Legal

November 6, 2025 Published by British Columbia Chapter - By James Davidson

Condo Cases Across Canada

From CCI BC Strata Connection Magazine, Volume 05, Fall/Winter 2025

Parry v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1417 (B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal) May 20, 2025

20/05/2025– Jurisdiction British Columbia Privacy fences did not constitute significant alterations to Common Property

The Applicants claimed that the strata corporation wrongly approved privacy fences on common property without the necessary vote of owners.

The CRT dismissed the application, finding that the fences did not significantly alter the common property because the fences were installed for reasons of safety.

The Tribunal said:

Based on the strata council member’s written statement, the above emails from the SL51 owner, and that the applicants did not argue that safety was not an issue, I find, on a balance of probabilities, the strata’s approval of the SL51 fence was made because the strata had reasonable grounds to believe that the SL51 fence insta lation was necessary to ensure safety. 

This makes the fence approval exempt from the ¾ vote requirement under SPA section 71(a).

I reach the same conclusion about the SL52 fence installation. Although there is limited evidence about the SL52 owner’s request, I accept the strata council member’s statement that approval for the SL52 fence was given for the same reason as the SL51 fence installation, because the two strata lots are next to each other. I find the strata’s conclusion was reasonable, and note again that the applicants did not say safety concerns were not an issue in the strata.

Click here for the full text of decision.

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2510 v. Sharma (Condominium Authority Tribunal) April 11, 2025 

11/04/2025– Jurisdiction Ontario Director’s harassment found to be an annoyance and a disruption.

TSCC 2510 alleged that a Board member engaged in harassing and disruptive conduct that violated its governing documents and contributed to the resignation of management staff. The Board member denied wrongdoing, claiming his actions were in the condominium’s best interest.

The Tribunal found that the Board member’s conduct was intrusive and disruptive, upheld TSCC 2510’s complaint, and ordered the Board member to comply with the corporation’s governing documents. The Tribunal said:

For the reasons set out below, I find that Mr. Sharma has taken it upon himself to intrude into the management operations of TSCC 2510 in a disruptive way. His conduct became a contributing factor in the resignation of both the condominium manager and the assistant condominium manager. I find that his conduct violated TSCC 2510’s governing documents, in particular the rule on which TSCC 2510 relies. 

Mr. Sharma’s conduct was, in fact and in law, an annoyance and disruption. I am directing Mr. Sharma to bring himself into compliance with the governing documents of TSCC 2510, and I encourage TSCC 2510 to take specific and concrete steps to reduce the disruptive effect of such conduct.

Mr. Sharma’s conduct was, in fact and in law, an annoyance and disruption. I am directing Mr. Sharma to bring himself into compliance with the governing documents of TSCC 2510, and I encourage TSCC 2510 to take specific and concrete steps to reduce the disruptive effect of such conduct.

Full Text of Decision: https://www.condocases.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2025/06/Toronto-Standard CondominiumCorporation-No.-2510-v.-Sharma-2025-ONCAT-55.pdf 

Hart v Condominium Corporation No. 831 0969 o/a Westmount Place Condominium Corporation (Alberta Human Rights Tribunal) May 9, 2025

09/05/2025– Jurisdiction Alberta Condominium corporation had discriminated against owner

The owner requested accommodation to keep a dog due to vision impairment. The condominium board rejected the owner’s medical note as insufficient, did not request further information, and instead sued the owner for violating the condominium corporation’s no-pet bylaw.

The Alberta Human Rights Commission’s Director took carriage of the complaint and presented evidence at the Tribunal hearing under s. 29 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, with the owner adopting the Director’s submissions.

The Tribunal held that the condominium corporation had discriminated against the owner and (among other things) ordered the corporation to pay damages (to the owner) and to complete training in Human Rights.

Click here for the full text of decision. 

---

James Davidson, LL.B., ACCI, FCCI, Partner, Davidson Houle Allen LLP
One of the founding partners of Davidson Houle Allen LLP., Jim has been practicing condominium law for over 40 years. He represents condominium corporations, their directors, owners, and insurers throughout Eastern Ontario. His experience also includes building deficiencies, shared property interests, co-ownership and construction law. Jim is proud to be an associate (ACCI) and also a felow (FCCI) of the Canadian Condominium Institute.