Peel Condominium Corp. No. 98 v. Pereira, 2013 ONSC 7340
Decision Date: November 28, 2013
http://canlii.ca/t/g2b2rMr. Pereira has been the owner of a unit in the condominium since 2001. Since 2003 he has been accused of repeatedly violating section 117 of the
Condominium Act (which prohibits activity likely to damage property or cause injury), with more serious incidents occurring after 2010. Specific complaints against him include that he conducted car repairs in the underground garage, that he made defamatory postings on a website, that he threw cat feces and cat litter from his balcony, that he assaulted a former employee of the corporation (criminal charges were laid and withdrawn after he entered into a Peace Bond), that he transferred a bench from the lobby to the tenant workshop, and that he threatened and used extremely crude language when interacting with staff and other residents. Some of the accusations were supported by sworn affidavits.
The corporation asked that Mr. Pereira be required to sell and vacate his unit within 6 months and that he remove any animal from his unit within ten days. Justice Donohue found that while Mr. Pereira had acted in an “inappropriate and abusive manner” and his actions were “extremely serious and troubling” a forced sale of his unit would be too severe a sanction. Instead the court ordered him to comply with all provisions of the
Condominium Act and with the rules, declaration and by-laws of the corporation.
Comment: Justice Donohue quoted the ruling in
York Condominium Corporation No. 136 v. Roth according to which an order of forced sale is “extraordinary relief” and “draconian.”
Welch v. Peel Standard Condominium Corp. No. 755, 2013 ONSC 7611
Decision Date: December 10. 2013
http://canlii.ca/t/g2b4cIn February 2008 Mr. Welch, a resident of the condominium corporation, slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk within the common area of the facility and injured his back. In November 2008 an associate with the law firm retained by Mr. Welch spoke with the adjuster assigned to the case, asked if there were any other maintenance companies involved, and was told that there were not. (This conversation was confirmed by a handwritten note.) In September 2009 plaintiff counsel placed the corporation and the property management company on notice. Examinations for discovery were scheduled for June 2010 but did not go ahead because defense counsel were informed by their clients that they had contracted with a maintenance company, Forest Contractors, at the time of Mr. Welch’s injury. All counsel involved agreed that the plaintiff would add Forest as a defendant. Mr. Welch’s lawyer provided a draft amended statement of claim in November 2010. The defendants did not provide their consent until April 2011, and the plaintiffs issued the claim against Forest at the end of August 2011. The condominium corporation and property management company then cross-claimed against Forest Contractors.
In this action, Forest Contractors brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss both the plaintiff’s claim and the cross-claim, on the grounds that they exceed the two year limitation period. They argued that the plaintiff’s limitation period expired in February 2010 and the limitation period for the cross-claim expired in September 2011, two years after they were served with the statement of claim. Justice Baltman found that the issue of whether the plaintiff had made adequate efforts to learn about Forest Contractors’ involvement before June 2010 could not be resolved on a summary judgment motion. However he allowed the motion against the condominium corporation and the property management company.
A follow-up to an earlier case:
In the
June 2013 Digest I summarized York Condominium Corporation No. 62 v. Superior Energy Management Gas L.P., 2013 ONCA 789. An appeal was dismissed in December 2013.
