Condos must accommodate owners’ disabilities
How would a court address a situation involving an elderly unit owner who fails to maintain his or her unit to the degree it results in offensive smells that permeate other units in the building? One would expect the court to order the owner to properly maintain the unit — which is the owner’s obligation under the Condominium Act. That obligation exists, regardless of the owner’s age.
The situation would be complicated if the owner’s failures are the result of a disability, since the Human Rights Code requires the condominium corporation to accommodate the owner’s disability. Perhaps the court would order the owner to engage someone to maintain the unit in order to protect other owners. Is there a code of conduct, such as the one set out in Roberts Rules of Order, to ensure proper decorum at condominium annual general meetings? The Condominium Act, and regulations passed under that act, do not contain such a code. There is no other legislation that’s binding on condominium corporations.
A corporation could pass a bylaw specifying the manner in which owners’ meetings are to be conducted or a rule dealing with the required conduct at owners’ meetings. We have a unit renter who intends to run in the upcoming election for directors on the board of our condominium. The property manager advises that, although the renter cannot vote at the annual general meeting, he can be elected to the board. That would enable him to vote at board meetings. I find it absurd that a renter who does not have unit ownership or a stake in our reserve fund can vote on matters before the board. Am I wrong? Yes. In the absence of a bylaw provision requiring unit ownership as a qualification to become a director, renters are entitled to be elected to the board. Once elected, they have the same voting rights as the other directors.
It is up to the owners to determine whether they will vote to elect a renter to the board of directors. Two board members sold their units immediately before the board announced a surprising and totally unexpected large common-expense increase. Should directors be allowed to approve a fee increase if directors aware of the impending increase have sold their units? The board is entitled to require a common-expense contribution increase if it is necessary. They can do that regardless of certain directors, aware of the impending increase, selling their units.
When the agreements of purchase and sale were entered into, the pending increase should have been disclosed in the status certificates that are provided to the purchasers of the units. Failure to do so would enable the purchasers to refuse to pay the resulting increase. One of the owners in our building advised the board that he has a disability which the corporation must accommodate by installing a backup generator in the event of a power failure. The owner advised the board that it must proceed unilaterally, without owner approval. Is that correct? The Condominium Act provides that a corporation may — by resolution of the board and without notice to the owners — make an alteration, addition or improvement to the common elements which is necessary in accordance with a legislative requirement. If the board concludes that the requesting owner has a disability which must be accommodated by a backup generator, the corporation is obligated to make the installation in accordance with its accommodation obligation under the Human Rights Code. Lawyer Gerry Hyman is a former president of the Canadian Condominium Institute and author of Condominium Handbook. Send questions to gerry@gerryhyman.com or fax to his attention at 416-925-8492.