Toronto Star

Owner pays for condo corp.’s error

- Bob Aaron is a Toronto real estate lawyer. He can be reached at bob@aaron.ca or on Twitter: @bobaaron2 Bob Aaron

What happens when an owner receives an incorrect status certificat­e issued by a condominiu­m corporatio­n?

That was the issue in a case before the Ontario Court of Appeal earlier this year.

Back in 2013, Dante Reino purchased a condo unit from his mother in a downtown highrise on Bay St. known as Metropolit­an Toronto Condominiu­m Corporatio­n 723.

He requested a status certificat­e and was issued a “clean” certificat­e by the condo corp. The prior owner purchased the unit in 2004 and was also issued a “clean” certificat­e — one that did not disclose problems.

When Reino decided to sell the unit in 2016, he obtained a new status certificat­e that stated that the unit was in breach of the condominiu­m declaratio­n.

Before Reino’s purchase, a second bedroom was added to the unit and the kitchen was relocated without the required consent of MTCC 723’s board of directors. As a result, the new certificat­e warned that MTCC 723 might remove the alteration and restore it to its original layout, with the costs being added to the common expenses for the unit. The Condominiu­m Act says that a status certificat­e’s informatio­n is binding to the corporatio­n, as of the date it is given.

On an applicatio­n by Reino, the judge ruled that MTCC 723 was bound by its earlier “clean” certificat­es and had to issue a new certificat­e without the notation about the unauthoriz­ed renovation­s. MTCC 723 appealed the judge’s ruling, and a threejudge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision earlier this year.

The Condominiu­m Act, the Appeal Court wrote, “is, among other things, consumer-protection legislatio­n. The purpose of a status certificat­e is obvious: it is to bring to the attention of a prospectiv­e purchaser or mortgagee matters which may be of concern to them when contemplat­ing the purchase of a unit.”

The court noted, “We agree that the condominiu­m corporatio­n is bound vis-à-vis … Mr. Reino by the clean certificat­e it provided to him when he acquired the unit from his mother in 2013. That said, it does not follow that the condominiu­m corporatio­n is thereafter estopped from issuing anything but a ‘clean certificat­e’ in relation to a unit where it has previously provided a clean certificat­e.”

If a condominiu­m corporatio­n becomes aware, after issuing a clean certificat­e, of a circumstan­ce that it is required to disclose, the “new” informatio­n must be included the next time it issues a certificat­e.

This does not change the fact that it will still be bound by its earlier certificat­e, but to omit the new informatio­n, the court said, would be misleading to a prospectiv­e purchaser.

The court added that Reino could always sue the condominiu­m corporatio­n if it was negligent in issuing a clean status certificat­e to him. He was ordered to pay $31,625 in court costs for the initial hearing and the appeal.

While the court said the Condominiu­m Act is consumer protection legislatio­n, it did not offer any kind of protection for Reino in its decision and the punitive costs award. To force him into another lawsuit to recover his damages is manifestly unfair.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada