Category Archives: Condominiums

“What Were They Thinking?” Condominiums, Oppressive Conduct and Human Rights

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: “What Were They Thinking?” Condominiums, Oppressive Conduct and Human Rights

Case commented on: Condominium Corporation No 072 9313 (Trails of Mill Creek) v Schultz, 2016 ABQB 338 (CanLII)

I have commented a couple of times previously on the application of human rights legislation to condominiums (see here and here). In Condominium Corporation No 052 0580 v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2016 ABQB 183 (CanLII), Justice Robert Graesser of the Alberta Court Queen’s Bench held that the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5 (AHRA), does apply to the relationship between condominium owners and their condominium corporations. There is, however, a caveat. Section 4 of the AHRA protects against discrimination in the context of goods, services and facilities customarily available to the public, but does not list “age” as a protected ground. This means that age discrimination complaints cannot be brought against condominium boards (nor against other service providers or landlords; see section 5 of the AHRA, which excludes age as a protected ground in tenancy relationships). In the condominium context, an alternative remedy exists – section 67 of the Condominium Property Act, RSA 2000, c C-22 (CPA), allows courts to remedy “improper conduct” on the part of condominium corporations, including that which is “oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to or that unfairly disregards the interests of an interested party or a purchaser or a prospective purchaser of a unit” (CPA section 67(1)(a)(v)). The application of this section was at issue in the recent case of Condominium Corporation No 072 9313 (Trails of Mill Creek) v Schultz, 2016 ABQB 338 (CanLII). Continue reading →

Alberta Human Rights Act Applies to Condominium Corporations

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Alberta Human Rights Act Applies to Condominium Corporations

Case Commented On: Condominium Corporation No 052 0580 v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2016 ABQB 183 (CanLII)

A few years ago I wrote a post arguing that the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5 (AHRA), applies to the relationship between condominium owners and their condominium corporations. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench was recently faced with a case where it had to address that issue directly. In Condominium Corporation No 052 0580 v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2016 ABQB 183 (CanLII), Justice Robert A. Graesser held that the AHRA does indeed apply to condominium corporations. This post will explain his reasons for decision, and comment on a remark he made about the lack of authoritativeness of blog posts as secondary sources.

This case arose when Condominium Corporation No 052 0580 (the Corporation) brought an application for judicial review challenging the jurisdiction of the Alberta Human Rights Commission to investigate a human rights complaint by one of its owners. The underlying dispute involved Dennis Goldsack, the owner of a condominium unit in Tradition at Southbrook, Edmonton, who was confined to a wheelchair and had been assigned a parking stall closest to the building’s elevators. The Corporation’s Board decided to repurpose that stall for bicycle parking and storage, and reassigned Goldsack a parking stall that was further from the elevators and narrower. After failed negotiations with the Corporation, Goldsack brought a human rights complaint against it under section 4 of the AHRA. This section prohibits discrimination on the ground of physical disability (as well as other grounds) in the provision of “goods, services, accommodation or facilities that are customarily available to the public”.

Continue reading →

Condominiums, Caregivers and Human Rights

PDF version: Condominiums, Caregivers and Human Rights

Case commented on: Condominium Plan No 9910225 v Davis, 2013 ABQB 49.

Anyone who has seen the film Amour knows that caring for an ill and elderly loved one can be an impossibly demanding task, both physically and emotionally. Many families turn to live-in caregivers in these circumstances. When those being cared for live in a condominium, and the condominium’s bylaws purport to restrict the use of live-in caregivers, what legal avenues are open to challenge the bylaws, or decisions made on the basis of the bylaws? This scenario arose in Condominium Plan No. 9910225 v Davis. Justice R. G. Stevens dealt with the issue as one of interpretation of the bylaws, but also suggested that human rights legislation was not an option in this type of case. I will argue in this post that human rights legislation does apply in the context of condominiums, and provides an important avenue of redress.

Continue reading →

Managed property, the reserve fund, ultra vires doctrine and other issues in interpreting the Condominium Property Act

PDF version: Managed property, the reserve fund, ultra vires doctrine and other issues in interpreting the Condominium Property Act

Case commented on: Maciejko v Condominium Plan No. 9821495, 2012 ABQB 607

Maciejko v Condominium Plan No. 9821495 (“Shores“) is posed to be an extremely significant case for the Condominium Property Act, RSA 2000, c C-22 the (“Act“). The case deals with questions that go to the root of the practice area. How should the powers of a condominium corporation be interpreted? What is a “unit”? What is the role of the condominium plan? The answers to such fundamental questions have a significant impact not only for Shores itself, but also for hundreds of other condominiums in Alberta similarly set-up. The questions also have significant importance to the entire condominium practice area and, at a more practical level, the use of the Act as a tool for the development and empowerment of condominium communities.

Continue reading →

The Unusual Appointment of an Investigator under the Condominium Property Act

PDF Version: The Unusual Appointment of an Investigator under the Condominium Property Act

Case considered: Morris v Condominium Corporation No. 074 0215, 2012 ABQB 265

This April 23, 2012 decision by Master Lorne Smart appears to be the first to consider the appointment of an investigator under section 67(2) (a) of the Condominium Property Act, RSA 2000, c C-22. Section 67 allows a court to grant a variety of remedies if the court is satisfied that there has been “improper conduct” as defined in subsection 67(1) (a). Although many interested parties have used section 67 to seek injunctions, compensation and other remedies, the appointment of an investigator to review the improper conduct and report to the court is not a popular option. This decision is interesting for what it tells us about when it is appropriate to seek this particular remedy, when a court will exercise its discretion in favour of appointing an investigator, and what qualities make a particular person an appropriate investigator.

Continue reading →