Tarion Program Review - Interim Progress Report Released
As you may recall from our previous posts on the subject, the Tarion Warranty Program is under review. The Honourable Justice Douglas Cunningham was appointed in 2015 by Ontario's Minister of Government and Consumer Services to review Tarion's process and warranty coverage.
Jim Davidson offered comments to Justice Cunningham, and has been honoured to participate as part of a “focus group” providing feedback to Justice Cunningham respecting Tarion.
Justice Cunningham has now released his Interim Progress Report, which outlines the key concerns that he is exploring. The report can be found here.
Hydro HST Rebate: Are You Eligible?
In the recent throne speech, the Ontario Liberal government has promised that it will rebate the provincial portion of the HST from electricity bills, which will reduce residential bills by 8 per cent. It is estimated that this will provide savings of about $130 annually for the typical Ontario household. The rebate will come into effect on January 1, 2017.
While commenters have been debating the motivation behind the cuts and how much of a difference it will really make, it’s worth asking: what does this mean for residents of condominiums?
Read more on Hydro HST Rebate: Are You Eligible?
Costs - When An Owner Sues The Condominium Corporation And Loses
by James M. Davidson on September 20, 2016
There have been some recent cases where condominium owners have sued the condominium corporation in Small Claims Court - and lost. See for example the following: Wexler v. CCC 28 (currently under Appeal), Wu v. CCC 383 and Pearson v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 178.
When a condominium corporation successfully defends an owner’s claim, should the condominium corporation be entitled to a “special cost award”? Or should the usual cost principles apply?
by James M. Davidson on September 14, 2016
A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court, Middlesex Condominium Corp. No. 195 v Sunbelt, again highlights the importance of defining “repair”, and particularly distinguishing between “repair” and “maintenance”.
The MCC 195 case dealt with two issues:
- Responsibility for certain hydro charges; and
- Responsibility for window repairs.
In this blog post, I will focus on the second issue - window repairs. In the MCC 195 case, the windows of the commercial units needed replacement (due to a building defect), and the condominium corporation asserted that this was the responsibility of the commercial unit owners.
Read more on Defining "Repair"
Court of Appeal Confirms Boards are Entitled to Deference
by Christy Allen on September 13, 2016
The Court of Appeal recently overturned a decision of the Superior Court, in which the Judge found a Board had acted oppressively by refusing a unit owner’s request (made under section 98 of the Condominium Act) to modify the common elements of the condominium.
The July 2016 decision of 3716724 Canada Inc. v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 375 concerns a mixed-use condominium located in the Byward Market area of Ottawa. The unit owner is the owner of commercial parking units within the condominium’s garage. Those parking units were being used for monthly parking. The unit owner requested the Board’s consent to make certain common element modifications in order to convert the garage from monthly use to a 24/7 “pay and display” parking operation. The Board advised the unit owner that it was only prepared to consent on the condition that the unit owner hire a full-time security guard. The unit owner refused, and instead brought an Application in Superior Court seeking a Court Order allowing the requested common element modifications.