporadic overnight noise by that landlord's residential tenant.

The award is solely against the tenant.

The judge expressly rejects that the condo corporation's compliancing Application had been sought jointly and severally against BOTH the noise-maker tenant and the non-resident owner.

He issued the Order on Jan.13/20 ( M.T.C.C. # 933 v Lyn 2020 ONSC 196 issued Jan 13/20 )

But only released the costs decision in late June ( M.T.C.C. # 933 v Lyn 2020 ONSC 3853 issued June 22/20 )

( But did he really read section 134 (5) ? )

Whether or not the judge grasped the statutory power to chargeback in section 134 ( 5 ) a legal article reviewing the decisions focusses on a factual finding of lack of reasonableness in governancers' expectation of the landlord. At least 3 or 4 demand letters to the landlord apparently weren't apparently enough involvement and notice.

This of course occurs within a jurisdiction laced with pro-tenant protections.

The article tries to imply an analogy to the Amlani ( reasonableness ) decision not actually cited within this noise control matter. Is this valid ?

( Lots of folks in condos or Buildings Schemes or whatsoevers, can find themselves between a rock & a hard place. Amlani was in a class by itself & getting voodoo demand letters heading him actually to Power of Sale . . . )

Posted at C/A network July 13/20 : “July 2020 - What Steps Should a Condo Corporation Take Before Enforcing the Rules Against a Tenant ? " by L Glithero, J Hoffer and S Sutherland ( Cohen Highley LLP ) before-enforcing-the-rules-against-a-tenant/

update at Aug 19/20 As reviews of the decision appear, will this be looked at as centrally concerning "reasonableness" ?

But the decision seems oblivious that in current section 134 ( 5 ) the Legislature itself has prescribed that automatically the Order-obtaining costs ( targetting either an owner OR OCCUPIER's shenanigans ) SHALL be added to the unit's common expense .

Whether a landlord successfully next collects & hits a tenant with an N 5 over it . . . .
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster