CONDO LAW
Children get to stay in adult lifestyle building
March 15, 2008
Gerry Hyman
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
Q: I live in a condominium that was built as part of an adult-only building in 1979 and changed to an adult lifestyle building in 1995 following a Human Rights Code decision prohibiting the adult-only classification.
While most of the occupants are adults and many are seniors, there are a few families in a building that has no facilities for kids.
What are the chances of reverting our building to adult-only since there are now so many buildings that families will have no problem finding accommodation in other buildings that are not restricted to adults?
A: Adult-only buildings are still prohibited under the Human Rights Code. That was not always the situation.
In two court cases heard in 1987 and 1988, judges upheld declaration provisions that limited occupancy to persons over the age of 16.
The courts held that restrictions based solely on age did not constitute prohibitions based on family status in contravention of the Human Rights Code and that an under-18 age restriction did not contravene the code.
Nonetheless, Ontario appointed a board of enquiry in 1988 to rule on complaints against four adult-only condominium corporations and their directors.
After more than two years the board concluded that adult-only condominiums constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Code.
The decision was appealed to the Divisional Court, which, in April 1991, upheld the board's decision, finding discrimination based on family status.
Q: We are about to reach the confirmed occupancy date for our new condo unit. We would like to pay the balance of the purchase price when we take occupancy in order to reduce the rental during the occupancy period.
We have sufficient funds but the developer refuses to accept further payments and states that the balance of the purchase price cannot be paid until the final closing when we get title to our unit.
Am I correct that the Condominium Act provides that notwithstanding anything in the agreement of purchase and sale, a purchaser can pay the balance of the purchase price on occupancy?
A: A purchaser may pay the balance of the purchase price on occupancy, but only if the purchaser advises the developer of his or her intention to do so within 10 days of receiving the disclosure statement or the signed agreement of purchase and sale, whichever is later.
Most purchasers are not in a position to pay on occupancy, as they will not obtain their mortgage financing until the final closing.
Q: In a recent column you pointed out that an audit is not required in a condominium with fewer than 25 units if all the owners agree in writing prior to an annual meeting to dispense with the audit until the next annual meeting.
What can be done if all but one owner in a 12-unit complex wish to dispense with audit and the manager refuses to have one? What's the point of having the audit requirement if it is ignored?
A: The board is responsible for ensuring that the audit is carried out. The directors should be advised that the audit is a requirement of the Condominium Act and cannot be dispensed with unless all owners agree. The directors may be exposed to liability if owners suffer a loss that may have been avoided if an audit had been performed.
But no government agency enforces the act and an owner may not be able to use the remedies provided in the act due to the cost involved.
Send questions to gerryhyman@bellnet.ca or fax to his attention at 416-925-8492. Letter volume prevents individual replies.
Lawyer Gerry Hyman is an expert in condominium law who appears in Condos on Saturdays.
Toronto Star