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:
#19247
TWO SHOCKERS at Tribunal including WIDTH of its JURISDICTION; invalid Declaration change 2021/07/07 17:11  
Not legal advice, as usual.

ONCAT Ontario's Condominium Authority Tribunal has less punch than its B.C. (semi-)counterpart. But what comes into view can sometimes be eye-opening.

At the very least a side effect can happen to be accidentally opening a real-life window - including about potentially abusive power imbalances - for the Legislature & potential condo buyers.

Some stuff can be dramatic eg 2020's “HIGHRISE ended arms-length MANAGEMENT, then AGMs, then LAWFUL DATE-SPECIFIC Board Meetings – ONCAT” https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&catid=2&id=19064#19064 ( " ONCAT Ontario's Condominium Authority Tribunal, is arguably like a piano player in a whore house. . . . " )

1 - Ajayi v W.C.C. # 629( 2021 ) ONCAT 59 issued June 30/21 https://canlii.ca/t/jgpcf

Such can be the power imbalances, that a dissenting owner went through an ONCAT process just to crawl away with a settlement by which he is allowed to just ASK QUESTIONS.

That's asking ABOUT HIS OWN COMMUNITY'S FINANCIAL MATTERS AT ANY OWNERS MEETING ( if any such will be called ).

One wonders what kind of answers he might get, given that all he has been able to get through the ONCAT resolution process is merely to be able to "ask questions" ! ! Not even to "get answers" nor necessarily transparent accountability . . .

W.C.C. # 629 agrees to “ . . . Permit the Applicant to attend Meetings of Owners and to pose questions as permitted under the Condominium Act, 1998, which includes, but is not limited to the following:
• The financial status of the corporation
• Special Assessments . . . ” - unquote

2 - TW Cross Investments Ltd. v. Peel S.C.C.# 1052, 2021 ONCAT 58 issued June 28/21 https://canlii.ca/t/jgnq1

An adjudicator delivers a wider view of ONCAT's newly added pet-disputes scope than what some initially expected.

Here it's a pronouncement that such jurisdiction is wide enough to even look at alleged lack of lawful due process in the enactment of a DECLARATION CHANGE. That is, on its face it pronounces a jurisdiction to look at an alleged procedural violation of an important, legislated procedural step protecting owners & lenders.

( The “pet aspect” is that the existing Declaration reportedly does NOT platform a commercial veterinary practice. Means : ? more consumer parking ? noise ? odours ? hours of operation ? hygienic ? The community is a commercial condo community in which the allegedly Act-violating process would culminate in the enlargement of potential commercial usages beyond what the original Declaration permits. )

Not about : "you're being mean to my dog or cat". Nor "the Board refuses to gag the profane shrieking parrot of its President in the nextdoor unit !"

But rather : "In contravention of the Condominium Act 1998's section 107, the Board illegally refused to hold an Owner's meeting to priorly discuss the proposed Declaration change."

Although section 107 Declaration amendments are by discrete CONSENT documents - NOT by a concurrent "vote" - such Owners Meeting can be seen as a legislatively-imposed, important due process component for dissenters to meaningfully take part in an extremely important stakeholder decision.

And to ask questions, to be influenced & potentially to be able to influence other stakeholders. It might also be easier to casually get a Consent from an owner who has not been exposed to other views nor other balanced objections.

Fast and furious arguably is not what the Legislature wants applied to Declaration changes.

Sidebar issue : IF ONCAT eventually decides to rule the Declaration was NOT lawfully amended, what would be the ramifications on any already completed unit transfer ( & business set up . . ? )

OUTCOME :

Here the Member rejects the respondent condo corporation's challenge to her/ ONCAT's jurisdiction.

And also its arguably bizarre attempt to even disqualify the Applicant dissenting owner's standing due to a corporate name change previously recorded by the provincial registrar. Whether "procedural exactitude should apply only against owners & not against the governancers ?
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#19248
Re:TWO SHOCKERS at Tribunal including WIDTH of its JURISDICTION; invalid Declaration change 2021/07/07 18:06  
articles appear ..

July 5/21 :” CAT’s Jurisdiction – amendment to declaration” by lawyer Denise Lash ( Lash Condo Law )
https://www.lashcondolaw.com/condominium-authority-tribunals-jurisdiction-amendment-to-declaration/

July 7/21 “Pets, Parking and Storage? The CAT’s jurisdiction may go further than you think !” by lawyer Graeme Macpherson ( Gowling WLG ) http://condoadviser.ca/2021/07/pets-parking-and-storage-the-cats-jurisdiction-may-go-further-than- you-think/condo-law-blog-Ontario
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#19249
Re:TWO SHOCKERS at Tribunal including WIDTH of its JURISDICTION; invalid Declaration change 2021/07/07 18:16  
not legal advice as usual

- not want to hold Meeting by Zoom amidst covid-19 ? Why not delay the Declaration change or hold a Zoom . .

- from section 107 amendment of Declaration by Consents ( 80 % ) under Condominium Act 1998 S.O. 1998 c. 19 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98c19

Amendments with owners’ consent

107 (1) The corporation shall not amend the declaration or the description except in accordance with this section. 1998, c. 19, s. 107 (1).

Conditions

(2) The corporation may amend the declaration or the description if,

. . . . (c) the board has held a meeting of owners in accordance with subsections (3) and (4);
. . .


Meeting of owners

(3) The board shall call a meeting of owners for the purpose of considering the proposed amendment. 1998, c. 19, s. 107 (3).

Notice of meeting

(4) The board shall give the owners a notice of the meeting which shall include a copy of the proposed amendment. 1998, c. 19, s. 107 (4).

Loss of owner’s right to consent

(4.1) An owner is not entitled to consent under this section if any contributions to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit are in arrears for 30 days or more. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 93 (4).

Payment of arrears . . . etc
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#19250
Tribunal JURISDICTION ; will charge-backs widen also ? 2021/07/09 00:06  
commented by Ottawa lawyer Jim Davidson :

July 8/21 “The Expanding Jurisdiction of CAT” by J Davidson ( Davidson Houle Allen ) https://dhacondolaw.ca/condo-law-news/the-expanding-jurisdiction-of-cat/
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster