FANDOM


(added style of cause to title)
 
Line 5: Line 5:
 
|Row 1 title = 2010 ONSC 4448, 2010 CarswellOnt 5939
 
|Row 1 title = 2010 ONSC 4448, 2010 CarswellOnt 5939
 
|Row 1 info =
 
|Row 1 info =
|Row 2 title = Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 747
+
|Row 2 title = Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 747, 2010 ONSC 4448
 
|Row 2 info =
 
|Row 2 info =
 
|Row 3 title = Korolekh
 
|Row 3 title = Korolekh

Latest revision as of 00:41, March 12, 2020

FactsEdit

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 747 (MTCC, the Applicant) alleges one of its unit-holders, Ms. Korolekh (the Respondent) has repeatedly violated s 117 of the Condominium Act, 1998 and should be ordered to sell and vacate her unit.  In the alternative, the MTCC submits that a strict compliance order should be made pursuant to s 134 requiring her Ms. K to change her behavior and comply with s 117.  The alleged conduct includes physical assaults on other unit-holders, racist and homophobic slurs and threats, playing of extremely loud music, using her large and aggressive dog to frighten and intimidate other unit-holders, failing to clean up the dog's feces, etc.  The court accepted the evidence to substantiate the claims made by MTCC. 

IssueEdit

  1. Whether the court can order a condo owner to sell and vacate their condominium unit pursuant to the Condominium Act, 1998?

DecisionEdit

The Court found for the Applicant, MTCC.

ReasonsEdit

MTCC has the onus of establishing the Respondent violated the Act or the condominium rules, and that an order to sell and vacate her unit is necessary and appropriate to enforce compliance.  Condominium Act, 1998 - s 117 prohibits conduct "likely to damage the property or cause injury to an individual" and s 134 enacts a broad remedial power to enforce "compliance" with "this Act, the declaration, the by-laws, [or] rules".  The court found the actions of Ms. K likely to be found to be criminal - s 265 assault, s 264.1 threats of bodily harm, s 430 mischief - and that the totality of the conduct alleged both caused damage to property and caused injury to multiple individuals in contravention of s 117.  The court found the "necessary and appropriate remedy" in this case is:

a) Ms. K shall list and sell her unit and her interest in MTCC w/in three months of the court Order;

b) Failing such sale, or if the Respondent breaches any term of the Order, the Applicant may apply for an Order for a possession;

c) Ms. K shall not purchase, lease or reside in any other unit of MTCC

RatioEdit

Courts can evict condo owners against their will for bad conduct under powers granted by statute

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.