The Condo Report Vol. 1, No. 1 † Spring 2008 CondoReport · The Condo ReportVol. 1, No. 1 † Spring 2008 3 It would be fundamentally wrong to apply PIPEDA to residential condominiums

CONTENTS

Condo Report

Green Roofs

Residential Condos and Privacy—DoesPIPEDA Apply?

Defibrillators on the common elements –Liability?

Hiring Practices and Human Rights:Don’t Get Too Personal

Dealing with Condominium OwnersEngaging in “Dangerous “Activities

Review Your Insurance Policies

1

3

4

5

7

8

The Condo Repor t Vol . 1 , No. 1 • Spr ing 2008

Heenan Blaikie LLP • Lawyers I Patent and Trade-mark Agents • Toronto Montreal Vancouver Québec Calgary Sherbrooke Ottawa Trois-Rivières Victoria • heenanblaikie.com

The

GREEN ROOFSGreen roofs are enjoying a resurgence. While sod and other types of vegetation havebeen used in the construction of roofs and homes for centuries out of necessity,homeowners, business owners and condominiums are now installing green roofs fortheir economic and environmental benefits. In particular, green roofs are promoted onthe basis of their ability to increase energy efficiency while simultaneously reducinglevels of CO2 and other pollutants in the atmosphere. Some municipalities haveencouraged the installation of green roofs through the use of incentive programs. Forexample, in 2006, the City of Toronto established the Green Roof Incentive PilotProgram. Under the Program, the City awards successful applicants a grant of $50 persquare metre of eligible green roof area, up to $10,000 for a single family home and$100,000 for other types of property.

While green roof technology is a great option to consider, boards of directors ofcondominium corporations need to keep in mind the legal and financial challengesassociated with green roofs. For example, individuals or organizations interested ingreen roof technology must ensure that that their green roofs conform with all applicablelegal or regulatory requirements imposed by the municipality and other levels ofgovernment, including the Ontario Building Code. In addition, thought must be givento whether a green roof will increase insurance premiums. While these challenges havenot impeded the successful construction of green roofs across the country, it is best to beinformed about all of the risks before making this type of investment.

For more information, please contact Denise Lash at 416-360-3566.r

2 The Condo Report Vol. 1, No. 1 • Spring 2008

3The Condo Report Vol. 1, No. 1 • Spring 2008

It would be fundamentally wrong to applyPIPEDA to residential condominiumsthemselves. Condos are the homes ofindividuals. Residential condos that do notsell information, goods or services forprofit are not engaged in “commercialactivities”. They may do only that which isauthorized under the Condominium Act inorder to ensure that reserve funds areadequate. Condo boards are required toensure that necessary repairs are made tomaintain the residence and may use themonthly fees paid by the residents forauthorized domestic purposes. Thepayment of maintenance fees by condoresidents is no more a “commercialactivity” than is the payment of sharedexpenses for a home by one spouse toanother. The federal PrivacyCommissioner should no more entertain acomplaint from condo residents abouthow their personal information is handledby a condo board or other resident, than itwould about how a spouse handlespersonal information about his or herpartner. To apply PIPEDA to condosthemselves, would expose condo residentsand board members to unwarrantedinvestigations and complaints byresidents.

However, PIPEDA does apply tocondominium management companiesthat handle the financial affairs of

condominiums and collect, use anddisclose personal information aboutresidents of condominiums in the courseof their commercial activities. Themanagement companies are clearlyengaged in commercial activities whenthey deal with their tasks on behalf of thecondo and it is reasonable and appropriatethat their activities be scrutinized by thefederal Privacy Commissioner based on acomplaint made under PIPEDA. Thefederal Privacy Commissioner has in factconsidered and applied PIPEDA to condomanagement companies in two instances;in one case it recommended that themanagement company improve its privacypolicy,3 and in the other matter, theCommissioner found the a complaint wasnot well founded.4 However, in Settledcase summary #20, dated December 14,2006, the Privacy Commissioner did

appear to deal with a complaint made by aresident involving the disclosure by acondo board of the resident’s personalinformation. The condo had sent a letter toa resident about an alleged breach of a by-law and had publicized the matter to theother residents and in the board meetingminutes. The brief summary of the matterdoes not indicate whether the applicationof PIPEDA was raised. It is noted that thecondo apologized and the matter wassettled.

This case illustrates both the need forcondos to be sensitive to the privacy andconfidentiality concerns of residents aswell as the difficulty of applying privacyregulation in PIPEDA to domesticcircumstances. Condos need to be able tomanage the residence for the benefit of allthe homeowners and this may requirethem to disclose personal information inways that may be considered inappropriatein a commercial context. To apply PIPEDAto condos would be an unwarrantedextension of the jurisdiction of thelegislation and would representinterference in the domestic affairs ofresidential condominiums. Consequently,I do recommend that residential condoboards develop policies that will informtheir judgment as to when personalinformation about residents should beshared. However, in doing so condosshould not concede that they are bound byPIPEDA; rather, they should assert thatthey are, like other homeowners, not soregulated.r

By Priscilla Platt

Privacy is an important value in Canadian society, but legislation that applies to protectpersonal information collected, used and disclosed by organizations in the course ofcommercial activities does not, in my view, apply to residential condominiums inOntario. The federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act(“PIPEDA”) applies within Ontario since 2004. It states that PIPEDA does not apply toindividuals who collect, use or disclose personal information for “domestic purposes”.1

As well, as noted, the Act clearly states that it regulates the collection, use and disclosureof personal information by organizations “in the course of commercial activities”.2

Condominium boards of residential condominiums are not engaged in commercialactivities when they handle personal information of residents of a condominium, evenwhere this includes the payment of maintenance fees by residents or maintaining thefinances of the condominium. PIPEDA could not apply to residential condominiums inthis respect any more than it could apply to homeowners when they deal with theirdomestic financial affairs.

RESIDENTIAL CONDOS AND PRIVACY—DOES PIPEDA APPLY?


In Ontario, new legislation was introducedto protect owners and operators of premis-es which have installed defibrillators, fromcivil liability. The Chase McEachern Act(Heart Defibrillator Civil Liability ) of 2007which came into force on July 3, 2007 grewout of an incident which occurred involv-ing an 11 year-old boy, Chase McEachern,who passed out when jogging in gym classon Feb 9, 2006. All resuscitation attemptsfailed.

Prior to Chase’s death, having had a rareheart condition, Chase had wanted to seemore defibrillators installed in publicplaces. It was this very reason that Chase’sfamily created a fund and started a cam-paign which eventually led to new legisla-tion.

The Act protects any person from liabilityfor damages that occur in relation to theiruse in the attempt to save a life in an emer-gency (unless damages are caused by grossnegligence)

The Act also protects owners and occupiersof premises (condominium corporations)on which the defibrillator is installed, fromliability for any harm which may occur inrelation to the use of the defibrillator, pro-vided that the defibrillator was made avail-able for use in good faith , without grossnegligence and is properly maintained.

Prior to this Act, Ontario’s Good SamaritanAct protected persons from liability whenthey provided voluntary emergency med-ical or first aid, but it was not clear as towhether this would cover a situation inwhich a defibrillator was used.

Every year in Ontario, over 6500 people dieof cardiac arrest. Although CPR can assist, more than 90% of people in cardiac arrestrequire electrical shock from a defibrillatorto restore the heart to a normal heartrhythm. Having a defibrillator in a condo-minium corporation, may save lives.

Corporations which are consideringacquiring defibrillators, should make sureto take the following steps:

1. Put your insurer on notice. Most con-dominium corporation policies do notspecifically exclude liability in relation tothe use of a defibrillator, however, youwant to ensure that notice is still providedto your insurer.

2. Maintain the equipment on an ongoingbasis.

3. Implement a programme for ongoingtraining for employees.

4. Create policies and guidelines withrespect to the use of the defibrillator andcirculate to residents. These may also beincluded in status certificate packages.r

By Denise Lash

Many Corporations are thinking about the health and safety of their residents, especial-ly those communities in which there is an aging population.

There are many steps that board’s can take to assist residents in improving theirlifestyles. But how far does a board have to go in accommodating its residents and isthere any potential liability?

One measure that some Corporation’s have taken, is the installation of automated exter-nal heart defibrillators on the common elements. The use of a defibrillator is governedby the Regulated Health Professionals Act which provides that only regulated health pro-fessionals may use defibrillators, subject to an exception that a defibrillator may be usedduring a emergency in the provision of first aid.

DEFIBRILLATORS ON THE COMMON ELEMENTS – LIABILITY?


While it is not illegal to ask candidatesquestions that relate to the protectedgrounds, caution is strongly advised. ABoard that asks for information about, forexample, a candidate’s religious affiliationor medical condition opens the door to apotential human rights complaint. Thedanger is that a candidate who has been

passed over for legitimate reasons mightseize the opportunity to allege that he orshe has been the victim of discrimination.

In light of the requirements of the Code,Boards must take particular care indrafting employment advertisements,requesting personal information on jobapplications, and interviewing promisingcandidates.

EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISEMENTS

Advertisements should not directly orindirectly differentiate on the basis of aprotected ground. Requiring “Canadianexperience” or indicating a preference forchildless applicants leaves employersvulnerable to allegations of discrimination.Instead, advertisements should describerequirements and expertise directly relatedto the job. For example, it is reasonableand job-related to advertise for a conciergewho speaks clearly in English. It runsafoul of the Code, however, to advertise forsomeone who speaks English “without anaccent”.

APPLICATION FORMS ANDINTERVIEWS

Most employers understand thatapplication forms should not includequestions directly related to any of theprotected grounds. What they oftenoverlook, however, are requests forinformation or documentation that mayindirectly reveal details that could lead to ahuman rights complaint. For example, itis a common mistake to ask for acandidate’s social insurance number priorto making a conditional offer ofemployment. What many employers don’trealize is that a social insurance numbermay be used to access other personalinformation, including a candidate’s ageand date of arrival in Canada. Requiringcandidates to provide details about theyears they attended school or the name ofthe school itself could reveal thecandidate’s age, religious affiliation andplace of origin. Similarly, asking for aphotograph of the candidate may revealrace or ethnic origin.

Information requested on job applicationsshould be limited to what the Board needsin order to makes its initial assessment ofthe candidate. The type of informationthat should be collected at this stage variesaccording to the position the Board seeksto fill. It is a bona fide inquiry, for example,to ask candidates applying for a positionthat requires driving a vehicle on or offcondominium premises whether they havea valid driver’s license. Asking the samequestion of candidate for a conciergeposition, however, serves no reasonablepurpose.

Just as Boards should not ask forinformation on a job application thatrelates to a protected ground on, so tooshould they avoid such inquiries duringthe interview process. Nevertheless, theymay expand on the scope of bona fide job-related questions at the interview to the

HIRING PRACTICES AND HUMAN RIGHTS: DON’T GET TOO PERSONAL

By Rhonda Shirreff

It is important to hire competent and reliable employees. To that end, in order to makethe most informed hiring decisions possible, employers (including condominium Boardsof Directors) often try to gather as much personal information as they can from jobcandidates. What they need to remember, however, is that human rights legislation inOntario places practical constraints on what information an employer may collect duringthe hiring process.

Underlying human rights legislation is the concept that employment decisions should bebased on a candidate’s ability to do the job rather than on personal factors unrelated tojob requirements, qualifications and performance. The Ontario Human Rights Code (theCode) guarantees the right to be free from discrimination in employment on the basis ofa number of protected grounds: race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin,citizenship, creed/religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, martial status,family status and disability.

t


extent necessary to determine thecandidate’s ability to perform the job.

CRIMINAL RECORD CHECKS

Because condominium employees oftenperform all or a significant part of theirwork on condominium premises andinteract with residents and their familieson a day-to-day basis, a Board may decideto make an offer of employmentconditional upon a clear criminal recordcheck. While this may be a prudentpractice, it is important to note that theCode prohibits discrimination inemployment because of a “record ofoffences”. The provisions of the Code sug-gest that an applicant, or an existingemployee for that matter, may be subject todiscrimination in employment (i.e.refused employment or fired) if he or shehas been convicted of an offence under theCriminal Code and has not been granted apardon. However, a Board will violate theCode if it refuses to hire a candidatebecause he or she has a criminal convic-tion which has been pardoned, or a convic-tion for a provincial offence, unless theBoard can establish that a clear criminalrecord is a bona fide occupational qualifica-tion.

Insofar as inquiring about a candidate’srecord of offences on a job application isconcerned, the Ontario Human RightsCommission takes the position that theonly permissible question on the applica-tion form is: Have you ever been convicted ofa Criminal Code offence for which a pardonhas not been granted? During an interview,the Board may expand on this question,provided that this is necessary to deter-

mine the candidate’s ability to perform theessential duties in question. For example,it may be permissible to make inquiries todetermine if an applicant is bondable, pro-vided that this is a reasonable qualificationof the job, or to determine if the applicanthas a record of convictions under theHighway Traffic Act, if driving is an essen-tial job duty.

Above all, and throughout the entire hiringprocess, condominium Boards ofDirectors should gather only as muchinformation as they need to find the rightcandidate for the job. Of course, ifcandidates volunteer extra personalinformation during an interview or on aresumé, the Board is free to discuss it withthem. Even so, if the Board uses this as anopportunity to delve too deeply into acandidate’s background, it will run the riskof a human rights complaint fromunsuccessful and disgruntled candidates.

With the foregoing in mind, Boards arewell-advised to audit their hiring practicesto ensure compliance with the underlyingprinciples of human rights legislation.Boards looking to conduct a privacy auditmay wish to have counsel review theiremployment advertisements, jobapplication forms and interview questionsto ensure that they do not contain requestsfor unnecessary and potentiallyproblematic information.r

HIRING PRACTICES AND HUMAN RIGHTS: DON’T GET TOO PERSONAL (CONT’D)


Dangerous activities

117. No person shall permit acondition to exist or carry on anactivity in a unit or in the commonelements if the condition or theactivity is likely to damage theproperty or cause injury to anindividual.

The corporation must be careful to limitits relief to the confines of s. 117 of the Actas opposed to the by-laws, regulations anddeclaration, or it risks being sent back tomediation or arbitration by the court.

To succeed in an application for acompliance order grounded in s. 117 ofthe Act, the corporation must providesufficient evidence that the owner’sactivities present a real risk to otherindividuals or to the condominiumproperty on a balance of probabilities. It isinteresting to note that s.117 is worded insuch a way that it could encompassactivities posing a risk to any person onthe condominium property, whether theybe owners, tenants, guests or employees ofthe condominium corporation.

The following cases provide a usefuloverview of how the courts haveinterpreted the scope of dangerous“activities” or “conditions” which are

prohibited under s.117 and subject to acompliance order by way of application.

In Metro Toronto Condominium Corp. No.545 v. Stein (2005), 53 C.L.R. (3d) 155 (Ont.C.A.), the Court of Appeal upheld thedecision of a trial judge in dismissing anapplication under s. 117 of the Actregarding mould contamination in theheating and cooling system of certainunits. Fatal to the condominiumcorporation’s application was the fact thatthe engineer retained by the corporation toadvise on the mold issues did notexpressly state in his report that the mouldcontamination in the unit created a risk ofcontaminating other units. Moreover, thecorporation did not produce evidence thata drain pan in a unit had overflowed inother units or that overflowing pans poseda risk for mould contamination.Ultimately, the court was not satisfied thatthe evidence on the record could supportthe condominium corporation’sallegations that mould contamination oroverflowing pans constituted a risk ofdamage to property.

Conversely, in Goldenthal v. YorkCondominium Corp. No. 74, 2002CarswellOnt 2790 (Ont. S.C.J.), the Courtheld that piles of books and paperaccumulated in a unit were the type ofprohibited dangerous conditionscontemplated under the former s. 117 of

the old Condominium Act. Thecondominium corporation managed toconvince the court that the piles of paperconstituted a dangerous condition basedon photograph evidence of the large pilesof paper as well as a previous report fromthe fire department clearly indicating thatthe hoard of paper presented a fire hazard.This case also suggests that the smell ofdank water and smoke entering the airconducting system of a condominiumbuilding could also constitute a healthrisk.

Applications alleging a “risk of injury”based on an owner’s aggressive behaviourraise more difficult questions. Indeed,such allegations are often based onobservations of witnesses which may ormay not resist a cross-examination andtend to be of a subjective nature.

In York Condominium Corp., No. 136 v.Roth (2006), 51 R.P.R. (4th) 140 (Ont.S.C.J.), the corporation alleged that an

By Christian Paquette

An owner carrying on an activity likely to cause damage to the condominium property orto an individual can be subject to a compliance order obtained by way of application tothe Superior Court of Justice. These include activities which likely pose a health risk tothe condominium community (mold spreading throughout the building for instance), arisk of damaging other units or common elements (the threat of water damage or firehazards for instance) or a risk of causing injury to other members of the condominiumcommunity (aggressive behaviour from a resident such as assault or threateningbehaviour for example). Section 117 of the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19 (the“Act”) reads:

DEALING WITH CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ENGAGING IN “DANGEROUS “ACTIVITIES

t

owner repeatedly engaged in“unmanageable and antisocial behaviour”and that his conduct presented a risk ofinjury to other individuals. The trial judgeheld that most of the evidence constitutedhearsay and that most of the reportedincidents occurred many years before theapplication. The personal animositytowards the owner exhibited by one of thecorporation’s witnesses also had an impacton the weight of the corporation’sevidence. Ultimately, the judge foundsupport for a compliance order in theuncontradicted evidence that the ownerhad disrupted an owner’s meeting and hadphysically assaulted the corporation’spresident.

In Carleton Condominium Corp. No. 291 v.Weeks, 2003 O.J. No. 1204 (Ont. S.C.J.), theCourt granted interim injunctive relief tothe corporation against an owner whoengaged in quarrelsome and threatening

behaviour towards other residents. TheCourt was convinced by the testimony ofthree witnesses which had maintainedtheir position under cross-examination.Their evidence was that the owner had“flipped the finger” at another residentand her 12 year-old daughter and“repeatedly glared in an aggressivemanner” at them. Interestingly, the Courtgave no credence to the corporation’sargument that the same owner riskeddamaging the condominium property byslamming doors, breaking windows, andthrowing objects in the commonelements. According to the judge, therewas “minimal evidence” that the ownerhad engaged in such conduct.

The above case law suggests thatapplications based on s. 117 of the Act willlargely turn on the quality and reliability ofthe evidence presented by the corporation.Applications alleging a “risk of damages”

should include evidence in the form ofphotographs, video footage, expert reportsor expert testimony clearly setting out thelikelihood of damage to property. On theother hand, applications regarding allegedthreatening conduct should be supportedby contemporaneous incident reports andwitness statements, as well as photographsor video surveillance footage if possible.Witness statements are key in suchproceedings and should be able towithstand cross-examinations by opposingcounsel. As is usually the case in anylitigation, hearsay evidence, meresubjective opinions, or biased testimonialsshould generally be avoided as they tend toaffect the weight of the evidence.

In other words, the more documented theincidents, the better the chances of thecorporation succeeding in its applicationfor a compliance order under s. 117.r

DEALING WITH CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ENGAGING IN “DANGEROUS “ACTIVITIES (CONT’D)

It is important to make sure that yourcommittee members are covered underyour director’s and officer’s liabilityinsurance. Your committees should besanctioned by the board of directors byreflecting and acknowledging theexistence of the committee in the minutesof the corporation.

Fidelity Bonds should be obtained to coverthe fraudulent acts of directors and officersand other employees. Corporation’sshould not rely on the fidelity bonds ofproperty management firms. Boardsshould add the property managementcompany as a third party to thecorporation’s bond to protect the

corporation from the fraudulent acts ofmanagement employees.

General Liability Limits should bereviewed by the board. A minimum$5,000,000 is recommended althoughmany corporations are carrying limits of$10,000,000 and more.

Obtain Human Rights “DEFENSE COST”Coverage - Recommend $100,000 peroccurrence, $200,000 Aggregater

REVIEW YOUR INSURANCE POLICIES:

By Denise Lash

At a recent ACMO (www.acmo.org) Seminar, Mark Shedden from Atrens-Counselhighlighted some important insurance tips for condominium boards to consider:

The Condo Report Vol. 1, No. 1 • Spring 20088

The Condo Report Vol. 1, No. 1 • Spring 2008 9

DECLARATION

A condominium corporation’s declarationsets its framework; it is the equivalent ofits constitution. It may also specify otherrestrictions and obligations on thecorporation and unit owners – this is thebasis under which declarations containprovisions prohibiting or restricting pets.

RULES

Subsections 58(1)(a) and (b) of theCondominium Act allow a corporation tomake rules to promote the safety, securityor welfare of the unit owners and theproperty and assets of the corporation or toprevent unreasonable interference withthe use and enjoyment of the commonelements, the units or the assets of thecorporation. While a provision restrictingpet ownership in a declaration need not bereasonable, any such provision in the rulesmust be.

THE COURTS

Although there are many decisions inwhich pet restrictions in declarations andrules have been upheld by the courts, thereare a few recent decisions that are of note,as they reflect the willingness of the courtsin Ontario to look beyond the strictprovisions of the Condominium Act and tobe flexible in allowing pet owners to keeptheir pets in the face of rules and/ordeclarations to the contrary.

In York Condominium Corp. No. 382 v.Dvorchik,1 the trial judge struck down acondominium rule that prohibited dogsweighing more than 25 pounds frombeing in the condominium. While thecondominium corporation had enactedother valid rules dealing with dogs thatwere a nuisance, the rule in question wasone of general application and would,obviously, result in the exclusion ofperfectly well behaved large dogs, solelybecause of their size. The trial judge foundthe rule to be invalid because thecondominium corporation presented noevidence that large dogs unreasonablyinterfered with the use and enjoyment ofthe common elements. This decision wasreversed on appeal. The Court of Appealcautioned against “judicialization” of thefunction of the board and held that a courtshould not substitute its own opinionabout the propriety of a rule unless therule is “clearly unreasonable or contrary tothe legislative scheme”.

In the recent Waddington2 decision, thelandlord sought an order for the removalof Waddington’s two cats. Thecondominium’s rules provided that “no petshall be permitted in the building”. TheCourt found that the corporation was notauthorized to make a blanket rule banningall pets because it was not a “reasonable”rule, and the rule was therefore notenforceable.

The Court went on to hold that where adeclaration contains “conditions orrestrictions with respect to the occupationand use of the units or commonelements”, a condominium corporation

cannot enforce the restrictions if it goesbeyond that which is permitted insubsection 58(1).

The court’s decision in Waddington insofaras it deals with declarations is contrary tothe Condominium Act. The court imposeda reasonableness requirement fordeclarations where the Act contains nosuch requirement. This decision may haveserious implications which extend farbeyond the issue of pet restrictions.

In the recent Staib3 case, a provision in thedeclaration absolutely prohibiting any petswas held by the trial judge to beunenforceable for equitable reasonse. TheOntario Court of Appeal upheld thedecision and leave to appeal to theSupreme Court of Canada was refused. Inthis case, the tenant moved into the unitwith her cat, having full knowledge of the“no pet” provision in the declaration. TheCourt found that the condominiumcorporation failed to enforce the no petpolicy for 10 years, despite havingknowledge of the cat’s presence.

The trial judge refused to enforce thedeclaration due to the length of time thecondo corporation had allowed the cat to

The relationship between pet owners and their pets is strong and sacred. For this reason,it is essential that condominium corporations structure their governing provisionsregarding pets in a clear, straightforward manner, and that those provisions are clearlycommunicated to all owners before they purchase their condominium unit.

Provisions regarding pet ownership are found in various places, from the CondominiumAct, to the documents created by the condominium corporation itself: the declaration, by-laws and rules.

PET RESTRICTIONS IN CONDOMINIUMS

t


remain, the age of the cat (making it“unadoptable”), and the tenant’sattachment to the cat. The trial judgemade it clear that he was not commentingon the reasonableness of the declarationprovision; rather, he was exercising hisdiscretion not to enforce it against thetenant in this particular instance. TheCourt of Appeal found no basis uponwhich to interfere with the applicationjudge’s discretion, and in fact, confirmedthat it would have been inequitable tomake the requested compliance orderunder the circumstances. This is anoteworthy decision because it allowsequitable defences to operate againstprovisions in the declaration that are clearand unambiguous.

SUMMARY

What does all of this mean forcondominium corporations and unitowners?

For condominium corporations, it meansthat they should think carefully aboutexactly what types of pets should beprohibited from living in the building, ifany. If a blanket no pets provision is

appropriate, such a provision must beincluded in the declaration. A lessrestrictive provision which is borne ofreasonable considerations may beincluded in the rules or the declaration.

Whatever provisions are in force, thecondominium must be consistent inclearly informing all owners and potentialowners of those provisions and it mustconsistently and regularly enforce them.Failure to do either of these things puts thecondominium corporation at risk ofhaving a court strike down its petrestrictions.

With respesct to a condo owner orpotential owner, it is essential that they beaware of any pet restrictions that may becontained in the declaration or the rules.If they own a pet or plan on doing so in thefuture, owners should not rely on their realestate agents, but should ask their lawyerto confirm the absence of pet restrictionsbefore purchasing any condominium unit.

If condominium corporations and unitowners follow these simple steps, muchtime, energy and heartache can beavoided.r

ENDNOTES

1 [1992] O.J. No. 1152 (Gen. Div.);reversed on appeal at [1997] O.J. No.378 (Ont. C.A.).

2 215 Glenridge Ave. Ltd. Partnership v.Waddington (2005), 29 R.P.R. (4th)218 (S.C.J.)

3 Metropolitan Toronto CondominiumCorp. No. 949 v. Staib, [2005] O.J. No.5265 (S.C.J.); affirmed at [2005] O.J.No. 5131 (Ont. C.A.); leave to appealrefused at [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 24.

PET RESTRICTIONS IN CONDOMINIUMS (CONT’D)


NOTICE OF UPCOMING EVENTS AND SEMINARS

APRIL 23

Denise Lash - Hamilton Lorman Seminar - Section 97 and 98Condominium Act - Alterations to Common Elements

APRIL 23

Denise Lash - Toronto Lorman Seminar - Reviewing Agreementsof Purchase and Sale, Status Certificates and Section 97 and 98(as above)

APRIL 24

Denise Lash - Condo Network breakfast Seminar Co-ops and Co-ownerships

OCTOBER 2-5

See our Heenan Blaikie Condo team at the Toronto Condo Show– Metro Toronto Convention Centre South Buildingwww.torontocondoshow.com

OCTOBER 31-NOVEMBER 1

ACMO/CCI Conference

Denise Lash (Partner) 416 360.3566 [email protected]

Bonnie Roberts Jones (Litigation Partner) 416 360.3567 [email protected]

Christian Paquette (Litigation) 416 643.6937 [email protected]

Rhonda Shirreff (Labour & Employment) 416 643.6858 [email protected]

Tina Flinders (Condo Manager) 416 360.2296 [email protected]

Priscilla Platt (Privacy) 416 360.3520 [email protected]


HEENAN BLAIKIE'S CONDOMINIUM LAW GROUP

The Condo Report bulletin is published by Heenan Blaikie LLP. The articles and comments contained in this newsletter provide generalinformation only. They should not be regarded or relied upon as legal advice or opinions. Heenan Blaikie LLP will be pleased to provideadditional information on topics of interest to our readers.© 2008, Heenan Blaikie LLP

Heenan Blaikie LLP • Lawyers Patent and Trade-mark Agents • Montreal Toronto Vancouver Quebec Calgary Sherbrooke Ottawa Trois-Rivières Victoria

Please contact Dianne Foster at [email protected] to add yourself to ourmailing list. Please indicate whether you would prefer a print or electron-ic version of the newsletter.

heenanblaikie.com