Condo Litigation ' Section 67 Of The Condominium Property Act
Published date | 14 May 2020 |
Author | Ms Madyson Dietrich and Peter Major QC |
Subject Matter | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Real Estate and Construction, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Real Estate |
Law Firm | McLennan Ross LLP |
As condo development
increases across Canada, especially in urban centers, we can expect
an influx of litigation over the interpretation and application of
condo legislation and their bylaws. One common trend in Alberta is
the reliance on section 67 of Alberta's Condominium Property Act,
("CPA") in
the litigation process to enforce reasonable behavior.
Section 67 allows the
Court, on application by an "interested party", to impose
certain remedies if improper conduct has taken place. Interested
parties include condo owners, condo corporations, members of the
condo board, or any other persons with a registered interest in a
condo unit. Sometimes referred to as the 'oppression
section', section 67 seeks to restrain unfair conduct
Oppression remedies are also available under the Alberta
Business Corporations Act, but the degree of conduct
required under section 67 of the CPA may be less onerous
than its counterpart, at least for the moment.
Remedies under
section 67 include:
· Directing an
investigator to be appointed to review the improper conduct and
report to the Court;
· Directing improper
conduct to cease;
· Giving directions on
how matters are to be carried out to avoid recurring
issues;
· Awarding compensation
in respect of any losses resulting from improper
conduct;
· Awarding costs
or
· Providing any other
directions that the Court considers appropriate.
Improper Conduct Warranting a Section 67 Remedy
Improper conduct can
mean a number of things including non-compliance with the
CPA, its regulations or the condo's bylaws, as well as
conducting business affairs of a condo corporation or exercising
condo board powers in an oppressive or unfair manner.
In The Owners
Condominium Corporation No. 0211096 v Clayton, 2019 ABQB 877
the Court granted a section 67 remedy to a condo corporation who
claimed that an owner was not complying with the bylaws. The owners
had a dog and the condo corporation subsequently enacted a bylaw
prohibiting dogs, which was to be grandfathered in. Despite the
enactment of the new bylaw prohibiting dogs, the owners decided to
get another dog.
While the Court was
sympathetic to the owner's situation, it held that permitting
the owners to keep the dog in these circumstances would be unfair
to other residents who follow the bylaws and policies and are
entitled and expect the condominium corporation to enforce the
bylaws as required under the CPA. Finding otherwise may
impair or limit a condo corporation's ability to enforce their
rules in the future. The Court made an order under section 67 for
an order to relocate the dog.
In Condominium
Corporation No. 0613837 v Tien Ngoc Ho, 2019 ABQB 967, a condo
corporation applied for declaratory relief under section 67 that
they were absolved from all responsibility and liability with
respect to the repairs of a unit. The owner's unit was damaged
as a result of a leak in another owner's unit. The condo
corporation maintained proper insurance but hired a contractor
themselves to complete the repairs because the deductible exceeded
the cost of repairs. The owners disputed the repairs claiming that
their unit was unlawfully entered and the repairs were poor...
To continue reading
Request your trial