ENFORCEMENT OF "NO PET" PROVISION

The Court of Appeal recently dealt with a situation where a corporation tried to enforce a no pet provision in a declaration against a resident with a cat. In the case of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 949 v. Staib, the resident lived in her unit with a cat for ten years. It was only in 2004 that the board decided to step up enforcement of the no pet provision in the declaration. The court decided that it would be inequitable, given the facts of the case to enforce the declaration provision against the resident. This case may have implications in terms of a board’s obligation to enforce the provisions of a declaration. There are many situations where corporations have not actively or consistently enforced declaration provisions. Tip - If a board wants to start enforcing a provision that hasn’t been enforced, such as a restriction on pets or on a use of a unit, consideration may have to be given as to whether the corporation will have to ‘grandfather’ any existing situations.

By Warren D. Kleiner, Lawyer - Miller Thomson LLP
416-595-8515

Reprinted from the Let's Talk Condo ... newsletter Winter 2006 issue published by:
Miller Thomson LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, Patent & Trade-Mark Agents

http://www.millerthomson.com/