BC Human Rights Tribunal refuses to dismiss smoker’s discrimination complaint against strata corporation

In a decision made earlier this month, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has refused to dismiss a complaint against a strata corporation that its blanket ban on smoking amounted to discrimination on the basis of a mental disability contrary to section 8 of the Human Rights Code. Background to the complaint and application The complainant in Dandurand v Strata Plan KAS 3558, 2016 BCHRT 47, was a tenant of a strata-lot owner. She was described Read more…

Ontario court examines duty to repair and oppression remedy for strata properties

In Ryan v York Condominium Corporation No 340, 2016 ONSC 2470, Mr. Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice examined two pillars of strata-property law: the duty to repair and maintain the property and the remedy for oppressive actions or conduct. The case focussed on sections 89 (repair after damage) and 135 (oppression remedy) of Ontario’s Condominium Act, 1998. British Columbia’s Strata Property Act has equivalent provision in sections 72 (repair of property) and Read more…

BC Supreme Court grants strata corporation wide-ranging order restraining strata-lot owners from engaging in further disruptive and abusive behaviour

The Owners, Strata Plan NW 1245 v Linden, 2016 BCSC 619, is another example of strata corporation going to court to obtain an order directing strata-lot owners to comply with bylaws or to refrain from disruptive behaviour. The case involved a 95-unit residential strata property located in Burnaby. The petitioner was the strata corporation. The respondents were the registered owner and residents of a strata lot. The petitioner sought injunctive relief from the court in the Read more…

Alberta court considers how to tally votes on strata-property special resolution

A recent Alberta case involving a special resolution to change the basis in which condominium owners fund their common expenses turned on “the manner in which persons entitled to vote are to be counted.” 1597130 Alberta Ltd v Condominium Corporation No 1023241, 2016 ABQB 195, involved a 24-unit condominium complex. The condominium was made up of 22 units of residential apartments, one unit representing “essentially the common property surrounding the existing building,” and “Unit 1,” which was Read more…