|
Condominium - Liens. York Region Standard Condominium Corporation No. 972 v. Lee
In York Region Standard Condominium Corporation No. 972 v. Lee (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal partly allowed a condo appeal, this from orders "to deliver possession of their unit to the respondent and the respondent was granted leave to issue a writ of possession in respect of the unit (unless the appellants discharged the lien within 60 days)":[2] The underlying dispute related to the discovery of defective plumbing in the condominium and the remedial efforts undertaken by the respondent, which were resisted by the appellants, who refused the respondent’s entry to their unit for the purpose of addressing the defective plumbing. Litigation ensued, and the respondent prevailed at every stage, resulting in legal expenditures by the respondent and costs awards at the Superior Court and this court. Ultimately, in February of 2022, this led the respondent to register a lien on title to the unit in respect of these expenses. The respondent then commenced the action to enforce the lien, which was granted by the trial judge.
....
[22] Section 134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.19, provides:If a corporation obtains an award of damages or costs in an order made against an owner or occupier of a unit, the damages or costs, together with any additional actual costs to the corporation in obtaining the order, shall be added to the common expenses for the unit and the corporation may specify a time for payment by the owner of the unit. [23] In light of this provision, this court has recognized the distinction between an “award of costs” between litigants ordered by a court and “additional actual costs” expended by a condominium corporation in obtaining a compliance order: Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1633 v. Baghai Development Limited, 2012 ONCA 417, 293 O.A.C. 123, at paras. 61-62; Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. No. 1385 v. Skyline Executive Properties Inc. (2005), 2005 CanLII 13778 (ON CA), 253 D.L.R. (4th) 656 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 8. In the usual course, it would be open to a condominium corporation to add its actual, reasonable costs, in addition to a court ordered award of costs, to the common expenses attributable to a unit pursuant to s. 134, or as in this case, to a lien based on those expenses.
[24] In this case, however, the panel of this court awarding costs turned its mind not only to an appropriate award of costs in the appeal, but also to the amount appropriate to add to the condominium corporation’s common expenses: see York Region Standard Condominium Corporation No. 972 v. Lee, 2021 ONCA 914. The panel, at para. 17, stated:In this court, the Corporation seeks costs of about $9,000. It is unusual for this court to award costs for an appeal that exceed the costs of the proceeding leading to the judgment under appeal. We see no reason to exceed the application judge’s award of costs, and therefore fix costs before this court in the amount of $4,500, all-inclusive, and order that this amount be added to the common expenses attributable to the owners’ unit. [Emphasis added.] [25] In these circumstances, in our view, it was not open to the respondent to seek to add its full costs of $9,089.35 before the assessment officer, nor was it open to the trial judge to include this additional amount in the calculation of the lien. Rather, the fixed amount attributable both to the “costs” and “additional actual costs” relating to the appeal of Brown J.’s decision was $4,500. As a result, the difference between these two amounts (i.e., $9,089.35-$4,500), $4,589.35, was improperly added to the lien and must now be removed (with the corresponding removal of any applicable interest).
[26] We acknowledge both that the appellants did not raise this specific error as a ground of appeal, nor was this specific argument made before the trial judge. We also stress that this clarification and the correction of the error in the calculation of the lien has no bearing on the validity or enforceability of the lien, as correctly found by the trial judge.
Conclusion and disposition
[27] The trial judge observed that the appellants, who were self-represented, regrettably failed to appreciate the underlying basis for the lien, and more broadly, failed to understand and adhere to the rules and practices of litigation, requiring the expenditure of legal fees by the respondent, and resulting in a series of costs awards. These litigation costs, in turn, formed the basis for the lien. The respondent was entitled to enforce the lien and the trial judge committed no error in issuing an order to do so, subject only to the correction to the calculation of the lien set out above. . Amlani v. YYC 473
In Amlani v. YYC 473 (Div Ct, 2020) the Divisional Court considered whether a condo lien could be registered for compliance and enforcement without a s.134 Compliance Order from the court:Validity of the Corporation’s Lien
[9] Section 85 of the Act allows for the automatic registration of a lien in respect of common expenses. Section 134 of the Act provides that expenses in respect of compliance and enforcement can only be the subject of a lien if the Corporation has obtained a compliance order from the Court. The application judge found that the expenses at issue were not common expenses but fell under s. 134 of the Act. Since there was no Court order authorizing a lien for those expenses, he found that the lien was invalid and must be discharged.
[10] The Appellant argues that the application judge misapprehended the meaning and inter-relationship of these sections and disregarded the definition of “common expense” in the Act, which lead him to the wrong conclusion.
[11] Section 85 of the Act provides:85 (1) If an owner defaults in the obligation to contribute to the common expenses payable for the owner’s unit, the corporation has a lien against the owner’s unit and its appurtenant common interest for the unpaid amount together with all interest owing and all reasonable legal costs and reasonable expenses incurred by the corporation in connection with the collection or attempted collection of the unpaid amount. [Emphasis added] [12] Section 134 of the Act provides, in relevant part:134 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an owner, an occupier of a proposed unit, a corporation, a declarant, a lessor of a leasehold condominium corporation or a mortgagee of a unit may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order enforcing compliance with any provision of this Act, the declaration, the by-laws, the rules or an agreement between two or more corporations for the mutual use, provision or maintenance or the cost-sharing of facilities or services of any of the parties to the agreement.
....
(5) If a corporation obtains an award of damages or costs in an order made against an owner or occupier of a unit, the damages or costs, together with any additional actual costs to the corporation in obtaining the order, shall be added to the common expenses for the unit and the corporation may specify a time for payment by the owner of the unit. [Emphasis added] [13] “Common expenses” are defined to mean “the expenses related to the performance of the objects and duties of a corporation and all expenses specified as common expenses in this Act, the regulations or in a declaration”.
[14] The essential reasoning of the application judge on this point appears in paras. 34 and 35 of his decision:[34] It is one thing to allow the corporation to enforce, by way of lien, common expenses that are applicable to all unit holders and that a majority of unitholders have approved. It is entirely another to allow a condominium corporation the unfettered, unilateral right to impose whatever costs it wants on a unitholder, refer to them as common expenses and thereby acquire the right to sell the unitholder’s apartment.
....
[35] I am strengthened in this view by other provisions in the Act that specifically allow a condominium corporation to add certain types of costs unique to a single owner to the common expenses of the particular unit holder without a court order. By way of example, sections 92(1) and (4) provide that a corporation can carry out certain repairs if an owner fails to do so and can add the cost of such repairs to the owner’s common expenses. In a similar vein, section 105(2) provides that if an owner causes damage, the lesser of the cost of repair or the corporation’s insurance deductible may added to the owner’s common expenses. Legal fees and enforcement costs do not fall into these categories. [15] I can find no error in the application judge’s interpretation of these provisions of the Act. His interpretation is correct. There are numerous sections allowing condominium corporations to charge back expenses to an owner and to have a lien if the owner defaults, without the requirement of an order. However, as expressly provided, s. 134 is not one of them.
|
