Condo Law Digest - June 2013

York Condominium Corporation No. 62 v. Superior Energy Management, 2013 ONSC 2615
Decision Date:  May 6, 2013

In May 2008 a representative of the property manager for YCC 62 entered into a fixed-price contract with Superior Energy Mgm’t for the supply of natural gas.  The property manager had not been authorized to do this and the Board of Directors never ratified the contract.  (Condominium corporations cannot contract unless there is a resolution of the Board.)  In July 2009, and then several times over the next few months, a representative of the property manager contacted Superior at the Board’s request, taking the position that the contract was not valid.  Superior did not respond to any of these attempts at communication, nor to a demand letter written by the Board’s counsel in November 2010.  In Sept 2012 the Board issued an application in the court.

Counsel for both parties agreed that the hearing should be limited to the question of limitations, with reference to sections 4 & 5 of the Limitations Act.  Counsel for YCC 62 argued that the 2-year limitations period should begin in November 2010, when the demand letter was sent.  The judge disagreed and dismissed the application. He found that the limitations period began, at the latest, in fall 2009, when the property manager wrote to Superior, taking the position that the contract was not valid.

Comment: Act promptly if you have concerns about the validity of a contract.


Judge v. Baywood Homes, 2013 HRTO 727
Decision Date: May 1, 2013

In early 2009 Mr. Judge and his wife decided to move out of their home and into a condominium.  They met with the sales staff of Baywood Homes, who told them that, if they purchased a unit, they would be given two  parking spots: one in front of the building and one farther away.  Mr. Judge was keen to have a parking spot in front of the building because of a number of health problems, including severe chronic pulmonary disease and a bad back.  Although Mr. Judge mentioned his bad back to the sales staff, he did not tell them about his other health problems, nor make a connection between them and his desire for a parking spot in front of the building. Mr. Judge did not add a provision about the parking spot to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale. The Judges took possession of their unit in July. When the parking lot was completed and marked in September, they found that both parking spots were a good distance from the front door.  Their counsel sent a letter to the vendor’s counsel, requesting a parking spot next to the building, but without mentioning Mr. Judge’s disabilities. The vendor refused.  Mr. Judge filed an application with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, alleging discrimination with respect to housing on the basis of disability.

The Adjudicator dismissed the allegation.  While he was satisfied that Mr. Judge had a disability, Mr. Judge failed to make his disability known to Baywood Homes.  Because Mr. Judge did not do this, he did not trigger the vendor’s duty to accommodate.  While the Adjudicator was sympathetic to the Judges’ feeling that the vendor had failed to fulfill an oral promise, he found that he had no jurisdiction over the matter.

Comment: The HRTO and the courts have repeatedly found that persons seeking accommodation must makes their needs known, and it is this notice that triggers accommodation.