Law Times

Page 12 January 13, 2014 Law Times • FOCUS When can court force condo owners to sell? Selling booze, breaching judge's orders among the scenarios BY MARG. BRUINEMAN For Law Times A home is one's castle, but even castles have rules. When a home sits among others in a condominium complex, the rules become even more important and somewhat different than with standalone houses. "What's unique about condos, on the one hand, [is] it's a unit one person owns," says Joseph Salmon, a litigator and associate in the condo group at Heenan Blaikie LLP. "Yes, it is your home; however, you're part of a community." While condo boards don't have the legal authority to evict owners and force them to sell their units, they can ask the courts to intervene in extraordinary circumstances where the behaviour of one person is affecting the entire condo community. But that approach must be a last resort after mediation and other efforts to rectify the situation have failed. "There are decisions where the court will require an owner to sell their unit, but it's only in the rarest of circumstances" where the unit owner displays extreme behaviour, says Salmon. In that situation, the courts must decide what constitutes extraordinary conduct. One unit owner's persistent bootlegging was enough for a judge to make the order to sell last February. In York Condominium Corporation No. 82 v. Singh, the court had earlier ordered the owners to stop selling alcohol and cigarettes out of their Toronto condo. When that failed, the corporation brought the other to some extent." owners back to court Condo owners, he on a contempt applicaadds, are very similar tion and accused them to business partners. of being in breach of the "The difference is they Condominium Act. don't have the luxury of "There is every likelichoosing the partners hood that the responand there is a tendency dents will not comply for those partners to with any future orders of change." the court and would take The Condominium every step to frustrate Act has continued to dethe carrying out of such velop over the years to orders. In these circumreact to the unique situastances, the order should tions presented by condo provide for steps that will living. While the court ensure that the current has the authority to order conduct will be effec'There are decisions where the court will the unit owner to sell, that tively ended and will not require an owner to sell their unit, but it's be resumed," wrote Justice only in the rarest of circumstances,' says occurs only in extreme situations when the judge James Spence of the Supe- Joseph Salmon. believes the person will rior Court of Justice. There were complaints of increased hu- repeat the conduct and there are no other man traffic and disorderly conduct in the options. "The judge has to reach the conclucommon areas of the complex with police sion that something's going on that no one called to attend to problems related to ac- has to put up with," says Robson. "It's got to be really, really serious to say, tivities in the unit on several occasions. The board asked the court to order the Singhs 'You can't go home anymore.'" Often, adds Robson Carpenter associate to sell and vacate their unit. In making the order giving them three months to vacate, Meghan MacDonald, the judge will look at Spence found there was little likelihood the past history. A prior court order could well Singhs would comply with further court set the tone for what's to come. MacDonald and Robson point to Metroorders. He fined Namita Singh $10,000 and her parents, Nutan Singh and Narayan Sun- politan Toronto Condominium Corp. No. 747 v. Korolekh in which Justice Michael Code of dar Singh, $2,500 each. "In most condominiums, you're taking the Ontario Superior Court of Justice said people and they're living very close to each the facts colluded to create a "perfect storm" other. There's not a lot of spatial division," illustrating serious and persistent misconsays Craig Robson, a partner at Robson duct that resulted in an exceptional impact Carpenter LLP. "You're living on top of each on the condo community. The condo board had asked the court to order Natalia Korolekh to sell and vacate her unit over a series of accusations including physical assaults on other residents, mischief to property, racist and homophobic slurs, threats, and using her large and aggressive dog to frighten and intimidate other unit holders and their children. Korolekh denied the allegations in a brief affidavit. She presented no facts, documents or corroborating evidence to support the denials. "In all these circumstances, it would be unwise to try to reintegrate Ms. Korolekh into a community that fears her and that she has persistently tried to intimidate. People join condominium corporations voluntarily on the basis that they agree to share certain collective property and to abide by a set of rules and obligations that protect the collectivity. There is no right to continue membership in this corporation or this community, once a clear intention to harm it and a persistent refusal to abide by its rules have been exhibited in the extreme ways seen in this case. Ms. Korolekh has irreparably broken the bond with her community and an effective order cannot be made that would force these parties to now join together again," wrote Code in his decision ordering Korolekh to vacate and sell her unit and awarding $35,000 in costs to the condo corporation. Judgments forcing condo owners to sell their units do occur but usually only after the courts have exhausted other efforts. "It's always the same thing: bad conduct that's likely not going to stop," says Robson. LT A OF CANADIAN LEGAL NEWS DAILY BLOG WWW.CANADIANLAWYERMAG.COM/LEGALFEEDS C POWERED BY CANADIAN LAWYER & LAW TIMES Untitled-2 1 www.lawtimesnews.com 14-01-06 7:48 PM

• Cover